CNN Indonesia
Tuesday, 09 Jan 2024 06:25 IWST
INDEF said that Anies Baswedan was considered an intelligent figure, Prabowo Subianto was considered firm, Ganjar Pranowo was considered to appear with intelligent answers in the debate. (ANTARA FOTO/Aditya Pradana Putra)
Jakarta, CNN Indonesia —
The Continuum Institute released public views on social media regarding the three presidential candidates at the event third debate for the 2024 presidential election on Sunday (7/1) night.
Presidential candidate number 1 Anies Baswedan is considered an intelligent figure, presidential candidate number 2 Prabowo Subianto is considered firm, while presidential candidate number 3 Ganjar Pranowo is considered to appear by giving intelligent answers.
This includes the analysis presented by Continuum INDEF Data Analyst Maisie Sagita in the public discussion “Elaborating on the presidential candidates’ ideas about geopolitics and defense” which was held by Continuum online, Monday (8/1).
First, Maisie explained that Anies received the most public attention, namely 45.7 percent. Then, Prabowo was highlighted by 36.8 percent and Ganjar was highlighted by 17.6 percent.
Even though he was the most highlighted, Anies apparently received the lowest positive sentiment among his two competitors. Meanwhile, Ganjar achieved the highest positive sentiment at 81.7 percent. Followed by Prabowo with 61.6 percent and Anies at 47.9 percent.
Furthermore, Maisie also explored what was in the public spotlight for each of the presidential candidates.
Anies Baswedan
The topics of Anies’ positive conversation were that Anies was indeed intelligent (67.94 percent), Indonesia was heading for change (18.23 percent), and his explanations were calm and insightful (13.83 percent).
“Anies is seen by the public as an intelligent person. This can be seen from his calm and insightful explanation. The public again feels enlightened by Anies’ explanation,” said Maisie in a broadcast on YouTube INDEF.
Anies is also seen by the public as a figure who can bring Indonesia towards change.
Maisie also said that her party had previously analyzed the ‘Desak Anies’ campaign strategy program which had received a positive response. He said that this program made the public see Anies as an intelligent leader because he could provide answers that were considered to provide solutions to current problems.
Meanwhile, the topic of Anies’ negative conversation in last night’s debate was that Anies was again highlighted as a figure who likes to make sweet promises.
The details of the negative topics are, namely just talking, making lots of sweet promises (59.35 percent), attacking to bring down your opponent (15.20 percent), attacking with sarcasm (10.62 percent), danger, being a horse-fight (7.03 percent). ), has no ethics (5.36 percent), and Anies’ data is wrong (2.44 percent).
Maisie explained that what the public is really worried about is that Anies’ intelligence in conveying these sweet words is just words without real action if he is elected president in the future.
“Then, one of Anies’ strategies, where he attacked other candidate pairs, also received attention. The public considered that Anies’ attack was unethical and the aim was only to bring down opponents, pitting one against another,” explained Maisie.
Prabowo Subianto
Furthermore, one of the positive topics in Prabowo’s spotlight is that the public appreciated his firmness in not wanting to reveal confidential data previously requested by Anies and Ganjar.
Maisie said that Prabowo’s determination not to reveal this confidential data was appreciated because the public felt that there was indeed confidential data that should not be disclosed to the public.
The details of the data are leaders who are firm and polite (35.52 percent), support Prabowo (30.64 percent), Prabowo’s answer is the most reasonable (13.52 percent), Prabowo’s real work is visible (11.04 percent), and data secrets must not be revealed to the public (9.29 percent).
Meanwhile, on the topic of negative discussion, Prabowo is seen as a person who gets emotional or emotional easily.
“On the negative side, Prabowo is considered too emotional,” said Maisie.
The detailed data is that you look emotional (48.76 percent), you can see who is talking without data (25.54 percent), don’t attack personally (10.38 percent), slip off, answer less (7.10 percent), don’t be anti-criticism (3.75 percent), don’t take Indonesia’s wealth (2.72 percent), and be too ambitious (1.76 percent).
Maisie also said that there were several members of the public who discussed Prabowo’s inability to reveal data when asked by other candidate pairs.
“There are two sides to disclosing this data, so there are some members of the public who feel that Pak Prabowo’s attitude of not disclosing the data is the right attitude because the data is confidential data. But on the other hand, the public also regrets that Pak Prabowo cannot show real data. “in order to be able to refute attacks from other candidate pairs. Therefore, the public felt that during last night’s debate, Pak Prabowo was unable to answer questions asked by other candidates,” said Maisie.
Ganjar Pranowo
Then, the topic of positive conversation with Ganjar was considered to be similar to Anies.
In last night’s debate, Maisie said that the public considered Ganjar to be a figure who mastered the debate theme. This, he said, can be seen from his answers which look intelligent.
The details of the data are Ganjar’s answers are intelligent (30.85 percent), choose the honest one (28.07 percent), support for a prosperous, advanced and superior Indonesia (18.27 percent), calm and firm delivery (13.81 percent), and Ganjar mastered the debate theme (8.99 percent).
“Apart from that, the public also praised Ganjar’s delivery which was considered quite calm and firm, so that what was conveyed could be well understood by the public,” said Maisie.
Meanwhile, the topic of negative discussion with Ganjar is not much different from Anies, namely it is related to the strategy of attacking his debate opponent.
“Regarding his strategy of bringing down other candidate pairs, Ganjar’s attitude is considered less than ethical and there are still other strategies that should be used,” said Maisie.
Details of the topics of negative discussion are that the debate must be ethical, don’t drop it (25.01 percent), just talk (21.89 percent), don’t corner other candidate pairs (20.98 percent), taking care of Central Java has failed (17.80 percent ), Ganjar’s answer was incoherent (7.97 percent), and Ganjar was incited by Anies (6.34 percent).
The data analyzed by Continuum came from social media YouTube and TikTok regarding the presidential candidate debate on Sunday (7/1) evening. A total of 51,344 conversations and 29,698 social media accounts were analyzed.
The details are 13,576 conversations or comments from TikTok, while the number of accounts is 11,661 accounts. Meanwhile, Continuum analyzed 37,768 conversations of three live broadcasts of presidential candidate debates from YouTube, the General Election Commission (KPU), KompasTV, and Narasi. The conversation came from 18,037 YouTube accounts.
(pop/isn)
Watch the Video Below:
2024-01-08 23:25:09
#Public #Spotlight #Debate #Anies #Ganjar #Smart #Prabowo #Firm
