BUENOS AIRES, Argentina — Voters in Argentina were heading to the polls Sunday in a presidential runoff election that will determine whether South America’s second-largest economy will take a rightward shift.

Populist Javier Milei, an upstart candidate who got his start as a television talking head, has frequently been compared to former U.S. President Donald Trump. He faces Economy Minister Sergio Massa of the Peronist party, which has been a leading force in Argentine politics for decades.

On Massa’s watch, inflation has soared to more than 140% and poverty has increased. Milei, a self-described anarcho-capitalist, proposes to slash the size of the state and rein in inflation, while Massa has warned people about the negative impacts of such policies.

The highly polarizing election is forcing many to decide which of the two they consider to be the least bad option.

“Whatever happens in this election will be incredible,” said Lucas Romero, director of local political consultancy Synopsis. “It would be incredible for Massa to win in this economic context or for Milei to win facing a candidate as professional as Massa.”

Voting stations opened at 8 a.m. (1100 GMT) and close 10 hours later. Voting is conducted with paper ballots, making the count unpredictable, but initial results were expected around three hours after polls close.

Milei went from blasting the country’s “political caste” on TV to winning a lawmaker seat two years ago. The economist’s screeds resonated widely with Argentines angered by their struggle to make ends meet, particularly young men.

“Money covers less and less each day. I’m a qualified individual, and my salary isn’t enough for anything,” Esteban Medina, a 26-year-old physical therapist from Ezeiza, on the outskirts of Buenos Aires, told The Associated Press on the sidelines of a Milei rally earlier this week.

Massa, as one of the most prominent figures in a deeply unpopular administration, was once seen as having little chance of victory. But he managed to mobilize the networks of his Peronist party and clinched a decisive first-place finish in the first round of voting.

His campaign has cautioned Argentines that his libertarian opponent’s plan to eliminate key ministries and otherwise sharply curtail the state would threaten public services, including health and education, and welfare programs many rely on. Massa has also drawn attention to his opponent’s often aggressive rhetoric and has openly questioned his mental acuity; ahead of the first round, Milei sometimes carried a revving chainsaw at rallies.

Massa’s “only chance to win this election when people want change … is to make this election a referendum on whether Milei is fit to be president or not,” said Ana Iparraguirre, partner at pollster GBAO Strategies.

Milei has accused Massa and his allies of running a “campaign of fear” and he has walked back some of his most controversial proposals, such as loosening gun control. In his final campaign ad, Milei looks at the camera and assures voters he has no plans to privatize education or health care.

Most pre-election polls, which have been notoriously wrong at every step of this year’s campaign, show a statistical tie between the two candidates. Voters for first-round candidates who didn’t make the runoff will be key. Patricia Bullrich, who placed third, has endorsed Milei.

Javier Rojas, a 36-year-old pediatrician who voted for Bullrich in October, told The Associated Press he’s leaning toward Milei, then added: “Well, to be honest, it’s more of a vote against the other side than anything else.”

Underscoring the bitter division this campaign has brought to the fore, Milei received both jeers and cheers on Friday night at the legendary Colón Theater in Buenos Aires.

The vote takes place amid Milei’s allegations of possible electoral fraud, reminiscent of those from Trump and former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro. Without providing evidence, Milei claimed that the first round of the presidential election was plagued by irregularities that affected the result. Experts say such irregularities cannot swing an election, and that his assertions are partly aimed at firing up his base and motivating his supporters to become monitors of voting stations.

Such claims spread widely on social media and, at Milei’s rally in Ezeiza earlier this week, all those interviewed told the AP they were concerned about the integrity of the vote.

“You don’t need to show statistically significant errors,” Fernanda Buril, of the Washington-based International Foundation for Electoral Systems, said in an e-mail. “If you draw enough attention to one problem in one polling station which likely doesn’t affect the results in any meaningful way, people are likely to overestimate the frequency and impact of that and other problems in the elections more generally.”

It’s something close to a law of nature that the farther people are from a conflict, the more simplistic their views about its causes and solutions. That couldn’t be more apparent now in Gaza, where Israel’s invasion is drawing howls of outrage around the world.

That outrage is well-deserved. There is no question that the Israel Defense Forces could and should be doing more to avoid civilian casualties. Yet the fact that the anger of so many is directed only at Israel is disturbing, because there are two armed forces responsible for the deaths of Palestinians in Gaza. The other is Hamas.

Hamas invited the Israeli invasion with the barbarism of its terrorist attack on Oct. 7, and it has been open about how it fully expected Israel to retaliate. Recent reporting by the Washington Post would, if verified, underscore that this was the purpose of its attack, dubbed operation al Aqsa Flood, and that Palestinian deaths weren’t a bug in that plan but an essential part of it. “The blood of the women, children, and elderly,” Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh said on Lebanese TV on Oct. 26, “we are the ones who need this blood, so it awakens within us the revolutionary spirit.”

Yet if you listened to talk radio in the U.K. over the past weekend you would have heard callers explaining — counter to all evidence — that it was not the Islamist terror group committed to the destruction of Israel that murdered Jewish children in front of their parents, but rather Israeli special forces. When an Iranian man had the temerity to hold up a sign in central London comparing Hamas with Islamic State because of its actions that day, a group of pro-Palestinian protesters in hoodies attacked him, and a woman shouted “death to all the Jews.” Posters of abducted Israeli children have been torn down in the U.K. as in the U.S., where a 21-year-old student at Tufts University, near Boston, was arrested last month for posting threats to kill Jews on campus, using the social media handle “Hamas Soldier.”

These people need to ask themselves why they are so unwilling to criticize an organization that murders innocents on the grounds of race. The answer may not be pretty. The way Hamas carried out its attack and is now fighting the war in Gaza demonstrates the organization’s utter disregard for the lives of Palestinian civilians, too.

Consider the tunnels. Hamas built hundreds of kilometers of them under Gaza City to create an asymmetric advantage against the IDF’s vast superiority in terms of heavy armor, troop numbers and more. It makes sense as military strategy, just like preparing the ground by intense aerial bombardment made sense as military strategy for the Israelis. But Hamas did not build underground shelters to protect civilians during the war it was preparing to fight. And there been no reports of civilians offered shelter in the tunnels ahead of the Israeli ground invasion.

Then there is Hamas’ use of human shields, even beyond the 240-plus hostages it seized on Oct. 7. According to the IDF, Hamas had its headquarters under Gaza’s main al Shifa hospital, locates its rocket launchers next to schools, and generally does its best to make it impossible to target Hamas without also hitting civilians. There is no reason to trust the word of the IDF — this is war and like all militaries at war, their job is to win, not to tell the truth. Nor does Hamas’ use of civilians as human shields excuse the IDF for killing them. But this isn’t the first Israeli incursion into Gaza. Journalists from The Guardian encountered Hamas troops within al Shifa in 2014. Groups as Israel-critical as Amnesty International have reported that Hamas used the hospital as a site for the torture and execution of its Palestinian opponents as far back as 2008.

It’s worth listening to how some prominent Arab journalists approach Hamas. Earlier this month, the Egyptian TV commentator Ibrahim Eissa slammed comments from Hamas official Mousa Abu Marzouk, who said the tunnels were there to protect Hamas fighters from Israeli jets and it was up to the United Nations to protect Gaza’s civilians. “Irresponsible” and “disgraceful” were just two of the adjectives Eissa used, noting that Hamas governs Gaza and that the first duty of any government is to protect its people. While Hamas is in its tunnels, “what about the Palestinian children who are targeted by Israeli aggression?” Eissa asked.

An Al Arabiya TV anchor was equally scathing in her grilling of Khaled Meshal, another top Hamas official. The nature of the Hamas action on Oct. 7 was a declaration of war that inevitably would draw an Israeli counterattack, the anchor said. “The other factions, the Palestinian Authority and the people of Gaza were not consulted about this,” but they now bear the consequences, she said. She also tried her best to get Meshal to take responsibility for the atrocities committed against Jewish civilians on Oct. 7.

This isn’t rocket science. Dead Palestinian civilians are an essential part of Hamas’ plan, whose goal was to draw Israel deep into Gaza, create a bloodbath, and expand the war by enraging and drawing in new players such as Hezbollah in Lebanon, Iran and Israel’s Arab neighbors. Most Arab governments understand fully that Hamas is an equivalent to Islamic State that offers nothing to Palestinians beyond poverty and death. Yet they are now silent on this because Israel is playing the role that Hamas assigned to it. Tragically, so are too many well-intentioned people in the West.

Related Articles

Bobby Ghosh: Arab states have use-or-lose leverage for a two-state solution

Inna Faliks: Where have all the pianos gone? No one has time for them anymore

Fabiola Santiago: Trump calls his foes ‘vermin’ and evokes another tyrant: To Fidel Castro, we were worms

Jesse Wegman: We waited 200 years for this Supreme Court ethics code?

Bencivenga, Fugh-Berman: Menopause is not a disability. Why are employers being asked to treat it like one?

Kyle Bradish opened the 2023 season as the No. 4 starter in the Orioles’ five-man rotation. He ended it viewed as the No. 4 starter in the entire American League.

In his second major league season, Bradish placed fourth in voting for the AL Cy Young Award, which annually recognizes the circuit’s top pitcher. New York Yankees ace Gerrit Cole, the AL’s only qualified starter who allowed a lower batting average than Bradish, received all 30 first-place votes from the Baseball Writers’ Association of America to win his first career Cy Young Award, the BBWAA announced Wednesday, with San Diego Padres left-hander Blake Snell winning in the National League.

Bradish, a 27-year-old right-hander, is the first Orioles starter to appear on multiple BBWAA ballots since Hall of Famer Mike Mussina finished second in 1999. With a single third-place vote in 2007, Erik Bedard tied for fifth, while closer Zack Britton also came in fourth in 2016. An Oriole hasn’t won the award since Steve Stone in 1980.

The voting results validated Bradish’s status as not only the Orioles’ top starter, but also one of the best in the AL. With a 2.83 ERA, Bradish became Baltimore’s first qualified starter to post a mark under 3.00 since Mussina in 1992. That figure also ranked third in the AL behind Cole and Minnesota Twins right-hander Sonny Gray, who finished second in voting as former Orioles starter Kevin Gausman, now with the Toronto Blue Jays, placed third. Bradish’s 17 outings of at least six innings with fewer than three runs allowed trailed only Cole.

Bradish appeared on 19 ballots with six third-place votes, eight for fourth place and five for fifth. He finished well behind Gausman for third place in voting, preventing the Orioles from having three finalists for BBWAA awards; Baltimore infielder Gunnar Henderson was named the AL Rookie of the Year on Monday, with Brandon Hyde winning AL Manager of the Year a day later. The final BBWAA honor, the Most Valuable Player in each league, will be announced Thursday.

One of four minor league right-handers the Orioles acquired from the Los Angeles Angels for starter Dylan Bundy in December 2019, Bradish made his major league debut for Baltimore in May 2022. In 10 starts before going on the injured list with right shoulder inflammation, Bradish had a 7.38 ERA. But the recovery period allowed him to mentally and physically reset. After his return, he posted a 3.28 ERA over 13 starts, a stretch during which he also began pitching from the other side of the rubber and added a sinker to his repertoire.

The success of those changes, as well as the improved command he showcased, carried into 2023. Starting Baltimore’s fourth game of the season, he exited seven batters in when a comebacker struck his right foot, prompting a brief stint on the injured list. He returned with six scoreless innings, but his next nine outings were mixed, leaving him with a 4.25 ERA entering mid-June. From then on, he had a 2.18 ERA in 19 starts; his 2.34 mark after the All-Star break narrowly topped Cole for the best second-half ERA of any major league starter.

The performance made Bradish the obvious choice to be the Orioles’ Game 1 starter in their AL Division Series matchup with the Texas Rangers. Although the Rangers won the game, 3-2, en route to sweeping Baltimore and eventually winning the World Series, Bradish impressed in his 4 2/3 innings with nine strikeouts, the first Orioles pitcher to reach that tally in a postseason game since Mussina in 1997.

Orioles closer Félix Bautista, who at points in the season was viewed as a dark-horse Cy Young candidate, received three fifth-place votes as the only reliever to land on multiple ballots. Before undergoing season-ending Tommy John elbow reconstruction that will also force him to miss 2024, Bautista had a 1.48 ERA and 33 saves with a 46.4% strikeout rate that was the sixth highest for any qualified reliever in major league history.

Replacing Bautista at the back of the bullpen and fortifying the rotation are among the Orioles’ offseason priorities with Gray and Snell, now free agents, among the starting upgrades available. But for now, Bradish is positioned to become Baltimore’s youngest opening day starter since Bundy in 2018, which would be a worthy honor for a pitcher who established himself among the AL’s best.

()