Photo: javierbertucci.org

The employee at the university’s cafeteria was the first; he’s a recently converted evangelical who dedicates as much time as he can to the Bible. He’s hard-working, punctual and courteous with professors, sometimes exchanging a few words with them, such as “it’s hot,” “everything’s expensive,” things like that. The other day, while waiting for our coffee, a colleague of mine asked him, half joking and half serious, if he’ll vote for Bertucci. The employee stared, as if extracting from the professor’s face the most convenient reply. “I’m thinking about it,” he finally said and jumped to another subject, leaving his interlocutors (who disregarded the vote for the pastor-candidate) a bit shaken.

That same day I went for lunch with a friend. The man who invited me was a regular of the place, already friendly with the waiters. When he asked our waiter how he was, the answers were the usual complaints of every Venezuelan, but since waiters in Venezuela always ask back, he also inquired: “And what do you think, sir? Should we vote?”

My friend told him he won’t, but the waiter seemed unsatisfied. “Rumor has it that Falcón and Bertucci will join forces, maybe…”

And he left the subject in the air, taking our order to the kitchen.

The following day, my housekeeper also complained about how bad things are, telling me she’s too old to return to Colombia and her two daughters will vote for Bertucci. “What do you think?” she asked.

This time it’s me who stares at her, telling her that I’m not particularly convinced by that candidate, but he’s got his people. As I understand, the lady will vote for Falcón, but perhaps her daughters will persuade her.

Everything I’ve seen or heard tells me that Bertucci grows in popularity, that he’s already broken the 10% barrier and that he’d make up for a winning formula.

The fact that I heard from four different people that they’ll vote for Bertucci in two days tells me something’s happening. I know the statistical sample is negligible and after commenting it on a couple WhatsApp groups, I’m met with incredulity, displicence or anger. How can people believe in Bertucci? How can they support these elections?

Truth is that even in academic, journalistic and business circles, many have told me they’ll vote, in a kind of “Trump syndrome” (they vote, but don’t say), supported by a few reasons: first, the experience shows that abstaining leads nowhere; second, they don’t believe in MUD; third, between the uncertainty of what the international community could do and the likelihood of a Falcón victory, they go for the safest option.

With this in mind, I start seeing it on studies with a greater statistical solvency than my loose conversations: the willingness to vote has extended and it might reach half of the electorate. If that’s the case, it would be yet another failure for MUD and a success for Maduro, who could tell the world that, despite general perceptions, Venezuelans do believe in the electoral system. Everything I’ve seen or heard, on the other hand, tells me that Bertucci grows in popularity, that he’s already broken the 10% barrier and that, at the moment and together with Falcón, he’d make up for a winning formula. If everyone votes, Maduro, with an 80% disapproval, won’t stand a chance, but if abstention is too high, that 20% he has, well organized, supported by the State, sometimes deeply ideological and sometimes co-opted by public offices, the carnet de la patria and other mechanisms, can give him an easy win, even without fraud. In fact, with the current predictions on abstention, that 20% could give him about 40% of the votes. The matter resides on whether we believe in the electoral system or not, and 50% of Venezuelans think the CNE won’t care what they do.

The leadership void left by Maduro and MUD opens a fertile ground for a new candidate, especially if he knows how to talk, has economic resources, access to the radio and television, and the potential support of one of the most dynamic movements in Venezuela, the evangelicals. It’s a phenomenon that’s becoming more common in Latin America and, although it hasn’t overcome the semi-finals in any election, it’s a matter of time. We’re a society of sheep seeking a shepherd. Just like so many go to the churches looking for a solution to their problems, now they want pastors to fix society. The first miracle is on the horizon, at least: if polls are true and if everything is conducted in a relatively clean fashion, if Maduro wins, it would be with the largest minority and only because there’s no second round. The other two minorities stand between Falcón and Bertucci. Both profit in their own way, because they’d become a reference, they’d have some real power and perhaps they’d become the opposition that can negotiate with Maduro, if he so chooses, pushing MUD aside.

Many voters hope for this in hushed voices, although they’d rather not admit it.

Caracas Chronicles is 100% reader-supported. Support independent Venezuelan journalism by making a donation.

59 COMMENTS

  1. This only confirms something that many have started to suspect from close observation of electoral processes over time , but specially in recent times , that even in the best of cases most people who vote have a very mediocrhe, emotionally tainted , inept, skewed understanding of the complex issues that drive public life , they will vote for fools or clowns or loud blabber mouths that catch their fancy for wholly superficial reasons , that average voters cannot be trusted to make intelligent choices …..in the abstract democracy is very appealing , we cannot forego our admiration for what it promises , but in practice it is easily degraded into producing aberrations or monsters (Chavez is a case in point) or totally inane and banal political leaders ……, its almost a matter of chance to get someone worth his/her mettle elected to high office ……!! Can we apply our imagination for finding a way of improving electoral results …..?? or do we think that what we have is the best that can ever be achieved !!

    • “The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.” Winston Churchill

      I’ve got a few kids in college and at first I was impressed with how attuned they and their friends were to what was going on in the world… until you peel back the first layer or two and see what is lying underneath. I can appreciate a rightist/leftist world view, so long as it isn’t based on “what I read in a book” or “what my professor taught us”.

      To make a long winded, “ageist” tirade very short, I am of the firm belief that most people under the age of 25 don’t know their ass from their elbow about “the real world”. Only the patina of experience can open their eyes.

      I had one gal go on and on about how SHE went to Nicaragua to help feed starving babies brought upon by the Imperialist goings on of the vile Uncle Sam. Which set me off, because this “well traveled, trust-fund spoiled useful idiot” thought that since she sat in on a Che Guevara Appreciation Day seminar and helped shove a tit in a babies mouth that she was “socially aware”.**

      ~~~~~~~~

      **My physician wife and I travel yearly to various third world destinations as part of a medical missions group to fix cleft palates, etc (she) and build medical clinics/offices (me). Haiti, Dominican Republic, Honduras, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Sudan/Ethiopia/Somalia… you know… Trump’s “shit-holes”. I got the joy of explaining to Ms. Marxist the virtues of actually donating more than just time/talent… lots of money is needed to fund these expeditions and that wealth comes courtesy of Capitalism. And since Karl Marx type thoughts are adverse to creating wealth, she should shut her f’ing yap, put down her Free-Trade double goat milk latte, create some of her own wealth and give it away, along with her time and talents… because nursing babies can be done by damn near anyone and is more symbolic than substance.

      Oh yeah… “and your college roommate (my daughter, Honduras) and her sister (Sudan) were both adopted because Karl Marx acolytes don’t have the time nor money to adopt babies with birth defects.”

  2. Bill, I am not sure Proffessor Straka has proven anything. His anecdotal evidence of support for Bertucci is razor thin. Also, as a total outsider I have no reference point for the author, his political biases. I do note that the Miami Herald reports that Falcon and Bertucci will not combine their efforts, pretty much assuring a Maduro victory in a three way contest. A cynic might suggest that Bertucci’s candidacy is just a ploy to keep Falcon from getting a plurality but I have no basis for that claim. Democracy and voting is by no means perfect but we have tried every other alternatives over several thousand years and democracy seems the least bad alternative.

    • I still have some sentimental attachment to abstract democracy , moreover I think a healthy democracy is an essencial part of any decent political order , what I was trying to suggest was that perhaps it be made more workable and accountable by making political parties present a detailed program which results can be monitored and measured objectively as a condition for participating in an electoral contest , not just some vague holistic declaration of principles………, to encourage candidates to go thru special courses or preparation before their name is put on a list of candidates (something like the grand ecole of haute etudes in france) , to have non partisan experts councils /think tanks monitor the performance of public officials and their policies , to have such coincils pass a grade on every candidate policy program or official that goes thru the political process………generally to make anyone aspiring to some high office at least as demanding as getting a licence to become a cab driver in London….

      • The problem with democracy in Venezuela is not democracy or Venezuelans. It is that the winner gets control of a huge oil bonanza. There needs to be found some way to mitigate that distorting factor on democratic institutions. If everybody would just go and buy an electric car, that might do it, but that is not going to happen any time soon.

        Hugo Chavez and his movement would not have been a world historical disaster for Venezuela as a one term presidency. He would have been a very bad learning experience. But he and his supporters got control of the oil at an historical peak in the market, and he was able to leverage that into limitless power.

        Venezuela should move to a parliamentary system with proportional representation. It should disband the military.

        The alternative to democracy in Venezuela will always be a lethal, unmitigated disaster. There can be no beneficent dictatorship in Venezuela because oil revenue has such a concentrating effect on power, there are no beneficent dictatorships, and unchecked and concentrated power is always going to be corrupt, abusive and lethal.

        That’s my theory and I am sticking to it for now.

        • The thing is the oil bonanzas are a thing of the past, specially now that PDVSA is dead and people overseas are fighting over looting it’s corpse. Never again will the days of 100+$ per barrel return. I’m not very learned on the ins and outs of oil trade, and have some basic economic knowledge so take what i say with a grain of salt, but i just don’t see a way for PDVSA to recover in the short or mid term. Even long term is a big maybe, and i haven’t read a credible analyst that can sugest otherwise.

          The only mitigating factor i can think of for future presidencies to get them hands away from oil money is privatizing PDVSA and giving up the rights of minerals and hydrocarbons under Vz’s subsoil. The state has proven incompetent to manage them anyway.

          But that won’t happen since the P word is taboo in Venezuela and “we should all get 1000$ a year from the state because we were born in a country rich in oil and it belongs to us” kind of speech is prevalent in all levels of society (I’ve heard people in lines from all social strata sharing those ideas and agreeing, several times).

          • The Venezuelan oil bonanza is largely over, due to the massive debt incurred by Chavismo. However, while there might be riches for the country, it can still provide a lot of good jobs, provided you can ever get rid of Maduro and convince some of the oil companies to come back and give Venezuela a second chance.

  3. What has been quickly growing in popularity in Venezuela is Evangelical Christianity. Even among people who will still tell anyone they are Catholic.

    His particular campaign seems like sort of a no-lose proposition that way.

  4. Bertucci has absolutely no goverment project or plan aside from basically more chabizmo:

    https://youtu.be/x45URH9H_-I

    And he’s also as deep in the s**t of the Panama papers case as a bunch of other enchufados:

    https://youtu.be/yVkME1a0U1o

    https://youtu.be/apL1Mfugcrs

    He’s just another chabizta rat, with hundreds of paid cackling trolls to trashtalk anyone who dares to disagree with his candidacy (and his obvious service to the dictatorship)

    He even had the nerve to claim in several ocassions that “chabizmo is God’s government on Earth, that’s why they’ll NEVER leave”, in a sane country, that psychological torture would be reason enough to lock him away.

  5. ” Your comment is awaiting moderation ”

    How long takes that moderation? I posted something in another article days ago and the comment never appeared, the links on the comment are sources, I don’t need to spam with garbage sites if you think that’s the problem.

      • They were links to youtube videos and articles showing that Bertucci is a dirty swindler enchufado working for the regime.

        The post sans links is:

        “Bertucci has absolutely no goverment project or plan aside from basically more chabizmo:

        ***

        And he’s also as deep in the s**t of the Panama papers case as a bunch of other enchufados:

        ***

        He’s just another chabizta rat, with hundreds of paid cackling trolls to trashtalk anyone who dares to disagree with his candidacy (and his obvious service to the dictatorship)

        He even had the nerve to claim in several ocassions that “chabizmo is God’s government on Earth, that’s why they’ll NEVER leave”, in a sane country, that psychological torture would be reason enough to lock him away.”

    • I have never understood the Christian “shepard” and “sheep” analogy. Shepards do not keep sheep because they like them. They keep them because they want to shear them, eat them, or fuck them.

      • “or fuck them”

        You are spending too much time in Basque country, where the men are men, and the sheep know it.

  6. “Truth is that even in academic, journalistic and business circles, many have told me they’ll vote, in a kind of “Trump syndrome” (they vote, but don’t say)…”

    ——————

    Where did this fantasy come from?

    Just because the liberal pollsters got it wrong (and/or faked the numbers), Trump supporters were far from shrinking violets. Hell, he held huge rallies every day, several a day, with tens of thousands showing up.

    I just find it aggravating when people rewrite history to fit their political agenda.

    Us Trump supporters sure weren’t afraid to state our support, especially for an anonymous poll.

      • Well, I don’t really remember, but we have to make the distinction between the primaries and general.

        I pretty much recall that the right wing media was getting it totally right in the primaries, showing Trump’s growing popularity. And the liberal media echoed that.

        However, the conservative media poo-poo’d the results, saying it was “impossible” that Trump would become the nominee. And the liberal media applauded it, thinking that would guarantee a Hillary win.

        But in the general, I don’t remember the conservative media getting it all that wrong. After all, he still lost the popular vote.

        Gee, now I’d like to see what was said and written in the two weeks prior to the general. It’s all fuzzy to me now.

    • You both have it wrong. The shrinking Trump supporter is the person who publicly supports Trump – for professional gain, opportunism, or a blind and naïve sense that something good can be wrested from the situation- but who privately thinks Trump is a shameless con-man and an idiot in terms of the duties and responsibilities of his position. A phenomenon that people who have some familiarity with the power circle around Hugo Chavez might recognize in an instant.

      As for bona fide supporters of the man who would be afraid to speak out? (Chavez/Trump) About as common as a concert pianist at a WWF fight, I would think. It is a populist movement very much powered by the idea of unashamedly asserting an identity: Us v. Them.

      • Wow.

        A Canadian trying to explain the American mindset to an American.

        It just doesn’t get any stupider or more worthless.

        • Come on Ira. You’ve been opining about Venezuelans on a daily basis here. You’ve reached a number of conclusions about the Venezuelan mindset. And apparently, you told us a while ago, you wrote a whole article about the Venezuelan mindset that was rejected by this blog.

          And you can do better than to start casting me in a childish fit as anti-American, or a socialist, or a Trudeau voter, or whatever. But proceed.

          • No, you’re just wrong.

            The main theme of my posts usually emphasize that I DON’T understand the VZ mindset. It’s only been recently…after two decades of following this…that I’ve come to certain conclusions!

            You, on the other hand, opine based on your liberal agenda:

            America seems to have hurt your feelings by electing Trump, and you actually have the balls to call him a POPULIST candidate. Populists are liberal jerks like Chavez and Trudeau, promising everything for nothing. Trump promised everything by promising us the opportunities to WORK for everything.

            The world needs a boogieman, I guess, but your obsession over Trump is nonsense. You live in a country with a rather meaningless world footprint, and this hurts, I know. However…

            If you think the average American voter gives a shit about world opinion, well, there’s a reason people choose to emigrate here.

            I do however give you credit for having a long memory, but it’s a pretty bad memory. Once again, you got it wrong:

            I never wrote that article. I merely proposed it. And the main theme of that article was that I COULDN’T understand the VZ mindset, and this was an attempt at better understanding it.

            My God, you’re pitifully consistent in your errors.

          • Ira the notion that Trump is a populist is not controversial. That he is a populist demagogue (or something similar) is a common opinion -including among Americans- but not yours, apparently.

          • According to Merriam-Webster:

            POPULIST = A believer in the rights, wisdom, or virtues of the common people.
            ELITIST = A person who believes that a society or system should be led by an elite.

            So Trump is a populist. I can deal with that. Had he lost the election and then travelled the world, explaining to any and all eager to hear what’s wrong with America, that he was defeated by 68 million deplorable Americans, and the world would be a much better place had he won, well, that kind of person might qualify for the other label.

          • Ira commented on a statement made in the article, which takes the usual signalling jab at Trump. Canucklehead frequently lets TDS flow in his comments. You are free to ignore them if you no like.

          • Hey, Kepler:

            “US American citizen,” you wrote.

            What the hell are you talking about? And do you have ANY idea what “trolling” actually means?

            Because as a daily visitor here, frequent contributor, I sure can’t be considered a troll.

            Seriously, are you a fucking idiot? In addition to coming from Nazi roots?

            Your post makes no sense, but then again, they never do.

          • Lorenzo,
            I should have said Ira.
            Canadians and Venezuelans are also American but not US Americans, of course. And it is really Ira who is constantly diverting the conversation.

            Again: it is about the scam election and this evangelical candidate.

          • Kepler, you are not going to change how the English language is used in the free world, at least not from this forum. So I suggest you stop taking issue with how most people use the word America and save yourself some self-inflicted grief.

    • I knew as soon as his name was mentioned, I knew the usual suspects couldn’t resist and then most of these comments would be about Trump and go from there to the usual people insulting each other.

      Good god, this place has gotten depressingly predictable. CC, can you just not mention Trump at all unless it’s relevant. Thanks

  7. There can be no beneficent dictatorship in Venezuela because oil revenue has such a concentrating effect on power, there are no beneficent dictatorships, and unchecked and concentrated power is always going to be corrupt, abusive and lethal.
    ———
    The problem is that socialism is by nature a closed system, ergo transparency and access to the plain truth, to objective data and reporting etc. is seen as the enemy of the state. Notice how any information gathering, even at dinky rallies in El Tigre, is killed on the spot by National Guardsmen stealing phones and cameras. Reality and truth simply go missing in every socialist system as the jefes do exactly as they please, totally unchecked. Democracy is not a perfect system but it tends to operate in the open, so the powers that be are locked in a continuous feedback loop with each side striving to spin the facts to their advantage. This tends to limit the damage of bad policy. The Chavistas have always fought ANY limit on their power, which ironically, has left them almost powerless save to repress. Yes, the oil cornucopia amplifies the problems, but any closed political systems that trades on absurd falsehoods (inflation is a right wing plot; there is no humanitarian crisis; Venezuela is a democracy, etc) with no means of public challenge and no piper to ever pay, is inherently doomed.

  8. I read that the evangelical church rejects bertucci. I know there must be several associations, but this one seemed to cover 2000 churches. It was a little too late if you ask me, but at least it was done

  9. Another article about how a non-Govt. candidate might win an election in Venezuela, which has a CROOKED/FIXED ELECTORAL SYSTEM–hasta cuando….

  10. The entire election is a sham, and Falcon and Bertucci are meaningless distractions from this fact.

    I guess you gotta write about it, but it’s pretty ridiculous.

    • I think that there might be something to the Bertucci candidacy, but overall I think you are correct. It is meaningless and a distraction. Chavismo won’t let go of power no matter what. They don’t care about right/wrong. They care about the Revolution.

  11. The problem is that democracy makes emotional seduction and clientelar incentives more important than experrise in the design and implementation of policies so political partis tend to prioritize ideology and political loyalty to managerial ability making a mess of things , Politics has to be given a more specialized role in big messy decisions while granting non partisan groups of experts the authority to design policies professionally and impelement them in practice via a meritocratic system of elites ……..Politics should guide but not performn ordinary state tasks where expertise is more important than speech making and having beautiful souls ….., Having amateurs handling difficult collective issues on their own using their common sensee might have been all right 2 cnturies ago , but now a days it is very danagerous . In the US stockholders take really big decisions but always supporting themselves on the exertise of their managing boards and letting the latter run things on a daily basis …if very efficent businesses in the US do this why cant our public processes.

    • I guess because our electoral process rests so heavily on campaign contributions. (But not totally, so see below.) And elected candidates act/vote in the direction of those donors.

      The “below” part I mentioned above is that at the very same time, officials act in the way they promised their constituents during the campaign. Theirs nothing wrong with this part of it, but us constituents aren’t always right.

      What pisses me off are policy makers who promise one thing, and do another. Or don’t even TRY to do what they promised.

      This is why Trump is so highly regarded by so many. He hasn’t been 100% successful so far (what president has ever been?), but he’s trying to do what he promised, and he’s trying damn hard. He’s not moderating his positions very much to appease those who oppose him.

      I’m all for the checks and balances in the U.S. system, but I also believe that too much of a good thing isn’t so good. That’s why I’m such a fan of Andrew Jackson, who redefined the power of the presidency, and made that power not absolute, but a lot stronger.

      Jackson prevented the Civil War. Lincoln didn’t.

      • “Jackson prevented the Civil War. Lincoln didn’t.”

        Trying to compare to the two situations belies an ignorance of both critical points in American history. The situations are not remotely comparable, unless one has only the most vague understanding of either.

        Jackson, or Trump, or whomever, could not have stopped the Civil War in 1861 short of giving a minority in the country permanent veto rights and authority over the government….and even that may not have been enough for the pro-slavery deep South.

    • Bill, it is common that the wisdom of stockholders and the expertise of boards of directors is vastly overrrated. I know that because like many North Americans, I own stocks.

      The corporation is subject to many of the same potential weaknesses of democratic institutions, and it has the additional limitation of having a fairly narrow set of purposes, which are fine as far as they go, but don’t account for a vast range of common social objectives that are necessary to civilization.

      For example. There are many Venezuelan corporations. Are they all immune from the same kinds of misuse and abuse that plague the Venezuelan government? Or do they become in many instances, vehicles for that same abuse and inefficiency? I think they do. And I also think if you put well run foreign corporations in a country with weak government and weak oversight, you can have big problems as well. People tend to pursue their narrow interest as far as they are permitted to go. That is really the job of the corporation. That creates wealth, which is fine, but it is also why, for example, vast areas of countries with weak governments hosting strong corporations can be turned into uninhabitable or poisonous cesspool-dumps.

      The idea of running government like a corporation sounds great, except that like governments, there are well run corporations and there are dysfunctional and inefficient corporations and corporations that transfer costs to innocent third parties. Also, governments have to address issues that a corporate structure cannot address, including creating conditions for the fair, efficient and socially acceptable running of corporations themselves.

      So that brings us back to the question of what form of government is better: a democracy or an authoritarian regime. We have an authoritarian regime in Venezuela. There is no magic process or outside intervention that will convert it to a good authoritarian regime, because no such regime exists.

      • In japan top political offices dont run the govt , 95% of public activities are run by a professional meritocracy that handles the resources and money and designs and implement policies strictly on non partisan lines ……why? , because they are in charge of those govt functions were expertise rather than ideological or partisan inspiration are what counts. they run those govt functions with efficiency and minimal corruption . There are always however some colective decisions where expertise is not enough to decide things , where other kind of considerations have a big weight , it is only where things are fuzzy and very difficult and there are no right anwers but only political wagers which those top political offices have to deal with , with the help of course of the experts in that meritocracy. I have the idea that the use of resources should be left to a professional meritocracy guided by non partisan considerations under the oversight of independent and political bodies but otherwise entirely independent of partisan concerns and ambitions……In short you divide the state functions into two parts , one which takes care of the day to day running of things , including the use of resources via meritocratic methods and a political part which takes care only of deciding big big fuzzy things with the help of politically independent experts . I worked in big corporations , the shareholders meeting representing the stockholder met once or twice a year and only considered the most crucial topics in the life of the corporations , they didnt go into any of the details of how the company would be run , that was the professional managers job , they handled the money that had been budgeted to accomplish the tasks they had ….., and while I was there that worked pretty well . Problem in Venezuela is that there is no institutionally independent meritocracy of experts and managers whose task is separate and independent from the top political offices which is only to take certain big decisions withoug meddling in the details of day to day business . My reference to corporations is based on that experience !! I think that this division was unnecessary when todays govts were set up , a good amateur leader could do anything , the state hardly mattered , but todays world is different , you need people with expertise to do the backbone job of govt …..During the US Civil War you had a lot of political appointees lead the Union army , they all failed , ultimately it was a hard tack military professional , General Grant (also General Sherman) who won the battle to another great professional leading the southern Armies . General Lee …….> Lincoln was a great statesman but if he had led the Union Armies a Confederate flag would fly atop the White House and the Capitol.

    • “….while granting non partisan groups of experts the authority to design policies professionally and implement them in practice via a meritocratic system of elites ……..”

      We have those groups of “elites” here in the USA, Bill. We call them, “THE SWAMP.”

  12. I really don’t like it when religious leaders jump into politics and decide they need to run as an elected official. Two big reasons:

    1) they have to nuance the truths they hold dear in order to not offend part of the electorate.

    2) so often, they chose to advance a political opinion through prayer. As if God has a vote. (Um, we have free will for a reason, people…)

    The second point often takes the form of “if Jesus were here right now, he would support raising taxes and fund this abortion center”. I have seen this line of argument used repeatedly to serve a political position very often by the left. Or for some reason to undermine poblic discussion.

    I think obummer is due some credit for steering clear if this (mostly) and Trump has yet to display this dogma from the Whitehouse.

    Maduro and Chavez set themselves up as the head of their own church.

    “Render onto ceasar …” Was to show that politics and duty to God are not the same.

    Pope Francis would do well to learn this. But then, he has never stood up to dictators. Pope John Paul II, he is not… Not by a long shot.

    • Very well said.

      The problem I have with religious leaders getting into politics is the whole “I’m on a mission from God” part of it.

      But hey, is that really worse than people getting into politics for the ego of it alone?

      Both types stink.

      • Bertucci has said several times to his flock that “chavizmo is God’s government on earth, that’s why it’ll never leave”

        • It is that sort of belief system that makes it very difficult for US citizens to justify any sort of military involvement in Venezuela. Too many people in Venezuela have drank the Kool-Aid. Bertucci voters think that he is the savior who will bring Chavismo back from the dung heap of history.

          • Berrucci’s “voters” are more like the same kind of paid trolls that Rosales had when he charged against Guanipa for not kneeling befre the prostituyente, the guy’s simply another piece in the fraud machine.

            Less than 3 million are willing to vote in the 20th, and that’s from more than 20 million possible votes.

    • …crickets…

      MUD is simply Chavismo-lite
      Or blended Chavismo.

      It is still based on raw communism and cult of personality.

    • All of those who’ve been banned from media and from leaving the country so they can’t speak about how chabizmo is a cuban-directed drug dictatorship that destroyed Venezuela and thus must be ousted by any means.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here