Left-wing polling companies are not conducting genuine measurements; instead, they are trying to influence voters. However, if we step outside their bubble, reality immediately becomes clear.
Hungarians have both common sense and heart, and in April we will choose a responsible leader who stands up for Hungarian interests even in times of war.
Fidesz is the safe choice.
Median, for example, fundamentally prepares its surveys on political commission, aiming to influence the elections. Their message is that it is worth lining up behind Péter Magyar because he supposedly not only has a chance, but that the race is already decided and he will defeat Fidesz. None of this is true. Anyone who reads other polls can see a 20% difference being claimed — which is completely ridiculous. Deák Dániel has also exposed that this supposed gap is not real at all, and that the two largest parties are actually neck and neck.
It is my firm conviction, and also my personal experience, that our results are in fact much better than what Median has reported. Our individual constituency results and expectations are also significantly stronger.
That is why I say: everyone should reject Median’s attempt at manipulation and instead trust what they see around them. Look at the world. I believe everyone feels that this election carries enormous stakes.
Viktor Orbán is the only leader willing to stand up for Hungarian interests, even when he is attacked for doing so. Péter Magyar, in the current situation, does not stand up for Hungarians — not even when the Ukrainians deliberately shut down the oil pipeline supplying Hungary. What can we expect from such a person?
I believe Hungarians sense this as well, and on April 12 they will make their decision accordingly.
1️⃣ Delegitimizing Pollsters Technique: “left-wing pollsters” “political commission” “attempt to influence voters” “bubble” Goal: Preemptive discrediting. If the numbers are unfavorable, the strategy is not to debate the data professionally, but to label the pollster as a political actor. Effect: The follower does not ask: “What is the methodology?” but instead asks: “Who is behind it?” This is a classic source attack. 2️⃣ Offering an Alternative Reality (“20% is ridiculous”) Here, the counter-narrative appears: “neck and neck” “our results are much better” “in my personal experience” Technique: Positioning subjective impressions against statistical data. Goal: Emotional certainty > statistical uncertainty. Effect: The audience reinforces its belief by referring to its own environment: “My acquaintances are saying the same thing.” This is a typical anecdotal override. 3️⃣ External Threat + Betrayal Frame The Ukrainian oil pipeline issue appears alongside the motif of “not standing up for Hungarians.” Key elements: “the Ukrainians are deliberately shutting it off” “does not stand up” “only Orbán” Technique: Turning a complex energy dispute into a question of moral loyalty. Goal: Transforming the election from a policy debate into a loyalty test. Effect: Whoever is not with Orbán → remains silent → therefore complicit. 4️⃣ The “Only Responsible Leader” Construction Orbán Viktor = the only one who stands up for the country. This is the classic monopolized competence narrative. As a political parallel, this framing is often used for other leaders as well, such as: Donald Trump Volodimir Zelenszkij In both cases, we can observe the personalized legitimacy pattern: “Only he is capable of protecting the country.” 🧠 The “Retreat and Attack” Pattern The mechanism works as follows: An unfavorable piece of data appears. The source is reclassified as a political actor. Subjective personal experience is elevated above numbers. The discussion is redirected toward existential threat. The speaker presents their own leader as the only solution. This is not a policy debate, but psychological stabilization communication aimed at the speaker’s own camp. 🎯 The Bottom Line The text is not about: actual levels of support, or methodological questions. It is about this message: “Don’t believe the polls. Believe us. And be afraid if we don’t win.” This is classic mobilization rhetoric.