Post electoral debate
Arturo Quispe Lazaro
One of the central questions after the "debate" is President Who won the debate? Obviously the purpose of enhancing the candidate "winner" and sentenced to a loser. But the response, to determine or change the vote of the people, has served little or nothing. This debate has been, however, a disappointment for three reasons. First because it was not a debate but was a exposition of ideas, where the debate format favored candidates who had little capacity and limited speech that was more experienced as Toledo. My impression is that the debate has just started in the last block, where exhibitors were released from some stuffy and showed some skills to deal with some issues and confront their opponents. Second, because he had great expectations of the voters that the debate will help them finally decide for whom to vote. Third, it was thought that this debate would be more intense and "bitter" especially for those who are losing or who have a tendency to fall. For all these points this comparison of candidates was a disappointment. Yes, I must say that the third point, it was, but not significantly to "steer" the change to vote in his favor.
So the first question: who won the "debate"?, And second question, "will serve to convince the change in vote for the winner? The latter, in my impression, is a function of first response. So who won the "debate" was Toledo. But it was a decisive victory. That was the problem for Toledo. Should be, but it was not. The strength makes people focus its attention and together have the perception that the candidate has won. Something that did not, or felt. Therefore, the debate did not meet the objectives of some candidates. Therefore, the "winner" Toledo must win at least two points or more if they wanted to impose, (2 to 0, 3 0, 2 to 1), to reverse its downward trend, but not won by hundredths points. In other words, nothing. That was his mistake. Not because there is minimal excelled but because it has been overwhelming. And this confrontation for the purpose of changing the vote did not contribute to anything or nothing. And thus the big loser was Toledo. Rather, what this debate has served to consolidate their vote for the candidate who has already set before this "debate."
The other "winner", unlike their opponents, is Ollanta. The reason is simple. This "debate" could not defeat him, not demolished, not "Apan". It was four against one. Everyone expected them down to the pointer, and as it did before the debate, were all against Ollanta to be considered inconsistent, being "Chavez", "dictator" and wanting "to perpetuate power, "making up its program, the debate also serves to demonstrate the inconsistencies of these approaches. The third point made above, that of "bitter" should be to "destroy" the opponent, the opponent. Especially those who were lost. But did not the case. Ollanta avoided confrontation. Who with a strategy of not answering the aim not poked their opponents and therefore any future fire shut against him. Toledo was the most incisive in his allusions to Ollanta, were slightly Castañeda and Kuczynski. Ollanta went on a tangent I did not respond or minimized. Obviously, the latter is highly debatable, but for the purposes Ollanta, not "stepped on a stick" and did not lose his or contradict something their opponents did expect. Your response can not be read in many ways: one is lack of respect for their opponents and voters, the other is that it was a good strategy to avoid "stepping on a stick" and not fall into provocations that can lead to unfortunate answer to your goals. But in any case, it was disjointed and discordant, something his opponents and the press, which tends to align to the right in the final moments, had capitalized. For this reason, my impression is that according to this objective, the big winner was Ollanta. That does not mean that in the second turn will serve to win the presidential election. That's another story.
The big loser was undoubtedly Castañeda. He felt lost in most of the debate. Since you misplaced your documents of the questions, the "I spoke, and fearing to face the debate. Except in the last block where it did have credit, as when monologues in the mayor of Lima. But that, and some other touches to their favor, not avail. It was he who missed the great opportunity to reverse its almost, now, exclusion of these elections. What I did was give a mixture of feelings because it gave the impression not be well prepared for discussion. But this feeling was not new. This perception comes from a few months. Thus, all the debate served to him and to his constituents, was that Castañeda was deflated, was "the last passenger" and confirmed it was a "bluff" in this election.
Keiko Fujimori had good credit and a clean presentation. But unfortunately it was another candidate who can say he lost because his intention of attacking Toledo was a boomerang went wrong stop. Toledo to blurt his "father" daddy "to Keiko recalled his father's corrupt government. The shock was evident. Something that just Ollanta not fall and prevented it. He could have happened something like if you ever violently attacked and tried to respond to the barbs of his opponents. However, Keiko was solvent and did his homework to prepare for the debate. Unfortunately for their interests did not do well.
Pedro Pablo Kuczynski
very slow, at times distracted, and dull. Ollanta barbs sent to him nor was effect. Got trapped in a counterpoint to Toledo, which capitalized on a hopeless Castañeda, and left, in their few moments of solvency, both look bad. In the end, either excelled or made a difference to induce voters to vote for him. It was also, in this sense, the lost opportunity with Castaneda and Toledo to capitalize on the mistakes of the two candidates with strong chance of advancing to the second round.
In sum, the debate was a disappointment and failed to determine who was the winner of the same, which would permit a transfer of votes to the winner. Not having been won, the trends so far reached or not move, or will slightly and no significant mobility to a nonexistent vote winner. Therefore, reaffirm the votes of the candidates who are first and second in the polls and vote yes will move, will the losing candidate, that is Castañeda. For these reasons, the second will be played between Keiko Fujimori and Alejandro Toledo. The big loser was Castañeda. Kuczynski their apathy and lack of speech was not allowed to stand, and did not reach his forces have been mobilized in social networks.
Lima, April 4, 2011
0 comments:
Post a Comment