"Financial institutions don't conduct election polls out of a public interest," says Marcos Coimbra.

247 - In interview with the program good night 247Sociologist and political scientist Marcos Coimbra, president of the Vox Populi Institute, vehemently criticized the political use of electoral polls financed by financial institutions. According to him, these surveys are not motivated by public spirit, but rather by the specific interests of economic and media groups seeking to influence the political debate.

“We probably shouldn’t assume that it’s altruism or public spirit that motivates financial market institutions to conduct this type of survey and give it wide publicity,” said Coimbra, commenting on the research released by Banco Genial and prominently reported by the mainstream press. According to the political scientist, this data has been used to fuel a narrative of erosion of the Lula government, in a joint effort between the financial market, the traditional media, and sectors of the far right.

Coimbra observed that there is a recurring tendency to treat surveys on government approval ratings as an anticipation of the population's electoral behavior, when, according to him, this data says little about what will actually happen at the polls. “The association or dissociation between approval ratings and voting can be extremely significant. Lula had 60% of the vote intention at the end of 2021 and finished the first round with about six points of advantage. Bolsonaro, with 30% at the same time, finished the second round with 48,5% of the votes,” he recalled. The case of Jair Bolsonaro, for him, is illustrative: even with strong disapproval of his handling of the pandemic, the former president almost won the election.

Coimbra also highlighted the discrepancy between the real profile of the electorate and the samples used in the surveys. According to him, there is a widespread disinterest in politics among the population, which compromises the representativeness of the data. “More than 50% of the adult Brazilian population cannot answer any basic political question correctly, such as the name of the vice-president or the president of the Chamber of Deputies. How can that person possibly give a qualified answer regarding government evaluation?” he questioned. In his assessment, the statistical samples are assembled based on simplified criteria, such as education and income, but fail to accurately capture the behavior and motivation of voters.

The traditional media's coverage of the polls was also criticized by Coimbra, who sees these movements as an attempt to artificially create a crisis environment within the government. “The Genial Quest poll occupied the entire day on the main corporate media websites, with prominent coverage, subheadings, and opposing headlines. There is a clear movement to exploit these polls to the maximum to construct narratives,” he said. According to him, President Lula understands this political game well and reacts with skepticism. “Lula is well aware that polls at this stage of the game mean very little. He has a set of experiences and background that allows him to treat this kind of noise made by these economic groups with great caution.”

Coimbra defended the use of internal government surveys as a tool for evaluating management, but warned that extrapolating this data to electoral analyses is a mistake. “The government conducts surveys because it wants to evaluate itself. It doesn't want to arrive three years ahead already defeated. Understanding how it is being perceived is part of the management process,” he argued. For him, the fundamental question to be asked in political surveys is not about the approval of specific policies, but about the voter's willingness to vote for a particular candidate. “The real question is: do you have any reason to want this person to be president of the Republic? Will you vote for them?”

The political scientist also pointed out that the difficulty governments face in obtaining positive approval ratings is a global phenomenon. Citing international data, he stated that of the 25 largest democratic countries in the world, only three register predominantly favorable evaluations of their governments. "In the other almost 20, the evaluation is negative. This shows that there is a phenomenon that transcends parties and ideologies, affecting left-wing, center, and right-wing governments," he analyzed.

At the end of the interview, Marcos Coimbra downplayed the possibility of Jair Bolsonaro being competitive again in a potential presidential race. According to him, what gave the former president electoral viability in 2022 was the fact that he was in office and could use the public machinery. “The only thing that made Bolsonaro competitive when he was in office was the position he held: he was sitting in a chair in the Palácio do Planalto (Presidential Palace). Did he need to double the Bolsa Família (family allowance program)? He could. Did he need to give money to taxi drivers? He could. The right wing won't have that in 2026 because they won't be in government,” he concluded. Watch: