Talk Elections

Let's imagine Raymond Barre, supported by the UDF, is slightly ahead of Chirac in the first round (19 vs 16,5 like in the reality but vice-versa).

He's in the 2nd round against Mitterrand, who did well in the first round (34%). Le Pen was the big surprise, with 14,5% in the first round.

Would he have succeeded in winning ?

at least in doing better than Chirac (who was crunched 54-46) ?

in grasping more FN voters than Chirac, who tried hard (with Pasqua's gestures and actions in New Caledonia) but had never been loved by the far right (Barre, on the contrary, hadn't said anything very strong against Le Pen) ?

in grasping more moderate voters and troubling Mitterrand's campaign, which was hardly socialist ("France Unie", promises of "ouverture" and a moderate Rocard governement, the idea of "ni-ni", neither privatization nor nationalization, etc.) ?

I think Barre would be once again killed by Chirac, as he did with Chaban and Giscard previously. Plus, Chirac's poor government permitted Mitterrand to regain his popularity. Barre could have taken some centrist voters to Mitterrand, but I think he could not win.
I give 52% to Mitterrand and 48 to Barre, but hardly better.

I tend to agree with Antonio.

I tend to think that Barre would have attracted more Le Pen voters, especially considering Mitterrand probably pulled 35% of them. He would also have won Chirac voters much more easily than Chirac won Barre voters in real life (after Chirac's smear campaign on Barre). But I think Mitterrand would win because of his improving numbers in polls and the fact that voters would probably see Barre as the right-wing candidate and attach his name, wrongly, to the unpopular Chirac government.

I agree with Hash.

I may add that Barre would have been a poor campaigner in the 2nd round: he tended to say failed sentences, he was able to be harsh with journalists, he tended to despise ordinary people (even if Balladur was worse, of course), he wasn't a politician at ease in big gatherings.

And Barre wasn't seen by many French people, at that time, as a moderate and pro-European centrist. He was considered as a man from the right, albeit less than Chirac of course (especially in 1988, after 2 years of "libéralisme", sort of, and 2 years of Pasqua, Pons, Claude Labbé,..., i.e. harsh RPR).

And what is more, he was still seen as the horrible "economic doctor" of the late 1970s, equated with the Crisis, the 2nd oil shock, "la rigueur", "l'austérité", always repeating that French people must do efforts and efforts again.

So, I'm not so sure he would have done far better than Chirac, but Antonio mustn't be far away from the "truth".

Hallelujah ! :D :D :D
For the first time, we all agree ! :P

Be careful, Sarkozy's "laïcité positive" seems to influence you...! ;)

:D

I will take it as a joke, assuming ( and hoping ) that you don't believe I'm a radical anti-religious. I insure you that religion is absolutely nto a problem for me : my two parents are catholics, I'm baptized, I did my First Communion and now I attend a cahtolic school. Ah, and I often use expressions like "Hallelujah" and "Oh, my God", though I'm agnostic.  ;)