MercoPress, en Español

Montevideo, January 20th 2022 - 02:35 UTC

 

 

Argentine analyst says 8% decide their vote on Election Day

Saturday, November 14th 2015 - 12:48 UTC
Full article 17 comments
The clue are the five million votes of Sergio Massa, third ranked in the 25 October first presidential round The clue are the five million votes of Sergio Massa, third ranked in the 25 October first presidential round
Giaccobbe said it was clear that people wanted a change and a majority of Argentines favored voting against Cristina Fernandez and Kirchnerism. Giaccobbe said it was clear that people wanted a change and a majority of Argentines favored voting against Cristina Fernandez and Kirchnerism.
However while 70% of voters act with logic, “for 30% it's like choosing between Frankenstein and the wolf man, since they do not like any of the candidates”. However while 70% of voters act with logic, “for 30% it's like choosing between Frankenstein and the wolf man, since they do not like any of the candidates”.

There is an 8% of voters who decide on ballot day whom they prefer and will support, and “they definitively decide the election, even more when it's a runoff”, according to Jorge Giacobbe an Argentine political pollster and analyst.

 Consulted ahead of Sunday's presidential debate between incumbent Daniel Scioli and opposition candidate Mauricio Macri, Giacobbe said it was clear people wanted a change and a majority of Argentines favored voting against Cristina Fernandez and Kirchnerism.

However the clue are the five million votes of Sergio Massa, third ranked in the 25 October first presidential round, when none of the two leading candidates managed 45% of ballots or 40% plus a ten-point difference.

“I believe there is a majority of Massa voters who will support Macri. But one thing are the Massa votes in Cordoba and another those in La Matanza, a Buenos Aires province district, who really believe Scioli is the only one capable or reining the province, and not some other hopeful”.

Likewise Giacobbe said it was in “Scioli's interest that less voters turn out on 22 November when the runoff, while for Macri the opposite is best, the more voters the better so he can overtake the small difference he experienced in October”.

But above all “we must remember that 70% of voters act on a rather reasonable logic, while for 30% it's like choosing between Frankenstein and the wolf man, since they do not like or feel comfortable with any of the two candidates”.

Giacobbe also recalled that despite what opinion polls might be indicating, experience shows that in runoffs the difference is normally just a few percentage points, no matter the candidates, “probably the only recent exception was in France when president Jacques Chirac was reelected by beating Le Pen by a three to one difference”.

Categories: Politics, Argentina.

Top Comments

Disclaimer & comment rules
  • ernest shackleton

    The problem that Cameron - and most other European “leaders” - faces is that he (and they) have backed themselves into a corner by repeatedly mouthing the blatant lie that “Islam is a peaceful religion”. Despite what many here say Cameron is not a stupid man, he is a scared man. He cannot suddenly turn around and say he was wrong because he would lose face. And he certainly cannot say the sort of things that we are saying here because if he were to do so all hell would break loose and the muslims would retaliate with massive bombing and terror attacks far worse than what we have already seen.

    One way to divert the pressure - and to shift the onus from our “leaders” - would be to have a totally impartial investigation into Islam - something like a Royal Commission - to decide (1) is Islam compatible with Western democracy? (2) is Islam in the public interest of the native European majority?. Finally, (3) if the findings were negative (as it logically should be) - should Islam be totally banned or just restricted and controlled?

    In order to be genuinely impartial such an investigation would have to invite submissions not just from the usual hand-wringing liberal apologists and taqqiya-spouting “moderate muslims” - but also from the likes of people who the media have dismissed and demonised as “Islamophobes” - Geert Wilders, Robert Spencer, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Bridgitte Gabriel, Pamela Geller, Douglas Murray, etc., and others who have studied the “Religion of Peace” and found it to actually be a “Religion of Hatred and Violence”

    Of course, if the inquiry were genuinely impartial - and making it so would be the biggest stumbling block - it is obvious that it would find against Islam. Such an announcement would then make it much easier for our leaders to crack down on Islam in a big way - either making it illegal or (as I have previously suggested) restricting its practice to a few enclaves (where muslims are already a majority or near majority) on the basis that it was

    Nov 14th, 2015 - 03:37 pm 0
  • Troy Tempest

    Off topic

    Nov 14th, 2015 - 03:43 pm 0
  • ElaineB

    Spamming never gets more people agreeing with you.

    On topic. I think it may even be higher than 8% as a lot of people are very confused by the mis-information and fear-mongering. The debate will have a big influence followed by the ultra-smearing next week.

    Nov 14th, 2015 - 04:26 pm 0
Read all comments

Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!