Research coordinator for the campaign, sociologist Marisol Recamán advised the mayor from the beginning to avoid the polarization proposed by his main opponents, the federal deputy and the influencer, and focus on management’s deliverables.
“Strengthening polarization helped voters to open their ears to both Boulos and Marçal. It was not good to feed elements from other candidacies”, he tells Sheet.
With a long history of working in PT campaigns, such as those of the former president, Marisol believes that Boulos exaggerated his aggressiveness and failed to present proposals to anti-Bolsonaro voters.
When the campaign started, what was the main challenge for Nunes? The challenge was to showcase his government and strengthen the mayor’s image. As he assumed after being vice-president, he had to show who he was through his work.
Has this challenge continued or been updated? With the entry of [Pablo] Marçal, there was a change in the fields of dispute. The polarization was already in place with the [Guilherme] Boulos. With Marçal, a classic dispute arises between [Jair] Bolsonaro and Lula. Then the question was: what is the mayor’s role in a polarizing dispute? It’s management, because we are running a municipal campaign. It deals directly with people’s lives.
Ricardo [Nunes] he had management to show for it. You could fall into a polarization gap or build a road and drive away. The truth is that the city was not on this agenda. The reference of positions and sympathies appears at first, but then it is a discussion of the city. Nunes had a lot of advantage.
Did Nunes lose points when he expressed Bolsonarist positions? He was going to Marçal and Boulos’ field. Whenever he entered this dispute, he was left without a place. Strengthening polarization helped voters open their ears to both Boulos and Marçal. It was not good to feed elements from other candidacies.
Was the emergence of Marçal the most difficult moment? [Quando] When he entered, it was already a sign, but we had no idea how powerful this experience via the network would be. The biggest concern was when it started to grow. Without a doubt, it was a basis for Ricardo’s conquest. It wasn’t Boulos who lost, it was Ricardo.
How was the discussion about Bolsonaro’s participation, also considering the role of governor Tarcísio de Freitas? The campaign was clear that Bolsonaro was helping to look at the election in a way that would interest the extremes.
Tarcísio is governor. This idea of partnership has really strengthened, we are already doing it and will do more. I didn’t see this discussion among the population that Tarcísio represented Bolsonarism. People knew that, but that wasn’t how they looked at it.
But there was a discussion about how much Bolsonaro added or alienated voters. We didn’t have this problem because Bolsonaro didn’t run for office. He also had one foot on each side. If the supporter is not [presente]there is no need to have this discussion.
Why did Mrs. Do you think Marçal didn’t make it to the second round? Just with that speech fighting Boulos, the left, Lula, it was very difficult to get more than 30% [dos votos]. The city doesn’t have a bigger field than his vote. I think he achieved a lot.
And Boulos, in what Mrs. Do you think the campaign failed? Boulos had a very strong political field in the city, but the candidacy would need to speak to anti-Bolsonarism. We cannot talk about anti-Bolsonarism with just a polarized discussion. He didn’t bring what voters wanted to know. I think he missed the opportunity to talk more about his projects.
Is it possible to reverse a high rejection like the one he had? It’s possible. The left has a rejection like the right does. With that out of the way, let’s discuss what rejection really is. His was bigger because there was a discussion about occupation, MTST, but I don’t believe that was the main reason. For the voters he needed to win over, I don’t believe the past was a problem. Many people thought it was quite valuable. The problem was aggressiveness instead of proposals.
The left has had difficulty reconnecting with voters. Mrs. Do you see a way? There are deeper things that cannot be resolved in the 2026 electoral process. The instruments of political representation are very distant from the voter. “I have no prospects for the future, the State doesn’t help me.” This takes a toll.
The left has the task of reconstructing a project to present. It is an urgent and global task. When you say that Boulos moderated… Is that what the electorate wanted? The electorate wanted to know what he was going to do. This bond needs to be rebuilt.
The far right does very well in taking advantage of this discredit. She does the [discurso] anti-system and therefore it sounds good. The population looks at the State almost as if it owned it. It’s the politicians, and they are far from me. The bond is broken. It is not a discussion of public management, collectivity. In the view of the extreme right, the other is a problem. [Isso] It fits very well when you are alone, when the State does not represent you. The other one is really strange, it’s not my collective.
Bolsonarists are very excited about the election of Donald Trump. Trump had a very clear position on immigration, ethnicity, and how misogynistic his candidacy was. They didn’t vote despite that, they also voted for that. This majority is constituted there. There is a political field that is growing all over the world, and in Brazil it is no different. Obviously this field is strengthening.
X-ray – Marisol Recamán
Director of OMA Pesquisa, she is 61 years old, a sociologist graduated from PUC-SP and worked at the Perseu Abramo Foundation and in the presidential campaigns of Lula (PT) and Dilma Rousseff (PT)
