BludgerTrack: 52.1-47.9 to Labor

Two new polls this week have made no difference to Labor’s modest lead in the BludgerTrack poll aggregate.

The arrival of the fortnightly Newspoll this week, together with the usual Essential Research, makes for two new additions to the poll aggregate, but they have had next to no impact on voting intention, outside of a modest bump for the Greens, and none at all on the seat projection. Both polls provided new leadership ratings, which took some of the edge off the net approval for both leaders, and slightly widened Malcolm Turnbull’s lead on preferred prime minister.


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.

1,330 comments on “BludgerTrack: 52.1-47.9 to Labor”

Comments Page 26 of 27
1 25 26 27
  1. Also, Lleyonhjelm looks like even more of an ineffective idiot than usual over this.

    Making a ridiculous demand that he knew Turnbull could never accept is not a good tactical move.

    If he accepts the ABCC now, then he becomes the Senator most likely to actually do what Turnbull wants, even more than the Liberal senators. He permanently loses all bargaining power.

    If he doesn’t accept the ABCC, he just wedged himself.

  2. Matt
    “And that’s precisely why Clinton should go for Texas. With 36 House seats, it’s the second-biggest prize in the Union for control of the House – even with all the gerrymandered R+8-R+10 seats, in a Democratic wave year, those could be toppled.”

    For gains in the House, there’s MUCH easier pickings elsewhere in the country (with increased prospects of holding them in future elections). Texas is not worth the effort (or money).

    When I say Texas is gerrymandered, you have to look at the electoral map to comprehend just how rigged (yep, that’s the right word) the Texas electoral system is against the Dems. $1.5 million isn’t worth the effort.

    Plus, in 2 years time any gains in Texas would be lost anyway in the mid-term elections. Better for the Dem campaign to focus on House and (especially) Senate seats in blue and swing states.

  3. Kakaru

    This year Alaska Arizona Utah are swing states. Texas could very well be moving into that territory. I have not seen recent polling on that though.

  4. Josie Ensor from the Daily Telegraph (UK) is providing good coverage from the attack on Mosul including the presence of foreign special forces

    [Josie Ensor
    14h14 hours ago
    Josie Ensor ‏@Josiensor
    Peshmerga decided that seconds after a car bomb was the perfect time for a group shot #Khazir #Mosul ]

  5. Scott Bales
    “They might be doing this for the impact on Texas, they might be doing it to generate headlines outside of Texas or they might have made a mistake. ”

    My suspicion is that spending $1.5 mill on ad buys in Texas is simply to throw the GOP off their game. (Though I don’t know what the GOP “game” actually is at this stage.) The Dem’s Texas “campaign” won’t lead to any gains in that state. $1.5 million spread over the state is barely $1.50 per Texas voter. All hat, no cattle.

  6. Heard this on The World today and have to agree.

    More scientists in politics would lead to better problem solving: Prof Emma Johnston

    ELEANOR HALL: Would our politicians take a more rational and fact-based approach to governing if more of them had a background in science?

    That is the argument being made by one of our scientific leaders who is concerned about the under-representation of scientists in the Parliament.

    Professor Emma Johnston is Pro Vice-Chancellor of Research at the University of New South Wales and vice-president of Science & Technology Australia.

    Professor Johnston, you’ve looked at the numbers in Australia’s Parliament, just how under-represented are scientists?

    EMMA JOHNSTON: Well, it’s a sad figure actually. We’re only represented by 12 per cent of our senators and about 7 per cent of our MPs. That’s people who are in Parliament today who have any science, technology, engineering, maths or medicine training as a background.

    ELEANOR HALL: So what is missing in our political debate and policy formation as a consequence of this dearth of scientifically trained politicians?

    EMMA JOHNSTON: Well, we know that scientists love facts and figures, they love process, they love vision, so I think the injection of more science, technology, engineering, maths and medicine trained politicians into that system would naturally increase the evidence base of the discussions taking place.

    We have a little bit of a race to the bottom at the moment in terms of the political debate and it’s turning society off, and I think what we need is more scientists in there bringing back that really rational, systems-based thinking in terms of problem solving for the nation.

    ELEANOR HALL: Can you given an example of how you see this changing the political culture?

    EMMA JOHNSTON: Scientists don’t always envisage themselves as leaders but they often practice it and I think in Parliament the way that they would practice it would change the nature of the debate and potentially the nature of the decisions being made.

    So we are guardians of process and standards so we would always adhere to that particular procedures etc of Parliament, but in addition to that we are very analytical in our approach to problem solving and creative.

    So I think an example would be adoption of new technologies would probably take place a lot more quickly and potentially more safely with more scientists in Parliament.

    The more you know about the new technologies that are coming on board, their capacities, their strengths, their weaknesses, their risks, the more you are able to select new legislation and promote and adopt new practices in a really sensible way.

    ELEANOR HALL: Isn’t that a problem though? I mean why would you trade your job as a science professor to be a politician, why would you expect any other scientist to?

    EMMA JOHNSTON: Some people would say that so there is a little bit of reticence amongst scientists to ditch the research component of their career and move into leadership and I think it’s a problem of how they see leadership.

    So scientists have got themselves to blame for why there aren’t many scientists in politics or leaders of big business.

    Sometimes we think it’s the death knell of an exciting career but it’s not. Leaders have an incredible responsibility to be visionary and that’s what scientists are. We are visionary. We create the strategy and the vision and we are inventers.

    Now transfer our strategic inventing capacity from science, from the lab, and move it into Parliament and I’m sure a lot of scientists could still have a lot of great, fulfilling work being done in that space.

    ELEANOR HALL: Well, I hope you reconsider your position, Professor Johnston, thanks so much for joining us.

    EMMA JOHNSTON: Thank you.

    ELEANOR HALL: That’s Professor Emma Johnston, Pro Vice-Chancellor of Research at the University of New South Wales and vice-president of Science and Technology Australia and possible future politician.

    It would be particularly nice to have that infestation of lawyers in Parliament culled. After all, they already have a monopoly on the Judiciary.

  7. Leyonhjelm really sticking the boot in.

    How can I ever do a deal again. I cannot trust them and neither can any of the crossbench.

  8. So ALP and LNP equal on primaries. Who would have thought that it all could turn so badly, so quickly for Mal and his spineless spivs?

  9. Guytaur
    “This year Alaska Arizona Utah are swing states. Texas could very well be moving into that territory. I have not seen recent polling on that though.”

    Arizona, Georgia, and Alaska are certainly swing states this year. Demographic changes mean that Arizona and Georgia are slowly trending Democrat. The same trends have seen New Mexico, Nevada, Colorado, Virginia and N.Carolina (all former solid red states) become swing states or blue states.

    Utah is complicated because this year it’s a 4-way race, and Mormons seem to despise Trump. So Utah as a swing state is probably a one-off.

    Texas is a prospect this time round, because this is a weird election. But any demographic shift that turns Texas into a swing state (or even a blue state – the Holy Grail for the Dem party) is a generation away.

    Elections do produce surprises. In 2008, Obama carried Indiana – a huge upset. 2012 was more predictable in terms of the electoral college.

  10. Kakaru

    However the money being spent to get out the vote in Texas this year is worth it because the demographics have changed and the Supreme Court is at stake in the Senate.

  11. BernardKeane: It takes a particularly tone deaf politician to let Tony Abbott successfully outflank them on the left. Turnbull is that politician.

  12. Scot Bales
    “I’d love to see this evidence that you readily declare exists about white people in Texas becoming more conservative, and show that the increase is correlated to an increasing Latino population.”

    It’s a ‘white flight’ phenomenon. I can’t recall the article (I read it a while ago). But the article/analysis was an antidote to the prevailing belief that Texas is on an inevitable course to becoming a swing state. It may not happen for decades, if it happens at all.

  13. BernardKeane: Labor’s lead blows out to six in Essential – and voters narrowly endorse Baird’s greyhound backflip ($/free trial)

  14. ‘The ALP is well ahead of the Liberals on primaries.’

    I said LNP:
    Total Liberal/National 37% 38% 40% 37% 42.0%
    Labor 37% 36% 36% 37% 34.7%

  15. Guytaur
    “However the money being spent to get out the vote in Texas this year is worth it because the demographics have changed and the Supreme Court is at stake in the Senate.”

    I agree wholeheartedly with both your statements: Texas demographics have changed; and the Supreme Court is at stake in the Senate. But I don’t see how bringing out the vote in Texas helps either cause. The Dem campaign dosh would be better spent in a whole bunch of eminently more winnable House and Senate races.

    Maybe the Dems have money to burn? So spending $1.5 mill in Texas is purely for shits and giggles.

  16. Guytaur
    “The ad buy comes as polls continue to show the presidential race in Texas closer than usual. A WFAA/SurveyUSA poll released Thursday found Trump leading by only 4 points, much less than Mitt Romney’s 16-point margin in 2012 and John McCain’s 12-point margin in 2008.”

    I’m not saying that Texas isn’t winnable for Clinton. I’m saying that a Texas win won’t achieve anything substantive.

  17. lanesainty: New #essential poll – 55% of Australians want a parli vote on SSM, 30% think gov should stick with plebiscite until after next election.

  18. Kakaru

    Good turnout in Texas will mean likely Dems gain Senate majority. Thus the Supreme Court appointment approvals. Thats your substantive result.

  19. CTar1
    Tuesday, October 18, 2016 at 1:48 pm
    Leyonhjolm going all ‘vengeance’ on the Govt …

    They shouldn’t be surprised. He did warn them.

  20. guytaur @ #1285 Tuesday, October 18, 2016 at 2:06 pm

    Good turnout in Texas will mean likely Dems gain Senate majority. Thus the Supreme Court appointment approvals. Thats your substantive result.

    Sorry. There is no Texas senator up for election this cycle. It is possible that there might be one or two winnable HoR seats in Texas, in which case a targetted $1.5 million could be a good spend.

  21. To its credit, the ABC has been called ‘an embarrassment to journalism’ by the Nauru government, in a press release that was probably provided by Dutton’s office.

  22. TPOF

    Oh. Oops wrong on the Senate.

    I agree with your point. Basically as was pointed out Democratic strategists are not stupid. Especially shown with the Obama era social media reach out that Labor emulated at the Federal election.

  23. Gytaur
    “Good turnout in Texas will mean likely Dems gain Senate majority. ”

    I don’t see why. Explain how.

    Good turnout in other states (where Dem candidates are at least competitive) could deliver the Senate to the Dems. But this doesn’t apply to Texas. Cruz is up for Senate election this year, and Cornyn is up in 4 years. Not that the Dems have a chance of winning a Senate seat from Texas…

  24. Leonjhelm claims he’s a libertarian. Libertarians only believe in binding agreements in relation to property. So why is he sooking because the government broke its word. Suck it up, Davy, the Government was just exercising its inalienable liberty to screw you. Stop being a princess.

  25. I think the 1.5 million the Dems are spending in Texas has to be seen in the light of Repugs pulling money out of marginal states. If it encourages Repugs to spend less elswhere because they are propping up Red states it is a big win for the Dems.

  26. So, Abbott horse trades with Leyonhjeim on immigration in return for a relaxation on importing Adler guns, and then has the gall to damn Turnbull for seeking to enforce the horse trade, which Turnbull is then forced to abandon because of Abbott & Co’s outrage over said horse trading.

    I never thought anything could sink lower than Abbott’s prime ministership. I don’t care how many people tell me Turnbull is a genius; he’s a thoroughly terrible politician.

  27. Correction, Cruz is not up for election this year. Not for the Senate, anyway.
    But the Dems would never win a Senate spot from Texas. One or two House seats… maybe. If the money was specifically targeted at those seats.

Comments Page 26 of 27
1 25 26 27

Leave a Reply

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