Australian Federal Election- July 2, 2016

[Intell]

Anyone care to explain how the poor and the working class (whites), vote for? Just curious.

[Lachi]

Anyone care to explain how the poor and the working class (whites), vote for? Just curious.

Working-class voters are slightly more in Labor's camp than the Coalition's, but that is not the case everywhere, for instance, in my electorate, there are a lot of poor people and working-class voters, however they vote almost overwhelmingly Liberal.

[Intell]

Anyone care to explain how the poor and the working class (whites), vote for? Just curious.

Working-class voters are slightly more in Labor's camp than the Coalition's, but that is not the case everywhere, for instance, in my electorate, there are a lot of poor people and working-class voters, however they vote almost overwhelmingly Liberal.

Ah ok, is there like any demographic data on that, I believe you, but want the exact numbers. What electorate do you live in, may I ask?

[Lachi]

Anyone care to explain how the poor and the working class (whites), vote for? Just curious.

Working-class voters are slightly more in Labor's camp than the Coalition's, but that is not the case everywhere, for instance, in my electorate, there are a lot of poor people and working-class voters, however they vote almost overwhelmingly Liberal.

Ah ok, is there like any demographic data on that, I believe you, but want the exact numbers. What electorate do you live in, may I ask?

Nation wide, working class voters account for around 31% of voters, with most earning less than $1,000 P/Week. Their votes went as follows:
36% Labor
27% Coalition
24% Greens (I didn't except a voter share this high among the working class, I would have expected more Labor)
But here is the interesting part:
38% Others

I live in Murray, but I am not sure about percentages here, due to the lack of quality of the results when it comes to individual electorates.

[morgieb]

Anyone care to explain how the poor and the working class (whites), vote for? Just curious.

Urban = mostly Labor (but it's hard to say as most working class/poor living in the cities aren't Anglo AFAIK). There's been talk of trends towards the Liberals here, but that's mostly BS - those urban districts that are genuinely trending Liberal are more middle-class trade sort of occupations, aspirational sort of types.

Rural areas tend to be more Coalition though, but it depends on the industry they work in - mining areas tend to be pretty Labor-leaning, but those who are in retail/tourism, less so. That said, there's a difference between poor whites and working class whites in rural areas - the latter doesn't exist as much anymore (a lot of rural districts used to have an OK Labor vote but has declined dramatically due to the decline of unionisation in rural areas), poor whites are hard to say because so many poor whites in rural areas are retirees, but I think they tend to be low-information Coalition voters.

Someone else (Al? Polnut?) might know better, though.

[aross]

Nation wide, working class voters account for around 31% of voters, with most earning less than $1,000 P/Week. Their votes went as follows:
36% Labor
27% Coalition
24% Greens (I didn't except a voter share this high among the working class, I would have expected more Labor)
But here is the interesting part:
38% Others

To state the obvious, those numbers add up to 125%.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Anyone care to explain how the poor and the working class (whites), vote for? Just curious.

Urban = mostly Labor (but it's hard to say as most working class/poor living in the cities aren't Anglo AFAIK). There's been talk of trends towards the Liberals here, but that's mostly BS - those urban districts that are genuinely trending Liberal are more middle-class trade sort of occupations, aspirational sort of types.

Rural areas tend to be more Coalition though, but it depends on the industry they work in - mining areas tend to be pretty Labor-leaning, but those who are in retail/tourism, less so. That said, there's a difference between poor whites and working class whites in rural areas - the latter doesn't exist as much anymore (a lot of rural districts used to have an OK Labor vote but has declined dramatically due to the decline of unionisation in rural areas), poor whites are hard to say because so many poor whites in rural areas are retirees, but I think they tend to be low-information Coalition voters.

Someone else (Al? Polnut?) might know better, though.

The issue of working class/poorer voters is EXTREMELY complicated and tends to be broken down much more by ethnicity and geography etc. 'Class' isn't the real issue here, it's the combination of education and income levels.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

but want the exact numbers.

Exact numbers don't exist. For any country.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Anyway there's a strong class element to Australian voting patterns (as you'd expect given its history), but things differ in different parts of the country. Broadly speaking its strongest in large industrial towns (in which I'm going to trollishly include Adelaide ahahaha) and weakest in historically prosperous agricultural districts. In the big cities it has historically been starker in Sydney than Melbourne (not that it's a minor issue in the latter) although less so in recent decades. But then you have e.g. Tasmania and backwoods Queensland in which sometimes class voting is a huge thing (and Labor does well) and sometimes it isn't (and Labor gets crushed).

[BaconBacon96]

Cross posted from AAD

Here's something to think about- where does the vote of the Palmer United Party go?

This is a factor I have not yet seen considered in the election, yet may potentially be crucial in deciding some marginal seats. The party is all but ensured to disappear after the election and at this stage does not seem to be running any lower house candidates. Even if it did, it's vote would surely collapse.

5.5% nationwide is a large amount of voters to suddenly become available and that percentage is even higher in some seats considered key. Particularly in Queensland, in seats such as Capricornia (7%) Petrie (10%) and Forde (12%). Even in other areas, parts of NSW and Tasmania currently under contention it's vote was higher than average.

In the area it did the strongest, regional Queensland, the seats are mostly safe LNP and the ex-PUP vote there will probably primarily flow either to the LNP or to other populist minor parties, such as Bob Katter and One Nation. It is not here, but rather in the marginal seats in both QLD and other states that these voters will have an impact.

I don't have any predictions for how these people will swing, considering they have no clear ideological bent. But it's worth noting that these seats essentially have more swing voters than they otherwise would, by virtue of the PUP no longer contending. If there's serious movement towards one of the major parties, these voters may be decisive in who wins these seats.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

I wouldn't count out their votes heading to the various personality outfits led by present crossbenchers. People like Lazuras and Lambie have high name recognition compared to their faceless men colleagues in the Senate.

[BaconBacon96]

I wouldn't count out their votes heading to the various personality outfits led by present crossbenchers. People like Lazuras and Lambie have high name recognition compared to their faceless men colleagues in the Senate.

With regards to the upper house vote, yes I agree. Lazarus and Lambie are both considered decent chances of reelection in their respective states. But since they won't be running candidates in the lower house, that still begs the question of who those votes go to in those marginal seats.

[morgieb]

I wouldn't count out their votes heading to the various personality outfits led by present crossbenchers. People like Lazuras and Lambie have high name recognition compared to their faceless men colleagues in the Senate.

With regards to the upper house vote, yes I agree. Lazarus and Lambie are both considered decent chances of reelection in their respective states. But since they won't be running candidates in the lower house, that still begs the question of who those votes go to in those marginal seats.

Yeah, where their preferences go will decide the election IMO. Most of their voters were more protest votes AFAIK, so they're a wildcard. I can see the KAP making ground in North Queensland, outside of there...Greens might pick up a bit (good for Labor), and I can see One Nation making a slight comeback in Queensland at least.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Just a polling update after 2 weeks in, leading number TPP

Morgan - 52.5% ALP
Essential - 51% ALP
ReachTEL - 50%
Ipsos - 51% Coalition

Most recent is Newspoll

Primaries
LNP: 41% (NC)
ALP: 36% (-1)
GRN: 11% (NC)

TPP
LNP: 49% (NC)
ALP: 51% (NC)

Approval
Turnbull: 38% (NC)
Shorten: 37% (+4)

Disapproval
Turnbull: 50% (+1)
Shorten: 49% (-3)

Preferred PM
Turnbull: 46% (-3)
Shorten: 31% (+4)
-- Interesting bit of trivia, Turnbull's drop in preferred PM number is the steepest recorded in any six month period of Newspoll.

Who will win the election?
LNP: 44% (-11%)
ALP: 33% (+8%)

[Lachi]

I think this will be one of the closest elections we have ever had if these polls continue till Election Day.

[Knives]

The response to Nova Peris's resignation has been nothing but disgusting. The media in this country and their treatment of Indigenous women is just foul. It's no wonder she is resigning.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

The response to Nova Peris's resignation has been nothing but disgusting. The media in this country and their treatment of Indigenous women is just foul. It's no wonder she is resigning.

While I was never her biggest fan, let alone a fan as how she got the job, the response was vicious.

Additional polling out.

Essential - 51-49 ALP

ReachTEL - 52-48 ALP

[An American Tail: Fubart Goes West]

Newspoll has others at 34% in South Australia (Labor at 27%, Coalition at 34%, and Greens at 5%). The Nick Xenophon Team probably makes up a lot of that according to Bowe. If the Nick Xenophon Team is at 25% or so, if bet that they'll get a seat or two. I'm pretty sure that they have candidates running in almost all of the South Australia seats along with a few other random seats.

It's a pity that Tasmania wasn't included.

http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/2016/05/30/newspoll-bludgertrack-broken/

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Debate between Turnbull and Shorten last night.

Only an hour long, actually a touch under. Shorten was unsteady early, tripped over himself and seemed a little wooden. He did get better and I thought his closing argument was much stronger. Turnbull seemed stronger, then meandered into the weeds and seemed to just keep talking until an answer materialised (it made me wince, because it's something I know I do too). Shorten did a better job of capitalising on his opponent's weaknesses, especially on climate change.

So to summarise, Turnbull did better in the first half and Shorten in the second. I'd say it was a tie overall, which given the expectations that Turnbull is some kind of magnificent communicator etc makes it a default win to Shorten. But given this is five weeks out, it doesn't really matter.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Newspoll has others at 34% in South Australia (Labor at 27%, Coalition at 34%, and Greens at 5%). The Nick Xenophon Team probably makes up a lot of that according to Bowe. If the Nick Xenophon Team is at 25% or so, if bet that they'll get a seat or two. I'm pretty sure that they have candidates running in almost all of the South Australia seats along with a few other random seats.

It's a pity that Tasmania wasn't included.

http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/2016/05/30/newspoll-bludgertrack-broken/

The problem with this is that preference flows etc are even more problematic when it comes to NXT. It'll be a seat by seat issue. Bowe's model has others in SA at a much more realistic 22.8% (I would imagine NXT is between 16-19% of that). How that vote is concentrated will be important. It's much more dangerous for the Libs in seats like Mayo, Sturt and Boothby and risky for Labor in Hindmarsh (which they want to win back) and Wakefield. Basically it's going to be a crap-shoot. Under 20% for NXT likely means they get one seat and become the decider in almost every close seat. Because we can't tell from whom they're drawing their primary vote, it's difficult to tell where it'll return through preferences. But it's important that around that 20% mark means NXT is in a good position to get 3-4 Senate seats in SA.

[Ebowed]

Shorten was the winner of the debate, in my view.  Turnbull had well rehearsed opening and closing statements but largely came across as a stammering, floundering fool who complained too much.  Shorten was classy, more polished, and better at sounding like he was giving a straightforward answer.

In one segment, Turnbull continued to whine about Labor wanting to "unilaterally" increase our carbon emissions target as though the international community would be angry that we were doing that faster than planned?  That's called exceeding your targets, Mr. Prime Minister.  It's not a surprise you haven't heard of it.

I believe Shorten summed up the debate well when he said that he genuinely leads his party while Turnbull's party leads him (even if it was a zinger related to their mutually awful policy on asylum seekers).

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Shorten was the winner of the debate, in my view.  Turnbull had well rehearsed opening and closing statements but largely came across as a stammering, floundering fool who complained too much.  Shorten was classy, more polished, and better at sounding like he was giving a straightforward answer.

In one segment, Turnbull continued to whine about Labor wanting to "unilaterally" increase our carbon emissions target as though the international community would be angry that we were doing that faster than planned?  That's called exceeding your targets, Mr. Prime Minister.  It's not a surprise you haven't heard of it.

I believe Shorten summed up the debate well when he said that he genuinely leads his party while Turnbull's party leads him (even if it was a zinger related to their mutually awful policy on asylum seekers).

Unfortunately, asylum is not an issue where politics is friendly to a more humane approach. If there was one thing I was slightly happy about, Shorten's approach was more about the trade and the people-smugglers (I'd like to think about a less ugly-phrase, "unlicensed travel agents" doesn't quite hit it) whereas the Coalition messaging is still about those seeking asylum. Not a substantive difference, but at least better messaging.

Shorten was very stiff and too focused on his delivery early on, but... he warmed up. Part of me wonders if Turnbull deliberately waffled to reduce the number of questions being asked.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I haven't followed any Australian stuff since the spill. Where did it all go wrong for Malcolm Turnball? Was it a case of the grass always being greener compared to TA?

I always warned that Turnbull was a deeply flawed politician. The drop in his net stats was steeper than during his disastrous time as OL. The big problem was that compared to Abbott he looked magnificent and brilliant and etc etc... the problem is the things that made Turnbull popular to a broad audience (his stances on climate action/same-sex marriage) are deeply unpopular to his base, so he's made deep compromises and a lot of people who were excited about him and where he might take his party, have disappointed people to an equal degree. Shorten's most potent line against him at the moment is "I lead my party, your party leads you".

Turnbull made deals with the devil to get the job, and now he's reaping the electorate consequences. Even if he can hold on, his standing will be severely weakened and he'll be even more ham-strung.

[Ebowed]

I haven't followed any Australian stuff since the spill. Where did it all go wrong for Malcolm Turnball? Was it a case of the grass always being greener compared to TA?

I always warned that Turnbull was a deeply flawed politician. The drop in his net stats was steeper than during his disastrous time as OL. The big problem was that compared to Abbott he looked magnificent and brilliant and etc etc... the problem is the things that made Turnbull popular to a broad audience (his stances on climate action/same-sex marriage) are deeply unpopular to his base, so he's made deep compromises and a lot of people who were excited about him and where he might take his party, have disappointed people to an equal degree. Shorten's most potent line against him at the moment is "I lead my party, your party leads you".

Turnbull made deals with the devil to get the job, and now he's reaping the electorate consequences. Even if he can hold on, his standing will be severely weakened and he'll be even more ham-strung.

Yes, it's largely a reflection of the fact that the Liberals were elected to "clean up Labor's mess" of having an unstable, unruly, seemingly reckless government.  They weren't elected because their policies are popular - no, their policies are electoral poison, and Turnbull and co. haven't quite seemed to have figured this out (not to mention they've done nothing to assuage the perception that there is a revolving door in our Prime Minister's office).  This is why, only recently, Turnbull was talking about defunding public schools and hospitals and letting the state governments impose an additional income tax so that they could pay for these services, absolving Turnbull of the responsibility to raise taxes directly.  To put it mildly, this demonstrated a level of ineptitude that exceeded my own wildest expectations.

[VPH]

What does Palmer United even stand for? (Clive Palmer reminds me of Jim Justice for some reason but I don't know much about him)