Mercury Rising 鳯女

Politics, life, and other things that matter

The incredibly predictable result that no one in the US press could have predicted

Posted by Charles II on October 7, 2012

The news today:

To the euphoria of supporters in and around his campaign headquarters, the National Electoral Council announced the president [Venezuela’s president Hugo Chavez] had secured 54.4% of the votes, while his rival Capriles was behind with 44.9%. Some votes were still to be counted, but the council said the result was not in doubt.

The opposition camp were also also due to comment. Hours earlier they had claimed that exit polls showed their candidate had won by a comfortable margin.

A few days ago:

Chavez is facing his stiffest electoral challenge to date in his race to defeat Capriles, who has widened his lead to almost 5 percentage points in a poll conducted by Consultores 21 ahead of the Oct. 7 vote.

Capriles had 51.8 percent support against 47.2 percent for Chavez among Venezuelans who said they’re sure to vote, the Caracas-based company’s vice president Saul Cabrera said today.

If the opposition weren’t such a bunch of liars, they might have had a chance to beat Chavez. Only Americans seem to think that lying is acceptable in leaders.

Unless they’re Democrats lying about an affair, of course.

Another highly predictable thing that will never be predicted by the US press is that a Romney presidency would be an absolute disaster for the US.

Anyway, Chavez got re-elected because, despite his rather obvious flaws, the lives of the 70% of Venezuela that is very poor have improved, something that eluded all the preceding right-wing regimes. And he pretty clearly cares about seeing things improve, even if he’s not particularly ept in making them do so. And the US and British press has been lying about how close the race was. And no one could possibly predict that the public will stop relying on them as a consequence.

7 Responses to “The incredibly predictable result that no one in the US press could have predicted”

  1. MEC said

    Have the people who hate Chavez because he’s not a rightwing tool of corporatism accused him of vote fraud yet?

    • Oh, they’d been hinting at vote suppression on his part, implying that the measures he took to keep thugs from the neighboring right-wing narcostate (aka Colombia) from interfering were somehow not nice. But aside from that, they haven’t bothered.

    • Charles II said

      They have accused him of threatening state workers to vote the right way. But since everyone actually has some confidence that the vote is secret, it’s sort of a ridiculous threat. Compare to that bastion of democracy, Mexico, where corporations paid voters to vote for the PRI and PRI hired kids to follow voters into the voting booth and confirm that they voted right.

      Oh. And FOX suddenly believes in exit polls.

  2. Thanks, Charles. I was just thinking about this. I’d read another of these stiffest-electoral-challenge-to-date stories, and it was largely written as if Capriles had the election all sewn up. Only at the very end was it mentioned that two out of the three polls taken gave Chavez a comfy double-digit lead — which of course was the winning margin in the end.

    By the way: Despite having to deal with a media that is owned by run by the same Washington-Consensus-backed oligarchs that supported the botched coup against Chavez (and which has even infiltrated the minds and fora of people who should know better), Chavez’ electoral support has held remarkably firm over the past thirteen years only suffering a five-point drop (he first won election in 1999 with 56% of the vote) despite the worst his well-financed foes have done to demonize him. Whatever Chavez’ flaws are, they are minimal compared to the flaws of his foes who ran the country before he did, and minimal compared to the great good he has done for the common people in both his country and the rest of Latin America.

    • Charles II said

      What’s annoying is that the left-wing media are almost as rabid as Anastasia Mary O’Grady. Rory Carroll in The Guardian saying that Chavez attained the victory through his “red machine” and calling the fact that he won the elections fair and square as what “props up his socialist experiment.” George Bush did not have that to “prop up his experiment in radical Randianism.”

      As you know, I don’t think Chavez should have sought re-election. I think his re-election is not an endorsement of his policies, but a fear of what the right would do if it regained power. But what matters most in self-government is that people get what they ask for. Even the left-wing media does not seem to grasp this simple point.

      • jo6pac said

        Yes, this pretty much covers what you are saying about the fear thing, then again I wish he would start thinking about who in his party will come after him so this movemennt doesn’t die a death do to right wing/Amerika intervention.

        http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/10/08/the-ballot-and-the-bullet/

      • Charles II said

        Yes, Jo, Chavez’ failure to train a new generation of leaders is his greatest failing. From everything I have read, there is no one who holds a candle to him. Of course, part of the problem is that left-wingers seem to have to be army generals so that free and fair elections aren’t followed by coups.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

 
%d bloggers like this: