Polls Thread MkII

[Slax]

These polling group all base the preference flows according to the last election . Which basically mean't that the ALP got 60% of the other votes. (Greens and Ind). given that 3 independants sided with the government. This time around this won't happen, the 3 Wilkie, Windsor and Oakeshott will probably loss their seats, (if insider ALP polling is right) that will mean that for the ALP that they will only get most of the Green prefs there in 2013 I'm tipping the ALP to only get 40% of the second preferences.

therefore
now: ALP 32% L+NP 48% Others 20% = TPP ALP 32+12=44% L+NP 48+8 56%
Sept: ALP 32% L+NP 48% Others 20% = TPP ALP 32+8 =40% L+NP 48+12=60%

And 60% is repeated in the Senate then Abbott will win enough seats not to worry about the Greens.

To win a state senate seat you need 14.29% 4 seats = 57.1%
A reduced ALP vote won't leave enough to carry over to get a Green across the line.

People inside the Liberal Party have wet dreams about preferences going 50/50 60/40 and they be away with the fairies for months.

History shows it is pretty much 40/60 and that won't change. People talk a lot but come election time you find that the final result TPP wil be around 53/47

 

[Todman]

People inside the Liberal Party have wet dreams about preferences going 50/50 60/40 and they be away with the fairies for months.

History shows it is pretty much 40/60 and that won't change. People talk a lot but come election time you find that the final result TPP wil be around 53/47

What I'm trying to say is that because the 3 independents sided with the ALP it added 1.5% to ALP's 2PP.

In fact those three added 188300 votes or 12.5% of the total preferences (1,505,000) that flowed to the ALP.

Thats why I believe it will change from 40/60 to 60/40 in September.

 

[Slax]

What I'm trying to say is that because the 3 independents sided with the ALP it added 1.5% to ALP's 2PP.

In fact those three added 188300 votes or 12.5% of the total preferences (1,505,000) that flowed to the ALP.

Thats why I believe it will change from 40/60 to 60/40 in September.

What I'm trying to say is that because the 3 independents sided with the ALP it added 1.5% to ALP's 2PP.

In fact those three added 188300 votes or 12.5% of the total preferences (1,505,000) that flowed to the ALP.

Thats why I believe it will change from 40/60 to 60/40 in September.

Don't quite follow you logic there as to how you came up with your figures, because the coalition ran third in all of these seats they were granted the runner's up spot in TPP, if the Coalition reclaim the seats (and they won't get all three) then the ALP will be accredited with the runner's up position in the TPP. You need to account for what the coalition was credited with for the seats to get a full picture of the what the change will be.

 

[Andre]

What I'm trying to say is that because the 3 independents sided with the ALP it added 1.5% to ALP's 2PP.

In fact those three added 188300 votes or 12.5% of the total preferences (1,505,000) that flowed to the ALP.

Thats why I believe it will change from 40/60 to 60/40 in September.

All seats are redone as ALP / Coalition 2TPP for the national figures, whether it be independent vs. Major party, Lib v Nat or Green v ALP as the seat 2 TPP. The ALP did just edge the Coalition on national 2 TPP last election.

 

[tazzietiger]

First post budget poll.

GALAXY POLL

primary vote
ALP 34% +1
Coalition 46% -1
Greens 10% -2

2PP
ALP 46% -0
coalition 54% -0

http://ghostwhovotes.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/galaxy-130518.pdf

 

[noddy]

That surprises me i thought Labor would have taken a large hit after the budget.

 

[GuruJane]

That surprises me i thought Labor would have taken a large hit after the budget.

Why? It was a good budget. If JG/Swan had taken to middleclass welfare after last election and not gone for carbon tax the government would have been in a much better position today. Probably would have a surplus too.

 

[noddy]

Why? It was a good budget. If JG/Swan had taken to middleclass welfare after last election and not gone for carbon tax the government would have been in a much better position today. Probably would have a surplus too.

It might have been good budget in general terms but your average punter would see the large deficit & nothing in it for him/her.

 

[GuruJane]

It might have been good budget in general terms but your average punter would see the large deficit & nothing in it for him/her.

Well 48% thought they'd be worse off, but surely most of those would be counted in the coalition's TPP already.

Don't see on that sample taken just after budget why any of the Labor TPP at 46% would be so peed with budget as to kneejerk it down. Might have been different if baby bonus was big issue with Labor vote, but it isn't - its always been a coalition policy, not Labor.

 

[GuruJane]

What I'm trying to say is that because the 3 independents sided with the ALP it added 1.5% to ALP's 2PP.

In fact those three added 188300 votes or 12.5% of the total preferences (1,505,000) that flowed to the ALP.

Dunno what you mean by this? Windsor and Oakeshott's preferences were never distributed to anybody in their seats. Neither was the Nat Party's. It was the ALP's preferences that got distributed in the final count ie - the final TPP in New England and Lyne was between Windsor and Oakeshott and the Nats, not Windsor/Oakeshott and ALP.

 

[Todman]

Dunno what you mean by this? Windsor and Oakeshott's preferences were never distributed to anybody in their seats. Neither was the Nat Party's. It was the ALP's preferences that got distributed in the final count ie - the final TPP in New England and Lyne was between Windsor and Oakeshott and the Nats, not Windsor/Oakeshott and ALP.

You are wrong and heres why.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_federal_election,_2010
12,402,363 formal votes cast
Australian Labor Party ....6,216,445 50.12 −2.58
Liberal/National Coalition 6,185,918 49.88 +2.58
As you can see all votes were allocated TPP. Therefore the 3 indies votes had to go somewhere and they didn't go to the coalition.

In fact those three guarantee supply to the ALP therefore they added 188300 votes or 12.5% of the total preferences (1,505,000) that flowed to the ALP.

Windsor..... tpp 65,200
Oakeshott...... 53,300
Wilkie.......all.....64,800 votes ( libs preferenced Wilkie, who sided with ALP)
equals ...........183,300

 

[GuruJane]

You are wrong and heres why.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_federal_election,_2010
12,402,363 formal votes cast
Australian Labor Party ....6,216,445 50.12 −2.58
Liberal/National Coalition 6,185,918 49.88 +2.58
As you can see all votes were allocated TPP. Therefore the 3 indies votes had to go somewhere and they didn't go to the coalition.

In fact those three guarantee supply to the ALP therefore they added 188300 votes or 12.5% of the total preferences (1,505,000) that flowed to the ALP.

Windsor..... tpp 65,200
Oakeshott...... 53,300
Wilkie.......all.....64,800 votes ( libs preferenced Wilkie, who sided with ALP)
equals ...........183,300

Nah ... after the notional distribution of preferences to arrive at TPPs after Oakeshott election , most went to Nationals 53065 to Labor's 31902.

http://results.aec.gov.au/15508/website/HouseDivisionFirstPrefs-15508-130.htm

Scroll down.

Also here: http://results.aec.gov.au/15508/website/HouseDivisionScrutinyForInfo-15508-130.htm

 

[Todman]

Nah ... after the notional distribution of preferences to arrive at TPPs after Oakeshott election , most went to Nationals 53065 to Labor's 31902.

http://results.aec.gov.au/15508/website/HouseDivisionFirstPrefs-15508-130.htm

Scroll down.

Also here: http://results.aec.gov.au/15508/website/HouseDivisionScrutinyForInfo-15508-130.htm

So I'm wrong

 

[MisterMarcus]

Nielsen shows the gap closing, 57-43 to 54-46, although this comes off a 12% improvement for Labor in South Australia . Coalition's primary at 44% is also lower than other polls.

Newspoll shows no change, 56-44.

 

[GuruJane]

So I'm wrong

You''re not on your pat Malone! It's damn confusing. Took awhile to get my head back to my scrutineering days! Had forgotten they do a notional preference distribution in a seat which has been won by a candidate other than from the two major parties.

As it happens, Oakeshott's preferences for TPP fell almost exactly 60/40 Labor/Nationals.

 

[pjcrows]

Trend is 54.5-46.5, the same spot it always drifts back to.

 

[MisterMarcus]

Essential also unchanged on 55-45

 

[Power Raid]

This election will be closer than most people think

I can't see Julia winning but don't be surprised if she is replaced 8 weeks out or some other activity to create a spark. Labor will have to look at all alternatives to reduce the gap and try and avoid annihilation.

 

[MisterMarcus]

Essential 55-45, Morgan eases out to 55-45 or 55.5-44.5 depending on preference allocation.

 

[tandino]

Newspoll tonight?

 

[pjcrows]

Yep

 

[pjcrows]

58-42 Newspoll!

Deary me.

 

[jo172]

Yep

Ouch

 

[Power Raid]

58-42 Newspoll!

Deary me.

can that be right?

 

[jo172]

can that be right?

http://www.afr.com/p/national/marginals_turning_off_the_alp_OKeZ1uL1XLSqk1Gi6dPPvI

It seems it could be much, much worse

http://www.afr.com/p/national/labor_faces_annihilation_in_marginal_MRqll2ldnEA2yvStbw4IMM

Even uglier