“We have to talk to all the people in this country who didn’t vote with us in the first round,” said the Labor Party presidential standard-bearer during an event with allies in Sao Paulo.
He insisted that “elections now (the second round on October 30) are not ideological, we will talk to all political forces that have a voice,” representation, and the political importance of adding Democrats to a bloc against those who don’t. .
Before the elections, Lula received 48.43% (57.2 million) of the valid votes in the first round compared to 43.20 (51 million) for Bolsonaro, who aspires to be re-elected by the Liberal Party.
The former labor leader and former military officer failed to obtain an absolute majority of the votes, i.e. more than half of the valid votes (excluding null votes and invalid votes), as stipulated in the national legislation to be elected.
For months, polls had indicated that Lula was the favorite to return to the Planalto Palace (the seat of the executive branch), even after winning the first consultation.
However, according to analysts, there was an unexpected revival in polsonarists (supporters of the ruler) and a conservative wave that contrasted with surveys of institutes and accredited advisors.
Political commentators maintain that these actors were able to strengthen the rhetoric and movement against Lula and the Labor Party that had a surprising effect on the historic election day.
They determined that the presidential suitors of the so-called Third Way (centre left), eliminated in the first round, would be important.
His followers, who saw that his candidate did not win, are expected to support the vote of the two candidates who will face each other in the second round.
In particular, the voters of Senator Simon Tebet, of the Brazilian Democratic Movement, and former minister Ciro Gomes, of the Democratic Workers’ Party, two presidential candidates ranked third and fourth in the vote count.
The results of the first round frustrated the expectations of the polls, and in expert assessment, the number of errors threatens the credibility of elective research firms.
For doctor in political science Leandro Gabbiatti, research institutes are part of the electoral process and help the voter to better understand the context in which they will vote, but low firmness hampers the voting scenario.
rgh / ocs
“Award-winning alcohol trailblazer. Hipster-friendly internetaholic. Twitter ninja. Infuriatingly humble beer lover. Pop culture nerd.”