If the European pattern holds, this is good for the dissident right parties. Depressed turnout in other recent European elections seems to have been establishment voters who were disillusioned and discouraged from voting for their parties, but too stupid or lazy to switch their vote. Either way, it means the dissident right's voters are the most likely to vote.
That pattern didn't make enough of a difference in the French election, but it seems to have done in Sweden, and in the Dutch local elections.
I don't know the specifics of this 'election', but I do know that as a general rule, it's establishment bots who are more likely to vote.
The populists are generally the disaffected people who despair of any improvement, and who therefore do not vote unless activated.
This sometimes combines with the fact that some of the populists, like the ones in France, have a larger than average youth following. And young people also tend to vote less.
For the record: the parties labeled as 'far-right' in the Murican press are generally relatively left-wing on economic policies. They criticize the neoliberal governments both for allowing uncontrolled immigration and for cutting social services for ordinary people to pay for their beloved immigrants.
I don't know the specifics of this 'election', but I do know that as a general rule, it's establishment bots who are more likely to vote.
That doesn't seem to have been the case recently in Europe. In the recent Swedish election, turnout was down 5% and the right won. In the Dutch local elections in March, turnout was down roughly 4%, and there was a huge surge in support for localist and regional parties, as well as the FvD and the PVV. I understand that 2 data points don't make a pattern, but it seems like the same thing is happening in Italy.
This sometimes combines with the fact that some of the populists, like the ones in France, have a larger than average youth following. And young people also tend to vote less.
True.
For the record: the parties labeled as 'far-right' in the Murican press are generally relatively left-wing on economic policies. They criticize the neoliberal governments both for allowing uncontrolled immigration and for cutting social services for ordinary people to pay for their beloved immigrants.
Georgia Meloni actually referred to herself as the "right-wing Tony Blair" whatever that's supposed to mean, and she'll have to govern along with Salvini, who cucked for the vaccine passports, and with fucking Berlusconi. I'm really not all that optimistic.
That doesn't seem to have been the case recently in Europe. In the recent Swedish election, turnout was down 5% and the right won. In the Dutch local elections in March, turnout was down roughly 4%, and there was a huge surge in support for localist and regional parties, as well as the FvD and the PVV. I understand that 2 data points don't make a pattern, but it seems like the same thing is happening in Italy.
Traditionally, it has been as I stated. It may have changed in recent times, but I actually don't expect it. The backing for traditional parties is generally a very loyal voter base. The populists are the most changing. E.g. rain was always taken as a bad sign for populists, and a good sign for Merkel-type conservatives.
Anyway, I can't say if this is still true. I'd say those outcomes are not necessarily related to turnout but to changing political circumstances.
Georgia Meloni actually referred to herself as the "right-wing Tony Blair" whatever that's supposed to mean, and she'll have to govern along with Salvini, who cucked for the vaccine passports, and with fucking Berlusconi. I'm really not all that optimistic.
If you expect to be pleased on all counts, you'll be disappointed. But they're probably going to to some really good stuff on immigration.
If the European pattern holds, this is good for the dissident right parties. Depressed turnout in other recent European elections seems to have been establishment voters who were disillusioned and discouraged from voting for their parties, but too stupid or lazy to switch their vote. Either way, it means the dissident right's voters are the most likely to vote.
That pattern didn't make enough of a difference in the French election, but it seems to have done in Sweden, and in the Dutch local elections.
I don't know the specifics of this 'election', but I do know that as a general rule, it's establishment bots who are more likely to vote.
The populists are generally the disaffected people who despair of any improvement, and who therefore do not vote unless activated.
This sometimes combines with the fact that some of the populists, like the ones in France, have a larger than average youth following. And young people also tend to vote less.
For the record: the parties labeled as 'far-right' in the Murican press are generally relatively left-wing on economic policies. They criticize the neoliberal governments both for allowing uncontrolled immigration and for cutting social services for ordinary people to pay for their beloved immigrants.
That doesn't seem to have been the case recently in Europe. In the recent Swedish election, turnout was down 5% and the right won. In the Dutch local elections in March, turnout was down roughly 4%, and there was a huge surge in support for localist and regional parties, as well as the FvD and the PVV. I understand that 2 data points don't make a pattern, but it seems like the same thing is happening in Italy.
True.
Georgia Meloni actually referred to herself as the "right-wing Tony Blair" whatever that's supposed to mean, and she'll have to govern along with Salvini, who cucked for the vaccine passports, and with fucking Berlusconi. I'm really not all that optimistic.
SD won in Sweden because the left lost voteres to the new Islamist party Nyans
Traditionally, it has been as I stated. It may have changed in recent times, but I actually don't expect it. The backing for traditional parties is generally a very loyal voter base. The populists are the most changing. E.g. rain was always taken as a bad sign for populists, and a good sign for Merkel-type conservatives.
Anyway, I can't say if this is still true. I'd say those outcomes are not necessarily related to turnout but to changing political circumstances.
If you expect to be pleased on all counts, you'll be disappointed. But they're probably going to to some really good stuff on immigration.
Would it be cruel if I pointed out that it's probably less than 1% that makes all the decisions, not even 50%?
That's a good thing. It means people do not view the regime as legitimate in the terms set by the regime itself.
The more people opt out, the easier it will be for March on Rome 2: Post-Modern Boogaloo.
So I guess 49% of them believed the EU's dictator when the dictat came down of "vote our way, or else."
The act of not voting is declaration of letting others choose for you.
Did you know voter turnout for America is like 49%?
I'm pretty sure in some dem bastions the turnout is 121%