Alexander Plyushchev about the results of "elections"

The most interesting thing was in these "elections" is a turnout, which was pulled by all means

The most interesting thing was in these "elections" is a turnout. Which was pulled in all ways, the main one: mass coercion to vote. I thought it would be limited to factories and polykliners, but here I complained from the symphonic orchestra of one city near Moscow-this is the level. But it is obvious that the installation on the turnout (70% or not - these are already parts) - it was.

But this, apparently, was not enough, all day Petya Verzilov wrote reports from Chechnya, from which it is clear how they are thrown in areas where there are no observers. They also sketched after, and how many were drawn in military units and other closed areas, how many were thrown where there were no observers, one can only guess. The declared turnout at 18.00-56%, and then this indicator for some reason disappeared from the reports for a long time, it was replaced by the interest of the candidates. By morning, it has already become 67%. Well, as they could, they pleased the old man: he received all his records that he wanted: more than half of all voters, more than in the last elections, more than in the “referendum” in the Crimea. Many have already written, but I can’t resist: Hello, Central Asia. But realists, regardless of their political preferences, do not understand, everyone understands that there are no elections in the country. One even likes it, the other is not, but there is a consensus about the fact itself.

Did the strike work? And did she work to the detriment of Putin's opponents? I’m not sure that it was she who caused those gigantic efforts to inflate the turnout, and no one was particularly eager for these “elections”, even Putin's supporters, it was clear what to walk. It is difficult for me to judge effectiveness, because I still do not see another model for truly oppositional in these “elections”. But, judging by what pressure was on observers from Navalny, everything to the point.

What exactly the strike worked: unlike past “elections”, people did not go to fake. Prokhorov then gained completely fantastic at the present time 8% (5.7 million) and took 3rd place in the country. Now all conditionally liberal candidates have gained 3.5% (2.5 million) for all, this is an obvious consequence of Navalny's strike. Well, there are 2.5 million naive voters for 108 million voters.

Grudinin perfectly coped with the task as much as possible to marginalize the left 12.6% (8 million) against 17% (12 million) Zyuganov - this is Fiasco, a bro. Well, he, however, is just a charming, but not very smart mustachioed (so far) uncle, it’s better to return Gennady Andreyich.

Vladimir Volfovich is quite stable - 5.7% (4.1 million) against 6.2 (4.5 million), I must admit, well done, this is without particular effort, at this age, and, it would seem, it should bore even worse than Putin.

Whatever Navalny said, Sobchak spent the most powerful campaign. This is not my candidate anyway, but this cannot be recognized. Yes, she used her own administrative resource to the fullest. One likes it (but now there is a plate), the other - no (Ksyusha simply played along), but the fact is evident - none of the admitted candidates worked as Sobchak did. Maybe they did not have an administrative resource, but there are examples when, say, activity and passionarity work completely. Well, in the Ponycype, no one is one Grigory Alekseevich, the rest did not even try to portray something. Another thing is that the result is about the same. What fakes, that junior is in less demand.

You can rudely estimate how much it participated in the Navalnovskaya strike. If we assume that 8% of Prokhorov is, conditionally, a potential electorate of Navalny plus a number of voters should have been added over 6 years due to young people. The minus is some people who personally do not digest the spirit. Well, let's leave the same 5.7 million minus 2.5 million voted for the liberals admitted. Total, very rudely, it was at the call of Navalny to the polls that 3.2 million people did not go. You can take into account some other aspects, but plus minus, I think, the assessment is true.

Now suppose that Navalny was still allowed. We do not know how the campaign would develop, and who would participate in it in this case, but in general two things are obvious. Putin would have won the first round, but with a somewhat worst result. Navalny would receive his own, who did not come yesterday, would take from Sobchak, Grudinin and Yavlinsky (he would have taken away from Titov, but there’s nothing to take away there) and guaranteed to take third place, like Prokhorov. But there it is already very close to the second and much depends on the campaign. Well, it would be much tougher, more massive and motivated by observation when you look not for considerations of the strike, but from the candidate, so it would be more difficult with falsifications. That's why Putin would have less.

That is why Navalny was not allowed: the third, or, God forbid, the second place formalizes the status of the main opponent of Putin. Which, moreover, is also not so triumphantly wins.

Source