Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
Absolutely right, paving, about the Alliance. Thats why I think the real issue to be addressed, and I presume its being discussed en coulisse now, is whether there could be a basis for Bayrou to support Royal in the second round; that basis would not simply be a personal support but the prospect of not only Bayrouistes in a Royal-appointed government but an actual electoral alliance for the legislative elections in June. And that would be very tricky to pull off.

Rocard's proposal was clearly intended to begin that discussion rather than to propose either Bayrou or Royal
make an endorsement before the 1st round.

I'm as skeptical by the way of polling showing a late Royal surge as I was/am of polling showing Sarkozy comfortably ahead (or for that matter showing Bayrou falling back).

by desmoulins (gsb6@lycos.com) on Tue Apr 17th, 2007 at 01:32:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]
It is my observation of dubious US polling that they tend to try and make up the gaps as the actual election nears or even is over.  They even adjust their exit polls after the fact to make it look like they did a better job (or to hide the election fraud, more likely).

It is natural that the "polls" would want to be viewed as doing a good job so they can maintain some semblance of credibility.  If they know Royal will make the 2nd round, which seems rather likely, their polls had better show it if they want to have any chance at influending the 2nd round vote.

I also think that Bayrou's support comes at Sarkozy's expense more than anyone else and is essentially your anti-Sarkozy vote.  Should Bayrou fail to reach the 2nd round his support will be more likely to move toward Royal.  

Lastly I suspect Sarkozy might be in real danger of missing the 2nd round.  A Royal/Le Pen matchup does not seem out of the range of possibility here.

by paving on Tue Apr 17th, 2007 at 03:15:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Remember one thing about the pollsters: they never admit to having been mistaken because they can always say (with no possible risk of being proved wrong): "we were right about the state of opinion at the moment the poll was taken".

That opens the door to manipulation.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Tue Apr 17th, 2007 at 04:02:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I continue to be surprised at how polling data is taken seriously by the media despite being completely wrong the past two elections specifically and more often than not before that.

I'm going to go ahead and guess that the French population has caught on to the dangers of polling (or have always understood it) and are by nature misleading those polls and best of all ignoring them before voting.

Americans have the pathetic, sad and depressing tendency to vote the way the polls are, you know, because people like to vote for a winner.  UGH.

by paving on Tue Apr 17th, 2007 at 04:10:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]
the French population has caught on to the dangers of polling (or have always understood it) and are by nature misleading those polls

This has been suggested and discussed in Le Monde and other outlets. It's surely true of a proportion of the electorate.

As to taking no notice of the polls before voting, I hope so. Though some on the left seem to be getting the poll jitters...

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Tue Apr 17th, 2007 at 05:00:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I have also noticed those "jitters" of the left.  That's not surprising considering the massive media onslaught against everything they stand for.

If they win this one it was to their fortune that the candidate of the right was so disagreeable.  Bush, for all his political faults, is reasonably likable on a personal level for most and that is his greatest asset.

by paving on Tue Apr 17th, 2007 at 05:03:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Maybe you can explain to me WTF people are thinking when they say Bush is the kind of guy they'd like to have a couple of drinks with at the bar?

"It's the statue, man, The Statue."
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Apr 17th, 2007 at 05:42:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Bush is  "confidence man"

He remembers names and tries to act like your good buddy even if you don't know him.  Most people are flattered by such behavior and especially when that person represents so much power.  

This would be less effective if so many US politicians weren't such total pricks.  Bush/Cheney is essentially a good cop/bad cop routine.

by paving on Tue Apr 17th, 2007 at 06:02:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]
He gives off the vibe of an average happy go lucky guy with the sort of political people skills that paving mentions below. Or at least that's how I've always figured it - for me he has the air of the obnoxious frat boy.  Dem politicians seem to leave an impression of over-intellectualized cultural elitists - which is actually much more my taste in people to hang out with, but I'm a minority. Clinton managed to give both impressions simultaneously, along with even better people skills than Bush plus the intense charisma that Bush lacks. When that whole theme started I ended up idly speculating to myself about who my choices would be, and in what situation - Gore good for a quiet chat over a few drinks or coffee, not so much for a more raucous party, Clinton good for both.
by MarekNYC on Tue Apr 17th, 2007 at 06:19:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series