The US calls Maduro a "dictator" despite being elected. The reason the US does is simple: money (which uses US ideological politics as a means-to-an-end), since he specifically stated his purpose after the death of Chávez: "Compatriots, I am not here out of personal ambition, out of vanity, or because my surname Maduro is a part of the rancid oligarchy of this country. I am not here because I represent financial groups, neither of the oligarchy nor of American imperialism ... I am not here to protect mafias nor groups nor factions. IOW, because he wouldn't sell-out his own people or his own country, so he's been marked for death/removal, his people marked for sanctions, and Fox News leads the charge smearing the man and the country to make some vampiric rich Americans more money.
Venezuela is a dictatorship whether or not Guaido won the last election. It's a dictatorship because the government took enough steps that it was impossible for anyone but Maduro to win.
I stated that Venzuala was another example where "It is similar I think to the situation in the US where poor people will sometimes vote against their financial interests to support an identity."
In Venezuala's case: poor people would rather support unsustainable state subsidies and industries, at the long term cost of running their economy and currency into the ground.
Masses of gullible idiots take much longer to realize (if ever because of ego protection) it was a bad idea after-the-fact, while students of history saw it coming. This is why direct "democracy" is a terrible idea. Governance by popularity is stupid. Ask Socrates.
I’ll just leave that thought hanging there.
NSDAP goose-stepped into office without winning a plurality of votes, almost like what happens in other countries with Electoral Colleges.
When everyone realises their mistake there is no turning back for several years to come.