Who won and who lost in the third presidential debate in Mexico between Sheinbaum, Galvez and Maines?

Who won and who lost in the third presidential debate in Mexico between Sheinbaum, Galvez and Maines?

(CNN Spanish) – A heated debate without a clear winner. This is how the third and final meeting between the candidates for the presidency of Mexico went, because despite everyone's attacks, important issues were not discussed, according to analysts consulted by CNN.

Claudia Sheinbaum, of the ruling Morena-PT-PVEM coalition; Xochitl Gálvez, of the opposition coalition PAN-PRI-PRD; Jorge Álvarez Mainz, from the Ciudadano movement, participated in the third exercise, called “A Safe and Just Republic.”

According to political analyst David Mendoza, the three candidates remained on the same position, without any fundamental differences appearing.

“I think both Maines and Sheinbaum concluded their engagement well and knew that closing the discussion was important to publicly call for a vote, while Galvez seemed less prepared,” he said.

He added that it was expected that she would do more than that of Galvez, the senator who was on vacation, taking into account that hours before she had led a massive march in central Mexico City, attended, according to the authorities, by 95,000 people.

“Galvez should have finished with more substance or the same level as he did in the morning. It is also about the difficulty that this candidate suddenly faces, who is in a very complex and diverse coalition, which ultimately lacked strength. This is something that citizens take into account consideration.”

Mendoza noted that Galvez maintained his dynamism in attacking Sheinbaum and was able to irritate his opponent on certain occasions with his attacks and gestures.

On the other hand, according to the analyst, Sheinbaum was “calmer in contrast to her previous participations, and more clear because she knows the advantages she enjoys and the support of the entire government structure of Morena and President Andrés Manuel López Obrador,” he noted. .

See also  Rescuing a family and another woman in a hotel from actual kidnapping victims

Mendoza believed that after this third debate, the difference in opinion polls between Sheinbaum and Galvez could be reduced.

Mitofsky's latest housing survey – administered from May 3 to 6 to 1,600 adults residing across the country and holding voting credentials – revealed that Sheinbaum, the former head of Mexico City's government, still leads in electoral preferences by more than 23.8 votes. Percentage points of advantage in terms of overall value, compared to Galvez of the Power and Heart for Mexico coalition, a slight decrease compared to the previous measurement in April.

The Communist Party candidate even used the debate to reject the idea of ​​a “useful vote” and defend his proposals, in an apparently indirect attack against those who in recent weeks have called on him to reject his candidacy and support Gálvez. In fact, at times Alvarez Mainz seemed harsher with Galvez than with Sheinbaum.

“Neither the debates nor the candidates were at the level.”

Analysts consulted by CNN considered that neither the round of debates nor the candidates were at the level of what citizens deserve. They noted that the format of the discussions limited dialogue, and that it would be helpful, for future discussions, to spend less time explaining the format and logistics. Moreover, they argue that the intervention of moderators should be more active, even if it means interrupting candidates, in order to get a specific answer to the questions.

Mendoza believes that one of the major outstanding issues in these debates is to allow a direct exchange of ideas between the candidates, similar to what happens in countries such as the United States.

See also  Cuban dictator Miguel Diaz-Canel defended Putin after the arrest warrant issued by the International Criminal Court

This third presidential debate initially included a face-to-face segment, in which the candidates asked each other direct questions on planned topics (social policy, insecurity and organized crime, immigration, foreign policy and democracy, pluralism and the division of powers). However, party representatives objected to the formula, arguing that the rules were ambiguous. In the end, the candidates answered the questions posed by their competitors in advance and in writing.

“There has to be a freer coordination with people and characters. I would say that they can really generate those feelings within the viewer. And again I emphasize this emotional aspect, because the citizen wants to see the person, and he does not want to see that rigid structure, this structure that He does not turn to see his opponent.

— Valeria Ordonez Guillot contributed to this post.

Aygen Marsh

"Certified introvert. Extreme coffee specialist. Total zombie defender. Booze fanatic. Web geek."

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *