Roy Morgan, which normally goes easy on “beauty contest” questions, has today entered the fray with a phone poll of 527 respondents. It gives Brendan Nelson the same 9 per cent preferred prime minister rating he suffered from Newspoll, with Kevin Rudd on 77 per cent compared with Newspoll’s 70 per cent. That’s not the worst of it though: on the question of preferred Liberal leader, Nelson can only manage equal fourth place behind Malcolm Turnbull (24 per cent), Peter Costello (18 per cent) and Joe Hockey (13 per cent). Nelson and Alexander Downer are both on 9 per cent. Kevin Rudd is favoured as Labor leader by 66 per cent over 15 per cent for Julia Gillard; in the absence of Rudd, 50 per cent would favour Gillard over 8 per cent for Wayne Swan.
474 comments on “Morgan: Rudd 77, Nelson 9”
It wasn’t stated in Oz Story, but I read between the lines from the rushed inauguration of Nichole and understood that the local ALP chose her far too late in the process; either they had someone else in mind who pulled out (or also wasn’t asked in time) or they were just incompetent in dealing with the process.
Meeting Kev, so that any of the tailing media could find out, before she’d been really briefed, and an appropriate minder appointed, probably cost the ALP the seat in hindsight. It’s not like no-one knew the election was coming.
The assumption at the time in the wider population was that she was an under prepared dill who expected an easy ride. Oz story, and the personal anecdotes suggests she’s in fact a very hard working and organised lady.
Also if the media hadn’t been quite so underhanded about revealing her personal issues it seems she was quite prepared to deal with it and was happy to leave it as an unknown issue to the public. She totally destroyed the stepford wife stereotype tonight and replaced it with far more identifiable traits we all have.
classified at 450.
Sometimes, I really drum my fingers. Surely you have read the earlier posts on Nicole?
Do read back. Not merely this thread.
Report your findings, once you have put in the effort.
No offence, but it can become wearily repetitive.
watching the ABC story with foley taking the credit but defusing the lack of ‘support’ she got , I thought Crikey will throw a chair at the Tv if Foley keeps going.
how did you remain calm Crikey
Ron, because my TV is a very pretty object. I resorted to tissues.
Crikey… drum away
Perhaps I didn’t make my self clear, I’m on HER side, I think she was let down by the machine! But I do think she might have considered what she was getting into abit more aswell given her current life hassles (more power to her though for having the courage!)
As for reading back… ???… how do you mean, I read every single comment/thread posted here… usually…
something I missed perhaps?
classified, I am pleased to see that you have read the posts. Though you do seem to have missed something.
Such as ‘she might have considered.’ Blaming Nicole.
I hark back to my position. It is not Nicole, it is the ALP, for failing to run and put resources into a candidate in my electorate. Over a realistic period of time. Enabling the candidate to be well informed, able and electable.
It is not Nicole who failed me in Boothby. It is Labor.
and it seems to display a simple belief that a ‘star’ candidate is all thats needed to win votes….where are the “pro’s”
glad the TV is ok as no doubt Nicole will be a candidate again in the future so that TV will show her
I agree and I said same! … BUT (isn’t there always a but)
Her life hassles impacted on her situation… Those hassles, at the very least made it much, much harder for her to deal with the sH!tsTorm she found herself in!
That is what I meant FFS
classified’s point is valid in my opinion. And that’s not absolving the press or the ALP one iota.
Ron, the ‘star candidate’ notion is again the fault of the party. Starry eyed themselves. Thinking that is all it takes.
Maxine, as we know, was in the ‘star’ category. Yet she had such an established profile, a lengthy run up. And strong support, locally.
Nicole did not have such an advantage. Time would enabled.
And, classified, I do not think that the personal issues with which she was dealing made the slightest bit of difference. As you yourself say, congratulations on her courage.
Nicole, or any candidate, needed to be brought on earlier.
But I said (there it is again)
paraphrasing here… “might have considered” “but more power to her”
you take that and turn it into (blaming Nicole)?
No, classified. That is not it, at all.
So do not think I am misreading you. I have no reason to think that you are against Nicole.
The point is that Nicole, in my judgment, was capable of dealing with electoral and personal issues. Simultaneously. Hard work, sure.
Many people find themselves in that juggling position. Politics aside. I would not say that it does not take its toll, it does, but Nicole is both young and able enough to handle it.
So, I just do not see that Nicole was hampered by her personal issues.
And that is what I believed you were saying.
OK Crikey… fair enough
I will chat with you about this again.. but right now West Wing” is on and so all other things must wait! (I’m also waiting to get a transcript of the Australian story program so I can prove you wrong) 😉
until then! 🙂
Good then, classified. Thanks for the smiles. Don’t know how, myself. Smile, nevertheless. Happy watching.
Crikey et al- Nicole Cornes was the THIRD candidate Labor asked to run in Boothby. They had previously asked Graham Cornes (don’t think it was this election though). They had another person who’d accepted, who was a radio announcer, who pulled out that weekend and they had to find someone quickly. So they didn’t have time to prepare Nicole.
Never thought I’d be a propagandist for the SA Labor Party!
Crikey Whitey to create a smiley type consecutively ; and )
Crikey Whitey without the “and” obviously 😉
Meanwhile Lord Lunchalot of Mayo is doing a shift on commercial radio 5 afternoons a week. Seeing he’s doing this on our time will his parliamentary salary be docked? Will the price of pork go up if pigs begin to fly?
And while I’m in an inquisitive mood, does anyone know if Howard’s anti terrorist fridge magnets still work now he’s been given the People’s Order of the Boot?
Smiled when I saw this article in today’s Advertiser from Mark Kenny (Is he related to Chris Kenny, a possible successor to Lord Downer in Mayo?).
He quotes Nelson saying that “criticism of the former government’s spending and tax cuts should be directed at Labour also as it had largely supported those measures in Opposition” WTF.
Smilingly mystified. Best clue, I suppose, is malcoms-ex.
But is it not easer to just say, smile, frown, glare?
Like this otiose. 😉
The appalling thing about the whole Cornes saga are the following facts (known well in media circles).
a) The editorial team was made aware of the circumstances and ran the story anyway. They were told. This is known. Someone must be responsible and if Mansell wants to claim he is not, then sack Michael Owen. The blame cant lie between both of them. SNIP: Potentially defamatory statements deleted – PB.
b) anyone noticed how the Tiser has run only one or two letters to the editor on the Cornes TV appearance, with one being negative. Do you think there were no outraged responses to Owen’s appalling act? I think not. Do you think this show hasnt created a debate on journalistic ethics? I think not. The tiser is shutting down all media on Nicole, even editorial letters. This is a disgrace considering in the past they have dedicated half pages of letters to issues that were frivolous at best, even post campaign.
c) There were at least half a dozen other instances where Cornes was portrayed as making mistakes when it was not the case. The Rudd/ carpark incident was testamount to the way Cornes was portrayed in nearly every negative press artcle she recieved and most stories were written by Michael Owen. SNIP: More statements deleted – possibly fair, possibly not, but this site will always err on the side of caution when professional reputations are being discussed – PB
d) How on earth has MediaWatch or Crikey not picked this up? This was the worst case of a journalist losing all morals in pursuit of a story, and yet somehow this is not worthy of a debate on ethics? This is not about Nicole Cornes. It is about ethics and the sort of society we wish to live in – one where victims do not have to be further abused or denigrated by hack journalists like Owen in pursuit of a story.
Maxine McKew copped a bit of special treatment after her victory,
“Canberra Times editor Mark Baker has defended his newspaper’s decision to publish a revealing front-page photograph of Labor MP Maxine McKew in a short dress”
The editor is still copping flak about it also, but as many pointed out he had 40 photos to choose from and chose that one, whilst the other papers chose a different angle.
Only other similar incident I can think of is the Sonia McMahon dress, cannot recall the press going feral on a female co-alition candidate like they did Cornes, though the way budgie smuggler Debnam was portayed could be a comparison.
William, isn’t your PhD on the media and political polling campaigns, would these two incidences come into it?
Comments are closed.