{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03099059214167128, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0011068068622025456, 'mean_word_length': 5.128813559322034, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Conflict mobilization for Le Pen, problem- solving for Macron: voting models reveal two opposite visions of France

So, Macron and Le Pen get to the second round. An historical result that – as almost all commentators highlighted – excludes both socialists and the neo-Gaullist right, who had dominated the French political life for decades (Michel in this volume). However, what are the reasons and voting motivations behind this result? Where does Macron’s success come from? What about his cross-cutting appeal? What about Mélenchon’s exploit? Does it come from his controversial positions? Or is it an identification vote by the French left, disappointed with the Hamon candidacy? We can’t answer to these questions only by looking at the candidates’ profiles and their presence on the media; we do need data. Data collected at the individual level, possibly covering a wide range of political issues. This is exactly the kind of data that CISE gathered few weeks before the election day, through a peculiar pre-electoral survey (Paparo, De Sio and Michel in this volume). It’s a distinctive investigation including a high number of real-world salient issues (more than 20 issues), within a comparative project that has already covered the Netherlands (De Sio in this volume) and is soon going to cover the UK, as well as Germany, Austria, and Italy. The day after the first round, we analysed this data through specific statistical tools (technically speaking, we estimated, for vote intentions to each candidate, a set of binominal logistic regression block models), in order to understand to what extent different respondent characteristics and motivations determined the intention to vote for each candidate. For simplicity reasons, we grouped several variables together in four fundamental classes: