The chances of the polls being wrong in the second round are much lower as well.

The level of statistical complexity of a poll with at least six candidates to be taken even minimally seriously, as in the first round, cannot be compared to a contest limited to just two.

What's left behind are movements not captured by research institutes, such as the vote of the Bolsonaro contingent—voters who supported Simone Tebet and Ciro Gomes—for Bolsonaro, precisely to prevent Lula's victory in the first round.

But what about the other factor that helped mask the intention to vote for Bolsonaro, which was the "shy vote"? How do we quantify the voters who, given the terrible public image of the current occupant of the presidency, tell the interviewer that they are undecided or intend to cast a null or blank vote?

To avoid this underreporting of votes, Ipec included some indirect questions in its first second-round questionnaire with the aim of extracting people's real voting intentions. One of these questions is asking, preliminarily, who they voted for in the first round.

Much water will still flow under the bridge, and to confirm the victory, Lula's campaign cannot forgo significant street mobilization and intense activity on social media.

That being said, Lula's favoritism is undeniable, as already confirmed by the three second-round polls released so far.

Beyond these favorable polls, Lula's extremely high voter loyalty has everything it needs to elect him president for the third time on the 30th.

Bolsonaro would need to convince a portion of Lula's voters to switch sides. Let's face it, at the moment, that's almost as difficult as Sergeant Garcia convincing Zorro to change his mind.

We will win.