There is a phrase that is increasingly popular in the palace and political world. Candidates, leaders, serious analysts, charlatans, pollsters, operators, of any orientation, repeat that everything is open.
This figure refers exclusively to the electoral scenario, without expectations of major modifications depending on the outcome of the presidential debates. It should be added, minutes after finishing the first: that impression was ratified.
For those who like to notice the forms, in the midst of how boring the almost two hours were, of course the constant hesitancy of Patricia Bullrich stood out in her attempts to string together a sentence (not just an idea or proposal). Javier Milei seemed uncomfortable with the format, but did not suffer provocations that could destabilize him. Sergio Massa and Juan Schiaretti never wavered, nor did Myriam Bregman in the reiteration of their discursive structure.
Nobody won nor – above all – lost considerably (Bullrich’s poor performance, in any case, would make it clear that he is not in a position to add a vote). And it is no small matter that Massa has emerged victorious at a very delicate moment. Spot. In terms of content, the official candidate was the most proactive. But the question remains whether proposals will be voted on.
The caveat that someone makes a huge mistake just happened outside of the rhetorical combat tonight and next Sunday.
The Martín Insaurralde episode threatens Unión por la Patria with being a black swan on par with the Olivos photo, in the midst of a pandemic. And the most painful thing is that, due to its transitive nature, it could affect an official and candidate with the qualities of Axel Kicillof, in charge of the best Buenos Aires government since the democratic recovery. There is understandable and justified anger. But it is not about overreacting the indignation, if it is at the cost of losing sight of the fact that the main thing does not lie in the indescribable obscenity of Insaurralde. The postcards from Marbella should be far from the general evaluation of what is at stake, as if, on the other hand, we were talking about the fact that faced with this mono-issue of the last few hours there is an opposition selection of barefoot Carmelites.
There are other issues considered “decisive”, but there are also no certainties about the direction that word would have. Does the skyrocketing dollar, with its inflationary consequences, mean an adversity that the ruling party will not be able to overcome? Or does that aspect no longer change anything to the hard core of UxP voters, nor to those who would join them in unity against terror? Is it true that Javier Milei stopped his growth because, being seen as a presidential candidate with a high chance, many or many of the people who voted for him will retreat from their confused catharsis? And would that perhaps mean an increase in Patricia Bullrich’s chances, when not even her own ranks allow her to enter the runoff due to an image of insolvency that Carlos Melconian could not correct?
Questions of this nature pierce ultra-politicized circles. There was not much more that could be done than to expose them as a record of a reality foreign to the common street, limited to economic worries and anger against the political “class.”
The measures that Sergio Massa continues to implement, without stopping, are another mystery regarding his electoral effectiveness. They partially repair the devaluation effects. They managed to discipline Peronism after her candidacy (as demonstrated by the numerous act of CGT, CTA and social movements), although there is not an equal enthusiasm because Massa does not mean mysticism: she is much more a liberal, in the Yankee sense of the term. The advertising campaign is acceptable, very well stated, and the slogan “We have with whom, we have with what” It is the closest thing to a title that UxP could get. It touches some nerve for the future, at least, in the face of the simple but up to now efficient facilism of “caste” and “dollarization.” And in the face of the tiring litany of destroying the K, as if Kirchnerism in its classic story were ruling and as if eradicating someone, regardless of his fascist character, was no longer taken over by the madman with the chainsaw.
However, it is also not known whether these marketing successes will have a determining role as it is a very close election. The history of urns is flooded with examples that serve both halves of the library.
In one, there are phraseology and strong images capable of suggesting a decision-making role (“it’s the economy, stupid”; the union-military pact denounced by Alfonsín; Hermino’s drawer; the “yes, we can”, plus lots of etcetera).
In the other, to which this commentator adheres, these effects simply reinforce the installed tendencies. It is like the endless controversy, already Byzantine, around the incidence of communication. With no hope of reaching an agreement, we could get closer if we point out that a government’s disastrous communication is a blow against us; and, at the same time, that not even the most brilliant of communications can replace a negative popular sensation as a basis.
In the end, the important thing is to stop at the fact that, whoever wins, from December there will be no alternative other than some impact capable of stabilizing the financial market and, more generally, the economy as a whole. There, and regarding there, whether shock or gradualism is no longer discussed. True, what kind of shock is debated.
The Monetary Fund, which is the virtual Minister of Economy although Massa and his team must be recognized for their suitability to cushion extreme demands, has just warned about the need for more adjustment rather than in careful terms. But he also demolished Milei’s delusions, about a dollarization that «requires important prior steps and is not a substitute for a solid macroeconomic policy» (Julie Kozack, spokesperson for the organization).
There is only one step between that warning and the obvious why it would be dollarized if the macro is solid.
In fact, all sources regarding the examination given by Darío Epstein and Juan Nápoli, Milei economists sent to the meeting in Connecticut with Wall Street executives, at the mansion of Gerardo Mato, a former HSBC employee, speak of paper And Melconian, who also traveled to the United States to meet with banks, investment funds and risk rating agencies, found it similar.
The last renegotiation with the Fund lasts until November, around the runoff. Argentina’s role on the world stage is often overestimated. Is it true that the country is compromised to inconceivable limits? due to the sinister credit taken by Macri, but it is not that the IMF is risking its existence if it does not “solve” us. In any case, Kristalina Georgieva and other officials will lose their bureaucratic heads.
The question that should govern is who would best guarantee the administration of the expected shock.
All the essential criticisms about the errors of this Government do not mean that the ruling party has the best resources to know how to face the short-term drama. And it could even be said that they are objective data, preceding personal opinion.
It is the Government who knows the real numbers. Who is tense with power factors. Who manages the internal affairs of Peronism and social movements. Who contains Cristina’s emblematic influence. Who endured being on the verge of leaving by helicopter, as Jorge Ferraresi acknowledged. Who knows what the resources are like to man the State without it getting out of hand. Who could land, even with enormous turbulence, that future of a stabilized macro because, before there was no drought, There will be no double command (an issue, the latter, that requires a lot of stability on the part of the most emotional Peronism).
Of course: the question that comes before who would be the best, or the least bad, is whether the answer will be what it is or the majority opinion that it is not.
With no answer in sight, there is no choice but to observe the course of events and, above all, see if Unión por la Patria is willing to be optimistic.