Baring calamitous February inflation and retail sales data, I expect the Fed to hike rates 25bp on 15th March for the second time in three months, in line with market pricing and my mid-February forecast. While underlying US inflation has only edged up slowly and payroll growth remains modest, other US data have been reasonably buoyant. The pool of available labour continues to grind lower and regional indicators, national confidence surveys and housing data pushed higher in January-February. Moreover, normally dovish FOMC members have not made a strong case for a March pause and, along with Chairperson Yellen, have seemingly for now at least not made the Fed hiking cycle conditional on Trump delivering on his promise to loosen fiscal policy. The big question is what next for the Fed. Its updated forecasts and dot-chart and Yellen’s question-and-answer session will undoubtedly provide some extra colour. But it may be a little premature for the 17 FOMC members to materially change their forecast for the appropriate pace of hikes for 2017, which stands at 74bps – broadly in line with current market pricing. The risk to my turn-of-the-year forecast that the Fed may only deliver two hikes this year is probably to the upside. But if the Fed is going to hike once a quarter, it will want to prepare markets conditioned by years of hikes far more modest than predicated by the Fed. In France, potential presidential candidates have only a week left to meet the Constitutional requirements to become an official candidate in the first round. My core scenario remains that Fillon will remain in the presidential race, that the first and second rounds due on 23rd April and 7th May will not be pushed back, that Le Pen and Macron will likely make it to the second round run-off and that Le Pen will lose the second round whether she faces Macron or Fillon. But one should at least entertain the possibility, even if remote, that Jean-Luc Mélenchon, currently fifth in the polls on 12%, will not meet the requirements to be a candidate in the first round – namely the written support of 500 elected sponsors – which could in turn boost support for Socialist candidate Benoit Hamon. Moreover, it is still conceivable, albeit unlikely, that Fillon will make it to the second round or conversely pull out of the race with Alain Juppé filling his place. Finally, the possibility of this year’s elections being postponed, while extremely slim, merits discussion.

1. 1
Fed 25 and 500 Godfathers
Baring calamitous February inflation and retail sales data, I expect the Fed to hike rates
25bp on 15th March for the second time in three months, in line with market pricing and my
mid-February forecast.
While underlying US inflation has only edged up slowly and payroll growth remains
modest, other US data have been reasonably buoyant. The pool of available labour
continues to grind lower and regional indicators, national confidence surveys and housing
data pushed higher in January-February.
Moreover, normally dovish FOMC members have not made a strong case for a March pause
and, along with Chairperson Yellen, have seemingly for now at least not made the Fed
hiking cycle conditional on Trump delivering on his promise to loosen fiscal policy.
The big question is what next for the Fed. Its updated forecasts and dot-chart and Yellen’s
question-and-answer session will undoubtedly provide some extra colour.
But it may be a little premature for the 17 FOMC members to materially change their
forecast for the appropriate pace of hikes for 2017, which stands at 74bps – broadly in line
with current market pricing.
The risk to my turn-of-the-year forecast that the Fed may only deliver two hikes this year is
probably to the upside. But if the Fed is going to hike once a quarter, it will want to prepare
markets conditioned by years of hikes far more modest than predicated by the Fed.
In France, potential presidential candidates have only a week left to meet the Constitutional
requirements to become an official candidate in the first round.
My core scenario remains that Fillon will remain in the presidential race, that the first and
second rounds due on 23rd April and 7th May will not be pushed back, that Le Pen and
Macron will likely make it to the second round run-off and that Le Pen will lose the second
round whether she faces Macron or Fillon.
But one should at least entertain the possibility, even if remote, that Jean-Luc Mélenchon,
currently fifth in the polls on 12%, will not meet the requirements to be a candidate in the
first round – namely the written support of 500 elected sponsors – which could in turn
boost support for Socialist candidate Benoit Hamon.
Moreover, it is still conceivable, albeit unlikely, that Fillon will make it to the second round
or conversely pull out of the race with Alain Juppé filling his place. Finally, the possibility
of this year’s elections being postponed, while extremely slim, merits discussion.

2. 2
Fed will probably hike 25bp next week and real question is what next
The US Federal Reserve (Fed) will on 15th
March hold its second policy meeting of the year and markets
have fully priced in a 25bp hike. Baring a calamitous set of CPI-inflation and retail sales data for February
(due hours before the Fed meeting), I expect the Fed to hike rates next week for the second time in three
months, in line with my mid-February forecast (see March Madness, 17 February 2017).
At the turn of the year, I had expected the risk to be biased toward the Fed being somewhat more dovish
than the FOMC members’ dot chart prediction of three hikes in 2017. This view was premises on inflation
not rising as fast expected due to lags in the implementation of Trump’s planned fiscal policy loosening and
immigration curbs, residual slack in the US labour market and the disinflationary impact of higher US yields
and a stronger dollar (see Hawkish pendulum may have swung too far, 21 December 2016). Moreover, my
expectation was that the four new voting FOMC members would be more dovish than the four members
they replaced.
The rise in underlying US inflation measures has been modest rather than spectacular, as depicted in
Figure 1.
Figure 1: Measures of core US inflation have
inched higher
Figure 2: Global manufacturing ISM data for
January-February point to stronger global growth
Source: US Bureau of Economic Analysis Source: IMF, OECD, Markit,national statistical offices
Note: Last data point for ISM is January-February
average
Moreover, while the pool of available labour has edged lower in recent months (according to my estimates),
aggregate payroll growth in the private sector remains modest at around 4% year-on-year and around 2%
yoy when adjusted for headline CPI-inflation (see Figure 3). Modest real wage growth remains an issue in
0.3
0.7
1.1
1.5
1.9
2.3
2.7
Jan-15 Aug-15 Mar-16 Oct-16
Core CPI-inflation
Core PCE inflation
Market-based core PCE-inflation
Measures of US inflation excluding energy and
food prices, year-on-year % change
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
2012Q4 2013Q4 2014Q4 2015Q4 2016Q4
Global manufacturing PMI, left scale
Global real GDP, % year-on-year
(IMF methodology)

3. 3
the US, but also the UK, eurozone and Australia (see The common theme of low-wage growth, 10 February
2017).
Figure 3: Slack in US labour market is gradually tightening but payroll growth remains modest
Source: US Bureau of Economic Analysis, Bureau of Labour Statistics
However, US data macro data have on the whole been reasonably buoyant, with in particular regional
indicators, national confidence surveys and housing data pushing higher in January-February (see March
Madness, 17 February 2017). Data, in particular global manufacturing ISM numbers for January and
February, also paint a picture of a slow rise in global GDP growth to around 3.0% yoy in Q1 2017 from
around 2.8% yoy in Q3 2016 – an admittedly unspectacular growth rate by historical standards but a far cry
from the predictions of a global recession (see Figure 2).
It is also striking, in my view, that FOMC members usually regarded as dovish, have either sat on the fence
or even taken a slightly hawkish stance. Finally, Chairperson Yellen and other voting members have
(consciously I suspect) made little reference to President Trump’s planned fiscal loosening and other policy
measures. This suggests to me that the Fed, in the near-term at least, sees sufficient reason to hike policy
rates regardless of whether and when Trump delivers on his promises to cut taxes and boost infrastructural
spending.
Fed will need to tread a clever path following a likely second hike in 3 months next week
Assuming that the Fed hikes 25bp next week, taking its policy rate to 0.75-1.00%, the big question will be
whether the Fed maintains a one-a-quarter hiking cycle (and therefore delivers four hikes in 2017), sticks to
its appropriate policy rate forecast of three hikes or pauses for long periods of time in between meetings
and hikes fewer than three times in 2017 (the latter would be in line with my late-2016 forecast). The Fed’s
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
636
38
40
42
44
46
48
50
May-07 Jun-08 Jul-09 Aug-10 Sep-11 Oct-12 Nov-13 Dec-14 Jan-16 Feb-17
Unemployed, not in labour force but want a job and part-time workers, millions
Year-on-year % change in aggregate weekly payrolls in non-farm private sector (right scale, inverted)

4. 4
updated forecasts and dot-chart and Chairperson Yellen’s question-and-answer session will undoubtedly
provide some extra colour.
However, it may be a little premature for the 17 FOMC members to materially change their forecasts for the
appropriate policy rate at end-2017, which on a weighted average basis currently amounts to 74bps (see
Figure 4). There is ultimately an endless list of factors which could see the Fed sticking to a more gradual
pace of rate hikes, including a tightening of US monetary conditions in excess of the rise in the Fed fund
rate (brought on by higher US yields and/or a stronger dollar), a pronounced correction in US and global
equity markets and a far less ambitious timetable by the Trump administration for the loosening of fiscal
policy.
So far, US government bond yields have risen by less than 25bps since the Fed hiked policy rates on 14th
December 2016 and the US Dollar Nominal Effective Exchange Rate (NEER) has weakened about 0.5%
according to my estimates (see Figure 5). Moreover US equities are up about 4% in that time. The risk to
my turn-of-the-year forecast that the Fed may only deliver two hikes this year is probably to the upside and
for the first time in many years the Fed may actually deliver the number of hikes it had premised (74bp) and
which the market is currently pricing in (71bps). But if the Fed is going to hike four (or more) times this year,
it will want to prepare financial markets which have in recent months tended to perhaps under-estimate the
scope for Fed tightening.
Figure 4: At December meeting, FOMC members
on average expected 74bp of hikes in 2017
Figure 5: Bond yields have risen by less than 25bp
since December meeting, dollar down, equities up
Source: Federal Reserve Source: Federal Reserve,investing.com
0
25
50
75
100
125
150
175
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Appropriateratehikesin2017(bps)
Number of FOMC members
Weighted average:
74bps
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
2yr (bp) 5yr (bp) 10yr (bp) $ NEER
(%)
S&P 500
(%)
Change in US government bond yields, US dollar
and S&P 500 since 14 December Fed hike

5. 5
French presidential elections – Black swans still hovering
Analysis of the forthcoming French Presidential elections has understandably focused on who ultimately
will become France’s head of state, on the assumption that:
1) The main potential candidates, Emmanuel Macron (independent, centre-left), Marine Le Pen (National
Front), François Fillon (Republican Party), Benoît Hamon (Socialist Party) and Jean-Luc Mélenchon (Far
Left) will likely make it to the first round; and
2) The dates of the first and likely second round (23rd
April and 7th
May, respectively) are cast in stone (see
Figure 6);
Figure 6: Timetable for presidential elections is reasonably straightforward but very remote chance of delay
Source: Conseil Constitutionnel
These are reasonable assumptions to make, based on precedent. Mycore scenario remains that
Fillon will remain in the presidential race, that the dates for the first and second round will not be
moved, that Le Pen and Macron will likely make it to the second round run-off and that Le Pen will
lose the second round whether she faces Macron or Fillon. But one should at least entertain the
possibility, even if remote, that:
1. Jean-Luc Mélenchon, currentlyfifth in popular opinion polls on 12% support, will not meet
the Constitutional requirements to be a candidate in the first round as detailed in Figure 7,
which could in turn boost support for Hamon.
Deadline for candidates to officially submit candidacies and statement
of financial assets to Conseil Constitutionnel
Conseil Constitutionnel to publish official list of presidential candidates
in Journal Officiel (government's official journal)
FIRST ROUND of French Presidential elections
SECOND ROUND of French Presidential elections
Formal charge of misuse of parliamentary funds likely to be levelled at
Republican Party candidate Francois Fillon15 March
17 March, 18.00
20 or 21 March
Sunday 23 April
Sunday 7 May
Conseil Constitutionnel can postpone elections in the event of a
presidential candidate being prevented from entering the first round or
pulling out of the first round

6. 6
2. Fillon will make it to the second round;
3. Conversely, Fillon could still pull out of the race and Alain Juppé fill his place; and
4. This year’s elections are postponed.
Source: Conseil Constitutionnel
Figure 7: The road to becoming an official presidential candidate
1. The Conseil Constitutionnel (French Constitutional Council), whose main task is to ensure that
French laws are compatible with the Constitution, sets the rules for French presidential elections.
The Conseil Constitutionnel was created in 1958 and is composed of nine members appointed by
the President for a term of nine years. The current president is Laurent Fabius, a former Prime
Minister and Minister of the Economy.
2. A candidate must be sponsored by 500 or more elected representatives among a total of
around 47,000 including mayors, general councillors, regional councillors, deputies, senators and
members of the European Parliament elected in France (see The Ultimate Guide to the 2017
French Elections – Part I, 7 March 2017).
3. These sponsors or “godfathers”1
must submit to the Conseil Constitutionnel an official form
confirming their support of a candidate by 18:00 (local time) on 17th
March 2017.
4. A sponsor can only give his official support to one candidate.
5. Sponsors must come from at least 30 of the 101 French Departments.
6. No more than 10% of the sponsors (i.e. 50) can come from the same department (sponsorship in
excess of this threshold is discounted in the final tally). Rules 5 and 6 are designed to ensure that
the candidate enjoys broad-based support rather than just local or regional support.
7. Presidential candidates must also present to the Conseil Constitutionnel by 18:00 (local time) on
17th
March 2017 a statement of their financial assets.
8. On 20-21 March the Conseil Constitutionnel will publish on its website the final and official list of
candidates which have met the above conditions.
In the 2012 presidential elections, the Conseil Constitutionnel did not provide a total tally of candidates’
sponsors and candidates were not obligated to reveal their total number of sponsors (Nicholas Sarkozy
and Francois Bayrou opted not to do so). However, the Conseil Constitutionnel published the names of
500 sponsors (picked randomly) for each candidate about 8 days before the first round on 22 April 2012.
In the 2007 presidential elections, the Conseil Constitutional published the total number of sponsors
which each candidate had along with the names of 500 sponsors (picked randomly) for each candidate.

7. 7
Sponsors – First hurdle to becoming an official candidate for the first round of the presidentials
The issue of sponsors receives very little attention in the international press but gets far more coverage and
analysis in the French media and for good cause. Knowing who will be on the start line is critical when
forming a view as to who may win the race and by what margin. Candidates this year have until 18:00 (local
time) on 17th
March to meet these and a number of other requirements (see Figure 7).
In previous presidential elections, the main potential candidates (based on their rankings in popular opinion
polls and the size of the parties they represented) all managed to meet the main legal requirement,
including the written support of at least 500 elected representatives and presentation to the Conseil
Constitutionnel of a statement of his/her financial assets. The Conseil Constitutionnel publishes on its
website twice a week (on Tuesdays and Fridays) an updated list of the sponsors’ names for each candidate
and will do so until 17th
March. It published today its latest update and a number of points stand out.
Figure 8: Fillon, Hamon, Macron, and Le pen over the 500+ sponsor bar but Mélenchon is still short
Source: Conseil Constitutionnel
Note: Alain Juppé has not put forward his candidacy but has to date still received 288 sponsor forms. I include in this
chart only candidates which have so far garnered 50 or more sponsors.
1) Seven candidates currentlymeet 500-sponsort threshold
To-date, François Fillon, Benoît Hamon, Emmanuel Macron, Nicolas Dupont-Aignan (France Arise Party),
Nathalie Arthaud (Workers’ Struggle Party), Marine Le Pen and François Asselineau (Popular Republican
Union party) officially have more than 500 sponsors (see Figure 8). Moreover, all seven candidates fulfil the
condition that their sponsors should represent at least 30 French departments. Fillon and Hamon, which
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500 Official number of sppnsors for presidential candidates, as of 10 March 2017

8. 8
have respectively 2,111 and 1,317 sponsors, will on present count lose about 42 and 61 sponsors,
respectively, as they breach the 50-sponsor-per-department threshold in two departments (see Figure 7).
Clearly this is not an issue as they are both well above the 500 threshold.
2) Fillon well ahead on number of sponsors, despite investigation for misuse of public funds
It is notable that Fillon is well ahead in terms of confirmed sponsors, despite the likelihood that he will face,
on 15th
March, formal charges of misuse of parliamentary funds and despite diminished support from this
own party. A number of his senior aides (including his spokesperson and foreign affairs adviser) have
recently quit his campaign team and senior Republican Party members have distanced themselves from
Fillon and pressured him to abandon his presidential bid.
His strong support amongst elected representatives is not totally surprising and is likely a factor in his
decision to remain in the presidential race. After all, he convincingly won both the first and second round of
the November Republican Party primaries and was until late-January second in the polls with around 25%
support for the first round of the presidentials, only a couple of percentage points behind Le Pen. However,
he likely faces an uphill battle over the next six weeks to convert sponsorship into electoral votes, with his
popular support having failed to break through 20% since early February.
3) Alain Juppé has 288 sponsors despite not being a candidate for the French presidential elections
Juppé, who lost to Fillon in the second round of the November Republican Party primaries, currently has
288 sponsors despite having ruled himself out of the presidential election race. Moreover, in recent opinion
polls Juppé had about 25% support and would make it to the second round with either Le Pen or Macron.
However, regardless of whether Juppé crosses the 500-sponsor threshold, he will not be a candidate in the
first round unless he confirms his candidacy in writing to the Conseil Constitutionnel by 17th
March 2017.
Fillon and Juppé have seven days to change their minds (see below for more details)
4) At least three minor candidates likely to make it to first round but of limited consequence
Baring a large number of their sponsors being invalidated, Nicolas Dupont-Aignan and François
Asselineau, both euro sceptic right-wing candidates, and Nathalie Arthaud, a left-wing candidate, will make
it to the first round. But this is likely of limited consequence. Dupont-Aignan and Arthaud, who respectively
won only 1.8% and 0.6% of the votes in the first round of the 2012 presidential elections, are currently
polling 3% and 1%, respectively, while Asselineau has typically polled 1% or less. Voter support for
Dupont-Aignan and Asselineau would likely switch in large part to Fillon and Le Pen in the second round,
which at the margin (and we are talking about a few percentage points at most) may work against Macron if
he makes it to a second round run-off.
5) The Far-Left candidate is still short of 68 sponsors and may not make it to the first round
Jean-Luc Mélenchon only has 432 registered sponsors – 144 short of the 500 threshold (he meets the 30-
department or more criteria). While he publicly claims to have the verbal support of more than 500
sponsors, he only has one week left to convert these verbal commitments into written forms of support. In
the 2012 presidential elections, Mélenchon garnered about 1,100 sponsors – two and a half times the
current number of sponsors who have officially registered their support for the Far-Left candidate.

9. 9
Should he fail over the next seven days to cross the 500-sponsor threshold, this could have a non-
negligible impact on opinion polls for the first round. Voter support for Mélenchon, which is hovering around
12%, could conceivably switch to other left-leaning candidates, namely Nathalie Arthaud and more
importantly Hamon who is fourth in the polls for the first round with around 13-14% support. A significant
shift of support to Hamon could see him vie for third in the polls, ahead of Fillon who is currently on 19-20%
but this would still likely be insufficient for Hamon to threaten Macron and Le Pen who are both on 25-26%.
Does number of sponsors tell us anything about possible election results?
The electoral pre-requisite of obtaining at least 500 sponsors and bi-weekly publication of the sponsors’
names has attracted much criticism across the political spectrum. Candidates, in particular those of smaller
political parties but also Le Pen, argue that the number of sponsors does not reflect the level of popular
support. Figure 9 would tend to support this view. The correlation between the number of sponsors and
votes won in the first round of the 2007 and 2012 presidential elections is not that strong, particularly for
candidates with few sponsors. For example Marine Le Pen obtained only 550 or so sponsors in each of
these two elections but won, respectively, 10.4% and 17.9% of the votes in the 2007 and 2012 elections.
Figure 9: Relationship between number of sponsors and election results revealsinteresting pattern
Source: Conseil Constitutionnel
Note: While the Conseil Constitutionnel published the official number of sponsors for each candidate in the 2007
presidential elections, it did not in the 2012 elections. Candidates had the option of not revealing the total number of
sponsors they had, as Nicolas Sarkozy and François Bayrou chose to do. Bold indicates winner of the second round
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000
Number of sponsors (before substracting sponsors which breached the 50-sponsor-per-depatment limit)
Percentageofvotesinfirstroundof
presidentialelections
Sponsors and first round results (2012 and 2017 presidential elections)
Ségolene
Royal, 2007
Nicolas
Sarkozy, 2007
François
Hollande, 2012
François
Bayrou, 2007
Jean-Luc
Mélenchon, 2012
Marine Le Pen,
2012
Marine Le Pen,
2007
Marie-George
Buffet, 2007

10. 10
The relationship also looks tenuous if we compare sponsors to date with opinion polls for the first round of
the 2017 presidential elections (see Figure 10).
Figure 10: No clear relationships between number of sponsors and opinion polls for first round
Source: Conseil Constitutionnel, BFMTV, L’Express, Internaute
However, the correlation is somewhat stronger as the number of sponsors increases. In particular, Nicolas
Sarkozy and François Hollande, who respectively won the 2007 and 2012 presidential elections, had
respectively 3,885 sponsors1
and about 4,750 sponsors2
. If this statistical relationship holds this year, Le
Pen’s chances of becoming president are slim. Conversely, the odds of Macron making it to the second
round and winning the presidency would appear strong.
Moreover, this relationship between sponsors and election results would suggest that it is perhaps a little
too early to complete discount the possibility of Fillon or Hamon making it to the second round, particularly
if as discussed above Mélenchon fails to make it to the first round and a significant share of his voters
switch allegiance to Hamon (a theme I had explored in EM currencies, Fed, French elections and UK
reflation “lite”, 25 November 2016).
1 Before subtracting sponsors which breached the 50-sponsor-per-department limit.
2 The Constitutionnel Court did not publish official sponsorship figures in 2012 but the Socialist Party claimed that
Hollande had the confirmed support of 4,500-5,000 sponsors.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Number of sponsors (before substracting sponsors which breach the 50-sponsor-per-depatment limit)
Popularsupportinfirstround(latestopinionpolls)
Le Pen Macron
Fillon
Mélenchon
Hamon
Dupont-Aignan
ArthaudCheminade
Asselineau
500-threshold
2017 presidential elections - sponsors and first round polls

11. 11
What if Fillon pulls out of the presidential race?
If Fillon pulls out of the race between now and the 17th
March deadline for candidates to confirm their 500+
sponsors or before the first round, due to likely formal charges of public funds misappropriation, the
ramifications are very unclear. France would be in unchartered territory as there is simply no precedent for
a major candidate pulling out of the first round of a presidential election. But we can venture a few possible
scenarios in the event of Fillon pulling out in the next seven days, which I summarise in Figure 11.
Figure 11: If Fillon pulls out of race, the lack of precedent makes it hard to zero in on likely outcome
Source: Conseil Constitutionnel
A potentially important variable in this scenario analysis is Clause 7 of the French Constitution, which states
that3
: If, in the seven days preceding the deadline for the registration of candidates’ sponsors, one of the
3 The official French version states that:"Si, dans les sept jours précédant la date limite du dépôt des présentations de
candidatures, une des personnes ayant, moins de trente jours avant cette date, annoncé publiquement sa décision
Juppé decides to be
Republican Party
candidate and meets
the 500+ sponsor
requirement by 17
March
Juppé decides to be
Republican Party
candidate but fails to
meet the 500+
sponsor requirement
by 17 March
Juppé decides not to
run
Juppé becomes
Republican Party
presidential candidate
Conseil
Constitutionnel
triggers the
"Prevention" clause
of Article 7 of the
French Constitution
and postpones
French elections
Republican Party
does not have a
candidate at the
2017 presidential
elections
Another Republican
Party member puts
forward his/her
candidacy
Candidate fails to
obtain 500+ sponsor
requirement
Fillon pulls out of the presidential race before 17th March

12. 12
persons who has publicly announced at least 30 days before this deadline his/her decision to be a
candidates dies or finds himself/herself prevented, the Conseil Constitutionnel can decide to postpone the
elections. If before the first round one of the candidates dies or finds himself/herself prevented, the Conseil
Constitutionnel will postpone the elections”.
There are two key words. The first one is “prevented” (or “empêchée in the original French text) but no
definition is provided for a person being “prevented” from running and therefore there is much scope for
legal interpretation. The second is “can decide to postpone” versus “will postpone” (my emphasis). This
suggests that if Fillon pulled out by 17th
March and the Conseil Constitutionnel ruled that Fillon had been
prevented from running, it would have the option but not the obligation of delaying the presidential
elections. But if Fillon pulled out between 18th
March and 23rd
April (the date of the first round) and the
Conseil Constitutionnel ruled that Fillon had been prevented from running, it would automatically postpone
the elections.
The Conseil Constitutionnel has so far not commented on these possible scenarios and I strongly believe
that it will want to avoid setting the precedent of delaying the presidential elections (and potentially having
to also push back the June legislative elections). Specifically, the closer we get to the first round, the less
likely it is that the Conseil Constitutionnel would take the far-reaching decision of pushing back the
elections, in my view.
d'être candidate décède ou se trouve empêchée, le Conseil constitutionnel peut décider de reporter l'élection. Si,
avant le premier tour, un des candidats décède ou se trouve empêché, le Conseil constitutionnel prononce le report
de l'élection".