Mexico 2006

[ag]

AMLO seems to be going straight to the presidency...

Not yet. I'd give him a 2/3 chance of winning, but no more, as of yet. Old Engineer Cardenas is still silent, and there are still a lot of other things that can go wrong. Calderon has had a miserable month - but elections are still a few months off, and he has the most money.

Even this state election is inconclusive: yes PRD did a bit better and PAN a bit worse then last time, but all that happened is that PRD vote share has been bumped from pre-AMLO days up by something like 5% to around 31% on a 40% turnout. The principal impact is in terms of impression: PRI was supposed to disintegrate, and it didn't, tough it did retreat a bit. PAN was supposed to improve, and it deteriorated slightly, with the vote share dropping a couple of percentage points to 26-27% (though, in fact, it will govern more municipalities than before, but the gains are smaller-sized and/or less known than the losses). PRD was supposed to improve, and it did, and even though the improvement is slight it feeds into the impression that everything is on a roll.

Even though it is still a three-way tie in the Mexico State (the gap between the first-place PRI w/ under 32% of the vote and third-place PAN w/ almost 27% of the vote is still tiny), the perceptions are more important here, and they, of course, benefit AMLO, and if they accumulate they will become self-fulfilling. Still, the hairline nature of underlying advantage means that if something bad happens and starts changin the perceptions, the change might be quite abrupt. What is undeniable is that the anti-obradorista camp is in panic right now. Yesterday Madrazo was pepperred w/ pleas to withdraw in favor of Calderon in an appearance before a group of museum donors. Fat chance!

[YoMartin]

But even if Madrazo stepped down in favor of Calderón (PRI not running a candidate? That´d be big) I don´t see how he could cut a 10 point lead. PRI voters would have to go 2-1 for Calderón, and that still wouldn´t be enough. I know, election day is still far away, but preferences have looked quite stable all along the campaign, right?

[ag]

[quote author=YoMartin link=topic=23247.msg847178#msg847178 but preferences have looked quite stable all along the campaign, right?
[/quote]

Stable, as in 4% to 10% advantage for AMLO, going back and forth, depending on the month and the polling organization. Now, 10% is indeed a lot, but 4% is bridgeable. Still, of course, it is his race to loose, but there is still enough time for many things to happen. Hence, my estimate of a 2/3 probability of his victory - things aren't really beyond the point of inevitability.

On the other hand, Calderon's campaign does seem to be more inept than he can afford. Thus, they've completely mismanaged the spin of Mexico State results. They made it into a far bigger defeat than it was by insisting untill the last they were doing better than they were. They failed to accentuate the successes they've had - Toluca result alone should have been milked for all its worth. This is just one example, but it is indicative. Not that they are totally incompetent, but they don't seem competent enough to come from behind.

[ag]

Mexico's race has tightened up dramatically, following a misstep by Lopez Obrador (he used crude language when talking about the current President at a public event) and a nasty negative campaign against him by PAN. Today Reforma came out w/ the following numbers:

Residencial sample from April 20-22, 2100 probable voters (all of them registered, since the registration period is over). Excluding the 16% that refused to state their preference.

If todaythere were elections for the President of the Republic, whom would you be voting for.

(in brackets change from March)

Felipe Calderon (PAN) 38% (+7)
Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador (PRD/PT/Convergencia) 35% (-6)
Roberto Madrazo  (PRI/PVEM) 23% (-2)
Patricia Mercado (Alternativa) 2.6% (+1.6)
Roberto Campa (Panal) 0.6% (-0.4)
Write-ins 1.2%

Apparently, last week's El Universal's poll (which I missed since I was in the US) has shown similar tightening: Lopez Obrador was still in the first place, but well within the MOE over Calderon.

Some details.

Regional:

North (Baja California, Baja California Sur, Coahuila, Chihuahua, Durango, Nuevo Leon, San Luis Potosi, Sinaloa, Sonora, Tamaulipas and Zacatecas)

Calderon 50% (+13)
Lopez Obrador 23% (-10)
Madrazo 22% (-6)

Center/West (Aguascalientes, Colima, Guanajuato, Jalisco, Michoacan and Nayarit)

Calderon 46% (+4)
Lopez Obrador 28% (+1)
Madrazo 22% (-6)

Center (Mexico City, Mexico State, Hidalgo, Morelos, Pueblo, Queretaro and Tlaxcala)

Lopez Obrador 43% (-12)
Calderon 33% (+8)
Madrazo 18% (+2)

South (Campeche, Chiapas, Guerrero, Oaxaca, Quintana Roo, Tabasco, Veracruz and Yucatan)

Lopez Obrador 39% (+1)
Madrazo 32% (-3)
Calderon 27% (+2)

Preferences of those who do not identify themselves w/ a political party (self-declared independents):

Lopez Obrador 38% (-10)
Calderon 37% (+8)
Madrazo 15% (0)

Your opinioion of candidates (favorable, unfavorable, neutral, don't know)
Calderon +47-16=26?11
Lopez Obrador +42-30=21?7
Madrazo +29-35=29?7
Campa +11-26=26?37
Mercado +15-25=24?36

For which candidate would you never vote?

Madrazo 36%
Lopez Obrador 23%
Calderon 10%
Campa 6%
Mercado 4%
None of these 6%
Don't know 15%

When Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador told President Fox "shut-up chachalaca" do you think it added him votes or took away votes from him?

Took away 63%
Added 15%
Neither 9%
Don't know 13%

In some of its advertisement PAN compares Lopez Obrador with the Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. Do you think it is an adecuate or an imprecise comparison?

Imprecise 62%
Adecuate 18%
Don't Know 20%

In your opinion, would election of Lopez Obrador be a danger for the country?

Yes 40%
No 40%
Don't know 20%

If he were to become president, which candidate is the likeliest to provoke an economic crisis?

Lopez Obrador 33%
Madrazo 29%
Calderon 7%
Mercado 2%
Campa 2%

Whose has had the best campaign:
Lopez Obrador/PRD-PT-Convergencia 25% (+3)
Calderon/ PAN 22% (+13)
Madrazo/PRI-PVEM 16% (-25)

If today there were elections for the Federal Conressmen, whom would you vote for:

PAN 40% (+6)
PRD/Convergencia/PT 29% (-6)
PRI/PVEM 27% (-1)
Panal 1.7% (-0.3)
Alternativa 2.5% (+1.5)

(there is a 2% PR threshold, which is also necessary for a party to maintain its registration).

What is your confidence in insitutions:

Federal Electoral Institute:
A lot/some 67%
Little/none 28%
Don't know 5%

Electoral Tribunal (special electoral court)
A lot/some 57%
Little/none 33%
Don't know 10%

First debate (Lopez Obrador has refused to participate in the first debate, he'll only come to the second, since everybody has to participate in at least one debate by law):

Your interest:
A lot/ some 56%
Little/none 41%

Who do you think will win?

Calderon 25%
Madrazo 22%
Don't know 37%

Lopez Obrador's absence at the debate

Approve 27%
Disapprove 50%

[ag]

The debate is on. I will try to give a feedback in an hour

[ag]

Well, the first debate is over. It was entertaining. As I mentioned before, Lopez Obrador did not participate - he will only take part in the one debate he has to take part by law. The rest were there.

The cast (in order of innitial statement):

1. Roberto Campa (Panal). A spoiler candidate without any objective other than screwing PRI's Madrazo. The least capable speaker of the bunch, w/ the demeanor of an unsuccessful candidate for an Appalachian school district supervisor and enunciation habbits of a bad dramatic actor in a local school performance on a Cherokee reservation.

2. Roberto Madrazo (PRI). Currently in the third place and needs a miracle to get out of it. A public personality of Jack the Ripper. Manners, worldlyness and polish of a minor country supervisor somewhere in the Texas panhandle (or, may be, a teamsters local president in Detroit).

3. Patricia Mercado (Alternativa). Needs 2% of the vote to keep her party's register and might get it, w/ luck. She  can't really decide if she is running for a Democratic Party nomination in Massachussets or for a place on a PSOE slate in Spain. One thing is clear, she is not running in Mexico, so she must have wound up in the studio in error .

4. Felipe Calderon (PAN). Currently tied in the polls w/ Lopez Obrador. The only one of those in the studio who does look and talk like a plausible presidential candidate in a major country. On the other hand, whether he is a plausible candidate in Mexico is still to be seen. If the vote were restricted to the 300,000+ Mexicans w/ postgraduate degrees he'd win in a landslide. Unfortunately for him, there is the minor issue of the other 70,000,000+ Mexicans on the voters' register.

On the whole, the candidates behaved predictably. Campa's only reason to be there was to attack Madrazo, which he did non-stop. Occasionally, his dramatic actor antics even worked, as when he reminded the audience Madrazo's past as a tax delinquent.

Madrazo needs a miracle, and he tried to achieve it by concentrating his attack on Calderon. He was, predictably, mean and nasty, and might have scored a few points, especially among the union crowd. Unfortunately for him, his on-the-spot reaction in a debate was invisible (he actually read out a good chunk of his statements from a prepared text - besides him, only Campa seemed to have a visible cheat sheet), he failed to utilize any of the broad openings left to him by Calderon, and he let through a few devastating counterattacks. He was especially wooden talking social policy, poverty, etc. - not good for an ostensibly leftist candidate (it was beyond obvious he doesn't care about that "nonsense").  Actually, he was more successful attacking not the freshface Calderon, but PAN and Fox - given that Fox now enjoys a relatively high approval, this might not work beyond a few well-defined dissident constituencies. He also made a crucial error of not only being mean, but also appearing mean: exactly the sort of a guy you'd never want to depend on for anything. Most likely, it is not so much a mistake as personality, though.  It remains to be seen if he did damage Calderon, but any such damage will benefit Lopez Obrador, not him, methinks.

Mercado, running as she is for a leftist saint in some other country (she actually talked about gay rights and legalization of Central American migrants - I am not making this up!) was out of place, though sometimes entertaining and reasonably polished. She has to do something about her nervous ticks, though. She didn't attack anyone, concentrating on the out-of-this-world independents, who might find the rest of the bunch + Lopez Obrador disgusting. She does have a reasonable hope that they will make 2% of the voters, though, so her performance might count as a success.

Calderon, arguably, won this one. As a front-runner among the attendees, he had to show up as a statesman, and that's what he did. For the most part he ignored the other candidates, or else went out of his way to recognize the minor candidates' "ideas". He peppered the audience w/ policy proposals. In a few cases, he went beyond what he had committed to before (especially on healthcare), leaving wide opening for devastating attacks on his fiscal prudence. Fortunately for him, Madrazo was too slow-witted to notice and the rest had no interest in attacking him at all. Until  his last statement he made only a few broadsides at his opponents (mainly, against Madrazo, though a bit against PRD as well, without naming names). Once he realized that Madrazo can't react he became very much at ease, smiling and joking on occasion - the only one of the bunch to do so. He had a devastating joke at Madrazo's expense (judging by his happy chuckle, this must have been unprepared - one can't be that delighted by a joke twice): when talking about housing programs of his government he said something along the lines: "so that everyone can have a dignified place to live", then turned to Madrazo and said (making it sound very  nicely): "that includes you, Roberto" (Madrazo is (in)famous for owning a large and ill-gotten real estate). Madrazo was so shocked that his voice was squeaking on the high notes the next time he spoke. He tried to refocus by claiming that anti-poverty money goes into PAN campaign, but he couldn't provide any evidence, and he gave an impression of not wanting to be there thereafter.

Calderon's final statement was quite powerful and well-done, and included a broad and vigorous attack on both PRI (as corrupt) and PRD (as irresponsible), but also a touch of the tear-eliciting reference to his young children and his struggle for change under the PRI regime.  Madrazo attacked PAN, referring repeatedly, as he did earlier, to a recent shooting of striking miners by local police in Michoacan. He gave an impession of rushing through it, though. 

To sum up, in my opinion Calderon did wipe the floor with Madrazo. On the other hand, this is an opinion of a postgraduate degree holder . Calderon's language was fancy and somewhat difficult for the simple folk, he had a very technocratic manner of presentation and he pushed in dosens of different ideas, making it hard to follow, whereas Madrazo spoke simply, repeatedly struck at the same points and had a manner of a ruthless but simpler and more down-to-earth union organizer, so there must have been a broad segment to which he appealed more. More importantly, the issue is how much Madrazo's attacks hurt Calderon in his race against Lopez Obrador. If they did hurt, Lopez Obrador's strategy of staying out of this one worked. If it didn't hurt much, than the decision to stay out, taken when he was still the sole front-runner of the campaign, will ex post turn out to be an error. To sum up, I am inclined to declare this a two-horse race now (though, I might be wrong).

[minionofmidas]

Your opinion of candidates (favorable, unfavorable, neutral, don't know)
Lopez Obrador +42-30=21?7

For which candidate would you never vote?
Lopez Obrador 23%

In some of its advertisement PAN compares Lopez Obrador with the Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. Do you think it is an adecuate or an imprecise comparison?
Adecuate 18%

In your opinion, would election of Lopez Obrador be a danger for the country?
Yes 40%

If he were to become president, which candidate is the likeliest to provoke an economic crisis?
Lopez Obrador 33%

Weird set of figures there ... "only" 40% have a negative opinion of him but 40% think he's "a danger to the country"?

[ag]

Your opinion of candidates (favorable, unfavorable, neutral, don't know)
Lopez Obrador +42-30=21?7

For which candidate would you never vote?
Lopez Obrador 23%

In some of its advertisement PAN compares Lopez Obrador with the Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. Do you think it is an adecuate or an imprecise comparison?
Adecuate 18%

In your opinion, would election of Lopez Obrador be a danger for the country?
Yes 40%

If he were to become president, which candidate is the likeliest to provoke an economic crisis?
Lopez Obrador 33%

Weird set of figures there ... "only" 40% have a negative opinion of him but 40% think he's "a danger to the country"?

Not at all. They could love the guy, but believe he'd be sabotaged by the nasty neolibs . So the crisis wouldn't be his fault, but a consequence of his election. Or else, they could be willing to take a chance for other reasons.  Alternatively (and most likely), they first asked a neutral question ("what is your attitude"), and then the locaded one ("economic crisis"), making the respondents connect Lopez Obrador with PAN's accusations.

[YoMartin]

Not to spoil your Calderonism, Ag, but usually people think their candidate killed in the debate and later polls don´t reflect that. If you liked Calderón and disliked Madrazo from scratch, you would need to be extremely open-minded to think Madrazo did better than your guy.

Were I mexican, I´d be starting to like the idea of wasting my vote on Mercado...

[ag]

Not to spoil your Calderonism, Ag, but usually people think their candidate killed in the debate and later polls don´t reflect that. If you liked Calderón and disliked Madrazo from scratch, you would need to be extremely open-minded to think Madrazo did better than your guy.

Were I mexican, I´d be starting to like the idea of wasting my vote on Mercado...

Now, now. I did make a "postgraduate degree" disclaimer, didn't I? The newspaper and network polls and analysis today confirm my impression, though - admittedly, the snap phone polls are not a very good indicator. The only claims of Madrazo victory come in paid advertisements by his campaign (it's actually embarassing: in paper after paper - I bought 5 today - their own analysis and polling claim Madrazo's abject failure, whereas the huge paid insertions proclaim his victory, citing polling by no-name firms that don't exist outside his campaign).   

The fact is, Madrazo significantly underperformed my own expectation of him: he really was unable to react on the spot, and he was visibly uncomfortable for much of the debate (actually,  I apparently missed one of the more embarassing moments, when he dropped his props on the ground and disappeared from view with cameras focused on his podium - the papers today are rehashing the incident w/ gusto). It is also true that Calderon debated very dangerously - anybody half competent should have been able to mince him into foie gras without difficulty. The fact that Madrazo didn't even try is indicative of his debating skill (or lack thereoff).

I will readily acknowledge that some of Madrazo's prepared attacks on Calderon might have been effective. The problem for him, though, is that the rest of his performance suggests that it will not be him, but Lopez Obrador who would benefit. That possibility is not to be underestimated, but, all in all, I am pretty confident the debate has actually diminished Madrazo's chances. That is not to say that Calderon's chances have been improved - it is just that it is now a Calderon/Lopez Obrador race, w/ Madrazo solidified in the third spot.

Now, we don't have to wait long. Mitofsky has moved his monthly polling to come after the debate. He is starting to poll on the 28th and we will have the result on the 2nd of May.

As for Mercado, you wouldn't really have to waste your vote to make her happy (she isn't in the running for Mexican presidency anyway). What she really needs is for people to vote for Alternativa for Congress, helping her get past the 2%. Once there, she'd be able to start doing what all minor parties who survived their first election do here: selling themselves as a coalition partner to the highest bidder, ensuring that their registration is never in danger again.

[YoMartin]

The barrier for Congress is just a 2% nationally? I can´t believe there`re just 5 +/- relevant candidates. I know the presidency is a single prize, but a seat in Congress is always worth something...

Actually I know just what you told me in previous posts about Mercado, and your opinion is not very positive. I simply don´t like any of the viable candidates. I could have gone for a Castañeda write-in, but he wrote a really dumb article in Foreign Affairs lately. There´s not even an anti-PRI moral imperative this time, since Madrazo is clearly a distant third. So I´d be in trouble to cast a vote...

[ag]

Yes, it is 2%, the same barrier for getting the seats and keeping the register. And, besides the seats, the registered parties get a generous (some would say, overgenerous) financing from the electoral institute.  Actually, there are 8 national political parties (there are also state parties, which can be registered for state- and local-level elections in each state, but not in the Federal District):

1-3 The three big ones: PAN, PRD, PRI (in arbitrary order)
4-6 The three small parties that had survived from the past elections: PVEM, PT and Convergencia. In local elections they frequently run independently, or in strange alliances. Even though this time all of them joined into the large-party national slates, for local constituencies and on the state level many of them act independently (e.g., in Tlaxcala the local PT organization is supporting Calderon, though it can't be using the national party name, and is running joint candidates w/ PAN - or, at least, they tried to negotiate an agreement along these lines; whether it stood despite the national party opposition, I don't know).
7-8 The two new entrants (Panal and Alternativa).

I guess, preserving the registry is so valuable, that parties don 't want to run the risk of losing it, so they register coalition slates as soon as they can. They don't have to stick to the pre-electoral coalition for the duration of the Congress, by the way (PVEM has switched from PAN to PRI, for instance), so there isn't a real drawback to not running independently.  In addition, the FPTP presidential and gobernatorial races incourage coalition formation.
 
As for Mercado, I actually like her a lot. She does run for a tinpot party, but that's besides the point. The main thing is, she is dramatically outside the Mexican political debate. Imagine a US presidential candidate making the primary issues  of his campaign a) recognition of Armenian genocide b) the rights of Hindus in Sri Lanka c) nationalization of Exxon Mobile d) the superiority of Satmar Hassidic practices to those of Lubavitchers. Do you really have to go into the virtues of his/her proposed policies and personality to figure out that this person isn't really going to make it ever? On the other hand, assume that Armenians+Hindus+Exxon-Mobile haters+Satmar Hassidim form 5% of the electorate and that there is a 2% PR threshold, and the person might look less Quixotic. Same here.  Mercado is fine - she is simply not a serious presidential candidate, but, rather, a standard-bearer for some otherwise unrepresented minority interests, who might hope to actually get a congressional representation through her. That Mexican political system allows for this might be considered a virtue, but it does not change the fact that she is not really running for Mexican presidency. 

Otherwise, don't get me wrong: she is a very fine and honest person, a lot of the causes she champions I find just and deserving of utmost support, though I might respectfully disagree w/ some others. The same would be true of my attitude towards the Pope, though, and is equally (ir)relevant to Mexican presidential election.

As for Castañeda, he has come out in support of Calderon, since all other candidates are "lamentable". In fact, he has said that he would be willing to campaign for Calderon, but Calderon's campaign has refused his offers of help (he added that he understands them perfectly and that they might be right to keep away from "certain sectors", so he doesn't mind).

[YoMartin]

Now I´m definitely for Mercado ...

BTW, is Mexico about to legalise hard drugs? That´s gonna be interesting. Which parties support that?

[ag]

BTW, is Mexico about to legalise hard drugs? That´s gonna be interesting. Which parties support that?

First time I hear about that.  Don't think any of the majors would dare to propose something like that, especially in the midst of the US migration debate.  It could be that some oddball has proposed smthg, but this can't possibly pass, unless the members of Congress wind up voting for it all stoned. In any case, where do you get this from?

[YoMartin]

BTW, is Mexico about to legalise hard drugs? That´s gonna be interesting. Which parties support that?

First time I hear about that.  Don't think any of the majors would dare to propose something like that, especially in the midst of the US migration debate.  It could be that some oddball has proposed smthg, but this can't possibly pass, unless the members of Congress wind up voting for it all stoned. In any case, where do you get this from?

I couldn´t believe either, so I checked different sources (here are a couple: http://www.larazon.com.ar/diario_lr/hoy/2-1185307.htm;  http://www.diariojudicial.com.ar/nota.asp?IDNoticia=29269).

[ag]

BTW, is Mexico about to legalise hard drugs? That´s gonna be interesting. Which parties support that?

First time I hear about that.  Don't think any of the majors would dare to propose something like that, especially in the midst of the US migration debate.  It could be that some oddball has proposed smthg, but this can't possibly pass, unless the members of Congress wind up voting for it all stoned. In any case, where do you get this from?

I couldn´t believe either, so I checked different sources (here are a couple: http://www.larazon.com.ar/diario_lr/hoy/2-1185307.htm;  http://www.diariojudicial.com.ar/nota.asp?IDNoticia=29269).

Figured it out. It is NOT legalization of anything. The only thing that is now going to be unpunishable is being in possession of small quantities of drugs for personal consumption (or for religious or medical reasons) - to avoid having to arrest and imprison all addicts instead of treating them. Any sort of trafficking, including sale of any ammount of restricted drugs (including marijuana), however small, is still a serious offense. So, if they catch you selling (or, I guess, even giving) someone a joint, even if you only had one, you are still going to prison.  It's not Holland here.

By the way, it has passed the Senate and is awaiting the presidential signature. Seems to have been rather uncontroversial.

[YoMartin]

BTW, is Mexico about to legalise hard drugs? That´s gonna be interesting. Which parties support that?

First time I hear about that.  Don't think any of the majors would dare to propose something like that, especially in the midst of the US migration debate.  It could be that some oddball has proposed smthg, but this can't possibly pass, unless the members of Congress wind up voting for it all stoned. In any case, where do you get this from?

I couldn´t believe either, so I checked different sources (here are a couple: http://www.larazon.com.ar/diario_lr/hoy/2-1185307.htm;  http://www.diariojudicial.com.ar/nota.asp?IDNoticia=29269).

Figured it out. It is NOT legalization of anything. The only thing that is now going to be unpunishable is being in possession of small quantities of drugs for personal consumption (or for religious or medical reasons) - to avoid having to arrest and imprison all addicts instead of treating them. Any sort of trafficking, including sale of any ammount of restricted drugs (including marijuana), however small, is still a serious offense. So, if they catch you selling (or, I guess, even giving) someone a joint, even if you only had one, you are still going to prison.  It's not Holland here.

By the way, it has passed the Senate and is awaiting the presidential signature. Seems to have been rather uncontroversial.

Ok, but it´s not just a joint, it includes cocaine, heroine, etc. It´s rather unusual that such a law could pass during a presidential campagin, when everybody tries to avoid alienating any group of voters (I guess conservative groups are against this change or I´ll have to assume Mexico is in fact the Netherlands).

I assume the only way to consume something you don´t buy is by manufacturing it yourself. Maybe you should build a lab in your house

[ag]

Manufacturing is, likewise, still a crime. The only thing that's not is holding small quantities for persoal consumption, that's it.

Actually, I am not sure what was the opposition. A few senators were against, but more on practical grounds of enforceability. I might be wrong, but I think both support and opposition were cross-partisan. It was just not a campaign issue.

You should understand, that a lot of issues like that are, sort of, orthogonal to Mexican polity. And no, Mexico is not Netherlands, it is very Catholic - for instance, abortion is still strictly prohibited and even Lopez Obrador only promises a referendum on it, without always being explicit on how he himself would vote (actually, it is not unlikely it would fail). But, at least, this has become an issue, if very much a seondary one - it hasn't been in the past.

Mexico does have Catholic right (PAN), but it is the bleeding heart, socially oriented, "softy" right. It has to be: until 2000 it had been in opposition - if at all in existence - since the Liberal victor Benito Juarez had Emperor Maximilian and generals Miramon and Mejia executed in 1867.  It can be firm on some things, but it chooses its battles. Since Jesus didn't say anything about how you should be treating drug addicts, plurality of opinion is quite possible here. 

Likewise (only tangentially related), though Mexico does have big business, it is not always politically right-wing, but actually has strong links to the left (in the current campaign, Mexico's richest man, Carlos Slim, is rumoured to be supporting Lopez Obrador).  At foundation, a long time ago, PAN did have a strong free-market wing, but it, sort of, withered (unlike Catholics, who would vote for the hopeless panista candidates no matter what, the business-oriented circles prefered to enjoy the benefits of colaborating with the sociallist PRI regime to following the hopeless and dangerous free-market radicals, who weren't at all good for business). While PAN is, of course, to the right of the rest on economy, it is very moderate (far to the left of such radical free-marketeer as the late lamented Benito Juarez himself).

To sum up: Mexico's right has its problems (clericalism, to name one, as well as overreliance on the middle class), but it is very different from the right in the rest of Latin America: it hadn't been in power for almost 150 years, it was always concerned with minority rights, its big business connections have always been timid, it is not prone to waiving the flag and proclaiming nationalism, it has never had any base in the military. It's not Chile.

[M]

Manufacturing is, likewise, still a crime. The only thing that's not is holding small quantities for persoal consumption, that's it.

Actually, I am not sure what was the opposition. A few senators were against, but more on practical grounds of enforceability. I might be wrong, but I think both support and opposition were cross-partisan. It was just not a campaign issue.

You should understand, that a lot of issues like that are, sort of, orthogonal to Mexican polity. And no, Mexico is not Netherlands, it is very Catholic - for instance, abortion is still strictly prohibited and even Lopez Obrador only promises a referendum on it, without always being explicit on how he himself would vote (actually, it is not unlikely it would fail). But, at least, this has become an issue, if very much a seondary one - it hasn't been in the past.

Mexico does have Catholic right (PAN), but it is the bleeding heart, socially oriented, "softy" right. It has to be: until 2000 it had been in opposition - if at all in existence - since the Liberal victor Benito Juarez had Emperor Maximilian and generals Miramon and Mejia executed in 1867.  It can be firm on some things, but it chooses its battles. Since Jesus didn't say anything about how you should be treating drug addicts, plurality of opinion is quite possible here. 

Likewise (only tangentially related), though Mexico does have big business, it is not always politically right-wing, but actually has strong links to the left (in the current campaign, Mexico's richest man, Carlos Slim, is rumoured to be supporting Lopez Obrador).  At foundation, a long time ago, PAN did have a strong free-market wing, but it, sort of, withered (unlike Catholics, who would vote for the hopeless panista candidates no matter what, the business-oriented circles prefered to enjoy the benefits of colaborating with the sociallist PRI regime to following the hopeless and dangerous free-market radicals, who weren't at all good for business). While PAN is, of course, to the right of the rest on economy, it is very moderate (far to the left of such radical free-marketeer as the late lamented Benito Juarez himself).

To sum up: Mexico's right has its problems (clericalism, to name one, as well as overreliance on the middle class), but it is very different from the right in the rest of Latin America: it hadn't been in power for almost 150 years, it was always concerned with minority rights, its big business connections have always been timid, it is not prone to waiving the flag and proclaiming nationalism, it has never had any base in the military. It's not Chile.

Certainly not Chile... but few countries spring to mind as more patriotic and flag-waving. Perhaps America.

[ag]

Certainly not Chile... but few countries spring to mind as more patriotic and flag-waving. Perhaps America.

Sure, your observation is right on the point. But the flag-waiving is the privillege of the left here. The right is not considered sufficiently patriotic and/or nationalist. Hey, the national flag colors are those of PRI (sorry, the other way around, but it has been so easy to confuse at times!).

[YoMartin]

Manufacturing is, likewise, still a crime. The only thing that's not is holding small quantities for persoal consumption, that's it.

Actually, I am not sure what was the opposition. A few senators were against, but more on practical grounds of enforceability. I might be wrong, but I think both support and opposition were cross-partisan. It was just not a campaign issue.

You should understand, that a lot of issues like that are, sort of, orthogonal to Mexican polity. And no, Mexico is not Netherlands, it is very Catholic - for instance, abortion is still strictly prohibited and even Lopez Obrador only promises a referendum on it, without always being explicit on how he himself would vote (actually, it is not unlikely it would fail). But, at least, this has become an issue, if very much a seondary one - it hasn't been in the past.

Mexico does have Catholic right (PAN), but it is the bleeding heart, socially oriented, "softy" right. It has to be: until 2000 it had been in opposition - if at all in existence - since the Liberal victor Benito Juarez had Emperor Maximilian and generals Miramon and Mejia executed in 1867.  It can be firm on some things, but it chooses its battles. Since Jesus didn't say anything about how you should be treating drug addicts, plurality of opinion is quite possible here. 

Likewise (only tangentially related), though Mexico does have big business, it is not always politically right-wing, but actually has strong links to the left (in the current campaign, Mexico's richest man, Carlos Slim, is rumoured to be supporting Lopez Obrador).  At foundation, a long time ago, PAN did have a strong free-market wing, but it, sort of, withered (unlike Catholics, who would vote for the hopeless panista candidates no matter what, the business-oriented circles prefered to enjoy the benefits of colaborating with the sociallist PRI regime to following the hopeless and dangerous free-market radicals, who weren't at all good for business). While PAN is, of course, to the right of the rest on economy, it is very moderate (far to the left of such radical free-marketeer as the late lamented Benito Juarez himself).

To sum up: Mexico's right has its problems (clericalism, to name one, as well as overreliance on the middle class), but it is very different from the right in the rest of Latin America: it hadn't been in power for almost 150 years, it was always concerned with minority rights, its big business connections have always been timid, it is not prone to waiving the flag and proclaiming nationalism, it has never had any base in the military. It's not Chile.

Ok, you can consume something you can´t buy, you can´t make and you can´t receive in any way. So to do something legal you must commit a crime first... I understand why nobody opposed it...

I think the soft ideological difference between the parties may stem from the fact that, for decades, the main issue was PRIism or anti-PRIism (or authoritarianism vs democracy). When a regime cleavage divides the parties, they can´t afford to lose any supporters because of "minor" issues like abortion, drugs, etc. Now that democracy is settled, possibly those differences will emerge (although, to capture the presidency, a centrist tendency will always prevail).

[ag]

A couple of new polls.

Yesterday, a Millenio newspaper poll of likely voters has shown Calderon at 36, Lopez Obrador at 33 and Madrazo at 28 (and Mercado at above 2). It didn't have much on internals, but had separate polls for the House and the Senate. On both PRI/PVEM and PAN were tied, w/ PRD/PT/Convergencia close behind and Panal above 2 (interesting, though, probably, statistically spurious: Panal gets accross 2% for Congress, while Alternativa for Presidency).

Today Reforma got it's post-debate poll.  I tend to report this one (in part, from the university patriotism), but I have started getting convinced that they get too low numbers for PRI and too high for PAN (that's how they always differ from everybody else). Also, their internals are highly erratic (perhaps, because they report more of these). To sum up, I would discount what this poll shows - even to me it seems too panista. Mitofsky polling seems to be late in release, I would wait for that one to have a better feel. Still, quite striking:

Polled April 28 to 30, 2100 registered voters in 140 locations nationwide, of which 1792 declared candidate preference. Nationwide MOE 2.3%. Percentages reported are of those who declared preference. Changes from last pre-debate poll in brackets:

Calderon (PAN) 40% (+2)
Lopez Obrador (PRD/PT/Convergencia) 33% (-2)
Madrazo (PRI/PVEM) 22% (-1)
Mercado (Alternativa) 3.7% (+1.1)
Campa (Panal) 0.7 (+0.1)

Regionals (highly suspect):

North

Calderon 47% (-3)
Madrazo 25% (+3)
Lopez Obrador 24% (+1)

Center-West

Calderon 53% (+7) !!!
Madrazo 24% (+2)
Lopez Obrador 18% (-10) !!!

Center

Lopez Obrador 47% (+4)
Calderon 32% (-1)
Madrazo 15% (-3)

South

Lopez Obrador 34% (-5)
Calderon 34% (+7) !!!
Madrazo 27% (-5)


Congressional Election:

House

PAN 39% (-1)
PRD/Convergencia/PT 30% (+1)
PRI/PVEM 26% (-1)
Alternativa 2.9% (+0.4%)
Panal 2.2% (+0.5%)

Senate (no separate polling previously)

PAN 39%
PRD/Convergencia/PT 28%
PRI/PVEM 28%
Panal 2.8%
Alternativa 2.1%

Some interesting questions:
Who has had the best campaign

Calderon 27% (+5)
Lopez Obrador 23% (-2)
Madrazo 16% (nil)
Mercado 2% (+1)
Campa 0% (-1)

About whom do your friends and acquaintances speak best?

Calderon 31%
Lopez Obrador 31%
Madrazo 6%

About whom do your friends and acquaintances speak worst?

Madrazo 35%
Lopez Obrador 31%
Calderon 12%

Who has been the most aggressive?

Madrazo 35%
Lopez Obrador 32%
Calderon 12%

Who prefers to blame others for the country's problems?

Madrazo 33%
Lopez Obrador 25%
Calderon 12%

Which of the candidates:

has the capacity to govern the country best?
Calderon 33%
Lopez Obrador 25%
Madrazo 16%

will leave problems unsolved?

Madrazo 34%
Lopez Obrador 24%
Calderon 13%

will have populist policies?

Lopez Obrador 35%
Madrazo 18%
Calderon 11%

Which candidate is the best for:

generation of employment?

Calderon 37%
Lopez Obrador 23%
Madrazo 15%

fighting poverty?

Lopez Obrador 31%
Calderon 29%
Madrazo 14%

fighting insecurity?

Calderon 28%
Lopez Obrador 23%
Madrazo 18%

What is your opinion of candidates (favorable, unfavorable, neutral, don't know)

Calderon +47-15=23?15
Lopez Obrador +38-27=23?12
Madrazo +27-34=27?12
Mercado +22-22=25?31
Campa +11-26=29?34

How much do you trust the...

Electoral Commission?

A lot/some 68%
Little/none 28%
Don't know 4%

Electoral Tribunal?

A lot/ some 59%
Little/none 33%
Don't know 8%

[ag]

Mitofsky has come up with its post-debate poll. Frankly, I find this more believable than Reforma:

Sample size 1400 registered voters, polled April 28-May 2

In brackets results fro the previous poll (late March):

If today there were presidential elections, whom would you vote for?
Results for likely voters that declared a preference (60% of those polled - compared w/ 61% in March)

Felipe Calderon (PAN) 35% (+4)
Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador (PRD/Convergencia/PT) 34% (-4)
Roberto Madrazo (PRI/PVEM) 27% (-2)
Patricia Mercado (Alternativa) 3% (+2)
Roberto Campa (Panal) 1% (0)

Voters who did not declare a preference (excluded from the above numbers) 15% (-4)

Some internals

Men
Calderon 39%
Lopez Obrador 34%
Madrazo 25%
Others 2%

Women
Calderon 34%
Lopez Obrador 34%
Madrazo 27%
Others 5%

Age
18-29
Calderon 37%
Lopez Obrador 33%
Madrazo 26%
Others 4%

30-49
Calderon 39%
Lopez Obrador 30%
Madrazo 27%
Others 4%

50 and up

Lopez Obrador 41%
Calderon 31%
Madrazo 24%
Others 4%

Education

Primary (and less?)
Lopez Obrador 34%
Calderon 33%
Madrazo 31%
Others 2%

Middle School
Calderon 37%
Lopez Obrador 29%
Madrazo 29%
Others 5%

High School
Lopez Obrador 36%
Calderon 35%
Madrazo 23%
Others 6%

College and more
Calderon 44%
Lopez Obrador 32%
Madrazo 21%
Others 3%

Region

North
Calderon 44%
Madrazo 37%
Lopez Obrador 17%
Others 2%

Center (not including Mexico City)
Calderon 38%
Lopez Obrador 31%
Madrazo 24%
Others 7%

South

Madrazo 40%
Lopez Obrador 37%
Calderon 23%
Others 0%

Mexico City

Lopez Obrador 60%
Calderon 27%
Madrazo 10%
Others 3%

Type of locality

Urban
Calderon 37%
Lopez Obrador 35%
Madrazo 23%
Others5%

Rural
Madrazo 40%
Calderon 33%
Lopez Obrador 24%
Others 3%

In 2000 voting for

Fox (PAN/PVEM)
Calderon 59%
Lopez Obrador 27%
Madrazo 10%
Others 4%

Labastida (PRI)
Madrazo 66%
Lopez Obrador 22%
Calderon 7%
Others 5%

Cardenas (PRD/Convergencia/PT)
Lopez Obrador 86%
Calderon 6%
Madrazo 3%
Others 5%

Conditional for the governing party (governor) in the state

7 States Governed by PRI in the North

Calderon 42%
Madrazo 39%
Lopez Obrador 17%
Others 2%

10 States Governed by PRI in the Center and South

Lopez Obrador 39%
Calderon 32%
Madrazo 23%
Others 6%

9 States Governed by PAN

Calderon 44%
Lopez Obrador 26%
Madrazo 25%
Others 5%

5 States governed by PRD

Lopez Obrador 57%
Calderon 27%
Madrazo 14%
Others 4%

Vote for Congress (among the likely voters)

PAN 38% (+5)
PRI/PVEM 33% (-4%)
PRD/Convergencia/PT 26% (-3%)

Projected Congressional Seat Distribution

House
PRI/PVEM 189-207
PAN 150-168
PRD/PT/Convergencia 127-145
Alternativa and/or Panal 5-8

Senate
PRI/PVEM 47-54
PAN 39-46
PRD 30-38
Alternativa and/or Panal 1-2

Voter perceptions:

Who do you think is leading in the polls?
Calderon/PAN 34% (+13)
Lopez Obrador/PRD-PT-Convergencia 32% (-8)
Madrazo/PRI-PVEM 15% (-5)

Who do you think will win the election?

Calderon/PAN 31% (+13)
Lopez Obrador/PRD-PT-Convergencia 31 (-5)
Madrazo/PRI-PVEM 22% (+2)

Party Identity

None 44% (nil)
Panista (PAN) 21% (+4)
Priista (PRI) 20% (-4)
Peredista (PRD) 13% (nil)

[ag]

A new poll by El Universal. We've now had 5 or 6 polls in a row (every single one post-debate, by Reforma, Mitofsky, Parametria, El Universal and a couple of others) that have shown Calderon leading, though, mostly, within the MOE, w/ Madrazo more or less distant third.

Here are the numbers:

Nationwide sample of 1500 registered voters polled May 5-8, MOE 2.5% for registered voters, 3.4% for likely voters. In brackets is the change from April.

If today there were elections for president of Mexico, whom would you vote for?

Among the registered voters, percentages from the total number polled

Calderon (PAN) 31% (+4)
Lopez Obrador (PRD-Convergencia-PT) 29% (-2)
Madrazo (PRI-PVEM) 18% (-4)
others/don't know/won't vote 22%

Among the likely voters, percentages from those expressing opinion:

Calderon (PAN) 39% (+5)
Lopez Obrador (PRD-Convergencia-PT) 35% (-3)
Madrazo (PRI-PVEM) 21% (-4)
Mercado (Alternativa) 4% (+2)
Campa (Nueva Alianza) 1% (nil)

Regional data. Note: Universal uses a different regional breakdown from Reforma. In fact, theirs is more logical: they follow the division of the country into 5 "circumscriptions" that is used for allocating the PR seats in the House. Percentages are of REGISTERED voters. Keep in mind the small sample problem, which should account for some wild swings. In brackets change from MARCH (not April, as elsewhere):

1st Circumscription. Northwest (Baja California, Baja California Sur, Colima, Guanajuato, Jalisco, Nayarit, Sinaloa and Sonora)

Calderon 41% (+5)
Madrazo 16% (-8)
Lopez Obrador 15% (-7)

2nd Circumscription. North (Aguascalientes, Coahuila, Chihuahua, Durango, Nuevo Leon, Queretaro, San Luis Potosi, Tamaulipas and Zacatecas)

Calderon 42% (+6)
Madrazo 22% (+6)
Lopez Obrador 15% (-21) !!!

3rd Circumscription. South (Campeche, Chiapas, Oaxaca, Quintana Roo, Tabasco, Veracruz and Yucatan)

Lopez Orador 35% (-11)
Madrazo 27% (+4)
Calderon 22% (+5)

4th Circumscription. Center (Mexico City, Hidalgo, Morelos, Puebla and Tlaxcala)

Lopez Obrador 42% (-4)
Calderon 24% (-1)
Madrazo 12% (-2)

Note: all three candidates losing points here, probably, due to people who are deciding not to vote.

5th Circumscription. Southwest (Guerrero, Mexico State and Michoacan)

Lopez Obrador 40% (nil)
Calderon 22% (+3)
Madrazo 15% (-13)!!!

A very important question is, whom would voters choose if their favorite candidate were unavailable (only asked of those who have a favorite - most of them, actually, didn't give the second, or named one of the minor party candidates):

Calderon voters:

Lopez Obrador 25%
Madrazo 12%

Madrazo voters

Calderon 28%
Lopez Obrador 16%

Lopez Obrador voters

Calderon 39%
Madrazo 7%

Independent (self-declared) voters (these are 47% of the total - up 3% from April):

Calderon 28% (+3)
Lopez Obrador 26% (-3)
Madrazo 9% (-1)

Who do you think will win?

Lopez Obrador 30% (-6)
Calderon 30% (+9)
Madrazo 16% (-3)
Don't know/don't answer 24%

Is your opinion of ... very good/good/bad/very bad/don't know/don't answer

Sum total of very good/good

Calderon 44%
Lopez Obrador 34%
Mercado 28%
Madrazo 21%
Campa 17%

If today tehre were elections for the Federal House of Deputees, whom would you vote for?

PAN 28% (+4)
PRD-PT-Convergencia 22% (-1)
PRI-PVEM 19% (-4)
Othes/don't know/don't answer 31%

[ag]

I've found a company that is doing the tracking polls for the election (www.sabaconsultores.com). They've actually shown Calderon leading since early April, and by early May it was 16% gap w/ Lopez Obrador, but now it is back to just 4.5%, rapidly contracting. I have no clue what it could mean - their results are very much at odds w/ everyone else, especially as far as the Madrazo vote share is concerned (they show him too low). Still, worth sharing.

A very interesting week we've had - and getting interestinger and interestinger by day. I just hope it doesn't get too interesting - Madrazo has just said he thinks this campaign still my end in blood. Given, that he is the likeliest to order this, I am taking it very seriously. Apparently, so does Calderon - they've started checking bags at rallies. If I have time, I will give a summary of the developments.