Galaxy: 52-48 to Coalition; ReachTEL Victorian marginals polling

The first substantial national-level poll in nearly week gives the Coalition an election-winning lead, but fails to corroborate the bloodbath that yesterday’s automated polls were pointing to.

At last, an actual national poll – and it’s not quite the train wreck for Labor that yesterday’s marginals polling might have had them bracing for. The Coalition has an election-winning lead, the outer edge of the error margin notwithstanding, but it’s of the relatively modest order of 52-48, compared with 51-49 in last week’s poll. Labor is down two points on the primary vote to 36%, with the Coalition steady on 45%. The poll also gauges opinion on the Coalition’s plan to abolish the school kids’ bonus, and which party has the better parental leave scheme. Both results are consistent with the usual pattern of poll respondents supporting spending and opposing taxing (company levies evidently notwithstanding), with 47% opposing the school kids’ bonus abolition against 38% supporting, and the more extravagant Coalition parental leave scheme favoured over Labor’s 44% to 36%.

GhostWhoVotes also relays a series of electorate-level ReachTEL results from well-chosen Victorian seats, which I presume have been commissioned by the Sunday Herald Sun. In turn:

• The Liberals lead in Labor’s two most marginal seats in the state, by 53-47 in Deakin and 56-44 in Corangamite. In the most marginal Liberal seat of Aston, the Liberals are found to be well ahead at 63.4-36.6.

• A long-overdue result for Melbourne suggests Adam Bandt’s primary vote will not be high enough to survive the looming flood of Liberal preferences to Labor. Bandt is on 33.5% against 33.8% for Labor candidate Cath Bowtell.

• A result for Indi suggests Sophie Mirabella indeed has a fight on her hands from independent Cathy McGowan, as media chatter has increasingly indicated. Mirabella leads McGowan 43.5% to 23.3% on the primary vote, but McGowan would presumably benefit from a very tight flow of Labor and Greens preferences. (UPDATE: It turns out this doesn’t exclude 7.1% decided, so it should be more like 47% Mirabella to 25% McGowan, which would get Mirabella home).

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.

1,633 comments on “Galaxy: 52-48 to Coalition; ReachTEL Victorian marginals polling”

Comments Page 31 of 33
1 … 30 31 32 33

  3. Problem is a 12% swing is required in Wakefield and, while the swings have been sharp to Labor in the last election and could thus swing back just as sharply, it is still a big ask.

    I believe that Rudd’s announcement to help Holden is helping too and Labor are doing well to paint the Libs as not giving a shit about the company (something Champion did effectively)

  4. a professional PM! Professional wanker more like.

    What a failure the switch to Rudd is! He can’t even beat a Abbott who looks 3/4 dead FFS!

    That said, if Newspoll has Others >10% you can disregard it.

  5. Zorich is a popular and prominent local. I’d suggest more people know him than Champion.

    Hindmarsh is gone, but I think Wakefield will narrowly remain.

  8. There was some (albeit) internal polling suggesting Hindmarsh and Wakefield looked bad but Adelaiude and Makin were borderline. I guess the issue is how Rudd’s FBT changes impact on car people in Wakefield.

  12. Sitting in Edinburgh airport scrolling through PB, must say I do like Carey Moore and MTBW gut feelings much better than the Libs gloating
    Down to Heathrow shortly (the plane is late) then fly out 9.30pm tonight on QF2 to Dubai

  13. Can you imagine Messiah Kev’s ego if the ALP win the election. It will be all about Kev. If anyone could possibly become even more insufferable I suspect he might be it. I would be investing in a food taster if I were him.

  15. When the FBT changes were announced I said they would bite hard in Wakefield and Hindmarsh, and was roundly ridiculed. Just wait and see. It’s a huge issue.

  17. Diogenes 1135

    [Occasional PB commentator and indie candidate in SA, Mark Aldridge, arrested today and then released. Something about an outstanding warrant.]

    He’s an independent candidate for Wakefield and he was in the audience tonight. Half way through, he indignantly walked out. A stunt, sure, but it was interesting.

  19. [must say I do like Carey Moore and MTBW gut feelings much better than the Libs gloating]

    Trust me, my gut on Wakefield is probably the few “gut feelings” on this election you’d like…

  20. [There was some (albeit) internal polling suggesting Hindmarsh and Wakefield looked bad but Adelaide and Makin were borderline. I guess the issue is how Rudd’s FBT changes impact on car people in Wakefield.]

    I have a state-wide swing of around 11%, which takes out Adelaide, Wakefield and Hindmarsh.
    I would suggest Hindmarsh is gorn and Adelaide would fall before Wakefield. I have the ALP retaining Makin though.

    Thoughts on Victorian Seats?
    I’m picking up a swing of up to 15% in semi-rural seats (Ballarat, Bendigo, McEwen, Corio).
    No need to talk about Corangamite and Deakin.

    Interested to hear your thoughts on other Vic seats and QLD…

  23. Mmm..interesting commentary on that 1993 election.

    John Hewson faced growing criticism from journalists and the ALP for not doing in depth interviews which would put his policies under scrutiny.

    Shame we don’t have journos anymore!

  25. Confessions 1471

    Marles will hold Corio, so maybe one to keep an eye on for the future. Seems pretty smart, and can handle himself media wise.

    Disagree on Feeney though.

  28. Problem was there was a “secret Liberal polling” story in the Sunday Mail today which suggested a blowout in SA. While it could be possible, I am always skeptical of “secret party polling” that is leaked and take it with a grain of salt.

  33. latest Ellis …

    “Deciphered, ReachTEL is in fact good news for Labor. In Brisbane, in Banks, in MacMahon, in Kingsford Smith and Coorangamite, a Labor victory is within their own margin of error, and Macquarie just out of it, and their own figures give Greenway to Labor. Given that the average age of the respondents is 72, and this has not been denied, it means an easy win for Labor in all of them, once you add in Gen Y who have no landlines and prefer Rudd to Abbott by 60 to 25.

    In Forde, the bookies have Beattie ahead, and they are usually right. This, so far, is a net gain of two for Labor. In Lindsay, the bookies favour Bradbury, and they are probably right.

    In Bennelong, where a quarter of the voters are Chinese or Korean, it is unlikely that any of them talked to a machine in English, why would they, and that 80 percent of them favoured Jason Yat-sen Li. This adds 20 percent to Jason’s numbers and sees him winning comfortably with 55 percent.

    ‘A significant majority’ are undecided, we are told, about 20 or 23 percent, I presume. This means, really, they are undecided about Abbott, and day by day his refusal to provide his figures will hurt him.

    The bookies have Labor picking up Aston too. So this means, in toto, a gain for Labor of four seats, giving them, with or without Bandt, seventy-eight. So even if they lose Lindsay, and Robertson, and Bass, and Denison, and pick up Solomon, as they surely will, and do a deal with Katter, which they surely can, they have the necessary 76 to retain government.

    And that’s with twenty days of campaigning to go, and seventeen of Joe hiding his figures.

    Hard to see Labor losing from here.

    Discuss.”

  35. [Problem was there was a “secret Liberal polling” story in the Sunday Mail today which suggested a blowout in SA. While it could be possible, I am always skeptical of “secret party polling” that is leaked and take it with a grain of salt.
    ]

    TBH I don’t think there is anything secret about a blowout in SA, I’m more dubious of whether Rudd actually achieved 50-50 status in the first place – but thats another story.

  36. [What does everyone think about Deakin?]

    A PBer who lives there said s/he hadn’t seen any Labor publicity material at all.

  37. [1531
    Mod Lib
    Posted Sunday, August 18, 2013 at 10:17 pm | PERMALINK
    What does everyone think about Deakin?]

    AlfrevDeakin remains the only Prime Minister to hold the position 3 times. Rudd may emulate him?

  41. wal kolla@1524

    and KB, do you have any additional information on Lyons or Franklin?

    Lyons nothing but the two ReachTELs that were taken some time ago. The parties do not seem to think that it will go, despite the slight lead for the Coalition in the most recent ReachTEL. I don’t currently think it’s going either but it is still interesting.

    Franklin I have even seen a 53-47 to ALP (someone’s internal poll) taken while Gillard was still PM. Lib candidate also had a little social media problem. Unless the national 2PP gets a lot worse (say 54-55) by polling day I cannot see it falling.

  45. I find it very hard to believe Georganas will lose Hindmarsh.

    He is a very popular, visible and hard-working local member. Also, lots of Greeks in the electorate. They’ll bring their boy over the line 😉

  46. Simon Baker @1522

    Yes, but the ALP started off with 86 seats and lost 8. The coalition started off with 62 and ended up with 69. The ALP did not start off with one less seat than the coalition as they currently are. Plus the ALP has to WIN seats not just maintain the status quo. This is a problem considering the independents which propped up the government are bailing out and their seats are not likely to go to the ALP.

  49. Pedant

    [Let’s see if I have this example right. Suppose you have a constituency A where only Liberal and Labor run, and the Liberals get 51%, Labor 49%. Suppose further that in every other constituency in the country, lots of parties run, so that the Liberal primary vote in every other constituency is less than 51%, and the Labor primary vote in every other constituency is less than 49%. Does your system allocate the first Liberal seat to their candidate from A, and the first Labor seat to their candidate from A?]

    OK …

    Constituency A Lib 51% Lab 49%
    Constituency B Lib 43.0% Lab 42% Others 15%
    Constituency C Lib 38.0% Lab 41% Others 21%
    Constituency D Lib 41.0% Lab 44% Others 15%
    Constituency E Lib 32.0% Lab 47% Others 21%
    Constituency F Lib 49.0% Lab 32% Others 19%
    Constituency G Lib 39.0% Lab 43.01% Others 17.99%

    Let’s assume this pattern averages out over the whole N number of seats, which are all of equal number. In this scenario, the Libs get 41.8571% of the seats (rounded dwon to the nearest integer of seats) and the ALP gets 47.7143% of the seats (rounded dwon to the nearest integer of seats). Assuming there were 100 seats, each would get 41 seats and if none of the “others” got at least 3% then the remaining 18 seats would be allocated just as they are now — to the winner on preferences. If one of the others managed 3% then they’d get 3 seats (to their best performed candidates in unallocated seats). If they failed to stand in at least 3 unallocated seats, that would be their bad luck, but that would be unlikely if they got 3% and really, why wouldn’t you stand a candidate in any seat which might go to preferences?

    As to the distribution, above,

    Constituency A Lib (51%) wins allocated first
    Constituency F Lib (49%) wins allocated second
    Constituency E Lab (47.0%) wins allocated third
    Constituency D Lab (44.0%) wins allocated fourth
    Constituency G Lab (43.01%) wins allocated fifth
    Constituency B Lib (43.0%) wins allocated sixth
    Constituency C Lab (41%) wins allocated seventh

    As you can see, the relatively poor performance of the Libs on primaries in some seats has meant that despite scorng more votes overall they got only 3 of the seven on offer, but snce they must get at least 41 seats out of the 100, at some point even if this pattern were repeated, the ALP would reach their 41 seats and the ALP would be excluded from the seat, allowing the Lib to get it. (Possibly in the analogs of Constituencies D or G.)

    Either major or perhaps a minor party, could win any of the unallocated seats on preferences, adding to their total.

  50. Centre@1542

    KB @ 1475

    WOW

    Did the betting get the election wrong in 1993?

    Funny – there was no betting on politics in 1993.

    Owl rly?

    ” – Days before Paul Keating’s 1993 surprise election win Reuters reported that ‘“John Hewson’s Liberal-National Party coalition has firmed to short-priced favourite at 7-2 on, compared with odds of 5-2 against for the Labor government.

    “The money’s dried up for Labor,” said Eric Sheldon of Sportsbet Australia, one of two bookmakers licensed to take bets on the election.’

    (The other was Centrebet; it seems both got their licenses earlier that year.)”

    http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/mumble/index.php/theaustralian/comments/great_expectations

Comments Page 31 of 33
1 … 30 31 32 33

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *