With less than a week to go before the first round, Rachida Dati is raising her voice and rallying her supporters. The candidate is calling on right-wing and centrist voters "not to scatter" their votes from the outset. Her message is simple, almost martial: no electoral aimless wandering, no voting based on sentiment, no small factions. The Parisian municipal election does not forgive fragmentation, and Dati knows it.
Behind the appeal lies a firmly held conviction: "A majority of Parisians want change." Rachida Dati asserts that "the right and center are in the majority" in the capital and claims to be buoyed by opinion polls that place her in a position to defeat Emmanuel Grégoire, her main opponent on the left. She emphasizes mobilization, the key to success that transforms momentum into victory... or a mirage.
"Do not disperse": the watchword before the battle of the districts
In her words, the campaign takes on the air of a pivotal, "historic" moment, she asserts, going so far as to say that the right has "never been so close to winning Paris" since 2001. She launches a scathing attack on the left's municipal management, which she deems "radical," and warns that re-election would "finish off" the capital. A shocking statement, calculated to rouse an electorate sometimes tempted by skepticism or abstention.
Because Paris is won by the seat-by-seat process, district by district, where a few points can swing seats and, ultimately, the Paris Council. In this electoral system, having multiple competing lists often means handing districts to the opposition on a silver platter. Dati is therefore throwing down an olive branch (or a summons) to her camp: "take responsibility" from the first round, before the negotiations between the two rounds.
The real test remains, the one that slogans don't always pass: the ability to unite, without causing offense, a right wing and a center wing that value unity as much as their differences. Dati's appeal clearly aims to solidify a bloc before calculations and egos take over. Will voters follow the logic of "strategic voting" or will they prefer, as is often the case in Paris, nuance at the risk of division?
