This is the week of the final tactical moves and last blows before the first round of the presidential election, whose outcome will not only determine the finalists but will decisively shape the results of the parliamentary elections through the bonus awarded to parties with candidates in the second round and, conversely, the demobilization penalty for those who missed qualification, although they were aiming for it.
In addition, last week’s INSCOP poll shows a very high percentage of undecided voters, 15%, atypically close to the election. Each candidate is targeting this segment, which is not loyal to any party, therefore very fluid.
So, what are the foreseeable movements?
1. Marcel Ciolacu
It is extremely unlikely for him to miss the second round. The party is mobilized, the campaign strategy has been good and respected, and the impact of the revelations is insufficient to take him out of the game. However, this does not mean that Mr. Ciolacu can rest assured. He needs a very high score on Sunday for at least two reasons:
- To enter the final with as much electoral and moral ascendancy as possible, regardless of the opponent.
- To send the party to the parliamentary elections with a chance for a high score. PSD needs a score with a 3 in front to ensure that there will be no surprises in forming the future government majority.
Furthermore, the higher the score, the greater the power of PSD in the future coalition, reducing the chances of Marcel Ciolacu keeping his word and appointing a prime minister from another party.
Or, even if he keeps his word, a prime minister from a small party facing an overwhelming PSD "will cry in the government meeting," as an experienced politician told me.
What fears might Marcel Ciolacu have?
The Nordis scandal is not likely to take him out of the final. But that doesn't mean it doesn't affect him on multiple levels. For the more demanding electorate, which he can count on in the second round, the integrity issue is very significant.
Mr. Ciolacu claims to have evidence that he paid for his private plane trip, but he has not presented it yet. Just as he has not presented his high school diploma.
As long as he does not present the evidence, we can wonder what Mr. Ciolacu offered in exchange for the substantial gift made by the one who paid for the trip, even though at that time Mr. Ciolacu was not the prime minister, but the party president, and he was not aware of Nordis' issues.
- Criminal complaint against Ciolacu for private flights paid by Nordis to Nice and Monaco. Ciucă, Lasconi, and Geoană demand resignation
- Marcel Ciolacu, first reaction in the scandal of the private flight paid by Nordis: "It's my private life"
Then, there is the issue of lying. If everything is fine, why hasn't Mr. Ciolacu admitted from the start about the private plane trip? And if he indeed paid for the trip, where did he get the tens of thousands of euros needed? Are they disclosed in the wealth declaration?
For Mr. Ciolacu's core electorate, less interested in integrity issues, the problem could be the very fact that Mr. Ciolacu did not board a commercial plane but a luxury private one. The thought immediately goes to the current president whom Mr. Ciolacu criticized for extravagance. Hypocrisy and association with a detested habit still have a significant price.
Moreover, Mr. Ciolacu knows well that in the logic of a campaign, the nuclear options are launched when they are decisive. The Nordis revelation does not come at a crucial moment for Mr. Ciolacu because it cannot decisively affect his score in the first round. This raises the question of whether he is expecting something even worse before the final.
This largely depends on the opponent he will face there. If it is George Simion, it will be difficult to make major revelations that favor him. On the other hand, if Mr. Ciolacu has a more manageable opponent, more or less desirable, but not George Simion, a strike will be possible, I would even say probable.
Therefore, Mr. Ciolacu has an even greater need for Mr. Simion in the second round. On Monday evening, he stated that 99% he will not be his opponent on December 8. He may be sincere and even justified in his assessment. But he could just as well try to stir up his supporters by hinting at Mr. Simion.
- Ciucă will not go to vote in a final Ciolacu-Simion
- Ciolacu: I tell you, in proportion of 99%, that I will not enter with George Simion in the second round. Nor with Ciucă
Although Mr. Simion is the easiest option, among the realistically possible ones, for the second round, it would not necessarily be a walk in the park. Believing that the 2000 scenario can be copy-pasted is naive because neither Romania is the same, nor does Marcel Ciolacu have the stature of Ion Iliescu, nor is George Simion Vadim Tudor.
The INSCOP simulation for the second round indicates a victory for Marcel Ciolacu with a difference of only 5 percent and without including the diaspora in the measurement.
2. George Simion
The AUR candidate is already riding well on his loyal electorate, continuing to consolidate it on social networks. He had a good strategy, traveled extensively for a grassroots campaign in the most receptive areas. He has two more objectives to fulfill.
- To attract more undecided voters who are not radical. If they were, they would have already made up their minds.
- To alleviate the wave of panic, which can mobilize votes against him.
How exactly, we already saw at the Digi TV debate. Mr. Simion toned down his speech, abandoned the aggressive and strident notes, seemed prepared on major issues, and promoted a nationalism without extremism.
3. Elena Lasconi, Mircea Geoană, and Nicolae Ciucă
The three have the same vital objective - capturing the strategic vote against George Simion. Each is trying to attract as much of the other candidates' electorate and undecided voters by projecting themselves with the highest chances of reaching the final if they receive a little more support.
So each is asking for the vote not because they are the best, but because they are best positioned against Simion.
Ms. Lasconi made headlines by Ludovic Orban's withdrawal in her favor, but there are no signs yet that she has managed to trigger a wave for a critical mass. It must be emphasized that a candidate who withdraws now remains on the ballot, and the transfer of voters cannot be automatic.
It is difficult to calculate where she can gain more support. The argument of Mr. Geoană's and Mr. Diaconescu's electorate is competence. It would be too big a leap for them to turn towards Elena Lasconi.
More likely, the two could direct votes to Nicolae Ciucă; I understand that efforts are being made in this direction, but both have firmly stated that they will not withdraw. Mircea Geoană still retains a theoretical chance, while for Cristian Diaconescu, a second withdrawal, after the one in favor of Elena Udrea, would be a death knell. A good score in the presidential election can offer him a political perspective instead.
Ms. Lasconi can still attract voters from the REPER, SENS, and DREPT areas, that is, those who were alienated by USR. Attracting them is a major stake, and being a distinctly progressive area, Ms. Lasconi conveyed strong messages in the Digi TV debate.
Specifically, Nicolae Ciucă has another stake - mobilizing his own party. Liberal sources talk about only half of the liberal activists supporting Mr. Ciucă, which is extremely low and explains why he is well below the party's score.