Although he only received 35.88% of the vote.
Lopez Obrador got 35.31%, he's pledging to fight the results.

I think it's probably best, Mexico with its own Chavez is not a very appealing notion...although it's hard to imagine anyone fixing the mess down there.

I honestly don't know enough about either candidate to really comment too much on what might happen. I've still been following the election, though.

Mexico is far from being a terrible mess, the economy is strong and relatively stable, they just need to do some structural reforms, but people usually a too coward for that, its time like theese that a Margaret Thatcher is necessary.

I love Mexico.

Mexico doesn't seem like it's stable at all, but it does seem like it's a far cry from what it used to be, with the PRI's steel grip on the gov't and whatnot.

This election recount does kinda make it seem like they are trying to follow the US's example though.

Yeah, Obrador said he's going to fight the result and take it to court, so he's going to pull a Gore and drag the whole thing out for a few months unnecessarily.

I'm not all that familiar with Mexican politics, but from what I've read, Calderon was the better choice for the United States.

Yeah, trying to make sure the winning candidate was elected President of the United States of America was totally unnecessary.

Mexico's presidential election



Change, please
Jun 29th 2006
From The Economist print edition

The worry in Mexico is not radicalism, but the lack of it

EVER since 1982, after its government's bankruptcy triggered a regional debt crisis, Mexico has seemed set on a course towards greater democracy, an open market economy and close relations with the United States. Two milestones have marked that journey. In 1994 the North American Free-Trade Agreement (NAFTA) integrated Mexico's economy with those of the United States and Canada. Then in 2000 the election of Vicente Fox marked the end of seven decades of rule by the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI). Yet now Mexico would appear to face a fork in its chosen road. In its presidential election on July 2nd, the ostensible choice is between more of Mr Fox's policies and a return to a more inward-looking path—one that is perhaps less democratic.

Much therefore looks to be at stake in Mexico this weekend. For its neighbour across the Rio Grande, too, this election matters more than any of the many others in Latin America this year. Mexico is not just the United States' main purveyor of illegal immigrants and of cocaine; it is America's second-biggest oil supplier and third-biggest trading partner.


Mr Fox deserves much credit both for bringing democracy and more open government and for preserving financial stability. But the convergence NAFTA promised has not happened. The economy has dawdled along at 2.2% per year. Mexico is creating barely half the 1m new jobs a year needed to keep its people employed at home. Rigidities in its economy are largely to blame. At the heart of these lie monopolies, private and public. The market reforms carried out under the last two PRI presidents left energy in state hands and turned telecoms into a scandalous private near-monopoly which has helped Carlos Slim, the owner of Telmex, to become the world's third-richest man (and one who has yet to match the philanthropic largesse of the two richer than him). Over-regulated labour markets discourage job-creation. The state fails to collect enough taxes to provide the education and transport systems Mexico needs if it is to make the most of NAFTA.

Mr Fox tried to tackle some of these problems (though notably not Telmex). He failed, partly because of his own shortcomings (see article). But there is a deeper reason for his failure. Mexico has abandoned the PRI system of an omnipotent presidency and embraced democracy, but has failed to adopt new rules to ensure that it works. The question thus facing Mexicans is who is best placed to tackle the unfinished tasks of creating more economic competition, a more effective state and a more robust democracy. The race has come down to two men: Andrés Manuel López Obrador, the left-of-centre former mayor of Mexico City, has the slimmest of leads in most opinion polls over Felipe Calderón, a former energy minister from Mr Fox's conservative National Action Party.

The danger of standing still
The powerful case for Mr Calderón is that he favours many of the reforms that Mexico needs. He also looks to be a politician of more substance than Mr Fox. On the other hand, he is unlikely to be a robust champion of the public interest against the businessmen who have ploughed money into his campaign. Unlike Mr Fox, he is a social conservative, with reactionary views on matters such as abortion. And although he has sensibly called for a coalition government, his negative campaign means he might be hard-pressed to find partners.

There are reasons why a switch to the left might be good for Mexico. Mr Fox and his predecessors have wrongly assumed that what is good for favoured individual capitalists is good for capitalism. It is hard to disagree when Mr López Obrador rails against such privilege, or against the inequity in NAFTA that requires Mexico to allow tariff-free entry to heavily subsidised American maize.

Yet there are big doubts about Mr López Obrador. Is he really a modern social democrat like those who govern Chile, Uruguay and Brazil? His political origins lie in the most populist strand of the PRI. He paints himself as a messianic saviour of the poor, but would he help them much? As mayor, he stressed social policies, but ones aimed at political impact more than effectiveness. He has almost no knowledge of, nor apparent interest in, the outside world. He has shown a certain contempt for the rule of law and for Mexico's handful of modern democratic institutions, such as the Supreme Court, the independent central bank and the electoral authority.

These are all reasons to be concerned about Mr López Obrador. But they do not make him a Mexican version of Hugo Chávez, Venezuela's anti-American president. Nor is Mexico Venezuela. Its people are beginning to feel the benefits of the route the country has followed over the past quarter of a century, and its ties with the United States are too strong to be lightly cast off. The real worry, thus, is not that Mr Fox's successor will veer too sharply off the established path. It is that he won't. An overhaul of Congress, the federal system and the police, for starters, and reforms of competition policy, energy, the labour market and taxes would help embed democracy and get the economy moving. In that sense, Mexico needs a radical for president.

If anyone has been keeping tabs on this, it's gotten way out of hand. Lopez Obrador's supporters are protesting daily, usurping tollbooths and banks, and calling for an alternate government.

Leninflux, you are the best board gimmick since Tsunami

Yeah, OK.

You can't accept the fact that someone could possibly have a different worldview from yours. In other words, anyone who would possibly be a Republican is either a "gimmick" or insane.

What's ironic is that the comparison is correct - 2 people who ran for president....lost in a tight election....and persist in declaring themselves the victor. Ever see the SNL sketch with Gore pretending to be the President? You'll see a Mexican version sometime in the future.

You are a gimmick, that's why no one takes you seriously. You just use the same rhetoric as right-wing radio and editorials. You guys have developed an entirely new language out of criticizing liberalism. That is a gimmick. If you can't think for yourself, that's not my problem.

There's some truth in what you say about absorbing right-wing rhetoric. But I can think for my own, and my support for the War On Terror should not be confused with agreeing with the Republicans and the President up and down the party line, because I don't.
You could also stand to lose the arrogance and self-righteous stupidity in telling someone that you don't even know that they don't think for themselves.
Anyway, I'm not going to let this devolve into a back-and-forth pissing match, so feel free to ignore my "gimmick" from now on.

No Republican or Democrat agrees up and down party lines. This was never in dispute.

Ivan?

Yeah, it was in the papers this morning; apparently they're going the parallel government route. Be interesting to see how this turns out.

The hubris necessary to make a statement like this is incredible, and probably the #1 reason most of the world hates my country.

Oh, I bet this goes really well for Mexicans.

Think we'll have our $2.2 billion fence up by the time this blows up?