How was it possible for Georgescu to be voted massively by the Romanians, to surprisingly and unbelievably, even silently, reach the 1st place in 13 counties in Romania, in Alba, Arad, Argeș, Bistrița, Călărași, Constanța, Hunedoara, Maramureș , Neamț, Sibiu, Suceava, Prahova, Tulcea? And to win including in the diaspora with 43.35% of the votes, 345,000 votes.
PHOTO Youtube
1.Antisystem The first truth is that his vote gathered the most voters, a large majority, who were fed up with the big, traditional parties and their leaders. This explains why PSD failed to enter the 2nd round (shock, right?) and PNL barely got… 5th place (under 9%), Ciucă winning in only one county: Giurgiu. It was clearly a vote of protest, of revolt, of “I don't want you anymore”.
2. Independent In the same anti-party logic, if Georgescu had been adopted by a party, however small, he would not have had the same number of votes. Because an independent in the minds of citizens represents a person without interests, without the tendency to be dependent/subjugated by the party and corrupt, etc.
3. Lack of attractive alternatives A generalized idea in Romania, often heard in recent months, was that although we had a list of 14 and 13 candidates respectively, they did not exhaustively respond to the essential and specific needs of the Romanians. The 2 million Romanians who elected Georgescu did not want PSD, PNL, USR, or even AUR, and then they chose from what was left and from what was left, who was more attractive, more impulsive, more honest? He, Georgescu.
4. The mistake of the party leaders' proposal Although they knew that the leaders of their parties were far below the percentage of the party (and they have seen since the local and European parliamentary elections), both large parties continued to propose the same Marcel Ciolacu and the same Nicolae Ciucă and did not opt for a new presidential profile , much more attractive and desirable, unique and special. And they were wrong. They didn't come with any new person. The Romanians had time to see how the governance of Ciucă and Ciolacu was and thus increase the number of anti-Ciucă and anti-Ciolacu. What I think is that if both parties had proposed other leaders (from inside or outside the party) they would certainly have obtained other results and PSD would very likely have entered the 2nd round.
5. The ineffective and uninspired campaign of the traditional parties Going to the same communities and addressing only party members in large performance halls (with party emblems and inscriptions) or cultural centers in the villages does not represent any progress in the election campaign. Not handing out leaflets on the streets either. You can't convince anyone with a leaflet. Moreover, neither paying hundreds of thousands of euros for advertising articles and interviews in the last weeks to present the achievements of the government… neither attracts new voters nor convinces.
6. Social Media TikTok made many views. Certainly the other leaders and the other parties were also present on TikTok but with nothing new. They had a presence with the same metehnes, visits to the territory and the same flat and boring speech. For Tiktok to become an agent of influence, especially for the undecided, a different type of content would have been needed. Perhaps the most painful truth is the following: that the Romanians massively voted for Georgescu not because they were faithful to his doctrinal ideas, that they identified with his political and electoral program or that they have been sympathizers for several years/months. No thought. If we ask these voters to tell us 4.5 ideas from Georgescu's program, they will not be able to tell us. Why? Because I don't know. They simply resonated with his speech and voted for him. The superficiality of Tiktok is the new trend. Social media convinces you quickly, in a few days, but without depth. TikTok is more powerful than any school.
7. Televisions no longer matter Călin Georgescu was not invited to the big debate announced by Digi24 (in collaboration with UBB) nor to the repeated debates on Antena 3 broadcast with pomp from the Palace of the Parliament. And yet he won. He was invited to TVR and several other smaller television stations and occasionally to some podcast interviews. And that's about it. Nor were we taken by storm by dozens of interviews in the national press.
8. 45-64 years old was the age of those who came out to vote more they also voted more with Georgescu and they are daily present in social media, addicted to social media and believe more in social media than in the truth told through other means of communication or by other people, whether they are relatives. An intellectual, educated, college-educated young man will not be able to convince his mother or grandmother if she deeply believes in TikTok. Here we have a big problem for many other areas and in the long run. TikTok credibility versus scientific truth.
9. Diaspora The vote of those in the diaspora now was not different from the one in Romania, as we found in other years, when those in the diaspora voted for another candidate and the leaders of Romania put their hope in the diaspora. Now in the diaspora, the Romanians were anti-PSD and anti-PNL and they resonated a lot with Georgescu's message.
10. Speech His speech was categorized as ultra-nationalist, ultra-Orthodox, extremist, pro-Russian and anti-European in nature. Georgescu in a recent online statement denied. What would it have been like to admit, “yes, I am anti-NATO”. But he touched on several themes of impact, he spoke more about love of country, family, ancestors, religion, “awakening in consciousness”. Like Dan the Flea. In fact, Puric admitted that he has known him for 15 years and that “the country hurts him”. He talks about God and economic insecurity in the same sentence. He spoke a lot about peace and the Romanian people, including on the day he won. So he constantly used key words, with emotional resonance. In fact, every word in his speech had impact and was used with meaning. He did not waste words. The leaders of the other political parties did not speak so much about peace, in a year with a border conflict, nor so convincingly about the Romanian people or about God or about freedom and poverty. I give you the example from TVR when his direct, short and impactful message was as follows “From this moment we wrote history, from today Romania is led again by God, and the power belongs to us, the people, to use it wisely. God's project for Romania is the project of the free and moral human being, and in the middle is the love of people. Thank you.”
Isn't that enough to convince you?
