The first Newspoll for the year, and the third under the new YouGov online polling regime, finds Labor opening up a 51-49 lead, after they trailed 52-48 in the poll in early December. On the primary vote, the Coalition is down two to 40%, Labor up three to 36%, the Greens up one to 12% and One Nation down one to 4%. Perhaps more remarkably, Scott Morrison now trails Anthony Albanese as preferred prime minister by 43-39, after leading him 48-34 in the previous poll. The damage on Morrison’s personal ratings amounts to an eight point drop on approval to 37% and an eleven point rise on disapproval to 59%. Conversely, Albanese is up six on approval to 46% and down four on disapproval to 37%. The Australian’s report is here; the poll was conducted from Wednesday to Saturday from a sample of 1505.
UPDATE (Essential Research): The Guardian has numbers from the first Essential Research poll of the year, but they disappointingly offer nothing on voting intention. What they do provide is corroboration for Newspoll’s finding that Anthony Albanese has taken the lead over Scott Morrison as preferred prime minister, in this case at 39-36, which compares with a 44-28 lead to Morrison when Essential last asked the question in early November. We are told that Scott Morrison is up nine on disapproval to 52% and that Anthony Albanese is up four on approval to 43% – their respective approval and disapproval ratings will have to wait for the full Essential report, which will presumably be with us later today or tomorrow. UPDATE: Morrison is down five on approval to 40%, Albanese is up two on disapproval to 30%. Full report here.
Despite everything, the poll finds 32% approving of Morrison’s handling of the bushfire crisis, which may be related to the fact that his approval rating was down only three among Coalition voters. The Guardian tells us only that 36% strongly disapproved of Morrison’s performance, to which the less strong measure of disapproval will need to be added to produce an equivalent figure for the 32% approval. Fifty-two per cent disagreed that Australia had always had bushfires like those just experienced, and 78% believe the government had been unprepared for them. Efforts to shift blame to the states do not appear to have borne fruit: Gladys Berejiklian’s handling of the bushfires scored 55% approval among New South Wales respondents, while Daniel Andrews was on 58% (these numbers would have come from small sub-samples of around 300 to 400 respondents).
The poll also offers a timely addition to the pollster’s leaders attributes series. The findings for the various attributes in this serious invariably move en bloc with the leaders’ general standing, and Morrison is accordingly down across the board. However, a clear standout is his collapse from 51% to 32% for “good in a crisis”, on which he was up 10% the last time the question was posed in October. Other unfavourable movements related in The Guardian range from a six-point increase in “out of touch with ordinary Australians“ to 62% to a 12 point drop on “visionary” to 30%.
More on all this when the full report is published. The poll was conducted online from Tuesday to Sunday from a sample of 1081.
Simon Katich @ #1738 Wednesday, January 15th, 2020 – 6:04 pm
Given they vote, what is your point?
Uncle Joe Biden leading the ticket
One of Kamala/Klobuchar/Warren as VP
Key Adminstration roles flagged for the 2 who miss VP, and something big for Mayor Pete
Simon Katich
Definitely both, if your main priority is for instance the economic hope then so what if some illegal “Mexicans” get locked up or Trump is off “build that wall” and genrally being a Trump? If god, gays and guns are the biggies then ya just ‘know’ ya cain’t trust the goddam liberals of the Democratic party. All sorts can be forgiven in the name of protecting your “god gays and guns’ interest.
William, I know its not my place to tell you how to run your blog, but I’ve been thinking a lot about how unbearable Bludger has become as of late, and I feel like a few more rules and rather stricter enforcement of them might help to ease this somewhat.
Poll Bludger strikes me as being a bit of an oddity as far as online communities go. The sheer level of activity here is much more along the lines of a full fledged internet forum, rather than the comment section of a blog, and the fact that most discussion takes place in lengthy free-for-all threads rules out many typical tactics forums use to keep the peace, such as locking threads that have devolved into in-fighting or simply directing people to stay on topic (since there generally *isn’t* a topic.) On top of that, this place seems to naturally attract members who don’t usually frequent online communities, and who seem unaware of many of the typical rules of etiquette that have developed in the thirty-odd years such places have been around.
I’ve managed to waste a good portion of my life posting nonsense online, and I can think of very few modern day internet forums that wouldn’t have banned much of our, shall we say, less pleasant colleagues some time ago. (The only ones that come to mind are self-moderating websites like Reddit, places like 4chan which never left the wild west of the 90s and early 00s.) No way would your standard, properly moderated discussion board in 2020 allow, say, the amount of personal attacks that get thrown around, or all the low effort trolling*, or the outright spam by people that I swear must have a collection of templates they continually copy-and-paste onto here, or even the refusal by some to communicate in plain, coherent English, either out of a desire to obfuscate and confuse or just plain intellectual laziness.
I don’t expect things here to be all sunshine and roses. It’s a political discussion board, and such topics naturally arouse heightened emotions and heated arguments. There’s always bound to be a level of anger and drama and snark in a place like this, and that’s okay. The issue is just how much of it there is, and how much of it is engaged by those who, quite frankly, are more interested in engaging in petty personality conflicts instead of informed debate.
In particular, this place tends to get bogged down in what I like to call “Arsehole VS. Idiot” arguments, where one person is reasonably articulate and intelligent but also an unpleasant twat, while the other literally doesn’t seem to have to capacity to understand the points the other is making nor to construct a coherent argument of their own. This leads to increasing aggression and anger on both sides, as both argue at cross-purposes, the Arsehole assuming that the Idiot is being willfully obtuse and/or trolling them (or perhaps just getting off on bullying someone too dumb to fight back), the Idiot getting flustered and engaging in insults and ad-hominens as their frustration grows, and everyone else resisting the urge to top themselves as it plays out in the comment section for hours on end.
The fault doesn’t lie with “evil Greens trying to white-ant the Labor party” nor with “evil Labor partisans blaming the Greens for their own mistakes”** – both sides in this astonishingly tedious war have a number of individuals who are either obnoxious bores, unpleasant asshats, total idiots, or some combination of the three. Nor am I free from blame either – I can snark with the best of them when I’m riled up, and have certainly contributed to a fair share of these tiresome circular arguments in the past, though I’ve been making a concentrated effort to avoid doing so as of late (I suppose today could be classed as a failure.) But it’s getting to the point where browsing this place is just painful at times, and it definitely seems to have driven away a lot of quality members. And while both sides insist that the fault lies with the other, it’s never going to end.
It’s your blog, William, and you have the right to run it however you want. And I can understand why you prefer the light touch approach, and can appreciate how difficult it would be to fairly enforce even a loose set of rules, let alone a much stricter regime. But I think its getting to the point where a less light touch is warranted.
These are my humble suggestions:
– Some stricter posting rules, particularly trying to stamp out the following: Personal attacks, name-calling, and generally being a belligerent twat (I realize there are already rules against this, but they get broken on a daily basis); Low-effort posts, especially those that consist purely of banal sloganeering and those designed to needle and provoke certain members; Arguing in bad faith – ie. deliberately misunderstanding the other person’s point, shifting the goalposts in bizarre ways, deliberately finding offense where there’s none to be found.
– Some way of restricting the sheer amount some people post per day. This doesn’t have to be a strict limit or anything, rather just stepping in and putting a stop to unprompted spamming of the same repetitive points, and of lengthy arguments once they’ve gotten to the point where it seems like people are just running around in circles.
– Finally, stricter enforcement of said rules. How strict is up to you – I think a couple of verbal warnings followed by a temporary ban if they keep at it seems fair, with stricter penalties for repeat offenders, but you might have a different idea. You might even want to consider bringing in a moderator or two to help out as well, as this place strikes me as being way too active for a single person to police.
Just my opinion. Feel free to ignore if you wish.
* By which I don’t mean the paranoid delusions some here have of a secret cabal of Liberal spies infiltrating Poll Bludger, but simple old-school trolling designed to provoke and incite and annoy.
** It’s a bit more complicated than Greens VS. Labor, of course, as seen in any discussion of international politics, but its a decent shorthand.
Even Ch 7 news is not giving Morrison a free run at the moment. Did a fast forward of his deluge of daily funding announcements. Not a good look. When Stokes mocks you, even in a mild way, you know things are definitely not honky-dory!
poroti @ #1743 Wednesday, January 15th, 2020 – 6:13 pm
This sort of simplistic analysis and (dare I say it) lack of empathy is exactly the stuff that drives a group of angry, disenfranchised people to disengage with the political/social process and allow hucksters like Trump to thrive. they hate you because you don’t listen to them!
https://www.pollbludger.net/2020/01/12/newspoll-51-49-labor-10/comment-page-35/#comment-3323776
Trump would (metaphorically) eat Biden alive if he got the nomination. Hunter Biden is/would be the Hillary Clinton`s emails of 2020. Hunter Biden makes his father look elite and corrupt even if he isn`t actually corrupt, this plays into Trumps “Drain the Swamp” message. Out of the two leading moderate candidates, Biden and Buttigieg, Buttigieg is the only one with any chance of beating Trump.
Asha, I’d have agreed with most of that if you’d posted it a couple of days ago, because I did have my eye off the ball over New Year, which wasn’t the placid time of year it usually is because this site’s clientele was revved up about the bushfires. Today and yesterday though, I actually think the situation’s been pretty much under control. I’ve monitored the threads and deleted anything I’d ever think requiring of it, which hasn’t been much. Others of course may disagree on that score.
William:
Fair enough. 🙂
Greensborough Growler
How is what I wrote showing no “empathy” ? FFS during the election I pointed out it was perfectly understandable why many would vote for Trump simply because he offered hope for change. People holding their nose to vote for an otherwise unacceptable candidate because they offer what you hold as a priority is SOP.
Terrific Letter in the Age today!
What is the point of understanding why people vote the way they do?
poroti @ #1750 Wednesday, January 15th, 2020 – 6:37 pm
Um. I’m responding to the post you just made. If it’s all about you and your personal struggles to become a “woke” human being, I’ll pass comrade
I don’t have a ‘side’, so where do I fit in …?
Simon Katich @ #1752 Wednesday, January 15th, 2020 – 6:38 pm
Nothing major. Only the opportunity to be informed about the people you purport to represent and help you fine tune your pitch to people that might be interested in what you’ve got to say.
RD
Perhaps you could be on a corner instead of on a side ?
If you want to find out whether Trump will be re-elected, do some polling in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Wisconsin.
Ask people who didn’t vote in 2016 whether they will again fail to exercise their franchise.
Ask people who didn’t vote last time whether they now will vote for Trump or for Joe Biden or any Democratic candidate.
Ask people who voted for Trump last time whether they will vote for him again in November.
Ask people who voted for Trump last time whether they will either stay at home or switch to the Democrats.
Ask people who voted for Hillary whether they will support any Democratic candidate.
I think our army of trained psephologists will be able to analyze the results and tell us whether Trump will get a second term.
My feeling for the past couple of years is that Trump has not added any new voters to his camp and has probably lost a significant number of those who voted for him in 2016 because of the way he has trashed the Presidency. It’s also hard to imagine that he will be helped by the Democratic impeachment exercise.
I should add that I think that Joe BIden has the best chance of beating Trump.
The electoral college worked big time for Trump last time. But it is unlikely to happen again.
poroti @ #1725 Wednesday, January 15th, 2020 – 6:45 pm
You lost me. Or are you gonna be a curmudgeon with me even when we agree?
That was exactly my point. Understanding why people vote the way they do – especially in many cases where you would think the Democrat principles have something to offer – should help how the DNC approach policy and campaigns and candidate selection. Or… decide that changing those things to try to win back some of those votes is compromising too many core principles…. or decide that even changing those things wont actually win back those votes.
I dont know the answers. The question originated from a belief that some in Trumps base like some of Sanders positions.
AE:
I agree. Among everything else, he just has an unfortunate tendency to say really stupid shit a lot of the time. Honestly, there have been a couple of times where I’ve started to wonder if he’s still all there mentally, given his growing propensity towards word salads and off-the-cuff nonsense. His performance during the last debate was, quite frankly, embarrassing. He’s aged noticeably in the last few years, and is resembling a tired old man more and more.
And, yes, I realize he’s going up against the reigning champion of saying really stupid shit, but Biden does not have the advantage of a devoted base who will ignore every dumb, offensive, and/or reckless thing he says – purely by being the ultimate moderate, he doesn’t have much of a support base beyond those who really want Trump to lose and think he’s the most likely to make that happen. The whole Hunter Biden thing, regardless of whether or not there was any wrongdoing involved, also has the potential to seriously undermine his ability to attack Trump on Ukraine and other abuses of power. Finally, his interactions with women also give me a lot of concern – I daresay the average Democrat is rather less likely to ignore that than the people who voted in the pussy-grabber.
Sanders… honestly, I think he could either do really well or absolutely crash and burn. He’s a definitely a risk, but possibly one worth taking. His left-leaning platform leaves him exposed to serious attacks and abandonment by the center, but he does also arouse passions among his supporters in a way basically no other Democrat has in this race. Suggesting he’s a hopeless candidate strikes me as just as much folly as declaring he’s the only one who can win – I think it’s much more up in the air than that. Like Biden, though, he’s way too old – and he seriously looks it. I have genuine concerns about his ability to survive a presidential term. After all the shit that got tossed Hillary’s way after she coughed and tripped up a little, imagine the field day Trump will have with someone who literally had a heart attack on the campaign trail.
Warren… on one hand, she has the advantage of being a somewhat more moderate Sanders, advocating a similarly progressive platform while also trying to not to totally scare off the moderates. She’s too old too, but at least doesn’t look her age nearly as much as Biden and Sanders. I feel like her general persona will make it hard for her to attract those who arn’t already on the Warren-train and could open her up to much of the same attacks leveled at Hillary, which some added “filthy commie” stuff on top of that.
Which leaves Buttigeig, who I’d agree with you seems the strongest of the bunch. He’s likeable, an excellent speaker, and appears to be striking a careful balance between appealing to both progressives and moderates (sure, he’ll always be just another neo-liberal to the Bernie-or-bust crowd, but given that they’re even starting to say that about Warren (!!!), it’s best ignored.) There’s something just so… generic about him, though. I know that’s a shallow thing to say, but this superficial perceptions do matter. Ironically, I wonder if he’s too young – he looks like a freshman congressman, not a president, especially when compared to the dinosaurs he’s up against. Normally I’d be a bit concerned about his lack of experience, but I guess that doesn’t really matter in the post-Trump world. And as much as I’d like to believe the US was enlightened enough to accept a gay president, there’s a whole lot of evidence pointing to the contrary.
Simon Katich @ #1770 Wednesday, January 15th, 2020 – 6:55 pm
I’m glad you agree with me.
Your only issue is agreeing with yourself.
I’ll leave that with you to resolve
Cheers.
Rex:
Are you for real?
Yeah, I think I’m going to obey the ol’ “If you have nothing nice to say…” philosophy on this one.
That’s the problem with partisans. Anyone who attacks their ‘side’ must belong to the other ‘side’.
Asha, am I an asshat in your schema?
lizzie @ #1732 Wednesday, January 15th, 2020 – 5:12 pm
I heard the NZ government had offered to take them and the Australian government had accepted the offer.
nath showing some welcome self awareness
On Joe Biden.
People want Vanilla. They don’t want Tutti Frutti again.
Just remember, Vanilla is always the most popular flavour, as chosen by consumers.
Just watching Ch10 News replay. They are really giving Morrison the bum’s rush – saying he is throwing money around to try to save his leadership failure on bushfires, followed up by low blows on NDIS debacle, with Morrison saying ‘there will be improvements, there will be better improvements…’
It’s a shame Beto O’Rourke wound up polling so poorly, he always struck me as a really strong candidate – young but not too young, from a generally red state, excellent speaker, moderate enough to appeal to the centre while still being quite progressive. His campaigning on gun control particularly impressed me.
sprocket, you would be an asshat but the obnoxious bore in you is too strong.
Wow our science Minister is right over the Science of Climate Change – not!
Anyone watch the project – was actually naively expecting more……..shouldn’t have!
Steven says:
Wednesday, January 15, 2020 at 6:07 pm
…”It is like being in Brisbane at the moment in Melbourne.
100% humidity, low temperatures and 15 mm in 20 mins at Moorabbin Airport.
Melbourne. Cold one minute. Tropical the next”…
……………………
Brisbane in January is like Manilla in September, there is no such thing as “low temperatures”.
It is nothing like Melbourne, thank you very much.
And is likely to be bucketing down and 29°C at 6pm.
15 mm of rain would be a light sprinkle.
His campaigning on gun control particularly impressed me.
…Because you’re Australian. It didn’t impress Americans. His campaign lost serious momentum after that.
Cat:
Vanilla is fine, but not when it’s been left out of the fridge for this long.
And while Biden has developed a reputation as the “boring but safe” candidate, I don’t know quite how accurate that is, given that he’s always a brainfart away from making some bizarre gaffe.
Buttigeig seems a whole lot more vanilla to me, even with the wildcard that is his sexuality.
Sadly, this is probably true.
If Pollbludger goes all PC and moderated, this little duck won’t be coming back.
The thing that annoys me (and a lot of others) about Sanders is not so much him, but his supporters are a somewhat feral. They are their way or the highway types. It doesn’t help the campaign.
In the end, I am guessing that Biden wins the primaries and all the pundits are left with egg on their faces.
nath:
Normally, I’d be hesitant to engage in the sort of personal attacks I just wrote a veritable novel decrying, but since I’m sure you’ll take it with good humor:
Yes.
But you’re a somewhat entertaining one, at least (apart from when the topic of Bill Shorten comes up.)
Asha Leu @ #1740 Wednesday, January 15th, 2020 – 7:12 pm
Some democrats would disagree.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/dec/20/beto-orourke-congressional-votes-analysis-capital-and-main
🙂
Asha Leu,
That’s why I am plumping for a Biden-Buttigieg ticket.
The truth, as far as I can glean it is that people are supporting Joe Biden, especially the African-American demographic, as he was Obama’s VP. There is a palpable longing for the return of the good times under Obama, and if they can’t have Michelle, who always wins Most Respected American Woman polls, still, then they will have Obama’s VP and the Obama’s campaigning for him.
Also, there’s a bit of a wild card suggestion going around that Biden might pick Stacey Abrams as his running mate, to get out the vote in the South, while he covers the Northern Mid West. The East and West Coasts can look after themselves. They’ll have plenty of willing surrogates. And they’ll have Mike Bloomberg carpet bombing the electorate with anti Trump ads. Which they’ll need to do because Trump has a digital presence like no other.
Asha Leu @ #1543 Wednesday, January 15th, 2020 – 6:12 pm
The second thing is the reason for the first thing. You can’t go “hell yes, we’re going to take your guns” and expect to survive politically. Not in the U.S. anyways.
B. S. Fairman @ #1748 Wednesday, January 15th, 2020 – 7:19 pm
I’d say many of Bernie’s supporters are angry about the years of oppression they suffered under the establishment. Can’t really blame them.
In fact, I believe Michelle Obama is the only woman who could win the Presidency for the Democrats. But it’s not to be it seems. 🙁
Scout @ #1783 Wednesday, January 15th, 2020 – 7:15 pm
Sarcasm is better if you don’t add ‘not’
Adding ‘not’ is like explaining a punchline.
It’s so 90s.
Stop it.
You to Lizzie.
Yes I know that the running mate can be important in terms of winning voters, but is the running mate of any consequence whilst in office? In other words does the VP actually affect policy?
I don’t follow US politics enough to have much to say. But my impression of Biden is he is too conservative/right wing. There are some very good ideas/policies amongst the more “radical” candidates. Yes I’m aware of the consensus that Biden has the better chance of winning against Trump. But if we had Biden-Buttigieg for example, does this give the US any chance of becoming a sane, humane, well governed country with things like major government investment in green energy and a better standard of living for its working poor?
Incidentally I have spent a lot of time in the US in the past and I’ve seen its gut-wrenching poverty and its absolutely idiotic economics and politics. Its why Howard and friends scared the shit out of me when they started talking about how we could emulate the US.
mundo – get stuffed. As usual your posts add nothing.
mundo is clever- not
mundo adds value – not
Any comment on the Science Minister ?
C@t I’d really love to see how far Bloomberg will go. Will he go further than a bit of shit-stirring during the primaries and actually fund the Democrats they way they need to be funded..
Well, I guess things were going okay.