Nearly a third of Flávio's voters vote for him to prevent Lula's victory, poll says

The poll found that opposition to the rival was a major reason, especially among Flávio Bolsonaro’s voters. Still, most voters said they were choosing their preferred candidate, not merely blocking the other.

Among Flávio voters, 31.2% said they supported him to prevent Lula’s victory. Among Lula voters, 23.6% said opposition to Flávio motivated them. This difference was 7.6 percentage points, showing stronger tactical voting among Flávio’s supporters.

Support remained the main explanation: 67.1% backed Flávio because they supported him, versus 72.1% for Lula. Rejection levels were similar, with 47.7% rejecting Lula and 46.5% rejecting Flávio. Flávio led valid votes 51.1% to 48.9%, but the race was statistically tied within the 2.5-point margin of error.

Some voters chose their candidate mainly to stop the opponent from winning. This rejection-driven voting shows how strongly dislike shaped the runoff.

Among Flávio Bolsonaro’s voters, 31.2% said preventing Lula’s victory was their main motivation. Among Lula’s voters, 23.6% said they voted against Flávio. Thus, Flávio’s share was 7.6 percentage points higher.

Still, support mattered more than opposition for both candidates. Support motivated 67.1% of Flávio voters and 72.1% of Lula voters. The poll suggests a competitive race driven by enthusiasm and resistance. It interviewed 1,500 voters by phone from October 15 to 19, with a 2.5-point margin of error.

It means choosing a candidate mainly because you want to stop the other candidate from winning. The vote expresses opposition to one option, rather than strong enthusiasm for the chosen candidate. This can shape close elections significantly.

In the cited 2026 runoff survey, 31.2% of Flávio Bolsonaro’s voters said preventing Lula’s victory was their main motivation. Among Lula voters, 23.6% said opposition to Flávio drove their choice. This is a strategic vote: dislike of one candidate outweighs personal support for the other.

Still, support mattered more overall: 67.1% backed Flávio because they supported him, compared with 72.1% for Lula. Rejection levels were similar, at 47.7% for Lula and 46.5% for Flávio. Flávio led the valid-vote estimate, 51.1% to 48.9%, but the candidates were technically tied within the margin of error.

Lula teve 47,7% de rejeição, e Flávio Bolsonaro, 46,5%. Essa pergunta mede a rejeição máxima: quantos eleitores descartam completamente um candidato, independentemente de outras opções ou circunstâncias.

Na prática, o entrevistado não está dizendo necessariamente em quem votará. Está afirmando que seu voto jamais iria para aquele nome. Assim, a diferença de 1,2 ponto percentual sugere resistência semelhante aos dois candidatos, não uma vantagem clara de popularidade.

Esse resultado importa porque a rejeição também influencia o segundo turno. Segundo a pesquisa, 31,2% dos eleitores de Flávio votam para impedir Lula, enquanto 23,6% dos eleitores de Lula fazem isso contra Flávio. Ainda assim, a intenção de voto mostra Flávio com 51,1% dos votos válidos. Lula aparece com 48,9%, mantendo os dois tecnicamente empatados. A margem de erro é de 2,5 pontos percentuais.

A technical tie means the candidates’ reported support is so close that polling uncertainty could reverse their positions. Here, Flávio has 51.1% of valid votes, while Lula has 48.9%, a difference of only 2.2 points.

The poll’s margin of error is 2.5 percentage points, higher than that difference. In practice, either candidate’s measured support could vary within that range, so the numbers may overlap. The poll therefore cannot confidently show a real lead.

The Meio/Ideia survey interviewed 1,500 voters by phone between October 15 and 19. It has 95% confidence and is registered with Brazil’s electoral authority. Flávio may be ahead in the estimate, but the result remains genuinely open. Small changes in turnout, undecided voters, or polling error could affect the final outcome.

Brazil’s two-round system gives voters a second choice when no candidate wins a majority initially. The leading candidates face each other, and the candidate with more valid votes wins. This converts both enthusiastic support and opposition into a final decision.

In the 2026 contest described, the runoff is between Lula and Flávio Bolsonaro. 31.2% of Flávio voters mainly wanted to block Lula, according to the Meio/Ideia poll. Among Lula voters, 23.6% mainly wanted to block Flávio. Thus, a runoff can unite voters behind a candidate they prefer, or against an unwanted alternative.

At the same time, most voters reported positive support: 67.1% for Flávio and 72.1% for Lula. The poll showed Flávio ahead among valid votes, 51.1% to Lula’s 48.9%, a technical tie. With a 2.5-point margin of error, the result shows why final turnout and persuasion matter.

A margin of error shows how much a poll result may differ from the wider electorate’s actual figure. Here, ±2.5 points means an estimate could reasonably be about 2.5 points higher or lower. At 95% confidence, similar polls would capture the true figure in roughly 95 out of 100 samples.

The poll interviewed 1,500 voters by telephone between October 15 and 19. It reported Flávio Bolsonaro with 51.1% of valid votes and Lula with 48.9%. Adding and subtracting 2.5 points creates overlapping ranges, because random differences arise whenever researchers survey a sample instead of everyone.

Therefore, the poll does not prove Flávio will win. It indicates a very close race, with both candidates’ plausible results overlapping. The reported 2.2-point lead is smaller than the 5-point combined uncertainty between estimates. The conclusion should be that the candidates are technically tied, as the article states.