Australian Federal Election 18th of May 2019

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Rural people are generally rational voters. They vote for their interests. Labor sold itself out long ago to pursue urbanites because that's where they saw the future of the party. It really is that simple.

If you want rural people to vote for you you're going to have to discard the carbon tax (which threatens the jobs of rural people and is absolutely despised and drop alternative energy subsidies (which steal the taxes of rural people to finance daft things that just happen to be well liked by urbanites.

I think it's a bit more curious than that. It's been long observed that the National Party is the weak link in the Coalition, being extraordinarily vulnerable to independents and minor parties. In fact many of these independents have fairly left or liberal perspectives but they are framed very differently from how these issues are presented by Labor or the Greens. Environmental issues are not the global and abstract issue of climate change, but local issues presented by drought and irrigation. Your description of renewable schemes again misses the mark: rural areas often have relatively popular and successful solar and wind farms, but they are seen more as an economic venture than an "environmental program" (the problem with subsidies there more falls on individuals with no means to launch renewable projects of their own, which is a problem of its own).

The key issue in Queensland is the aforementioned peripheral areas. Many of the actual farmers are skeptical or even hostile to the coal projects; it is the vast crowds of un(der)employed figures that are susceptible to the "we would be rich if those Green lawyers didn't care about rare butterfly habitats" arguments.

[LoneStarDem]

Congratulations to PM Morrison on his victory.

[Wisconsin+17]

renewable schemes again misses the mark: rural areas often have relatively popular and successful solar and wind farms, but they are seen more as an economic venture than an "environmental program" (the problem with subsidies there more falls on individuals with no means to launch renewable projects of their own, which is a problem of its own).

The problem with subsidies is how I stated. They are stealing dollars that these folks have to pay. You are right that rural folks are open to alternative means, but, as a supplement. That's what folks don't get.

No farmer is going to convert to 100 percent solar, but, given the right conditions it could lower their costs. Same with wind. The thing for them is that it would give them a bit of self-sufficiency.

Let the rural folks sell back to the grid, and you'll see a greater take up. But don't cut off their coal power that they need to run their baseline.

I myself have a ton of wood. The reason that wood is there is because there are days when it is absolutely critical if the lines come down. Same principle here.

[vileplume]

Disappointing but hardly surprising. The 1990s 3rd way style politics was the only way Left of center parties can win in the West, but the rise of the far left woke crowd in the past 20 years have prohibited that from happening.

Economic leftism and 'wokeness' are two different things though and whilst they can obviously exist in tandem they aren't related ideologies and you can easily believe in one without believing in the other.

Economic leftism (democratic socialism if you wish to call it that) can actually do very well at the ballot box due to how much inequality has increased over the past several decades, the transfer of power from labour to capital over the same period and how suspicious the public is as a whole of the financial and political 'elites'. What does indeed damage parties of the left though is the 'woke' culture war rhetoric e.g. 'that's cultural appropriation', 'you're a racist for being concerned about levels of immigration', 'the white working class should check their privilege' etc. which is extremely unpopular with the vast majority of the electorate outside of the vocal 'hipster' types in the big cities.

In the 2017 UK election for example Corbyn was able to confound expectations by keeping his campaign focused on austerity and economic issues whilst keeping away from the culture war stuff, though it is true the Tory's disastrous campaign was an important factor too. Corbyn not being a rabid Europhile helped Labour significantly too in preventing the Tories making huge progress in Leave areas (the most heavily pro-EU people in Labour tend to come from the more moderate wing). If Labour had instead been led by someone like Diane Abbott who would've almost certainly have got involved in the 'culture war' issues the Tories would have won easily and would have a decent sized majority.

Whilst it is not my political position the best way forward for the left would be to move left economically but towards the centre on the 'culture war' stuff. Third way Clinton/Blair style politics is a political loser especially when it's combined with 'woke' beliefs as it often seems to be these days.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

renewable schemes again misses the mark: rural areas often have relatively popular and successful solar and wind farms, but they are seen more as an economic venture than an "environmental program" (the problem with subsidies there more falls on individuals with no means to launch renewable projects of their own, which is a problem of its own).

The problem with subsidies is how I stated. They are stealing dollars that these folks have to pay. You are right that rural folks are open to alternative means, but, as a supplement. That's what folks don't get.

I don't want to get in to much of an ideological debate on this board, but it does seem a but rich pushing this point when by far the most wasteful and useless renewable subsides of all are the pushes for bioethanol that rural areas continuously advocate for. And I don't see the supposedly anti-subsidy Right complaining about the piles of dollars given to Adani and so on.

I mean renewables can, providing the government aren't dumbos, be a very good tool in rural areas. Rural areas are typically underserved and overcharged by the local monopolies in charge of power distribution, so it could be quite a good source of liberation, especially if solar is combined with energy storage, to be self-sufficient. Farms aren't the issue here, it's low income individuals who might not own their house or be in a position to get solar or storage who end up subsidising their richer neighbours with solar panels. A big issue, yes, but totally different cleavage than the Rural Vs Urban dynamic.

[CumbrianLefty]

Third way Clinton/Blair style politics is a political loser especially when it's combined with 'woke' beliefs as it often seems to be these days.

This, it really can't be emphasised too much how electorally toxic "woke centrism" is these days. The problem is that almost the *only* people who still adore it are to be found in our media class.

(and this applies not just to my country, but most of "the West")

[Matty]

Nate Siliver is poo-poohing the "polling miss" here. Claiming the polls started to tighten towards the end.

Hey Nate, that only makes sense if the election ended close. It did not. This was a massive polling miss. Period

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The critique that Shorten erred by falling into a soft left policy-wonk comfort zone is legitimate; the backlash in the outer suburbs was pretty clearly linked to this. Combine this with the foolish attempt to use culture war rhetoric to expand the electoral map (which, just as the last time Labor tried this,* actually contracted the map) and we have a pretty clear explanation for what just happened.

Suggesting that the answer to the above is 'move towards Third Way politics' is strange though. Firstly, what does Third Way even mean in an Australian context? The ALP has an unusual history and made its move towards using market mechanisms to achieve socialist aims much earlier than the norm. So, does it mean move back towards Hawke-Keating era policies? Except this makes no sense, as that's more or less exactly what Shorten just ran on (and the result certainly had a few echoes to the eventual electoral end of the Hawke-Keating era as well). Of course it's possible that this is not recognised as 'Third Way' now even if it was one of the main inspirations for such politics. So, does 'Third Way' in this context mean just notching a few points further to the right on economic and social policy while retaining the culture war positioning? How, exactly, is that going to help win over outer suburban and regional swing voters? I don't see it. Probably the backlash in the outer suburbs wouldn't have been so bad, but the required positive swing? Where would that have come from?

_{*Which raises an interesting question: will Shorten, too, end up as a senior member of a far right party in fifteen years?}

[Progressive Pessimist]

MY HOT TAKE: Polling is never going to be trustworthy again. There are too many "culturally conservative " voters who are ashamed enough of being politically motivated by their desire to brutalize immigrants and the poor to lie about it to pollsters, but not ashamed enough to meaningfully self-reflect about it.

It sure seems that way in many elections around the world. "Undecideds" seem to favor the right wing party (or parties) and in an election where the polling is very close seems to suggest that the right will succeed in the election. People scoff at the "add x points to Trump's total to make it accurate" thinking, but it is probably a more realistic way of looking at polls. Though if we're talking about the general election in the United States next year, I could imagine that people won't be so skittish about declaring their support for the President this time around.

[Zaybay]

MY HOT TAKE: Polling is never going to be trustworthy again. There are too many "culturally conservative " voters who are ashamed enough of being politically motivated by their desire to brutalize immigrants and the poor to lie about it to pollsters, but not ashamed enough to meaningfully self-reflect about it.

It sure seems that way in many elections around the world. "Undecideds" seem to favor the right wing party (or parties) and in an election where the polling is very close seems to suggest that the right will succeed in the election. People scoff at the "add x points to Trump's total to make it accurate" thinking, but it is probably a more realistic way of looking at polls. Though if we're talking about the general election in the United States next year, I could imagine that people won't be so skittish about declaring their support for the President this time around.

Id be careful of cherrypicking instances like this to draw a broader conclusion. The polls in Spain and Finland didnt have a Left Party Bias. It just looks like the polls that had the race at 51-49 ALP turned out to be 51-49 Coalition, which is completely within the margin of error. Lets not rush to conclusions on how polling is now dead or something like that.

[Progressive Pessimist]

MY HOT TAKE: Polling is never going to be trustworthy again. There are too many "culturally conservative " voters who are ashamed enough of being politically motivated by their desire to brutalize immigrants and the poor to lie about it to pollsters, but not ashamed enough to meaningfully self-reflect about it.

It sure seems that way in many elections around the world. "Undecideds" seem to favor the right wing party (or parties) and in an election where the polling is very close seems to suggest that the right will succeed in the election. People scoff at the "add x points to Trump's total to make it accurate" thinking, but it is probably a more realistic way of looking at polls. Though if we're talking about the general election in the United States next year, I could imagine that people won't be so skittish about declaring their support for the President this time around.

Id be careful of cherrypicking instances like this to draw a broader conclusion. The polls in Spain and Finland didnt have a Left Party Bias. It just looks like the polls that had the race at 51-49 ALP turned out to be 51-49 Coalition, which is completely within the margin of error. Lets not rush to conclusions on how polling is now dead or something like that.

Well, I never said it was dead, just that close polls seem to have recently favored the right, in my view.

[rob in cal]

  When the Australia election commission has the in depth preference transfer results I'll be intrested to see whether voters for One Nation and United Australia went Liberal at a higher rate than expected. Also I wonder if the United Australia campaign against Labor helped more than expected.

[Reaganfan]

MY HOT TAKE: Polling is never going to be trustworthy again. There are too many "culturally conservative " voters who are ashamed enough of being politically motivated by their desire to brutalize immigrants and the poor to lie about it to pollsters, but not ashamed enough to meaningfully self-reflect about it.

It sure seems that way in many elections around the world. "Undecideds" seem to favor the right wing party (or parties) and in an election where the polling is very close seems to suggest that the right will succeed in the election. People scoff at the "add x points to Trump's total to make it accurate" thinking, but it is probably a more realistic way of looking at polls. Though if we're talking about the general election in the United States next year, I could imagine that people won't be so skittish about declaring their support for the President this time around.

Good point.

Many polls in the 2018 Ohio Gubernatorial election showed Cordray not only winning, but Dewine receiving 41-46%. He ended up getting 50% on election night. Every time I see polls with any conservative, not just Trump, at 37% or 43%, I just ignore it.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

why are so many Americans unable to think about another country's politics outside the prism of their own country?

[Wisconsin+17]

by far the most wasteful and useless renewable subsides of all are the pushes for bioethanol that rural areas continuously advocate for. And I don't see the supposedly anti-subsidy Right complaining about the piles of dollars given to Adani and so on.

Again, you seem surprised when rural voters vote for policies that are a net positive for drawing dollars into their communities... This isn't hard to figure out. Rural areas voted for bioethanol because unlike all the other renewables it actually pays them more than they pay in. Like, apparently rural voters aren't rational.

I mean renewables can, providing the government aren't dumbos, be a very good tool in rural areas. Rural areas are typically underserved and overcharged by the local monopolies in charge of power distribution, so it could be quite a good source of liberation, especially if solar is combined with energy storage, to be self-sufficient.

Actual policy initiatives simply change the pricing schemes so that they still end up paying anyways. It's not hard to see why rural folks aren't willing to take these things up when the people who did take them up haven't seen the expected returns, and have seen themselves punished for actually being successful in selling power to the grid. Why bother?

Farms aren't the issue here, it's low income individuals who might not own their house or be in a position to get solar or storage who end up subsidising their richer neighbours with solar panels. A big issue, yes, but totally different cleavage than the Rural Vs Urban dynamic.

Yes, I agree it's a huge issue, but it's the Greens and Labor pushing for a solar panel in every home. Much like a chicken in every pot.

[thumb21]

MY HOT TAKE: Polling is never going to be trustworthy again. There are too many "culturally conservative " voters who are ashamed enough of being politically motivated by their desire to brutalize immigrants and the poor to lie about it to pollsters, but not ashamed enough to meaningfully self-reflect about it.

It sure seems that way in many elections around the world. "Undecideds" seem to favor the right wing party (or parties) and in an election where the polling is very close seems to suggest that the right will succeed in the election. People scoff at the "add x points to Trump's total to make it accurate" thinking, but it is probably a more realistic way of looking at polls. Though if we're talking about the general election in the United States next year, I could imagine that people won't be so skittish about declaring their support for the President this time around.

Id be careful of cherrypicking instances like this to draw a broader conclusion. The polls in Spain and Finland didnt have a Left Party Bias. It just looks like the polls that had the race at 51-49 ALP turned out to be 51-49 Coalition, which is completely within the margin of error. Lets not rush to conclusions on how polling is now dead or something like that.

This!

The problem people seem to make is to look at who is ahead in polling rather than what the actual numbers say. If your reading of the polls is "Labour leads every poll since 2017," then the polls seemed to be very wrong. If your reading is "Labour is ahead 51-49, and the polls are clearly trending against them," then you realize there was a strong probability of a Coalition victory.

[Annatar]

The error in the primary vote was unacceptably large in my view, the polls had the Coalition up 2% in the primary vote on average, 38-36, they won it 41-34, by 7%, that's a 5% miss in the primary differential.

[Grand Wizard Lizard of the Klan]

Rest in Peace Great Barrier Reef

[Agonized-Statism]

For fun, who do you think are the candidates' American equivalents? I always thought Turnbull was like Kaisich, but I have no idea for Morrison. For Shorten...maybe Tim Ryan? Or is he bigger on social liberalism than that?

[adma]

MY HOT TAKE: Polling is never going to be trustworthy again. There are too many "culturally conservative " voters who are ashamed enough of being politically motivated by their desire to brutalize immigrants and the poor to lie about it to pollsters, but not ashamed enough to meaningfully self-reflect about it.

It sure seems that way in many elections around the world. "Undecideds" seem to favor the right wing party (or parties) and in an election where the polling is very close seems to suggest that the right will succeed in the election. People scoff at the "add x points to Trump's total to make it accurate" thinking, but it is probably a more realistic way of looking at polls. Though if we're talking about the general election in the United States next year, I could imagine that people won't be so skittish about declaring their support for the President this time around.

Id be careful of cherrypicking instances like this to draw a broader conclusion. The polls in Spain and Finland didnt have a Left Party Bias. It just looks like the polls that had the race at 51-49 ALP turned out to be 51-49 Coalition, which is completely within the margin of error. Lets not rush to conclusions on how polling is now dead or something like that.

This!

The problem people seem to make is to look at who is ahead in polling rather than what the actual numbers say. If your reading of the polls is "Labour leads every poll since 2017," then the polls seemed to be very wrong. If your reading is "Labour is ahead 51-49, and the polls are clearly trending against them," then you realize there was a strong probability of a Coalition victory.

And re "add x points to Trump's total": remember that in raw votes, Clinton won 48-46, so the final polls weren't terribly off-base there--or if anything, they overestimated the minor party totals (Ltn/Grn/McMullin)

[Vosem]

MY HOT TAKE: Polling is never going to be trustworthy again. There are too many "culturally conservative " voters who are ashamed enough of being politically motivated by their desire to brutalize immigrants and the poor to lie about it to pollsters, but not ashamed enough to meaningfully self-reflect about it.

It sure seems that way in many elections around the world. "Undecideds" seem to favor the right wing party (or parties) and in an election where the polling is very close seems to suggest that the right will succeed in the election. People scoff at the "add x points to Trump's total to make it accurate" thinking, but it is probably a more realistic way of looking at polls. Though if we're talking about the general election in the United States next year, I could imagine that people won't be so skittish about declaring their support for the President this time around.

Good point.

Many polls in the 2018 Ohio Gubernatorial election showed Cordray not only winning, but Dewine receiving 41-46%. He ended up getting 50% on election night. Every time I see polls with any conservative, not just Trump, at 37% or 43%, I just ignore it.

I mean, one of the central facts of the 2018 Ohio race was that there were high undecideds through to the very end, since DeWine and Cordray both ran as Generic Ohio R and Generic Ohio D respectively but Ohio has a state establishment that's unusually cool to Trump by Midwestern standards and a higher-than-normal number of Obama/Trump voters who were unsure which of the two they preferred. Cordray did indeed lead in the final polls, but the average of the last six polls (conducted in the final week) had him up 46-44, with most of the undecideds vaguely culturally conservative. Pundits mostly thought the race would break for DeWine, which it did. (50-47).

Kind of interesting to compare, since in principle polls were much further off on the final margin than they were in Australia, but expectations and narratives were managed in such a way that the final outcome surprised very few.

~~

Returning to the actual topic of this thread, one aspect of this election that seems understated is the very poor campaigning by various third options. One Nation lost seats in the Senate compared to 2016, and minor other right-wing parties were virtually annihilated (though Lambie will return to the Senate). Independents lost seats in the House, and the Greens mostly slid in their target seats (though a favorable Senate map seems to have helped them).

This contrasts with the actual fact that support for both of the main parties...slid. Is this an election which strengthened Australia's duopoly, or just one in which lucky targeting caused what looks like a respite from the general rise in support for minor parties?

[Annatar]

MY HOT TAKE: Polling is never going to be trustworthy again. There are too many "culturally conservative " voters who are ashamed enough of being politically motivated by their desire to brutalize immigrants and the poor to lie about it to pollsters, but not ashamed enough to meaningfully self-reflect about it.

It sure seems that way in many elections around the world. "Undecideds" seem to favor the right wing party (or parties) and in an election where the polling is very close seems to suggest that the right will succeed in the election. People scoff at the "add x points to Trump's total to make it accurate" thinking, but it is probably a more realistic way of looking at polls. Though if we're talking about the general election in the United States next year, I could imagine that people won't be so skittish about declaring their support for the President this time around.

Good point.

Many polls in the 2018 Ohio Gubernatorial election showed Cordray not only winning, but Dewine receiving 41-46%. He ended up getting 50% on election night. Every time I see polls with any conservative, not just Trump, at 37% or 43%, I just ignore it.

I mean, one of the central facts of the 2018 Ohio race was that there were high undecideds through to the very end, since DeWine and Cordray both ran as Generic Ohio R and Generic Ohio D respectively but Ohio has a state establishment that's unusually cool to Trump by Midwestern standards and a higher-than-normal number of Obama/Trump voters who were unsure which of the two they preferred. Cordray did indeed lead in the final polls, but the average of the last six polls (conducted in the final week) had him up 46-44, with most of the undecideds vaguely culturally conservative. Pundits mostly thought the race would break for DeWine, which it did. (50-47).

Kind of interesting to compare, since in principle polls were much further off on the final margin than they were in Australia, but expectations and narratives were managed in such a way that the final outcome surprised very few.

~~

Returning to the actual topic of this thread, one aspect of this election that seems understated is the very poor campaigning by various third options. One Nation lost seats in the Senate compared to 2016, and minor other right-wing parties were virtually annihilated (though Lambie will return to the Senate). Independents lost seats in the House, and the Greens mostly slid in their target seats (though a favorable Senate map seems to have helped them).

This contrasts with the actual fact that support for both of the main parties...slid. Is this an election which strengthened Australia's duopoly, or just one in which lucky targeting caused what looks like a respite from the general rise in support for minor parties?

I think given the preferential voting system Australia uses, breaking the 2 party hold on power is virtually impossible. Minor parties don't run candidates in most seats because of it and this has a flow on effect in the Senate, you need candidates in each division to maximise your senate vote as well so people actually know about your party.

[GM Team Member and Deputy PPT WB]

I've done it again, full proportional. As always, + and - is compared to real results.

COALITION: 63 (-15)
Liberal: 42 seats (-3)
Liberal National: 13 seats (-10)
National: 7 seats (-3)
Country Liberal: 1 seat (+1)

Labor: 51 seats (-16)
Greens: 15 seats (+14)
Independents (assuming they're counted as one party): 5 seats (+2)
United Australia: 5 seats (+5)
PHON: 5 seats (+5)
Animal Justice: 1 seat (+1)
Christian Dem: 1 seat (+1)
Conservative Nationals: 1 seat (+1)
Katter's Australian: 1 seat (+/- 0)
Centre Alliance: 1 seat (+/- 0)
Shooters Fishers and Farmers: 1 seat (+1)
Sustainable Australia: 1 seat (+1)

Sustainable Australia barely gets in, only 200 or so votes ahead of the Liberal Democrats.

Considering the LNP agreements with the UAP and PHON, I could see them joining on, with a rightwing government then needing support from 3 other members, likely a combo of the SFF, KAP, and independents. I see no path for a Labor-led government.

[BigSkyBob]

On the great "the polls were wrong"/"The polls were within the margin of error" debate I would add something no one has yet to mention. It is not merely that the polls were wrong, but, the analysis of the polls were wrong right up until the election.

The polls continued to tighten right up to election day. Instead of the pundits noting the election is now close, they kept rehashing the same talking point that labor was ahead in every poll for almost all of the three years. They seemed to give more credence to the weight of all the polls, rather than the state the polls, today. Nor, did they seem to give the notion of poll momentum any consideration, when, sometimes, the factors that are moving voters in the recent past are still in effect and still moving additional voters.

[Hydera]

Labor losing its Base:


TPP swing in the Sydney area (blue towards the Coalition, red to labor):


compared to the SSM survey:

Its nice to know this realignment if happening across the world /s

The analysis this came from shows that this realignment is occuring across the board. With wealthier suburbs swinging to Labor and poorer/working class areas swinging to the Coalition.
 If this keeps going on then we'll become like Israel who was a trend starter since the 1980s with the middle class ashkenazi voting for left leaning parties and working class aka: mizrahi voting for the right due to nationalism/identity being more important than economic policy.