"The difference between the two projects is profound."

Political scientist and one of Brazil's leading intellectuals, Wanderley Guilherme dos Santos, analyzes the second round of elections in an interview with journalist Paulo Moreira Leite's blog on 247; for him, the difference between the PT and PSDB projects "is profound, stemming from distinct convictions about what they understand by a good society and how to achieve it"; regarding the "enormous flaws" of the research institutes, the professor states that they "did not capture what was already happening"; according to him, the central question "on the agenda" now is: "Is Dilma's vote near its ceiling while Aécio's is merely its plateau at the restart of the game, or vice versa?"; read the full interview.

October 08, 2014, 13:36 PMUpdated July 05, 2018, 09:58 pm

Political scientist and one of Brazil's leading intellectuals, Wanderley Guilherme dos Santos, analyzes the second round of voting in an interview with journalist Paulo Moreira Leite's blog on 247; for him, the difference between the PT and PSDB projects "is profound, stemming from distinct convictions about what they understand by a good society and how to achieve it"; regarding the "enormous flaws" of the research institutes, the professor states that they "did not capture what was already happening"; according to him, the central question "on the agenda" now is: "Is Dilma's vote close to its ceiling while Aécio's is merely its plateau at the restart of the game, or vice versa?"; read the full interview (Photo: Felipe L. Goncalves)

247 - In an analysis of the second round of voting, political scientist Wanderley Guilherme dos Santos observes, regarding President Dilma Rousseff's PT and Aécio Neves' PSDB: "the difference between the two projects is profound; they stem from distinct convictions about what constitutes a good society and how to achieve it."

One of Brazil's leading intellectuals, he grants an interview to... blog of journalist Paulo Moreira Leite on 247, in which he states that "the central question on the agenda now is this: is Dilma's vote near its ceiling while Aécio's is merely its plateau at the restart of the game, or vice versa?"

He further argues that "the enormous flaws in the election polls encourage the interpretation that there has been a significant change in national preferences, which they failed to capture." According to him, the institutes "pointed to extraordinary changes in the electorate. That wasn't the case." "What most likely happened was that the institutes failed to capture what had already been happening."

In the interview, Wanderley Guilherme also discusses the case of São Paulo, which he defines as "the most spectacular of them all." He analyzes: "In my opinion, Aécio Neves' performance in São Paulo, and in other regions, is due to the recovery of the PSDB party in the elections for the Chamber of Deputies. The candidates for deputy carried Aécio Neves forward, without diminishing his personal effort."

He classifies the PT's (Workers' Party) movements of "Bring Back Lula" or "Lula 2018" as "sabotaging," as they "give the opponent the criticism that even the PT was unhappy with Dilma," or leave the candidate "with the role of interim manager in the next government." According to him, despite this, "Dilma was able to, with sobriety and without resorting to easy jokes, show the excellent government she has been running."

Read the full interview: Wanderley explains the second round.