the experts and guests of franceinfo replay the match and give the victory, by little, to Emmanuel Macron

0

Some 2h45 of debate, tense or knowing smiles, eyes riveted on the chronometers of the speaking times of the candidates, a missed kick-off and a question: which of Emmanuel Macron or Marine Le Pen won this match of the in-between rounds? franceinfo asks for the VAR. Word to our guests and editorial experts.

>> Young people, pro-Mélenchon or voters of Marine Le Pen, how did they experience the debate between the two rounds?

2 – 1 for Macron after a close game, according to Neila Latrous and Renaud Dély

Political journalist at franceinfo, Neila Latrous believes that“Emmanuel Macron was a very slight winner”. “A win on points” qualifies for his part Renaud Dély, political columnist for franceinfo and host of the informed morning. “What works is the two uppercuts from the start of the debate, when there were the most viewers. He boxes his attack on purchasing power by recalling that she did not vote for the tariff shield on energy, and then the highly commented arms pass on Russia”.

However, “Strategically, Marine Le Pen was very skilful”judge Neila Latrous. “She succeeded in her objectives: to forget 2017, not to lose her nerves. On the contrary, Emmanuel Macron sometimes appeared arrogant, condescending, what she was looking for to disgust the electorate of Jean-Luc Mélenchon”.

“Marine Le Pen pushed Emmanuel Macron into excesses of technicality, got him into a battle of numbers to then say: ‘I am at the level of the little people’.”

“She behaved like a boxer who is on the ropes: she clung to her opponent to avoid blows”, believes for his part Renaud Dély. But finally, “Emmanuel Macron brought solutions to the observations that were made by Marine Le Pen”.

Advantage Macron therefore for our political journalists.

The former advisers to presidents saw a good 2 – 1 for Emmanuel Macron

Franck Louvrier, former communications adviser to Nicolas Sarkozy, and Gaspard Gantzer, ex-adviser to François Hollande, both praised Emmanuel Macron’s performance. “It was an excellent debate. Emmanuel Macron folded the match in substance and form”said the first. “We expected him as a baseline player letting Marine Le Pen get to the net and in the end, it was he who took the offensive right away. But she still managed a much better debate than in 2017”estimated for his part Gaspard Gantzer, who also participates in the podcast “C’est tout com” of franceinfo.

On the scoreboard, we therefore have 2 – 1 against the candidate of the National Rally.

On rhetorical strategy, Clément Viktorovitch sees mostly own goals

For the expert in rhetoric and professor at Sciences Po Paris Clément Viktorovitch, who writes a daily column on franceinfo, we attended a “debate with reversed fronts”. “VSIt was Emmanuel Macron who called Marine Le Pen to account for his record as an opposition politicianhe analyzes. On his votes in the National Assembly; on the consistency of its program with the one it defended five years ago; on the loan contracted with a Russian bank and, more broadly, on its positions in terms of foreign policy.

Clément Viktorovitch was struck by not hearing more about the McKinsey affair, which “has only been mentioned once”, “the proof that Marine Le Pen has, in part, given up attacking Emmanuel Macron on his balance sheet”.

“So here is a debate in which, again, the RN candidate opts for a questionable strategy, which makes her largely miss the issue of the debate: in 2017, to demonstrate that she could be credible as president, in 2022, demonstrate that Emmanuel Macron would not be a credible candidate for re-election.”

Clement Viktorovitch

at franceinfo

On the side of Emmanuel Macron, if his strategy, which consists “to underline the points of convergence” for better “dwell on errors”, “seems to have paid”his posture “of the teacher appalled by the nonsense of a bad student” only did “reinforce the image of arrogance he already has, at least with part of the electorate”.

A goal each against his camp, that gives us 1 – 1 on the score sheet.

0 – 0 on ecology for the WWF

For him, the debate was “next to the mark” : Pierre Cannet, director of advocacy and campaigns for WWF France, declared on franceinfo to be “left hungry”, while he waited for details. A debate which was therefore not, according to him, “up to the challenge”. And if he recognizes “very distinct projects”he castigates on one side “that of Marine Le Pen [qui] is clearly a far-right project: slow down the transition”and on the other an Emmanuel Macron who “is not in climate denial, but [qui] by its action, for the moment, small steps is not at the level”.

Draw therefore for this observer.

3 – 3 in spokesperson match

Philippe Ballard, spokesperson for the Rassemblement national, guest of franceinfo, estimated that the debate last night, “it’s 2017 upside down”. During the previous presidential election, the candidate of the National Rally had suffered from her poor performance during this traditional exercise, acknowledging herself afterwards to have “missed”.

“On the one hand, you have a candidate, Marine Le Pen, clear, precise, calm, educational, with concrete solutions. She is the candidate of common sense, ready to govern the country.Launches the spokesperson for the RN. And then, on the other hand, you saw Emmanuel Macron flippant, pissed off, who told us: “I’m going to do it”, but why didn’t he do it for five years? Emmanuel Macron does not know his files, on the debt for example”.

“Since 2017”Marine Le Pen “may have changed in tone, but has not changed in substance”estimated government spokesman Gabriel Attal, guest of 8:30 a.m. franceinfo. “When we attack on the form, it is because we have, a priori, very few arguments to give on the substance”he contracted, judging the project of Emmanuel Macron “serious, credible, financed, which responds to the concerns of the French”.

For each spokesperson, their side’s candidate won the game by a large margin, with great goals. In total, that makes us a nice 3 everywhere.

For Cevipof, a draw without passion

For Cécile Alduy, associate researcher at Cevipof at Sciences Po and member of the Observatory of Political Radicalities of the Jean-Jaurès Foundation, “no one won, but above all, no one really lost”.

The RN candidate “tried to increase the sociological divide with Emmanuel Macron, rather than trying to attack his record”with a “mastery of form” and an “certain ease in his repartee”in an attempt to “to pose as a spokesperson for the suffering of the French and of the classes she called the most vulnerable”.

So let’s stay here on a 1 everywhere without splinters.

Do we do the accounts?

If we sum things up, Marine Le Pen has generally managed her debate better than in 2017. According to our experts, she is still the loser once again, 9 to 7. , a long game, where everyone moved their pawns, but did not score spectacular goals. Consequently not really attracting the crowds: the hearing of the debate is the weakest of all the Fifth Republic.


source site