The image below the fold is courtesy of Possum, who has much much more on today’s Nielsen poll. Please note the margins of error on gender and state by state breakdowns are higher than in the poll itself, and are set out in Possum’s third table.
The Queensland sample, where the vote changing effect of Rudd’s political demise is strongest, has an MoE of 5%.
Queensland and WA are also showing Coalition leads of 54-46, with the caveats about MoE needing to be factored in (and 59-41 to Labor in NSW looks unlikely to me).
More likely/less likely is not very meaningful. How many votes have actually been changed is the question.
And the results are not very believable. Are we expected to believe that with Rudd still in the saddle, Labor would be polling better than 56-44?
It’s 54-46, Sam.
Possum explains the apparent inconsistency:
So it’s a net positive overall.
Only those paroachial Queenslanders are pissed off because their boy got the kibosh. Christ, they’ve got the Governor General and the Treasurer. Those banana benders sure are greedy.
I’d make an important qualifier here
The party breakdowns can be misleading when the intended vote share itself is in flux. For example, it is possible (indeed likely) that a number of Labor voters in the current poll, were intending to vote for the Coalition prior to the leadership change. So, there is a stock and flow issue here. Our problem is that the polls only tell us about the stock at different points in time, not the flows. The really pertinent question would be to ask the sample which party they had been intending to vote for prior to the leadership change. That would tell us how many Labor people were in the coalition (or Green) camp beforehand and vice versa. The other problem with the question is that it doesn’t tell us about the strength of people’s views on the leadership change relative to other factors. There is a big difference between being 5% more (less) likely to vote Labor than 50%.
Regardless, as I said on the other thread, it would be pretty heroic to suggest anything other than the leadership change has been a net positive for Labor. Labor’s primary and 2pp vote has increased significantly, the betting probabilities have moved in Labor’s favour, and Julia’s net satisfaction and preferred PM numbers are significantly better than Rudd’s. All the evidence points in the same direction!
I think the story of this data is explained by one thing alone: Abbott.
No one was ever going to vote him into office in a million years – Rudd, Gillard, whoever. It would mighty brave to suggest otherwise. I think these figures clinch it – they really make no sense otherwise.
People arent impressed with the mode of ascension – that now totally beyond all dispute now (or should be, if I didnt know better by now
) – but that just doesnt the same folks are going to put their tackle in a blender a vote for a borderline nutter like the Monk.
I haven’t the slightest doubt Rudd would have won this election – and if I was a betting man, Id say he would have won thus: with a lower net 2PP (women are loving GIllard), but with the same or even better seat margin than Gillard will get (QLD is not loving Gillard – and has disproportionate number of marginal seats).
That all said – this poll is totally overcooked, the NSW figures are totally wrong, she’ll drop a point or so by Aug 21. But she can afford to.
LEFTY E – Tired of agreeing with you – but I do. Also think that Julia has hit her peak, because she hasn’t done enough to differentiate herself from a borderline nutter.
Nobody factors in, of course, the Rudd policies that are going to win labor swags of votes (like the broadband). Promising to get rid of that shows how stupid the libs are because they obviously don’t know which fights to pick.
saw a report or a newspaper poll somewhere (yesterday I think, that stated though a huge number of people are pissed off at the way Rudd was dumped, they’ll still vote Labor. Looked for it so I could link, but couldn’t find it.
“though a huge number of people are pissed off at the way Rudd was dumped, they’ll still vote Labor”
I think thats about the size of it Paul. I think we can call that the Abbott factor.
We also need to distinguish more carefully between:
1. the Gillard boost (which I certainly am not here to deny, as its clear at least among women) and
2. The “calling an election” reality check boost – which either candidate would have got, aka Abbott factor
and then adjust for:
3. The Gillard negative in QLD (where the Kev stuff, as Possum points out, is likely affecting net ALP votes)
4. The lost Rudd boost – ‘untimely ripped’ as it were – from parental leave and NBN, the signs seen in Morgan that didnt get to mature.
And then all get real about the knife squad’s spin.
And then probably reach the same conclusion as Mike: this is now … a bit dull. Even Im over it – and Im totally hardcore about this issue
Next!