Macri intenta parar la pelea entre Carrió y Garavano


El ministro de Justicia, Germán Garavano, le sugirió al Presidente su renuncia, pero Mauricio Macri respaldó su continuidad aunque no logró que la líder de la Coalición diera marcha atrás.



"Le dije al Presidente que no dudara si yo tenía que dar un paso al costado", confesó el ministro de Justicia, Germán Garavano. Hasta ese punto llegó la convulsión en el Gobierno, como consecuencia de la inesperada interna que protagonizan Garavano y la líder de la Coalición Cívica, Elisa Carrió. La puja parece no tener un desenlace claro.

Mauricio Macri quedó en el medio de dos espadas a las que valora especialmente. Es que si bien el Presidente, que habló por teléfono con Lilita, admitió en la intimidad ante los suyos que el ministro cometió “un error” cuando opinó sobre el pedido de prisión preventiva para Cristina y, en consecuencia, le pidió una rectificación que llevara calma e hiciera retroceder a la diputada, también hizo saber que no está dispuesto a entregar la cabeza de su funcionario, ya que valora su gestión.



El ministro de Justicia, Germán Garavano. Foto Diego Díaz

Así, decidió darle un fuerte respaldo: en la reunión de Gabinete, lo ubicó estratégicamente para la foto junto al jefe de Gabinete, Marcos Peña, y luego, en privado, lo confirmó en su cargo: “Seguí trabajando, más fuerte que nunca. Y contá todo lo que venís haciendo por la Justicia”, lo tranquilizó. Tras ser respaldado por Macri, el ministro salió a aclarar sus dichos una vez más. “Lamento la situación suscitada. Nosotros vamos a seguir trabajando fuertemente en los objetivos en común con la Coalición Cívica y con la diputada Carrió, que tienen que ver con la lucha contra la corrupción y contra la impunidad”, expuso, junto al canciller Jorge Faurie, tras la reunión de Gabinete.

“No hablé sobre casos concretos, nunca lo hago. He sido juez y fiscal y tengo esa limitación. Hablo en abstracto sobre consideraciones genéricas, era una referencia institucional que marcaba que a todos los países les hace muy mal esta situación”, se defendió. ¿Qué había dicho Garavano que enfureció a Carrió? “Nunca es bueno que se pida la detención o se detenga preventivamente a un ex presidente”, sostuvo en diálogo con El Destape Radio. Y aseguró que “no hay elementos para pensar que (Cristina) pueda fugarse o entorpecer la causa”.




Mirá también
Germán Garavano: “Le dije al Presidente que no dudara si yo tenía que dar un paso al costado”


Lilita había salido rápido al cruce afirmando que “sus dichos son una vergüenza para la República” y no esperó la aclaración de Garavano. Insistió c on un duro comunicado dirigido al Presidente. Un dato: esa carta abierta se dio luego de la reunión que mantuvieron Marcos Peña y el ministro del Interior, Rogelio Frigerio, con diputados de la Coalición Cívica y del llamado telefónico que Macri le hizo a Carrió. En esa charla, la legisladora le adelantó que no iba a dar marcha atrás con su pedido de juicio político al ministro y le planteó su postura: “Le dijo que no tiene que ver con una ‘calentura’ del momento. Acá se cambia o no se cambia”, contaron desde el entorno de la diputada.

En el escrito, publicado en sus redes sociales, la legisladora dijo que no la guían “el enojo ni la calentura” y ratificó la presentación en el Congreso contra el ministro, pero amplió el espectro de su ataque al señalar que “la República está sumamente herida por un sector del Gobierno que por conveniencia política no desea verdad, justicia y condena”.




 

Carrió no acusó recibo del esfuerzo por conciliar que hizo Garavano y renovó sus críticas horas más tarde, cuando se conoció el fallo de la Cámara de Casación que absolvió al ex presidente Carlos Menem (ver página 8). “Ahora entiendo mi proscripción en la Comisión Bicameral de seguimiento del Ministerio Público de la Nación y los dichos de Garavano”, ironizó, vía Twitter, al sostener que la resolución “demuestra la visceral impunidad que hiere gravemente a la República”. Luego hizo saber, como reveló Clarín, que pedirá también el juicio político del tribunal que benefició al riojano.

De todos modos, y acaso con excesivo optimismo, cerca de Macri confían en que la aclaración de Garavano “va a bajar la tensión”. O al menos evitará que siga escalando el tema. “Es una lástima que estemos en una discusión así, tenemos que tirar todos para el mismo lado y sacar a la Argentina adelante”, lamentó el jefe de Gobierno porteño, Horacio Rodríguez Larreta, uno de los funcionarios que por estas horas trabaja en acercar posiciones.




 

La relación entre Carrió y Garavano ahora luce rota, pero en el inicio de la gestión tuvieron muchas coincidencias. En efecto, comparten como amigo a Fabián Rodríguez Simón, el asesor judicial más importante que tiene hoy el Presidente, a quien le deben mucho ambos: por un lado, fue el principal impulsor para que Garavano desembarcara en el edificio de la calle Sarmiento; mientras que, en el caso de Lilita, “Pepín” fue su principal aliado para neutralizar la influencia de Daniel “Tano” Angelici, presidente de Boca y amigo de Macri, en tribunales.

Por estas horas, Pepín se esfuerza, junto al jefe de asesores de Macri José Torello, para frenar la interna. Por el momento, no han tenido éxito.

Los candidatos se unieron en las críticas a Bolsonaro en el cierre de la campaña presidencial

El derechista sigue en ventaja para los comicios del domingo pero habría balotaje




El 30 de septiembre se realizó el debate televisado con la ausencia de Bolsonaro




La campaña para las elecciones presidenciales del domingo en Brasil concluyó con casi todos los candidatos alertando sobre el discurso de "odio" del ultraderechista Jair Bolsonaro, claro favorito para ganar al menos en la primera vuelta. "La urna no es lugar para depositar odio, sino para depositar esperanza", declaró Fernando Haddad, candidato del Partido de los Trabajadores (PT) y quien, según los sondeos, quedará el domingo en segundo lugar y disputará la segunda vuelta del 28 de octubre frente a Bolsonaro.

Haddad, elegido por Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva para sustituirle como candidato después de que fue vetado por la Justicia por estar en prisión y condenado por corrupción, también presentó un mensaje del expresidente, quien pidió al elector que "levante la cabeza" y ayude a la "reconstrucción de la democracia".

Según las últimas encuestas, Haddad tiene una intención de voto del 23 %, frente al 32 % que se le atribuye a Bolsonaro, mientras que el resto de los once candidatos no supera el 10 %. Los sondeos, sin embargo, también le adjudican a Bolsonaro y Haddad los mayores índices de rechazo, en ambos casos en torno al 40 %, por lo que los analistas consideran que una de las claves en la elección será el voto "anti" los principales favoritos.

En la propaganda de Bolsonaro, que sólo tenía ocho segundos en el espacio gratuito de televisión, dividido según la representación de los partidos en el Parlamento, el candidato estuvo ausente, así como ocurrió desde el pasado 6 de septiembre, cuando un hombre le asestó una puñalada en medio de un mitin. "Mentiras, calumnias, persecución. Hasta intentaron quitarle la vida. Brasil encima de todo. Dios encima de todos", dijo un locutor en esos ocho segundos, en los que con las tres primeras palabras reforzó el mensaje de Bolsanaro, quien niega el talante machista, racista y homofóbico que sus adversarios le endosan.

El resto de los principales candidatos también arremetió sobre todo contra Bolsonaro. El laborista Ciro Gomes, tercero en los sondeos, aunque lejos de los dos favoritos, dijo que "hay quien dice que vota en Bolsonaro para que no gane el PT y quien dice que vota en el PT para que no gane Bolsonaro" y "así Brasil seguirá dividido" y en crisis.

También contra los dos favoritos se pronunció el socialdemócrata Geraldo Alckmin, cuarto en los sondeos con un 7 % de apoyo, pero que al igual que la mayoría fue mucho más incisivo con Bolsonaro, quien le arrebató el espectro ideológico de la centroderecha.

"Hay dos caminos: el de la intolerancia de los radicales o el del trabajo y la seriedad", manifestó Alckmin, quien contaba con cinco minutos de propaganda en televisión gracias a una coalición de una decena de partidos que le ha ido abandonando durante la campaña para cerrar filas con Bolsonaro.

Bien sucinta en los 20 segundos de que disponía, la ecologista Marina Silva, quinta en los sondeos con un 5 % de los apoyos, pidió al elector "cambiar todo", pero además convocó "a los que saben que el odio no construye futuro". Y el exministro de Hacienda Henrique Meirelles, del gobernante Movimiento Democrático Brasileño (MDB), insistió en que es un candidato que ofrece "confianza" a los inversores, pese a que ese mensaje no ha calado y los sondeos no le atribuyen más del 2 % de las simpatías.

El PJ Nacional se puso en marcha para el 2019 y sumó a Hugo Moyano

El Partido Justicialista debatió la conformación de un frente político opositor al macrismo y convocó al camionero y a Ricardo Pignanelli.




Tras la intervención, el Partido Justicialista nacional se reunió para resolver la "conformación de un frente político opositor" que incluya "a todos los sectores políticos que se opongan al Gobierno nacional", para lo cual sumó al camionero Hugo Moyano y a Ricardo Pignanelli, de SMATA.

José Luis Gioja, titular del PJ nacional, reunió a su Mesa de Acción Política para tratar "la conformación de un frente político opositor, donde el Partido Justicilista convoque y sea capaz de aglutinar a todos los sectores políticos que se opongan al Gobierno nacional".

En un comunicado, desde el Partido adelantaron que convocarán a "los que compartan nuestra idea que el límite es Mauricio Macri y sus políticas de ajuste" y el hecho de "que a partir del 10 de diciembre de 2019 no deben estar más conduciendo los destinos del país desde la Casa Rosada".

Para ello, pidieron "abrirse a otros sectores que no forman parte de la actual conducción", por lo que definieron incorporar al camionero Hugo Moyano y al dirigente de SMATA, Ricardo Pignanelli.

De la reunión participaron, además de Gioja, Gildo Insfrán, Rubén Marín, Alberto Rodríguez Saá, Gustavo Menendez, José Neder, Leonardo Nardini, Fernando Espinoza, Eduardo "Wado" de Pedro, Cristina Álvarez Rodríguez, Gines González García, Agustín Rossi, Silvina Frana y Víctor Santa María.

America’s international image continues to suffer


Table showing that there is little overall change to U.S. image in Trump’s second year, but in most countries there is a dip from Obama era.A year after global opinion of the United States dropped precipitously, favorable views of the U.S. remain at historic lows in many countries polled. In addition, more say bilateral relations with the U.S. have worsened, rather than improved, over the past year. Among possible sources of resentment is the widespread perception that the U.S. does not consider the interests of other countries when making foreign policy decisions. More generally, relatively few see the U.S. stepping up more to solve international problems.

Some changes in U.S. image in last year, but no major recovery from 2017

In the 2018 survey, opinions of the U.S. vary greatly around the world, with enthusiastic ratings among people in Israel, the Philippines and South Korea, and unenthusiastic ratings in Germany, Russia and Mexico.
Divergent opinions of the U.S. are quite evident in Europe, where favorable views range from seven-in-ten in Poland to three-in-ten in neighboring Germany. Half in the United Kingdom have a positive opinion of the U.S., while only 38% in France agree.
Across the 10 European countries, views of the U.S. tilt toward the negative (a median of 43% favorable vs. 52% unfavorable).
Chart showing that views of the U.S. are generally positive, but sour among closest European and North American allies.Compared with the end of Barack Obama’s presidency, positive opinions of the U.S. have declined significantly in seven of the EU countries surveyed. This includes dips of 27 percentage points in Germany, 25 points in France and 11 points in the UK. However, favorable opinions of the U.S. have not changed much over the same time period in Poland, Greece or Hungary.
In North America, however, positive views of the U.S. are sharply down from the last reading in the Obama presidency in both Mexico (-34 percentage points) and Canada (-26 points). These have remained stable in the first two years of the Trump presidency.
Among allies in Asia, views of the U.S. have trended slightly downward since Donald Trump became president. Overall, opinions of the U.S. are quite positive in South Korea (80%), Japan (67%) and Australia (54%). Views of the U.S. are also very positive in the Philippines but mixed in Indonesia.
Across the 25 countries surveyed in the past two years, in 14 there was not a significant change in favorable views toward the U.S.
In five countries, there has been an increase in positive sentiment toward the U.S., most notably in Kenya (+16 percentage points), Spain (+11), Japan (+10) and Tunisia (+10).
The biggest drop in views of the U.S. since 2017 was in Russia, where only 26% have a positive image of the U.S. compared with the 41% who said this last year. However, only 15% of Russians had a positive view of the U.S. in 2015.
In 2018, an overwhelming number of Israelis (83%) have positive impressions of the U.S., but it is close to unanimous among Israeli Jews (94% favorable). Only 43% of Israeli Arabs feel the same way.
Among the three sub-Saharan African countries surveyed, views of the U.S. are very positive. In South Africa, favorable opinions of the U.S. are somewhat divided by race. Among white South Africans, 69% have a favorable view of the U.S., but only 56% among the black population and 54% among mixed-race people, also called “coloured” in South Africa, agree.
In Latin America opinions are mixed, with positive views of the U.S. among Brazilians and very negative views among Mexicans.
Chart showing that in many countries, the young are more positive than older generations about the U.S.In 10 of the countries surveyed, young people ages 18 to 29 are more favorable toward the U.S. than those who are 50 years of age and older. For example, in Brazil, 72% of 18- to 29-year-olds have warm feelings toward the U.S. compared with 42% among those 50 and older, a 30-percentage-point difference.
Large double-digit differences by age also occur in such disparate places as Russia (+27 points), Spain (+20), Tunisia (+19), Germany (+16) and Argentina (+16).
Chart showing that in some countries, more men than women see the U.S. positively.In addition to differences by age, there are also gender divides in some of the countries surveyed. In most cases, it is men that have a more favorable opinion of the U.S.
For example, 46% of Canadian men share a positive view of the U.S. compared with only one-third of women. Similar double-digit gaps exist between men and women in Australia, Sweden and Spain.
Only in one country surveyed do women have a more favorable view of the U.S.: Tunisia. There, 42% of women have a favorable opinion of the U.S. compared with 32% of men.
Chart showing that those on the political right tend to be more favorable toward the U.S.Another consistent demographic difference on U.S. favorability is by ideology, with those on the right of the political spectrum expressing warmer feelings toward the U.S. than those on the left.
Israel stands out clearly as an example. Nearly all Israelis who put themselves on the political right have a favorable opinion of the U.S. (94%, vs. 57% on the political left). This 37-percentage-point difference is the largest ideological divide in the survey.
Those on the right are also more keen on the U.S. in Sweden (+26 points), Australia (+25), Spain (+21), France (+20) and the UK (+20).
Similarly, the U.S. is seen more positively among Europeans who have a favorable view of populist parties within their countries.
For example, among people in France who have a favorable view of Marine Le Pen’s National Rally (formerly known as the National Front), 57% have a positive opinion of the U.S. vs. only 36% among those who have a negative opinion of the National Rally. Similar divides exist among supporters and detractors of Alternative for Germany (AfD) in Germany; the League (formerly called the Northern League) and the Five Star Movement in Italy; UKIP in the UK; Jobbik in Hungary; and the Party for Freedom in the Netherlands.

Chart showing that the U.S. civil liberties record is criticized in Canada, Western Europe and Mexico, but generally viewed positively elsewhere.America’s reputation on civil liberties is still positive but tarnished among key allies

Across 25 countries where the question was asked, most say that the U.S. government respects the personal freedoms of its own people. But shifts, especially in Europe, show that people are more critical of the civil liberties record under President Trump than under prior administrations.
Europeans, along with Canadians and Mexicans, are the most skeptical that the U.S. government respects Americans’ freedoms. Majorities in Spain, Mexico, Germany, Sweden, the Netherlands, France and Canada all say that the U.S. fails to respect the rights of its people. Poles, Hungarians and Italians buck the European sentiment, with more than half in each country saying the U.S. does respect civil liberties.
In the Asia-Pacific nations surveyed, most people think the U.S. protects personal freedoms at home. Australia is the exception, with half saying that the U.S. does not respect its people’s freedoms and slightly fewer (45%) saying it does.
In Israel, 81% say the American government respects personal freedoms, and 71% of Tunisians agree.
About half or more in Kenya, Nigeria and South Africa also have this view.
There has been a notable decline in European faith that the U.S. respects Americans’ rights since last year. In fact, among the 10 European countries surveyed, in all but Greece there has been a significant decline in those saying the U.S. respects personal rights, with the most dramatic falloff in the Netherlands (-17 percentage points).
Looking back over the past few years, far fewer people across the countries surveyed say the U.S. government respects personal rights. In fact, in 17 of the countries surveyed in both 2013 and 2018, there has been a significant downward shift in the share saying the U.S. respects its people’s rights. Only one country, Tunisia, has seen an improvement.
Table showing that views are changing on the U.S. government’s respect for the freedoms of its people.
Line chart showing that European views about U.S. protection of personal freedoms are shifting.Views on whether the U.S. respects the personal freedoms of its people have shifted most dramatically among five European countries that have been surveyed since the Bush administration in 2008. Among these five countries (France, Germany, Poland, Spain and the UK) more now say that the U.S. government does not respect the personal freedoms of its people (a median of 57%) than say it does (40%).
The shift began in the sixth year of the Obama administration, after the National Security Administration spying scandal, but it has accelerated this past year. Since 2013, there has been a large increase in sentiment across these five countries that the U.S. does not respect personal freedoms, with a corollary fall among those who say it does.

Chart showing that few see the U.S. as increasing its involvement in global issues.Only a small share says the U.S. is doing more to address global problems

When it comes to U.S. contributions to the global community, people are generally split as to whether the U.S. is doing less (median of 37%) or about the same as it used to (34%) compared with a few years ago. Only a small share (14%) believe the U.S. has increased its involvement.
The view that the U.S. is doing less to solve international problems is especially widespread in Canada and Western Europe. More than half say this in Germany (75%), Sweden (75%), the Netherlands (62%), the UK (55%) and France (53%). However, only a quarter or fewer in Greece (25%) and Poland (22%) share the view that the U.S. is retreating from the world stage.
In the Asia-Pacific region, opinion is more evenly divided between those who say the U.S. is doing less and people who believe its involvement in tackling international issues is little changed. In Indonesia and the Philippines, the prevailing view is that the level of U.S. global engagement is about the same as a few years ago.
Israel is the most convinced that the global role of the U.S. has grown in the past two years: About half (52%) say the U.S. is doing more to address global problems.
Table showing that those who lack trust in Trump see the U.S. as contributing less to global solutions. In sub-Saharan Africa, Kenyans are divided: 42% say the U.S. is doing more, compared with 38% who think it’s doing less. Nearly half of Nigerians (48%) credit the U.S. with doing more, while only 27% say the U.S. is doing less to help address major issues.
In the three Latin American countries surveyed, roughly half or more say that U.S. efforts are unchanged.
Views of American involvement in global solutions differ greatly depending on expressed confidence in President Trump. In 17 of the 25 countries surveyed, people who do not trust Trump to do the right thing in world affairs are significantly more likely than those who have confidence in him to say that the U.S. is less involved in tackling global problems. The magnitude of the difference is striking in some countries: There is a gap of at least 20 percentage points in Canada, the Netherlands, Israel, Australia, Sweden, the UK, South Korea, Tunisia, Italy and Japan.

Few say the U.S. considers their country’s interests

Chart showing that globally, few believe the U.S. takes their country’s interest into account.Across the 25 countries where the question was asked, a median of just 28% say the U.S. takes their country’s interests into account when making international decisions. In fact, majorities across Europe, and in neighboring Canada and Mexico, say that the U.S. does not take into account their interests when making foreign policy.
Perceptions of American foreign policy as not taking into account their country’s interests are also widespread in South Korea, where U.S. foreign policy has been especially active on the issue of North Korea’s nuclear weapons program. Three-fourths of South Koreans say Washington does not consider their interests.
Only in Israel, the Philippines, Kenya, Nigeria and South Africa do half or more say that the American government takes into account their interests a great deal or fair amount when making foreign policy decisions.
Since the question was last asked in 2013, 14 of the countries surveyed have seen significant declines in the share of people who say the U.S. considers their country’s interests.
The biggest decline has been in Germany, where half in 2013 said the U.S. considered their country’s interests, compared with 19% today – a 31-percentage-point drop.
Sharp declines also occurred in South Africa, Brazil, Mexico, France, Italy and Kenya.
In three countries surveyed in both 2013 and 2018, more people today think the U.S. considers their country’s interests: Greece, Tunisia and Israel. Among these, Israel saw the biggest increase, perhaps due to recent U.S. actions, such as scrapping the Iran nuclear deal and moving the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem.
Chart showing the belief that the U.S. considers other countries’ interests in foreign policy has returned to its 2007 level.Looking across 14 countries surveyed in 2007, 2009, 2013 and 2018, opinions on whether the U.S. considers other countries’ interests have shifted under three different American presidents.
In 2007, toward the end of the Bush administration, a median of 71% across the 14 countries said that the U.S. did not take into account other countries’ interests when making foreign policy, compared with 26% who said the U.S. did. Attitudes shifted at the beginning of the Obama administration in 2009. Nations such as Germany (+27 percentage points), France (+23 points), the UK (+19), South Korea (+19) Canada (+18) and Russia (+12) saw double-digit increases in the share of people who felt the U.S. took their country’s interests into consideration. Yet, overall, a majority across the countries polled in both years still felt the U.S. did not consider their interests. By 2013, little had changed. Now, in the first reading of such sentiment in the Trump administration, a 14-country median of 72% say the U.S. does not consider their nations’ interests and only 27% say it does.

Most say relations between their country and the U.S. have not changed over the past year

Chart showing that many view relations with the U.S. as unchanged since 2017.Although many believe that the U.S. does not take their country’s interests into account, relatively few describe worsening relations with the U.S. Pluralities in roughly half of the 25 nations surveyed say relations with the U.S. have remained stable over the past year.
Among those who have perceived a change in their country’s relationship with the U.S., slightly more believe that relations have worsened (median of 21%) than believe they have improved (median of 16%).
Canadians hold generally negative views of their relationship with their southern neighbor. Roughly two-thirds (66%) say relations have gotten worse while only 4% say they have improved.
Germans have the most negative view of their relationship with the U.S. Eight-in-ten say it has deteriorated since 2017. In comparison, at least four-in-ten in every other European nation say their interactions with the U.S. have generally stayed the same.
A majority of Russians also see their relationship with the U.S. as having soured. Roughly one-third do not see a difference over the past year, while 11% believe U.S.-Russia relations have improved.
On the opposite side of the spectrum, Israel has by far the most positive view of U.S. relations. Nearly eight-in-ten say their country’s relationship with the U.S. has gotten better.
Publics in sub-Saharan Africa also tend to see their relationship with the U.S. as improving. More than half in Kenya and 48% in Nigeria say things have gotten better over the past year.
Views in Latin America are more mixed. While pluralities in Argentina and Brazil say that relations have not changed, roughly two-thirds in Mexico say their country’s relationship with the U.S. has worsened. Their views are remarkably similar to those of America’s northern neighbor.

Para el Wall Street Journal, el FMI "no tiene la receta adecuada para la Argentina"

Dura crítica al acuerdo


El prestigioso The Wall Street Journal, una de las principales voces del mundo financiero, se expresó críticamente sobre el acuerdo entre el Fondo Monetario Internacional (FMI) y la Argentina, al sostener que el organismo "no tiene la receta adecuada para resolver los problemas" para el país.

"El Fondo no tiene la receta adecuada para resolver los problemas argentinos", escribió el medio, y recomendó a los inversores "mantenerse alejados". Hace alusión a la fuerte devaluación y la inflación, entre otros problemas de la economía.

La nota, firmada por Jon Sindeu, considera que "las condiciones del acuerdo (con el FMI) corren el riesgo de alargar el historial fallido del organismo cuando se trata de ayudar a las economías emergentes. Es poco probable que las condiciones pautadas garanticen una recuperación sólida de la economía".

Al respecto, alerta que la estrategia de reducir el déficit a cero, limitar la emisión monetaria y no hacer grandes intervención en el mercado cambiario, no resolverá la situación de la Argentina. "El cóctel de políticas anunciadas se remonta a 1970. Era furor limitar la cantidad de dinero que los bancos centrales podían imprimir. El enfoque resultó inviable y pronto fue abandonado. Muchos de los países en los que el FMI ayudó en aquel entonces no mejoraron en las décadas siguientes", dice.

"El determinante clave de la inflación no es la cantidad de dinero en la economía. No es el gasto del Gobierno. No es la política del Banco Central. El problema de estas economías es que están expuestas a lo que ocurre con el flujo global de los capitales. Cuando la Reserva Federal eleva las tasas y los inversores se refugian en el dólar, las monedas emergentes se caen y los precios de las importaciones aumentan", explica WSJ.

Además, el analista recomienda que la Argentina ese enfoque en políticas que le permitan avanzar hacia el desarrollo. "Se deben limitar las deudas en dólares e intentar contener la puja distributiva (entre los salarios y los márgenes de ganancia de las empresas). A más largo plazo, en tanto, los elementos del éxito de China puede ser una hoja de ruta para la Argentina. Esto es estabilidad del tipo de cambio, política coordinada sobre los ingresos y un enfoque de producción basado en exportaciones que se vinculen con industrias de escala", afirma.

"La focalización de la política económica en cerrar el déficit fiscal y la meta monetaria puede causar mucho daño. Volver a la década del 70 no parece una buena idea ni un buen camino para la Argentina. Los inversores (internacionales) deben mantenerse alejados", concluye el artículo.

Por la megadevaluación, el salario ya cayó más del 35%

La crisis cambiaria generada por el Gobierno produjo el descenso del poder adquisitivo. Hasta el momento, el salario mínimo medido en dólares sufrió una baja del 37,7%.



La megadevaluación generada por el Gobierno pulverizó el poder adquisitivo de los trabajadores. En lo que va del año, la capacidad de compra cayó más del 35%.

La crisis cambiaria que llevó al dólar de cotizar $ 18,73 el 2 de enero a $ 39,44 en la actualidad hizo caer el salario en forma sideral. El poder adquisitivo cayó un 37,7% en el lapso de 10 meses.

En el inicio del año, el salario mínimo, vital y móvil era de $ 9500, el cual equivalía a U$S 507 con la cotización de la moneda estadounidense apenas debajo de los $ 19. En agosto, el entonces Ministerio de Trabajo, hoy devaluado a Secretaría, decidió elevar el salario en cuatro tramos, hasta llegar a $ 12.500 en junio del próximo año. Hoy, está en $ 10.700.

Si se toma esta última cifra como referencia, con un dólar a $ 39,44, el salario mínimo, vital y móvil se estima en U$S 271. Es decir, que en lo que va de 2018, la pérdida sería de U$S 236, o sea, una caída del 46,5%.

Sin embargo, el desplome puede ser aún mayor si el sistema de flotación libre entre bandas cambiarias implementada por el Banco Central cumple su objetivo. De acuerdo a lo comunicado por la máxima autoridad monetaria, la fijación de un aumento mensual del 3% sobre el tipo de cambio debería elevar todavía más el valor del billete verde. De esta manera, la caída del salario será más pronunciada.

¿D`Onofrio a la política?: confirmó que está "dispuesto a trabajar"

El Presidente de River confirmó que está trabajando en un nuevo espacio y aseguró que está "dispuesto a ayudar".


Después de concretar el paso de River a la semifinal de la Copa Libertadores, el presidente del "millonario", Rodolfo D'Onofrio, aseguró que comenzó a trabajar en un nuevo espacio que "colabore" con el futuro del país.

"Estamos en un espacio trabajando no para generar un partido político nuevo, que hay un montón, sino para poder colaborar", le dijo a La Red peor negó una candidatura: "No, querer no; pero estoy dispuesto a ayudar y a trabajar".

El dirigente aseguró que "tenemos que ver de qué manera podemos colaborar en una sociedad que vive momentos muy difíciles, donde escucho de grieta. Hay que poner puentes".

Por eso, reveló que mantuvo reuniones con Juan Carr y Facundo Manes para pensar "ideas que puedan servir para quienes nos gobiernan" ya que "todos tenemos que colaborar en un proyecto para tener un país en serio, con unión, unidad".

Además, D'Onofrio apuró al Gobierno y les dijo que "es linda la macroeconomía" y la premisa de dejar "de gastar lo que no tenemos pero es importante que veamos cómo hacemos para que empiece a producir el país".

Melconian Dujovne y Sandleris "toman mate y mandan una planilla a Washington a las 17"

Así se refirió el economista más consultado por Macri sobre el ministro de Hacienda y el presidente del BCRA.


El economista más consultado por Mauricio Macri, Carlos Melconian, dio una conferencia donde estalló contra todo el equipo económico de Cambiemos.

"La reacción del FMI fue 'córranse que me hago cargo'. El ministro de Hacienda y el presidente del BCRA toman mate y mandan una planilla a Washington a las 17", fue la frase más explosiva.

Lo dijo en referencia a Nicolás Dujovne y Guido Sandleris, recientemente asumido como presidente del Banco Central.

Melconian disertó ante empresarios en una conferencia organizada por la empresa de seguros Insur y la Cámara de Comercio Exterior de Córdoba.




El expresidente del Banco Nación planteó que "si de verdad" se quiere ir a una inflación de 20% el año próximo, "va ser una recesión muy dura".

Melconian afirmó que otorgando 10 puntos más de suba salarial, la capacidad real de compra quedará 10 puntos debajo de la inflación este año.

"Caída de salario implica caída de consumo -siguió-. El último salto del PBI fue el primer trimestre de este año; vienen cuatro trimestres duros; lo que no sea campo pasará una recesión pseudo la de Lehman Brothers (en referencia a la crisis de 2008)", sentenció.

MÁS DEFINICIONES DE MELCONIAN

"El programa de gobierno fracasó, la herencia fue un desastre y el primer acuerdo con el Fondo Monetario Internacional (FMI) no generó los resultados esperados"

"El nuevo programa es exigente para poner plata, las medidas fiscales, monetarias y cambiarias son para que corrijas los 3000 millones de dólares que compraba mi tía: para que escupan dólares. ¿El dólar a $40? Entiendo que está bien, pero que no se necesite a $50, si no hay que ir a heterogeneidades".

"No hay oposición, porque si no, es para hacerse un picnic; esa es la suerte con la que Macri compensa lo que recibió".

"Hay seca; el circulante en términos reales sobre el PBI está debajo del corralito y el corralon. Si no emitís y tenés 40% de inflación, es un problema".

"Viene Durán Barba y te dice que más que antes quiere a Frankenstein al frente. ¡Que vamos a salir a la cancha con esto! Nos comen vivos".

"Esto no significa que murió la reelección, hay que ver cómo queda el nuevo plan 'Perdurar'".

"El Presidente necesita quilombo en el gabinete; decirle al señor Dietrich: andá, poné la jeta y subí el boleto, ¿o vas a estar vegetando cuatro años más? (...) A la esperanza y al optimismo hay que acompañarlos. Simultáneo al esfuerzo fiscal del gasto es la recaudación; la recaudación tributaria tiene que estar en el 40%. El principal impulsor son las retenciones; el riesgo latente es una recesión".

Melconián sobre las Leliq:"se está criando de a poquito el primo hermano del monstruo”


Para Carlos Melconian, se viene una “recesión muy dura”

El ex presidente del Banco Nación criticó también el uso de las Leliq para contener al dólar



Fiel a su estilo, el economista y ex presidente del Banco Nación Carlos Melconian aseguró que se viene “una recesión muy dura” y criticó el uso de las Leliq para contener al dólar.

El economista habló el miércoles en Córdoba en una conferencia ante empresarios organizada por la aseguradora Insur y la Cámara de Comercio Exterior de la provincia.


Sobre el objetivo del BCRA de tener crecimiento cero de la base monetaria, afirmó que lleva "a ninguna capacidad de aumentar el crédito", algo que traerá un enfriamiento de la economía.

"El circulante en términos reales sobre el PBI está debajo del corralito y el corralón. Si no emitís y tenés 40% de inflación, es un problema", afirmó.

En esa línea, planteó que apuntar a una inflación del 20% el año próximo significará un freno muy fuerte para la economía, con “cuatro trimestres duros” en donde “lo que no sea campo pasará una recesión (...)".

Y sobre este año, sostuvo que incluso otorgando 10 puntos más de suba salarial, la capacidad real de compra de los consumidores quedaría 10 puntos debajo de la inflación estimada.






También fue crítico del desarme de las Lebac reemplazándolas por Leliq, asegurando que "se está criando de a poquito el primo hermano del monstruo”, en referencia a la “bola de Lebac”.

Sobre el acuerdo con el FMI, afirmó que “el primero no generó los resultados esperados y el nuevo programa es exigente para poner plata”. “Las medidas fiscales, monetarias y cambiarias son para corregir los US$ 3.000 millones que compraba mi tía (por los minoristas), para que escupan los dólares”, aseguró.

Most prefer that U.S., not China, be the world’s leading power


More countries currently see the United States as the world’s leading economic power than China. This is particularly true in Latin America and the Asia-Pacific region. Few name Japan or the European Union as the world’s leading economic power today.

But, while perceptions of current economic leadership are somewhat divided between the U.S. and China, when it comes to preferred global leadership, there is no competition. Majorities or pluralities in nearly every country surveyed say the future would be better if the U.S. were the world’s leading power than if China were.
U.S. seen as world’s leading economic power

The publics surveyed tend to believe the U.S. is the world’s leading economic power, albeit by a somewhat slender margin. Across 25 countries, a median of 39% name the U.S. as the top global economy, while 34% say it is China. Fewer say this about the EU or Japan.

America is seen as the leading economy in all three Latin American countries surveyed – Brazil, Mexico and Argentina. In the Asia-Pacific region, only Australians are more likely (52% vs. 34%) to name China as the world’s leading economic power. Australians have, in fact, consistently named China over the U.S. since the question was first posed in 2008.

In sub-Saharan Africa, publics in Kenya, Nigeria and South Africa are divided in their views: No more than four-in-ten name either the U.S. or China as the world’s top economy.

European opinion, too, is mixed. In the two Eastern European countries surveyed – Hungary and Poland – the U.S. is the clear favorite. In the Southern European countries of Italy and Greece, too, more name the U.S. than China. But in France and the UK there is no clear consensus; nearly as many point to the American as to the Chinese economy. Meanwhile, in the Netherlands and Germany, opinion leans in favor of China. This is especially true in Germany, where about half (53%) view China as the world’s economic leader. Germans name the EU as often as the U.S. as the world’s leading economic power (21% vs. 19%).

Compared with a year ago, slightly more in the UK, France and Poland name the U.S. as the world’s leading economic power. By contrast, Germans are now less likely to see the U.S. as the globe’s dominant economy.
Most prefer U.S. as world’s leading power

Regardless of which country people think is the current leading economic power, one thing is consistent: Most publics surveyed prefer the American leadership. When thinking about the future, a 25-country median of 63% say they prefer a world in which the U.S. is the leading power, while just 19% would favor one in which China leads.

In the Asia-Pacific region, few say they prefer China. Among China’s immediate neighbors, preference for the U.S. is particularly high: 81% of Japanese, 77% of Filipinos and 73% of South Koreans all favor a future where Washington, not Beijing, leads. In Australia – where 52% say China is the current leading economic power – nearly three-quarters still say they prefer a future where the U.S. is the world’s dominant power.

Argentina, Russia and Tunisia stand out as the only three countries where just one-third or fewer prefer U.S. leadership.

In many countries, preference for a U.S.-led world order is linked to ideology. Those on the ideological right are more likely than those on the ideological left to say that it’s better for the world if the U.S. is the dominant power. This ideological divide is most pronounced in Israel, where 74% of Israelis who self-identify as being on the right say they prefer Washington’s leadership, compared with 45% of those on the left.

Trump’s International Ratings Remain Low, Especially Among Key Allies

Most still want U.S. as top global power, but see China on the rise



America’s global image plummeted following the election of President Donald Trump, amid widespread opposition to his administration’s policies and a widely shared lack of confidence in his leadership. Now, as the second anniversary of Trump’s election approaches, a new 25-nation Pew Research Center survey finds that Trump’s international image remains poor, while ratings for the United States are much lower than during Barack Obama’s presidency.

The poll also finds that international publics express significant concerns about America’s role in world affairs. Large majorities say the U.S. doesn’t take into account the interests of countries like theirs when making foreign policy decisions. Many believe the U.S. is doing less to help solve major global challenges than it used to. And there are signs that American soft power is waning as well, including the fact that, while the U.S. maintains its reputation for respecting individual liberty, fewer believe this than a decade ago.

Even though America’s image has declined since Trump’s election, on balance the U.S. still receives positive marks – across the 25 nations polled, a median of 50% have a favorable opinion of the U.S., while 43% offer an unfavorable rating. However, a median of only 27% say they have confidence in President Trump to do the right thing in world affairs; 70% lack confidence in him.

Frustrations with the U.S. in the Trump era are particularly common among some of America’s closest allies and partners. In Germany, where just 10% have confidence in Trump, three-in-four people say the U.S. is doing less these days to address global problems, and the share of the public who believe the U.S. respects personal freedoms is down 35 percentage points since 2008. In France, only 9% have confidence in Trump, while 81% think the U.S. doesn’t consider the interests of countries like France when making foreign policy decisions.

Critical views are also widespread among America’s closest neighbors. Only 25% of Canadians rate Trump positively, more than six-in-ten (63%) say the U.S. is doing less than in the past to address global problems, and 82% think the U.S. ignores Canada’s interests when making policy. Meanwhile, Trump’s lowest ratings on the survey are found in Mexico, where just 6% express confidence in his leadership.

One exception to this pattern is Israel. After a year in which the Trump administration generated international controversy by moving the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, his positive rating jumped to 69%, up from 56% in 2017.

Around the world, publics are divided about the direction of American power: Across the 25 nations surveyed, a median of 31% say the U.S. plays a more important role in the world today than it did ten years ago; 25% say it plays a less important role; and 35% believe the U.S. is as important as it was a decade ago.

In contrast, views about Chinese power are clear: A median of 70% say China’s role on the world stage has grown over the past 10 years. Still, by a slim margin, more people name the U.S. as the world’s leading economic power (a median of 39% say the U.S., 34% say China).

And despite the unease many feel about the U.S. at the moment, the idea of a U.S.-led world order is still attractive to most. When asked which would be better for the world, having China or the U.S. as the top global power, people in nearly every country tend to select the U.S., and this is particularly common among some of China’s Asia-Pacific neighbors, such as Japan, the Philippines, South Korea and Australia.

These are among the major findings from a new Pew Research Center survey conducted among 26,112 respondents in 25 countries from May 20 to Aug. 12, 2018. Chapters 3, 4 and 5 use additional data from a Pew Research Center survey of 1,500 U.S. adults conducted from May 14 to June 15, 2018.
U.S. receives some of its most negative ratings in Europe

Although perceptions of the U.S. are on balance positive, they vary considerably among the nations surveyed. Ten of the 25 countries in this year’s survey are European Union member states, and across these EU nations a median of just 43% offer a favorable opinion of the U.S. Meanwhile, majorities in four of the five Asia-Pacific nations polled give the U.S. a positive rating, including 83% in the Philippines, one of the highest ratings in the survey. The U.S. also gets high marks in South Korea, where 80% have a positive view of the U.S. and confidence in President Trump has increased over the past year from 17% to 44%.

As has largely been the case since Pew Research Center’s first Global Attitudes survey in 2002, attitudes toward the U.S. in sub-Saharan Africa are largely positive, with Kenyans, Nigerians and South Africans expressing mostly favorable opinions in this year’s poll. The three Latin American nations polled offer differing views about the U.S., with Brazilians voicing mostly favorable reviews, while Argentines and Mexicans are mostly negative. And the two Middle Eastern nations in the study – Israel and Tunisia – offer strikingly different assessments.

The country giving the U.S. its lowest rating in the survey, and the place where the biggest drop in U.S. favorability has taken place over the past year, is Russia. Just 26% of Russians have a favorable opinion of the U.S., compared with 41% in 2017. A 55% majority of Russians say relations have gotten worse in the past year, and the share of the public with a positive view of Trump has dropped from 53% to 19%.
Good reviews for Merkel and Macron, poor marks for Xi, Putin, Trump

The survey examined attitudes toward five world leaders, and overall Donald Trump receives the most negative ratings among the five. A median of 70% across the 25 nations polled lack confidence in the American leader. Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping also receive mostly negative reviews.

In contrast, opinions about German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Emmanuel Macron are generally positive. Both leaders are mostly popular in the EU, although there are regional divides within Europe, with Merkel and Macron receiving favorable ratings in the Northern European nations surveyed and less stellar reviews in Eastern and Southern Europe.

European attitudes toward Trump are strikingly negative, especially when compared with the ratings his predecessor received while in office. Looking at four European nations Pew Research Center has surveyed consistently since 2003 reveals a clear pattern regarding perceptions of American presidents. George W. Bush, whose foreign policies were broadly unpopular in Europe, got low ratings during his presidency, while the opposite was true for Barack Obama, who enjoyed strong approval in these four nations during his time in office. Following the 2016 election, confidence in the president plunged, with Trump’s ratings resembling what Bush received near the end of his second term (although Trump’s numbers are up slightly in the United Kingdom this year).

In several European nations, Trump receives higher ratings from supporters of right-wing populist parties. For example, among people in the UK who have a favorable view of the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP), 53% express confidence in Trump, compared with only 21% among those with an unfavorable view of UKIP. Similar divides exist among supporters and detractors of right-wing populist parties in Sweden, France, Italy, the Netherlands and Germany. However, it is worth noting that, other than in the UK, there is no European country in which more than half of right-wing populist party supporters say they have confidence in Trump.
Few think the U.S. takes their interests into account

A common criticism about American foreign policy over the past decade and a half has been that the U.S. only looks after its own interests in world affairs, ignoring the interests of other nations. As Pew Research Center surveys showed, this belief was especially prevalent during George W. Bush’s presidency, when many around the world thought the U.S. was pursuing unilateralist, and unpopular, policies. Strong opposition to the Iraq War and other elements of Bush’s foreign policy led to rising complaints about the U.S. acting alone and ignoring the interests and concerns of other nations.

Opinions shifted following Barack Obama’s election, with more people saying the U.S. considers their country’s interest, although even during the Obama years the prevailing global sentiment was that the U.S. doesn’t necessarily consider other countries. Now, the Trump presidency has brought an increase in the number of people in many nations saying the U.S. essentially doesn’t listen to countries like theirs when making foreign policy.

This pattern is especially pronounced among some of America’s top allies and partners. For instance, while the share of the French public who believe the U.S. considers their national interest has not been very high at any point over the past decade and a half, it reached a low point near the end of Bush’s second term (11% in 2007), rose somewhat during Obama’s presidency (35% in 2013) and has declined once more under Trump. Today, just 18% in France say the U.S. considers the interests of countries like theirs when making policy.
Fewer, especially in Europe, say U.S. respects individual liberty

America’s reputation as a defender of individual liberty has generally been strong in Pew Research Center surveys since we first started asking about it in 2008. The prevailing view among the publics surveyed has typically been that the U.S. government respects the personal liberties of its people, and that is true again in this year’s poll. However, this opinion has become less common over time, and the decline has been particularly sharp among key U.S. partners in Europe, North America and Asia.

The decline began during the Obama administration following revelations about the National Security Agency’s electronic eavesdropping on communications around the world, and it has continued during the first two years of the Trump presidency. The drop is especially prominent in Western Europe, where the share of the public saying Washington respects personal freedom has declined sharply since 2013.

The same pattern is found among several other U.S. allies as well, including Canada, where the percentage saying the U.S. respects individual freedom has dropped from 75% to 38% since 2013, and Australia, where it has gone from 72% to 45%.
China seen as a rising power

Respondents to the survey were read a list of seven major nations, and for each one, were asked whether they think it is playing a more important, less important, or as important of a role in the world compared with 10 years ago. Among the seven countries tested, China stands apart: A median of 70% across the nations polled say Beijing plays a more important role today than a decade ago. Half or more in 23 of 25 countries express this view.

Many also say this about Russia. A median of 41% believe Moscow’s role on the world stage has grown over the past decade, and majorities hold this view in Greece, Israel, Tunisia and Russia itself. Overall, people are split on whether Germany’s role is greater than it was 10 years ago or about the same, but many in Europe see Germany’s role as more influential. On the other hand, Europeans are particularly likely to think the UK is less important now.

There is no real consensus in views of America’s prominence in world affairs. A median of 35% believe it is as important as it was 10 years ago, while 31% say it is more important and 25% say less. Japan is the only country with a majority saying that Washington plays a less important role. Meanwhile, Israelis, Nigerians and Kenyans are particularly likely to think the U.S. is more important than it used to be.
Most still want U.S., not China, as top power

In addition to being asked about whether major powers are rising, falling or staying about the same, respondents were asked the following question about whether they would prefer the U.S. or China to be the top global power: “Thinking about the future, if you had to choose, which of the following scenarios would be better for the world: the U.S. is the world’s leading power or China is the world’s leading power?” Results show that the U.S. is overwhelmingly the top choice.

The U.S. is named more often than China in every country surveyed except three: Argentina, Tunisia and Russia, although in many nations significant numbers volunteer that it would be good for the world if both or neither were the leading power.

Some of America’s allies in Asia and elsewhere are particularly likely to prefer a future in which the U.S. is the top global power. Two-thirds or more hold this opinion in Japan, the Philippines, Sweden, South Korea, Australia, Canada, the Netherlands, Poland and the UK.


Country spotlights: Germany, Mexico, Canada, Japan, Israel

Findings from Germany, Mexico, Canada, Japan and Israel illustrate key patterns and major differences in how foreign publics view the U.S. in 2018.
Germany: A sharp negative turn in the Trump era

Germany stands out as a country where America’s image is considerably more negative today than during the Barack Obama era. Whereas Obama was extremely popular in Germany (although his ratings did decline somewhat following the NSA scandal), only around one-in-ten Germans have voiced confidence in Trump in each of the past two years, ratings similar to those registered for George W. Bush at the end of his second term. Germany stands out on other measures as well. It is the country with the highest percentage (80%) saying relations with the U.S. have deteriorated over the past year, and it is tied with Sweden for the largest share of the public (75%) saying the U.S. is doing less to confront global problems. Germany is also where the biggest declines have taken place in recent years regarding the belief that the U.S. respects personal freedom and that Washington listens to other countries in international affairs.
Mexico: Strong opposition to Trump

Mexico is where Trump gets his lowest ratings on the survey: Just 6% in the United States’ southern neighbor have confidence in him. Last year, more than nine-in-ten Mexicans opposed Trump’s plan to build a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border. This year, 66% in Mexico say relations have gotten worse over the past 12 months.
Canada: U.S. favorability hits a low point

Just 39% of Canadians express a favorable opinion of the U.S. in 2018, the lowest percentage since Pew Research Center began polling in Canada in 2002. Only 25% have confidence in Trump, although he gets more positive ratings among those who feel closest to the Conservative Party (44%) than among those who identify with the New Democratic Party (17%) or the ruling Liberal Party (10%). Fully 82% say the U.S. ignores Canada’s interests when making foreign policy.
Japan: Low ratings for Trump, but overall assessment of U.S. recovers

Japanese trust in the U.S. president has also suffered under Donald Trump, but America’s overall image has not. In 2018, just three-in-ten Japanese say they have confidence in Trump’s handling of world affairs, a slight improvement over their view in 2017, but significantly lower than their views of the U.S. president throughout the Obama administration. Opinion of Trump is comparable to sentiment about George W. Bush during his time in office. Fully 67% of Japanese, however, have a favorable view of the U.S., up 10 percentage points from last year. Despite the high ratings for the U.S., there are concerns in Japan about the trajectory of American power – it is the only country where a majority (55%) believes the U.S. is less powerful than 10 years ago.
Israel: Trump’s ratings improved

Confidence in President Trump has increased significantly in Israel since 2017. Trump also receives substantially higher ratings than Obama got near the end of his second term, although they are very similar to the high ratings for Obama in 2014, before tensions rose between his administration and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over the Iran nuclear deal. As has been the case in recent years, around eight-in-ten Israelis express a favorable opinion about the U.S. At 52%, Israelis are more likely than any other public surveyed to say the U.S. is doing more to address global problems than a few years ago. Israel also tops the list in terms of the share of the public (79%) saying that relations with the U.S. have improved in the past year.

The rest of the report delves into these and other findings in more detail. Chapter 1 explores overall attitudes toward the U.S., America’s approach to foreign policy, whether the U.S. government respects individual liberty, and relations between survey countries and the U.S. Chapter 2 examines ratings for President Trump and other world leaders. Chapter 3 looks at opinions regarding whether specific major nations are playing a more or less important role in world affairs than in the past. Chapter 4 explores views about the balance of power between the U.S. and China, while Chapter 5 examines China’s global image.


Build your own chart: Tracking U.S. favorability and confidence in the U.S. president, 2002 to 2018

Use the tool below to explore how individual countries view the U.S. and its president, and how these views have changed over time. Keep in mind that surveys are not conducted in every country for every year. But the patterns over time should be clear, since this interactive includes all available data for the 25 countries on these two questions.
U.S. favorabilityConfidence in the U.S. president


Presentaron informe sobre el Troll Center de Cambiemos que desnuda los nombres detrás de las cuentas

La publicación muestra, con pruebas, cómo opera el call center del macrismo: Patricia Bullrich, Hernán Lombardi, Elisa Carrió y Marcos Peña, las cabezas del monstruo virtual.


La diputada massista Graciela Camaño le llevó al jefe de Gabinete, Marcos Peña, un lapidario informe sobre el Troll Center que desnuda los nombres detrás de las cuentas de Cambiemos. La legisladora se lo dio tras la presentación del informe de gestió que hizo ayer el funcionario.



La publicación muestra, con pruebas, cómo opera el call center del macrismo con Patricia Bullrich, Hernán Lombardi, Elisa Carrió y Marcos Peña como cabezas del monstruo virtual.



Es un documento que dio a conocer el Frente Renovador y ayer presentó la diputada Graciela Camaño en el Congreso frente a Marcos Peña en su informe de gestión.

Allí revela nombres:

Lucho Bugallo

Es asesor de Lilita Carrió y del bloque Coalición Cívica en temas de agroindustria y economías regionales en la Cámara de Diputados. Fue candidato por Cambiemos en la cuarta sección electoral de la Provincia de Buenos Aires y hoy tiene un contrato de 60 mil pesos como asesor del Senado Nacional, aunque se dedique exclusivamente a la militancia digital.

Carlos Correa Arias

Es asesor de la Coalición Cívica,especialmente vinculado con Mariana Zuvic, mano derecha de Carrió. Después del cacerolazo fue el encargado de reclutar a nuevos indignados, para llevarlos a las filas del troll-center en formación. Aunque no se le conoce un rol formal, tiene un contrato de 60 mil pesos también con Radio y Televisión Argentina (RTA), una sociedad del estado que administra la TV Pública.

Nazareno Etchepare

Es abogado de Carrió y un operador muy vinculado con la oposición venezolana, lo que llevó avarios dirigentes de Cambiemos a intervenir con comentarios en redes en momentos electorales de aquel país. Muestra orgulloso en su sitio web sus vínculos con Carrió,con el consultor venezolano JJ Rendón quien se define como experto en campaña sucia y hasta alguna foto con el fiscal Campagnoli. Con la misma mecánica de financiarse del estado, tiene un contrato especial de 58 mil pesos como asesor del Ministerio de Justicia, mediante un convenio con MJYDH ACARA, que originalmente se gestó para gestionar la transferencia de automotores, aunque nada tenga que ver con redes sociales.



Mariana Torres

Trabajó originalmente bajo el mando de Patricia Bullrich y su partido porteño. Administraba el perfil “El Anti K” y desde ahí se encarga de posicionar a Bullrich y Carrió como las principales protagonistas de las marchas. Marcelo Morán, el troll arrepentido, la "vendió".

Alejandro Collareda

Es quien lidera desde hace años las principales campañas de desprestigio personal contra los adversarios de Macri y Carrió. Suele ser quien organiza y dispara los primeros ataques para que los trolls masifiquen el mensaje.En julio de 2015 al comenzar la campaña presidencial, se inscribió como monotributista para facturarle servicios a distintas estructuras financieras de la campaña del PRO. Ese mismo mes recibió casi 200 mil pesos.El 25 de diciembre de 2015, pocos días después que Cambiemos asumió el gobierno, creó @ElCoya1977 para ocultar su identidad. Desde entonces se dedica a atacar con aun más violencia a todo aquel que critique a sus jefes políticos.

Octavio Paulise

Community Manager de Guillermo Dietrich. Cobra 52 mil pesos del Ministerio de Transporte por un convenio con la Agencia de Seguridad Vial.Usurpa las identidades de personajes famosos como Lanata,Van der Kooy y Ruiz Guiñazú a través de las cuáles difunde noticias periodísticas falsas y pone palabras en la boca de estos personajes, que nunca han dicho. Además, extorsiona a estos famosos con utilizar las cuentas para operaciones de desprestigio en redes sociales. Lanata contó públicamente que intentó venderle estas operaciones.Fue denunciado penalmente por campaña sucia por Tinelli, Filmus y Massa.

Pablo Pérez Correa

Cobra 30 mil pesos como secretario de Lombardi desde que fue Ministro de Cultura y aún lo hace como asesor de Medios.Administra múltiples identidades digitales, la más conocida es @DraPignata, desde donde ataca con humor paródico y comentarios fachos a toda la clase política, a toda, pero se toma vacaciones en cuanto a criticar al oficialismo. Participa habitualmente en la gestación de tendencias en Twitter favorables al gobierno de Cambiemos y desde que fue señalado por Brancatelli, fue corrido de la operación cotidiana.

Ricardo Benedetti

Escritor y tuitero, divide su tiempo entre su actividad como orador motivacional y las actividades contra opositores que realiza el trollcenter, al que le aporta contenidos y creatividad.En 2015 se creó el Sistema Federal de Medios y Contenidos Públicos (SFMyCP, o “Medios Públicos”) que lo contrató inmediatamente como “Coordinador de Análisis y Control de Gestión” por el que recibe un salario de $50 mil pesos al mes.Desde entonces viaja por el mundo dando charlas motivacionales financiado por la iniciativa de Industrias Creativas, mientras que trabaja como coordinador de trolls y simula que “controla” la gestión de Hernán Lombardi.

The top 10 Senate races of 2018

Democrats have the momentum, but Republicans are still favored to hold the chamber because of a favorable map.




A brutal political environment for Republicans — along with some potential missteps by Nevada's Dean Heller — make him the most vulnerable senator in 2018.

Republicans entered 2017 dreaming of dramatically expanding their Senate majority. But after a bruising year capped off by Democrat Doug Jones' upset victory in Alabama, the GOP is staring at a 2018 with diminished ambitions.

Still, the GOP will be on offense in 2018. Despite a favorable political environment driven by President Donald Trump's poor public standing, Democrats still only have two real pick-up opportunities next November, in Nevada and Arizona. Texas? Too expensive to attack with so much ground to defend. Tennessee? The party landed its dream recruit in former Gov. Phil Bredesen, but Trump won the state by 26 points in 2016.



While the field is tilted toward Democrats, the map still isn't. Democrats are still defending five states Trump won by double-digits, and another five he won more narrowly. In some of these states (Pennsylvania, Michigan), public polling has indicated Trump’s popularity is slipping and there’s a population of college-educated voters who dislike the president to lift Democratic incumbents. Polling in other states (Missouri and Indiana) indicate the president is holding strong and will likely be an asset for GOP candidates.



Here’s MARCA POLITICA’s list of the top 10 Senate races of 2018, ranked by how likely they are to change parties:

1. Nevada — GOP Sen. Dean Heller running for reelection

Hillary Clinton only won Nevada by 4 points last year, while Trump won some of the Democratic-held states on this list by much larger margins. But a brutal political environment for Republicans — along with some potential missteps by Heller — make him the most vulnerable senator in 2018. Heller’s dramatic reversal of Obamacare repeal — staunchly opposing its initial versions, only to support Graham-Cassidy — was seemingly tailor-made for Democratic admakers, even if it helps him fend off Danny Tarkanian, his conservative primary challenger. Republicans will try to tie Rep. Jacky Rosen, his likely Democratic opponent, to Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. But it’s unclear that’s a winning strategy in a blue-tinted state in a Democratic year.



Sen. Claire McCaskill speaks to reporters Dec. 19. | John Shinkle/POLITICO

2. Missouri — Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill running for reelection

McCaskill is facing 37-year-old Attorney General Josh Hawley — a top GOP recruit who already has multiple big money super PACs lined up to support him and the backing of Trump, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and former White House strategist Steve Bannon. Democrats had hoped a tricky primary could trip up Hawley, but most of the other top contenders dropped out. McCaskill, who has held 50 town halls this year, remains the craftiest politician running for Senate, however, and is expected to take a populist tack against the Stanford- and Yale-educated Hawley.



Sen. Joe Donnelly is a Democrat running for re-election in 2018 in a state that supported President Donald Trump. | J. Scott Applewhite/AP Photo

3. Indiana — Democratic Sen. Joe Donnelly running for reelection

Donnelly, like McCaskill, is running for reelection in a state Trump won handily. But while McCaskill is already locked in to a one-on-one matchup with Hawley, Donnelly will get to watch three different GOP primary contenders — Reps. Todd Rokita and Luke Messer, along with self-funding businessman Mike Braun — beat up on each other until the primary in May. Republicans believe they landed a major hit on Donnelly when the Associated Press reported he profited from a family company outsourcing jobs to Mexico. Donnelly sold his stock in the company after the story was published.

4. Arizona — Open; GOP Sen. Jeff Flake retiring

Flake’s retirement this summer came as it became increasingly clear he had no path to winning reelection. Establishment Republicans are now putting their faith in Rep. Martha McSally, one of the first female fighter pilots in the Air Force. McConnell touted McSally as a top recruit at his year-end press conference last week, even though she is yet to officially enter the race. Democratic Rep. Kyrsten Sinema, meanwhile, has cultivated a moderate profile in the House and might be the DSCC’s best recruit of the cycle. But it’s unclear how her progressive past will play in a state Trump won, even if it’s rapidly getting bluer.

5. North Dakota — Democratic Sen. Heidi Heitkamp running for reelection

North Dakota, along with West Virginia and Montana, is part of a trio of states where Trump won by double-digits, but Democrats have sitting senators with strong individual brands. Heitkamp’s work on farm and energy issues has separated herself from the national party, but public polling consistently shows her trailing Republicans by small margins. The big problem for Republicans: It’s not clear who their candidate is. Republicans have looked at both wealthy former state legislator Tom Campbell and Rep. Kevin Cramer and found them wanting. (Campbell is in; Cramer is still considering it.) Other Republicans, including state Treasurer Kelly Schmidt, have opted against a run.

6. West Virginia — Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin running for reelection

Manchin is a unique politician who has survived in West Virginia even as the state has turned bright red, giving Trump 69 percent of the vote in 2016. And more than other Democratic senators, Manchin has worked to ingratiate himself with Trump. He faces two potentially strong challengers in 2018 in Attorney General Patrick Morrisey and Rep. Evan Jenkins, although limited public polling has shown him starting with a lead over both men. Republicans are confident they can bring his numbers down by linking him to Mylan, a controversial pharmaceutical company where his daughter is CEO.



 

7. Ohio — Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown running for reelection

A likely rematch of Brown's 2012 victory over state Treasurer Josh Mandel will be fought on altered terrain. That year, Brown appealed to the same blue-collar voters that embraced Trump in 2016. Mandel, meanwhile, has spent the past six years making as many enemies as allies in GOP politics: He endorsed Florida Sen. Marco Rubio over his home-state governor, John Kasich, and hasn’t endeared himself to Republicans in Washington. If he defeats businessman Mike Gibbons in the primary, Mandel, a strong fundraiser, will have the money to challenge Brown across Ohio’s expensive television markets.

8. Florida — Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson running for reelection

GOP Gov. Rick Scott is crucial to his party's 2018 Senate strategy. If the two-term governor enters the race, his showdown with Nelson will instantly become one of the nation's marquee Senate races. Republicans imagine Scott, who has immense personal wealth and is a strong fundraiser, outspending Nelson and forcing Democratic groups to spend in Florida’s multiple expensive markets, limiting their ability to defend other incumbents or go on offense. But if Scott doesn’t run, both parties expect Nelson will more or less cruise to reelection. When might Scott announce his decision? "[H]e'll make [an announcement] when he damn well wants," a political adviser told MARCA POLITICA earlier this year.



Sen. Jon Tester heads to a policy luncheon on Dec. 5.

9. Montana — Democratic Sen. Jon Tester running for reelection

Of the triumvirate of Manchin, Heitkamp and Tester mentioned earlier, both parties think Tester is the safest for now. Trump's 56 percent vote share in Montana is smaller than in North Dakota or West Virginia. Tester, who returns from D.C. to work on his farm every weekend, has a strong brand. The front-runner to challenge him is state Auditor Matt Rosendale, but he’ll have to defeat businessman and veteran Troy Downing, and a number of other Republicans, in a primary.

10. Wisconsin — Democratic Sen. Tammy Baldwin running for reelection

Republicans in Wisconsin, who have taken over state government and helped guide Sen. Ron Johnson to an upset win in 2016, will insist Baldwin should be higher on this list. Baldwin is clearly left of the state’s political center. But she can also emphasize her points of agreement with Trump on trade, outsourcing and other issues. Wisconsin (along with Pennsylvania and Minnesota, two other Rust Belt states in which Trump made gains that have Democratic senators facing reelection in 2018), also has a significant population of suburban white college-educated voters who have turned against Republicans in special elections this year. State Sen. Leah Vukmir and businessman and veteran Kevin Nicholson are competing in the primary to take on Baldwin.



McConnell bracing for 'knock down, drag out' 2018 midterms


Honorable mentions (in alphabetical order): Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Tennessee and Texas

Democrats expected Sen. Debbie Stabenow to stay safe in Michigan, although Republicans warn veteran John James could be a stronger-than-expected candidate if he wins the GOP primary. Lt. Gov. Tina Smith will take over one of Minnesota’s Senate seats from Al Franken at the start of January, and she could face a tough race if former Gov. Tim Pawlenty gets in. In a worse political environment, Sen. Bob Menendez’s recent trial on corruption changes might make his New Jersey seat vulnerable. Right now, he should be safe unless the Justice Department decides to retry him. Pennsylvania Sen. Bob Casey’s rhetoric has moved dramatically to the left heading into his reelection bid, but he’ll start with a big cash on hand advantage over Rep. Lou Barletta, a Trump ally. Bredesen is a top-flight recruit for Democrats in Tennessee, but whether the state will still embrace his moderate Democratic brand is up in the air. Rep. Beto O'Rourke is campaigning hard against Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, but the state is likely too expensive for Democrats to help him.

Marca Vidal: Next door + beboteo

Vidal es una las figuras más interesantes que surgió en los años. Con una trayectoria que incluyó ser vice jefa de gobierno de la CABA, Vidal resignificó su marca en forma muy disruptiva.







De una marca gris, sin especificidades rutilantes, pasó a ser la marca más taquillera.


Sin duda no fueron los éxitos de su gestión la que la pusieron ahí. Junto con un extraordinario acompañamiento mediático y blindaje sin fisuras, como lo tuvo Scioli cuando era gobernador, yo consideraría dos factores interesantes:


a) Es la next door, la vecina linda y posible, nada perfecta, se vende como unplugged, es la chica que te podés encontrar esperando la pizza en o en el chino, y que te sonríe y te acordás de ella. Es la chica que invitarías a salir, la que le presentarías a tu mamá, la que te imaginas en un pijama viejo un domingo a la mañana tomando mate.

b) A ese posicionamiento de next door, le suma el Beboteo. Ese beboteo tiene una connotación semiótica que al potenciar la cercanía y llaneza de la next door, la convierte en un desafío, en sensual en más atractiva, conun concepto de inocencia que no es tal.







Sin embargo la marca política Vidal está supeditada a la marca política Macri, cuando cae Macri, cae Vidal. La desconexión no es tal. Pero montada sobre un Macri fuerte, Vidal se pontenció. El desafío actual es retener cuando Macri cae.


La marca más poderosa dentro de Cambiemos es Macri, Vidal es lo que es porque es una marca asociada a la marca Macri. Vidal es la garantía de mayor transparencia pro asociada a Macri, con lo cual si se va dañando la potencia de la marca Macri se van dañando todas las marcas asociadas.