The 2026 election begins to be shaped by a simple question: has life improved or not improved? More than economic indicators, it is this perception that has guided voter mood and, consequently, the dynamics of the dispute.
In the Risk Map, the policy program of the InfoMoneythe CEO of Instituto Ideia, Sila Schumann, summarized this feeling with a phrase that has been repeated in research groups. “I voted for Lula, I like Lula, but why do I have to give Lula another term? What will he do with another term?”, he reported.
Doubt does not necessarily arise from direct rejection, but from frustration with the result perceived in everyday life.
This feeling appears even more clearly when translated into symbols. “Where’s the picanha? I didn’t see the picanha”, said Schumann, when describing one of the most recurrent statements among voters heard in qualitative research.
The reference, which marked the 2022 campaign, started to function as a direct indicator of unmet expectations.
Between data and perception
The central point, according to the analysis, is the disconnect between what macroeconomic indicators show and what voters feel in practice. Even though variables such as employment and growth have improved, this does not automatically translate into a feeling of income gain.
Continues after advertising
“The voter’s big question is always this: has my life improved or has it not improved,” said Schumann. “And in this case, what we feel from voters is them saying: ‘no, my life hasn’t improved’.”
She details that the problem is not just in income, but in the way it is consumed by day-to-day expenses. “Even though I have a job, I’m feeling like my cart isn’t full, that my fridge isn’t full. And worse: you have the issue of default, which is a question of recurring expenses. The money comes in, but it’s already committed and it’s already gone, and there’s nothing left for consumption.” 
This perception helps to explain why the cost of living appears as the dominant variable in voting decisions, surpassing more technical debates about economics.
Vote engine
Dissatisfaction is not limited to the present, but also involves frustrated expectations. “I believed it when Lula talked about the picanha, and where is the picanha?”, reported Schumann.
The example, although symbolic, reflects a broader feeling that campaign promises did not materialize in the expected way.
For the analyst, this type of frustration tends to weigh especially heavily on less ideological voters — precisely those who tend to decide on tighter elections. “It’s that person who is there chasing and not being able to close the end of the month,” he said.
Continues after advertising
In this group, the voting decision tends to be more pragmatic and directly linked to individual economic experience.
The pocket at the center of the dispute
Historically, Brazilian elections end up converging on the financial impact on the voter’s pocket. Even with ideological noise and parallel themes, the determining factor is usually the direct impact on the voter’s life.
“Campaigns, in general, go to the pocket: it has improved or it has not improved. If it is not re-election, he will vote for whoever he believes will make life better”, said Schumann.
Continues after advertising
This pattern repeats itself in 2026, however, with an aggravating factor. The increase in debt and the feeling of loss of purchasing power make judgment more critical.
The Risk Map, the policy program of the InfoMoneyairs every Friday, starting at 5am, on YouTube and your favorite podcast player.
