Voting for the PP or exile: the dilemma among Spanish right-wing voters

A section of the right-wing electorate backs voting for the PP in the next general election as a tool to remove Sánchez, saving the punishment for the party at regional and local elections. Those proposing this strategy justify it as the lesser evil compared with the alternative of leaving the country.

There is a current of opinion among right-wing voters that has stopped seeing the vote as an expression of trust and has started seeing it as a lever. The idea, summed up bluntly, is this: vote for the PP in the next general election even if it turns your stomach, to remove Sánchez, and save the punishment for the party at the regional and local elections. It is not enthusiasm. It is calculation.

## The vote as a tool, not as trust

Those who defend this position make no secret of their contempt for the PP. They acknowledge that the party has fallen short over the past few years and lacks the ability to save the country. But they argue that it does not matter, because the mission is not to save the PP but to use the PP the way the PP has used Spaniards. The phrase that sums up this logic is that voting for the PP will be Sánchez's first prison.

The plan trinc a clear sequence. First, Sánchez. Then, the PP. The idea is that the party should pay at the regional and local ballot boxes what it is not charged at the general election. It is a two-stage strategy that demands voting discipline and a strong stomach. Its defenders say it outright: voting for the PP is disgusting, but not being Spanish is worse.

## The exile dilemma

The argument hardens when staying in the country comes into play. Some claim that anyone who will not vote for the PP is because they can afford exile, an option not available to everyone. The comparison with German retirees who keep a second home in Spain comes up as an example of people who can leave without breaking a sweat.

The dilemma is framed in brutal terms: vote or go into exile. Those defending this position claim that voting costs money, but exile would cost far more. There are no nuances in that calculation. The choice is presented as a matter of survival, not political preference.

## 29N as the deadline

The date at the centre of all this is **29N**. Defenders of the tactical-vote strategy point to it as the moment when Spaniards decide whether they become citizens again or turn into slaves. The phrase is literal in the circles where this position is discussed. There is no middle ground in their vocabulary.

The central argument is that Sánchez has divided the institutions and created an atmosphere of polarisation with one goal: two blocs, but only one representing Spain. Those who hold this view claim that the bloc supporting Sánchez has banished the working class and the middle class, and governs only for its client base. Their conclusion is that they will not govern to protect families.

## Double standards as grievance

The most repeated grievance is double standards. The complaint is that when the PSOE commits acts of corruption, it is justified by saying there is corruption everywhere, but when the right is corrupt, the country must be brought to a halt. That asymmetry is felt as an injustice that fuels the tactical-vote strategy.

There is also the idea that the left boasts about its mistakes and its mismanagement, and that this is typical of communist systems. The comparison with **Cuba** and **Venezuela** is used as a warning: if Sánchez stays, Spain could be next. It is an argument repeated in the circles where this position is discussed, although no supporting data are provided.

The conclusion of those defending this strategy is that votes must be added up, vote by vote, Spaniard by Spaniard. That 29N decides between being slaves or becoming citizens again. And that, however much it costs, that is better than finding out what exile would cost. It is a position that asks for no enthusiasm, only discipline. And it assumes the PP is an instrument, not a destination.