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.

The Hun is always either at your throat or at your feet. Winston Churchill

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

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.

• he is very well respected : people use to say that "the only thing wrong with Bayrou is his big ears"

• he has a humble background "standing with both feet on the soil" like the small peasant community he comes from, to the difference from the two other main candidates coming from privileged classes.

• he wants to gather all "good men" (from different political horizons) to work out the countries problems. Which means he could appoint a guy like Strauss-Kahn as prime minister despite the fact that he is socialist.

• he wants a 6th constitution, more on a parliamentary model, which France badly needs

• he is into it because he does believe he can make a difference, not for the sole exercise of power, which is the main driving force for both Ségo and Sarko.

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