2024-04-29 05:41:00
(CNN Spanish) – “There is no winner of the second debate, but there is a clear loser, which is Claudia Sheinbaum,” considered the expert in political parties and elections, Víctor Manuel Alarcón Olguín, regarding the performance of the candidate of the ruling coalition Let’s Keep Making History.
The doctor in Political Science from the UNAM, Rosa María Mirón Lince, agrees with this perspective, considering that Sheinbaum lost by dedicating his time “to defending the administration of President Andrés Manuel López Obrador, that took away his interaction time.”
In this second debate focused on the economy, poverty and climate change, Alfredo Figueroa, former counselor of the Federal Electoral Institute – predecessor of the National Electoral Institute (INE) – considered that Sheinbaum lagged behind in her participation compared to Xóchitl Gálvez, of the opposition coalition Fuerza y Corazón por México, made up of the National Action (PAN), Institutional Revolutionary (PRI) and Democratic Revolution (PRD) parties.
He pointed out that the performance of the PAN politician stood out in this exercise in which attacks and accusations abounded. “She took better advantage of the format of the debate, the conditions of her opposition status, and I think that today she wins the debate,” she said.
“Gálvez managed his time very well and was able to talk more at the end, he pressured Sheinbaum and the brunette mightn’t answer,” added Mirón Lince.
For Alarcón Olguín, the participation of the opposition candidate – who is in second place in the polls – was not the best. “It seems to me that Xóchitl once once more missed a very important opportunity to articulate a much deeper criticism. She began to attack her (Sheinbaum) with the issue of being a ‘narco-candidate’, but she should have been clearer,” she highlighted.
Regarding the performance of Jorge Álvarez Máynez, from Movimiento Ciudadano, Figueroa points him out as the loser of the debate, considering that his participation was “irrelevant”, leaving him without the possibility of growing in the polls, or reaching double digits in the preferences. .
New format, found visions
Faced with criticism for the format of the first debate, the former IFE councilor pointed out that the new dynamic, which included pre-recorded questions from citizens, did not allow a debate between the presidential candidates.
“It seems to me that it is a format that prevents debate, that does not encourage it, but the candidates and the candidate made an effort to generate it in the pockets of minutes. There was no debate that allowed, let’s say, the meeting, the diversity of ideas, the confrontation, which is part of what citizens expect to contrast what options they will have on the ballot on June 2, “she stated.
In contrast, Alarcón Olguín pointed out that this new format was better and allowed the exchange of ideas.
“I think now there was a little more fluidity, unlike the first debate,” said Alarcón Olguín. “The fact that the questions came from real people or at least visible ones, with the videos, gave it a little more fluidity. I think it responds a little better in terms of content, arguments and a little more quality.”
The poster controversy
This second debate leading up to the June 2 elections became a parade of posters containing images and graphs with figures and supposed data to make accusations between opponents, and in the case of Gálvez, to announce that he would expand his arguments on social networks.
In this regard, Alarcón Olguín stressed that, on many occasions, the data contained in these cards is not so visible in front of the cameras, nor can the viewer see them.
“The same camera production design does not zoom in to really see the content in detail. So, I think it’s very sterile to try to present materials, graphics or posters, when in reality the production is not going to make any effort to focus on them,” he stated.
Valeria Ordóñez Ghio contributed to this post
1714384659
#winner #loser #Sheinbaum #Analysis
