Iulian CHIFU // Why YES – Maia, why NO – Andrei
The debate on the single candidate of the pro-European right-wing opposition reached the homestretch; or it should be this way. The fact that both Maia Sandu as well as Andrei Nastase and Viorel Cibotaru carried out the promise and announced again the keeping of the agreement on a single candidate. It would be better for them to maintain their commitment on and on. Well, the deadlock occurred once the definitive survey has failed to make a credible difference between those two. (Furthermore: the next one might also denote the same situation). And then, it obviously returns to the political decision - also pragmatic one - of who will be able to enter the second round and win the elections.
I also waited for an outcome, announced for the first days of October, because, anyway, the campaign is straight and it's late and hard to communicate the name of the common candidate, if it is still delayed. In addition, no one makes any transfer, because there's no time. Therefore, we have chosen to publish our own analysis and the clear conclusion of the second best fact. As if to say: the second best one possible (and the best choice), the best candidate between those two, most likely, is Maia Sandu.
What are the arguments? Firstly, the trends and prospects of the question of accession in round 2. Therefore, Andrei Nastase makes a transfer of votes to Maia Sandu, in the case that he withdraws from the race and supports her effectively. On the contrary, the process is, however, much lower. Maia Sandu has a special electorate, rather inclined towards rectitude, morality and ethical stubborness, which prevents any transfer to Andrei Nastase. Moreover, as Viorel Cibotaru said personally, PLDM would vote on majority for Maia Sandu, and not Andrei Nastase.
The next argument is regarding the win in the second round in front of Dodon. Here the things are even clearer: only Maia Sandu is the single candidate, who has a chance to defeat Igor Dodon in the second round, if supported fully and strongly by Andrei Nastase. However, at the same time, she is the only one that could mainly gather the votes of other candidates. All the rest candidates cannot gather the necessary votes from the governing pro-Europeans, respectively, among the opposition. Iurie Leanca is limited electorally, so is Marian Lupu. Hence, they cannot take votes from the voters of Maia Sandu and Andrei Nastase, respectively from the opposition voters.
Andrei Nastase drops in polls, Maia Sandu increases. In addition, although both are suitable for power because of the anti-Plahotniuc, anti-oligarch, anti-captive country statements and even actions, Nastase has no chance to take the votes of the Democratic Party or Liberal one or any figures in the current government. Nor the votes from the electorate of these parties - to a greater extent than Maia Sandu. Therefore, in the second round, gaining trust from third party voters is done mainly for Maia Sandu, not for Andrei Nastase, who has limited any possibility of growth in the final.
Finally, another argument woul be the profile of the new president: fragile, woman, moralistic, ethical. And maybe we need such a president - a lady! - which comes to the forefront periodically to draw attention to the great issues of society. Obviously, as I said above, Maia Sandu is second best after a neutral candidate, coming from the civil society and supported by all four parties of the pro-European origin (I attached Iurie Leanca simply because his electorate is similar to the other three, respectively the other three make up the former electorate PLDM).
It is true that Maia Sandu has her own issues: she is a woman in an excessively masculine political world, conservative; fragility an lack of eagerness may be costly in the campaign to cover the settlements of the country at least once and for the succession of events and, especially, it costs and will cost a lot more the visible association with the anarchist party, anti-system from Romania, USR, even if she visited the EPP head office to gain support, along with Viorel Cibotaru. However, in any case, she is the best option today.
Why NOT Andrei? Rather, due to the shaky, but clear conclusions based on the analysis of the growth dynamics, the coverage of votes and attention, as well as his professionalism and consistency.