Colombian presidential election, June 17 2018

[Velasco]

Matches:

Gustavo Petro 81 per cent
Sergio Fajardo 59
Humberto de la Calle 50
Iván Duque 41
Germán Vargas Lleras 31

[Velasco]

I'm a bit shocked by these results. The performance of Sergio Fajardo and the failure of Vargas Lleras and his machinery network are extraordinary. Also this is the best result ever for a left-wing candidate in Colombia. Iván Duque performed better than last polls predicted. Petro, Fajardo and De la Calle got more votes than Duque and Vargas Lleras. I expected the opposite. It's a pity that Fajardo is not going to fight the runoff, because he could have had better chances to defeat Duque. I guess that Polo and Alianza Verde will endorse Petro, but the endorsement of Fajardo is leds likely. Duque is the favourite, but his margin of victory might be narrower than expected. Fascinating outcome, in any case.

[Velasco]

I'm a bit shocked by these results. The performance of Sergio Fajardo and the failure of Vargas Lleras and his machinery network are extraordinary. Also this is the best result ever for a left-wing candidate in Colombia. Iván Duque performed better than last polls predicted. Petro, Fajardo and De la Calle got more votes than Duque and Vargas Lleras. I expected the opposite. It's a pity that Fajardo is not going to fight the runoff, because he could have had better chances to defeat Duque. I guess that Polo and Alianza Verde will endorse Petro, but the endorsement of Fajardo is leds likely. Duque is the favourite, but his margin of victory might be narrower than expected. Fascinating outcome, in any case.

But Petro is somewhat weak and as president, he'll need to compromisse with some of the establishment if he wins. But as Brazilian, i fear a Duque win as he's very likely to push for a war with Venezuela and that he can bring Brazil into the war as one way of keeping Congress and Temer's coalition in power.

Of course Petro would have to reach a compromise with some elements of the rstablishment, in case a miracle occurs and he manages to defeat Duque. It'd be quite complicated, given the personality of the candidate. Maybe one day a leftist will live in Casa de Nariño, but I don't think that Petro will win this time. I wish I'm wrong. Even Uribe's boy will have to forge alliances with other groups in the fragmented Congress. I don't think that Duque is going to launch a war against Venezuela.There's  a difference between realpolitik and campaign rhetoric. Iván Duque is a 'techocratic' neoliberal boy, not a lunatic right-winger like Alejandro Ordóñez.

The addition of vote percentages got by Petro, Fajardo and De la Calle is similar to the percentage obtained by Santos in the 2014 runoff. The combined vote percentages of Duque and Vargas Lleras similar to the result of Zuluaga in the 2014 runoff.

Polls suggest that Fajardo would have capitalized better the anti-Uribe vote.

[Velasco]

What? I dunno, but the prospect of a presidential candidate who idolizes Hugo Chávez and took way too long to denounce Maduro's regime just because it became a hot topic for the election should scare anyone.

Don't forget Fidel Castro, Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin

[Velasco]

You may like him or dislike him, but regardless of what Uribe and his supporters say Petro isn't a Chavista. He has tried to explain during the campaign that his model has little to do with Venezuela. Also, he has condemned the "democratic involution" (or something in the like) triggered by Maduro in the neighbouring country. You can argue that he was a bit too late in making such statements. Anyway no: Gustavo Petro is a leftist but he's not "castrochavista" (translation: diehard supporter of Hugo Chávez and Fidel Castro).  

Regarding Venezuela: is there a correlation between the strong performance in the city of Cúcuta and Norte de Santander department with the refugee flood?

Also, average turnout in Colombia has been around 45% in the last 15 years or so. 53% is a modest turnout, but it's rather good for Colombia (and even better for Chile).

[Velasco]

The developments in Bogotá look pretty interesting, especially the success of Fajardo among middle and lower middle class voters in contrast to the strong performance of Petro in the poorest localities to the south. In 2010 and 2014 the best localities for Antanas Mockus and Enrique Peñalosa were Teusaquillo and Barrios Unidos, then Chapinero and Usaquén. Fajardo performed strongly in those places but he made greater advances in Fontibón and Engativá. Also, the performance of Fajardo in Usme and Ciudad Bolívar was remarkable if compared with the poor result of Peñalosa in 2014 (7-8%), or the result of Mockus in 2010 (I think he got around 15%). More than ever, Bogotá looks like an island in what regards its electoral behaviour.

The results in the metropolitan municipalities of the Cundinamarca department are interesting too. Petro won in Soacha, a working-class dormitory town located next to the locality of Bosa in Bogotá. It's the most populous municipality of Cundinamarca department, with an estimated population of half a million. At the beginning of the campaign, Petro organized a big rally in the main square  of Soacha were Luis Carlos Galán was killed in 1989. Also, Soacha came to prominence because of the "false positives" scandal during the Uribe administration. Petro got 25.6%, Duque 27.2%, Fajardo 26.2%, Vargas Lleras 5.1% and De la Calle 2%.

Looking around the results of the municipalities north of Bogotá I noticed the high turnouts in places like Chía or Cajica (70-75% range). Turnout in Bogotá and Cundinamarca was 11-12% higher than national average.

Also there is the result of Zipaquirá, the town were Petro was raised. Fajardo got 36%, Oetro 32%, Duque 21%, Vargas Lleras less than 5% and De la Calle 2%. These towns in the Sabana of Bogotá make a contrast with the surrounding uribista countryside. 

Thank you for the great analysis of the results in Colombia and Bogotá. Will you post something on Medellín and Cali? Are their results by comuna available?

[Velasco]

perhaps the non-uribista vote went to Fajardo instead?

Maybe there's a combination of several factors. On the one hand, Fajardo is a well-known local candidate. Even though he is a centrist, as Mayor of Medellín and later as Governor of Antioquía he tried to implement policies that tackle poverty and inequality. However, you say his performance was not that good in the poorest comunas when he ran for Governor, so that point is not clear... On the other hand, Medellín and the whole Antioquía department are Uribe's land. Also, there's a strong social conservatism linked to the paisa identity and the Catholic faith. Maybe the system of values and beliefs linked to uribismo and paisa traditionalism permeate all levels of society. Even non-uribista voters could see Petro as a radical castrochavista, so they pick the candidate who is more moderate and plays with home advantage.
 
Clara López performed much better than Petro in the 2014 election, but I don't know if she did better among the middle-class or the poor strata. I wonder if Clara López is perceived as a less dangerous kind of leftist than Petro, either by political stances or by social background.

On a side note. it's worth noting that the same localities in Bogotá that voted strongly for  Petro (Usme, Ciudad Bolívar and Bosa) voted for Santos in 2010, when the latter ran as the Uribe's candidate.

[Velasco]

My bet right now would be that Duque wins by a margin around 10%. The endorsement of Claudia López and Antanas Mockus and the compromise made by Petro of not becoming a new Chávez won't be enough. Anyway, I hope the gap shrinks a little bit in the following days.

(...) because Petro, and his supporters like you, can't *convince* all those between Petro and Uribe that Petro isn't a castrochavista because Petro's background on that isn't the most convincing. Or in other words, too many voters have doubts about him (...)

I prefer Petro over Duque/Uribe for obvious reasons. Ideological affinity is an important reason, but not the only one. Uribe and the coalition backing Duque represent reactionary, traditionalist and male chauvinist values that I dislike. I've never been a fan of Chávez, on the other hand. Petro admired him in the past, but distanced later. He has condemned Maduro, maybe too late. I know that Petro awakes fears and concerns among some people who voted for Fajardo in the first round. I know something about his career, virtues and flaws. Just to be clear: preferring Petro does not imply that I'm a big fan or a diehard supporter. I think that Petro is far from being perfect, but he has the support of large social sectors (the young, the poor, Amerindian, Afro-Colombian, etc) and is the undisputed leader of the Colombian left (despite senator Robledo). I don't think that Petro is chavista nowadays and neither is his platform. On the other hand, I never saw Petro as a viable candidate to defeat uribismo in the second round. If Ir was eligible to vote in Colombia, I would have a hard time in the first round choosing between him and Fajardo. I think the latter would have had more chances in the runoff and certainly he was good mayor of Medellín and is a decent person. Tactical vote would have been a possibility.

[Velasco]

I know that Petro awakes fears and concerns among some people who voted for Fajardo in the first round.

OK, this is very understandable. It's nice to see leftists who don't fall into the category of excusing Castro or Chavez just to stick it to the U.S. or because they actually believe in it *looks meaningfully over at Justin Trudeau*. Thanks for clearing that up. I bolded that really important sentence because as it turns out...

According to Claudia López, 63% of Fajardo's voters went for Petro, 25% for Duque, 10% voted blank and 2% didn't show up. She is a reliable source, and those numbers are in line with what the result was. In the next few days, I'll make maps showing where Petro gained the most support.

There it is. The missed opportunity to defeat uribismo and with Fajardo get some mild social democracy in Colombia.

Oh, of course the Uribista stooge won in a landslide.

The left should've been smarter then.

I'm getting the impression that you have some preconceived notions about leftism and politics in general. There is people in the left that sympathized with Chávez or Castro, there is people who didn't. The "left" is not a monolithic ideological field. I'm not saying this as a rebuke, it's just that I don't like stereotypes very much (especially when someone holds them against me). My opinions are personal and I only represent myself.

I think that chavismo, which is a particular form of eft-wing populism, must be understood in its regional context. It's a phenomenon easy to demonize and caricaturize, furthermore given the collapse of Venezuela under the Maduro regime. However, critics of chavismo tend to ignore the historical context in which Chávez came to power and the causes of his popularity (home and abroad). Don't try to look Latin America with North Amencan or European glasses*. Realize that one of the defining features of Latin American countries is the existence of a gross social inequality. Chávez gave voice to many marginalized people that never benefited from oil revenues. Until he came to power the poorest half of the population (as well the "browns") didn't exist for the Venezuelan elites. That's one of the reasons of his popularity. Also, he implemented social programs aimed at the poor. The dark side is well known: bad economic management, waste of resources, persistence of corruption, polarization and authoritarian tendencies. I think that many people who sympathized with Chávez in the left has taken critical distance, as well as Venezuela has fallen into chaos. It's a logical process.

Back to Colombia, regardless his previous undeniable affinity with Chávez Petro is smart enough to have distanced himself from that. Anyway this relationship and his past guerrilla membership (M-19 is different from the FARC) have been used by uribismo to attack him, predictably. Petro may have defects of character (arrogance, stubbornness and the like), but he's not an idiot. I admit not being particularly fond of him when watching some of his speeches in video. However, he is a smart man with good oratory. As Claudia López puts it: he's a true "popular leader".

As for Sergio Fajardo and his hypothetical chances to defeat Iván Duque, don't take them for granted. Maybe his performance in a runoff could have been slightly better, but his victory would have been uncertain. Hash already put it; Duque has revealed tough to beat. Petro didn't perform so badly, after all. I wonder if he believed blindly in his possibilities this time, or he has been paving the way for another attempt in 2022.

*_{I'm not a big fan, but I have nothing against Justin Trudeau; my PM Pedro Sánchez resembles him a bit and I think he's more handsome} .

[Velasco]

It's your opinion and it's allright, but we shouldn't go deeper in this thread. We should better discuss Colombia, or in any case the relationship between Venezuela and Colombia. Another interesting subject could be discussing the reasons why the Left has been traditionally weak in Colombia. Possibly there are other social and historical causes, but it's obvious that real or alleged links to Chávez and the FARC have been a burden for the Left. I think it's not a coincidence that the best historical result for a leftist candidate in Colombia comes after the Peace Agreement and despite the turmoil in Venezuela. I'm just suggesting topics..