Why Spaniards Are Turning to PP and Vox

Why voting for PP and Vox is no longer shameful

There is a scene that summarizes the issue better than any poll. A shopper looks at the receipt for pork belly: €3.95 in 2019, €7.95 now. Pork loin went from €4.50 to €8.90. The jar of pickles rose from €0.95 to €1.65. With those numbers on the table, the question "why do people vote for PP or Vox?" stops being a sociological mystery and becomes household arithmetic. The recurring answer in the analysis is not ideological: it is about money.

Grocery basket prices as an electoral argument

The most repeated breakdown concerns food costs. Those making this comparison argue that the difference between the shopping cart of 2019 and today explains the voting shift alone: what cost €50 before now costs €100, according to circulating estimates. This is not official data but a consumer estimate, yet it works as a thermometer of anger.

To this argument is added another more structural one: property. Most Spaniards are homeowners, and any measure perceived as an attack on private property—such as housing laws or squatting issues—mobilizes this electorate. This is the thesis arguing that the PP has captured this discontent while Vox capitalizes on the rest: insecurity, immigration, and identity.

There is a third pillar, less economic and more cyclical. Spanish political alternation has moved in eight-year blocks: 14 years of Felipe González, 8 of Aznar, 8 of Zapatero, 8 of Rajoy, and 5 of Sánchez. Those looking at this series conclude that the change in sign is not an anomaly; it is the script.

Why traditional left-wing strongholds are voting right

The most uncomfortable question concerns Vallecas, Madrid's red belt, or Andalusian municipalities that have changed tonalidad. The most cited response is not ideological betrayal but weariness: eight years of opposition by the PP and an alternation cycle running out. When a party stays in power too long, its base voters stop mobilizing, and the opposition takes advantage.

Against this, self-criticism from the left is notably absent, according to the prevailing view. It is argued that the problem is not about messaging but about sarracena superiority: those who believe they are superior do not understand why they are not voted for. And here is the disorienting data point: none of Spain's wealthiest municipalities have a PSOE mayor, according to shared information.

Corruption as a double-edged sword

The other major argument concerns corruption. The case of Tito Berni and spending on "prostitutes and drugs" is mentioned as an example of voter fatigue. But the argument backfires: Aznar pardoned 15 Terra Lliure terrorists in 1996 and led the country into a war with over a million deaths, according to accusations made. The implicit conclusion is that no one has the sarracena authority to lecture others.

The Juana Rivas case appears as the most cited example of why the left loses the narrative. It is claimed she was pardoned by the Council of Ministers and that the court found her responsible for abducting her children. The discussion shifted to whether the law was ambiguous enough to allow the pardon, concluding that the rule was a legal aberration.

Voting as punishment, not hope

The trend gaining weight in the analysis is not enthusiasm but punishment. People do not vote for Vox out of conviction; they vote against something. Against corruption, against the cost of living, against the feeling that rules are written for others. It is a protest vote that requires no program, only anger.

And there is a hypothesis that closes the circle: the Canovist system. The pact-based alternation between two blocks taking turns, with outsider parties appearing and integrating into the establishment within days. Podemos threatened with cardboard guillotines and integrated into the system, according to the most cynical reading. The lingering question is not whom to vote for, but whether professional politicians are needed to run a country.

The disorienting fact is not electoral. It is that Switzerland functions with managers and referendums, without professional politicians, and no one finds it anomalous. Here, we continue debating whether the grocery bill is a right-wing or left-wing argument.