From, say, 1938, the right has won a single presidential election in Chile (Alessandri). The right has gobnernado more time (not only during the dictatorship, but within the governments radical), by the way has been an electoral force, and policy is pretty powerful. But it can’t win presidential elections. In some cases, as studied Moulian to time, of the pure brute, as in the case of the election of Gonzales Videla.
Now, why the right can’t beat now in Chile? In the end, it does not seem to be so far from it (have shown ability to get close to a 45%-48% in presidential elections of the valid votes, which are the only ones that matter in these pursuits).
Answer number 1: Well, no need to beat. They already have enough power, and with the percentages that are well can act by limiting what the political forces in power. For a sector that, presumably, defend the interests of the dominant groups, it would be everything you need. Now, I have to admit that I do not end to convince. Independent of the above, the political forces want to win in the sense of the posts of government. And while it is true that acquire certain positions (parliamentarians, community) the positions of the center of the State remain out of their reach. For a political collectivity is not able to touch a ministry in a long time has to count as a defeat. In particular, a political collectivity that itself has a number of voting right.
Response number 2: The right has a structural problem with the public opinion. By the way, when one raises two responses, the second is the one you prefer, so that we develop and defend this view.
In part, the right has a speech rather limited. Apart from security, what other theme has managed to position itself as better than the government? I think that in none of them. And basically, it is not enough with a topic to achieve the government.
But I think what’s fundamental is another thing. Basically, the chilean society thinks that the current model is probably the only /best alternative; that other ways are not going to work very well. But at the same time, it rejects deeply to the model, to put it more clear you don’t like for nothing. In that sense, the Conclusion that given a model which clearly has feelings of suspicion represents, almost ideally, their own position. In other words, it recognizes the disgust. That disgust, although it may not have practical consequences, it seems, in that sense, relevant.
In other words, what you lack to the right to win a presidential election is a short distance. But, apparently, extremely difficult to cross.