ReachTEL: 52-48 to Coalition

A new ReachTEL poll offers Labor some vague encouragement, and concurs with Morgan and Essential in having Clive Palmer’s party at 4% nationally.

This morning’s Seven Sunrise (which the Liberal Party is carpet-bombing with advertising) has results from a ReachTEL automated phone poll, reporting primary votes of 35% for Labor, 45% for the Coalition and 4% for the Palmer United Party (remarkable unanimity on that figure from pollsters lately). (UPDATE: Full results here. The Coalition vote turns out to round to 44%, not 45%, and the Greens are on 9.7%.) The Coalition’s two-party preferred lead is at 52-48, down from 53-47 a week ago. Tony Abbott leads Kevin Rudd 53-47 on ReachTEL’s all-inclusive preferred prime minister rating, and 51% of respondents reported they favoured abolishing the carbon tax against 34% opposed.

In an otherwise quiet day on the polling front yesterday, AMR Research has published its third online poll of federal voting intention, conducted between Friday and Monday from a sample of 1101, showing Labor on 34%, the Coalition on 44%, and the Greens on 10%.

Finally, to give you something to look at, I’ve extended yesterday’s exercise of providing a state-level BludgerTrack chart for Queensland across all mainland states, with two-party preferred shown along with the primary vote. Once again, black represents the combined “others” vote. Note that the data gets “noisier” as sample sizes diminish for the smaller states. This is not as bad as it looks though with respect to the trendlines, as the outliers are generally from the smallest samples and the model is weighted to limit the influence.

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.

1,993 comments on “ReachTEL: 52-48 to Coalition”

  1. [My tweets this evening on point:

    [Annabel Crabb‏@annabelcrabb
    And could you also please watch #kitchencabinet at 8pm on ABC1 and I promise next week I will shut up thank you.

    Fran Barlow‏@fran_b__
    @annabelcrabb couldn’t you stop right now? Isn’t the public conversation vacuous and debauched enough as it stands? #wontbewatching

    Fran Barlow‏@fran_b__
    @annabelcrabb I wonder if you could specify the datum salient to politics that your show’s broadcast will add to the pool of insight.

    Annabel Crabb‏@annabelcrabb
    @fran_b__ would probably be easier for you just to watch it, on the whole

    Fran Barlow‏@fran_b__
    @annabelcrabb I I’ve seen the trailers in the past. The air is heavy with inanity, and I see no warrant to add yours to it. #nonresponsive

    And from another poster:

    [Andrew White‏@litbright
    @fran_b__ @annabelcrabb Fran, you know you want to watch. However, I’m happy to summarise it all later so you can decide whether to iView.

    Fran Barlow‏@fran_b__2h
    @litbright Nope. Nothing I’ve read or heard from @annabelcrabb suggests that the provenance of any insight would be found in this show

    Some thought I was too harsh, and insufficiently tolerant of lightheartedness. I described this as a demand for sugar on fairyfloss.]

    Could not agree more.

    Kitchen Cabinet is yet another example of how vacuous ABC has become and Ms Crabbe is the leader of this movement.

    Chief Political Cooking Correspondent? Reported salary of $200k?

    Enough to make one puke.

  2. I’m a scientist, at least in a past life, and they are all incorrect.

    [1. Anthropogenic climate change is genuine and measurable
    2. Vaccination for all contagious diseases is safe and necessary to protect populations
    3. GM food poses absolutely no health risk to people who consume it
    4. Evolution is verifiable and proven empirically]

  3. guytaur

    remember the media stunt – dropping out of minority govt early this year – food to libs, abbott boasted about it in parliament, major arrow to destabilise gillard and provoke leadership

  4. geoffrey

    Your argument does not hold water. Its time you looked at ALP behaviour and not blame Greens for ALP behaviour.

    No more to say on matter until you can accept that reality.

    Greebs had nothing to do with Gillard dumping Rudd who dumped Gillard as PM in turn.

    Voters reacted and votes reflect that. Accept that reality.

  5. geoffrey:

    [… the spectre of greens and liberal defeating an environmental bill will never be forgotten.]

    It wasn’t an environmental bill. It was a political wedge and polluter pay day masquerading as an environmental bill. It was worse than useless. Recall that the failure of the European scheme is often cited against action on climate.

    There was no way we were accepting that — and the ALP counted on it in their desire to split the Libs and take all the “credit” for action on climate change.

  6. The number of postal votes the AEC is reporting against parties is not the number of votes for each party. Rather it is the number of people who chose to come though a particular party to request a postal vote. The votes themselves are not counted until Election Day.

    This is a peculiar part of our electoral system where parties an write to people and offer to help them get a postal vote

  7. Player One@1693

    Tell someone who cares.


    Hey bemused, a word of advice …

    When you are trying to demonstrate how much you don’t care, it’s probably best not to resort to your usual idiotic tactic of re-posting the original post in it’s entirety, just so you can add some pathetic and lame insult at the end.

    This just gives everyone the opportunity to re-read the original post, and also see just how much it seems to annoy you.

    Hahahaha… moron!
    You just showed you don’t know about the ‘quick quote’ function of cccp which is what I, and others, use to quote what we are responding to.

    It saves a lot of scrolling back and gives my comment context.

    I sometimes edit the original to save space but, with a rant like kezza’s, it is best to leave it all there to be seen in it’s full craziness.

  8. [ Your claim seems to be that if someone rejects one of these premises, then they are cherry-picking the science, since 60% of scientists agree with the statements. ]

    Actually, if only 60% of scientists agree with each of the statements, the chances of a scientist agreeing with all of the statements could be as low as 12%

    So you are correct – after asking people in a class of average size to sit down as soon as they disagree with one of the statements, you would expect only a handful to be standing at the end – even if they were all scientists.

    I fail to see how this is a sensible argument for or against science.

    It is, however, a good argument for the nonsensical use you can make of statistics.

  9. What’s the betting Abbott and co have given The Australian and Daily Telegraph their figures on an embargoed basis, so they can set the day’s agenda with a rose-coloured glasses and utterly distorted view of these crucial numbers.

  10. [quote]10.If Abbott becomes PM on Saturday he deserves as much respect as he showed to PMJG[/quote]

    And Rudd? Does he deserve as much respect as he showed PMJG?

  11. AussieAchmed

    If Abbott becomes PM on Saturday he deserves as much respect as he showed to PMJG
    ————–

    Gillard got the respect she deserved. None.

  12. kezza2@1699

    bemused

    Yeah, right. Go for it.

    Tell someone who cares.


    Epitomises the attitude to long-term Laborites. who have worked for the party for over 30 years, from the Griffin Groupies.

    Okay, I’ve called the candidate and told him I won’t be handing out HTV cards on Saturday.

    He understood completely. Said Rudd had run the worst campaign ever.

    Hope you’re happy.

    As if I can influence what you do or do not do.

    Follow your voices.

  13. alias@1720

    What’s the betting Abbott and co have given The Australian and Daily Telegraph their figures on an embargoed basis, so they can set the day’s agenda with a rose-coloured glasses and utterly distorted view of these crucial numbers.

    Bar the entire field.

  14. It’s pretty obvious what will happen. There will be a Labor ‘saga’ – either new or rehashed – that will break at the same time as the Liberal costings are announced.

  15. So 90 minutes away from costings release for LNP.

    Those media not given the embargoed copies (should have been broken) will be more negative because they know others got an easy ride,

  16. P1

    [I fail to see how this is a sensible argument for or against science.

    It is, however, a good argument for the nonsensical use you can make of statistics.]

    It’s really just a commentary on poorly worded statements.

  17. VP

    [The number of postal votes the AEC is reporting against parties is not the number of votes for each party. Rather it is the number of people who chose to come though a particular party to request a postal vote. The votes themselves are not counted until Election Day.

    This is a peculiar part of our electoral system where parties an write to people and offer to help them get a postal vote]

    So it could reflect the Libs being more aggressive in assisting getting postal votes in. Although that doesn’t really explain why Labor would be sending in less than in 2010.

  18. [There will be a Labor ‘saga’ – either new or rehashed – that will break at the same time as the Liberal costings are announced.]

    Pretty much.

  19. bemused@1717

    Player One@1693

    Hahahaha… moron!
    You just showed you don’t know about the ‘quick quote’ function of cccp which is what I, and others, use to quote what we are responding to.

    As usual, bemused you are completely wrong, and a fool to boot.

    I also use cccp. I just edit my responses out of politeness to others.

  20. I wonder how many people will have voted early by election day?

    A few days ago we were rubbishing predictions that more than 3 million people will vote early, but we’re not far away from that number now.

  21. Diogenes@1722

    The AEC postal votes are linked on that catallaxy post and I just downloaded them and the numbers are correct. They just counted how many postal votes applications processed from each party. It’s the PVA applications link below.

    The prepolls are counted but you don’t know who they voted for.

    http://www.aec.gov.au/election/statistics.htm

    Where do you get that from?

    I downloaded their csv file for pre-polls and it only shows the total votes cast at each location on each day.

    And what is the count of postal vote application from each party?

    Parties can send a postal vote application to people, but the voter has to complete and apply themselves. Parties cannot do it on their behalf.

    In my opinion the whole article is bullshit.

  22. As I said, there’ll be a clear stench if illegitimacy over Abbott given the scandalous boosterism of corrupt media figures like Murdoch.

    Now they censor ads that are critical of him.

    The installed man. Murdoch’s muppet. What’s the price Tony?

    And yes: sane treatment as he gave JG.

    dump the chump!

  23. note last para

    On election night

    The counting of votes is known as the scrutiny. The scrutiny commences on election night in each polling place after 6pm when the polling place has closed. Both ordinary ballot papers and pre-poll ballot papers completed by voters within their division are counted on election night. The scrutiny is usually observed by scrutineers nominated by the candidates.

    When a House of Representatives election and a Senate election are held on the same day, the House of Representatives ballot papers are counted first. If a referendum is also held on the same day, the referendum ballot papers are counted after those of the election.

    Polling officials are required to complete four main tasks after the polling places have closed. They are required to:
    •count the first preferences on the House of Representatives ballot papers
    •conduct a two-candidate-preferred count of the House of Representatives ballot papers
    •count the first preferences on the Senate ballot papers
    •count and sort any declaration vote envelopes received during the day (these remain unopened).

    The first preference results for House of Representatives ballot papers are tabulated and phoned through to the Divisional Returning Officer, along with the number of informal votes. The Divisional Returning Officer enters the results for each polling place into the AEC’s national computerised election management system. These results are electronically fed to the Virtual Tally Room on the AEC website and directly to some media.

    Polling officials then conduct an indicative distribution of preferences (a two-candidate-preferred count for the House of Representatives) between the two previously identified leading candidates to give an indication of the likely outcome of the poll in that division.

    The first preference votes on the Senate ballot papers – above and below-the-line – are then counted, phoned through to the Divisional Returning Officer and entered into the election management system.

    Declaration envelopes containing absent votes, pre-poll declaration votes (i.e. those pre-poll votes cast outside an elector’s division), postal votes and provisional votes are not included in the count until after polling day.

  24. ESJ,

    Got your security blanket handy? Careful it doesn’t get soaked!

    You really don’t do Grima very well. Leave it to the experts from your place.

Leave a Reply

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