People commenting on polling in the French elections need to understand the difference...

[brooklynite]

Polls before the election were HIGHLY ACCURATE in projecting success by LePen's National Rally. What they couldn't do was project results in the second round because voters didn't know who the candidates would be.

In the French system, all Parties put up candidates in District based elections. Any candidate who gets 50+ percent of the vote is immediately elected. Any candidate who gets at least 12.5 percent moves on to a second round. However, there is a tradition of tactical voting and horse-trading where Parties agree to drop their candidate in favor of a more viable one. Hence, many of the non-Right Wing candidates dropped out, giving voters a consolidated alternative to National Rally.

[SWBTATTReg]

1. Thanks for the explanation. It's always nice to know some of the 'behind' rationale behind stuff, especially in

overseas elections. Take care.

[W_HAMILTON]

2. So the polls were ultimately meaningless -- sounds just like here!

[BootinUp]

3. That seems like an important point. Nt

[brooklynite]

4. Polls aren't intended to "tell you the winner".....

...they're intended to tell you the sentiments of the voters at a point in time.

[BootinUp]

5. Accepted. Now why do people keep misinterpreting them?

[W_HAMILTON]

7. Which means they are meaningless.

Especially months out from an election like here in the United States.

The only 'sentiments of the voters at a point in time" that matter is on Election Day.

[brooklynite]

9. Depends on what purpose you given them.

I look for trends over time and data beyond the top-line numbers.

[Silent3]

14. They are meaningful because they let you know how much work needs to be done...

…and how and where to best allocate campaign resources.

You know who takes polling seriously? Campaign personnel.

The far-too-easily tossed about word “meaningless” falsely characterizes polling as having no information content whatsoever, as if they were nothing more than random numbers, or, more conspiratorially, part of some vast broadly-orchestrated disinformation scheme.

[ColinC]

6. Even after it was clear that Le Penn won't win, the media was still largely saying Le Penn might win

There was no “might” ever since last week. The left and center got 49% in the first round. It would be nearly impossible for Le Penn to get a majority. Especially after it was clear that Macron and the left came to an arrangement for the runoffs.

[brooklynite]

8. You don't understand...

The non-Le Pen candidates had a majority of the vote, but there was no assurance they'd drop enough candidates to stop Le Pen's candidates winning with a plurality.

[maxrandb]

10. Kind of like if we push Biden out?

We could end up with Nazis in power despite not winning a majority of voters.

I know that some American presidents have won power without a majority of the popular vote, but none of those had a goal of destroying American democracy.

[brooklynite]

11. Nothing to do with that.

More a question of: would Cornell West / Jill Stein / RFK Jr drop out to provide a united anti-Trump candidate.

nb: Many French voters ended up supporting someone who wasn't their first choice.

[ColinC]

12. They didn't need to drop candidates to keep le Penn out

But once they did -and it was clear after a couple days that they would drop enough candidates, there was absolutely no question as to Le Penns chances. But even before, it was a long shot for le penn and that is the opposite of what the media was saying from the get go.

[Prairie Gates]

13. LOL

When polling fails to account for hidden strength on the right, that strength is gospel truth. When it misses, over and over again , the hidden strength on the left, there's some "reality check" explanation and excuse.

What a fucking joke.

[Silent3]

15. I'd also guess that the surprising right wing strength in the first round of voting...

…created an increase in left wing voter turnout that would have been hard to predict and model.