France 2012: "Could France Go Even Further Right?"

[Hash]

I've rarely read such a biased, inaccurate and stupid article. I especially like how they invented a 35-27 matchup between Sarko and Marine. It takes guts for journalists to actually make up stuff.

Also, at any rate, no poll has shown Marine above 14%, and though polls in 2010 all underestimated the FN, it is doubtful that the division of the vote will be as massive in 2012 as it was in 2012. While Sarkozy will likely face internal competition from Villepin and potentially Borloo, both are poor candidates who will do poorly. Plus, Sarkozy has solidified the UMP's base to guarantee the UMP a base of 23-26% of the first round vote even in a bad year. He is also a good campaigner and it would be stupid to count him out. At the same time, the left will be divided but not as badly as in 2002. The Greens could poll 6-9% with Eva Joly, and Melenchon could still pull 5-7%. Yet, no poll has shown any third candidate within striking distance of the second candidate although it's stupid to trust polling this far out. Unless Royal is candidate, in which case it certainly is possible that the PS will have to fight for a spot in the runoff. Bayrou will do poorly, and the far-left will perform in the 5-7% range and not in the 10-12% range. To say that I wouldn't count a FN upset out, but it's unlikely at this time.

And I also think it's dire time for me to open a 2012 thread given how quickly this will be raking up.

[Hash]

Part of the reason Royal lost in 2007 was because of antagonism between various left wing groups. She may have made it to the run-off, but unless the Socialist Party has an open dialogue with the smaller left wing parties to secure their support, Mitterrand will remain the last left wing President of the country.

It would be best if you talked about subjects you knew at least a bit about, coz this way you're making a fool of yourself. Your tone in that post, which indicates haughty certainty, doesn't help either.

[Hash]

Part of the reason Royal lost in 2007 was because of antagonism between various left wing groups. She may have made it to the run-off, but unless the Socialist Party has an open dialogue with the smaller left wing parties to secure their support, Mitterrand will remain the last left wing President of the country.

It would be best if you talked about subjects you knew at least a bit about, coz this way you're making a fool of yourself. Your tone in that post, which indicates haughty certainty, doesn't help either.

Sorry for the tone, but you don't agree that with so many left of center and left wing candidates in the first round, that their losses didn't turn some of their supporters off from voting for Royal in the run off? France will see another PS or other Liberal as President, but they need to really hone in on the change rhetoric in 2012 to win. Not to mention stress unity among various parties.

I will personally shoot the next fool who refers to the PS as "liberal". When will people stop thinking that erroneous American labels can be applied with ease to every country.

And no, Royal didn't lose because of the division on the left. I don't think you understand the dynamics going on in multi-party runoff countries. Small parties nominate in the first round not to win but to offer a choice, because people make a real choice then. In the runoff, people eliminate the worst of the two. The mainstream small left has very good transfers to the PS in almost every election, as does the far-left (although a large chunk of them abstain and there's always a rogue 15-20% of far-left first round voters who apparently vote for the right). Royal lost in large part because of her atrocious debate performance and her general idiocy (Sarkozy also ran a good demagogic campaign).