Royal should promise to buy seniors a Kärcher.

Bush is a symptom, not the disease.

http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0@2-823448,36-903432@51-823374,0.html

Je veux tourner la page de mai 1968", a lancé Nicolas Sarkozy, en meeting au Palais omnisports de Paris-Bercy, dimanche 29 avril. En attaquant sur différents angles, le candidat de l'UMP a fustigé la gauche qui "entre Jules Ferry et mai 1968, a choisi 1968", l'accusant d'avoir prôné "l'assistanat, l'égalitarisme, le nivellement, les 35 heures".

Is this luck? I don't believe so. He directly appeals to the values of order that have characterized the France in which today's +65 have grown up. Order, security, work, the very things that have made de Gaulle. I think he reads France well when he speaks like this. 1968 was traumatic for a lot of people, and linking his fight to that specific event is a very good move. I don't know what Royal can do about this, unfortunately. She has shown a realism that was somewhat unexepected of her, but her 'just order' has been so ridiculed over the past months that she can't really use it anymore. Sarkozy successfully occupies all the scene with a 'let's put France back on tracks' theme that leaves few open spaces.

The problem with the situation she seems to be facing is that she has nothing to gain from continuing to open to the center. If she wants to win she will be forced to talk about security related issues in the coming days. Maybe the best way for her at this point is to start a mea culpa about the PS's responsability in the current state of the Banlieues, and advocate a complete change: giving up the right to difference that hasn't worked and promise to give them jobs, to never build projects like these, etc...

Ok, my bet: she will talk about immigration related issues tomorrow.

Rien n'est gratuit en ce bas monde. Tout s'expie, le bien comme le mal, se paie tot ou tard. Le bien c'est beaucoup plus cher, forcement. Celine

The old people have (relatively) least reasons to vote out of pure self-interest. Their life quality will not be affected much by either election outcome, at least perceivably. (Are American olders better off with Bush's pharmaceuptical policies?)

What are best reasons for old people to make their choises? I see two options:

A. Taking care of own offsprings. But in the modern best times, there is relatively little hardship of living. Future perspectives can be easily perceived as bright, even too bright. What an eldery person can do to "help" their offsprings? They may rather wish to make life harder.

B. Making a choice for France's future. Seniors may think more of what kind of country is more  functional (or just). And here Sarkozy's recognizable order may strike a chord with seniors. Royal's proposals are instrumental rather than narrative, maybe too inovative to be trusted by "saw-it-all" minds.

If these considerations are important, Royal's tactics towards seniors can be adopted as follows:

1. "Buying off" promises to seniors deserve less effort.
   
2. Make a case that extensive welfare increases functionality of the society: individuals become more free to pursue creativity.
   
3. Remind historical dangers of supporting promotion for "law and order" and less regulated economics.

Of course, these measures do not have to targeted or spelled out too obviously to seniors. But these might be the aspects that seniors are picking up.

Yes, I think that may be true. My mother, all of 74 would never vote for a woman leader even though she has done quite well for herself in the marketplace. It's looks to me like the age stat may be revealing hidden prejudices learned early on. This is strictly conjecture, obviously, but it would interesting to see if a poll could be devised to flesh out that possibility.

It's a combination of things.  You see similar problems for the Left in America.  The Dems are typically able to hold down a solid chunk of the elderly with their Social Security and Medicare stances, but the elderly are, as you say, less likely to accept women (or minorities).  Being more conservative, -- that is until candidates start talking about reforming their pensions at all, at which point they seem to become raving communists -- they tend to associate conservative politicians with "restoring national greatness" and all that garbage, too.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.

That is an extremely depressing comment, which makes it all the more plausible, unfortunately.

But why "especially women over 65"?  What dynamic is at work that makes women of that generation more than men less likely to accept a woman as president?  (Should I say French women of that generation?)  Do you suspect a certain vindictive bitterness with respect to the social and political opportunities/freedoms that younger French women of today have that were not available to them when they were in their prime?

Truth unfolds in time through a communal process.

The categories that represent fewer than 50 people are marked with an asterisk.

Bush is a symptom, not the disease.