“If such Stanowski consistently criticizes the government, he supports Nawrocki in this way and it is something that can attract some of the undecided electorate to Nawrocki, “says sociologist Prof. Henryk Domański in an interview for the Wpolityce.pl Portal.
Wpolityce.pl: Behind us is the presidential debate, in which almost all candidates participated this time. Do you think there is someone you could indicate as a clear winner?
Prof. Henryk Domański: No, there is not a person. What Nawrocki said was more or less a repeat of what he said about both debates on Friday, where he did very well.
From his point of view, the speech of Krzysztof Stanski was important because of his role when it comes to obtaining support for Nawrocki, because he represents this type of electorate category that is more associated with modernity, with modern technologies. He is a specialist on social media, he represents this environment, which, to a certain extent, is a denial of the image of the law and the justice, which is associated with a parochial, archaic party that cannot be voted on.
So if such Stanowski consistently criticizes the government so consistently, he supports Nawrocki in this way and it is something that can attract some of the undecided electorate to Nawrocki.
Do you think Trzaskowski should have come to this debate?
He should certainly come. Because what can the platform do now? They probably think feverishly to relieve some way, weaken this negative effect, because there was no main candidate that was very bad on Friday. And in this regard, almost everyone agrees, of course outside the platform. From this point of view it was a mistake.
Moreover, however, it is seen as a contempt for democracy. If you don’t come to the debate and others come, it’s wrong with such a candidate.
We can suspect that this was due to fear, from the calculation, that he would be attacked heavily. On the other hand, Szymon Hołownia came, he was heavily criticized by other candidates, but according to many he did well. How do you judge the speech of the speaker of the SEJM during the debate?
I think it fell out, it doesn’t really matter. I would have many doubts about whether he managed to win something. It always repeats itself. It is constantly very general. He is not a politician. You can see that he does not know in politics, there is no knowledge. What he said were some sentences he remembered is characteristic of his speeches, the ability to remember certain BON-MOTS or such popular statements. He throws these slogans, but it can be seen that if he became a president, he would make a number of decisions, it can be seen that there is no connection between what he says and what he could do.
I don’t think he will get some support. He already discouraged people who voted for him five years ago or in later elections. I don’t think he can get something from one or two of such speeches. It does not matter whether his support would increase by around 2-3 percentage points.
How did “the third” or Sławomir Mentzen end up in your assessment? During the debate, this politician sometimes looked at a very tense.
In my opinion, for the first hour and a half he did very well, because what he said was very specific and factual. It was possible to imagine that if he was president, he would make decisions at this office, he would know how to implement them. He was very convincing of this.
Later, however, he started repeating himself and it started to get a bit boring, even annoying. I think it’s good that he came this debate from this yesterday. Because if he didn’t come, this would lower his quotations that have already taken place in recent days.
Do you think that these three debates will have a noticeable impact on election polls in the near future?
They should have. I think the voters of rights and justice were waiting for such events or those who claimed that this election campaign may not be so boring that simply do not attract or mobilize. I am thinking of undecided who did not feel mobilized to go to the elections.
It was an event that showed what the most important candidates represent. Those who count the most. In Friday’s debate it was clear that Trzaskowski, who is finally the most important favorite of these elections, is very bad and it can have the consequences for his office. This can cause such big doubts that have not been so far.
We have four weeks until election. This must somehow influence the public consciousness. From this point of view it can have consequences. Much depends on how Trzaskowski’s election staff react to it, but I don’t think I know what they have come up with, they will not improve his quotes.
Also read:
– End of the debate. The two -hour game ended with a series of free explanations. Nawrocki: We have to reject the Tusk government. RELATION
– Politicians key about the organization of the debate. Grabiec: I think some of the TVP accounts are regulated. If we invite you to the restaurant, we will pay
– Sikorski stays with Szpila Trzaskowski! “Performance on this right -wing television would be quite useful. I would go to Końskie”
– he has already changed his mind? Hołownia in the debate compared to the euro, but two years ago … “Let’s say immediately: they have to be introduced”
– Backstage of the defeat of Trzaskowski in Końskie. “He can’t do well in a situation of high stress.” Who prepared deputy tusks?
Source: wPolityce
Emma Matthew is a political analyst for “Social Bites”. With a keen understanding of the inner workings of government and a passion for politics, she provides insightful and informative coverage of the latest political developments.