Polish presidential election too close to call, exit poll suggests
Warsaw's liberal Mayor Rafal Trzaskowski has claimed victory in Poland's presidential election but his winning margin in an exit poll is well within the margin of error.
An exit poll, with a margin of error of 3% broadcast immediately after voting ended, indicates Trzaskowski winning on 50.3%, marginally ahead of his rival, conservative historian Karol Nawrocki on 49.7%.
The official result is due to be published on Monday morning, the head of the state electoral commission said.
Trzaskowski claimed victory in front of cheering supporters in Warsaw. "We won," he said.
"We won, although the phrase 'razor's edge' will forever enter the Polish language and politics," he added.
His wife, Malgorzata, jokingly told the crowd, "I'm close to having a heart attack".
Trzaskowski promised to reach out to voters who supported his opponent. I will be a president for all Polish women and men," he said.
Nawrocki told his supporters that the result is too close to call.
"Let's not lose hope for this night. We will win during the night, the difference is minimal. I believe that we will wake up tomorrow with President Karol Nawrocki," he said.
Poland's president is a largely ceremonial role with limited influence on foreign policy and defence, but they can veto legislation and Donald Tusk's pro-EU coalition government lacks a big enough parliamentary majority to overturn it.
The current conservative incumbent president, Andrzej Duda, has used his powers to prevent Prime Minister Tusk delivering key campaign promises including removing political influence from the judiciary and liberalising the country's strict abortion law.
If Trzaskowski's victory is confirmed that obstacle would be removed and would allow Tusk to cement Poland's place in the European mainstream.
However, Tusk also faces opposition from within his own coalition from the conservative Peoples' Party on issues including abortion and legalising civil partnerships.
A victory for national conservative Karol Nawrocki, who is supported by opposition Law and Justice (PiS) party, would mean continued conflict between the government and president.
It would also re-energise PiS, which lost power 18 months ago, giving the party the belief that it can go on to win parliamentary elections in 2027.
Both candidates support continued assistance for neighbouring Ukraine, although Nawrocki has said he opposes its entry into Nato and the EU for now while Russia continues its war of aggression.
Both men differ over their approach to the EU. Trzaskowski, a former Europe minister, supports Tusk's vision of a Poland at the heart of the European mainstream, influencing decisions through strong relations with Germany and France.
A deputy leader of Tusk's Civic Platform, he has served as Warsaw mayor since 2018.
He's the son of a famous Polish jazz pianist, speaks several languages and is viewed by some voters as a member of the country's liberal elite who is out of touch with ordinary Poles.
According to the CBOS polling company, Trzaskowski's typical voter is aged 30-40 years old, is relatively well off with left-liberal views and is open to LGBTQ+ and migrants' rights. They tend to live in large cities and have positive views of the EU.
Some voters said he tried to "artificially" present himself as a candidate who values patriotism. During the campaign, he has taken a much tougher line against illegal migration, something Tusk started to do before winning power in 2023 and he has volunteered to do basic military training.
Nawrocki, 42, supports a strong sovereign Poland and does not want the country to cede any more powers to Brussels. He opposes the EU's climate and migration policies. He's a conservative Catholic that prioritises traditional family values.
He was relatively unknown nationally before he was selected by opposition party PiS to be their "unofficial" candidate.
A keen amateur boxer and footballer, he often posted images of himself working out, allowing PiS to present him as a strong candidate who would stand up for ordinary Poles and the country's national interests.
A fan of President Donald Trump, he flew to Washington during the campaign for an extremely brief meeting to get a thumbs-up photo of himself with the American president in the Oval Office.
During the campaign he was attacked by the government and media for being morally unfit to be the country's president, but the allegations did not diminish his support during the last week of campaigning.
During a presidential debate, Nawrocki said that he, like most Poles, owned one apartment. That turned out to be a lie.
Nawrocki was accused of taking advantage of a vulnerable senior citizen to acquire his council flat at a huge discount in exchange for promises of care that were unfulfilled. Following the scandal, Nawrocki said he would donate the flat to charity but always denied the accusation.
Polish news website Onet.pl accused Nawrocki of helping to arrange sex workers for guests at the luxury Grand Hotel in the Baltic seaside resort of Sopot when he worked there as a security guard.
The story was based on anonymous sources, but Onet.pl said the witnesses had sworn they would repeat the allegations under oath in court. Nawrocki called the story a pack of lies and said he would sue the website.
His opponents portrayed him as a football hooligan who admired gangsters and neo-Nazi ultras. Nawrocki did not deny taking part in hooligan brawls as a younger man, calling them "noble fights". He has also said these allegations were an attempt to smear his reputation.
Some Nawrocki voters told me they did not believe certain stories about him, saying they were inventions of the mainstream Trzaskowski-supporting media.
Polish knife-edge presidential vote pits liberal mayor against conservative
Warsaw's liberal mayor narrowly wins Polish presidential vote
Polish voters set for tight presidential race after 10 years of Duda
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


News24
28 minutes ago
- News24
What is the High Seas Treaty and why does it matter?
There has been much hype about the United Nations High Seas Treaty at the United National Ocean Conference happening in Nice this week. But what are the High Seas and why are they important? And what will the Treaty achieve? Dr Judy Mann explains. What are the High Seas and why are they important? Extending 370 kilometres offshore is the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) of each nation with a coastline. This is the part of the ocean that each coastal nation has the right to exploit and the responsibility to manage. The rest of the ocean is referred to as the High Seas. Collectively covering almost half of the planet, the High Seas are all the parts of the ocean that are not 'owned' by any nation – the areas beyond territorial waters. These vast stretches of ocean are incredibly important to humanity. They act as a carbon sink for about a quarter of the carbon dioxide generated by burning fossil fuels, they provide about half of the oxygen we need to breathe, and they provide fish and other marine resources to feed billions of people. In fact, the health of the High Seas is critical for the health of humanity. Right now, only about 1% of the High Seas are protected. READ | EXPLAINER | What will the UN high seas treaty mean for protecting the ocean? The High Seas have always been a 'free for all' - massive stretches of ocean where every country has the right to navigate, catch fish, lay submarine cables and pipelines and do research. But the resources of the High Seas – the fish and other biological resources, as well as the minerals in the seabed belong to all of us – not only the nations rich enough to exploit them. The world needed a system to manage the High Seas in a way that is fair and equitable to everyone, and that benefits all of humanity. What is the High Seas Treaty? After more than 10 years of negotiation, the member states of the Intergovernmental Conference on Marine Biodiversity of Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction finally reached consensus and the High Seas Treaty was signed in New York City, US on 4 March 2023. By signing the Treaty, nations acknowledge the rights and responsibilities of all to act as stewards to protect the ocean for current and future generations. What will the Treaty achieve? The High Seas Treaty is a legally binding document in which all member states commit to the conservation and sustainable use of the High Seas. While the Treaty will not directly help nations to deliver against the 30x30 global protection target, it does provide a framework for establishing Marine Protected Areas in the High Seas. The Treaty also addresses how to modernise environmental impact assessments to ensure better consistency in the measurement of the impact of human activities on the ocean. The sharing of benefits from marine genetic resources and capacity building and technology transfer are other focus areas of the Treaty. The Treaty also contains measures to protect traditional knowledge and acknowledge the contribution of local communities. What now? The signing of the Treaty was step one – now we need ratification by at least 60 member states and then implementation needs to happen. This is a complex task and one that has been ongoing since 2023. So far in Nice this week, 20 countries have ratified the treaty, joining the 31 countries and the EU which have already ratified it. So, nine to go! To date 135 countries have signed the Treaty, including South Africa. South Africa has not yet ratified it. Signature is the first step by a country that shows its intention to be bound by the terms of the treaty. Ratification is the formal approval of the treaty by a country's government. Signature is the first step, while ratification means that the country is serious as it legally binds the country to the terms of the treaty. Both ratification and signature are crucial in ensuring that international agreements are legally binding and enforceable. Ratification is important, but without the true commitment of every nation, all the money in the world will not make the Treaty a success. What is needed is a deep acknowledgement that caring for the ocean is the only way to ensure that our children will inherit a habitable planet, followed by true commitment and actions to implement the Treaty as soon as possible. Dr Judy Mann is executive for strategic projects at Two Oceans Aquarium Foundation.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Reeves: UK urges de-escalation in Middle East crisis
Chancellor Rachel Reeves says the UK is deploying jets and other assets to the Middle East to protect British and allied interests, while urging calm amid rising tensions between Israel and Iran. She stresses the PM is working with G7 allies to avoid wider conflict. .
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
More jets does not mean UK ‘at war' says Reeves, amid Israel-Iran conflict
Sending more jets to the Middle East 'does not mean' that the UK is at war, Rachel Reeves has said, as she warned of rising oil and gas prices amid the conflict between Israel and Iran. The Chancellor also indicated that the UK could 'potentially' support Israel, but declined to comment on 'what might happen in the future'. The two nations continued to exchange fire overnight, as the region braced for a protracted conflict. Sir Keir Starmer confirmed on Saturday that more RAF planes are being deployed, amid the escalating hostilities between Israel and Iran. Additional refuelling aircraft have been deployed from UK bases and more fast Typhoon jets will be sent over, it is understood. Asked whether the announcement from the Prime Minister means the UK is at war, Ms Reeves told Sky News: 'No, it does not mean that we are at war. 'And we have not been involved in these strikes or this conflict, but we do have important assets in the region and it is right that we send jets to protect them and that's what we've done. 'It's a precautionary move.' Oil prices surged surged on Friday after Israel's initial strikes against Iran's nuclear programme, sparking fears of increasing prices in the UK. The Chancellor told the BBC that there is 'no complacency' from the Treasury on the issue and 'we're obviously, monitoring this very closely as a government'. Sir Keir has declined to rule out the possibility of intervening in the conflict entirely, and the Chancellor indicated on Sunday that the UK could 'potentially' support Israel in the future. Britain last announced it had deployed fighter jets in the region in last year, when the Government said British aircraft had played a part in efforts to prevent further escalation. Asked whether the UK would come to Israel's aid if asked, the Chancellor told Sunday Morning With Trevor Phillips: 'We have, in the past, supported Israel when there have been missiles coming in. 'I'm not going to comment on what might happen in the future, but so far, we haven't been involved, and we're sending in assets to both protect ourselves and also potentially to support our allies.' Pushed again on whether the UK would deploy assets in support of Israel if asked, she said: 'What we've done in the past (…) is help protect Israel from incoming strikes. 'So a defensive activity.' She added: 'I'm not going to rule anything out at this stage (…) it's a fast moving situation, a very volatile situation.' It comes after Iranian state media said Tehran had warned it would target US, UK and French bases in the region if the countries help Israel thwart Iran's strikes, according to reports on Saturday. Conservative shadow chancellor Sir Mel Stride has backed the Government's decision to send further RAF jets to the region, telling the BBC it is the 'right thing' to do. He told the BBC: 'We've got assets out there in the UAE, Oman, Cyprus, they need to be protected given that Iran has suggested they may be under threat.'