More demanding voters produced a better campaign.

247 - The journalist Teresa Cruvinel, a columnist for 247, produced an assessment of the presidential race so far. According to her, the third option to the PT-PSDB polarization will not yet be able to prevail, and the debate of ideas has been better than in previous contests.

Here are some points she highlighted:

1.  Third way – The only insurmountable defeat for a human being is losing their life. Eduardo Campos was a promising politician, although he was languishing in the polls. He died in August, and no one talks about him anymore. No candidate, not even Marina Silva, remembered to mention his name in the last debate, for example. That's life. His death completely altered the electoral landscape, creating a hurricane, but in the end, the contest returned to its original course, with Aécio Neves recovering. Not because he is better than Marina, but because he embodies, along with Dilma, the polar and antagonistic projects that still punctuate Brazilian politics. The third way has not yet found its moment, but for the first time, the PT-PSDB polarity was challenged by Marina Silva, whether or not she reaches the second round.

2. Aggressiveness – It has been said that the 2014 campaign was very aggressive. That adjective is inappropriate. Following Marina Silva's rise in popularity, both Dilma and Aécio Neves adopted negative campaigns against the former senator. However, neither of them went beyond what is proper in civilized and democratic disputes. Everything they said about Marina was based on what she said, wrote, or did throughout her career. The same applies to Marina, who also delivered forceful attacks against the other two. No candidate – except for Levy Fidelix in the penultimate debate, with his bizarre statements against gays – exploited the other's personal life, as Americans so often do. In my view, in this sense, the campaign was better than those of the recent past: the confrontation offered voters more elements to compare, reflect upon, and draw conclusions. Aggressiveness is not vulgarity.

3. Content – In the presidential race, there was a significant difference in content compared to 2010. That campaign was punctuated by corruption allegations that completely dominated the debate. Aside from the campaign by fundamentalist religious sectors against Dilma, accusing her of supporting abortion, the issue of corruption practically dominated the debate. This year, we also had a major corruption scandal, that of Petrobras, and it was a recurring theme in debates and media coverage. But other issues also punctuated the candidates' speeches and competed for the voter's attention. Public policies and administrative principles such as combating inflation, the independence of the Central Bank, health, housing and sanitation, income transfer programs, abortion, same-sex marriage, and security gained more space and resonance. This was good, although foreign policy was completely ignored, once again.

3. Selection - It was the first national election under the Clean Slate Law. More than 250 candidates were disqualified nationwide, and this should theoretically result in higher quality parliamentary representation and government officials. Time will tell.

4.  Spheres - The presidential and state gubernatorial elections were not entirely "matched," leaving the state disputes quite "loose" in relation to the presidential race. This happened because of the pragmatic and less ideological nature of our parties. National alliances did not always translate to the state level. There were also states, like Rio de Janeiro, where candidate Dilma had four allied gubernatorial candidates, while Marina Silva and Aécio Neves did not have their own candidate. Coalitions do not have to be vertical, as the TSE (Superior Electoral Court) wanted in 2002. It would be good if they were, but due to the natural alignment between parties with affinities....

5. Financing - Once again, the campaigns were extremely expensive and funded by large economic conglomerates. Individual contributions from private citizens were negligible. Soon, we will have a scandal originating from the financing of this year's campaign. This will continue until we change this system, adopting public funding and very strict limits on private donations. Or both, rationally combined.

Read the full analysis by Tereza Cruvinel on her website. blog no. 247.