Is there an explanation for Austria's Freedom Party virtually retaining its vote share despite recent scandal?If I register for a party and vote in its primaries, am I obligated to vote for the same party in the general elections?Can I vote in the primary for one party and then vote for the other in the general?Can the US call for a re-vote?What is the rationale for allowing Irish and Commonwealth citizens to vote in general elections?Why did Austria's nationalist party (Freedom Party) got so many votes as compared to other nationalist parties?In Mixed-Member Proportional representation system what percentage of people vote for different party than MP's party?Is there an explanation for Erdogan winning the elections despite of polls and economic decline?Did İyi Parti-Demokrat Parti enter parliament despite having less than 10% of the vote? How?Why did so many Swedish raised in other Scandinavia countries vote for Sweden Democrats?Why isn't Austria's vice chancellor simply replaced instead of going for new elections?
What do we gain with higher order logics?
Why does the Schrödinger equation work so well for the Hydrogen atom despite the relativistic boundary at the nucleus?
Secure offsite backup, even in the case of hacker root access
Building a road to escape Earth's gravity by making a pyramid on Antartica
Aligning system of equations with zero coefficients
What makes linear regression with polynomial features curvy?
What's the correct term describing the action of sending a brand-new ship out into its first seafaring trip?
What is the purpose of building foundations?
What happened to all the nuclear material being smuggled after the fall of the USSR?
Why don't B747s start takeoffs with full throttle?
How can I instantiate a lambda closure type in C++11/14?
What risks are there when you clear your cookies instead of logging off?
When writing an error prompt, should we end the sentence with a exclamation mark or a dot?
Function to extract float from different price patterns
What happens if you do emergency landing on a US base in middle of the ocean?
Did Darth Vader wear the same suit for 20+ years?
Do manufacturers try make their components as close to ideal ones as possible?
Sharing one invocation list between multiple events on the same object in C#
Incremental Ranges!
Importance sampling estimation of power function
Implement Homestuck's Catenative Doomsday Dice Cascader
How bad would a partial hash leak be, realistically?
Completing the square to find if quadratic form is positive definite.
Finding x,y coordinates where y is largest
Is there an explanation for Austria's Freedom Party virtually retaining its vote share despite recent scandal?
If I register for a party and vote in its primaries, am I obligated to vote for the same party in the general elections?Can I vote in the primary for one party and then vote for the other in the general?Can the US call for a re-vote?What is the rationale for allowing Irish and Commonwealth citizens to vote in general elections?Why did Austria's nationalist party (Freedom Party) got so many votes as compared to other nationalist parties?In Mixed-Member Proportional representation system what percentage of people vote for different party than MP's party?Is there an explanation for Erdogan winning the elections despite of polls and economic decline?Did İyi Parti-Demokrat Parti enter parliament despite having less than 10% of the vote? How?Why did so many Swedish raised in other Scandinavia countries vote for Sweden Democrats?Why isn't Austria's vice chancellor simply replaced instead of going for new elections?
In 2014 Freedom Party (FPÖ) has gathered 19.7% of total votes. According to latest estimates (2019), it has gathered 17.2%.
For someone totally outside Austrian politics and hearing only about big things like recent scandal involving the Freedom Party the loss of 2.5% seems rather small. As a comparison in Romania, the ruling party (Social Democrats) has lost about 20% between national parliamentary elections and EU parliamentary elections (~45% => ~25%).
Question: Is there an explanation for Austria's Freedom Party virtually retaining its vote share despite recent scandal?
election austria voters
asked May 27 at 9:15
AlexeiAlexei
18.8k22103197
|
show 2 more comments
In 2014 Freedom Party (FPÖ) has gathered 19.7% of total votes. According to latest estimates (2019), it has gathered 17.2%.
For someone totally outside Austrian politics and hearing only about big things like recent scandal involving the Freedom Party the loss of 2.5% seems rather small. As a comparison in Romania, the ruling party (Social Democrats) has lost about 20% between national parliamentary elections and EU parliamentary elections (~45% => ~25%).
Question: Is there an explanation for Austria's Freedom Party virtually retaining its vote share despite recent scandal?
election austria voters
asked May 27 at 9:15
AlexeiAlexei
18.8k22103197
4
The FPÖ's slogan for the EU election was "Now more than ever". They say the release of this video was an attempted political assasination (especially as it was released 2 years later), and that Strache took the necessary steps (i.e. resigning). Chancellor Kurz also dismissed Herbert Kickl (FPÖ) from his position as the minister of inner affairs. This resulted in the FPÖ convincing voters they are the primary victim in this governmental crisis and that the ÖVP is power-obsessed. FPÖ voters are more infuriated by this alleged political assasination than the actual content of the Ibiza video.
– Lukas Rotter
May 27 at 10:51
2
I feel the need to comment that your percentages are off. A reduction from 45% to 25% is not a 20% reduction, it's 45% reduction (0.45 * 0.55 = 0.25), similarly, a reduction from 19.7% to 17.2% is a 13% reduction (0.197 * 0.87 = 0.172). Note the difference from your original numbers: 20% vs 2.5% is 8x whereas 45% vs 13% is 3x. So the relative loss of the FPÖ is 1/3rd of the relative loss of the Romanian Social Democrats, which is a bit more significant than 1/8th.
– Matthieu M.
May 28 at 6:54
@MatthieuM. - yes, you are right. It is just that local media and people do not think in vote count (and in % vote count as a consequence). So 45% total votes for national parliamentary elections, about 25% at European Parliament elections => 20% difference of total votes (which are not the same between elections anyway). Of course, this is not mathematically correct, but politics is not an exact science either :).
– Alexei
May 28 at 7:12
5
To be a bit less pedantic and perhaps more helpful: The way the question compares votes is commonly referred to as "percentage points", for this very reason.
– Ruther Rendommeleigh
May 28 at 10:26
1
You are comparing the wrong things. If you want to know how much support they lost because of the video, you need to compare numbers from before the video with numbers after the video, not numbers from years ago to numbers after the video. After all, they could have gained 80% since the last elections, then lost 82.5% during the last weeks.
– Jörg W Mittag
May 28 at 19:50
|
show 2 more comments
In 2014 Freedom Party (FPÖ) has gathered 19.7% of total votes. According to latest estimates (2019), it has gathered 17.2%.
For someone totally outside Austrian politics and hearing only about big things like recent scandal involving the Freedom Party the loss of 2.5% seems rather small. As a comparison in Romania, the ruling party (Social Democrats) has lost about 20% between national parliamentary elections and EU parliamentary elections (~45% => ~25%).
Question: Is there an explanation for Austria's Freedom Party virtually retaining its vote share despite recent scandal?
election austria voters
asked May 27 at 9:15
AlexeiAlexei
18.8k22103197
In 2014 Freedom Party (FPÖ) has gathered 19.7% of total votes. According to latest estimates (2019), it has gathered 17.2%.
For someone totally outside Austrian politics and hearing only about big things like recent scandal involving the Freedom Party the loss of 2.5% seems rather small. As a comparison in Romania, the ruling party (Social Democrats) has lost about 20% between national parliamentary elections and EU parliamentary elections (~45% => ~25%).
Question: Is there an explanation for Austria's Freedom Party virtually retaining its vote share despite recent scandal?
election austria voters
election austria voters
asked May 27 at 9:15
AlexeiAlexei
18.8k22103197
asked May 27 at 9:15
AlexeiAlexei
18.8k22103197
asked May 27 at 9:15
AlexeiAlexei
18.8k22103197
asked May 27 at 9:15
AlexeiAlexei
18.8k22103197
asked May 27 at 9:15
AlexeiAlexei
18.8k22103197
18.8k22103197
4
The FPÖ's slogan for the EU election was "Now more than ever". They say the release of this video was an attempted political assasination (especially as it was released 2 years later), and that Strache took the necessary steps (i.e. resigning). Chancellor Kurz also dismissed Herbert Kickl (FPÖ) from his position as the minister of inner affairs. This resulted in the FPÖ convincing voters they are the primary victim in this governmental crisis and that the ÖVP is power-obsessed. FPÖ voters are more infuriated by this alleged political assasination than the actual content of the Ibiza video.
– Lukas Rotter
May 27 at 10:51
2
I feel the need to comment that your percentages are off. A reduction from 45% to 25% is not a 20% reduction, it's 45% reduction (0.45 * 0.55 = 0.25), similarly, a reduction from 19.7% to 17.2% is a 13% reduction (0.197 * 0.87 = 0.172). Note the difference from your original numbers: 20% vs 2.5% is 8x whereas 45% vs 13% is 3x. So the relative loss of the FPÖ is 1/3rd of the relative loss of the Romanian Social Democrats, which is a bit more significant than 1/8th.
– Matthieu M.
May 28 at 6:54
@MatthieuM. - yes, you are right. It is just that local media and people do not think in vote count (and in % vote count as a consequence). So 45% total votes for national parliamentary elections, about 25% at European Parliament elections => 20% difference of total votes (which are not the same between elections anyway). Of course, this is not mathematically correct, but politics is not an exact science either :).
– Alexei
May 28 at 7:12
5
To be a bit less pedantic and perhaps more helpful: The way the question compares votes is commonly referred to as "percentage points", for this very reason.
– Ruther Rendommeleigh
May 28 at 10:26
1
You are comparing the wrong things. If you want to know how much support they lost because of the video, you need to compare numbers from before the video with numbers after the video, not numbers from years ago to numbers after the video. After all, they could have gained 80% since the last elections, then lost 82.5% during the last weeks.
– Jörg W Mittag
May 28 at 19:50
|
show 2 more comments
4
The FPÖ's slogan for the EU election was "Now more than ever". They say the release of this video was an attempted political assasination (especially as it was released 2 years later), and that Strache took the necessary steps (i.e. resigning). Chancellor Kurz also dismissed Herbert Kickl (FPÖ) from his position as the minister of inner affairs. This resulted in the FPÖ convincing voters they are the primary victim in this governmental crisis and that the ÖVP is power-obsessed. FPÖ voters are more infuriated by this alleged political assasination than the actual content of the Ibiza video.
– Lukas Rotter
May 27 at 10:51
2
I feel the need to comment that your percentages are off. A reduction from 45% to 25% is not a 20% reduction, it's 45% reduction (0.45 * 0.55 = 0.25), similarly, a reduction from 19.7% to 17.2% is a 13% reduction (0.197 * 0.87 = 0.172). Note the difference from your original numbers: 20% vs 2.5% is 8x whereas 45% vs 13% is 3x. So the relative loss of the FPÖ is 1/3rd of the relative loss of the Romanian Social Democrats, which is a bit more significant than 1/8th.
– Matthieu M.
May 28 at 6:54
@MatthieuM. - yes, you are right. It is just that local media and people do not think in vote count (and in % vote count as a consequence). So 45% total votes for national parliamentary elections, about 25% at European Parliament elections => 20% difference of total votes (which are not the same between elections anyway). Of course, this is not mathematically correct, but politics is not an exact science either :).
– Alexei
May 28 at 7:12
5
To be a bit less pedantic and perhaps more helpful: The way the question compares votes is commonly referred to as "percentage points", for this very reason.
– Ruther Rendommeleigh
May 28 at 10:26
1
You are comparing the wrong things. If you want to know how much support they lost because of the video, you need to compare numbers from before the video with numbers after the video, not numbers from years ago to numbers after the video. After all, they could have gained 80% since the last elections, then lost 82.5% during the last weeks.
– Jörg W Mittag
May 28 at 19:50
4
4
The FPÖ's slogan for the EU election was "Now more than ever". They say the release of this video was an attempted political assasination (especially as it was released 2 years later), and that Strache took the necessary steps (i.e. resigning). Chancellor Kurz also dismissed Herbert Kickl (FPÖ) from his position as the minister of inner affairs. This resulted in the FPÖ convincing voters they are the primary victim in this governmental crisis and that the ÖVP is power-obsessed. FPÖ voters are more infuriated by this alleged political assasination than the actual content of the Ibiza video.
– Lukas Rotter
May 27 at 10:51
The FPÖ's slogan for the EU election was "Now more than ever". They say the release of this video was an attempted political assasination (especially as it was released 2 years later), and that Strache took the necessary steps (i.e. resigning). Chancellor Kurz also dismissed Herbert Kickl (FPÖ) from his position as the minister of inner affairs. This resulted in the FPÖ convincing voters they are the primary victim in this governmental crisis and that the ÖVP is power-obsessed. FPÖ voters are more infuriated by this alleged political assasination than the actual content of the Ibiza video.
– Lukas Rotter
May 27 at 10:51
2
2
I feel the need to comment that your percentages are off. A reduction from 45% to 25% is not a 20% reduction, it's 45% reduction (0.45 * 0.55 = 0.25), similarly, a reduction from 19.7% to 17.2% is a 13% reduction (0.197 * 0.87 = 0.172). Note the difference from your original numbers: 20% vs 2.5% is 8x whereas 45% vs 13% is 3x. So the relative loss of the FPÖ is 1/3rd of the relative loss of the Romanian Social Democrats, which is a bit more significant than 1/8th.
– Matthieu M.
May 28 at 6:54
I feel the need to comment that your percentages are off. A reduction from 45% to 25% is not a 20% reduction, it's 45% reduction (0.45 * 0.55 = 0.25), similarly, a reduction from 19.7% to 17.2% is a 13% reduction (0.197 * 0.87 = 0.172). Note the difference from your original numbers: 20% vs 2.5% is 8x whereas 45% vs 13% is 3x. So the relative loss of the FPÖ is 1/3rd of the relative loss of the Romanian Social Democrats, which is a bit more significant than 1/8th.
– Matthieu M.
May 28 at 6:54
@MatthieuM. - yes, you are right. It is just that local media and people do not think in vote count (and in % vote count as a consequence). So 45% total votes for national parliamentary elections, about 25% at European Parliament elections => 20% difference of total votes (which are not the same between elections anyway). Of course, this is not mathematically correct, but politics is not an exact science either :).
– Alexei
May 28 at 7:12
@MatthieuM. - yes, you are right. It is just that local media and people do not think in vote count (and in % vote count as a consequence). So 45% total votes for national parliamentary elections, about 25% at European Parliament elections => 20% difference of total votes (which are not the same between elections anyway). Of course, this is not mathematically correct, but politics is not an exact science either :).
– Alexei
May 28 at 7:12
5
5
To be a bit less pedantic and perhaps more helpful: The way the question compares votes is commonly referred to as "percentage points", for this very reason.
– Ruther Rendommeleigh
May 28 at 10:26
To be a bit less pedantic and perhaps more helpful: The way the question compares votes is commonly referred to as "percentage points", for this very reason.
– Ruther Rendommeleigh
May 28 at 10:26
1
1
You are comparing the wrong things. If you want to know how much support they lost because of the video, you need to compare numbers from before the video with numbers after the video, not numbers from years ago to numbers after the video. After all, they could have gained 80% since the last elections, then lost 82.5% during the last weeks.
– Jörg W Mittag
May 28 at 19:50
You are comparing the wrong things. If you want to know how much support they lost because of the video, you need to compare numbers from before the video with numbers after the video, not numbers from years ago to numbers after the video. After all, they could have gained 80% since the last elections, then lost 82.5% during the last weeks.
– Jörg W Mittag
May 28 at 19:50
|
show 2 more comments
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
The circumstances of the scandal:
The video got recorded in 2017, months before the 2017 parliament elections. Somehow it wasn't publicized then. There exist speculations that the video was unusable then as the competing Socialist Party was exposed in an dirty campaigning case after the recording and weeks before the 2017 elections. People understand that the timing of the publication was intentional, weeks before the vote in 2019. People also understand that a lot of effort and money was put in creating this video.
It was empty talk
While the whole exposure is a embarrassing example of dirty politics the promises/plans in the video never were implemented.
Mentality
There are historical examples of an "even more so" mentality in Austria, especially on right leaning voters. The last thing they want is to be guided by foreign ("Der Spiegel" and "Süddeutsche" two German, left leaning newspapers received and publicized the compromising material) influences. Perhaps it can be characterized by "he is a bad guy, but he is our bad guy"
answered May 27 at 11:04
MartinMartin
47629
18
Also: the video didn't suggest he became a progressive or stopped being a xenophobe. Priorities.
– LangLangC
May 27 at 11:35
3
Re 2, the main reason that the plans mentioned in the video never got implemented was that the woman in the video was not the oligarch’s niece she claimed to be, and quite likely neither willing nor in a position to offer any financial support.
– user149408
May 27 at 18:34
2
At 2) Strache talked about using charitable associations controlled by the FPÖ to hide money from the Rechnungshof (Austrian Court of Audit). This caused the public prosecutor to start investigations into the finances of the FPÖ. The investigation will show if this was "empty talk" or if money laundering has already occured in the past.
– Georg Patscheider
May 28 at 10:51
add a comment |
The FPÖ likely lost more than 2.5% due to the scandal.
Other answers give a good overview why the FPÖ still performed fairly well. They did, however, not perform as well as they could have - comparing to the election results 2014 might be misleading. Polls conducted prior to the publication of the video kicking of the scandal (May 15) consistently showed the FPÖ at 22-24%. The scandal could therefore have cost them up to 7% of votes.
https://europeelects.eu/european-union/austria/ has an overview of pre-election (and, except for the latest, pre-scandal) polls. Based on these, the ÖVP and the Green Party have over-performed on election day, while the FPÖ massively under-performed their polls (again, except for the last which was taken post-scandal).
answered May 27 at 18:49
pascalpascal
2313
New contributor
pascal is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
This is I think a huge point. The effect of the scandal isn’t the difference between the FPÖ’s share now and in 2017, but the difference between its share now and what its share would be without the scandal. Of course we can’t know that “would be” exactly — but there are lots of good reasons to expect that its share now would otherwise have been significantly bigger than what it was in 2017: not only the pre-scandal polls, but also the fact that other comparable nationalist parties across Europe all gained vote share in this year’s elections.
– Peter LeFanu Lumsdaine
May 28 at 19:59
add a comment |
The FPÖ and their voters live in a bubble on social media. No upset reported by other media will deter them from voting for 'their' party, even moreso if it threatened to burst their bubble. The minor loss of voters are probably voters who either vote for the ÖVP or FPÖ on any given day.
answered May 27 at 10:24
user26700user26700
951
New contributor
user26700 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
9
Some sources would be nice.
– Jontia
May 27 at 10:28
12
Do you mean that they objectively live in some extraordinary media bubble? Or you mean that they have a different media bubble than you have?
– Shadow1024
May 27 at 11:51
2
They rate communication with party leaders higher than coverage from traditional media. So the answer to both questions is actually yes. Judging from the Ibiza video the party sees traditional media through the eyes of social media experts. It is just about pushing your own content and view. There is no room for discussions or arguments. It treats newspaper outlets like Falter or Der Standard as enemies and works on reducing their influence and gravitas (by reducing public funding, bad mouthing) and instead pushes their own media outlets like Unzensuriert.
– user26700
May 27 at 12:35
1
Follow-up: As a consequence voters see reports from such newspapers as lies, defamatory pieces and at worst messages from political enemies. They have strong ties to the movement "Identitäre". So when Martin Sellner, leader of the movement, promoted voting for HC Strache on FB in EU elections, despite himself admitting errors, Strache took the first place in party results and will likely join EU parliament.
– user26700
May 27 at 12:46
add a comment |
Looking at the last two election results of the FPÖ at both national and EU level, one gets a different picture:
- 20.51% in the 2013 national election (source)
- 19.72% in the 2014 EU election (source)
- 26% in the 2017 national election (source)
- 17.2% in the 2019 EU election (source)
The 2013 and 2014 results are less than a percentage point apart, so I would assume voter behavior does not differ systematically between EU and national elections. (If there were any systematic variation between national and EU results, other events with an effect on voter behavior between 2013 and 2014 would have countered that.)
The 2017 national election saw a peak (the reasons for which would make for another interesting question). Compared to that, the FPÖ has lost some 8.8 percentage points.
In percentage of votes, they have lost some 33% over 2017—I would not call that “virtually retaining its vote share”. (The quoted example of the Social Democrats in Romania corresponds to a 44% decline. The 2017–2019 decline in FPÖ votes is closer to that than to the 2014–2019 decline, which would be 14%).
answered May 27 at 19:04
user149408user149408
24622
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "475"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f41751%2fis-there-an-explanation-for-austrias-freedom-party-virtually-retaining-its-vote%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
The circumstances of the scandal:
The video got recorded in 2017, months before the 2017 parliament elections. Somehow it wasn't publicized then. There exist speculations that the video was unusable then as the competing Socialist Party was exposed in an dirty campaigning case after the recording and weeks before the 2017 elections. People understand that the timing of the publication was intentional, weeks before the vote in 2019. People also understand that a lot of effort and money was put in creating this video.
It was empty talk
While the whole exposure is a embarrassing example of dirty politics the promises/plans in the video never were implemented.
Mentality
There are historical examples of an "even more so" mentality in Austria, especially on right leaning voters. The last thing they want is to be guided by foreign ("Der Spiegel" and "Süddeutsche" two German, left leaning newspapers received and publicized the compromising material) influences. Perhaps it can be characterized by "he is a bad guy, but he is our bad guy"
answered May 27 at 11:04
MartinMartin
47629
18
Also: the video didn't suggest he became a progressive or stopped being a xenophobe. Priorities.
– LangLangC
May 27 at 11:35
3
Re 2, the main reason that the plans mentioned in the video never got implemented was that the woman in the video was not the oligarch’s niece she claimed to be, and quite likely neither willing nor in a position to offer any financial support.
– user149408
May 27 at 18:34
2
At 2) Strache talked about using charitable associations controlled by the FPÖ to hide money from the Rechnungshof (Austrian Court of Audit). This caused the public prosecutor to start investigations into the finances of the FPÖ. The investigation will show if this was "empty talk" or if money laundering has already occured in the past.
– Georg Patscheider
May 28 at 10:51
add a comment |
The circumstances of the scandal:
The video got recorded in 2017, months before the 2017 parliament elections. Somehow it wasn't publicized then. There exist speculations that the video was unusable then as the competing Socialist Party was exposed in an dirty campaigning case after the recording and weeks before the 2017 elections. People understand that the timing of the publication was intentional, weeks before the vote in 2019. People also understand that a lot of effort and money was put in creating this video.
It was empty talk
While the whole exposure is a embarrassing example of dirty politics the promises/plans in the video never were implemented.
Mentality
There are historical examples of an "even more so" mentality in Austria, especially on right leaning voters. The last thing they want is to be guided by foreign ("Der Spiegel" and "Süddeutsche" two German, left leaning newspapers received and publicized the compromising material) influences. Perhaps it can be characterized by "he is a bad guy, but he is our bad guy"
answered May 27 at 11:04
MartinMartin
47629
18
Also: the video didn't suggest he became a progressive or stopped being a xenophobe. Priorities.
– LangLangC
May 27 at 11:35
3
Re 2, the main reason that the plans mentioned in the video never got implemented was that the woman in the video was not the oligarch’s niece she claimed to be, and quite likely neither willing nor in a position to offer any financial support.
– user149408
May 27 at 18:34
2
At 2) Strache talked about using charitable associations controlled by the FPÖ to hide money from the Rechnungshof (Austrian Court of Audit). This caused the public prosecutor to start investigations into the finances of the FPÖ. The investigation will show if this was "empty talk" or if money laundering has already occured in the past.
– Georg Patscheider
May 28 at 10:51
add a comment |
The circumstances of the scandal:
The video got recorded in 2017, months before the 2017 parliament elections. Somehow it wasn't publicized then. There exist speculations that the video was unusable then as the competing Socialist Party was exposed in an dirty campaigning case after the recording and weeks before the 2017 elections. People understand that the timing of the publication was intentional, weeks before the vote in 2019. People also understand that a lot of effort and money was put in creating this video.
It was empty talk
While the whole exposure is a embarrassing example of dirty politics the promises/plans in the video never were implemented.
Mentality
There are historical examples of an "even more so" mentality in Austria, especially on right leaning voters. The last thing they want is to be guided by foreign ("Der Spiegel" and "Süddeutsche" two German, left leaning newspapers received and publicized the compromising material) influences. Perhaps it can be characterized by "he is a bad guy, but he is our bad guy"
answered May 27 at 11:04
MartinMartin
47629
The circumstances of the scandal:
The video got recorded in 2017, months before the 2017 parliament elections. Somehow it wasn't publicized then. There exist speculations that the video was unusable then as the competing Socialist Party was exposed in an dirty campaigning case after the recording and weeks before the 2017 elections. People understand that the timing of the publication was intentional, weeks before the vote in 2019. People also understand that a lot of effort and money was put in creating this video.
It was empty talk
While the whole exposure is a embarrassing example of dirty politics the promises/plans in the video never were implemented.
Mentality
There are historical examples of an "even more so" mentality in Austria, especially on right leaning voters. The last thing they want is to be guided by foreign ("Der Spiegel" and "Süddeutsche" two German, left leaning newspapers received and publicized the compromising material) influences. Perhaps it can be characterized by "he is a bad guy, but he is our bad guy"
answered May 27 at 11:04
MartinMartin
47629
answered May 27 at 11:04
MartinMartin
47629
answered May 27 at 11:04
MartinMartin
47629
answered May 27 at 11:04
MartinMartin
47629
47629
18
Also: the video didn't suggest he became a progressive or stopped being a xenophobe. Priorities.
– LangLangC
May 27 at 11:35
3
Re 2, the main reason that the plans mentioned in the video never got implemented was that the woman in the video was not the oligarch’s niece she claimed to be, and quite likely neither willing nor in a position to offer any financial support.
– user149408
May 27 at 18:34
2
At 2) Strache talked about using charitable associations controlled by the FPÖ to hide money from the Rechnungshof (Austrian Court of Audit). This caused the public prosecutor to start investigations into the finances of the FPÖ. The investigation will show if this was "empty talk" or if money laundering has already occured in the past.
– Georg Patscheider
May 28 at 10:51
add a comment |
18
Also: the video didn't suggest he became a progressive or stopped being a xenophobe. Priorities.
– LangLangC
May 27 at 11:35
3
Re 2, the main reason that the plans mentioned in the video never got implemented was that the woman in the video was not the oligarch’s niece she claimed to be, and quite likely neither willing nor in a position to offer any financial support.
– user149408
May 27 at 18:34
2
At 2) Strache talked about using charitable associations controlled by the FPÖ to hide money from the Rechnungshof (Austrian Court of Audit). This caused the public prosecutor to start investigations into the finances of the FPÖ. The investigation will show if this was "empty talk" or if money laundering has already occured in the past.
– Georg Patscheider
May 28 at 10:51
18
18
Also: the video didn't suggest he became a progressive or stopped being a xenophobe. Priorities.
– LangLangC
May 27 at 11:35
Also: the video didn't suggest he became a progressive or stopped being a xenophobe. Priorities.
– LangLangC
May 27 at 11:35
3
3
Re 2, the main reason that the plans mentioned in the video never got implemented was that the woman in the video was not the oligarch’s niece she claimed to be, and quite likely neither willing nor in a position to offer any financial support.
– user149408
May 27 at 18:34
Re 2, the main reason that the plans mentioned in the video never got implemented was that the woman in the video was not the oligarch’s niece she claimed to be, and quite likely neither willing nor in a position to offer any financial support.
– user149408
May 27 at 18:34
2
2
At 2) Strache talked about using charitable associations controlled by the FPÖ to hide money from the Rechnungshof (Austrian Court of Audit). This caused the public prosecutor to start investigations into the finances of the FPÖ. The investigation will show if this was "empty talk" or if money laundering has already occured in the past.
– Georg Patscheider
May 28 at 10:51
At 2) Strache talked about using charitable associations controlled by the FPÖ to hide money from the Rechnungshof (Austrian Court of Audit). This caused the public prosecutor to start investigations into the finances of the FPÖ. The investigation will show if this was "empty talk" or if money laundering has already occured in the past.
– Georg Patscheider
May 28 at 10:51
add a comment |
The FPÖ likely lost more than 2.5% due to the scandal.
Other answers give a good overview why the FPÖ still performed fairly well. They did, however, not perform as well as they could have - comparing to the election results 2014 might be misleading. Polls conducted prior to the publication of the video kicking of the scandal (May 15) consistently showed the FPÖ at 22-24%. The scandal could therefore have cost them up to 7% of votes.
https://europeelects.eu/european-union/austria/ has an overview of pre-election (and, except for the latest, pre-scandal) polls. Based on these, the ÖVP and the Green Party have over-performed on election day, while the FPÖ massively under-performed their polls (again, except for the last which was taken post-scandal).
answered May 27 at 18:49
pascalpascal
2313
New contributor
pascal is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
This is I think a huge point. The effect of the scandal isn’t the difference between the FPÖ’s share now and in 2017, but the difference between its share now and what its share would be without the scandal. Of course we can’t know that “would be” exactly — but there are lots of good reasons to expect that its share now would otherwise have been significantly bigger than what it was in 2017: not only the pre-scandal polls, but also the fact that other comparable nationalist parties across Europe all gained vote share in this year’s elections.
– Peter LeFanu Lumsdaine
May 28 at 19:59
add a comment |
The FPÖ likely lost more than 2.5% due to the scandal.
Other answers give a good overview why the FPÖ still performed fairly well. They did, however, not perform as well as they could have - comparing to the election results 2014 might be misleading. Polls conducted prior to the publication of the video kicking of the scandal (May 15) consistently showed the FPÖ at 22-24%. The scandal could therefore have cost them up to 7% of votes.
https://europeelects.eu/european-union/austria/ has an overview of pre-election (and, except for the latest, pre-scandal) polls. Based on these, the ÖVP and the Green Party have over-performed on election day, while the FPÖ massively under-performed their polls (again, except for the last which was taken post-scandal).
answered May 27 at 18:49
pascalpascal
2313
New contributor
pascal is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
This is I think a huge point. The effect of the scandal isn’t the difference between the FPÖ’s share now and in 2017, but the difference between its share now and what its share would be without the scandal. Of course we can’t know that “would be” exactly — but there are lots of good reasons to expect that its share now would otherwise have been significantly bigger than what it was in 2017: not only the pre-scandal polls, but also the fact that other comparable nationalist parties across Europe all gained vote share in this year’s elections.
– Peter LeFanu Lumsdaine
May 28 at 19:59
add a comment |
The FPÖ likely lost more than 2.5% due to the scandal.
Other answers give a good overview why the FPÖ still performed fairly well. They did, however, not perform as well as they could have - comparing to the election results 2014 might be misleading. Polls conducted prior to the publication of the video kicking of the scandal (May 15) consistently showed the FPÖ at 22-24%. The scandal could therefore have cost them up to 7% of votes.
https://europeelects.eu/european-union/austria/ has an overview of pre-election (and, except for the latest, pre-scandal) polls. Based on these, the ÖVP and the Green Party have over-performed on election day, while the FPÖ massively under-performed their polls (again, except for the last which was taken post-scandal).
answered May 27 at 18:49
pascalpascal
2313
New contributor
pascal is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
The FPÖ likely lost more than 2.5% due to the scandal.
Other answers give a good overview why the FPÖ still performed fairly well. They did, however, not perform as well as they could have - comparing to the election results 2014 might be misleading. Polls conducted prior to the publication of the video kicking of the scandal (May 15) consistently showed the FPÖ at 22-24%. The scandal could therefore have cost them up to 7% of votes.
https://europeelects.eu/european-union/austria/ has an overview of pre-election (and, except for the latest, pre-scandal) polls. Based on these, the ÖVP and the Green Party have over-performed on election day, while the FPÖ massively under-performed their polls (again, except for the last which was taken post-scandal).
answered May 27 at 18:49
pascalpascal
2313
New contributor
pascal is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered May 27 at 18:49
pascalpascal
2313
New contributor
pascal is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered May 27 at 18:49
pascalpascal
2313
answered May 27 at 18:49
pascalpascal
2313
2313
New contributor
pascal is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
pascal is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
This is I think a huge point. The effect of the scandal isn’t the difference between the FPÖ’s share now and in 2017, but the difference between its share now and what its share would be without the scandal. Of course we can’t know that “would be” exactly — but there are lots of good reasons to expect that its share now would otherwise have been significantly bigger than what it was in 2017: not only the pre-scandal polls, but also the fact that other comparable nationalist parties across Europe all gained vote share in this year’s elections.
– Peter LeFanu Lumsdaine
May 28 at 19:59
add a comment |
This is I think a huge point. The effect of the scandal isn’t the difference between the FPÖ’s share now and in 2017, but the difference between its share now and what its share would be without the scandal. Of course we can’t know that “would be” exactly — but there are lots of good reasons to expect that its share now would otherwise have been significantly bigger than what it was in 2017: not only the pre-scandal polls, but also the fact that other comparable nationalist parties across Europe all gained vote share in this year’s elections.
– Peter LeFanu Lumsdaine
May 28 at 19:59
This is I think a huge point. The effect of the scandal isn’t the difference between the FPÖ’s share now and in 2017, but the difference between its share now and what its share would be without the scandal. Of course we can’t know that “would be” exactly — but there are lots of good reasons to expect that its share now would otherwise have been significantly bigger than what it was in 2017: not only the pre-scandal polls, but also the fact that other comparable nationalist parties across Europe all gained vote share in this year’s elections.
– Peter LeFanu Lumsdaine
May 28 at 19:59
This is I think a huge point. The effect of the scandal isn’t the difference between the FPÖ’s share now and in 2017, but the difference between its share now and what its share would be without the scandal. Of course we can’t know that “would be” exactly — but there are lots of good reasons to expect that its share now would otherwise have been significantly bigger than what it was in 2017: not only the pre-scandal polls, but also the fact that other comparable nationalist parties across Europe all gained vote share in this year’s elections.
– Peter LeFanu Lumsdaine
May 28 at 19:59
add a comment |
The FPÖ and their voters live in a bubble on social media. No upset reported by other media will deter them from voting for 'their' party, even moreso if it threatened to burst their bubble. The minor loss of voters are probably voters who either vote for the ÖVP or FPÖ on any given day.
answered May 27 at 10:24
user26700user26700
951
New contributor
user26700 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
9
Some sources would be nice.
– Jontia
May 27 at 10:28
12
Do you mean that they objectively live in some extraordinary media bubble? Or you mean that they have a different media bubble than you have?
– Shadow1024
May 27 at 11:51
2
They rate communication with party leaders higher than coverage from traditional media. So the answer to both questions is actually yes. Judging from the Ibiza video the party sees traditional media through the eyes of social media experts. It is just about pushing your own content and view. There is no room for discussions or arguments. It treats newspaper outlets like Falter or Der Standard as enemies and works on reducing their influence and gravitas (by reducing public funding, bad mouthing) and instead pushes their own media outlets like Unzensuriert.
– user26700
May 27 at 12:35
1
Follow-up: As a consequence voters see reports from such newspapers as lies, defamatory pieces and at worst messages from political enemies. They have strong ties to the movement "Identitäre". So when Martin Sellner, leader of the movement, promoted voting for HC Strache on FB in EU elections, despite himself admitting errors, Strache took the first place in party results and will likely join EU parliament.
– user26700
May 27 at 12:46
add a comment |
The FPÖ and their voters live in a bubble on social media. No upset reported by other media will deter them from voting for 'their' party, even moreso if it threatened to burst their bubble. The minor loss of voters are probably voters who either vote for the ÖVP or FPÖ on any given day.
answered May 27 at 10:24
user26700user26700
951
New contributor
user26700 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
9
Some sources would be nice.
– Jontia
May 27 at 10:28
12
Do you mean that they objectively live in some extraordinary media bubble? Or you mean that they have a different media bubble than you have?
– Shadow1024
May 27 at 11:51
2
They rate communication with party leaders higher than coverage from traditional media. So the answer to both questions is actually yes. Judging from the Ibiza video the party sees traditional media through the eyes of social media experts. It is just about pushing your own content and view. There is no room for discussions or arguments. It treats newspaper outlets like Falter or Der Standard as enemies and works on reducing their influence and gravitas (by reducing public funding, bad mouthing) and instead pushes their own media outlets like Unzensuriert.
– user26700
May 27 at 12:35
1
Follow-up: As a consequence voters see reports from such newspapers as lies, defamatory pieces and at worst messages from political enemies. They have strong ties to the movement "Identitäre". So when Martin Sellner, leader of the movement, promoted voting for HC Strache on FB in EU elections, despite himself admitting errors, Strache took the first place in party results and will likely join EU parliament.
– user26700
May 27 at 12:46
add a comment |
The FPÖ and their voters live in a bubble on social media. No upset reported by other media will deter them from voting for 'their' party, even moreso if it threatened to burst their bubble. The minor loss of voters are probably voters who either vote for the ÖVP or FPÖ on any given day.
answered May 27 at 10:24
user26700user26700
951
New contributor
user26700 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
The FPÖ and their voters live in a bubble on social media. No upset reported by other media will deter them from voting for 'their' party, even moreso if it threatened to burst their bubble. The minor loss of voters are probably voters who either vote for the ÖVP or FPÖ on any given day.
answered May 27 at 10:24
user26700user26700
951
New contributor
user26700 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered May 27 at 10:24
user26700user26700
951
New contributor
user26700 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered May 27 at 10:24
user26700user26700
951
answered May 27 at 10:24
user26700user26700
951
951
New contributor
user26700 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
user26700 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
9
Some sources would be nice.
– Jontia
May 27 at 10:28
12
Do you mean that they objectively live in some extraordinary media bubble? Or you mean that they have a different media bubble than you have?
– Shadow1024
May 27 at 11:51
2
They rate communication with party leaders higher than coverage from traditional media. So the answer to both questions is actually yes. Judging from the Ibiza video the party sees traditional media through the eyes of social media experts. It is just about pushing your own content and view. There is no room for discussions or arguments. It treats newspaper outlets like Falter or Der Standard as enemies and works on reducing their influence and gravitas (by reducing public funding, bad mouthing) and instead pushes their own media outlets like Unzensuriert.
– user26700
May 27 at 12:35
1
Follow-up: As a consequence voters see reports from such newspapers as lies, defamatory pieces and at worst messages from political enemies. They have strong ties to the movement "Identitäre". So when Martin Sellner, leader of the movement, promoted voting for HC Strache on FB in EU elections, despite himself admitting errors, Strache took the first place in party results and will likely join EU parliament.
– user26700
May 27 at 12:46
add a comment |
9
Some sources would be nice.
– Jontia
May 27 at 10:28
12
Do you mean that they objectively live in some extraordinary media bubble? Or you mean that they have a different media bubble than you have?
– Shadow1024
May 27 at 11:51
2
They rate communication with party leaders higher than coverage from traditional media. So the answer to both questions is actually yes. Judging from the Ibiza video the party sees traditional media through the eyes of social media experts. It is just about pushing your own content and view. There is no room for discussions or arguments. It treats newspaper outlets like Falter or Der Standard as enemies and works on reducing their influence and gravitas (by reducing public funding, bad mouthing) and instead pushes their own media outlets like Unzensuriert.
– user26700
May 27 at 12:35
1
Follow-up: As a consequence voters see reports from such newspapers as lies, defamatory pieces and at worst messages from political enemies. They have strong ties to the movement "Identitäre". So when Martin Sellner, leader of the movement, promoted voting for HC Strache on FB in EU elections, despite himself admitting errors, Strache took the first place in party results and will likely join EU parliament.
– user26700
May 27 at 12:46
9
9
Some sources would be nice.
– Jontia
May 27 at 10:28
Some sources would be nice.
– Jontia
May 27 at 10:28
12
12
Do you mean that they objectively live in some extraordinary media bubble? Or you mean that they have a different media bubble than you have?
– Shadow1024
May 27 at 11:51
Do you mean that they objectively live in some extraordinary media bubble? Or you mean that they have a different media bubble than you have?
– Shadow1024
May 27 at 11:51
2
2
They rate communication with party leaders higher than coverage from traditional media. So the answer to both questions is actually yes. Judging from the Ibiza video the party sees traditional media through the eyes of social media experts. It is just about pushing your own content and view. There is no room for discussions or arguments. It treats newspaper outlets like Falter or Der Standard as enemies and works on reducing their influence and gravitas (by reducing public funding, bad mouthing) and instead pushes their own media outlets like Unzensuriert.
– user26700
May 27 at 12:35
They rate communication with party leaders higher than coverage from traditional media. So the answer to both questions is actually yes. Judging from the Ibiza video the party sees traditional media through the eyes of social media experts. It is just about pushing your own content and view. There is no room for discussions or arguments. It treats newspaper outlets like Falter or Der Standard as enemies and works on reducing their influence and gravitas (by reducing public funding, bad mouthing) and instead pushes their own media outlets like Unzensuriert.
– user26700
May 27 at 12:35
1
1
Follow-up: As a consequence voters see reports from such newspapers as lies, defamatory pieces and at worst messages from political enemies. They have strong ties to the movement "Identitäre". So when Martin Sellner, leader of the movement, promoted voting for HC Strache on FB in EU elections, despite himself admitting errors, Strache took the first place in party results and will likely join EU parliament.
– user26700
May 27 at 12:46
Follow-up: As a consequence voters see reports from such newspapers as lies, defamatory pieces and at worst messages from political enemies. They have strong ties to the movement "Identitäre". So when Martin Sellner, leader of the movement, promoted voting for HC Strache on FB in EU elections, despite himself admitting errors, Strache took the first place in party results and will likely join EU parliament.
– user26700
May 27 at 12:46
add a comment |
Looking at the last two election results of the FPÖ at both national and EU level, one gets a different picture:
- 20.51% in the 2013 national election (source)
- 19.72% in the 2014 EU election (source)
- 26% in the 2017 national election (source)
- 17.2% in the 2019 EU election (source)
The 2013 and 2014 results are less than a percentage point apart, so I would assume voter behavior does not differ systematically between EU and national elections. (If there were any systematic variation between national and EU results, other events with an effect on voter behavior between 2013 and 2014 would have countered that.)
The 2017 national election saw a peak (the reasons for which would make for another interesting question). Compared to that, the FPÖ has lost some 8.8 percentage points.
In percentage of votes, they have lost some 33% over 2017—I would not call that “virtually retaining its vote share”. (The quoted example of the Social Democrats in Romania corresponds to a 44% decline. The 2017–2019 decline in FPÖ votes is closer to that than to the 2014–2019 decline, which would be 14%).
answered May 27 at 19:04
user149408user149408
24622
add a comment |
Looking at the last two election results of the FPÖ at both national and EU level, one gets a different picture:
- 20.51% in the 2013 national election (source)
- 19.72% in the 2014 EU election (source)
- 26% in the 2017 national election (source)
- 17.2% in the 2019 EU election (source)
The 2013 and 2014 results are less than a percentage point apart, so I would assume voter behavior does not differ systematically between EU and national elections. (If there were any systematic variation between national and EU results, other events with an effect on voter behavior between 2013 and 2014 would have countered that.)
The 2017 national election saw a peak (the reasons for which would make for another interesting question). Compared to that, the FPÖ has lost some 8.8 percentage points.
In percentage of votes, they have lost some 33% over 2017—I would not call that “virtually retaining its vote share”. (The quoted example of the Social Democrats in Romania corresponds to a 44% decline. The 2017–2019 decline in FPÖ votes is closer to that than to the 2014–2019 decline, which would be 14%).
answered May 27 at 19:04
user149408user149408
24622
add a comment |
Looking at the last two election results of the FPÖ at both national and EU level, one gets a different picture:
- 20.51% in the 2013 national election (source)
- 19.72% in the 2014 EU election (source)
- 26% in the 2017 national election (source)
- 17.2% in the 2019 EU election (source)
The 2013 and 2014 results are less than a percentage point apart, so I would assume voter behavior does not differ systematically between EU and national elections. (If there were any systematic variation between national and EU results, other events with an effect on voter behavior between 2013 and 2014 would have countered that.)
The 2017 national election saw a peak (the reasons for which would make for another interesting question). Compared to that, the FPÖ has lost some 8.8 percentage points.
In percentage of votes, they have lost some 33% over 2017—I would not call that “virtually retaining its vote share”. (The quoted example of the Social Democrats in Romania corresponds to a 44% decline. The 2017–2019 decline in FPÖ votes is closer to that than to the 2014–2019 decline, which would be 14%).
answered May 27 at 19:04
user149408user149408
24622
Looking at the last two election results of the FPÖ at both national and EU level, one gets a different picture:
- 20.51% in the 2013 national election (source)
- 19.72% in the 2014 EU election (source)
- 26% in the 2017 national election (source)
- 17.2% in the 2019 EU election (source)
The 2013 and 2014 results are less than a percentage point apart, so I would assume voter behavior does not differ systematically between EU and national elections. (If there were any systematic variation between national and EU results, other events with an effect on voter behavior between 2013 and 2014 would have countered that.)
The 2017 national election saw a peak (the reasons for which would make for another interesting question). Compared to that, the FPÖ has lost some 8.8 percentage points.
In percentage of votes, they have lost some 33% over 2017—I would not call that “virtually retaining its vote share”. (The quoted example of the Social Democrats in Romania corresponds to a 44% decline. The 2017–2019 decline in FPÖ votes is closer to that than to the 2014–2019 decline, which would be 14%).
answered May 27 at 19:04
user149408user149408
24622
answered May 27 at 19:04
user149408user149408
24622
answered May 27 at 19:04
user149408user149408
24622
answered May 27 at 19:04
user149408user149408
24622
24622
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Politics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f41751%2fis-there-an-explanation-for-austrias-freedom-party-virtually-retaining-its-vote%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
4
The FPÖ's slogan for the EU election was "Now more than ever". They say the release of this video was an attempted political assasination (especially as it was released 2 years later), and that Strache took the necessary steps (i.e. resigning). Chancellor Kurz also dismissed Herbert Kickl (FPÖ) from his position as the minister of inner affairs. This resulted in the FPÖ convincing voters they are the primary victim in this governmental crisis and that the ÖVP is power-obsessed. FPÖ voters are more infuriated by this alleged political assasination than the actual content of the Ibiza video.
– Lukas Rotter
May 27 at 10:51
2
I feel the need to comment that your percentages are off. A reduction from 45% to 25% is not a 20% reduction, it's 45% reduction (0.45 * 0.55 = 0.25), similarly, a reduction from 19.7% to 17.2% is a 13% reduction (0.197 * 0.87 = 0.172). Note the difference from your original numbers: 20% vs 2.5% is 8x whereas 45% vs 13% is 3x. So the relative loss of the FPÖ is 1/3rd of the relative loss of the Romanian Social Democrats, which is a bit more significant than 1/8th.
– Matthieu M.
May 28 at 6:54
@MatthieuM. - yes, you are right. It is just that local media and people do not think in vote count (and in % vote count as a consequence). So 45% total votes for national parliamentary elections, about 25% at European Parliament elections => 20% difference of total votes (which are not the same between elections anyway). Of course, this is not mathematically correct, but politics is not an exact science either :).
– Alexei
May 28 at 7:12
5
To be a bit less pedantic and perhaps more helpful: The way the question compares votes is commonly referred to as "percentage points", for this very reason.
– Ruther Rendommeleigh
May 28 at 10:26
1
You are comparing the wrong things. If you want to know how much support they lost because of the video, you need to compare numbers from before the video with numbers after the video, not numbers from years ago to numbers after the video. After all, they could have gained 80% since the last elections, then lost 82.5% during the last weeks.
– Jörg W Mittag
May 28 at 19:50