Brazilian presidential and general elections 2022 (1st round: October 2nd, 2nd round: October 30th)

[adma]

His reaction to a loss would be leaving the country, if I had to guess? Good riddance, although it sounds too good to be true.


https://www.twitter.com/UrbanNathalia/status/1481599555108065289

I guess like Ronnie Biggs moving to Brazil, only in reverse.

[adma]

What's the cause of this shift away from class-based voting? Are there cultural or demographic vectors that have become more salient, like in the rich world?

Obama/Trump vs Romney/Clinton, Rio style.

[adma]

Ottawa is kind of similar, and arguably has a similar sort of pattern to Brasilia where the downtown ridings full of Federal workers vote left while the suburbs, exurbs and boonies are way to the right.

Not really *way* to the right, other than the outermost exurbs/boonies--sensible-middle that can park right of centre on occasion and according to circumstance is more like it.  They certainly aren't *Bolsonaro* right, unless you want to frame Pierre Poilievre in such terms.  (In fact, provincially speaking, Ottawa has generically and contrarily swung *away* from Doug Ford Tory populism relative to the rest of the province.  So the parallels are really more w/NOVA...)

[adma]

Seeing a lot of comments from people from USA/Europe here, I'm not surprised why the working class in these countries has come to vote for the right/far right. The left in these countries has become a party of educated rich from downtown and Woke culture. I would always prefer a party that looks more at the poorest and most marginalized.

"Looking more at" is one thing; "aiding, abetting, and pandering to basest instincts" is another.

Particularly in the USA, where "poorest and most marginalized" has come to denote not income or class level, but, shall we say, "taste values".  That is, "poor" not in the sense of no money, but "poor" in the sense of identifying with Trump's vulgarian/dictator-chic taste.  Or as Fran Lebowitz observed, Trump is a poor person's idea of a rich person.  He appeals to the McMansion class--those who either live in McMansions, or hope to live in one once they achieve "prosperity".  IOW rather than money buying taste, money buying the right to set one's own parameters of "taste", and if you don't like it, so there, nyaaah.

In a way, that's a class that's been glossed over, sneered at and rationalized to the margins for *decades*, particularly during the Cold War years when America and the West at large chose to project an "enlightened middle" aspirational self-image.  Today, the right-populists would paint that "enlightened middle" notion as some kind of "globalist plot"...

[adma]

The problem is that there is no way to dissociate the money poor from the customs poor, considering that people with less education are generally poorer. Added to this is that, by the accounts of people here on the forum, rural American areas are far more marginalized in structural and cultural terms than metropolitan areas. As a result, the American working class and peasants are Trumpists, I wonder what Marx would say about that. How about the republican party replacing its symbols with the hammer and sickle?

This is the fault of the democratic party itself (and European socialist parties?). More and more I wonder if this elitization of left-wing parties is a lobby of intelligence agencies that want to end a left that opposes capitalism, imperialism and neo-liberalism. I'm not even talking about the left being communist. Social democracy seems to be becoming a thing of the past.

Well, actually, speaking in particular of the American context, there *can* be a way of such dissociation--that is, when Hillary Clinton spoke of "deplorables", she certainly wasn't speaking of the POC underclass which the Dems already had in the bag.  And in a way, we're not even talking about "less education" so much as an outright disdain for "edjucayshun", which even pertains to the self-styled money-rich.  And where even the term "metropolitan" can be construed as a euphemism for pointy-headed elites.

However, one might say that present-day GOP strategy is indeed to chip away at the POC-underclass monolith by pandering to the "customs poor".  (And in terms of Canada, Rob & Doug Ford in Toronto were/are definitely exemplars of pitching to the multicultural big-tent "money/customs-poor": suburban ethnoburbans and the like, those who are at least as remote from the downtown chattering class as rural rednecks)

[adma]

Another way of looking at it: in the States, "elevating the poor" has largely been a tributary of some form or another of affirmative action over the years.  Thus it's been, shall we say, the "desirable" realm of the cultural rainbow that's been the biggest beneficiary--there's a reason why, in 1969, Sesame Street was given an inner-city setting, at a time when "inner city" increasingly connoted "nonwhite".  And it's also why those present-day Republican-swingers are the de facto successors to the "Silent Majority", i.e. those who would have had a problem with that Sesame Street inner-city cultural skew.  "Why were *those* poor being elevated, and not *us*?" is how the narrative might have gone...

[adma]

The obvious must be said, but...small d!ck energy.