Anti-Chávez commentators in the U.S. always have a major problem. On the one hand, you want elections to yield an opposition victory and hope they do, but you can't admit that hoping for a victory actually means you think a victory is possible, which in turn defeats your "dictatorship" meme. From the Heritage Foundation:
If snap presidential elections are held in the coming weeks, they will not necessarily favor the democratic opposition, especially if the Chavistas preserve their unity. While the likely opposition candidate Henrique Capriles, governor of Miranda, appears more popular than either Maduro or Cabello, his ability to deliver an electoral victory is still in doubt. An emotional hangover following Chavez’s death, promises to continue in the fallen leader’s footsteps, and an unfair electoral process might easily give a decisive edge to Chavez’s successor.
This logic sounds suspiciously like Mitt Romney's.
Hilariously, the "unfair electoral process" quote linked to Ray Walser, who predicted Chávez would steal the presidential election.
Back to my point. Americans who hate Chávez are frustrated because he keeps winning election after election that even the opposition concede with grace. The elections must be rigged, but we have no evidence they're rigged, and so we hope to win, but we don't win, so they must be rigged, yet they're not rigged, so we can win, but we don't win...
Winning elections and governing are two different things. In the Venezuelan case, they get conflated. A minority of Venezuelans strongly dislike the way Chávez governs. But as long as the opposition itself believes in the elections, then it is not accurate to call them undemocratic just because the outcome does not go your way.