Debate polls

August 29th, 2014 at 8:05 am by David Farrar

Rachel Cunliffe blogs at Stats Chat on how meaningless opt in are. Three different opt in or surveys had Key ahead by 22%, Cunliffe ahead by 1% and Cunliffe ahead by 27%. They are NOT scientific.

I was on a plane so did not see the debate, but consensus seems to be David Cunliffe did well, apart from interjecting a bit too much. That is as I predicted.

Tags: ,

43 Responses to “Debate polls”

  1. Viking2 (11,467 comments) says:

    IMHO the complete debate was a shambles with all the participants shouting over the top of one another. I like to hear what is said and that was nigh impossible.
    Noise doesn’t communication make.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 22 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Lindsay Addie (1,507 comments) says:

    “IMHO the complete debate was a shambles”

    I agree Viking2, I asked my neighbour (who isn’t a political junkie) and she thought the same.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Tom Jackson (2,553 comments) says:

    IMHO the complete debate was a shambles with all the participants shouting over the top of one another.

    Translation: Donkey got owned, so I’m going to go with “a plague on all your houses”.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 4 Thumb down 30 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. DrDr (114 comments) says:

    I think the debate was somewhat shambolic – however those who support Cunliffe would be happy with his performance and those who support Key would be slightly disappointed. His performance was a bit rusty but I think the next lot of debates will show us more of his ability to drive points home.

    Vote: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Sporteone (43 comments) says:

    I turned the debate off. I think Hoskings was scarred to stop Cunliffe interjecting all the time because of the complaint about impartiality. He was pain and seemed to want to dictate the whole show.

    But the result at the end was the true indication of who won. And it wasn’t Cunliffe.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 22 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Casey (14 comments) says:

    I had looked forward to the debate to see how well both parties presented their policies and ideas. But it was a complete shambles which I’d pretty much pin totally on Hosking’s inability to moderate it. There was a very clear tactic right from the start from Cunliffe to over talk Key at every opportunity and not let him finish sentences and fully explain the policy – to my mind a sign that National’s more practical policies would make Labour’s looks light weight and a wish list as Key termed it. However, I would have liked the opportunity to hear both sides fully and to be able to confirm that, or not, about Labour’s policies – we were denied that.

    I can only hope that Campbell changes the format. Questions asked, replies may be not interrupted, but each has the right(s) of reply. The moderator’s job is to ask the questions and limit how long one can take to answer (and ensure no interruptions) – I live in hope we get that so that proper assessments can be made

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Bob (497 comments) says:

    I must say Cunliffe did do quite well. One good thing is both men seemed to respect each other. I was surprised when Cunliffe acknowledged National had done well to hold up New Zealand during the economic crisis. John Key was beginning to look tired. He was very serious without his usual broad grinning barbs back at his opponent. But he was on top of it with all the arguments facts and figures in his head. By contrast Cunliffe had several sheets of paper referring to them for figures on policies. If only the referee could have stopped them talking over each other it would have been an even better debate.

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. James Stephenson (2,173 comments) says:

    It seems that Key’s performance can be summed up in one word – lacklustre. So my question is: Is his heart not in it any more, and he’s just going through the motions? According to the Biography he thought about jacking it in over the Cup of Tea business, so has Hager’s book put him in that frame of mind again?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. hj (6,991 comments) says:

    The sort of debate we need is like in the US where you see people being grilled each step in the argument is studied like a work of art and followed to the zenith.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    I don’t think the debate polls are indicative of the general population at all.

    Firstly, they can be manipulated, that is, with some effort multiple votes are able to be cast.

    Secondly, in order to watch the debate for longer than a couple of minutes, one has to be politically interested. I doubt the majority of the electorate are that dedicated – really, House Rules (or whatever the new building program is) or watching a couple of grown men trying to shout each other down? Therefore the result don’t really represent the electorate in my opinion.

    I do think however Cunliffe would be pleased with the 39%. That is statistically an improvement from what other polls are weighing his popularity at. However, both would be wrong to put too much value on the poll outcome.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Inthisdress (263 comments) says:

    A major strategy for labour will now be to claim Key will resign, thus deflating ‘brand Key’ as a reason to vote.
    Therefore next debate Key will need to come out and shine.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. david (2,557 comments) says:

    And so the “experts” and political tragics pore over the entrails – each picking out bits that look tasty according to their personal bias. Non-stop commenting on the expression on John Key’s face, the size of David Cunliffe’s double chins and the length of Mike Hosking’s trousers.

    Each should ask themselves (and try hard to be honest in their answer) “what new information did we get out of last night’s debate and which party or group of parties do we trust to run the country for the next 3 years?”

    My answer is that we learned nothing new and I haven’t changed my poilitical preference as a result of the debate.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. BushBaby (9 comments) says:

    I agree that Key came off as looking lacklustre – by his high standards mind. I think Key’s strategy was to give Cunliffe as much air as he wanted to take in the hope the real goose would come out – but apart from Cunliffe’s constant heckling I think Cunliffe held up better than we all expected. Cunliffe by a small margin. But not enough to sway voters.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Casey (14 comments) says:

    Totally agree Babybush – I guess the only people who might get something out of it is the swinging voter who might like the policies but isnt sure about the leaders, or potential leader, and therefore might like to look at the way they handle themselves under pressure. I thought Cunliffe did well because he took advantage of Hosking’s lack of moderation and basically didn’t let Key get his points across without a fair bit of background noise making if difficult to pick up. Good strategy if you’re allowed to get away with it, and to my mine probably made Cunliffe look the better on the night – but still its a tactic in a debate, not an indication of who’s best to run the country.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. thePeoplesFlag (245 comments) says:

    “…That is as I predicted…”

    Wow DPF has reached such heights of hubris he is now channeling Palpatine.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. ChardonnayGuy (1,206 comments) says:

    David Cunliffe (gasp) interjected? Surely he is Leader of the Opposition, this is a political debate, and the task of the Leader of the Opposition is to provide evidence-based rebuttal and challenges to incumbent government policies. One would expect the probable next leader of the National Opposition, Steven Joyce, to perform similarly adroitly against Prime Minister Grant Robertson, c2018.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 16 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Tom Jackson (2,553 comments) says:

    It seems that Key’s performance can be summed up in one word – lacklustre. So my question is: Is his heart not in it any more, and he’s just going through the motions?

    Or he knows what’s coming and is dreading it. L’Affaire Hager has not died down and in a couple of weeks Dotcom is going to unload on him with God knows what.

    National’s strategy was to control the media narrative by using hidden connections with Slater and the media. That no longer works in the internet age. You have to run a clean campaign or your dirty laundry will be aired in public and you will lose control. Mitt Romney discovered this, and his problem was one video. Key’s problem is that he doesn’t know how deep it goes. How many more National staffers have been posting vile comments on Whaleoil?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 17 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. kiwi in america (2,441 comments) says:

    I have only been able to watch the One News website highlights and the various comment threads on blogs. Whilst it is true that opt-in polls are unscientific, the numbers responding to the TVNZ snap text poll was a substantial 45,000 and the Stuff poll on the night both had Key at 60/40 (Labour supporters have clearly been on Stuff to even things up to a 51/49 to Key). Cunliffe had no choice but to come out all guns blazing and his tactic to over talk Key was deliberate. The risk is that he is still relatively unknown to middle NZ floating voters and so the first time they would be concentrating on him was last night. The unspoken question that Cunliffe’s performance must persuade floating voters to answer in the affirmative is “does he look like a better PM than Key”. Remember Key is a known entity – middle NZ see his face on TV and hear his voice on the radio regularly being Prime Ministerial and so they already have some hopefully favourable deposits in an impression bank – I’m sure some would say, Key looks a little off tonight or he’s a bit subdued but it will do very little to dissuade National supporters from party voting Nat again. Cunliffe however came across as the smarmy know-it-all who added rudeness and over aggressiveness to his portfolio of negative character traits.

    To the commentariat, who focus on the gladiatorial combat of the House Question Time and the leaders debate (plus the unspoken desire of some to boost the left), Cunliffe was the clear winner. To the great unwashed only now tuning in to election related stuff and who live far from the Wellington beltway, Cunliffe did little to persuade them to oust Key in favour of him as PM.

    I spoke to my Dad re the campaign for the first time. My Dad is a regular faithful Labour supporter (academia – you know the type) and he said to me today that he was sick of the whole Nicky Hager thing within days and was disgusted at the media’s obsessiveness over it. Furthermore, he described Cunliffe as “unpleasant looking”, said that Key will “walk back in easily” and that Kim Dotcom was dodgy. When Labour’s faithful are saying these things, it explains why National is still hovering around 50% in most polls despite the darndest efforts of media tragics to haul Labour’s rotting corpse over the line

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 26 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Casey (14 comments) says:

    I have no problem with a debate, that’s what its about, but I do have a problem with interjections as they do not assist the debate – uninterrupted answers with extensive rights of interrupted replies actually informs you of the facts, interjections are just a sideshow that ensures neither party can make their points properly – what’s the point of that ?

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Tom Jackson (2,553 comments) says:

    I have only been able to watch the One News website highlights and the various comment threads on blogs

    Translation: “I have no idea what I’m talking about, but I’m going to blab on anyway. There’s nothing wrong with reviewing movies you haven’t seen”.

    You really are an insufferable moron, KIA.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 4 Thumb down 21 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. James Stephenson (2,173 comments) says:

    L’Affaire Hager has not died down and in a couple of weeks Dotcom is going to unload on him with God knows what.

    Yeah, nah. The idea that there’s more that Hager didn’t put in the book is just ridiculous, it’s only 140 pages and the main allegations* (Collins moving the prisoner, the OIA on Goff’s briefing) have proved to be false, all that’s left in there is Slater’s capacity to be obnoxious, as if that was some kind of revelation to anyone. If there was more and juicier, it would have been in there in the first place.

    Dotcom is going to come with some more conjecture just before the election hoping that it has time to make some kind of impact before it’s unravelled and also proved to be another load of bollocks.

    *or not quite allegations, hedged just enough to make sure nobody was actually defamed.

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. flipper (4,051 comments) says:

    KIA….
    Excellent analysis.
    I believe you have nailed it, and your Dad is absolutely correct.

    En passant, there is a new word – the consequence of the media seeing green from one eye, and red from the other – hagerisms. Put it in your spell checker!

    The MSM is full of them. :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Ross12 (1,425 comments) says:

    Tom J

    Keep hoping if you want but the Hager issue is dead and very few people outside the political “nerds” will have their minds changed by that shambles last night. Opinions on it from of so call experts don’t count –they only have one vote on the day just like anyone else.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. kiwi in america (2,441 comments) says:

    Yeah Tom keep hope alive – after three weeks of pounding Key over the hacked emails, National are still nudging 50% in the poll of polls – take out the TV3 poll that seems to be an outlier and its over 50%. You have summed up the left’s only hope for victory – more muckraking. Even Labour supporters I speak to are fed up with the Hager palaver.

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. tom hunter (4,809 comments) says:

    Good to see Tom Jackson still aiming to gain the greatest number of downticks on Kiwiblog. Fair enough too as it’s probably the highest goal he’s capable of achieving.

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Slipster (170 comments) says:

    I’m surprised anyone here could think Cunliffe’s performance was better (or even anywhere near good at all). Contrast restrained, level-headed, responsible adult delivery by JK with Cunliffe’s childish outbursts trying to outshout and drown out his opponent with… well, just noise really. To me, he looked a very sorry sight indeed.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. timmydevo (52 comments) says:

    Couldn’t believe the debate last night… I sat down to watch a couple of well-groomed leaders and a wild-haired Hosking, then the doorbell rings. Friends came around, uninvited. I had to turn it off. I also had to end the friendships at the end of the evening, in the hope that I wouldn’t be interrupted again at the next debate.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. m@tt (629 comments) says:

    There is no question that Key failed to fire in the debate. Cunliffe wasn’t great but Key being mostly MIA was more notable. It’s not damning but it is a blow to Key and a boost to Cunliffe.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. SW (240 comments) says:

    Kiwi in America – you wrote an excellent piece on the evolution of Labour earlier this year. I found it fascinating.

    Do you have any views on whether a similar struggle is going on inside National, but has been largely masked by Keys popularity (much like labour under Helen’s popularity)?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Paulus (2,626 comments) says:

    Key – our Prime Minister behaved like one. Dignified.
    8/10 – Polls 50% + personally.

    Cunliffe – Currently Leader of the “Opposition” but Norman would query that – whoever told him to behave like a petulant schoolboy was wrong – he had been told to not stop talking or listening and just talk over every thing.
    6/10 but 15% personally.Party 25% approx and dropping.

    Hosking – useless – was supposed to mediate but lost control straight away – partisan too 2/10.

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Slipster (170 comments) says:

    Nonsense m@tt. You clearly can’t appreciate the good, pro performance when you see one. This only suggest you are not up to it, that’s all.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. kiwi in america (2,441 comments) says:

    SW
    I have no substantive National connections apart from occasional contact in the past with Gerry Brownlee. As a general rule, when a party is successful (winning elections and staying ahead in the polls), the internal atmosphere in a party is one of relative unity. National has its factions although they are less pronounced and don’t have the long history of fratricidal warfare that has beset Labour’s factions. National didn’t try to expel the Ruth Richardson dries the way Labour tried to rid itself of the Rogernomes.

    The main event in National is who will succeed Key and the battle lines there are clear: Collins versus Joyce. Collins seems to enjoy the support of the right wing and a good number of the back bench. The extent to which these factions are having an influence on the party right now I can only speculate but the fact that Key has stuck with Crusher through the fallout over the Hager emails fingering her leaks to Slater could be because he fears a backlash from her supporters. Some of it is the belief (correct IMO) that the Hager firestorm was mostly a beltway issue akin to the GCSB and Oravida media frenzies. Key will be relentlessly poll testing for the weak points and sensitivity. He has appeared weakest over the Collins issue and whether he knew about the SIS OIA re Goff. Of particular interest will be, not whether the polls show whether he should let Collins go (they show that he should) but, like the asset sales, whether public opposition to a particular decision, behaviour or policy is such that people will switch their vote.

    National has always managed to keep its dirty laundry more hidden. Most topplings of National leaders have happened very quickly in comparison with Labour. If Key gets re-elected and the Nats drop into the low 40’s and stay there for more than 3 months in their 3rd term, then you’ll start to hear rumblings of discontent. The beauty with John Key is that, unlike Clark, he’s youngish, talented and has enormous other opportunities beckoning and his self esteem is not wrapped up in being PM. If the Nats become weighed down because he ceases to be popular, I doubt whether he’d have to be tapped on the shoulder. Also, unlike Clark, Key has ensured the rejuvenation of the party and will not leave National bereft of future leadership talent when it’s his time to go. As I explained in my Easter guest post, Clark built a party in her image to keep the factions at bay and to get her and keep her in power and she left a huge vacuum upon departure.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. backster (2,171 comments) says:

    I can’t understand why NZ should persist with these ‘shout over’ debates. The American Presidential Debates by contrast provide compelling viewing and conducted much better. Aussie very similar.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Ross12 (1,425 comments) says:

    KIA
    The political pundits and MSM after 6+ years still have not got their head around the fact that John Key is not and has never been your “normal” politician (ie. normal in playing by their rules of what a politician should be and do. You still have idiots thinking he will be pushing for a UN job when he leaves NZ politics). So they continue to measure his thinking and moves incorrectly.

    As for the Collins issues –they are media / Labour beat ups, nothing else. I still cannot see what she has supposedly done wrong.

    As I have said elsewhere –if National win this election it will not be because they beat Labour/Greens it will be because they beat the MSM.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Unity (576 comments) says:

    I too was irritated by the constant interruptions and talking over the other in this debate. At one point all three were talking at once and I had no idea what anyone was saying. Mike Hosking didn’t moderate at all well. Cunliffe came across as confident and Key came across as glum. I didn’t learn anything at all and thought the whole shambles was a complete waste of time. Rules need to be set in these debates and anyone interrupting will have his mike turned off.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. flipper (4,051 comments) says:

    TVNZ News at noon….

    Published results of the Compass on line survey of 2000 watchers of K v C last evening (this is not the TVNZ text etc poll which scored it for Key by heaps). AND THE RESULT was …..

    J Key – 58%
    CminusT – 32%
    Don’t know – 10%

    It seems the MSM pundits may have accepted too many hagerisms.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. KevinH (1,227 comments) says:

    Cunliffe performed as expected and fell hook line and sinker to the Nats strategy of firing all his guns at once leaving him in the unenviable position of having to maintain the momentum heading into the next debate. Key played him well letting Cunliffe attempting to dominate proceedings with interjections, a smothering technique that alienates people which has been proved to be the case.
    John Keys relatively subdued performance will change as the election nears where he no doubt will ramp up the ante, be more articulate and forthright, on message and more like the leader he is. Cunliffe will flounder looking for angles of attack and may resort to using dirty politics to make his mark which will have the reverse effect.
    All John Key has to do is maintain his steely resolve, not get intimidated, and get on with the job. David Cunliffe and his advisors will have a job to rethink the strategy they will employ at the next debate.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. masterman (19 comments) says:

    So Cunliffe took a leaf out of National’s book and interjected from time to time, and the righties scream and yell; if he hadn’t taken control of the debate, you would have accused him of being weak and a wimp – no satisfying some people. IMO Cunliffe addressed the questions and spoke to policy unlike Key who was only able to repeat rehearsed mantras and describe Labour and Green policies. From the man whose response to the Hager allegations was that New Zealanders want to debate the issues, he lost a grand opportunity to do just that. Someone who took the time to count the interjections throughout found they were pretty even, so I guess it all depends which side of the fence you sit on and whether you have an open mind or not

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. infused (654 comments) says:

    Key needs to up his game. Take the day off.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Steve (North Shore) (4,560 comments) says:

    Pity the debate was not longer, then John Key could have given Cunliffe more rope and let him get both feet in his mouth as per usual.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Inthisdress (263 comments) says:

    Flipper re ”Hagerism’ I claim that one I used it here this week -I like to think forthe first time. If this turns out to be true, Iit will pip my attempt at trying to coin ‘Soperism’ last election.
    I await the verdict with breathlessness . ? ? ?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. itstricky (1,830 comments) says:

    Come on DPF you can do better than that. Polls don’t matter. Pffffffttttt you’d never say that if Cunliffe bombed it. Just come out with the complements for Cunliffe and be done with it.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Left Right and Centre (2,975 comments) says:

    Unity – Mike H needs a control that gives a mild electric shock to those who cannot help but talk over the top of everyone else.

    What was JK doing ? Trying to play it ‘classy’ ? Trying to be Mr Nice Guy ? Polite and respectful to his opposite number ? He was taking a spanking with that shit. Oh well – only a moron would vote based on TV leader debates. Plenty of those around. JK should’ve just pandered to the moron vote.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote