As far as I can tell, dear Mr Strocchi, you’ve just selected these numbers to confirm your off the top of your head prediction of a “comfortable, not landslide, win for the ALP� and on no “scientific� basis whatsoever.

YOu cant tell very far Kim. But then we know that because of your craven response to my challenge to present your own general theory or predictive test of AUS psephologic behaviour.

Read what I wrote before runnnig off at the mouth. I picked these numbers because experience suggests the polls are underestimating the LN/Ps vote.

The record shows that samples can be biased against the govt by a couple of points. As mumbles said of 2004 “throughout the campaign every pollster over-stated ALP primary support a little, most underestimated the Coalition’s”.

Also, the polls, whatever they are, will underestimate the govts overall seats because, as I said, “the govt’s fiscal war-chest will give it greater ballot-for-buck in its search to make the most of the composition, rather than aggregation, of its potential vote.”

This is Howards successful practice on past history and contemporary experience. I assume this tactic will have some success.

Kim says:

54% which is within your “spread� would give the ALP 32 seats more than the Coalition. Some might call that a landslide.

THe benchmark for landslides was set by the ALP in 1975 and 1996. This is a where the winner has about double the seats of the loser. That is 55-45 territory.

The polls predict the ALP is in this territory. These samples are somewhat at odds with standard psephological theory and conventional wisdom about the electorate.

The only way to resolve this problem is to suggest that these samples are slightly biased, which is what I have done. Or the population has changed in some unconventional way or standard theory is wrong.

Pr Q’s thinks that demographic change has altered the underlying ideological parameters of the population. In plain language, the older generation is no longer reliably right wing because it is now being replaced by a cohort of aging boomers whose only life-long committment is an anti-LN/P political bias.

It is also possible that standard theory is wrong. We shall have to wait for the election to settle that. But I cant see any good reason to doubt standard theory at the moment.

Standard theory suggests that incumbency fatigue is the most likely cause for a govt loss in circumstances. But long incumbencies (eg LN/P in 1966 and 1983) dont usually end in landslide losses unless some other factor amplifies them.

As the old saying goes, Opps dont win elections, govts lose them. But the LN/P govt is a moderate centre-Right govt and is not obviously doing anything drastically wrong.

The amplifying factors for a landslide govt defeat are usually economic recession, martial defeat or political scandal. None of these are present in AUS.

The other possibility is that there are major differences b/w the parties, caused by some ideological ruction within the polity or society. But, as I predicted since the early noughties., we are in the era of “The Great Convergence” where me-too is the norm, rather than exception.

The LN/P is a moderate centre-right govt which courts the populist vote. It has shifted to the centre on climate change, privatisation and community service provision.

The are two significant differences b/w the parties, of Rudd’s nerdy personality and HOwards nasty IR policy. Neither of these two differences look significant enough to cause a landslide.

But that is pure speculation on my part.

“I can’t tell the difference between a metaphor and my manhood.”

There is also nothing irrational in suggesting that NE Asians may have a sneaking admiration for Howard which will give him an subtle edge in his electorate. … I know the area and those people reasonably well as I get my info-tech gear from computer fairs run by Asian nerds.

Now *that’s* a sample size.

My more-or-less spread prediction is for a comfortable, not landslide, win for the ALP. I am betting ALP 53-LN/P 47 (+/- 1). An ALP 55-LN/P 45 result would refute my theory.

As far as I can tell, dear Mr Strocchi, you’ve just selected these numbers to confirm your off the top of your head prediction of a “comfortable, not landslide, win for the ALP” and on no “scientific” basis whatsoever.

54% which is within your “spread” would give the ALP 32 seats more than the Coalition. Some might call that a landslide.

Or perhaps you have some sort of *scientific* construct of the said term????

Shorter Jack.

“Measure my dick! But only with my special ruler. No, you can’t use it too. It’s special.�

There he goes again! Every so often Na’bakov makes off-color, usually fabulous, references to my sexual characteristics and history. He cant seem to help himself.

One can only speculate what unmentionable motive must be driving this strange compulsion. The charitable interpretation is its just the banal one of a gutter mind.

On a serious note: Zero facts + Zero logic = Zero substance. Not surprising that he has made no response to my challenge to refer us to his social scientific scorecard. Expect stony silence on that score for about 900 years.

It would not be so bad if the subject could sweeten the fluffy substance with a less self-indulgent style. No such luck, curses!

The poncy purple prose is bad enough. But its the catty bitchiness of Larvatus Prodeo High’s Queen Bee that really gives the game away.

Poor Mme Na’bakov, compensating for his intellectual inabilities with cringe-inducing social skiting. He should give up the double-life, throw off the intellectual drag and embrace his inner society matron.

That would tend to bolster your claim to be doing something social-scientific, It would be more intellectually honest if you admitted that what you are writing is just your (fairly eccentric) opinion, rather than hiding behind all these pseudo-scientific trappings.

My “claim to be doing something social scientific” is “bolstered” by my psephological prediction record. This is so far running at 100% success rate for the past two AUS federal elections, plus the past two UK and US elections.

If my commentary is “pseudo-scientific” how come my predictions seem to be on-track, in both policy and political matters.

I predicted a Great Convergence of major party policies towards the populist Centre. Rudds social conservatism and Howards fiscal largess substantiate this.

I predicted there would be a Great Concentration of the vote amongst the major parties (greater than 85% of the primary vote). The major parties are both polling above 40% in primary vote.

I predicted a collapse of the liberal-Left vote. The GREENS and DEMs are going to come in at well under 10% of the vote, much lower than 2004.

You continually suggest I am living in my own little world of constructs. Perhaps. But how do you explain that later on down the track real world observations match this constructions? Just lucky, I guess.

I am happy to stack this record up against anyone else doing electoral commentary in the Ozblogosphere. Mark, Norton, Kim, Tim Blair, Na’bakov, Mark, Mumbles, Quiggin, Dunlop, Catallaxy - bring ‘em on. This is not a boast, it is a request for measurable accountability which is strangely lacking from most pundits.

Far from being “eccentric” these predictions are now the Conventional Wisdom. Although they were not about five years ago when I published them.

I am intrigued to know if Mark B has any scientific succes. If you cant score predictive runs you dont make the intellectual cut. You need to put up or shut up.

Mark B says:

Jack, if for just once you decided to take some notice of what others say in response to you, you might like to consider the precise calculations of the degree to which various polls have over (and under) estimated each party’s vote.

I take some notice of what you say about psephology. Some of it is worthwhile, such as your precautionary notes about margin of error, low undecideds and long term stable polling gaps - all implying a stable ALP-LN/P gap. I know this already but it helps to be reminded.

But most of your electoral commentary is useless squishy blather because you are not prepared to put forward a robust explanatory theory of the formation and transformation of psephological preference. Nor are you prepared to expose your ideas to the rigours of a predictive test.

My reasons for skepticism about the polls and predicting the narrowing of the ALP-L/NP polling gap at election time, are that over the past two electoral cycles the polls have underestimated the govt/overestimated oppo vote. This occurred (notoriously with Morgan) in 2001 and again 2004. As mumbles says:

throughout the campaign every pollster over-stated ALP primary support a little, most underestimated the Coalition’s and all trended in the right direction as election day neared.

Also, I have a reasonable faith in the robustness of the Cameron-Crosby model which predicts a large positive political value for a govt riding to an election on the back of high industrial and financial growth. Their model also factors in a large negative political value for the “long incumbency fatigue” factor.

This model is based on causal factors of the kind that influence the casting of vote when push comes to shove: the revelation of preference. This is the reason that the LN/P are campaigning on the economic growth whilst the ALP are campaigning on the “need for new blood”. I judge that the temporal factor outweighs the economic factor, but not by landslide proportions.

I expect the govt’s fiscal war-chest will give it greater ballot-for-buck in its search to make the most of the composition, rather than aggregation, of its potential vote. It is obviously doing all it can to attract buyable votes in marginal seats with a Santa-style targetted spending and tax-cutting spree.

Howard got out of jail in 1998 using these tactics. He seems to be trying the same thing this time around. I think it will get some results.

Mark B. says:

which is undermined by what can only be a prime example of tea leaf reading in this sort of comment:

There is no spin doctoring in saying that Howard’s personal popularity is a factor that may bolster his vote come polling time. According to Lebovic Howard’s personal approval rating is the strongest on record for any major politician this far into a term of office. This is a good reason for expecting a sturdier “floor” under his vote than is suggested by the Ruddsliding polls.

There is also nothing irrational in suggesting that NE Asians may have a sneaking admiration for Howard which will give him an subtle edge in his electorate. His elder status, social conservatism and small-business values appeals to that demographic. I know the area and those people reasonably well as I get my info-tech gear from computer fairs run by Asian nerds.

So I predict Howard will win in Bennelong, despite current adverse polls.

Mark B. says:

I do observe that you’ve given yourself a convenient out if your “prediction� proves to be off the mark, which doesn’t surprise me in the least.

Your observation is a product of an overheated imagination or a desperate attempt to shore up a collapsing position. You need to quote not fabricate your adversaries arugment.

My win-lose prediction, made in mid 2006 when Beazley was leader and the polls were neck and neck, was for an ALP victory. There is no “convenient out” for this. It is black or white.

My more-or-less spread prediction is for a comfortable, not landslide, win for the ALP. I am betting ALP 53-LN/P 47 (+/- 1). An ALP 55-LN/P 45 result would refute my theory.

What evidence would refute your theory? Oh, I forgot, you dont believe in general theory and you are frightened of empirical testing.

Mark B. says:

it’s a tiring exercise engaging with you since you never modify your position under criticism and never even acknowledge past critiques you generally ignore the epistemological attack on your method of proceeding,

That is blatantly false. The internets are overflowing “acknowledgement of past critiques” with scrupulous quotation, chapter and verse, and painstaking point-by-point refutation.

Moreover I always “modify my position under criticism” when it is empirically falsified, eg mad support for the Iraq war, foolish support for Latham’s candidature, false belief in the housing bubble. I dont see much in the way of “I was wrong” confessions from anyone else.

No doubt there are serious epistemological problems with predicting future events, such as the reflexivity of predictions and the unpredictability of exogenous factors. Accidents happen to good theories. And bad theories sometimes have good luck.

But periodic elections in stable constitutions show a fair bit of underlying regularity. Enough to make them a proper subject for scientific inquiry.

I have little respect for your cognophobic epistemology which is just a fancy disguise for intellectual ineptitude. Your position looks to me suspiciously like special pleading coming from those poorly performing students who decry the exam system as being a poor method of judging performance.

YOur hostility to general theory and predictive testing is just a symptom of the post-modernist intellectual surrender of reason. Like Na’bakov you are reduced to mindless ad hockery in the face of real complexity. You give up because you dont have the balls or brains to have a real go.

You are on record as denying the possibility of a scientific theory of electoral cycles or even electoral predictions. This implies that the modelling of Leigh, Cameron-Crosby, Ray Fair, mumbles, possum polytics et al is futile. You have a cheek to take such a stand, given your own embarassing dalliance with post-modern charlatans such as Derrida and Foucault.

Explanation and prediction are the acme of science, and the thing that drives the social scientists who you draw analysis from, such as possum polytics, mumbles and quiggin. It is what drives my commentary. So far I am ahead of these guys in the predictive competition. You have not even reached the starting line.

* Change in facial expression (staring, lack of blinking)
* Failure to swing one arm when walking
* Flexion (stooped) posture
* “Frozen” painful shoulder
* Limping or dragging of one leg
* Numbness, tingling, achiness or discomfort of the neck or limbs
* Softness of the voice
* Subjective sensation of internal trembling
* Resting tremor

Her indoors and myself have noticed that the old boy is just so expressionless (and comes across as cranky/grumpy) that something is up. The neighbour reckoned it was botox causing the Nicole Kidman like expression, but that wacky attack he had during the debate sealed it for me.

The facts do not show this. Newspoll accurately predicted the GREENs last federal electoral performance. THe Newspoll taken before the 2004 election show the GREENs on 7%. Their actual electoral performance was 7.2%.

True as far as it goes, but this does not alter the fact that in the three years since Newspoll has consistently underestimated the Green vote in every virtually every State election, which is the evidentiary basis of my previous postings on this issue. When one adds to this the fact that Newspoll’s estimate of the national Green vote is well below that of all other polls and below what could be reasonably extrapolated from the 2004 Australian Election Study, one has reasonable grounds for suggesting that Newspoll is probably underestimating the national Green vote - certainly stronger evidentiary grounds than Jack has put forward for his own claim that Newspoll is underestimating the Coalition vote.

Their biggest problem is that the messenger isn’t credible even if the messages are well crafted.

“Measure my dick! But only with my special ruler. No, you can’t use it too. It’s special.”

I dont entirely trust the polls predictive capacity. In the past they seem to have somewhat underestimated the LN/P vote, perhaps due to a certain pro-govt inertial tendency when ballot comes to poll.

Jack, if for just once you decided to take some notice of what others say in response to you, you might like to consider the precise calculations of the degree to which various polls have over (and under) estimated each party’s vote. That would tend to bolster your claim to be doing something social-scientific, which is undermined by what can only be a prime example of tea leaf reading in this sort of comment:

I have also predicted Howard will retain his seat. North East Asians will probably sympathise with the elderly sage of Bennelong. I think the continuing boom will somewhat counteract the incumbency fatigue factor. Howard will probably try to capitalise on the “gratitude� factor.

While you generally ignore the epistemological attack on your method of proceeding, I’d have thought even you might see the obvious contradiction in this:

If my prediction is falsified then Cameron-Crosby needs to be revised and much Howard hagiography needs to be consigned to the Dustbin of History.

But, as I’ve said before, it’s a tiring exercise engaging with you since you never modify your position under criticism and never even acknowledge past critiques. So I’m not going to further. I do observe that you’ve given yourself a convenient out if your “prediction” proves to be off the mark, which doesn’t surprise me in the least. It would be more intellectually honest if you admitted that what you are writing is just your (fairly eccentric) opinion, rather than hiding behind all these pseudo-scientific trappings.

I’ve said this more than once before, and will probably say it more than once again, but the reliability of Newspoll is further vitiated by its consistent underestimation of the Green vote, which in reality is probably about double the 4 per cent estimate in today’s poll.

The facts do not show this. Newspoll accurately predicted the GREENs last federal electoral performance. THe Newspoll taken before the 2004 election show the GREENs on 7%. Their actual electoral performance was 7.2%.

In 2004 I predicted a long term secular decline in the GREENs (and DEM) vote based on popular revulsion to their silly policies (base on discredited Left-liberal cultural ideology) and major party convergence on the sensible policies (such as sustainable ecology).

My prediction has been confirmed so far. The DEMS are history. I predict that the GREENs 2007 vote will be lower than its 2004 vote. I will bet Paul $100 on this. Mark B to hold the wager in escrow. Is Paul Norton game or is he just making pre-emptive excuses?

the most likely explanation is that public opinion is more or less where it’s been all year. Both this week’s Newspoll and last week’s movements were within the margin of error, with the former being an outlier at the top end, and probably this is one at the bottom end. You’d want to see where it travels next, at the very least, before jumping to any conclusions.

Mark B is saying that the landslide gap b/w ALP and LN/P has not narrowed. And shows no real sign of narrowing. This, taken together with his (dodgy) claim that “when federal governments lose in Australia, they have a tendency to lose big” means that Mark B is suggesting a massive landslide for the LN/P is probable on the facts.

Mark B’s interminable poring over the psephological tea leaves are probably wrong. The govts electoral disadvantage is most likely overstated by the polls.

I dont entirely trust the polls predictive capacity. In the past they seem to have somewhat underestimated the LN/P vote, perhaps due to a certain pro-govt inertial tendency when ballot comes to poll. They also do not take into account the distribution of votes. Howard has proven a past master of harvesting votes in marginal seats.

I have predicted the ALP will win convincingly, roughly along the lines of its 1983 victory, rather than the LN/P 1996 landslide. I have predicted a narrowing of the ALP-L/NP gap to about 53-47 TPP when ballots are cast.

I have also predicted Howard will retain his seat. North East Asians will probably sympathise with the elderly sage of Bennelong. I think the continuing boom will somewhat counteract the incumbency fatigue factor. Howard will probably try to capitalise on the “gratitude” factor.

The ALP’s dramatic lurch to the Cultural Right has neutralised much of the govts electoral advantage in this area. But the combination of Work Choice revulsion and incumbency fatigue will do Howard in.

I base my predictions on the Cameron-Crosby model (based on the stimulation/stagnation and incumbency/outcumbency factors). Plus factoring in Howards personal approval rating. If my prediction is falsified then Cameron-Crosby needs to be revised and much Howard hagiography needs to be consigned to the Dustbin of History.

Note: Commenters should make their theoretical model clear and derive testable predictions if they want to be treated seriously. This is the professional practice of competent social analysts, such as Quiggin and Brent. Otherwise commenters will just end up sounding like an idiot, a la Nai’bakov, tattling tales full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Karl Rove lost an election too, let’s not forget, after winning lots of them. Mastery of dark political arts only gets you so far, and perhaps nowhere near close enough if your time has been and gone.

This is clearly intended to culminate in massive-ad pitch straight at the Labor heartland/marginals at the appropriate psychological moment in the campaign when the target voters have been reminded, educated, enlightened. Thus it has started with softening up (70% trade union officials guff), now being followed by Howards 100 tech schools and today the “training subsidies” for small business. In contrast, the Libs last campaign hit the major theme - interest rates -in the opening bar. I guess because they assessed the electorate didn’t need education and softening up on that issue?

This campaign theme is potentially devastating to Labor unless they have plans to head it off. Unfortunately the Kyoto debacle indicates they may not be ahead of the game - it was clear as bell last year that Howard was going to make climate change an issue about jobs, he appointed a heavyweight to the portfolio and Rudd had ample time to work out counter tactics.

Thus my point re “It’s the economy, stupid”.

Re Robb blahing “talking points”. Unhappy reality as it might be, the full employment pitch if delivered effectively would likely send Rudd’s current poll majority rushing back to Howard et al in a flood. Thus the referendum comparison. It’s a mistake to underestimate Robb. He has been one of the key backroom architects of Liberal campaigns in 1996, 1998, 2001 and 2004. He, Morris and Howard are hunting Rudd like a fox. Rudd is very slippery, as I’m sure you’d agree, but history shows the unspeakable usually win this encounter because the fox is on his own?

There’s another Nielsen poll out today showing a 56/44 split to the ALP.

And it’s been said here and elsewhere that if you analyse the movement during the last few campaigns, you find 2004 is the only one where the government gained ground.

But I’m sure that you’re more than capable of looking up all the psephological commentary for yourself.

It may well be that the final result won’t be what the polls are showing at the moment. That wouldn’t surprise me one iota. But at least either give us some actual analysis of the evidence about public opinion we have, or some extended argument based on the campaign, please.

They should also remember it’s the economy, stupid.

And that’s meant to tell us what?

See here for some analysis:

http://www.newmatilda.com/election07/index.php/2007/10/25/the-politics-of-inflated-expectations/

Those who are getting over-excited about Kevin07 should keep this history in mind.

They should also remember it’s the economy, stupid.