CNN consulted four political analysts to try to answer those questions.

Carlos Fara

“I don’t think there are any winners,” he said.

Regarding Milei’s performance, he said that “she was the one who took the least risks and she maintained her position.”

Regarding Bullrich, he considered “he lacks creativity.” He, along with Massa, are the ones who, in Fara’s vision, “should take the most risks.” Regarding the Economy Minister, he said that “he defended himself as best he could.”

Regarding Bregman and Schiaretti, he stated that “this helps them gain visibility, but does not undermine the scheme of the debate.”

Federico Aurelio

“There was no progress from any of the candidates or none of them were devastated enough to believe that they could win or lose the vote,” he explained.

As a result, Aurelio understands that “Massa succeeded because he should have been hit hard, but that was not the case.”

In a similar logic of thought, the analyst also indicated that Milei benefited because “she overcame the risk of losing her temper” because she thought she was calm.

Regarding Bullrich, Aurelio considered Bullrich to be “lazy” on economic issues by providing arguments or showing “attributes more suitable for a security minister than for a presidential candidate.”

With respect to Bregman, analysts highlight his speeches but, like Schiaretti, they are not the main focus.

Maria Esperanza Casullo

“I think in debates, fewer people win votes than they lose,” Casullo said.

The analyst observed Milei was “more moderate in her style,” without shouting, though “not more moderate in her posture.”

Instead, he indicated that Massa “followed the script” and thought that “Bullrich was the weakest.”

CONTINUE READING HERE.