The lie a million times repeated (II) – El Financiero

Black Sunday has twice had Morena and its Caudillo this April. The first of those Sundays was on the 10th and the second on the 17th. Respectively due to the dismal result of the mandate revocation exercise, and due to the rejection by the Chamber of Deputies of the initiative to reform the Constitution in matters of electrical energy, sent by President López Obrador.

As if it were some kind of curse, Morena’s representatives usually associate each catastrophe with the –for them– traumatic presidential election of 2006.

They did not accept defeat then and still cannot overcome the trauma that it caused them. For this reason, on the night of Sunday the 10th, through a video, López Obrador commented on the preliminary figures produced by the recall process and compared them with the voting numbers in the 2006 elections in which, he insisted once again, “Calderón did fraud.” The same thing, really beside the point, said the bizarre deputy Noroña on Sunday the 17th from the Chamber’s rostrum.

I have proposed, every time that lie is spread, to publicize the version of one of the numerous studies -serious, objective, academic- that have been published on said elections. On this occasion I will give an account of fundamental passages contained in the book by Carlos Tello Díaz published in January 2007. This book was the result of extensive and rigorous research, its author titled it simply “July 2” (Planeta, 252 pages) and He added the following as a suggestive subtitle: “The minute-by-minute chronicle of the most important day in our contemporary history.”

And indeed, the author gives an account of the incidents of that electoral day from 8 in the morning until 3 in the morning of the following day, which was already July 3, 2006. Naturally, to better illustrate the reader, he makes the relevant references to what happened throughout the electoral process to understand what was happening on election day.

For reasons of space and brevity, this time Tello Díaz’s book will only give an account of the most outstanding that was recorded in the “exit polls” (also known as “exit polls”) that throughout the day various polling houses were raised with the information on the voters provided directly by them when they left the polling place and stated for which candidate they had voted; as well as the “quick counts” prepared on the basis of the actual results of a representative sample of polling stations, once they closed.

As other authors pointed out at the time, Tello Díaz also considers that at the beginning of the electoral process López Obrador had a wide advantage in the preference of the electorate over his closest competitor in 2006, of around 10 points. Due to his mistakes and clumsiness (the expression is not mine) that difference in his favor was lost throughout the campaign.

With regard to the exit polls carried out by various polling houses, with cuts at different times of the day, of which the author is giving an account, at 4 in the afternoon, when there were still two hours left before the voting concluded , five pollsters cut off their information. López Obrador was ahead in one and Felipe Calderón in another and in the remaining three they were tied, as follows: Covarrubias y Asociados (a company hired by AMLO) gave him 37% compared to 34% for Calderón, while in GEA -ISA the advantage was for Calderón 36 to 33.

The three companies whose numbers showed a tie were: Ipsos-Bimsa (hired by the PRD) at 36%, and Parametria and Arcop registered 35% for each candidate (p.75). And Roy Campos de Mitosky had a break, still from the exit poll, at 8 pm, as follows: FC 36.6 and AMLO 36.5 (p. 106). More closed the result, impossible.

And in terms of “quick counts”, at 1 in the morning of July 3 “the pollsters already had Calderón at the top: BGC (37.1, 35.8), Consultores y Marketing Politico (38.1, 35.9), Gaussc (35.8, 35.5), GEA-ISA (37.8, 36.2), Mirac (32.1, 31.1), ISA-UAM (37.8, 36.2), Applied Social Researchers (37.6, 36.1) and Mexican Citizen Presence (35.8, 35.5) [p.160] and Parametry (37.2, 35.9) [p.175]. In other words, 9 out of 9 “quick count” exercises gave Felipe Calderón the winner.

On page 160 of his book, Tello Díaz writes the following: “Andrés Manuel had just received the last quick count from his pollster, Covarrubias y Asociados, with an advance of more than 97 percent, in [una muestra de] 869 sections: FC 37.2, AMLO 35.9. ‘At 1 in the morning I directly told Mr. López Obrador,’ affirms Ana Cristina (Covarrubias). Andrés Manuel was 1.3 points, according to his figures, below Calderón” (p. 160, according to an interview that Tello Díaz did with Covarrubias on December 20, 2006).

In another passage, the author describes the following scene that took place at the Hotel Marquís in the early hours of July 3: “César (Yáñez) and Nico (the famous driver) remained serious, as did (Federico) Arriola and (Rafael) Pérez. Gay. Marcelo Ebrard came in with them for a few minutes, along with his financial adviser, Mario Delgado. Then they came out. There was an air of defeat. Then Andrés Manuel turned to see the one closest to him: ‘I lost,’ he said. Those who heard him were stunned. He had said it sincerely and sadly, a little surprised at what had happened”.

Later, Tello Díaz’s text continues as follows: “From the moment he accepts that he lost, before the astonished and frightened gaze of his followers, (López Obrador) makes the decision to start lying. He begins to construct an alternative truth, which he himself would end up believing” (p. 161).