• The night of the legislative elections left a shocking photo with the victory of LLA as the force with the most votes at the national level (40.8% of the votes). A result that should be taken in its proper measure and harmoniously.

  • Why do I start from here? Because impressionism is a national sport. If on September 7 (when LLA lost by 14 points in the PBA) it was stated that the return of Peronism was just around the corner; Now, after the 26th, I heard many people—sometimes the same people—say that Milei is guaranteed re-election.
  • As sometimes, the interpretation of the facts is as important as the facts themselves, because the conclusions drawn from an event are already part of the elaboration of a political response, it is advisable to try to specify the figures, the reasons and the causes that led to this result. As well as the real magnitude of the result itself.
  • Obviously, the novelty is political; although when you go to arithmetic, everything becomes relative. With a participation that touched historical lows —68%—, that is, a very significant absenteeism, that 40% translates into much less, let’s say a third. Here we said that the Government aspired to a “third blockade” and achieved a little more, among those who went to vote and, above all, with the result it managed to subordinate a large part of the political system for a new counter-reformist offensive. That is, first of all, for its labor reform agenda.
  • Let’s go to the causes: it is impossible to understand this election without the direct and unprecedented intervention of the US in the economy and domestic politics in recent weeks. He practically took command of the electoral campaign, provided the dollars (with the intervention of the Treasury through private banks) to support the flattened dollar and prevent inflation from skyrocketing and, above all, he carried out political extortion of the electorate: if Milei does not win, “we are going to withdraw economic support,” said Donald Trump. The logical consequence was a “market coup”, a financial crisis, a spike in inflation, that is, a total disaster to which Milei’s own economic scheme led. Because, let’s see, there was a kernel of truth in this: without the US bailout the plan would founder. The issue is that the US saves the person who designed and carried out that plan, because it wants him and needs him as an ally in regional and global geopolitics.
  • A part of the electorate went to vote under this coercion and, although they are not satisfied with the current situation, although they do not validate Milei’s policies, they were forced to choose that “lesser evil”: either this bad plan or for everything to explode and be worse.
  • I say this because I heard people claim that an endorsement was voted for all of Milei’s policies (against retirees, Garrahan or people with disabilities) and, obviously, there is a hard core (in general, privileged) on the right that supports these policies, but the one who made the difference could have voted for it, despite these issues that it does not support. This is important to see the consistency of that support.
  • Here another fact emerges from the electoral arithmetic: despite all this support (especially from the US), LLA and the PRO (who are now together) failed to contain the number of votes they obtained separately two years ago. They lost between three or four million votes. These are different elections, different context, but something indicates that loss in relation to the strength or weakness of the right.
  • Secondly, others who contributed (a lot) to Milei’s victory were the governors who were grouped together in “United Provinces” and who lost by beating in their districts (we are talking about Maximiliano Pullaro in Santa Fe, Schiaretti in Córdoba) who, to summarize, let’s say it this way: conceptually they said that they agreed with the essence of Milei’s ideas, with Milei’s “reforms”, but that they wanted to do it with better “manners”. Well, that was a campaign for Milei: faced with a bad, dubious copy, we voted for the original and they were the first victims of their own proposal.
  • I introduce another controversy here: after Sunday the voices were heard again and I say this because they have weight in the media, which draw “right-wing” conclusions from the result and say: “Well, we must think of an opposition proposal that takes “correct” aspects of Milei’s orientation (the issue of ‘macro order’, a ‘own labor reform’) to manage to ‘captivate’ part of the right-wing electorate.” But, guys, that was “United Provinces” and there they are. It seems to be true that “it is easier to disintegrate an atom than a prejudice.”
  • Thirdly, Peronism, especially that which is part of Fuerza Patria. It is fashionable to criticize the internal situation that intensified this week: the faces that Máximo Kirchner made of Axel Kicillof on election night; splitting yes or no; CFK’s letter; the performances of Juan Grabois on 20 streaming channels in which he came out to talk about himself because he doesn’t know how to say (and just in case he criticizes the left); Mayra Mendoza’s phrases and selfies.
  • Now, I believe (and I said this in a program this week) that this is not the important thing. The essential problem is the time and advantage that Peronism and, above all, the powerful union and social organizations led by Peronism, gave this Government for not also going out to confront them in the streets. To coercion, to extortion, to the undemocratic position of the Government that does not comply with what Congress votes; Support in cash cannot be opposed only by electoral alchemy. That was the main advantage. In addition to the fact that programmatically they debated between silence (or just raising general phrases “Milei must be stopped”) and conceptual capitulation: let us not forget, now that the labor reform is being discussed, that Cristina herself said on several occasions that “labor relations must be modernized.”
  • And the context of recent history that includes the experience of the Frente de Todos. That is not so easily forgotten and that served as a reference for many people. Many wanted to fake dementia, but the adjustment continued for four years.
  • All of this makes up what in an article this week I defined as “asymmetric polarization” (in reality, it is a formula that has been used many times): on the right side, a bloc with a program (permanent adjustment, labor and tax reform, privatizations, “order”), capable of setting an agenda and enemies; opposite, a broad but oscillating opposition that is torn between rejection and capitulation.
  • At the extreme left of this polarization (partly managing to break it) we must note the election of the Left Front (a historic vote in CABA with Myriam Bregman, two deputies in PBA with Del Caño’s list, the only force, in addition to the two main ones that consecrated deputies), 10% in Jujuy. Let’s see, this is also a political fact of reality. Because there are analyzes that highlight the movement to the right, without taking into account the countertrends that go the other way.
  • It is evident that the numbers give the Government political breathing room, but it is also necessary to mention the obvious: the contradictions that existed before 26th October remain as valid as then: the Central Bank’s reserves are destroyed, the dollar is artificially contained and inflation remains relatively low (compared to recent years) based on that “cheap” dollar; economic activity entering recession in the third quarter of the year. Given this, it does not have many options: suppose it devalues, it would imply that inflation would skyrocket again (it already pierced the 2% floor in October according to private consulting firms), and if it maintains the current exchange rate, it would worsen the recession. Meanwhile, it is proposed to take advantage of the momentum for a new attack against the majorities.
  • What is all this important for? To enter into the dispute about the balance (there are other data, eh, the change in the social composition of the Government vote, much more middle and upper middle class). All elements that show that betting on the “centers” favors the Government, that the advantages that occur in the street are later paid for in the political field, that to the universe of ideas of the right (as Che said some about imperialism, we should not give in “even that much”), that the basis of support of the Government is much more contradictory than what they want us to believe and that, therefore, there are conditions for the fight.

    • Do you want to know more about this topic? Ask ChatPTS

    Source: www.laizquierdadiario.com



    Leave a Reply

    Related News

    Trump surrenders to Xi and announces trade truce with China

    Trump surrenders to Xi and announces trade truce with China

    November 1, 2025
    Xi Jinping says China’s goals align with Trump’s vision and defends cooperation between the two powers

    Xi Jinping says China’s goals align with Trump’s vision and defends cooperation between the two powers

    November 1, 2025