Mike Hosking critiques media attention on minor polling discrepancies, questions the validity of New Zealand First's sudden support rise, and emphasizes the broader political reality of a two-party outcome under MMP.
Stacked weekly counts; colour by lean. “n/a” covers government and iwi-Māori sources where lean isn't applicable.
How this topic has been named, week by week. A new alias winning out is usually a framing shift.
Verbatim segments from politicians speaking on podcasts and radio shows about this topic. Sourced via the voice-reference library — each speaker has been confirmed manually from their voice clip. Click play to stream the original audio from the publisher, pre-seeked to the moment the quote starts.
Now, for what it's worth, let me have a crack at the latest Korea poll. Firstly, officially, I pay no attention to them other than a broad theme. theme i.e. a collection of polls and an overarching trend and the trend continues in this latest poll with the government being re-elected by a fairly heavy margin you notice no one covered that yesterday government gets back by 10 seats 65 to 55 small point is it me or do there seem to be a lot of polls this year i mean is it because it's election year the reason i ask it's not cheap to do a poll so someone's either fascinated or flush then of course we get to the now well accepted truth that getting people to participate participate Debate is not easy. In fact, it's getting harder and harder in the age-old concept of a thousand random people as well and truly gone as they hand out food vouchers and rewards to take part. Now, next problem with this poll is the New Zealand first figure of 13.6, which is up four. That's not real, because that's about a 30-ish percent shift. In support, no one grows or loses their support at that pace. You'll also see a shift fairly dramatically to the government. Nationals up. New Zealand First is up. ACT are up. The government's on fire. Are they? But despite all that moderately interesting analysis, all the media could do yesterday was focus on the fact National had failed to get 30, even though it was actually 29.8 and you always round up and you know you do, so it was 30. So why we fixate on large parties in an MMP environment, I still don't know. MMP is about parties and deals. This election is about two choices. The current lot or the other lot. On this poll, in fact virtually all polls, the current lot wins. Lot win. If you want to fixate on National, yes, if these numbers were real, they would lose some seats. But that's because they did well last time. And why did they do well last time? Adern, Hipkins, COVID, Robertson. You remember all that? Parties that ride high in one election. Tends to shrink in the next. Not fun, if you're in the middle of it, but political reality nevertheless. In an environment where the vote is so widely split, having 30 plus parties will get more and more rare. It's no bad thing, but the media having decided they hate Luxon can't look past any of that. Maybe for them it was more fun than the reality of the overall poll, which is, of course, their preferred option, the left.
Up to 12 framings spread across orientations. Each framing is a short phrase the topic extractor generated to characterise the piece's stance — not a quote from the source. Click through to read the original.
noting consistent victory in polling data
Mike's Minute: Let's take a proper look at the pollsSocial-media signal on the same topic, drawn from the social lens. Engagement is likes + 2×shares + 3×replies, the same weighting used across the digest cards. View on /social →
Spotted something wrong on this page? Report a correction.