“How did we get it wrong?” asks Matthew Knott [in the SMH].
The post election dissection is a study in how a fishbowl of left-leaning journalists totally missed what was important to most of Australia. Maybe the ABC or Fairfax might want to employ a conservative? …
Matthew Knott captures just how wrong the commentariat were: “Leading commentators on Sky News predicted between 80 to 85 seats for the Coalition, with Peter van Onselen saying he would quit in the event of a hung parliament. Many of us even convinced ourselves that the low-energy, small-target campaign was a clever way of “boring” voters into backing the Coalition. [It certainly was boring says Jo] …
Meanwhile, all over the internet Delcons discussed what a million voters were going to do.
When the Defcons (defiant conservatives) went hunting for alternatives, they voted for small parties and if they preferenced Liberals at all, it went second or third last on the slip, making counting a nightmare, slow, and here we nearly a whole week later.
Pollsters didn’t ask the right questions. They were glued to the old “two party preferred” system, and didn’t ask if there was “no party preferred”, or better, if voters were so fed up with the majors they were ready to risk electoral hare-kari.
All they had to do was read the internet.