Skip to content
Facebook Twitter Instagram
Facebook Pinterest Tumblr

Presidential debate in Argentina: was there a winner? Who took more risks and came out better or worse?

The five candidates running for president of the Argentina They faced each other this Sunday, the 1st, in the first debate towards the Casa Rosada in which there was no lack of attacks and controversial phrases, but in which what was necessary seemed to be lacking for some of the candidates, including the libertarian Javier Mileistood out far from the rest.

TO LOOK: Presidential debate in Argentina: Milei, Massa and Bullrich launched harsh attacks and controversial phrases

Something happened as predicted: Milei; Sergio Massa, official Minister of Economy; It is Patricia Bullrichright-winger who was Mauricio Macri’s minister, focused on criticizing each other, mainly on their economic proposals, a thematic axis that dominated the meeting in which the themes of Education and Human Rights/Democratic Coexistence were also discussed.

Of the three strong candidates, the one who came in the best position was Milei, after his victory in the Argentine primary elections in August called PASO (Primaries, Open, Simultaneous and Mandatory) and the first place he continues to maintain in the polls. Some consultancies even offer options to win in the first round, on October 22nd.

Among the other two candidates who will also seek power, Myriam Bregman, deputy of the Left and Workers Front (FIT), launched several attacks against Milei and Bullrich that had repercussions on social media. while Juan Schiaretti, governor of Córdoba, focused on highlighting his achievements in that province, but failed to be a protagonist.

For analysts at the Argentine newspaper “La Nación”, none of the candidates managed to play a prominent role and they do not see a winner who is far from the others. However, they agree that Milei was the strongest when the economic issue was addressed and she managed to convey an unusual calmness to seek out voters of other tendencies.

“Clarín” follows the same line and considered that none of the candidates risked much. Furthermore, the Argentine media spoke to four analysts from renowned consultancies who followed the debate. “So far, all these polls put Milei in first place and most put Massa in second, although with gaps that would be closing in relation to Bullrich. Open and uncertain ending”, he points out.

El Comercio spoke about the incidents of the debate with Argentine political scientist Santiago Rodríguez Rey, who highlighted that, although the candidates sought to compete with each other, the outlook is still very uncertain, although he highlighted Massa’s ability to not be so defeated and Milei to “stay within your message and deliver it.”

–Can we talk about a winner? Or, in any case, who did it better?

I don’t think there was a big difference, but the one who did it best was probably Myriam Bregman, the left-wing candidate who managed to convey her message very efficiently. In general, she is the one who gains more visibility, notoriety and the possibility of transmitting her message. It turns out that her position in the polls, in which she appears in fourth or fifth place, allows her to play games in the debate. Of the main candidates, which are Massa, Bullrich and Milei, the one who gains the most points in the debate ends up being Sergio Massa. It turns out that he should have been the focus of criticism, that he was in a weaker state and had to defend a very complicated economic situation, but he didn’t come out much harmed in the debate. He kept his waterline and I think he has to leave very happy with the air he achieved. He managed to differentiate himself from the Government he belongs to and when asked an incisive question he was very efficient in responding.

–Some of the analysis suggests that Massa got it cheap because the issue of corruption was not addressed and that this was an opportunity that his rivals squandered. What do you think?

Last Saturday, a case was revealed in Argentina that led to the dismissal of the chief of staff of the province of Buenos Aires, and there was a great expectation that this would sneak into the debate, but it remained an expectation. In other words, corruption is an issue and a problem, and it is within the demands of Argentines, but when you analyze the research you see that today inflation is far above concerns. The situation of the economy is much higher than that. None of the candidates mentioned the issue of corruption, not even Milei, who mentioned the caste situation, but not in a different way than he has been talking about since he was a candidate.

–How do you rate Milei? Do you think he lived up to what was expected of him, the expectations generated by his participation?

Milei’s performance in the debate was very efficient, he stayed within the speech, they couldn’t get him out of the way. There was only one moment when he seemed to stumble, which was when Massa apologized to the Pope for having spoken badly of him. Milei responded that at that time he wasn’t a politician, so we all asked ourselves what that means, that when I’m a politician I can’t say what I want and when I’m not, can I? In other words, it contradicts your speech. But when it was his turn to talk about his strong topic, which is the economy, which was in the first block, he managed to convey a very clear message of hope and the future, which is precisely what is missing. It is very clear that Massa takes this into consideration because in closing he used words very similar to Milei’s, he didn’t talk about the future, but he talked about hope. And, well, Milei managed to stay within her message and transmit it, which is the most important thing in this type of debate.

–And there’s still one more to go before the first round, on October 22nd…

And we must bear in mind that in Argentina we will have one debate after another. And they are divided into different themes, which will also mean that the way the media covers the effects of the debate during the week will have an impact later. For example, in the debate there was a strange rule where participants had a maximum of five rights to respond and basically reached the limit in the first 20 minutes. But this was on purpose, because, as the economics topic came first and is the most difficult, everyone concentrated their participation on that topic. Milei focused his participation on economic issues because that is where he is strong.

–There were five candidates, but Milei, Massa and Bulrich practically only attacked each other. Who was perhaps the most aggressive?

Patricia Bullrich tried to be a little more aggressive, but the truth is that it wasn’t a very aggressive situation overall. Later, following Myriam Bregman’s questions, situations of greater reaction arrived. Javier Milei did this in one of his presentations when he said that in Argentina there was a war during the period of the last military dictatorship. This was perhaps Milei’s worst point throughout the night, regardless of whether you agree or not, in my case I don’t agree, but because it was unnecessary to go to that point. Let’s say that most likely within a low percentage of his followers that speech could be attractive, but it doesn’t make sense for him to expose himself to it, perhaps he was seeking a response from the other participants, which didn’t happen, so he remained as someone who claimed until to a certain extent the military dictatorship. Another exchange that resulted in a tense situation was when Bregman reminded Patricia Bullrich of the situation of Santiago Maldonado – an activist who in 2017 was found drowned in a river in the Patagonian province of Chubut, after participating in a protest with Mapuches. his speech from that time and defended the performance of the Gendarmerie at the time.

–Does anything change with this debate?

Looking at the television rating of the debate, which is around 40 points, you can see that it had much more visibility than in 2019, and if we take into account that it is a debate that has been seen on social media and other platforms, this shows that people are very interested in what will happen. That there was such a great interest in watching the debate is something worth highlighting. What effect could this have had? This will be seen as the days go by. Obviously, each one spoke to their audience, so there will be a discursive construction from now on with details that I mentioned previously, such as Milei’s claim for military dictatorship, such as Bullrich’s problems in explaining his economic plan, as well as Massa’s. . defense of the current government, which was effectively efficient. And it was efficient precisely because it was not a defense of the Government, but of its arrival at the Ministry of Economy and trying to do something. It’s as if he’s saying, “What I’m doing is bad, but it doesn’t matter because I’m doing something.” It doesn’t make much sense that the Minister of Economy who has an annual inflation of 140% is in this position, but in Argentina he is. The important thing is that Massa maintained the ability to separate his management from his candidacy throughout the debate. He could have done it.



Source: Elcomercio

Share this article:
globalhappenings news.jpg
most popular
you may also like
news recorder logo light

Pages

Facebook Pinterest Tumblr

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED © 2023 -24 News Recorder