I am voting Bayrou, because if he comes to the 2nd run, he'll probably win.
regarding your translation of "rupture tranquille" I'd prefer something like "the worrisome quiet break off". Sarkozy has been campaigning for years for a "break off" from the current system (leftwing gaullism). When they understood that the break off could be a bit too much for the majority of the French in the sense that they are not ready for neoliberalism, they added "quiet" to the word.
as for Royal's public pronouncements, this looks like a standard anglo-saxon campaign to me at this point, two major parties, much style over substance.
if you think Royal is "an airhead" i wonder what you'd call Kerry. Fai de bèn a Bertrand, te lou rendra en cagant
the difference with Sego is that she pretends to represent a "new style", a "rupture" like Sarkozy but of course in a different direction. The problem is that her discourse isn't coherent, to the difference of Sarkozy's.
she had gathered amazing statements about the role of diplomacy (in general), Iran, "participative democracy" to name a few since she started her campaign. That shows instability.
As for Royal, you have to consider what happened in 2002 on the left (and by this I mean all the left), and importantly, why it happened. For all this talk about rupture, the more important thing imho to consider on the Royal side is fracture.
Here you have a candidate who needs to speak to multiple left constituencies. These constituencies are quite different, running from the social democratic wing represented by DSK and favored by quite a few PS partisans (among others, Jérôme I believe) all the way to casual supporters of a far left, Laguiller and Besancenot, in passing by those (like me) who favor more conventional (and comprehensive) approaches to countering creeping anglo-saxon neo-liberalism.
Don't forget, that Jospin lost in 2002 because of an extremely fractured left, which got 42% of total votes (and a bit more than half of all non-Le Pen votes) but Jospin only a bit more than a third of these.
Why did this happen? Everyone has their opinion. Mine has to do with how Aubry and Jospin implemented 35 hours and how that played with the left rank-and file, then less with security issues that Chirac and Le Pen trumped up.
So now you have Royal needing to look forward in recreating the left as well as the public image of the left (which is why both DSK and Fabius were imho not optimal candidates), and at the same time appealing to multiple constituencies which are ideologically quite disimilar. Fai de bèn a Bertrand, te lou rendra en cagant
In Bercy, he was the worst kind of interventionist one can imagine, and he was totally incoherent in his actions.
I see a lot more coherence in Ségolène Royal, who makes very specific points with her most provocative moves (grabbing the theme of security and toughness, for instance, neutralises a big angle of attack against her while not changing much her attractiveness to the left). In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
'Rupture tranquille' has a mitterrandian resonance which might play against Sarkozy. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
Besides I have a feeling that the French are more and more tired of the couple Sego-Sarko dominating the debate.
I am expecting a little convenient scandal to show up soon regarding one of the main candidates.
You're leaving me scratching my head there. Who -- beyond Jospin in 2002, obviously -- are the "favourites" who didn't make it to Round Two?
I expect you'll say Balladur in 1995, but Chirac was all the same the leader of the main party and the natural candidate of the right. And in elections before that? Chirac-Mitterand 1988, Giscard-Mitterand 1981, Giscard-Mitterand 1974... You'd have to go back to 1969 and say that it was a surprise Jacques Duclos didn't make it to the second round, which is arguable.
If there's a pattern, it seems to me one in which the leaders of the two main left-right blocs end up in Round Two. That was why 2002 was such a bombshell.
This seems to me like a fairly standard political game. Of course, as you say, a "scandal" could change things. That's true, though, of any election anywhere.
En 1988, il est candidat à l'élection présidentielle et obtient 16,5 % des voix au premier tour. Donné favori par beaucoup de sondage quelques mois avant l'élection y compris devant Francois Mitterand, il est victime d'une véritable entreprise de démolition de la part du camp de Jacques Chirac et notamment de son lieutenant,Charles Pasqua. Il est à noter que beaucoup plus tard, François Mitterrand rendra hommage à Raymond Barre en le qualifiant de "véritable homme d'Etat". Il restera pour beaucoup "un homme carré dans un corps rond" mais certains commentateurs avisés de la vie politique française estiment que "la France avait raté Barre".
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_Barre
Plusieurs fois ministre sous la Quatrième République, il devient Premier ministre sous le mandat de Georges Pompidou de 1969 à 1972. Il est contraint à la démission par le président, qui n'apprécie ni son projet de « Nouvelle société », trop progressiste, ni la maladresse de son Premier ministre[1], qui a utilisé un moyen alors légal de ne pas payer d'impôt sur le revenu. Le Canard enchaîné, après avoir publié ses feuilles d'impôt singulièrement réduites par l'avoir fiscal, publie au début de 1972[2] une feuille entièrement vierge, toujours grâce à ce procédé.[3]. La conjuration fut montée par le tandem sulfureux, Marie-France Garaud et Pierre Juillet qui jouaient un rôle d'éminence grise auprès du Président Pompidou.
Jacques Chaban-Delmas est candidat aux élections présidentielles de 1974. Lâché par Jacques Chirac, il voit rapidement ses chances s'effondrer dans les sondages pendant la campagne du premier tour ; Françoise Giroud, qui soutient François Mitterrand, dédaigne de l'attaquer et lui réserve ce mot d'une rare cruauté : « On ne tire pas sur une ambulance » ; en définitive, il est largement distancé par Valéry Giscard d'Estaing en faveur duquel il doit se désister. Sa défaite entraîna la naissance du cruel néologisme « chabaniser ».
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaban-Delmas (the mother of all swiftboatings)
Rocard is a more or less bad example. He could have become a good President if he hadn't been outmanoeuvred by Mitterand.
so adding Balladur and Jospin you have at least 4 of them. I'm sorry but French political pundits argue that the current situation with "2 absolute favourites before the 2nd run" is rather unique. Only the fact that Le Pen doesn't get his signatures, can put Bayrou in a complete different situation. His actual score is 10%. But should he make 16% in the coming month, the fate of the 2nd run is completely uncertain.
His main problem is that for ideological reasons (split between conservatism and an out of tune left) and the election system in itself, it's very difficult to break through...
but not impossible
As for your reference to Royal reverting to an imagined "Jospinism" you apparently disdain (despite the fact that the only period of growth, unemployment reduction and income gains in the past two decades was under his government...) I'm wondering how you would make this comment in light of your comment that Bayrou is some antruistic rallier of all French, citing as you do the fact he would name DSK as PM.
DSK is, for all intents and purposes, at the core of Jospinism. Fai de bèn a Bertrand, te lou rendra en cagant
If you have some source for your slander, I'd invite you to present it, else I'd suggest keeping your remarks to policy. Fai de bèn a Bertrand, te lou rendra en cagant
Care to elucidate?
There's something boy-crying-wolfish about all these insinuations against Royal. First, we heard that she wanted to send naughty children to Nazi-style concentration camps -- and that turned out not to be exactly true. Then that she intended to make teachers work 80 hour weeks with no overime -- and once again that didn't exactly pan out. And now you're saying that she has not just "skeletons" but stinking "corpses" in her capacious closet. Any wonder that I'm a little skeptical?
