It is not often you get a politician trying to spend longer in Opposition, but that is the situation the latest Covid-19 outbreak has put National Party leader Judith Collins in.
Collins has asked Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern to delay the election, at least until November or potentially next year, saying the outbreak and lockdown of Auckland makes it unreasonable to stick to the September 19 polling date.
It was not supposed to be like this. By now, Labour should have announced its tax policy and National should have been stringing the balloons for its big campaign launch tomorrow.
Instead, the campaign was halted, frozen in time at 9.23 pm on Tuesday when Ardern took to the Beehive stage to announce there were four cases of Covid-19 in the community.
Auckland went to the supermarkets and then into lockdown. Ardern turned from Labour leader back into Prime Minister again.
Ardern's finger is now hovering over the pause button deciding when to push "play" on the election date again. That decision will be made on Sunday or Monday.
The question is whether that will still be September 19.
Collins is not the only one calling for a delay. NZ First's Winston Peters, Act leader David Seymour, and parties outside Parliament, including the Maori Party, have also called for it if Auckland is in lockdown for much longer.
That is pretty much all parties bar Labour itself and the Greens, who think it should be left to the Electoral Commission to make the decision rather than any politicians.
Māori Party call for level 4 lockdown for all Māori and return of iwi checkpoints
Hosking: 'Covid election' needs to be delayed if Auckland stays in lockdown
'Health first, politics second' – Peters open to election delay
The latest Ardern can call an election is November 21, unless Parliament is called back and a "super-majority" of more than three-quarters of MPs vote for a later date.
Given National has said it would support that, the delay would pass if Ardern took that option.
It has not been done since World War II.
But recently a lot of things have happened that have not happened before.
It seems almost inevitable Ardern will opt to delay until November. The question is whether she should do yet another almost unprecedented thing, and delay for up to a year.
There are political reasons National and NZ First want a delay, just as there are political reasons Ardern may want an election sooner rather than later.
The current state of affairs has crippled their ability to campaign and benefits Labour – or at least Ardern – who has resumed her position on the Beehive podium and the top of the headlines.
There have been suggestions the decision to delay should be based only on practical reasons, such as whether it is difficult for people to cast their votes, rather than for reasons of fairness to the political parties involved.
That is bunkum.
A free and fair election is not only about ensuring people can cast a vote.
It is also about making sure they will cast a vote – and can cast an informed vote. It is about fairness to the voters.
Like it or not, that means giving all parties a free and fair chance to pitch their wares.
A campaign before an election is as critical as election day itself.
As things are, there is nothing free or fair about the politicians' ability to do that.
Nor does that only apply in level 3 Auckland.
Even for those parts of the country not in lockdown, fear and worry is so heightened there is very little appetite for campaigning politicians, whether by mail, phone or in person.
In most election campaigns, the field is tilted in favour of the incumbent. For National, that advantage came from the global financial crisis and the earthquakes.
But never in recent history has the playing field been quite this tilted, even without National's own self-inflicted wounds.
This is not the Prime Minister's fault – she can hardly step back from dealing with the crisis simply because of an election.
But it is something she has to bear in mind.
It borders on being almost undemocratic to hold an election in the near future.
The Electoral Commission has devised processes to cope with level 2, and very small, localised lockdowns at level 3 – but nothing the size of Auckland.
Even at level 2, it is one thing to be able to vote, but quite another to expect people to actually go out and do it if they are nervous about community transmission.
There is a big counter-argument against any lengthy delay to an election.
The sooner there is certainty about who is governing for the next three years, the sooner that party can get on with actually doing it.
That is a big reason not to delay for too long.
The biggest question of all is not what is in the interests of any political party or politician right now. It is what is in the interests of New Zealand.
But there are significant political issues for Ardern to consider as well.
Labour's biggest fear heading into the campaign was that the political gold it had built up from Covid-19 would be derailed by another outbreak.
Parties will be trying to calculate whether it will damage the Government's hitherto strong reputation for management of the crisis, and by how much.
It is inevitable more people will react with anger than before. Anger needs a target. The Government is an obvious target.
It could give National a chink to get back into the game, although its own spates of self-inflicted wounds may mean many voters do not think it would necessarily do any better.
National almost squandered its chink at the get-go, courtesy of Judith Collins and Gerry Brownlee's initial remarks.
Brownlee in particular had seemed to question whether Ardern and Bloomfield's warnings against complacency a fortnight ago were part of some vast, vile cover-up of community spread.
They quickly learned the same lesson Bridges learned when he moved at pace to raise concerns about elements of the Government's handling way back in March.
The difference was that Bridges was at least raising valid points - even if people did not want to hear them.
Brownlee swiftly went into reverse, saying he had gone into a "bad spot" with his musings.
National also faces the risk that kindness does rise twice, and that people's anxiety and fear keep them wedded to the status quo and to that woman on the podium who talks about kindness, and plans and other reassuring things.
Ardern's communication was an asset for Lockdown I.
But does it have a second wind? How will people take being told to "be kind" and "stand together" for their country, especially if the most likely explanation for the outbreak is found to be true: that it was from some failing at the border or in quarantine facilities?
As Ardern now weighs up whether to delay the election, some part of her will undoubtedly be regretting not bringing it forward when she had the chance.