Argentina 2023 election

[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.

[Estrella]

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.

Can't really go to a villa miseria and give every family a kilo of Falklands for lunch and a litre of resentment for dinner.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Well, Argentina was a wealthy, white settler nation, wasn't it? I wonder how the 'wealthy' word there came to be deleted? Anyway.

[Red Velvet]

Well, Argentina was a wealthy, white settler nation, wasn't it? I wonder how the 'wealthy' word there came to be deleted? Anyway.

I don’t understand how being wealthy or white has anything to do with Malvinas Islands claim? lmao.

The UK has made tons of claims throughout the entire world during history while being one of the whitest and wealthiest countries in the world.

But if Argentina claims an island that otherwise would be in their territorial waters, then it’s ~resentment~ instead of simply common sense stuff?

I mean, it already makes me somewhat uncomfortable that we have freaking France pretending they’re an Amazonian country while in Europe - the only moment ever they act like French Guyana is part of France lol

Malvinas is less weird for the region as a whole as French Guyana since it’s only a tiny inhabited island, but for Argentina specifically I understand why it’s much more of a bigger deal nationally since it’s right in their borders - which adds a whole dynamic of national security and strategic positions.

People in the Global North need to stop acting like Global South countries having independent interests of their own is 3rd world “hate” for them like they were poor victims only capable of acting based on morality.

If there’s more “hate” by anyone is clearly in the North for the South for completely dismissing Southern countries as capable of having interests of their own to fulfill, resenting them when they act on it. The things they expect Southern countries to accept are simply NEVER accepted by them and I strongly doubt that if UK were in Argentina’s shoes, they would just accept a distant powerful country - like say, China or Russia - control islands that are located inside or close to their maritime borders.

For example, the Argentinians in here seem to care about this issue way less than our British posters and we’re seeing a massive hate being dumped on Argentina. It doesn’t really seems like the “resentment” is coming mostly from their side.

But I think people here are just shocked that even a self-proclaimed “pro-western” candidate like Milei still claims the Malvinas are Argentinian tbh. Because like, the narrative that gets told in the West is often that fascist dictatorship (which happened to be supported by the West itself) committed an act of savage expansionism or something in order to rally local nationalism. When in reality, said “nationalism” doesn’t really have an ideological side at all. If the military thought they could rally the public back in 1982 to regain support to the regime it was because they knew it would be a popular thing even amongst their opposition.

Milei’s difference is that he thinks if he can be buddies enough with UK/the West, they will agree to a similar deal that happened with Hong Kong - which was passed progressively to the hands of China with a transition period established.

[Senator Incitatus]

Well, Argentina was a wealthy, white settler nation, wasn't it? I wonder how the 'wealthy' word there came to be deleted? Anyway.

For anyone aware of what happened to the Argentine economy c. 1890, this reads like an abusive husband mocking his beaten wife.

[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".

[oldtimer]

Well, Argentina was a wealthy, white settler nation, wasn't it? I wonder how the 'wealthy' word there came to be deleted? Anyway.

Argentina's fortunes, just like many other South American counties, rose and fell in relation with the share of German immigrants.

Though it's a question of which came first, the economic boom or the germans ?

But they never recovered from Kissinger's Operation Condor and the oil shock of 1973.

[Red Velvet]

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.

Very well pointed out.

People sometimes talk about Argentina being “Richest country in the world” in the past as if it had always been like that instead of a period of exceptional growth.

Argentina was 3rd biggest GDP in Latin America in 1880 and before that exactly just like it is today. It was after the 1880 boom that it kept on an enormously growth trajectory and basically dominated in the region during the first half of the XX century.

This video shows it well, Argentina was only the largest economy between 1900-1950. And even during that time, they depended a lot on foreign industrialized manufacturing, as their wealth came mostly from agricultural goods. And that wealth was still very heavily concentrated since oligarchies very openly controlled everything in Latin America that time.

It was somewhat similar logic here, we even call the 1889-1930 period between proclamation of Republic and Vargas takeover as the “Oligarchical Republic Era”.
With Vargas being the 1st time that workers were given some rights, with 1929 crisis being a factor that stimulated this because it was necessary to control dissatisfaction.

In Argentina my impression is that it was different in the sense the 1929 crisis had very minor effect in the country though, which is exactly why the country continued to boom in the 30s and became worldwide known as a major point of attraction in South America.

That period of industrialization and growth of labour rights only arrived later with Perón in mid 1940s, since it was a natural trend and AFTER the economy had passed its peak, slowing down.

The crazy right-wingers today have this weird narrative that economy went down because of Perón slowing down things with big spending but as the video I posted shows, the slowing down of Argentinian economy started BEFORE Perón took power in 1946. Like the graph in the video show, both Mexico and Brazil start gaining ground on Argentina as soon as 1940, until Brazil finally equals Argentina GDP in 1953.

That kinda means to me, just like Vargas was a figure that appeared in Brazil after 1929 economic slowdown in Brazil (and most of the world), Perón was propelled by an economic slowdown in Argentina as well, which only happened to arrive later in the 40s.

[Libertas Vel Mors]

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.

As others have noted, Argentina was a wealthy white settler nation (and remains a white settler nation). Further, neither it nor Brazil suffered any real mistreatment or oppression by imperial powers post 1822 (while CAAUNZ remained colonies/dominions for much longer).

[Libertas Vel Mors]

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".

Obviously you are Argentinean and I am not, but I strongly disagree with your characterization of Argentina's economic history under the Generation of 1880 and beyond. Argentina was not some gulf oil petrostate, and cattle ranching (if that is what you were referring to) was not some suddenly appearing resource. Rather, a project of liberal reforms including the Constitution of 1853 and the defeat of the provincial warlords allowed for massive foreign, particularly British, investment. Wealth was widespread (hence why so many immigrants came to Argentina). And rather than suddenly collapsing in the 1920s (which, given the nature of cattle ranching, wouldn't even make sense: barring some ecological calamity or drastic fall of cattle/beef prices, cattle is not a resource that can dissipate like oil), Argentina actually maintained economic standards comparable to less developed Western nations until the 1950s. It declined vs the 1910s because of Yrgoyenist policies and lesser connection from Argentine to British markets, and then truly diverged from the developed world writ large after Peron rose to power. Your analysis understates the level of Argentina's historic economic policy and the effects of economic policy, while overstating both the importance of and ephemerality of the cattle industry.

[Lord Halifax]

The Secretary of Falklands (an actual government position!) said that “Milei wants to impose the desires of 3,000 islanders on 46 million Argentinians.”

Guillermo Ramón Carmona is Secretary for Malvinas Islands, Antarctica and the South Atlantic (Secretario de Malvinas, Antártida y Atlántico Sur) so translating it as Secretary of Falklands is a bit...
 
It's comical that they put Malvinas first, but not really unreasonable that there is such a position in their Foreign Ministry, maritime interests and deep sea resources (potential deep-sea mining etc.) are becoming increasingly important and Argentina has a legitimate interest in the future of Antarctica.

[Former President tack50]

Regarding the debate of Argentina's wealth in the 19th century; I will note that there is a reason as to why "gallego" is the common naming for Spaniard there; or why plenty of Argentinians are dual citizens with Italy. The people were immigrating in one direction and it was not towards (southern) Europe at the time.

[Edu]

With almost 100% reporting in the province of Chaco, the Candidate of JxC Zdero won 46,2% of the vote against 41,6% for incumbent governor Capitanich from UxP. This means that Zdero won in the first round and there will be no need for a runoff. Most people were predicting a runoff so this is somewhat surprising.

[jman123]

In these elections I am noticing that Milleis people is not going strong. Is there ticket splitting going on with Milleis people voting for JxC in statewide elections while voting for Milei at Federal level?

[Red Velvet]

https://twitter.com/AmericaElige/status/1702874543746920468

[Lexii, harbinger of chaos and sexual anarchy]

In these elections I am noticing that Milleis people is not going strong. Is there ticket splitting going on with Milleis people voting for JxC in statewide elections while voting for Milei at Federal level?

It depends on the province, in San Luis Milei's voters seem to have split roughly 50-50 between Avanzar (Poggi+JxC) and the PJ, while in Catamarca (where Milei's allies did a good election at the local level) a lot more of his voters went to the PJ/UxP

Chaco is a bit of a special case due to the scandal around Cecilia Strzyzowski's murder

[jman123]

https://twitter.com/AmericaElige/status/1702874543746920468

Wow. Looks like it's gonna be a Massa Milei Runoff. JxC looks to be the big losers of Milleis rise

[Red Velvet]

https://twitter.com/AmericaElige/status/1702874543746920468

Wow. Looks like it's gonna be a Massa Milei Runoff. JxC looks to be the big losers of Milleis rise

From what I understood, Massa and the peronists want to eliminate taxes for anyone who receives less than 5 minimum wages - a desperate populist strategy prior to the election in order to rally support.

Milei actually supports that as well as a radical ideological libertarian who is fixated on no taxes (though at the expense of no government spending, with the State being abandoned like such anarchists dream of).

That leaves JxC by itself as the opposition to it, going crazy about the possibility of a diminishing government budget when the country is economically in the toilet, which would only fasten the arrival of hyperinflation.

The peronists know they’re not winning so they’re setting up the bomb for the next government to burn itself with it while assuring to close the gap in the polls a bit for this election and have a more respectable close defeat that will strengthen its position as the main future opposition to whatever next government.

And Milei, well, is naturally too ideological and faithful to his anarchist doctrine that he simply doesn’t give a damn about reality lmaaaaao.

It will be somewhat fun on a perverted cruel way to see how this insane irresponsible guy deals with being in power when Argentina is already heading off of a cliff BEFORE he’s even elected. A situation that neither the USA or Brazil were in the time they went crazy.

Hopefully the bomb the Peronists are setting up for the next government is so destructive and Milei will be so oblivious and uninterested to how to do stuff in real life (State is evil and incompetent and he will be the Head of State after all, right?) that it ends once and for all this extreme right mania. Since the world will definitely be watching the Argentinian experiment.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

Colombia will soon overtake Argentina's economy for the first time ever. And with the migration from Venezuela to Colombia they get additional people to employ as well. I believe Colombia will be among the biggest 'newcomers' on the Latin American theater as a future modern powerhouse, however Brazil and Mexico obviously are from a different category.

[Lexii, harbinger of chaos and sexual anarchy]

Mendoza - 98.8% counted (Primaries)
Cambia Mendoza (JxC): 44.1%
 -Alfredo Cornejo (UCR): 26.7%
 -Luis Petri (UCR): 17.4%
Omar De Marchi (La Unión Mendocina) 20.27% (JxC dissidents, largely from Pro, and Milei's LLA)
Elegí Mendoza (Todos): 15.9% split between 4 candidates
Mario Vadillo (Partido Verde) 4.5%
FIT: 3.9% between their 2 candidates
Needless to say this in an attrocious result for the government even for one of the most antikirchnerista provinces

Unsurprisingly, the incumbent Cornejo got reelected as governor of Mendoza, but DeMarchi's ragtag coalition did win a decent amount of votes from Petri

Alfredo Cornejo (Cambia Mendoza/UCR): 39.5%
Omar De Marchi (La Unión Mendocina): 29.7%
Omar Parisi (Elegí Mendoza): 14.7%
Mario Vadillo (Partido Verde) 11.9%
Lautaro Jiménez (FIT): 4.2%

[Velasco]

The UCR will govern Mendoza, Chaco,  Santa Fe, Jujuy and Corrientes,  which could be an interesting base of power for the party in the future

Watched yesterday the last campaign spots of Bullrich, Massa and Milei. My conclusion is that within the kingdom of the blind the one-eyed is king. In other words: Bullrich and Massa spots are atrocious, while the Milei's one is just mediocre.

Personally I would vote (unenthusiastically and holding my nose) for Massa against the anarcho-capitalist Milei and the philo-fascist Villaruel,  but I have no doubt the ballotage would end in a way similar to the Bolsonaro-Hadad runoff in Brazil 2018. I'm not comparing Peronists and the PT, of course (I have heard even atupidiest parallels between FdT and the Spanish coalition government, even though their economic records difer enormously). I can't even blame Argentinians if they opt to jump into the abyss, just wish them good luck

[oldtimer]

Colombia will soon overtake Argentina's economy for the first time ever. And with the migration from Venezuela to Colombia they get additional people to employ as well. I believe Colombia will be among the biggest 'newcomers' on the Latin American theater as a future modern powerhouse, however Brazil and Mexico obviously are from a different category.

I wonder where Colombia gets all that money from. (wink)

[Red Velvet]

Colombia will soon overtake Argentina's economy for the first time ever. And with the migration from Venezuela to Colombia they get additional people to employ as well. I believe Colombia will be among the biggest 'newcomers' on the Latin American theater as a future modern powerhouse, however Brazil and Mexico obviously are from a different category.

I wonder where Colombia gets all that money from. (wink)

Where?

[oldtimer]

Colombia will soon overtake Argentina's economy for the first time ever. And with the migration from Venezuela to Colombia they get additional people to employ as well. I believe Colombia will be among the biggest 'newcomers' on the Latin American theater as a future modern powerhouse, however Brazil and Mexico obviously are from a different category.

I wonder where Colombia gets all that money from. (wink)

Where?

Oh come on.

[Red Velvet]

Colombia will soon overtake Argentina's economy for the first time ever. And with the migration from Venezuela to Colombia they get additional people to employ as well. I believe Colombia will be among the biggest 'newcomers' on the Latin American theater as a future modern powerhouse, however Brazil and Mexico obviously are from a different category.

I wonder where Colombia gets all that money from. (wink)

Where?

Oh come on.

?