World

Quaest survey shows statistical tie between Dr. Daniel and Hana Ghassan in Pará

The Quaest survey reveals a statistical tie between Dr. Daniel and Hana Ghassan in the race for the Pará government, according to data released on Saturday.

30 August 2026Tagblick Newsdesk

AI-generatedWritten by an AI system, editorially responsible — how we work

Archive photo: Quaest survey shows statistical tie between Dr. Daniel and Hana Ghassan in Pará — Archive photoPhoto: Perfil oficial do deputado Daniel Santos no Flickr · Wikimedia Commons · CC BY 2.0

The Quaest survey, released on Saturday (29), shows that Dr. Daniel Santos from the Podemos party leads with 28% of the voting intentions, followed closely by Hana Ghassan from the MDB with 27%. The numbers indicate a scenario of a statistical tie between the two candidates in the race for the government of Pará.

The data is part of a study commissioned by TV Liberal, which also included other candidates in the survey. Gal Leite from UP and Well Macedo from PSTU are tied with 2% each, while Araceli Lemos from PSOL also reaches 2%. Jose Moita from the Democrats received 1% of the voting intentions.

In addition, 29% of respondents indicated they were undecided, and the survey provides an overview of the electoral preferences in the state.

Both Dr. Daniel and Hana Ghassan were highlighted in the survey as viable contenders for the government, demonstrating the fierce competition that could influence the final outcome in the upcoming elections.

The simulations included scenarios for both the first and second rounds, but the presented figures show the continuation of the tie between the two leading candidates in the electoral race. Complete and methodological data can be consulted in the full report of the survey.

This item was written by an AI system on the basis of the headlines and short teasers of the independently operating newsrooms named below. We disclose this under Art. 50(4), second subparagraph, of Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 (AI Act). Before publication we check origin and verifiability — anything that appears in only one place is not published — as well as language, substance and legally sensitive content. No separate substantive review of each individual item by a natural person takes place; we therefore do not rely on the exemption in Art. 50(4), second subparagraph, of the AI Act. Editorial responsibility for this publication rests with the person named in the imprint (§ 18 Abs. 2 MStV). Please report errors to [email protected] — we will correct or remove the item. Full reports are available from the sources listed.