Facebook Google Menu Linkedin lock Pinterest Search Twitter

Advertisement

nielsen

May 18, 2009

Share

Nielsen came out this morning in Fairfax showing a primary vote running to Labor 44/43, for a two party preferred of 53/47. That’s quite a change since the last Nielsen in March ago which ran 47/37 to Labor for a TPP of 58/42. The poll comes from a sample size of 1400, giving an MoE around the 2.6% mark.

Movement or noise is the question – it could be either – and we’ll run the Pollytrend numbers tomorrow to get the answer. Essential Report comes out later today and Newspoll is delivered in the morning which will give us a good set of data to work with.

Meanwhile the primary and two party preferred charts for Nielsen this term have come is as:

nielprims nieltpp

Unlike some news organisations are reporting – that would be you Sky Nooz – this isnt the best result for the Coalition since the last election, for that award went to the Nielsen poll immediately after the Turnbull ascension in September last year, where the primaries were 41/42 in the Coalition’s favour, washing out into a two party preferred of 52/49 to Labor. So this is actually the second best polling result for the LibNats.

Nielsen also ran some supplementary budget questions, the full results of which look like this:

niels1

niels2

niels3

niels4

niels5

Finally, something we haven’t done in a while – the approvals and Preferred Prime Minister history for Nielsen.

nielsenpmapprov nielsenopapprov

nielsenppm nielsnetsat

Looking at the commentary around the traps, it’s good to see polls being reported more often with their margin or error being mentioned. However, while that is a marvelous first step and is to be applauded, there are still a few mistakes being made – mostly about how to intepret changes in polls. For instance, Peter Hartcher this morning went:

Today’s poll appears to confirm the expectation of a senior Liberal that the budget would mark the return to “normal politics.”

If so, power in Australia is once more contestable rather than being a Rudd monopoly.

It might be an aberration, but two factors give some confidence that the poll marks a threshold, not a detour.

First, most of the movement in the figures is far bigger than the poll’s 2.6 per cent margin of error.

In the case of Rudd’s approval rating it’s a walloping 10 per cent drop.

The margin or error between any two polls is, in fact,  larger than the margin or error of each of those two polls since each poll has it’s own  uncertainty distribution. Let’s say, for example, that there were two consecutive polls with MoE’s of 3%. The first was 56, the second was 52. Since the latter poll of 52 is outside of the plus/minus 3% of the first poll, that doesnt actually mean that the movement was statistically significant, because the latter poll also has a plus/minus 3% attached to it.   The first poll was, with a 95% confidence interval, somewhere between 53 and 59 with a most likely value of 56. The second poll was somewhere between 55 and 49 with a most likely value of 52. Even though the second poll was different to the first by an amount more than the margin of error of the first poll, the two polls still shared the potential values of 53, 54 and 55 across the two periods. As a result, the movement wouldnt be statistically significant at our normally accepted 95% threshold.

The hows and whys of the math gets a little complicated, so I might try and build a widget for people to enter figures into for a Nerdy Sunday post down the track that gives you an estimate of the probability of the change between any two poll results being real, or being noise. Afterall, my name is Possum, I’m from Queensland and I’m here to help – as the saying goes 😀

I haven’t updated the polls page or the polling averages yet, I’ll do that later this afternoon when Essential Report comes out.

Advertisement

We recommend

From around the web

Powered by Taboola

7 comments

Leave a comment

7 thoughts on “Ooooh, a close one.

  1. Andrew Norton » Blog Archive » No bribes needed to support the budget

    […] The Nielsen poll, like other polls, found between one in four and one in five voters thought that they would personally be better off as a result of the budget (there are a lot of pensioners). But heading on to three times than number thought that it was fair (56%) or said that they were satisfied with it (58%). […]

  2. Chade

    Ok, cheers Possum. 🙂

  3. Grog

    Hard to use this poll as evidence of a Budget drop. The last poll was years ago in political terms. Nielsen, for mine aren’t worth bothering about unless they are going to start eating some statistical All Bran and get regular.

  4. Possum Comitatus

    Chade:

    http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollytics/2009/04/24/budget-effect/

    As a pattern, budgets as a whole don’t make a difference. That doesn’t mean that any given budget couldn’t make an impact of course, but just that it would be a particular thing to that budget rather than something we expect to see from every (or even most) budgets.

  5. Chade

    Haven’t you done previous analysis that suggests that Budgets don’t provide long-term polling change? I seem to remember something along that line…

  6. caf

    From those figures, it appears that those “dissatisfied” with the budget correlate pretty well with those who personally feel worse off. In turn that means that those who felt like it would make no difference to them personally were “satisfied” with the budget – so the results imply that we aren’t hung up on the budget helping us personally, we just don’t want it to hurt us.

  7. Grog

    Love this from Hartcher Poss:
    [It seems more likely that the last year and a half has been the aberration, that we have now entered normalcy.]

    A year and a half of aberration??

Advertisement

https://www.crikey.com.au/2009/05/18/ooooh-a-close-one/ == https://www.crikey.com.au/free-trial/==https://www.crikey.com.au/subscribe/

Show popup

Telling you what the others don't. FREE for 21 days.

Free Trial form on Pop Up

Free Trial form on Pop Up
  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.