Why isn't Aécio Neves gaining traction?

It's true that 'whys' are always practically insurmountable difficulties. Also, several variables end up coming into play in the analyses. This throws the possible scenarios out of balance.

Political scientists during election campaigns strive to draw profiles, create overviews, and obtain answers. But the social sciences and humanities have notoriously loose boundaries, accepting wide variations, for example, subjective aspects from the analyst.

For these reasons, concepts such as 'objectivity' and 'impartiality', so celebrated by some, are a great illusion. Even so, certain indicators, if not answers, reveal themselves as major questions.

Aécio Neves is perhaps the great political paradox in this 2014 election. At one moment he surprises with his ineffectiveness in the voting intention statistics. At another, he confirms PT (Workers' Party) predictions that many observers thought were merely rhetoric loyal to the PT regarding the success of its own administration.

With a mega-party supporting him, PSDB, fully structured and prepared for many years to confront the PT, Aécio is more than mature enough to run for president. Much more so than the old, decaying barons of the party. And even Marina Silva.

This prior structuring was not enough to generate the revelation Aécio. This failure ended up opening up questions. Something like – what, then, are the much-publicized weaknesses of the PT, of Dilma, of the current administration? It is clear that the death of the political Siamese twin Eduardo Campos and the entry of the hurricane-like candidate Marina Silva unbalanced the scenario. Contrary to Aécio.

But a first conclusion is that the PSDB is perceived as tired, lukewarm, and unable to excite the masses. Even though it originally represented immense pockets of the elite and the dominant classes who, first and foremost, hold power over media discourse, television broadcasting, major newspapers, and the mainstream press.

Isolated and minor factors confirm suspicions of an ideological agreement within the PSDB. The extravagant Military Club, for example, aligning itself with Marina Silva has a strong symbolic meaning of a lack of confidence in the PSDB. One doesn't need to assume something Machiavellian like: Marina is authoritarian, she wouldn't have a congressional base to support her, therefore only a coup would work, and the veteran members of the Club would be with her.

The lack of authentic and genuine activism within the PSDB, coupled with the leak of information suggesting that its activists are professional and bought—yes, with money—are factors that may have seriously damaged the credibility of a diffuse electorate.

The PSDB has become a sick, behemoth-like party, contaminating its biggest star of the moment and the hope of many, Aécio Neves. His impotence in the polls may not be solely due to the presidential candidate, but to the party itself, which anthropologically has dedicated itself to sitting on the fence and to a hybrid centrism. Now it is paying the price in a decisive election.

The worst thing for the PSDB (Brazilian Social Democracy Party) is that this lack of enthusiasm may have a somewhat confirmatory effect. It could, to some degree, ratify the success of the PT's (Workers' Party) policies. And therein lies a second paradox.

In the professional, social, and family circles of the so-called 'middle' class – both economically and intellectually – one rarely hears openly defending the PT government. The jokes, analyses, and criticisms are always that the PT government is a disaster. So there is a disconnect between this so-called middle class and the statistics. It's that dichotomy mentioned at the beginning, without any Manicheanism: those who have more voice and influence in the media and society on one side, representing a critical tone towards the PT; and the vast majority of the people on the other.

On the surface, there's the good old press. Once again, the great masks worn by journalistic hypocrisy fall during the elections. Again. Yes, the press and its outlets are making their electoral choices. They could even be legitimate if they didn't later resort to the cynicism of 'journalistic impartiality', 'objectivity', 'commitment to facts', and other lies.

Aécio ended up representing a great disappointment for many. Not because of him personally, but because of a policy that the PSDB insisted on maintaining. Prominent figures of the party, visibly on the right, such as the governor of São Paulo, cause a lot of damage to the minds of an electorate tired of short-term and conservative promises.

But not all the blame lies with political proposals, parties, and candidates. The electorate is eager, hungry, and consumerist. It's as if the speed of instant communication via cell phones has changed everyone's minds. Ideological proposals that require thought are no longer acceptable. What is desired is salvationism, a promise-making process, a guarantee of rights—things typical of a fluid, irresponsible, and greedy social demand. Even if much of it is a lie.

It's not that the electorate is stupid, but consumerism has made them impatient. That's where Aécio's "goody-two-shoes" image doesn't work. Nor does the PSDB's high-society superiority. And those who bet viscerally against the PT, solely with Aécio, lost. Marina, on the other hand, is a hybrid middle ground whose true nature remains unclear.

From the blog General Observatory