Rio Gringa

Why Social Media Mattered during Brazil's Presidential Race

During Brazil's 2014 elections, social media took on a bigger role than ever before, as networks reached a critical mass unseen during the previous presidential vote. I've compiled a rundown of stats and highlights of how candidates and voters used a variety of social networks during the race.

Facebook

• Facebook became a major battleground not only for the candidates, but also for voters sharing their opinions, which sometimes caused serious rifts in relationships.
• The most popular social network in Brazil, Facebook was used by candidates to share a plethora of internet-friendly media, including memes, selfies, and videos.
• The network was used by candidates for "Face-to-Face" live events to allow voters to ask candidates questions in real time.
• During the campaign, President Dilma Rousseff more than tripled her Facebook following, from half a million to nearly 2 million.
• Over the same period, Aécio Neves quadrupled his number of Facebook followers, surpassing the president's following and reaching around 3.6 million.
• Three out of five Brazilian voters are on Facebook, and 50 percent of Brazilian voters on Facebook interacted with this year's election on the network.
• There were nearly 700 million election interactions on Facebook during Brazil's presidential campaign, nearly 3 times more than during India's election.
• During the final debate on Globo, there were 19.9 million Facebook interactions with 6.6 million comments a minute and 36.6 million interactions a minute.
• More than 49 million Facebook interactions took place on the day of the runoff.
• Rousseff's campaign team took a new route and created several GIF-laden, Facebook-friendly Buzzfeed listicles.

Twitter

• There were nearly 40 million election-related tweets during the campaign, with 4.2 million tweets on runoff day alone.
• Both Rousseff and Neves had a combined average of 10,000 mentions a day during the race.
• The final presidential debate generated over 2 million tweets.
• Candidates sparred on the network during the race, attacking each other in tweets.
• Ex-President Lula joined the social network during the race to help Rousseff campaign.
• During the race, Twitter tracked the most commonly discussed election issues. Health ranked number one, followed by education, security, and the economy.
• Twitter became one of the best places to find the funniest and most creative user-generated election and debate memes.
• The network was used by bitter voters angry about the outcome of the vote, which ranged from people saying they'd leave the country to bigoted remarks about northeasterners.
• Rousseff's victory tweet was similar to Obama's victory tweet when he won reelection.
• Satirical accounts were big during the election, including the already popular Dilma Bolada and the new Marina Ecológica and EuLucianoGenro.
• Green Party candidate Eduardo Jorge seemed to be personally tweeting and responding to tweeters, which made him an instant internet hit.
• Twitter became the strange space where a number of foreigners "endorsed" and then in some cases, rescinded their support of candidates, including Mark Ruffalo, Lindsay Lohan, and Naomi Campbell.
• Twitter Brasil mapped global tweets about the candidates during the campaign (bel0w).

Youtube

• Candidates, who traditionally depend heavily on TV advertising, were able to use the network to upload their campaign commercials.
• The video site also allowed candidates to show that they're hip, such as dancing passinho or promoting a funk campaign anthem.
• Comedy group Porta dos Fundos tapped in to the country's election-time sentiment, joking about the lack of good candidates in Rio and the need to literally "justify" one's vote.
• It was also a space where Brazilians could spoof what was happening in terms of election fights among friends.

 

Tumblr

• There were a variety of funny Tumblrs that came out of the election including:
• Dilma Meant to Say
• It Lasted Longer than Marina's Promises
• Selfie at the Voting Booth
• VEJA's Desperation
• Coxinha <3 Petralha

Instagram

• Even though voting booth selfies are illegal and even carry a jail sentence, that didn't stop voters from taking pictures and posting them on the network. (The trend even inspired a Tumblr, as shown above)
• This is one network that Neves outcampaigned the president. By the end of the campaign, Neves had garnered over 325,000 followers and Rousseff had nearly 28,000.

 

Seu voto ajudara a decidir o futuro de nosso pais, então tenha consciência.... Ah e nada de #selfienaurna revelando seu voto, pois configura-se em boca de urna tratando-se de crime / #eleicoes #2turno

A photo posted by Bruno Assunpçāo (@bruassunpcao) on Oct 10, 2014 at 2:06am PDT

Whatsapp

• Around one in five Brazilians uses Whatsapp.
• Neves circulated a campaign video on Whatsapp, and Rousseff's team used it to rectify false information and to interact with voters.
• It also became an important campaign tool for young candidates in legislative races.

Images: Memes from Rousseff's and Neves' Facebook accounts; image from Coxinha <3 Petralha

Roundup: Brazil's 2014 Presidential Election

This has been one of the most fascinating elections to watch, not only in Brazil's recent history but also of any recent vote in the Americas. I've created a roundup of some of the articles I've written in the lead-up to the final vote, both on the blog and for other outlets.

Why Is Brazil's 2014 Presidential Election So Divisive?

Lessons from Brazil's 2014 Presidential Election

Why Brazil's Protests Didn't Translate into Change at the Ballot Box

Marina Silva's Squandered Opportunity

10 Things to Know About Brazil's 2014 Election

Brazil's 2014 Presidential Election by the Numbers

Brazil Update: Congress to Take a New Shape in 2015

Brazil and the U.S. Lead the Way in Political Candidates' Social Media Use

Social Media's Growing Role in Brazil's Electoral Campaigns

Image: Senado Federal.

Why Is Brazil's 2014 Presidential Election So Divisive?

If there's one thing that this year's election will be remembered for, it's for the bitter divisions it has caused among Brazilian voters, in a way unseen since the beginning of redemocratization.

It hasn't just been the angry rhetoric between the candidates, including mud-slinging, insults, and casting the opposite candidate and party as the enemy. This certainly has helped drive what's happening, but there are other reasons voters' behavior has changed this time around.

During the election season, political arguments have become commonplace, with reports in the media about friendships ending and family spats over who to support for president. I've seen these arguments happening first hand on social media, too. There was even a physical scuffle between PT and PSDB supporters this week in São Paulo. Época profiled a number of people who'd had this experience, including one of the country's top comedians, Gregório Duvivier. After he wrote a column saying he would vote for President Dilma Rousseff, a man came up to him at a Rio restaurant and physically threatened him. “In Brazil, there's a lack of a habit in dealing with democracy, and we're not used to hearing others' opinions," he said. During the last debate, some Brazilians on Twitter reported hearing people cheering for their chosen candidate, like during a soccer game.

As I wrote earlier this week: "Political chatter has reached a fever pitch...It's been so bad that the Justice Ministry launched a social media campaign with the slogan: 'Don't confuse hate speech with freedom of speech.' One observer is even concerned that this polarization could persist after the election. 'Brazil is torn. Half on one side, half on the other. Someone will will by a slim margin. If the tone on the internet continues as it is, the path of the country is blocked,' wrote Globo columnist Pedro Doria. 'There will be hate among Brazilians. Searching for a civilized conversation is our first mission next Monday.'"

So why is this election so divisive? Here are a few theories.

PT fatigue: Many are tired of the Workers' Party after its 12 years in power, even some who previously voted for Lula and Rousseff. This is due in part to people getting tired of how the party operates, particularly when it comes to corruption, but is also partly due to the length of time the party has controlled the presidency. If Rousseff wins reelection, it could mean a better chance for the opposition to win in 2018. And if the president keeps her seat, she's going to have to address the fact that a significant portion of the country wants change in some capacity. There's a feeling among some that even though Aécio Neves is not a perfect choice--and may even end up with his own corruption scandals--anyone but the PT should be in the Planalto. This element of the race has exacerbated party tensions. 

Class tensions: On the flipside, one of the PT's greatest achievements is reducing poverty and hunger. However, this is also what's driving politicial animosity. As the new middle class has grown, so has irritation and even bitterness among the traditional middle class and upper class that the former poor are now "invading" spaces that used to be exclusive to those with money, from airports to university classrooms. There's sentiment among some right-leaning voters that social programs like Bolsa Familia should be ended, but in a larger sense I think there are some who feel that the PT has exploited poverty-reduction efforts as a way to win votes. And because there has been such great success in reducing extreme poverty, some in the upper classes feel it's time to focus on a new agenda. That's what's helping drive more visible political participation among the wealthy during this election, such as the so-called "cashmere revolution."

At the same time, the PT has worked very hard during this election to maintain its biggest base, co-opting popular figures among low-income voters, from passinho dancers to famous singers. Some low-income voters are afraid that the PSDB would mean a return to more difficult economic times and a slide backwards in terms of social gains. The PT has played successfully on this fear through its campaign messaging.

Middle class demands: The PT's success in reducing poverty may also be a weakness in this election. Polls show that while Rousseff continues to dominate among low-income voters and those with lower levels of education, not all who have left poverty feel a sense of gratitude toward the PT. Instead, some have increasing demands of the government, such as the ones seen during last year's protests, like healthcare and transportation. Though the middle class has grown and the number of those living in poverty has declined, quality of life has stagnated for many, due to rising cost of living and crime, among other issues. As a result, new consumers are making demands as citizens, but PT party faithfuls sometimes see this desire for change as a betrayal, increasing tensions.

A shift in thinking about Brazil's direction: Recently, Brazilian historian Boris Fausto told Época: "After the country's redemocratization, there was a basic consensus in Brazil about how problems should be dealt with and alternation of power. Today that has changed. There's a head-on fight in which the adversary has become treated as an enemy or a neoliberal monster." Because Brazil has changed so much in the past three decades and as democracy has matured, there's been increasing polarization about how the country should be run and in what direction the country should go. Given how much progress has been made, there's profound disagreement about what comes next.

There's a part of the elite that sees Brazil as still being too "third world" and being hindered by outdated ideology and policies in efforts to make it a more important global player. Then there's a part of the left that sees a need to focus on domestic issues with the PT's social inclusion efforts incomplete, given problems related to public health, education, human rights, and other areas. And because of a greater conviction among voters about what direction they want the country to take, there's also greater animosity between the two sides, with anxiety about what will happen if the other candidate wins. Last night, Globo columnist Cora Ronai wrote on Facebook about why she wasn't supporting Rousseff, saying: "I have nothing against suicide. I just hate it when you drag me along with you."

Images: Left, Rousseff supporter (Dilma Rousseff, Facebook), and right, Neves supporter (Aécio Neves, Flickr).

Lessons from Brazil's 2014 Presidential Election

Come Sunday, Brazil will have its next president, and there's a chance a sitting president could lose her seat. But beyond determining the country's next leader, what has the presidential race revealed about Brazil?

• More virulent campaign tactics are happening. The campaign has taken on a much more aggressive tone as both parties aim to show the other as an enemy of the Brazilian people. Both are casting themselves as defenders against the other, and as the opposite side and its supporters as the enemy. "I'm going to free Brazil from the PT!" Neves yelled at a recent rally. This week, his party released a campaign video of a cartoon depicting the "monsters" of the PT government, including a Cuban Godzilla and Petrobras vampires. Rousseff, meanwhile, wrote on Facebook that the PSDB see Brazil as a catastrophe, and are the ones who opposed the World Cup (which some saw as an indirect criticism of last year's protesters). On Twitter, she said the rival opposition party only "represents a third of Brazil."

• Political polarization among voters has deepened. Political chatter has reached a fever pitch, particularly on social media, leading to bitter arguments among friends. It's been so bad that the Justice Ministry launched a social media campaign with the slogan: "Don't confuse hate speech with freedom of speech." One observer is even concerned that this polarization could persist after the election. "Brazil is torn. Half on one side, half on the other. Someone will will by a slim margin. If the tone on the internet continues as it is, the path of the country is blocked," wrote Globo columnist Pedro Doria. "There will be hate among Brazilians. Searching for a civilized conversation is our first mission next Monday."

• Lower-income voters don't mean left-wing voters. One of the frequent complaints of some right-leaning voters is that the poor consistently vote for the PT, and that the PT uses programs like the cash-transfer program Bolsa Familia to win those votes. But Neves' close second finish in the first round and the election of the most conservative Congress in the post-1964 period indicates that there's a diversity of support for the right. Rio blogger Julia Michaels even argues: "Paradoxically, it may be that part of Dilma’s Workers’ Party shrinking appeal is due to a growing conservatism on the part of those who have left poverty during their watch."
  
  
• Polling is still unreliable. Surveys underestimated Neves' showing in the first round and overestimated Rousseff's. "Much of the unpredictability is a product of Brazil being a young democracy," writes journalist Stephen Kurczy for the Americas Quarterly blog. Reasons include a lack of historical election data, making it hard to predict voter intention; fewer numbers of polls and lower sample sizes; a more volatile, multiparty system; and in-person polling.

• The vote represents a referendum on the PT. Marina Silva's brief rise and Aécio Neves' now real threat to Rousseff show increasing discontent with the ruling party. "Dilma's already been defeated," wrote journalist Juliana Cunha on her blog. "To be practically tied with Aécio Neves even with the state machine behind her and Lulaism's emotional appeal is a big blow." Plus, she says, "Dilma's rejection shows that the PT's project to redistribute income has dried up, and the government has failed in taking the next step to bring people out of poverty...it's not a lack of charisma, nor Dilma's personal incompetentence, and it's definitely not because Aécio Neves is a good candidate." She added: "It's important the PT realizes that even if it wins, it's lost, and will continue to lose as long as it doesn't advance inclusion of consumers to extend to inclusion of citizens."

• The election spurred a debate about what Brazilian democracy means. "An electoral campaign in which polls were debated more than platforms was more like a videogame than a presidential vote," wrote journalist Elio Gaspari. In a Folha piece about social media spats over which candidate to support, Brazilian designer Ronaldo Fraga complained: "Everyone talks so much about democracy on Facebook, but this isn't democracy." Thiago de Aragão, partner at Arko Advice, wrote on Linkedin: "Democracy isn't just voting. It's participating, getting involved, criticizing, protesting, and constructing throughout a government's administration." Plus, when it comes to choosing a candidate, not enough consideration goes in to the process, he said. "People decide at the last minute because Brazilians are like that. Importance doesn't matter; deadlines do."

• There's a sense of alienation among those who don't support either candidate. Whether it's a matter of not feeling represented by either candidate, not liking either option, or being tired of the angry rhetoric, there's a portion of the population that's unsatisfied with the choice they're given. Even in the first round, abstention reached a 16-year-high, though voting is mandatory. On October 5, more people chose no candidate (voting blank, null, or abstaining) than those who voted for Neves, who came in second. With fewer choices this time around, abstention and blank votes could also remain high. "The two candidates are worthless. If it was up to me, they'd both lose," a Carioca friend of mine wrote on Facebook.

Images: Dilma supporter (Midia Ninja); Aécio supporter (Aécio Neves Flickr).

Why Brazil's Protests Didn't Translate into Change at the Ballot Box

After one of the most complex and fast-changing presidencial races in decades, Brazil held an election on Sunday that revealed little of the sentiment for change during last year's protests. So what happened?

First of all, Marina Silva only won 21 percent of the vote, a result of a number of factors including successful attack ads by the Workers' Party and a poorly executed campaign that didn't convince voters that she would be a viable alternative. Instead, Senator Aécio Neves came within 8 points of President Dilma Rousseff. While he would certainly represent a change at the Planalto, he represents the most traditional of Brazilian politics: a wealthy, white, seasoned politician from Minas Gerais. And even though neither Rousseff nor Neves represent a major break from the status quo, they both referred to themselves as the candidate for change in their victory speeches. During her address, Rousseff stood before a massive backdrop that read: "New government, new ideas." As the two candidates head to a runoff, they're both jockeying for Silva's voters and trying to cast themselves as change-makers.

Next, many politicians targeted by the 2013 protests were actually reelected. Despite the fact that corruption was one of the central themes of the protests and a constant complaint of those unhappy with Brazilian politics, notoriously dirty politicians like Paulo Maluf and Fernando Collor got elected. (It's unclear, however, if Maluf will be able to take office given his ineligibility under the clean record law.) São Paulo Governor Geraldo Alckmin was reelected in spite of the capital city running out of water, among other things, and the reviled former Rio Governor Sérgio Cabral's successor, Pezão, is headed for a runoff. Politicians who've come under fire for their homophobic views and bigoted behavior like Marco Feliciano and Jair Bolsonaro won reelection.

On the legislative front, this Congress is the most conservative elected since the post-1964 period, according to the Intersyndical Parliamentary Assistance Department. A larger number of members of the armed forces, religious groups, and agribusiness representatives won seats. Meanwhile, two of the country's biggest parties, the PT and PMDB, lost 18 and 5 seats, respectively in the Chamber of Deputies and one seat each in the Senate. (They still, however, represent the biggest parties in Congress.)  The right-leaning PSDB, meanwhile, gained 10 seats in the lower house. Now, in the already fractured party system, there are even more parties in the legislature, rising from 22 to 28.

Given these events, what happened to the demands for change during last year's protests?

Theory 1: Brazilians don't feel they're represented by the options at the ballot box, and they're so tired of the status quo that they don't bother to pick any candidates. Abstention stood at 19 percent, the highest level since 1998. The combined number of those who didn't vote and those who voted blank and null amounted to nearly 39 million people--more people than those who voted for Neves. Null and blank votes for federal representatives in São Paulo doubled since 2002, and tripled in Rio.

Theory 2: Change is slow. "When things change very quickly, as in Brazil's case since democratization, people get used to making a safe vote," wrote São Paulo-based journalist Leandro Beguoci on Twitter. One sign of a little bit of change involves the PSOL, a left-wing party well-positioned to plug into the protesters' demands. It saw a handful of modest successes in the election. Congressman and LGBT activist Jean Wyllys was reelected in Rio, and was the seventh-most voted federal deputy in the state. Rio state lawmaker and human rights advocate Marcelo Freixo won also won reelection and helped double the number of PSOL representatives in the state legislature. The PSOL's presidential candidate, Luciana Genro, came in fourth place, winning over 1.6 million votes. This represents an 82 percent increase over what the PSOL candidate earned in the 2010 election.

Theory 3: The protests weren't directed at a specific political party, but rather institutions overall, writes journalist Leandro Sakamoto on his blog. "A deep and structural societal change doesn't happen overnight..those young people didn't ask for a new government, but something deeper," he says. By this account, change is going to be gradual and will come from more than a single election.

Theory 4: It's precisely the growth of the new middle class that's spurring a move away from the PT and toward more conservative politicians. "Brazilians face the challenge of updating their politics to match emerging voter sophistication and demands for less corrupt, more efficient public spending," writes Rio-based blogger Julia Michaels. "Paradoxically, it may be that part of Dilma’s Workers’ Party shrinking appeal is due to a growing conservatism on the part of those who have left poverty during their watch. Voters may not see (or believe in) a clear economic-political connection." Sakamoto adds a similar idea: "This conservatism isn't necessarily the fruit of reflection, but comes from the fear of losing the little they've managed to achieve and to become a nobody."

Editor's note: This article previously inaccurately stated that César Maia was elected. He did not win, as only one senatorial seat was open in Rio. He was, however, the second-most voted senatorial candidate in the state.

Image: Voter in Brasilia - Flickr/Senado Federal.

Marina Silva's Squandered Opportunity

She was given a real shot at Brazil's presidency during a time when President Dilma Rousseff faces a number of serious challenges. And she just might have blown it already. In fact, as she has fallen in the polls, third-place contender Aécio Neves has been creeping up, with the potential to knock her out of a second round. So why hasn't Marina Silva lived up to the hype?

There are a number of factors working in her favor. After massive protests last year, there's a portion of the Brazilian population hungry for change. The Workers' Party has been in power for over a decade, leading to "PT fatigue" and bitterness about political corruption. Brazil is technically in a recession as the economy has slowed. And the president's approval ratings haven't been high.

Yet Marina hasn't been able to fully channel this dissatisfaction, nor able to fully take advantage of the country's situation. Instead, she's left voters scratching their heads about what she really stands for and what she would be like as a leader. And in some cases, she has simply alienated her potential voters.

First, she's been flip-flopping on a variety of issues from gay marriage to the country's amnesty law. She's irritated some supporters by meeting with investors and agrobusinessmen. The LGBT issue was particularly bad, given that some worried that her religious beliefs could influence how she would govern, and her change in stance on gay marriage came after complaints from evangelical leaders.

Next, she's come under constant attack from the president's campaign team. But she hasn't been very successful in responding.

 

Some of these ads warned that under Marina, all of Brazil's gains would literally disappear. Given the number of Brazilians who have left poverty and have joined the new middle class since the PT came into power, it's understandable how this kind of fear-mongering could be so effective.

But Marina's team wasn't very good at changing people's perceptions, and hasn't been able to react to the attack ads. Instead, her team has used a lot of rhetoric about Rousseff lying, in commercials like this which are not very impressive. The "liar, liar, pants on fire" line isn't particularly convincing.

 

This week, her team tried to step up her game, making better use of tapping into demands from last year's protests and highlighting complaints about quality of life and public services that many have.

 

She also went on the attack about corruption, something Aécio Neves has been more vocal about on the campaign trail.

But was it too little, too late?

Given the smaller window of time she's had to campaign since she became a candidate two months ago, she could have done more up front to tap into protester demands, and to capitalize on PT fatigue, especially when it comes to corruption. She could have stuck to her guns and demonstrated a clearer, more coherent platform and stance on key issues. And maybe she could have waited to court different interests until she made it to a second round. In an effort to gain mass appeal, she ended up trying to be a chameleon, but it didn't work.

Marina Motta, a Rio human rights researcher, told PRI's The World this week that the PT is "a decadent, sold-out party but it’s a historical, consistent party." Voting for the PT and Dilma, she explained, is playing it safe and voting for the devil you know. In Marina's case, no one seems to quite know who she is. And even though she represents change, voters may be wary of just what that change would mean.

Image: Talita Oliveira/Flickr.