In search of a champion, the right and the left tempted by polling arbitration

The future presidential of the right and center, but also of the social-democratic left, seems to be resigned to polling. An editorial from the newspaper L’Opinion, known for its political information, declares it as a truth that must be accepted: “Somewhere between September and January for a selection by polls. Realism dictates resignation.” So, we would be forced into this accommodation in the hope that a moderate candidate emerges and escapes the deadly grip of the two extremes. This would be a resignation of reason and parties whose primary task is to select their champions. Without leaving this quasi-sacred task to pollsters who, although they can help, actually refuse it.

Partisan weakness leads to this quest for an external arbitration. Starting from fallacious observations. For starters, it is falsely established that the primary elections led to the failures of François Fillon, Benoît Hamon in 2017, and Valérie Pécresse in 2022, all winners and then losers. A convenient and inaccurate explanation as, in fact, these defeats are due to political and personal errors hidden under the pretext of a procedure that requires an effort of reconciliation and transcendence they were incapable of. In contrast, Nicolas Sarkozy (2007) and François Hollande (2012) demonstrated that it is possible to submit to this conflictual procedure and become president.

The mode of sharing in primaries has been disqualified to protect the numerous offenders, thus resorting to polling as an arbiter. As if we had forgotten that Michel Rocard, Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, Edouard Balladur, Lionel Jospin, Alain Juppé were all “elected” by opinion polls before being defeated. These surveys showed a certain seriousness, but they are not infallible and do not have predictive value. Fortunately, not all the prophets – pollsters and journalists alike – who got lost in their predictions were sacrificed. Political prophecy is an art, certainly not a science, even though quantitative and qualitative surveys can provide valuable information on the impact of a political approach.

It is necessary to identify the most judicious indicators. Let us remember, during Edouard Balladur’s glory days of polling, a strange question posed by an institute: “Were you pursued during the war. Where will you seek refuge? With Balladur? With Chirac?” Unfair as they were, the responses were nonetheless prophetic: an immense majority sought refuge with the loser, Jacques Chirac. The mayor of Paris, abandoned by his supporters, was not by the French. No survey guarantees an election. No opinion poll can be deemed decisive. There will always be a candidate capable of overturning the mountains and favorites. Unless the latter benefit from a sharing process that combines, in a common effort, both a political goal and the selection of a champion capable of carrying it and transcending it. An alchemy in which polls are just one ingredient, certainly not a substitute.