Saturday, August 16, 2014

Deep Perceptive and Reasoned - Yeah Right.

During the "News" on TVOne the results of a snap poll by Colmar Brunton on how people responded to Hagar's "book", term used advisedly.

Q1 Have you heard of Hagar's latest book; Yes 77% no 23%.

Q2 Do you believe his suggestions; Yes 28% No 43% don't know 29%

Q3 Have the allegations influenced you; 4% positively influenced, 82% made no difference, 9% negatively influenced, 4% don't know.

Q4 Will this change your likelihood to vote; 12% more likely, 87% no change, 1% less likely.

With around 20 something percent still polling as voting for the bus that Mr c is driving, what is notable about these results.
Can I suggest surprisingly non event territory and not the deep unease growing in the electorate the daft one is claiming.

Wide understanding of the content and with Labour seemingly anchored in the twenties I see nothing but worserer news Mr c.


paul scott said...

Its early days yet,many of us who are overseas can not get the visceral feeling of the street.
In the last election Nicky Wagner [ Central Christchurch ] won by less than 50 votes. I knew that I had encouraged at least 15 of those votes.
Its funny the words you remember people by, for me John Key
" I get more inquiry about snapper fishing than the GCSB bill"
It has been wrong though of the PM to associate with Cameron Slater.

Psycho Milt said...

Q2 Do you believe his suggestions; Yes 28% No 43% don't know 29%

Before asking the above question, they seem to have left out the (you'd think) rather important prerequisite question "Have you read his book?" to which I expect an almost vanishingly small percentage could answer "Yes." It's truly depressing how many people are willing to declare firm belief or unbelief from a position of near-complete ignorance. It does explain pretty much every Kiwiblog comments thread ever, though...

Interesting that John Armstrong, a long-time Key sycophant, has written a column about this that includes some mild criticism of Key and National. I suspect this reflects Danyl's point that journalists have actually read the book and are unlikely to be chuffed at what they read.