Conference report: On the front line - the '26 campaign
On September 11, 2025, Republikon Institute held a conference titled "On the front line - the '26 campaign," where political experts discussed the intense battle for the 2026 parliamentary elections.
The discussion was moderated by Rita Benyó, journalist.
First panel
In the first half of the two-panel discussion, five experts debated the situation: Balázs Böcskei, strategic director of Idea; Ágoston Mráz, head of Nézőpont; Andrea Virág, strategic director of Republikon; and Tibor Závecz, founder and managing director of Závecz Research.
Rita Benyó started the discussion by asking about the latest data on party support. She wanted to know if there was any overlap between the results of pro-government and anti-government research institutes, since the former had recently measured Fidesz as stronger, while the latter had published figures leaning toward TISZA. According to Ágoston Mráz, Fidesz saw a slight increase in support in the summer of 2025, while TISZA felt a minor decline, leading him to conclude that "Fidesz won the summer." Other researchers reacted critically to this suggestion, with Balázs Böcskei emphasizing that, he thinks, this is not a professional opinion, as victory can be defined in many ways, making it more of a political issue. Tibor Závecz also believes that the figures do not show an advantage for Fidesz, but rather that the TISZA party's steady rise, which began with the EP elections, came to a halt in the summer and is now beginning to stabilize, so it would be premature to call this a trend reversal. Andrea Virág also believes that the widening gap between TISZA and Fidesz will not grow further and finds it reassuring that everyone has measured similar data. She also added that she would not conclude from these measurements that Fidesz had won the summer. Böcskei considered it important to emphasize that there is indeed overlap between the various surveys, as the data are largely consistent, with only methodological and interpretative differences between the pollsters. However, he noted that the summer months are not the most significant period of the campaign, so these figures are less relevant. This is because voters largely do not pay attention to politics at this time, and the data measured in the period before the election is what should be evaluated more seriously and used to draw conclusions.
This question raised a similar issue, which discussed the extent to which it is worthwhile to compare the current measurements with the results of next spring's elections. Researchers critical of the government all agreed that this makes no sense and that these figures are not intended to predict the outcome of the elections. The important and influential campaign period, which could still influence the figures, will take place between the end of the summer and election day. Závecz believes that this does not mean that the current figures are bad, so there is no point in criticizing them in retrospect, as the purpose of the current data is to gauge current public opinion, which may and most likely will change if we are facing such an intense campaign as the one promised for 2026. Böcskei added that party preference polls conducted seven months ago cannot explain what will happen, but questions about the legitimacy of the system are more important, as they can better predict what kind of election we can expect in 2026. Mráz had a slightly different opinion on this, arguing that newspaper readers want to know the results of the elections and expect this from researchers. While they must emphasize that they cannot predict the outcome of the vote, they can provide people with results on the current state of the race. Virág disagreed with this and emphasized that the published data show a list result and are not converted into mandates, so the current state of the election cannot be determined from them.
In addition, several people pointed out that while researchers are responsible for providing data, the way politicians use it and the conclusions they draw from it can make it unreliable.
Another important issue discussed was the differences in definitions and the possible creation of a joint professional organization. The discussion revealed that all of the panel participants had at some point took part in discussions to establish an organization that would encourage institutions to use common terminology. However, this plan has so far failed due to disagreements and mistrust between the various organizations. Most of the participants supported the initiative, but Virág had a slightly different view. Although she believes it is important to clarify and explain terminology, she does not think it is a good idea to use identical definitions. As this is a professional issue, it is better to let each research institute decide how they want to carry out their studies. She believes it would be more effective to highlight the differences between the definitions for voters.
The participants also discussed various methodological issues, focusing mainly on data collection. While Závecz's organization uses calls and online tools, Mráz believes that telephone methods have the best coverage, as older voters are less accessible in the online space. Böcskei works with online data collection but believes that its limitations should be publicly acknowledged and expects other institutes to do the same. At the same time, he stated that he does not believe any of the participants are struggling with data collection problems in Hungary, as their results are very similar.
Apart from these issues, the panel participants all agreed that attacks on poll researchers often take on a personal tone invading their privacy, which, according to Závecz, hinders the recruitment of young researchers.
Second panel
The participants in the second panel were Levente Boros Bánk, director of political analysis at Nézőpont Institute; Ervin Csizmadia, director of Méltányosság; Szabolcs Dull, journalist; Gábor Horn, chairman of the board of Republikon; and Andrea Szabó, social scientist.
The second panel continued to examine the correlations between current data and the 2026 elections, based on the previous questions.
At the beginning, all participants shared their views on what might have caused the late summer data showing a halt in the growth of the TISZA party and the party reactions to this. According to Ervin Csizmadia, these figures, which currently show the TISZA party as stronger, are not yet decisive, as Fidesz has been able to reverse such trends in the past as elections approached. Gábor Horn emphasized that the figures favorable to TISZA party caused Fidesz to begin a political mobilization in the summer and take active steps to strengthen their own camp. This is evident in the prime minister's more frequent appearances, for example as a guest on podcasts. He believes that the reason for this is the numbers that are coming from independent research centers, which are prompting Viktor Orbán to take a more serious role in domestic politics and avoid isolation. Thus, thanks to the relaunched “Fidesz machineries”, this match is far from over, and it is still too early to declare a sure winner in the elections.
Levente Boros saw this summer phenomenon differently. In his view, Péter Magyar succeeded in uniting the previously fragmented opposition forces that are critical of the government, but then hit a so-called “glass ceiling”. The party's growth stalled in the summer and reached its limits. However, according to Boros, Fidesz made a comeback with Viktor Orbán more frequent appearance, through their initiatives of the “Fighters' Club”, “Digital Civic Circles”, that won back people over the summer. In contrast, Szabolcs Dull also believes that Fidesz saw things moving in the wrong direction and therefore took more active steps.
The discussion also touched on the possible reasons for Péter Magyar's success. According to Horn, TISZA solved the problem of unity by sweeping everyone else out of the previous opposition side and was able to inspire voters more than in previous years. Csizmadia believes that Péter Magyar is trying to lure Fidesz voters with a right-wing stance, which he often symbolizes by wearing national symbols, but it is yet to be decided whether he succeeds. On the other hand, he sees that Fidesz is strengthening its own voter base but is not trying to win new voters. In response, Boros emphasized that Péter Magyar only represents right-wing values on the surface, but in his view, he stands for a left-liberal program on issues that are important to voters. Horn considers Péter Magyar's community to be a heterogeneous, ideologically diverse group, while Boros believes that Péter Magyar clearly represents left-wing politics and that voters will not believe his right-wing appearance.
Furthermore, there was a strong disagreement between the two speakers on the issue of rural areas. According to Horn, Magyar has reached rural communities and claims that this election will be decided offline, so a local presence, for example in the form of visits to the country, is crucial. Boros disagrees, saying that Péter Magyar's presence in rural constituencies is not enough to take the lead there.
Andrea Szabó considers TISZA's success to be due to it breaking the central power base that Fidesz had enjoyed for years. In this setup, many smaller parties on both the left and right were previously grouped around one large party, so they were unable to join forces. Today, however, this central position is no longer occupied and monopolized by Fidesz alone, as Péter Magyar has successfully managed to place another major force there. Szabó also mentioned the democratization of politics, as evidenced by the recent increase in the number of people actively participating in politics. Boros responded by saying that he disagrees with the statement that the central force field is divided between TISZA and Fidesz, and he would continue to attribute this position to Orbán's party.
Szabó and Dull had similar thoughts on the election results. They agreed that it is still too early to say who will win. According to Szabó, it is not worth analyzing the figures on party preferences until January-February; the results of questions measuring public sentiment are more important. In September 2025, more than 60% of people thought that things were going in the wrong direction, but this improved over the summer, so it will be important to monitor this trend in the coming months. Dull added that with around 1 million undecided voters, a lot could still change. These voters' opinions on social issues (such as migration) have previously helped researchers estimate which party they are likely to vote for, but there is currently a lot of overlap between TISZA and Fidesz on many issues, making this much more difficult. He added that even the main issue or theme of the election, which will determine where voters will position themselves, has not yet been decided, so it is difficult to say what results we can expect.
When asked how decisive economic factors will be in the 2026 elections, Horn replied saying this contest will not be decided on economic and welfare issues. He believes that the issue of thematization is much more important, as is the extent to which Péter Magyar is able to take up the topics appearing in public discourse or whether he will allow Fidesz to shape them, which will determine the outcome of this contest.
At the end of the discussion, Csizmadia pointed out that examples from other European countries show that protest parties often crumble and are unable to maintain their policies in the long term. Szabó agreed with this point and used historical examples to show that it is possible to win elections in Hungary with protest parties, but so far these movements have not been able to govern for long, so it is also important to create a common identity, which is not yet clear in Péter Magyar's case.
The operation of Republikon Institute is supported by the European Union. The views and opinions expressed at the event do not necessarily reflect that of the European Union. Neither the European Union, nor the organisation providing support can be made responsible for these.
