Less than a week before the October 25 runoff, Flávio Bolsonaro maintains a narrow lead while Lula regains the initiative.
By Daniel Zovatto (Confidencial)
HAVANA TIMES — In politics, confidence can become a liability, and fear can become a resource. One week before Brazil’s October 25 runoff, Flavio Bolsonaro (far right, candidate of the Liberal Party) is trying to prevent his supporters from mistaking the narrow lead he secured in the first round of 1.87% for a guaranteed victory and staying home on election day.
Meanwhile, incumbent President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva (left) is seeking to turn the relief of remaining competitive into a comeback. Both candidates have reasons to mobilize their supporters. Neither has grounds to consider the election settled.
The difference between their moods matters less than the gap between their vote totals.
The Polls
The latest Datafolha poll puts Flávio at 51% of valid votes and Lula at 49%, placing them in a statistical tie within the two-percentage-point margin of error. A Quaest poll reports the same distribution.
The conclusion requires precision: Flavio retains the numerical lead, but the polls do not allow anyone to say with certainty who will win on October 25. The runoff remains wide open.
There is also a difference between narrowing the gap and expanding one’s support. In Datafolha, Flavio fell from 49% to 47% of the total electorate, while Lula remained at 45%. The incumbent’s camp has improved its relative position without yet demonstrating an expansion of its support. Interpreting this shift as a completed comeback would be just as premature as treating the first-round result as irreversible.
Lula’s Strategy
The president enters the final week with a recent psychological advantage: his campaign once again believes it can win. Rallies, online activity, and the recent reform ending the six-days-on, one-day-off work schedule allow him to revive a conversation he needs to have: what can improve in Brazilians’ everyday lives if he remains in power?
However, the electoral calendar places limits on the government’s ability to generate gratitude. Announcing benefits is quicker than turning them into improved well-being. Promises of economic relief may reinforce existing loyalties, but voters who already feel disappointed demand more than a new offer made just days before the election.
That is Lula’s central problem. His political record is an enormous asset, but it also makes it harder for him to present himself as the answer to dissatisfaction with the present. He must defend his government while simultaneously persuading voters that another term would be different.
The memory of upward social mobility can sustain a political identity, but on its own, it does not guarantee the return of those who believe they have stopped moving forward.
A recent report in El País about former Lula voters who now support Bolsonaro sheds light on this difficulty. Their accounts combine appreciation for social policies with frustration over public services, entrepreneurial aspirations, criticism of corruption and the lack of security in the face of organized crime, all accompanied by a desire for change. They do not represent the electorate as a whole, but they illustrate why it would be a mistake to assume that lower-income voters will remain permanently aligned with the left.
Flavio’s Strategy
Flávio has the opposite advantage: he can offer a change of government without having to answer for the current administration’s record.
His lead of approximately 2.2 million votes in the first round gives him a concrete base of support. The cost of living and public security allow him to contest the election on issues that put the president on the defensive.
But he also faces a contradiction. He must capitalize on the Bolsonaro political identity while offering reassurances to those who distrust it. His surname mobilizes a loyal base, yet it raises questions about how independent a potential presidency would be. The more he seeks to broaden his coalition, the more he will need to explain which decisions he would make on his own.
His commitment to preserving the end of the six-days-on, one-day-off work schedule reveals this pressure. Accepting a reform associated with his opponent may reduce an electoral risk, but it blurs the distinction between the two candidates. Lula faces a similar difficulty when he agrees to lower the age of criminal responsibility to 16 for heinous crimes. Both are adjusting their positions because they recognize that their bases, although substantial, may not be sufficient to win.
The Importance—and Limits—of Rallies
In this context, rallies serve a purpose that goes beyond the photographs. They generate enthusiasm, recruit campaign workers, and convey the impression that victory is possible. For Lula, they help combat defeatism. For Flavio, they help counter complacency.
Crowds, however, measure intensity rather than representativeness. A packed avenue cannot tell us how an entire country will vote.
The decisive test will be turning that energy into voter turnout. Approximately 33 million voters stayed away from the polls in the first round. If we add blank and invalid ballots, nearly 25% of the almost 159 million eligible voters either did not vote, cast an invalid ballot, or abstained.
Both campaigns are now seeking to win over a share of this electorate. In a close election, persuading a supporter to turn out can be just as valuable as convincing an opponent to switch candidates.
Abstention is not politically neutral, either. In places where gubernatorial races have already been decided, an additional incentive to vote disappears.
The campaigns need grassroots organization, information, and a local presence, in addition to national slogans. The effectiveness of the final Sunday will depend on work that is far less visible than the major rallies.
The Debates
One debate remains: with Globo on Friday, October 23. The other was held on Band on October 18th.
The debates are the candidates’ first direct encounters during the campaign. Their importance lies precisely in this shared exposure: the candidates have to respond under conditions their campaign teams can control less than they can in an interview or at their own events.
We should not attribute miraculous powers to these debates. Datafolha finds that 93% of voters say they have already made up their minds. But a small fraction can be enough when the margin is equally small. The debates may influence undecided voters, reinforce existing convictions, or change people’s willingness to vote. Their effects will continue after the broadcasts, through clips circulating on social media and in private conversations.
Lula needs to demonstrate energy, command of the issues, and a vision for the future that does not rely exclusively on his past.
Flavio must demonstrate that the desire for change can translate into a trustworthy presidency.
Both will try to make their opponent’s vulnerabilities the central topic of discussion. The risk will be satisfying those who are already convinced while alienating the voters they still need to win over.
The final week therefore presents two different tasks. Lula must turn his renewed momentum into additional votes. Flavio must transform his lead into an effective majority. The first task requires expansion; the second, discipline.
Neither can afford major mistakes.
Final Thoughts
Brazil enters the final week with a narrow lead and decisive uncertainty. Lula has regained the initiative, but he still needs to turn it into new votes. Flavio retains the lead, but he risks allowing confidence to demobilize the very supporters he needs to sustain it.
The polls describe this balance; the ballot boxes will resolve it. Power will go to whoever succeeds in turning support into voter participation.
Until then, Lula’s renewed hope and Flávio’s lead are simply two different expressions of a victory that remains undecided.
First published in Spanish by Confidencial and translated and posted in English by Havana Times.