Nothing very neat, but:
(1) FA+NM clearly does not constitute an electoral majority. The ‘unity’ of the left wing was given (in which can it be, that there is not a transfer of 100%) and was not enough.
(2) Chilezuela worked. And the reason that work involves a defeat for the more left-wing. I remember talking with several people right on Twitter that they were using this argument and (a) nobody said that it would be an imminent danger, but rather the beginning of a journey, and (b) was not so much Guillier and the old Conclusion that generated that fear, but precisely the FA (and the old PC).
(3) Also implies a preference that is of concern for those sectors, so happy were in the 1st row (that is the nice thing about the election). The electorate chilean is available for and to a social democracy, but no more: it is Not anti-market nor anti-business; you may have problems with how they work, and wanting the market is not everything, but that’s different than to reject it (in the marches of No+AFP the same dealers were happy to buy at McDonalds, which was in fact opened up the Santa Lucia).
(4) The program of Piñera includes things that were unthinkable in a program right 10 years ago. And it should also serve to put limits on the speeches that involve abrupt changes of what the population is looking for (read each choice as a change of rudder-essential in the opinion of the people). Something tells me that the population is more stable in their preferences, and the changes to election due to the fact that no offer policy has approached it in recent times.
(5) The growth matter. It may be that for the population this is not sufficient (and is thus also claimed by less abuses, or better access, etc), but it was something that was a given -but when was it credible that it did not exist, yes gender reaction. No offer policy can work without being credible in that it is compatible with growth.
(6) The Conclusion was tremendously successful in the ’90s by offering growth with equity. In a certain sense, Piñera is now offering some of that (his initial promise was more growth, and during the campaign reinforced elements ‘reformers’ -ranging from free to the fisheries act, to even speak of AFP state). There are many changes (by the way neither the speech nor the contents of the ’90s is right now), but there is a continuity of basic preferences, too.
(7) There is a theme that appeared in the Human Development Report of 2015, which is the fact that the evaluation of any attempt to reform is made always from the prism of the individual (how this affects me and my family in a concrete way?). In later occasions the idea was raised as a logic of collective support to individual effort. Then, all discourse to speak from the collective (as is usually the left do, and as a good part of the left read demands of change) did not work. And then, in the moment in which it makes an offer of solution to social problems from that perspective, it was good
(8) The above are just a few ideas. There are too interwoven, I don’t even know if they are very consistent with each other, are a clear hypothesis to explore (the reality may well be different). There is quite a lot to study, but at least one of my old theme still stands: Watching the people from the categories that you use the public discussion is a sure way to not understand the population.