If National wins ...

[Cuzzie]

Yes most commentors gave it to Cunliffe and one observed that if a foreigner had watched he/she would have assumed cunliffe was the prime minister.

Joshuatree, please read the poll results again. Key was the clear winner, but I'm enjoying your propaganda thou, carry on.

[Cuzzie]

Yes I enjoyed that too. It was when Key had been blathering on - to the point he sounded like he'd got himself lost - And Cunliffe rescued him. The look on Key's face suggested he was actually grateful.

Now see that is what I'm talking about, the loonie left always try to flip the truth. We all know how over the top D.C was with his interrupting now belg says that. Just like their "Positive" slogin, we all know it is the opposite of that. Just imagine if both leaders got time to say what they stand for without M.H & D.C squawking like seagulls all night? I think Cunliffe would actually be left wondering what to say!!!

[Cuzzie]

There's some interesting metrics in there.

And I have to apologise to some National party supporters. Clearly some have a far better moral compass than I gave them credit for.

Based on the Judith Collins questions in the survey, I suspect that the defining point for many in the leaders debate last night would have been where DC unequivocally said that if he were PM Judith would be out. Then JK blathered on trying to justify his (untenable) position which sounded a little insincere, and, once JK had finished blathering, DC unequivocally said, again, that if he were PM Judith would be out. That is clear difference between the two and it would have resonated with many.

Looks like those who voted realtime as the debate happened disagree with your findings belg, Key got 70 in every 100 votes. Maybe the "Rose tinted glasses" saying fits you aptly here. The stats suggest so for sure.

[Cuzzie]

We'll see Cuz. We'll see ... The world keeps spinning and no amount vitriol from you or me, or statistically unsound polls, will stop it.

Speaking of polls, I don't like this one, far too many red dots.

Predicting the next Parliament.

[Bobcat.]

Speaking of polls, I don't like this one, far too many red dots.

Predicting the next Parliament.

Don't you find it interesting that the editors and other liberal social engineers at the Dominion Post / Stuff have chosen in this set of predictions to play down and/or completely ignore the Conservative Party (which is now polling just under 5% - not 2.7% as misleadingly stated by Stuff), and yet meanwhile see fit to make mention in their analysis the Mana-Internet, United Future, Act and Maori parties.

Their bias is showing. Clearly they want us to think that the Conservatives are a lost cause (and want us to join them in despising them) ...well I don't think so. Political analysis like this is nothing short of an insult to voter intelligence.

[iceman]

Lucy Lawless absolutely nails it ...

Lucy Lawless: Much ado about nothing? I think not

And BTW, if you haven't read the book but are trying to defend people in it, you just look stupid. (Key's read it now too apparently.)

I'd suggest any people attempting any defence of the people in Nicky Hager's "Dirty Politics: How attack politics is poisoning New Zealand's political environment" quote something from the afterword to demonstrate they are coming from an informed position.

Are you saying that unless one reads highly biased leftwing propaganda based on STOLEN material, one is ill-informed and should not comment on politics of the day ?
Personally I wouldn't give a toss about what Lucy Lawless, Nicky Hager, or Cameron Slater for that matter, have to say about anything, as it will not have any influence on me forming a view on anything. I suppose that makes me ill informed in your eyes Belg !

[Banksie]

Don't you find it interesting that the editors and other liberal social engineers at the Dominion Post / Stuff have chosen in this set of predictions to play down and/or completely ignore the Conservative Party (which is now polling just under 5% - not 2.7% as misleadingly stated by Stuff), and yet meanwhile see fit to make mention in their analysis the Mana-Internet, United Future, Act and Maori parties.

Their bias is showing. Clearly they want us to think that the Conservatives are a lost cause (and want us to join them in despising them) ...well I don't think so. Political analysis like this is nothing short of an insult to voter intelligence.

This is just not true bobcat, three stories talking about the conservatives.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/poli...arliament-poll
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=11315119
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=11315586

And the ipsos poll showed 2.7% while the 3news-reid poll showed 4.6% - and both are correct.

I think you are imagining a conspiracy that is not there.

[Bobcat.]

And the ipsos poll showed 2.7% while the 3news-reid poll showed 4.6% - and both are correct.

I think you are imagining a conspiracy that is not there.

If what you say is correct, then can you explain how 2.7% and 4.6% can both be correct, Banksie. The IPSOS poll is dated 27 August.

And yes, those links you provided have Stuff reporting a Conservative Party rise in the polls, but too simplistically (naively or mischievously?) attributing it solely to the fallout from Hagar's 'dirty politics', which again is not giving credit where credit's due:

Colin Craig does not think the party was picking up votes in any fallout from Dirty Politics. "I think the biggest impact is that our second brochure, which has gone out to every household in New Zealand, has arrived. It hit last weekend."

Craig is more likely to be right than those writers for Stuff pretending to be investigative journalists.

I don't agree with everything that Craig and his party are promoting but I do value balanced investigative journalism. Unfortunately in this country that we know and love, there is dirty politics practised by liberal social manipulator journo's and editors via their news outlets, as much, or more so, than those inside the main parties targeted by Hagar.

[fungus pudding]

Can you then explain how 2.7% and 4.6% can both be correct, Banksie? The IPSOS poll is dated 27 August.

The Herald poll had them at 3.3% so that's about the average and probably nearest the mark. I doubt they'll hit 5%, or maybe it's just wishful thinking on my part.

[Banksie]

Can you then explain how 2.7% and 4.6% can both be correct, Banksie? The IPSOS poll is dated 27 August.

I am not really sure how to respond...you do know how a poll works right, you phone up 1000 people and ask them what they think. So running a different sample of 1000 will produce different results.

On the small sample sizes that they are doing for these polls they are not particularly accurate, that's why they all come with an accuracy statement e.g. 3.5% margin of error.

Edit: Here is the accuracy statement from the Ipsos poll,

Our poll provides a maximum sampling error of +/-3.1%-point, at the 95% confidence level. This means we can be 95% confident that the survey results are within 3.1% of the result had we surveyed the entire population of the NZ population, when the analysis is based on all respondents surveyed.