On second thought . . . .

. . . Let's don't try it again after all.  Even Columbia's poorest citizens are seeing through the bright promises of socialism.  Nicaragua is not looking satisfied either.


Grim said...

Maybe someday somebody will learn?

Gringo said...

Even ColUmbia's poorest citizens are seeing through the bright promises of socialism.

That would be ColOmbia. While they may sing Roar, Lion Roar at ColUmbia, that song is unknown in ColOmbia. Cumbia in Colombia, not Columbia Fight Song in Colombia.

Petro won 42% of the vote, which is not insubstantial. Withe the exception of Bogota, the capital and biggest city where he had been Mayor, Petro won on the borders of the country- the Pacific coast, two Atlantic Coast departments, Putomayo bordering Peru and Ecuador, and Vaupes on the border with Brazil. Most of the Departments Petro won were the farthest from Venezuela- the west and southwest. Petro did NOT win any Departments that bordered Venezuela. Surprise, surprise.

Of the Departments with the 10 lowest per capita incomes, Petro won only 5.

Nonetheless, when you correlate per capita income with % vote for Petro, you get a -.38 correlation, a moderate correlation. When you match per capita income of the 10 poorest departments with % Petro vote, you get -0.03, which is a practically nonexistent correlation.


Anonymous said...

For those who follow Venezuela, Petro was scary. Petro sounded an awful like what Chavez when he campaigned for President in 1998.
Both Petro 21018 and Chavez in 1998 said there would be no nationalizations. As we know Chavez was lying through his teeth, it is not difficult to conclude that Petro is doing the same.
Both Petro 2018 and Chavez in 1998 campaigned against corruption. Once in power, Chavez tolerated corruption from his underlings. Big time. Et Tu, Petro?

When Petro was Mayor of Bogota, his managerial style resembled that of Chavez- autocratic and surrounding himself with yes-men.

The hypocrisy of Chavez regarding coups- he who annually celebrated his unsuccessful 1992 coup- is mirrored in Petro. Petro was a member of M-19, a guerrilla group that committed its share of atrocities before it got an amnesty in 1990. By virtue of belonging to a guerrilla group that committed atrocities, Petro is associated with those atrocities. Yet Petro has continually waved the bloody shirt about alleged atrocities his political opponents were allegedly associated with.

Petro has said that whereas Chavez was a military, he is an academic. He would have a different- and presumably better- approach. Anyone who has observed the depredations of academia in the US will readily see that Petro does himself no good by wrapping himself in an academic gown.

When Chavez died, Petro called him "a great Latin American leader." By his works, ye shall know him, and Venezuela 2018 is the creation of Hugo Chavez. "Great Latin American Leader," my foot.


Sam L. said...

There's nothing better to learn from than a REALLY GOOD bad example. Like, say, Venezuela.