Tuesday, January 24, 2012

The debate that ended in a real surprise

At the debate tonight what mattered the most was the leaving line of Leopoldo Lopez as to a forthcoming joint announcement with Capriles next day.  In fact, after watching it live, really, Miguel and I did hang out for a while and all candidates did, except Leopoldo who was nowhere to be found, with few of his supporters around except for his mother that made a point to go and give Capriles a hug (well, we thought it was Leopoldo's mother anyway).  There is no need to treat this as some form of running away, but simply something big is planned tomorrow and the less people had access to LL and his close circle, the less possibility of a leak as to the details.

It would be unbecoming, so to speak, to speculate widely as to the announcement tomorrow but tonight we can certainly piece up a few things.  Readers of this blog should not be too surprised after all: the Maria Corina Machado bout with Chavez 10 days ago has changed the dynamics of the campaign (here and here).  Not that Henrique Capriles Radonski  is threatened decisively but now positions 2, 3 and 4 are up for grabs and wide open for Pablo Perez, LL and MCM, without discounting that after tonight's performance HCR is not going to go up in polls and could well be in trouble by February 12.  Let's face it, if Capriles were so sure of winning, why would he accept a pact with Leopoldo at this late in the game?

So, what gives?


LL has been done in by the non committal performance of the judicial system that let's in place a possible impeachment where he to win.  People like me know full well that chavismo will not dare to refuse a victorious LL to take office, but the hoi polloi does not understand those subtleties and actually thing that Chavez would get away with what would be a coup d'etat unacceptable for his colleagues.  Simply put, for all his best effort, his dynamic campaign, LL had to spend a debilitating precious time to convince people of that without really succeeding.

But LL has long term plans.  In fact of the 6 candidates they are only three that have the potential to become statesmen some day, LL, MCM and Arria.  But for LL anything short of a 2nd place or excellent third place is not acceptable for his future career.  And MCM stunt makes that there is no poll able to measure such a shifting landscape in the next two weeks before February 12.  A decision of sorts had to be made so as not to risk and undeserved embarrassment.

HCR had problems of his own.  He might be leading but it seems that this lead has stopped growing long ago (maybe shrinking some as no one is publishing any poll).  In fact debates et al, have shown his limitations even though his qualities were still apparent.  Probably his own campaign staff agrees with me that MCM may take more votes from his base than he could care to admit.  And finally, the Unidad having refused to allow for a second round balloting, the perspective of winning with as little as a 35% of the vote does not yield a strong candidate to counter Chavez.

An alliance between the 25% certain of HCR and the 10% certain of LL gives a 35% certain that is easier to transform into a convincing 51% on February 12.  Simple mathematics, you see....

But it is also more than mere mathematics: worrying about a mandate election is the sure sign of a maturing opposition that starts to understand truly the nature of the challenge next year if it wins.  And there is also the possibility to try the all new front.  See, LL and HCR appeared in politics AFTER Chavez and 4th republic charges cannot be lobbed at them.  The more so with a PODEMOS and PPT caution.  Whereas PP is burdened with the Maracaibo mafia, and the AD one and the COPEI one......  In fact, as one of my contacts suggested, there may have been also into consideration that paying the departure of Chavez with the return of AD and COPEI was not acceptable.....

I will stop here because anything else without knowledge of the details of the agreement would start now to be the domain of astrologers.  More tomorrow.

PS: as I finish this I see Miguel's post on this evening.  I agree with all what he said except that I would have put LL on top with a very close second for MCM.  For more details on my differences with Miguel you can read my Twitter timeline of tonight.  And as Miguel does, I apologize that we were not readier to face technology challenges, trusting Globovision and the UNIMET to supply better access to technology.

9 comments:

  1. Anonymous11:59 AM

    Algun alma caritativa podria indicarme un enlace
    para un video de este debate? Muchas gracias.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous5:36 PM

      I think you can watch it here:
      http://www.globovision.com/news.php?nid=216414

      Delete
  2. Daniel,

    Could you give some of your reasons why you put LL on top here?

    I have a twitter account but never use it because I find it absolutely irritating ....so many people making short- boring comments ; different people one after the other,so visually and in terms of in- depth understanding it bothers me....between the 15 people I supposedly follow it's quite irksome.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. it is my own impression. subjective. just as miguel's opinion is subjective. a matter of taste. but we both agreed that capriles sucked.

      Delete
  3. The one thing I don't understand is why you don't include HCR in the list of those "that have the potential to become statesmen some day." Something tells me our definitions of "statesman" differ. I'm not saying it's a given, by any means, but I can definitely not rule out the potential - by my definition.

    ReplyDelete
  4. AIO

    "Statesman" is an elusive quality that few politicians have. That is, to sacrifice your career or ambitions for the sake of the state, not the common good necessarily. The "common good sake" has more to do with crass survival and may lead to willingly put yourself in some form of bondage whereas a statesman would only accept some form of bondage if it sees a way out in the sort term.

    In short a statesman is willing to ruin his or her career,and even name for the sake of the State, for the survival of the State as a bigger entity than the community which after all will day someday anyway. Crassly speaking, of course.

    Example of true statesman are: De Gaulle, Churchill, Lincoln, Washington, a few US Senators come to mind also. In Venezuela the closest we ever got to a statesman were Betancourt and Leoni. Bolivar does not qualify as we would need first to identify what he meant by state and what state was that.

    ReplyDelete
  5. OK, a narrow definition - I have no problem with that. But using that definition, I'm even more surprised to see you include LL. That runs 180 degrees - OK, maybe just 179 - counter to his egotistical rep.

    ReplyDelete
  6. And Churchill, de Gaulle had no egotistical rep?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Well played, sir! I would say though, that ego does not always manifest itself in the same way. There are plenty of egotistical people - let's just start with Hugo - who will categorically NEVER be statesmen. I think it's generally likely to preclude such a possibility.

    ReplyDelete

Comments policy:

1) Comments are moderated after the third day of publication. It may take up to a day or two for your note to appear then.

2) Your post will appear if you follow the following rules. I will be ruthless in erasing any comment that do not follow these rules, as well as those who replied to that off rule comment.

3)COMMENT RULES:
Do not be repetitive.
Do not bring grudges and fights from other blogs here (this is the strictest rule).
This is an anti Chavez blog, with more than 95% anti Chavez readers that have made up their minds long ago. Thus trying to prove us wrong is considered a troll. Still, you are welcome as a chavista to post,> in particular if you want to explain us coherently as to why chavismo does this or that. We are still waiting for that to happen once.
Insults and put downs are frowned upon and I will be sole judge on whether to publish them.

Followers