If you’ve got a lazy four grand to spare, Roy Morgan provides subscribers with complete computer tabulations of the questions asked analysed by a range of demographics. This isn’t much use to most of us, so it’s pleasing to learn that for the rest of the campaign, Crikey will be working with Roy Morgan Research to mine the data deeper. Today we are given cumulative two-party results for the pre-Rudd (January to December 2006) and Post-Rudd (January to June 2007) eras in seats that make the top 25 by numbers of public servants, self-employed, professionals/managers and unemployed. With due caution given to Morgan’s traditional skew to Labor, the early year Rudd honeymoon period and the general quirkiness of many of the results, here is a table showing Labor’s two-party preferred vote in each period from electorates of particular interest. By my reckoning, the sample sizes for any given electorate would be about 300 pre-Rudd and 150 post-Rudd. Also from Morgan: an alternative debate worm.
505 comments on “Electorate-level Morgan data”
Someone in posts 1-500 has probably already pointed this out, but the average TPP for the 2007 Morgan data is about 56.5%, which is actually a little below the 58.5% that prevailed Australia-wide from the 4 pollsters at the mid point of this period. So, ovewall, the data doesn’t actually appear to be particularly biased pro-ALP.
But there are some notably bodgy figures that seem to cancel one another out- e.g. Lingiari and Warringah; these are all probably sampling deviations. (On the other hand, the Warringah branch of the ALP got terribly excited earlier this year when they worked out that they might be able to knock over Tony Abbott with a 2-election strategy, if only they could find high-profile Independents to preference them.)
Voterboy @ #316
Katherine West. Now there’s a blast from the past.
Adama @ #407 re Joh for Pm supporters
and Pro Hart and Ben Lexcen
Katherine West wrote a good book on the Liberal party in the early 1960s. But her the Revolution in Australian Politics (1984) is very strange, lots of pseudo-leftist rhetoric about elites and corporatism with a loopy right undercurrent.
Comments are closed.