|
Page 1 of 6 We now have a large bank of polling data in 2007 and it's very interesting to compare the patterns with the lead up to the 1996 election. (see tables below)
In 1995, 10 months of polls combined, compared with what was actually achieved in the election, was within 0.1% of the L/NP primary vote (47.1 vs 47.0), 0.3% of the ALP primary vote (38.4 vs 38.7), and 0.2% of the two party vote. Extraordinarily accurate.
Breaking down the data into 5 periods of 2 months shows that the primary vote polling for the L/NP ranged between 46 and 48.8 compared with the election result of 47.0, and for the ALP between 37.1 and 39.1 compared with the election result of 38.7.
In 2007, the 10 months polls combined show the primary votes at L/NP 37.6 and ALP 48.5 TPP 43.2/56.8.
These 2 month periods show that the L/NP primary vote has ranged between 36.6 and 39.0, and the ALP primary vote has ranged between 46.5 and 49.8, with L/NP two party vote between 42 and 45.5 and for the ALP between 55.5 and 58.
2007 has a very similar look to 1996 and if it continues to follow that pattern (TPP election result = +/- 0.2% of 10 months polling) it would result in an ALP TPP of between 56.6 and 57.0, a swing of between 9.4% and 9.8%, and a hypothetical seat win of 40 to 43 seats.
Lead up to the 1996 election
10 months following the elevation of John Howard to the Liberal leadership in late Jan 1995. All pollsters. Two party preference flow @ 46% to the L/NP (actual election result) | Lead up to 1996 | | L/NP | ALP | Others | | L/NP | ALP | | 1996 Election Result | March 2nd | 47.0 | 38.7 | 14.3 | TPP | 53.6 | 46.4 | | All 10 months (leadup) | Feb - Nov | 47.1 | 38.4 | 14.5 | TPP | 53.8 | 46.2 | | 1st 2 months polls | Feb - Mar | 48.8 | 37.1 | 14.1 | TPP | 55.3 | 44.7 | | 2nd 2 months polls | Apr - May | 46.8 | 38.9 | 14.3 | TPP | 53.4 | 46.6 | | 3rd 2 months polls | Jun - July | 47.1 | 39.1 | 13.8 | TPP | 53.5 | 46.5 | | 4th 2 months polls | Aug - Sep | 46.0 | 38.8 | 15.2 | TPP | 53.0 | 47.0 | | 5th 2 months polls | Oct - Nov | 47.0 | 38.2 | 14.8 | TPP | 53.8 | 46.2 |
Lead up to the 2007 election
10 months following the elevation of Kevin Rudd to the ALP leadership in Dec 2006. All pollsters. Two party preference flow @ 60% to the ALP. Lead up to 2007 | | L/NP | ALP | Others | | L/NP | ALP | | All 10 months (leadup) | Dec - Sep | 37.6 | 48.5 | 13.9 | TPP | 43.2 | 56.8 | | 1st 2 months polls | Dec - Jan | 37.6 | 46.5 | 15.9 | TPP | 44.0 | 56.0 | | 2nd 2 months polls | Feb - Mar | 36.6 | 48.4 | 15.0 | TPP | 42.6 | 57.4 | | 3rd 2 months polls | Apr - May | 36.6 | 49.8 | 13.6 | TPP | 42.0 | 58.0 | | 4th 2 months polls | Jun - Jul | 39.0 | 47.3 | 13.7 | TPP | 44.5 | 55.5 | | 5th 2 months polls | Aug - Sep | 38.2 | 48.7 | 13.1 | TPP | 43.4 | 56.6 |
Now to the graphs! First up we have a 2pp line graph, comparing the 2pp results for the 4 sets of 2months worth of polls, February through to September. It's very bad news for the Coalition. They're travelling worse than Labor was in 1996. Furthermore, their 2pp numbers have not broken through Labor's '96 line over the entire period.
As usual, Red represents the ALP, with the dashed line showing the 1996 poll numbers. Blue for LNP, with dashed showing 96 poll numbers.
 Now for a quite busy-looking graph, which shows the 2pp's of both parties on a column chart. Here you can see just how similar things are looking to 1996.
 Next up we have the ALP 1996 primary versus the Coalition 2007 primary voting intention. Again it looks bad for the Coalition, very bad. Their primary vote has not broken above Labor's primary vote in '96. Compound this with the fact that in 1996, Labor received a greater shared of Others preferences (54% to the Coalition's 46%) and the situation is even worse. 
Finally, the LNP 1996 Primary versus ALP 2007 primary colum chart - which shows Labor in a stronger position than the Coalition in 1996. 
Click here to view site index, with the latest articles. - Aristotle (data, analysis, commentary), JJ (graphs, layout, some commentary)
Views: 3241
1. Written by
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
, on 15-10-2007 06:30
The comparison of the 2007 & 1996 elections (and the 1972 election MacMahon v Whitlam - probably also 1983, although the change of Labor leader had an additional impact) goes beyond pre-election poll comparisons to:
* comparative press reporting (including the caution which comes from seeing the incumbents pull off amazing electoral victories - despite the polls' consistently pointing to a change of government);
* a general "It's time" feeling that comes when the electoral ground has moved (unnoticed) from under the government's / PM's feet, so that the electorate is "no longer listening" because other issues have become more important.
In three other such campaigns - 1972, 1983, 1996 - there was also the impression that the Opposition should have won the preceding campaign and, for some reason, just failed to get there.
|
2. Written by
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
, on 15-10-2007 07:44
Wow. I've been waiting for this comparison. It's so much more than I had dreamt.
A thousand times, thank you Aristotle.
This is looking seriously bad for the Coalition. An epic wipe-out; with the rise of the Greens, is Labor going to become the only real Government party?
|
3. Written by Anon, on 01-11-2007 00:05
Sources for your data?
Why such a large gap between datasets?
To me, your information seems to hold little meaning or worth. This isn't a personal attack, just a comment on the data. I encourage you to inform me if I am mistaken.
Please keep in mind, this is my first visit to this website, soplease, assume ignorance 
Thanks for your time,
-John
|
4. Thanks
Written by
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
, on 21-11-2007 20:45
Thank-you! All the data without the hype! Just what I need to understand exactly where the parties stand.
|
|
Comments (27)
