Alckmin's performance on Band disappoints the market.

SP 247 – The performance of presidential candidate Geraldo Alckmin (PSDB) in the debate held by Band, this Thursday (9), did not please the market. According to a report from the political sector of the brokerage firm XP Investimentos distributed to its clients, the candidate “could have emerged stronger from the meeting if he had forced a comparison that showed him to be more prepared than his rival. He preferred not to – he chose Marina Silva to respond – and, if he didn't emerge weaker, he remained the same. And, even though the poorest voters were not the preferred audience of the debate, the candidate's rhetoric (German model, TLP, IVA...) shows a challenge in communicating with lower income and education classes”.

"The candidates' choice of which rival to answer the question is telling. Alckmin chose Marina twice and, as we said, missed the chance to force a direct comparison with Bolsonaro. The congressman and Meirelles chose Álvaro Dias – a candidate who engages with the PSDB's audience and could be useful for both rivals," the report also states.

Read below the full report sent to XP clients:

Analysis of the BAND Debate

"The electorate watched the first debate of the 2018 presidential campaign yesterday. Let's consider a few key points:"

1 – As expected, it was a meeting that hinted at the strategies and continuation of the campaign, but it didn't bring any new elements that would define the course of the election. The format, with eight candidates, limits interactions and a more detailed discussion. The 0-0 draw wasn't bad, however, for those who are ahead in the polls, as is the case with Bolsonaro and Marina.

2 – Jair Bolsonaro's feared (or expected) outburst did not occur with such intensity that it would compromise him going forward. He did appear nervous, shortened some answers, and was less articulate than in the videos normally distributed by his supporters, but he was himself, without complicating things.

3 – Geraldo Alckmin could have emerged stronger from the debate if he had forced a comparison that showed him to be more prepared than his rival. He chose not to – he chose Marina Silva to respond – and, if he didn't come out weaker, he remained the same. And, even though the poorest voters weren't the primary audience for the debate, the rhetoric of the PSDB candidate (German model, TLP, VAT...) shows a challenge in communicating with lower-income and less educated classes.

4 – The candidates' choice of which rival to answer the question is telling. Alckmin chose Marina twice and, as we said, missed the chance to force a direct comparison with Bolsonaro. The congressman and Meirelles chose Alvaro Dias – a candidate who resonates with the PSDB candidate's audience and could be useful for both rivals.

5 – The vacuum left by Lula and the PT is symbolic. Except for Guilherme Boulos at the beginning – in a 1989 Lula-esque manner – no one explicitly tried to fill this gap. Indirectly, Maria Silva is the one who most engages with this electorate.

6 – Alckmin, Marina, and Ciro drew on their experience from other presidential campaigns and seemed, in a way, more at ease. Alckmin even managed to handle the attacks, albeit timid, from some of his opponents. Marina adopted a similar approach to that of 2014, focusing on the fact that the current situation doesn't solve the problem and positioning herself as a third option. Ciro showed composure even when provoked.

7 – Cabo Daciolo became a character – every campaign has its character. In the debate, he had the effect of playing the role of "Bolsonaro's Bolsonaro," acting as the different one. This has a main effect: by comparison, it places Bolsonaro in the category of "serious" candidates, and reduces the contrast between the PSL deputy and the others.