The timing of a Sunday newspaper's internet opinion poll result and the features on New Zealand First and its leader, Winston Peters, may have given the impression to voters that Lazarus was rising yet again.
Mr Peters is playing his favourite double-handed game: trying to create a space in the political marketplace and keeping everyone waiting while he tempts us with the possibility of standing for election.
He was in Otago last week, attempting to rouse the remaining handful of his faithful followers, and no doubt will have that core on a national basis for as long as he chooses to appear before them. But there is much more to political strategy than mere wish fulfillment.
Mr Peters has a reputation for accurately sniffing the political breeze, so his attempts to promote a revival now represent a signal of some kind, especially bearing in mind that most voters have probably forgotten why Mr Peters was effectively forced out of politics.
His prospective return can hardly be because the Government's leading party, National, is experiencing any kind of polling disaster. That is so far from the truth as to be ludicrous.
It has, to judge by the full range of publicly known opinion polling, a leader who is very popular - and untroubled by any lack of nerve or confidence. The Government is itself mildly popular; the alternatives far less so.
Next year being both election and Rugby World Cup year, voters can expect both to be inextricably linked, and that is Mr Key's biggest electoral challenge.
Should he call an election before or after the RWC? Should he fight for re-election on the basis of a traditional campaign and his Government's record, or should he call one immediately after the RWC final, hoping the All Blacks win and the euphoria of success will carry National's day? While Mr Key holds the ace of naming an election date, it is an ace with inherent and obvious dangers.
His decision also poses problems for minor parties, including those not represented in the current Parliament.
For Mr Peters, the most obvious is the decision whether to contest an electorate seat or to rely on New Zealand First reaching the 5% threshold of the popular vote.
It is most likely that he will opt for the latter as being the safest choice in a situation where he has no local profile in any electorate seat, is often largely ignored by the main media outlets, and will have no time now to establish a local presence.
Without an electorate to contest, he will be able to devote all his attention to fighting a national campaign rather than divide his efforts and funding.
A similar decision faces Act New Zealand, especially if the National Party decides to seriously contest Rodney Hide's Epsom seat.
The Maori Party, at least, can rely on the Maori electorates for the substance of its support but that, too, may be heavily diluted if the fractures triggered by the replacement legislation for the Foreshore and Seabed Act widen.
Policies for the minor parties may also be determined by gaps in the broad church approach of the two main contenders. Nevertheless, the National Party's chief problem will be convincing voters that austerity is worth voting for.
This week's larger-than-forecast quarterly Crown account deficit will require the Government to continue with its restraint policies and to continue to reduce further the rate of growth in state spending.
Business profits are lower, so is GST revenue. There is no sign of the anticipated faster growth in the medium and longer term.
Spending restraint "for the foreseeable future" means National will have to campaign on its record: it has little room to offer promises.
Labour's problem is twinfold: it has a leader perceived even within his own party - perhaps unfairly - as unlikely to win the election, and its policy promises are necessarily bound by the same fiscal constraints.
Phil Goff's pitch to middle-income voters on Monday was couched in these terms, offering only the hope of expanding the economy and keeping the costs of living down.
Mr Peters, though coy about his plans, will enter this campaign in his usual guise as the wild card.
Signs exist that National is now hedging its bets about the prospects of some form of coalition liaison with New Zealand First, having relied until now on John Key's denunciation of Mr Peters.
But National might need a few New Zealand First MPs should the Maori Party sunder and create a gap in the market for coalition partners. That will be Mr Peters' best post-election hope, and probably National's nightmare.
Mr Peters will be anticipating the possibility of pro-Labour conservatives giving New Zealand First their party vote, and unless Mr Goff and his colleagues can improve their appeal, his party achieving the 5% threshold might just be within reach.
