— An Ipsos-Ipec poll released March 10 shows 33% rate the Lula government as “great” or “good” versus 40% rating it “bad” or “terrible” — a negative seven-point gap that no president has overcome to win reelection since 2002
— Overall disapproval stands at 51% against 43% approval, while 56% of Brazilians say they do not trust Lula — all within a margin of error of the December poll, suggesting crystallized opinion
— Lula is tied at 41% with Senator Flávio Bolsonaro in a hypothetical second-round scenario, according to a separate Genial/Quaest poll, with the October presidential election now seven months away
Lula approval ratings have dropped to a level that no Brazilian president has survived electorally in more than two decades. With the October 2026 presidential election seven months away, a new Ipsos-Ipec poll shows just 33% of Brazilians rate the government as “great” or “good” — below every incumbent who won reelection or elected a successor since 2002.
The numbers carry historical weight. The Rio Times, a Latin American financial news outlet, examines what the data means for Latin America’s most consequential election this year and why political analysts are warning that Lula’s path to a fourth term is narrowing.
Lula Approval vs. Historical Benchmarks
O Estado de S. Paulo compiled Ipsos-Ipec (formerly Ibope) data from March of every election year since 2002. The pattern is stark: no president who reached this point in the electoral calendar with approval equal to or below Lula‘s current 33% has won reelection or elected a successor.
In 2006, when Lula won his second term, he had 38% positive ratings at the same point. In 2010, riding 75% approval, he transferred that political capital to Dilma Rousseff. By contrast, Michel Temer sat at just 5% in March 2018, and his chosen successor Henrique Meirelles never gained traction. Bolsonaro had roughly 19% before the 2022 election and lost.
“The way things stand today, at this level, it’s very difficult for Lula to win reelection,” said political scientist Alberto Carlos Almeida. The data also shows that every president who entered this period with more negative than positive evaluations — a gap Lula currently has at minus seven points — failed at the ballot box.
The Numbers Behind the Lula Approval Slide
The March Ipsos-Ipec survey, conducted March 5-9 with 2,000 respondents across 131 municipalities, shows 51% disapprove of how Lula governs versus 43% who approve. Trust in the president sits at 40%, while 56% say they do not trust him. On the economy, 42% believe the situation has worsened, 27% see improvement, and 36% expect things to get worse in six months.
The 33% positive rating is up three points from December’s 30%, offering a sliver of recovery. But Ipsos-Ipec head Márcia Cavallari called it a “still negative balance” that the government has not yet reversed. Among evangelicals — a growing electoral force — disapproval hits 64%, with only 22% rating the government positively.
The opposition sees structural decay. Senator Rogério Marinho, who coordinates Flávio Bolsonaro’s presidential campaign, attributed the decline to voter fatigue and a perceived tax burden. A separate Genial/Quaest poll shows Lula and Flávio Bolsonaro tied at 41% in a hypothetical runoff — remarkable for a sitting president against a first-time presidential candidate.
Multiple factors are weighing on the president simultaneously. The CPMI congressional investigation into the INSS social security scandal has reached Lula’s son, Fábio Luís Lula da Silva — known as Lulinha — while the Banco Master banking scandal has created a toxic political environment that touches both government allies and opponents. The opposition has seized on both as evidence of systemic dysfunction.
Government allies insist recovery is possible as the campaign sharpens comparisons with previous administrations. But Almeida noted that Lula’s third term lacks the “euphoria of novelty” that characterized his first, when programs like Bolsa Família were seen as breakthroughs. Those same social programs are now perceived as acquired rights rather than government achievements — a subtle but critical shift that may limit their electoral return.