Posts by David Hood
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I think there is a lot of evidence that voters of all persuasions understand MMP now. I certainly think it highly likely Labour and Green voters were giving Goldsmith their electorate vote (the alternative theory would be that Labour and Green voters were supporting the ACT candidate while Goldsmith's support came from National). So what it mostly boils down to is people who have partied voted Labour on previous occasions not doing so on this occasion.
-
-
The enrolment stats are over here, so one could do some maths against the election results for turnout
-
Looking at the figures compared to last time. National more or less held their support from last time. Greens more or less held there support from last time. Collapse in support for Labour a bit of which went to NZ First. I think, from the outside of Labour, are not what National did to not lose it's support but what Labour can do to bring back the people staying home who used to vote Labour.
-
National are actually about 1.5% behind in the advanced vote compared to last election. It is being talked up on the TV though.
-
national are down in early voting relative to last elections early vote, but given this elections early vote is so different that could be read in several different ways.
-
allow me to be the first to call the Conservatives not getting in, based on them being at 4.6 with the very, very early numbers that lean small c conservative.
-
Google flu trends has been much less effective in the long terms than it was first thought. but. Other sources like wikipedia search frequency have also been used.
-
for people who like to play with data, and compare census demographics with voting, does anyone know of a fairly direct sources of results on the night- ideally one in a form that can be easily automatically read into R as it changes through the evening?
-
Well, The thinking was the Hager book was about the NSA stuff, and they were a bit blindsided by the contents. the first response was to say it wasn't true, which was incompatible with saying the emails were stolen. could they have played it differently at the start, yes. Did they want to contradict themselves from initial positions, no.
Anyway, the media have a pretty clear understanding of releasing things in the public interest, so trying to tell the media that Slater's privacy rights have precedence when there is evidence of illegal activities would be pushing it uphill.