The great survivor

Lula overcame a first-round deficit to win the runoff. The report points to changed campaigning, mobilisation and spending promises as explanations. Markets then fell as investors questioned how those promises would be financed. Voters’ choice and investors’ reaction answer different questions: neither a sell-off nor an electoral victory, by itself, proves a policy programme will succeed or fail.

The result was reported in the new week, followed by Bolsonaro’s departure and fraud allegations rejected by prominent allies. Alleged wrongdoing under investigation is not a conviction.

1. Runoff mobilisation can overturn first-round expectations.
2. Campaign commitments create a financing problem after the vote.
3. Market reactions reveal expectations and positioning, not an impartial social verdict.

Vote totals and market moves are stronger observations than retrospective claims about what persuaded each voter. The FT’s follow-up gives official data and observers’ responses to fraud allegations. The article’s campaign explanations remain interpretive.