Chirac dissolves... in 1995

[Hash]

According to Juppé, with hindsight, the right and Chirac's biggest mistake was to not dissolve the National Assembly in 1995. Indeed, the right had a huge majority but right-wing unity had been destroyed by Chirac-Balladur and a huge majority is never good in the long run.

So, assume Chirac dissolves the 1993 Assembly right after his election in 1995, holding snap elections similar to 1981 or 1988. What happens? Does the RPR destroy the UDF? Does the UDF hold tight? How does the left do? How large is the right's majority (assuming they win, which is quite likely, but still)?

On a side note, what do the Balladuriens become? Do they lose in election day "primaries"?

[PGSable]

I don't see how the right could have repeated 1993, but, at the same time, I can't imagine Chirac losing his majority immediately after having won the presidency and ended a cohabitation.

In the end, I think the right would have won a smaller majority than in 1993 (the right-left divide would have been somewhere between 2002 and 2007), but a majority nonetheless. The PS would have gained the most seats, and the UDF would have lost the most. (Remember that the UDF was in a very bad shape in 1995; it hadn't even managed to field a candidate from its own ranks, and many of its members had supported Chirac over Balladur.) The RPR probably would have netted a few seats.

I wonder whether the FN would have won many seats after Le Pen's strong showing in the presidential race. The MPF would have been another party to watch.

The ramifications past 1995 would have been interesting. A defeat for the PS would not have helped Emmanuelli, to say the least, but would Jospin have been the one to defeat him, or would someone else have run? Would Jospin have lasted five years as first secretary? In 2000, you would have had another legislative election, and, given the way French politics worked under the septennat, the left would have likely taken the National Assembly. Then we would have had a repeat of 1986–1988: a rough, two-year cohabitation setting the stage for a presidential election pitting the incumbent against the prime minister.

In the 1995 presidential debate, Chirac told Jospin that, if Jospin won and dissolved the Assembly, there was no way the left could win a majority, and that there would be at least five more years of cohabitation. Now that would be an interesting scenario. I don't see how a president can lose legislative elections right after his election. Sure, the left wasn't popular in 1995, but the right wasn't popular in 2007, and it still won. (Remember that Sarkozy ran against Chirac and Villepin, and I don't think I need to remind you that Royal was a bad candidate; a generic socialist would have handily defeated a generic UMPer.)

[Hash]

I don't see how the right could have repeated 1993, but, at the same time, I can't imagine Chirac losing his majority immediately after having won the presidency and ended a cohabitation.

Obviously the right's majority would be much smaller and saner.

In the end, I think the right would have won a smaller majority than in 1993 (the right-left divide would have been somewhere between 2002 and 2007), but a majority nonetheless. The PS would have gained the most seats, and the UDF would have lost the most. (Remember that the UDF was in a very bad shape in 1995; it hadn't even managed to field a candidate from its own ranks, and many of its members had supported Chirac over Balladur.) The RPR probably would have netted a few seats.

That sounds like a sound analysis of it all. PS gains, UDF loses, and minor RPR gains (mostly on the back of the UDF and Balladuriens).

I wonder whether the FN would have won many seats after Le Pen's strong showing in the presidential race. The MPF would have been another party to watch.

The FN would have won either nothing, one seat, or at most two. de Villiers would have survived anyways in 1995, 1997, or 1998.

The ramifications past 1995 would have been interesting. A defeat for the PS would not have helped Emmanuelli, to say the least, but would Jospin have been the one to defeat him, or would someone else have run? Would Jospin have lasted five years as first secretary? In 2000, you would have had another legislative election, and, given the way French politics worked under the septennat, the left would have likely taken the National Assembly. Then we would have had a repeat of 1986–1988: a rough, two-year cohabitation setting the stage for a presidential election pitting the incumbent against the prime minister.

Indeed. I believe the left's victory in 2000 would have been quite massive. Chirac would have been massively unpopular by 2000, and Juppe would be even more unpopular. Assuming he's still Prime Minister, but that's another topic.

A PS government from 2000 to 2002 would have been interesting. What would 2002 look like in this scenario?

In the 1995 presidential debate, Chirac told Jospin that, if Jospin won and dissolved the Assembly, there was no way the left could win a majority, and that there would be at least five more years of cohabitation. Now that would be an interesting scenario. I don't see how a president can lose legislative elections right after his election. Sure, the left wasn't popular in 1995, but the right wasn't popular in 2007, and it still won. (Remember that Sarkozy ran against Chirac and Villepin, and I don't think I need to remind you that Royal was a bad candidate; a generic socialist would have handily defeated a generic UMPer.)

Chirac was obviously playing politics by saying that. He was exploiting the cohabitation issue. The left wasn't popular in 1995, no more than the right in 2007 (or even less so). But voters wouldn't have elected a Socialist president and two months later elect a right-wing legislature. Politics don't work that way.

[PGSable]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If the PS prime minister plays his or her cards right, he or she would win. If things are really bad for him, Chirac might not even run (as Mitterrand considered during the first cohabitation).

However, I think the most likely outcome is that the prime minister is as nasty and abrasive towards Chirac, who, like Mitterrand in 1986–1988, distances himself from the government as the prime minister's approvals plummet. I can imagine Chirac winning a 1988-esque victory in 2002. Mitterrand was probably one of his greatest mentors…

[Antonio the Sixth]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

French politics are quite easy to predict : In 1995, the right gets a vicory, but less than in 1993 ( there is no reason to think that UDF would lose more seats that RPR, remember that they were allied and UDF's constituencies were not less right-wing than the RPR's ). Chirac nominates Juppé and refuses to fire him despite his unpopularity. In 2000, left gets a solid victory and Jospin becomes Prime Minister. In 2002 there is a similar campaign that in the real life, but Jospin is not so "usé" and manage to be qualified for the 2nd round. And at his point, I think Jospin would win.

[Hash]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

French politics are quite easy to predict : In 1995, the right gets a vicory, but less than in 1993 ( there is no reason to think that UDF would lose more seats that RPR, remember that they were allied and UDF's constituencies were not less right-wing than the RPR's ). Chirac nominates Juppé and refuses to fire him despite his unpopularity. In 2000, left gets a solid victory and Jospin becomes Prime Minister. In 2002 there is a similar campaign that in the real life, but Jospin is not so "usé" and manage to be qualified for the 2nd round. And at his point, I think Jospin would win.

The RPR and UDF might be allied, yes, but I believe Chirac and the RPR would find a way to rid themselves of the Balladuriens. I doubt Jospin would have won in 2002. Firstly, look at Chirac in 1988 and secondly, it's been impossible for a Prime Minister to move from Matignon to the Elysée directly. I have no reason to believe Jospin would be any different.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If the PS prime minister plays his or her cards right, he or she would win. If things are really bad for him, Chirac might not even run (as Mitterrand considered during the first cohabitation).

However, I think the most likely outcome is that the prime minister is as nasty and abrasive towards Chirac, who, like Mitterrand in 1986–1988, distances himself from the government as the prime minister's approvals plummet. I can imagine Chirac winning a 1988-esque victory in 2002. Mitterrand was probably one of his greatest mentors…

Indeed. If the right hadn't won in 1986, by some weird fluke, Mitterrand would probably have been a goner by 1988...

[Antonio the Sixth]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

French politics are quite easy to predict : In 1995, the right gets a vicory, but less than in 1993 ( there is no reason to think that UDF would lose more seats that RPR, remember that they were allied and UDF's constituencies were not less right-wing than the RPR's ). Chirac nominates Juppé and refuses to fire him despite his unpopularity. In 2000, left gets a solid victory and Jospin becomes Prime Minister. In 2002 there is a similar campaign that in the real life, but Jospin is not so "usé" and manage to be qualified for the 2nd round. And at his point, I think Jospin would win.
[/quote]

The RPR and UDF might be allied, yes, but I believe Chirac and the RPR would find a way to rid themselves of the Balladuriens. I doubt Jospin would have won in 2002. Firstly, look at Chirac in 1988 and secondly, it's been impossible for a Prime Minister to move from Matignon to the Elysée directly. I have no reason to believe Jospin would be any different.
[/quote]

Chirac lost in 1988 because he was the worst Prime Minister in the history and because he didn't yet learn to lie during a campaign. Nothing to do with Jospin. The argument "it will never happen because it never happenned" is ridiculous.

[Hash]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

French politics are quite easy to predict : In 1995, the right gets a vicory, but less than in 1993 ( there is no reason to think that UDF would lose more seats that RPR, remember that they were allied and UDF's constituencies were not less right-wing than the RPR's ). Chirac nominates Juppé and refuses to fire him despite his unpopularity. In 2000, left gets a solid victory and Jospin becomes Prime Minister. In 2002 there is a similar campaign that in the real life, but Jospin is not so "usé" and manage to be qualified for the 2nd round. And at his point, I think Jospin would win.

The RPR and UDF might be allied, yes, but I believe Chirac and the RPR would find a way to rid themselves of the Balladuriens. I doubt Jospin would have won in 2002. Firstly, look at Chirac in 1988 and secondly, it's been impossible for a Prime Minister to move from Matignon to the Elysée directly. I have no reason to believe Jospin would be any different.
[/quote]

Chirac lost in 1988 because he was the worst Prime Minister in the history and because he didn't yet learn to lie during a campaign. Nothing to do with Jospin. The argument "it will never happen because it never happenned" is ridiculous.
[/quote]

If Chirac plays his card well from 2000 to 2002, like Mitterrand did between 1986 and 1988, he could very well defeat Jospin. In addition, if Jospin still runs a crap campaign in 2002 and the Plural Left is as disunited in 2002, it would be even harder for him to win.

Granted, if Jospin gets into the runoff in 2002 in this scenario, there is no way Chirac would have won a Mitterrandesque landslide.

Lastly, I never said that it would always be impossible for one to move from one side of the Seine to the other. It has just been shown, over and over again, that it is very hard for one to do so directly due to the nature of the Prime Ministerial office.

[Antonio the Sixth]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

French politics are quite easy to predict : In 1995, the right gets a vicory, but less than in 1993 ( there is no reason to think that UDF would lose more seats that RPR, remember that they were allied and UDF's constituencies were not less right-wing than the RPR's ). Chirac nominates Juppé and refuses to fire him despite his unpopularity. In 2000, left gets a solid victory and Jospin becomes Prime Minister. In 2002 there is a similar campaign that in the real life, but Jospin is not so "usé" and manage to be qualified for the 2nd round. And at his point, I think Jospin would win.
[/quote]

The RPR and UDF might be allied, yes, but I believe Chirac and the RPR would find a way to rid themselves of the Balladuriens. I doubt Jospin would have won in 2002. Firstly, look at Chirac in 1988 and secondly, it's been impossible for a Prime Minister to move from Matignon to the Elysée directly. I have no reason to believe Jospin would be any different.
[/quote]

Chirac lost in 1988 because he was the worst Prime Minister in the history and because he didn't yet learn to lie during a campaign. Nothing to do with Jospin. The argument "it will never happen because it never happenned" is ridiculous.
[/quote]

If Chirac plays his card well from 2000 to 2002, like Mitterrand did between 1986 and 1988, he could very well defeat Jospin. In addition, if Jospin still runs a crap campaign in 2002 and the Plural Left is as disunited in 2002, it would be even harder for him to win.

Granted, if Jospin gets into the runoff in 2002 in this scenario, there is no way Chirac would have won a Mitterrandesque landslide.

Lastly, I never said that it would always be impossible for one to move from one side of the Seine to the other. It has just been shown, over and over again, that it is very hard for one to do so directly due to the nature of the Prime Ministerial office.
[/quote]

Chirac is definitely not intelligent as Mitterrand, and that's not a political opinion. It would never be able to ridicule Jospin as Mitterrand did. And for the second time I repeat you that Chirac lost firstly because he was a bad prime minister who led a catastrophical government. Nothing to do with Jospin.

[Hash]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

French politics are quite easy to predict : In 1995, the right gets a vicory, but less than in 1993 ( there is no reason to think that UDF would lose more seats that RPR, remember that they were allied and UDF's constituencies were not less right-wing than the RPR's ). Chirac nominates Juppé and refuses to fire him despite his unpopularity. In 2000, left gets a solid victory and Jospin becomes Prime Minister. In 2002 there is a similar campaign that in the real life, but Jospin is not so "usé" and manage to be qualified for the 2nd round. And at his point, I think Jospin would win.

The RPR and UDF might be allied, yes, but I believe Chirac and the RPR would find a way to rid themselves of the Balladuriens. I doubt Jospin would have won in 2002. Firstly, look at Chirac in 1988 and secondly, it's been impossible for a Prime Minister to move from Matignon to the Elysée directly. I have no reason to believe Jospin would be any different.
[/quote]

Chirac lost in 1988 because he was the worst Prime Minister in the history and because he didn't yet learn to lie during a campaign. Nothing to do with Jospin. The argument "it will never happen because it never happenned" is ridiculous.
[/quote]

If Chirac plays his card well from 2000 to 2002, like Mitterrand did between 1986 and 1988, he could very well defeat Jospin. In addition, if Jospin still runs a crap campaign in 2002 and the Plural Left is as disunited in 2002, it would be even harder for him to win.

Granted, if Jospin gets into the runoff in 2002 in this scenario, there is no way Chirac would have won a Mitterrandesque landslide.

Lastly, I never said that it would always be impossible for one to move from one side of the Seine to the other. It has just been shown, over and over again, that it is very hard for one to do so directly due to the nature of the Prime Ministerial office.
[/quote]

Chirac is definitely not intelligent as Mitterrand, and that's not a political opinion. It would never be able to ridicule Jospin as Mitterrand did. And for the second time I repeat you that Chirac lost firstly because he was a bad prime minister who led a catastrophical government. Nothing to do with Jospin.
[/quote]

There's no need to repeat the fact that Chirac was a generally poor Prime Minister, since I never argued the contrary.

I disagree about Jospin, but I don't want to get into a political argument irrelevant to the topic.