In 2016, I was assigned to cover the presidential debates in Cebu by a national daily so I was in the front row in that event. I was seated beside Koko Pimentel and was just a few feet away from candidates Binay, Duterte, Roxas, and Poe. It was not exactly a debate in the strict sense because the interactions between the candidates were limited, and most of the questions were from the panelists to the candidates. But they were all physically in the same podium as there was no COVID-19 pandemic then. The presidential candidate’s forum last Feb. 3 was rightly called a forum, as the five candidates who were virtually present from different locations, did not really interact with each other. They presented their platforms of government and were asked questions from panelist coming from the different media personalities. Maybe, under the current pandemic restrictions, this was the best that could be done.
All the presidentiables present were able deliver a passable performance but there were no real winners. Lacson had the best preparation and presentation, (power point etc.), Robredo had the best grasp of the country’s problems and solutions. Pacquiao and Moreno, displayed the limits of their competence, and De Guzman his progressive left leaning ideology. The viewership of the three-hour multi-media telecast and the subsequent replays/snippets in the social media may have reach as many as 25 million. It was an enormous advertisement and promotion for the five candidates. It was better than the previous exposures of these candidates in other media outlets, so the only loser was Marcos Jr. who missed the opportunity and whose absence was widely criticized in all sectors. I believe his handlers are now re-thinking their no-show strategy and that he will likely be attending the next forums.
It is difficult to exactly quantify the impact of forums on the campaign and their ability to sway voter’s sentiment, but empirical data in the Philippines and other democratic countries show that it is significant enough to tilt the election. In the more developed democracies in Europe and in the US, it made the winners. There is this concept of hardcore followers and soft supporters which is really just a population distribution in a “poisson” or a normal curve. In this distribution, no more than 10% of the supporters can be considered as hard or solid supporters from both ends of the curve. The 80% are all soft supporters which may be swayed in both directions. While there may be fanatics or extremists for any of the candidates, these are usually no more than 5% of his followers, and the quality and sanity of these core group matters. The more rational they are the more they are able to convert but the weirder they are the more they alienate.
The advent and prevalence of social media is added factor to this voter distribution. If 70% of the voting population has access to Facebook, Viber, Messenger, YouTube, and Tiktok the volatility of voter sentiment cannot be underestimated. Of course, demographics, economic status and geographic distributions will also come into play adding to the volatility. The more mature voters may be the more stable constituency, but the young informed voters may be the more dynamic campaigners and voters.
Due to the ongoing but declining pandemic, there will be a mixed physical and social media campaigning by the presidentiables. These campaigns will reinforce each other in that the physical sorties will be viewable in social media, and social media will position the physical campaigns. These and the political ads overload will make voters more discerning. In the final analysis, the most trustworthy and credible presidential candidate will convince the voters. There is something about truth and justice that motivates people. Whether it is enough to win is the responsibility of the voters as they have to live with the consequences of their decisions.