THE ADVICE THAT MILEI DID NOT LISTEN TO AND THE NUMBERS ON WHICH MASSA RELIES ON​

A few hours before the presidential debate, a member of Javier Milei’s small table sent him a message by whatsapp: “Keep in mind that Massa is the common thread of all the scandals”. He was referring to the case of Julio “Chocolate” Rigau arrested in an ATM with 48 debit cards of supposed employees of the Buenos Aires Legislature; to the Martín Insaurralde affair and the yategate; to the case of illegal spying on judges, businessmen and journalists involving the camporista Fabián “Conu” Rodríguez and Rodolfo Tailhade. None of this was mentioned by Milei.

Beforehand, Milei’s advisors knew that it would be difficult to get him out of his passionate and emotional structure, or out of his comfort zone, which is economic issues. In his entourage, they did not relativize the importance of the debate but considered that the great majority of people have already decided their vote. “Except for some sector of the historical radicalism”, they pointed out.

In the figures handled by the candidate of Libertad Avanza, they count a difference in his favor of between 3 and 4 points, in spite, they clarify, of “2 or 3 points that they can take away from us” in the control. Although they admit that they did not see the 37 points obtained by the minister-candidate in the election coming.

Massismo has expectations of winning, although they admit that the margin is very narrow. The reading they make, based on different measurements, is that Milei reached his ceiling with the support of Macri and Bullrich “and stagnated”, they assure.

Calculator in hand, they assure that there are about 10 points left between blank and null and in that place the debate of this Sunday can have some effect. “It is marginal, but it is the voters who define the situation”, they argue.

Under that pressure they confronted this Sunday.

In a presidential debate it is key to know how to communicate, to highlight a bad management if it is an opponent such as Milei; and to magnify successes and hide mistakes if the speaker is a pro-government candidate, such as Massa. In almost all the debate, everything happened the other way around.

An example was the economic block, which should have been the libertarian’s high point due to his expertise and the terrible economic situation with a year-on-year inflation rate of 145%. But Milei ended up answering to the minister-candidate who used the formula of asking “yes or no” if he was going to eliminate subsidies, close the Central Bank, privatize Vaca Muerta or dollarize the economy.

At first, the libertarian had adjusted to the script accusing Massa of recurrently “lying” and of being part of “a government of criminals”. But he got trapped in the tigrense’s game, who always sought to underline the contradictions in which Milei entered in the last time, when he had to lower his confrontational tone and dilute some polemic definitions.

Milei had moments of effective criticism, especially when talking about economic variables. But Massa was always the one who managed the issues and the times.

In view of next Sunday’s ballot, Milei’s small circle values the contribution of Mauricio Macri and Patricia Bullrich because they somehow clear the doubts about governability, in case Milei becomes president, without a single governor of his own and with very few national deputies and senators purely from La Libertad Avanza.

In the last four days of the campaign, which will start on Monday, Milei will have acts in Rosario, the Buenos Aires suburbs and will close in Córdoba, one of the most elusive provinces for the official candidate.

In the massism, they organized for the last stretch activities related to “districts where we can add up by territory, and electoral segments to talk to the groups in dispute”.

One week before the ballot, Massa and Milei will face a very particular electorate, perhaps as never before. The 22% who did not vote at all, and 23% who chose the candidate of Juntos por el Cambio Patricia Bullrich, will have to vote for someone else. Or not to vote at all, since in the second round only affirmative votes count.

That is to say that 45% of the electorate will be between not voting or opting for the useful vote. The former should pay a fine of between $50 and $500, equivalent to the price of an alfajor. How little is the obligation to vote worth.

The others will vote without conviction, resigned, for the least bad option. The doubt is how much the debate this Sunday will influence the vote of that 45%. If it has an impact, Milei, in spite of joining Macri and Bullrich and several PRO leaders, will have lost a chance that may be decisive. If it does not have an impact, the coin will still be in the air.

This article was originally published in Clarín, from Argentina. It is reprinted here with their authorization.