French mock presidential election, 2007 - 2nd round

[Californian Tony]

Let's vote for the Second Round ! Royal ( PS ) and Bayrou ( MoDem ) are qualified.

Rules are the same :

Those who want can keep their vote secret, as in real life. The results will be discovered only when the poll will be closed, as in real life.
Last thing : If you don't know candidates' political affiliations and ideas, you can ask informations to me or another french user. Thanks.

Excepted that the poll will be open for only two weeks, instead of one month. So, hurry-up to vote !

My vote goes to Bayrou, as for 1st round.

[Mint]

Ugh. Bayrou.

[Californian Tony]

Ugh. Bayrou.

Yeah, horrible situation for republicans ! I however expect you to vote for who you consider the "least worse" candidate ( and the answer is not so evident it could seem ).

[Benwah [why on Earth do I post something] Courseyay]

Well, Bayrou. Unlike what I did in the real life, because I gave my vote to ...Royal at 2nd turn. Damn. Yeah, sorry, I couldn't bear moral values of Sarkozy.

[I left.]

I'm not the kind of person that stays home or casts a blank ballot.

Therefore....even though I dislike both candidates.....my vote goes to: Bayrou

[Californian Tony]

We're going to have a Bayrou landslide...

Well, Bayrou. Unlike what I did in the real life, because I gave my vote to ...Royal at 2nd turn. Damn. Yeah, sorry, I couldn't bear moral values of Sarkozy.

Yes, I would also give my vote to Royal against Sarkozy, even if I don't like her. Bayrou was certainly the best of all three.

[Hashemite]

I'm not the kind of person that stays home or casts a blank ballot.

Therefore....even though I dislike both candidates.....my vote goes to: Bayrou

Me neither, but I will never vote for either of these two losers. Blank/scribble Jean Royer all over the ballot.

[Californian Tony]

I'm not the kind of person that stays home or casts a blank ballot.

Therefore....even though I dislike both candidates.....my vote goes to: Bayrou

Me neither, but I will never vote for either of these two losers. Blank/scribble Jean Royer all over the ballot.

I will never understand how you can have a S: -1.91 political matrix and support Royer...

[Hashemite]

I'm not the kind of person that stays home or casts a blank ballot.

Therefore....even though I dislike both candidates.....my vote goes to: Bayrou

Me neither, but I will never vote for either of these two losers. Blank/scribble Jean Royer all over the ballot.

I will never understand how you can have a S: -1.91 political matrix and support Royer...

For laughs, obviously.

[Fmr. Emperor PiT]

     Bayrou, just to stop Royal.

[Benwah [why on Earth do I post something] Courseyay]

Bayrou was certainly the best of all three.

I hell agree. That said, I think he turns a bit ridiculous by now...

[Thomas216]

I hell agree. That said, I think he turns a bit ridiculous by now...

What do you mean, what has he done?
I voted Bayrou though I understand Royal not as left wing as some other Socialist politicians (Aubry?).

[Californian Tony]

I hell agree. That said, I think he turns a bit ridiculous by now...

What do you mean, what has he done?
I voted Bayrou though I understand Royal not as left wing as some other Socialist politicians (Aubry?).

In fact, she is nowhere.

[Benwah [why on Earth do I post something] Courseyay]

I hell agree. That said, I think he turns a bit ridiculous by now...

What do you mean, what has he done?
I voted Bayrou though I understand Royal not as left wing as some other Socialist politicians (Aubry?).

In fact, she is nowhere.

Yeah!

That's the point!

Our political leaders are nowhere but on what is the more aired in the media.

Bayrou turns a bit ridiculous because he tends to shut himself in an anti-sarkozy line. The same for Royal, plus the fact that she isn't afraid at all to be ridiculous, she jumps on everything that could make polemic against Sarkozy. I think she's just burning herself. Bayrou succeeds in keeping more dignity and stays more interesting than her.

Aubry? Well, she...euh...I heard she leads a political party...named...euh...ah yes! PS!

[Thomas216]

Thank you both for your answers, looks like Royal and Livny have some things in common besides being left-wing female politicians.

In fact, she is nowhere.

Better then left wing in my book.

[Californian Tony]

Thank you both for your answers, looks like Royal and Livny have some things in common besides being left-wing female politicians.

Livni is not a left-wing politician. At least a centrist one.

[Thomas216]

I'm afraid she is Antonio, at least by Israeli standards, she is quite left wing and much to the left of most of her party members and Labour members.
Left and right in Israel got little to do with economic views (I'd say she's a bit right of centre, for Israel, not the US), mainly represents the views towards the Israeli-Arab conflict and Livny basically agrees to major redrawls though I agree that she has done little to prove it as foreign minister.

[Californian Tony]

I'm afraid she is Antonio, at least by Israeli standards, she is quite left wing and much to the left of most of her party members and Labour members.
Left and right in Israel got little to do with economic views (I'd say she's a bit right of centre, for Israel, not the US), mainly represents the views towards the Israeli-Arab conflict and Livny basically agrees to major redrawls though I agree that she has done little to prove it as foreign minister.

I must admit that Israel is today one of the most far-rhightist countries in the world. I personally consider many Labour members as decisely rightists. They just forgot what was the Mapai and left-wing Zionism.

[Hashemite]

I voted Bayrou though I understand Royal not as left wing as some other Socialist politicians (Aubry?).

Royal doesn't have a real ideology. She's an extreme egomaniac, even by French political standards. She would probably ally herself with any faction as long as she becomes leader. Bayrou is also an extreme egomaniac, but to his credit, he is able to be more dignified and less mentally unstable than Royal.

As to Aubry, I don't know if she's still alive or at least breathing.

Aubry? Well, she...euh...I heard she leads a political party...named...euh...ah yes! PS!

Ah, that's it! Apparently the PS is a fringe party!

[Thomas216]

I'm afraid she is Antonio, at least by Israeli standards, she is quite left wing and much to the left of most of her party members and Labour members.
Left and right in Israel got little to do with economic views (I'd say she's a bit right of centre, for Israel, not the US), mainly represents the views towards the Israeli-Arab conflict and Livny basically agrees to major redrawls though I agree that she has done little to prove it as foreign minister.

I must admit that Israel is today one of the most far-rhightist countries in the world. I personally consider many Labour members as decisely rightists. They just forgot what was the Mapai and left-wing Zionism.

Mapai wasn't left-wing at all, not when it came to foreign relations (at least until the days of the younger generation of Rabin and Peres since the mid 1970s).
They were quite socialist but the politics in Israel has moved to the right in the economic sphere whilst moving to the left in the foreign relations policies, the Likud today is probably more left wing than Mapai in the 1960s and before.
At the same time Labour today is more capitalistic than Herut in the 1950s (though Herut was never a big believer of fiscal conservatism, the Likud got it's fiscal conservatism ideas from the Liberals after the merge in the 1960s that formed Gahal).

Israel isn't very right wing, both socially and fiscally the US and some other English speaking nations are much to Israel's right.

[Californian Tony]

I'm afraid she is Antonio, at least by Israeli standards, she is quite left wing and much to the left of most of her party members and Labour members.
Left and right in Israel got little to do with economic views (I'd say she's a bit right of centre, for Israel, not the US), mainly represents the views towards the Israeli-Arab conflict and Livny basically agrees to major redrawls though I agree that she has done little to prove it as foreign minister.

I must admit that Israel is today one of the most far-rhightist countries in the world. I personally consider many Labour members as decisely rightists. They just forgot what was the Mapai and left-wing Zionism.

Mapai wasn't left-wing at all, not when it came to foreign relations (at least until the days of the younger generation of Rabin and Peres since the mid 1970s).
They were quite socialist but the politics in Israel has moved to the right in the economic sphere whilst moving to the left in the foreign relations policies, the Likud today is probably more left wing than Mapai in the 1960s and before.
At the same time Labour today is more capitalistic than Herut in the 1950s (though Herut was never a big believer of fiscal conservatism, the Likud got it's fiscal conservatism ideas from the Liberals after the merge in the 1960s that formed Gahal).

Israel isn't very right wing, both socially and fiscally the US and some other English speaking nations are much to Israel's right.

The Mapai government didn't have a will to colonize nor even to durably occupe palestinian territories. It never did the war voluntarily, but was only attacked by Arab countries. It actively worked for peace and accepted any compromise with his ennemies ( with the Egypt notably ). There was the time when Israel didn't think that the only way to have safety is to attack those who threaten it. I can easily understand it : after being attacked for decades, they have probably had enogh. However, I can't agree with this return of a brutal and arrogant "Bush-type" nationalism.
About economical issues, it happened in Israel what happened in almost every occidental states : In the 1980' years, the rising of what frenchs call "néolibéralisme", this blind and dogmatic ideology that caused this economical crisis.
About social values, I don't know a lot about them in Israel, but I don't see it as a particularly reactionnary country.

[Thomas216]

I'm afraid she is Antonio, at least by Israeli standards, she is quite left wing and much to the left of most of her party members and Labour members.
Left and right in Israel got little to do with economic views (I'd say she's a bit right of centre, for Israel, not the US), mainly represents the views towards the Israeli-Arab conflict and Livny basically agrees to major redrawls though I agree that she has done little to prove it as foreign minister.

I must admit that Israel is today one of the most far-rhightist countries in the world. I personally consider many Labour members as decisely rightists. They just forgot what was the Mapai and left-wing Zionism.

Mapai wasn't left-wing at all, not when it came to foreign relations (at least until the days of the younger generation of Rabin and Peres since the mid 1970s).
They were quite socialist but the politics in Israel has moved to the right in the economic sphere whilst moving to the left in the foreign relations policies, the Likud today is probably more left wing than Mapai in the 1960s and before.
At the same time Labour today is more capitalistic than Herut in the 1950s (though Herut was never a big believer of fiscal conservatism, the Likud got it's fiscal conservatism ideas from the Liberals after the merge in the 1960s that formed Gahal).

Israel isn't very right wing, both socially and fiscally the US and some other English speaking nations are much to Israel's right.

The Mapai government didn't have a will to colonize nor even to durably occupe palestinian territories. It never did the war voluntarily, but was only attacked by Arab countries. It actively worked for peace and accepted any compromise with his ennemies ( with the Egypt notably ). There was the time when Israel didn't think that the only way to have safety is to attack those who threaten it. I can easily understand it : after being attacked for decades, they have probably had enogh. However, I can't agree with this return of a brutal and arrogant "Bush-type" nationalism.
About economical issues, it happened in Israel what happened in almost every occidental states : In the 1980' years, the rising of what frenchs call "néolibéralisme", this blind and dogmatic ideology that caused this economical crisis.
About social values, I don't know a lot about them in Israel, but I don't see it as a particularly reactionnary country.

I didn't say that Mapai started wars but it was never too keen about giving the Arabs lands such as Judea and Samaria during the days of Meir and Dayan.
Actually, even Rabin was against an Israeli retreat from eastern Jerusalem and the Golan heights in the 1990s, not to mention the 1970s when he was much more moderate.
The only land that Israel was always willing to retreat from is the Sinai and eventually it was Begin of the Likud that signed the treaty with Egypt, not a Mapai politician.
Today, however, Labour members are certain to vote in favour of a retreat in Judea and Samaria to establish yet another Arab state and will most likely vote in favour of a retreat in the Golan heights so Labour is to the left of Mapai though I agree that Labour isn't as leftist as it was 10 years ago when Barak was PM, he matured and today he's by far the most moderate Labour MK and to the right of Livny.

I agree about with your statement regarding the 1980s but Israel is still to the left of the US economically and I'd say also socially, social issues are mostly none-issues in Israel.

[Californian Tony]

I'm afraid she is Antonio, at least by Israeli standards, she is quite left wing and much to the left of most of her party members and Labour members.
Left and right in Israel got little to do with economic views (I'd say she's a bit right of centre, for Israel, not the US), mainly represents the views towards the Israeli-Arab conflict and Livny basically agrees to major redrawls though I agree that she has done little to prove it as foreign minister.

I must admit that Israel is today one of the most far-rhightist countries in the world. I personally consider many Labour members as decisely rightists. They just forgot what was the Mapai and left-wing Zionism.

Mapai wasn't left-wing at all, not when it came to foreign relations (at least until the days of the younger generation of Rabin and Peres since the mid 1970s).
They were quite socialist but the politics in Israel has moved to the right in the economic sphere whilst moving to the left in the foreign relations policies, the Likud today is probably more left wing than Mapai in the 1960s and before.
At the same time Labour today is more capitalistic than Herut in the 1950s (though Herut was never a big believer of fiscal conservatism, the Likud got it's fiscal conservatism ideas from the Liberals after the merge in the 1960s that formed Gahal).

Israel isn't very right wing, both socially and fiscally the US and some other English speaking nations are much to Israel's right.

The Mapai government didn't have a will to colonize nor even to durably occupe palestinian territories. It never did the war voluntarily, but was only attacked by Arab countries. It actively worked for peace and accepted any compromise with his ennemies ( with the Egypt notably ). There was the time when Israel didn't think that the only way to have safety is to attack those who threaten it. I can easily understand it : after being attacked for decades, they have probably had enogh. However, I can't agree with this return of a brutal and arrogant "Bush-type" nationalism.
About economical issues, it happened in Israel what happened in almost every occidental states : In the 1980' years, the rising of what frenchs call "néolibéralisme", this blind and dogmatic ideology that caused this economical crisis.
About social values, I don't know a lot about them in Israel, but I don't see it as a particularly reactionnary country.

I didn't say that Mapai started wars but it was never too keen about giving the Arabs lands such as Judea and Samaria during the days of Meir and Dayan.
Actually, even Rabin was against an Israeli retreat from eastern Jerusalem and the Golan heights in the 1990s, not to mention the 1970s when he was much more moderate.
The only land that Israel was always willing to retreat from is the Sinai and eventually it was Begin of the Likud that signed the treaty with Egypt, not a Mapai politician.
Today, however, Labour members are certain to vote in favour of a retreat in Judea and Samaria to establish yet another Arab state and will most likely vote in favour of a retreat in the Golan heights so Labour is to the left of Mapai though I agree that Labour isn't as leftist as it was 10 years ago when Barak was PM, he matured and today he's by far the most moderate Labour MK and to the right of Livny.

I agree about with your statement regarding the 1980s but Israel is still to the left of the US economically and I'd say also socially, social issues are mostly none-issues in Israel.

I agree about Golan heights and Jerusalem. There is no reason to give these so important regions ( strategically for Golan, symbolically for Jerusalem ) to Arab countries. However, they can't be ruled only by Israel. The only solution is an international control.
About economics, thanks. About social issues, good news.

Anyways... we should not forget that it's supposed to be a vote thread !

[Thomas216]

I'm afraid she is Antonio, at least by Israeli standards, she is quite left wing and much to the left of most of her party members and Labour members.
Left and right in Israel got little to do with economic views (I'd say she's a bit right of centre, for Israel, not the US), mainly represents the views towards the Israeli-Arab conflict and Livny basically agrees to major redrawls though I agree that she has done little to prove it as foreign minister.

I must admit that Israel is today one of the most far-rhightist countries in the world. I personally consider many Labour members as decisely rightists. They just forgot what was the Mapai and left-wing Zionism.

Mapai wasn't left-wing at all, not when it came to foreign relations (at least until the days of the younger generation of Rabin and Peres since the mid 1970s).
They were quite socialist but the politics in Israel has moved to the right in the economic sphere whilst moving to the left in the foreign relations policies, the Likud today is probably more left wing than Mapai in the 1960s and before.
At the same time Labour today is more capitalistic than Herut in the 1950s (though Herut was never a big believer of fiscal conservatism, the Likud got it's fiscal conservatism ideas from the Liberals after the merge in the 1960s that formed Gahal).

Israel isn't very right wing, both socially and fiscally the US and some other English speaking nations are much to Israel's right.

The Mapai government didn't have a will to colonize nor even to durably occupe palestinian territories. It never did the war voluntarily, but was only attacked by Arab countries. It actively worked for peace and accepted any compromise with his ennemies ( with the Egypt notably ). There was the time when Israel didn't think that the only way to have safety is to attack those who threaten it. I can easily understand it : after being attacked for decades, they have probably had enogh. However, I can't agree with this return of a brutal and arrogant "Bush-type" nationalism.
About economical issues, it happened in Israel what happened in almost every occidental states : In the 1980' years, the rising of what frenchs call "néolibéralisme", this blind and dogmatic ideology that caused this economical crisis.
About social values, I don't know a lot about them in Israel, but I don't see it as a particularly reactionnary country.

I didn't say that Mapai started wars but it was never too keen about giving the Arabs lands such as Judea and Samaria during the days of Meir and Dayan.
Actually, even Rabin was against an Israeli retreat from eastern Jerusalem and the Golan heights in the 1990s, not to mention the 1970s when he was much more moderate.
The only land that Israel was always willing to retreat from is the Sinai and eventually it was Begin of the Likud that signed the treaty with Egypt, not a Mapai politician.
Today, however, Labour members are certain to vote in favour of a retreat in Judea and Samaria to establish yet another Arab state and will most likely vote in favour of a retreat in the Golan heights so Labour is to the left of Mapai though I agree that Labour isn't as leftist as it was 10 years ago when Barak was PM, he matured and today he's by far the most moderate Labour MK and to the right of Livny.

I agree about with your statement regarding the 1980s but Israel is still to the left of the US economically and I'd say also socially, social issues are mostly none-issues in Israel.

I agree about Golan heights and Jerusalem. There is no reason to give these so important regions ( strategically for Golan, symbolically for Jerusalem ) to Arab countries. However, they can't be ruled only by Israel. The only solution is an international control.
About economics, thanks. About social issues, good news.

Anyways... we should not forget that it's supposed to be a vote thread !

I tend to disagree, I'm not a big believer of the UN and international interference in the region (that indeed played so well in Iraq, Lebanon etc.) but OK.
And an interesting vote thread it is, what are you gonna do next, Germany? the UK? or was it a one time try, this foreign elections idea?

[Californian Tony]

I'm afraid she is Antonio, at least by Israeli standards, she is quite left wing and much to the left of most of her party members and Labour members.
Left and right in Israel got little to do with economic views (I'd say she's a bit right of centre, for Israel, not the US), mainly represents the views towards the Israeli-Arab conflict and Livny basically agrees to major redrawls though I agree that she has done little to prove it as foreign minister.

I must admit that Israel is today one of the most far-rhightist countries in the world. I personally consider many Labour members as decisely rightists. They just forgot what was the Mapai and left-wing Zionism.

Mapai wasn't left-wing at all, not when it came to foreign relations (at least until the days of the younger generation of Rabin and Peres since the mid 1970s).
They were quite socialist but the politics in Israel has moved to the right in the economic sphere whilst moving to the left in the foreign relations policies, the Likud today is probably more left wing than Mapai in the 1960s and before.
At the same time Labour today is more capitalistic than Herut in the 1950s (though Herut was never a big believer of fiscal conservatism, the Likud got it's fiscal conservatism ideas from the Liberals after the merge in the 1960s that formed Gahal).

Israel isn't very right wing, both socially and fiscally the US and some other English speaking nations are much to Israel's right.

The Mapai government didn't have a will to colonize nor even to durably occupe palestinian territories. It never did the war voluntarily, but was only attacked by Arab countries. It actively worked for peace and accepted any compromise with his ennemies ( with the Egypt notably ). There was the time when Israel didn't think that the only way to have safety is to attack those who threaten it. I can easily understand it : after being attacked for decades, they have probably had enogh. However, I can't agree with this return of a brutal and arrogant "Bush-type" nationalism.
About economical issues, it happened in Israel what happened in almost every occidental states : In the 1980' years, the rising of what frenchs call "néolibéralisme", this blind and dogmatic ideology that caused this economical crisis.
About social values, I don't know a lot about them in Israel, but I don't see it as a particularly reactionnary country.

I didn't say that Mapai started wars but it was never too keen about giving the Arabs lands such as Judea and Samaria during the days of Meir and Dayan.
Actually, even Rabin was against an Israeli retreat from eastern Jerusalem and the Golan heights in the 1990s, not to mention the 1970s when he was much more moderate.
The only land that Israel was always willing to retreat from is the Sinai and eventually it was Begin of the Likud that signed the treaty with Egypt, not a Mapai politician.
Today, however, Labour members are certain to vote in favour of a retreat in Judea and Samaria to establish yet another Arab state and will most likely vote in favour of a retreat in the Golan heights so Labour is to the left of Mapai though I agree that Labour isn't as leftist as it was 10 years ago when Barak was PM, he matured and today he's by far the most moderate Labour MK and to the right of Livny.

I agree about with your statement regarding the 1980s but Israel is still to the left of the US economically and I'd say also socially, social issues are mostly none-issues in Israel.

I agree about Golan heights and Jerusalem. There is no reason to give these so important regions ( strategically for Golan, symbolically for Jerusalem ) to Arab countries. However, they can't be ruled only by Israel. The only solution is an international control.
About economics, thanks. About social issues, good news.

Anyways... we should not forget that it's supposed to be a vote thread !

I tend to disagree, I'm not a big believer of the UN and international interference in the region (that indeed played so well in Iraq, Lebanon etc.) but OK.
And an interesting vote thread it is, what are you gonna do next, Germany? the UK? or was it a one time try, this foreign elections idea?

No, I project to continue with french elections : 2007 legislatives, 2008 municipals, 2009 europeans... I hope somebody else will do the same for other countries.