The final list of candidates was released on Friday. A record number of candidates are running in both houses of Parliament – in line with the record number of parties registering at the election.
A total of 1188 candidates are running for the House of Representatives, and 529 are running in the Senate.
Three parties nominated candidates in all 150 seats: the ALP, the Greens and the Palmer United Party. The four Coalition parties collectively nominated 160 candidates, which amounts to ten seats where the Liberal and National parties are competing.
The next biggest party is Family First, who are running 93 candidates. Rise Up Australia are running 77, and Katter’s Australian Party are running 63. The Christian Democratic Party are running in all 48 NSW seats, and their allies the Australian Christians are running in 31 more, bringing them to a total of 79.
Other parties running more than thirty are the Sex Party (36) and the Democratic Labour Party (33).
Antony Green has blogged about the changes in number of candidates since 2010.
I have also updated my spreadsheet, reflecting the list provided by the AEC as well as gender data that I have gathered. Please let me know if you see any errors. You can download the spreadsheet here.
The other news over the weekend was the release of the Group Voting Tickets in the Senate. These releases are always dominated by what parties have made decisions that clash with their political agenda, due to political wheeling and dealing.
Over Sunday the biggest story was the decisions of Wikileaks to put conservative parties ahead of the Greens in the Senate. Wikileaks have claimed an administrative error was responsible for putting the Greens behind Australia First and the Shooters and Fishers in NSW, but have defended a decision putting Greens Senator Scott Ludlam, an outspoken supporter of Wikileaks in the Senate, behind his main rival from the Nationals in Western Australia.
There are a whole bunch of other examples of these sorts of decisions by many parties. The most interesting other result was the failure of a series of right-wing parties to lodge a group voting ticket in Victoria, which will result in those candidates only being able to receive below-the-line votes.
Poll Bludger has gone further in outlining how parties are directing their preferences.
TWO WEEKS LEFT
So we have two weeks left. Some of you might be interested in how I am presently seeing things. Well after a raft of polling coming through (Public and non-public), this is what I reckon would happen if we voted tomorrow:
NSW: The Coalition would pick up between 7 and 11 seats. Certain gains are Lindsay, Reid, Robertson, New England, and Lyne. Probable gains are Banks, Greenway, Dobell. Possible gains are many and include: Parramatta, McMahon, Werriwa, Kingsford-Smith, Eden Monaro, Richmond, Page. Clearly, not all will fall. This will see the most seats to fall for Labor of any state.
VIC: There will be some surprises here and the Coalition could win 6 seats. I’d put down 3 as a conservative measure. The bellwether of Corangamite will certainly fall.
QLD: Labor is not getting the traction required in QLD. They should win a net of 1 or 2 seats. Fisher will be won by the LNP.
SA: Labor are looking like losing seats. It could be one. It could be 4.
TAS: Labor could lose 3, will lose 2 at least. Denison could go to the Liberals on the back of Labor preferences if the last two are Wilkie and the Libs. Labor are preferencing the Libs ahead of Wilkie.
WA: I don’t see much change here. Hasluck should remain with the Libs. Steve Irons in Swan would appear the most under threat.
NT: Lingiari may go to the CLP. Solomon could go the other way.
Overall, I see presently a Liberal/National seat tally of between 85 and 90 and probably towards the higher end.
Which other three seats do you see falling in Victoria apart from Corangamite, Deakin and Latrobe??
Why on earth are Labor preferencing the Liberals over Wilkie in Denison? Is it playing the long game, thinking that they’ll have a better chance of winning the seat back off the Liberals than off Wilkie in the future?
My predictions:
NSW:
House: Had Labor losing 5 seats last time I did this (Dobell, Lindsay, Greenway, Banks, Robertson). Will add Reid and Parramatta to this list. Also interested in Werriwa, Barton, Kingsford-Smith and McMahon, and would like to see how well Labor are doing in the bush.
Senate: Probably 3 LNP, 2 Labor, 1 Greens. Given how many parties are running though, it is possible that a micro-party takes the last seat off the Greens (but this rarely happens)
Victoria:
House: Probably lose 3 seats here (La Trobe, Corangamite, Deakin). Several outside hopes for the Liberals here, but I can’t see it, Labor don’t appear to be doing that badly here.
Senate: Likely 3 Liberals, 2 Labor, 1 Greens. Maybe a minor right instead of the third Liberal, there is precedent in Victoria for this….
Queensland:
House: Hard to tell, the statewide polling and the individual seat polling are at odds here. I like to think the seat polling tells a better story, but Labor will surely win some seats from 53/47 (or 55/45)? At this stage, I reckon Labor lose Moreton and Petrie, and don’t gain anything, but Labor could win anything from 0-14 seats here.
Senate: Lean towards 3 LNP, 2 Labor, 1 KAP. But the Greens, PUP and even that Fishing and Lifestyle Party are not without a hope.
South Australia:
House: Think Labor lose Hindmarsh here. Labor barely hang onto Adelaide and Wakefield. The other seats don’t seem marginal enough.
Senate: Probably 3 LNP, 2 Labor, 1 Xenophon. FFP a chance of gaining a seat instead of LNP. The Xenophon factor makes this a lot more fluid.
Western Australia:
House: Break even I think. Had Labor winning Swan earlier, but I don’t think they win it now.
Senate: Likely the status quo. Nationals an outside bet of winning a seat off the Greens.
Tasmania:
House: Liberals gain Bass and Braddon. Might even gain Lyons at this stage.
Senate: Liberals gain a seat off Labor. The fact that more people vote BTL makes upsets less likely here.
ACT:
House: Status quo.
Senate: Status quo, despite the Sheik factor.
Northern Territory:
House: Ironically I think Labor have a better chance of winning Solomon than Lingiari. But I think both seats go.
Senate: Status quo. I think Labor will be close enough to 33% that they avoid any leakage from the Peris decision.
My prediction. Mine is based on the campaign in these seats, not snapshot polls.
NSW: Whilst people still talk up Macquarie, I’m going to say it won’t change. Libs will probably pick up Lindsay. Possible gains may also be Reid and Banks. Greenway, Robertson and Dobell could go either way as will Parramatta but I think thats the high water mark for the libs.
VIC: Beginning to think that it was a sugar hit for the libs. Corangamite should be a big swing to the libs, bigger then whatever the average is in vic. In Deakin you’d rather be in liberal shoes but could go either way, will be decided this time next week I think. La Trobe is too close. 8% swing to pick up 6 seats in Vic is required for the libs. I don’t think this will happen. in Chisolm, you’d rather be in labor shoes, Anna has everything going for her and should hold by 52/48 at worst.
QLD: Regional may be better then SEQ. Dawson and Herbert i hear are labor’s biggest chances. Capricornia should be close, may get beaten on primary but after preferences may hold on. In SEQ, Brisbane may go along with Bonner and probably Forde but only if things start trending better for Labor overall in the last 2 weeks.
SA: Hindmarsh I think will be close, probably trending lib way with Adelaide close but labor should hold on. Biggest swing should be in Wakefield but labor hold.
TAS: Bass and Braddon gone, as Antony Green says its a bad idea to underestimate Dick Adams.
WA: No change, probably Swan will be labor’s best as it has a quality candidate in that seat for labor but libs would be favourites here.
NT: Will take too long to determine, on 07, early results for Lingiari had a CLP win. I think Snowden should hold on and things looking good in Solomon.
Observer – good to see you are predicting a Coalition win. Not a large win, but a win nonetheless. 🙂
RichR on the forum assertion I made, I made it because this forum wasn’t watched by many undecided voters or soft party voters. It was mainly watched by party supporters. I gave my reasons why it wasn’t watched (low interest in politics, being in a different state, not much advirtising, weeknight at dinner time). This means those people will find out about it in newspapers and on news. The news said Rudd performed stronger and Abbott much the same. That means alot of people are taking their word for it as oppsoed to the debate which more people watched and therefore could make their own opinion about it. Abbott played right into Rudd’s hand. The Shut up comment is Agressive Abbott back, the same one that has an appaling personal rating. The ALP need to bring that Tony back and thats what happened and is now starting.
I’d half agree with Rudd and the water. Whilst Rudd needed to put ina big performance, its not as necesary as Rooty Hill and it although it wasn’t the stunner performance its still an acceptable one at this stage.
Look DB i don’t say it with great confidentce, NSW will be a wild card, may save labor, may break labor but there will be a ridiculous ammount of marginal seats in NSW after the election.
Also I don’t know bout QLD but we’ll have to see close to the election for it
Morgieb, DB, Observer, & others
Would love to make a detailed prediction. However I’ll defer till next week. Things are changing more rapidly than ever before (in an election). Rudd must be close to a melt down. If unfavourable poling in his own seat continues, that might just push him over the edge…..
DB, I’m curious about this phrase here:
“The bellwether of Corangamite will certainly fall.”
It’s only been a bellwether since 1996 (or 2007, depending on how you define the term), but the area is changing and it isn’t a safe conservative seat any more. Do you reckon it could become the new Eden-Monaro?
Bird of Paradox – I think you have them in each State. I didn’t explain it, but I don’t think there is just one in the Country that you could say….here….bellwether. In NSW, I’d say it’s Lindsay now. In Vic, I reckon it’s Corangamite. In Tassie, it’s Bass. In SA, I reckon it’s Adelaide. WA and QLD are well overweight for the Coalition at the moment, so I’m not sure what they are.
Newspoll at 53-47 for coalition. Wonder what the headlines will be from this and what the other polls coming out Monday afternoon will say?
Morgan already did. It’s 52.5 on 2010 flows and 51.5 on responses. That’s a half-point movement to the Coalition in both cases.
If Morgan’s 52.5/47.5 to the Coalition, then it’s going to be very hard for Labor as face-to-face overstates Labor support due to the Shy Tory Factor. It is all interesting, but I’d say internal polling, if you extrapolated into seat terms would show something like a 53.5-54% 2PP, which is somewhere between where the individual seat polls have been and the mainstream polls. I’d question Labor’s primary vote at 37 (partitcularly in the marginals under 3%), but I think the Coalition’s primary vote at 47 appears about right.
In my view, the Coalition seem to be doing a little better in the marginal seats than the mainstream polls suggest. Perhaps the Coalition are not getting swings to them in the inner city seats or the safe seats?
As at today, I’d say the Coalition are headed for high 80s, perhaps 90.
The other thing I’d say is that this election is being fought solely in Labor’s marginals. That means that Labor expect to lose the election as they can’t defend all of them.
Interesting statistics released by the AEC (Australian Electoral Commission). In the first 4 days of pre poll voting in 2010 a total of 75,821 votes were made in-person. In the first 4 days of pre poll voting in 2013 181,362 votes were made in-person. An 140% increase.
DB: even when WA wasn’t so lopsided for the Libs, it’s difficult to find a seat that goes consistently with govt. The only seats which Labor won from the Libs in 2007 was Hasluck, which went back to the Libs next time despite no change of govt. In 1996, exactly the same applies to Swan. (1998 and 2010 were both elections where the govt did badly in WA.)
Canning’s probably the closest to a bellwether… since 1975, it’s only elected an opposition MP twice, in 1998 and 2010.
(Oh, and 2007. Got it mixed up with Hasluck there for a minute.)
B of P
Canning is only a bellwether because of Des Randell. It would be VERY safe Liberal with any other MP !!!. I’d suggest Stirling is the bellwether.
Winediamond, his name is Don. I don’t like him either, but get his name right.
Canning was a Labor seat through the Hawke/Keating years, turned blue for one term in 1996, then went back in 1998. The 2001 redistribution that created Hasluck cut some of the more Labor bits out of Canning, so it’s now about 3% bluer than it was, and it’ll probably turn bluer yet in the next one (it’ll probably lose some suburbs around Armadale and become more of a Peel-based seat). How winnable it’ll be for Labor in the future depends on what the 2016 map looks like. (That will be a very interesting election in WA, with a state govt getting old and unpopular and the federal Libs coming down from their high-water mark.)
Stirling is no kind of bellwether. It’s always marginal, but has a weird habit of electing opposition MP’s – from 1993 on, it has only elected a govt MP twice.
B of P
If “Don” wern’t such a dill, (god’s chosen would say nebbich meaning poor {pathetic} man). i would have got his name right !!!. So no apologies !!.
About what your’e saying, i can see your points. Maybe the new seat could be the bellwether.
DB, about Morgan polls now:
1. They don’t just do F2F. It is now ‘multi-node’, so they do both F2F and phone. They are far more in sync with the rest of the polls these days.
2. While F2F does underestimate the votes of conservatives, I don’t think it’s entirely down to a Shy Tory Factor. Instead, from what I’ve read, F2F tends to largely poll in the cities, and ignores country people, who tend to be more conservative and Coalition-friendly.
Meanwhile, Essential Research has been strange lately. I remember back in the second half of last year, they weren’t saying the ALP was getting much traction, yet other polls said they were. Now they’re saying 50/50 whereas the other polls are saying 52.5/47.5.
Will Galaxy and Nielsen poll this week?
morgieb – I know that Morgan use multi-mode, but, on average, it still favours Labor. It is the only poll in the last 2.5 years that I am aware of which put Labor ahead, and at one stage by 52/5/47.5 (only a few weeks ago). Now it is the other way. But the way, I haven’t seen where or if Morgan break down their multi-mode into online and face-to-face.
There is an interesting post today by William Bowe on Pollbludger and it is worth reading. It crosses several debates had on this site over the last few weeks around on-line polling, Robopolling, national polls, and seat-by-seat polls which indicate a dire position for Labor in the marginal Coalition held seats in QLD, yet there are also polls showing a national swing in QLD to the ALP.
I suppose the big query around QLD is in the Newspoll of the 9 marginal Coalition held seats on Saturday which indicated a swing to the Opposition of around 7% on the last election. This is against a broader QLD swing of around 2% to the ALP since the last election, but on much smaller but more regular samples. All I can say is that the Coalition are very confident of only losing a couple of seats in QLD and perhaps picking up a couple of others. I personally don’t see much change in QLD on a net basis. NSW is where Labor will suffer the largest losses in my view and it could well be in double digits.
are u saying double digit swings or double digit seat loss
Good read on the polls on PB site by WB, http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/2013/08/27/bludgertrack-53-1-46-9-to-coalition/
Still suggets that a swing is on in Qld to the ALP, 2.4% “Of the last nine data points available to me from Queensland, which go back as far as August 7, only one fails to show a swing to Labor.” The rest of the picture is however bleak for the govt.
I’m talking seat loss. NSW is going to see the biggest swing in seat terms I believe. The 2PP in NSW should be around 55/45 as the major pollsters suggest and it could be a little worse in the marginals given substantial swings to incumbent Liberal MPs in NSW at the last election (so there won’t be too much in swings to incumbent Liberals in safe seats). There is nothing under a 7% margin in NSW that the ALP can be assured of.
Labor have never won a federal election when they have won less seats in NSW than the Coalition. This trend will continue should it occur again.
Look lets look at those seats then:
Richmond- Should be retained by the ALP given its a country seat and CSG issues
Barton- Should be decided on the night, Libs didn’t pick the best candidate to go up against Steve McMahon
Werriwa- Could be the suprise you were on about but given Laurie’s power in the Left, should be one seat that gets alot of resources if its in trouble
Kingsford Smith- Labor has asked number one senate holder to contest the marginal seat, this will be one the ALP just cannot let go and will be the one to be saved if polling turns sour in the seat
Dobell- Could go either way, don’t think either side is confident
Parramatta- Probably the high water mark, line ball but quality of candidates is one advantage for the ALP
Eden Monaro- Given that everyone is suggesting that it won’t be a bellwhether and morgan poll, should be retained by labbr. Again quality of candidates favour labor
Page- I hear labor is confident
Reid- Craig Laundy pouring his inheritance probably makes him favourite but shouldn’t see that big of a swing against labor compared to other west seats
Banks- 52/48 to libs who knows in a weeks time
Lindsay- Gone
Robertson- Again I don’t think this is in the bag for anyone
Greenway- All polling says this is just too close
One thing to remember is the Labor campaign is now working and turning people off liberal policy that is announced. Don’t think NSW will swing that much, thats what we all thought last time where a net seat loss of 1 was the result for labor
NSW *did* swing big last time, just it didn’t translate into seats. All the swing was locked up in safe Liberal and safe-ish Labor seats.
It’s the opposite situation in 2013….Coalition can make big gains without needing a big statewide swing.
Rally not sure about youir seat list there Observer. You seem to mostly completely neglect specific seat polling – which may be appropriate in some cases – and just various inconsistent analysis which is favourable to your pitch.
3-4 of these seats seem to be difficult for the ALP retain as things stand. Based on current poll numbers if we are to believe them that could become 6-7. No doubt it will tighten up in the next 10 days but this campaign started with the ALP needing to win a few marginal seats (remember the hope for Macquarie or even Bennelong at the start?). Yet, now it seems all about minimising losses.
Something big time needs to break for the ALP at Rooty Hill tomorrow to shore up the numbers in western Sydney and the central coast.
The Rooty Hill Forum was the one Abbott had to win. Rooty Hill has a reputation with more voters then Brisbane, probably because of the name. Also people in those key seats are more like people in Western Sydney then inner city Brisbane. The fact that Rudd won pretty convincingly won’t be good news for the libs. Don’t think it will effect their chances in WS seats like Lindsay but it certainly gives Rudd momentum and gives voters a reason to listen to Rudd.
Wouldn’t say Rudd won convincingly. Most comments seem to indicate a draw.
“The Rooty Hill Forum was the one Abbott had to win.”
Observer, where do you get that idea? The person behind in the polls is the person who needs to win, and in a way that dramatically changes the electoral landscape. This was the third debate in a row where not much happened. I think Rudd won, though not by a lot, if you look at it merely as a debate about policy. If you look at it as a needle-moving event, it was not significant. Rudd needed to tear Abbott apart, and Abbott needed to avoid a major gaffe. Abbott succeeded, Rudd didn’t.
Channel 9 had 57-43 to Rudd. The people at the forum gave Rudd 45 votes as opposed to Abbott’s 38 19 undecided. In marginal forum speak Rudd got an envious result
On another topic, ReachTEL came in with a 53/47 result polled on the 26th. That’s the same as the Newspoll and Nielsen results of the past week, and if Morgan is rounded to make apple-to-apple comparison possible, its 2010 flow result is also 53/47. Respondent provided is at 52/48 when rounded. Essential continued to buck the trend at 50/50.
Well RichR the reason I say it is because:
1) to ensure that Abbott is elected and there is not a single remote chance of labor winning.
2) More people would have watched this forum then the Brisbane one
3) Rooty Hill gets more coverage and therefore if most indications are a Rudd win, thats what people will take from it, including the undecided vote which polls indicate is still much the same 5% which could decide the result.
4) To build momentum. All Abbott’s policy has been polled with net negatives. He needed this win to make people think his worth a vote as a good communicator and especially since it is the last time both leaders will be in the same room together,
I disagree with the notion of tear apart. You will rarely see that in forums of undecided voters. If he did tear Abbott apart he would have to be extremely negative and give a vibe that he is an opposition leader rather then a PM. The result is an important victory for the Rudd camp in building momentum that polling has been suggesting in recent days
The essential state beakdowns actually point to a labor majority
Your basic premise is wrong. Abbott needs to reassure people who are looking to turn away from Labor. A key part of that is not imploding through gaffes. When I say Rudd needed to tear him apart, I don’t mean he needed to be negative. What I mean is that he needed to thoroughly destroy the Liberal argument, or at least push Abbott to make the sort of crippling gaffe that would change the campaign.
The idea that Abbott needed to convince people he’s a good communicator is bonkers. Voters tend to vote for good communicators because good communicators tend to sell their arguments better. They do not sit and say, “Hmm, so-and-so is a good communicator, so I’ll vote for her.” People also don’t say, “Hmm, so-and-so won on balance won the debate, so I’ll vote for him.” The question of who won a debate is only important in so far as voters felt that something about one or both candidates, either on style or substance, answered a question for a voter or changed their mind about something. For the most part, the whole concept of “winning” a candidates debate is useless and unhelpful. The only people who have an investment in the concept are people who are already supporters of one side or the other or are anoraks. Undecided voters want to size up the policies, but even more so the personalities, of the candidates.
Finally, relying on the state breakdowns of a poll, which tend to have wide margins of error due to sample size, is problematic. And doing so with an Essential poll that is out of step with the rest of the polling and based on a methodology that has randomness problems is even more problematic. I’m not sure whether your comment was meant as an assertion that you believe it, but it was sufficiently a non sequitur that I’m just not sure what you were trying to say.
RichR, this late in the campaign, Abbott can’t attract much of that undecided vote. He won’t be able to turn people away from labor he is just not that type of strategic leader. I think your forgetting the two roles. Rudd is PM Abbott is opposition leader. The notion of being negative is rarely associated with a PM. He would have to be negative to get through to people who aren’t interested in politics, you have to keep in mind the audience.
I’d disagree with the good communicator notion, there have been plenty of PMs and Premiers who haven’t been good communicators who have been elected. Often when the mood is there, you don’t have to sell anything. Bligh was definately the best communciator but lost in a landslide. The premise of winning the debate means people will scrutinise Abbott more and hear out Rudd without having to rely on the low standards that murdoch press stoop to. The fact is the debates seem very much more for the political fans in the eyes of most voters but forums like Rooty Hill can appeal more to regular people.
Finally I never said that the breakdowns were right but I am saying that really national poll figures dont always indicate a result of government for the winning party. The value of states and how each one votes will determine it
So, I’ve noticed that Poll Bludger’s BludgerTracker is starting to turn around – Labor’s primary vote is increasing, Liberals’ vote is decreasing, and the predicted number of seats for Labor is starting to climb again.
I wonder if this is indicative that polls are starting to rebalance, as per my suspicion – this being Undecideds being more on the Left, and starting to firm up more.
It will be interesting to see how the various polls move now. You would hope that they would start to all converge; but Essential had the 2PP being 50-50 right before the election in 2010 when Newspoll, with a huge sample, had Labor ahead with 52%. Essential’s number was more accurate. Is this indicative of Essential being more accurate, or just plain luck?
Glen, I’m not sure you can draw the conclusions you are drawing, even about what changes in the BT primary averages, without knowing exactly which polls and with what weight are included. The Coalition’s primary stayed the same in the last week in Newspoll, Morgan had them up a half of a point, and Essential had them down a point. ReachTEL was down 0.4 from two weeks before, Nielsen had them up a point from their previous poll. When run through BT’s magic box, that comes to -0.3, but trying to read those polls to suggest there is a trend is probably a mistake. It looks a hell of a lot more like noise.
For Labor, Morgan had them down two, Newspoll up three, and Essential down two from last week. ReachTEL had them down 0.7 from their last poll, and Nielsen had them down two. If there is a trend there at all it is not in Labor’s favor. BT’s figure could be the result of the weighting, other inputs, or old polls (perhaps the Morgan phone poll that had Labor at 31%?) falling out.
At least you make me laugh Observer.
I don’t think anyone decisively won the debate, not that many people were watching anyway.
I felt Rudd’s biggest problem (and I hadn’t really noticed it before this) was that he seemed really peed off……at everything……several times over. Grim look, unhappiness. Just didn’t come across well to me. But I’ll put that potential bias of mine aside.
I thought Rudd handled policy matters well. Abbott did very well at presenting an overreaching vision.
Draw.
RichR – the noise is precisely why BludgerTrack exists – because the more data you have, the less likely that something is noise when you analyse it all. And of course there’s a weighting factor involved… but the weighting factor has actually been against Labor – they explicitly said that Essential was being weighted lower because it was going against trend by saying Labor’s support was growing. Now the average is showing a trend towards Labor.
You also seem to be focusing on last week. BludgerTrack has been updated every 1-3 days recently, and the trend has only started over the most recent week.
One of the betting agencies is paying out people who bet on the Coalition.
DB or any other Liberals here…
I think Abbott lost the debate because he allowed it to be all about him and the opposition, which is exactly what the ALP wants.
Libs need to urgently turn the tables, because ALP messages about PPL and Lib spending are getting through. Especially the PPL message is aimed at regaining the Labor base.
What to do:
Craft a couple of messages of their own to put ALP back on the defensive.
1. “Tony Abbott cares about Australian Jobs so hes putting the Greens last! Mr Rudd is putting them 2nd!! Why Mr Rudd?”
Voice over “Australia cant afford another 3 years of Labour – Greens government.” (Sorry Ben, great site BTW!)
Mr Rudd should be asked about his green preferencing on every occasion..just like Abbott is being asked about costings and PPL.
2. The deficit blow out of 33 billion since may budget. Thats 3 Billion a week as I’ve already heard Abbott say. HE NEEDS TO KEEP REPEATING IT. “If Labor can be that far off just 3 months out from the budget…how can we trust any of their promises.” Also lessons the pressure on Abbotts own costings as people understand, how can he be held to account when hes dealing with such rubbery figures.
Need to pust these two messages relentlessly till polling day. Couple with the existing positive strong ecomomy message. But right now the Libs are become the issue and look like sitting ducks.
Liberal candidates staying away from open forums spread to the ACT last night. A senate candidates forum organised by Getup and chaired by a local ABC radio presenter had representatives from most of the parties contesting for the Senate in the ACT.
It was a great evening with a chance to hear from the candidates on their feet and get a sense of who they were and what they cared about. Great crowd, great atmosphere, pretty good humoured, but the Liberal candidate Zed Seselja was notable by his absence. Not a good look in a contest in which he might be looking for every vote he can get to get home.
He missed a good night in which the spin doctors were not in control. Willing to be that the current Liberal Senator, Gary Humphries would have been there.
Glen, I thought the increase to the ALP was off the back of an increase in Newspoll from 35 to 38. Have any others moved?
peterjk23 – fair and well considered points I would have thought.
Doug – this is happening in Sydney too. Suggest it’s happening because the Coalition believe they are strong favourites to regain government. A worse look would be a stuff up. I don’t have a problem with that strategy personally albeit it may not make some voters happy.
Glen, the aggregators are not immune to noise, and as DB suggests, they will be sensitive to a move in one poll if it given a lot of weight, even if all of the other polls move in the opposite direction. In this case, only one poll showed an increase in the Labor primary, Newspoll with a three-point gain. And in this case, the lesser weighting for Essential means their two-point loss for Labor doesn’t count as much. Saying the weighting has “counted against Labor” is meaningless to begin with, but has even less value when looking at your claim that BT going up 0.7 points for Labor means Labor is actually gaining and a decrease of 0.3 means the Coalition is fading. To the extent that you can look at the results of one week’s worth of polling and try to derive a trend at all, such a move in BT doesn’t get the job done. As I said, one poll showed an increase for Labor’s primary, the rest showed a drop. For the Coalition, some were up and some were down, which is not indicative of a trend at all.
DB – if it were Newspoll’s shift that caused it, then there wouldn’t have been a shift against the Coalition on Bludgertrack, because there wasn’t a shift against the Coalition on Newspoll. Greens numbers also wouldn’t have gone up nearly as much as Labor numbers did – Newspoll had them holding steady.
RichR – read what I just said to DB. As for Essential, the numbers they have released say Labor lost two points on primary vote, but Greens have picked up by 3%, and Other/Independent by 1%, while Coalition also lost 1%. So I wouldn’t say that Essential disagrees in terms of a trend towards Labor on balance, even if they had the primary vote decrease a bit.
An interesting bit of observation: Bludgertrack has Coalition at 46%, Labor at 36.8%, Greens at 9.8%, and Others at 7.4%. Essential has Coalition 3% lower, Labor 1.2% higher, Greens 2.2% higher, and Others 1.6% higher. And by the way, Essential’s sample size is almost twice as big as Newspoll’s (which is much closer to Bludgertrack).
ABC News : “There’s been a surge in the number of people choosing to vote early.
Electoral Commission figures show more that 430,000 pre-poll votes have been cast across the country. That’s compared with 265,000 for the same stage of the 2010 federal election.”
A significant increase on pre-polling. If the ALP does get a late swing then these votes should be better for the Coalition if the polls are correct.
Comments are closed.