I wrote yesterday about the futility of trying to make direct extrapolations from a multitude of polls to the election result.
Today, we’ve seen one of the other standard tropes of campaigning – the claim that “leaked party polling shows…” or “senior party sources say their internal polling shows”…
Party polling isn’t automatically more accurate than published polls, although some tracking polls do have a level of sophistication in data analysis which enables some judgements to be made about which issues or events are moving votes, and how strongly.
But, to my recollection, this sort of tracking poll has only ever been published once – the Crosby Textor Oztrack 33, leaked to the media in September 2007.
The distribution list of internal party polling is tiny. Normally, no more than ten or so people would see it. That’s what made its use in leadership challenges to Kim Beazley and Kevin Rudd so controversial.
A good rule of thumb is to disbelieve any claims that party polling has actually leaked, unless there are firm numbers reported. An instance is polling in a couple of Bayside Labor seats in the 2006 Queensland election – where actual numbers were stated, and which I was able to confirm was accurate. However, the impression given by the Labor strategists was that this polling demonstrated a surprise late swing against Peter Beattie’s government.
In fact, it only meant that for purely local factors, Labor was doing badly in one or two seats despite being poised to win a host of others by huge margins.
So the poll numbers were truthful, but the spin was not not.
It’s a pretty standard last minute ploy – “impressions management”. It helps in focusing voters’ minds on the choice, and depressing the likelihood of a protest vote.
That’s what we’re seeing tonight, when there’s lots of reporting that Labor polling shows the party in more trouble in New South Wales than anticipated.
No details have been given.
But Julia Gillard duly talked about the unpopularity of the NSW government in questions after her closing National Press Club address, and that made it onto the tv news.
There’s every likelihood that Labor research does show the Keneally government is a drag on their federal vote.
But this is not a disinterested psephological observation, but a political intervention to try to improve Labor’s vote.
We also don’t know when this polling was done, or whether it shows movement towards or away from the ALP. Unlike the published polls, we can’t place it in the context of a time series and compare it to other surveys carried out by the same pollster using the same methodology.
That’s worth remembering before people get too excited about poring over these latest entrails in an attempt to divine what might occur on Saturday.
Update: The details of the Labor internal polling have now been revealed by Channel Seven.
Elsewhere: Graham Young on why taking internal party polling stories seriously is for mugs.
Cross-posted at The Drumroll.
If it’s just a ploy to get voters to focus, they could turn the other way. They could just think – ‘oh a swing is on, right let’s vote them out’.
Labor will probably win, Megan.
These sorts of tactics can and do turn around votes in the last couple of days. It’s happened before – Queensland in 2009 is the best example.
I would tend to agree with that. JGillard is not the genuine incumbent and will appear to many as just one of two equal candidates running for office.
People be confronted with, wow we do have the choice for change of government, why not do it, we have somebody just relieving in the PM job anyways. With a genuine incumbent (Rudd) they would saying, nah he has done ok no reason to change really.
I suspect Shorten, Howes, Bitar, Feeney, Abib may learn if they have the ability to fly, if Labor lose.
And Gillard.
In 2004 I had no doubt the COALition would win.
In 2007 I had no doubt the ALP would win.
This time I dunno.
I predicted 78 seats to the ALP on the thread below but I was feeling optimistic at the time.
Antony Green was on 7.30 Report very carefully saying nothing.
I suspect he was flagging close to a draw.
Agree with that TP.
All the names you listed are people whose careers would most certainly END this Saturday with a coalition victory – with a ‘dishonourable discharge’ from public life.
However – they’re in luck. Labor will win – and IMHO more easily than the prevailing view at the mo. Especially this last minute ‘anti-protest vote insurance’ spin – as Mark says.
Poring, not pouring.
Or maybe people are pouring something over the polls? Cold water?
@5 – hannah’s dad, I think Antony wisely was avoiding being drawn into the predictions game.
“before people get too excited about pouring over these latest entrails”
…. and what be they pouring, Dr Mark?
Libations of Lamentation?
Cheap grog?
Fake blood?
* * ** *** *****
2PP = Party Pooper Petty Pedant
Following on from Dr Cat and Paul Burns’ heads up, Ambi, I’ve been reading up on the art of the Haruspex.
I’m sure ancient Etruscan wisdom holds the key to this election result.
Despite this ‘political intervention’, it is entirely possible that we could end up with a hung Parliament here. Scary.
The data leaked in the recent challenge was all second hand, paraphrased by Karl Bitar, wasn’t it?
I don’t think anyone should be surprised anymore by the use of either public or confidential polling in partyroom coups. I’m pretty certain this kind of stuff was first used successfully against Hayden in 1983, and the pro-Hawke pundit who drew attention to Hayden’s crap numbers in the Gallup research was… the ancient and venerable Clyde Cameron, a man who’d risen to political power in a world where opinion polling didn’t matter.
Just one more reason for the ALP to adopt the British method of leadership elections. David Miliband actually has to make a cogent argument about how he can move public opinion, and not just rely on passive aggressive arguments about how the polls must be judge, jury and executioner, as they are the most objective thing in the world after all…
@hannah’s dad, Antony Green never, ever, makes overall predictions. Seat by seat sometimes, but not overall in my recollection.
Yeah I know Rebekka I was just admiring the way he carefully said nothing and I was also wished he had broken down his professionalism and just said “Don’t you worry hannah’s dad, she’ll be right on the night”.
Let me hang on your coat tails in that hd @13. I’ve got indigestion and I never get indigestion. Although it could be husband’s crock pot stew.
Update: The details of the Labor internal polling have now been revealed by Channel Seven.
For the tenth time I’m changing my mind. It’s over for the ALP. Tony Abbott PM.
Mark, why reveal the details of the polling?
@18 – Kymbos, I think the thing is it makes it more credible than just saying “Labor sources say internal polling shows them in trouble in NSW”.
As I said on the other thread, Richard Farmer this morning said that when he was working on Hawke’s campaigns he simply made it up to fit the message he wanted to get out when leaked party marginal polling. He believes nothing has changed.
Tarot cards still predict a labor win. (Jeez, what if they’re wrong?!)
Consider the past discrepancies between rumors and outcomes:
From 2007 Pollbludger:
At the start of the third week of the campaign, the Daily Telegraph ran a combined poll from the electorates of Robertson, Dobell, Lindsay and Paterson which pointed to an 8 per cent swing to Labor, easily enough to win them all four. The following week, Dennis Shanahan of The Australian related suggestions from state front-bencher John Aquilina that party polling in NSW marginals was “not as strong as published polling”, and that talk about Robertson in particular was “a lot of hype”.
Later in the week, Newspoll published a marginal seats poll showing a collective 9.6 per cent swing to Labor in Herbert, Moreton, Bonner and Blair. The swing was at 8.6 per cent when the exercise was replicated in the final fortnight of the campaign. Labor strategists quoted by Dennis Atkins of the Courier-Mail in early October suggested the latter was nearer the mark, with regional Queensland polling pointing to “two party preferred votes north of 55 per cent”. Presumably this referred to the target marginals of Herbert, Flynn and Hinkler. Madonna King also wrote in the Courier-Mail at this time that Liberal insiders were struggling to dispute Labor talk that Herbert and five other Queensland seats were “in the bag”.
Hey, what if Labor only win 75 seats and there are 4 independents!! Hummn.
Elsewhere: Graham Young on why taking internal party polling stories seriously is for mugs.
Yes Mark, the art of the Haruspexia is an esoteric and arcane thing.
A number of your own LPers visited this subject a week or two ago, but nothing further till your own resumption on this subject, under the auspices of this thread starter.
So, Mark, is that all the Etruscans have ever done for us?
** ** ****
I prefer the perspicacity of the more modern Perspex.