2023-10-02 05:48:00
CNN consulted four political analysts to try to answer those questions.
Carlos Fara
“I think there were no winners,” he said.
Regarding Milei’s performance, he said that “he was the one who had to risk the least and he kept his place.”
In relation to Bullrich, he considered that “he lacked creativity.” She, along with Massa, were the ones who, according to Fara’s vision, “should risk the most.” Regarding the Minister of Economy, she said that “she defended herself as best she might.”
Regarding Bregman and Schiaretti, he maintained that “it helped them gain visibility, but it did not distort the scheme of the debate.”
Federico Aurelio
“There was no development of any of the candidates or none of them were hit enough to believe that they might win or lose votes,” he defined.
Consequently, Aurelio understood that “Massa was successful because he was supposed to be badly hit and yet that was not the case.”
In a similar logic of thought, the analyst also indicated that Milei benefited because “he overcame the risk of losing his temper” since, according to him, he was calm.
Regarding Bullrich, Aurelio observed her to be “lazy” on the economic issue with arguments or demonstration of “attributes more applicable for a security minister than for a presidential candidate.”
In relation to Bregman, the analyst highlighted his oratory but, like Schiaretti, they were not the main focus of interest.
Maria Esperanza Casullo
“I think that in the debates there are fewer who win votes than those who lose votes,” Casullo said.
The analyst observed Milei “more moderate in his style,” without shouting, although “not more moderate in his postures.”
In turn, he indicated that Massa “followed her script” and considered that “Bullrich was the weakest.”
CONTINUE READING HERE.
1696239089
#Summary #presidential #debate #Argentina #Santiago #del #Estero
