Will Javier Milei be able to reverse the electoral scenario from last Sunday, the 22nd, and defeat Sergio Massa in the second round of Argentina’s presidential elections? Two factors are essential for this to happen.
The first is already happening: the alliance of the right against the Peronist current, which was solidified with Patricia Bullrich’s endorsement. Bullrich, who finished third in the first round and represents the Macri government, is supporting the libertarian candidate. The second, and more challenging factor, depends on Milei’s campaign strategy: he needs to move his discourse more towards the center and seek moderation in his policies so that more Argentinians feel represented in this coalition. These two options face significant obstacles.
Looking back briefly, the first round ended contrary to pre-election polls, with Sergio Massa, the Economy Minister of the current president Alberto Fernández, coming in first with 36.68%. Javier Milei, the major newcomer in these elections due to his libertarian discourse, despite leading in the primaries, finished second with 29.99%. In third place was center-right candidate Patricia Bullrich, representing the Macri government, who obtained around 24% of the votes.
On Wednesday (24), the third-place candidate who was excluded from the second round declared support for the second-place candidate, consolidating an anti-Kirchnerist right-wing alliance that could change the course of the country in the second round, to be held on November 19. This declaration of support came after a meeting with leaders of her party, with the backing of former president Macri. “The urgency prevents us from remaining neutral in the face of the danger of the continuation of Kirchnerism under the leadership of Sergio Massa,” Bullrich said in a press conference.
Additionally, a decisive factor may be the surprising voter turnout rate, which exceeded 30%, marking the highest level in Argentina’s history. In the country, as in Brazil, voting is not optional, which makes the number particularly alarming. However, this situation could be an advantage for whoever strategically structures their campaign to attract the voters who were absent in the first round. To achieve this, it is essential to use the extremism of the opponent to one’s advantage, as both candidates are positioned at completely different ideological poles. Bullrich’s support, combined with this strategy, could be the only way forward for Javier Milei.
Analyzing the profile of each candidate, we see that Milei, who gained prominence due to his excessively libertarian discourse, including statements in favor of organ sales, won the primaries and remained a favorite in the polls precisely because of the extremist profile that was created. However, this was not enough to keep him in the lead when it was necessary to reach a broader audience than he had already secured. This happened because, to reach a larger audience, it is also necessary to consider those who do not identify with libertarian ideas but disagree with Peronism. When Milei chose to maintain his extremist discourse even outside the primaries, he failed to win over the entire electorate needed, as many do not feel represented by his statements.
It is worth noting that, in the previous electoral phase, Patricia Bullrich publicly criticized Milei throughout the campaign, considering his ideas “dangerous and bad.” Patricia criminally sued Milei, who accused her of “placing bombs in a kindergarten” when she was a guerrilla fighter. In this new phase, Patricia claims to have reconciled with Milei to fight the “greater evil.” This alliance, therefore, represents the clearest definition of the anti-Kirchnerist coalition, which should also involve moderating the discourse.
As for Sergio Massa, it would not be surprising to develop a strategy to distance him from the moderate electorate, as he is the representative of Peronism, the precursor of Kirchnerism, which are the clearest definitions of populism from which Latin America is already weary. Observing Massa’s victory in this electoral stage, it is evident that this political current faces one of its most challenging moments, recording its lowest vote in 40 years. Although a significant portion of Argentinians is historically aligned with ideals closer to the left, the voting reflects a trend of weakening these beliefs in the country’s political landscape and the growth of the moderate and right-wing electorate.
The scenario faced by Argentina, with its weakened economy mainly due to poor results from leftist governments, may have only one solution: the election of Javier Milei. However, for this to materialize, much work remains to be done, and it has already begun with Patricia’s support for the libertarian candidate. After all, we are talking about more than 20% of the electorate who supported her as the next president. Furthermore, another 30% of votes are at stake, considering those absent in the first round. Therefore, moderation is crucial: to seek out those voters who did not go to the polls. In other words, we are talking about more than half of the Argentine population, when including Milei’s votes, which could unite against the continuation of power in the hands of the left. Latin America may still have a chance for a fresh start.