Election Update: Evaluating the Debate

October 28, 2024

On Sunday morning at 10 am President Maia Sandu and Socialist presidential candidate Alexandr Stoianoglo met for what is likely to be the only debate of the runoff campaign. They debated for nearly an hour and a half with no moderators. Each candidate asked the other 10 questions with time limits on both questions and responses. Candidates were allowed to respond in either Romanian or Russian.

The Debate

It was immediately clear that the 2 candidates had very different strategies in the debate. Alexandr Stoianoglo sought to paint President Sandu’s first term as a failure. He stated that over the last 4 years "nothing was being built in Moldova." He stated that when Maia Sandu was elected 4 years ago he believed in her but addressing her now stated - “But you failed.”

Stoianoglo also sought to clearly align himself as a pro-EU politician challenging Sandu to "sign a pact on the irreversibility of Moldova's European path¹" at the beginning of the debate.

President Sandu largely spent her time in the debate asking Stoianoglo pointed questions about his connections to fugitive oligarchs Ilan Shor, Veaceslav Platon and Socialist party leader Igor Dodon. She called him “Moscow’s man” and sought to identify him as "Trojan horse" for corrupt domestic and foreign actors. She also tried to call voters attention to the idea that the EU, Ukraine and Romania all consider Stoianoglo to be “Moscow’s man” and highlighted the threat to EU integration that he poses.

The Debate. Screen capture.

Key Moments

The most memorable exchanges in the debate involved President Sandu pressing Stoianoglo on his past as the Prosecutor General and his connections with oligarchs.

President Sandu challenged Stoianoglo’s record as prosector general saying:

"The country knows you as a former prosector general during which several criminals were released², and none of those who are guilty of major thefts were sanctioned. How can you convince the citizens that you can be a better president than you were attorney general?”

Stoianoglo responded saying that he opened many cases involving the Theft of the Billion while in office. The President countered noting that many of the people he investigated now “continue to support you and make plans for the Republic of Moldova through you.”

A key highlight of this point was President Sandu’s pointed questioning of the "kuliok" case.

Recall: The kuliok (“bag” in Russian) case refers to a video showing Vladimir Plahotniuc giving a black plastic bag to Igor Dodon. In the video it is understood that the bag is filled with money for the expenditures of the Socialist Party. Prosecutors allege that the bag contained $800,000. As Prosecutor General in 2020 Stoianoglo said that "I am convinced that there was money there" but declined to prosecute citing a lack of evidence. The case was reopened when he was removed from office and is currently under review of the Supreme Court of Justice.

President Sandu asked Stoianoglo

“Dodon and PSRM put you forward for the position of president. In this regard, I would like to ask if you maintain your statement that there was money in the bag given by Plahotniuc to Dodon?”

Stoianoglo responded saying:

"…it is not important whether there was money there or not. It is important that the file on which the kuliok was based - was started illegally."

President Sandu followed up drawing together her primary argument against Stoianoglo saying:

“What did you do while you were Attorney General? Now you say it doesn't matter what was in that bag, you also said it didn't matter what was in the Bahamian accounts that were coming to sponsor the socialist party. I wonder what you mean by democracy? If you consider that funding from outside, illegal funding for political parties, for election campaigns, are not important elements. What do you reduce democracy to? Who has the most money? Who has the biggest pockets to bribe people, to finance propaganda and disinformation, to finance protests, to destabilize the country. I wonder what your democracy looks like? I think it looks different from ours."

The candidates also debated the impact of the war, relations with Romania and many other topics. In these exchanges Stoianoglo primarily contested the President’s record and stated that he will make things better by “doing more.” President Sandu defended her record, or redirected questions using sets of facts and figures that gave the appearance that she was either well prepared or very steeped in the technical nuances of the issues. Stoianoglo sought to challenge Sandu on language issues with both candidates agreeing on the need to protect the languages of national minorities.

While the debate was aggressive there were no personal attacks or moments of raised voices. Both candidates respected the time limits (their mics were cut off if they didn’t) and even without a moderator the debate proceeded fairly smoothly.

Who Won?

In evaluating who wins or loses a debate it’s usually best to consider 3 questions:

1. How did the candidates present themselves? Did they give a “presidential” impression to the audience?

2. Who won the exchange of questions and back and forth?

3. Did the candidates accomplish the political goals they needed to in the debate?

Let’s take them one by one.

Presentation and Being “Presidential”

Going into the debate this was potentially the greatest worry for those supporting President Sandu. Alexandr Stoianoglo is a square jawed man with a commanding look and in a country where many jobs are still very gendered. There was a worry that he would succeed at looking quite strong on stage. This did not happen.

During the debate Stoianoglo was noticeably nervous throughout. He struggled speaking Romanian with Historian Armand Goshu noting afterwards that he appeared to think in Russian and translate in his head. Even when Stoianoglo changed to Russian for much of the second half of the debate he often seemed to lose his place, become confused over the question or simply freeze momentarily. He also had more trouble with the clock, being cut off mid thought at one point.

In contrast President Sandu spoke clearly and although she primarily spoke in Romanian also utilized Russian comfortably. She did not appear nervous and maintained a clear momentum throughout the debate and was largely able to command the conversation. The primary attack line against her after the debate attempted to spin her forceful performance as being “hysterical” but this attack makes little sense if you actually watched the performance.

On this count, President Sandu clearly won.

The Back and Forth

Throughout the debate Alexandr Stoianoglo sought to present himself as someone who would accomplish more for Moldova and contrast this with what he called 4 years of failure. Doing this he spoke in broad generalizations both about problems and in terms of solutions. A typical answer of his would be to say that the current administration has not done anything, and he would succeed by doing many things.

In contrast, President Sandu readily summoned up facts and figures to support her points and to rebut his attacks. Many of these points were fairly common sense - for example asking Stoianoglo if he knew that natural gas entering Moldova passed through Ukraine or that Romania supported Moldova with electricity supply. In most of these exchanges where there were details at stake Mr. Stoianoglo was unable to land attacks or clearly outline a new position.

Most critically, exchanges like the one about the kuliok caught Stoianoglo being unable to defend himself and forcing him to make statements that nearly every Moldovan knows to be problematic or untrue.

Political Scientist Angela Colaţchi explained this as Stoianoglo being caught between the many contradictory positions of his campaign and the Socialist Party³. She said that the multiple positions “played a cruel trick” on Stoianoglo because inconsistent positions are difficult to defend.

The answer to the kuliok question also provided the Sandu campaign with a viral moment that they will no doubt be clipping into video ads that will run all week. In the back and forth Maia Sandu was a clear winner.

Accomplishing their Campaign’s Political Goals

This is where analyzing a debate gets a little tricky. Campaigns have lots of information that isn’t public, including their own polling, which informs decisions about the messages they focus on and what kind of voters they want to reach.

In my perspective article this weekend I argued that Maia Sandu’s main goal in this debate was to define Alexandr Stoianoglo for the electorate. The Socialist candidate is not very well known as a public figure and this created a problem for the Sandu campaign. Basically, if Mr. Stoianoglo is able to position himself as a “generic” candidate, moderate in positions, vaguely pro-EU and not very threatening, then the election would become a referendum on President Sandu’s first term. Voters who are disappointed or just want a change might vote against Maia Sandu. Her goal in the debate was to flesh out Alexandr Stoianoglo for voters and to make the race a choice between the 2 candidates.

Conversely, I wrote that Mr. Stoianoglo was in something of a race to define himself - or, to at least prevent Maia Sandu from defining his image to voters. In a similar vein his additional goal in the debate was to keep the focus on the last 4 years and whatever people might be dissatisfied with in that time. Basically, to make the election a referendum on Maia Sandu’s first term and to present himself as a competent, unthreatening alternative.

Now we don’t know what the campaigns were planning going into the debate for sure, but I believe that this is the most reasonable understanding of their positions. If so, it’s clear that President Sandu had a good debate and that Mr. Stoianoglo did not.

Maia Sandu’s laser focus on issues of corruption, oligarchs, vote bribery and the high stakes of the race in terms of Moldova’s EU accession clearly put Stoianoglo on the defensive. He was unable to counter most of these points and was almost always on the defensive. Worse, he was nervous and failed to project himself as a strong leader.

At the same time his attacks against the current president and his own proposals were generic, lacked substance and were, in many cases, easily refuted.

So on the formulation I laid out this weekend whereby the Sandu campaign is trying to force the voters to see the campaign as a choice and the Stoianoglo campaign is trying to portray it as a referendum, President Sandu clearly won.

Does it Matter and What’s Next?

The most important question about the debate is whether or not it matters at all. Former Prime Minister Ion Sturza summed it up well saying:

"By all standards, it is obvious that the score is 10:0 [Sandu : Stoianoglo]. But that is by standards. For the 'followers', it does not matter, it is just background,"

This notes well that lots of voters have made their minds up already. Political analyst Alexei Tulbure described it this way:

"In order to win, Maia Sandu has three tasks: to further mobilize the diaspora, to travel to the northern and southern regions of Moldova, and to perform well in the debates. She has accomplished one of these tasks,"

Here he notes that the current President has to turn out more supporters and to persuade some undecided voters particularly in the North and South. In this case, the debate could be very important.

At the same time, Political Scientist Angela Colaţchi noted there’s still one problem:

“The one who sold his vote already knows who to vote for.”

1. A formulation suspiciously similar to the Constitutional Referendum that Stoianogolo opposed.

2. This specifically refers to Stoianoglo’s actions freeing Platon from prison and allowing him to flee the country. A topic that is the subject of ongoing criminal prosecutions against him.

3. Pro-EU vs anti-referendum. Nominated by a pro-Russian party and promising to be closer to Romania than before. Promising to have a better relationship with Ukraine, without being willing to comment on the fact that there is a war, etc, etc.