As I said, I’m not saying it’s the case here. It’s just collateral damage of the disinformation age we live in. I’m not trusting "trends" in data unless I spend 1 or more hours looking it up myself and hoping I can avoid being mislead.

Here I guess it didn’t help that the first map was trying to convey a link between Macron voters and British inhabitants. Anytime I see suggested links between voters, culture, immigration, etc. I’m prudent. It’s surely interesting in its own, but I can’t resist asking myself "why is the author mentioning this? Did he came across this data and then found interesting correlations? Or was he looking for trends that would bring support to some views he has? It’d be ok-ish if such approach was open, like, "here’s my thesis, and here’s data supporting this thesis." But when there’s no thesis, just "interesting trends", pretending it’s up to the reader to make his own conclusions… More often than not, it’s a dishonest cherry-picking with some more or less forced untold conclusions waiting to be made.

So, I just stay away from such articles, even if I know some of them aren’t dishonest. It’s collateral damage of the disinformation war.