[Computer]

France 24 debate: French Presidential Race: Can Sarkozy beat Hollande?

Mind the gap in the French presidential race which is tightening. Not enough, argues Socialist Olivier Ferrand for whom Nicolas Sarkozy has tacked too far right to win. The UMP’s Arnaud Danjean – in a dig at François Hollande – answers you can be pro-Europe and still address the fears of ordinary citizens. Arnaud DANJEAN. French legislative elections candidate, UMP. Member of the European Parliament; Olivier FERRAND. French legislative elections candidate, Socialist Party. President and founder, Terra Nova; Marc PERELMAN. France 24 French Politics Editor; Markus KARLSSON. France 24 / MCD / RFI Business Editor; Douglas HERBERT. France 24 International Affairs Editor.

http://www.france24.com/en/20120502-...-beat-Hollande

[Kurtofan]

Hollande was ahead in many subjects, even economy I think.

I thought Sarkozy was condescendant at the beginning and Hollande countered his arguments(and his lies) correctly.

[Alx]

Hollande was ahead in many subjects, even economy I think.

He completely dropped the ball on economy at the moment he started using Germany as a point of reference to criticize Sakozy's "bilan". And I don't think he clearly explained how his program would reduce deficit.

[G.O.O.]

I think it's fake, it's been on twitter for a while now. If it's not, shame on them.

It's real.

Pfff

[Computer]

Recap for English speakers: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/fren...bate-live-blog

:lol

Edit:



http://ledebat.tumblr.com/

[thatbox]

Is there a full version of it available to watch? I'm mostly just turning up snippets but haven't tried too hard yet. Figured maybe somebody already had it handy.

[Computer]

Is there a full version of it available to watch? I'm mostly just turning up snippets but haven't tried too hard yet. Figured maybe somebody already had it handy.

Are you looking for a version with English dubs/subtitles? The debate was 160+ minutes long, that's a lot of subtitles to make. I wouldn't expect to find a full translated version online tonight.

[Mistouze]

This won't change anyone's opinion. I just loved how Sarkozy only choose to talk about getting the FN votes at the very end when he knew Hollande couldn't reply (even if he tried). Well played lol

Programs are going to be dropped faster than 16 year's old panties in the backstage of a Justin Bieber concert.

[thatbox]

Are you looking for a version with English dubs/subtitles? The debate was 160+ minutes long, that's a lot of subtitles to make. I wouldn't expect to find a full translated version online tonight.

No, I speak French well enough. I'll do some Googling around.

[Computer]

Jean-Luc Mélenchon, cofondateur du Parti de gauche : "A mesure que le débat avançait, Hollande l'a bien scotché et l'autre a passé son temps à gigoter et se débattre et à la fin c'était pitoyable."

http://www.francetv.fr/2012/le-debat...-gauche-132530

[Mael]

What a fitting debate for fucking stupid campaign!
The debate was absolute shit.
I'm still missing the very end that I'll catch by recording the France 3 channel.
In short,
on economy : at least Sarko wasn't utter shit and spouting nonsense
on education : Hollande had a clear win no debate here (the simple removal of IUFM kinda put NS in a tough spot)
on fiscal reform and retirement : Sarko actually destroyed Hollande who had very little to show
on diplomacy : fucking stalemate because nothing will change with an edge for Sarkozy because the guy has experience after all and doesn't seem to take a decision based on a vague feeling of feel good
on immigration : I don't fucking care at all, although if foreigners get to vote since it requires a change in the constitution, can they at least ask us first? You know through a referendum or something + quite clear case of Hollande-I-never-change-my-point-of-view changing his point of view live on tv
on nuclear : Actually this has been quite clear from the very beginning, the contract between EELV and PS bit Hollande in the ass here
DSK : lol
general integrity : clear Sarkozy win, since he at least didn't try to pass off as a paragon of virtue and with the DSK affair that was a clear mistake on Hollande's side to go this way

Also it was so very fucking painful to watch with Hollande being constantly angry and cutting off his opponent. I'm actually pissed at the guy for not letting the other guy talk, because trying to stop NS from talking means that he won't say what he have to say and not totally delay the whole thing and makes us waste our time.

In short, this.

I'll give the edge on Sarko on that debate. He definitely dominated Hollande on the hot subjects (economy, Europe and foreign policy). Hollande held his own on education and immigration. Towards the end the discussion devolved into petty attacks and it kind of spoilt the effect. I don't think this debate will move many opinions. It affected mine though : I definitely can't vote for Hollande, whom I don't trust on economy nor diplomacy (and he doesn't even come out as a very clever person). Blank is still an option, but I may vote for Sarko after all.

Yep it's real and people wonder why I say that french newspapers are shit?

[Computer]

general integrity : clear Sarkozy win

Shining the FN's shoes for a few votes and reaching the Godwin DSK point say a lot about Sarkozy's integrity.

[daffy]

that was some alien vs predator shit.

[Mael]

Shining the FN's shoes for a few votes and reaching the Godwin DSK point say a lot about Sarkozy's integrity.

Trying to pass of as the holder of virtue when you know a little about the guy is even worse.
Again at least Sarkozy is pretty clear on his intention and he's chasing 18% here unlike the 2% that Hollande will trade against our energy policy.

[nib95]

Trying to pass of as the holder of virtue when you know a little about the guy is even worse. Again at least Sarkozy is pretty clear on his intention and he's chasing 18% here unlike the 2% that Hollande will trade against our energy policy.

What the hell is this? No it is not. That's some personal bias you're letting skew your opinion.

[Mael]

What the hell is this? No it is not. That's some personal bias you're letting skew your opinion.

Why the hell do you think he kept referring to the status of the president and all that?
It is very clear what he was trying to do and say, let's not be blind to what both morons were saying tonight.
The funny part was him saying how the last administration was partisan.....to a guy who kept poaching the PS for places in ministers and the likes.

[nilbog21]

where can i watch the debate? (in french)

[mourad louali]

http://www.pluzz.fr/2012-le-debat.html

[nilbog21]

http://www.pluzz.fr/2012-le-debat.html

cant watch from outside france?

[sflufan]

cant watch from outside france?

Non!

[mourad louali]

cant watch from outside france?

yeah i guess

try this one : http://www.francetv.fr/2012/video-le...x-tours-132160

[G.O.O.]

"calomniateur"

I missed this one <3

EDIT : http://www.atlantico.fr/decryptage/r...sm-347882.html

EDIT 2 : I know we were all waiting for this, but now we know for sure : Jacques Cheminade will vote for Hollande.

[G.O.O.]

Bayrou aswell. But who cares honestly.

[Kurtofan]

Bayrou will personally vote for Hollande, but won't give an official consign.

Edit:Reading delicious Figaro comments.

[G.O.O.]

Edit:Reading delicious Figaro comments.

Oh god, I'm not missing this

[Computer]

L’abstention, seul choix honorable Publié le 4/05/2012 En contrepoint à l’article de Nicolas Rannou, « Pourquoi il faut voter dimanche, ou pourquoi le vote-sanction est une sottise« . Contrairement à ce qu’explique la vulgate social-démocrate, l’élection n’est pas le moment d’un choix. C’est le moment d’un rapport de force. Il n’y a pas d’un côté des citoyens qui délibèrent de façon libre, consciente et éclairée et de l’autre des hommes politiques démunis qui attendent la bénédiction populaire pour se mettre à l’action conformément aux voeux du plus grand nombre. Par Pasm, depuis la Belgique. Non, vous n’avez pas le droit de vote ! Personne n’a le droit de vote. Personne n’a le droit de rentrer chez son voisin, d’ouvrir ses armoires, d’inspecter son frigo, de compter ses tableaux, de tâter ses faïences, de fouiller ses comptes bancaires, de renifler ses draps et de refaire les plans de sa maison. Personne n’a le droit de dire à autrui quand il doit travailler, quand il doit se reposer, quand il doit sortir faire la fête, quand il doit partir mourir à la guerre. Personne n’a le droit de voler son prochain, de lui taxer ses cigarettes, de lui confisquer son patrimoine, de lui imposer ses revenus, de lui téhipéper son essence. Personne n’a le droit de ficher, marquer, identifier, contrôler, enrôler, vérifier, mutualiser, solidariser, parquer, déplacer, déporter, endoctriner, estampiller, certifier ou représenter qui que ce soit sans son consentement exprès. De là, il découle que personne ne peut confier la moindre de ces tâches à un quelconque député ou président. Et n’essayez pas d’invoquer l’argument pathétique du moindre mal. Il est indéfendable ! Qu’importe que vous ayez l’impression que votre situation personnelle soit moins mauvaise avec untel et untel ! D’une part, la réalité empirique nous prouve qu’il est totalement impossible de prédire la politique qui sera menée à partir des programmes de campagne. Les promesses électorales seront reniés, les circonstances imposeront des choix imprévus et l’essentiel de la gestion continuera d’être assumée par une administration et des syndicats dont les intérêts et les stratégies sont hors d’atteinte des électeurs. D’autre part – quand bien même on pourrait prévoir une quelconque mesure politique – les stratégies d’évitement individuel, depuis la fraude fiscale jusqu’à l’expatriation, sont suffisamment nombreuses pour que la clause de force majeure ne puisse être appliquée. Si vous votez, vous donnez votre consentement pour qu’on aille taxer les uns ou matraquer les autres. Dans tous les cas, vous serez complice, voire commanditaire, des crimes qui seront commis en votre nom. Contrairement à ce qu’explique la vulgate social-démocrate, l’élection n’est pas le moment d’un choix. C’est le moment d’un rapport de force. Il n’y a pas d’un côté des citoyens qui délibèrent de façon libre, consciente et éclairée et de l’autre des hommes politiques démunis qui attendent la bénédiction populaire pour se mettre à l’action conformément aux voeux du plus grand nombre. La réalité du système, c’est l’existence pérenne d’appareils politiques professionnels qui consacrent l’ensemble de leur énergie à complaire le peuple, à travailler l’opinion, à lancer des mouvements, à orienter les médias, à s’acheter des alliés par des subsides, à entraver les concurrents par des législations ad-hoc, bref, à tisser des réseaux de pouvoir dans l’ensemble de la société. Puis, à intervalle régulier, lors des élections, ils mesurent leur capacité respective d’intégration. Ce qui se joue le jour de l’élection, ce n’est pas tant le choix entre deux programmes que la capacité de chaque candidat à faire se déplacer la grande masse. Si vous voyez dans un programme quelque proposition qui vous plaît, rappelez-vous toujours qu’elle est là exactement pour ça. Pour vous faire vous déplacer et voter pour le candidat en question. Ce n’est pas vous qui êtes en train d’effectuer un choix, c’est lui qui prouve qu’il est capable de vous hameçonner, puis de vous faire rentrer dans le système et, enfin, de gagner votre loyauté. Voilà ce qui préoccupe l’ensemble de la classe politico-administrative et qui justifie que l’un des concurrents laisse pacifiquement la place à l’autre : la certitude que le gagnant est capable d’intégrer le plus grand nombre dans le système et donc de préserver la prospérité à long terme des appareils politiques professionnels. Si l’on veut changer le système, les élections ne servent à rien car elles font partie intégrante du système. Il faut attaquer les appareils politiques sur leur capacité de mobilisation. Rien ne fait plus de mal au pouvoir que la faiblesse du soutien populaire. La pire chose qui puisse arriver pour le gagnant d’une élection, c’est un taux d’abstention record parce qu’alors sa légitimité est directement remise en cause. Notre seule arme face au gouvernement, c’est l’insubordination. Il faut réaffirmer à chaque instant notre extériorité par rapport au système politique et ne jamais tomber dans le piège de l’appel à la citoyenneté. Il est temps de réapprendre la désobéissance, l’impertinence, l’effronterie, l’irresponsabilité et l’incivisme. Vive l’abstention et merde au gouvernement.

http://www.contrepoints.org/2012/05/...hoix-honorable

[jet1911]

http://www.contrepoints.org/2012/05/...hoix-honorable

Révolution Française 2 : Electric Boogaloo?

[Black Republican]

one more day?

[leroidys]

What's Hollande's policy on European debt? Do you think he would be able to assuage the markets?

[G.O.O.]

Renegotiate the budget treaty to include a clause on growth instead of forcing austerity. Other european leaders have expressed their agreement, but probably not for the same reasons. Still would be better than the direction we've taken with Merkozy imo.

Do you think he would be able to assuage the markets?

Dunno. People see him as a weak character (he did quite a terrible job at directing his party) but at the same time he surprised everyone by standing well during the debate against Sarkozy.

[Mael]

Renegotiate the budget treaty to include a clause on growth instead of forcing austerity. Other european leaders have expressed their agreement, but probably not for the same reasons. Still would be better than the direction we've taken with Merkozy imo. Dunno. People see him as a weak character (he did quite a terrible job at directing his party) but at the same time he surprised everyone by standing well during the debate against Sarkozy.

Well he HAD the upper hand after all so it kinda stand to reason that he could hold his own in a debate, heck we saw that earlier when he demolished Juppé after all.
But as f par as leadership goes he's really horrible, the stupid compromise his party made on his behalf is testament to that.

Btw sexual harassment is no longer illegal in France, topic coming on the way

[Alx]

Dunno. People see him as a weak character (he did quite a terrible job at directing his party) but at the same time he surprised everyone by standing well during the debate against Sarkozy.

I don't know what people were expecting from the debate, but I don't think he came out as a strong person. Aggressive, yes, but he didn't convince me as someone strong or smart enough to negociate something, especially facing someone like Merkel who has the better cards. Attacking Sarkozy was a piece of cake in comparison ; and he didn't even do it right, using counterproductive arguments like comparing France to Germany, or not completely destroying Sarkozy and his whole immigration-islam bullshit (had he only used the word "laïcité", and it would have shut him up for good).
Of course it was way better than the Royal-Sarkozy debate of last election, but that doesn't say much.

[Mael]

I don't know what people were expecting from the debate, but I don't think he came out as a strong person. Aggressive, yes, but he didn't convince me as someone strong or smart enough to negociate something, especially facing someone like Merkel who has the better cards. Attacking Sarkozy was a piece of cake in comparison ; and he didn't even do it right, using counterproductive arguments like comparing France to Germany, or not completely destroying Sarkozy and his whole immigration-islam bullshit (had he only used the word "laïcité", and it would have shut him up for good). Of course it was way better than the Royal-Sarkozy debate of last election, but that doesn't say much.

The debate between Chirac and Lepen was better than the shit we ended up getting in 2007.

[Alx]

The debate between Chirac and Lepen was better than the shit we ended up getting in 2007.

In 2002 ? As far as I remember, Chirac refused the debate. Or maybe that's your point. ;)

[G.O.O.]

I don't know what people were expecting from the debate, but I don't think he came out as a strong person. Aggressive, yes, but he didn't convince me as someone strong or smart enough to negociate something, especially facing someone like Merkel who has the better cards.

Yet Merkel is the one in a weak position now.

He was agressive, but that worked out pretty well for him.

[Mael]

Yet Merkel is the one in a weak position now. He was agressive, but that worked out pretty well for him.

Compared to the newly appointed president of France?
I wouldn't be so sure.

[G.O.O.]

I'm not sure. I just see that she had to change her mind after Draghi & co said austerity wasn't enough, and also that she isn't at the peak of her popularity in Germany (and in Europe).

Also her character and Hollande's seem to match better than her and Sarko, for what it's worth.

[Staab]

I have to say, I'm quite astounded by the feedback from the debate.
Been following it live as it happened and Hollande was so weak it wasn't even funny.
He couldn't for his life let Sarkozy finish his sentences, kept being aggressive , pushed for the "false promises" of Sarkozy's term and never even laid out developed ideas for his presidency, except for education (which I dislike because it's a short term solution) and economy (which blows, we don't want even more debt).

I don't think Sarkozy is a good choice either but at least it would be better than Hollande, it would give us continuity and you can't disagree with him when he says he's dealing with an exceptional situation ever since his term started, these are tough times to be a president and he didn't do so badly.

[Mael]

I'm not sure. I just see that she had to change her mind after Draghi & co said austerity wasn't enough, and also that she isn't at the peak of her popularity in Germany (and in Europe). Also her character and Hollande's seem to match better than her and Sarko, for what it's worth.

Yeah again, Draghi and co were talking about more deregulation.
I can see Merkel agreeing on that but Hollande?

[Mistouze]

I have to say, I'm quite astounded by the feedback from the debate. Been following it live as it happened and Hollande was so weak it wasn't even funny. He couldn't for his life let Sarkozy finish his sentences, kept being aggressive , pushed for the "false promises" of Sarkozy's term and never even laid out developed ideas for his presidency, except for education (which I dislike because it's a short term solution) and economy (which blows, we don't want even more debt).

It seems like every french person saw a version of the debate created by their minds. No one agrees on what happened.

[Alx]

I'm not sure. I just see that she had to change her mind after Draghi & co said austerity wasn't enough, and also that she isn't at the peak of her popularity in Germany (and in Europe). Also her character and Hollande's seem to match better than her and Sarko, for what it's worth.

She may have to negociate a few things in the near future too, but Germany is still the economically healthiest memeber of the UE. And the recent discussions about other elements than austerity don't really favor Hollande either (see for example : http://www.lepoint.fr/economie/le-de...1455151_28.php). It's not an "either/or" scenario, and contesting Merkel's position doesn't mean supporting Hollande's.

As for compatible characters, it may be a good thing, but it won't change much if their interests oppose. Merkel and Sarkozy hate each other's guts, but they still managed to form an active political couple.

It seems like every french person saw a version of the debate created by their minds. No one agrees on what happened.

I noticed that, too. It's quite funny, but also shows that the debates are mostly pointless. People who already have an opinion on the candidates will always come out believing their favorite "completely dominated".

[Mael]

I noticed that, too. It's quite funny, but also shows that the debates are mostly pointless. People who already have an opinion on the candidates will always come out believing their favorite "completely dominated".

Or that they were both equally shit....

[Mistouze]

Or that they were both equally shit....

Ha! The way those debates are run doesn't help at all either. Have them reply to a series of questions without actually replying to each other and we might get something relating more to the programs than what we're used to get.

[G.O.O.]

She may have to negociate a few things in the near future too, but Germany is still the economically healthiest memeber of the UE.

Which is kind of a problem since it has to do with screwing everyone else in the union :(

About the debate, the general consensus is in favor of Hollande, more convincing. Paradoxically, Sarkozy seemed more competent : http://www.europe1.fr/Politique/Deba...ncant-1066923/

[Mael]

Which is kind of a problem since it has to do with screwing everyone else in the union :( About the debate, the general consensus is in favor of Hollande, more convincing. Paradoxically, Sarkozy seemed more competent : http://www.europe1.fr/Politique/Deba...ncant-1066923/

Yeah I think I'll pass on the views of journalists.

Ha! The way those debates are run doesn't help at all either. Have them reply to a series of questions without actually replying to each other and we might get something relating more to the programs than what we're used to get.

Well to be fair, there's not much that could have been done.
I mean it certainly wasn't the journalists plants' fault that the debate was so bad.

[Alx]

About the debate, the general consensus is in favor of Hollande, more convincing. Paradoxically, Sarkozy seemed more competent : http://www.europe1.fr/Politique/Deba...ncant-1066923/

That's the big problem with this election : many people are not choosing their president, they're just hating Sarkozy and want him out.
While I share the feeling (he's a slimy bastard), I don't think it's a good way to vote, and not a reason to support anybody, aka Hollande (he's a cretin).

Well to be fair, there's not much that could have been done. I mean it certainly wasn't the journalists plants' fault that the debate was so bad.

The journalists did nothing because they were not allowed to : according to the debate rules, they can't interrupt a candidate, or comment on the data they cite. They're only there to control the time table.
So maybe those rules need to be changed, but you can't blame them for being unprofessional when they had their hands tied and mouth gagged.

[G.O.O.]

Yeah I think I'll pass on the views of journalists.

It's a poll. <_<

That's the big problem with this election : many people are not choosing their president, they're just hating Sarkozy and want him out. While I share the feeling (he's a slimy bastard), I don't think it's a good way to vote, and not a reason to support anybody, aka Hollande (he's a cretin).

Still disagree with this. It implies that one person could build something that more than 50% of the voters would back, and we're in fucking France.

[Mael]

It's a poll. <_<

Then we're in agreement :p
Jokes aside,
people should stop complaining about polls, they actually predicted the result of the 1rst round like they did in 2002.

[goomba]

Will be good to see France lack back left I bet the labour party will win the next uk election too. EUSSR :)

[Alx]

Still disagree with this.

How else can you explain the "this one is more competent, but I like the other one better" paradox ? Shouldn't the more competent candidate also be the best one ? I mean, you're not choosing someone to spend your evening with, you're choosing someone to lead the country.