Summary of Argentina’s first presidential debate from Santiago del Estero

CNN consulted four political analysts to try to answer these questions.

Carlos Vara

“I think there were no winners,” he added.

Regarding Miley’s performance, he said that he “was the one who had to take the least risk and kept his place.”

Regarding Bullrich, he considered that he “lacks creativity.” She, along with Massa, are, according to Fara, “the ones who should take the most risks.” Regarding the Minister of Economy, he said that he “defended himself as much as he could.”

Regarding Bregman and Sciaretti, he emphasized that “it helped them gain a clear vision, but it did not distort the outline of the discussion.”

Federico Aurelio

He explained that “there was no development in the performance of any of the candidates, or none of them suffered a sufficient blow to believe that he was capable of winning or losing votes.”

Thus, Aurelio understood that “Massa was successful because he was supposed to be hit hard but that was not the case.”

In a similar vein of thought, the analyst also suggested that Miley benefited because he “overcame the risk of losing his temper” because, he said, he was calm.

Regarding Bullrich, Aurelio noted that she is “lazy” on the economic issue by making arguments or showing “traits that apply more to a security minister than to a presidential candidate.”

Regarding Bergman, the analyst highlighted his speeches, but, like Chiarte, they were not the main focus of attention.

Maria Esperanza Casolo

“I think that in debates, there are fewer people who win votes than people who lose votes,” Casolo said.

The analyst noted that Miley is “more moderate in his style”, without shouting, although he is “not more moderate in his positions”.

In turn, he pointed out that Massa “followed her script,” and considered that “Bullrich was the weakest.”

Continue reading here.