Brazil's presidential elections

whenao, excellent comment. I do not trust her democratic values either. Please take a look at my blog: http://braziliandemocracywatch.blogspot.com/

All Brazilians must see - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCORsD-hx0w&feature=player_embedded# - to verify how the Serra's electoral campaign fueled xenofoby, racism and prejudice in our country.

I'm ashamed for what is happening and it is a sorrow to see how perverted are some people.

The map depicted here, produced by Brazilian conservative press and echoed by "The Economist", started a flow of furious tweets and messages in the Internet against the Northeastern people. Subliminally, the map says that Dilma was elected due to the Northeasterners. Racism and prejudice were other results of the infamous election campaign runned by PSDB, Serra, and his allies, conservative mídia and newspapers. Brazil is facing this indecent campaign in public midia, for the first time in his story. All this are lamentable for a county known by the tolerance and heartiness of his people.

The real facts about Dilma's election:

1. It is not true that Northeastern elected Dilma. If the Northeastern votes are not computed even so Dilma wins the election race. Mathematically speaking, this refutes the assumption that Dilma was elected only by the poor of the Northeast.

2. Serra's results in the South and Southeast were disappointing. He was defeated in Rio de Janeiro and Minas Gerais states. In Rio Grande do Sul and Sao Paulo his vantage over Dilma was minimal. Sao Paulo's votes are intriguing, considering that Serra was its former governor.

All these facts explain why Jose Serra was defeated again.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
This joke actually made my day better!

The Brazillian democratic process, inspite of it's many inherent & apparent flaws & shortcomings, has a far more mature, thinking & pragmatic electorate than their North American counterparts, where brazen rhetoric, blind partizanship, short memory spans & instant gratification are the unfortunate yardsticks upon which elections prevail.

Let's hope Ms Dilma will charter in a vibrant, progressive & productive era in emerging Brazil..

>>Lisa R wrote:

>>Then, after Lula
>>1. saved a country almost in bankrupcy,

Nope. The Chinese did by buying Brazil's raw materials.

>>2. created three times more jobs,

Government jobs thanks to the Chinese buying raw materials
and fool, er, foreign investors pouring money into Brazil.

>>3. increase the consuming power of the majority as never seen

Thanks to stipends from the leftovers after corrupt officials
gorged on the money from China and from fool, er, foreign
investors. The stipends will one day soon dry out.

>>4. pushed unemployment to the lower level in 30 years

Nope. China buying iron ore, agri-products and other
raw materials helped reduce unemployment.

>>5. created more universities than all governments in brazilian
history!!!

Wow. Education without a private sector = bloated PHDs at
the public sector. How many technological advances and brands
likeIndia's were these so called "MORE UNIVERSITIES" were
able to spawn?????
http://theviewspaper.net/wp-content/uploads/INDIAN%20BRANDS%20PSED.jpg

>>6. Eliminate foreign debt

How about eliminated private sector, favela to riches
entrepreneurs, and hamper the establishment of zero to
hero global brands such as Amyris. Could Brazil have
an Amyris? Possibly. Would Brazil permit one to exist
without lots of S kissing the government and patronage
in high places? Very doubtful. In fact, 不行 if it was
a former favela dweller who would start the company.

>>7. Reduce public debt proportion of the GDP
(which is one of the major problems in US and Europe)

The developed nations messed up royally, yes. However,
Brazil has a severely underdeveloped financial sector.
Consequently, a country where most people have a lower
middle class status can't ill afford to invest in
equities. The U.S. and Europe will rise again as they
done after World War 1, 2 and many other similar
economic malaise.

Brazil may appear to be the darling of the world at the
moment, but it has structural problems that the
developed nations don't have. infrastructure is behind
the times. Education is way behind South Korea, Taiwan,
and other smaller economies. Bureaucracy and corruption
are out of control. High taxation and tax scofflaws alike
without impunity.

>>Dilma was the way...

The way for Brazil to be a permanent lackey of China.

>>So you better consider REALITY before arguing
>>or else go and get yourself some professional treatment.

A wise man said: "The bigger the government; the smaller
the Citizen.

Brazil Internet access
34% of population
5.1% using broadband
http://www.internetworldstats.com/sa/br.htm

@ anticipayo mindlessly wrote:

"How about being an Embraer employee? Do you know how many 747s boeing was able to place in the market? I believe for 2010 the number is zero. Have you bothered finding out how the American Boeing engineers are doing right now?"

http://www.centreforaviation.com/news/share-market/2010/10/08/boeing-del...

As usual, Brazilians are either severely out of touch with the
rest of the world, or purposely doing their bit of nefarious
propaganda. Since most lower income Brazilians don't speak
English as well as having Internet access. It is fair to say
that it is the latter.

I heard that Brazilians are doing plastic surgery to enhance
their eyes to be more like their Country's boss/daddy.
http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/files/2008/08/6a00e008ca9cc68834010...

I guess, it is just a rumour. hahahahahahaha
Pucker up Dilma, your Chinese boss/daddy requires lots of S kissing.

My dear Mariana, Dilma Rousseff did not fight against the dictatorship. If she really was a trotskist whatever, she was actually fighting for a new form of dictatorship. A leftist one, but a dictatorship. If you study the history of that period you will understand that those who fought against the ruling power were not necessarily trying to bring democracy.
By the way, reactionary is a term usually fitted for those who are perpetuating a revolution which, I believe, is not the case. I myself want progress. I believe in a better, fairer, more equal Brazilian society. I just disagree on the means to get there.
As for the map you mentioned, there is a link to the bolsa família map. Have a look at it.

This map is too simplified. Serra had a considerable number of votes in Pará. A significant part of the voters in Espírito Santo and Rio Grande do Sul voted for Rousseff, and in Mato Grosso the same thing happened. Here is a more accurate chart: http://www.estadao.com.br/especiais/mapa-da-votacao-para-presidente-nos-...

The Economist has mentioned the dictartorship but has not mentioned that Rousseff was one of the people who fought against it. In my opinion, this should have been mentioned as it helps the reader deliberate about Rousseff's political views.

In addition, The Economist did not acknowledge that Rousseff had to face Serra's unfair campaign, which appealed to the most reactionary and backwards sections of Brazilian society. This, in the opinion of many renowned Brazilian journalists, played a major role in the way Brazilians voted.

To understand how the media in Brasil behave I suggest to watch:

Beyond Citizen Kane
Além do Cidadao Kane

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-570340003958234038#

To be honest, considering how biased and corrupted the media are, it shows incredible restraint and dedication to democracy by the PT to have not come down on them like a ton of bricks. If the media in the US (not including Fox) and Europe behaved this way it would be in court.

Congratulations to Dilma the first ever brazilian woman president who is going to add her female sensibility to the already 83% approved Lula´s government pace of governing reducing one of the major world income gap between the most few favored (just look to the resul shown in the ballot map) and the rest of those who live near to the misery line which is a shame to any nation that aim to be among the developed ones.

@Lisa R

Good posts.

I have the feeling that the right in Brasil can't forgive Lula and the PT for being the most successful government in Brasilian history. FHC deserves credit for Plan Real, beyond that his mandate was nothing special, well, unless you include a rise of the total public debt from 30 to 55.5% of GDP, changing the Constitution to help himself and mass blackouts as "special."

The elections were free and fair. It is a victory for Brazil.

The map isn't really accurate:

Globo just published this:

A headline from Globo News today:

Mesmo sem os eleitores do Norte e do Nordeste, Dilma venceria Serra

http://g1.globo.com/especiais/eleicoes-2010/noticia/2010/11/mesmo-sem-os...

"Even without the voters of North and Northeast, Dilma bet Serra
PT had more votes than Serra in the South, Southeast and Midwest. 33.2 million votes against 32.9 million.

The feeling that Rousseff (PT) was elected only because of the advantage applied in the North and Northeast is false. Survey based on data from the Superior Electoral Court (TSE) reveals that she would win the election even if they were counting only the votes of the Southeast, South and Midwest."

I realise journalists like to simplify things to make a point, but Brasilian politics and voting habits are a little more nuanced that just, "educated Southerns voted Serra, Poor Northerns Voted Rousseff."

Rondonia, one of the poorest States in the Republic voted Serra, and Rio, one the richest voted Rousseff, plus the map indicating Rio Grade do Sul and Goias were both 50-50 (give or take a percentage point)

Brasil is not the US, and trying to analyse politics in the same way just isn't good journalism.

Yes Lisa R, after reading your "economic analysis" I can see why you got fired.
Please, have a look at this map: http://www.estadao.com.br/especiais/mapa-da-votacao-para-presidente-nos-...
Compare it with the Bolsa-Família one and tell me is just a bloody coincidence.

As a journalist who got fired by one of the big newspapers,
I'd say to newmansm user that if its true that all "illiterate non educated" millions put Lula and Dilma in power is just because the PSDB (right-conservatives) did a pretty bad job ruling the country for 20 years! This proves that they really dont care about anything but their own fortunes.
So the people got smart and realized about this
and decided not to trust this people anymore.
Then, after Lula
1. saved a country almost in bankrupcy,
2. created three times more jobs,
3. increase the consuming power of the majority as never seen
4. pushed unemployment to the lower level in 30 years
5. created more universities than all governments in brazilian
history!!!
6. Eliminate foreign debt
7. Reduce public debt proportion of the GDP
(which is one of the major problems in US and Europe)
Yes, after all this and more, the people learned
that for the sake of the country and the majority's wealth
Dilma was the way...
So you better consider REALITY before arguing
or else go and get yourself some professional treatment.

Obviously Technographie user is from the PSDB (right conservatives although they use a different name to be more appealing)
If something is NOT gonna happen is to see Brazil collapsing,
at least not in the next decade. Probably later, if the right representing the old land lords (PSDB - Serra) came back and lead the country into a bankrupcy as they did twice!!! in the past,
of course increasing the few land lords fortune.

Whenao user has a deep problem of perception and democratic principles. When a military regime kick out the elected president (as in Brazil in 1964) it is "them" (the militars) who commit a violent act of terrorism, not the "people" who try to fight back to restore democratic power. Therefore it is not Dilma or those who fought against the militars who were the "guerrillas", the guerrilas were those who threaten the democratic system. Maybe whenao IS a militar, or a relative of one. Sorry, but if you defend dictatorship I have to be rude...