JayDee says: The big day draws ever closer, though you would never know it walking around Caracas.
Sure, there are rallies and marches every day. Posters denouncing the devil and begging you to take off that red shirt hang from every lamp post. Well groomed talking heads lecture the viewers of Globovision on Caudillismo, while social workers in the Misiones warn that they will defend the revolution against the forces of the Empire by any means necessary.
But these atmospherics are so ingrained here, you tune them out.
Granted, in an environment like this, you can never rule out some sort of shocking surprise that truly mobilizes the populace, putting the scent of instability in the air.
But right now, with just 10 days to go, life goes on in Caracas much as it has all year. For a country with a reputation as a political "hot spot", the capital is, shockingly, a pretty boring place these days.
This point was driven home to me a few days back during a lunch time stroll through Sambil with a visiting colleague. Walking passed the LG Electronics store, we were compelled to stop in for a chat with the General Manager.
He showed us his most expensive T.V., a $2000, 48-inch plasma flat screen, and told us that he had sold over a pile of them this year. Over 100 had shipped in the month of July alone.
His most expensive refrigerator, a $5000 model with a built in T.V., has also enjoyed brisk sales. All in all, he boasted, his store was pulling in $50,000-$60,000/month this fiscal year.
My friend asked what he thought might be the political orientation of those who can afford such expensive goods. Were any supporters of the government?
"Of course," he answered with a grin, "they are the ones who pay in cash!"
Revolution is most definitely not in the air these days.
For all of the Hugo's rhetoric of "21st century socialism", Venezuela has become the 2nd largest market for plasma screen TV's in Latin America, trailing only Brazil.
I cannot and will not deny that this is a historic moment for Venezuela. After this election, we will learn some very important lessons about Chavez. Is he going to push this country over the edge, go authoritarian, and turn Venezuela into a dictatorship like the ones he spent all summer visiting?
And we will learn much about the opposition. Ironically, it's only after the election that we will know if Rosales is for real. Will he hold the opposition together? Will he stay in the ring and fight Chavez every step of the way in an organized and disciplined fashion, or will the opposition fall back on simplistic beliefs and strategies that left them without a single representative in the A.N.
The country will change after December 3rd, but it won't change on December 3rd. Because, right now, the economy is awash in cash, stores in Sambil are pulling in record profits, and Chavez's creeping authoritarianism has yet to really impact the lives of your average, politically apathetic citizen.
November 26, 2006
November 23, 2006
The number, not the trend
Quico says: OK, enough with the phone-based tracking polls. What are real field surveys saying?
Below is a selection of recently published results from reasonably recognized firms - no fly-by-night CEPS/Survey Fasts here.
Click to expand
Of course, each of these polls uses a different methodology, sampling procedure and likely-voter estimation. They cover different geographical areas and treat the "won't respond" group differently. This is not a time-series. Results aren't comparable to one another, so there's no use looking for trends; it's the absolute numbers that are interesting.
One thing I find interesting is that there's a much wider spread between Rosales's high and low numbers (from 24 to 48) than between Chavez's (45-58). But then, that Rosales 48% comes from Keller, which was not really a voting intentions survey - so if you overlook that one, Rosales's best showings are in the low 40s - PSB and C21.
Below is a selection of recently published results from reasonably recognized firms - no fly-by-night CEPS/Survey Fasts here.
Of course, each of these polls uses a different methodology, sampling procedure and likely-voter estimation. They cover different geographical areas and treat the "won't respond" group differently. This is not a time-series. Results aren't comparable to one another, so there's no use looking for trends; it's the absolute numbers that are interesting.
One thing I find interesting is that there's a much wider spread between Rosales's high and low numbers (from 24 to 48) than between Chavez's (45-58). But then, that Rosales 48% comes from Keller, which was not really a voting intentions survey - so if you overlook that one, Rosales's best showings are in the low 40s - PSB and C21.
November 21, 2006
Once more, with gusto...
Quico says: Sigh. Nothing takes the sheen off of a juicy leak quite like seeing the leakee interviewed at length the next day on ND. In this detailed interview, Hinterlaces big cheese and talking head in chief Oscar Schemel goes into much more detail about his polling than I could go into yesterday. It's in Spanish, and too long to translate, but well worth reading if you are able. Two things I noted. There are some strange mismatches between Hinterlaces's data as Schemel talks about it and Hinterlaces's data as ND publishes it. Schemel says, if anything, the undecided group is growing, but the ND reported tracking poll shows the opposite. Schemel describes Chavez's trend line as falling ever so slowly and Rosales' growing ever so slowly, but ND shows Chavez steady and Rosales rising. I guess this has much to do with the treatment of the "won't respond" cohort, but still it's puzzling.
Secondly, with characteristic single-mindedness (but also with the focus group data to back it) Schemel insists that Rosales is not winning over key independent voters. He resists the interpretation that Undecideds and No Contestans are almost all Rosales voters.
Why? Schemel mentions something I fear is at the heart of the problem: the emotional dimension. Voting for a challenger has to feel right. You have to look the guy in the face and feel like you know what makes him tick, feel comfortable with his presence, feel that he understands you and your problems, just trust him instinctively. Rosales just doesn't seem to be connecting with NiNi guts strongly enough to bring them out to vote for him. If that doesn't change in the next two weeks, it's possible that the Undecideds will "break" in favor of abstention - a disaster for the opposition.
So, it's still uphill, and time is desperately short now.
November 20, 2006
Blessed are the leakers...
...for they bring us the juicy polling reports that don't show up in the newspapers.
Quico says: Well, a pajarito put a copy of Hinterlaces's advice to the Rosales Campaign in my inbox. To his credit, Schemel doesn't quite buy the spin Noticiero Digital is putting on his polling. His basic message? Chavez can't seem to get over 50%, but Rosales is not managing to win over Ni-Nis. The upshot? One out of every four votes is still up for grabs.
Schemel's straightforward enough to just report what his poll shows: a bit less than half the people he's polling say they will vote for Chavez, roundabout 30% say they will vote for Rosales, just under 10% say they know who they'll vote for but won't tell a pollster, and something like 15% still haven't made up their minds.
Much speculation surrounds the 10% or so who "won't respond." Much of the dispersion in the polls we're seeing in the papers seems to arise from different ways of treating these "no contesta" folk. Pollsters who lump them together with "undecideds" show Chavez leading by a lot, pollsters who lump them together with Rosales's total show Chavez leading by a little. That's the long and the short of it.
Schemel figures most of them will break for Rosales, which seems like a reasonable supposition. But how many precisely? Nobody really knows how to estimate this - and unlike ND, he doesn't try.
Then there's the 15% undecided. Conventional wisdom is that most undecideds end up backing the challenger - it's called the Incumbent Rule, and it doesn't always hold. Here's how US Democratic polling guru Mark Blumenthal explains the dynamic:
At this late stage in the game, Rosales has yet to convince them that Chavez is responsible for the problems they have on these issues, or that he can do better. The key thing here is to differentiate Rosales's approach from Chavez's in voters' minds, to make it clear to them how their values differ and how those different values would translate to different ways of governing. Schemel thinks these differentiations are still kind of fuzzy in the minds of many undecideds: Rosales's job is to sharpen them.
The other trend Schemel notes is a genuine gap between the enthusiasm on the Rosales side and the apathy in the Chavez camp. This suggests to him the race could come down to turnout, and depressing chavista turnout could be the key. Alongside the damage Chavez does to his own side's turnout every time his proposals turn hyper-radical, allegations of corruption really demotivate his followers. Expect to see more of them - not so much as a way of winning over new voters, but as a way of keeping chavistas at home on election day.
In the end, not that much has changed. Rosales has consolidated the traditional oppo vote, but he still has to pretty much run the table on the remaining up-for-grabs votes. Assuming the "won't respond" folk really are all planning to vote for him, he has to win over 2 out of every 3 undecideds in the next two weeks, while trying to keep his supporters enthusiastic and Chavez's demobilized. That's hard, but not impossible. The guy has a fortnight to close the deal.
Addendum: It may be that the report this post is based on is dated - the darn thing didn't have a date on it. However, now that ND is publishing Hinterlaces's raw data every day, I can post updated 3-day moving averages of the underlying data. The latest slide shows undecideds are dwindling - down to just 6% - and it's Rosales who's reaping the gains:
This is still data from a phone poll, which probably undercounts very poor, phoneless people who tend to go for Chavez. But, again, it's the trend, not the number...
Quico says: Well, a pajarito put a copy of Hinterlaces's advice to the Rosales Campaign in my inbox. To his credit, Schemel doesn't quite buy the spin Noticiero Digital is putting on his polling. His basic message? Chavez can't seem to get over 50%, but Rosales is not managing to win over Ni-Nis. The upshot? One out of every four votes is still up for grabs.
Schemel's straightforward enough to just report what his poll shows: a bit less than half the people he's polling say they will vote for Chavez, roundabout 30% say they will vote for Rosales, just under 10% say they know who they'll vote for but won't tell a pollster, and something like 15% still haven't made up their minds.
Much speculation surrounds the 10% or so who "won't respond." Much of the dispersion in the polls we're seeing in the papers seems to arise from different ways of treating these "no contesta" folk. Pollsters who lump them together with "undecideds" show Chavez leading by a lot, pollsters who lump them together with Rosales's total show Chavez leading by a little. That's the long and the short of it.
Schemel figures most of them will break for Rosales, which seems like a reasonable supposition. But how many precisely? Nobody really knows how to estimate this - and unlike ND, he doesn't try.
Then there's the 15% undecided. Conventional wisdom is that most undecideds end up backing the challenger - it's called the Incumbent Rule, and it doesn't always hold. Here's how US Democratic polling guru Mark Blumenthal explains the dynamic:
The basic idea is that voters make their decisions differently in races involving an incumbent. When newcomers vie to fill an open office, voters tend to compare and contrast the candidates' qualifications, issues positions and personal characteristics in a relatively straightforward way. Elections featuring an incumbent, on the other hand, are as Molyneux puts it, "fundamentally a referendum on the incumbent." Voters will first grapple with the record of the incumbent. Only if they decide to "fire" the incumbent do they begin to evaluate whether the challenger is an acceptable alternative.Who are the undecideds in Venezuela right now? Schemel says they are disproportionately young and female. They are open to persuasion, and worried about the classics - street crime and economic issues (unemployment, poverty, etc.) but also disunity, and what he calls "the breakdown in values."
Voters typically know incumbents well and have strong opinions about their performance. Challengers are less familiar and invariably fall short on straightforward comparisons of experience. Some voters find themselves conflicted -- dissatisfied with the incumbent yet also wary of the challenger -- and may carry that uncertainty through the final days of the campaign and sometimes right into the voting booth. Among the perpetually conflicted, the attitudes about the incumbent are usually more predictive of these conflicted voters' final decision than their lingering doubts about the challenger. Thus, in the campaign's last hours, we tend to see "undecided" voters "break" for the challenger.
That's the theory. Does it have any empirical support?
In 1989, Nick Panagakis, president of Market Shares Corporation (the firm that polls for the Chicago Tribune) analyzed results from 155 surveys, most from the late 1980s, all conducted during the last week before an election. In a famous article in The Polling Report, Panagakis found that in 82% of the cases, the undecideds "broke" mostly to the challenger.
At this late stage in the game, Rosales has yet to convince them that Chavez is responsible for the problems they have on these issues, or that he can do better. The key thing here is to differentiate Rosales's approach from Chavez's in voters' minds, to make it clear to them how their values differ and how those different values would translate to different ways of governing. Schemel thinks these differentiations are still kind of fuzzy in the minds of many undecideds: Rosales's job is to sharpen them.
The other trend Schemel notes is a genuine gap between the enthusiasm on the Rosales side and the apathy in the Chavez camp. This suggests to him the race could come down to turnout, and depressing chavista turnout could be the key. Alongside the damage Chavez does to his own side's turnout every time his proposals turn hyper-radical, allegations of corruption really demotivate his followers. Expect to see more of them - not so much as a way of winning over new voters, but as a way of keeping chavistas at home on election day.
In the end, not that much has changed. Rosales has consolidated the traditional oppo vote, but he still has to pretty much run the table on the remaining up-for-grabs votes. Assuming the "won't respond" folk really are all planning to vote for him, he has to win over 2 out of every 3 undecideds in the next two weeks, while trying to keep his supporters enthusiastic and Chavez's demobilized. That's hard, but not impossible. The guy has a fortnight to close the deal.
Addendum: It may be that the report this post is based on is dated - the darn thing didn't have a date on it. However, now that ND is publishing Hinterlaces's raw data every day, I can post updated 3-day moving averages of the underlying data. The latest slide shows undecideds are dwindling - down to just 6% - and it's Rosales who's reaping the gains:
This is still data from a phone poll, which probably undercounts very poor, phoneless people who tend to go for Chavez. But, again, it's the trend, not the number...
November 19, 2006
The Other Election
Quico says: Well, just days to go before the vote, and you can almost feel the tension rising here. From coolly bored, Dutch voters have ramped their energy levels all the way up to civic-mindedly engaged ahead of Wednesday's General Election. By Tuesday evening, some pundits predict the mood could escalate all the way up to mildly but earnestly curious about the result. Heady days, my friends, heady days...
On the streets of Maastricht, electioneering occurs in such jaw-droppingly polite style you have to pinch yourself. A few lawn signs. Some very mild-mannered ads on TV and the radio, and then this, the Parties' Fair - held in front of City Hall for the last week or so before th vote.
Basically, all the main parties set up these little stalls, and voters get to walk past, picking up campaign leaflets and just generally shopping around for the party offering the best goodies. Party workers with little partisan knick-knacks in hand stand ready and eager to answer questions about their policies. The whole scene is ridiculously civilized.
Prime Minister and Harry Potter-lookalike J.P. Balkenende and his painstakingly moderate Christian Democrats are hoping to get re-elected. There's something almost comical about the extent of the "right's" moderation here. In trying to established his right-wing bona fides, for instance, the CDA major of Maastricht is proposing an ordinance to move all the cannabis cafes to the edge of the city, away from downtown. Really.
While nobody could question the CDA's almost-dreary moderation, the same cannot be said of their coalition partners, the "right-wing liberal" VVD, which gets more and more right-wing and less and less liberal by the hour.
The campaign was been spiced up considerably by a last-minute ploy by the VVD immigration minister to ban muslim face coverings in public places, which is the sort of thing that passes for an outrageous dirty trick in Dutch politics. All flippancy aside, though, it is fairly upsetting to see how the VVD has been building its campaign platform mostly around immigrant-baiting (which, around here, consists mostly of muslim-bashing.)
Actually, the whole campaign is being run on traditionally right-wing themes. Even the Labour Party (PvdA) is feeling the pressure. Alongside traditional leftie messages like "Invest in Clean Energy" and "Better schools and more university research," they've adopted "Safer Streets and Neighborhoods" as one of their main slogans.
I guess this is what voters in overrun-by-immigrants Amsterdam and in Rotterdamistan demand, but in lily-white Maastricht, where the foreignest people you usually meet are Belgians, it all feels oddly out of place.
The PvdA's middle-class friendly shtick is somewhat undermined by the fact that, if they win, they'd have to strike up a coalition with the paleo-leftie, rojo, rojito Socialist Party (SP - higher taxes for all!) and the groovy-hippie-sandalista GreenLeft (GroenLinks - subsidized cannabis for all!)
Frankly, there was something inspiring about the way the Parties' Fair works. Everyone from the far-right to the far-left lined up neatly in a row, in a shared public space, talking to voters in calm, even tones about their ideas and projects. Only to a Venezuelan could a scene so aggressively bland have seemed so positively exhilarating.
The PvdA sandwich-board man told me that when they're done for the day, all the volunteers clean up the square together and a lot of them adjourn to a near-by pub, where they spend a few hours drinking beer and talking politics. I asked him how these drinking sessions usually go.
"Does anyone accuse each other of being George W. Bush's bitch? Do the SP guys call the VVD guys enemies of the people?! or neototalitarian fascistoids?!" He just laughed at me. "No, no, c'mon." Then he paused for a second and added, "though, well, I admit the other night I did get fairly upset when the CDA guys called our pension proposals unrealistic."
These Dutch people are bloody weird.
On the streets of Maastricht, electioneering occurs in such jaw-droppingly polite style you have to pinch yourself. A few lawn signs. Some very mild-mannered ads on TV and the radio, and then this, the Parties' Fair - held in front of City Hall for the last week or so before th vote.
Basically, all the main parties set up these little stalls, and voters get to walk past, picking up campaign leaflets and just generally shopping around for the party offering the best goodies. Party workers with little partisan knick-knacks in hand stand ready and eager to answer questions about their policies. The whole scene is ridiculously civilized.
Prime Minister and Harry Potter-lookalike J.P. Balkenende and his painstakingly moderate Christian Democrats are hoping to get re-elected. There's something almost comical about the extent of the "right's" moderation here. In trying to established his right-wing bona fides, for instance, the CDA major of Maastricht is proposing an ordinance to move all the cannabis cafes to the edge of the city, away from downtown. Really.
While nobody could question the CDA's almost-dreary moderation, the same cannot be said of their coalition partners, the "right-wing liberal" VVD, which gets more and more right-wing and less and less liberal by the hour.
The campaign was been spiced up considerably by a last-minute ploy by the VVD immigration minister to ban muslim face coverings in public places, which is the sort of thing that passes for an outrageous dirty trick in Dutch politics. All flippancy aside, though, it is fairly upsetting to see how the VVD has been building its campaign platform mostly around immigrant-baiting (which, around here, consists mostly of muslim-bashing.)
Actually, the whole campaign is being run on traditionally right-wing themes. Even the Labour Party (PvdA) is feeling the pressure. Alongside traditional leftie messages like "Invest in Clean Energy" and "Better schools and more university research," they've adopted "Safer Streets and Neighborhoods" as one of their main slogans.
I guess this is what voters in overrun-by-immigrants Amsterdam and in Rotterdamistan demand, but in lily-white Maastricht, where the foreignest people you usually meet are Belgians, it all feels oddly out of place.
The PvdA's middle-class friendly shtick is somewhat undermined by the fact that, if they win, they'd have to strike up a coalition with the paleo-leftie, rojo, rojito Socialist Party (SP - higher taxes for all!) and the groovy-hippie-sandalista GreenLeft (GroenLinks - subsidized cannabis for all!)
Frankly, there was something inspiring about the way the Parties' Fair works. Everyone from the far-right to the far-left lined up neatly in a row, in a shared public space, talking to voters in calm, even tones about their ideas and projects. Only to a Venezuelan could a scene so aggressively bland have seemed so positively exhilarating.
The PvdA sandwich-board man told me that when they're done for the day, all the volunteers clean up the square together and a lot of them adjourn to a near-by pub, where they spend a few hours drinking beer and talking politics. I asked him how these drinking sessions usually go.
"Does anyone accuse each other of being George W. Bush's bitch? Do the SP guys call the VVD guys enemies of the people?! or neototalitarian fascistoids?!" He just laughed at me. "No, no, c'mon." Then he paused for a second and added, "though, well, I admit the other night I did get fairly upset when the CDA guys called our pension proposals unrealistic."
These Dutch people are bloody weird.
November 18, 2006
Plan Colina Redux
Quico says: Well of course Chavez will work provoke the more excitable elements in the opposition into overplaying their hand.
Why wouldn't Chavez play the casquillo card? It works for him! Always has! He'd have to be stupid not to replay a canard that has paid off so handsomely in the past. It puts the extremists in the opposition driving seat, makes them even crazier than they already were, isolating them more and more and driving a bigger and bigger wedge between his opponents and normal people...and, as an added bonus this time around, it puts Rosales in an impossible position:
If Rosales loses and claims fraud, the government can move against him as brutally as they did when PDVSA's managers played into Chavez's hands in Dec. 2002. If Rosales loses and concedes, the hyper-polarized climate Chavez has brought about ensures he'll be crucified by the now empowered loony-wing, accused of being a second coming of Arias Cardenas, etc. etc. And if Rosales wins - hell, Chavez can just cheat, and then we're right back in the first scenario.
So it's win-win-win for Chavez. We shouldn't be surprised or outraged that he's doing it again. What we should be surprised and outraged about is the way we keep falling for these little traps.
Of one thing, though, I am convinced: Chavez will not move against Globovision. It's too useful to him, too central to the Chavez-los-tiene-locos strategy. When your opponent is busy digging himself into a hole, you don't take away the shovel.
"I am warning them not to force me to take drastic actions because I won't hesitate to defend the sovereignty of the country," said Chavez. He gave no details.The provocation here is as obvious as it's self-fulfilling. More than anything else, it's groan-inducingly predictable; we've been down this road before.
Chavez said the country's opposition may seek to discredit the results of the Dec. 3 vote by calling fraud. Most polls show Chavez leading challenger Manuel Rosales by double-digits.
"Any television station that broadcasts a message of terrorism, hatred, war or makes a call to disavow the authorities, we have to shut it down," Chavez said. "We are not going to allow them to fill Venezuela with blood again."
Why wouldn't Chavez play the casquillo card? It works for him! Always has! He'd have to be stupid not to replay a canard that has paid off so handsomely in the past. It puts the extremists in the opposition driving seat, makes them even crazier than they already were, isolating them more and more and driving a bigger and bigger wedge between his opponents and normal people...and, as an added bonus this time around, it puts Rosales in an impossible position:
If Rosales loses and claims fraud, the government can move against him as brutally as they did when PDVSA's managers played into Chavez's hands in Dec. 2002. If Rosales loses and concedes, the hyper-polarized climate Chavez has brought about ensures he'll be crucified by the now empowered loony-wing, accused of being a second coming of Arias Cardenas, etc. etc. And if Rosales wins - hell, Chavez can just cheat, and then we're right back in the first scenario.
So it's win-win-win for Chavez. We shouldn't be surprised or outraged that he's doing it again. What we should be surprised and outraged about is the way we keep falling for these little traps.
Of one thing, though, I am convinced: Chavez will not move against Globovision. It's too useful to him, too central to the Chavez-los-tiene-locos strategy. When your opponent is busy digging himself into a hole, you don't take away the shovel.
November 17, 2006
The Nth Disaster
Quico says: What I think we're witnessing is the final collapse of common sense on all sides in Venezuela. But especially on our side.
After years of swearing up and down that the vote was not secret, that the captahuellas would let the government know who you had voted for and that, in any case, all elections were rigged, Globovision and the oppo leadership turn on a dime and swear up and down that the captahuellas are harmless. Not that they admit that before they were wrong, or lying manipulative pricks, not that they explain what has changed to make it so that last year the vote was not secret but today it is. Heavens no! Assertion is argument enough. Eastasia has always been at war with Eurasia...
Suddenly, voters' "fear" is treated as some mysterious entity: everyone pretends like it's just a weird idea people got in their heads for no reason at all. No one, not one of the people who spent years spitting skyward, entrenching this idea firmly in opposition minds, is willing to step forward to take responsibility. Instead, they bemoan the stupid voters who threaten Rosales's victory by being, inexplicably, afraid, and hint darkly that the whole secrecy-of-the-vote cannard was a nefarious government plant.
And the hardcore oppo NDroots BUYS IT. That's the part that gets me...
The government publishes fake or manipulated polls. The opposition publishes fake or manipulated polls. Both sides accuse the other of doing so, but partisans in neither take ten seconds to consider that perhaps, just perhaps, both sides are at it.
Both sides' leaders imagine themselves locked in a struggle that transcends petty little concerns like minimum honesty or basic integrity. Both sides' followers fail comprehensibly to consider what a bunch of bastards the people leading them truly are.
This entire juggernaut pushes inexorably forward towards the Nth disaster. The voices in Aporrea and ND feed off of each other's discombobulated extremism. Two hive minds, equally entrenched in their own certainties, equally obdurate in their refusal to compromise with the world as it is, with its ironies, complexities, bitter truths and daily betrayals.
To demand honesty from your own side is to call into question your bona fides. Reflection is appeasement.
Only one thing is clear to me at this point - and it does not bode well: Chavez and JVR are smarter, more ruthless, and much more effective than Ravell and Granier. Their shocking cynicism is at least crown with the only attribute that seems to matter to anyone these days: effectiveness. Draw your own conclusions.
After years of swearing up and down that the vote was not secret, that the captahuellas would let the government know who you had voted for and that, in any case, all elections were rigged, Globovision and the oppo leadership turn on a dime and swear up and down that the captahuellas are harmless. Not that they admit that before they were wrong, or lying manipulative pricks, not that they explain what has changed to make it so that last year the vote was not secret but today it is. Heavens no! Assertion is argument enough. Eastasia has always been at war with Eurasia...
Suddenly, voters' "fear" is treated as some mysterious entity: everyone pretends like it's just a weird idea people got in their heads for no reason at all. No one, not one of the people who spent years spitting skyward, entrenching this idea firmly in opposition minds, is willing to step forward to take responsibility. Instead, they bemoan the stupid voters who threaten Rosales's victory by being, inexplicably, afraid, and hint darkly that the whole secrecy-of-the-vote cannard was a nefarious government plant.
And the hardcore oppo NDroots BUYS IT. That's the part that gets me...
The government publishes fake or manipulated polls. The opposition publishes fake or manipulated polls. Both sides accuse the other of doing so, but partisans in neither take ten seconds to consider that perhaps, just perhaps, both sides are at it.
Both sides' leaders imagine themselves locked in a struggle that transcends petty little concerns like minimum honesty or basic integrity. Both sides' followers fail comprehensibly to consider what a bunch of bastards the people leading them truly are.
This entire juggernaut pushes inexorably forward towards the Nth disaster. The voices in Aporrea and ND feed off of each other's discombobulated extremism. Two hive minds, equally entrenched in their own certainties, equally obdurate in their refusal to compromise with the world as it is, with its ironies, complexities, bitter truths and daily betrayals.
To demand honesty from your own side is to call into question your bona fides. Reflection is appeasement.
Only one thing is clear to me at this point - and it does not bode well: Chavez and JVR are smarter, more ruthless, and much more effective than Ravell and Granier. Their shocking cynicism is at least crown with the only attribute that seems to matter to anyone these days: effectiveness. Draw your own conclusions.
November 16, 2006
November 14, 2006
Et tu, Schemel?
Quico says: I was trying to update my Hinterlaces/ND three-day moving average chart when I noticed an odd anomaly: on Sunday, ND showed Rosales above 40%. But in today's version, his line never crosses that threshold. 
Is there an innocent explanation, or is Schemel playing games here?
In any case I'm hearing Consultores 21's numbers don't show the race tightening significantly - but I don't have the dates for their fieldwork yet, so it's hard to know what to make of that. I'll post more on that when I have details.
Is there an innocent explanation, or is Schemel playing games here?
In any case I'm hearing Consultores 21's numbers don't show the race tightening significantly - but I don't have the dates for their fieldwork yet, so it's hard to know what to make of that. I'll post more on that when I have details.
November 13, 2006
Hinterlaces/ND Three Day Moving Average
Quico says: I'm annoyed that Noticiero Digital is publishing day-by-day results for the Hinterlaces phone tracking poll. The better way to do it is to report three day moving averages. That way you triple the sample size and iron out much of the random variability. So I re-did their chart, using a simple average of the previous three days' results. The trends are much easier to see this way:
Note: Standard caveats apply (i.e. watch the trends, not the levels.)
Note: Standard caveats apply (i.e. watch the trends, not the levels.)
November 12, 2006
The trend, not the number...
Quico says: Well, thanks to the Hinterlaces/Noticiero Digital tracking poll, we finally have a consistent methodology time-series on how the campaign is going. That's good.
What's bad is that they're polling over the phone, which makes class-stratification tricky and probably undercounts Chavez supporters.
Does that make the poll useless? Not at all. A poll is a tool, and it's important to know what any tool is good for. For the same reason you wouldn't use a screwdriver to hammer in a nail, you shouldn't use the Hinterlaces/ND tracking poll to figure out a candidate's support level.
What a tracking poll does tell you is something about trends. The direction of change is more meaningful than the absolute values here. Because they're polling a sample of just 500 each night, the individual data points are "noisy" - there's certainly a lot of random variation, and it's not wise to draw conclusions from overnight shifts. But if you look at longer periods - a week, even - you can see trends emerging, and those give you a pretty good sense of the dynamics of the race.
And one thing that's clear looking at this chart is that the publication of Rafael Ramirez's roja-rojita PDVSA speech put some wind in the sails of the Rosales campaign.
What's bad is that they're polling over the phone, which makes class-stratification tricky and probably undercounts Chavez supporters.
Does that make the poll useless? Not at all. A poll is a tool, and it's important to know what any tool is good for. For the same reason you wouldn't use a screwdriver to hammer in a nail, you shouldn't use the Hinterlaces/ND tracking poll to figure out a candidate's support level.
What a tracking poll does tell you is something about trends. The direction of change is more meaningful than the absolute values here. Because they're polling a sample of just 500 each night, the individual data points are "noisy" - there's certainly a lot of random variation, and it's not wise to draw conclusions from overnight shifts. But if you look at longer periods - a week, even - you can see trends emerging, and those give you a pretty good sense of the dynamics of the race.
And one thing that's clear looking at this chart is that the publication of Rafael Ramirez's roja-rojita PDVSA speech put some wind in the sails of the Rosales campaign.
November 10, 2006
Fear and loathing in La Campiña
Quico says: Four years ago, I was working for VenEconomy out of their Sabana Grande offices. Lucky me, I was living in La Campiña, so I had the rare privilege of being able to walk to work every day. Granted, I did get mugged three times in a year and a half, but at least I didn't have to deal with the traffic.
My “commute” took me right by PDVSA headquarters on Avenida Libertador, twice a day. But this was late 2002 - and, as you'll remember, during the oil strike a group of chavistas decided to camp out more or less permanently in front of PDVSA - a sort of “rojo, rojito” counterpoint to the generals of Plaza Altamira. So twice a day, every day of the week, I had to walk straight through this little throng of militant chavistas just so I could get to the office where I'd spend the rest of my day criticizing them.
Looking very much like the antichavista sifrino I am, this experience was more than a little disconcerting. Pretty soon, I realized I would need some camouflage. Rummaging through the wares the street-vendors at the camp were peddling, I found this bandanna:
Looking at it sideways, I realized I kind of liked it. It dawned on me that this was the only chavista slogan I actually agree with. After all, by December, 2002 - with Globovision playing "Y deciiiiiimos siiiiiii a la esperanzaaaaaa!" on a continuous loop all day long - I was sure the opposition had gone off the deep end. This was a chavista slogan I could make my own!
So for months on end I wore this silly thing on my head on my way to work. There was something appealingly ironic about having to wear it for my own protection. I felt like I was playing a secret joke on the government, like their attempt to impose a new identity on me was as crazy as the ribbon claimed Chavez was making me. I could laugh about it because I was certain that, though they might be able to dictate what I put over my head, they will never control what’s in it.
An identity under siege
“Chavez makes them crazy.” When you think about it, it's a really odd slogan. Where else do you find a leader who boasts about undermining the mental health of his opponents? Why is this something to brag about? What does it say about Chavista values that managing to get under our skin is actually a cherished revolutionary achievement? And what is it about Chavez, in the final analysis, that's driving us crazy?
I think Katy came close to answering this the other day when she noted that:
There's an element of symbolic warfare at play here. Driving us crazy is important for chavismo because it's part of a strategy to "resignify" the country.
This is a word I’m borrowing from pollster Oscar Schemel, who said:
The reasons for this go back to Chávez himself. Because Chavez's attempt at re-signification is, in the end, an attempt to redefine our identity, to change who we are.
The attempt isn't subtle. From changing the national coat of arms to adding extra stars to the flag to splashing a partisan tag across our damn passports and cédulas, the revolution has not been bashful in its attempt is to enshrine its ideology, its phraseology and its iconography permanently into the symbolic fabric of our national identity. The goal is to establish chavismo as the ideology of the State and not merely of the government - partly, of course, by erasing the distinction between the two.
Chavismo's symbolic agenda is fundamentally exclusionary - it is about excluding us, subduing us, about banishing our values, our thoughts and our understanding of what democracy is and how it should work. Its goal is to impose a new symbolic order where the way we think is "un-Venezuelan." What's serious, what drives us crazy, is that Chavismo has launched a bold and ruthless drive to redefine "our" national identity in terms that expressly exclude “us” from it.
Is it any wonder the guy is driving us crazy? Is it any mystery why his supporters are proud of that?
Become the majority right now!
My fellow bloggers and I have been getting some very strong, deeply emotional reactions in the last few weeks from committed readers, people we respect and value and spend lots of our time writing for. What is curious is that what sparked this controversy is something that wouldn’t be that controversial in a working democracy: our honest opinion, based on research that may or may not be right, that more people may be planning to vote for one candidate than for another.
What's clear is that, for many in the opposition, the proposition that we might be in the minority is an impossibility; a banned thought, something unsayable, unthinkable - certainly unbloggable.
Why are we so touchy about this? I think Katy's right: deep down, we are dead scared of losing the battle over the meaning of Venezuelan-ness. Our understanding of democracy, which we had always taken as the unchanging center of our national identity may be about to die...and we've convinced ourselves that it will die, if it turns out that we are in the minority at the end.
Suddenly under siege, feeling itself dependent on majority support for its viability, our identity has turned defensive. Paraphrasing, J.M. Briceño Guerrero, our certainty of being a majority has turned oddly defensive...
But we’re wrong about this. Who we are, what we are, our right to be dissenters and fully Venezuelan at the same time can be sustained even if we are in the minority. A new, exclusionary definition of Venezuelan-ness cannot be sustained over the active resistance of just under half the country; it’s just that we act as if it could. Only the belief that this election is a matter of survival leads us to say things like “everything is in play this December.”
Well, everything is not in play. Don’t get me wrong, this is an important election, one that we really, really need to win. But if we don’t, we will continue our struggle. Unless, that is, we lose the battle inside ourselves; we start wearing our bandannas on the insides of our heads.
In the end, I got so attached to this little trinket, to this souvenir of my struggle to survive amid the symbolic onslaught, that I brought it with me when I came to Europe. I like to glance at it when JVR starts baiting us for the cameras, when Chavez starts to rant. It reminds me that the more we lose our cool, the more we advance their agenda.
Because when the other side's goal is to make you crazy, the only way to fight back is to stay sane.
My “commute” took me right by PDVSA headquarters on Avenida Libertador, twice a day. But this was late 2002 - and, as you'll remember, during the oil strike a group of chavistas decided to camp out more or less permanently in front of PDVSA - a sort of “rojo, rojito” counterpoint to the generals of Plaza Altamira. So twice a day, every day of the week, I had to walk straight through this little throng of militant chavistas just so I could get to the office where I'd spend the rest of my day criticizing them.
Looking very much like the antichavista sifrino I am, this experience was more than a little disconcerting. Pretty soon, I realized I would need some camouflage. Rummaging through the wares the street-vendors at the camp were peddling, I found this bandanna:
Looking at it sideways, I realized I kind of liked it. It dawned on me that this was the only chavista slogan I actually agree with. After all, by December, 2002 - with Globovision playing "Y deciiiiiimos siiiiiii a la esperanzaaaaaa!" on a continuous loop all day long - I was sure the opposition had gone off the deep end. This was a chavista slogan I could make my own!
So for months on end I wore this silly thing on my head on my way to work. There was something appealingly ironic about having to wear it for my own protection. I felt like I was playing a secret joke on the government, like their attempt to impose a new identity on me was as crazy as the ribbon claimed Chavez was making me. I could laugh about it because I was certain that, though they might be able to dictate what I put over my head, they will never control what’s in it.
An identity under siege
“Chavez makes them crazy.” When you think about it, it's a really odd slogan. Where else do you find a leader who boasts about undermining the mental health of his opponents? Why is this something to brag about? What does it say about Chavista values that managing to get under our skin is actually a cherished revolutionary achievement? And what is it about Chavez, in the final analysis, that's driving us crazy?
I think Katy came close to answering this the other day when she noted that:
Chávez knows we fear him. That's why his speech is so hateful, so full of incitement. He works to ignite our fear and makes us appear... well, fearful, or to use another word, squalid. It's a show put on for the benefit of poor voters who get a kick out of watching us tremble. It's like their own little French Revolution is playing inside their head; Chávez's tongue playing the part of guillotine.Part of what's driving us crazy is the realization that Chavez actually gains politically when he baits us - that the more he puts us down, the more his supporters get off on it. Strident divisiveness is not part of Chavez's political strategy - it is his strategy.
There's an element of symbolic warfare at play here. Driving us crazy is important for chavismo because it's part of a strategy to "resignify" the country.
This is a word I’m borrowing from pollster Oscar Schemel, who said:
The current political struggle is chiefly over interpretations and meanings. While the elites and the middle class fight to impose their own notions about democracy and citizenship, the poor majority, chavista and non-chavista, is refuting and resignifying those same ideas. A new culture is emerging, and it's resignifying and deactivating our received ideas about politics, amidst a social and symbolic struggle to redefine democracy, development and social relations.Regardless of what we may or may not think will happen in December, beyond the polls and predictions and allegations, there are two things I have learned this week. The first is something we can all agree on, that Rosales still has a shot, because the only poll that counts is the one in December 3rd. The second is more controversial, and it’s that most of us would find it incredibly difficult to deal with the possibility that there may be more of “them” than there are of “us.”
The reasons for this go back to Chávez himself. Because Chavez's attempt at re-signification is, in the end, an attempt to redefine our identity, to change who we are.
The attempt isn't subtle. From changing the national coat of arms to adding extra stars to the flag to splashing a partisan tag across our damn passports and cédulas, the revolution has not been bashful in its attempt is to enshrine its ideology, its phraseology and its iconography permanently into the symbolic fabric of our national identity. The goal is to establish chavismo as the ideology of the State and not merely of the government - partly, of course, by erasing the distinction between the two.
Chavismo's symbolic agenda is fundamentally exclusionary - it is about excluding us, subduing us, about banishing our values, our thoughts and our understanding of what democracy is and how it should work. Its goal is to impose a new symbolic order where the way we think is "un-Venezuelan." What's serious, what drives us crazy, is that Chavismo has launched a bold and ruthless drive to redefine "our" national identity in terms that expressly exclude “us” from it.
Is it any wonder the guy is driving us crazy? Is it any mystery why his supporters are proud of that?
Become the majority right now!
My fellow bloggers and I have been getting some very strong, deeply emotional reactions in the last few weeks from committed readers, people we respect and value and spend lots of our time writing for. What is curious is that what sparked this controversy is something that wouldn’t be that controversial in a working democracy: our honest opinion, based on research that may or may not be right, that more people may be planning to vote for one candidate than for another.
What's clear is that, for many in the opposition, the proposition that we might be in the minority is an impossibility; a banned thought, something unsayable, unthinkable - certainly unbloggable.
Why are we so touchy about this? I think Katy's right: deep down, we are dead scared of losing the battle over the meaning of Venezuelan-ness. Our understanding of democracy, which we had always taken as the unchanging center of our national identity may be about to die...and we've convinced ourselves that it will die, if it turns out that we are in the minority at the end.
Suddenly under siege, feeling itself dependent on majority support for its viability, our identity has turned defensive. Paraphrasing, J.M. Briceño Guerrero, our certainty of being a majority has turned oddly defensive...
it's as though we were speaking rather in the imperative: "be the majority" - layered over an unspoken "it would be unbearable not to be so", all of which rides on the strongly repressed sense that "horror, we aren't!", which only bolsters the imperative: "become the majority right now!" which again turns into the indicative, now supersticious and magical: "we are the majority."We have fallen into a trap, believing that if there are more of them than there are of us, Chavez's attempt to resignify Venezuelan-ness has succeeded. It’s as though contemplating the possibility that more people want to vote for Chavez than for Rosales is contemplating, symbolically speaking, our own ethnic cleansing - the anhiliation of our identity.
But we’re wrong about this. Who we are, what we are, our right to be dissenters and fully Venezuelan at the same time can be sustained even if we are in the minority. A new, exclusionary definition of Venezuelan-ness cannot be sustained over the active resistance of just under half the country; it’s just that we act as if it could. Only the belief that this election is a matter of survival leads us to say things like “everything is in play this December.”
Well, everything is not in play. Don’t get me wrong, this is an important election, one that we really, really need to win. But if we don’t, we will continue our struggle. Unless, that is, we lose the battle inside ourselves; we start wearing our bandannas on the insides of our heads.
In the end, I got so attached to this little trinket, to this souvenir of my struggle to survive amid the symbolic onslaught, that I brought it with me when I came to Europe. I like to glance at it when JVR starts baiting us for the cameras, when Chavez starts to rant. It reminds me that the more we lose our cool, the more we advance their agenda.Because when the other side's goal is to make you crazy, the only way to fight back is to stay sane.
"No me ayude tanto, compañero."
Hate Caracas Chronicles lately? Guess what, so does everybody else! After a bloody barrage of abuse aimed at my recent editorial line - the disgruntled readers' version of shock and awe - I thought I'd ask one of my most loyal, crankiest readers to post a kind of Why CC Sucks Greatest Hits.
Escualidus Arrechus says: Lately, what used to be a brilliantly insightful blog on Venezuelan politics, has degenerated into a premature funeral procession for Manuel Rosales, the Venezuelan opposition, or both, depending on the mood that takes our fearless leaders. Depending on your degree of participation in the comments section, you may or may not be aware of how pissy this has made everybody. My job, I guess, is to give you the highlights.
Mind you, this isn't an attack on internal criticism within the opposition, or even a call against making such criticisms in public. If the opposition fell into that m. o., we'd be no better than chavismo itself. But there's "self-criticism", and then there's the borderline suicidal ramblings Quico and Katy have been feeding us of late. I don't even entirely disagree with them, and I'm by no means a blinders-on Rosales booster. But the defeatist funk has been steadily increasing over the past few days, and something's gotta give.
As far as I can tell, there're four key talking points in the Caracas Chronicles “Suicide is Painless” prom theme for 2006:
1. “Rosales is fighting a losing battle. The polls say so, and Lord knows they're infallible”. Now, Rosales might very well lose on December 3rd. But the fervor with which Quico clings to the almighty polls is only comparable to, well, the fervor with which some in the opposition reject them. Neither one is particularly rational. Every time a poll is exposed as suspicious or downright rubbish, Quico points to his favorite, most trusted pollsters, whose results match those of the disgraced pollster du jour. Well, Quiquete, does that mean the pollster with the shoddy methodology and/or sampling was actually right, or does it perhaps mean that there's something rotten at the source? The best methodology in the world is useless without quality data, and that's become harder and harder to find in Venezuela lately.
The polls could very well be correct (personally, I think Rosales has a fighting chance, polls be damned), and Chavez could still enjoy the approval of half the population. But I'd rather not lick my wounds before the battle is waged. I want campaign strategy, not eulogies while I'm still alive.
2. “Rosales is doomed because he's surrounded himself with remnants of La Cuarta”. This is personal sour grapes masquerading as political analysis. Quico has a long-documented distaste for the old political class, dismissing it as a single entity, a strategy reminiscent of the one Chavez used to sell the electorate on his constituyente. And it's the trait of his that gets my goat the most. He's taken Chavez's half-assed politics and made them his own. It's almost as though he feels he's a true moderate by conceding the enemy's got a point. No, Quico, it just means you're easily manipulated by leftist guilt.
3. “The Venezuelan private media justifies Chavez's attacks when they shamelessly give extensive coverage to Rosales' rallies”. A lovely sentiment, and one I can agree with to a degree. The private media, and Globovision in particular, can be viciously anti-Chavez, and their open bias could negatively influence swing voters. But to leave it at that is to engage in shallow analysis that brings nothing to the table. In a country where the “public” TV network is a stronghold of government propaganda, where newspapers are hit through the denial of foreign currency for supplies purchases, where TV stations are routinely raided and “investigated”, the conditions for healthy journalism are shot. The Venezuelan media is fighting for its life under this administration, and any analysis that ignores that, is incomplete, and hopelessly naive.
4. “Chavez is authoritarian, sure, but totalitarian? Nah. Drop the hysteria”. Must be nice to live in a country where you can wax poetic about the differences between the terms. Chavez is certainly not a totalitarian hegemon, but not for lack of trying. It may sound like a cheap shot, but I honestly believe their distance from home has erased Quico and Katy's memories of life with a president that regularly calls you the enemy. Los tiros? Ya sabemos por donde van. Don't try to tell me Chavez is “all talk, he'd never go that far”. He has, and will again at the first chance.
I don't want Quico, Katy, or Whatshisface to stop writing. Hell, I don't want them to stop writing critically, at that. But I do want them to stop mourning the living. Prepare to storm the beach, kids, 'cause the fight hasn't even begun. If we lose, I want to lose after running our opponent bloody ragged. I want him to hit the mat right after us. If he beats us, let it be the worst Pyrrhic victory of all time. Throwing in the towel before the fight begins is not an option. Atrevete.
Escualidus Arrechus says: Lately, what used to be a brilliantly insightful blog on Venezuelan politics, has degenerated into a premature funeral procession for Manuel Rosales, the Venezuelan opposition, or both, depending on the mood that takes our fearless leaders. Depending on your degree of participation in the comments section, you may or may not be aware of how pissy this has made everybody. My job, I guess, is to give you the highlights.
Mind you, this isn't an attack on internal criticism within the opposition, or even a call against making such criticisms in public. If the opposition fell into that m. o., we'd be no better than chavismo itself. But there's "self-criticism", and then there's the borderline suicidal ramblings Quico and Katy have been feeding us of late. I don't even entirely disagree with them, and I'm by no means a blinders-on Rosales booster. But the defeatist funk has been steadily increasing over the past few days, and something's gotta give.
As far as I can tell, there're four key talking points in the Caracas Chronicles “Suicide is Painless” prom theme for 2006:
1. “Rosales is fighting a losing battle. The polls say so, and Lord knows they're infallible”. Now, Rosales might very well lose on December 3rd. But the fervor with which Quico clings to the almighty polls is only comparable to, well, the fervor with which some in the opposition reject them. Neither one is particularly rational. Every time a poll is exposed as suspicious or downright rubbish, Quico points to his favorite, most trusted pollsters, whose results match those of the disgraced pollster du jour. Well, Quiquete, does that mean the pollster with the shoddy methodology and/or sampling was actually right, or does it perhaps mean that there's something rotten at the source? The best methodology in the world is useless without quality data, and that's become harder and harder to find in Venezuela lately.
The polls could very well be correct (personally, I think Rosales has a fighting chance, polls be damned), and Chavez could still enjoy the approval of half the population. But I'd rather not lick my wounds before the battle is waged. I want campaign strategy, not eulogies while I'm still alive.
2. “Rosales is doomed because he's surrounded himself with remnants of La Cuarta”. This is personal sour grapes masquerading as political analysis. Quico has a long-documented distaste for the old political class, dismissing it as a single entity, a strategy reminiscent of the one Chavez used to sell the electorate on his constituyente. And it's the trait of his that gets my goat the most. He's taken Chavez's half-assed politics and made them his own. It's almost as though he feels he's a true moderate by conceding the enemy's got a point. No, Quico, it just means you're easily manipulated by leftist guilt.
3. “The Venezuelan private media justifies Chavez's attacks when they shamelessly give extensive coverage to Rosales' rallies”. A lovely sentiment, and one I can agree with to a degree. The private media, and Globovision in particular, can be viciously anti-Chavez, and their open bias could negatively influence swing voters. But to leave it at that is to engage in shallow analysis that brings nothing to the table. In a country where the “public” TV network is a stronghold of government propaganda, where newspapers are hit through the denial of foreign currency for supplies purchases, where TV stations are routinely raided and “investigated”, the conditions for healthy journalism are shot. The Venezuelan media is fighting for its life under this administration, and any analysis that ignores that, is incomplete, and hopelessly naive.
4. “Chavez is authoritarian, sure, but totalitarian? Nah. Drop the hysteria”. Must be nice to live in a country where you can wax poetic about the differences between the terms. Chavez is certainly not a totalitarian hegemon, but not for lack of trying. It may sound like a cheap shot, but I honestly believe their distance from home has erased Quico and Katy's memories of life with a president that regularly calls you the enemy. Los tiros? Ya sabemos por donde van. Don't try to tell me Chavez is “all talk, he'd never go that far”. He has, and will again at the first chance.
I don't want Quico, Katy, or Whatshisface to stop writing. Hell, I don't want them to stop writing critically, at that. But I do want them to stop mourning the living. Prepare to storm the beach, kids, 'cause the fight hasn't even begun. If we lose, I want to lose after running our opponent bloody ragged. I want him to hit the mat right after us. If he beats us, let it be the worst Pyrrhic victory of all time. Throwing in the towel before the fight begins is not an option. Atrevete.
November 9, 2006
Maracaibo and Rosales hit the big time
Katy says: There are several reasons I just had to reprint this latest article from The Economist. One, it recognizes the enthusiasm of the Rosales campaign and acknowledges some of the governor's best traits, including his endearing wife. Two, it is realistic about his chances but nevertheless sees this campaign as an important step in regrouping the opposition. And three, it mentions Maracaibo in the title. How cool is that?
----------
Venezuela
The Man from Maracaibo
Nov 9th 2006 | CARACAS
From The Economist print edition
At last, the opposition to Hugo Chávez finds a star of its own
JUST a few months ago, Venezuela's opposition was divided, apathetic and nervous. With a presidential election due on December 3rd, Hugo Chávez, who is seeking a fresh six-year term, was flush with petro-dollars and riding high in the opinion polls. The dozens of small political parties and pressure groups that make up the opposition could not even agree on a method for selecting a candidate. Many thought the election was so heavily rigged in Mr Chávez's favour that the only sensible option was to boycott the whole process. A similar ploy in December last year had left the 167-member National Assembly without a single opposition member.
Step forward Manuel Rosales, the governor of the western state of Zulia, whose capital is Maracaibo, the country's second city. He has never lost an election since becoming a local councillor 27 years ago. As a provincial politician with his own power base, he was freer than most rivals to cut through the backroom deal-making, heavily influenced by media bosses, that has blighted opposition politics in recent years. He skilfully outmanoeuvred the abstentionists, securing the candidacy and the support of almost 40 political groups.
Since then he has criss-crossed the country, striding through poor neighbourhoods from the Colombian border to the Orinoco delta, hugging old ladies and kissing babies. On November 4th several hundred thousand supporters accompanied him on a 26km (16 mile) march across Caracas. That was reminiscent of the mass rallies against Mr Chávez between 2002 and 2004. The opposition's troops are in good heart. Even Mr Chávez, used to dictating the political agenda, has been forced partly on to the defensive.
So can the president be defeated? Probably not. Many of the polls are biased to one side or the other. But the best guess is that Mr Chávez retains the support of at least half the electorate, with Mr Rosales probably 20 points behind. Since the president, a former army officer who led a failed coup in 1992, was first elected in 1998 the voters have consistently split about 60:40 in his favour. With abundant oil revenue at his disposal and no budgetary restraints or institutional checks on his power, Mr Chávez is a tough opponent.
But Mr Rosales has landed some punches. Mr Chávez spent much of this year touring the world doling out gifts in a failed bid for a seat at the United Nations Security Council for Venezuela. Rather than the “anti-imperialist” struggle abroad, says Mr Rosales, what needs attention is rampant crime, a housing shortage and persistent unemployment at home. His campaign features a debit card which he says he would use to distribute 20% of oil earnings directly to the poorest members of society. “That's much less than what this government has given to other countries,” he claims.
The card could be a vote-winner. Polls show big majorities against the foreign handouts Mr Chávez uses to gain allies for his crusade against the United States. That, in the view of his opponents, was why Mr Chávez this week snubbed London's mayor, Ken Livingstone, cancelling his planned trip to Caracas at the last minute. The British leftist was to sign a deal that would swap cheap diesel for London buses for advice on crime, waste disposal and the like. Venezuela's foreign minister will now sign the deal in London.
Mr Rosales lacks Mr Chávez's skill as a communicator. But like the president, he comes from a humble background. Unlike him, he is happily married. Several of his ten children are adopted. His wife Eveling is an accomplished campaigner. The government derides him as a typical product of the discredited pre-Chávez era. But he broke with the dominant party of that era in the early 1990s. If he can create a strong enough organisation to hold the opposition together even in defeat, he will have achieved more than its last two presidential candidates. There will be opportunities ahead. With deepening social discontent and falling oil prices, Mr Chávez's “revolution” is likely to run into trouble.
An update on the Chavez reelection blog
Katy says: For those of you who are interested, I've posted some new pictures in that other blog. Thanks to my super-secret spies, boldly documenting government abuse all over Venezuela. Keep those pictures coming!
November 8, 2006
Things you learn from watching Globovisión at high altitude
Katy says: Last weekend, my family and I rented a cabin high in the Andes to get away from it all. What the picture from the brochure didn't show was that the cabin had a satellite dish, so one of the channels on offer was Globovisión.
So much for getting away from it all. I hadn't watched Globo in ages, so I decided to take in their coverage of Saturday's 26x26 walk-a-thon.
The enthusiastic, racially diverse crowd was impressive. Globo's broadcast was not.
For starters, the march got non-stop, wall-to-wall coverage all afternoon. All they did was show the crowds all the time, which is great if you're a Rosales supporter like me. But what's a NiNi to think? That Globovisión is spoon-feeding them their chosen candidate. What a turn-off.
From the studio, Alba Cecilia Mujica kept referring to Rosales, mantra-like, as "the national unity candidate, Manuel Rosales..." with a smile as wide as the Cheshire Cat's. Poor Alba Cecilia, you got the sense that covering this march is the most fun she's had in years. She really should get out more.
And while she's at it, she should try and be just a tiny bit more professional. I mean, when you use political catch-phrases like "the candidate of national unity," you play right into the hands of chavistas who allege outrageous media bias on the part of private TV stations. What is Globovisión up to? I thought. Is it that desperate for a whipping? Do they think they do us a favor by being so blatantly pro-Rosales?
I tried to picture a Fox News anchor talking about George Bush as "reformer with results George W. Bush", or "compassionate conservative President George W. Bush..." Not likely...even Fox News shows some restraint when whooping it up for their guy.
Hour after hour, it just kept getting worse.
"Ma'am, what's your name, what do you think of this march?" one reporter kept asking.
"My name is Beatríz, Beatríz Martínez, I walked from La Castellana, and I'm here because I'm happy, because we are finally going to get rid of this totalitarian, authoritarian regime!" Whoa. So much for fear. The only thing missing from her statement was her cédula number and the name of the woman who does her toe nails, but you can probably find that in the Maisanta list under Martínez, Beatríz, La Castellana.
"Sir, what's your name, what do you think of this march?"
A 65-year old man who had obviously walked a lot - God bless him, I can barely make it to the bathroom some days and I'm half his age - answered "My name is Luis Méndez, and I'm happy because this march is the biggest since April 11th!" Oh great, just what we need, more references to April 11th. Keep that up and NiNis will be lining up en masse on Dec. 3rd...to vote for Chávez!
"Ma'am, what's your name, what do you think of this march?"
"My name is Sofía Pérez, I'm marching from Chacaíto and I'm really happy because the march is very organized." Uh huh. Wait, how much "organization" does a march actually require? It's hundreds of thousands of people walking from one end of the city to the other. Cops just have to stop traffic, street vendors do the rest. Oh well, I guess just making it home alive is a sign that it was a good march. Lots of marchers agreed, "excellent, very well organized." Opposition unity indeed!
A dozen or so of these interviews left me pining for a commercial break. Eventually, it came.
An ad for Rosales, "Atrevete te te", with a woman taking money out of an ATM using Mi Negra. In fact, all the ads I happened to catch were about Mi Negra. Funny how Rosales decided to focus his campaign on the issue Chávez is least vulnerable on, social policy. Wait, what were Rosales's proposals on crime and jobs, the two issues that all voters care about the most and rate the government's performance worst? Easy to forget...
Then it was back to the march. A shot of a very, very sweaty Rosales with an even sweatier Carlos Ocaríz, making their way through a crowd somewhere in Petare. He tried to give a speech but Globovisión didn't have the sound and their camera was blocked by a string of plastic flags. Amateur hour at the OK Corral...
Oh well. Maybe they'll show some políticos. Here comes one... it's... it's... it's Antonio Ledezma! Ugh. The man is like a vapid drivel factory. I really can't recall the last time I heard him say anything smart, a fresh thought, a non-cliche. Does he even have a job? How does he support himself? Politicians...
Next up, the ineffable Liliana Hernández, or Ledezma with a wig. A VTV reporter had been asking her tough questions at the beginning of the march, and she was quite rude to him, telling him that "my taxes paid for your salary." Wait, Liliana, isn't that what we want, journalists who ask politicians tough questions? Why so prickly?
I mean, I hate VTV as much as the next gal, but do you have to be so rude, so intolerant, so... chavista? The guy was simply doing his job, the fact that VTV reporters don't do it when questioning chavistas is another issue. Why not take advantage of the opportunity to show that we are different, that we can handle the tough questions? I thought Rosales did that brilliantly the other day. But that's just beyond her. On second thought, Liliana is Iris Varela with a better hairdo.
More people from the march. The Chairman of the Teacher's Federation (who apparently didn't get the "fear" memo), an old man who kept harping on our poor reporter on the street, telling her that "Rosales was going to save Venezuela for beautiful women like yourself," a poor guajira woman originally from Municipio Mara who was now living in Caracas. And all through, Globo kept up the same tone of breathless, misplaced boosterism. It was kind of sad.
I had to turn it off. The march was impressive, the enthusiasm of the people contagious. But Globovisión is shameful. This march did not merit uninterrupted coverage, and it sure as hell did not merit uninterrupted conter-productive inanity. Instead of asking marchers smart questions, it was like watching somebody else's vacation video. "This is me in El Escorial... this is Juanita at the Eiffel Tower, remember Juanita? That was so funny when you..."
Hours and hours of coverage geared to one type of voter only: the convinced Rosalista who is afraid of losing hope.
Fear itself
Why this tone? I think the answer comes down to fear. The fear of fear makes us fall into artificial highs, and it makes us lash out at unsuspecting passers-by.
I've been thinking a lot about the reactions to Quico's recent posts, and about the ones I am sure to get to this one, and I've concluded that part of our problem is that we fear Chávez.
When we turn away from people who are saying something we don't want to hear, when we say that we need a kleenex handy to read a discouraging poll, when we build up our hope on the basis of something as hard to gauge as a march, when we accuse people of being chavistas if they express the possibility that the country may, perhaps, actually be about to vote for Chavez, we are simply acting out on fear.
Chávez knows we fear him. That's why his speech is so hateful, so full of incitement. He works to ignite our fear and makes us appear... well, fearful, or to use another word, squalid. It's a show put on for the benefit of poor voters who get a kick out of watching us tremble. It's like their own little French Revolution is playing inside their head; Chávez's tongue playing the part of guillotine.
For all his authoritarianism, his corruption and his incapacity, for all the hate that spews out of his jeta, I don't fear Chávez. If the country does indeed have a chavista majority, so be it. I don't need my values confirmed by a majority of Venezuelans. I know I'm right to oppose this thug, I know what he's doing is deeply wrong and dangerous, and 6, 8 or 10 million people will not change my mind.
Democracies are like that, sometimes a majority of people make mistakes for the best of reasons. For the best of reasons, a majority of gringos gave the presidency to a bumbling oligophrenic like George W. Bush, and for the best of reasons they just handed the House of Representatives to a dim-witted snob like Nancy Pelosi yesterday. Does that make them right? Probably not.
Me? I'm in this for the long-haul. I'll be working for Rosales from now until the election. But if Chávez wins another term, we'll have other chances, there will be other battles. We have to be careful and watch his every move, but we must remember that he has absolute power now, and if re-elected, he will continue having absolute power. Democracy will continue circling the drain, as Quico says.
I know I will live to see the end of this, and the end will probably not be pretty given how emotionally invested his supporters are in Chavez. I'm not scared of his stupid referendum proposing the end of term limits. Bring it on! It will be that much sweeter when, finally, be it in 2010, 2012 or 2021, we defeat chavismo by defeating the man himself.
Courageous Venezuelans
Katy says: (Note: What follows is a translation of an article Tal Cual published yesterday. Ana Julia Jatar is a brilliant Venezuelan economist, political analyst and fellow blogger. I came to know and admire her back when I was in college, and my career owes more to her than she will probably ever know. Let's hope this book makes waves. It was probably prompted by her own experiences in the unsavory ways of political discrimination, Chávez-style...)
------
Ana Julia Jatar undresses chavismo's apartheid
Through the rigorous compilation of documents, photographs, newspaper stories and testimonies, the analyst disentangled the history of the use of the Maisanta and Tascón lists as instruments of political discrimination.
by Carmen Victoria Méndez
------
If it weren't for political travails, Ana Julia Jatar would probably not exist. That's how former Foreign Minister Simón Alberto Consalvi began his presentation of the book "Apartheid in the 21st Century - Information technology at the service of political discrimination", by the Cuban-born analyst Ana Julia Jatar. Consalvi, who is also a historian and an essayist, was obviously referring to the active role Jatar has played in the current political debate through NGOs like Súmate, but also to a fact that is more pedestrian than ideological: the author was conceived in Havanna, during the political exile of her father Braulio Jattar Dotti, one of Acción Democrática's founders.
Several decades later, the same political segregation that made her birth possible moved her to write this book, a documentary investigation of the Venezuelan government's use of the Tascón and Maisanta lists to reward or punish citizens depending on their allegiance to President Hugo Chávez.
For over a year and a half, Jatar compiled documents and testimony that prove "how the Venezuelan State made possible one of the most cherished fantasies of dark characters such as Joseph McCarthy, Adolph Hitler or Benito Mussolini: to have a database with precise information about the political and electoral behavior of each citizen, including their home address, their occupation, their fingerprint and even a detailed register of their shopping habits."
She was assisted in her research by Sumate's Unit against Political Discrimination, and their conclusions were presented yesterday in an act that was more political than editorial. Jatar claims the lists have been used against govenrment workers in at least 45 State entities, but yesterday she chose to let some of the victims of discrimination take the stand and tell their stories.
One by one they appeared: María Verdeal, a former lawyer for the People's Ombudsman, fired for signing the petition for a recall referendum against President Chávez after 18 years of service to the State; Thaís Peña, Magali Chang and Rocío San Miguel, former counsel for the National Council for Borders; Ana María Diles, fired from the Ministry of Finance; Jorge Luis Suárez, fired from the National Electoral Council; Yadira Pérez, fired from FOGADE, the Venezuelan institution in charge of handling the banking system's reserve requirements; Trina Zavarce, a former oil worker and member of NGO "Gente del Petróleo"...
But the most dramatic moment came when a current government worker, his face hidden by a ski mask, stepped forward to talk about the pressures he suffers for "belonging to the counter-revolution."
Jatar stated that "his fear is perfectly explained, because discrimination and fear are now a systematic policy of the State. It begins with the lists, but it goes beyond that. He can't even say what entity he works for, because the lists were not buried - they were planted, fertilized and watered in the ministries and other State entities."
According to the author, the most difficult thing was getting people to talk, "because a lot of people are afraid. However, little by little they began opening up. I think this helped people, it gave them courage, they felt they were represented, accompanied and they recovered a little bit of their hope."
The book, which follows rigorous methodological guidelines, was designed by Shimmy Azuaje and was illustrated by Weil. It provides an historic compilation "that has to reach both common folks and international organisms, so that they run out of excuses for Chávez once and for all."
"And this December 3rd, people should transform their fear into a liberating force," she added.
------
Ana Julia Jatar undresses chavismo's apartheid
Through the rigorous compilation of documents, photographs, newspaper stories and testimonies, the analyst disentangled the history of the use of the Maisanta and Tascón lists as instruments of political discrimination.
by Carmen Victoria Méndez
------
If it weren't for political travails, Ana Julia Jatar would probably not exist. That's how former Foreign Minister Simón Alberto Consalvi began his presentation of the book "Apartheid in the 21st Century - Information technology at the service of political discrimination", by the Cuban-born analyst Ana Julia Jatar. Consalvi, who is also a historian and an essayist, was obviously referring to the active role Jatar has played in the current political debate through NGOs like Súmate, but also to a fact that is more pedestrian than ideological: the author was conceived in Havanna, during the political exile of her father Braulio Jattar Dotti, one of Acción Democrática's founders.
Several decades later, the same political segregation that made her birth possible moved her to write this book, a documentary investigation of the Venezuelan government's use of the Tascón and Maisanta lists to reward or punish citizens depending on their allegiance to President Hugo Chávez.
For over a year and a half, Jatar compiled documents and testimony that prove "how the Venezuelan State made possible one of the most cherished fantasies of dark characters such as Joseph McCarthy, Adolph Hitler or Benito Mussolini: to have a database with precise information about the political and electoral behavior of each citizen, including their home address, their occupation, their fingerprint and even a detailed register of their shopping habits."
She was assisted in her research by Sumate's Unit against Political Discrimination, and their conclusions were presented yesterday in an act that was more political than editorial. Jatar claims the lists have been used against govenrment workers in at least 45 State entities, but yesterday she chose to let some of the victims of discrimination take the stand and tell their stories.
One by one they appeared: María Verdeal, a former lawyer for the People's Ombudsman, fired for signing the petition for a recall referendum against President Chávez after 18 years of service to the State; Thaís Peña, Magali Chang and Rocío San Miguel, former counsel for the National Council for Borders; Ana María Diles, fired from the Ministry of Finance; Jorge Luis Suárez, fired from the National Electoral Council; Yadira Pérez, fired from FOGADE, the Venezuelan institution in charge of handling the banking system's reserve requirements; Trina Zavarce, a former oil worker and member of NGO "Gente del Petróleo"...
But the most dramatic moment came when a current government worker, his face hidden by a ski mask, stepped forward to talk about the pressures he suffers for "belonging to the counter-revolution."
Jatar stated that "his fear is perfectly explained, because discrimination and fear are now a systematic policy of the State. It begins with the lists, but it goes beyond that. He can't even say what entity he works for, because the lists were not buried - they were planted, fertilized and watered in the ministries and other State entities."
According to the author, the most difficult thing was getting people to talk, "because a lot of people are afraid. However, little by little they began opening up. I think this helped people, it gave them courage, they felt they were represented, accompanied and they recovered a little bit of their hope."
The book, which follows rigorous methodological guidelines, was designed by Shimmy Azuaje and was illustrated by Weil. It provides an historic compilation "that has to reach both common folks and international organisms, so that they run out of excuses for Chávez once and for all."
"And this December 3rd, people should transform their fear into a liberating force," she added.
No surprise at all...
Quico says: I guess the part I found most interesting about that Evans/McDonough poll was not so much the horse-race questions as the mood-of-the-electorate questions - the ones aimed at measuring the structural, socio-economic conditions against which the campaign takes place.
Start off with that old pollster-favorite: "is the country on the right track or the wrong track?" (here Venezuelanized into "is the country on the right path or going off a cliff?")
Upsetting though we may find it, more people think the country is on the right track now than 2 years ago, and more think the country is on the right track than going off a cliff:
The reason is not hard to figure out: incomes for Sectors D and E have been rising far faster than inflation since 2004, as even that hardcore antichavista (but intellectually honest) magazine VenEconomy acknowledges. So people are better off, and, more relevantly, they feel better off:
More relevantly still, most people expect to be even better off in the future...
...all of which translates into positive adjectives when people describe how they feel about the country's situation...
No surprises here: I'm sure if you'd asked these questions in 1974 or 1979, after the first and second oil booms, you would've gotten similar responses. And I'm sure if you asked them today in Sudan, or Russia, or Kazakhstan or any other petrostate, you'd hear a broadly similar story.
After all, there's nothing specifically Venezuelan about the situation we're in: oil gets sold, dollars come in, money flows through the economy, most people see some benefit, and so they're satisfied...maybe not ecstatic, imaginably not particularly enthusiastic, but at any rate satisfied.
Numbers like these certainly blunt the appeal of any pitch for a change in leadership. For sure we are very far away from the situation in 1998, when oil was selling for $10/barrel, incomes dropping, and a mass of very angry people ready to vote for the most radical departure from the status quo on offer. The kind of pocketbook-led, broad-based arrechera that fuels demand for new leaders is just not there.
None of this is Manuel Rosales's fault, and very little of it can be credited to Chavez. But those are the structural facts, the socio-economic backdrop the campaign is taking place against.
All the passion in the anti-Chavez campaign comes from people like us: middle class, educated, class A/B people worked up over ideological, abstract issues. Which is not to say those issues aren't real, and important, but to point out that we're 15% of the electorate and the stuff that keeps us up at night no sube cerro.
Just about any challenger in just about any petrostate would have a hard time making headway in this context. So it really shouldn't come as a surprise that a not-very-charismatic candidate running against a broadly well-liked leader should have trouble broadening his appeal beyond his base constituency.
I realize there's enormous resistance out there to this message. But striking out on our own and believing what we want to believe has done the anti-Chavez movement terrible damage in the past. It's better to face up early on...these realities don't stop being real just because we don't like them...
Start off with that old pollster-favorite: "is the country on the right track or the wrong track?" (here Venezuelanized into "is the country on the right path or going off a cliff?")
Upsetting though we may find it, more people think the country is on the right track now than 2 years ago, and more think the country is on the right track than going off a cliff:
The reason is not hard to figure out: incomes for Sectors D and E have been rising far faster than inflation since 2004, as even that hardcore antichavista (but intellectually honest) magazine VenEconomy acknowledges. So people are better off, and, more relevantly, they feel better off:
More relevantly still, most people expect to be even better off in the future...
...all of which translates into positive adjectives when people describe how they feel about the country's situation...
No surprises here: I'm sure if you'd asked these questions in 1974 or 1979, after the first and second oil booms, you would've gotten similar responses. And I'm sure if you asked them today in Sudan, or Russia, or Kazakhstan or any other petrostate, you'd hear a broadly similar story.
After all, there's nothing specifically Venezuelan about the situation we're in: oil gets sold, dollars come in, money flows through the economy, most people see some benefit, and so they're satisfied...maybe not ecstatic, imaginably not particularly enthusiastic, but at any rate satisfied.
Numbers like these certainly blunt the appeal of any pitch for a change in leadership. For sure we are very far away from the situation in 1998, when oil was selling for $10/barrel, incomes dropping, and a mass of very angry people ready to vote for the most radical departure from the status quo on offer. The kind of pocketbook-led, broad-based arrechera that fuels demand for new leaders is just not there.
None of this is Manuel Rosales's fault, and very little of it can be credited to Chavez. But those are the structural facts, the socio-economic backdrop the campaign is taking place against.
All the passion in the anti-Chavez campaign comes from people like us: middle class, educated, class A/B people worked up over ideological, abstract issues. Which is not to say those issues aren't real, and important, but to point out that we're 15% of the electorate and the stuff that keeps us up at night no sube cerro.
Just about any challenger in just about any petrostate would have a hard time making headway in this context. So it really shouldn't come as a surprise that a not-very-charismatic candidate running against a broadly well-liked leader should have trouble broadening his appeal beyond his base constituency.
I realize there's enormous resistance out there to this message. But striking out on our own and believing what we want to believe has done the anti-Chavez movement terrible damage in the past. It's better to face up early on...these realities don't stop being real just because we don't like them...
November 7, 2006
Para sacar un pañuelito...
Quico says: Well, a new Evans/McDonough poll is out. They talked to 2000 people at home, in 20 states, between Oct. 26th and Nov. 3rd. It's not pretty...
EMC gets top marks for transparency: in contrast with so many other pollsters, they're publishing their complete results from the start, with exact question-wording and everything. No cross-tabs, though.
EMC gets top marks for transparency: in contrast with so many other pollsters, they're publishing their complete results from the start, with exact question-wording and everything. No cross-tabs, though.
November 6, 2006
26 X 26: Brilliant!
JayDee says: First off, sorry for the delay. I'll tell you, though: Saturday's march was impressive. I say this having been thoroughly underwhelmed by last month's "Avalanche", as well as the official presentation of the Rosales platform: "26 KM's for 26 million" was brilliant.
The march had a nice populist touch to it, with Rosales working his way through the streets of Caracas, shaking hands with anyone who walked up to him. There were moments when the crowd crashed in on him, with everyone vying to touch the man or shout a word of encouragement into his ear.
Still, from what I could see, Rosales never lost his cool, and looked genuinely comfortable.
It was a festive affair, and the people I talked to were happy, wearing wide smiles that suggested faith in the righteousness of their cause, and a belief that the country is on the verge of change for the better.
It stood in direct contrast to, say, last month's presentation at the EuroBuilding, which had musicians-on-the-deck-of-the-titanic feel to it.
Not Saturday, though.
What surprised me most was the relative passivity of the Chavez supporters who decorated the sidewalks near the City center. The mass of Policia Metropolitana placed at strategic locations seemed there for decoration. Sure, there were a few Chavistas who flashed the finger, screaming obscenities as we passed. But most of the folk in red stood by the side of the road, clutching pictures of their leader, smilling and dancing to the reggeaton blasting from truck-mounted speakers. I even saw a few opposition marchers stop for a friendly chat with a Chavista and hand out a bit of campaign literature.
The show was a startling reminder to those who would claim that Venezuela, at this moment, has become an Authoritarian or Totalitarian state.
What I liked best about the march was the implicit contradiction it drew between the challenger and the incumbent. Chavez has been leading a sheltered existence these days. Not that it seems to be making much of a difference, but the incumbent hasn't been waging a very impressive campaign.
He spent all summer overseas, campaigning for a Security Council seat that he didn't win. Since returning, his speeches have been mostly devoid of his trademark charisma and filled instead with abstractions about fighting the Devil and his Evil Empire.
Yesterday, Rosales was out there, on the street. Yes, he had a good deal of protection around him, but still, anyone who wanted to get close to him could.
This is the sort of campaign stunt that has the chance to cut into Chavez's base.
Why?
My reasoning is tied up with what I have learned from people such as, yes, José. Some would criticize him for being "facilista" - too lazy to inform himself and vote for change. To label Jose in such a way, however, is to fail to see the state of this country from his perspective.
Jose is a working class man from the barrio. He votes defensively: not to see things get better, but to keep them from getting worse. Above all, the man wants to avoid a repeat of 2002-2004, of 1992, of 1989.
Now, some might rightly protest that if Chavez wins on 3D, this country has a whole lot worse in store a few years down the road. But most Venezuelans from the barrios don't worry about a few years from now. They worry about tomorrow.
And for someone who lives and works in a Chavista neighborhood where looting and unwanted police attention are a real worry, keeping El Presidente in power is the best way to insure that your bodega doesn't get burned to the ground on December 4th.
What is the solution, then?
More days like Saturday. More live, grassroots attempts to show that there is an alternative, and it just shook your hand.
November 5, 2006
Dept. of why-didn't-you-make-that-clear-from-the-get-go?
Quico says: According to El Universal:
Keller says he was misunderstood when he explained that the size of Chavez's market is 52% while Rosales's is 48%: "I wasn't referring to voting intentions, but to political segmentation." He believes that such underlying market conditions, basically half-and-half, "lays out a basic situation where anyone could win."
November 4, 2006
"Revolution" as conceptual bulldozer
"If anyone forgets we're in the middle of a Revolution, we're going to beat it into them: this company stands with Chavez."Quico says: More and more, Rafael Ramírez's speech to PDVSA management has made me think about the way chavismo uses the word "revolution" to flatten the distinctions between state, government, homeland, pueblo and leader - conceptual distinctions vital to a free society.
-Rafael Ramírez, PDVSA chairman and Minister of Energy and Mines
"Public employees are at the service of the State and not of any partiality," the constitution tells us. But a Revolution cannot think of itself as a "partiality" - it must think of itself as the quasi-mystical political incarnation of the people, its essence and its interests. The Revolution is the state.
It makes no sense, within a revolutionary mindframe, to posit a distinction between Chavez's interests and the interests of the people, the homeland or the state: they're one and the same. In fact, that unity is what the word denotes, its deep meaning.
Which explains why chavistas, when they read Article 145, don't see what you or I see. They read the same words we read, but what they understand is different: "public employees are at the service of the Revolution and not of any partiality."
In a Revolution, state = government = homeland = people = leader. If you accept that, it follows that dissenting from the leader is tantamount to treason against the state. Once you've conflated these ideas into a single, undifferentiated soup, you pull out all the conceptual stops that restrain a government from tyranny. In this way, the word "Revolution" has become a trump-card, a conceptual bulldozer plowing over all spaces for legitimate dissent.
Ramirez is explicit about this: "we were put here by the Revolution, we were put here by the pueblo, we were put here by President Chavez." You can't pick and choose between them, because they're basically the same thing - a kind of revolutionary Holy Trinity. There's no room in this vision for NiNis, for "light" supporters. To be "a little bit revolutionary" is to be a little bit of a traitor. It just won't do.Anything short of total, unthinking support for the Revolution makes you an enemy of the people. Your conscience doesn't belong to you, it belongs to us...well, to him. And if you hold back, even a little, if you don't quite surrender your will in its entirety, you become suspect, an enemy to be liquidated.
It's a road that leads to tyranny, and nowhere else.
"The new PDVSA is red, very red, from top to bottom"
Quico says: Normally, I don't translate humor pieces - jokes so seldom make it unharmed from one language to the other. But it's a measure of how far gone the country is that even Laureano Marquez has stopped writing funny pieces. His front page editorial in yesterday's Tal Cual struck me as uncommonly eloquent, so here you have it...
Sobering stuff.
Unlike most of you, I think the Minister of Energy and Mines is one of the few decent people who remain in the country. He doesn't go around spewing half-truths, fooling people. He tells it like it is, and that deserves respect, because it demands a kind of courage the rest of us don't have. Other public officials keep beating around the bush, trying to hang on to established norms and turning their discourse into a juggling act. Dr. Ramirez's sincerity deserves, at least, some appreciation.
"We've come here to talk about politics." Not about the company's policies, but about politics. About who you stand with, compañero.
If we get oil out of the ground or don't get oil out of the ground, that's not a problem the new PDVSA is much worried about. What matters is our absolute support for the candidate-president. The transcendent goals of the nation are none other than the will of its leader. My respects, Mister Minister. What's this I hear about having to apply this rule or that regulation? Straight up, clear as day, he said it: there is no regulation other than loyalty to the chief.
If something like this had been said before the Chavez era, all hell would've broken loose. But, for sure, nothing will happen. We're coming to grips with our national character. It's no joke that Venezuela has changed. It's become more honest about its dishonesty, more coherent with itself. Yup, I ignore the laws, I do whatever I feel like, so what? Isn't that our most authentic face?
Isn't that what we all do in the morning with the stoplight down the street?
"PDVSA is red, very red, from top to bottom." It's a crime to slow down people's political expression with the old wife's tale about how the company, since it belongs to the state, belongs to every citizen.
Oh no, this is our sandbox, it belongs to those of us who think in a certain way. The others don't count, they're enemies, people who sooner or later we shall have to exterminate in one way or another. Otherwise, it'll have to be like that crowd shown on State TV in Petare was chanting during one of the candidate-president's recent rallies: "oppositionists, leave." ("Los escuálidos que se vayan.") It's the same thing the minister says, drowned out by cheers, applause and "Uh-Ah"s...
"We shall not waver...we already tossed 19,500 enemies of the country out of this company." I personally know some of those enemies: they're people who thought that thinking, studying and training yourself might do you some good around here. Turns out they were wrong; the only thing that does you any good around here is supporting someone unconditionally, "or do you idiots (he didn't say the word, but you can intuit it) think you are here because you're smart, because you're capable?"
No. You are here because he put you here, just like he put me here, because he felt like it. Your will doesn't exist, your conscience belongs to us...well, to him. And they applaud...confirming.
This is all stuff you can understand the nice way, or you can get it beaten into you. And that goes for everyone. That's what I call an election campaign, minister, a good one! Not that mixed message about how we have to hate because we love, which people just can't wrap their minds around.
We have to hate because we hate, and obliterate the Other. The path followed by Pinochet, Fidel, Mao, Hitler, Stalin, Franco and so many others. The stadiums will come, sooner or later.
You have given us the true measure of what we're debating as we lead up to December 3rd, of the crossroads history has placed in front of us. Of course it's tough what you're saying. But it's honest. I don't know what the other enemies of the homeland think but I, at least, believe you.
Sobering stuff.
November 3, 2006
Can you spot the difference?
Quico says: Remember those "compare and contrast" essays they'd assign you to write in high school? Ah, the nostalgia! Here, lets do another one just for fun.
Compare and contrast:
Item 1. Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela of 1999, Article 145:
Item 2. Speech to PDVSA management by Rafael Ramirez, PDVSA chairman and Oil Minister:
Compare and contrast:
Item 1. Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela of 1999, Article 145:Public employees are at the service of the State and not of any partiality. Their hiring and removal cannot be determined by political affiliations or orientations.
Item 2. Speech to PDVSA management by Rafael Ramirez, PDVSA chairman and Oil Minister:
I want our management to help us erase from our rules, from our internal communications, from any element that runs the company, anything that could cast doubt on our support for President Chavez. We have to say clearly...that the new PDVSA is red, very red, from top to bottom...
You need to shake out of your heads the idea that anyone might sanction us, that anyone might criticize us if we express to our people that this is a company that supports President Chavez 100%...
It is a crime, a counterrevolutionary act, for any manager here to slow down our workers' political expression in support of President Chavez. Here, we back Chavez, he is our leader, the paramount leader of this revolution, and we will do whatever we have to do to support our president. Anyone who doesn't feel comfortable with that should yield his spot to a bolivariano...
We had to get rid of one guy, a man from our Operations Division, who allowed candidate Rosales to land and move around our company, "bloody hell, what's that about?" (coño pero ¿qué vaina es esa?) we said, "what is happening here? are they going crazy? are we really infiltrated by the enemies of the revolution?"
Let it be clear that we won't allow it, when we find out about that sort of thing we're going to liquidate it decisively.
It outrages me...to find out we have "NiNis" working here, "light" people working here, saying we need to open up to company. No way. If anyone forgets we're in the middle of a revolution, we're going to beat it into them: (se lo vamos a recordar a carajazos) this company stands with Chavez.
November 2, 2006
Keller's poll is not a voting intention poll
Quico says: Well, a kind soul leaked Keller's slides to me. As suspected, the 52-48 number is not the result of a standard, "if the election was today, who would you vote for?" type question.
What Keller does is segment the electorate according to their views on issues related to the government's line. This slide gives you a sense of the line of questioning he's using:
Based on the answers people give to these kinds of questions (e.g. "should Venezuela be made into a Socialist country? Should Venezuela strike an alliance with Cuba and Bolivia?) Keller assigns voters to one of four segments: hardcore chavista, softcore chavista, softcore opposition or hardcore opposition.
He finds that 22% of the electorate are "hardcore chavistas" and 30% are "softcore chavistas" - hence, he concludes 52% will vote for Chavez. And he finds 21% are "softcore opposition" and 27% are "hardcore opposition" and so he concludes 48% will vote against Chavez.
Thing is this is really a screwball, non-standard methodology. When you ask people the long-established voting intentions question ("if the election was today, who would you vote for?") you find that many people who Keller classifies as "softcore opposition" do not say they would vote for Rosales.
It's more realistic to think of that 48% as the universe of "persuadable, potential Rosales voters." It takes some bravado to just assume all of them will automatically line up behind Rosales.
The people Keller is tagging "softcore opposition" seem to be the people most other pollsters define as NiNis. It's far from certain they will end up voting for Rosales. In the end, what Keller shows is what all the other pollsters have been showing. About half the electorate will vote for Chavez, about 30% will vote for Rosales, and the rest are to-be-persuaded. The Josés of the world.
The overall story hasn't changed: Rosales has to sweep that "to-be-persuaded" demographic and win over a few softcore chavistas to have a chance. Keller's poll does nothing to persuade me he's getting there.
What Keller does is segment the electorate according to their views on issues related to the government's line. This slide gives you a sense of the line of questioning he's using:
Based on the answers people give to these kinds of questions (e.g. "should Venezuela be made into a Socialist country? Should Venezuela strike an alliance with Cuba and Bolivia?) Keller assigns voters to one of four segments: hardcore chavista, softcore chavista, softcore opposition or hardcore opposition.
He finds that 22% of the electorate are "hardcore chavistas" and 30% are "softcore chavistas" - hence, he concludes 52% will vote for Chavez. And he finds 21% are "softcore opposition" and 27% are "hardcore opposition" and so he concludes 48% will vote against Chavez.
Thing is this is really a screwball, non-standard methodology. When you ask people the long-established voting intentions question ("if the election was today, who would you vote for?") you find that many people who Keller classifies as "softcore opposition" do not say they would vote for Rosales.
It's more realistic to think of that 48% as the universe of "persuadable, potential Rosales voters." It takes some bravado to just assume all of them will automatically line up behind Rosales.
The people Keller is tagging "softcore opposition" seem to be the people most other pollsters define as NiNis. It's far from certain they will end up voting for Rosales. In the end, what Keller shows is what all the other pollsters have been showing. About half the electorate will vote for Chavez, about 30% will vote for Rosales, and the rest are to-be-persuaded. The Josés of the world.
The overall story hasn't changed: Rosales has to sweep that "to-be-persuaded" demographic and win over a few softcore chavistas to have a chance. Keller's poll does nothing to persuade me he's getting there.
Is the CNE back where it belongs?
Katy says: One of the refreshing features of this electoral campaign has been that Venezuela's electoral authority (the CNE) has not been the center of discussion. Electoral conditions are undoubtedly improved from last December's elections; the infamous Jorge Rodríguez is no longer in the spotlight he so relished; and the opposition seems better organized to tackle with any eventualities that may occur.
Conditions are not ideal and problems persist (see that other blog for a sample), but is it enough to claim that this election is completely unfair? It's unfair alright, but is it totally, over-the-top, Mugabe-like, Carrasquerically unfair?
Suppose Chávez wins in December and Manuel Rosales claims there was fraud. Will you believe him? There is one month left and nobody (not even Súmate) is making much noise about how adverse the conditions are this time around. Are we headed for a (gasp) somewhat fair electoral process?
Conditions are not ideal and problems persist (see that other blog for a sample), but is it enough to claim that this election is completely unfair? It's unfair alright, but is it totally, over-the-top, Mugabe-like, Carrasquerically unfair?
Suppose Chávez wins in December and Manuel Rosales claims there was fraud. Will you believe him? There is one month left and nobody (not even Súmate) is making much noise about how adverse the conditions are this time around. Are we headed for a (gasp) somewhat fair electoral process?
November 1, 2006
The commentariat flips out!
Quico says: Just a note to those of you who read the main blog but skip the comments...yesterday's thread in response to JayDee's pulpero follow-up was one of the most heated and entertaining we've had in a long time. Tempers sort of flared, and Katy almost got a hernia erasing inappropriate stuff, but what was left behind strikes me as really worth reading.
ps: I've overhauled the comments' template. Tell me what you think...
ps: I've overhauled the comments' template. Tell me what you think...
October 31, 2006
Manuel who?
JayDee says:Finding myself in El Valle yesterday with little to do, I swung by José’s bodega again for a beer.
Surprisingly, the man recognized me as soon as I walked in the door, even though it had been 4 months.
“You’re the journalist,” he said with a warm grin, handing me a Tercio before I had even asked for one.
The store was filled with the same variety of characters as before. Two men sat shirtless in the doorway, cradling empty bottles of Malta and smoking Belmonts. A women stood at the counter, awaiting her five slices of queso amarillo.
“When I was here last, we talked about Chávez and the elections, remember?”
He nodded, accepting the women’s money and turning his attention to me.
“Last time you said you would vote for anyone but Chávez. So, is it Rosales next month, then?”
Jose sighed and threw up his hands.
“I don’t know, I haven’t decided. I don’t even know who Rosales is. I might vote Chávez,” he answered.
“Really – That’s surprising,” I said. “What changed your mind?”
“I don’t think Chávez can loose, so it doesn’t really matter,” he continued, “But I am scared of what would happen if he lost. This area is pura Chavista, and I think there would be rioting and a lot of problems for my family, my store. Looting and violence and police and all sorts of stuff I don’t need. Besides, who is Rosales? I don’t know anything about him.”
I asked him if he was scared for his personal safety if he voted Rosales. Did he feel intimidated to vote Chávez?
“Not at all,” he said with a wave of the hand.
And criticizing Chávez to an international journalist?
“Tampoco, you can use my name in any report you want.”
“So what happened?” I pressed on. “Last we spoke, you were angry at the damage the Mercals have done to your business.”
“Oh, I still am,” he replied, “I don’t like how this government gives away everything for free. We are not instilling the people with a good work ethic in Venezuela. Everyone thinks they are automatically entitled to something without working, and that is the source of so much trouble.”
“Look, I like that Chávez wants to help the poor,” he continued. “But some of his ideas aren’t very well thought through.”
“Have you considered turning your bodega into a co-venture with Mercal?” I asked. “Wouldn’t that help you out?”
“Ahh the paperwork and the wait,” he sighed, rolling his eyes while handing me another beer.
“It takes forever, the bureaucracy. And the products are inferior quality. The rice and the pasta aren’t very good. But this is my store. I am 73 years old. I have been running this place myself for 30 years. Why should I be forced to suddenly take the government on as a partner in order to survive? I’d rather sell my beer and cigarettes.”
“And you don’t think Rosales would change things?” I tried one more time.
“You keep asking me about this Rosales guy,” he answered with a chuckle. “And I keep telling you; I don’t know him. I’ve never been to Zulia.”
Surprisingly, the man recognized me as soon as I walked in the door, even though it had been 4 months.
“You’re the journalist,” he said with a warm grin, handing me a Tercio before I had even asked for one.
The store was filled with the same variety of characters as before. Two men sat shirtless in the doorway, cradling empty bottles of Malta and smoking Belmonts. A women stood at the counter, awaiting her five slices of queso amarillo.
“When I was here last, we talked about Chávez and the elections, remember?”
He nodded, accepting the women’s money and turning his attention to me.
“Last time you said you would vote for anyone but Chávez. So, is it Rosales next month, then?”
Jose sighed and threw up his hands.
“I don’t know, I haven’t decided. I don’t even know who Rosales is. I might vote Chávez,” he answered.
“Really – That’s surprising,” I said. “What changed your mind?”
“I don’t think Chávez can loose, so it doesn’t really matter,” he continued, “But I am scared of what would happen if he lost. This area is pura Chavista, and I think there would be rioting and a lot of problems for my family, my store. Looting and violence and police and all sorts of stuff I don’t need. Besides, who is Rosales? I don’t know anything about him.”
I asked him if he was scared for his personal safety if he voted Rosales. Did he feel intimidated to vote Chávez?
“Not at all,” he said with a wave of the hand.
And criticizing Chávez to an international journalist?
“Tampoco, you can use my name in any report you want.”
“So what happened?” I pressed on. “Last we spoke, you were angry at the damage the Mercals have done to your business.”
“Oh, I still am,” he replied, “I don’t like how this government gives away everything for free. We are not instilling the people with a good work ethic in Venezuela. Everyone thinks they are automatically entitled to something without working, and that is the source of so much trouble.”
“Look, I like that Chávez wants to help the poor,” he continued. “But some of his ideas aren’t very well thought through.”
“Have you considered turning your bodega into a co-venture with Mercal?” I asked. “Wouldn’t that help you out?”
“Ahh the paperwork and the wait,” he sighed, rolling his eyes while handing me another beer.
“It takes forever, the bureaucracy. And the products are inferior quality. The rice and the pasta aren’t very good. But this is my store. I am 73 years old. I have been running this place myself for 30 years. Why should I be forced to suddenly take the government on as a partner in order to survive? I’d rather sell my beer and cigarettes.”
“And you don’t think Rosales would change things?” I tried one more time.
“You keep asking me about this Rosales guy,” he answered with a chuckle. “And I keep telling you; I don’t know him. I’ve never been to Zulia.”
October 30, 2006
Zogby goes down
Katy says: Some of our loyal chavista readers are very upbeat on a recent poll by Zogby International that gave Chávez a big, big lead over Rosales. An anonymous reader wrote something about this, and I have offered to post it.
Our reader says: "On August 21st of this year, forty days before Brazil's Presidential elections, Zogby International gave President and candidate for reelection Lula da Silva a margin of 33 percentage points over his leading rival, social democrat Gerardo Alckim.
In essence, Zogby gave Lula 53% of the vote, and Alckim 20%. But the reality on the day of the vote was quite different: Lula got 48.6% of the vote and Alckim got 41.6%.
Was Alckim able to mount a 22 percentage-point climb in preferences in less than six weeks, or was Zogby wrong in its analysis?
This question is important for Venezuelans, because a few days ago Zogby unveiled the results of a poll done in Venezuela between Oct. 1 and Oct. 16, giving Pres. Chávez 59% of the vote, and unity candidate Manuel Rosales 24%.
It seems as though Zogby is wrong again, because the data underlying its poll puts their reliability in serious doubt.
In the Presidential election of 2000, 43.6% of voters abstained from voting. 32% of registered voters voted for Hugo Chávez, and 21.3% of them voted against him.
According to the underlying cross-tabulated data released by Zogby, of the 800 people they polled, 55.4% of them declared having voted for Chávez, 34.4% of them declare having abstained, and only 10.3% declare having voted against Chávez.
How can a poll presume to shed light on the political reality of the country, when the answers of the people polled are not representative of the Venezuelan electorate? How can Zogby release a poll without cross-checking their results with historical data?
And the worst part is...
Zogby says most Venezuelans live well!
68% of those polled say they are making enough money to ward off economic problems, while only 32% declare having at least some financial problems because of insufficient income.
This is an astonishing result given that the majority of the country is living in poverty.
We do not know who Zogby works for. We know "their" poll was subcontracted to DATA Opinión Pública y Mercados, S.C., a Mexican firm, and that this firm hired a Venezuelan firm whose name has not been revealed.
Smells fishy, no? This is not the first time Zogby has screwed up. Slate also took a shot at debunking Zogby's prestige in this terrific piece by Joshuah Micah Marshall. (Katy's note: the .gif image is from their piece)
The moral of this story is that elections are not won by polls, they are won by votes."
(PS from Katy: I apologize for not being able to link the article to the underlying Zogby data. If anyone would like a copy of Zogby's cross tabs, please email me. I'd be happy to send it to you as an attachment.)
Danilogate goes International
Quico says: Finally, a high-profile foreign paper picks up on the ongoing mystery of Danilo Anderson's murder.
I'm so elated somebody cares, I'll let Diehl's couple of factual mistakes slide.
I'm so elated somebody cares, I'll let Diehl's couple of factual mistakes slide.
October 29, 2006
Rosales SUDANdo la gota gorda...
Quico says: This article in the New York Times more or less blew my mind:
Why do I bring it up? To underscore a couple of things.
First, how murderously easy it is for petrostates to finance a consumption boom in the middle of an oil bonanza. It really doesn't matter how criminal or incompetent the government is: even Sudan's modest 500,000 barrels/day are enough to finance a major economic boom when oil prices shoot up. You don't need a coherent development strategy, an actual plan for the future, or even a minimally functioning institutional system...all you need is oil.
Second, just how much petrostates can get away with when oil is in short supply. So long as oil is scarce, there's virtually no limit to what the international community will overlook in its thirst for it. We think the Tascon List is going to spark international outrage? These people are orchestrating a no-kidding genocide, and the international community still queue up to line their pockets. Let the good times roll.
Things for Rosalistas to ponder. A perfect candidate running a perfect campaign would still have a hard time beating Chavez in the middle of an oil boom. And what we have is far from a perfect candidate and far from a perfect campaign.
To understand Sudan’s defiance toward the world, especially the Western world, check out the Ozone Café.
Here young, rich Sudanese, wearing ripped jeans and fancy gym shoes, sit outside licking scoops of ice cream as an outdoor air-conditioning system sprays a cooling veil of mist. Around the corner is a new BMW dealership unloading $165,000 cars.
“I tell people you only live this life once,” said Nada Gerais, a saleswoman.
While one of the world’s worst humanitarian crises continues some 600 miles away in Darfur, across Khartoum bridges are being built, office towers are popping up, supermarkets are opening and flatbed trucks hauling plasma TV’s fight their way through thickening traffic.
Despite the image of Sudan as a land of cracked earth and starving people, the economy is booming, with little help from the West. Oil has turned it into one of the fastest growing economies in Africa — if not the world — emboldening the nation’s already belligerent government and giving it the wherewithal to resist Western demands to end the conflict in Darfur.
Why do I bring it up? To underscore a couple of things.
First, how murderously easy it is for petrostates to finance a consumption boom in the middle of an oil bonanza. It really doesn't matter how criminal or incompetent the government is: even Sudan's modest 500,000 barrels/day are enough to finance a major economic boom when oil prices shoot up. You don't need a coherent development strategy, an actual plan for the future, or even a minimally functioning institutional system...all you need is oil.
Second, just how much petrostates can get away with when oil is in short supply. So long as oil is scarce, there's virtually no limit to what the international community will overlook in its thirst for it. We think the Tascon List is going to spark international outrage? These people are orchestrating a no-kidding genocide, and the international community still queue up to line their pockets. Let the good times roll.
Things for Rosalistas to ponder. A perfect candidate running a perfect campaign would still have a hard time beating Chavez in the middle of an oil boom. And what we have is far from a perfect candidate and far from a perfect campaign.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)