Argentina 2023 election

[Bilardista]

Macri prefers Bullrich, that's no secret, but he has't formally endorsed her and he won't at this point. Apparently he's been working behind the scenes to lower the tension between the two candidates, rightly concerned that Bullrich's agressive style will make it difficult for her to retain Larreta's voters in the first round and viceversa. When Larreta sugested a single election day bunker, Bullrich iniatially declined the offer, but Macri intervened to change her mind, as the best thing for the whole space is that whoever wins is inmediatly seen with the loser and a message of unity can be send.

In his last show in LN+ Carlos Pagni (best political analyst in this country) made some interesting observations:

- Bullrich campaigned as if it were a close primary, speaking to the core antikirchnerist vote, something that quickly positioned her in the polls by attracting the more involved and highly politicized voter. Larreta on the other hand went another route, considering this is an open primary, he spoke to everyone, trying to appeal to a wider audience, including the "silent majority" that tends not to answer polls, but who also tend to decide their vote a week or two before the election, hence why he polled lower for so long but then started closing the gap in the last few weeks. His was a slower, "quieter" campaign, more traditional and focused on territorial presence than media presence. Not to say it was a smaller campaign, on thecontrary, Larreta probably had the most resources of any candidate, but where you could find a lot of online engagement for Milei or Bullrich, i saw the most street ads for Larreta, and he has the largest on the ground infraestructure.

- A pollster looked specifically into different groups divided according to their level of "politización" by looking at how informed they were, how engaged they were, etc, and the voting intention whitin each group. The results showed that Massa and Bullrich polled better among highly politicized voters, whereas Larreta and Milei did best with the least politicized. This could be a worrying sign for Larreta if turnout is low (and it has been low in most provincial elections up to this point), as it's the more partisan voter who is more interested in the primaries (voting is mandatory but the fines are minimal and people tend to se the PASO as useless, so turnout is always lower than in the G.E.).

- But with low turnout the "machine" becomes crucial to mobilize voters, and Larreta through his "armadores" has been weaving alliances everywhere, with the UCR but also with provincial forces and local leaders. It's a strategy Bullrich did't care for as much and in some cases even rejected, as in many provinces where she could have agreed to unity lists for deputies and senators, she fielded her own candidates, angering local leaders who then went with Larreta. Even in the province of Buenos Aires where the local UCR formally supports Bullrich, the chosing of candidates left many "wounded" radicals who were picked up by Larreta's "ambulance" as we say. And he's been gathering endorsements everywhere, from the new JxC's governors elect (Poggi, Orrego, Torres, Pullaro) and all of the other potential presidential candidates (Carrió, Pichetto, Espert, Vidal, Manes). These may not have much impact, but show the reach of his campaign. And crucially he has the support of most of the UCR, who can provide the poll watchers on even the smallest of towns.

- PRO's think tanks conducted some surveys and found that among Milei's voters they mostly prefered Larreta over Bullrich. They perceive her as too harsh and even cruel, where Milei proposes a crackdown upon the political class, Bullrich's austerity would affect the whole population, at a time when people don't want to do any more sacrifices. Larreta's softer, more optimistic (or as optimistic as one can be in the current climate) message, is perhaps more successful among independent and disillisioned voters. And this seems somewhat corroborated by some polls where he does better in traditionaly peronist areas like the northern provinces and the southern Great Bs. As.

Trully this is the most important primary to be conducted under the PASO since their implementation 15 years ago, and perhaps the most important primary since Menem-Cafiero in 1989.

[Bilardista]

I realize that there's little point asking why anything is done in Argentina, easily the most risible country on the planet, but what exactly is the purpose of this 'primary' election? Is it just to waste more money? This seems plausible as doing so is Argentina's other national sport along with football, but there must be an official point as well?

Are you trying to be funny, or do you really not know how primaries work?

[Bilardista]

Can anyone explain Cordoba then? It seems that it was a JxC stronghold(or whatever their predecessor was) Why is it generally pro JxC. From what I can glean this time the local right wing Peronist governor also took a large share but what exactly is its ideology?

Cordoba has always voted against kirchnerism, in that regard it hasn't changed. But where in previous years the instrument for that vote was JxC, this time most of that vote went for Milei and Schiaretti. The former for the same reasons as everywhere else, the later because it's obviously a well known and well regarded local figure. I suspect much of his vote will migrate not it's clear his is a testimonial candidacy , but who knows, many Cordobeces would rather vote one of their own than someone from Bs As.

[Bilardista]

Neither radicalism nor peronism have ever identified with social democracy. Only the socialist party did , and it lost any chance of relevance when Perón won over the labour movement 80 years ago.
But i don't see how the UCR could be perceived to be more social democratic, or simply more leftist than a labour based, popular movement that advocates for workers rights, wealth redistribution and state intervention in the economy. That's certainly not the perception in this country.
Radicalism has always been more "liberal democratic", or at least it has been since the 80's, but as the party of the middle class it never positioned itself nor was never perceived as being to the left of peronism.

[Bilardista]

Neither radicalism nor peronism have ever identified with social democracy. Only the socialist party did , and it lost any chance of relevance when Perón won over the labour movement 80 years ago.
But i don't see how the UCR could be perceived to be more social democratic, or simply more leftist than a labour based, popular movement that advocates for workers rights, wealth redistribution and state intervention in the economy. That's certainly not the perception in this country.
Radicalism has always been more "liberal democratic", or at least it has been since the 80's, but as the party of the middle class it never positioned itself nor was never perceived as being to the left of peronism.

You are right in saying that neither the UCR or the PJ identified themselves as socialdemocratic, as well in what concerns the co-optation of the labour movement by Juan Domingo Perón in the 1930s or 1940s

The point is, European socialdemocracy nowadays is a moderate centre-left movement that often seeks to ally with middle-class liberals. I mean, saying that UCR is closer to socialdemocracy than the PJ does not imply that it's more leftist than the left-wing populist factions within the peronist movement. The Argentinian PS identifies itself with the European socialdemocracy, which is a political tradition totally different from the labour movement alligned to peronism. In other words, not ot all the popular movements that advocate workers rights and redistributive policies adhere socialdemocracy. On the other hand, the PJ has been dominated by right-wing factions more often than left-wing factions. In what concerns electoral alliances, the PS often joined the UCR or its social-liberal splits (CC-ARI) in centre-left tickets. I'd say socialdemocrats in Argentina (Binner, Stolbizer and the like) tend to identify more with a "republican" and "liberal" tradition historically represented by the UCR

Ah, so you mean closer as in allied with? If so, eh, maybe? The relationship between radicalism and other forces has always been less ideological and more "sociological". Their alliance with the PS made sense as it was never a mass party with working class support like the socialist parties of Europe, but rather a predominantly middle class party (much like the UCR itself). Especially after 1946 when their labour wing left to join the PJ and the CGT, after that they were an insignificant and confused group, unsure wether to join peronism (the labour movement they could never be) or follow their voter base and ally with other antiperonist forces. They chose the later, sometimes allying with reactionary forces like in the 1955 coup.

[Bilardista]

Milei talks about referendums because he knows even in a best case scenario he wont have a majority in congress and much of what he wants to do will be blocked there. Peronism will stand at around 90- 100 seats and serve as the main opposition, though the deputies representing the governors might take a softer position when benefitial.  Milei chose Guillermo Francos, a moderate peronist and until recently part of Scioli's campaign, to serve as Interior Minister. That means he at least understand the importance of the link with the governors so he chose someone who can work with them.
JxC is in a difficult position. The UCR and CC don't like Milei and would likely oppose his agenda in congress, but within PRO there are many who support some of his proposals. That would inevitably generate internal tensions, one half of the alliance would rather be in the opposition, but the other half might not be so sure about that. But even if PRO takes a pro-Milei turn, there would not be a pro-Milei majority in the lower chamber, and even the more "reasonable" of his agenda would get bogged down if he's not willing to negotiate. As for the more absurd of his proposals, like abolishing the central bank, that's obviously not happening, not even PRO would support that.
Same goes for the senate, except here peronism might be close to a majority with August's results, so here it'be even more difficult to get anything done.

And that's what worries me the most about a Milei presidency. What happens when congress  rejects his agenda? Any other politician might just accept it, but Milei is no normal politician. If the "political caste" stops his reforms, a rupture of the constitutional order could ensue. I don't want to make any predictions as it's far to early, but the mirror in which i see my country is not Brazil or El Salvador, it's Perú. Hopefully that won't happen, much as i dislike Milei, his running mate, Victoria Villarruel is far more repugnant, an open supporter of the last dictatorship who defends state terrorism. After all the advances we made in regards to memory, truth and justice, she'll want to undo all that and take us back years in term of human rights.

[Bilardista]

- If I understand correctly, Argentina is or used to be rather polarized between Peronism and anti-Peronism. I understand Peronism is sort of a chameleon-like movement, but some of its ideological characteristics have remained more or less stable. But what keeps (or kept) the anti-Peronists in JxC and its predecessors together?

I know what you mean, but they're not "antiperonists", just "non peronists", it's not 1955 anymore, no one is trying to ban the PJ. But to answer the question, think of peronism as our natural governing party, when they're weak the ussually disjointed opposition smells blood and join forces to beat them. Since 1989 that's happened twice, the first time was a disaster and that alliance ended quickly, the second time was also pretty bad but the expectation of making a comeback this year kept them together a little longer. Now it seems that's not to be and there's talk of a potential split post elections.

- What percentage of society, approximately, would consider themselves Peronists, and what percentage would consider themselves anti-Peronists?

If i had to guess, the base of support for both camps is something like 30% each. I'm talking of those who actively identify with those political positions, not just electoral support, which varies from election to election.

- How do Peronists / anti-Peronists look at the junta era and the Dirty War? Is there any dormant "support" for the junta, or has it mostly died out because the pre-junta patterns of political polarization returned? How does the past regarding the dictatorship affect present-day politics?

To put it briefly, in the 80's the two parties were at odds over how to deal with the Junta: the UCR was in favour of investigating and trying the military, while the PJ was in favour of a general amnesty, not because they liked the dictatorship, but rather because they though it best not confront the still powerful military, and because the amnesty would also cover the sh**tshow that was peronist government of 1973-76 and conveniently put that whole period to rest too. Ultimately the threat of another coup, coupled with the increasing weakness of the Alfonsín government lead to the amnesty position to be adopted. The issue then laid dormant until the Kirchner government revived it in 2003 and all amnesty laws and pardons were annuled and trials began again.

Now, that the then government fully supported this process and adopted an outspoken anti-dictatorship and pro-human rights policy was obviously a good thing. But the way in which the Kirchners also used the issue politically, for propaganda or to attack their opponents, had the unfortunate result that what should have been a nonpartisan movement became thoroughly identified with kirchnerism. The opposition was critical of this apropriation, but was never contrarian enough to veer into a "anti-memory" position like in Spain or Chile, there was a general consesus in support of the process (which makes sense considering the main opposition was the UCR which had always supported the issue)

In fact support for the dictatorship or it's actions was always a rather fringe position in mainstream politics, and in the 2000's it became almost taboo. Even now the likes of Victoria Villaruel won't openly defend it, instead resorting to dogwhistles. By the way, the term "Dirty war" is one of those dogwhistles, i know it's common among foreigners, but here it's rarely used and only by those who want to justify the actions of the dictatorship by pushing a narrative that frames what happened as conflict or "war" against the guerrillas, despite the fact that a) there was no such conflict or war, only state terrorism, b) the vast, vast majority of the victims were normal people, workers, students and political activists, and c) even if there had been any conflict, the number of victims of the guerrillas pales in comparison to those of the military, the scope and magnitude of violence of the military was beyond comparison.

[Bilardista]

Yeah yeah, we get it, we are dumb and pathetic and evil and all that, can you guys stop circlejerking about it and return the thread to it's original subject?

[Bilardista]

I will say, for a more Argentina/LatAm related topic, that I suspect a lot of the strange Falklandsism found in Argentina/various related colonial "upsets" that you will sometimes hear in third world politics (ie Red Velvet complaining about how Portugal "stole" Brazil's gold) would go away in a flash if these countries weren't poor. I have little evidence for this save the vaguely comparable (but rich) examples of former British colonies in North America and Oceania not expressing these sentiments despite the far longer lasting and to this day more interconnected relationships there, as well as more broadly the lack of these complaints from developed Middle Eastern/East Asian countries and the observation that the Falklands were not an issue of similar prominence when Argentina was a (by the standards of the time) wealthy country.

Yeah, why do impoverished nations that were subjected to all sort of exploitation and oppresion resent the imperial powers responsible for it, why can't they be like the wealthy white settler nations that didn't suffer the same mistreatment, so strange.

[Bilardista]

No, we were not a rich white colony like Australia or Canada, we were more like the arab gulf states, an extremely unequal and undemocratic country with a rich landowning class living in luxury and millions living in poverty. It was a region that for centuries had been poor and unstable until the 1880s when it found a valuable resource whose benefits were never equally shared, nor utilized to build a long term sustainable economy, and when that resource stoped being as valuable in the 1920s it returned to being poor and unstable. That brief period of prosperity and our demographics sometimes makes others see us diferently, but our history and our relation to the first world should always be considered alongside that of Latin America and the rest of the thirld world.

And while i personally tend to avoid the whole subject of the dispute since i find it as interesting as watching paint dry, some of the takes in this thread from people who clearly don't know much (if anything) about the issue are  pretty insulting. It's an issue most of us don't care for or ever think about, but foreigners always make it seem as if we were a bunch of obsessed lunatics ready to attack at any moment. Seriously, 1990' balkan nationalism, 19th century european imperialism? That's just stupid, and anyone familiar with the situation would know it. Believe or not, here it's not a rrelevant issue of discussion, it hadn't been mentioned once during the campaign, and it was The Telegraph (you know, a british newspaper), that asked Mondino her opinion on the matter. The reaction here was brief, for it's only a minority that has a strong opinion of it, the majority are indifferent and even tired of how it's used for political reasons, but the outside reaction is always invariably "ooh look at the argies, they're so dumb and brainwashed, so easy to manipulate", and full smugness and superiority.

You can disagree with the argentine claim, but there's no need, and it's not very useful to understanding the situation, to reduce us to a caricature, i certainly don't like the way it's done here to the british side, simply because i understand it's not just "we good, they bad".

[Bilardista]

Must be nice to feel so indifferent about this election.

I spoke with my mom a few days ago, and she was really anxious about the future. She doesn't like Milei for many reasons, but she's specially worried about his constant praise for the 1990's government. I was too little to remember it, but the late 90's were very difficult for our family. She was fired from her job due to the policy of cuts in the state budget and struggled to find a new one amidst the economic crisis, all the while having to raise two small kids with only my dad's meagre income. She told me how scared she is that she might be fired again now, just a few years away from retiring, or that she'll retire but the pension system will be privatized like in the 90's, with the same disastrous consequences.

If i wasn't sure about voting for Massa before, i am now. I don't expect him to win, but i'll know that i did what little i could to stop the far right nutjob  from getting to power.

[Bilardista]

Eliminating subsidies for public transport and other public services would be disastrous for most of the population, which is why i wonder if he'll actually do it, it would end his presidency before it even began. Macri tried it and it only caused more inflation and made him more unpopular.

But it's bizarre how many people, and not just his twitter cultists, but normal people like the woman in that clip, really bought into Milei's promise that he has the recipe for solving all of our problems. Even if it's essentially a rehash of what was done in the 90's, which very much didn't work then, but somehow it will 100% work now

[Bilardista]

Starts searching for Rodrigo on spotify and pouring some fernet

[Bilardista]

What run off scenario is favorable to Milei? Bullrich vs Milei or Massa vs Milei?

Both. The later more so, Bullrich voters wouldn't hesitate to vote for him, the same can't be said for Massa voters.

[Bilardista]

What run off scenario is favorable to Milei? Bullrich vs Milei or Massa vs Milei?

Both. The later more so, Bullrich voters wouldn't hesitate to vote for him, the same can't be said for Massa voters.

So a Massa Milei Runoff would be leaning Milei as Bullrich's voters would lean Milei?

Far more than leaning. I might even say safe Milei.

How about Milei Bullrich?

All polling i saw on it put Milei ahead. But i can tell you there would be a huge percentage of blank/annuled votes and lower turnout. All peronists i spoke to said they wouldn't vote for either.

[Bilardista]

At 74%, it's the lowest turnout for a presidential election since 1983. That's about 9 million people who didn't show up (and i don't really blame them).
Higher than two years ago (71%), but much lower than in 2019 (80%).

[Bilardista]

79% counted in Buenos Aires:

43,2% Massa (+8.9%)
25,7% Milei (-0.6%)
23,8% Bullrich (-7,4%)

Nice

[Bilardista]

My reaction seeing the libertarian meltdown on twitter:

[Bilardista]

Milei's speech was practically copied from those of Bullrich, i guess he's not wasting any time trying to win her voters (the same ones he made fun of and called "urinated old people")

Also, seing him dancing to "Se viene", a song from the 90's written against the government of Menem, is quite something.

[Bilardista]

Lula also needs to come out and send more money to Alberto Fernandez in order to get Massa elected, with absolutely no shame about doing it. Extremely critical and important to not let the far-right to come into power in Argentina in this specific moment.

Well, the team of campaign advisors that Lula sent after the primaries to help Massa seem to have had quite the impact, the post-paso campaign was much, much more visible and effective.

Massa also got his friends in the state department to send some people who worked in the Obama and Biden campaigns, for anyone wondering who the white house prefers in this election.

[Bilardista]

With 98,34% counted:

UxP 9.629.888 votes (+2.900.000 compared to the primaries)
LLA 7.875.441 (+520.000)
JxC 6.256.685 (-640.000)
HNP 1.783.006 (+870.000)
Fit 708.979 (+60.000)

Blank 553.364 (-800.000)
spoilt 224.630 (-80.000)

[Bilardista]

Some thoughts:

- JxC should throw their entire leadership in the trash. Bullrich, Larreta, Carrio, Morales, Pichetto, and specially Macri. His ego and his fear of being retired lead him to work against Larreta, his natural succesor, push for a terrible candidate like Bullrich and then undermine her campaign. Now he might join Milei and force a rupture in the alliance.
If they survive it, let new faces take charge now, and see if they can salvage the wreckage. People who actually want to work togheter and have something resembling a common project. Collaboration of this kind has happened at the local level with good results (they won six new provinces this year), meanwhile the national leadership has done nothing but sabotage the alliance. But if a renovation doesn't happen, maybe they should just kill the whole thing and let Milei become the face of the opposition, it'll happen anyway.

- Schiaretti's little adventure outside of Córdoba comes to a close. It had two objectives: one was to traction support for HpC list of deputies, since and independent list with no presidential candidate would've gotten much fewer votes. They were targeting three seats and they got them, mission acomplished. But the second objective was to test the waters and position Córdoba's PJ nationaly. There was the idea that if UxP did badly, there could be an opening for either Schiaretti or his succesor Martin Llaryora to dispute the leadership of the national peronism. A very ambitious idea that is now dead with Kicillof reelected and Massa reinvigorated. Córdoba's PJ will remain in it's self imposed schism for the foreseeable future.

- Massa is increasingly looking like the new leader of the peronist movement. Even if defeated, who else could be?
Cristina's cycle is exhausted and she seems willing to step aside (as much as someone with her ego and power vocation can, of course). Alberto was never it and shouldn't have taken that (or any) resposibility. Kicillof might take the lead some day, but he's not there yet. None of the governors have the support or the ambition. Of course the movement is fractious and hard to lead, and massists are a small part of it, but i don't see anyone else capable of "conducting" it, as the general used to say.

- Don't bother fantasising or speculating about the end of peronism. It's a political movement that survived proscription and persecution and came out stronger, that every time it seems to falter it gets a lifeline from it's rivals complete failure. Peronism survives to this day partly from it's own merits, by the deep impact it's policies had on the life of it's suporters, but to a larger degree because the alternatives, be it the UCR, JxC, or the military governments, failed to offer anything better, and even made things worse. I don't see Milei breaking this cycle, rather he'll be another chapter in the same repetitive story, his failure will bring another peronist government (Kicillof?), and so on and so on.

[Bilardista]

He actually won 4 seats (at least from the provisional votes), picking up the last one from Santa Fe. He's definitely not going to be stealing the Peronist Mandate of Heaven anytime soon but short of the total collapse of Massa there probably wasn't a better outcome for him than a President dependent on his votes to reach a legislative majority. He could even get some of his underlings positions in the new administration in exchange for support in the runoff.

That fourth seat belongs to the socialists of Santa Fe, they're allied to Schiaretti but don't answer to him. I meant three seats out of the nine from Córdoba. But yes, they wanted more legislative representation to have more negotiating power with whoever wins, it's the modus operandi of the provincial parties. I'm not sure what they'll do in the runoff, the faction identified with the late De la Sota is known to sympathise with Massa and will probaly campaign for him, but Schiaretti and Llaryora would rather it be Milei, though i doubt they'll say it openly. Some underground negotiations are probably already on the way.

[Bilardista]

Milei is is still the favourite. If he just lets the goverment continue doing a terrible job, all the while moderating his speech (and tells his supporters to stop saying stupid sh**t like "Let' privatize the sea to save whales from extinction" and "Sex education in schools is bad, kids should learn through watching porn like i did"), he'll probably win.

The current scenario is even more favourable for the opposition than it was in 2015. If they still lose, what a historic failure it would be.

[Bilardista]

His reaction to Bullrich's endorsement:

https://twitter.com/JMilei/status/1717213624337379680

(He's the lion, she's the duck)