The debate between candidates Daniel Noboa and Luisa González on Sunday was not supposed to be a mere formality for their election campaigns. Although this space was officially proposed and structured by the State Electoral Council so that the candidates for the President of the Republic could delve deeper into their proposals, and the citizens could vote in an informed manner, they came to the television with the goal and reality that Their backs.

Let’s start from the goal: both election teams knew that this was an opportunity to try to take over the public debate in the coming days, especially on the Internet (where the majority of voters are). This is why it was necessary for some messages or actions to become viral and, obviously, generate some emotion that would be translated into the votes of the undecided through work after the discussion.

Presidential debate: which proposals of the candidates were realistic and implementable, and which were more like demagoguery? That’s what our columnists say

This goal is happening in reality, of which at least a few elements had to be taken into account. The first is the data that was made public before the debate: about 30% of voters (some pollsters say 25%, and others up to 40%) are undecided. This scenario—even though those same polls show a 10-point difference between each candidate—just means they can still improve their campaign tactics.

The second element is the main need of people, which in very practical terms can be expressed as follows: that people can go to work, walk the streets and have the certainty that their family and themselves will return at the end of their lives. day of the year. How they solve this problem is not necessarily the thing that keeps them up at night.

How much is the reserve currency in Switzerland? Can the minimum pension be equal to the basic salary?

What happened in the discussion? Daniel Noboa put pressure on his opponent about corruption and impunity. Example: he mentioned that in Manabí the houses from his housing plan can be built on the leveled land of the refinery that the civil revolution never built. He also put together a story about security by connecting the table of drug consumption with the correíst’s decision to approve it, and that this exacerbated the issue of public health and the growth of drug trafficking in the country, not forgetting to mention the connection of state officials and administration (2007-2017) to that crime.

Luisa González was not far behind. He first tried to establish links between the current government of Guillermo Lasso and the Noboa group and proposed links to the issue of mining and benefits for his family’s banana exports to countries such as Russia. He then talked about the de-dollarization of the economy and closed ranks around the drug consumption table, turning the tables on Noboa and asking him why he didn’t push for his cancellation as a legislator. He presented himself with a more structured speech and a more serious image, thanks to his glasses.

Those in charge of both campaigns are now challenged to see how they will use what was said there.. The informed voice, as is well known, is used by a few; the emotional voice will always be in charge. (OR)