It's 1992. The unpopular Cain/Kirner Victorian Labor government has been sent packing. In comes Jeff Kennett and some voters are soon alarmed by his New Right agenda. Cue massive protests. The Keating federal Labor government has been struggling in the polls but it springs to life soon after Kennett's win (though that was far from the only cause). In the 1993 election Labor gets a 4.34% swing in Victoria and gains four seats. Across Bass Strait, where a short-lived Labor government had been removed in early 1992, there's an even bigger swing that yields another three. The three Tasmanian losses are the first signs on counting night that something has gone terribly wrong with John Hewson's unloseable election, and these seven seats picked up by Labor in these two Liberal states combined are the backbone of Keating's against-the-odds win.
Victoria 1992 is the paradigm case for a theory that one might call the "pressure valve" theory of state elections, that there is a drag effect of state elections upon federal elections and that federal governments benefit if the voters let off steam by throwing out an unpopular state government of the same party instead of taking their anger with it out on the feds. Better still if the new state government has started to frighten the horses. I have talked a lot about "federal drag" on here, which refers to the fact that state governments do much worse at elections, all else being equal, when the same party is in power federally. Age and federal drag are the two biggest killers of state governments and it is for this reason that the Miles Government was always likely to lose by about as much as it did. But does it work the other way?