Patricia Bullrich and Milei's Plan B: how to retain the voter who says "yes, but"

Patricia Bullrich and Javier Milei A question is beginning to hover over Argentine politics as 2027 approaches: what happens to the voters who want Javier Milei to continue, but are not willing to follow him on everything? These are the ones who back fiscal balance, the fight against inflation, the security policy, and the attempt to end certain practices of traditional politics. But at the same time, they are uncomfortable with some of the President's ways, they demand that the economic recovery reach their pockets, and they hope that the change does not sweep away certain institutional limits. They are the voters of the "yes, but." Those who can say yes to the direction, but not to every decision. Those who do not want to return to the past, although they are not necessarily satisfied with everything happening in the present. In that space appears Patricia Bullrich. And her recent movements allow for a hypothesis: perhaps she is not building a plan to push Milei out of the center of La Libertad Avanza, but rather to prevent those who have reservations about the President from seeking an alternative outside the ruling party. The events of recent days have given that possibility a new dimension. On Friday, October 23, during the Fundación Faro dinner, Milei once again used extremely harsh expressions against journalists who investigated the $LIBRA case. He spoke of "burning them at the stake." The next day, Bullrich published a photograph embracing the President and highlighted the event as "a night of ideas and of freedom." But on Sunday came the contrast. In a television interview, the senator questioned the presidential remarks and held that Milei had "crossed a line." "Defending freedom also means respecting those who question us," she said. And she added a definition that marks a conceptual difference: faced with criticism, "one responds with arguments." The sequence is eloquent: first, the photo of closeness; then, the public differentiation. Bullrich does not disavow the libertarian identity nor her belonging to the government, but she sets a limit against presidential conduct she considers unwise. Javier Milei, Patricia Bullrich, Karina Milei and Diego Santilli On Monday the 26th came another episode. The senator did not attend the cabinet meeting led by Milei at the Casa Rosada. The government spoke of personal reasons. However, various journalistic reconstructions linked the absence to her displeasure over the attacks on the press and to the differences that were beginning to become visible around the Brazilian elections. There is no single explanation that allows attributing the no-show exclusively to a political reason, but its timing fed the interpretations. And on Wednesday the 28th, Bullrich once again marked a difference. While Milei decided not to issue an official congratulatory message to Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva for his victory over Flávio Bolsonaro, the senator acknowledged the Brazilian election result. "The people decide at the ballot box and their will is respected," she wrote. She also criticized the use of a justice system that is not impartial as a tool to eliminate the opposition. This is not about portraying Bullrich as a leader who abandons her political convictions. In fact, she backed Flávio Bolsonaro during the campaign. The difference is another: one thing is having ideological preferences and another is refusing to accept the outcome of an election. The senator defended respect for the popular will even when the winner belongs to a political space with which she has deep differences. Press, institutions, economic results, and electoral recognition: the nuances begin to form a pattern of differentiation. The question is whether that pattern responds only to personal convictions or whether it may also have a political utility within the ruling coalition. It is not the first time Bullrich has moved in that direction. In August she had called for "faster results so that the change is felt in everyday life." The phrase pointed to one of the government's main challenges: turning macroeconomic indicators into improvements perceptible to families. She also differentiated herself when the continuation of judicial candidate María Verónica Michelli was discussed, and when she refused to promote an impeachment trial against judges who had questioned aspects of the juvenile penal regime. In the latter case she held that judicial decisions must be debated through the corresponding avenues of review, not through the political persecution of judges. Patricia Bullrich in the Senate Added to those episodes were her social media posts. First, a video set to "No me importa" by Lali Espósito. Then, a piece that ended with a phrase with an electoral tone: "Patricia knows the strength of the Argentine people. Patricia knows Argentina." The video fueled speculation about a possible project of her own, although it does not in itself constitute a confirmation of a presidential run. The question is what all this means for the ruling party. In the world of polls and political consulting, the concept of "siperismo" began to circulate. The expression attempts to describe those who answer "yes, but": they support central aspects of the change driven by Milei, while retaining objections about his ways, his costs, or his results. They are not necessarily moderates or centrists. They can be voters convinced that Argentina needed a profound change, but who do not consider that change to justify just any conduct or any delay in the recovery of their incomes. It is there that Bullrich could fulfill a specific function. Her implicit message would be: it is not necessary to abandon La Libertad Avanza to express disagreement with certain decisions. It is possible to support the direction and, at the same time, demand corrections. The hypothesis has an electoral logic. If those voters find within the ruling party a voice that represents them, they might have fewer incentives to seek an alternative outside the coalition. Bullrich could thus become a kind of guarantor of the nuances: a leader who upholds the overall project but seeks to set limits and represent the demands of those who do not adhere to Milei without reservation. Javier Milei, Karina Milei and Patricia Bullrich on the balcony of the Casa Rosada The question is how. Milei—and Karina—is determined that there be no PASO primaries. That—in line with the argument of this column—would be a problem for Patricia Bullrich. "Patricia does not want to eliminate or suspend the PASO," chorus a dozen allied senators of the government. The primaries constitute a tool that would allow the senator to compete against the President for the candidacy in 2027. Aware of that, the president of the Chamber of Deputies and right-hand man of the President's sister, Martín Menem, came out last Friday to mark his territory. "There are not two presidential candidates in La Libertad Avanza. That is my position. I am vice president of the party at the national level and president for my district, which is La Rioja, and I would say it is unanimous that the only candidate of La Libertad Avanza is Javier Milei," he said in a clear message to Bullrich. In the end, the math and public opinion will weigh. Public image data provide an additional element, though they must be read with caution. In a poll by D'Alessio IROL and Berensztein released in October, Bullrich registered 45% positive image and 51% negative, compared with Milei's 35% positive and 62% negative. Other polls showed different results, even with similar figures for both. Therefore, one cannot assert that a uniform advantage exists, nor turn personal image into an automatic estimate of votes. What can be said is that Bullrich retains a level of recognition and a base of approval that make her positioning politically relevant. There is, moreover, a difference between demand and supply. That there is an electorate wanting continuity with corrections does not mean a competitive third force already exists, nor that Bullrich will lead it. Nor does it prove that her public differences are part of a strategy agreed upon with Milei. For now, that belongs to the realm of hypotheses. But the dilemma of 2027 is set. The election might not be organized solely between continuity and change, but also around a debate within the ruling space itself: what it means to continue, which aspects of the course must be preserved, and which need corrections. Bullrich seems to be exploring that position without formally breaking with the government. Her statements on the economy, her reservations about the attacks on journalism, her absence from the cabinet meeting, and her recognition of the election result in Brazil are distinct episodes, but they can be read as expressions of the same search for autonomy. The challenge for Milei is that the economic and political course he proposes does not depend only on keeping his most convinced voters. He also needs to retain those who supported him to end a model they rejected, but who expect results and limits they consider indispensable. Perhaps the true "plan B" is not an alternative candidate nor an imminent rupture. Perhaps it is something less visible and, at the same time, decisive: preventing the voters who say "yes, but" from having to leave La Libertad Avanza to find someone who listens to them.