Australia 2013 - Gillard remains as leader, election is held on September 14

[Wake Me Up When The Hard Border Ends]

So let's say Gillard wins the leadership spill in June of 2013, and the election is held on September 14, like she said it would be back in January.

How do the parties poll? Do the Coalition break 100 seats? Does Palmer win Fairfax?
My guess is that the Coalition do better, although still don't get a majority in the Senate. Not sure about Palmer, the campaign in Fairfax was very unique, although I'm sure the Liberals would have done better in the Adelaide area, plus win all of Tasmania barring Franklin Denison. Can also see the likes of Chisholm going Liberal in Melbourne, a few more losses in Queensland and New South Wales as well, not sure about Diaz in Greenway though, depends on whether he has the same blunder as IRL.

Thoughts anyone?

[You kip if you want to...]

55-45. Coalition hit 100.

A terrible campaign could've easily turned it into a NSW/Queensland style meltdown.

[Smid]

Rudd has a deeply flawed personality of extreme arrogance, which resulted in a chaotic campaign. Gillard was disciplined and was prepared to listen to advice (Rudd thought he had all the answers). She could also be feisty (and I mean that as a compliment, I hope no one takes offence at that, I don't mean it in a sexist way, just that she fights hard when her back is against the wall). I think her campaign, while starting from further behind than Rudd's did, I think she would have made ground, whereas Rudd started less behind but went backwards. I think in the end, she would have done better than Rudd, although I think a boring and uncharismatic leader (read this to mean Crean) would have outperformed both. He could have presented a stable, well-thought-out leader, the opposite of the "thought-bubble" policies that plagued Labor and helped draw down their vote.

[Smid]

Palmer mostly won disaffected Labor voters, it would seem, plus more in his home electorate. His vote also seems to have gone up as the campaign wore on, despite becoming more and more outlandish... I guess a case of any publicity is good publicity... I think he still would have won, but the margin was so close that anything could change that... Diaz probably still would have had that interview and failed to prepare, so Greenway still would have been Labor.

[Wake Me Up When The Hard Border Ends]

Rudd has a deeply flawed personality of extreme arrogance, which resulted in a chaotic campaign. Gillard was disciplined and was prepared to listen to advice (Rudd thought he had all the answers). She could also be feisty (and I mean that as a compliment, I hope no one takes offence at that, I don't mean it in a sexist way, just that she fights hard when her back is against the wall). I think her campaign, while starting from further behind than Rudd's did, I think she would have made ground, whereas Rudd started less behind but went backwards. I think in the end, she would have done better than Rudd, although I think a boring and uncharismatic leader (read this to mean Crean) would have outperformed both. He could have presented a stable, well-thought-out leader, the opposite of the "thought-bubble" policies that plagued Labor and helped draw down their vote.

Palmer mostly won disaffected Labor voters, it would seem, plus more in his home electorate. His vote also seems to have gone up as the campaign wore on, despite becoming more and more outlandish... I guess a case of any publicity is good publicity... I think he still would have won, but the margin was so close that anything could change that... Diaz probably still would have had that interview and failed to prepare, so Greenway still would have been Labor.

Very good points, although Gillard would have made some ground, I can still see Labor led by her performing worse than Rudd Labor on election day. And Palmer being Palmer, his party would have performed much like they did IRL too in my opinion.

[morgieb]

Even if Gillard ran an OK campaign it's hard to see her doing better than Rudd, she was basically as popular as death. She probably wouldn't have done much worse as Labor was near their floor anyway, but a bad campaign may have led to Armageddon for Labor.

[RogueBeaver]

Even if Gillard ran an OK campaign it's hard to see her doing better than Rudd, she was basically as popular as death. She probably wouldn't have done much worse as Labor was near their floor anyway, but a bad campaign may have led to Armageddon for Labor.

IMO this. Say 45-50 Reps seats. Once the campaign started out there'd be at minimum a dead cat's bounce, not the 30-something seats predicted by their own June internals.