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?
