It‘s not so surprising that the NYT does not know what a proper democracy looks like. They‘re American after all and never experienced one.

Oh nooo there are more than 2 major parties, what are we supposed to do, this is way too complicated for our little peabrains.

Gee, it's almost like they expected Macron to hemm, haw, deliberate, and 12 other words for "stall", but ultimately make the hard, difficult, bitter, but undeniably necessary and honourable decision and join Le Pen in the government, you know, for the good of the nation.

And then the godless fucking commies RUINED IT ALL!!!

Remember, in America, the New York Times is part of this notorious "liberal media" I keep hearing so very much about...

i thought it was funny, you could feel how stunned mainstream media seemed, like struggles for words, usually everybody has pretty much the same framing, here it was all over the place. Communism is scarier to them then fashism.

Ok then rebut The NY Times screen clip by explaining how the next prime minister will be chosen. What is the coalition that will choose them.

Exactly right. The left/center share didn't surge relative to 2022 - it fell by 13%. Meanwhile RN surged by 60% in its share of seats.

So it's reassuring in the near term that the center-left "surged" relative to initial polling, but in the longer term it is quite concerning that the far right is actually the segment gaining ground.

I might be stereotypical but I, for one, sure hope the left sticks to its program and doesn't compromise itself by allying with the so-called centrists. They've been calling us antisemites, chaos agents and extremists for the whole campaign, and the last 7 years of Macron speak for themselves regarding the centrists inability to support left-wing policies.

The best thing that could happen for the fascists is facing a coalition too mild to do anything meaningful for the people, and being able to say "See? The Left has betrayed you!" next elections

People on the overarching "western liberalism" side of the spectrum are usually fairly accustomed to putting aside their differences to cooperate on important things when the shit really hits the fan. The shit just has to hit the fan, first.

Priorities and all.

To quote Maya Angelou, "Surviving is important. Thriving is elegant." When you can afford to, it's good to fight for your particular vision. When your actual survival is threatened, however, that takes a backseat by necessity.

We're naturally good at this, because the principles of liberty and equality themselves require a certain willingness to cooperate and compromise with people with diverging views. As opposed to authoritarianism, where manipulation of and contesting for power is the ultimate method for sorting out how differing ideas get dealt with.

Hopefully Macron remembers this, and remains willing to compromise with his left flank. I think he likely will.

Meh, for the common people, a technical government is going to be a massive upgrade from what we had before.

Believe me we did, the RN gained seats.

Why would you never think you'd say that? France is a rather functional country on the whole.

They sure as fuck know how to protest.

Don't speak too fast. With the RN (far right) being unable to govern now, they'll be able to watch comfortably from the sidelines and criticise everything the others are attempting to build without doing anything themselves. They will be blameless for the presidential elections in two year's time.

Had they been in power now, we would have seen how incompetent they are and it could have lowered their chances for the next election. And we'd have had them for two years instead of five (or, ok, a risk of two + five).

USA has joined the chat.

The far right was defeated in the election, but they still grew their total presence in government. This graph just shows the increasing polarization in modern politics.

Because the centre and left candidates that arrived 3rd in three-ways against the RN removed themseves from the vote to allow for a bigger front and it worked

Huh