Venezuelan Presidential Election 2012

[ag]

The irony is that even without all of his shenanigans, Chavez enjoys genuine popularity and would win handsomely.

He enjoys genuine popularity within about 1/2 population, and genuine loathing within the other half. Without shenanigans it would have been truly too close to call. Of course, given the degree of administrative control he exercises, Capriles Radonski would, probably need at least, 55% of the actual votes cast to win.

[ag]

The irony is that even without all of his shenanigans, Chavez enjoys genuine popularity and would win handsomely.

He enjoys genuine popularity within about 1/2 population, and genuine loathing within the other half. Without shenanigans it would have been truly too close to call. Of course, given the degree of administrative control he exercises, Capriles Radonski would, probably need at least, 55% of the actual votes cast to win.

this is unsubtantiable, and even if it were it's no different than what goes on in the US with disenfranchisement of poor and minorities.

What has definitely been substantiated is that government is very willing to use administrative pressure to make sure those dependent on it vote the line. What has also been repeatedly substantiated is that roughly 1/2 of the population hates Hugo Chavez - like they'd hate devil reincarnate or their mother's murderer. This amply showed up, say, in the last parliamentary election, where the two sides got equal number of votes - had it not been for a one-sided gerrymander, it would have been a hung parliament.

Whether they count right or not is a harder question. Chavez is no Putin, so he may loose (and even accept the loss, at least temporarily or tactically - there's been precedent, at least on a referendum). But the system is quite subordinate to him and there is ample reason to believe the head of the main electoral body would follow his orders - if these come.

Anyone who says "it's the same as in the US" does not know what s/he is talking about. There is a crucial difference - the United States has genuinely split control of the government. So, here and there nasty things may and do happen - but nobody can order sh**t to happen nationwide. Venezuela has been under one fat greasy thumb for a long time now. When opposition wins local office, the office gets castrated to the point of irrelevance. Whatever shenanigans happen, only one side has the power to do that. This is, in fact, the most important difference in the world.

[ag]

Do you also reject the law of gravity on principle? I suggest, you should.

[ag]

Venezuela has one industry: oil. Oil prices have skyrocketed. ANY Venezuelan government would have a huge GDP increase. Then, of course, Venezuelan production has, reportedly, actually fallen despite much higher prices - because of mismanagenemt and incompetence.

Any numbers coming out of Venezuela right now are, unfortunately, not too reliable. Not because of any malice, actually - mostly because they've rid the bureaucracy of those who could compute them.

[ag]

Are there any pro-democracy left-wingers in Venezuela? If not, then Radonski.

A lot. And they vote for Capriles Radonski.

[ag]

Oh Gosh, it's in only 6 days? Well, crossing fingers for Radonski. He might not be perfect, but at least he's not a megalomaniac populist clown with authoritarian tendencies.

I really like this subject. It's good for distinguishing who is simply very left-wing and who is simply crazy.

Kind of like Pinochet for right-wingers, so...

No ifs or buts:

http://www.economist.com/node/8413038

[ag]

And violence in Caracas is still growing, people are still poor and Chavez is still a clown who nobody respects.

His Majesty put it best, you know

[ag]

Oh Gosh, it's in only 6 days? Well, crossing fingers for Radonski. He might not be perfect, but at least he's not a megalomaniac populist clown with authoritarian tendencies.

I really like this subject. It's good for distinguishing who is simply very left-wing and who is simply crazy.

Kind of like Pinochet for right-wingers, so...

As mentioned before, it's quite a different thing to support a right-wing dictator against a left-wing dictator (or vice versa) than to support any dictator over any democrat. Supporting Stalin over Hitler doesn't make you a hardline Communist. It's really a false comparison.

Allende was no dictator by any reasonable definition of the word.

[ag]

I think what this thread really needs, is a few more lovable Chavez photos. (Hey, it's better than diverging into an argument on Pinochet!)

Does "lovable" mean "goofy" in your idiolect?

[ag]

I think what this thread really needs, is a few more lovable Chavez photos. (Hey, it's better than diverging into an argument on Pinochet!)

Does "lovable" mean "goofy" in your idiolect?

You're terribly out of touch, ag - normal humans find warm, 'down to earth' photos of a great man interacting with 'real people', wearing normal clothes and with a smile on his face to be loveable.  What do you find lovable?  A grim white guy standing stiffly in a suit?

I am afraid you see smthg in those pictures I don't

There is nothing warm, the man is not great, he is not smiling (in a couple of cases grimacing a bit, dead serious, if not outright frowning in others), his clothing is not normal - in the sense that few people would ever be caught dead wearing them. And, of course, in all but one of these photos there are no other people properly visible - and no indication he is interacting with anyone, other than the photographer.

[ag]

I don't love Pinochet, but I'm fully willing to acknowledge him the least bad of several evils in the time period when he took power, ...

 Pinochet's coup had better outcomes than the alternatives,....

Also, this is probably the 8th time I've had to explained this stance.

1. This position is at variance with whatever is by now known about Chilean situation at the time. Chile was not, to the best available historical evidence, about to fall to the Soviets or whatever. Allende was not preparing a self-coup, he had just lost (and ackonowledged the loss of) a congressional election, was not allowed to run for re-election, and was not planning to change that prohibition. That there was all but no organized leftist resistance to the coup provides ample evidence that there was no leftist military organization outside the government either.  While one can plausibly argue that Pinochet and those around him were scared of things, all evidence we have at present shows that they were scared (if they were, indeed, scared) of figments of their own imagination.

2. It's not a matter of his personal failings, but of the absolute and unqualified evil and immorality of his actions as both the military commander and Head of State. He betrayed his military oath, betrayed his country, and murdered in cold blood a lot of people. While the first two could apply to Chavez's original coup (mind it: he did spend time in prison for that), the last is clearly unapplicable. From the standpoint of this particular Latin American rightist (which I am, without a doubt), there is no question that Chavez has been an infinitely less awful ruler than Pinochet. While I sharply diagree with Chavez's politics and do consider him a complete idiot, I don't doubt his good intentions. He is not a bad man - just a stupid one. Pinochet, though, was undoubtedly both stupid and evil.

3. The reason you have a hard time having your point of view accepted is not a misunderstanding (I understand it full well), but that it is a) ahistorical and b) immoral. You will not get any more understanding from me if you were to start defending Mussolini, Castro, Trujillo or any of the other tinpot dictators and "leaders" of the past century. No "ifs" or "buts" here. Any virtues of pension reforms or autobahns notwithstanding.