Ratings boost for Chavez ahead of Venezuelan vote

[Judi Lynn]

Source: Reuters

Ratings boost for Chavez ahead of Venezuelan vote
Tue Sep 14, 2010 10:53am EDT
Tight race for Sept. 26 parliament elections
* Socialist president's popularity recovers
By Frank Jack Daniel

CARACAS, Sept 14 (Reuters) - Polls show Venezuela's parliamentary election is a tight race between President Hugo Chavez's allies and his opponents, but Chavez's rising popularity and favorable election rules may tip the balance.

Chavez's traditionally high popularity -- in the 60s and 70s percentage range during his best moments of a more than decade-long rule -- was hit this year by a recession, electricity and water supply problems, and high crime. But new polls show that a recovery in his personal ratings, which began several months ago, continued in August, giving him cause for optimism ahead of the Sept. 26 National Assembly vote, which is seen as an indicator for the 2012 presidential election.

In recent weeks, Chavez has begun campaigning in earnest and after months of austerity the government has started pumping up the import sector, as well as offering cheap credit to consumers, creating some sense of economic recovery.

~snip~
A new survey by pro-government pollster GIS XXI said 52.6 percent of respondents planned to support candidates allied to Chavez, while 47.4 percent backed the opposition.


Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN129936720100914?rpc=401

[earcandle]

1. I think Chavez is doing a stellar job! Keep up the good work, and keep helping all people to make a

difference!  Key! 

[bherrera]

2. This articles makes reference to the gerrymander

Did you notice the statement "but Chavez's rising popularity and favorable election rules may tip the balance" ??? The favorable election rules is the reference to the gerry mander they introduced into the system, which allows the Chavez party to win a majority if they do not win the majority of the popular vote.

I also notice 47,4 % of the voters say they will vote for the opposition. This tells me that the government has a bare majority, and evidently lacks the support of the middle class, which is critical to develop society. A government which relies only on uneducated poor masses, which are dependent on the government for money and become clients of the state, is in the long term doomed to fail. This is the criticism of the Chavez government which has been exposed by the Mexican economist, Heinz Dieterich.

[Peace Patriot]

5. Well, bherrera, you compared Hugo Chavez to Adolph Hitler like Donald Rumsfeld did...

"Rumsfeld likens Venezuela’s Chavez to Hitler"
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11159503/

Here's you (doing the same)
(first comment, para 4) http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=405x40695


So we can't really trust your fascist B.S. about the "uneducated poor masses" in Venezuela, or anything you have to say after such an extremist statement--comparing Hugo Chavez, a leader who has harmed NOBODY, and has done much good--to the most hated and reviled genocidal monster in modern history, Adolph Hitler.

I keep pointing this out to you (and to unknowing DU readers who might not be aware of your Rumsfeldian statement) and you keep not responding. This means either that you can't absorb how offensive, how unfair and how wrong your comparison was, or--like Rumsfeld--you DON'T CARE how offensive, how unfair and how wrong you are.

This rightwing "know-nothing-ism"--whether it is the inability to recognize obvious facts and obvious truth, or the perverse refusal to recognize obvious facts and obvious truth--is a dangerous state of mind. When it is wedded with great power, as with Rumsfeld, and...um...as with Hitler, it can result in genocidal horror. And when it stands naked, with no power, it is pathetic--a failure of human intellect and imagination--but still dangerous, in that it can infect others with the failure to think. A population of "know-nothings" can be led right into the hell of hatred, racism, war, torture and unconscionable callousness. This is where remarks like comparing Hugo Chavez to Adolph Hitler ARE HEADING.

Are you going to take it back, or are you going to let it stand? Have you any idea how offensive this was? Can you comprehend, even a little bit, how unfair it was? Do you have even a rudimentary concept of how dangerous this kind of grossly unfair, incendiary statement is?

[naaman fletcher]

6. I agree,

that the comparion to Hitler was grossly unfair and that he should take it back, but does that mean that arguments unrelated to that are therefore false? Shouldn't arguments stand and fall on their own merits?

[bherrera]

9. it is very simple - the voting public is split almost 50 % - 50 %

It is a good trick to try to change the subject, is it not? The discussion topic is simple, the Venezuelan voters are split about 50 % for the opposition, about 50 % for the Chavist party. This is not a very good pat in the back for President Chavez to take the country towards communism, when his friend Fidel Castro is forcing one million workers out of their jobs and says communism doesn't work in Cuba, and can not be exported anywhere else.

It is also common sense that if the voters are divided almost 50 % to 50 %, then the majority of the middle class is opposed to the Chavez party. And this means the voters in the poor class are biased to vote due to their status as clients, this was explained by Heinz Dieterich in writings in which he criticizes the nature of the Chavez government, which he likens to a semi-fascist state. Whether you like it or not, this respected socialist econommist from Mexico is being very critical of what Chavez is doing. And the recent polls do show the Venezuelans are not very happy.

Thus one can say the evolution of socialism in Venezuela is an akward creature, which is not truly socialist. I say it has many of the shades of fascism, because it emphasizes so much the culture of personality and militarism, and these are typical fascist traits.

[Peace Patriot]

15. So you are not taking it back? You are defending it?

Just to be clear.

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

It's my contention that someone who could compare Hugo Chavez to Adolph Hitler is such an unhinged "know-nothing" that nothing you say can be trusted.

And even here, you take an 8% lead by the Chavistas (54.3% to 45.7%) by what Rotters calls "the well respected IVAD polling firm," and turn it into a 50-50 contest. Rotters basically says that that the other polls are not reliable. An 8-point lead is NOT a 50-50 contest. But more than this, you apparently didn't read to the end of the article, where Rotters--Rotters!--says that this "well respected" poll gives Chavez a SIXTY-FIVE PERCENT approval rating. They have an 8-point lead and a hugely popular president starting to campaign. There is nothing 50-50 about it. The Chavistas will win a majority in the National Assembly, and the only question that remains is how much of a majority and how well Chavez's popularity boosts legislative candidates.

You simply cannot deal with reality. This amazing bounce back for Chavez is no surprise to me, because I know that his polling numbers have been in the 60% range for most of his tenure in office and I know WHY--and I am not in denial about it, like you are. Chavez's consistent popularity over such a long period, and his big bounce back now, is because his government has not only been very competent, they have been very good for Venezuela, in provable, concrete ways, that I won't bother to enumerate to you because you couldn't take it in. You spoke with contempt, in another thread, about Chavez's support being in the "uneducated poor class" in Venezuela. That is apparently what you have to think--this sneering, classist trash about the poor being "uneducated." Stupid, uninformed, beneath you. If you let your bias lead you, like that, you will never escape from the narrow, rightwing, "know-nothing" vise that you have put your mind into.

For anyone interested in my analysis of this article--why they slip the news about Chavez's startling bounce-back to a 65% approval rating into the bottom of the article, and then try to confuse the issue by dissing the same polling firm that they had just described as "well respected," I comment on it here, in the other thread on this topic...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=405x41632

And, bherrera, I don't think you know the first thing about what "fascism" is--just as you don't seem to have a clue how utterly offensive it is, to me, and, I imagine, to many others, to compare Hugo Chavez to Adolph Hitler, the most reviled monster in modern history. This is not just grossly unfair, and callous, it is dangerous. Such thinking leads to murder, death, mayhem and war. And it is no accident that Donald Rumsfeld said the same thing. Chavez has harmed NO ONE. Will you acknowledge that? There are NO concentration camps or ovens in Venezuela. Will you state that that is the case? Chavez has not only NOT persecuted minorities, he has gone out of his way to protect and enhance the rights of women, gays, African-Venezuelans, the Indigenous, Jews and other groups. Will you agree that that is the reality? Chavez has not invaded anyone, has not killed anyone, has not tortured anyone, has not oppressed anyone, and, quite the contrary, has fostered peace, cooperation and human rights. Do you agree? Chavez has not declared himself and his supporters to be members of a "Master Race." He is not sorting people and branding people by race? Do you agree? He has no "Gestapo"? Correct? He has been genuinely elected--not by stuffing ballot boxes and sending "brown shirts" to beat up voters, yes? Jimmy Carter would have noticed that, right? Lula da Silva, next door in Brazil, would have noticed that, right?--and wouldn't have said, of Chavez: "They can invent all sorts of things to criticize Chavez, but not on democracy!"? Hm? Would Lula da Silva say that of Adolph Hitler?

Take. It. Back.

Until you do, you are completely discredited, in my opinion.

[EFerrari]

16. LOL. What a lovely word salad. n/t

[EFerrari]

8. The Chavez government has a higher approval rating than Obama who is at 46% today

in the Gallup Daily. Is Obama also doomed to fail?

http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Job-Approval.aspx

[bemildred]

3. In other words, the election is getting close, so time to synch up with reality. nt

[naaman fletcher]

4. so now you believe the polls? nt.

[bherrera]

10. I do

It appears the public is divided almost evenly, and the gerrymander will allow the government party to retain a majority. But this is not good for them, because the economy is not doing well, the inflation rate is very high, and the crime rate impacts more the poor people. Thus the long term prospects for this Bolivarian revolution are not looking well.

[Peace Patriot]

7. Rotters gets in all the rightwing (USAID "think tank" designed) "talking points," but fails

to mention the strong actions taken by the historically quite competent Chavez government to address them. Could this be why Chavez is going up in the polls and the Chavistas are looking better for a solid majority in the National Assembly elections? Competence, responsiveness, effective action--whether in dealing with a blow from Mother Nature (unusually long drought affecting hydroelectric power), or correcting an overly-weak (and Obama-like) stimulus against recession?

They even get in the "talking point" about "gerrymandering" (which DUer bherrera, who compared Chavez to Adolph Hitler, picks up on and trumpets here). The stupids in the rightwing opposition who boycotted the last by-elections have only themselves to blame for that. They put themselves OUT OF THE DISCUSSION of legislative districts. These chronic crybabies (not to mention chronic liars) expected Chavista politicians to protect rightwing interests? Why would they? The rightwing opposition rejected the democratic process--elections, voting-- in the PREVIOUS configuration of districts! It is perfectly normal politics in a democracy for a political party to re-district to their advantage. And if the rightwing can't be bothered to sit at the table, they deserve exactly what they get.

Rotters mentions Chavez's "traditional" popularity but--as with EVERY corpo-fascist article on Venezuela that I have read--they fail to mention WHY. The reasons for Chavez and his government's popularity in the past--obvious competence, real progress (huge, solid advances in reducing poverty, increasing access to education, economic development and jobs), genuine representation of the interests of the majority--are why Chavez and his government have so quickly recovered their momentum, despite several crises, and despite the universal slander, bad-mouthing, lies and disinformation of the corpo-fascist press throughout the western world. They don't mention it here. They have NEVER mentioned it. FIFTY PERCENT reduction in poverty. SEVENTY PERCENT reduction in extreme poverty. FREE MEDICAL CARE for those who need it, in accessible, local medical centers. FREE EDUCATION through college, for those who can't pay for it--elimination of illiteracy, huge government investment in education. And an amazing 10% economic growth for five straight years (2003 to 2008), with the most growth in the private sector, leaving Venezuela with high cash reserves, good credit, low unemployment and other positives with which to face a Bushwhack-induced, worldwide depression.

NEVER have they mentioned these reasons for Chavez's "traditional" popularity. NEVER!

And explain this contradiction to me:

"A poll last month by the well-respected IVAD polling firm, consulted by both the government and opposition, said 54.3 percent would vote Socialist and 45.7 percent for the opposition." --Rotters

Several paragraphs later...

"IVAD, which tends to place Chavez's support higher, had him at 65.7 percent, up from 58 percent in January."--Rotters (same article)

Then they group IVAD (the "well-respected" firm) in with the less reliable firms: (next paragraph) "Venezuela's main polling companies are almost always accused of being politicized by different sides." --Rotters

Then they try to resolve this contradiction: "But the polls tend to reflect the same trends." --Rotters' other voice.

What are we looking at here? Schizophrenia? Editorial tinkering? I don't know. But I do know this: The rightwing/USAID/corpo-fascist media disinformation campaign against the Chavez government--of which Rotters has been one of many operatives--HAS FAILED because it was shallow, false, without context, distorted, propagandistic and vastly misleading in the first place. And I'm quite glad to see that the Venezuelan voters--whom our rightwing DUer bherrera calls "the uneducated poor masses"--haven't fallen for it. They have proven themselves to be the smartest, least gullible, least-propagandizable, best-informed voters in the western world, time and again. And now they are proving it yet again, to the dolts at Rotters and the New York Slimes and the Wall Street Urinal and the whole lot of them--who cannot give up beating on their bogeyman "dictator." Even here, in a news article with hard evidence of the smarts of Venezuela voters, they can't help themselves--they HAVE TO accuse Chavez of "packing the Supreme Court."

Well, I'll tell you. I would like to see Barack Obama do the same thing, though he never will. He is no FDR. Chavez is. And the rightwing ALSO called FDR a "dictator"!

FDR didn't succeed in the perfectly legal and constitutional expansion of the number of Supreme Court judges ("nine" is not specified in the Constitution) to balance out the fascists on the court from the previous era, who had crashed the economy, and who kept declaring "New Deal" programs "unconstitutional." But the pressure of his proposal did change one judge's mind. Thus, Social Security was saved! THAT was the issue--Social Security!

Without that bold move by FDR, we would not have Social Security! We would not have pensions for elderly workers of any kind. The elderly, whose labor created prosperity and riches, would be thrown out on the street, starved and disregarded, by the fascist bastards who hated FDR and their ilk today who hate Hugo Chavez and the people who have time and again elected him (as we did FDR).

I see schizophrenia in this Rotters article--some effort to face reality--to deal with facts, however dismaying they are to Rotters' owners and bosses--but the contrary, propagandistic trend prevails. This is not good for western civilization, which was founded on principles of rational thinking and the primacy of accurate information. The press has become no less propagandistic than the Roman Catholic Church was in the Middle Ages.

[bherrera]

11. Historically quite competent?

I fail to see this. Didn't they have a crisis where the country was left without electricity this year? And they allowed a lot of food to rot in the ports? Also, is it not true the inflation rate is almost the highest in the world, and the economy is now shrinking, which is something that only happens to Venezuela and Haiti in the Western Hemisphere? So if these things happen, why do you think they are historically quite competent?

[bemildred]

12. I can assure you that economies shrink regularly in all sorts of places.

Even in the USA, for example. It was not something communists invented, and it's not something that came up recently.

[bherrera]

13. Economic crisis in Venezuela is quite unusual

But the nature of the economic crisis in Venezuela is quite unusual, they have 30 % inflation and 1 to 5 % negative gross domestic product growth in a simultaneous manner. This is quite rare, and if it happens for a long time, it is a signal that economic management is chaotic and ill considered.

There are signs the problem is serious, for example the venezuelan debt is considered very high risk by the market, similar or worse than Greece, and they have a non-sustainable economy in which the sustainable areas are losing their share of the total economy, which means it becomes more non-sustainable all the time. There are other signs of mismanagement, such as the nationalization of industries without a clear legal method to define how it will be done, and the government planning which does not seem to meet targets. These are all bad signs.

Your comment tells me you have not looked at the statistics, which show the government seems to overestimate the oil production, under estimates the oil price, and thereafter the total accounting system is confused, lacks transparency, and seems to be subject to a lot of mismanagement. The electricity crisis is an example.

[bemildred]

14. You are babbling Sir.

I write a few words on the internet and you think you know all about me.

There is nothing unusual about inflation with a decline in GDP, in fact hyperinflation and declining GDP go hand in hand, hyperinflation kills productivity.

Although when the currency is unstable it always raises questions about how those GDP numbers are being computed, and it bears remembering that all large scale economic numbers are somewhat speculative, nobody actually keeps track of and has precise measures for all of even a small place's economic activity, let alone some large nation.

And it also bears remembering that large scale economic numbers are produced by entities that have an interest in the results, so one ought not assume they are facts either, they are estimates, often fudged, often flat wrong.