the importance of polling

Polling is essential in modern elections, and no where is this more the case than in this year's presidential election in Mexico. I am not primarily concerned with the benefits that polling offers to the candidates (always inviting them to tweak the campaign in order to score a few points higher with a certain demographic). I do not believe that most people, Mexican or Northamerican are greatly influenced by polling data: either in terms of for whom to cast the ballot or whether or not it is even worth showing up to the precinct casillas.

Polls are needed to legitimate the election outcomes. In the 2000 election in the U.S., pre-election polls showed a dead heat between G.W. Bush and Al Gore. On election day, the slight plurality for Gore lead many Democrats to consider Bush's Electoral College victory somewhat illegitimate (and made vote tampering charges seem more plausible). But, of course, Mexico is not plagued by the same arcane electoral procedures.

The most essential role of private, professional and academic polling in any fledgeling democracy is to grant legitimacy to the results. A case in point would be the 1988 elections in Mexico (about which I have commented in depth in a previous blog). When the results came out (over a week late), no one took them as a serious, accurate count, but labeled them as PRI vote manipulation.

About the same time, there was a governor's race in Tabasco, and the same charges of fraud were levied by the "loser." He organized (mostly peaceful) protests design to shut down the state government. What amazed most of the observers was the duration and scale of these protests. Why this historical example is most relevant for us today is that the purported winner of that Tabasco governor race was Roberto Madrazo and the tenacious loser was Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador.

Last month, Enrique Andrade González reflected on the damage that an AMLO victory would do to Mexico's economy and concluded

"The greatest danger to Mexico's economic, social and political stability is not if López Obrador wins, but if he loses the presidency. The world is expecting AMLO to win, and any different result would be questioned at home and abroad. Plus they are preparing the way to impugn the election results should AMLO lose, so as not to let the next government take office."

My hope is that the polling data just prior to the election will show one candidate winning by at least five percentage points and well beyond the statistical margin or error, and that the election results show that same candidate winning. If the pre-election surveys show a dead heat and Calderon wins by a few thousand votes (even if there is no verifiable incidence of fraud), I have no doubt that AMLO will repeat his poor loser tactics of Tabasco.

It is only the pollsters who can legitimize the next president of Mexico, but vouchsafing that he was elected in an honest election. Despite the excellent work of the Federal Elections Institute IFE over the past few years in the last presidential election and numerous local and state elections in this new century, it is the pollsters who will legitimate IFE, and not the other way around.

HOW SERIOUS ARE THE AMLO CAMPAIGN MISTAKES?

Kenneth Emmond is a freelance journalist (with a background in economics). Like me, he has lived in Mexico for over a decade. He is always informed, and frequently flashes keen insights. One of his most analytical pieces for El Universal was repeated in the 7 May Miami Herald.

Emmond re-examined the Lopez Obrador campaign and explored "... three mistakes, each one potentially fatal to his Election Day success: micromanagement, intransigence, and denial. Errors or not, these are not traits one normally looks for in a national leader." The entire piece is worth a read.

http://digbig.com/4hncg

I must concur with his concerns. While I do not think that mounting an effective national political campaign guarantees a competent helmsman of the ship of state, a failing campaign is a symptom of some deeper problems. Something is lacking: the ability to

1 - acquire funds

2 - select competent subordinates

3 - delegate

4 - monitor ongoing developments

5 - flexibly adjust one's course

Number one sinks many honest amateurs in the political realm, but the other factors clearly portend a failed presidency.

the battle of San Mateo Atenco

Not making much news north of the border was this week's skirmish about 10 miles north of Mexico City. A radical farmers' movement has had deteriorating relations with the Edo Mex state police. Subcomandante Marcos visited San Mateo Atenco during the previous week and may have stirred a few coals. As with most cases of civil disobedience, whether it was a rebellion, an uprising, an insurgency or a riot depends upon your point of view. The police came in and made some arrests, encountered some resistance, beat some of those who were apprehended, then the locals took several police hostage. I am less interested in who did what to who when and how (but here is a link to a more in depth story.

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/americas/05/05/mexico.police.ap/

I am more interested in the impact of this kind of disturbance on the July 2 election. To the extent that such events are seen as unfortunate and rare occurrances, they should have no impact on the election. However, if one side is seen as unjust, unreasonable, or excessive, the other extreme may benefit.

For example, if the police are seen as unjust, then that makes the police, state authorities, federal authorities, President Fox, and by extension, PAN candidate Calderon, look bad. From Duran to Fox to Mendoza to Juan Rodolfo, PANistas have staked out the mano dura strategy. When the police looks bad, the PANistas look bad.

If the local rebels are seen as excessive, that could do more than make the local leaders look bad, and also Marcos who (although he was safely in Mexico City when the trouble started) has connected himself with this movement, and possibly anyone who advocates for the poor (e.g., AMLO). This may be the supreme irony, that Marcos runs around the country criticizing Lopez Obrador, but the only way he can really hurt him is to make himself look bad by discrediting all leftist movements.