In the first, Morena’s candidate was Julio Menchaca, 63, originally from Pachuca, who has been a senator and chief magistrate of the state’s superior court of justice and until November 2015 had been a PRI member since the 1980s.
For her part, in Durango, the candidate was Marina Vitela, 57, originally from Gómez Palacio Durango, where she has been a councilor, municipal president, local and federal deputy. Until 2018, she had been a member of the PRI since 2001.
Below I am going to analyze these two candidacies from four different aspects, with the intention of finding the reasons why Julio Menchaca won resoundingly and Marina Vitela lost resoundingly, even though they belonged to the same party.
Similarities
Let’s start by looking at what both candidates have in common.
The image is not only the physical appearance of the candidate, but everything that is seen, heard and perceived of him or her.
In the case of Julio Menchaca, the image of the campaign was handled in a consistent and very well cared for manner; without neglecting practically any detail, since he not only presented his image as a candidate, but also took care of the way in which his wife, his family and even his roots were shown with a narrative of his parents and the dry cleaning business they had when the candidate was young. In this campaign, all aspects were taken care of to show the candidate as an honest and hard-working man.
On the other side of the coin we have the Marina Vitela campaign that changed its graphic image three times, but in no case was it to improve, since they insisted on presenting the image of a very young woman with a lot of retouching or filters and the candidate live It was something very different from the girl in the photos. This brought her criticism and more at the beginning of the campaign, when she sent images of herself printed on cardboard to all the municipalities so that people could take photos simulating that she was there; the result was disastrous because she lent herself to ridicule and claims because instead of visiting the place (like any candidate) she sent nothing more than a cardboard photo. It was a good idea, very poorly executed.
Marina Vitela’s campaign did not have a clear narrative that presented her and gave her a foundation as to why she should be the governor; Instead of her, it seemed that the only argument was that she belonged to Morena and she was “close” to AMLO.
AMLO Unit
This is a point that marked a big difference between both candidates, since the strength and inertia of the president, Morena and the 4T was used in different ways by each one.
In the case of Julio Menchaca, thanks to the narrative that the campaign had to present him and show him from various angles, as a person, as a family man, as a politician, as a leader; he did not need to “hang on” to the president to build his message, and instead he used the 4T project to reinforce his platform. From my perspective, this helps the candidate get to govern with greater credibility and strength.
However, Marina Vitela tried to use the president himself as a springboard with her famous “Letter to Andrés” with the intention of showing the benefit that the state would have by being close to AMLO if she won. In the first debate, Vitela used said letter as an argument in her favor “I sent a letter to Andrés”, while the PRI, PAN and PRD candidate monopolized all the attention, while she read and hesitated in each participation .
In practically every appearance the candidate spoke about Andrés and sometimes it sounded more like a promotion of him than of her; she seemed to be campaigning for AMLO than herself.
Crisis management
As happens in all campaigns in Mexico, and more so now with social networks, false and true news, leaks and more appear, with the intention of discrediting a candidate.
Menchaca was attacked as a misogynist, chauvinist and classist, and on each occasion he had a timely and precise response to clarify or deny what was attributed to him. Sometimes it was only with a publication on their social networks, in others through unofficial networks and in others through a press conference.
Vitela, for her part, seemed to have no advisers, because she seemed to react without really thinking about what she was doing. She made several basic mistakes in containing a crisis and instead of helping her out of it, they pushed her deeper.
Among the accusations that he received in the campaign and the suspicion of many is that it was not even from the competition, but from his own party, it was about illicit enrichment with documents on properties that he has throughout the state. Her reaction was to cry and accuse the opposing candidate Esteban Villegas, who by the way was someone very close to her when they were both in the PRI. Her tears at her press conference, instead of provoking empathy or compassion, generated a negative reaction against her for not being able to defend herself on the subject.
Sector attention
This point refers to the attention that the candidacy pays to the different sectors, business, academic, religious, youth, etc.
In a political campaign not all are massive or media events, it is also important to have approaches with key sectors to expose the project.
In Hidalgo, Menchaca made public appearances with practically all sectors, and even when he declined the invitation to participate in one of the debates, he held meetings with business leaders at different times during the campaign, as well as with athletes, artists and even with the church. encounters.
For his part in Durango, Vitela had some meetings, especially at the end of the campaign, but he put so much emphasis on convincing the state’s women entrepreneurs that he neglected the rest of the sectors and in the end the women themselves also turned their backs on him. to support Esteban Villegas who did that job in detail.
conclusion
These two campaigns, from my point of view, are a clear example of what should be done and what should not be done, on the one hand, a very well planned strategy, where no detail was neglected and it seemed that the candidate and his entire team were working on together and in harmony. While in the other team, at times there seemed to be no campaign coordinator and it seemed to go to the day without planning.
In both cases, the only person responsible is the candidate himself, because both share the same party, but the result was completely different.
Knowledge that is not shared completely loses its value