Malvern – Victoria 2022

This could very well be the only remaining Liberal seat south of the Monash Freeway (at least until you get out towards Berwick) after this election.

And probably with a slightly reduced margin (maybe 3-4% putting it in “marginal” territory).

This electorate could be in serious trouble as the Liberals suffered a massive swing through Toorak, Malvern & East Malvern

The thing is Bob for that to happen the electorate would have to be more pissed of with the Vic Libs than they were in 2018. Here they polled 59,57 and 72 and in the federal they polled 51, 67 and 65, with the 57 and 51 been the Toorak central booth booth that is more built up with apartments and closer to the city (i think the same could be said for Toorak West maybe someone with more knowledge of the area can give insight). The Toorak West booths got 59 and 67 and Toorak booth got 72 and 65. Overall in the 2018 state election the Toorak booths averaged 62.66% and in 2022 federal averaged 61%, not a massive difference. Interestingly the Toorak booth had a higher Liberal margin compared to the Toorak West booth but had a larger swing. Also the Liberal West booth on poll bludger also seems to be north of Toorak, not west.

This is the only *safe* Liberal seat (margin >6%) in Metropolitan Melbourne as a result of the big swings in 2018

There will almost certainly be a correction from 2018, given everything that has happened.

I agree more with Mark and that Labor will struggle to gain any more ground, even in the ultra marginal seats like Caulfield. Labor are unlikely to gain seats and will probably lose as many as 10 seats to hold a slim majority.

I see all down ballot races post Federal election to be favouring the Coalition from now on – the focus on Covid is gone and most emphasis is on the economic issues with inflation, interest rate rises and cost of living all being a key focus. This is pretty much like the US post Trump, with Democrats struggling and bleeding/losing support in most down ballot races so far leading up to the 2022 midterm.

@Yoh An, I don’t know if you are from Victoria or not so no worries if you are not be too familiar with the Vic state Libs but basically they are almost identical to the UAP in terms of both policy and rhetoric. It’s brought a lot of traditional Labor voters to the Lib side like our friend Mark but likewise it’s pushed a lot of traditional Lib voters to the Labor side. This would help the Libs in the western and northern and outer southeastern suburbs but not in the eastern and inner southern seats which are where all the marginal seats are. The problem for the state Libs is that they could get a large swing in the west and north and outer southeast but that’s not going to deliver them a many seats. On the other hand, even a small swing to Labor in the eastern suburbs would deliver basically much of what’s left of the Lib seats in eastern Melbourne. All of them except for Malvern are already marginal. Essentially the TPP may swing against Labor but may result in them gaining more seats from the Libs than losing them.

I am from Sydney and now living in Brisbane, so going off what is the feeling and mood in NSW and Qld.

But I have seen the results in recent international elections (like Virginia State election 2021) which saw Republicans narrowly recapture the legislature, even without winning back much of their traditional areas like Northern Virginia. Victoria 2022 may well play out like the Virginia state election and Labor won’t gain much ground even in the areas trending against the Coalition.

@Yoh An – are you including the NSW Lib government in there too?

In Virginia 2021, Democrats tried to tie Republican gubernatorial candidate Glenn Youngkin to Trump and his support for conservative social views, but in the end the general nationwide economic factors and other local issues like education outweighed all that so Victoria 2022 could well be similar.

NSW may be a bit different with the ‘its time’ factor as the Coalition have been in power for 10+ years, but even then Perrottet has the down ballot advantage with Federal Labor in power. I also feel NSW and Queensland are more conservative states compared to places like Victoria and SA where unions and social issues carry less weight and economic factors (cost of living, taxes) are considered higher priority.

@Yoh An The Libs may get swings to them in the north and west but i don’t know if they’ll pick up any seats, the margins are just too large to overcome in one election in that part of Melbourne.
On the topics of Labor losing seats though what seats do we think will be changing hands. Personally i think the Libs will win back Nepean, Hawthorn and possibly Shepparton. They’ll win the new seat of Pakenham. I think that they’ll retain seat they won last election but have been made Labor in redistribution such as Ripon and Hastings and they’ll also win the Labor held seats made marginally Liberal in redistribution such as Bayswater and Bass.

I don’t think you can really compare the NSW Libs to the Vic Libs. The NSW Libs are in government and the Vic Libs are not and the NSW Libs are a lot more moderate, even with a hard right leader, and compotent than the Vic Libs. QLD Libs I’m not too sure but QLD is a lot more socially conservative than Vic so if the Libs there are carbon copies of the UAP or One Nation, it won’t hurt them too badly especially outside of Brisbane.

My prediction

Labor will gain Glen Waverley, and Caulfield, and may try Bulleen, Warrandyte, Sandringham, Brighton, Kew, and Croydon. Notionally Gain Bayswater and notionally retain Ripon

Libs will gain Hastings, Pakenham, and Nepean. May also try Narre Warren North, Narre Warren South, Cranbourne, and Melton (although a fluke last time). They may try also to regain also Eastern Suburbs seats they lost but getting less likely due to the reasons below. Nats mat gain Morwell
I predict Libs will a swing towards them in the ALP heartland in the Western, Northern, and South Eastern Suburbs (due to lockdowns and inroads to more anti-vax mandate voters)
Conversely, Labor will have a swing towards them in traditionally Liberal voting Eastern suburbs (due to the increasingly socially conservative and more anti-vax Vic Libs)
The Sandbelt seats and regional Victoria would in most cases likely remain more similar to last time (possibly with only a minor swing against them in the sandbelt (given their overinflated ALP vote))

@DanM, It is true Queensland LNP is more socially conservative than Vic LNP although both are quite incompetent leadership evident from why they haven’t won a lot of elections in the past few decades. However, I have to say QLD LNP’s tone and rhetoric are more around the establishment making it very similar to the Federal LNP unlike Vic LNP which is more fireband populist especially after Matthew Guy became the leader in 2014 (again in 2021) which reminds me of Canada’s Conservatives with Pierre Poilievre

I think there is a tendency to underestimate the amount of people that can differentiate between state and federal issues.

Dan is nowhere near as liked as he was in 2018. I do not see how he maintains 55 seats, let alone makes any gains. I think there is a strong chance that he could lose his majority, with votes (and seats) bleeding towards the greens and Libs.

The teal factor, at this stage, is looking to be nonexistent due to state donation laws, which means the lib-teal voters in the east are likely to hold their nose and vote lib, rather than making the switch to Labor. The 2PP without the teals in Kooyong, for instance, would’ve seen Frydenberg win by a safe margin.

It’s a far different dynamic that the recent federal election, with Dan being somewhat of a Scomo figure and a two-time incumbent. And, to be honest, the way he’s campaigning and throwing money around stinks of desperation. He wasn’t campaigning like this in 2018 when I voted for him.

I don’t see this seat falling, Labor will probably get a small swing in their favour.

Libs will win this seat with a small 1-2% swing to Labor (based on the redistrubuted margin).

@Mark, I agree with Dan M. You’re right that Dan’s popularity is less than 2018 but the map doesn’t help the Libs. They will get a statewide swing, they might even get some large swings in outer suburbs, but there are only a handful of seats to pick up.

On the flipside of that, the Liberals hold 3 seats by under 1% in territory that is rapidly trending away from them, where Dan is the most popular, where lockdowns had the least impact on people, and where Labor’s progressive social reforms have been VERY popular.

Then you also have the middle-ring eastern marginals where the suburban rail loop is likely to be a vote winner, helping Labor hold marginals and win Glen Waverley.

The Greens really only have a legitimate chance of picking up Richmond and Northcote; but Labor possibly have an even better chance of picking up Prahran from the Greens because the Libs could very well fall to third (there’s nowhere their popularity is more rapidly collapsing than the Chapel St corridor), and Labor would win an ALP v GRN runoff.

I think even with a larger than expected statewide swing to the Libs, you could see something like this:

LIB gains: Nepean, Pakenham, Melton, Ripon, Bayswater (already notional), Hawthorn, Hastings, Ringwood.

ALP gains: Caulfield, Brighton, Sandringham, Glen Waverley. I’ll leave it at only those 4 seats where the margins are <1.5% and almost every factor favours Labor.

GRN gains: Richmond & Northcote, and let's assume they retain Prahran.

(Note that I don't actually think all of the above will happen, I'm outlining a very favourable outcome for the Liberals)

You basically end up with the following net seat changes:

+4 LIB
+2 GRN
-6 ALP

There really isn't anything else particularly winnable for the Libs. That's about as favourable a scenario that I can think of for them and wven if they hold 2 of those 4 margins I put down as Labor wins, Labor still have 47 seats.

Of course that isn't what I predict. I think some seats will change hands (outer ALP to LIB, inner LIB to ALP) but the seat tally won't change much.

Dan's nowhere near a ScoMo figure. Morrison's approval ratings were in the gutter and Albanese psssed him as preferred PM in later polls too. Even in Andrews' worst polls, he retained solid approval ratings (at least close to 50% even in the worst polls) and is consistently the clear preferred Premier. It's just that the criticism of him has been extremely vocal and public.

@Trent I think there is a chance Labor would still hold Melton, Ripon, Bayswater (already notional), Hawthorn, and Ringwood
Melton: Was just an independent fluke with a messy TPP in 2018, even the federal results would still have ALP definitely winning the seat on its boundaries
Ripon: Urban Sprawl in Ballarat and the seat is less rural could be a disadvantage
Baywater: The current incumbent MP is very popular in the community
Hawthorn: Although John Pesutto is quite moderate for Vic Lib standards, the demographic of young white-collar renters/apartment owners would pose a threat to the Liberals margins just like the results of Kooyong. Not to mention the ever-shifting Vic Libs to more conservative and anti-covid/vaccine mandate positions in an area with small-liberals
Ringwood: The federal results suggest Labor would have hold on those boundaries and similar to Hawthorn although at a lesser and more suburban extent, would not welcome Vic Libs shift to the Right (I actually even heard on the ABC street interviews that many voters there say they would vote for a Teal in last months federal election if available despite being outer suburban)

Marh I agree, I predict pretty much all the same outcomes as you outline above. Although I’m not very familiar with the outer east so not really confident in predicting Bayswater and Ringwood with their slim margins.

For Mark’s benefit I was just outlining a “best case scenario” for the Liberals, one that I don’t actually think would be likely to happen.

I mostly just predict the Liberals gaining the outer southeast – Nepean, Pakenham and Hastings – and Hawthorn being a toss up only due to Pesutto.

@Trent, I wonder would the LNP (Especially on track for Vic Libs and to some extent Fed Libs) go on the Republicanization (moving to the Right) just like it has for Canada Conservatives with Pierre Poilievre? Poilievre seems quite similar to Matthew Guy (and maybe Peter Dutton as well) as he tries to appease the anti-vax vote and their hardline language against their center-left opponents.
Poilievre also supports the “truckers” and apparently would speak in the Alt-Right Canada Day Convoy.
https://twitter.com/CanDayConvoy/status/1539115420912869376

In my posts on here I’ve tried to stay focused on the electoral process and outcomes. But there’s a constant assumption made in this forum that the Vic Libs are far right, anti- vax, anti lockdown, trending in the direction of US Republicans, etc. yeah some of the frontbenchers spoke against the pandemic bill, some have questioned aspects of the vaccine mandates. On indigenous and LGBTQ issues they’ve largely quietly gone along with the government (with some backbenchers dissenting).
My impression of the Coalition in Victoria is that it’s largely made up of low quality, mid-tier types who can’t really compete with the well oiled political machine of the Vic ALP. I don’t think many of them have thought that deeply about their political philosophy either. So I think there main problem is they are just not an inspiring alternative to the government.

I agree with that assessment Lucas.

I think even when the Victorian Libs do jump on anti-vax and anti-lockdown causes and that sort of thing, it’s not so much a committed choice of direction as it is part of their broader problem which is that they simply don’t know how to define themselves to be electable in Victoria, and they just seem lost. They have see-sawed between so many different positions and most of the time come across as very reactive: whatever issue they see they might get some short term mileage out of, they will quickly try to take advantage of it even if it contradicts a previous position, which makes the public see them as weak (in comparison to a government who, like them or not, have been extremely consistent and committed to delivery).

I feel like they’re stuck between knowing they have to compete with a progressive government in a very progressive state, but also need to find a way to differentiate themselves without being too conservative for a progressive electorate. Labor, who as you say are a well oiled political machine, have really not give them any issues to differentiate themselves on without taking a less popular or more toxic position, and the Liberals don’t have savvy enough political operatives in Victoria to navigate that and formulate a winning strategy.

This is where the anti-lockdown stuff comes into it. They saw the pandemic, which impacted Victoria more than any other state and caused a lot of lockdown fatigue and people being sick of Dan’s press conferences, as a rare opportunity to take advantage of and differentiate themselves. So I think their shift to some of the “freedom” positions wasn’t coming from a place of far-right / libertarian ideology but just out of political desperation. Trying to read the room, and find an issue where they could differentiate themselves while avoiding cultural/social issues (which backfired terribly in 2018).

I would hate to be in the Liberals’ position now that lockdowns are no longer even a factor, because they have so little else to offer. Labor have put them in a position where opposing what Labor have done would be unpopular; supporting it just reinforces the idea of Labor having delivered positive outcomes, so there’s no obvious space for them to gain an advantage.

Would have to agree with most of your post Trent – the only way for Coalition to win in Victoria this time around is for Andrews and/or Labor to stumble in some way through a major scandal or the like. As Labor stay in power for longer (I see them at least winning this election, albeit narrowly), then the ‘its time’ factor could come into play for the next election in 2026, especially if Andrews steps down and his replacement is seen as weak or unknown.

I agree with that too.

I don’t think the Liberals can aim to win this time, they would require trying to appeal to too many different seats, some with huge margins, and their messaging would have to be too mixed to try to appeal to too many different demographics.

Also that “It’s Time” factor generally happens when a government runs out of steam and ideas, but Labor have avoided that so far with so many projects underway.

In 2026, when some of those projects (eg. Westgate Tunnel, Level Crossing Removals and Metro Tunnel) have been completed already and we may have also had 4 years of a federal Labor government by that stage, the “It’s Time” factor is much more likely to be prevalent.

So the Liberals really just need to go into 2022 with a focused two-election strategy, pick off some low hanging fruit, reduce Labor’s majority, and focus on reducing the margins in whatever region they aim to target in 2026 (more likely to be the eastern corridor and outer mortgage belt, while not wasting resources on seats they previously targeted like Albert Park, Bentleigh & Prahran).

I think although term length can make some voters fatigued, there are cases that never seem to lose. In Washington State in the US, Democrats govern the state since 1985 and it never will seem to lose anytime soon in the State. In another example is Florida despite being known as a battleground state, the GOP governed the state since 1999 partly since Democrats there could not have effective leadership.

@Trent I don’t think the Libs will win Melton or Ringwood. Also noticed you didn’t have Bass as a pick up, do you think Labor will hold that despite it now been notionally Liberal.

@Marh The difference is that in the US they often have term limits, usually two four year terms. After 8 years everyone is kind of sick of the retired incumbent and a new person runs and everyone gets excited for them only to be just like their predecessors and complain that they didn’t do anything. In the US a new governor or president is seen as a new government whereas under the Westminster system it’s more continuous. Interestingly Oregon which is just like Washington in that it has had a democratic governor since the 80s has had some close governor elections recently, i think this is due to their been strong support for republicans outside of Portland and fatigue with Democrats and a feeling they have taken the state for advantage and not done enough for the state.

I see Bass as one of several toss-up seats that have a 50/50 chance of being gained by the Liberals. The others being Box Hill, Ringwood, Ashwood and Ripon (notional only).

I would then say seats like Bayswater, Hawthorn, Nepean, Hastings and Pakenham are probably likely Liberal gains that are close to being written off for Labor, unless their vote can dramatically improve between now and November.

@North East, I forgot about Bass, probably because it’s notionally Liberal already I was just considering it a Liberal “hold”. I agree with Melton & Ringwood too, I also mentioned that I don’t think the Libs will win them. As I said I was just painting a “best case scenario” for the Libs rather than what I think would actually happen.

I agree with your comments about the US too. It’s a completely different dynamic to here, I don’t think it can be compared.

Nepean, Hastings & Pakenham (and Bass, notionally Liberal) are what I would consider the most certain Liberal gains. I’d have seats like Ripon and Hawthorn as tossups, and with Bayswater & Ringwood I honestly don’t know the difference between the two enough to understand the mood or dynamics there.

I think Labor are favourites to gain Caulfield and Glen Waverley, and I think Brighton & Sandringham are tossups, and they would gain Prahran off the Greens if the Liberals fall to third place.

I don’t think you can really compare the US political scene to Australia. Not the least of which the US Republicans do really poorly in affluent inner urban areas like Beverley Hills in LA unlike the Libs prior to recent years. Of course, worth pointing out the trajectory of the Libs is following the Republican direction.

@Dan M Is there actual data or polling information to show that the Republicans do poorly in Beverley Hills or is it based off the fact Berverley Hills is represented by Democrats at state and federal level. I think one thing to remember is that at a federal level US seats have a population of 700,000 eligible voters (way too many for one seat in my opinion). This means these seats would cover a wide range of demographics from wealthy to middle class to poor. I kind of came to this conclusion when i went down a rabbit hole of some wealthy LA suburbs and on one of their Wikipedia’s it showed the suburb had always voted Republican and voted Trump about 60-40 but was represented by a Democrat because they were drowned out by the working class and middle class that didn’t like Trump (Republicans also seem to underperform with the middle class and upper-middle class in places like New York and California). Even in Australian seat with 100,000 voters or state with less voters in the seat you see how a suburb can be strong for one party but drowned out by surrounding suburbs. Imagine Higgins, Melbourne, Wills, Maribyrnong, Fraser, Gorton and Hawke all been one seat. That’s you average Us congressional district, a poorly drawn and though out snake that’s a mish mash of suburbs that don’t belong together

It is a well-known fact that affluent urban areas in the US tend to vote overwhelmingly for the Democrats. Of the 20 congressional districts with the highest incomes, 19 vote for the Democrats, many of them on gargantuan margins.

As for Beverly Hills, tell me which parts of CA-33 are poor! If you can find any, they’re all “drowned out” by the vast majority of the district which is extremely affluent.

@Nicholas I didn’t mean to use CA-33 as a district with poor parts, although the parts poorer than Beverley Hills can still be considered middle class. There would still be a lot of middle class people in CA-33 which would be turned off by Republicans antics and wouldn’t be too affected by Democrats economic policy as they can probably be considered to the right of ALP on economic stances. Democrats also hold seats with the most wealth inequality which is kind of my point, this is due to their large seats in US congress, thus the seats have wealthy and poor suburbs, seats over there have 700,000 voters, even if a wealthy suburb voted for Republicans it’s likely not at the rate a poorer suburb voted Democrats, imagine Toorak and Braybrook in the same electorate.
As for the 20 congressional districts with the highest incomes it is true democrats hold most, i believe Republican used to hold a decent amount of these 20 until 2018 and probably held most of them in the past, they even held the wealthiest congressional district in the whole country until they lost it in 2018. When considering income it’s also important to remember the vast difference between cost of living depending on the state, $40k probably gets you further in Alabama than $60k in California. I believe purchasing power is a better measure although the higher cost of living states still probably have a better purchasing power but the gap isn’t as wide as it is based purely off income.

Forbes had an article after the 2018 midterms showing that CA-33 had the fourth highest Gini index at 0.5386. Although this inequality could be due to there been a lot of very wealthy people even compared to middle class it looks unequal.

The Ca-33 district has a median income of 117k USD which translates to 170k AUD. This is median and not mean which means inequality doesn’t positively skew the data. Even though there is no doubt there is a lot of inequality in that district since a lot of the uber rich and billionaires live there, no seat in Australia can compare with that level of median income. Of course Ca-33 is just one district but it’s a similar situation in other US cities as well particularly in NYC like the NY-12 district which has a median income of 125k USD, even higher than Ca-33 yet the Democrats hold this 80+% of the vote.

On the topic of the US elections, another interesting trend I’ve noticed in US elections that wasn’t apparent in Australia apart from 2022 was the Chinese diaspora vote. In the US, Chinese diaspora have always strongly voted for the Democrats even though they are one of the most advantaged ethnic groups in US society. Seats like CA-27 or NY-6 are relatively more affluent and have plurality Chinese American populations which would be Lib up until 2022 if they were in Australia (comparable to Menzies, Chisholm, Bennelong, Reid etc). The US Republican party, unlike the Libs in Australia, have always had an image problem of being a White Supremacist party especially since Trump’s 2016 election which may deter many fiscally conservative Asian American voters that would’ve otherwise voted for the right into voting for the Democrats. The COVID pandemic and deterioration of Sino-US ties as well as the very racist and inflammatory rhetoric by the Trump Administration and many Republicans certainly haven’t helped. Sounding a bit familiar into what has happened in Australia with the Chinese Australian vote in 2022. The Libs up until recent years had been more focussed on economic fiscal conservative issues which may explain why an increasingly affluent Chinese Australian population was increasingly voting for the Libs. Over the past year, the Libs have pushed a more US Republican style agenda with more social and religious conservatism as well as inflammatory rhetoric and stances towards China which completely reversed that trend.
Granted, it’s important to remember that in the US, Asian Americans are lumped together into one category (along with Pacific Islanders) and treated as a monolith while in Australia, ethnic groups are mainly separated by their country of origin (Chinese Australian, Vietnamese Australian, Indian Australian etc.) There isn’t really a pan-Asian Australian identity the same way there is one in the US, which could be why the Stop Asian Hate movement didn’t really take off in Australia the way it did in the US or Canada.

Chinese Americans do vote more left than Australia overall and you are correct to say that GOP is more conservative on immigration however I have to add that Chinese Americans are more white-collar, unlike Chinese Australians who tend to be owners/workers of small ethnic businesses so they are slightly better in assimilation for US society and indirectly means the China issue isn’t a major issue for Chinese Americans in const to Australia. You are correct that pan-Asian identity isn’t as strong in Australia however factories include a high proportion of first-generation (excluding 1.5 generation onwards) Mainland Chinese Australians who tend to identify not so well pan-Asian identity and many South Asian Australians are not even considered by many as pan-Asian. I have heard the pan-Asian identity is still quite strong for 1.5 to 2nd Asians

*factors

So i did a bit of research and Beverly Hills has a population of 33,709, last election Joe Biden received 8,668 votes to Trump’s 6,329 (58%) Trump actually improved from Hillary’s 64% in 2016. It’s actually pathetic that Republicans can’t win in an area like that and the increase in support for them could be because of the backlash to some of the BLM protests that happened in the area and the damage to the area. There was also an increase in voter registration, up 2000 to 23000 but a dip in voter participation (68% registered compared to 76% in2016). Whilst Beverly Hills voted for Democrats on individual props it voted on the right for economic issues, it overwhelmingly rejected prop 15 which would have taxed large commercial properties by their market value instead of purchase price, approved prop 22 which classifies gig economy workers as independent contractors not employees. Beverly Hills voted to re-elect incumbent DA over a progressive challenger, rejected measure J which diverts county money to social services instead of law enforcement but voted to give parolees the right to vote. Whilst the Republicans really underperform in these types of places all over the US i reckon if it was a Lib vs Lab contest in Beverly Hills the Libs would win. I’ve always been of the belief that if you dropped the Libs and Lab into a US election the Libs would do better in California and New York than Republicans do and Labor would do better in most of the south than democrats. I think that’s a major difference between US vs Australia, less focus on culture wars in Aus (for now that is).

https://beverlyhillscourier.com/2020/11/12/how-beverly-hills-voted/

The South seems to overperform for the GOP as there is a low turnout for Black voters who are overwhelmingly Democratic which is not helped where the GOP governors use tactics to prevent them from voting. I think Labor would not do well in the USA south because there is a lack of unionization and more religious/social conservatism making them more in line with The Nationals (perhaps even One Nation/ UAP). I do have to point out that the South used to be more unionized and was in fact the reason why it voted Blue in the past.
You are correct that the Libs would outperform Republicans in areas like California and NYC metro area (perhaps some may vote Teal as well) however they may still vote ALP comfortably due to the large non-white working/middle class outnumbering the non-Hispanic Whites. As for Beverley Hills, the Northern part with the massive mansions voted for Trump but is outnumbered by higher-density areas in the Southern Part which voted for Biden. Wealthy areas that do vote Democrats strongly like Santa Monica are areas where there are successful individuals (many of them are semi-celebrities) who have a younger average age. In fact, wealthy areas in LA and NYC that lack celebrities and have an older average age also voted for Trump.

NYT shows the neighborhood results for 2020
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/upshot/2020-election-map.html

@Marh Thanks for the info regarding Beverly Hills and Santa Monica. It does seem that the concentration of celebrities/semi-celebrities in these places would help Democrats, especially if they’re in the arts/film industry. I agree these areas would also be teal inclined.

You’re right that low turnout in the south helps the GOP, the black population of Mississippi is 38%, yet Biden received 41% of the vote.

In Australia Labor still holds socially conservative seats and the ALP doesn’t lean into social progressivism like the Democrats do, or the more ‘woke’ aspects. ON or UAP probably would be popular but the reason i don’t think the Libs would be popular is that the south would probably see them as ‘elites’, ‘globalists’, the south turned to GOP and liked Trump because of protectionist policies, the Libs are pretty neoliberal.

In regards to unionisation of the south, could it possibly have to do with investment in infrastructure, a lack of infrastructure investment meant less projects, thus less unionised workers working on the projects and less need for these workers resulting in them moving or people not training in these jobs. This could be something that helps Democrats in NYC and surrounding areas, the endless large scale infrastructure bought in unionised workers in the building industry, plus the workers who have to maintain such infrastructure. There been less unionisation in the south could also potentially change with Amazon workers there moving to unionise (i believe Amazon is a massive employer in the state). The American unions also seem to have little political influence from an outsiders view but i think Labor would help increase that, plus they would be better at unionising people.

In regards to non-white middle class i think the Libs would do alright in this area and better than Republicans, especially considering they probably do better with Asians in Australia than GOP with Asians in US (although that changed this recent election and could continue to change under Dutton).

Looking at the map you linked is see the part of the Beverly Hills that went Trump that you were talking about, also do you the smaller place a bit below that that voted for Trump (52%). An interesting thing is that Beverly Hills, Hollywood and surrounds as well as most of northern LA swung to Trump, maybe in this area there was excitement in 2016 to have a female president, was there voter apathy in 2016 or 2020, could some traditional Republicans not stomach voting Democrat again, maybe they thought Trump wasn’t as bad as they expected, i can kind of understand in Beverly Hills (and probably Hollywood) because of the BLM protests causing damage but i thought the rest of this area would swing against Trump. Maybe he motivated Republicans who usually sit out because they think it’s a lost cause to vote Republican in California. Anyone got any ideas.

Okay guys this is an interesting conversation but is pretty far off topic now.

At the federal election, Malvern (suburb), Malvern East, and Glen Iris were all around 50-50. Toorak voted around 60% Liberal. Is it possible that Labor could improve on their federal performance here?

@Nicholas, your are correct at recent Federal election, the Labor party outperformed the 2018 state result in the corresponding booth across Higgins. However, one point to note is that Higgins does have blocks of strong left voting areas Prahran-Windsor, Alamein (close to public housing) and to a lesser extent Carnegie-Murrumbeena (softer Labor vote). In this seat that is not the case it is only the booth close to Chadstone Shopping centre which does not tend to be as affluent or strong for the Libs. I am think should a teal run they would be best placed to challenge the Libs as Labor probably would not spend resources here.

Have a look at my comments on the Williamstown thread, where i discussed what may happen if a teal ran in Macnamara and Higgins. I am keen to gather your thoughts on this.
https://www.tallyroom.com.au/vic2022/williamstown2022

I tend to agree with Nimalan there.

I’ve said a few times that I think a teal would be unsuccessful in both Higgins & Macnamara, and the reason for that is that both were either already Labor (Macnamara) or marginal (Higgins) and include very solidly left-voting areas, which makes them very different to seats like Kooyong & Goldstein.

For a teal to win they really need to shift as many votes from Labor & Greens voters as they do from Liberal voters, to get them into the 2CP. So it’s a tactical vote by Labor & Greens voters. That makes sense in Kooyong & Goldstein because Labor & Greens voters know – especially with all the ‘teal’ publicity – that the seat will really only be a contest between LIB v IND so will tactically vote Liberal. But in a seat like Higgins or Macnamara, a Labor or Greens voter has no motivation to vote tactically.

Malvern, however, is basically the Liberal heart of Higgins without all left-voting areas on its east & west. It’s now the safest Liberal seat in metropolitan Melbourne after the redistribution, so a teal could work well here.

I don’t think they would even necessarily need a topic like climate change or integrity to motivate them either. I think many traditional Liberal voters in this area would already be holding their nose while they vote for the state Libs, and would just welcome a non-Labor alternative.

Malvern also isn’t an area where Dan is particularly unpopular (unlike some of the outer suburbs), which I think would actually *help* a teal too; because if they just wanted Dan out at all costs they would still hold their nose to vote Liberal. Instead, voting for a teal would really be a way they could feel they are sending a message about the direction of the Liberal Party, while knowing it won’t really have any impact on the result of the election – they’ll simply have a teal on the crossbench rather than a Liberal on the opposition bench, representing their area.

What I’m unsure about is Michael O’Brien’s personal standing in this area. Do the Malvern voters like him as a moderate alternative to Guy or were they disappointed with him as leader, and being replaced as tainted him? I’m not sure. That would no doubt be a factor in whether or not a teal could be competitive.

Typo above in the second paragraph, I meant to say “..so will tactically vote independent”, not Liberal.

I don’t think a teal wave would have the same success compared to the federal elections due to a number of reasons:
– Victoria’s strict donation laws mean Climate 200 can’t have so much money to donate
– Teal’s campaign only focuses on the anger of the LNP government toward climate change and their to allow hard-right politicians to be in the LNP who are anti-vax and climate deniers. Vic government is ALP so I don’t think the Teals will use the same rhetoric replicated in the federal election as Vic ALP have an ambitious climate target and heavily oppose the anti-vax movement (although Teals could campaign the Vic Libs shift to the Right on everything possibly except for surprisingly climate change)

As for any Dai Le style independent for ALP heartlands in Melbourne, the only closest equivalent I could find is Dr. Joe Garra who even had quite good results in the Last State Election. Correct me if there are any other equivalents. I don’t think at the moment the new “Victorian Party” will be a success as they claim in the newspaper since they don’t even have any famous name just yet with no policy and pretty much Right-Wing talking points