The really dismal thing about elections, apart from being inundated with images of some of the most truly unphotogenic people in the country, would have to be the absolute fucktardery over polling that masquerades around as fact in opinion columns.
The latest cab off the rank is that savant psephologist, Christopher Pearson. On September 22, he wrote (if by wrote you mean ‘scrawled a random stream of consciousness from a parallel universe’) an article in The Australian with the humble title “To win the unwinnable poll”.
“Interesting”, I thought….. “Maybe a polemic on what the government needs to do”, I mused.
But alas, as one read through the piece it quickly became apparent that the article had much to be humble about.
The first line was a corker and really set the scene: “The Government is getting near the level of support it needs in the seats where it matters most.”
….which was just the first in a rather long line of WTF? moments that ensued.
We only have to look at the swings in the marginals identified in the quarterly Newspoll breakdown to clearly demonstrate this to be nothing more than an exercise in make believe.
The seats where the government needs support is in the marginals. The ALP have, according to the latest quarterly Newspoll breakdown, 50% of the primary vote in those marginals. That is a 9.2% primary vote swing to the ALP and an 8.3% two party preferred swing in those seats that are supposedly the ones that “matter most”, seats held by less than a 6% margin.
The ALP has an average of 2.3% more vote than it needs to take every single one of the least marginal of those marginal seats, let alone those seats with a margin well under 6%. For the government to be getting “near the level of support it needs in the seats where it matters most” , that swing to the ALP in the marginals needs to be halved – let alone the swing against the safe government seats likewise halving as well, simply to stop the government held seats on 6% – 7% buffers from falling.
After a bit of self indulgent navel gazing and chastising of other commentators for their apparent inability to understand reality, this electoral Man of Letters declared:
“It’s often forgotten that his victory in 1998 was achieved with a primary vote in the House of Representatives election of only 39.5 per cent and that Labor won in 1990 with a primary vote of 39.4 per cent. If the Coalition were to wage a dogged campaign concentrating on holding its marginal seats, it could win by maintaining its present primary vote if it also managed to cut Labor’s two-party preferred margin to about two points, as in 1998 when Labor led with 51 points to the Coalition’s 49 and still lost.”
What Christopher Pearson seems to have forgotten is that little thing called One Nation – just how one could forget One Nation is beyond me, but memory loss and delusion do seem to walk hand in hand in the political psychopathology stakes.
In 2007, a primary vote in the low forties will deliver the Coalition exactly nothing but the opposition benches, simply as a consequence of the minor party make up and vote share. The 1990 election quoted was memorable for the high 17.1% minor party primary vote – mostly the Democrats and the Greens, which forced 91 seats to be decided on preferences. Of those 91 seats, the Coalition gained 33, the ALP 57 and Others 1. That was simply a result of the ALP benefiting from a high preference flow from those minor parties – parties generally from the centre left, in an election where the environment was a dominant issue.
In the 1998 election, One Nation was the dominant minor party and being a party from the conservative side of politics, sent a majority of preferences back to the Coalition helping to push Howard over the line in a large number of seats. We can see the One Nation effect on the primary vote of the Coalition by simply graphing the primary vote swing of the monthly Newspoll aggregates (which is simply the difference between the Newspoll primary vote estimate and the primary vote obtained at the previous election).
The One Nation effect is marked and represents the period from the month when the One Nation party formed through to the 1998 election. The blue numbers at the top are the primary vote swing achieved at each election. If we do the same for the ALP primary vote swing we get:
There was little to no One Nation effect on the ALP primary vote. However, the ALP vote seemed to grow at the end of 1997, possibly as a reaction to the Coalitions handling of the One Nation saga. From the primary vote swings we can clearly see that the Coalition primary vote dropped substantially (-7.75%) compared to the small ALP rise (+1.34%). In 1998, the Coalition could win government with a small primary vote simply because the preference flows from One Nation were benefiting the Coalition compared to the ALP – leading to the Coalition winning 62 seats on preferences vs. the 35 seats the ALP won on preferences.We’ve modeled the One Nation effect many times before, and to readers here it is nothing new.
Unfortunately for Pearsons fantasies, preferences are currently flowing between 65-75% to the ALP if we look at the ACNielson and Morgan preference allocation distributions.
So no Christopher – the Coalition cannot win with a primary vote in the low forties in 2007 simply because of the lack of minor party support from the right. The ALP can win with a low primary because of the high minor party preference flow to them that is a function of the political composition of the minor party vote, but the Coalition simply cannot – so let us have no more of that horseshit eh?
The next piece of ignorance to emanate from the pages was this gem:
“In Western Australia, the two-party vote has moved from a 50-50 split to 51-49 in the Coalition’s favour, which would help deliver the Government Labor’s two marginal seats in Perth. In Queensland the two-party split moved from 54-46 in Labor’s favour to 52-48.”
If we use WA as an example to show why this is nothing but buffoonery of the most inane kind, in WA during the period from Quarter 2 to Quarter 3 2007, the governments primary vote swing has gone from -5.8% to -4.8%, the ALP primary vote swing has stayed the same at +5.3% and the ALP TPP swing has reduced from +5.4% to +4.4%.This would deliver the ALP the two Coalition marginals of Stirling and Hasluck on buffers of 2.4% and 2.6% respectively according to Antony Greens spiffy election calculator. For the government to gain the two ALP marginals, they need a swing TO them, not a swing AWAY from them. On current standing, the Coalition needs a 4.5% swing to them in WA between now and the election to pick up Swan, and a 5.2% swing to them between now and the election to pick up Cowan.
You see Christopher, it’s not about the 50/50 split on TPP that makes the difference, it’s the SWING that matters. In Qld, to give another example to beat the stupidity out of you with, a 52-48 split would represent a 9.1% TPP swing to the ALP. If this was uniform, the ALP would pick up 10 seats in Qld.
Yes, 10. From smallest to largest winning margin they would be Bowman, Dickson, Hinkler, Flynn, Petrie, Longman, Herbert, Blair, Moreton and Bonner.
So please, let us put this type of gross misunderstanding of polling results to bed as well.
Pearson continues:
“On these figures, a recapitulation of the Coalition’s victory in 1998 is quite on the cards.”
Only if you’re smoking crack Christopher.
Now remember folks, this article was printed in The Australian, the very newspaper that thundered in a self-indulgent hissyfit that “we understand Newspoll because we own it“. They declared that “THE measure of good journalism is objectivity and a fearless regard for truth“, before stating that “Not properly understanding how polls work gives our critics licence to project their own bias onto analysis of our reporting.”
Allowing columnists such as Christopher Pearson to produce articles like “To win the unwinnable poll”, makes a complete mockery of the standards of “objectivity and a fearless regard for truth” that the paper declares is so important to the measure of good journalism. Publishing such articles that, by any objective measure, fall victim to “Not properly understanding how polls work” undermines The Australians self declared superiority of polling analysis to the point of it verging sharply toward hypocrisy.
One doesn’t need to own Newspoll to understand the Yooniverse, but one certainly needs to have a modicum of understanding for the very basics of statistics and electoral history, to produce polling analysis that can be said to have even a mediocre relationship with observable reality. On this point, Christopher Pearson and consequently The Australian, fail.
If The Australian wishes for its political analysis to be seen as national best practice, then it needs to uphold a higher quality of journalistic standard and vigorously enforce stronger quality control over its published content. For as long as articles like Christopher Pearson’s “To win the unwinnable poll” are published by The Australian, the self-declaration on the superior quality of The Australians polling analysis will ring hollow.
No Comments
Pages: « 1 [2] Show All
Hergs, it’s actually:
Pearson = pwned
Bungs, if a reader can’t work out reading Pearson that it’s partisan polemic prattle, I’m not sure they will now who Alexander Downer is. Or how to read…
Either way, owned or pwned he is sitting in a corner somewhere
Greatings from the The Comintern of the Third Species
Dear comrade marsupial, the fauna of SA report of vast swings in SA )Grey) not reported in the official state polls. You have been awarded the Order of the Megafauna for outstanding marsupial analysis, in discerning the mega swing in the safe seats. Congradulations comrade marsupial.
Votes, Votes, every where,
And all the polls did shrink ;
Votes , Votes, every where,
Nor any seat to keep
The very seats did rot : O Christ !
That ever this should be !
Yea, slimy things did crawl with legs
Upon the slimy tv.
About, about, in reel and rout
The death-fires danced at night ;
The water, like a witch’s oils,
Burnt green, and blue and white.
And some in dreams assuréd were
Of the Polls that plagued us so ;
Nine fathom deep he had followed us
From the land of text and spin.
And every tongue, through utter drought,
Was withered at the root ;
We could not blog, no more than if
We had been choked with soot.
Ah ! well a-day ! what evil looks
Had I from old and young !
Instead of the cross, the Workchoice
About my neck was hung.
Bugger having Possum on Insiders, I want to see Possum as a regular guest on Saturday Night Live with Antony Green, which I envisage being similar to Hey Hey It’s Saturday (except about politics – in a light-hearted sense); with a puppet possum presenting the political facts and figures next to the most under-used talent at the ABC – Mr Green (I’m certain that Mr Green can sing and dance too!)
I can further envisage Antony opening the show with a few gags, then moving on to the ten best reasons not to go out on the town with Glenn Milne etc. Also, there will be a show band –The Number Crunchers or some such. Also… (I could go on for hours, I best leave it there.)
Poss
Howard’s worry over losing Grey which has a margin of 13.74% confirms your analysis of big swings in safe seats.
A uniform swing of 14% would see them lose 72 seats, not going to happen of course, but it would be a good way to cleanse the party.
“Bugger having Possum on Insiders, I want to see Possum as a regular guest on Saturday Night Live with Antony Green, which I envisage being similar to Hey Hey It’s Saturday”
Fagin
Perhaps more like The (afl) footy show with Antony as Trevor marmalade.
With the exception of (mostly) Matt Price and the inestimable George Megalogenis, the Oz opinion page is a bit like shooting fish in a barrel for anyone who actually has a capacity for rational, coherent thought. Now that Mr Mumble has sold out
, it’s good to see others taking up the cudgel.
And I agree with Bill and Antony about the West Wing. Never been interested enough to watch it.
PS – If you did go on Insiders, would you wear a possum suit?
Come on Insiders You know you want to give Possum a segment.
Possum, for you to label the MSM polling commentary as ‘absolute fucktardery’ is an insult to fucktards everywhere.
Brilliant.
Tad,
You’re right – there’s so much of the Win Expectations boosterism around at the moment. From the secret squirrel leaked internal Lib polling showing the Libs doing really well in (name chosen seat) through to various spruikers around the place. I think the Libs risk doing damage to themselves in some swinging and undecided demographics by pushing this nonsense too far – it just makes them look foolish.But I suppose it beats begging for votes on the 7:30 Report.
Swio – to have a chance of winning, the government really needs to be ahead of the ALP on a Newspoll basis. Howard isn’t a good campaigner, and conservative columnists keep saying that the Coalition vote increase during the 2004 campaign was a result of Howards good campaigning rather than being a result of Lathams bad campaigning. I’m not convinced of that – actually, I think its rubbish. Lathams vote deterioration in the 2004 campaign I think was entirely self-inflicted by the Labor Party and that Howard and the Coalition had very little, if any to do with it.
The ALP seem to be getting higher preference flows in 2007 than 2004.That means that TPP estimates based on the 2004 distribution slightly underestimate the ALP TPP vote (great news for the Coalition supporters reading, I’m sure), but the lower the ALP primary vote gets, the greater the polls that use that 2004 preference distribution will underestimate the ALP TPP. So the Coalition really needs to be slightly ahead of the ALP on Newspoll TPP estimates going into the election to give them a good chance at winning.
Baz,
The print media, with the exception of a few brilliant journos like George Meganomics (and a couple of others) have been behind the bloggers all year.
It wasn’t until the Poll Wars episode that the mainstream print media actually started to take what the polls were saying seriously, even though the blogs had been doing it for months. By the time they’d got around to dealing with the basic headline reality, we’d moved on to dealing with the composition of the vote. By the time they got to the basic composition of the vote, we’d moved on to dealing with the campaigning strategies of both parties in terms of their treatment of that composition of the vote – with things like The Firewall and which individual seats are playing out. The print media are only just catching up to that now.
It’s fair to say that those guys cant be expected to do what we do because we’re statisticians, econometricians and psephologists whereas they’re journalists. Different skillsets altogether. And we also have a different set of contacts to them.
And speaking for myself, I treat polls in ways that even the polling companies themselves don’t, because they’ve never had the commercial need to treat public opinion polling from a specific time series approach. Time series analysis is a completely different kettle of mathematical fish to the type of survey analysis that makes up the meat in the polling companies statistical breakdowns.
On the MsM vs the Blogs issue, I think we’ve all got it around the wrong way in our expectations. The blogs SHOULD be expected to lead the way, because that’s what our specific skills allow us to do. I don’t think this is so much of a case of the print media being behind the ball (although they were on coming to grips with the reality of public opinion), just that for the first time there’s a group in front of them. This is EXACTLY what the internet was supposed to enable. And long let it continue.
Us bloggers are doing our job. Many have been for along time (Like Pollbludger and OzPol and places like LP – remember, I’m only a newbie here, I started in May)….but because the blogosphere is now getting more prominence, the pressure should be on us to keep up our quality, and not so much on the print media to try and keep up with us. Them keeping up with us is, I think, an unrealistic expectation because we work in completely different ways.
Hail Ancient Mariner!
For the Possum Pome I …… er, well thanks!
I will wear my Order of the Megafauna with pride!
KC, on the swing in SA.
One of the interesting things to come out of the last quarterly Newspoll is that the weight of the swing in safe gov seats vs marginal gov seats has shifted by a few points. There seems to be less swing in the safe gov NSW seats (by a few points), but that was compensated by an increase in the SA and VIC government safe seats (with Qld remaining roughly the same).This may reflect the ALP targeting smore safe gov seats down south, and shifting resources in NSW to go after the really doable safe gov seats in NSW. These results would certainly confirm what we’ve been hearing about ALP resource deployment over the last few months.
And enough about the Insiders already, apart from probably not being able to control the overwhelming urge to beat Piers, Henderson and others over the head with the nearest chair, while such violence would surely make for good viewing and be met by rounds of applause, this possum doesn’t do TV.The lighting dries up my fur.
Ah, this explains much. Anyone who has anything to do with Lexy instantly becomes intellectually bereft. I’m sure moving to Mayo has knocked quite a few points off my IQ ;(
And the bad poll news continues – the first Nielsen Online poll of the campaign, reported in today’s Age, shows 58-42% 2PP.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/libs-pray-for-end-to-poll-drought/2007/09/24/1190486225395.html
I agree that Howard’s reputation as a campaigner is overstated. It was generally agreed that he lost all the TV debates against Beazley and even Latham – he must be dreading having to face Rudd.
Not sure about this, but I think that in 1998 One Nation’s preference policy was designed to give the impression of being even-handed whilst actually favouring the government. Weren’t the seats in which they gave preferences to Labor either Labor seats or ultra-safe Coalition seats? They preferenced to Labor in Wide Bay but to the Nats in Hinkler? This contributed to Labor’s final 2PP vote being wasted.
Anyone writing about polls needs to pass the Psephology for idiots questionnaire:
Question 1.
MOE stands for
(a) A town in Gippsland Victoria
(b) One of the Three Stooges
(c) Margin of Error
(d) How you would might spell a brand of
champagne if you had not done the spelling
for idiots questionnaire
““Maybe a polemic on what the government needs to do” Possum, you seem to do an awful lot of analysis about polling results. maybe you can write a piece about what Howard needs to do to come back from the bad results?
It’d be a short piece Nicholas.Retrospective retirement dating back to last year would have been the best option, but even that wouldn’t have guaranteed anything.
I don’t think Howard can win – that horse has bolted and the minimisation of losses is the only game in town for him now.The first thing I’d do if I were Howard is get those Workchoices ads off the television pronto.Apart from that, you’d need the gritty end of the internal polling results to find clusters of support or soft ALP vote in certain demographics that correlate with key seats.Then focus on them with localised campaigns that are supported by the national campaign (which is the exact opposite of the way these things normally work).
But to do that properly, one would need all of the internal Coalition polling data.Somehow I dont think they’re going to give it to me
I do love it when Possum takes out the long handled bat. I say: give us more Possum!
for Neil Cammack
I agree he is not a good debater outside Parliament with its biased speaker/s. Little John is just hoping that Rudds replaced heart valve lasts until the TV debate; other wise he might have to debate Julia. I saw her demolish shrek on TV a few weeks back and suspect she she would do the same to JWH in any fair TV debate.
CH
Possum… you are a star! Thanks for giving me a smile on an otherwise dismal day in a hotel room in Manila!
ive read it a few times now, funnier each time, great piece.
I think possum should start up a regular demolishing of the worst journos pretending they know what they are talking about. Could do it in the vein of media watch or the chasers “what have we learnt from current affairs this week”
would be a good read.
So tell me?
what on earth do we do when the election is over
Pick yourself up,
Dust yourself down,
And start allk over again.
More crimes against psephology in the Oz today. They’re portraying a Newspoll on state-government voting intentions as West’s swingers rallying to Coalition.
This is the GG’s definition of a “Coalition stronghold” (state figures):
59-14 !!!! Coalition stronghold?!#$#$%#$%#!! Give me a break!
…and as we know, on Newpoll’s own figures there has been a 4-5% swing to the ALP federally in WA since 2004.
Desperate times calls for desperate spin.
The lead-in to Tony Barrass’s story linked to above by carbonsink states:
“WESTERN Australia is becoming a Coalition stronghold, with growing numbers of swinging voters intending to back John Howard.”
Um, the poll forming the basis for the story has nothing to do with John Howard whatsoever. The poll deals with support for the state parties.
”The Australian” can sneer at evil statistically-knowledgable bloggers all they like, but publishing rubbish like this does no wonders for their credibility.
Good gods, again? After Possum just schooled them on what the word “swing” means, they do it again? 2 minutes work will show that 51-49 to the ALP is in fact around a 6 percent swing, and if statewide would see Stirling, Hasluck and Kalgoorlie change hands.
Putting aside the dodgy nature of applying state results to a federal election…
I think the main basis of that Oz story is actually internal Liberal polling allegedly indicating the Coalition will hold all their seats and win Cowan in WA – was covered in the Oz yesterday.
I have to confess, I find it difficult to understand, if the Coalition is winning in Cowan and Eden-Monaro, how can they have their knickers in a knot over Grey and Leichhardt? Mixed messages, much.
Great article. What a lot of bollocks the Oz commentary has become. Thanks Possum!
Possum, could you settle a bet for me? When going the tonk do you prefer a 38oz or 44oz bat? I swear that was just a 38oz you used on Pearson, but my mate says Pearson’s reputation wouldn’t have sailed as far over the fence if it wasn’t done with the heavier bat – sort of like Clive LLoyd putting Gus Gilomre out into Vulture Street over the Clem Jones Stand. I reckon you used the lighter bat, but did something special with your bat speed – gripped higher up the handle or something…and you must have known what he was going to lob up, you seemed to have the shot ready to go, and sure enough he put the fruit on the sideboard just so… Shot! Have they found Pearson yet?
Apparently, he is big and round and red!
I hope that helps.
the gg having another shot at the bloggers, i suspect because pearson had a sooky with the editor,
i imagine pearson would have copped a bit stick from his fellow gg journo’s regarding your pants pulling down and exposure of his polling reading ability
In regards to the Pearson piece and other examples of Government Gazette silliness, could the motivation be found in the following nugget in the Crosby-Textor Oz Track 33 analysis?:
“Plumetting win expectations have impinged on vote = need to rebuild win expectations and optimism” (page 22).
Or is this just another woolly-headed, leftist, conspiracy theory?
In regards to the Pearson piece and other examples of Government Gazette silliness, could the motivation be related to the following nugget in the Crosby-Textor Oz Track 33 analysis?:
“Plumetting win expectations have impinged on vote = need to rebuild win expectations and optimism” (page 22).
Or is this just another woolly-headed, leftist, conspiracy theory?
Great work possum. Truly the Australian’s credibility has now sunk to an all time low to even have published such a ridiculous article from Pearson. Their recent editorial was just as pathetic and while I usually get the GG for free at Hotels have switched to Fairfax.
Great stuff. The GG really, truly is the most pathetic biased rag attempting to masquerade as a serious newspaper that I have ever had the misfortune to read. Keep sticking it to them, maybe we will get another dummy spit.
Ahhh…
“Yes, 10. From smallest to largest winning margin they would be Bowman, Dickson, Hinkler, Flynn, Petrie, Longman, Herbert, Blair, Moreton and Bonner.”
And the results as at 30th Nov 07:
Bowman : ALP (50.04)
Dickson: Liberal (50.13)
Flynn: ALP (50.42)
Petrie: ALP (51.92)
Longman: ALP (53.50)
Herbert: ALP (50.02)
Blair: ALP (54.84)
Moreton: (54.73)
Bonner: (54.60)
which makes Herbert the only real stand out, with absent, pre-poll and postals being strongly Liberal leaning.
Great site.
Pearson has taken a potshot at you in his latest column.
The relevant bit:
Which of course entirely misses the point: the Coalition needed to increase its primary vote to increase its 2PP vote – which as it turns out it did. Pearson’s original assertion – that the Coalition could maintain its primary vote and yet increase its 2PP – remains demonstrably wrong.
But it’s nice to know that a columnistic colossus such as cuckolded Chris reads such humble pages as these. [Hi Chris!! Has Caroline Overington made a pass at you yet? No? Well, obviously there's that, but it's not like she's bright enough to realise ...]
Fair go, Haiku, having heard Overington on Latelight Live, and having read her articles on AWB I can guarantee she has a first-rate mind and a first-rate wit.
Her people-skills, though, obviously leave something to be desired.
Pages: « 1 [2] Show All