Sweden election 2022

[Clarko95 📚💰📈]

Yes, policy-wise an S and M government (or at least some kind of support deal) could indeed work well.

Both parties represent The Establishment^TM and thus share a number of policy positions and have compatible governing attitudes:

• Both parties prefer incremental change and pursuing broad consensus and dislike radical policy swings.
• Both parties agree that the threat from Russia should be taken seriously and Sweden's defenses should be strengthened (especially the airforce and cybersecurity).
• Both parties now agree on NATO membership.
• Both parties agree that Sweden has taken in a large number of refugees and asylum seekers in a very short time period and while a minimum number should continue to be accepted, the overall numbers need to be cut
• Both parties agree that Sweden's immigration rules for low-earning labor are too generous and should be tightened, and conversely Sweden needs to do more to make high-skill/highly-educated immigration more attractive
• Both parties agree that growing segregation is a problem and undermines social cohesion
• Both parties agree that the uptick in violent crime is unacceptable and the police should be given more powers to deal with issues such as increased gang activity
• While they disagree on the specifics (obviously S being the labor union party and wants more worker-friendly policies while M is the party of the business community and wants to tweak rules such as the turn-taking and hiring & firing protections), both parties agree on the general structure of the Swedish Model regarding the pillars of the welfare state and maintaining the current labor market structure.
• Both parties agree that an industrial base should be maintained and becoming a purely service-based economy is undesirable.
• Both parties agree that nuclear energy forms a reliable base for about 35%-41% of electricity generation and going all-in on renewables carries too many risks.

But of course, as Realpolitik said, they despise each other to a pretty strong degree. M's entire thing is that they can take out a social democratic government, so supporting such a government or even PM would be a betrayal of their main issue. S would almost certainly demand the post of prime minister in any such arrangement as a condition for support, and this is unacceptable to M.

This isn't like Germany where the SPD and CDU can agree on things even when out of power (e.g. the asylum compromise between the CDU-FDP government and the SPD in 1992 or the defense spending package this past spring between the Scholz government and the CDU) or even like Finland where the Big 3 parties (SDP, NCP, Centre) take turns forming governments of two parties and then one goes into opposition. The SAP has been so dominant in Sweden historically that it changes the dynamic completely.

[Clarko95 📚💰📈]

Lööf announces her resignation as party leader, will stay on until new leader chosen at party conference

[Leading Political Consultant Ma Anand Sheela]

Lööf announces her resignation as party leader

Press F to pay respects to the straight Kyrsten Sinema.

[If my soul was made of stone]

Lööf announces her resignation as party leader

Press F to pay respects to the straight Kyrsten Sinema.

sad piano remix of this

[Person Man]

Yes, policy-wise an S and M government (or at least some kind of support deal) could indeed work well.

Both parties represent The Establishment^TM and thus share a number of policy positions and have compatible governing attitudes:

• Both parties prefer incremental change and pursuing broad consensus and dislike radical policy swings.
• Both parties agree that the threat from Russia should be taken seriously and Sweden's defenses should be strengthened (especially the airforce and cybersecurity).
• Both parties now agree on NATO membership.
• Both parties agree that Sweden has taken in a large number of refugees and asylum seekers in a very short time period and while a minimum number should continue to be accepted, the overall numbers need to be cut
• Both parties agree that Sweden's immigration rules for low-earning labor are too generous and should be tightened, and conversely Sweden needs to do more to make high-skill/highly-educated immigration more attractive
• Both parties agree that growing segregation is a problem and that the police should be strengthened to deal with issues such as increased gang activity
• While they disagree on the specifics (obviously S being the labor union party and wants more worker-friendly policies while M is the party of the business community and wants to tweak rules such as the turn-taking and hiring & firing protections), both parties agree on the general structure of the Swedish Model regarding the pillars of the welfare state and maintaining the current labor market.
• Both parties agree that an industrial base should be maintained and becoming a purely service-based economy is undesirable.
• Both parties agree that nuclear energy forms a reliable base for about 35% of electricity generation and going fully-renewables carries too many risks.

But of course, as Realpolitik said, they despise each other to a pretty strong degree. M's entire thing is that they can take out a social democratic government, so supporting such a government or even PM would be a betrayal of their main issue. S would almost certainly demand the post of prime minister in any such arrangement as a condition for support, and this is unacceptable to M.

This isn't like Germany where the SPD and CDU can agree on things even when out of power (e.g. the asylum compromise between the CDU-FDP government and the SPD in 1992 or the defense spending package this past spring between the Scholz government and the CDU) or even like Finland where the Big 3 parties (SDP, NCP, Centre) take turns forming governments of two parties and then one goes into opposition. The SAP has been so dominant in Sweden historically that it changes the dynamic completely.

So such a coalition would be very "conservative" in a low-c way.

[perpetual_cynic]

Yes, policy-wise an S and M government (or at least some kind of support deal) could indeed work well.

Both parties represent The Establishment^TM and thus share a number of policy positions and have compatible governing attitudes:

• Both parties prefer incremental change and pursuing broad consensus and dislike radical policy swings.
• Both parties agree that the threat from Russia should be taken seriously and Sweden's defenses should be strengthened (especially the airforce and cybersecurity).
• Both parties now agree on NATO membership.
• Both parties agree that Sweden has taken in a large number of refugees and asylum seekers in a very short time period and while a minimum number should continue to be accepted, the overall numbers need to be cut
• Both parties agree that Sweden's immigration rules for low-earning labor are too generous and should be tightened, and conversely Sweden needs to do more to make high-skill/highly-educated immigration more attractive
• Both parties agree that growing segregation is a problem and that the police should be strengthened to deal with issues such as increased gang activity
• While they disagree on the specifics (obviously S being the labor union party and wants more worker-friendly policies while M is the party of the business community and wants to tweak rules such as the turn-taking and hiring & firing protections), both parties agree on the general structure of the Swedish Model regarding the pillars of the welfare state and maintaining the current labor market.
• Both parties agree that an industrial base should be maintained and becoming a purely service-based economy is undesirable.
• Both parties agree that nuclear energy forms a reliable base for about 35% of electricity generation and going fully-renewables carries too many risks.

But of course, as Realpolitik said, they despise each other to a pretty strong degree. M's entire thing is that they can take out a social democratic government, so supporting such a government or even PM would be a betrayal of their main issue. S would almost certainly demand the post of prime minister in any such arrangement as a condition for support, and this is unacceptable to M.

This isn't like Germany where the SPD and CDU can agree on things even when out of power (e.g. the asylum compromise between the CDU-FDP government and the SPD in 1992 or the defense spending package this past spring between the Scholz government and the CDU) or even like Finland where the Big 3 parties (SDP, NCP, Centre) take turns forming governments of two parties and then one goes into opposition. The SAP has been so dominant in Sweden historically that it changes the dynamic completely.

I'm not as familiar with Swedish politics as those of the U.S. or Canada, however, I was very interested to see the trends with the particular blocs over time (MP+V+S+C) vs (M+SD+KD+L) and I took it back to the 1998 elections just for reference. It seems there are large international trends going on with the rural drift to the populist and far-right (Trumpism in the United States), the (AfD in Germany), and the (SD in rural southern Sweden) that continued in this election if I'm not wrong. I also was super struck by the huge crash of Moderaterna and Liberalerna in the largest cities, particularly Uppsala and Stockholm. Do you think this has to do with the drift towards the populist right by the M under Kristersson? We also saw this trend I think after Brexit, Trump in the US, and Australia under Morrison (although not a populist drift in Australia). I knew Stockholm has long been more right-wing than most other European capitals, at least economically liberal but the right seems to have all but collapsed in the city. I guess my question is whether Stockholm and the cities have moved leftward or whether the right including M and L has moved right and why?

[Secretary of State Liberal Hack]

But of course, as Realpolitik said, they despise each other to a pretty strong degree. M's entire thing is that they can take out a social democratic government, so supporting such a government or even PM would be a betrayal of their main issue. S would almost certainly demand the post of prime minister in any such arrangement as a condition for support, and this is unacceptable to M.

This isn't like Germany where the SPD and CDU can agree on things even when out of power (e.g. the asylum compromise between the CDU-FDP government and the SPD in 1992 or the defense spending package this past spring between the Scholz government and the CDU) or even like Finland where the Big 3 parties (SDP, NCP, Centre) take turns forming governments of two parties and then one goes into opposition. The SAP has been so dominant in Sweden historically that it changes the dynamic completely.

Are there any details about that avaliable ?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

however, I was very interested to see the trends with the particular blocs over time (MP+V+S+C) vs (M+SD+KD+L) and I took it back to the 1998 elections just for reference.

You cannot do this meaningfully as those blocks are new. Until recently the arrangement was between a Socialist block (the SAP, V and the latterly the Greens) and what was always called the Bourgeois Block (M, C, KD, L). The SDs were at first a fringe party, and then a party with a substantial following with the status of parliamentary lepers.

[JimJamUK]

You cannot do this meaningfully as those blocks are new. Until recently the arrangement was between a Socialist block (the SAP, V and the latterly the Greens) and what was always called the Bourgeois Block (M, C, KD, L). The SDs were at first a fringe party, and then a party with a substantial following with the status of parliamentary lepers.

You can’t even do a straight comparison to the 2018 election either. C and L were right wing parties that pointed to an M prime minister (but not if the SD were part of the majority). At 41% for SAP, V and MP, support for an SAP led government was clearly a minority opinion. With C de facto switching sides this year, 49% of people voted for parties that wanted an SAP led government. Really, this was in many respects a very good performance for the centre-left government, the problem being that they ‘shouldn’t’ have been in government in the first place.

[Oryxslayer]

You cannot do this meaningfully as those blocks are new. Until recently the arrangement was between a Socialist block (the SAP, V and the latterly the Greens) and what was always called the Bourgeois Block (M, C, KD, L). The SDs were at first a fringe party, and then a party with a substantial following with the status of parliamentary lepers.

You can’t even do a straight comparison to the 2018 election either. C and L were right wing parties that pointed to an M prime minister (but not if the SD were part of the majority). At 41% for SAP, V and MP, support for an SAP led government was clearly a minority opinion. With C de facto switching sides this year, 49% of people voted for parties that wanted an SAP led government. Really, this was in many respects a very good performance for the centre-left government, the problem being that they ‘shouldn’t’ have been in government in the first place.

No, the SAP bock won the 2018 election by whatever measure you use.

 They got one more seat over the Blue Block based on 2018 coalitions, not the same 1-seat margin they ended with. Based on the expectations at the time, this made them the winners. Since both blocks still observed the SD cordon, the common wisdom was such that whatever block came in first would have a minority government - or a majority one with support from the opposing camp. This obviously all changed after a few years of government.

If we are to measure by the 2022 coalitions then S+C+V+MP got 175 seats to the Blues and SD's 174. They got a combined 49.28% to 49.18% for the Blues, or 50.05% of votes for the parties that won seats. For comparison, the Blue's 2-seat margin this time was won with 49.58% to 48.9%, or 50.35% of votes for the parties that won seats.

[rob in cal]

  Is the M party basically on board with the lions share of the SD immigration program?

[perpetual_cynic]

You cannot do this meaningfully as those blocks are new. Until recently the arrangement was between a Socialist block (the SAP, V and the latterly the Greens) and what was always called the Bourgeois Block (M, C, KD, L). The SDs were at first a fringe party, and then a party with a substantial following with the status of parliamentary lepers.

You can’t even do a straight comparison to the 2018 election either. C and L were right wing parties that pointed to an M prime minister (but not if the SD were part of the majority). At 41% for SAP, V and MP, support for an SAP led government was clearly a minority opinion. With C de facto switching sides this year, 49% of people voted for parties that wanted an SAP led government. Really, this was in many respects a very good performance for the centre-left government, the problem being that they ‘shouldn’t’ have been in government in the first place.

Regardless of the exact percentages, Stockholm has moved leftward consistently since 1998 at the level of the Riksdag and municipal levels as the L and M seek further cooperation with SD. This is a consistent pattern I've studied in many historically right-wing strongholds with highly educated and wealthy populations. Like how moderate R's in this U.S. abandoned the R's under a more populist message compared to the old-school economic liberalism. M support in Stockholm Kommune is at a record low and this isn't because its going to L or SD. The support has shifted left to MP, V and S.

[perpetual_cynic]

You cannot do this meaningfully as those blocks are new. Until recently the arrangement was between a Socialist block (the SAP, V and the latterly the Greens) and what was always called the Bourgeois Block (M, C, KD, L). The SDs were at first a fringe party, and then a party with a substantial following with the status of parliamentary lepers.

You can’t even do a straight comparison to the 2018 election either. C and L were right wing parties that pointed to an M prime minister (but not if the SD were part of the majority). At 41% for SAP, V and MP, support for an SAP led government was clearly a minority opinion. With C de facto switching sides this year, 49% of people voted for parties that wanted an SAP led government. Really, this was in many respects a very good performance for the centre-left government, the problem being that they ‘shouldn’t’ have been in government in the first place.

This becomes even more evident when you consider the loosely defined bloc of left and right with that of the nation. If you take the blocs that I did (although I know the blocs have somewhat changed), the nation has moved right, while Stockholm has moved even more strikingly left over the same period. If you take the blocs that I defined we have these shifts of 2022 relative to the 2018, 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002 and 1998 elections respectively:

Stockholm Kommune:
V+S+MP+C+FI: 58.5%, +5%, +6%, +12%, 13%, +8%, +11%
M+SD+KD+L: 39.7%, -5%, -7%, -12%, -10%, -7%, -10%
Sweden:
V+S+MP+C+FI: 48.8%, -1%, -4%, -1%, -5%, -10%, -9%
M+SD+KD+L: 49.5%, +1%, +3%, +1%, +5%, +10%, +9%

What is happening in Stockholm is the exact opposite of what's going on in the country.

[Clarko95 📚💰📈]

Turns out that whole "throw immigrants under the bus because they'll always vote for us anyways" strategy didn't work out so well now, did it?

The Social Democrats are losing voters in Stockholm's vulnerable areas, where many chose not to vote. It shows a review of the preliminary election results that SvD has carried out.

In central Rinkeby, in Järva, in Stockholm, the Social Democrats lost 53 percent of their votes, from 77 percent in 2018 to 36 percent in this year's election (a 41 percentage point decline).

Another trend is that voter turnout decreases in areas classified as vulnerable by the police. In Jordbro in Haninge municipality, you could already see on Thursday, when the vote counting was still going on, that turnout had fallen by an average of 8 percentage points.

The same development can also be seen in other areas that the police class as vulnerable areas - in Hallunda, Norsborg and Botkyrka, turnout decreased by 12.4 percentage points.

I remember when I was at the election party in 2018 how the room cheered when the Rinkeby-Järva numbers came on screen. But this year all of the parties, including S, talked about these areas and their people only as problems, rather than as people in dire need of help and solutions. Neither party has been very good at proposing reasonable solutions for people who live there.

It doesn't help that the crime wave has affected these areas the most over the past 3-4 years under an S-government, too.

[Kahane's Grave Is A Gender-Neutral Bathroom]

Bronz SvenskBrons YaBB God ★★★★★ Posts: 8,292

Swedish Elections 2022 « on: September 15, 2022 at 12:00:00 AM » Is the reason young people are not voting for SAP because of the migrant rape problem? Many people at the värdshus were saying this.

[ingemann]

Turns out that whole "throw immigrants under the bus because they'll always vote for us anyways" strategy didn't work out so well now, did it?

The Social Democrats are losing voters in Stockholm's vulnerable areas, where many chose not to vote. It shows a review of the preliminary election results that SvD has carried out.

In central Rinkeby, in Järva, in Stockholm, the Social Democrats lost 53 percent of their votes, from 77 percent in 2018 to 36 percent in this year's election (a 41 percentage point decline).

Another trend is that voter turnout decreases in areas classified as vulnerable by the police. In Jordbro in Haninge municipality, you could already see on Thursday, when the vote counting was still going on, that turnout had fallen by an average of 8 percentage points.

The same development can also be seen in other areas that the police class as vulnerable areas - in Hallunda, Norsborg and Botkyrka, turnout decreased by 12.4 percentage points.

I remember when I was at the election party in 2018 how the room cheered when the Rinkeby-Järva numbers came on screen. But this year all of the parties, including S, talked about these areas and their people only as problems, rather than as people in dire need of help and solutions. Neither party has been very good at proposing reasonable solutions for people who live there.

It doesn't help that the crime wave has affected these areas the most over the past 3-4 years under an S-government, too.

They ended up increasing their voter share and almost won a election everyone thought they would lose at a point with increased focus on their main weaknesses (immigration and crime). Even with the decades of failed immigration policies, these voter groups means next to nothing compared to the votes the Social Democrats has lost to the Sweden Democrats, the risk with their move to a harder line on immigration and crime was not the loss of a few Muslim votes, but whether they would lose more social liberal middle class ethnic Swedes than they gain or keep less social liberal potential voters.

[Intell]

Turns out that whole "throw immigrants under the bus because they'll always vote for us anyways" strategy didn't work out so well now, did it?

The Social Democrats are losing voters in Stockholm's vulnerable areas, where many chose not to vote. It shows a review of the preliminary election results that SvD has carried out.

In central Rinkeby, in Järva, in Stockholm, the Social Democrats lost 53 percent of their votes, from 77 percent in 2018 to 36 percent in this year's election (a 41 percentage point decline).

Another trend is that voter turnout decreases in areas classified as vulnerable by the police. In Jordbro in Haninge municipality, you could already see on Thursday, when the vote counting was still going on, that turnout had fallen by an average of 8 percentage points.

The same development can also be seen in other areas that the police class as vulnerable areas - in Hallunda, Norsborg and Botkyrka, turnout decreased by 12.4 percentage points.

I remember when I was at the election party in 2018 how the room cheered when the Rinkeby-Järva numbers came on screen. But this year all of the parties, including S, talked about these areas and their people only as problems, rather than as people in dire need of help and solutions. Neither party has been very good at proposing reasonable solutions for people who live there.

It doesn't help that the crime wave has affected these areas the most over the past 3-4 years under an S-government, too.

They ended up increasing their voter share and almost won a election everyone thought they would lose at a point with increased focus on their main weaknesses (immigration and crime). Even with the decades of failed immigration policies, these voter groups means next to nothing compared to the votes the Social Democrats has lost to the Sweden Democrats, the risk with their move to a harder line on immigration and crime was not the loss of a few Muslim votes, but whether they would lose more social liberal middle class ethnic Swedes than they gain or keep less social liberal potential voters.

Didn't they nearly win due to the surge of S in like the cities and traditionally 'burgeois' areas, who were put off by the shift right of M towards the SD though?

[Clarko95 📚💰📈]

They ended up increasing their voter share and almost won a election everyone thought they would lose at a point with increased focus on their main weaknesses (immigration and crime). Even with the decades of failed immigration policies, these voter groups means next to nothing compared to the votes the Social Democrats has lost to the Sweden Democrats, the risk with their move to a harder line on immigration and crime was not the loss of a few Muslim votes, but whether they would lose more social liberal middle class ethnic Swedes than they gain or keep less social liberal potential voters.

Well it still clearly didn't work either way? S still had a net loss to SD and drew just about even with net votes from M.

It's not a zero-sum game, contrary to what many people think. S had a positive message from this spring and early summer where they talked about crime, segregation, the welfare state, and national defense. I was pleasantly surprised when Andersson finally came out against the privatization of schools, which is a major contributor to segregation along with Sweden's disastrous housing policies over the past 30 years (funny how we always blame "decades of failed immigration policies" and not ever on "decades of failed housing and educational policies", but that would shift blame from the scary Muslims and terrible black people to the poor choices that ethnic Swedes, who are always perfect and innocent, have made themselves).

It was a message that appealed to everyone. Believe it or not, you can compete for both groups' votes at the same time. Yet for some reason, S chose to drop that broad popular message and tried to out-SD SD. Desperately saying things like "Somalitowns" and "40% non-Nordic ethnic quotas" don't convince anyone after decades of saying such things are beyond the pale, and all they do is demotivate people whose voting choices are between voting left or not voting at all. So you don't gain anything at all.

Just eye-balling some of these districts, S had major losses that were not fully made up by gains for V, and large percentages went to "Other" while turnout overall was down. So the Andersson coalition lost votes both due to "Other" and also to "didn't vote" in these areas. Just looking at areas like Botkyrka, Skärholmen, Spånga, Rinkeby, Sigtuna, Hagalund, etc. you can count large vote losses there. And that was just a quick view at the Stockholm area's most immigrant-heavy neighborhoods.

Now add up abstentions and defections across the whole country, from people who live outside of vulnerable areas and decided that no party stood for them, or didn't want to choose between SD and endorsing "SD but with a rose logo" and you can see that those votes counted in a close election. A single mandate is roughly 20,000 votes as a rule of thumb. It didn't have to be an either/or campaign message for S. And seeing how incredibly negative and un-substantive this election was, it's not a surprise that turnout dropped so sharply.

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

Results for the parliamentary election are now finalized. Which means we also know how the small parties out-side of parliament did.

Top-ten looked like this:

1. Partiet Nyans (PNy) Nuance Party - 28 352 - 0,44%
2. Alternativ för Sverige (AfS) Alternative for Sweden - 16 646 - 0,26%
3. Medborgerlig samling (Med) Citizens' Coalition - 12 882 - 0,20%
4. Piratpartiet (PP) Pirate Party - 9 135 - 0,14%
5. Partiet MoD (MD) Party MoD "Bravery"¹ - 6 077 - 0,09%
6. Kristna Värdepartiet (KrVP) Christian Values Party - 5 983 - 0,09%
7. Knapptryckarna (Kn) The Button Pushers² - 5 493 - 0,08%
8. Feministiskt initiativ (FI) Feminist Initiative - 3 157 - 0,05%
9. Landsbygdspartiet Oberoende (LPO) Independent Countryside Party - 2 215 - 0,03
10. Direktdemokraterna (DD) Direct Democracy - 1 755 - 0,03%

The big thing people here are talking about is Nuance. They polled very well in some muslim and immigrant neighbourhoods in big cities and considering how close the election turned out to be, some people are saying that the Social Democrats lost power due to Nuance taking votes from them and the Left Party.

It's also interesting to note just how terrible Feminist Initiative did when you consider the party was close to enter parliament just 8 years ago and was the biggest of the small parties just 4 years ago. I don't think the party will survive much longer.

¹They're Covid conspiracy theorists who are against vaccinations and Covid restrictions

²They're a party that supports some sort of Direct Democracy. They're just in parliament to press the buttons on what the people wants.

[If my soul was made of stone]

It's also interesting to note just how terrible Feminist Initiative did when you consider the party was close to enter parliament just 8 years ago and was the biggest of the small parties just 4 years ago. I don't think the party will survive much longer.

[Clarko95 📚💰📈]

Kristersson is (informally) given first chance to probe formation of a government. No surprise there. "Informally" because it is actually the next Speaker of the Riksdag who sets the official time limit for Kristersson to negotiate a new government.

Theoretically, a new prime minister could be elected the week that the new parliament opens (next week, on the 27th). However, Radio Ekot's analysis of parliamentary regulations predicts that the absolute earliest a PM vote could take place would be the 30th, as the new speaker (if not the incumbent Andreas Norlén) must have time to officially and formally hold the Speaker rounds, after which proposals for a new prime minister must both be submitted to the Riksdag and tabled twice before it can be voted on.

Norlén held an informal Speaker's round over the past few days, including meeting Andersson and the leaders of the conservative bloc parties, and the four parties indicated Kristersson as their candidate. Interestingly, the Riksdag must meet first on Monday the 26th and elect a new Speaker (undetermined who that will be) before the new Riksdag formally convenes on Tuesday the 27th.

If Kristersson is elected PM, he would be Sweden's 35th prime minister leading it's 53rd government. In 2018, the process took a record 134 days, and there are few expectations that this will happen again.

[Clarko95 📚💰📈]

Regarding the conservative bloc's negotiations:

- Busch says talks for M+KD+L+SD began on Thursday

- SD wants to participate in government and says it would feel better with a majority government (possible opening for L?)

- L wants to be in government and SD to be out of it, of course

- Busch says that KD's official stance that M+KD form a government with support from SD and L remain, but it is not a red line

- SD continues to demand the post of Speaker of the Riksdag, but says that he sees negotiations between the four parties as something long-term, not something rushed

- Busch hopes that S will remain open for cross-bloc decisions on nuclear power, combatting terrorism, defense policy, integration, and healthcare

- Kristersson has asked Oscar Stenström, the State Secretary for Foreign Affairs, to remain as Sweden's negotiator for NATO ascension

[Clarko95 📚💰📈]

Fun Fact: Stockholm County is no longer the strongest region for M as of this election. That honor now goes to Halland County on the west coast, which gave 22,5% for M compared to 21,9% for Stockholm County.

The strongest single district for M was of course in Stockholm's wealthy northeastern suburbs, in the municipality that was also the strongest for M (Danderyd, 41,0%), in a voting district called Södra Djursholm.

With 58,5% for M and 3,3% for S and 1,1% for V, it looks exactly how you would expect:

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

- SD continues to demand the post of Speaker of the Riksdag, but says that he sees negotiations between the four parties as something long-term, not something rushed

Of course the Speaker is chosen by secret ballot, so it doesn't really matter what the four parties agree to in public if Johan Pehrson cannot make sure all but one of the Liberal MP:s vote for a Sweden Democrat instead of whoever the Social Democrats nominate, in a secret ballot.

Considering Andreas Norlén would win easily if he was renominated, it'd be silly for them to instead nominate a Sweden Democrat and most likely lose the Speakership.   

[ingemann]

They ended up increasing their voter share and almost won a election everyone thought they would lose at a point with increased focus on their main weaknesses (immigration and crime). Even with the decades of failed immigration policies, these voter groups means next to nothing compared to the votes the Social Democrats has lost to the Sweden Democrats, the risk with their move to a harder line on immigration and crime was not the loss of a few Muslim votes, but whether they would lose more social liberal middle class ethnic Swedes than they gain or keep less social liberal potential voters.

Well it still clearly didn't work either way? S still had a net loss to SD and drew just about even with net votes from M.

It's not a zero-sum game, contrary to what many people think. S had a positive message from this spring and early summer where they talked about crime, segregation, the welfare state, and national defense. I was pleasantly surprised when Andersson finally came out against the privatization of schools, which is a major contributor to segregation along with Sweden's disastrous housing policies over the past 30 years (funny how we always blame "decades of failed immigration policies" and not ever on "decades of failed housing and educational policies", but that would shift blame from the scary Muslims and terrible black people to the poor choices that ethnic Swedes, who are always perfect and innocent, have made themselves).

It was a message that appealed to everyone. Believe it or not, you can compete for both groups' votes at the same time. Yet for some reason, S chose to drop that broad popular message and tried to out-SD SD. Desperately saying things like "Somalitowns" and "40% non-Nordic ethnic quotas" don't convince anyone after decades of saying such things are beyond the pale, and all they do is demotivate people whose voting choices are between voting left or not voting at all. So you don't gain anything at all.

Just eye-balling some of these districts, S had major losses that were not fully made up by gains for V, and large percentages went to "Other" while turnout overall was down. So the Andersson coalition lost votes both due to "Other" and also to "didn't vote" in these areas. Just looking at areas like Botkyrka, Skärholmen, Spånga, Rinkeby, Sigtuna, Hagalund, etc. you can count large vote losses there. And that was just a quick view at the Stockholm area's most immigrant-heavy neighborhoods.

Now add up abstentions and defections across the whole country, from people who live outside of vulnerable areas and decided that no party stood for them, or didn't want to choose between SD and endorsing "SD but with a rose logo" and you can see that those votes counted in a close election. A single mandate is roughly 20,000 votes as a rule of thumb. It didn't have to be an either/or campaign message for S. And seeing how incredibly negative and un-substantive this election was, it's not a surprise that turnout dropped so sharply.

I think you’re overly optimistic, if you think the few thousand Islamists and Turkish fascists, they could have gotten from Nyans hadn’t cost them more votes to SD. While I get this is a ideological standpoint from your side, from a pure realpolitik POV the SocDem did incredible well, they had been in power for 8 years, immigration and crime ended up major issues, both where they could expect to lose votes to the right at the same time the economy is in the crapper (but that is obvious caused by external factors). Embracing the political talking point that the problem with crimes and immigration were the fault of the Swedish society not being tolerant enough of these people would not have been a success, even If it had from your POV been the correct moral decision.