general election: prelim round 5

after the initial exchanges of a few blows, all has quieten down. both sides are reassessing their positions. who has done the right things and is on the upper hand after the brief encounter? pap started by attacking the wp manifesto as a time bomb and a poison and demanded condescendingly that the wp must change its manifesto or else. it is a talk down tactic by the strong against the weak and it puts the wp on the defensive, giving the impression that wp has erred seriously and pap knows best. this immediately drew response from the opposition as a high and mighty attitude and undemocratic. a bullying tactic. how are all these gesturings being perceived by the voters? would the voters bite the pap reasoning and say yes wp is dangerous and up to no good. cannot be trusted to be given the vote. or would the voters said, well, all these are political stance and may even say, stop the bullying. if the later, then it will put the pap in a not so comfortable start. a big bully small contest. and then there were some follow up comments that pap sure win. would this be taken by the voters as jumping the gun or taking them for granted? arrogance? the issues are simmering and probably both parties are discussing their positions after the initial standoff. anyone gains an upper hand?