France General Discussion

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

Listening François Hollande on France5. Socialists are really intellectually totally lost...

[Hash]

Listening François Hollande on France5. Socialists are really intellectually totally lost...

Though not the brightest bulb in the PS, François Hollande is miles smarter than his ex. Sarah Segolene Palin-Royal.

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

Listening François Hollande on France5. Socialists are really intellectually totally lost...

Though not the brightest bulb in the PS, François Hollande is miles smarter than his ex. Sarah Segolene Palin-Royal.

It depends in what sense, in terms of how to be elected today Ségolène - Eva Peron - Holy Mary - Jeanne D'Arc - Royal, beats everybody in PS imo. I know she isn't trendy in polls, but i maintain she's the most able to get elected, as far as today.

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

Eric Raoult (a famous UMP deputy of the Parisian suburb) saying that writers who obtained the Prix Goncourt (the biggest price for writers in France) should execute a duty of self-censorship (<<<not criticizing the political power), after that someones recently found statements of the last recent Prix Goncourt, Marie N'Diaye, criticizing the "France of Sarkozy" and she obviously said she maintained her statements, which I tend to share.

On. which. planet. is. the. UMP. currently. living. ... ?

[Antonio the Sixth]

Listening François Hollande on France5. Socialists are really intellectually totally lost...

Though not the brightest bulb in the PS, François Hollande is miles smarter than his ex. Sarah Segolene Palin-Royal.

It depends in what sense, in terms of how to be elected today Ségolène - Eva Peron - Holy Mary - Jeanne D'Arc - Royal, beats everybody in PS imo. I know she isn't trendy in polls, but i maintain she's the most able to get elected, as far as today.

No. She is the most able to get nominated by PS members because of all her "anti-establishment" blablabla... But then she will be crushed by Sarko. And being crushed by a so unpopular President means being really dumb.

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

Listening François Hollande on France5. Socialists are really intellectually totally lost...

Though not the brightest bulb in the PS, François Hollande is miles smarter than his ex. Sarah Segolene Palin-Royal.

It depends in what sense, in terms of how to be elected today Ségolène - Eva Peron - Holy Mary - Jeanne D'Arc - Royal, beats everybody in PS imo. I know she isn't trendy in polls, but i maintain she's the most able to get elected, as far as today.

No. She is the most able to get nominated by PS members because of all her "anti-establishment" blablabla... But then she will be crushed by Sarko. And being crushed by a so unpopular President means being really dumb.

Let's trust the future to surprise us.

Anyways, in the different scenarios i tend to envisage, yes, Sarko keeps a lot of chances, though, it would remain some kind of 50/50 to me, according to all the different things that could happen.

And, hmm, I tend to think that Sarkozy became beyond unpopular, in fact i tend to think most people see him as ridiculous, and don't really like him, but i tend to think that people are so fed up with all what's happening (and this autumn provided some more matter...) that they would be in a kind of "oh well with all of that, we're screwed now anyways...", or something like that, Sarkozy would be seen as a kind of unpowerfull clown, more or less bad according to people...

I maintain his last card is the foreign affairs, I maintain Iran remains an hot stuff, I maintain the next year will be important. When you listen to his speeches about that, that are the only ones that still have the "blow" of the 2007 campaign, and that remains the realm in which he can still make think people that he can have some importance and some influence, especially since it's easy for him to play the 'bad cop' to take an ascendant on Obama.

You people here may know the weekly poll of the 20H of France2, through interwebs. Each week they ask a question through their website, most of the questions have an average of 10,000/20,000 answers, never more. Except once, they asked about Iran if people considered if it was an actual threat, and what happened (and it has been the only time it happened): more than 300,000 people replied to the poll, people who thought it was a threat were slightly dominating. Seems to show there is a concern here...

I once again think that's an affair to keep in mind to wonder about the future of our political situation. The consequences of what could happen there and the role that Sarkozy could play there could have multiple consequences on the long term...

Other than that, if nothing special happens, yes, Sarkozy would have a lot of chances to own it...

[Hash]

Sarkozy's only chance for re-election is if the Socialists nominate another twit, or if the left is hopelessly divided in a way that prevents reconciliation. In other words, Sarkozy's electoral chances in 2012 are not so dire.

[big bad fab]

Sarkozy's only chance for re-election is if the Socialists nominate another twit, or if the left is hopelessly divided in a way that prevents reconciliation. In other words, Sarkozy's electoral chances in 2012 are not so dire.

You know that I second that.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Sarkozy vs. Strauss-Khan/Delanoe/[insert a sane socialist here] would result in a socialist win, if the situation doesn't improve very significantly in the next two years.

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

Sarkozy vs. Strauss-Khan/Delanoe/[insert a sane socialist here] would result in a socialist win, if the situation doesn't improve very significantly in the next two years.

That's just the opposite of what I think.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Sarkozy vs. Strauss-Khan/Delanoe/[insert a sane socialist here] would result in a socialist win, if the situation doesn't improve very significantly in the next two years.

That's just the opposite of what I think.

Really ??

In the sense "Sarko will win in 2012 anyways" or in the sense "DSK and Delanoe aren't sane at all" ?

[Hash]

Sarkozy vs. Strauss-Khan/Delanoe/[insert a sane socialist here] would result in a socialist win, if the situation doesn't improve very significantly in the next two years.

DSK, yes. Delanoe, not so sure. I've always said he was overrated and he reminds me of Michael Ignatieff in a way: people love him before they know him, and they get the cold shower once they learn to know him.

Royal maintains a decent popularity in the PS due to the strength of her sect, but all polls have shown she's disliked by the electorate as a whole. She isn't their best hope, far from it.

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

Sarkozy vs. Strauss-Khan/Delanoe/[insert a sane socialist here] would result in a socialist win, if the situation doesn't improve very significantly in the next two years.

That's just the opposite of what I think.

Really ??

Yes, you know, and I was still thinking about it in my bed yesterday night, that sane guys are the old school, Martine's friends, Jospin time, this old school that people just can't see anymore, not the slightest of them would have any chance in an election against someone of the UMP, no matter who he is. Ségolène Royal succeeded to cut with this generation.

The only other sane name not identified with this generation is Valls, but he would appear to close of Sarkozy, and in a posture of chief he would become too much a kind of excited kitty I think.

Actually, if there are not some special big events Sarkozy owns it, and according to what could happen he could also own it in case of big events. He very well understood how to play with the opinion and all the error of the autumn are certainly still more teachings to him, in order that people have, like I said in my preceding post, more resignation than protestation, at least as far as today, a resentment could still explode in case of a crash.

Thus, yes, if nothing special happens, imo Sarkozy can be almost sure to own it, and if something big happens that still remains 50/50, own it by resignation of people, in electoral terms, 85% of turnout could become a far dream at the next presidency...

Ok, there might be a slight way for that a DSK or a Delanoë wins, but the country would have to be upside down and both Royal and Sarkozy would have to have been highly discredited. Though, when I say it i don't really believe in it, but, ultimately. I really think the big winner for the future is the abstention.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Well, I still don't understand what's so bad with being an "old-style" socialist. Jospin was a successful Prime Minister, and the "elephants" so criticized now were very competent people, at least a great part of them.
"New-style" (Ségo-style) socialists are just irresponsible populists who, behing their obsession of "changing things", have nothing concrete to say, nothing intelligent to think. The killed the PS, wereas it had good chances to easily win after another failure UMP administration and with a candidate that many people considered a far rightist (which isn't so far from the reality).

[Hash]

There's little concrete evidence to show that voters want to kill the elephants and replace them with stupid hacks like Hamon, Valls, Royal and her sect.

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

Well, I still don't understand what's so bad with being an "old-style" socialist. Jospin was a successful Prime Minister, and the "elephants" so criticized now were very competent people, at least a great part of them.
"New-style" (Ségo-style) socialists are just irresponsible populists who, behing their obsession of "changing things", have nothing concrete to say, nothing intelligent to think. The killed the PS, wereas it had good chances to easily win after another failure UMP administration and with a candidate that many people considered a far rightist (which isn't so far from the reality).

Well, yes they are smart. In a way. First they never succeeded to rule the problems of ego, they never succeeded to make a team, Mitterand could easily put them in rank 2 by 2, but Mitterand is no more here. There are high quality people there, Fabius certainly being the best, but the hell, they are f**kingly stupid in the way they are not able to make a team of them, instead of an accumulation of small chiefs who just represent them and their friends (when you come to think about it, the fact that socialists are not able to make a team has something to do with irony!). This is the first problem, the ego.

Second problem, the story telling. We're in France, that leftist nation, that nation that believed in Mitterand that could changer la vie (change the life), actually when you speak with people in their 50s about that, there is a lot of disappointment, Mitterand time burned the hope and the credit that a leftist speech could have. And the Jospin generation have been a continuation of that, they have been too much pragmatic for what a country like France could wait from the left, and especially in the speeches, the way of speaking they had at that epoch.

By being that pragmatic the French left definitely lost its identity, and more of that, they had intellectual problems to endorse this pragmatism.

In short, they didn't have the slightest coherence between their acts and their speech, and a miss of coherence is a big flaw in democracy. The Jospin generation never really managed to overcome this by clearly endorsing pragmatism, and those who would have liked it like DSK or Delanoë always hesitated to make it with strength, thus are no more credible. No more credible in a leftist speech, no more credible in a pragmatic speech.

So, here you are with a combination of strong egos with mild speeches, the worst possible combination.

Royal, by some 'populo-sociological' ways, some more pragmatism and a clearly displayed ego thus a clear leadership overcame all of this.

Meanwhile, Sarkozy championed pragmatism in its speeches, and the French right uses to be more pragmatic than the French left anyways. And here we are now.

That's why I think that just big contextual events that would discredit Sarkozy can prevent him to go further, or someone that comes with new constructive ideas...anybody?

There's little concrete evidence to show that voters want to kill the elephants and replace them with stupid hacks like Hamon, Valls, Royal and her sect.

Yeah, I know, that's just a personal interpretation and i explained my whole point above.

[Antonio the Sixth]

A great deal of truth in all that. Indeed, the most problematic thing is that the left has kept acting pramatically but at the same time keeping an old-style populo-marxist speech. That's why they have been cowards, accepting to make the ideological progress, but unable to confess to the people that they did. But now the leftist/pragmatic divide makes no sense since with recent events, being pragmatic means being to the left. That doesn't mean we will nationalize and so forth, but just that Welfare State ideology seems again a serious option.

Anyways, your positive comments about Fabius (one of the most opportunistic people around here, having no problem to switch from the "leftist" to the "pragmatic" side and then back to the leftist...) surprised me a lot. As for Royal, none of her word makes sense, and the other's egocentrism is nothing compare to her.

[Hash]

There has always been a gap between rhetoric and policy in the PS.

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

But now the leftist/pragmatic divide makes no sense since with recent events, being pragmatic means being to the left. That doesn't mean we will nationalize and so forth, but just that Welfare State ideology seems again a serious option.

Sure, but the right is still able to manage the egos, they still have a clear chief (even if this one is not in a great time, still). And the Jospin generation is now stigmatized by all what I've said, I just think people no more want to hear us, plus they're a bit like some "fossils" in this epoch, they are of the "pre-2007 era", 2007 changed a lot of things in the way to make politics here, and its champions are Sarkozy and Royal.

Anyways, your positive comments about Fabius (one of the most opportunistic people around here, having no problem to switch from the "leftist" to the "pragmatic" side and then back to the leftist...) surprised me a lot. As for Royal, none of her word makes sense, and the other's egocentrism is nothing compare to her.

Yes, yes, my positive comment on Fabius just concerned his smartness to analyze and speak about issues, in terms of managing the ego and finding a clear place, yes, yes, he maybe one of the worst.

And for Royal, that's what i said, yes egocentrism is present, and to the hell, but she clearly displays it she "assume" (in the french sens, haven't found an english word to make a good equivalent of it, if someone knows...), and that's a strength in democracy, thus she's able to have a clear leadership, one of the big flaws of PS...

And concerning the sens, today the appearance matters more than the sens...

There has always been a gap between rhetoric and policy in the PS.

Yeah but Mitterand and then Jospin gave a new dimension to it, and really burned the leftist story-telling.

[Hash]

There has always been a gap between rhetoric and policy in the PS.

Yeah but Mitterand and then Jospin gave a new dimension to it, and really burned the leftist story-telling.

Mitterrand and Jospin have been the only PS 'leaders'. And do note that I only talked about the PS.

Of course, the same comment obviously applies to the SFIO, more so perhaps.

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

Of course, the same comment obviously applies to the SFIO, more so perhaps.

Not that I am very well versed in before Mitterand period, but, euh, well, as SFIO leaders that had power Léon Blum comes here, and his acts were coordinated to his speeches, then as a leader  Mendès comes here too, though his passage marked more the international affairs than socio-economic issues.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Of course, the same comment obviously applies to the SFIO, more so perhaps.

Not that I am very well versed in before Mitterand period, but, euh, well, as SFIO leaders that had power Léon Blum comes here, and his acts were coordinated to his speeches, then as a leader  Mendès comes here too, though his passage marked more the international affairs than socio-economic issues.

Mendès was a radical.

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

Of course, the same comment obviously applies to the SFIO, more so perhaps.

Not that I am very well versed in before Mitterand period, but, euh, well, as SFIO leaders that had power Léon Blum comes here, and his acts were coordinated to his speeches, then as a leader  Mendès comes here too, though his passage marked more the international affairs than socio-economic issues.

Mendès was a radical.

Héhé, thanks, the most interesting thing to retain in my preceding post were then that I'm not very well versed in the history of the SFIO, and that Blum comes as a SFIO leader who gave some concrete realizations to leftist speech.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Of course, the same comment obviously applies to the SFIO, more so perhaps.

Not that I am very well versed in before Mitterand period, but, euh, well, as SFIO leaders that had power Léon Blum comes here, and his acts were coordinated to his speeches, then as a leader  Mendès comes here too, though his passage marked more the international affairs than socio-economic issues.

Mendès was a radical.

Héhé, thanks, the most interesting thing to retain in my preceding post were then that I'm not very well versed in the history of the SFIO, and that Blum comes as a SFIO leader who gave some concrete realizations to leftist speech.

Makes sense anyways. Indeed lthe SFIO, thanks to Jaurès and Blum, had a long tradition of integrity, untill Mollet transformed it into a machine (and the worse, a machine that didn't work ).

[Hash]

Of course, the same comment obviously applies to the SFIO, more so perhaps.

Not that I am very well versed in before Mitterand period, but, euh, well, as SFIO leaders that had power Léon Blum comes here, and his acts were coordinated to his speeches, then as a leader  Mendès comes here too, though his passage marked more the international affairs than socio-economic issues.

Guy Mollet. Need I continue?