Each one saw the debate they wanted to see.
For the supporters of Xóchitl His victory was incontestable, and they base it on the fact that Sheinbaum either did not respond or did so elusively to the accusations that the candidate from the opposition front made against him.
For Claudia’s supporters, The victory was evident to the extent that the candidate’s participation was concentrated in the proposals and contrasts and to a lesser extent in the attacks, although she also carried them out.
Even, Máynez also declared his victory arguing that this was based on the purposeful meaning of their participations, in contrast to the attacks of the two candidates.
Each public declared the candidate with whom they sympathized the winner. There is no surprise.
As we have repeatedly told you, the importance of the debates does not lie in the perception of victory or defeat, which results after the minutes of exchange. The important thing is the effect on voting intention.
And it is still early to judge that impact, since the so-called “post-debate” also influences.
Perhaps within a week or a little more we will be able to have a clearer idea of the effect that the event had on voting intentions.
The reality is that the formats that the campaign teams have established They are tremendously restrictive.
The abundance of questions and topics leads to it being virtually impossible for the proposals to be contrasted and projects.
In an exchange that had a lot to do with the economy and the projects that the candidates have in that field, we had very few elements to obtain a slightly clearer idea regarding the origin of the resources that would finance them.
The only one who pointed out the importance of talking about “taxation” was Máynez, because since he knows that he is not going to win, he feels completely free to address even taboo topics, such as tax reform.
So much Claudia as Xóchitl have expressed their conviction that a profound change is not necessary in tax matters to have the necessary resources to finance the projects.
I’ve written it and said it: no sensible candidate is going to champion tax reform as part of their strategy.
But I also know that no sensible president can exclude the possibility of carrying it out, because otherwise there is no way for the accounts to settle, much less to have left over for new policies and projects.
There are two leitmotifs of the candidates’ economic speeches, which were present in their first interventions.
For Xóchitl, the number one economic problem is extortion. That is, it links the security problem with the economy.
For Claudia, the great economic dilemma that exists in Mexico is the continuation of the transformation or an alleged return to neoliberalism From the past.
Both have reasons to articulate their speeches in this way.
Xóchitl knows that the weakest link lies in security and that there is a very important segment of small business owners who see it, indeed, as the main obstacle to the normal development of their businesses.
Bet on a narrative that points to a new security policy which would have a positive effect on economic activity.
Claudia takes advantage the bad image that the majority of the population has the concept of neoliberalism, assumed as an economic project oriented towards privatization, lower salaries or ‘gasolinazos’ and corruption.
Polling data show that, at least so far, the ‘anti-neoliberal’ narrative has the advantage.
Some of us think that having turned the electoral competition into a plebiscite on whether or not the 4T will remain, is costing the opposition.
Others think it was the right thing to do.
In a very few days we will see where reality points.
