How the Coalition might still prevail, by David Flint.
I summarise the differences from the 2016 election and today’s as the result of the three TPD factors, the Thief, Palmer and DelCon factors.
As to the ‘T’ or Thief factor, this is the impact of Labor’s plans to confiscate franked dividend refunds of tax already paid, increase taxes including those on capital gains, change superannuation, limit negative gearing, and possibly introduce death duties. To the people affected we should add those angry about plans to force them to buy vehicles they know would not be suitable for their needs. This ill-considered proposal has particularly alienated traditional Labor voters, including tradies. In summary voters influenced by the T factor see Labor under Shorten as a thieving party of incompetent wastrels.
The P or Palmer Factor is essentially the impact of his advertising. First, he spells out the sort of policies a Liberal Party would be expected to adopt, at least by traditional Liberals. This would be similar to President Trump’s agenda. Second, while engaging in a massive advertising campaign on those policies, he has more recently chosen to expose Labor’s weaknesses as only Tony Abbott has done in recent years.
Finally there is the ‘D’ or DelCon factor. This, short for ‘Delusional Conservatives’, is a term invented, I believe, by Miranda Devine to denigrate those conservatives alienated by the Turnbull coup. … Now that Turnbull has gone, many have either come back or are at least prepared to preference the Coalition. This has been aided by Scott Morrison’s down-to-earth style of campaigning rather than his policies which, for many, are a paler version of Labor’s. This is especially so on energy, global warming, immigration and drought-proofing the nation.
UPDATE: We all expect Labor to win because the polls say so. But what if the pools have been gamed?
- Newspoll was purchased by YouGov a year or two ago, and YouGov are a much more lefty sort of organization.
- The last US Presidential election saw polls biased left deliberately, by oversampling of registered Democrats.
- If polls were artificially biased to Labor, the right resigns themselves to a Labor win and don’t try so hard. Which makes a Labor win more likely.
- The polls were biased left in the US in 2016, so when the right (Trump) won, the left did not accept the result. Bad things for democracy ensued.
Perhaps the result could be like the 1998 Australian Federal election, which Labor was widely expected to win, under Kim Beasley. Labor got 1.5% more of the vote than the Liberals under John Howard, but the right won more seats (perhaps by virtue of better targeting, perhaps just because left votes tend to pile up in inner city and immigrant areas).