The Advertiser has published an in-house poll from a modest 475 respondents to gauge the electoral impact of recent events surrounding Mike Rann. The answer would appear to be, not much: Labor maintains a commanding 55-45 lead on two-party preferred, and leads on the primary vote 43.2 per cent to 38.6 per cent after distribution of the undecided. This compares with 56-44 in a poll which escaped my notice when it was published in the Sunday Mail a month ago. Eighty-seven per cent of respondents said the circumstances surrounding the recent assault would have no bearing on their vote; 8 per cent said they would be less likely to vote Labor, while 3 per cent said more likely.
32 comments on “Advertiser: 55-45 to Labor in SA”
Well Dio, myself and almost every other SA PB poster predicted this outcome a week ago. As I posted on the other thread last night, Rann was violentlay assaulted in public by an individual with a reputation for aggression and there is no evidence Rann did anything wrong. If anything it will generate sympathy for him, unless anyone other than the attacker suggests that Rann caused the marriage breakup. So far that is not the case. Evne if it was, there is no suggestion it has affected his work as premier. The Libs should drop this and move on.
The announcement of the Federal road and cycle funding in Adelaide yesterday was significant. I really can’t see Labor losing from here, although I so far think Redmond has proven much less error prone than Hamilton Smith.
We were right. Again. 😀
Socrates @ 1
[I really can’t see Labor losing from here, although I so far think Redmond has proven much less error prone than Hamilton Smith.]
Well at least I know why PBers believe in Roy Morgan… because they believe in an Advertiser poll of 400 too!!!
Bob, I thought you were the one crying for months that Queensland commenters won’t get excited about Galaxy polls of 400.
I know that maths isn’t your strong point but a poll this size with 87% saying they don’t care has a MOE of about 3%.
That makes me RIGHT. 😀
SNIP: Defamatory comment deleted – The Management.
[Bob, I thought you were the one crying for months that Queensland commenters won’t get excited about Galaxy polls of 400.]
55-45 to the LNP is a whole different kettle of fish.
SNIP: Discussion of defamatory comment deleted – The Management.
These poll usually reasonable accurate snapshots of a particular time, but what is unbelievable is the assertion that ‘Labor is ahead 40 per cent to 31 per cent in rural areas’. They must have polled Port Pirie and Whyalla only!
These polls usually produce reasonably accurate snapshots of a particular time, but what is unbelievable is the assertion that ‘Labor is ahead 40 per cent to 31 per cent in rural areas’. They must have polled Port Pirie and Whyalla only!
This has a margin of error of 4.5% which is starting to get a bit large I would have thought for any confidence in the figures. The difference between the ALP and the Libs is 4% on raw figures (38-34 out of 91% of voters nominating) and yet this translates to 10%TPP.
And I have to agree that it is strange that the ALP is further ahead in the country (55-45) than it is in the city (54-46), particularly when you look at the raw figures for the ALP and the Libs in both the city and the country. Would Labor and the Libs be tied (37-36) in the city and the Libs be way more popular in the city (36) than in the country (31)?
Tiser polls are crap. Nuff said.
I think the poll is fairly easy to call valid in that it’s the 3rd or so in a row showing more or less the same result. If we had a wild swing it would be much harder to trust it but given it is part of an ongoining sequence it seems valid enough.
Regarding the 2pp, it seems to me that they didn’t actually ask it, rather just based it on minor party preference flows at the last election. Another thing to remember is that the labor primary vote is not 38, it is 38/88 (43), likewise the liberal vote is 34/88(38.5) as the advertiser for some reason does not exclude undecideds/informal. From that the two party prefered makes reasonable sense. The Labor+greens vote went up 1, and the Liberal+FF vote went up 3 making the +1 gain logical.
Ofcourse while a margin of error of 4.5 is bad enough, making any assessment on city/country or male/female when the margin of error for a half sample (being generous to the country vote) is 6.37, ie a 50-50 result could be from 56.37-43.63. Ie as much accuracy as throwing a dart at a board.
[If we had a wild swing it would be much harder to trust it but given it is part of an ongoining sequence it seems valid enough. ]
But there is. One Tiser poll to the next showed I think a 14% 2pp swing in country areas?
It’s a pile of shit.
[Regarding the 2pp, it seems to me that they didn’t actually ask it, rather just based it on minor party preference flows at the last election.]
As they do with every brand of poll……………
[Tiser polls are crap. Nuff said.]
I thought they’d had a rather good history?
In any case… are you still clinging to your opinion that this issue is a game changer?
[I thought they’d had a rather good history?]
14% 2pp country swing from one poll to the next?
Yeah, they have a great history.
[In any case… are you still clinging to your opinion that this issue is a game changer?]
Based on the fact none of us know the issue behind the court case – potentially yes. Any other answer is silly and based on bias.
Dragging out dubious subsamples from a poll must be the laziest, cheapest and stupidest way to discredit the poll as a whole. Everyone knows that subsamples are much more error prone.
Perhaps a quarter of South Australians live outside Adelaide. i.e. 100 if the total sample is 400. That’s a margin of error of 10%.
So are you saying this Tiser poll of 400 is accurate?
Is there any poll you think isn’t accurate?
So you’re dismissing polling on a polling website?
The sample size has to do with the poll’s precision; nothing to do with its accuracy.
Bob read what I said (it helps you to not look the fool). I said making a decision based on any subset of data in a 475 poll is as useful as throwing a dart at a board. I said that based on a series of polls that this one fits into perfectly it does not stick out as wrong.
The country polling is rubbish, Id take a punt and say the population split in say is 2/3rds metro over country, so yes any poll of the country is going to have a sample size of sub 200 and thus a silly margin of error. Nobody (other than the advertiser) here is drawing conclusions on the breakdown in votes beyond the +18 category. Infact several posts have called this part of the poll out.
However given the simple fact that the polling is consistently producing results that would classify as very good for labor (where even 14% lower than todays poll is still pretty good for a party with 1 country seat) I think does point to some sampling problems in how they select rural voters. Could be any number of things (assuming the same demographics are in the country v city – when you have fewer young people in the country) to perhaps including outlying metro areas with good labor votes as country. Finally they might just over sample the big metro areas in the country.
I love the comments! It’s as if they actually believe the Liberals are about to win the next election (which so far I don’t think they will but there is potential).
To all the previous responses:
The poll is a small number and has a higher margin of error. It’s no good at showing whether it was 58/42 or 52/48 or even more. And the margin of error isn’t guaranteed either. And I don’t expect opinion to turn until it’s been proven Rann has done something wrong – which I hope he hasn’t. The lingering court case may prove an issue in staying on message though.
In spite of a 2 week campaign of speculation and innuendo orchestrated by the Advertiser / Sunday Mail in publishing 20 articles related to the Premier Mike Rann bashing incident, and the Australian publishing 11 similar articles they have failed to dent public opinion.
I don’t take any notice of this poll result; the sample is too small.
As Peter said (25), Labor is still travelling well. I heard Dean Jaensch and Clem Macintyre speak recently at the “royalties for the regions” forum and both expect Labor to win next year (http://www.borderwatch.com.au/archives/4803).
The Liberals have a serious challenge in trying to raise Isobel Redmond’s profile before March.
This thread is almost biblical in its significance.
The mortification of Bob1234.
I agree with Bob that the MOE on this poll is undesirably large. It doesn’t prove that Labor will get 55%. But conversely, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. So this hardly proves the Liberals are about to win. Even with that MOE, the figures on Rann pesonally are clear cut: most people don’t care about the incident, or don’t blame him for it, which was my point. Combine that with this and a string of previous polls that show Labor well ahead, there is no reason to believe the situation is any differnt: Labor is still well ahead. However I do think they have no room for complacency because I think Redmond seems more credible than her predecessor, and might improve Liberal polling over time.
Labor is comfortably ahead, I agree and have always agreed. What i’m worried about is how this incident will be played out, what will be revealed, and the potential it may have on the outcome of the election.
All the personal attack dribble above is of no significance based on this.
Bob1234: You’re the resident pessimist/wet blanket, and you’ve been predicting the demise of Mike Rann all year!
[You’re the resident pessimist/wet blanket, and you’ve been predicting the demise of Mike Rann all year!]
At no stage have I predicted the demise of Mike Rann.
As an aside on a South Australian issue, we lot power (again!) lsat night from 11.30 till after I left for work this morning. No doubt half the food in our fridtge will spoil. We live in suburban Wattle Park. In the years we have lived in Watle Park we must have averaged a power interruption every few months. What gives here? Is this normal in Adelaide? Does anyone else experience this? Does anyone know why? Is it just past failure to maintain infrastructure, or failure to invest in capacity for the growth that is now occurring?