CNN consulted four political analysts to answer these questions.
Carlos Fara
“I don’t think there are any winners,” he said.
Of Miley’s performance, he said, “She was the one who had to take the least risk, and she held her own.”
Regarding Bulrich, he considered that “he lacked creativity”. She, along with Massa, “must be exposed to more danger” in Farah’s view. “He protected himself as much as he could,” he said of the economy minister.
Of Bregman and Schiaretti, he said, “It helped them gain perspective, but it didn’t derail the agenda of the debate.”
Federico Aurelio
“None of the candidates have developed or any of them are vulnerable enough to believe they can win or lose votes,” he defined.
As a result, Aurelio understood that “Masa succeeded because he should have been badly beaten, but it was not.”
In a similar logic of thought, the researcher also pointed out that Miley benefited because “she managed to avoid the risk of losing her temper” because, she remained calm.
Of Bulrich, Aurelio observed that he was “lazy” with arguments or demonstrations on economic issues, “characteristics more suited to a defense minister than a presidential candidate.”
For Bregman, the analyst highlighted his discourse, but, as with Schiaretti, they were not the main focus of interest.
Maria Esperanza Casullo
“I think there are fewer people winning votes than losing votes in the debates,” Casullo said.
The inspector observed Millie without exclamation as “very moderate in her style,” though “not moderate in her postures.”
In turn, he noted that Massa “followed his script” and that “Bulrich was weak”.
Continue reading here.
