The ‘chilango debate’ last Sunday between the candidates for CDMX clearly revealed that the cradle of Lopez Obradorism is about to fall, that the place that gave so much to the President and his now presidential candidate and other henchmen will be conquered, paradoxes of life , by the PAN candidate, Santiago Taboada.
As in the first ‘Chilango debate’, the format and the hosts worked very well and the candidate and the candidates were prepared for their task. It is known, there is always a ‘panel of experts’ willing to say that the one who won did not win, that the proposals were scarce and bad and that the most boring was the best (like the Latinus post-debate table, which is already known as ‘ the unmammable’ by the majority of its members, that except for the participation of Lorena Becerra, if anyone pays attention to any of the others, they do not win an election not even on their street).
The conditions of the election in the country’s capital made the debate seen through different eyes. This is a real competition between the ruling party Clara Brugada and the opposition Santiago Taboada. We are talking about the hard core in which AMLO was forged and his movement that is about to be overthrown in this election. If in the first debate everyone took their own, in this second debate the consensus, even among Brugada sympathizers, is that Taboada won.
The PAN member attacked, the Morenista also did so and showed that she was not handicapped, but she looked insecure, she stumbled nervously and did not dare to respond to the frontal attacks, but in addition to her thermos with a straw she brought out an arsenal of attacks. Too much on the offensive to offer a winning situation. As Taboada rightly pointed out, they have governed since he was eight years old; Now he is preparing to govern the city that the band to which Brugada belongs has governed for almost 30 years. Hence it is not strange that the PAN member brought up his links with the ineffable René Bejarano.
It seems to me that the debate fulfilled what was expected. For those who wanted to hear proposals, everyone had them; For those who wanted to listen to attacks and denunciations, they also listened, and for those who like personal attacks, there was also one with “Santiago Tajada” and “Turbia Brugada.”
Something that the second capital debate leaves behind is that the usefulness of this democratic practice is much greater and interesting when the election is closed. Also that preparation and stage control is important, that exposing oneself in this way to the gaze of millions is not anything and that there is much more at stake than some assume in an exercise like this.
Next Sunday will be the second presidential debate. There are some adjustments to the format to allow more exchange between participants and limit the protagonist desire of those who moderate. But as could be seen in the ‘Chilango debate’, everything rests on the debaters. Let’s see how it goes.
