Nothing scientific, of course. A bit of vox-popping along the way, and, as it happens, a word of cheer for Mr Alex Salmond.
Mr John Reid says Mr Blair's "isn't the Labour Party I used to support", sees nothing wrong with taxing and spending, and consequently plans to give both his votes to the SNP on Thursday.
Likewise Danny (28), who describes himself as "a Glasgow Catholic who was always happy to think British." Not any more. "When I see the bombing of Serbia . . . ach, I just think we've had enough of all that."
The political scientists, pundits and number crunchers confirm these men exceptions to the rule that Mr Salmond's "double whammy" - his condemnation of the bombing, and his commitment to forgo Mr Gordon Brown's penny tax cut - has had no significant impact on the election campaign.
But it is possible to detect an underlying concern of a different nature which might very well play to the SNP's advantage.
Rebecca (28) is on her way up the management ladder. She looks and sounds the quintessential New Labourite. Indeed, she voted Labour in 1997. But she's planning a rebellion in Thursday's historic elections to the first Scottish parliament in 300 years.
"Oh I know it's important," she says over a drink: "I just hope the people of Scotland realise that. I mean, there's Tony Blair up here again on Friday. It's as if we're all still looking to London. This isn't meant to be about London."
Rebecca reflects an amount of disillusion apparent among many Scots 18 months after the emotional high-point of the referendum victory. She bought into the concept of a "new politics" for Scotland. She likes the notion of "inclusivity" and she is dismayed at the sight of a good old-fashioned political carve-up, with prospective ministers vying for the top jobs.
Rebecca's act of defiance will be to vote "first" for the SNP, and "second" for the Green Party. She isn't remotely interested in independence, nor in the idea of Mr Salmond as First Minister, but she does want Scotland put first, and fears a Labour-controlled Holyrood will amount to little more than an extension of London Labour's hegemony.
Her fears might, of course, prove justified. Mr Paddy Ashdown may detect in Mr Blair a natural pluralist masquerading as a control freak. However, many inside his party wonder if the prime minister yet understands that "devolution means letting go."
There is a powerful and compelling question behind the observation from the SNP's Ms Roseanna Cunningham that, if Mr Blair thinks to create a Scottish parliament which won't then exercise its independent judgment, he hasn't understood the plot.
And there was the simple eloquence of Mr Donald Dewar's acknowledgement the other week that he had answered Scottish Questions for the last time as Secretary of State.
There will, of course, be another Secretary of State. But while Westminster will retain responsibility for the broad economy, social security, defence and foreign policy - on a whole host of issues, like health, education and training, local government, the environment, arts, agriculture, law and home affairs, Mr Dewar and his ministers will be answering questions in a Scottish Parliament complete with its own mandate.
Rebecca's fears can hardly, surely, be realised - whatever the theories of Labour's policy wonks in London, it is hard to imagine any party bent on re-election not putting Scotland first.
After a routinely dull session of Northern Ireland questions last week, a senior and highly respected Westminster commentator told me: "This parliament's dying on its feet."
An exaggeration, perhaps, as of now. But a gentle earthquake is utterly transforming the state and governance of Britain - and at Westminster, they still don't appear to have noticed.