Talk:2006 Portuguese presidential election

Political Affiliations

With all the effort Cavaco Silva put into NOT being connoted with any party, shouldn't the party support section refer that he wasn't officially supported by CDS/PP or PSD? 87.196.75.51 16:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But he was... Pedro.Moreira 16:52, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Soares & Louçã

Three changes seem necessary:

- it doesn't seem fair to include Soares's age since none of the other candidates has that mention. Furthermore, it has been used as an argument against him.

- Francisco Louçã is not, officially, the leader of Bloco de Esquerda, but rather the Political Coordinator (although he's been regarded by the media as the leader, it is not officially so.)

- Since all the parties are translated to English, Bloco de Esquerda should be changed to Leftwing Bloc.

--Ricardo Lafuente 16:37, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blank and Invalid Ballots

It should be noted that blank and invalid ballots don't count at all. If you sum all the %s you get more than 100%. It should also be noted that there are two parishes waiting for new elections. Pedro.Moreira 02:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great Winner: Cavaco e Silva!!

I was in Portugal in November and part of December '05 and followed up the discussions and statements of almost every candidate. I was surprised with the attitude of Cavaco e Silve regarding the comments from Mário Soares: he kept his cool and didn't even bother to create a debate on issues raised by Soares, as it was not even worthwhile to discuss them!! Fantastic leadership!!

Mário Soares was a waste of time and money. I recall one incident during his election was there was a heated altercation with a local peasant that accused Soares of traitor and thief. It was an election!! The gentleman had his right to express his opinion!! He was free to do so! Soares said that the man was mentally retarded, or whatever, and he wouldn't bother to challenge the guy in court. A couple of days later, Soares said that he as going to sue him in court. What a pathetic figure!!

I share the same feeling about Soares: I feel he is a sell-out!! The way he handled the negotiationsd over Angola and Mozambique independence; the way Portugal walked out of Timor it is more than enough proof that Soares is not a Portuguese that respected 500 years of Portuguese history on the world!!.

Being the second generation born & bread in Mozambique, I wanted my country independence from Portugal sincer my junior high school days!! I wanted all political parties involved in negotiating the Mozambique independence, including Frelimo. But, NEVER NEVER hand over 500 years of history on a silver plate to Frelimo to DRESTROY the country!!

As a true AFRICAN ( I am white, but an African at heart is colour blind!!) I looked at Angola as a last resort where I can put my roots as a AFRICAN! I ventured into Angola in September 1975, 2 months before Angola's independence! So, legally and by rights STILL a Portuguese territory!

Yes, I was involved in the fight against MPLA and afterwards the Cubans, all the way from Pereira de Eca till Novo Redondo!! I spent 6 months in Angola. But, I'm not write about those 6 months detail by detail. I just want to refer to what happen in Mocamedes! After Sá da Bandeira we headed towards Mocamedes and got to the outskirts of the town at about 4.30 p.m.. It was unwise to enter Mocamedes as we didn't know the strength of MPLA forces in town. We decided to camp, overlooking the town and organize our approach early in the morning. To our surprise at around 6.00 p.m. a Portuguese military vehicle, with a white flag come to us. It was a paratrooper captain, a sargent and a couple of other parabats. He came to inform us that there was a "company"of Potuguese parabats in town, and they were in the old DGS's quarters, overlooking the harbour. After a little while we saw a Portuguese Air Force plane taking off from Mocamedes and through our 'intelligence'we learnt they were evacuating MPLA commanders out of town!!

Anyway, we hold the parabts overnight and told them they were free to go back after we enter town. BUT!! when we entered town, without any fights as MPLA had ran away, I WAS SHOCKED to see that hundreds of wooden containers at the harbour were open broken all thousands of goods left scattered all over the harbour! Now, these were containers left with the Portuguese authorities to be repatriated to Portugal that belonged to thousands of famiies that were forced to leave Angola. We were told that MPLA soldiers (terrorists) were breaking the boxes right in front of the Portuguese parabats, and stealing the little that those families were trying to salvage!! Can you believe it!!?? And this is the legacy of Mário Soares!! as chief (?) negotiator of Angola, Mozambique independence!!

Besides that, we all know what happened in Timor!! So, let's forget Soares and his "camarilha".

To CAVACO SILVA!! Dear Sir : you can make it happen!! You can change PORTUGAL!! You need guts! Not expertise, as YOU ARE AN EXPERT!!! YOU NEED GUTS!! YOU NEED BALLS!!

I was in Macau just 3 weeks ago. I was amazed how we have "abandoned" that beautiful place. I am not talking about "not to hand over Macau back to China, etc, etc" Not at all!! I just noticed How sad the people, the Portuguese, the Macaenses, were when they saw me with a Portuguse T-shirt and cap walking around!! They felt neglected!! Do the Portuguese know the business potential within the ex- portuguese territories!!??

Portugal has the power to be one of the richest countries on this earth, just by using its 500 years of overseas history and hold hands with so many willing partners around the globe!! I am including here Goa, Damao and Diu, Sao Tomé e Príncipe, Timor!!!

Lots of history! Lots of potential!!

God Bless you CAVACO SILVA!!--213.42.2.22 05:03, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a forum or something? Pedro.Moreira 12:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess so ... and I did a IP location and that user is on Dubai and so makes me wonder why the hell someone decided to make such a long post. Drakron 20:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Narrow vs Convincing Victory

I reverted the last change because it was not a convincing victory and the % was also wrong (just check article links to confirm). Why was it not convincing? Because he only won yesterday by 30.000 votes (~0.7%) and it's not obvious that he would win on the next election. Pedro.Moreira 18:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cavaco received 50.6% of the votes. The next highest candidate received 20.7% of the vote. That is convincing- in fac tthat is a landslide. I'm not sure what you mean by .7% vicotry.Joe 00:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Because if he failed to recive more that 50% of votes there would be a second round with him and the 2nd candidate with most votes. Considering he was the only candidate of the right ... it was a close call.Drakron
  - That's it. I'm sure people outside don't realize this at first but he was really lucky to win this... Reverted again. Pedro.Moreira 09:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I have removed the contentious adjective. Whether the victory was "narrow" or "convincing" depends on how you look at it. Convincing, as he was more than 30 percentage points ahead of his nearest rival (no American president has ever achieved such a feat, and Clinton's victories in the 1990s were called "landslides" even though he never got 50 percent), but "narrow" because he barely averted a runoff, which would have been much more difficult to win. The best NPOV solution is to scrap both adjectives and call it simply a "victory." David Cannon 23:03, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - That's true, sorry, I should have done that. Thanks. And just as a curious note, this was the president elected with less votes in our history! Pedro.Moreira 11:49, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Most news articles are calling the victory overwhelming or a landslide. I'm sorry you are stubbornly maintaining your position about the "narrow victory." Concerning the fewest votes for a president- do you have a source for that? I'm interested. Thanks 71.136.87.221 18:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Only in portuguese. Do you still want them? Pedro.Moreira 18:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I must point out again he needed more that 50% of votes to not go a second round and he was the only candidate of the right.

Those news articles appear to be ignorant of that fact, if there was a second round all the votes of the defected candidates would likely be concentrated on the left candidate, do not ignore this elections had 4 candidates of the left and 1 candidate of the right. Drakron

I think that's a bit simplistic, Drakron. I'm not especially familiar with European political parties, but the second candidate was Independent, and to me that implies centrist. Regardless of left/right candidates, the fact that the winner received more than 50% over that many candidates is dramatic. As David pointed out before, Clinton's victories were seen as landslides over just two candidates, and he didn't receive that much of a percent of the vote. So, I'm curious, what would he had to have won to be considered a landslide in your mind? Pedro, I would like to check out the Prtuguese articles still- thanks. Joe 22:21, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1st - The second candidate, Manuel Alegre, was indeed an independent candidate, but that doesn't mean he is a centrist, not at all. He is considered to be a member of the left-wing of the Socialist Party (a Social Democratic party) and was supported by that same wing. He was an independent candidate, however he gathered the strong support from the left wing of its party. 2nd - The winner gathered the overwhelming support of all the country's right wing parties, personalities and voters. He also gathered the support of most of the corporations and media in the country, that started its promotion about two years ago, that's why the 50% score is not so spectacular. 3rd - The source of the statement that Cavaco was the president elected with the fewest votes is present in Wikipedia, just check the past elections articles present in the template at the bottom of the article. Afonso Silva 22:46, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I said before, it's weird for someone outside to see why it was so narrow but that's the truth. It's not obvious that he would won on the second election. It's not only for me but for anyone. One thing was obvious: he would win the first election at no cost. We just didn't know if it was for more than 50%... Some texts: PCP press release: http://www.pcp.pt/actpol/temas/c-central/cc20060124.htm ("Há entretanto que notar o facto de este resultado se ter verificado por uma escassa margem de votos bem distante das coroações antecipadas que alguns lhe vaticinavam. Um resultado cuja escassa margem verificada, confirma ter estado ao alcance dos que se opunham a Cavaco Silva, impor-lhe a derrota que o seu projecto exigia. Bastaria que tivesse existido em outras forças políticas, o empenhamento com que a candidatura de Jerónimo de Sousa travou esta batalha."), BE press release: http://www.bloco.org/index.php?article=2451&visual=1&id=24&parent=24&menu= ("A vitória de Cavaco Silva nas eleições presidenciais não foi afinal um passeio na Avenida da Liberdade. Foi antes uma passagem apertada pelo Marquês."), another BE press release: http://www.bloco.org/index.php?article=2447&visual=1&id=24&parent=24&menu= ("Cavaco Silva foi eleito Presidente da República com 50,6% dos votos, escapando por muito pouco (0,6%) à segunda volta. É o mais baixo resultado conseguido por um presidente eleito em democracia."), another BE press release: http://www.bloco.org/index.php?article=2443&visual=1&id=24&parent=24&menu= ("A vitória tangencial de Cavaco Silva à primeira volta, por escassos trinta mil votos, é uma derrota para o povo de esquerda."), brazilian newspaper: http://ultimosegundo.ig.com.br/materias/mundo/2249001-2249500/2249171/2249171_1.xml ("A apertada apuração deixou dúvidas até o último instante já que Cavaco Silva viu sua vantagem inicial se reduzir gradualmente."), Vital Moreira blog (a known politician): http://www.aba-da-causa.blogspot.com/ (almost everything), etc. There are far more... Pedro.Moreira 16:11, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm not mistaken, you're implying that Cavaco would have lost votes in the second round, but if he received over 50% of the vote in the first round, it stands to reason that he would receive at least that many in the second round and perhaps more. Thanks for the links Pedro- I tried to translate them, but I couldn't get too much from the translations.

About Afonso's post- it seems that you are giving reasons that 50% isn't spectacular when you're actually just explaining why it was spectuacular. All of the country's right-wing parties, voters, personalities and the media and corporations supported him- that sounds like a lot of support and it shouldn't be minimized because he was supposedly the only right-wing candidate.

Also, in the previous election, fewer people voted for the winner, though the percent was higher. I thought you were saying that the votes were the fewest for a winner, not the percent.

Joe, the portuguese right-wing politics are completely dominated by ONLY two parties, the PSD and the CDS, that for several times have been united in coalition, for example, just one year ago, they were united in the government before being replaced by PS. Both supported Cavaco, it's not so spectacular. Cavaco was by far, really far, the most well placed right-wing person to reach the presidency and so, his candidacy received an overwhelming support. The right received 50.6%, the left received 49.4%. It was a really close victory.

Yes, I was talking about percentages, because the overall number of voters changes and in the last election Sampaio was already a winner before the election. Afonso Silva 21:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If there were just two positions being voted on (as you simplified to left and right), why were there 6 candidates?

Why don't you sign your posts? That's call strategy. They could select only one person or get four guys to travel thru the country to get votes. That's what happened... Pedro.Moreira 00:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The left employed the same strategy in the 1986 election, to fend off the right-wing candidate, Diogo Freitas do Amaral. Several candidates appealed for votes from the whole left-of-centre spectrum, from the moderate left to the far left, then all endorsed Soares for the runoff. David Cannon 01:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes I don't sign my posts because I forget to sign my posts. I guess the strategy was a bad one for them this election.Joe 22:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There was no such strategy. The Communist Party contacted and met the leaders of the Socialist Party in order to find a candidate to the whole left, but the Socialists did not help, due to their lack of faith on any left candidate because the long time prepared campaign of Cavaco. Then Alegre was the last one to announce his candidacy and his main reason was the bad decision of the Socialists to support the 80 years old Soares once more. If the Socialists indicated Alegre to the Communists and the left would have a single candidate, as the Leftwing Bloc allways follows the Socialists in critical situations. Afonso Silva 10:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]