Freed from the form of the big meeting, Valérie Pécresse was more at ease, judges the editor-in-chief of the “Political and Parliamentary Review”. On the merits, “she nevertheless continued to hold a very firm speech”, even if the candidate LR did not mention the “great replacement”.
Article written by
Posted
Update
Reading time : 1 min.
During her meeting in Le Cannet (Alpes-Maritimes) on Friday February 18, Valérie Pécresse “tried to adopt a style that is more in line with his personality”observed Arnaud Benedetti, editor-in-chief of the Political and parliamentary review and associate professor at the Sorbonne, this Saturday on franceinfo. This meeting was the first of the presidential candidate LR since that at the Zenith of Paris, Sunday February 13, which earned him many criticisms, both in substance and in form.
According to Arnaud Benedetti, Valérie Pécresse “did not allow herself to be embarked on a performance as a tribune for which she seems ill-prepared”. This time, “she walked around the stage, microphone in hand, without a teleprompter, without notes, more in a conversational tone and less in a declamation tone”. “From this point of view, on the form, she was perhaps, in a certain way, more comfortable than during the performance of the Zenith”he added.
“Basically, she still continued to hold a very firm speech, at least for her right wing, because she was first and foremost on political ground. [les Alpes-Maritimes] where there is strong pressure exerted on his electorate, both from the side of the political offer of Marine Le Pen but especially from the political offer of Éric Zemmour”, he pointed out. For him, Valérie Pécresse “considers that the difference will be made with these two candidates, if it finally manages to be credible on the sovereign issues which are considered central for part of this electorate”.
Unlike her Paris meeting on February 13, Valérie Pécresse did not mention the “great replacement”which had created a controversy, nor the expression “French of papers” which also caused controversy.