Not as blue as polls paint it

Successive polls are showing National at around 50%.

That ought to be good news, but a Facebook friend looked at polls and elections results and found:

. . . In the final month of polling in 2011, we averaged 52.1%. On election day, we got 47.31% – a drop of about 4.8%.

In the final month of polling in 2008, we averaged 47.1%. On election day? 44.93% – a drop of about 2.2%.

In the polls currently taken in the month before E Day, we are averaging 48.91%. The polls that dragged the mean down in the final month of polling in the previous two elections (the ones taken in the final two weeks), have not been taken yet.

What does this mean?

The polls may go down. We may lose support. E Day could be worse.

If we expect previous trends to repeat themselves, we are on track for an MMP, nail-biting, screaming-at-the-tv, 1 seat majority, hum-dinger. . .

The election result is very, very unlikely to be as blue as the polls are painting it.

An outright majority was very rare under First Past the Post. It hasn’t happened yet under MMP and is very unlikely to this year.

The trend for Labour is downwards but if National’s vote drops much below the polls, we might not get a John Key- led government and it could be possible for David Cunliffe to cobble together a coalition with the collection of mis-matched parties on the far left.

25 Responses to Not as blue as polls paint it

  1. Paranormal says:

    The real issue is the media paint the polls as reality. When in fact polls are still only a small sample that provide a possible indication of what the mood of the nation might be.

    Like

  2. Gravedodger says:

    How would it be that we vote on which poll to adopt then have a binding referendum on that outcome.
    Sheesh we could spend every day having polls and voting on referenda.

    What could possibly go wrong.

    I have always had a view that polls in the closing weeks become more anti democracy than pro but then I am forced to reconsider in light of my very strong support for free speech.

    Some analysis of proclaimed policy and reporting real news might be of benefit but I accept that is a forlorn hope.

    Like

  3. “my very strong support for free speech.”

    Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

    Yes, you’ve been very strong in your support for my “right to free speech”, I must say!

    Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha (Starts with “H”)

    Like

  4. Dave Kennedy says:

    Far better we have a coalition of National, Act, the Conservatives and possible Winston? Act dislikes Winston and the Conservatives. Winston has been one of the heaviest critics of the Government and there is some friction between the right and centre-right within National. There are also huge policy differences between all parties.

    Labour, the Greens and NZ First have already worked together with the manufacturing inquiry, all have a long history in Parliament and have experienced MPs. National has a whole swag of inexperienced MPs on their list and a potential coalition partner that has no experience in parliament at all.

    I know where side I’ll be voting for 😉

    Like

  5. Marc Williams says:

    RG, I can’t recall anyone taking away your rights to free speech – we are privileged that anyone can publish their own blog and choose what they wish to say in it without fear or favour in NZ. Trouble is, in your case, if a tree falls in a forest and there is no-one there, does it make a sound?

    Like

  6. [Deleted off-topic]

    Like

  7. Marc – delaying my comments here, deleting some of them, is somehow not suppression of free speech?
    Please elaborate.

    Like

  8. Paranormal says:

    DK – How does the Green cloak of sanctimony sit with the desire to side with proven liars and thieves? Here we all were thinking you were against dirty politics.

    Like

  9. Gravedodger says:

    Here was me thinking Dave K will ask Guyton to privide a link to somewhere Gravedodger had proscribed Guuytons free speech.

    Then again is Guyton one of the moronic trolls I have deleted from my posts at No Minister.
    If that were true Guyton I will require some idea of possible alternate Identities as I have no knowledge of ever deleting Guyton.
    Of course you have a rep for using multiples eh Greenfly,etc etc

    Like

  10. “proven liars and thieves”?
    The Greens are spurning National, aren’t they?

    Like

  11. Southern says:

    So taking your angle Dave, are you saying that inexperienced people should not be given a chance, boy that’s not looking too flash for all those people in Teachers college right now, guess they better hope you don’t get into parliament.

    So to take your line, I know what side I’ll be voting for, I’ll be voting for the youngsters.

    Like

  12. JC says:

    “Here we all were thinking you were against dirty politics.”

    Bit hard to do that when you do this:

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/10474271/Greens-rebuked-for-email-tactic

    “The Green Party has been accused of “subverting the democratic process” by lobbying Environment Canterbury (ECan) on behalf of individuals without their knowledge.

    Four people were surprised to receive emails from ECan thanking them for their submission on the region’s proposed bus changes when they had not submitted.

    A further 20 submissions, of the 165 submissions sent in by the Greens, were found to have incorrect email addresses.

    ECan received 2357 submissions for its proposed bus changes.

    All submissions from the Greens were a standard response asking for more investment in public transport and more services for elderly.

    Emails given to The Press by ECan, with personal information removed, showed people were unimpressed.

    “I nevet [sic] sent this email! How did this happen?” one said.

    “I actually didn’t give permission for the Green Party to send that submission on my behalf,” another said.

    Another questioned the ethics of the practice.

    “It does not accurately represent my thoughts . . . I’m not sure I agree ethically with this practice.”

    Like

  13. Dirty Politics – it’s a National Party thing. Dissemble as much as you will, but it’s a National Party thing. Trying to divert attention is tying yourself to the corruption that the National Party has adopted as its ‘way’. It’s a sickness and those who embrace it, sick.

    Like

  14. robertguyton says:

    [Deleted – off-topic]

    Like

  15. JC says:

    “It’s a sickness and those who embrace it, sick.”

    Remember the Greens man Kees who secretly videotaped a Nat conference in 2008

    A Green Party official involved in damaging and defacing Nat Party signs in 2011?

    Hager the Green activist using stolen emails to portray a one sided hit in 2014?

    A Green Party activist writing about destroying Nat signs in 2014?

    The Green Party illegally misrepresenting signatures in emails to sway Canterbury people in a petition in 2014?

    Secret talks and phone calls with a German fraudster and hacker by the Green Party co-leader?

    The Green Party deliberately falsifying Health information from the 2014 budget which their auditor picked up and informed them about?

    Falsely claiming their carbon tax was similar to that of British Columbia?

    Illegally using Parliamentary allowances for electioneering as detailed by Dr Bryce Edwards?

    Methinks you doth protest too much.. and certainly too loud.

    JC

    Like

  16. [Deleted – off-topic]

    Like

  17. “Dirty Politics” exposesd National’s dirty behaviour. In response, some here spout, “the Greens are dirty”.
    Feeble. Weak. Sad. You KNOW full well who is playing dirty, and you are providing cover for them. That makes YOU complicit.
    Shame.

    Like

  18. [Deleted – off topic] that’s a lie, Ele.

    Like

  19. homepaddock says:

    Robert I take what I believe to be a very lenient approach to the bile you spill in comments. I was very tempted to delete the one at 5:22 for instance but left it because it was responding to a comment someone else had made. The one you made which I deleted was on tax, this post is on polls.

    Like

  20. Put them up and prove that they were “off topic”.

    [Once they’re deleted, they’re deleted, I can’t put them up. Even if I could the only proof that’s needed is my judgement. Ele]

    Like

  21. Southern says:

    “Feeble. Weak. Sad. You KNOW full well who is playing dirty, and you are providing cover for them. That makes YOU complicit.”

    Touche bOb, esp love the capitals, boy your clever. Southland must thank its lucky stars for your clever words and wisdom.

    I see why you are banned from so many blogs now, just waiting for Ele to catch on…………….

    Mind you, ya got to have the haters. Actually you remind me of the Screaming Skull, maybe we should call you the ‘Southern Screaming Skull’, yep, that fits

    Like

  22. Ele – on a personal level – can you see how far you have fallen? You are DELETING comments that are OFF TOPIC.
    Think about that.
    Not comments that are lies, actionable or disgusting, but “Off topic”.
    That’s how desperate you have become.
    This is very sad, on a personal level. You are blocking comments that are “other” than what you want. Are you aware of how wrong your thinking has become?
    “off topic” ids now your measure of comments that must be deleted?
    You have fallen very far, Ele.
    THINK ABOUT THIS!
    “Off topic” is not your measure for deletion.
    Sad.
    Sick.
    Worrying.
    DELETING.
    CENSORING.
    What have you become????

    Like

  23. “the only proof that’s needed is my judgement. Ele”

    The reasoning of a dictator. Ele. Think! What have you become???

    Like

  24. [Deleted – off-topic]

    Like

  25. JC says:

    “Feeble. Weak. Sad. You KNOW full well who is playing dirty, and you are providing cover for them. That makes YOU complicit.
    Shame.”

    Hmm, looks like I scored a hit there. Thou protesteth even longer and louder.. maybe you see more hits coming.

    As Justice Fogarty said in a written judgement today “‘‘The case for injunction against the hacker on an interim basis is overwhelming,’’ he wrote. ‘‘The common law knows no justification for breaking the law.’’

    Fancy that.. the hacker and Greens lover and protector Hager have no justification for breaking the law. That means that the Greens and your feigned outrage is supporting a criminal action. I expect Russel will be in the paper in the morning saying it would be dishonourable to carry on with this attack on Slater in light of the comments of the judge and calling for a full investigation of any party which might think of going into coalition with Internet/Mana and its owner Kim Dot Com considering the perception of links to this criminal action.

    JC

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: