Under the old electoral law, party campaigns have little effect on the bottom line, as trends set in four years cannot easily be reversed in a 30-day campaign, however correct.

In recent years, the latter has been questioned as the deregulation of party identification and greater volatility in voting results increase the importance of the last days of elections and therefore of election campaigns.

In the election campaigns for the elections of May 21, it seems that – except for the unexpected – the old passage is confirmed. Party campaigns do not seem to reverse long-standing trends, but to a certain extent strengthen or weaken them.

The campaigns of most parties were quite “professional” and modern in their aesthetics. They also tried to communicate with a wider audience, both with extensive use of social media and with the presence of leading politicians on non-political broadcasts.

Campaign N.D. she was extremely disciplined. Both in his advertising section and in his public speeches, he repeated the same arguments. “Stability”, “we are not going back”, “we have taken many steps”, “we will do even more”. Strategically, he balanced between promoting what he considers his strengths (development, reducing unemployment, strengthening the country, digitalization of the state, etc.) and promising the next day in areas of high interest, while there was no shortage of self-criticism.

Party campaigns do not seem to reverse long-standing trends, but to a certain extent strengthen or weaken them.

The most positive element of the ND campaign was the consistency in its messages and focus on its own electoral dilemmas. And, undoubtedly, the most interesting in terms of communication is the presence of Mr. Mitsotakis on TikTok. Not only because it connected to a younger audience that N.D. he lags behind in the elections, but because he did it effectively. The (often self-deprecating) humor, self-comfort, behind-the-scenes stories and the excellent focus of his posts greatly improved the image of a politician with objective difficulties in creating a personal identity.

On the contrary, the SYRIZA campaign, despite the correct strategy in its advertising part, where it focused on “everyday” problems and had as its main characters not Mr. Tsipras, but citizens from various social groups, had a fundamental weakness: it was not consistent in his messages to her. Often, the party’s public discourse did not support the content of its campaign and main messages (“Justice Everywhere”), but introduced issues that tended to create confusion. Tellingly, while SYRIZA’s commercials have focused on issues such as accuracy, borrower exposure, and government vulnerabilities such as the case of wiretapping, SYRIZA’s own policy initiatives have changed the autopsy agenda, with messages and scripts that do not were stable. Some considered Mr. Varoufakis a potential ally, others that he “excluded himself.” On the one hand, they “sculpted” PASOK, on ​​the other, they left hints against him. Moving from a progressive government to a “government of tolerance” and from there to a “government of special purpose” – and always with the condition of being the first party – SYRIZA itself obfuscated its message. And the sharp personal attacks on Mr. Mitsotakis (often with the rhetoric and aesthetics of the 80s) not only seemed inconsistent with the rather low-key atmosphere of the pre-election period, but also undermined Mr. Tsipras’ obvious and (strategically correct) effort to create a more calm, mature and a soft image compared to the past.

Throughout the pre-election period, PASOK bore the stress of a “frog” in a swamp with “buffaloes”. While he essentially stayed away from both big names, taking a hardline anti-government line while also rejecting SYRIZA’s proposals, stylistically he seems to have leaned more to the left. Something that, even if it expresses its leaders, it is doubtful that it expresses its electoral base. PASOK also faced issues of mismatch between advertising campaign and public discourse. Although his campaign was programmatic, his officials’ public discourse usually revolved around issues of manageability and commentary on current events.

The three smaller parties in parliament focused on the faces of their leaders. On the other hand, the KKE, although it does not invest in people other than party symbols, has used Mr. Kutsubu and his various sayings, which have gone viral. As for Mr. Varoufakis’s MeRA25, the momentum he seemed to have gained after the Tempi tragedy did not last, probably because he did not update his agenda but reverted to rather outdated issues from 2015. While Mr. Velopoulos, kindly during his presence at the debate of political figures, he tried to express the space to the right of N.D., but something extremely complex due to its excessive fragmentation.

We will know in a few hours whether the May 21st election will be a coup (of forecasts and theories) or a confirmation election. Unchanging trends, but also the classic rule that the election is won by the one who broadcasts the most correct message in the correct style from the respective networks.

* Mr. Yutihis Vardoulakis is a Strategy and Communications Consultant.