Brasilien

[Schneemann]

Und auch die Wahlen in Brasilien sind knapper ausgegangen als bislang prognostiziert (es war ja teils ein Abstand von Lula auf Bolsonaro von bis zu 14 Prozent vorhergesagt worden). Nach den bislang vorliegenden Ergebnissen sind die beiden Antagonisten nur etwa fünf Prozent auseinander, wenngleich auch Lula gewonnen hat. Es steht nun noch die Stichwahl Ende Oktober an, und es wird sicherlich in dieser aufgeheizten Stimmung hoch hergehen, zumal es durchaus knapp werden könnte.

Eine Analyse, weswegen die Umfragen so daneben lagen:

Why did the Brazil election pollsters get Bolsonaro’s vote so wrong?

One expert says many surveys overrepresented poor voters, and far-right supporters may just not respond. [...]

Far from being a sweeping win for the left, the first round of Brazil’s presidential elections was much closer than expected, with the country’s far-right president significantly outperforming predictions.

With almost all votes counted on Monday, Jair Bolsonaro’s veteran leftist rival, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, had secured 48.3%, while the populist incumbent was just five percentage points behind on 43.3%, a much narrower margin than most pre-election estimates. [...] Some of Brazil’s most respected pollsters, Ipec and DataFolha, had shown Lula tantalisingly close to avoiding a second-round runoff with 50% or more of first-round votes, excluding blank and spoiled ballots. Both predicted Lula would emerge with a 13- or 14-point margin over Bolsonaro, who was projected to win just 36% or 37% of the vote. Other late polls also placed the leftist within the margin of error of outright victory in the first round. [...]

In Brazil’s election, Andrei Roman of the pollster AtlasIntel told Bloomberg, many samples overrepresented poor voters, who generally support Lula. Partly, that was because Brazil has not carried out a census since 2010.

Moreover, while polling firms adjust for “shy” far-right supporters unwilling to tell the truth about their voting intentions, many Bolsonaro voters, like many Trump voters, may just have refused to respond, seeing polls as part of a “fake news establishment” – and leaving pollsters unable to reach a large part of the electorate. Ultimately, pollsters stress, polling remains as much an art as a science, necessitating hard judgments not just about how different kinds of people respond to polls, but how they will end up actually voting. “We are constantly running to catch up,” said Wells. “Every election, there will be something different.”

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/o...e-so-wrong

Schneemann