Abascal's three-way debate stokes Vox leadership crisis

The three-way debate reignites the leadership battle within Vox

A three-way debate, with general elections on the horizon and postal voting already underway, has left Vox with an uncomfortable assessment. The discussion is no longer just about whether Santiago Abascal performed better or worse on stage, but whether he should remain the party's leader. One current of analysis states bluntly: the leader of Vox "lacks oratory, lacks rebuttal, lacks improvisation under attack." From this comes a concrete prediction: PP, PSOE, Sumar, and Vox, in that order, with Abascal's party as the fourth force and a golden opportunity wasted. Conversely, another equally firm reading argues the format was unbalanced from the start.

Did Abascal win the three-way debate?

It depends on who you ask, and both answers come with ammunition. Those defending the leader of Vox cling to the formalities: he was the one with the best voice tone and the calmest demeanor, while the Prime Minister appeared dejected and the Sumar candidate arrived tense, stuck in an emotional register. This contrast, they argue, is what the undecided voter who does not trinc politics daily perceives.

The underlying accusation is different. Abascal is reproached for shining only in two or three moments — gender-based violence, the debate on transgender people, and communism — and letting the rest pass. No rebuttal, no improvisation, no forcefulness. The explanation given is the antiestéticar of being labeled as having a contentious debate. The result, in this reading, is a smiling and silent candidate just when there was material to dominate.

The 2 against 1: how debate time was distributed

Here the consensus is broad. The complaint is not that Abascal lost the debate, but that it was never a three-way debate. It is described as a two against one, with the Prime Minister and the Sumar candidate taking turns to attack, and in some cases, it is directly referred to as a "2.5 against one." The argument is pure arithmetic: to answer everything launched, he would have needed double the time. With a single turn, half an intervention goes unsaid.

There is also the specific moment that, according to a participant, left the leader of Vox without a response: the reproach that Bildu did not support the labor reform. This silence has become the symbol of the night for critics of his performance, and proof of the format's limitations for those defending it.

Espinosa de los Monteros and internal anger

The most uncomfortable proposal circulating in the analysis has a name. Iván Espinosa de los Monteros appears as the speaker capable of "eating anyone with potatoes," with the skill to rebut, defend himself, and ridicule the adversary without getting upset. The conclusion drawn: step aside and prioritize the project over individuals before the wear and tear becomes irreversible. This is not an isolated position, and some who have already voted by postal vote admit to reaching the same idea.

The objection comes from the opposite side and is tactical: you cannot put an aggressive profile in a presidential debate, because you do not win a single vote and lose many. The candidate does not speak for his parish, this argument says, but for those who are still deciding.

How many seats will Vox win after the debate?

Forecasts range from one extreme to the other, and none are verified. The pessimistic scenario places Vox in fourth place, behind the People's Party (PP), the Spanish Socialist Workers' Party (PSOE), and Sumar. The opposing scenario speaks of third place and a range of 40 to 55 seats, perhaps 47, with Sumar much further behind. In between, media polls such as those from El Mundo or ABC that, it is noted, point in a different direction than the first prediction.

There is a factor that complicates any reading and is mentioned casually: the useful vote. Vox would carry an extra penalty due to media pressure, with voters who say one thing in polls and do another at the ballot box.

Buxadé, liberalism, and the soul of the party

The leadership discussion uncovers the underlying battle for the ideological direction. One part of the analysis places Buxadé in a position more falangist than Falange itself, facing the party's liberal wing and Espinosa. The criticism of the economic program is explicit: it is argued that liberal recipes fuel demographic destruction and do not stop replacement, and that a person of principle should not participate in something like this.

On the other side, concrete incentives are defended, more fiscal than discursive: exempting those who reopen their grandparents' village house, tax breaks for workers and self-employed individuals for each new child with full exemption from the third or fourth, and even new charters to refound depopulated areas. To vertebrate Spain, they say, is not done by subsidizing those who do not contribute.

What remains unresolved

And here the analysis gets stuck. If the format was two against one, the moderate performance was a reasonable tactical concession. If the goal was to win, it was a concession without reciprocity. No one has managed to make both things fit, and the seat forecast remains split in two. Added to this is a conspiracy thesis — the result was already written in advance — which whoever proposes it does not back with any evidence. The only figure that admits no discussion is the calendar: the result remains to be seen.

---