The other day I attended an interesting seminar cathartic Is Kirchner hegemony? UNCLE and organized by the Political Club Argentino, which distinguished intellectuals like Abraham or Sarlo exhibited a mixture of fascination, anger and confusion by idem. In one presentation, Carlos Fara had a sort of x-ray of the official account as an appropriation of public areas (rather than the interpretation of Fara interpret their own results, I prefer to refer the reader to his column on the subject ). leave here, a selection of the slides presented.
The first two shows: (I) an appropriation of latent discourse (human rights, Mercosur) originally embodied (and, in the throes of economic crisis, resigned) by the Alfonsin, (ii) the explicitness of some open secrets (the complicity of the church The impact of media conglomerates), and mostly, (iii) the acceptance of so vague unverifiable propositions, which are assumed by the man in the street through repetition media.
For example, it is difficult to assess whether "Argentina is better than in the 90s" without setting any criteria, but in any case is not relevant technical aspect, but the fact that in times of growth is natural to prevail a "feeling" of well-being and improvement. (This is where the emphasis of the economist and political scientist differ in part, from me to defend the policies Menem, but I presume that older people felt that Argentina was better than in the 80s in 1996 but not in 2000.)
More still hard for the interviewee (and even for the professional economist!) consider whether "there are more industries in the 90s, though some standard measures of industrial output and employment expressed in previous posts on this blog suggest otherwise (which, turn does not seem to be a national problem but a regional). The same applies to terms like "production model" "Neoliberalism" or the exquisitely conspirativista "economic draft" significant gaps in the economic universe, if any.
In any case, the interesting thing is the discovery that the man in the street signs in this speech, but noted how the opposition is allowed to place across a speech undersigned expected The man in the street. This state of affairs arises from a combination of limitations and errors. For example, the flag of the Universal and Son who is wielding the Civic Coalition for years, was appropriated by the government and is now used in campaign against the CC and the rest of the opposition. If the government takes good, what opposition you just need to run it over the edge with 82% mobile or the use of reserves?
On the other hand, the opposition cross the group A was to write a clear example of political miscalculation that facilitated the government's rhetorical battle to present a single front-attack his skirmish line visible consisted of the defense oligopolistic media did not help.
The third graph is less surprising: people who subscribe to the official discourse (in many cases since before the rise of Kirchner) but would prefer other performers (Alfonsin Pino)-although this appears to be a weak argument for a candidate unless it is reappropriate the undamaged parts of your old address to propose something decidedly new.
The last figure suggests a change of theme seems to be a negative correlation between the "do not adhere to any party" and "adhere to the FPV", suggesting that indeed the large kirchnerismo feeds measure of cross-voting (which no other party has captured so far).