Chile Constitutional Referendum, October 25th 2020

[kaoras]

The Senate approved reserved seats for Indigenous people in the Constitutional Convention or Mixed Assembly. They will be elected by Single non-transferable vote on a nationwide district. Further details like the number of seats and if there will be a special electoral roll have yet to be discussed. The bill also states that the party and independent's list must have 10% of its candidates with some kind of disability (This looks like a well-intended idea that is going to create a huge mess later)

In political news. The relationship between the government and its coalition, Chile Vamos, has deteriorated severely. Main point of anger from Chile Vamos is that the government didn't present a veto for the term limits bill to exclude mayors. Rightist mayors that aren't going to be able to run again are furious, presenting an electoral study predicting electoral oblivion for the right without the power of incumbency. The parties of the coalition also complain that government help for the middle class (mainly interest-free loans) is insufficient, and are threatening to approve an opposition bill that would allow people to withdraw up to 10% of their private pension funds.

The Broad Front is going to decide this sunday (or to think at least) about its future alliances towards the rest of the left. The more radical parties, Convergencia Social and Comunes push toward an alliance with the Communist coalition and social movements, while the more moderated Revolución Democratica and Liberal party push towards an alliance with Progressive Convergence (PS, PPD, PR).

Also, Corona is finally starting to wind down, now lets hope that the government doesn't push to reopen too early (Oh, am I kidding...)

[kaoras]

Also, Corona is finally starting to wind down, now lets hope that the government doesn't push to reopen too early (Oh, am I kidding...)

Yeah, about that... The government announced the start of the reopening in the two least affected regions. Cinemas and restaurants can open with 25% of their capacity. But there really isn't a plan detailing further stages.

The electoral service has also said that there can't be a plebiscite if there still areas with quarantine in October. If it goes ahead, they are planning voting in 2 days and extending voting hours to deal with the virus. They have rejected doing mail or early voting.

Also, the right is in full meltdown mode over the withdrawal of pension funds. The government threw everything and the kitchen trying to prevent the approval of the bill (It required a quorum of 3/5 of the Chamber, so a disciplined right could have rejected it) including direct transfers of money to the "middle class", getting every deputy in a room, frenetic phone calls, etc. In the end, 13 deputies from the government coalition still voted in favor, enough to pass the bill.

While I agree that the withdrawal is a bad idea and I would prefer direct help from the state (although the government hadn't been offering that, so you could argue that is a good pressure measure), the whole spectacle has been a sight to behold. The government appeared absolutely desperate defending the private pension system that everyone hates. More importantly, one of the big arguments of the right for not touching it is that the pension funds are the property of each individual. After been hammering that for years, now the people ask, "if they are mine, why can't I use my own money". And the claims that it will affect their future pensions in 40 years aren't that effective when you are struggling heavily right now and your pensions is going to be a misery anyway.  What is baffling is, this was just the first phase. The government could have stopped this more easily later, in the Senate for example. Going all out here makes absolutely no sense.

Well, some hard-line deputies renounced to RN because the caucus didn't all reject the project, the UDI wants the interior minister head and some political pundits are suggesting that people should leave the country because this is obviously going to make us Venezuela.

Anyway, I find it funny how everything that has happened since October proved that Bachelet had been right about absolutely everything she tried to address and now their proposals look totally reasonable to some of the ones that opposed them mercilessly. 

[kaoras]

Chile Vamos meltdown over the 10% withdrawal of the pension funds continues.

• Government has suspended coordination meetings with the coalition until further notice
• 10 deputies have left the RN caucus (Out of a total of 34) and apparently will form a new, more hard-line caucus.
• EVOPOLI, the supposedly more centrist (in practice more Piñerist) party will "evaluate" if it continues as a member of the Chile Vamos because it says that the coalition it's failing its basic principles of defending the business elite.
• Relating to that, Interior Minister said that Chile Vamos lacks confidence in defending its ideals and that the government could continue with a smaller but more loyal coalition
• 2 UDI senators have said that they are open to approving the withdrawal. The opposition needs the defection of 2 votes from Chile Vamos to pass the bill in the upper chamber.

Besides all that, there has been a hilarious amount of doom and gloom from the pundit commentariat and rightist figures about the victory of populism and blablabla. The economy minister said that we are transforming into a Banana Country. Good thing that we were supposed to vote for the Right to not become Venezuela!

[kaoras]

The Broad Front decided to prioritize alliances with "social movements" and new parties (like some PS-splinters), seeking to include them inside the coalition. They remain open to alliance with former New Majority Parties like those in Progressive Convergence.

Well, I hope they are able to reach electoral alliances, but considering that the Broad Front is the living definition of the Gauche Caviar I have absolutely 0 faith that they won't put ideological purism before common sense as they did during Bachelet government.

Yesterday there were many protests and incidents in Santiago due to the incoming Congressional vote on the 10% withdrawal from the private pension funds (AFP). The government announced new measures for the middle class and apparently the right will be able to block the bill this time. A RN deputy denounced extorsions and bribes (offering them public offices) to get the Right in line.

[kaoras]

Right-wing meltdown continued over the week and has been truly a sight to behold. In the end, the withdrawal bill passed the Senate with a 2/3 majority effectively killing any realistic option for the government to stop it either via presidential-veto or the Constitutional Tribunal. Piñera finally waved the white flag and will sign the bill tomorrow. This is probably the most sensible thing he has done since October, given that a veto would have been a very effective way to set the whole country on fire (again).

Here's an English language piece that explains the Government crisis and general situation.  "Chile: Sebastian Pinera's government teeters towards collapse"
https://www.dw.com/en/chile-government-crisis/a-54266437

Honestly, this whole thing just shows that, as I said back in October, Piñera is totally incapable of ruling this country, and we are still stuck with him until 2022.

[CumbrianLefty]

Still, its good that another "populist right" dickhead is crashing and burning.

[kaoras]

Piñera isn't really "populist right", he took some populist instances in the campaign and he is probably more repression and police-brutality happy than even Trump, but opposing this project is probably the least populist thing he has done.

One has to understand, the core principles of the right, its whole raison d'être, is protecting Pinochet legacy and above all the economic model, making sure nothing ever changes. The right is so incestually linked to the business elite (and I mean that literally) that its action will never go against its wishes. This applies from Piñera to Jose Antonio Kast (the fire-breathing Pinochetist that would be the closest thing to a traditional populist right politician we have). This is why the approval of this project hit the government so hard, it opens the door to changing the private pension system left by Pinochet, a system that was very effective at creating a financial system and capital for the big business and fails miserably at giving decent pension to the people.

[kaoras]

Piñera did a major cabinet reshuffle trying to regain support from the right and to order Chile Vamos.
That means putting Victor Perez from UDI in the interior ministry, a well know pinochetist that was a Mayor designated by the dictatorship in the '80s and who did not see any sign of humans rights abuses during the unrest, perfect for a second round of protests!. RN president-and relative moderate Mario Desbordes goes to Defense and hard-liner and former presidential candidate Andres Allamand to Foreign Relations, between other changes.

[Velasco]

One has to understand, the core principles of the right, its whole raison d'être, is protecting Pinochet legacy and above all the economic model

I assume the economic model is the most lasting of the Pinochet legacies and it must be the only cement that unites all the different factions of the right, if only because I'd like to think the human rights legacy is more... controversial.

Regarding right-wing populism and pinochetismo, I don't know Antonio Kast very well and I'd like to ask you about similarities and differences with someone more familiar to me like the Vox leader Santiago Abascal. For instance: I'd say the latter is something like a neo-Francoist, but not an overt Francoist in the way I assume Kast is an overt Pinochetista

[kaoras]

Oh, there's plenty of consensus regarding the human rights legacy. The consensus is that "Human's rights were bad, but everything else about Pinochet was good" but that is just lip service. UDI and RN defend staunchly the human rights abusers in jail or those who are now being prosecuted, crying about political persecution. The supposedly more moderate parties like EVOPOLI are totally silent while they, for example, defend ex-secret police agent Cristian Labbé who is in jail for crimes against humanity. Most of the right isn't even capable of saying the word "dictatorship", they talk about "Military government". Piñera even presented a law that would allow human rights abusers to finish their sentences in their homes!!

If Abascal is neo-franquist, ALL the Chilean right could be regarded as neo-pinochetist. Of course, you have some idiots that say unironically that Pinochet did nothing wrong.

Jose Antonio Kast (who gets along very well with Abascal BTW) is simply more overt about all of that. He still says that human rights abuses were bad, but say that the coup saved Chile (Well, UDI has that in their principles declaration), that Chile that day "choose freedom", that Pinochet was the best government in history and is the first in the line defending human rights abuses. Honestly, the main difference with the rest of the right is that he is more provocative in his style and even more economically orthodox and does a lot of pandering to conservative evangelicals (which is why he will never truly catch fire, his ceiling is the 13% of overt pinochetists that the polls show)

And the right won't change because their voters allow it. Take for example this old thread https://talkelections.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=163483.0 , you have people defending Labbe himself saying that it doesn't matter that he is a fire-breathing Pinochetist because he is good at his job. The fact is that, as Piñera himself put it, if you worked for the Dictatorship you are at best a "passive accomplice" of the human rights abuses or at wort a criminal. And the voters have absolutely no problem electing all those human beings that only care about basic human decency if the problem is in Venezuela or Cuba. One of the main reasons why Chile will never get over the coup and the dictatorship.

[Velasco]

If Abascal is neo-franquist, ALL the Chilean right could be regarded as neo-pinochetist. Of course, you have some idiots that say unironically that Pinochet did nothing wrong.

Jose Antonio Kast (who gets along very well with Abascal BTW) is simply more overt about all of that. He still says that human rights abuses were bad, but say that the coup saved Chile (Well, UDI has that in their principles declaration), that Chile that day "choose freedom", that Pinochet was the best government in history and is the first in the line defending human rights abuses. Honestly, the main difference with the rest of the right is that he is more provocative in his style and even more economically orthodox (...

I get the Chilean right has a lot in common with the Spanish right. With regard to the dictatorships, I suspect the difference between Antonio Kast and Santiago Abascal is on the nuances (the fact that Abascal avoids explicit mentions to Franco does not imply he's not a Francoist). Also, Vox is economically "orthodox" and not "populist". Sorry of the question is off-topic, but I'd like to know something about the links between Kast, the other factions of the Chilean right and Donald Trump (Vox is acting right now as the Trump's branch in Spain)

[kaoras]

If Abascal is neo-franquist, ALL the Chilean right could be regarded as neo-pinochetist. Of course, you have some idiots that say unironically that Pinochet did nothing wrong.

Jose Antonio Kast (who gets along very well with Abascal BTW) is simply more overt about all of that. He still says that human rights abuses were bad, but say that the coup saved Chile (Well, UDI has that in their principles declaration), that Chile that day "choose freedom", that Pinochet was the best government in history and is the first in the line defending human rights abuses. Honestly, the main difference with the rest of the right is that he is more provocative in his style and even more economically orthodox (...

I get the Chilean right has a lot in common with the Spanish right. With regard to the dictatorships, I suspect the difference between Antonio Kast and Santiago Abascal is on the nuances (the fact that Abascal avoids explicit mentions to Franco does not imply he's not a Francoist). Also, Vox is economically "orthodox" and not "populist". Sorry of the question is off-topic, but I'd like to know something about the links between Kast, the other factions of the Chilean right and Donald Trump (Vox is acting right now as the Trump's branch in Spain)

Kast usually praises Trump on twitter because of course he does. But AFAIK he doesn't have any real links with him. He does have very close ties with Bolsonaro, and he has visited him several times. Maybe there's something shady going on.

[Velasco]

Kast usually praises Trump on twitter because of course he does. But AFAIK he doesn't have any real links with him. He does have very close ties with Bolsonaro, and he has visited him several times. Maybe there's something shady going on.

The links between Vox and Trump are established through donors or people associated to the alt-right, via Iván Espinosa de los Monteros. Bolsonaro is a clear model and he is absolutely explicit in what concerns the human rights abuses of the Brazilian dictatorship (supports torture). Thank you

[kaoras]

Broad Front has decided that they will go directly to the first turn in the next presidential election and won't even bother doing a primary with the rest of the opposition or trying to reach a common program. They want to LEAD the next government you see... Same galaxy brain logic that ended with us being stuck with Piñera. Reason #539 I won't ever vote for them.

In the ex-New Majority some people are wary that the main candidate of the left in the polls is communist Daniel Jadue, and have begun to push names like former Bachelet's foreign minister Heraldo Muñoz, socialist senator Carlos Montes and a bunch of other people. I don't know why they worry so much given the election is so far away and Jadue popularity (just like Lavin) is basically just name recognition, but Chilean politicians aren't exactly the smartest people around. At this point, I will probably support whoever does at least some lip service to Bachelet.

The government has said that the plebiscite won't be delayed further, so the Right is in mini-panic state given that the polls seem inamovible 70-15 in favour of the new constitutions. They are trying to scare people and delegitimize the result in advance, establishing arbitrary participation goals that are much higher that the participation of the elections when they and Piñera were elected. Juaquin Lavin, main presidential hopeful of the right, however, is full for Approve, because he doesn't want anything to do with the sinking ship that is "Reject the new constitution".

[Estrella]

Juaquin Lavin, main presidential hopeful of the right, however, is full for Approve, because he doesn't want anything to do with the sinking ship that is "Reject the new constitution".

And here I was hoping for someone who isn't a washed-up apparatchik from twenty years ago -_- Chile seems to be getting to a Peru level of politicians refusing to stop running for President (wasn't Piñera supposed to run in 1989 before he got hit with some scandal?)

[Lumine]

Juaquin Lavin, main presidential hopeful of the right, however, is full for Approve, because he doesn't want anything to do with the sinking ship that is "Reject the new constitution".

And here I was hoping for someone who isn't a washed-up apparatchik from twenty years ago -_- Chile seems to be getting to a Peru level of politicians refusing to stop running for President (wasn't Piñera supposed to run in 1989 before he got hit with some scandal?)

Indeed, there's a reluctance on behalf of a select group (mostly former Presidents) to stop running, which in turn prevents some of the younger, fresher alternatives from taking a shot. It's greatly reinforced due to the lack of immediate reelection, pushing former Presidents to run again later on (with several successful 20th century precedents), and perhaps by the acceptance of the idea that it's proper for a candidate to have more than one shot (Allende, after all, failed three times before his 1970 victory).

In the current context, one can single out pretty much the entire set of living Presidents/former Presidents (Frei, Lagos, Piñera and Bachelet), and a couple of failed challengers (including Lavin).

Post-1990 ranking:

Sebastian Piñera: Ran 5 times
1993: Aborted run due to "Piñeragate".
1999-2000: Aborted run due to lack of support against Lavin.
2005-2006: Defeats Lavin on 1st round to become center-right candidate, defeated by Bachelet on 2nd round.
2009-2010: Defeats Frei on 2nd round, becomes President.
2017: Defeats Guiller on 2nd round, becomes President.

Ricardo Lagos: Ran 4 times, almost 5.
1989: Aborted run due to lack of support against Aylwin.
1993: Defeated on national primary against Frei.
1999-2000: Defeats Lavin on 2nd round, becomes President.
2009-2010: Toys with a run until the last minute (which in turn derails other candidates), does not run.
2017: Run collapses after PS nominates Guiller.

Eduardo Frei: Ran 4 times.
1989: Internal run unsuccessful against Aylwin.
1993: Defeats Alessandri on 1st round, becomes President.
2005-2006: Internal run unsuccessful due to lack of support.
2009-2010: Defeated by Piñera on 2nd round.

Marco-Enriquez Ominami: Ran 3 times.
2009-2010: Comes third on 1st round (20%).
2013: Comes third on 1st round (10%).
2017: Comes sixth on 1st round (5%).

Michelle Bachelet: Ran 2 times.
2005-2006: Defeats Piñera on 2nd round, becomes President.
2013: Defeats Matthei on 2nd round, becomes President.

Joaquin Lavin: Ran 2 times.
1999-2000: Defeated on 2nd round by Lagos.
2005-2006: Comes third on 1st round (23%).

Tomás Hirsch: Ran 2 times.
1999-2000: Comes fourth on 1st round (0,5%).
2005-2006: Comes fourth on 1st round (5%).

If Bachelet keeps her word not to run again - which I was cynical towards, but it seems she won't run after all -, most of the usual suspects would be removed from the board for good due to age or unpopularity, though several 2017 candidates and precandidates are extremely likely to try again for the second time (J. A. Kast, F. Kast, Ossandón, Beatriz Sánchez).

[kaoras]

Juaquin Lavin, main presidential hopeful of the right, however, is full for Approve, because he doesn't want anything to do with the sinking ship that is "Reject the new constitution".

And here I was hoping for someone who isn't a washed-up apparatchik from twenty years ago -_- Chile seems to be getting to a Peru level of politicians refusing to stop running for President (wasn't Piñera supposed to run in 1989 before he got hit with some scandal?)

You are mixing things. Piñera wanted to run for senator in 1989 for the Christian Democratic party but since he wasn't given a slot, he joined RN instead and was indeed elected senator for that party. (Piñera remaining DC is an interesting timeline, since he probably would be complaining about how radical the left has become along with the likes of Mariana Aylwin and Soledad Alvear instead of doing mass humans right violations and giving a totally inept response to the pandemic)

The scandal you are thinking is the Kyotazo, when wanted to run for president in 1993 but audio leaks of him talking not very nicely about Evelyn Matthei (who funnily enough also ended up being the candidate of the right in 2013) sunk the candidatures of both.

But you are true about the Perú thing. Broad Front most likely will run Beatriz Sanchez again and the only reason that the ex-New Majority is even trying with new names is that Ricardo Lagos already totally tanked when he tried in 2017 and Bachelet has said like 10 times that there's no chance in hell of her running again. The problem of the center-left is that the only figure with a vision for this country and a popular appeal that goes beyond the "at least we are not the right" mantra is... Bachelet*

The right doesn't struggle that much with that because their political project is clear: maintain the status quo and please the business elite. They are resorting to Lavin because of how dire their situation is.


_{*Bacheletismo is a criminally understudied phenomenon in that, unlike the rest of Latinoamerica, the personality cult that exists is totally organic and unwanted by Bachelet herself. It doesn't get much attention because poor and old people don't use twitter but the number of portraits and mugs with her face that you cand find among regular people is unmatched by any living politician. There are even blocs of social housing that were named after her by the decision of their neighbors.}

[kaoras]

If Bachelet keeps her word not to run again - which I was cynical towards, but it seems she won't run after all -, most of the usual suspects would be removed from the board for good due to age or unpopularity, though several 2017 candidates and precandidates are extremely likely to try again for the second time (J. A. Kast, F. Kast, Ossandón, Beatriz Sánchez).

Why would she run again? She has a better thing to do at the ONU and I don't think she has much interest in saving the parties that were so unloyal to her in the first place. Besides, she may govern as a moderate because she understands how to get the things done, but if push comes to shove I don't doubt for a second she would very happily vote for and support Jadue, so there won't be any desperate "stop the commie" run from her side. Bachelet also understands that is bad for the country the lack of renovation, if she was interested only in power and not the national interest, she would have used her base to polarize the country and become the Chilean version of Evita Perón. And she would have been totally capable to do so.

[Lumine]

Why would she run again? She has a better thing to do at the ONU and I don't think she has much interest in saving the parties that were so unloyal to her in the first place. Besides, she may govern as a moderate because she understands how to get the things done

Probably because she's the obvious road to something resembling a "unity candidacy" from the left, the sheer insistence of her allies, and the potential to enact her unsuccessful reforms left over from the 2nd term, which I though might - just might -outweight other concerns.

As things are right now, I do agree that she doesn't seem to have personal incentives to run (it's not like she enjoyed that 2nd term) and the other reasons won't sway her, which is on the whole best for her personally and - in my opinion - for the country as well. I'm beyond sick of the whole concept of switching Piñera and Bachelet around every four years, and it wouldn't hurt to have someone else - ideally a skilled politician and not some sort of technocrat, populist or raving ideologue - running the show.

but if push comes to shove I don't doubt for a second she would very happily vote for and support Jadue, so there won't be any desperate "stop the commie" run.

Why would anyone doubt she'd vote for or support Jadue? Seems obvious to me she would (and if anyone's suggesting she'd present herself as a stop Jadue candidate, they're delusional).

I do wonder what will happen if PS+PPD+PR prove unable to stop Jadue from taking off, which is a distinct possibility in light of the alternatives (Montes and Muñoz are capable men, but they don't strike me as having much electoral potential / Vidal is almost a cartoon of a partisan hack). I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if they proved unable to come up with a viable candidate, and were left behind for good at the 1st round with whoever they run.

The whole "the communist can't win" concept is overrated and people will make a serious mistake if they assume Lavin v. Jadue is an automatic victory for the right, but it is interesting to wonder whether the supposed center-left resistance to a Jadue candidacy will be real (and result in significant numbers of people voting Lavin even if they don't admit it), or more of a theatrical performance on behalf of the self-described "social democrat" world (which seems increasingly conscious of itself), mostly to avoid blame for any given outcome.

[Velasco]

I was unaware of that popular devotion for Bachelet. Eventually she will be elevated to the altars. I'm not following Chilean politics on a regular basis, but it makes more sense for me that she stays in the UN. On the other hand, there are many examples in history of comebacks by popular acclamation that didn't end well. Bachelet had a comeback already and the results were mixed at best. She better endorses that Jadue, imo

[kaoras]

Probably because she's the obvious road to something resembling a "unity candidacy" from the left, the sheer insistence of her allies, and the potential to enact her unsuccessful reforms left over from the 2nd term, which I though might - just might -outweight other concerns.
 

She is repulsive to the Broad Front elites (not so much to their voters, but is not like they realize that), don't think she would be able to unite the left at the dirigent level. She also would probably lose against a populist insurgent in the second run and a straight Bachelet vs Lavin battle would probably lead to very low turnout victory. Bachelet might be the only center-left politician with a vision for this country but electorally she isn't strong in this circumstances (despite her devote base). But believe me that the only good thing of this nightmare called second Piñera government is all the people saying that "Bachelet reforms weren't bad after all":

The whole "the communist can't win" concept is overrated and people will make a serious mistake if they assume Lavin v. Jadue is an automatic victory for the right, but it is interesting to wonder whether the supposed center-left resistance to a Jadue candidacy will be real (and result in significant numbers of people voting Lavin even if they don't admit it), or more of a theatrical performance on behalf of the self-described "social democrat" world (which seems increasingly conscious of itself), mostly to avoid blame for any given outcome.

That "social democrat" world reluctance is real but is limited to the elites and has no sway with real leftists voters. They are the same group of people that sabotaged Bachelet reforms and pushed Lagos candidacy in 2017 and we saw how good that turned out. Most leftist voters I think wouldn't have any problem getting behind Jadue. But while you are correct in that the communist fear is overrated (especially in this context), Jadue being the left candidate is the only path I see that could end with the right staying in power. It would depend on how much he moderates himself, but the "communist" label really does scare moderate voters.

[kaoras]

I was unaware of that popular devotion for Bachelet. Eventually she will be elevated to the altars. I'm not following Chilean politics on a regular basis, but it makes more sense for me that she stays in the UN. On the other hand, there are many examples in history of comebacks by popular acclamation that didn't end well. Bachelet had a comeback already and the results were mixed at best. She better endorses that Jadue, imo

Is not exactly a mass movement but is not that small either. She is very popular especially among older, poor women (abuelitas)

If you want to see some examples: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9021jEN8Kg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2KaaAPPO8A (the first minute). Is a government act but the speaker has to shut up the crowd to continue with the ceremony. Mind you that this was when she was polling at 20% approval...

There's also the final rally of Alejandro Guillier (who spent all the campaign trying to distance himself from her) when the crowd started chanting: "Por amor a Bachelet, votaremos por Guillier" (Because of our love for Bachelet, we will vote for Guillier"

[kaoras]

Someone must have been reading this thread because Joaquín Lavin declared himself a Socialdemocrat (and he implied that was totally compatibly with being UDI) and Evelyn Matthei said she is open to run against him since he doesn't seem to have any ideological coherence.

[Velasco]

Someone must have been reading this thread because Joaquín Lavin declared himself a Socialdemocrat

The funny thing is that I googled "Joaquín Lavín" and it's true!

https://www.eldesconcierto.cl/2020/08/25/presidente-fundacion-social-democrata-joaquin-lavin/

The UDI hardliner says that "Chile needs a centrist government that incorporates many concepts of the European socialdemocracy". I guess the next thing is that Lavín promises a comprehensive reform of  reform of pensions and social security, embracing the European Welfare State instead of the Chilean model dating back from Pinochet. It's the least that one can expect from a newborn socialdemocrat. Amazing

[Lumine]

Not the first time Lavin chooses an odd term to reinvent himself (he did it in 2007 by expressing support for Bachelet, infamously self-describing as "Bacheletista-Alliancista"), and I suspect it won't be the last.

It is an interesting blunder though, in the sense that it's widely percieved as a step too far in terms of his colleagues (and which indeed has drawn up this new challenge from Matthei) and it's just a silly thing to do because he not only needs to appeal to the center, he needs to keep the center-right base on board; but it may not really have an impact in the polls. It will be interesting to see if the voters he's appealing to thus far actually disbelieve him or whether they don't mind it.

All in all, a self-inflicted wound as it will make it harder for Lavin to win a primary, and because it provides José Antonio Kast with substantial ammunition to expand the Partido Republicano vote at UDI's expense.