Morgan has a 1.5 point in-house Labor bias (so the 57-43 ALP was really a 55.5-45.5) but it also tends to seriously overstate mood swings in the electorate (at the introduction of the carbon tax essential was 55-45 LNP, while Morgan was 62-38). Morgan isn't a bad pollster, it's just that they are undoubtedly the worst to pick a single poll off of, you need their medium-term trend to tell a story that makes sense.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
AusPoliGAF |OT| Boats? What Boats?
- Thread starter Bernbaum
- Start date
- Status
Morgan has a 1.5 point in-house Labor bias (so the 57-43 ALP was really a 55.5-45.5) but it also tends to seriously overstate mood swings in the electorate (at the introduction of the carbon tax essential was 55-45 LNP, while Morgan was 62-38). Morgan isn't a bad pollster, it's just that they are undoubtedly the worst to pick a single poll off of, you need their medium-term trend to tell a story that makes sense.
Strikes me as a disaster Labor voters are nearly tipping Turnbull equal to Shorten.
Then again that Essential Poll indicates that the Newspoll is probably right in saying it's pretty close on a 2PP. Maybe people have finally wised up to vote on the basis of the party, not the PM since the PM mightn't be there even for one term.
Then again that Essential Poll indicates that the Newspoll is probably right in saying it's pretty close on a 2PP. Maybe people have finally wised up to vote on the basis of the party, not the PM since the PM mightn't be there even for one term.
D.Lo
Member
Yes if nothing else, the public has been taught in great detail that the PM is not a president, and you elect a party not a man (or woman, but we have yet to outright elect a party led by a woman).
It was just hilarious in 2010 how Labor ditched a guy who really did run like a president. Made it look really bad to the public.
It was just hilarious in 2010 how Labor ditched a guy who really did run like a president. Made it look really bad to the public.
You would think the Republican movement would jump on this ever changing leadership culture as their main talking point.
"Aren't you tired of not being able to pick/retain your leader?" etc
Could be a shot in the arm for a movement that really struggles to formulate tangible reasons for why the change should be made.
"Aren't you tired of not being able to pick/retain your leader?" etc
Could be a shot in the arm for a movement that really struggles to formulate tangible reasons for why the change should be made.
D.Lo
Member
Eh, another level of elected government is NOT what this country needs. We have so much waste.
The model last time was correct, leave it as a figurehead, kind of like Speaker of the house.
I don't think it failed last time because of the model. That was just a scare campaign paid for by monarchists. And of course little Johnny's deliberate muddying of the waters by adding the poorly thought out preamble to the constitution question, making for a confusing 'No/Yes' campaign required.
But yes I guess the leadership stuff could be used to market another push? I'm someone who believes any post-enlightenment human should find the concept of a monarchy abhorrent, but I don't want some bad system added for no reason other than it is marketable either.
The model last time was correct, leave it as a figurehead, kind of like Speaker of the house.
I don't think it failed last time because of the model. That was just a scare campaign paid for by monarchists. And of course little Johnny's deliberate muddying of the waters by adding the poorly thought out preamble to the constitution question, making for a confusing 'No/Yes' campaign required.
But yes I guess the leadership stuff could be used to market another push? I'm someone who believes any post-enlightenment human should find the concept of a monarchy abhorrent, but I don't want some bad system added for no reason other than it is marketable either.
Oh it's not an argument that comes from a good place, but it's totally one that would resonate with Australians I think.
I think both Rudd and Abbott ran campaigns that heavily based their tactics on the US model of personal politics, and the electorate has an appetite for that now.
I think both Rudd and Abbott ran campaigns that heavily based their tactics on the US model of personal politics, and the electorate has an appetite for that now.
D.Lo
Member
If we have a PM who can be an advocate for the change and educate the population along the process of what is ultimately a very simple, non-disruptive change (GG=HOS) I think it can pass very easily today.
And we may have that advocate PM now too.
EDIT: Fuck Johnny Howard. We go on about Abbott, but Howard was worse, because he was actually successful in his backward looking regressive bullshit and wasted ten years of what would have been a perfect environment for progress.
Abbott didn't sell Telstra, Avalon Airport, Melbourne Airport, Brisbane Airport, Perth Airport, Sydney Airport, the National Transmission Network, ADI...
And we may have that advocate PM now too.
EDIT: Fuck Johnny Howard. We go on about Abbott, but Howard was worse, because he was actually successful in his backward looking regressive bullshit and wasted ten years of what would have been a perfect environment for progress.
Abbott didn't sell Telstra, Avalon Airport, Melbourne Airport, Brisbane Airport, Perth Airport, Sydney Airport, the National Transmission Network, ADI...
Maybe. I can't imagine Fifield being worse. Of course most copyright stuff seems driven by Robb agreeing to anything the US asks for re TPP.
Delimiter touches on this too.
https://delimiter.com.au/2015/09/22/turnbull-rips-copyright-portfolio-from-attorney-generals-dept/
I wonder how that will play out given in many eyes it seems the PM is the President.
Certainly I haven't really moved any from my belief that directly electing a president with the current GG powers isn't a great idea. I preferred the appointed option (I voted yes last time), though I can't really remember the fine print. Like was it a majority in both houses or what?
Elaugaufein
Member
The Republic referendum lost last time because that rat fucker Howard chose the least popular option (parliament electing the figurehead instead of the people). Given both Party leaders are staunch Republicans I can't see that happening a second time.
e:
If this isn't parody/sarcasm someone needs to inform these people that water is halal.
D.Lo
Member
2/3 majority in the house.
I personally liked the model.
But every step of the way was carefully managed by Howard and the monarchists to make it fail.
How? Howard made it so constitutional conventions were elected in each state who got together to come up with the model that was eventually put to the people. You can't really get much more hands off than that.
http://theleveller.org/2015/09/british-really-laughing/
Good article about Caneron's skull fucking incident. OT but will probably be of interest.
Good article about Caneron's skull fucking incident. OT but will probably be of interest.
e:
Injections being used to control people? Patriots? There's a Metal Gear joke in there somewhere.
I saw some of those Reclaim guys at the gay marriage rally in Brisbane last month. The only thing that disappointed me more than the vitriol on their signs was their butchering of the English language. Apparently spelling and grammar above a grade three level is the domain of socialists and Islamic terrorists.
Edit: Also, this is amazing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPOUeY_dtZ8&ab_channel=AceAlderman
Edit: Also, this is amazing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPOUeY_dtZ8&ab_channel=AceAlderman
Watched Monday's Media Watch yesterday and thought the line it took was very interesting (that Bolt et al actually don't have the power to control things that they think they do, and even less so now since Turnbull is probably not going to give them much, if any time).
And then today this: Malcolm Turnbull's coup against Abbott sets off 'civil war' in News Corp Australia. Yes, it's the Guardian, so take with a tablespoon of salt.
But still.
Fun times!
Also, it really is stark sometimes how Bolt's entire world view seems to boil down to "us vs. them".
And then today this: Malcolm Turnbull's coup against Abbott sets off 'civil war' in News Corp Australia. Yes, it's the Guardian, so take with a tablespoon of salt.
But still.
Fun times!
Also, it really is stark sometimes how Bolt's entire world view seems to boil down to "us vs. them".
This is the subtext of Hadley's desperate and pathetic move to get Morrison to swear on a Bible.
He subsequently said from his unseen emails and calls his audience was split 50/50 on whether that was the right thing to do, which leads me to believe he in fact was copping heaps of shit for it from his own listeners if he didn't even have the heart to pretend support for him was in the majority.
bobnowhere
Member
Link to article
(It's a google search link to avoid the paywall, click on the first article. Might have to open it in a private window.)
People are still saying this? If anyone thinks anything is going to change after one man dies, then I have some bad news for you...
Still saying what? That old people die?
That Rupert Murdoch is the singular influence that drives the editorial content of News Limited.
I'm in two minds about it. It's been said of Chris Mitchell that he has the job because he's good at anticipating what Murdoch wants. It's possible that The Australian is his personal loss making crusade and that under new ownership that would shutter it as unprofitable. The tabloids are still profitable despite dropping readership, so I doubt those would change on Rupert's death, but I guess probably die naturally along with the rest of print media.
...and that its something to celebrate apparently? Why? What will change for the better out of it?
The editors pick the editorial content. If not, then how can you explain this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_federal_election,_2010#Newspaper_endorsements
I didn't get that from Berns post, I got more of a celebration of personal failure but I'm sure he can clarify if he wants to,
Because he's a fuckwit and nobody like to see fuckwits succeed. Even if nothing changes, people enjoy schadenfreude. Again, I saw no expectation of real change, just enjoying someone's potential failure.
But read in whatever you want.
My point is that celebrating the death of Rupert Murdoch will be both pointless and tasteless.
Yes, so the selection of a particular editor is a big influence on the editorial content.
Fair enough. That was my reading, but probably my mistake.
Probably, but I do all sorts of pointless and tasteless things, so I'll be celebrating with the rest of them.
This is true. News Corp is rotten to the core and it's quite adept at fulfilling the old toads wishes even when he checks in to Bernie's weekend getaway.
Given Rupert's predilection for supporting illegal and ill planned military ventures and cheerleading the anti science global warming denialists it can be readily argued this man is vicariously responsible for hundreds if not hundreds of thousands of deaths at least in part.
It will be a good day when he's gone.
While I wouldn't expect the entire direction of News Ltd. to change overnight, this is definitely a possibility once the demented plutocrat eats it. There is apparently already a sizeable contingent of shareholders that seek to shut down The Australian because it bleeds money.
I dunno, I think Murdoch has way more influence than your garden variety media CEO.
Mentioned above he probably runs the Australian as a loss leader for his brand of political advocacy and has been weirdly hands on in a number of countries in attempting to shape outcomes in the political processes.
He definitely provides an insanely well oiled and connected operation for fledgling and established conservative candidates all over the world and is constantly looking to act as king-maker for the next big thing. Take his lunch with Scott Morrison recently, someone who the right wing of the party is clearly grooming for leadership after Abbott's demise.
Or if you've read the book Double Down, which was an insider's account of the 2012 election from the guys who did Game Change, he was basically responsible for instability in the field against Romney because he tried to get Chris Christie to run, and forced the Romney campaign to consider Christie as VP (something they dropped after vetting Christie and not liking what they saw).
When he goes, it'll definitely be a blow to the interconnectedness of this weird Tory/Coalition/Republican media machine and may not necessarily be something his successor chooses to replicate.
Mentioned above he probably runs the Australian as a loss leader for his brand of political advocacy and has been weirdly hands on in a number of countries in attempting to shape outcomes in the political processes.
He definitely provides an insanely well oiled and connected operation for fledgling and established conservative candidates all over the world and is constantly looking to act as king-maker for the next big thing. Take his lunch with Scott Morrison recently, someone who the right wing of the party is clearly grooming for leadership after Abbott's demise.
Or if you've read the book Double Down, which was an insider's account of the 2012 election from the guys who did Game Change, he was basically responsible for instability in the field against Romney because he tried to get Chris Christie to run, and forced the Romney campaign to consider Christie as VP (something they dropped after vetting Christie and not liking what they saw).
When he goes, it'll definitely be a blow to the interconnectedness of this weird Tory/Coalition/Republican media machine and may not necessarily be something his successor chooses to replicate.
warning opinions;
As much as hes a pain, celebrating his death would be just as tasteless as celebrating thatchers. They both still have family that are dear to them, that don't really deserve to be spat in the face like that. Its ok to say "hey he was pretty horrible" but the laugh and dance "the wicked witch is dead" sorta thing is kinda disrespectful, not to him, but those who cared about him personally.
On the other hand, I feel like waiting for change via having the old guard die out has never been that effective.
though child abuse is pretty much the threshhold of thank fucking god that piece of shit is dead
As much as hes a pain, celebrating his death would be just as tasteless as celebrating thatchers. They both still have family that are dear to them, that don't really deserve to be spat in the face like that. Its ok to say "hey he was pretty horrible" but the laugh and dance "the wicked witch is dead" sorta thing is kinda disrespectful, not to him, but those who cared about him personally.
On the other hand, I feel like waiting for change via having the old guard die out has never been that effective.
I'm not saying be not happy about it
though child abuse is pretty much the threshhold of thank fucking god that piece of shit is dead
I thought most of the celebrating was in relation to what she did to the economy and working class
Eh, a plutocrat is a different class of person to even a Thatcher. Anyone emotionally attached to him is going to have a bin of money to dry their tears away. They don't need your sympathy even if you're offering it.
(I'm actually genuinely interested in arguments against this view though, if you have them)
(I'm actually genuinely interested in arguments against this view though, if you have them)
I don't really have an argument against it other than
"Don't be a dick" and "you're better than that"
also for the bins of money thing Zelda Williams comes to mind, and her harassment after her fathers death
However even the thought of comparing williams to those two is fucking sickening
However even the thought of comparing williams to those two is fucking sickening
We should've learned from Notch that money doesn't dry your tears. You don't have to feel sorry for them if you don't want to, but money shouldn't be the reason, it doesn't replace human emotions.
Well, I'm not better than that, but still, maybe "celebration" is the wrong word to use. Reading dozens of articles chronicling his bad deeds and feeling a warm fuzzy feeling that he's now dead is probably as close as I'll get.
Not even remotely close to the level of money we're talking about. Rupert Murdoch could give 2400 people the same net worth as Robin Williams.
look at all that agility
Malcolm Turnbull: Sunday penalty rates up for consideration by new government
Malcolm Turnbull: Sunday penalty rates up for consideration by new government
Notch feels alienated by his money. I'm not trying to say they're happier for having more money, just that they have the ability to shield themselves from the public reaction if they want to. Money allows you to more easily drop out of society for a while to deal with your grief. It's likely that many Thatcher (or Williams) relatives don't have that option.
Election losing strategy 101.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked