The goodby of Chirac

[Marla_Singer]

@Masquerouge:

In case you haven't watched it and would be interested to, here's a direct link to Chirac's speech on Sunday evening:
=> http://www.elysee.fr/elysee/elysee.fr/francais/direct_home_page_test.73969.html


@Steph:

Thanks for your explanation of the French presidential election process. Now just to clarify things, "turn" means "virage" in English. Actually, we should talk about "rounds" in english.

Anyway, the principle is rather simple. The idea is simply that a president has to be elected by the majority of citizens, hence by more than 50% of votes. During the 1st round, if no one succeeded to rally 50% of votes, then there's a second round, between the two best candidates of the first round where the winner has necessarily more than 50% of votes.

 

[Steph]

@Steph:

Thanks for your explanation of the French presidential election process. Now just to clarify things, "turn" means "virage" in English. Actually, we should talk about "rounds" in english.

The answer of Mr Nitpicker to Mrs Nitpicker

Spoiler :

No, my full name is not Steph Nitpicker, Marla's full name is not Marla Nitpicker, and we are not married

if you say so
http://www.wordreference.com/enfr/turn

turn:
Principal Translations:
turn v tourner
turn nm tour


http://www.wordreference.com/fren/tour

In fact, the correct word would be

tour (élection) nm ballot (poll)

 

[Marla_Singer]

I generally agree with what has explained Steph. I don't believe that Ségolène Royal has about 1 chance in 2 to be elected. There are four candidates who have strong chances to reach the second round: Sarkozy, Bayrou, Royal and Le Pen. Out of those 4, only the three firstly named have a real chance to be elected. Hence, among the three candidates who can really win it all (Bayrou, Sarkozy, Royal), I would say she's the one who has the least chances to be elected. But we never know, any of the three could be elected. I guess it will largely depend on the mood of French people on the sunday of the election.

Here are globally the general opinions, both positive and negative, about the three candidates:

Nicolas Sarkozy:

• Positive opinion - He has a real vision for France's future. He's a hard worker and seems to be the most voluntary of all candidates in order to actually do something in order to change things. He's also sincere in the meaning that he says everything he wants to do before the elections, both popular and unpopular things. His point being that citizens wouldn't tolerate feeling cheated and this would prevent the government once elected to carry out some unpopular but necessary reforms.
• Negative opinion - His opponents consider him dangerous and some even consider him as insane. He has adopted a strategy consisting in seducing far-right voters. Basically, everyone agrees he would really change things in case he's elected, but people fear those changes would be a lot more negative than they would be positive. Generally, people fear that if elected he would be more a divider than a uniter.

Ségolène Royal:

• Positive opinion - She's new and that's a good thing considering people are sick of the old guard of the French socialist party (guys who have been knicknamed "elephants"). She wants a rupture with the traditional way to do politics in France, and this because a woman would make in itself a whole difference. She's the only real left wing candidate which has a chance to be elected.
• Negative opinion - She's unprepared and has no real vision for France's future. Basically, what's new in her is only about the appearances. If we dig a bit, we realize that the elephants control everything and that it would be the same socialist party as we know since decades which would take power in case she's elected. She's also very sectarian and doesn't respect people she disagrees with. Something bad in the French 5th Republic considering that a President is supposed to represent every Frenchmen and women.

François Bayrou:

• Positive opinion - He wants to break with bipolarism in France. He considers that both the right wing and the left wing have proven their failure during the last 25 years and that we should try something new: the center. He wants to rally both sides and make them work together because he considers France is in a too serious crisis to be the toy of the two largest parties.
• Negative opinion - His vision is very ambiguous. It seems he waits to reach the 2nd round to decide if his positioning will be center left or center right, depending on the candidate he would face then. In France, the government needs to be supported by the parliament in order to govern. The problem is that we don't know where he could find a majority at the parliament to back him. Bayrou is alone without any real troops.

Jean-Marie Le Pen:

• Positive opinion - He's against the establishment and the only one to represent the poor working class. He speaks the truth when the others are all liars. If elected he would humiliate the governing obnoxious politicians and this simple idea is already enough for many to vote for him.
• Negative opinion - He clearly plays one part of the country, those who consider themselves as the real French, against another, those who aren't considered as real French by the first category. His vision isn't simply against the governing happy few, but it also destroys nearly all the fundamentals of the French Republic since the revolution of 1789. If elected, he would destabilize not only France, but the whole Europe in unilateraly deciding to leave the Union.

Outside of these general comments, it appears that the presidential election has a lot of chance to turn into a referendum for or against Nicolas Sarkozy. Ségolène Royal has been named as the left-wing candidate for the only reason that she was the only one of the socialist party which had a real chance to win against Sarkozy. François Bayrou started to become popular only once Sarkozy was at 54% against Royal in opinion polls for the second round and that he was considered as winning at 55% against Sarkozy.

It seems that there's an "Everything but Sarkozy" doctrine which is currently very strong in France, but which have as main weakness to be extremely diverse since it's spread on the whole political spectrum. Hence, a large part of the opinion considers that they'll vote for the candidate who has the best chance to win against Sarkozy, no matter his political color. Their problem is that they don't know exactly which one it is. They thought firstly it would be Ségolène Royal, now they seem to think it could be François Bayrou.

 

[The Last Conformist]

For some reason, I've heard hardly anything of Bayrou in the Sw. media.

 

[Marla_Singer]

For some reason, I've heard hardly anything of Bayrou in the Sw. media.

That's natural, untill a month ago, Bayrou represented nearly nothing more than himself.

Actually, the presidential campaign has been so violent between Sarkozy and Royal that some people have turned disgusted by both. That's the main reason of the raise of Bayrou. Now that Bayrou is up, I guess he'll also get his own bashing campaign which will put more in doubt his candidacy. That's why I believe everything is more open than ever for the 2nd round.

And we shouldn't forget Le Pen. He's always less high in opinion polls than in the real election because people don't dare saying they vote for him once polled. As such, we don't know at all what Le Pen will do. If the three leading candidates continue to destroy each other, he would have strong chance to reach the 2nd round, as he did in 2002.

 

[Steph]

Once again, I agree with most of what Marla wrote (it's a good thing we have some Americans or Brits to bash, or our debating skills would wear away).

What I dislike in this presidential campaign, is we have Sarkozy who seems to have a clear program, and for the others, it's mostly "we are against Sarkozy". We don't really have a program, we don't really care about his program, we are just against it.

Well, big news. Whatever the topic, the French are usually against it anyway.

 

[Winner]

Once again, I agree with most of what Marla wrote (it's a good thing we have some Americans or Brits to bash, or our debating skills would wear away).

What I dislike in this presidential campaign, is we have Sarkozy who seems to have a clear program, and for the others, it's mostly "we are against Sarkozy". We don't really have a program, we don't really care about his program, we are just against it.

Well, big news. Whatever the topic, the French are usually against it anyway.

What's their current standing? Is any one of them capable of defeating him in the second round?

 

[Steph]

What's their current standing? Is any one of them capable of defeating him in the second round?

That's "funny" in fact. Most polls gives Sarkozy with the best score for the first ballot (ok with that Marla ?), around 28%, with 24-25% for both Segolene Royal and Bayrou (Bayrou being generally a bit behind Segolene Royal).
But for the second ballot, Sarkozy beats Royal in the polls, 55-45 to 52-48 depending on the polls, but can lose (45-55) or win (55-45) against Bayrou.

So Sarkozy would be the best for the first ballot, but lose in the second one...

However, nothing is decided, the polls are often quite wrong, and the French may change their favourite candidate.

I don't know if there is any official figure, but I think we aree relatively few people who are sure they will support a candidate look in advance.

Yesterday, there was a socialist (former minister of education in Jospin government) who was interviewed on the radio, he said he won't vote for Royal...

 

[Serutan]

Now just to clarify things, "turn" means "virage" in English. Actually, we should talk about "rounds" in english.

FYI in the US the 1st round would be called the "Primary", and the 2nd round would be called "the runoff".

I am curious about one thing : I have heard that French political parties are tied very closely to their leader, and have a way of going out of existence when said leader retires from politics. How true is that?

 

[Steph]

I am curious about one thing : I have heard that French political parties are tied very closely to their leader, and have a way of going out of existence when said leader retires from politics. How true is that?

Very little.
The socialist party was created in 1969, and it already had 9 leaders so far.
The communist part was created in 1920
UDF in 1978, with 4 leaders up to now
UMP is recent (2002), and was created from the former RPR, who was created in 1976.
The French parties may vary a lot more than for other countries, but they don't simply disappear when the leader changes or retires.

And don't forget we have a lot of parties: 20 parties without counting specific regional or DOM TOM parties or the most minor ones

 

[Yoda Power]

I saw it in the news. They commented it a lot.

 

[MCdread]

His picture while delivering the speech made it to the front page of our main newspaper, which in turn only states the obvious. I doubt anyone will miss him much anyway...

Positive opinion - She's new and that's a good thing considering people are sick of the old guard of the French socialist party (guys who have been knicknamed "elephants"). She wants a rupture with the traditional way to do politics in France, and this because a woman would make in itself a whole difference. She's the only real left wing candidate which has a chance to be elected.

I'll never cease to be amazed at the marketing machine that comes attached with elections and important politicians: they managed to transform someone that has been around for more than 20 years, from Mitterrand's entourage, into someone fresh, new and that has nothing to do with the old system...

 

[Steph]

I'll never cease to be amazed at the marketing machine that comes attached with elections and important politicians: they managed to transform someone that has been around for more than 20 years, from Mitterrand's entourage, into someone fresh, new and that has nothing to do with the old system...

Everything is relative. With the current president being 74 and Le Pen 78, someone in her 50 looks young.

 

[Masquerouge]

Chirac was at the very core of the oil for food scandal, it would have been impossible to pull off without his support. Saddam used oil vouchers to bribe Chirac through one of his cronies, Patrick Maugein. This is why Chirac opposed the Iraq war at the UN, so we wouldn't discover his involvement.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38040

Look, I don't like Chirac, I did not vote for him, and I think he should be tried at the end of his mandate because he did some pretty bad things, but that oneis not one of them.

@Masquerouge:

In case you haven't watched it and would be interested to, here's a direct link to Chirac's speech on Sunday evening:
=> http://www.elysee.fr/elysee/elysee.fr/francais/direct_home_page_test.73969.html


@Steph:

Thanks for your explanation of the French presidential election process. Now just to clarify things, "turn" means "virage" in English. Actually, we should talk about "rounds" in english.

Anyway, the principle is rather simple. The idea is simply that a president has to be elected by the majority of citizens, hence by more than 50% of votes. During the 1st round, if no one succeeded to rally 50% of votes, then there's a second round, between the two best candidates of the first round where the winner has necessarily more than 50% of votes.

HEY I used "round"! And I corrected Steph! I win!

 

[Steph]

HEY I used "round"! And I corrected Steph! I win!

No, you don't (well, you did use "round", but you didn't win). Read the answer of Mr Nitpicker to Mrs Nitpicker.

 

[Tank_Guy#3]

A majority of American people do not know who Chirac is.I can garantee that.

OFF TOPIC:
Do you know the majority of the American people?

If not, then how is it possible to guarentee such a statement?

ON TOPIC:
I'm not religious, otherwise I would thank god he's gone. Now if only Chavez would disappear.

 

[Masquerouge]

No, you don't (well, you did use "round", but you didn't win). Read the answer of Mr Nitpicker to Mrs Nitpicker.

I believe I corrected you on the signature thing. You said signatures of mayors were required, while it's signature of elected officials.

Three can play the nitpicking game

 

[Steph]

Oh, that, I was explaining to Americans, so I tried to make it simple.
There are indeed 45,000 elected official who can give their signatures, not only then 36,000 mayors.
We have also deputy, senators, presidents of "communautés urbaines, d'agglomération ou de communes", and some elected from DOM TOM (Mayotte, Wallis & Futuna, etc).

Also, the signatures should come from at least 30 different departments or oversea collectivities.

Are you happy now Baby Nitpicker?

 

[Masquerouge]

Oh, that, I was explaining to Americans, so I tried to make it simple.
There are indeed 45,000 elected official who can give their signatures, not only then 36,000 mayors.
We have also deputy, senators, presidents of "communautés urbaines, d'agglomération ou de communes", and some elected from DOM TOM (Mayotte, Wallis & Futuna, etc).

Also, the signatures should come from at least 30 different departments or oversea collectivities.

Are you happy now Baby Nitpicker?

Much better

 

[Marla_Singer]

I believe I corrected you on the signature thing. You said signatures of mayors were required, while it's signature of elected officials.

Three can play the nitpicking game

Actually, we could go even further. Every candidate indeed need 500 sponsorships from elected officials, but those should be representatives of at least 30 of the 105 departments and overseas collectivities and there couldn't be more than 50 sponsorhips from the same department or overseas collectivity.

Anyway, considering there are no less the 36,000 municipalities in France (as many as the other 26 EU countries altogether), most of the elected officials are indeed mayors of small villages which wouldn't even be considered as municipalities in any other country. A funny statistics is that there are 3 times more communes in the Paris metropolitan area alone than in the whole Belgium (respectively 1,573 and 589).