TLDR; Brazil did not get whiter and is not getting whiter, and yet the right is consistently gaining more and more terrain regardless. Why does destiny randomly stop destinying? The claim that "demographics is destiny" DOES NOT allow for ANY significant exceptions, because destiny means destiny. We have more than I could list. Not tiny outliers. Massive, demographically unexplainable ones. Entire states, the largest cities, etc. I'm not "uncomfortable"; I regularly follow your posts and will continue to do so even if we disagree or you change my mind on this. Brazil is to demographic analysis what Japan and Argentina are for Economics. Never simple and a place where many models break. Not to mention how internally chaotic and complicated self-identification is compared to other countries. At every turn, there is another map, another point, another dataset, another external factor that aligns far more closely with reality than demographics alone. Not only are there contradictions, the contradictions are very large and everywhere, not just across the map, but across time, and are easily solved when coupled with other non-demographic statistics. This is a claim that does not allow you the amount and the type of contradictions and exceptions we have in this map. It doesn't allow for the type and scale of the shifts we've had over time. Bahia, the blackest state, used to be right-leaning before 2000, shifted left without significant demographic change. That same state of Bahia also did not vote for the left in the same % for governor vs president, with voters in its largest cities choosing a different candidate other than the leftist 44% to 55%. That is the same state and demographic that voted 28% right to 66% left presidentially. In the same election day. Their demographics didn't change at the booth. In Bahia, there are not 28% [presidendial pro-right], and let alone 44% [gubernatorial center-right] white Bahians. Why does destiny stop working at random where it is most critical for the logical argument to hold? Destiny means destiny. The whiter and fairer-skinned mixed elites of Bahia's capital all voted hard left. Being white did not guarantee a right-leaning vote in several state capitals. A look at civil-servant vs entrepreneurial type of elites does not fail where the demographic one does. Including in Bahia's capital. Pará is indisputably a mixed/native state, and is a battleground swing state that has been flipping right. Then there's the fact that Brazil's right-wing elected more "people of color" in 2022 than the centrist parties and the leftists themselves. Most leftists voted for whiter/fairer candidates, across the entire country. And why did these non-white candidates choose to run for office for with the right-wing? And why more of them? Destiny means destiny, it cannot fail here. The city of São Paulo has enough people in it to be more populous than several states, yet its whiter neighborhoods voted left and its more mixed, poorer neighborhoods voted right. In other cities, both "minorities" and whiter people voted the same. Roraima and Rondônia are native + mixed states, voting en masse for the right at a higher proportion than the southern states. Even in Brazil's arguably whitest state of Santa Catarina, the advantage for the right could not top that of Roraima 70%+... because people being whiter did not guarantee a right-ward lean. Manaus (north), Maceió (northeast), mixed majority cities, outdid surrounding areas with the same demographics. Same region, same demographics different outcomes. Why? Why does this keep happening? Flávio Bolsonaro gained 2 million plus votes in the Northeast compared to 2022, but the demographics did not budge. Why are political positions changing without demographics changing? Is the Northeast becoming whiter? Or did other factors matter more than destiny? In 2022, the south of Rio Grande do Sul, one of the whitest regions of Brazil, voted left. They didn't become whiter from 2022 to 2026, but again, shifted. The northern part of that state has identical demographics, but the same shift did not happen. Rio de Janeiro has the same problem, state and city; the whitest, wealthiest regions vote left, the brown poor suburbs voted right. You think these are exceptions to the rule, that I am missing the obvious blotches on the map. But the claim does not allow for these exceptions, and certainly not for exceptions that large. They are not outlying dots, they are tens of millions of people, and they unexplainably change over time without demographic change. Demographics matter, but they are not nearly reliable enough for this claim, not in Brazil.