Advance Summary
1. A new multi-seat poll by JWS Research again provides seat loss projections for Labor that are above what is expected based on national polling and the assumption of uniform swing. The poll projects losses of 32-35 seats, while national polling points to a loss of around 26.
2. State-of-seat issues may have some influence on this difference, but it is unclear whether the main finding of about six expected extra seat losses is sound, or whether it may result from the polling method having a slight house effect.
3. The pollster's claim that "marginality analysis" adds another three expected seat losses for Labor is unsound as it is based on false assumptions that seats within a given bracket would swing uniformly.
4. In particular, the firm projects the loss of five Labor seats within the 6-9% bracket by very small margins. In practice, it is more likely that some of those seats would fall and some not.
5. The poll's findings that voters do not want Kevin Rudd to challenge for the Labor leadership do not demonstrate whether voters want Kevin Rudd to become Labor leader, because the question design is flawed and too restrictive.
6. The poll's core finding that seat losses will be worse than modelled by a "uniform swing" (national pendulum), or by assumptions of uniform swing at state level, is consistent with results from other polling sources.
7. However all of the polling sources producing this finding are open to a similar range of reservations.
Tuesday, June 25, 2013
Sunday, June 16, 2013
ReachTEL - State Labor Back To The Lifeboats
ReachTEL (Tas State): Lib 52.5 ALP 19.7 Green 15.6 Other 6 Undecided 6.3
Interpretation: Lib 57 ALP 22 Green 17 Other 4 (Other perhaps higher)
Outcome based on this poll "if election was held now": Liberal Victory (c. 15 seats)
Projection based on all polling: 14-8-3
We have reached a useful milestone in Tasmanian polling since, for the first time since the last state election, EMRS has competition from another poll that is commissioned by the media and that is not merely an internal poll released by the party. Historically it has been a long time since we have seen public polling by someone other than EMRS, apart from during an election campaign. Indeed, the Mercury-commissioned ReachTEL is to my knowledge the largest poll of state voting intention ever conducted in Tasmania.
These are the headline figures, which I'll discuss after a small but important diversion:
Interpretation: Lib 57 ALP 22 Green 17 Other 4 (Other perhaps higher)
Outcome based on this poll "if election was held now": Liberal Victory (c. 15 seats)
Projection based on all polling: 14-8-3
We have reached a useful milestone in Tasmanian polling since, for the first time since the last state election, EMRS has competition from another poll that is commissioned by the media and that is not merely an internal poll released by the party. Historically it has been a long time since we have seen public polling by someone other than EMRS, apart from during an election campaign. Indeed, the Mercury-commissioned ReachTEL is to my knowledge the largest poll of state voting intention ever conducted in Tasmania.
These are the headline figures, which I'll discuss after a small but important diversion:
Saturday, June 15, 2013
Federal Labor Getting Smashed All Over Tasmania
UPDATE 27/6: With the replacement of Julia Gillard by Kevin Rudd the polling in this article becomes (unfortunately) largely obsolete and we will have to wait for fresh polling to see how Labor is travelling in the Tasmanian seats under the new leader. My view as hinted at before is that because the factors affecting Labor's vote in Tasmania are in large part local, it's possible the contribution of the Ruddstoration to Labor's fortunes will be smaller than elsewhere.
My brief take on the likely prospects under Rudd (without any specific polling):
Bass and Braddon: Labor is still struggling in these seats but now should have some practical chance of holding instead of none.
Franklin: I favour Labor to retain.
Lyons: The work I did on ReachTEL's record in the Queensland election makes me a bit more cautious about trying to project the seat based on polling under an old leader that showed an apparently extreme swing. I think this seat would have been lost under Gillard, and still may fall, but new polling is needed before the risk can again be declared severe.
Denison: Andrew Wilkie remains entitled to strong favouritism assuming no adverse preferencing decisions, but if the Labor primary now lifts then the risk to him from adverse preferencing decisions by other parties will increase. By no means over.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Labor Getting Smashed All Over Tasmania
...being the sequel to "Federal Labor Getting Smashed In Bass".
The monster Mercury-commissioned ReachTEL, which I believe to be the largest opinion poll in Tasmanian history, is out! I saw the results on Friday afternoon but under embargo conditions. The survey includes federal and state polling for each electorate and statewide. Today I am releasing my federal comments and tomorrow my analysis of the state results.
My brief take on the likely prospects under Rudd (without any specific polling):
Bass and Braddon: Labor is still struggling in these seats but now should have some practical chance of holding instead of none.
Franklin: I favour Labor to retain.
Lyons: The work I did on ReachTEL's record in the Queensland election makes me a bit more cautious about trying to project the seat based on polling under an old leader that showed an apparently extreme swing. I think this seat would have been lost under Gillard, and still may fall, but new polling is needed before the risk can again be declared severe.
Denison: Andrew Wilkie remains entitled to strong favouritism assuming no adverse preferencing decisions, but if the Labor primary now lifts then the risk to him from adverse preferencing decisions by other parties will increase. By no means over.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Labor Getting Smashed All Over Tasmania
...being the sequel to "Federal Labor Getting Smashed In Bass".
The monster Mercury-commissioned ReachTEL, which I believe to be the largest opinion poll in Tasmanian history, is out! I saw the results on Friday afternoon but under embargo conditions. The survey includes federal and state polling for each electorate and statewide. Today I am releasing my federal comments and tomorrow my analysis of the state results.
Friday, June 14, 2013
Prospects for the Tasmanian Senate Race
Note: This is a pre-election article. Of all the wild scenarios entered into below, the one that never came into consideration was that one of the apparent micro-parties would poll seven percent! This is what has happened with the last-week rise of Palmer United. A post-count thread dealing with the Tasmanian Senate spot will be added soon.
===================================================================
Updated Summary 24 August:
* While Julia Gillard was Prime Minister, an outcome of 3 Liberal, 2 Labor, 1 Green for the Tasmanian Senate was overwhelmingly likely. This is still the most likely outcome, but at times since the return of Kevin Rudd, other outcomes have seemed reasonably plausible.
* Polling since the return of Kevin Rudd has suggested the Green vote is softening and a Green seat is no longer guaranteed (though in my view likely).
* A very good above-the-line preference allocation for Family First gives them a chance of taking the third Liberal seat should the Liberals fail to poll three quotas (42.8%) in their own right. Some other micro-parties are also in remote contention.
* With declining national polling the chance of Labor retaining three Senate seats in Tasmania appears to be very low.
===================================================================
Updated Summary 24 August:
* While Julia Gillard was Prime Minister, an outcome of 3 Liberal, 2 Labor, 1 Green for the Tasmanian Senate was overwhelmingly likely. This is still the most likely outcome, but at times since the return of Kevin Rudd, other outcomes have seemed reasonably plausible.
* Polling since the return of Kevin Rudd has suggested the Green vote is softening and a Green seat is no longer guaranteed (though in my view likely).
* A very good above-the-line preference allocation for Family First gives them a chance of taking the third Liberal seat should the Liberals fail to poll three quotas (42.8%) in their own right. Some other micro-parties are also in remote contention.
* With declining national polling the chance of Labor retaining three Senate seats in Tasmania appears to be very low.
Thursday, June 6, 2013
Newspoll Upfront Exclusion Rates Since 2002
Advance Summary
1. Some observers think that the proportion of voters who are indicated by Newspoll as "uncommitted" or "refused" gives Labor a much greater chance in the upcoming federal election, because the Government may attract a late swing from undecided voters.
2. The view that there is generally a late swing to an incumbent Government is false.
3. The view that there is usually a late swing to the party that is trailing is true, but it is not clear whether this is because there is a genuine "narrowing" effect, or whether this is because the Coalition tends to outperform its polling and the Coalition has often been the trailing party.
4. It is possible (and logical) that there is a link between increases in the Newspoll exclusion rate and poor polling for Labor, suggesting that when the party is performing poorly more of its voters become "uncommitted". However, the evidence on this is inconclusive.
5. While it is plausible that undecided voters will move back to the Government and improve its result by, say, two points, this is also something that may not happen at all.
6. The issue of uncommitted and refused rates is only relevant to the margin of an overwhelmingly likely Coalition win (assuming no Labor leadership change). There is nothing to suggest it is capable of turning the election.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Some observers think that the proportion of voters who are indicated by Newspoll as "uncommitted" or "refused" gives Labor a much greater chance in the upcoming federal election, because the Government may attract a late swing from undecided voters.
2. The view that there is generally a late swing to an incumbent Government is false.
3. The view that there is usually a late swing to the party that is trailing is true, but it is not clear whether this is because there is a genuine "narrowing" effect, or whether this is because the Coalition tends to outperform its polling and the Coalition has often been the trailing party.
4. It is possible (and logical) that there is a link between increases in the Newspoll exclusion rate and poor polling for Labor, suggesting that when the party is performing poorly more of its voters become "uncommitted". However, the evidence on this is inconclusive.
5. While it is plausible that undecided voters will move back to the Government and improve its result by, say, two points, this is also something that may not happen at all.
6. The issue of uncommitted and refused rates is only relevant to the margin of an overwhelmingly likely Coalition win (assuming no Labor leadership change). There is nothing to suggest it is capable of turning the election.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Saturday, June 1, 2013
How Common Is A Five-Point Swing In Under Four Months?
Advance Summary
1. The Gillard government now probably needs a swing back in public opinion of around 5% in three and a half months to win the federal election. [Update: After Monday's polls, it's even more than that.]
2. A recent article by Simon Jackman draws attention to swings of this magnitude, from one election to the next, being rare events that mainly (not exclusively!) accompany changes of power.
3. It is not correct to infer that swings of this size in a much shorter period are even less probable, because in fact 5-point swings within 16 weeks are commoner than 5-point swings between elections.
4. However, 5-point swings in shorter time periods typically result from temporary factors - leadership and event bounces, honeymoon effects, policy mistakes that are corrected, bad patches etc.
5. Fast swings that have occurred in the leadup to elections have usually washed out of the system partly or entirely by election day.
6. The past history of quick 5-point swings in polling provides no sound basis for belief that even an extreme event such as the S11 attacks or leadership change would save the Government now. (This does not mean it is impossible, just that there is no precedent.)
1. The Gillard government now probably needs a swing back in public opinion of around 5% in three and a half months to win the federal election. [Update: After Monday's polls, it's even more than that.]
2. A recent article by Simon Jackman draws attention to swings of this magnitude, from one election to the next, being rare events that mainly (not exclusively!) accompany changes of power.
3. It is not correct to infer that swings of this size in a much shorter period are even less probable, because in fact 5-point swings within 16 weeks are commoner than 5-point swings between elections.
4. However, 5-point swings in shorter time periods typically result from temporary factors - leadership and event bounces, honeymoon effects, policy mistakes that are corrected, bad patches etc.
5. Fast swings that have occurred in the leadup to elections have usually washed out of the system partly or entirely by election day.
6. The past history of quick 5-point swings in polling provides no sound basis for belief that even an extreme event such as the S11 attacks or leadership change would save the Government now. (This does not mean it is impossible, just that there is no precedent.)
Saturday, May 25, 2013
Brenton Best Crosses the Floor!
I was going to write a pretty standard number-crunchy thing about prospects for the Tasmanian Senate, given that the Greens have just polled below a Senate quota in state-level polling on the EMRS headline rate for the first time in a very long time. (In short, this is some cause for concern, but probably not a major one at present).
However that can wait a bit because on Thursday we saw something very unusual in Tasmanian politics, when Labor backbench lifer Brenton Best crossed the floor to vote with a Liberal motion of no-confidence in Corrections Minister (and Greens Leader) Nick McKim. It was not just a once-off, with an unrepentant Best on Friday repeating his critique of Nick McKim and extending it to the whole Labor-Green coalition.
While I wasn't watching live at the time, it's quite clear from the footage and also even from the bare bones Votes and Proceedings that there was a party keen for Mr Best to have his say, and it wasn't his own:
However that can wait a bit because on Thursday we saw something very unusual in Tasmanian politics, when Labor backbench lifer Brenton Best crossed the floor to vote with a Liberal motion of no-confidence in Corrections Minister (and Greens Leader) Nick McKim. It was not just a once-off, with an unrepentant Best on Friday repeating his critique of Nick McKim and extending it to the whole Labor-Green coalition.
While I wasn't watching live at the time, it's quite clear from the footage and also even from the bare bones Votes and Proceedings that there was a party keen for Mr Best to have his say, and it wasn't his own:
Monday, May 20, 2013
EMRS - Greens hit new low
EMRS: Lib 54 (-1) Labor 28 (+5) Green 14 (-4) Ind 4 (+1)
Interpretation: Lib 53 Labor 33 Green 11 Ind 3
Outcome: Comfortable Liberal Majority Win (Approx 14 seats)
The May 2013 EMRS poll has been released and the trend graph for the headline figures is here. The headline figures have a history of overestimating Green support so there is a possibility that this poll is pointing to an even worse result for the party than indicated.
During the last polling period the Tasmanian forestry peace deal passed parliament and the party split on this major legislation on the floor of the House of Assembly, with four members voting in favour of the version returned by the Legislative Council and Bass Green MHA Kim Booth, long the least Labor-friendly and forestry-friendly of the five, voting against.
The poll shows the Liberal vote largely unaltered from the soaring levels of the last two polls, but what is interesting here is that the Labor vote is up to its highest headline level since November 2010 (not that 28% is any great triumph) while the Green headline rate is the lowest of this term in office, at 14%. The core Green vote, counting only firmly supportive voters, is shown at a ridiculously low 9%. I cannot remember it being this low for a very long time and suspect it would be necessary to go back to the earliest EMRS readings from the late 1990s to find a similar figure.
Interpretation: Lib 53 Labor 33 Green 11 Ind 3
Outcome: Comfortable Liberal Majority Win (Approx 14 seats)
The May 2013 EMRS poll has been released and the trend graph for the headline figures is here. The headline figures have a history of overestimating Green support so there is a possibility that this poll is pointing to an even worse result for the party than indicated.
During the last polling period the Tasmanian forestry peace deal passed parliament and the party split on this major legislation on the floor of the House of Assembly, with four members voting in favour of the version returned by the Legislative Council and Bass Green MHA Kim Booth, long the least Labor-friendly and forestry-friendly of the five, voting against.
The poll shows the Liberal vote largely unaltered from the soaring levels of the last two polls, but what is interesting here is that the Labor vote is up to its highest headline level since November 2010 (not that 28% is any great triumph) while the Green headline rate is the lowest of this term in office, at 14%. The core Green vote, counting only firmly supportive voters, is shown at a ridiculously low 9%. I cannot remember it being this low for a very long time and suspect it would be necessary to go back to the earliest EMRS readings from the late 1990s to find a similar figure.
Saturday, May 18, 2013
Julia Gillard: Same-Sex Marriage Enemy #1
Advance Summary
1. This article addresses comments recently made by Prime Minister Julia Gillard concerning the Coalition's unclear statements on whether it will allow a conscience vote on same-sex marriage.
2. Gillard's comments are misleading in that she takes credit for ensuring a conscience vote on the issue, when in fact she did so in order to avoid all Labor MPs being required to vote for same-sex marriage legislation.
3. For this reason, Gillard's actions removed any chance of same-sex marriage passing last year.
4. Claims that a conscience vote for both sides is the determining factor in a successful push for same-sex marriage are misleading. Comparisons with New Zealand and the UK show that in those cases, the personal support of leaders on both sides, and the overwhelming support of the main centre-left party, were essential.
5. Gillard's own statements on her reasons for opposing same-sex marriage do not stand up to scrutiny.
6. As I find both Gillard's claimed reasons and several other proposed explanations unconvincing, I suspect her motive is connected to internal ALP power plays.
7. Gillard's criticism of the Coalition on this issue, while warranted in isolation, is hypocritical.
1. This article addresses comments recently made by Prime Minister Julia Gillard concerning the Coalition's unclear statements on whether it will allow a conscience vote on same-sex marriage.
2. Gillard's comments are misleading in that she takes credit for ensuring a conscience vote on the issue, when in fact she did so in order to avoid all Labor MPs being required to vote for same-sex marriage legislation.
3. For this reason, Gillard's actions removed any chance of same-sex marriage passing last year.
4. Claims that a conscience vote for both sides is the determining factor in a successful push for same-sex marriage are misleading. Comparisons with New Zealand and the UK show that in those cases, the personal support of leaders on both sides, and the overwhelming support of the main centre-left party, were essential.
5. Gillard's own statements on her reasons for opposing same-sex marriage do not stand up to scrutiny.
6. As I find both Gillard's claimed reasons and several other proposed explanations unconvincing, I suspect her motive is connected to internal ALP power plays.
7. Gillard's criticism of the Coalition on this issue, while warranted in isolation, is hypocritical.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)