In contrast to yesterday’s Essential Report which was Labor’s best poll result of the year, comes today’s Newspoll via The Oz which is probably Labor’s worst result. The primaries come on 41 (steady)/ 39 (down 1) to the Coalition, washing into a two party preferred of 52/48 to Labor – unchanged from last fortnight. The Greens are up 2 to 11 while the broad “Others” or on 9 (down 1).
This comes from a sample of 1143, giving us an MoE that maxes out around the 2.9% mark.
Tony Abbott should consider himself a little lucky today with the Newspoll sample, as other unpublished phone polling that was in the field last week and over the weekend picked up movement more akin to Essential than Newspoll. So saying, it all comes out in the wash given enough time. (And no folks, that isn’t a Newspoll conspiracy, it’s simply normal sampling error – put it back in your pants)
Not much really happened here this week despite a small drop in Rudd’s satisfaction pushing across as an increase in his undecideds – all the other metrics are essentially flat, and apart from a few undecideds moving across to Abbott’s satisfied column, have been for around a month or so with Newspoll.
So, on with the usual charts which come in like this:
17 Comments
Hmm, so Rudd and Abbot are neck a neck on satisfaction, but Kev is still comfortably ahead on preferred PM (and the TPP). To me that is slightly odd. On the other hand I do approve of Tony’s performance, it ensures the LNP will remain unelectable for a bit longer.
And you should have heard how it was reported on Fran Kelly’s show this morning. Rudd hit in the polls, voters prefer Abbott…etc, etc. It’s laughable and pathetic the way the ABC completely misrepresents these results to its listeners.
just do the maths divide the polls by three/
You do have to ask you self dont you.
My say – different pollsters have different house effects, meaning that if the true ALP vote was, say, 53% and every pollster got a true value on their own poll, one pollster would have the result at 52%, another 53%, another 55% and 56%. The average would be 54% even though the true value was 53%.
Averages aren’t particularly accurate with these things (though they’re often ‘good enough’) – at the moment the phone pollster trend point estimate in the sidebar (to the right) under Pollytics Poll Averages is probably the most accurate measure we have on the current reality.
Poss: Shouldn’t the trend line get thinker the closer the to present day to account for the missing (future) data?
thinker = thicker
Musrum – in a bizarre way it does actually get “thinker” at the end point as the regression gets a little more complicated on the final three observations (the final three observations now get modified by a separate ‘end point’ model).
Because of the nature of the data modification process that creates the series that gets grinded through the models, no confidence intervals can actually be created for the trend line.
Possum Comitatus@7
How about you break out the sledge hammer (Monte Carlo) and run the end point data with a projection of three(?) sets of future numbers?
. The elephant in the room is sooo big,
that the hacks have to do the ostridge.
what a zoo!
Humblest apologies, wrong site.
You have to hand it to Newspoll, their consistent, exactly 52/48 three times out of the last four polls.
At what stage does the Newspoll finally get shown up for what it is- a conservative tool used to try and steer elections?
Poss in your quarterly demographics on the right you list the Greens figure at the last election as 7.8. Are you able to tell me please what their poll numbers were like in the 12 months leading up to that election?
Cat, no real data here but they were higher than that.(7.8%)
However, one point to note is that their Senate vote at the last election was 9.04 . The point here is that its really the Senate Vote that is the main game, except in a couple of lower house seats. If the Green vote that is projected for the Greens in the lower house is achieved in the Senate, ie 10.9% in possums right hand bar, then its all over for the Senate, Bob Brown and his team will start a domination of the cross benches of the Senate that is going to last many parliaments.
Barking thanks for that and it answers part of my question but I presume those figures are for the House so what were the figures like then for the Senate as I know they are not consistent.
The question I asked was for getting at part of the stuff running around my head about what is happening with the primary vote. The other part is about consistency of voting intentions for minor parties. The question was generated by several things one of which was a debate at work between three people who had intended to vote Green (and one had been polled on subject – no idea which poll) but were debating whether to actually do it. One had changed her mind in the last 12 months because she believes the Greens had been counter-productive on climate change “and if they can’t help with that what the $%^$ is the point of them?” was her colourful expression of her dilemma. Of note all three were women.
So who did this unpublished polling that you were referring to?
Sorry Cat, the vote in the house of reps was 7.8 the vote in the senate was 9. the point I was making was that the polls for the house of reps actually turn out to the Senate vote. no science, just gut feeling. If that continues, then the Greens will be in the balance of power in the senate. Re the ETS, you have to understand that the ALP greenwash system was actually counterproductive. One of the amazing things at the moment is that we have this post copenhagen position that Global Warming has in some fashion gone away. We need really strong action, supporting weak, ineffective action may be politically smart, but the Green will always stand on the hill and defend what really needs to be done. Better we have real action in five years than rubbish now.