Taverner poll in the Sun Herald [mistakenly put wrong link this morning; paper now seems to have removed the article. Update: here. No primary numbers; are they only in the deadtree version?] says federal two party preferred 50-50, apparently from primary votes of 42 to 39. Someone at either the paper or pollster has stuffed up.
And they only spoke to NSW voters. What is the point of doing that? Possibly had some state political questions in there too.
Note the sample size of a smallish 609. Nielsen’s last poll had a NSW component of about 450 and also showed 50-50 in that state.
[Update: William Bowe in comments says the poll had Labor 42, Liberal 39, Greens 6, Others 3, Don’t know/didn’t say 9. Leaving the last category in the headline numbers, as opposed to in the fine print, is what American pollsters tend to do. The Adelaide Advertiser's pollster as well. And, obviously, Taverner too.
This deflates everyone's support; it's hard to understand why any pollster does it.
Extracting the non-respondents from these numbers gives Labor on 47, Liberal 43 (No Nationals?), Greens 7 and others 3.
This odd behaviour should have been mentioned in the 2010 polling wishlist.
It is still possible the Labor and "Liberal" primary numbers were swapped around.]
Is it any wonder that Abbott was a little dismissive this morning on Network Ten about this poll. However, given the thumping of the Rudd govt over the last few weeks, you have to wonder why the result for Labor wasn’t worse.
Peter is this the start of the Labor fightback in NSW led by KKK?
If the numbers were actually 42% Lib, 39% ALP then the TPP would make more sense. Maybe the pollster or newspaper accidently switched the two?
Pat,
Given the latest NSW state poll this week showed 57-43 to the Liberals, then I’d say no.
Pat, haven’t you asked this before? Answer: no; still headed for huge Coalition win.
I thought that those 2PPs looked rather odd in comparison to the first preference results. They probably shifted a few extra copies of the paper though, which may have been the point of the exercise.
I have Peter but the headlines keep talking about how popular KKK is. And now the Sunday papers are reporting a $750K prime time advertising campaign with the new Premier talking about her life and values.
According to Antony Green, Barrie Unsworth was even level pegging in the polls at one stage despite the 1988 Labor disaster.
Is a Labor defeat pre-ordained and something we can set the watch to? Maybe:
1. NSW is a natural Labor State.
2. Economic decline all things being equal drives out Liberal voters, hence the worse it gets the better it is for the ALP; together with say
12 months of stability and no leadership change talk = come from behind victory.
Maybe a 1 in 4 chance Peter?
Pat the only way the ALP will not get demolished in the next election is if something huge occurs between then and now, and huge it would have to be!
Unless SA declares war on NSW there will be a change of Government and rightfully so.
The Lib’s don’t deserve it, the ALP do!
The story is back online at: http://tinyurl.com/ybqnu8a
Thanks Nick, noted in post.
Pat, I think your Barry Unsworth data works against you. If Keneally ever manages 50-50 in the polls we can suggest she’ll only lose by as much as Unsworth.
Put a 0 after your 4 and you’re in the ballpark.
The full primary vote figures from the poll are:
Labor 42
Liberal 39
Greens 6
Others 3
Don’t know/didn’t say 9
If you remove the don’t know/didn’t say and distribute Greens preferences 81-19 and others’ preferences 43-57, which I’m told is how they split in NSW in 2007, you get a 2PP result of 53.5-46.5 to Labor.
Isn’t it interesting that this tiny little, dogy poll has been hugely covered in the media while the latest substantial Morgan poll has barely got a mention. But then, on second thoughts, that’s just what we’d expect isn’t it?
er, dodgy poll, that is.
Hi Peter ,
given politcal damage th 50%/50% Poll has done to Labor via TV News etc
(although maybe not a bad thing to get a suposed bad poll when it is NOT !)
believe Taverner and SMH should be forsed by public pressure from guys like you to publish there full Poll figures , and under THERE letterhead
PSs/
1/ Bill Bowe’s figures above ar as you’d expect correct (53.5/46.5) , but these raw figures came from Herald online not Taverner itself , and which only add in raw terms to 99% not 100%
2/ Also If one takes your above Headline figures Peter, 42/39/6/3/9 , a 50% Libs result (? Nats)could only be acheived by reversing th 42% & giving it to Libs not Labor AND ALSO by dumping ALL of 9% dont knows/didn’t say into ‘othr’ and then alocating prefs
Ron, not adding up to exactly 100% is ok in opinion polls, because of rounding of individual figures.
yes Peter , quite correct
my poor attempt at highliting Taverners “raw” figures can leave an additional “excuse” for Taverner to “explain” there unreel 50%/50% 2 PP result , in addition to Taverner potential claiming th Lab/Lib 42/39 PV figures should be othr way around
Publishing extracts of Polls as SMH did with Taveners Poll , instead of full Poll data creates confusion at best , and can camoflage incompetanse which I think has happened with a dodgy poll result published