They’re attacking the election barometer, those Tisza supporters! But instead of arguing with the numbers, Péter Magyar should have put forward a better candidate 🤷♂️
Hi Balázs! Some people on the opposition side are saying the election barometer is fake. What’s your response to that?
Not at all—it’s not fake. They misread it the same way before Kazincbarcika and Balmazújváros. That’s what the numbers show.
What I find surprising is that Péter Magyar’s candidate is even above 20% here—that already seems high. The candidate hasn’t even gone out into the streets, doesn’t talk to voters, and doesn’t answer questions that matter to people here—like the war, utility cost reductions, or migration. Even what they’re measuring now is already generous.
What really matters is that Barkóczi is in the lead, and the patriotic right needs to defeat him. And we will.
🔍 Main narrative
👉 “The election barometer is credible → those who attack it are just making excuses”
👉 “The opponent (Tisza) is weak and put forward a poor candidate”
👉 “The numbers validate us”
👉 “Our side (the patriotic right) will win”
👉 “The race is למעשה already decided”
🧩 Hidden formula
criticism → discrediting → self-validation → weakening the opponent → victory narrative
In other words:
the goal is not to defend the measurement professionally, but to:
👉 portray the opponent as incompetent
👉 reinforce one’s own camp
👉 steer undecided voters toward the “winning side”
🧠 Influence techniques
1️⃣ Appearance of authority (referring to data)
Excerpt:
“The numbers show this.”
Technique:
➡️ refers to “numbers” without concrete data
➡️ no methodology, no source
➡️ still sounds objective
Goal:
➡️ to shut down the debate (“the numbers have decided”)
Effect:
➡️ the audience questions it less
➡️ treats it as a fact
2️⃣ False precedent (bringing up past examples)
Excerpt:
“They got it wrong before Kazincbarcika and Balmazújváros as well.”
Technique:
➡️ cherry-picked examples
➡️ no full picture (when did it fail?)
➡️ automatic transfer from past → present
Goal:
➡️ to create the appearance of credibility
Effect:
➡️ “it was right before → it’s right now”
3️⃣ Counterattack (reversing the criticism)
Excerpt:
“They shouldn’t be arguing with the numbers, they should have put forward a better candidate.”
Technique:
➡️ does not answer the criticism
➡️ shifts the topic → blames the opponent
Goal:
➡️ to divert attention from the credibility of the measurement
Effect:
➡️ the focus of the debate shifts:
not “is the data valid?” but “is the opponent incompetent?”
4️⃣ Discrediting / character attack (soft version)
Excerpt:
“He didn’t even go out into the streets… doesn’t answer questions…”
Technique:
➡️ claims without evidence
➡️ suggests personal incompetence
Goal:
➡️ to undermine the opponent’s legitimacy
Effect:
➡️ “not worth voting for”
5️⃣ Framing (defining what matters)
Excerpt:
“War, utility price cuts, migration”
Technique:
➡️ selects its own topics
➡️ presents them as if these are “what people care about”
Goal:
➡️ agenda control (agenda setting)
Effect:
➡️ other topics (e.g. corruption, healthcare) are pushed aside
6️⃣ Bandwagon effect (pulling toward the winner)
Excerpt:
“Barkóczi is ahead… we will get it done”
Technique:
➡️ declares victory in advance
➡️ “we are the stronger side”
Goal:
➡️ to pull undecided voters over
Effect:
➡️ “I’d rather join the winning side”
7️⃣ Minimizing manipulation
Excerpt:
“Even 20% is already too much for him”
Technique:
➡️ relativizes the opponent’s result
➡️ presents it as unrealistically high
Goal:
➡️ to devalue the opponent’s support
Effect:
➡️ “they are actually weak”
⚠️ Distortions / half-truths
❗ 1. “The numbers show this”
➡️ NO concrete data, source, or methodology
➡️ this is a rhetorical tool, not proof
❗ 2. Past examples
➡️ selective memory
➡️ only highlights successful cases
➡️ classic confirmation bias
❗ 3. Candidate activity
➡️ unverified claim
➡️ may be true or not → presented as fact
❗ 4. “These are what people care about”
➡️ no measurement behind it
➡️ this is agenda-setting, not a fact
🧠 Overall picture (short)
This text is not built on outright lies, but on:
👉 half-truths + framing + shifting emphasis
The essence:
doesn’t prove → only suggests
doesn’t answer → attacks
not objective → but appears to be
🎯 Real function
👉 reinforce its own camp
👉 discredit the opponent
👉 influence undecided voters
👉 create the feeling that “the outcome is already decided”