the differences are just exaggerated, here.

- clinton may have worked for bankers, but there was some reason to think she'd push back a little. macron is a banker. full stop. pick your cliche; let's go with foxes and hen houses, although hands in the cookie jar works, too. that makes macron far worse.

- you couldn't take a word trump said seriously. le pen is clearly not the fool that trump is, and she comes from a lineage with a history of standing up for people. her threats are believable.

again: it's lesser evil. they're both terrible. but..

i said during the last election in the states that i agreed with clinton more than i agreed with trump about 53% of the time. that means i agreed with trump over clinton about 47% of the time. so, it was hardly a ringing endorsement, right?

what i'm saying here is that the situation is flipped - because macron is that much worse than clinton, and le pen is that much better than trump, the situation flips over: i end up agreeing with le pen over macron 53% of the time.

not a ringing endorsement. lesser evilism. and with the caveat of understood russian ventriloquists snaking around in the background.

it's more of a brutal rejection of macron. and, what i'm getting at is that my logic might end up replicated fairly widely.