Brazil Election - 5 October 2014

[politicus]

On the other side, some of the attacks suffered by Dilma in 2010 were dirty. It is not fair to discuss if she is religious or not because this issue belongs to her private life. Other attacks were fair. For example, when it was told that she entered the university but did not write the thesis. Concerning this information, the voters have right to know. This issue belongs to her public life.

The religious beliefs of a presidential candidate are not a private matter.

Should be.

Why? Religious beliefs can affect policy making and they are an integral part of who that person is.

[Paleobrazilian]

My understanding was that Rousseff was able to unleash a large media attack on Silva which now it seems to have worked, perhaps too well.  This seems only possible with a large financial advantage of the Rousseff campaign.  I wonder if she can replicate this against Neves.  What is the financial resource gap between Rousseff and Neves ?

It seems I, by pure luck, did manage to pinpoint what might take place.  What is interesting is where Rousseff and PT get the money for this media barrage especially when Neves is suppose to be the candidate of business and the wealthy?  It almost verifies to some extend the Petrobras allegations against PT or at least implies there might have been a bunch if quid pro quo between PT and powerful/wealthy interests.

1- In Brazil, you don't have to buy TV and radio time to showcase your ads. Open TV is forced to give TV time for political ads during the election.

2- The assumption that the Petrobras scandal involved powerful interests is absolutely correct. The bribes came from some of the largest construction business from Brazil, such as Odebrecht, Camargo Correa, Queiroz Galvão, etc. Those companies have tons of highly lucrative contracts with the federal government. Thus, it's no surprises they have donated so much money to Dilma's campaign. In fact, it's believed that a part of the scheme was that the government would help those companies win contracts with Petrobras with stratospheric prices, and in exchange those companies would make large but apparently legal donations to Dilma's campaign. It's pretty much well know that Dilma's campaign in 2010 was funded with many "seemingly legal" and some "truly illegal" donations. The question marks for me now are when the info will leak and whether the info will prove Dilma knew exactly what was going on.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

On the other side, some of the attacks suffered by Dilma in 2010 were dirty. It is not fair to discuss if she is religious or not because this issue belongs to her private life. Other attacks were fair. For example, when it was told that she entered the university but did not write the thesis. Concerning this information, the voters have right to know. This issue belongs to her public life.

The religious beliefs of a presidential candidate are not a private matter.

Should be.

Why? Religious beliefs can affect policy making and they are an integral part of who that person is.

I'm sorry, you're right. After all, under JFK presidency, the United States was transformed into a Catholic theocracy, ruled directly from the Vatican.

[Paleobrazilian]

According to a (probably bad) poll from Instituto Veritá, Aecio leads 53% to 47%. I'm not putting much stock into it, but then again, it wouldn't be surprising if the major polling institutes are demoralized on election day.

[jaichind]

Ibovespa Would Fall to 44,600 With Rousseff Victory: XP Survey.  Index would rise to 66,200 if Aecio Neves elected president, according to survey of clients by Rio de Janeiro-based XP Investimentos.
NOTE: Ibovespa -3.9% to 52,152.05 at 4:24pm in Sao Paulo.

[Paleobrazilian]

Moody's just downgraded Petrobras' credit. It's also been learned the investigation into Petrobras wrongdoing reached the US as the SEC is supposedly looking at it.

[buritobr]

Today Lindsay Lohan wrote a tweet endorsing Aécio Neves. After some hours, she erased that tweet.

Of course, Lindsay Lohan endorsement or non-endorsement will not change the result of the election.

[politicus]

On the other side, some of the attacks suffered by Dilma in 2010 were dirty. It is not fair to discuss if she is religious or not because this issue belongs to her private life. Other attacks were fair. For example, when it was told that she entered the university but did not write the thesis. Concerning this information, the voters have right to know. This issue belongs to her public life.

The religious beliefs of a presidential candidate are not a private matter.

Should be.

Why? Religious beliefs can affect policy making and they are an integral part of who that person is.

I'm sorry, you're right. After all, under JFK presidency, the United States was transformed into a Catholic theocracy, ruled directly from the Vatican.

Getting snarky, are we? I said can, not will. There is obviously no determinism in this.
My take is that if you run for President in a country where that office has real power you should play with an open hand. Voters are entitled to know about every important part of your personal history, your economy, network and belief system.

[buritobr]

I don't deny that politicians should let the public know their religion. And I think that the self declaration should be respected. If Dilma told in 2010 that she is Catholic, she is Catholic.

I complained because some Serra supporters used an interview from 2007 in which Dilma told she is not religious in order to say that she is not religious (and if she were not religious? what is the problem?) Serra's official campaign did not make explicit use of that Dilma's atheism, in order to not frighten some upper class non-religious PSDB voters. However, José Serra used dog whistles for the people who do not accept atheism. In a debate in a Catholic TV, he told that "it is very important that the president of Brazil trust in God". This is religious intolerance. Serra's running mate Índio da Costa told once that Dilma is atheist.

[Paleobrazilian]

That's not even close to Fr. President Lula comparing the PSDB to the Nazis and to Herodes (he did that today) and claiming Aecio would promote a genocide against the blacks (he endorsed a speech saying exactly that yesterday).

[Filuwaúrdjan]

[tpfkaw]

Lindsay Lohan reads The Economist?!

[Niemeyerite]

New Datafoolha poll:

Dilma 47% (+1) ----> 52% (=)
Aécio  43% (=) -----> 48% (=)

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

On the other side, some of the attacks suffered by Dilma in 2010 were dirty. It is not fair to discuss if she is religious or not because this issue belongs to her private life. Other attacks were fair. For example, when it was told that she entered the university but did not write the thesis. Concerning this information, the voters have right to know. This issue belongs to her public life.

The religious beliefs of a presidential candidate are not a private matter.

Should be.

Why? Religious beliefs can affect policy making and they are an integral part of who that person is.

I'm sorry, you're right. After all, under JFK presidency, the United States was transformed into a Catholic theocracy, ruled directly from the Vatican.

Getting snarky, are we? I said can, not will. There is no obviously no determinism in this.
My take is that if you run for President in a country where that office has real power you should play with an open hand. Voters are entitled to know about every important part of your personal history, your economy, network and belief system.

I'm sorry, but this is coming into a dangerous ground. Many personal facts (including, but not only, private religious convictions) are simply not relevant to someone's performance as a politician, as evident in many examples of past and present leaders. And I don't like an idea of people's votes being determined by such reasoning as "hmm, he's a Catholic (or whatever else), so it may theoretically affect his policy". I know it's not what you said, but many other people would be inclined to follow this path.

[Paleobrazilian]

Despite the latest Datafolha, Bovespa is climbing quickly right now, about 1,5%. It's rumored that tracking polls and a secret poll ran by IBOPE for some banks still show Aecio ahead.

[jaichind]

Moody's just downgraded Petrobras' credit. It's also been learned the investigation into Petrobras wrongdoing reached the US as the SEC is supposedly looking at it.

I saw that.  Since the market cap of Petrobras is still pretty high this did not really affect the market prices of the bonds I hold which I really plan to hold until maturity anyway.  Of course going forward if these trends continue the price will fall which does not matter to me giving I am holding until maturity but will make it costlier for Petrobras to borrow money in the international market.

[jaichind]

I'm sorry, but this is coming into a dangerous ground. Many personal facts (including, but not only, private religious convictions) are simply not relevant to someone's performance as a politician, as evident in many examples of past and present leaders. And I don't like an idea of people's votes being determined by such reasoning as "hmm, he's a Catholic (or whatever else), so it may theoretically affect his policy". I know it's not what you said, but many other people would be inclined to follow this path.

You might very well be right on how we should evaluate a politician.  On the flip side a politician has put himself or herself in the public domain and his or her religious beliefs are part of profile to be scrutinized by the public.  One can say all day that the general public should not not certain parts of the profile in making their judgement but it is reasonable to ask about it and it is reasonable for the politician to reuse to answer and the voting public draw their own conclusions about that behavior.

[DL]

I seem to recall Cardozo openly declaring himself to be an atheist when he was President - no one seemed to think that was a big deal...

[Hash]

I seem to recall Cardozo openly declaring himself to be an atheist when he was President - no one seemed to think that was a big deal...

Cardoso never declared himself to be an atheist, but Janio famously ran a smear campaign accusing FHC of being an atheist who would put weed in school lunches in the 1985 mayoral race in SP.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I seem to recall Cardozo openly declaring himself to be an atheist when he was President - no one seemed to think that was a big deal...

Cardoso never declared himself to be an atheist, but Janio famously ran a smear campaign accusing FHC of being an atheist who would put weed in school lunches in the 1985 mayoral race in SP.

It's really funny, given that Janio himself frequently looked and talked like he just smoke some weed.

[Paleobrazilian]

Romário finally endorsed Aecio formally. Probably too late. Would have been big one week ago.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

It's kind of refreshing to see such a neck-to-neck race in contrast to the last five elections (everybody knew FHC will win in 1994/1998, Lula in 2002/2006 and Dilma in 2010).

[Paleobrazilian]

For me, there's a clear generational transition going on that's causing this. Let's see.

For the 1st time ever, voters with a High School degree will outnumber voters with a Primary School degree or less formal education (IIRC there was a 9% swing between those 2 groups). The number of voters with a College degree is the highest ever as well. Also, the number of voters under extreme poverty undeniably declined. For many reasons, the PSDB tends to do progressively better as education and income levels increase. The improvement of the PSDB's voting share this year is consistent with this trend, and not even the attack ads claiming the PT was the sole reason why economic and social conditions in Brazil improved changed the trend significantly.

The second relevant info is that now there are many young voters who were too young during FHC's years and that grew under the PT (a 20 year old voter was born before FHC taking office and barely knows Brazil had an annual inflation of about 1000% before 1995). Among these young voters, there's a clear tiredness of the PT. Some are more leftist and have embraced the PSOL. Many of them, though, seem to be more inclined to economical liberalism. Brazil was the strange country were people were afraid to come out as liberals on the economy, there was always a strong feeling that more or less interventionism was the mandatory way to go. This has clearly changed over the last 2 years or so. I'd also say there's clearly growing interest about the FHC era among young voters, and I'd say he's recovered much of the popularity he lost on his second term thanks to these voters.

[Niemeyerite]

Will Ibope be released today, too?

Only Wednesday.

*Waiting*

[Paleobrazilian]

Will Ibope be released today, too?

Only Wednesday.

*Waiting*

Sorry, I got it wrong. They stopping interviewing people today. The result will be released tomorrow.