2013 Federal Election: 7 September 2013

[drsmith]

A Galaxy poll out this weekend has the libs at 53% 2PP.

http://www.news.com.au/national-new...se-election-5347/story-fnii5s3x-1226708281383

The ABC Insiders Poll of Polls also has the Coalition at 53% 2PP.

Beyond that, the segment itself is interesting in that it highlights the large difference between the above overall polls and the much stronger Coalition results being reported from polling in the Labor marginals.

http://www.abc.net.au/insiders/content/2012/s3838360.htm

Sportsbet has the shortest odds for the number of Coalition seats on the range 91 to 100 or right in the middle.

Strongly against ththis overall trend, Alannah MacTiernan at her second attempt looks like winning the seat of Perth comfortably.

Ms MacTiernan's primary support - 47 per cent - is almost 7 per cent up on the result secured by Stephen Smith at the 2010 election. Mr Smith, the Defence Minister, is retiring.

The strong polling for Ms MacTiernan is even more remarkable because it defies a national trend. In the past week Galaxy conducted more than 11,500 interviews in 20 key electorates across Australia. In 19, there was a swing away from Labor ranging from 1.3 per cent to 8.8 per cent, with an average of 4.4 per cent. Only in Perth was there a swing to Labor (of 2.1 per cent).

http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/wes...federal-politics/story-fnhocxo3-1226708188616

In WA's most marginal seat, Hasluck, Liberal Ken Wyatt looks like increasing his margin and Labor's Gary Grey might hang on.

The Galaxy poll itself was taken during the past week and so my not fully represent in impact of Labor's claims about the Coalition's costings blowing up in their own faces.

My apologies, mate.

Nonetheless, I still believe Kevni, to be capable of winning this contest.

Long live our Dear Leader Kevni.

gg

Pure gold GG, pure gold.

 

[noco]

They say polls come and go but I say than can and are rigged to suit the political climate.

I received one political phone poll by Morgan last week where by I was included irrespect of my age.

Today I received a political poll from Neilson and the first question the girl asked was, are you in the male 18 to 49 year old group which I responded in the negative. I was told sorry you are not included.

Then I was asked were there any females aged 18 to 29 and once again I answered in the negative.

OK sorry bye and she hung up.

So please don't anyone try to pretend that polls are taken across a wide spectrum of the public.

 

[drsmith]

Today I received a political poll from Neilson and the first question the girl asked was, are you in the male 18 to 49 year old group which I responded in the negative. I was told sorry you are not included.

One possibility is that they might have specific callers polling specific age groups. This would obviously be less efficient in terms of overall numbers, but may make it easier to quickly differentiate poll results into specific age groups.

Either way, you now know how to answer the age group question next time you're asked.

 

[noco]

One possibility is that they might have specific callers polling specific age groups. This would obviously be less efficient in terms of overall numbers, but may make it easier to quickly differentiate poll results into specific age groups.

Either way, you now know how to answer the age group question next time you're asked.

Yes Doc I do now. I had never been asked before and was caught unaware.

But my point is, these polsters can manipulate the trend to which ever way they desire.

 

[bellenuit]

Yes Doc I do now. I had never been asked before and was caught unaware.

But my point is, these polsters can manipulate the trend to which ever way they desire.

I would think it is more to do with getting a representative cross section of the people. I would assume that at the outset they would have decided that a representative cross section would require a certain percentage of people aged in each of various age groups, perhaps 50% male, particular geographic distributions etc. If they are polling 2,000 people say, then once each category's quota of polled people is reached, they would not want any more from that category.

If they were to just randomly call during the day and poll whoever answers, they would most likely end up with an overrepresentation of retirees, unemployed and stay at home housewives; those who are most likely to be around during the day and, apart from the latter, those having the time to answer whatever questions are being asked.

 

[moXJO]

Double post

 

[Julia]

They say polls come and go but I say than can and are rigged to suit the political climate.

I received one political phone poll by Morgan last week where by I was included irrespect of my age.

Today I received a political poll from Neilson and the first question the girl asked was, are you in the male 18 to 49 year old group which I responded in the negative. I was told sorry you are not included.

Then I was asked were there any females aged 18 to 29 and once again I answered in the negative.

OK sorry bye and she hung up.

So please don't anyone try to pretend that polls are taken across a wide spectrum of the public.

I would think it is more to do with getting a representative cross section of the people. I would assume that at the outset they would have decided that a representative cross section would require a certain percentage of people aged in each of various age groups, perhaps 50% male, particular geographic distributions etc. If they are polling 2,000 people say, then once each category's quota of polled people is reached, they would not want any more from that category.

If they were to just randomly call during the day and poll whoever answers, they would most likely end up with an overrepresentation of retirees, unemployed and stay at home housewives; those who are most likely to be around during the day and, apart from the latter, those having the time to answer whatever questions are being asked.

Noco, bellenuit has, as usual, provided the appropriate explanation for you. Often you see poll results where a result is quoted for particular age groups. The group I can think of as being most often singled out is Gen Y.
To get this, obviously the research company has to obtain responses by x number of respondents in that age group.
You could equally have struck a research company which was seeking responses from retirees, in which case presumably you would have 'qualified'.
Nothing manipulative about it.

 

[So_Cynical]

It must be a empty thread with all those right posters on ignore

Cant see 70% of the posts...and i suppose that's the cost of wanting to filter out the right wing whining and now the chest thumping.

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

Cant see 70% of the posts...and i suppose that's the cost of wanting to filter out the right wing whining and now the chest thumping.

Can you see mine?

I think Boy Rudd is going to win.

gg

 

[banco]

Once again Noco sees conspiracies everywhere where there are none. Tell us again how Gillard's ousting of Rudd was an elaborate charade designed to set Rudd up for the UN Secretary-General's job.

 

[So_Cynical]

For those people who like to do their own thing when it comes to senate voting, i have found a neat little site that basically allows you to pre fill a senate ballot paper for your state, that you can you print and take along to your polling station and use as a reference for filling out the form correctly.

Handy for me because i want to make sure my preference goes to Labor well ahead of Pauline Hanson and any other right wing nutters...voting for senator online "above the line" wouldn't do that...put Pauline last that is.

http://www.clueyvoter.com/

For example
~

 

[Tink]

Rudds whole campaign was dont vote Abbott and poor poor pitiful me, we are all victims, throw away more money, thats the Labor way.

They are losing all their seats -- the public are having their say of what they think of the last six years. We havent had our turn yet, but Saturday they will know.

Rudd and this Labor Government deserve to lose in a landslide.

 

[johenmo]

I would think it is more to do with getting a representative cross section of the people. I would assume that at the outset they would have decided that a representative cross section would require a certain percentage of people aged in each of various age groups, perhaps 50% male, particular geographic distributions etc. If they are polling 2,000 people say, then once each category's quota of polled people is reached, they would not want any more from that category.

If they were to just randomly call during the day and poll whoever answers, they would most likely end up with an overrepresentation of retirees, unemployed and stay at home housewives; those who are most likely to be around during the day and, apart from the latter, those having the time to answer whatever questions are being asked.

My bolds - this is why. I got a call, he asked my age group then said that category was complete. It then allows the user of the data to look at preferences trends within age brackets.

 

[Judd]

My bolds - this is why. I got a call, he asked my age group then said that category was complete. It then allows the user of the data to look at preferences trends within age brackets.

Essentially, it is survey design.

The sample size in Simple Random Survey depends on three factors:

• The population size
• The variability of the parameter which is to be estimated
• The desired level of precision and confidence level in the result.

They, presumably, then apply the mathematical formulae to ascertain the appropriate sample size based on the above and for Stratified Sampling.

The outcome can then be applied, with varying degrees of confidence, to the entire population or group without the need to survey all the population or group.

 

[sails]

My bolds - this is why. I got a call, he asked my age group then said that category was complete. It then allows the user of the data to look at preferences trends within age brackets.

But then the results could be somewhat skewed if people lie about their age.

There are reports that a labor voter lied about being an undecided voter to get into the Brisbane forum recently.

 

[Tink]

From the ABC

Today's Newspoll numbers:

•Primary: Labor 33 (down 4); Coalition 46 (down 1)
•Two-party: Labor 46; Coalition 54
•Preferred PM: Rudd 41; Abbott 43

 

[Calliope]

Rudd is fighting to save The Light on the Hill.

 

[bunyip]

Rudds whole campaign was dont vote Abbott and poor poor pitiful me, we are all victims, throw away more money, thats the Labor way.

They are losing all their seats -- the public are having their say of what they think of the last six years. We havent had our turn yet, but Saturday they will know.

Rudd and this Labor Government deserve to lose in a landslide.

Yes Tink, Labor deserves to lose in a landslide, and that just might happen too if their support keeps plunging in the next five days like it's done in the last week.

Peter Beattie was on ABC this morning talking about how in yesterday's campaign launch, Rudd spoke of 'core Labor values' such as apprenticeships. During the interview Beattie must have repeated ten times that he thought Rudd should have started outlining these 'core Labor values' much earlier.
I agree with him - the election campaign must be a month old by now but the Labor Party leave their campaign launch until just six days before the election.
And the Libs only did their official campaign launch a week earlier.
I would have thought that the time for campaign launches where they talk about the core values of their party would be at or near the start of the election campaign.

Another thing that Beattie said was ‘Queenslanders don’t come any better than Kevin Rudd’. That one brought a smile to my face, firstly because I’d feel ashamed to call myself a Queenslander if Rudd was the best our great state could produce. And secondly, because Beattie is the man who in the past has publicly directed scathing criticism at Rudd. And now all of a sudden he wants us to believe that he thinks Rudd is fantastic.

But what put the biggest smile on my face was when Rudd said ‘I don’t think the truth is such a bad thing in politics’.
Good lord, this from the creep whose been one of the worst serial liars that Australian politics has ever produced.

I really think that in the eyes of most voters this election is more about honesty and credibility than about policies. Seems to me that most of the electorate are looking at Labors track record and seeing a party that has lied, cheated, smeared, stuffed up most of what they’ve attempted, and fought among themselves almost constantly. People see a party like that and they simply judge them unfit to govern regardless of what policies they put forward.
That’s why Labor are heading for a rout next Saturday.
I’ve spent the last couple of months building a new deck on our house – I’ve already invited a bunch of people over next Saturday night to christen the new deck with a drink or three to celebrate Labor’s defeat.
Or if Rudd lives up to his prediction that he’ll win – well then we’ll have a few drinks to drown our sorrows instead!
Bring on September 7!

 

[drsmith]

From the ABC

Today's Newspoll numbers:

•Primary: Labor 33 (down 4); Coalition 46 (down 1)
•Two-party: Labor 46; Coalition 54
•Preferred PM: Rudd 41; Abbott 43

I also note that the Greens are up 1% to 10% and the others are up 4% to 11%.

The electorate is now deserting Labor in droves, but they're not exactly flocking to the Coalition. The individual Leaders ratings are also the same in this regard. Satisfaction ratings for both are down, but by much more for Labor than the Coalition. In summary, the past week overall has been below par for bothg parties, but obviously much worse for Labor than the Coalition.

The task for TA and the Opposition this week is to convince those voters who have parked themselves in the others category to vote for the Coalition.

Looking beyond the election, primary support for Labor is now chronically poor. The future may be a Labor/Greens coalition. In terms of primary support, the Coalition is at 46% and Labor/Greens is at 43%.

 

[Calliope]

But what put the biggest smile on my face was when Rudd said ‘I don’t think the truth is such a bad thing in politics’.
Good lord, this from the creep whose been one of the worst serial liars that Australian politics has ever produced

That takes the cake bunyip. However one of his co-conspirators in the untruths and deceit games, Treasurer Chris Bowen, came close when he said the other day;

"You have to campaign as you intend to govern".

The poor fool should have kept that quiet.