Something for everybody

Great polling for Labor in Victoria, catastrophic polling for Labor in Victoria, and a mixed bag of federal seat polling — but seemingly a very clear picture in Western Australia.

Scattered accounts of opinion polling ahead of what looks like being a lean week for it, with both Newspoll and Essential Research entering an off-week in their respective cycles:

• Some seriously mixed signals coming out of Victoria, starting with Roy Morgan, who have published results of an SMS poll conducted on Tuesday and Wednesday from a sample of 2325 that records a 70-30 favourable split for Daniel Andrews’ performance as Premier. Respondents also split 63-37 against allowing restaurants, hotels and cafes to provide table service, 54-46 against ending the rule limiting travel to within 5 kilometres of a person’s home, 63-37 against an end to the 9pm curfew, although there is a 59-41 split in favour of allowing Melbourne residents to visit the homes of immediate family members, and a 76-24 split in favour of state government compensation for businesses forced to close.

• The contrast is provided by a Herald Sun report in Liberal internal polling by MediaReach of five marginal Victorian state seats, showing devastating swings against Labor. The Liberals are credited with leads of 70.6-29.4 in Bayswater (50.4-49.6 to Labor at the 2018 election), 68.0-32.0 in Hawthorn (50.4-49.6 to Labor), 54.5-45.5 in Monbulk (58.6-41.4), 54.9-45.1 in Mount Waverley (51.8-48.2) and 57.9-42.1 in South Barwon (54.6-45.4). Daniel Andrews is nonetheless said to have preferred premier leads over Michael O’Brien of 46-37 in South Barwon, 43-37 in Mount Waverley and 39-29 in Monbulk, with O’Brien leading 46-33 in Hawthorn and 37-33 in Bayswater. The polling was conducted on Tuesday from samples of between 523 and 694.

• Labor-linked firm Redbridge Group has published polling from three Labor-held federal seats, which collectively suggest Labor has gone backwards since last year’s election. Including results for a follow-up prompt for the initially undecided, and applying preference flows from the last election, I estimate the two-party results at 54-46 to the LNP in Lilley, where Labor’s margin is 0.6%; 54.7-45.3 to Liberal in Hunter, where the margin is 3.0%; but 53-47 to Labor in Corangamite, improving on their existing 1.1% margin. Whereas One Nation came close to making the final two-party preference count in Hunter last year, this poll has them a distant third with 9.5%. The poll also presented respondents in Hunter with Liberal as the Coalition response option, whereas the seat was contested by the Nationals at the election. The poll was conducted from August 20-22 from samples of 1000 to 1200 per electorate. Pollster Kos Samaras notes on Twitter that their state-level polling is “not reporting the same trends”, and suggests the firm will publish polling over the coming days casting doubt over the aforementioned MediaReach findings from Victoria.

The West Australian published further results on Monday from last week’s Painted Dog Research poll, which credited Mark McGowan with a 91% approval rating, this time on Liberal leader Liza Harvey. Harvey was found to have an approval rating of just 10%, down nine since June, with disapproval unchanged at 37%. The balance included 36% neither satisifed nor dissatisfied and 10% for don’t know – I’m not sure where that leaves the 7% balance. The poll was conducted last week from a sample of 837.

• I took part in a podcast this week with Ben Raue at The Tally Room, together with former Australian Electoral Commission official Michael Maley, in which a highly wonk-ish discussion was had about electoral redistributions.

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.

2,679 comments on “Something for everybody”

  1. Ezra Pound

    Mavis says

    You’re very wrong! Once scientists speak subjectively, their clover is blown; they become a political player.

    ______
    the call is for (climate) scientists to speak politically. -a.v.

    Climate scientists do speak politically – all the time.

    I have no idea why you cannot hear their voices.

    In summary, they want action, any action.

    A bit of action opens the wedge to voters accepting that action in climate change is not an economic disaster for them. Voters will then be inclined to accept stronger action on climate change.

    Climate scientists do not want to wait for perfection!!!

    Why is it that you cannot hear what they say?

    As a physical scientist, I feel totally unheard by you.

    You seem to think you know better what scientists think than we did ourselves.

    Patronising git!!

  2. Douglas and Milko,
    I have been linking to this story today:

    https://www.smh.com.au/world/north-america/republican-wisconsin-elections-commissioner-advised-green-party-20200916-p55w35.html

    It explains how The Green Party in America waited until the last moment before ballots were to be mailed out in Wisconsin to launch a legal challenge to get their candidate on the ballot. They used a Republican law firm to do it.

    It’s cynical politics at its very worst and it happens in Australia as well. The Greens and the Coalition conspire and collaborate against the Labor Party in parliament all the time. There’s no honour among oxygen thieves.

  3. Douglas and Milko @ #2658 Wednesday, September 16th, 2020 – 10:03 pm

    Player One

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/sep/16/prestigious-us-science-journal-breaks-with-tradition-to-back-biden

    A: “Scientific American”
    Q: Define “Oxymoron”.

    Do you know any US scientists?

    The ones I know are not only very erudite, they are also very progressive, and work tirelessly to make the US a better place.

    I guess they wouldn’t have to work very hard to do that these days. Just pointing out Trump’s lies would probably do it.

  4. Thanks C@t.
    I also listened to the podcast you posted earlier, which I really enjoyed.

    I am really cranky at the way people on this blog presume to speak for scientists, including climate scientists, who they have no fracking idea what we thing and want – grrrrrrr.

  5. Player One says:
    Wednesday, September 16, 2020 at 10:13 pm
    Douglas and Milko @ #2660 Wednesday, September 16th, 2020 – 10:12 pm

    I am really cranky at the way people on this blog presume to speak for scientists …
    Well, someone has to …

    ____________________________________

    Perhaps I could speak for loony left holiday rental owners on the south coast. I know fuck all about it but, hey, someone has to!

  6. @cat:

    “ Douglas and Milko,
    I have been linking to this story today:

    https://www.smh.com.au/world/north-america/republican-wisconsin-elections-commissioner-advised-green-party-20200916-p55w35.html

    It explains how The Green Party in America waited until the last moment before ballots were to be mailed out in Wisconsin to launch a legal challenge to get their candidate on the ballot. They used a Republican law firm to do it.

    It’s cynical politics at its very worst and it happens in Australia as well. The Greens and the Coalition conspire and collaborate against the Labor Party in parliament all the time. There’s no honour among oxygen thieves.”

    ————

    Basically evil.

  7. Douglas and Milko @ #2666 Wednesday, September 16th, 2020 – 8:12 pm

    Thanks C@t.
    I also listened to the podcast you posted earlier, which I really enjoyed.

    I am really cranky at the way people on this blog presume to speak for scientists, including climate scientists, who they have no fracking idea what we thing and want – grrrrrrr.

    Yep, much of the time they have little understanding of what the scientists are saying and not saying.

  8. Wow Player One.

    Sometimes it is difficult to respond to such views.

    Reminds me of a uni friend that has started to forward me Trump conspiracy material. No reasoning possible any more.

  9. Taylormade,

    My favourite forgetful politician’s testimony was a certain Liberal Senator in the ICAC Spicer enquiry. Six hours of amnesia with over 30 mentions of I don’t recall.

  10. Griffsays:
    Wednesday, September 16, 2020 at 11:23 pm
    Taylormade,

    My favourite forgetful politician’s testimony was a certain Liberal Senator in the ICAC Spicer enquiry. Six hours of amnesia with over 30 mentions of I don’t recall.
    _________
    My favourite was old Joh. He had a peculiar forgetfulness involving brown paper bags full of money. They would occasionally appear on his desk without any explanation. Naturally he would deposit them into his account. I think he also claimed to be driving through Brisbane one night when a brown paper bag of money fortuitously flew in an open window and landed on the passenger seat.

  11. Player One says:
    Wednesday, September 16, 2020 at 6:44 pm
    Non @ #2566 Wednesday, September 16th, 2020 – 6:34 pm

    Oh the lulz. There is not one thing you can point to of any substance. Not a one. You’re very happy to call for sacrifices by others yet make none yourself. You demand political efforts by others, yet make none yourself. You advance entirely specious arguments and think this is enough, and then complain when voters reject your appeals. How cheap that is.

    You didn’t read my previous post at all, did you?

    As a general rule I don’t trouble myself to read your grumbles. Life is very short and I’m very busy.

  12. Can’t be that busy if you reliably churn out fifty posts of shrieking, all-consuming hatred towards the same party every day. I wish I had that much spare time on my hands.

  13. Bird of paradox says:
    Wednesday, September 16, 2020 at 11:54 pm

    Can’t be that busy if you reliably churn out fifty posts of shrieking, all-consuming hatred towards the same party every day. I wish I had that much spare time on my hands.

    This is a wild exaggeration and, in any case, is misleading. The blighted faux left whinge about Labor and about Labor-positive bludgers. I don’t think they should always be left unscathed. Occasionally I post. Their sanctimony, condescension and self-gratification is more than can be borne.

  14. Mavis says

    You’re very wrong! Once scientists speak subjectively, their clover is blown; they become a political player.
    ______
    the call is for (climate) scientists to speak politically. -a.v.

    Douglas & M. : i never said they don’t speak politically, chum. in your rush to cast aspersions, you’ve woefully misconstrued the tenor & substance of my conversation with Mavis about the use of “subjectively” in his reply to an earlier comment of Player One, part of which he quoted. at least Mavis understood. -a.v.

  15. TPOF @ #2664 Wednesday, September 16th, 2020 – 10:40 pm

    Player One says:
    Wednesday, September 16, 2020 at 10:13 pm
    Douglas and Milko @ #2660 Wednesday, September 16th, 2020 – 10:12 pm

    I am really cranky at the way people on this blog presume to speak for scientists …
    Well, someone has to …

    ____________________________________

    Perhaps I could speak for loony left holiday rental owners on the south coast. I know fuck all about it but, hey, someone has to!

    It seems you have overdosed on the current mindless groupthink that anyone who is even mildly critical of Labor’s recent lurch to the right must be loony. 🙁

  16. Biden Bros at CNN and MSNBC have got their excuses ready in case Biden loses. They will blame 1. Bernie Sanders; 2. Russia; 3. Voter suppression and a poorly resourced electoral system.

    There will be no introspection by corporate Democrats if Biden loses.

Leave a Reply

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