If there is one person in the Labour Party who knows a lot about running a political campaign, it is retiring Dunedin North MP Pete Hodgson.
After being former Dunedin North MP Stan Rodger's campaign manager in 1978, Mr Hodgson moved to work full-time for Labour in 1980 and has had a pivotal role in campaigns ever since.
But not being so actively involved this time, Mr Hodgson could take a step back and review with the Otago Daily Times how both Labour and National were faring.
"I will start with the bleeding obvious, that this election is National's to lose in the same way as 2002 was Labour's to lose."
In Mr Hodgson's opinion, Labour leader Phil Goff had a "blinder" in the first two weeks of the campaign but part of that was due to National's complacency.
"I could not believe the low quality of National's television opening. For a party with that much money, it was foolish complacency. I think they kinda knew it after they did it."
Labour seized the agenda on policy with its saving policy and lifting the age for superannuation to 67, he said. National was no longer seen as bold or exciting but it had the ability to pick up its game and was starting to show that this week.
The other party that had done particularly well was the Greens, but Mr Hodgson was perplexed about the lack of a fourth party making an impact.
He admitted he had never correctly read the Maori seats and did not have a "feeling" whether the Maori Party was polling well or whether Labour was improving in those seats.
"It still is not clear what this election is about. Today, it is about economic credibility and which party has the long-term interests of the country at heart.
"What sometimes happens is that can change rapidly. This election could still have a couple of twists left."
In the 2008 election, nothing happened, but in 2005 National got embroiled in the Exclusive Brethren debate and in 2002 Labour was caught up in the genetically modified crops revelations.
The 1999 election was quiet but in 1996 it was all about one man - Winston Peters, Mr Hodgson said.
The handling of the stricken container ship Rena was not the game-breaker for Labour, but asset sales still could be.
"It won't be the 99%," he said, pointing across the Octagon to the protesters' tent village.
Mr Hodgson believed the polls would close and National, while still commanding a lead, would lose some of its 53%.
However, it was "entirely possible" National could more or less govern on its own. But if it got to around 46%, National could lose the ability to form a government. The votes on the conservative side of the political divide had fallen away.
"Any party with 53%, your support is soft and you are vulnerable. In 2002, we had 52% when the election was called. That fell to 41% at the election."
New Zealand still had not realised that, under MMP, it was normal to have a close result, he said.
In 1996, only one person decided who would govern, and that was New Zealand First leader Winston Peters. But when former prime minister Helen Clark was "swept to victory" in 1999, Labour only got less than 40% of the vote and the result was not that fantastic, Mr Hodgson said.
The 2002 election was a clear result because National did so badly but 2005 was close.
There was still time for Labour to make up ground, he said.
