Morgan: 56.5-43.5 to Coalition

At some point in the previous fortnight, I resolved to abandon my practice of reporting Morgan face-to-face results by highlighting the previous-election measure of two-party preferred, rather than the respondent-allocated method favoured by Morgan. For those not familiar with this issue, there are two methods pollsters can use to determine how minor party and independent voters would allocate preferences: asking them, or making a distribution according to how voters for the relevant parties divided between Labor and the Coalition at the previous election. While the former would appear to pass the common sense test, it is in fact the latter which has consistently given more reliable results. It would seem that asking respondents places them in a position which is not replicated in the polling booth, where many follow how-to-vote cards or otherwise contrive to avoid engaging mentally with how they order their preferences – the significance of which many would not appreciate. As a result, the previous-election method has come to be favoured by every company other than Morgan, with Newspoll having adopted the practice after its final pre-election poll in 2004 was broadly accurate with regard to the primary vote, but awry on two-party preferred. My policy of favouring the previous-election measure was adopted for the sake of consistency in a period when Morgan seemed to be jumping around from one method to the other. However, Morgan has since settled upon the respondent-allocated measure, despite its poor track record. Highlighting a different result from Morgan’s was thus creating confusion, notwithstanding that I believe it to be the superior method.

Today Morgan has published its first face-to-face poll results since I made this decision, and they have rather awkwardly produced the biggest divide yet between the two measures. The respondent-allocated figure highlighted by Morgan has the Coalition with a thumping 56.5-43.5 lead, much the same as the 56-44 result from the previous poll (which was conducted on the weekend of July 9/10, with the carbon tax announcement coming on the latter date; the current poll combines the weekends of July 16/17 and July 23/24). However, the previous-election method gives the government a far happier result of 53-47. The primary votes are in fact little changed: Labor is up a point to 34.5 per cent, the Coalition down one to 47 per cent and the Greens up half to 12 per cent. What has happened is an exacerbation of the recent trend where Labor’s share of minor party and independent preferences has gone in the same direction as its level of direct support. However, I remain unconvinced that this will be replicated on polling day. The Morgan figures for non-major parties are essentially identical to those recorded from the previous election, when the Greens polled 11.8 per cent and others 6.6 per cent (compared with 12 per cent and 6.5 per cent). If we take the Morgan respondent-allocated figure at face value, this suggests Labor’s share of all non-major party preferences has slumped from 66 per cent to 49 per cent. Since nearly two thirds of these voters are Greens supporters, this seems very hard to credit. The question nonetheless remains as to why poll respondents who favour minor parties and independents have become so much less likely to nominate Labor than the Coalition, to which I don’t have an answer – but keep in mind that the solid swing against Labor in the 2010 election was not reflected in the share of preferences it received.

Nonetheless, the record should note that Morgan has published a figure of 56.5-43.5, and has done so using a method that other pollsters were happy with until about half a decade ago. Equally though we should note that the alternative and apparently more reliable method has produced a result solidly more favourable to Labor than other pollsters have been producing of late. This brings us back to the old issue of the strong lean to Labor which has traditionally been evident in Morgan face-to-face polls, which the recent anti-Labor trend of respondent-allocated preferences has obscured. This point is illustrated by a chart I produced last month showing how Morgan face-to-face results (along with Essential and Nielsen) have differed from Newspoll since the start of 2009. As you can see from the two measures provided by Morgan, the issue of which preference method used was largely academic until the start of this year, when the present gap began to open. On this basis Morgan had become less favourable to Labor than Newspoll using the respondent-allocated method; its previous-election results remained more favourable, though only to the tune of about one point rather than the traditional three.

Author: William Bowe

William Bowe is a Perth-based election analyst and occasional teacher of political science. His blog, The Poll Bludger, has existed in one form or another since 2004, and is one of the most heavily trafficked websites on Australian politics.

2,646 comments on “Morgan: 56.5-43.5 to Coalition”

Comments Page 4 of 53
1 … 3 4 5 … 53

  2. ShowsoOn,

    If you look at it from a libertarian perspective those that fail should be allowed to fail. They should bear the cost.

    If those that fail are saved then others must bear the cost somewhere.

    To put it in crude terms, flush the sh*t down the toilet.

    Yes there would have been generalised pain, but in the end you have a system where poorly run companies fail and well run companies succeed.

    Bailing out poorly run companies encourages poor behaviour.

    Letting poorly run companies fail encourages good behaviour.

    If I was running the U.S. economy I would have let the market deal with the banks and those that had to fail would have failed.

    At the same time instead of using money on bailing banks out I would have used it to support the most vulnerable sections of the economy through a tough period.

  4. [Worst President WTF?

    Obama has done what Clinton tried to do but failed, pass a major health care reform bill.

    Oh, and as a follow up he had Osama bin Laden killed, something that Bush failed to do in 8 years. ]

    Even the article doesn’t say he’s the worst, but I honestly think he has disappointed in a lot of ways. Even with your rebuttals, they’re not as clear as that. Yes, Obama did get health care ‘reform’ through, but its a rather right-wing model and far less efficient (not to mention it does little for the non-wealthy) than that practiced here and elsewhere. Getting Bin Laden killed is an accomplishment for sure, but that he did virtually nothing to stop or reverse the Bush-era security state is a serious problem. My thinking is that this would have been the time to stop the trend, because anyone trying to deal with it in future is now going to face it being ‘legitimised’ by both parties. And I emphasise again, criticising Obama is not the same as praising the Republicans. If anything, Obama should have been tougher with them.

  6. [I just received confirmation that EMRS have been undertaking surveying in NSW and QLD.]

    Surveying is a new word for it. 🙁

  7. [So nothing to do with the guy that left him with 2 unnecessary wary that will rack up something like $4 Trillion dollars basically pissed up against the wall then ? Or that the guy he took over from sitting back whilst the febrile minds in Wall St went feral ? ]

    It has a lot to do with Bush, of course. The disappointment is that Obama didn’t really set things right. Its sad knowing how many Americans thought through the worst of Dubya that hey, at least the next Democrat president would make things right.

  8. deflationite,

    It has become a worry for me for some time the amount of govt intervention in various industries and businesses that should be left to die but because of media and lobbying have much needed govt funds diverted into the private sector.

    The opportunity cost is astounding, and it is becoming more and more prevalent, but is a practice that should be nipped in the bud.

  10. [Surveying is a new word for it]

    ruawake

    That was the official wording from the email.

    It’s certainly not what we would call it.

  11. Has anybody else ever been surveyed and asked to agree and disagree with certain untruthful statements and then get asked at the end if they have changed their mind?

  12. Jackol @138,

    Interesting point you raise re Malaysia.

    It will be interesting to see if there is any “softening ” towards the agreement once the first of the 4000 refugees arrive in Australia.

    I think this aspect has been overlooked in all the noise.

    Anyway, only time will tell.

  13. Thefinnigans TheFinnigans
    He he he, Abbott tried to gag Turnbull and Malcolm told him to go and get fuacked: “i am not #gaggable” #auspol
    4 minutes ago

  16. rummel 112

    [poroti

    BS! Science is science and credibility is not a prerequisite.]

    Credibility is most certainly a prerequisite for science.

    Mistakes are made occasionally, scientists sometimes fudge data; but when discovered by peer review – you know, scientific method – they usually start looking for another career.

    I suggest you check out Popper

  18. TLBD

    Sparkling Star Wine, anyone? Red Duck?

    Didn’t Barossa Pearl or something similar feature too? I think I remember the adverts for it.

  20. [If you look at it from a libertarian perspective those that fail should be allowed to fail. They should bear the cost.]
    Well I don’t take things from libertarian perspective because libertarians seem to only have one theory “government is bad”. If the U.S. government had sat on the sidelines and done nothing, then bank after bank would’ve failed, and this would’ve created a massive panic with people rushing to the bank to take their money out, which would’ve led to MORE banks failing and thus required an even bigger bail out!

    This is just basic economics. It seems that the libertarian position involves completely ignoring basic economics.
    [Yes there would have been generalised pain, but in the end you have a system where poorly run companies fail and well run companies succeed.]
    Generalised pain? There would’ve been even more financial chaos than there already was, and again I repeat that it simply would’ve required AN EVEN BIGGER BAIL OUT to fix!
    [Bailing out poorly run companies encourages poor behaviour.

    Letting poorly run companies fail encourages good behaviour.]
    You are completely ignoring the fact that failing to step in and save the poorly run banks would’ve created a contagion that would’ve taken down well run banks with it.
    [If I was running the U.S. economy I would have let the market deal with the banks and those that had to fail would have failed.]
    OK, so that would’ve been basically all of them, requiring the US government to become a massive bank.
    [At the same time instead of using money on bailing banks out I would have used it to support the most vulnerable sections of the economy through a tough period.]
    There wouldn’t have been an economy left after basically every bank would’ve failed.

    If unemployment only reached 30% you would’ve been lucky. It would’ve been worse than the great depression.

  24. rishane

    [It has a lot to do with Bush, of course. The disappointment is that Obama didn’t really set things right]

    Disappointed as was I. However I also saw the feral meeja lining up to crucify him should he “cut and run” amd not “stay the course”. All with the Murdochracy leading the charge. On top of that just as many here have “issues” with a “mere” woman being in charge here more than a few in the good old US of A have issues having a “Negro” in charge. It has resulted in him having a Tea Party bunch of loons to deal with. Anyway the turkey’s voted for christmas and so they will reap what they have sown and I will feel little sympathy.

  27. Space Kidette@133

    david,

    Anyone who offered something better than Passion Pop, was a man of the world to me!

    Anyone remember Barossa Pearl ? 🙂

    Must admit I partook of Mateus Rose and *Cold Duck* back in the day.

  30. [spur212 @

    Channel 10?s Hugh Rimmington on Tony Abbott’s campaigning methods.

    http://bit.ly/q30bNE

    Superb journalism as it shows how he shuts down the media and scrutiny]

    I saw Rimmington’s interview with Abbott and agree with your assessment.

    Let’s hope others follow his lead.

    George Negus is pretty good too.

  32. I haven’t had a Sauterne since Jesus was in knee pants. If I want sweet it’s un-tawny port or Botrytis.

  33. [Puff, the Magic Dragon.

    TLBD

    Sparkling Star Wine, anyone? Red Duck?

    Didn’t Barossa Pearl or something similar feature too? I think I remember the adverts for it.]

    Look you bunch of wine snobs, whilst Passion Pop and Cold duck have their attractions for true class one must go for Lindemans Ben Ean Moselle. 🙂

  35. “Obama worst pres ever” just like “Gillard govt worst ever” The melodramatic rhetoric shows how ridiculous these extreme RWers are.

  37. I have a great recommendation for those who have their own blender or milkshake maker.

    The Spacy Special

    1 x nip Kahlua
    1 x nip Baileys
    1 x nip Tia Maria
    1 x nip Frangelico

    Whack in about three tablespoons of Streets Blue Ribbon Ice Cream.
    Splash of milk,

    Whack in the whizzer until it resembles a thick shake.

    Sprinkle with Milo.

    MMMMMmmmmmmm……..

  41. Looks more like the 2 August deadline Debt Cealing will come and go in the US.

    Plan B already worked out ?

    Stop The Presses: The Fed Can Fund The Treasury With Over Half A Trillion In Emergency Capital

    By now some may have read ludicrous stories about the Fed coining multi-trillion precious metal coins in a way to loophole the debt ceiling situation. Granted, this plan is so far beyond ridiculous that we have not wasted the time to comment on it.

    That, however, does not mean that the Fed is powerless to assist the Treasury in a modestly long-term term fix of the debt ceiling fiasco.

    In fact, as Stone McCarthy’s Raymond Stone observes: “The Fed does not want to be a player in this debt ceiling/potential default debate. It didn’t want to be a player in the Bear Stearns debacle, or the Lehman situation. But when push comes to shove the Fed will do what it can to avoid a default.”

    In summary there are three avenues that the Fed can pursue in order to help Tim Geithner prolong the cash illusion modestly longer.

    The three options for Bernanke are to

    i) book profits;
    ii) prepay expenses and, yes,
    iii) sell gold.

    Combined, these three approaches could squeeze out well over half a trillion dollars, giving the Treasury breathing room not only past August 2, but potentially into 2012!

    That said, “The Fed would not want to advertise to Congress the possibility of delaying default. It does not want to take Congress off the hook on increasing the debt ceiling.”

    But it will, if it has to, and the end result will be a delay potentially of up to a month. And if it means selling off the Fed’s gold, so be it.

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/stop-presses-fed-can-fund-treasury-over-half-trillion-emergency-capital

  43. Gayle
    [Has anybody else ever been surveyed and asked to agree and disagree with certain untruthful statements and then get asked at the end if they have changed their mind?]
    I’ve been polled in recent times & had a similarly weird experience.
    Were you asked to explain why you agreed with government policies & what was good about them?
    I was asked this after being given a negative question which was meant to draw a negative answer.

  44. [It has a lot to do with Bush, of course. The disappointment is that Obama didn’t really set things right. Its sad knowing how many Americans thought through the worst of Dubya that hey, at least the next Democrat president would make things right.]

    Getting some of his agenda passed by the Congress after obstruction/watering down by the Blue Dog Dems and then securing all 60 Dem and Indie Senators votes to cut-off Republican filibusters meant that Obama’s situation was similar to the Senate obstacles/compromises which the Rudd government faced to make things right after Howard.

    And people who are unfamiliar with the pivotal role of the U.S. Supreme Court in America’s constitutional checks and balances might “misunderestimate” the immense significance of Obama’s getting ratification of his two “liberal” nominees through the Senate.

    Being disappointed with Obama is the same as being disappointed with Rudd’s “failure to deliver” an ETS.

  49. Scrumpy is the best! Sneaks up on you. Can’t find it anymore around here.

    Pisco sour:

    3 pisco
    2 lime cordial
    1 sugar syrup
    1 egg white
    ice cubes
    Blend.

Comments are closed.

Comments Page 4 of 53
1 … 3 4 5 … 53