France 1974: what if Mitterrand vs Chaban-Delmas

[big bad fab]

Let's imagine Chirac didn't betray Chaban inside the Gaullist movement.
Let's imagine Chaban was ahead of Giscard d'Estaing in the 1st round.

Let's imagine Chaban-Delmas, PM between 1969 and 1972, with an image of dynamism and of a social and moderate Gaullist, faced Mitterrand in the 2nd round.

Remember that, in real world, Mitterrand lost narrowly to Giscard d'Estaing (50,8-49,2).

What would have occurred in case of Chaban vs Mitterrand ?

[big bad fab]

I think Hash is right politically and electorally, but that Antonio would have guessed right the final result.

FM had gathered all he could in the real 1st round and would have gathered the same in my scenario.
It would have been very difficult for him, in the 2nd round against Chaban, to pick 1st round voters from Giscard: sure, Giscard took some old "républicains indépendants" and "Algérie française" voters who were harsh anti-gaullists and wouldn't have voted for Chaban.

But, by 1974, FM was on a hard left path (even if it wasn't entirely sincere and if it was probably cynical, but that's not the point) and those harsh anti-gaullists would have found it difficult to vote for FM.

Nevertheless, I think Chaban would have been defeated with a razor-thin margin due to a bad campaign.
Chaban was a sort of amateur politician (un "dilettante", as we say in French) and wouldn't have been able to lead a tough and organized campaign.

What is more, Chaban and FM knew each other personally quite well: they played billard together in the same culbs in the 50s, for example. Apart from being pressed on some "common" women...., I think Chaban would have found it difficult to attack FM as tough as he should have. FM wouldn't have hesitated, on the contrary.

Maybe some gaullists ("right" or younger gaullists) would have voted FM in secret, but that would have been limited to some apparatchiks.
Giscard wouldn't have helped Chaban whom he hated.

On the other hand, Chaban's regional effect would have cost some votes in the SW, where the left is traditionally strong.

But Mitterrand would have won 50,5 - 49,5.

[big bad fab]

I think Hash is right politically and electorally, but that Antonio would have guessed right the final result.

FM had gathered all he could in the real 1st round and would have gathered the same in my scenario.
It would have been very difficult for him, in the 2nd round against Chaban, to pick 1st round voters from Giscard: sure, Giscard took some old "républicains indépendants" and "Algérie française" voters who were harsh anti-gaullists and wouldn't have voted for Chaban.

But, by 1974, FM was on a hard left path (even if it wasn't entirely sincere and if it was probably cynical, but that's not the point) and those harsh anti-gaullists would have found it difficult to vote for FM.

Nevertheless, I think Chaban would have been defeated with a razor-thin margin due to a bad campaign.
Chaban was a sort of amateur politician (un "dilettante", as we say in French) and wouldn't have been able to lead a tough and organized campaign.

What is more, Chaban and FM knew each other personally quite well: they played billard together in the same culbs in the 50s, for example. Apart from being pressed on some "common" women...., I think Chaban would have found it difficult to attack FM as tough as he should have. FM wouldn't have hesitated, on the contrary.

Maybe some gaullists ("right" or younger gaullists) would have voted FM in secret, but that would have been limited to some apparatchiks.
Giscard wouldn't have helped Chaban whom he hated.

On the other hand, Chaban's regional effect would have cost some votes in the SW, where the left is traditionally strong.

But Mitterrand would have won 50,5 - 49,5.

For a time, I agree with you.

Just because, when I analyze or try to predict (many failures...), I'm not a militant...

Many on this forum, when they "predict" or "analyze" simply say what they think, what they wish, what they politically work for.
That's a pity...

Some, like Hash or Mr Morden or Tender Branson, etc, are really honest in their analyses (even if they are also able to say what they believe in, frankly and with wit).