My theory about close elections is that late deciding voters return to the position where they were most comfortable, and I guess he convinced enough of them not to be more comfortable with her, whose commitments and intentions are clear even if her presentation of them in the campaign was not, than with him, who is by his own admission capable of anything, even if his campaign suggested he would be a country priest looking after the poor and downtrodden.
Its frustrating really, to see a guy whose evident lust for power and whose ridiculously tendentious positions and deliberately provocative style should repulse the electorate, win because he was able to play the part better. Its frustrating because the sad and undeniable reality is that if she had learned to communicate in a more emotionally pleasing way, her message of institutional change and renovation of democracy, ought to have been a winning formula.
On the "we may never reach the height of political immorality" front, I was reading reactions to the debate on Libe and noticed something I had missed -- that when she raised Darfur, he responded by treating it as an issue of immigration : not all of Africa can immigrate to France. I don't know whats worse -- to believe that he has shamelessly exploited National-Front ideology to win, or that he really thinks that way.
Because of the singularity of the electoral calendar, even if she loses, a strong showing is very important; a better than expected showing could not only enable her to establish a place among the first rank of political leaders -- remember that prior to the final results of the 95 campaign, everyone thought Jospin was a sacrifical lamb, to be slaughtered by Fabius & Emanuelli after the election. He scored 48.5% and two years later was prime minister. I doubt Royal will follow the same trajectory but, I think she's shown in the last two weeks the basis for an effective opposition to Sarkozy -- tactical alliance with the center on institutional issues, direct confrontation on economic and domestic social issues.
If nothing else, we saw graphically how Sarkozy will react to a challenge : he'll appeal to his friends in the media to bail him out.
But like in the US, the full effect of the internet in politics only began to be felt after the election -- when the mainstream media totally ignored the minority democrats in 2005 on the first big fight with Bush, Social Security, the internet provided the ground on which they built their opposition.
I hope the right wing polls are wrong. It is amazing Sarkozy has been able to position himself as a 'doer and reformer' even if he has been an integral part of the government. Maybe Sarkozy is a genius, politically, because by having a rift with Chirac; he was able to distance himself from the government in a way a significant number of voters have perceived him as independent.
The other factor in the potential election of Sarkozy is the combination of the 'Stockholm/Plantation syndrome' which has led to the election of Bush and made the Labour party transform themselves into 'Tory lite' in order to be elected. The voters have been 'kidnapped by people' they hold to be their 'masters' because they either think their 'masters' must be smarter than themselves because they are successful or the voters wishes themselves to be wealthy and successful like ' their masters'. Perhaps the combination of unemployment in the country and the so called affluence of Sarkozy and his party have led the French voters to believe Sarkozy must be doing something right even if in their hearts the voters realize they will never be rich or affluent. When you combine the consumerism and the media's degradation of any values besides the 'beautiful and affluent'; you can understand why the voters delusion is powerful.
