Welcome to the new version of European Tribune. It's just a new layout, so everything should work as before - please report bugs here.

A good Frenchman

by Jerome a Paris Sat Mar 10th, 2007 at 09:24:18 AM EST

The ugliness never ends. Here are a few words from Sarkozy's speech yesterday evening (link to transcript from UMP website):

Mais au bout du compte nous avons tout lieu d’être fiers de notre pays, de son histoire, de ce qu’il a incarné, de ce qu’il incarne encore aux yeux du monde.

Car la France n’a jamais cédé à la tentation totalitaire. Elle n’a jamais exterminé un peuple. Elle n’a pas inventé la solution finale, elle n’a pas commis de crime contre l’humanité, ni de génocide.

Elle a commis des fautes qui doivent être réparées, et je pense d’abord aux harkis et à tous ceux qui se sont battus pour la France et vis-à-vis desquels la France a une dette d’honneur qu’elle n’a pas réglée, je pense aux rapatriés qui n’ont eu le choix au moment de la décolonisation qu’entre la valise et le cercueil, je pense aux victimes innocentes de toutes les persécutions dont elle doit honorer la mémoire.

Mais la mode de la repentance est une mode exécrable.

But in the end we have every reason to be proud of this country, of its history, what it embodied and what it still embodies in the eyes of the world.

Because France has never succumbed to the totalitarian temptation. She never exterminated another people. She did not invent the final solution. She did not commit any crime against humanity, nor genocide.

She has made mistakes which must be corrected. I think about the harkis [the Muslims who fought on the side of the French during the war of independence in Algeria] and all those that fought for France and towards whom France has a debt of honor it has not paid yet; I think about those that were rapatriated during decolonization and were given as a choice to leave or to die; I think about all innocent victims of all persecutions whose memory must be honored.

But repentence as a policy is despicable.

Take that, Germany. Take that, the anti-colonisation left. Take that, Algerians. France officially has two extreme right candidates, right now. Coverage of his discourse is barely beginning to appear on news sites, and, in addition to his other recent ultra-tough discourse against immigrants, they note that he is moving hard to the right, but I have not seen any article flagging the ugly dig at Germany yet - rather, they simply take note of his exalted glorification of traditional France.

That means that the only relevant question becomes whether Le Pen is in front of Bayrou or the other way round, because both will be in front of Sarkozy if he continues that little kapo show. (Or that means that France has lots more problems than I'm willing to consider).

When are you Frenchmen going to learn that only Yanks are allowed to embrace cheesy, nationalistic bullshit during campaigns? ;)

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.
by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Sat Mar 10th, 2007 at 10:01:55 AM EST
We don't do cheesy too much in Europe (and don't like it too much), but at least cheesy is mostly harmless. This is pretty nasty nationalistic bullshit spewed by Sarkozy.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Sat Mar 10th, 2007 at 10:11:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Six years in our current state, and you still think it's harmless?

Quite agree.  Any idea what the polls are showing?

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.

by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Sat Mar 10th, 2007 at 10:13:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

With the comparison to the polls for the previous election (where Chirac got 19%, Jospin 16%, Le Pen 17% and Bayrou 7%)

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Sat Mar 10th, 2007 at 10:23:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Aren't we here now slithering through the alleys and subterranean byways of La France Profonde?
by Quentin on Sat Mar 10th, 2007 at 10:15:48 AM EST
The last one i heard  : He-Midget now has a project for a "ministere de l'immigration". Can we say he's a (a little bit, on the edge, for electoral reasons only, etc) a little bit of a fascist yet?

But, in Sarkozy's usual winks and nods to the racists, i'd set aside the matter of the Harkis. Algerians can treat them as collabos if they want : it's not France's role, because France was the occupying power in Algeria.

I have no real emotional or personnal ties to the matter, and no in-depht knowldege of the period. However, it seems clear to me that France would have prefered these people not to exist - embarassing witnesses of a failure and a defeat - and treated them accordingly.

I like to believe i'd have been, then, part of the anti-colonisation left - and i find the way Harkis have been treated in France an absolute shame.

by yabonn (yabonn_fr@hotmail.com) on Sat Mar 10th, 2007 at 10:28:46 AM EST
Considering that he has been minister of the interior (and of cults) for most of the past 5 years, not to mention N°2 of all the governments of that time, he is also saying that he has not been doing his job in these past 5 years, notwithstanding the inflation of increasingly nasty laws he pushed through.

The one statistic I quote all the time to show he is full of shit is that the number of police officers in the 9-3 (the Seine Saint Denis department near Paris that has the highest concentration of "banlieues") has actually declined in the past 5 years. So all his calls for "nettoyer la banlieue au Karcher" are just overhyped bullshit - and as afew points out below, it's dangerous hype that plays for Le Pen, because those people that would want more enforcement are not seeing it.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Sat Mar 10th, 2007 at 10:47:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I like Royal running on the "I'm a disciple of Mitterand" ticket - there's a fresh approach.

The US and France would both benefit from a "no ivy-league/non ENC" rule.

Odd how the left went from the dictatorishop of the proletariat to the dictatorship of degrees.

by citizen k (sansracine yahoo.fr) on Sat Mar 10th, 2007 at 11:36:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Some weeks back, Sarkozy told a meeting of rapatriés in Toulon that, if France owed an apology to anyone, it was to them. An obvious swipe at the Algerian people and, in institutional terms, the Algerian government. But no one in the media picks these things up.

This time he's having a gratuitous swipe at Germany, too. (That doesn't fit too well with his pretended groovy friendship with Angela.) Will the media notice this any more than the rest? Not that I can see for the moment...

After Le Pen's deliberate reference to Vichy in a speech this week, there was also Sarkozy's promise to create a Ministry of Immigration and National Identity, which has more than an echo of Vichyness about it. Ségolène Royal is at least reacting sharply to that - so the media have to talk about it a bit...

It's a stupid policy anyway. The opinion polls may still be showing Sarko at a sweet percentage compared to Le Pen, the chickens will come home to roost in the first round. Voters who really agree with what Sarko is saying will vote... Le Pen in Round One. By validating and echoing far-right positions, Nicolas is working for Jean-Marie.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Sat Mar 10th, 2007 at 10:41:30 AM EST
I've been seeing comments that we were having a candidate of the left, a candidate of the right (Bayrou) and one of the extreme right (Sarkozy). I need to see if that came from serious sources.

It's a good line to push.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Sat Mar 10th, 2007 at 10:48:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I just saw a short TV interview with Bayrou on Euronews about Europe, the "Constitution", and France's role in European Construction. I agreed with everything he said.

"It's the statue, man, The Statue."
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Mar 10th, 2007 at 11:15:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]
has always been consistently pro-European, and aware of the necessity for France to behave as a decent European in order to have the credibility to lead. It's one of the things I like about Bayrou's run - at least there is a clear pro-European voice.

Note though that current French commissioner Jacques Barrot has totally sold out to the neolibs on transportation and macroeconomic policies.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Sat Mar 10th, 2007 at 11:33:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Note though that current French commissioner Jacques Barrot has totally sold out to the neolibs on transportation and macroeconomic policies.
Given that Barrot is a member of the UMP, I don't know why you say "though". It just makes the difference between the UMP and the UDF all the more stark.

Bayrou did say that France had not been playing its proper rôle in Europe "for decades", maybe because they had stopped believing in it or something.

"It's the statue, man, The Statue."

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Mar 10th, 2007 at 11:41:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Barrot is historically UDF, not Gaulliste. He went over to the UMP in 2002 along with Douste-Blazy.
by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Sat Mar 10th, 2007 at 11:55:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

"It's the statue, man, The Statue."
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Mar 10th, 2007 at 11:56:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]
funny, i was going to mention that...i saw that too, and he came across very very well, grounded, matter-of-fact, and sound on policies.

after seeing that i can see why he has a goodish chance, as his tone and lack of hype were reassuringly middle-of-the road, especially next to the increasingly rabid sarko.

i still root for royal, but he would be a huge upgrade after chirac, imo.

"We can all be prosperous but we can't all be rich." Ian Welsh

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Sun Mar 11th, 2007 at 06:41:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]
What would happen if Le Pen couldn't muster 500 signatures? Any chance they'd throw their support behind Sarko? I'd imagine many of them would just stay at home, but then I imagine plenty of things.  

"The basis of optimism is sheer terror" - Oscar Wilde
by NordicStorm (m<-at->sturmbaum.net) on Sat Mar 10th, 2007 at 11:14:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]
has officially called for the signatures to be provided to Le Pen (i.e. there will be no retorsions against rightwing mayors that give their signature to Le Pen). He is worried that, should Le Pen not get his 500 signatures, he will call explicitly to vote against Sarkozy, blaming him directly for his absence on the ballot - which would bring more voices to everybody but Sarkozy.

I expect that it would be a pretty big crisis if Le Pen were not on the ballot.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Sat Mar 10th, 2007 at 11:31:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The latest Ifop poll (Le Monde article) seems to suggest Sarko would be the primary beneficiary if Le Pen isn't on the ballot:

Sarko: 28% (-1)
Bayrou: 23% (+4)
Royal: 23% (-2.5)
Le Pen: 13% (+1)
(Villiers: 1%)

Without Le Pen:
Sarko: 34.5%
Bayrou: 25%
Royal: 24%
(Villiers: 3.5%)

Doesn't take a denouncement by Le Pen into account of course. That's the first poll putting Bayrou at parity with Royal.

"The basis of optimism is sheer terror" - Oscar Wilde

by NordicStorm (m<-at->sturmbaum.net) on Sat Mar 10th, 2007 at 01:31:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Why do you say Sarkozy would be the prime beneficiary? I just don't see it, especially if Le Pen calls for a vote to punish Sarkozy.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Sat Mar 10th, 2007 at 01:54:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I'm just saying that that poll seems to suggest Sarko gains the most in Le Pen's absence. But obviously that's just a poll. Whether that occurs in reality is of course  a different matter.

"The basis of optimism is sheer terror" - Oscar Wilde
by NordicStorm (m<-at->sturmbaum.net) on Sat Mar 10th, 2007 at 02:36:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Cambadelis, who has always struck me as one of two guys at the PS who doesnt' have his head you know where (LeGall the other; the only two to predict Jospin might finish behind LePen in 02) had an interesting quote in Liberation this week -- that LePen probably already has his 500 signatures but may not run, preferring to campaign informally against "the system" and claim he was undemocratically (sic) exlcluded, rather than finish 4th.

Sarokzy's camp is trying to avoid that outcome at all costs, because he needs LePens' voters in the second round if its Royal -- and moreover because LePen not being on the ballot and blaming the incumbent government for keeping him out could very well put Bayrou over the hump ahead of Royal in the first round -- and likely give him the Presidency.

What remains to be seen is if Sarkozy and the UMP will be held responsible for explicitly calling for mayors to sign for LePen.

by desmoulins (gsb6@lycos.com) on Sat Mar 10th, 2007 at 03:56:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I believe it has already been proven in 2002 that Le Pen has no chance to be elected as President - anybody from the "moderate" right or left who will compete against him is sure to be elected (with ex-Soviet Republic scores to boot)

I am concerned though about Bayrou's proposal to deploy fully proportional elections for the parliament - effectively opening seats for the FN, but that can be debated as it also would help see more greens or extreme-left in the parliament.

Le caoutchouc serait un matériau très précieux, n'était son élasticité qui le rend impropre à tant d'usages.- A.Allais

by armadillos (armadillo2024 (at) free (dotto) fr) on Mon Mar 12th, 2007 at 09:39:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Bayrou has caught Sego in the 1st tour in the polls now - and what that means is Sarko is in trouble, because Bayrou consistently beats him by 10 points in the 2nd tour.
by Ben P (wbp@u.washington.edu) on Sat Mar 10th, 2007 at 01:26:20 PM EST
Well, Bayrou vs Sarkozy will be an easy choice for the left in the second round.

But I'm actually more worried about a Bayrou vs Royal, which, along with the Le Pen vs Royal, seems to me more likely.

I don't see Royal not on the second round. Precisely because it's too easily conceivable (the 2002 precedent, and the current wave of wishful polls and commentary), it won't happen. The others, on the other hand...

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Sat Mar 10th, 2007 at 01:53:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Why don't you back Bayrou? It would seem like his views are good match for you. Besides, I don't think Sego can win. If Bayrou doesn't make it to the 2nd round, Sarko is the next President. Its that simple. Sego hasn't led Sarko in a 2nd round poll since 2006.
by Ben P (wbp@u.washington.edu) on Sat Mar 10th, 2007 at 02:06:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Ben, don't underestimate how much of a rightist Bayrou is. AT least has been his whole career. He's trimming sails now but he's always sided with the right, even during moments of "ouverture" such as under Rocard and when Delors was considering a run for President in 95 and asked Bayrou to back him (so he could govern without the PCF). Both times, Bayrou not only refused to join a prospective center/left coaltion, but publicly shot the idea down.

As education minister, he tried to move more public money to private (ie, Catholic) schools, he's never been particularly well respected by public or private sector unions (unlike someone like Borloo) and his economic proposals would amount to deep cuts in public services.

Another question -- even though I think Royal may be down for the count (see my pessimistic analysis below), its also the case that presidential elections in France have been much more unstable than, for instance, the US. Just to give 2 quick examples -- in 95, Chirac came back from the dead in late February to take a big lead by mid-March, then barely held on to beat Balladur for 2nd in April; in 02, Jospin and Chirac both fell from mid-30s in Feb to 20s by election day. Here's one reason why -- when the formal campaign starts after March 20, all the qualified candidates (even the ones <1% in the polls) get equal time for ads as well as equal time on the news. And they can use it anyway they want -- the far left candidates may well use it to beat up Royal (as they did to Jospin in 02) and if LePen stays out and Sarko moves to the far right (as he seems to be itching to do), Bayrou may decide, for instance, to try to occupy the center-right. Or the consverse.

As one PS tactician said in LeMonde this week, "its an ice-skating rink right now and anyone call fall down" (my very free translation).

by desmoulins (gsb6@lycos.com) on Sat Mar 10th, 2007 at 04:09:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Thanks for this.  I had not heard about the fair-time rules.  This explains a great amount.

Please note that in the US there is no such thing.  Even a major third-party candidate is nobody unless they are rich as far as the media is concerned.

by paving on Sun Mar 11th, 2007 at 03:02:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]
This is exactly the kind of head-up-your-arse thinking that has destroyed the Democrats in the US.  Recognize that not voting in this manner is one of the things the French seem to do right in their Presidential elections.

US polls are like the gambling spread - they move the herds.  The polling history in French elections seems to indicate that when the numbers are as close as they are that anything can happen.

I also read the tea leaves re: Royal.  I think her support in the provinces is greatly underestimated as her campaign must be targeted toward SOMEONE.  It is also what her staff has indicated.

I think Sarkozy's moves to the right defy logic for the first round if his chances are as the polls show.  He must be worried about something he's seeing internally.  I suspect that the more people see of him on TV the more they realize he's a phony.  Naturally he looks terrible to me and I can't belive the far more reasonable French population would fall for his bullshit.

Royal/Bayrou in second round is not unfathomable at all.  Unfortunately for the Left Royal has yet to show much spark in this race.  It will be interesting to see if her tone shifts gear in a second round.

by paving on Sun Mar 11th, 2007 at 03:00:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]
But I'm actually more worried about a Bayrou vs Royal

Polls seem to indicate Bayrou would win, and that would be with Sarkozy's votes, influencing his "mandate". Not a good situation.

"It's the statue, man, The Statue."

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Mar 10th, 2007 at 02:59:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Jerome, how do you see Royal/LePen in the second round? Are you presuming both will get a lot more support than they're showing now in the polls?

My sense is that the "April 21 effect" (left voters voting for Royal in the 1st round out of a sense of culpability for not voting Jospin in 02) is vastly overrated. Outside of Parisian professionals (and admittedly tahts a big slice of the PS electorate), is there any evidence of such a phenomenon? Moreover, any evidence that such voters are not telling pollsters their true intentions (ie, saying Bayrou but will return to Royal on election day?).

My view is that unless Bayrou stumbles badly, which could happen when he starts to get hit hard next week, he'll benefit from the late surge that many are expecting (based on 02) to go to LePen.

I think its a Bayrou/Sarkozy 2nd round but I still think Sarkozy wins.

by desmoulins (gsb6@lycos.com) on Sat Mar 10th, 2007 at 04:01:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]
is a bit of wishful thinking on my part, but it includes two bits of underlying reasoning:

  • I don't see Royal not in the second round. She has strong popular support (which you see in strong attendances to her regional events, and record viewings for her videos on internet video-sharing sites), she benefits from the weakness of the rest of the left (the communists are invisible, the Greens have imploded, Chevénement is not running, Laguiller is running old and stale) and the residual feeling of guilt from 21 April (it will play);

  • I don't see Le Pen below 20%. Megret is not running, de Villiers is weaker than last time, and all the factors that lead to the protest vote for him are still there (if anybody is going to capture that popular/populist vote, it's Royal more than anyone else).

Thus Sarkozy is squeezed; with Bayrou running strong (but I think he peaked too early, a lot of people are suddenly beginning to take a harder look at his programme, his past and his friends, and it's not so flattering), his room to manoeuver is getting smaller.

Ultimately, I expect something like this:
Royal: 24%
Sarkozy: 21%
Le Pen 21%
Bayrou 16%

And Sarkozy, being a rightwinger, will be lucky and get to the second round.

(But then I get all my bets and prognoses wrong, so caveat emptor...)

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Sat Mar 10th, 2007 at 04:37:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I've heard other knowledgeable observers suggest the same scenario; you may well be right.

But my sense is that a lot of the protest vote that in 02 went to the left of Jospin or to LePen is, for now, parked under Bayrou; if he can hold onto it (and getting attacked by the UMP and PS will help him, not hurt him, do that), I think he pulls away from Royal and maybe even finishes first on the 22nd. (I also think if Bove gets his signatures, and I think he will, he's going to do much better than the 1 or 2 percent he's got now.)

But I think Sarkozy will be much better prepared, on the ground, to win the second round, which is going to be won on on turnout, not message. PS (To say nothing of other left-wing) voters will be demoralized and won't turnout massively as they did for round 2 in 02; and there is no natural mass constituency for the UDF.

by desmoulins (gsb6@lycos.com) on Sat Mar 10th, 2007 at 06:54:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I think Bayrou's support is largely coming from Sarkozy.  The parts of a Sarkozy Presidency that have been appealing in the past that do not involve racism are being co-opted by Bayrou. Bayrou is saying "vote for me, I'm what you like about Sarkozy without the Le Pen overtones."  He's a safe conservative vote for anyone uncomfortable/ashamed about the Le Pen situation.  Note that Chirac had 80-some% in 2002 against Le Pen.  This would seem to show that only 20% of the electorate is strongly right-wing in terms of Immigration/Racisme.   I think Le Pen lacks the momentum he acquired in 2002 (mostly runoff from uninspiring Chirac and Jospin).  His numbers would conceivably look similar to years past.  I also wonder about the "not running" play he may use to sideline Sarkozy.  It would be a clever way to save face as he surely has learned he can't win in a 2nd round and this is his, if not his platforms, final run.

Royal seems to be running outside of Paris.  Probably the Socialists have discovered that they lose in 2002 because they didn't capture much of the non-Paris vote.  The Democrats in the US won in 2006 largely by recognizing their failure in certain regions and pursuing the vote in those areas, with tremendous success.  If the polls are capturing Paris/Urban centric voters and undercounting the suburbs and the rural/provincial areas you may be missing a huge chunk of Royal's base support.  If the idea that Le Pen thrived on rural votes in '02 is accurate than this may hold water.  

These are my theories:

  1. Le Pen's 2002 support was more a reflection of rural neglect than it was a reflection of racist/nationalist trends.

  2. Sarkozy's base is being eaten by Bayrou who is also successfully capturing support that Royal has failed to secure.

  3. Royal's base is solid and she is pursuing the rural vote that went to Le Pen in 2002 (in protest).

  4. Chirac's failure to support Sarkozy or possibly even his explicit support of Sarkozy will ultimately hurt Sarkozy when it finally happens.

  5. Bayrou is gaining huge support from the dissatisfaction with the system and the "annointed" leaders.  Sarkozy has the most to lose from this.  Bayrou is a real threat to win this thing.

  6. This type of election is far more interesting than the single vote/primary system we have in US.  Candidates are forced to appeal to a far wider percentage of the electorate to gain the office which can't help but improve their ability to govern/represent the Nation when they ultimately take office.
by paving on Sun Mar 11th, 2007 at 03:17:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Paving, seems like you're trying to graft American politics onto the French election and while I see your points, I don't think the categories are the same. I don't claim to know enough to contradict you but here are few points that are, to my understanding, very different from the assumptions you're making

-Jospins' underperformance in 02 was in part due to a high rate of abstention in Paris, esp among professionals , since the election was held the weekend of a school vacation (and absentee balloting is very difficult). So its not as if Jospin lost because he didn't do was well in "the rurals." And Paris is not comparable to say New York; its by no means overwhelmingly PS. Paris has strongholds for the left and the left has gained there tremendously in the last 10-15 years but the UMP and the FN both get a lot of votes in Paris and environs.

-its inaccurate to equate "the provinces" with "rural" and even more inaccurate to equate FN support with "rural" voters. Very little support for the FN in "petites communes" in fact. Political allegiance of these towns varies greatly from region to region, but almost nowhere do small towns support the FN.

-its pretty clear that Bayrou is drawing from both "right" and "left" voters but his recent surge has come a lot from center-left voters (teachers, educated professionals) and a lot from what you're calling "rural" voters.

-Royal's "base" is by no means solid, if by "base" you mean industrial working-class voters, the traditional socialist base, who more or less have abandoned the PS since the 80s, esp after the 35 hours legilsation. The FN has been pushing hard for these voters (Le Pen's "convention" in Lille sounded like a Communist rally) as has Sarkozy ("the value of work...")

-Moreover, other traditional PS constituencies -- civil servants and esp teachers -- for instance seem to be moving to Bayrou. There's actually very little natural "base" for the PS which is the problem

-Sarkozy's "base" is by no means eroding to Bayrou. Sarkoyz's "base" of support is pretty solid, which is why Sarkozy's people keep saying Bayrou is Royal's problem. They're right on that count but what they worry about is that he might finish ahead of her and be able to run as a "rassambleur," unifying left and center.

My point is only that this isn't Kerry all over again. Its something else entirely.

by desmoulins (gsb6@lycos.com) on Sun Mar 11th, 2007 at 06:20:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]
One other very important point to add, Paving. By no means is the FN electorate merely voting on "immigration" and "racism"; indeed, the FN has very much played down these themes since the mid-90s. This year they even have a poster showing a young woman with a dark complexion which appeals to Islamic immigrants by attacking the secularism and moral breakdown.

Its one reason that Sarkozy is being so explicit about it; he thinks he can pick up single-issue anti-immigrant voters.

The FN's electorate in 02 was a real cross-section and continues to be.

by desmoulins (gsb6@lycos.com) on Sun Mar 11th, 2007 at 06:22:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I think you underrate the wariness by which Sarkozy is viewed by a large part of the electorate. His personal stats are poor. If there is a credible reformist opponent, he loses - or at least he is great danger of doing so. I think thats what Paving's point about Bayrou is - he's saying to the fuck you voters and the middle class social libs - hey I'm like Sarko, but without the bad stuff. In that he's saying to the first crowd, "look I'm not in with big business, I'm a  "man of the people" (farmer, Catholic, far from Paris), and to the second group, he's saying "I'm not a thug who hates dark people"

Check out the latest poll via LeMonde, but carried out for LeFig. Sarko loses 4 points - he's now at 27, Royal at 25.5, Bayrou at 23.

Also consider - who is a more natural candidate for the Gaullist traditionalists around Chirac and DeVillepin? Are they all going to come out for Sarko? Even in public? (to say nothing of the voting booth). Can you honestly say that Chirac et al would pull the lever for Sarko? I don't think we can make that assumption.

by Ben P (wbp@u.washington.edu) on Sun Mar 11th, 2007 at 02:57:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Do you have a link for Sarkozy's "personal stats"? I'm not questioning your point, but I'd be interested to see data on his personal popularity.
by desmoulins (gsb6@lycos.com) on Mon Mar 12th, 2007 at 01:04:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]
This is from June 2006, but I doubt he's done much to make people think differently of him one way or another since this poll. Its been pretty well known he's been running since 2004 and he's been arguably the most high profile politician in France in that time frame.

Anyway, here are the numbers from a poll conducted on June 14-15 2006:

Diriez-vous de Nicolas Sarkozy qu'il vous rassure ou qu'il vous inquiète ?

Il vous rassure: 36%

Il vous inquiete: 55%

Sans Opinion: 9%

Et diriez-vous de Nicolas Sarkozy qu'il est séduisant ou qu'il n'est pas séduisant ?

Il est seduissant: 39%

Il n'est pas seduisant: 61%

IMO, those are bad numbers. They don't matter that much for those who are committed believers in his policies. But, as a political consultant, I see numbers like that and I get worried. They'll kill you with swing voters who don't necessarily share your policy/ideological cast and who are more influenced by the individual as a person.

Its one of the reasons, retrospectively, it was obvious John Kerry was going to lose in '04 by late August/early September. His "personals" were negative, even if Bush did not have strong performance marks either. The key was that the alternative was made to look unacceptable to the American voters.

As an outsider, having seen polls like this about Sarkozy, I've always felt he was vulnerable to an alternative the FRench voting public found "credible."

by Ben P (wbp@u.washington.edu) on Mon Mar 12th, 2007 at 01:48:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Interesting -- but its precisely because I think he has been putting forward a new face since January that I think he's in a lot stronger position. THat poll was taken <6 months after the "Karcher" and "racaille" comments got a lot of press -- since January, he's used very moderate language and changed his self-presentation a lot to tone down his rough edges.

Look, I hope you're right, but when I compare him on tv to Royal, and when I read about or talk to people about the election, I fear the worst.

by desmoulins (gsb6@lycos.com) on Mon Mar 12th, 2007 at 02:14:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I think she can't win.

I think Bayrou is a real problem for Sarko, however.

by Ben P (wbp@u.washington.edu) on Mon Mar 12th, 2007 at 02:27:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]
With his "ministry for immigration" proposal and his latest comment, apparently, yesterday evening on Canal Plus, that immigrants were "draining our social security coffers" (I have this second hand for now, did not watch it myself).

See the speech that started this thread as well. He has veered sharply right - towards the nasty kind.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Mon Mar 12th, 2007 at 04:32:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes, the question is why? Is it because LePen claims to have his 500 signatures and Sarkozy wants to fight LePen for votes in the first round or (and not necessarily a separate strategy) is it because he thinks it'll be Bayrou and the way to beat him is to, as it were, mobilize the right-wing base in the 2nd round?
by desmoulins (gsb6@lycos.com) on Mon Mar 12th, 2007 at 01:30:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]
That Sarko wins in a match-up in the 2nd round. Every poll I've seen shows him trailing in that match up by 10 points.

My sense has been for two years this:

  1. the French want a "different" kind of President who provides a rupture;

  2. Sarko was the only candidate offering this, for two years;

  3. But Sarko is not liked or trusted by the electorate;

  4. If a viable alternatitve offering change appears, he s/he will win;

  5. Sego looked like she might be that candidate last year, but she has proved to be a fairly standard issue socialist

  6. Bayrou has now broken through an important threshold and to me seems the perfect candidate for what the French electorate wants - at least, say, the middle third; I feel his momentum will build on itself and attract voters from across the spectrum

  7. This could also have the effect of splitting Sego's left flank;

  8. I also think a lot of the undecided/fuck you LePen vote will go to Bayrou

  9. Bayrou's main challenge in the 2nd tour will be to hold his ground; Sarko's only real attack willl come about his ability to form a national unity gov't; I've already seen this tact previewed by nervous Sarko supporters elsewhere
by Ben P (wbp@u.washington.edu) on Sat Mar 10th, 2007 at 04:57:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Ben, my sense is based on the fact that elections are won by and large in the preparation, and Sarkozy and the UMP are much better prepared, in terms of having identified target audiences and in getting their message to them. Royal keeps switching back and forth between trying to appeal to centrist voters (last fall and Jan until she fell behind) and the left (most of Feb and until this week) and now back to centrists. Bayrou is improvising daily.

Sarkozy though knows he needs only to hold enough of the center and is systemicatically pickup off bits of the center/left electorate (eg, he has cultivated Jewish leaders, moderate Muslim leaders, he's appealing to workers, etc) while stoking his base on the right. (To wit, the proposal of a "ministry of immigration and national identity".)

I just think he's got a better organized and more unified campaign; I expect he'll be much better prepared for the second round, as well.

by desmoulins (gsb6@lycos.com) on Sat Mar 10th, 2007 at 06:49:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]
She did not commit any crime against humanity, nor genocide.

How is that he can say this, patently ignore the role of the French state in the Nazi war against the Jews, and still enjoy support of a clear majority of French Jews?

I know the answer, but its absolutely maddening.

by desmoulins (gsb6@lycos.com) on Sat Mar 10th, 2007 at 04:12:26 PM EST
And it's not like our history overall shows us in any better light than any other big power. The war in Algeria was not very clean, and even more recently, we have nothing to be proud of our passivity in the Balkans and Rwanda.

I don't say one cannot be proud of one's country, including France - what I found maddening myself was that direct, explicit poke in Germany's eye, and the apparent lack of reaction as of this afternoon.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Sat Mar 10th, 2007 at 04:31:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]
only Americans who come to this site will ever know he said this, but it also seems like a very anti-American statement. Germany after all wasn't founded on "genocide," and the only crimes against humanity it's been guilty of the past 50 years have been at the behest of the U.S.

All I can say is, he'd better tone his language down if he ever wants a warm reception on Fox News.

by Matt in NYC on Sat Mar 10th, 2007 at 09:24:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I can't believe he gets away with such statements. It's madning. Thanks for shinning a light on it.
by Alexandra in WMass (alexandra_wmass[a|t]yahoo[d|o|t]fr) on Sat Mar 10th, 2007 at 10:53:41 PM EST

Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]