Comments on: Galaxy: 51-49 in Queensland marginals

By: Kiwipundit

Kiwipundit — Mon, 15 Oct 2007 10:19:41 +0000

Jack @ 72,

Where do you come up with such hilarious statements? You don’t work for the Government Gazette or for the Liberal party do you?

I’ve had a look at your blog and I’ve found this very interesting comment:

“While the PM has been looking calm and relaxed over recent weeks, Kevin Rudd has been looking decidedly stressed and it’s my view that it’s because he knows what internal party polling is telling him regarding Labor’s election chances”.

Rudd looks pretty relaxed to me, it’s the Howard who looks tense – a shadow of the PM he was in 2004.

Oh and here’s another beauty from your blog:

“Both Labor and Liberal polling suggests that Victoria will remain with the status quo and while Deakin and La Trobe will be closely fought battles I expect them to stay in Liberal hands”.

How do you know what internal polling for BOTH parties is saying? I thought such polls were confidential to important party members only?

I don’t believe your statements, but hey everyone’s entitled to their opinion – especially when they’re good for a laugh. It’s a pity that Glen and Nostradamus et al are not posting on this thread tonight – they’ll be delighted to meet you.

By: BMWofVictoria

BMWofVictoria — Mon, 15 Oct 2007 09:29:45 +0000

If I was the ALP I would be fine with these poll numbers.

Now I could be wrong but I feel Longman is a bit like Deakin always marginal but never ALP.

We are seeing from the polls 5% swings in seats like Bennenlong, these four Queensland seats and Stuart / Boothsy.

Possum has reported the swing is said to be bigger in safer Liberal seats and I would suggest apart from 2004 the ALP have in recent timers improved there polling numbers.

The sample size is only 200 per seat and I would imagine that all booths in these seats have more voters than the sample size.

By: Kina

Kina — Mon, 15 Oct 2007 04:37:23 +0000

Possums ominous comments about the two possible narrowings -

“….both of those occasions can be explained by the longer term trends and movement occurring in the polling series over the previous months.”

This is what has not happened to Labor’s polling, it has staid steady if there has been a recent trend in recent times it has seemed to be in the opposite direction.

Anything is of course possible.

By: Kina

Kina — Mon, 15 Oct 2007 04:33:15 +0000

The Narrowing can be bit of a myth – whilst possible I wouldn’t be putting my house on it and there can always be the ‘widening’.

Possums did an analysis of it here:
http://possumcomitatus.wordpress.com/2007/09/27/the-narrowing/

Summary
“So The Narrowing is 2 from 5 at best, 1 from 5 that can be called certain, and where both of those occasions can be explained by the longer term trends and movement occurring in the polling series over the previous months.

While The Narrowing makes for a simplistic bed time polling story and is to be expected to be used by political parties as a weapon for their own electoral self-interest, when it comes to providing actual explanations of electoral behaviour to a broader public, the dogmatic representation of â€œThe Narrowingâ€ as some divinely inspired inevitability is a poor substitute for polling analysis based on the evidence contained within the polling data.”

By: Dario

Dario — Mon, 15 Oct 2007 03:41:39 +0000

Jack, the polls have been incredibly consistent with a swing of 8%+ for 9 months. You don’t get polls like that unless something is going on out there. Please provide some evidence to your assertions rather than wishful thinking…

By: Lose the election please

Lose the election please — Mon, 15 Oct 2007 03:39:21 +0000

Sorry Jack, are you arguing that opinion polls are people saying who they think will win rather than who they will vote for? What basis do you have to believe that?

Not saying I disagree with your count, I’d probably be a little more generous for the Coalition than you, but I’m interested to see why you think the opinion polls reflect ‘expectation and not voting intent’.

By: Jack Lacton, Australia

Jack Lacton, Australia — Mon, 15 Oct 2007 03:35:32 +0000

This election will be very close, as per my post pointing out that the opinion polls are reflecting expectation and not voting intent. I expect the Coalition to fall over the line 76-72-2.

http://ker-plunk.blogspot.com/2007/10/prediction-coalition-to-win-november-24.html

By: Watcher

Watcher — Mon, 15 Oct 2007 03:12:09 +0000

GO at 67, Labor don’t need to win Qld as such, they just need to do better. Even if the swing in Qld is less than 4% (& indeed even if this is accompanied by a swing of less than 3% in WA, SA, Vic, Tas & the NT) Labor can still gain sufficient seats to form government if they get a swing above 4% in NSW.

By: mikem

mikem — Mon, 15 Oct 2007 02:42:12 +0000

This Galaxy Poll is a bit of trickery by David Briggs – a Howard supporter – He deliberately includes Longman and Herbet, which for reasons mentioned by others may not reflect the general swing in the rest of the state. Why did he exclude Blair which is more marginal than both of these? You can be certain that on election night, across the country, some govt seats with 5-7 percent margins will be retained while others requiring a 10%+ swing will be lost. For this reason polls of selected marginals should be treated with caution.

By: Andos the Great

Andos the Great — Mon, 15 Oct 2007 02:19:27 +0000

Peterg @ 62

I agree.
This is clearly evident in the graphs (1 and 2) contained within the coalition’s own ‘vision’ statement released on Friday, here:
http://www.liberal.org.au/info/docs/documents/AustraliaStrongProsperousAndSecure.pdf

Pretty clear trends starting around the Hawke/Keating governments.

John Howard has certainly been good at not spending money, even if he’s promised to spend it.