It appears as though Nikolas Sarkozy will face Socialist candidate Ségolène Royal in the second round run-off of the French elections:
PARIS – Conservative Nicolas Sarkozy and Socialist Segolene Royal appeared headed Sunday to a presidential runoff, according to preliminary results and pollsters’ projections, setting up a stark choice between one of France’s most intensely ambitious politicians and a liberal who would be the country’s first female leader.
Four polling agencies put Sarkozy ahead of Royal, and both of them in the May 6 runoff, eliminating the 10 other first-round candidates. A preliminary result from the Interior Ministry, based on a count of 12.5 million votes, had Sarkozy leading with 30 percent, followed by Royal with 24 percent.
Turnout was over 80 percent, the polling agencies said, nearing the record of 84.8 percent set for a first round in 1965. The intense interest testified to the high stakes for France and the personalities — inspiring for some, divisive for others — involved in an election that was wrapped in surprises and suspense.
Sarkozy won 29-30 percent and Royal 25-26 percent of the vote, leaving competitors far behind, according to the projections.
If the results confirm that, France will get its first president born after World War II after the May 6 final round. If she wins, Royal will become France’s first woman president.
Lower tier candidates are already throwing their support to Sarkozy or Royal with Marie-George Buffet (1.9%), Green candidate Dominique Voynet (1.5%), Arlette Laguiller (1.5%), Olivier Besancenot (4.4%) and others calling for their supporters to vote for Royal in the second round, Philippe de Villiers (2.5%) and others throwing their support to Sarkozy.
At this point it’s unknown which way the supporters of centrist candidate François Bayrou will turn. Many of Le Pen’s supporters will turn to Sarkozy and Bayrou’s 18.5% may well determine the outcome of the election.
Are these voters “anything but Sarkozy or Royal”? If so, they may sit out the second round election.
BTW, when you read a characterization of a French candidate as “far right wing” or ”center right” or “left”, don’t make the mistake of thinking that is the same as the American equivalents of these positions. “Center right” in French politics is probably roughly ”left” or “center left” in American terms.
Perhaps we could also bring the cites and the burning automobiles? Fortunately, “Mohomed” is not the most popular name for new male babies in North America, as it is in France.
This is simply wrong:
BTW, when you read a characterization of a French candidate as “far right wing†or â€center right†or “leftâ€, don’t make the mistake of thinking that is the same as the American equivalents of these positions. “Center right†in French politics is probably roughly â€left†or “center left†in American terms.
Only if you presume that the defining issue of Right & Left are state intervention in the economy. Statist intervention has a long history in Europe from Right, State-Centered politics. Those politics are certainly illiberal, but to call them Left is seriously deluded and so very American provincial. All of French politics is certainly Statist, that is true.
As for the bigot supra, sad, very sad the nasty bigotry of distortions continues.
Will the Le Pen voters probable intent to go to Sarkozy frighten the centrists into supporting Royal on the theory that if Le Pen’s supporters are a significant fraction of Sarkozy’s winning coalition, they’ll have significant political influence and therefore the revulsion vote that we saw in the last presidential election will come out again?
Pure speculation based on too little information right now on my part.
Lounsbury:
Is it a distortion to say that large areas of various French cities are what Heinlein called Abandoned Areas? And guess what the most common religious affiliation in those areas is?
The West does not need Islam or Moslems, or their disgustingly cruel and barbaric customs (halal meat anyone?); we (most of us) don’t want them; and sooner or later there won’t be any Moslems in the West – one way or another.
Fletcher the Bigot
Is it a distortion to say that large areas of various French cities are what Heinlein called Abandoned Areas? And guess what the most common religious affiliation in those areas is?
Yes, it is a gross distortion.
Rather like the sad whanking of various White Supremacist racists in the 1970s in the Anglo World with respect to the Horrors of the Blakc People and their threat to Western culture.
Some limited areas of some French cities are not places one wanders about it, but your idiocy in re ‘common religious affiliation’ merely displays your disgusting religous bigotry (funny, I recall similar comments with respect to the Irish and Catholics generally from my equally bigotted relatives not more than even 10 years ago, oddly with similar logic.). The commonality of the “suburbs” is being a visible minority – black or having the wrong kind of name.
Classic ethno-religio-racial bigotry.
Luckily in the Anglo Saxon world a combination of market forces, liberal political orientation and acceptance of hopefully short-term statist solutions (affirmative action) to break the back of the bigots has gotten us beyond the polite ethnocentrist “racism” and bigotry that the French indulge in behind their facade of “equality.”
Not withstanding bigots in the Anglo world like yourself. Luckily you seem to be a relic.
The West does not need Islam or Moslems, or their disgustingly cruel and barbaric customs (halal meat anyone?); we (most of us) don’t want them; and sooner or later there won’t be any Moslems in the West – one way or another.
Blah blah blah.
You’re a bigot and I have no use for your disgusting tripe. None of this whanking is any different than certain archaic scum in my own family who find Blacks and Catholics (and Hindus, etc) to be equally “disgusting” in their pin headed fashion.
Lounsbury:
So you find it acceptable that the approved method of animal slaughter for Moslems includes cutting the animal’s throat while conscious?
Presumably, you also find it acceptable that Moslems demand, and sometimes get, time for prayer five times per day while at work, thus leaving everyone else to take up the slack – also taking up space badly needed for other reasons for prayer rooms.
Presumably you also find it unacceptable that swimming pools in various UK towns hold Moslem-only sessions.
Presumably you also find it acceptable for a Moslem on a supermarket checkout to refuse to handle (wrapped) pork products? Or for a Moslem policeman in London to break his sworn oath – to follow the orders of his superiors – by refusing to help guard the Israeli Embassy.
Perhaps you find it acceptable that authorities in Britain turn a blind eye to forced marriage and outright kidnapping.
Presusmably you find it acceptable that Moslems on State benefit in the UK are being given extra handouts for their exta wives – who in UK law aren’t wives at all.
Presumably you find it acceptable that 40% of young Moslem men in the UK think that Sharia law should be in force in the UK – including its clauses stating that a kaffir man or Moslem woman is worth half a Moslem man, in all respects. And its clauses about being stoned to death for adultery.
Any other religion, particularly Christianity, attempting this sort of nonsense would be given very short shrift indeed.
Wake up, Lounsbury. NO CONCESSIONS TO THE BARBARIANS.
On ““Center right†in French politics is probably roughly â€left†or “center left†in American terms.”
Agree! But when François Bayrou declares himself center, we don’t really know what he means.
He’s always been a traditional right wing (UDF was founded by very, very right wing President Valéry Giscard d’Estaing).
For François Bayrou, his vision of “centrist” is limbo. Utter, absolute pillock that man is. He’s the male equivalent of Ségolène Royal whose harlot politics is taking center stage today.