French mock presidential election, 2007 - 2nd round

[Antonio the Sixth]

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

Rules are the same :

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

[Antonio the Sixth]

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 ).

[Antonio the Sixth]

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.

[Antonio the Sixth]

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...

[Antonio the Sixth]

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.

[Antonio the Sixth]

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.

[Antonio the Sixth]

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.

[Antonio the Sixth]

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.

[Antonio the Sixth]

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 !

[Antonio the Sixth]

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.

[Antonio the Sixth]

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.

How will you do the municipals? Who you'd vote for would depend a lot on where you lived.

Everything is yet hypothetical but I project to divide it in 10 categories ( the 8 biggest cities + one "big cities" category + one "average cities" caterogies - no small cities because there uses not to be political affiliations for them ). Anybody can chose the category where he votes.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I voted in Castres, Tarn, for municipals. I very doubt you projected to that one...

I can vote in the category "average cities" if you want.

First poll

Sample : 7

Bayrou : 86%
Blank : 14%



Bayrou landslinde predicted... though we can not exclude another surprise ! Keep voting, please.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Important information : Opening of the General french mock elections thread here

[Antonio the Sixth]

I voted in Castres, Tarn, for municipals. I very doubt you projected to that one...

I can vote in the category "average cities" if you want.

It enough well reflected the presidential in a way, a divided left, a strong independant center, who finally turned kinda independant NC, a kind of local Bayrou, he's now deputy, Phillipe Folliot, and in the end, it is the UMP (a kind of local Sarkozy, Pascal Bugis) who won.

But, no, there might be more important stuffs, it's an only 40,000 inhabitants city, and not a lot of stakes.

Do what you planed to do.

I think any city of more than 10 000 can be considered as average.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Last week before closure of the poll. Hurry-up to vote, please !

[Antonio the Sixth]

I missed the 1st Round

I choose revolution!

Let's make a Sixth Republic!

Your vote could have changed many things since there was a tie between Bayrou and Sarkozy.

Anyways, I also am in favor of a 6th republic, and Bayrou certainly was the most reformer of every candidate on this issue.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Second poll

Sample : 9

Bayrou : 67%
Royal : 11%
Blank : 22%

[Antonio the Sixth]

François Bayrou is officially elected President of French Republic.

Official results

Turnout : 17

Blank votes : 3 ( 18% )
Expressed ballots : 14 ( 82% )

François Bayrou : 10 ( 71% )
Ségolène Royal : 4 ( 29% )


Don't miss the Inauguration Day friday, and then the mock legislative elections !