2023-10-02 23:08:35
Many political advisors often affirm that flattering a candidate harms them and pointing out their errors benefits them.
Some observations in that “back and forth” between the presidential candidates during the first presidential debate held on October 1:
Miriam Bregman and Juan Schiaretti: Bregman, the candidate of the Left Workers’ Front (FIT) proved once once more to be a excellent speaker, while she hailed for a non-capitalist world that so often separates her from concrete reality. However, she was able to express with conviction regarding the lack of empathy that other candidates may have who assume that it is easy to prohibit a demonstration when many times these occur because people are desperate due to the worrying socio-economic situation.
Schiaretti of the new force We do for Our Country, lacking eloquence, he demonstrated consistency; Perhaps he was the only candidate who told us everything he planned to do if he became president, and how he planned to do it, and how he already did it in Córdoba, obtaining good results. He also knew how to highlight the values of human rights and wink at the radicals, by mentioning Raúl Alfonsín as a central reference on the matter.
Javier Milei, Patricia Bullrich and Sergio Massa: Milei showed power once more, an insolent attitude but not so uncontrolled, except when he began to argue frantically, stating that not 30,000 had disappeared in the last dictatorship but 8,753, and that what Argentina experienced in the 70s was a war where the de facto State committed excesses. He also did not draw attention to the fact that at times he insulted, and he did draw attention to the fact that he frequently read what he said, looking very little at the audience.
He chose once more to confront Massa, and thus of the five rights of reply he had, four he chose to address to the Unión por la Patria candidate. And only one was addressed to Bullrich. Massa did exactly the same with Milei. Once once more it was clear, as had happened in the vice-presidential debate, that the strategy between Milei and Massa continues to be to confront each other, at the same time applying a kind of indifference towards Together for Change. An indifference on the part of Milei, equally loaded with virulence towards Bullrich, to which she once once more reminded him that she had been a bully.
Survey: Sergio Massa “won” the presidential debate, but half of the people had “negative” feelings
This attack by Milei was not under an offensive dynamic but rather a defensive one, since the libertarian knew how to respond when Bullrich asked him How might he build a new country if he allied with Barrionuevo, to which Milei, neither slowly nor lazily, responded that Barrionuevo was chaste but that she was more chaste than Barrionuevo, and asked her, “Are you still a buncher and a bomb-thrower?” and the libertarian continued “for this reason, all those who want to change to join this liberal revolution so that Argentina becomes a power are welcome.”
It was not the only moment in which Bullrich might be seen as slow and lazy, both Milei and Massa told her that she did not respond to their financial proposal, Massa might not or did not want to explain too much and Milei insisted that “enough of the sarasa”, she replied “look Milei, you are not going to tell me what I have to say – a striking response since it was the section on the economic axis. It is to be expected that Bullrich has felt some type of anger with his advisors, because on one of the three topics of the debate she was not prepared and it was noticeable.
An awakening for Bullrich was when she responded to Schiaretti that she was going to govern in a federal way, thus, she was the only one, with the former governor of Córdoba, who placed emphasis on the development of the provinces, and provincial voters live in the provinces. who might feel challenged by the leader of Together for Change.
Another awakening for Bullrich was when he came out to defend the radical governor of Jujuy tooth and nail, Gerardo Morales, in the face of the attacks of Miriam Bregman who repeated that Morales had repressed in Jujuy when there was a clear attempt to destabilize the province by a group of violent people who even wanted to set fire to the legislature. However, and here distancing himself from radicalism, Bullrich questioned “125” and was surprised that it brought to the debate an issue that puts the leader of Evolución Radical, Martín Lousteau, who is part of the coalition and obtained, in the focus of the “accused” almost a third of the votes of the people of Buenos Aires in the PASO – in the fourth district with the most voters – and that works side by side with Maxi Pullaro who obtained almost 60% of the votes of Santa Fe residents – in the third province with the largest electorate) – and who leads a sector of radicalism that has a large number of militants and voters.
To the surprise of many, during the economic axis neither Bullrich nor Milei overexposed the scourge of inflation, being glued to the lectern of the official candidate, Minister of Economy of a quasi-hyperinflation.
Who won the presidential debate?
There was practically no talk of corruption either. Massa, who might have been questioned mercilessly for being a founding member of the front that in the last four years plunged us into the worst crisis since the return to democracy, ended up speaking like a great statesman, telling us regarding his intention to call, if he wins, to a unity government, inviting “the best of all the forces, of radicalism, of the Pro and of the libertarians, of all.” Milei responded that no libertarians, and Massa replied that libertarians were, and that he would also invite libertarians.
Minister Massa did not have to answer any very uncomfortable questions regarding our inflation, which leads the top 3 globally. When Bregman very sharply asked him “how can Massa go from one side to the other without breaking his hair?”, the official candidate once once more knew how to transform his misery into a strength – from opportunistic to ductile – and this is how he responded to the leftist leader. , that he did not have “the petty and selfish view of believing that he is the owner of the truth, that when he sees that there is an initiative that is useful to the Argentines he supports it and when he sees that it is bad he rejects it”, who accompanied the government of Mauricio Macri when he considered it appropriate, and that he had the opportunity to warn of the risk of the agreement with the IMF that Macri subsequently took; that he was where he might best contribute to the well-being of Argentines.
The battle for the networks: Milei and Massa led the debate, Bregman was the surprise and beating for Bullrich
He also responded to a question from Bullrich regarding “if it is better not to do than to say”, that of course he did, and that for a year and a half he took charge of the crisis when many went under the bed. Finally, Massa expressed himself once once more, showing himself oblivious to the terrible management that brought him together almost four years ago, communicating “now a new stage is coming, my government, not this government.”
Speaking of Macri, Macri was mentioned at several points in the debate, and neither Cristina nor Alberto was mentioned once.
1696288911
#Presidential #debate #Milei #Massa #star #polarize