Ibope survey in Rio de Janeiro: Paes, 33%; Crivella, 15%; Martha, 14%; Benedita, 9% | 2020 elections in Rio de Janeiro

In relation to the previous Ibope survey, published on October 30:

• Eduardo Paes went from 32% to 33%
• Crivella went from 14% to 15%
• Martha Rocha kept 14%
• Benedita da Silva kept 9%
• Luiz Lima kept 4%
• Renata Souza went from 2% to 3%
• Mello’s flag remained at 2%
• Fred Luz kept 1%
• Paulo Messina kept 1%
• Clarissa Garotinho went from 0% to 1%
• Cyro García remained at 0%
• Glória Heloiza was left with 0%
• Henrique Simonard kept 0%
• Suêd Haidar remained at 0%
• The undecided went from 5% to 4%, and the white or null went from 15% to 12%

The percentage of valid votes for each candidate corresponds to the proportion of the candidate’s votes over the total votes, excluding white, invalid and undecided votes. A candidate is elected in the 1st round if he obtains 50% plus one of the valid votes in the official count.

• Eduardo Paes (DEM): 39%
• Crivella (Republicans): 18%
• Martha Rocha (PDT): 17%
• Benedita da Silva (PT): 11%
• Luiz Lima (PSL): 4%
• Renata Souza (PSOL): 3%
• Flag of Mello (Rede): 3%
• Paulo Messina (MDB): 2%
• Fred Luz (new): 1%
• Clarissa Garotinho (Pros): 1%
• Cyro García (PSTU): 0%
• Gloria Heloiza (PSC): 0%
• Henrique Simonard (PCO): 0%
• Suêd Haidar (PMB): 0%

According to Ibope, the voting intentions of the former mayor Eduardo Paes they are more pronounced among Catholics and among those who value the current municipal administration as bad or very bad, both segments with 41%. Compared to the previous survey, mentions are growing among those with a household income greater than 5 times the minimum wage, from 32% to 39%.

Also according to the survey, Crivella it stands out among those surveyed with basic education (22%), among evangelicals (31%) and among those who evaluate their management well (64%). There were no significant movements in the strata compared to the previous round, according to the researchers.

Ibope also points out that voting intentions in Martha Rocha me Benedita da Silva they do not present significant variations between the investigations carried out.

The survey also asked whom voters would not vote for at all. The percentages were as follows:

• Crivella: 58%
• Clarissa Garotinho: 31%
• Benedita da Silva: 28%
• Eduardo Paes: 28%
• Cyro García: 13%
• Martha Rocha: 11%
• Luiz Lima: 11%
• Paulo Messina: 10%
• Renata Souza: 8%
• Fred Light: 8%
• Mello flag: 8%
• Glory of Heloiza: 8%
• Suêd Haidar: 8%
• Henrique Simonard: 7%
• Don’t know / didn’t answer: 5%
• You could vote for all: 1%

Respondents could indicate more than one answer, so the sum of the mentioned factors is more than 100%.

Ibope also took care of spontaneous voting intention, when the voter says who he will vote for without the names of the candidates being presented. See the results:

• Eduardo Paes: 25%
• Crivella: 10%
• Martha Rocha: 9%
• Benedita da Silva: 4%
• Luiz Lima: 2%
• Renata Souza: 2%
• Mello flag: 1%
• Fred Light: 1%
• Paulo Messina: 1%
• Clarissa Garotinho: 0%
• Suêd Haidar: 0%
• Cyro García: 0%
• Others: 1%
• White / null: 21%
• Don’t know / didn’t answer: 24%

Henrique Simonard and Glória Heloiza were not mentioned.

• Eduardo Paes 53% x 21% Crivella (blank / null: 21%; don’t know: 4%)
• Eduardo Paes 45% x 32% Martha Rocha (blank / null: 18%; don’t know: 5%)
• Eduardo Paes 49% x 23% Benedita da Silva (blank / null: 23%; don’t know: 5%)
• Martha Rocha 52% x 22% Crivella (blank / null: 21%; don’t know: 6%)
• Martha Rocha 45% x 25% Benedita da Silva (blank / null: 22%; don’t know: 8%)
• Benedita da Silva 40% x 26% Crivella (blank / null: 27%; don’t know: 7%)

The survey was commissioned by TV Globo.

• Margin of error: 3 percentage points more or less
• Who was heard: 1,204 voters in the city of Rio de Janeiro
• When the survey was conducted: November 7-9
• Identification number in the Electoral Tribunal: RJ – 01518/2020
• The confidence level used is 95%. This means that there is a 95% probability that the results reflect the current electoral moment, considering the margin of error.