According to both VTsIOM (pro-Kremlin pollster) and Russian Field (independent),
Vladislav Davankov has advanced to second in the presidential polls.
With the election one week away, he’s still trailing by a country mile.
The live interview phone polls show people consistently voting for Putin.
But a survey conducted among the Moscow undergrads has Davankov pulling ahead of Putin.
A pre-election week is a hot season when voters finally commit and even change their minds.
Is an electoral miracle on the cards?
Can we, the Russian citizens who seek a normal life and peaceful relations with our neighbors,
use this week to change the public opinion in Russia?
Is it possible that Putin loses in big cities and has to egregiously rig
the results to maintain the illusion of total support?
I don’t know. But politics has one thing in common with quantum physics. Both involve probabilities.
In politics, no one is ever locked in for the win. Candidates can lose.
Now, bleak as it may sound, our opponents may lose, too.
Some will go, “Come on, there’s no way Putin is losing the election! Even a runoff is a long shot.”
But anything that’s not at adds with the laws of physics is possible.
True, the odds of us motivating mass turnout of the opposition voters to a point where their votes trump
the electoral fraud are very slim.
But anyone with a degree in math, physics, or statistics would say the odds are higher than zero.
The same goes for doctors. Some conditions have a 1% recovery rate.
But to make it happen, the doctors will do their utmost in 100% of cases. So should we.
Granted, the odds are vanishingly low, but our job (mine as a politician and yours
as a politically engaged audience) is to boost our country’s odds of a positive outcome
so that one day Russia has a new president and we can start caring about our country’s affairs
instead of spiritual bonds and geopolitical excursions.
Instead of waging a war of aggression, we’ll focus on improving our citizens’ lives.
Next week, more than 100 million voters will have a say.
This may be a game-changing vote for the current generation of Russians.
They’ll be seeing election ads and posters everywhere and making the pick.
The system will do its utmost so that people think there’s no choice, with Putin,
on the one hand, and fake candidates, on the other.
However, our job is to show them there’s, in fact, a choice.
It begs the question:
Who’s the best pick? Let’s watch the presidential debates and analyze the candidates’ stances.
INFLECTIONS
On Feb. 29, Channel One hosted a presidential debate.
Different channels have already hosted the debates,
but this particular exchange focused on the so-called special operation.
Over the past 25 years, Vladimir Putin has never debated anyone. No wonder he was MIA on Feb. 29.
The debate featured Leonid Slutsky from LDPR, Nikolai Kharitonov from the Communist Party,
and Vladislav Davankov from New People.
Before unpacking it, let’s listen to this clip. It’s not just what they’re saying—it’s how they say it.
Let’s give it a watch.
The special military operation is sacred and noble.
This last stand against the Nazism must be ended this year. We must do the impossible.
We must stand together, just like I said last year to my party members, it shouldn’t depend
on your party allegiances, residence, religious creed, or age.
We’ve rallied behind the reasonable policy of the Russian government, our people, and our great victory.
At least, that’s the kind of the armed forces our program envisions for Russia.
That’s our party’s program. And young people are jealous of it.
Just like in the Soviet era, our army should be so powerful that no one would even consider
starting a war against us. Yours are just pieces of paper. I’m not interest in either of yours.
You’re jealous of our program.
I now think that sooner or later, we’ll embark on a negotiation track.
I’m sure we’ll have good relations with the U.S., too. But it won’t happen overnight.
We need to defend the interests of our country and use common sense and pragmatic considerations
in our relations with any country.
There are such examples in today’s world. I’ll elaborate on them later.
Let’s compare the candidates’ inflection and tone of voice.
That’s one of the paradoxes of the current presidential campaign.
Like I said, the polls have Davankov at second, ahead of both Slutsky and Kharitonov.
It’s somewhat abnormal. Politics presupposes mastering the public speaking skills.
Even though Leonid Slutsky has zero experience in the military, he affects a drill sergeant’s inflections.
He almost sounds like he’s about to start barking drill commands.
Nikolai Kharitonov comes off as a confident speaker, too, with a Bolshevik zeal to his tone of voice.
So, why are both of them trailing to a bland Davankov one would even struggle to make an impression of?
Well, because the current reality is abnormal.
Russia is enmeshed in the deadliest war since theEastern Front action of WW2.
The barking speakers with a piercing stare who could’ve otherwise drawn the audience now sound offputting.
An average Russian voter is a middle-aged woman.
Two years into the war and 18 months into the conscription drive,
this voter’s outlook on the candidates has changed.
She’s trying to assess which of these guys are capable of sending her son to the battlefield and which aren’t.
With this in mind, it’s not he who’s the most pugnacious of the pack that wins.
It’s the one who resembles a normal guy that gets the nod.
He doesn’t have a distinct inflection or a trademark gesture.
He looks average, and his voice is more fit for singing a lullaby.
That’s exactly what hits the spot. Watching Davankov speak, the viewer is like,
“This shrimp is unlikely to send myself, my son, my dad, or my brother to our deaths.
The likes of him aren’t cut out for military leadership.
They don’t unleash mass purges or threaten to smash anyone with nukes.
They are the ones mumbling about tax holidays, interest rates, subsidies, and budget spending.
With this guy at the helm, my family will have a shot at a normal life without any fear.”
In a unique development, we can clearly see that a fair election in Russia would be won
by the most boring hopeful just because people are fed up with bouncy leaders and their difficult decisions.
PLATFORMS
Now, let’s take a look at the substance of what the candidates had to say.
On Feb. 29, the three guys were asked, “What should we do?
Go for the win or something else?”
The moderator almost gave away the “right answer,” citing the public opinion,
according to which, the war is allegedly a success.
Here’s what Davankov said.
My stance is that of my whole generation. The sooner we start negotiating, the sooner we’ll have peace.
That’s not just me saying it. I’m meeting with people.
My first question is always this, “Raise your hand if you want our troops to go to Warsaw
and start a war with NATO.” After 100 meetings in 25 regions, I’ve yet to see a single hand raised.
Slutsky.
Of course, we’ve got nothing to talk about with these guys today.
They won't negotiate. But Europe is beginning to develop a rift. Hungary, Slovakia,
and the Netherlands have awoken. I’m against the negotiations with someone who’s not up for
it and who’s swept by anti-Russian sentiment.
Kharitonov.
We can only start negotiating on our terms.
Two years ago, when the special operation started, we offered a deal to the Ukrainian leaders.
They turned it down. Both our foreign minister Lavrov and our president have repeatedly said,
“We’re open to negotiations.” There’s no other way.
But they have to agree to it. However, Zelenskyy has already signed a decree banning any negotiation.
If they do agree to our terms, we need to start the talks.
By this point, chances are, you know I’ll be voting for Vladislav Davankov. I’m not going to lie to you.
This video is meant to convince you to cast your ballot in his favor.
It’s not because I like Davankov as a candidate. I don’t. It’s that he’s now our best shot.
Our goal outweighs Davankov’s personality.
All of us should at least stand up for peace. The best-case scenario is to achieve it.
In answering the question, Nikolai Kharitonov sort of admitted that talks with Ukraine were an option.
And yet, he said something really bad.
And I don’t mean him saying the negotiations are only possible on Russia’s terms.
No, it’s a vague phrase, and anything could be in line with “Russia’s terms.”
I’m not nitpicking about similar statements coming from Davankov, either.
Who knows, they may humiliate or destroy you if you don't.
There’s more. Kharitonov said that President Zelenskyy had signed a decree banning any talks with Russia.
In reality, though, the decree prevents Ukraine from holding talks with Vladimir Putin,
and that’s the world of a difference.
Any president but Putin may negotiate with Zelenskyy.
It’s an ace up any of the candidates’ sleeve, if you think about it.
But needless to say, none of them used it because none of them are looking to win the election.
However, both Slutsky and Kharitonov aren’t using it. Worse, they’re effectively mucking their aces
Slutsky wants the war to keep going. Kharitonov echoed an important talking point of Putin’s propaganda.
We’ve paid much attention to the special military operation and, crucially, the support of those
who’ll soon get back home. A large portion of my program focuses on the reintegration of these people.
You may be led to believe that we’ve deliberately curated Davankov’s responses
to include the most reasonable statements and edited out the gibberish he said.
That’s true. For whatever reason, the ballot will include the guy who vows to restore normal life.
And that’s what matters most. And any baloney he unloads is now irrelevant.
We aren’t getting engaged with Davankov. We aspire to stop the war and put an end to countless deaths.
We want 100s of thousands of conscripts to get back home as opposed
to hardened criminals getting the presidential pardon.
Now, let’s turn to Leonid Slutsky’s election platform statements.
“The special military operation must culminate in Russia’s win and the victory of the Russian arms.
To reach the military goals in Ukraine, we need a surge in battlefield action.”
The candidate with this stance ranks the lowest. Davankov’s got double his rating.
As for Nikolai Kharitanov, his platform statements avoid any mention of the “special operation.”
He mostly focuses on welfare. During the debate, he didn’t exactly look like the dove of peace.
But unlike Slutsky, he didn’t come across as a diehard warmonger, either. His rating is higher than Slutsky’s.
Now, on to Davankov. He’s no elocutionist. None of the TV audience knows who the hell he is.
But unlike LDPR or the Communist Party that are household names with a constant following,
no one really knows about the New People party that nominated Davankov.
But the candidate is only 40 years old, and he argues for peace and a normal life.
This has already handed him a runner-up spot with one week out.
His platform statements even feature some really nice passages. Here’s the one about freedom:
“The development of society, economy, and technology is inextricably linked to advanced culture
and hassle-free creativity. We need to lift all the hurdles that are hampering creative individuals,
and ban censorship so that unbridled thought helps us build a country of our dreams.”
True, the current polls having Davankov at 7.5% against Putin’s 82% may look atrocious.
But the thing is, these are the responses given by the committed voters.
Most Russians will make their picks in the upcoming week.
Notably, another survey conducted by Russian field almost a year ago shows
that if there was a decent alternative candidate on the ballot,
45% of the Russians would vote for him as opposed to 41% giving the nod to Putin.
Again, that was a year ago. Now, the numbers must’ve changed, and they haven’t swayed Putin’s way.
If this survey is anything to go by, most Russians are ready for a runoff where Putin can lose.
But importantly, the alternative candidate should be the real deal, and not a Kremlin puppet.
We can try and convince the Russian public that there is such candidate on the ballot.
His name is Peaceful Life. He just happens to go by the alias “Davankov” that can be easily ignored,
as two years into the war, this is immaterial.
FRINGE PRESIDENT
This video has focused on the clips featuring Davankov, Kharitonov,
and Slutsky, and almost overlooked the front-runner: Vladimir Putin.
In a sense, he has eliminated himself from the discussion. He dodges the debates.
He doesn’t propose anything. Putin believes his Address to the Federal Assembly is his campaign speech,
but that’s not true. In his address, he used the words “need” and “should” 62 times,
but he gave a single pledge.
He vows to proceed with the war until the abstract and unattainable goals are reached. Indefinitely, that is.
Vladimir Putin stands for war, coffins, and disabilities. Crucially, though, he connotes unpredictability.
Two years ago he said this:
"I'd like to emphasize that mandatory draft soldiers aren't taking part in combat action.
Nor will they be. There'll be no extra call-up of the reservists, either.
The missions are being carried out by professional servicemembers only.
I'm certain they'll ensure peace and safety for the Russian people."
Those who stand for peace were expected to be kept off the ballot.
Such candidates were barred from gathering signatures and then kicked off the ballot
even when thousands of Russians had signed up for him.
Now the push for peace is represented by a wishy-washy establishment politician.
He’s not an opposition figure. Yet, he’s out there. He calls for peace and a normal life, and he’s on the ballot,
even though he may himself dread the possibility of people voting for him.
THE COMPOUND EFFECT
What are the odds of us turning the tables one week out? They are slim, but we should take a stab at it.
In this video, I mentioned the doctors who are trying to save patients’ lives even against the long odds.
To proceed with the analogy, the patient is first started on the most efficient meds.
If this treatment draws a blank, they get switched to different meds, however questionable.
Let’s use whatever we have at our disposal to try and knock Putin off his feet.
The odds are stacked against us, but they aren’t hopeless. Crucially, we can’t lose.
Whatever the scale of fraud favoring the pro-war candidate,
every single vote for peace is a clear signal sent to both the public and the elites.
The more the votes, the clearer the signal. Following this video,
Davankov may get the war slogans tattooed onto his forehead or go to the Donbas.
He won’t shake off the role we’ve assigned him.
Everyone will get the message: we’ve voted for peace and normalcy. Both the civil society, and the elites.
Davankov is the tool we’re wielding.
Let’s try to use it to derail Putin or at least deliver a blow to him. Let everyone contribute with their votes.
See you tomorrow!