I don't think I am describing any hypothetical voter switching? I'm defending the value of the poll as data, and describing how the poll's data could be extrapolated into a projection of positive or negative vibes for a desired result by comparing outcomes against naive assumptions on how undecided voters might distribute their votes. Maybe you are talking about that? I don't consider an undecided voter deciding how they will use their vote "switching" on an issue, and I tried to make it clear that I'm not saying anybody should count on any percentage of the undecided vote, just that you'd rather be in a position where you need fewer undecided voters to reach 50% vs more. I actually left out the nuance where opinions can change over the course of a campaign, causing voters to either switch or opt against voting, that does add uncertainty to an already uncertain process. Which is my point; your language is accusing "neoliberals" of "counting on votes", and I'm just arguing that this poll doesn't need to count on any votes to communicate a positive, if uncertain, picture of the potential future. Your comment feels like it would be more relevant on an opinion piece about this poll that says that this election is in the bag (kind of like how your original comment implied that this poll meant the election was in the bag as a no, as I read it), which is why I am confused. I'll admit, I can't read Icelandic, so I haven't read the article attached to this headline, which is maybe where I am missing context, I'm just reading the headline and a translated excerpt from the comments, so maybe there is an argument being made elsewhere in the article that I'm unaware of. I'm sorry if my tone was accusatory, I'm trying to express my confusion as to why your reaction to my comment was to talk about neoliberals counting votes, which seemed tangential to the comment I made