Brazil: Presidential elections polls

[Meshuga]

Some say that Ciro Gomes candidacy is hurting Dilma Rousseff, but in a head-to-head runoff with José Serra, Dilma Rousseff is behind by the same 5% margin (44%-39%). This election is going to be interesting as it is currently with neither Serra or Rousseff holding a majority yet in a head-to-head scenario.

Here are the polls:

March 19 (Reuters) - Brazil will hold elections on Oct. 3
to choose a successor to President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva,
who is barred by law from seeking a third consecutive term. The
two front-runners are Sao Paulo state Governor Jose Serra of
the opposition PSDB party and presidential chief of staff Dilma
Rousseff of the ruling Workers' Party...

...Former Ceara state Governor Ciro Gomes and former
environment minister Marina Silva hold a distant third and
fourth place, respectively...

Ibope:

March 2010

Serra 35%
Rousseff 30%
Gomes 11%
Silva 6%


Dec 2009

Serra 38%
Rousseff 17%
Gomes 13%
Silva 6%


Sensus:

February 2010

Serra 33%
Rousseff 28%
Gomes 12%
Silva 7%

November 2009

Serra 32%
Rousseff 22%
Gomes 18%
Silva 6%


http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1913180620100319

[Peace Patriot]

1. Wow! The Workers' Party candidate (Lula's successor) has DOUBLED her support

over the last several months, in the first poll, and surged to within 5% (halving the 10% margin) in the second poll. That really should be the headline. Rousseff is the one with momentum. Momentum is everything in elections according to the pundits. It's one of the auxiliary evidences of a stolen election here in 2004--Kerry had momentum in the weeks leading up to that first big Diebold vote count. Speaking of Diebold, I read somewhere that Brazil has--or recently introduced--private corporate electronic voting machines, like we have now all over the U.S. I don't know much more than that--don't know if they have better verification of the vote count than we do, nor how widespread it is. But that bit of news was extremely worrisome. We can be sure that the CIA and its corporate/war profiteer puppetmasters want the Workers' Party out and the rightwing in charge. Lula da Silva has not danced to their tune, despite pressure, threats and bullying. And Rouseff likely will not do so either. If they can "fix" this election, they will. And private corporate electronic voting systems have been the ultimate weapon for installing corporate shills and warmongers here.

[protocol rv]

2. Poor Dilma

i feel really bad for Dilma. Lula has done a really good job, and he is working hard to help her campaign. With Lula being the most popular president ever in Brazil, this should really help her. Dilma is behind only because she is somewhat colorless. I don't know if a makeover would help, but she sure needs something. You know, this is a problem, the lady is quite competent, but sometimes people vote for looks or the way a politician says the baloney. We sure know about baloney, don't we?

[Peace Patriot]

3. That the CIA line? She's "colorless"? Hm. nt

[Meshuga]

5. Nope. It is analysis that both Serra and Dilma lack the charisma that Lula has

Otherwise, it would make sense that she would be way ahead being Lula's protege and given Lula's amazing popularity. Anyone watching closely and with a brain can see this.

[Meshuga]

4. Which candidate do you think is right-wing?

Serra is one of the founders of PSDB, a Brazilian party that uses the US Democratic party as a model so it is not even close to right-wing. The runnoff is most likely going to be between Dilma and Serra who are going to continue pretty much the same center-left policies. Go get informed! Brazilian politics is more complex than you think. Just as a note, please consider the fact that the Lula administration is a coalition of lefty communists all the way through the conservative, pro-business, and evangelical vice-president. Chew on that!

[protocol rv]

6. Good point

If Lula were Venezuela's President, would be doing much better. Maybe we need to make him a Venezuelan citizen and have him run as the opposition candidate here. :-)

[Meshuga]

7. Be very cautions though

Lula has been tainted by the CIA. Oh noes! :-)

[protocol rv]

14. Friend, I think Chavez will have aplopexy if Lula signs a base deal with Obama

There's been some reports the Brazilians are going to sign a military cooperation agreement with the US, and it seems to involve the use of facilities by the US military in Rio de Janeiro.

[Peace Patriot]

8. Lula da Silva and Hugo Chavez are close friends and allies.

They meet every month to discuss economic/political/social issues, have engaged in many economic/political/social projects together, and Lula has pointedly and repeatedly backed Chavez every time that the U.S./CIA/corpo-fascist press has launched a particularly vicious attack on Chavez.

For instance, when the the Bushwhacks sent down their dictate in 2006 that Latin American leaders must "isolate Chavez," Lula did the opposite--he took the occasion to visit Venezuela on a high profile visit just two weeks before the Venezuelan 2006 presidential election. His endorsement of Chavez couldn't have been more obvious. When the U.S./Colombia bombed/invaded a border area of Ecuador, nearly starting a war with Ecuador/Venezuela in 2008, Lula credited Chavez with preventing the war. He called Chavez "the great peacemaker" as a result of that incident. Lula has also said, of Chavez, "They can invent all kinds of things to criticize Chavez, but not on democracy!"

Lula has also fully backed Venezuela's application to become a full member of Mercosu (South American trade group). Lula's and Chavez's positions on issues such their opposition to U.S. supported rightwing coup in Honduras, their friendly relations with Iran, their assertion of their countries' sovereignty on control of major resources such as oil, their strong opposition to the presence of the US 4th Fleet in the Caribbean and the US militarization and occupation of Colombia, the need for a Latin American "common market" AND a "common defense" and on many other important matters, are identical. (It was Lula da Silva who proposed a "common defense" within the context of USASUR). On economic and social policy, Chavez is to the left of Lula but they strongly share social justice goals and a philosophy of "raising all boats" (helping smaller or poorer countries, Latin America pulling together).

Your rightwing Venezuelan "tea bagger"-type fantasy that Lulu would oppose Chavez in a Venezuelan election is typical of your "Alice in Wonderland"--upside down, inside out, backwards--views. It is jabberwocky. And your state of denial about the achievements of the Chavez government would be pathetic if it wasn't such a piece of crappy propaganda. The Chavez government is like night and day compared to previous Venezuelan governments, which were run by the rich rightwing oil elite FOR the rich rightwing oil elite. Chavez's accomplishments on poverty reduction, education, economic growth, oil contract negotiations (getting a much better deal for Venezuela), employment, citizen participation in government and politics, clean elections, universal medical care, equal rights for women, gays, African-Venezuelans, the Indigenous and other excluded groups, low government debt, good credit and high cash reserves, and regional planning, have been nothing short of awesome, considering the forces against the Chavez government, including not just hostility from the U.S. and our corporate rulers and war profiteers but active coup attempts and non-stop lying and disinformation.

Why don't you go try and sell your load of crap to Venezuelans, hm? Because they don't buy it, that's why. So what are you doing here, constantly ragging on the Chavez government to Democratic Party activists in the U.S.? More USAID/CIA money for rightwing groups in Venezuela? War on Venezuela? Your fortunes, as a rightwing Venezuelan (if you are, indeed, a Venezuelan) are dependent on our tax dollars and U.S. corpo-fascist support. The majority of Venezuelans know you well and regularly vote against your corpo-fascist agenda, in big numbers. But your views are welcome "inside the Beltway." Is that who you are aiming to please? The Venezuelan rightwing cash cow? And you think by trying to keep Democratic Party leftists stupid and disinformed, you aid the cause of a US-supported fascist return to power in Venezuela? Or are you just generally an oil corporation apologist--since you have also made pro-Chevron (not to mention racist) comments on Chevron's horrendous oil spill in Ecuador?

[Meshuga]

9. Protocol was fooling around. Relax!

I don't think Protocol (or anybody here) believes Lula (or should I say Lulu? :-) ) would go against Chavez or that he is not a friend of Chavez.

[protocol rv]

10. He's always very uptight

What I said was that I sure wish Lula were Venezuela's President. It's like saying I sure wish Mr Gore had handled the legal challenge in Florida in a better way, which means he would have been US President. It's all wishful thinking.

Why do people get so obsessed with Chavez anyway? He's been in power for 10 years, don't you guys believe in something called letting in fresh blood? Even if you are a PSUV backer, do you think it's sensible to keep the same guy in charge forever? Like Castro has been in Cuba?

[Peace Patriot]

20. It should be up to the people. FDR ran for and won FOUR terms in office!

The people of this country obviously felt that FDR's leadership was crucial during that long period of his presidency. And it was the Pukes who rammed through a term limit on the U.S. president in the mid-1950s, to prevent a "New Deal" from ever happening here again and to begin dismantling the one we had (which they have very nearly accomplished). Most of our Founders opposed term limits on the president as undemocratic. I agree with them. The people should have whomever they want and need as president of the country. Venezuela's elections are honest, fair and transparent (unlike our own). Venezuelans have voted for the Chavez government time and again, by ever increasing margins. And they voted to lift the term limit on the president (and certain other offices), also by a big margin. He is their FDR--obviously essential, in the view of most Venezuelans, to correcting the wrongs of the past--the misrule by rightwing governments and the rich oil elite--and creating a "New Deal" for the badly neglected majority of the country. I think Chavez should serve, if he chooses to, for a long as Venezuelans vote for him and his government in transparent elections.

Castro is an different matter. He is more like a monarch--that is, the glue that has held Cuban society together and the protector of the revolution for all these decades of U.S. plotting and hostility. I would say a "benevolent monarch," for the most part. Cuba stopped meddling in other countries (providing troops for leftist revolutions) long, long ago and has become an exporter of its topnotch medical system and its literacy programs, and has done amazing work on restoring sight (for the poor blind), taking care of the children of Chernobyl, training new doctors and other medical professionals and setting up community health clinics in many countries including Haiti. Cuba has invaded no one, and threatened no one (unlike the U.S. of A.), and its government is now recognized throughout Latin America. Our government should have recognized the Cuban revolution and its government long ago. The U.S. itself started out as a bloody revolution. Starting out as a bloody revolution is no bar to legitimacy, especially given the horrors of the Batista regime that the Cubans overthrew. Castro was in fact the elected president of the country, but it was something like unthinkable to vote for anyone else, if Fidel wanted to continue. Lesser offices in Cuba are filled in a more democratic way than the office of president. I was impressed to learn that no political party is allowed to run candidates in Cuban elections, not even the Communist Party. Each candidate must run on his or her own merits. And of course they don't have the vast money corruption and privately controlled 'TRADE SECRET' voting systems that we have. I think we need to ask, which country is more democratic--the one that invaded Iraq and slaughtered a million innocent people to steal their oil; the one that created torture dungeons around the world; the one with a thousand military bases around the world and crippling war budgets; the one run by the multinational corporations and war profiteers--or Cuba? It's arguable that Cuba has many more features of real democracy than the U.S.

Still, I think that Venezuela and Cuba are two very different cases, and it is corpo-fascist propaganda to treat them as if they were the same. The Chavez revolution came to power entirely peacefully, has maintained power in transparent elections, amidst rip-roaring debate and virulent criticism, and has thus far weathered the horrible plotting and hostility of the U.S. government and its corpo-fascist puppetmasters, without becoming insular, the way Cuba had to. The Venezuelan corpo-fascist media, for instance (at least half the media in Venezuela) continues spewing rightwing/corpo-fascist views and even calling for another coup attempt, right on TV--something that doesn't happen in Cuba. USAID/CIA money pours into rightwing groups in Venezuela, something that is only just beginning in Cuba. And still the voters vote for the Chavez government. It is unknowable if Castro would have remained in power with such virulent forces opposing him, if Cuba had allowed the corpo-fascist media and the CIA to run the opposition. In any case, Cuba did not allow that to happen and Castro remained in power from the first days of the revolution until recently. If JFK had not been assassinated, and the U.S. had not pursued its policy of relentless hostility to the Cuban revolution**, perhaps Castro would have retired earlier. Again, I feel that he has fulfilled the role of monarch--someone above the fray who holds things together. What may happen when he and Raul pass on is anybody's guess, but it may surprise a lot of people to find out that most Cubans support the revolution and will do everything they can to continue it.

------------------

*See "JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters," by James Douglass.)

[protocol rv]

21. Sorry, but FDR doesn't count

That was a long time ago, and the USA recognized the error, passing a Constitutional Amendment to avoid this happening in the future. It was an excellent decision on their part...

Tell you what, I would like for you to propose to your fellow Americans you amend the Constitution again, to allow President Obama to run for as many terms as he wants. You can try it right here, on DU's General Discussion board.

Propose it saying you think Obama's a great president and should be your nation's leader until 2020 - at least. Also mention you heard him joke on national TV that he wants his daughter to take over after he retires, and that he plans to start his own TV show, carried over multiple channels, to run for several hours every Sunday. I would also level with them, and recognize he'll supplement his Sunday shows with frequent appearances over the National Emergency Broadcast System to give the people talks about issues he thinks are important - and excuse him ahead of time for interrupting prime time shows, especially baseball and football games during the playoffs, and soap operas, remind them it's important to raise the political consciousness of the masses, to make sure they never elect a Republican again, ever.

But wait, there's more, also mention his economic policy will likely lead to inflation above 20 % for several years, that crime will unfortunately increase to such a point they'll be afraid of leaving their homes after dark, corruption will be a problem, garbage will not be picked up, electricity won't be available sometimes because he'll nationalize the electric power companies and there may be some glitches due to lack of maintenance, and there will be spot food shortages due to price controls.

Wow, I almost forgot: Close with the "Fatherland, Socialism, or Death" slogan at the end.

Give it a try. DU is full of very progressive types, they should already be pre-disposed to support President Obama. This should be an interesting experiment.

[Peace Patriot]

22. That's another similarity between Chavez and FDR--FDR did weekly radio talks to the American people.

The people thus know their leader better. They know who and what they're voting for. In Chavez's case, they see him extemporizing, taking calls, and hear him talking about issues in depth. I think it's a very good practice to have the president on TV frequently--on a weekly basis. The president SHOULD have his or her own show.

As for term limits, I would most certainly like to see the term limit on the president removed, as our Founders wanted. The Pukes are the ones who rammed an amendment through Congress so that no leftist leader could ever gain the traction that Roosevelt did, as to helping the poor majority, properly taxing the rich and regulating the banksters and corporations (not to mention winning WW II). The American people did not get to vote on it. So you are wrong that "the USA recognized the error." The Pukes wanted to stop populist "New Deal" government. And it wasn't "an error." No term limit on the president was quite deliberate on the part of the Founders of the U.S. They considered a term limit on the president to be undemocratic and did not include it in the Constitution, on purpose.

But the Venezuelans did vote to lift the term limit--on the president and some other offices (including governorships held by rightwingers), by a big margin, in an honest and transparent national referendum. Venezuelan voters also have the power to remove a president, by a recall vote, if they find him or her unsatisfactory. I would want to see these two important conditions for lifting the term limit here: 1) Honest, transparent elections (no 'TRADE SECRET' code voting machines, controlled by private corporations, as is the case all over the U.S. now; public financing of campaigns and other "best practices" measures); and 2) a national Recall provision. We also need to bring back the "Fairness Doctrine" in some form, to require balanced political coverage on our public airwaves and cable.

I am not a great fan of Obama and I would not promote him for a second or third term--and I would not promote anyone for multiple terms unless and until we have at least restored vote counting that everyone can see and understand. Lifting the term limit is not a high priority with me. Getting rid of the 'TRADE SECRET' voting machines IS. That is my FIRST priority for improving democracy in the US. Without transparent vote counting, we don't really have a democracy. I do believe that Obama was elected--mostly on the hopes of the American people for social justice and peace, not so much on what Obama actually said--and by a bigger margin than we know. But it is just a belief. Elections in the US are unverifiable. And I also believe that he was "vetted" and found "acceptable" by our multinational corporate rulers and war profiteers, and they COULD HAVE prevented him from winning if he had given them any reason to not want him as president. And that is the problem. The American people are no longer in control of our vote counting system. It has been corporatized and privatized. Our leaders answer to the far rightwing corporations that control the 'TRADE SECRET' code. (One far, FAR rightwing corp now has an 85% monopoly on US voting systems--ES&S which just bought out Diebold--very scary stuff!) And they answer to the Big Money behind that 'TRADE SECRET' electronic voting boondoggle and behind so much else that has gone wrong here.

If the Venezeulan people decide that Chavez is a tyrant or unworthy in some way--Chavez, whom they can see every week on TV and judge for themselves--they can vote against him and be confident that their vote is counted. And they can recall him. The rightwing in Venezuela, and the USAID, tried that in 2004--a recall election--and the Venezuelan people gave them a drubbing--and re-endorsed Chavez. That's democracy.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ChangoLoa]

24. Sign the recall against Chavez and lose your job in the administration

which employs like 30% of the active formally employed population.

You've never watched Venezuelan public TV, have you? Chavez stopped taking calls at least 5 years ago.

[protocol rv]

27. This guy just doesn't get it

We don't care if the Americans do this or that. What the heck, we're supposed to go invade Trinidad because they invaded Iraq? Give me a break.

[protocol rv]

15. That's Lula, Dudu.

LOL. If Lula heard people call him Lulu he would shrug and say "But I don't know how to belly dance"

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3714286925403801066#

[protocol rv]

11. I'm not a politician

I'm too honest to be a politician. And I do sell my ideas to Venezuelans. And Chinese, and Cubans, and all sorts of people. I like DU because it allows me to vent against US imperialism. It's just that I found this Latin American board and saw so many posts I felt I needed to correct, just to make sure the record is straighter. I think people do like to hear both sides of an argument.

Also, did you notice lately your guys are on the short end of the polls? Most of them lately show Chavez dropping like one of those guys diving off a bridge with a bungy cord.

Look calling me a right wing Venezuelan tea bagger just makes you sound a little off. I think people who know me here are pretty sure I'm not any of those things. I just happen to dislike Chavez and Castro, and this seems to have put me on your sights. Guy, you're like those Americans in the Apache putting iraqis on their sights when it comes to this discussion, you fire that machine gun like it's a video game (I assume you saw the Wikileaks video, sorry I had to put in a plug for that).

I suggest you write stuff down, go get a glass of water, then re-read what you write so you sound more reasonable.

[Meshuga]

12. Apparently this place was an echo chamber up until recently...

But I guess it is not anymore. And some of the members here need to understand that just because some of us have a different opinion about their heroes it does not mean we are right-wing or don't see the problems and bias when it comes to the US corporate media. I'm sure most of us here get Latin American news from our native countries anyway and we know how to distinguish those sources in regards to bias and ideology.

[protocol rv]

13. I hope so, friend

Maybe they should figure it out the way we do. I know we don't see eye to eye on some things, but we can still agree on others. I like the echo chamber comment. I tried to post some stuff in a right wing US site a couple of years ago, and the gentlemen went berserk. I lasted less than one day then they kicked me out. And all I said was I felt President Bush had done a poor job!! I was trying to be as polite as possible to see if I could gain their hearts and minds, but those guys are really closed off.

[Meshuga]

19. We don't need to agree on everything in order to respect each other

But I think we agree more than disagree.

[ChangoLoa]

18. Don't miss with our representation of the world, things have to fit! nt

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Meshuga]

26. Before breaking DU rules by accusing Protocol...

I would have to give him the benefit of the doubt and ask him about the intended context.

In Portuguese, and I am almost sure that in Spanish as well, the word “indio” is not a pejorative like it is in the US. So in America, people prefer to refer to natives as “Native Americans” since the term "Indian" referring to Natives is a pejorative in American culture. So, Protocol’s use of the word “Indian” may be due to him not being a resident of the US.

In context with his post, if he said “some guy” instead then people would not question him. He said the way he said it but it does not mean he thinks the person should be automatically discredited for being a Native. Protocol was protesting hearsay since there was no concrete evidence of the claim (at least that's how I read it). But I can see how people who dislike Protocol will want to interpret him as being a racist. Perhaps I’m wrong and he will come out and say, “What are you talking about? Of course I meant indian as a pejorative!” But somehow I doubt this is going to happen.

This reminds me of something that happened to my wife a few years ago. The word “preto” (black) in Portuguese is sort of a pejorative in Brazil when referring to an “African American” because no one is actually black. So the preferred term to use in Brazil is “negro” which does not have negative connotations. But since in the US the word “negro” has been transformed into a pejorative by some racists in the south she was in trouble for using it. Her problem was ignorance of the fact that "negro" has negative connotations and, based on her culture, she thought she was using a politically correct term. Culture shock sucks sometimes but it happens.

[protocol rv]

28. Is the guy insulting me again?

What did he say?

[ChangoLoa]

16. Yehee! Keep them foreign folks out of your US forum, patriot

Latinos in the Latin American forum, how strange! They must be paid "with your tax dollars" (I quote you) to buy their poor countries' internet connexions and come down here in DU's LatAm forum (!!) to lobby... Such a powerful strategy, only the brightest mind around could understand the trick. How smart! Good for you.

[ChangoLoa]

17. . dupe