Posts by Dennis Frank
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: Where are all the polls at?, in reply to David Haywood,
early Labour voters would then be excluded from opinion polls, then the polls would record this as a *drop* in Labour support (since the remaining pool of voters available for polling would be skewed disproportionately away from Labour)
Both of you are onto something with this. I bet the polling companies aren't adjusting their methodology to compensate for the skewing effect of early voting - due to the relative novelty of the option. Mainstream media ought to be pointing out the likelihood of the skewing effect, to put pressure on polling companies to redesign their polling technique. If the actual vote tally contradicts the current big National margin over Labour, your critique will seem robust.
-
Looks like the latest Colmar Brunton poll has confirmed the prior Reid Research poll: a lead reversal back to National by a large margin and partial deflation of the Ardern effect bubble. My take is that publicising the Labour `make it up as you go along' tax policy has worked for the Nats big time. Labour has not offered any excuse to the public to explain why nine years of opposition isn't ample time to design a credible economic policy - they just keep dodging the question. The Nats just needed to point this out to floating voters to deflate the bubble.
Undecideds are back up to 14% apparently, so the volatility factor is predominant now. Greens back up to 8%. NZ First down to 5% is a surprise - tempting to see it as a rejection of Winston's refusal to signal his coalition preference to voters. The final poll comes out tonight (newshub).
-
Hard News: Where are all the polls at?, in reply to Trevor Nicholls,
Scientists are generally aware of the difference between reporting facts and offering interpretation, and scientists generally seek to test their interpretations by constructing experiments which will either convert interpretation into fact or dismiss it as erroneous speculation.
Yes, this general practice is a laudable mental discipline. I was referring to the myth of scientific objectivity, and the way scientists participate in public life. The media expect them to report facts but they normally get opinions instead. Since I graduated with a BSc in physics long ago, there's been an unending stream of such media misrepresentation of contraversial issues. Most obviously in recent years in climate science. Scientific assertions about whether or not the evidence means anthropogenic global warming is driving climate change have masqueraded as fact for many years because those making the claims (on both sides) believe they are reporting facts when they are actually reporting their interpretations.
Same happens with statistics, which probably originated the old adage about `lies, damned lies, & statistics'...
-
Yes it does rather incline one to doubt the methodology used by polling companies. Corin Dann commented that Colmar Brunton is being consistent in putting Labour ahead three polls in a row. The margin in tonight's is four points - greater than the margin of error.
Yet the National lead of ten points in the TV3 poll the other day was also greater than the margin of error! We're supposed to have confidence that both represent political reality, while they contradict each other. I did pass exams in statistics at the University of Auckland, but that was 48 years ago and my perception of the discipline as voodoo science hasn't changed since. Any reader who takes it seriously is welcome to explain why, if they reckon I'm wrong; I won't bother arguing! Interpretation of scientific results is inherently subjective - despite most scientists being addicted to their denial of this fact.
-
Hard News: Where are all the polls at?, in reply to Tom Semmens,
we need to seriously reform our media landscape
I've felt much the same during the past half-century but there are structural problems that explain why such reform never happens. Primarily the historical fact that private media emerge from an older & more embedded capitalist culture than public media.
Then there's the reluctance of progressive folks to work in unison - as illustrated by the zero-sum game played against each other by Labour & Greens the past twenty years. When the Greens flagged they'd not stand a candidate in Ohariu to help Labour oust Dunne, Labour failed to reciprocate. They could have taken note of the large electorate vote for James Shaw last time & stood aside to ensure themselves a coalition partner. But no, Labour politicos are too mean-spirited to collaborate.
Angst about the powers that be using the old divide & rule strategy deployed by empires for millennia seems pointless when the people are so keen to divide amongst themselves all the time anyway.
I see Labour are now touting a public service tv operation run out of RNZ (instead of transforming TVNZ back into a public broadcaster). If they chartered it to act in the public interest, could be a goer...
-
Well, so much for the recent polls showing Labour ahead! If Reid Research polled correctly, what explains National ten points ahead of Labour? Both Gower & Corin Dann explained it as volatility. If the swing-voters really are just going which way the political wind is blowing on the day, there's no zeitgeist.
Both parties ought to conclude from this that a king-hit in the last few days is required to trigger a swing-voter stampede in the right direction. Although the effectiveness of that tactic will be in inverse proportion to the numbers voting earlier than the 23rd.
-
A fortnight till election day, and Labour has now established a small lead over National: Colin James quotes the RNZ poll of polls (http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/338948/labour-a-nose-ahead-of-national-on-the-averages). The site methodology averages the latest three polls (unspecified).
Confirmed by the latest Bauer Media Insights IQ poll of 1528 Kiwi voters which puts Labour at 37%, National at 34% (poll includes undecideds 8%), and their lead is greater than the margin of error (2.5%) - see http://www.noted.co.nz/currently/politics/poll-labour-national-and-the-crucial-8/
So lots of swing-voters seduced by lipstick-on-a-pig turning it into a cute wee bunny? Some mastermind figured policies are a tedious bore, who needs them? I saw Mike Hutcheson tell Duncan Garner he reckons Labour are currently around 46% because Colmar Brunton only use landlines. That presumes younger voters are responding more to the zeitgeist. Makes sense.
-
Hard News: Where are all the polls at?, in reply to simon g,
I did see him say that, Simon - could've been in a promo, or maybe a back-announce in the bulletin. I registered the second use of 'explosive'. It does indeed imply an advance leak to the newsroom.
Probably the only thing that exploded as a result of the poll was Steven Joyce's credibility, if you liken that to a balloon. A further 2% shifted out of the Nat supporters' camp as a result of four top economists informing the public that the eleven billion dollar mistake Joyce told us is in Labour's policy costing doesn't actually exist. Own goal by Joyce.
I presume the One News team feels obliged to hype its polling because they think viewers are motivated by perception rather than reality, but it just leaves their attempt at fake news seeming feeble compared to the Joyce turd.
-
Hard News: Where are all the polls at?, in reply to Trevor Nicholls,
Will it be "explosive"?
Simon Dallow said it will. The poll is actually out tomorrow night. Again no reference to what is likely to explode, but their ratings would take a hit if the poll result announcement caused viewers' tv sets or heads to explode, so you can see why they're being cagey...
-
Hard News: A thundering clash of, in reply to izogi,
Yes, I saw James say that. My point hinges on whether that is an actual rule, written as part of a procedural document (code of conduct) which binds behaviour like an employment contract, or whether it is merely parliamentary convention - and to what extent can parliamentarians act in accord with their conscience and exercise the right of free speech that most folk who believe in democracy feel entitled to?
You're right that the public jumped to their usual conclusions & moved on. Thoughtful folk will still be digesting the implications. Green party members and supporters will have been polarised into their two original camps: neither left nor right vs the leftists. There's a danger of the re-run of the Values Party schism that created that political fault-line. I doubt it will fracture sufficiently to destroy this party like it destroyed that one, but there will need to be a prolonged pounding of the sledgehammer on the coal chisel to get the learning of their mistake through the concrete in the heads of the leftists.
The Ohariu poll announced on Q+A this morning has the Greens at 12%. This is likely to reassure the leftists sufficiently to prevent them learning the lesson. The political compass website located me halfway across the left side of the political spectrum a couple of years ago, which is probably why my heart tends to make me side with the left on policy issues. Factoring in the necessity of the long-term success of the green cause gets my head back to the center every time. Both green tribes must work together. Leftist polarising is a handicap.