Antojitos: The Mornings After...

With the campaign over and feeling confident about his lead, PAN candidate Felipe Calderón tells El Universal that he's sleeping in and enjoying big breakfasts.

-- Ceci Connolly

By washingtonpost.com Editors |  July 4, 2006; 6:23 PM ET  | Category:  Antojitos
Previous: Missing Ballots, Court Challenges and Hints of Street Protests | Next: From The Post: Passions Rising

Blogs That Reference This Entry

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/cgi-bin/mt/mtb.cgi/8451

Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.



Sunday night I was disappointed in Calderon rushing out behind Lopez Obrador to declare himself the winner. I was appalled by Lopez Obrador's action, coming only minutes after Luis Carlos Ugalde, president of IFE, has asked candidates to refrain from such statements.

But I can now see why Calderon had to do what he did. If he had taken the high road and allowed AMLO to go around proclaiming himself the winner he might have lost credibility. And, after all, the preliminary results did show Calderon ahead. Calderon was also able to cite numerous exit polls by name, whereas Lopez Obrador could only refer to "nuestros datos," a pathetic attempt to make it sound like he actually had some evidence to back his claim, when, in fact, he always uses these phantom polls. If they are real, let him show his hand. Tell us who did the poll, what method they used, etc.

Posted by: Goyo | July 4, 2006 09:07 PM

Isn't unfair, Goyo, to see only what you want to see? I recall vividly Calderon indicating, on the basis of PREP results, that he had been winning since early on, with a suspiciously high margin; all results of polls he mentioned are probably bogus, in light of the closeness of results; statistically speaking, samples should be enourmous to turn out reliable numbers. And this goes for Lopez Obrador polling, too.

What I see is a master political stroke from Lopez Obrador to prevent Calderon from using the early and consistent lead in the PREP (which limitations we have since learned) to cement among the public the impression of an irrefutable (but dubious, at best) victory. IFE's Ugalde was clear, but nobody really understood or wanted to understand what he said since Sunday night, that PREP results, although "official," were not a 100% accurate depiction of voting results. This is partially IFE's fault, for their fail in educating people (not only parties) BEFORE THE ELECTION in the shortcomings of PREP.

Posted by: pasilla | July 5, 2006 11:19 AM

According to El Universal, 25% of the recount has been conducted so far, and AMLO is now ahead by more than 2.5%. Here's the link:
http://www.eluniversal.com.mx/notas/360219.html

Posted by: Yakima | July 5, 2006 02:52 PM

pasilla-- You may have a point. I don't hold either of these guys in great esteem, so I can believe they both played it for whatever advantage they could get. I guess expecting someone to take the high road in politics is a little old fashioned.

My head starts to swim with all the numbers, but if the PREP results come out favoring Calderon again, I think, for the good of Mexico, AMLO should concede.

To be fair, if if shows AMLO winning, Calderon should step aside and admit he had it wrong. Neither of these guys will have the support of more than about a third of the country-- so fighting over who will be president is kind of stupid. The country needs stability and some kind of coherent direction. All sides should look for ways of cooperating for the common good.

There I go again, being hopelessly idealistic.

Posted by: Goyo | July 5, 2006 07:11 PM

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




 
 

© 2006 The Washington Post Company