| Election in Oz 09:23 - May 18 with 3758 views | isawqpratwcity |
The polls have just closed in the eastern states, two hours to go in Western Australia.
Also noted for the death on Thursday of the sublime Australian Prime Minister, Bob Hawke. |  |
| |  |
| Election in Oz on 10:55 - May 18 with 2655 views | ahoz |
Sublime? Don't be ridiculous |  | | |
| Election in Oz on 10:59 - May 18 with 2646 views | Mytch_QPR |
Didn't realise until now that it is compulsory to vote in Australia - so much for democracy! (or is that me being hypocritical?)
I guess that if you don't like any of the candidates you spoil your ballot paper. |  |
| |
| Election in Oz on 11:13 - May 18 with 2627 views | isawqpratwcity |
| Election in Oz on 10:55 - May 18 by ahoz |
Sublime? Don't be ridiculous |
Please explain!
Let's swap evaluations. | |
| |
| Election in Oz on 11:24 - May 18 with 2615 views | runningman75 |
| Election in Oz on 10:55 - May 18 by ahoz |
Sublime? Don't be ridiculous |
A humanitarian leader who wanted to decrease inequality in health care. The world could do with a few of them now. | | | |
| Election in Oz on 12:05 - May 18 with 2565 views | thompsonridd |
Are they coming out of Europe too | | | |
| Election in Oz on 13:38 - May 18 with 2500 views | isawqpratwcity |
| Election in Oz on 12:05 - May 18 by thompsonridd |
Are they coming out of Europe too |
Nah, see Eurovision Song Contest.
Can we hold a seat for you? | |
| |
| Election in Oz on 13:43 - May 18 with 2486 views | Boston |
Could a Bob Hawke get elected in today’s Australia? | |
| |
| Election in Oz on 14:46 - May 18 with 2428 views | ahoz |
Liberal victory. A victory for common sense and a defeat for globalism.
As for the Hawke sublime comment, no politician could ever be considered that. No issue with Hawke. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Election in Oz on 15:56 - May 18 with 2354 views | Boston |
| Election in Oz on 14:46 - May 18 by ahoz |
Liberal victory. A victory for common sense and a defeat for globalism.
As for the Hawke sublime comment, no politician could ever be considered that. No issue with Hawke. |
What, Australians aren’t commodities yet! | |
| |
| Election in Oz on 16:15 - May 18 with 2330 views | PlanetHonneywood |
| Election in Oz on 14:46 - May 18 by ahoz |
Liberal victory. A victory for common sense and a defeat for globalism.
As for the Hawke sublime comment, no politician could ever be considered that. No issue with Hawke. |
Can’t believe we’re this far into a discussion about Bob Hawke, and no one has mentioned him looking over the aisle, and seeing Michael Hutchence giving Kylie a rogering on a flight!! |  |
| |
| Election in Oz on 17:05 - May 18 with 2274 views | Boston |
| Election in Oz on 16:15 - May 18 by PlanetHonneywood |
Can’t believe we’re this far into a discussion about Bob Hawke, and no one has mentioned him looking over the aisle, and seeing Michael Hutchence giving Kylie a rogering on a flight!! |
Was he next in line? | |
| |
| Election in Oz on 18:49 - May 18 with 2204 views | kensalriser |
| Election in Oz on 17:05 - May 18 by Boston |
Was he next in line? |
sadly Michael was too shagged out to carry on. |  |
| |
| Election in Oz on 21:34 - May 18 with 2103 views | Pommyhoop |
| Election in Oz on 17:05 - May 18 by Boston |
Was he next in line? |
He would be so Lucky
Lucky
Lucky
Lucky |  |
| |
| Election in Oz on 16:28 - May 19 with 1927 views | Northernr |
As I understand it this is another big election where the opinion polls said one thing would definitely happen all the way through and it turned out to be the opposite - same with Brexit (this is not a Brexit thread), Trump, Corbyn etc.
It seems to me, with no insight whatsoever, that current methods of polling just aren't fit for the time we're living in, where traditional media and newspaper influence is being replaced by social media.
I find it bizarre personally that despite Brexit, Trump and everything else that's happened, the newspapers that would like to think of themselves as intelligent still regularly splash their front page with an opinion poll. Telegraph, Sunday Times and Observer do it just about every week. There are polls on the front page of two papers today I think (quick look as I walked past the petrol station) and when you read down the story it turns out it's based on a survey of 869 people in a country of 60 million.
- Now, first of all, surely pure mathematics tells you that's no kind of cross section. Poll 40,000, 50,000 people and I might start listening. Telegraph led the other week with a poll of 40 Tory members.
- Secondly, although I'm sure they do take steps to ensure it's a cross section asked, by and large aren't these the 'sort of people of take part in polls'? I've never been asked, and I'm reasonably engaged, but then I've never signed up to be asked.
- Thirdly, even if it is a perfect cross section, that's not how modern elections are fought now is it? It's all targeted ads, analytics and data. That Cambridge Analytica guy that Channel 4 got on camera said Trump won because they swung 40,000 votes in three key states, in a country of 327m people. No point asking a cross section and making sure you've got equal numbers of men and women, rich and poor, old and young, black and white, two conservatives, three mavericks and a racist in that circumstance is there?
- And fourthly, now more than ever that idea that people never tell the truth to opinion polls seems very relevant, because politics is very polarised at the moment. I know a couple of people who voted Brexit, but should the conversation ever come up in a pub or whatever they don't admit it, perhaps because they regret it, but also because they know that in London admitting in a group of people you voted Brexit is like saying you've got syphilis. Same reason the Tories always do poorly in polls, nobody wants to admit they vote Tory. Same with Trump. Same with Australia maybe - somebody asks you, amidst the hottest Australian summer on record, whether you're voting for the party that wants to do something about climate change or the one that denies it's even a thing you say the former, but it's a different matter when you're in the privacy of the voting booth and you're thinking selfishly about your income tax and so on.
We seem to be polling like it's 1992, and frequently coming up with answers that are not only wrong, but completely wrong, like literally the dead opposite. And yet there's still so much weight and news coverage given to the results of them.
Yours, confused of N20.
This post has been edited by an administrator |  | | |
| Election in Oz on 17:31 - May 19 with 1869 views | Boston |
| Election in Oz on 16:28 - May 19 by Northernr |
As I understand it this is another big election where the opinion polls said one thing would definitely happen all the way through and it turned out to be the opposite - same with Brexit (this is not a Brexit thread), Trump, Corbyn etc.
It seems to me, with no insight whatsoever, that current methods of polling just aren't fit for the time we're living in, where traditional media and newspaper influence is being replaced by social media.
I find it bizarre personally that despite Brexit, Trump and everything else that's happened, the newspapers that would like to think of themselves as intelligent still regularly splash their front page with an opinion poll. Telegraph, Sunday Times and Observer do it just about every week. There are polls on the front page of two papers today I think (quick look as I walked past the petrol station) and when you read down the story it turns out it's based on a survey of 869 people in a country of 60 million.
- Now, first of all, surely pure mathematics tells you that's no kind of cross section. Poll 40,000, 50,000 people and I might start listening. Telegraph led the other week with a poll of 40 Tory members.
- Secondly, although I'm sure they do take steps to ensure it's a cross section asked, by and large aren't these the 'sort of people of take part in polls'? I've never been asked, and I'm reasonably engaged, but then I've never signed up to be asked.
- Thirdly, even if it is a perfect cross section, that's not how modern elections are fought now is it? It's all targeted ads, analytics and data. That Cambridge Analytica guy that Channel 4 got on camera said Trump won because they swung 40,000 votes in three key states, in a country of 327m people. No point asking a cross section and making sure you've got equal numbers of men and women, rich and poor, old and young, black and white, two conservatives, three mavericks and a racist in that circumstance is there?
- And fourthly, now more than ever that idea that people never tell the truth to opinion polls seems very relevant, because politics is very polarised at the moment. I know a couple of people who voted Brexit, but should the conversation ever come up in a pub or whatever they don't admit it, perhaps because they regret it, but also because they know that in London admitting in a group of people you voted Brexit is like saying you've got syphilis. Same reason the Tories always do poorly in polls, nobody wants to admit they vote Tory. Same with Trump. Same with Australia maybe - somebody asks you, amidst the hottest Australian summer on record, whether you're voting for the party that wants to do something about climate change or the one that denies it's even a thing you say the former, but it's a different matter when you're in the privacy of the voting booth and you're thinking selfishly about your income tax and so on.
We seem to be polling like it's 1992, and frequently coming up with answers that are not only wrong, but completely wrong, like literally the dead opposite. And yet there's still so much weight and news coverage given to the results of them.
Yours, confused of N20.
This post has been edited by an administrator |
People don't admit things because of the level of intimidation, potential for confrontation that can come with a wrong answer. | |
| |
| Election in Oz on 23:28 - May 19 with 1769 views | CliveWilsonSaid |
| Election in Oz on 16:28 - May 19 by Northernr |
As I understand it this is another big election where the opinion polls said one thing would definitely happen all the way through and it turned out to be the opposite - same with Brexit (this is not a Brexit thread), Trump, Corbyn etc.
It seems to me, with no insight whatsoever, that current methods of polling just aren't fit for the time we're living in, where traditional media and newspaper influence is being replaced by social media.
I find it bizarre personally that despite Brexit, Trump and everything else that's happened, the newspapers that would like to think of themselves as intelligent still regularly splash their front page with an opinion poll. Telegraph, Sunday Times and Observer do it just about every week. There are polls on the front page of two papers today I think (quick look as I walked past the petrol station) and when you read down the story it turns out it's based on a survey of 869 people in a country of 60 million.
- Now, first of all, surely pure mathematics tells you that's no kind of cross section. Poll 40,000, 50,000 people and I might start listening. Telegraph led the other week with a poll of 40 Tory members.
- Secondly, although I'm sure they do take steps to ensure it's a cross section asked, by and large aren't these the 'sort of people of take part in polls'? I've never been asked, and I'm reasonably engaged, but then I've never signed up to be asked.
- Thirdly, even if it is a perfect cross section, that's not how modern elections are fought now is it? It's all targeted ads, analytics and data. That Cambridge Analytica guy that Channel 4 got on camera said Trump won because they swung 40,000 votes in three key states, in a country of 327m people. No point asking a cross section and making sure you've got equal numbers of men and women, rich and poor, old and young, black and white, two conservatives, three mavericks and a racist in that circumstance is there?
- And fourthly, now more than ever that idea that people never tell the truth to opinion polls seems very relevant, because politics is very polarised at the moment. I know a couple of people who voted Brexit, but should the conversation ever come up in a pub or whatever they don't admit it, perhaps because they regret it, but also because they know that in London admitting in a group of people you voted Brexit is like saying you've got syphilis. Same reason the Tories always do poorly in polls, nobody wants to admit they vote Tory. Same with Trump. Same with Australia maybe - somebody asks you, amidst the hottest Australian summer on record, whether you're voting for the party that wants to do something about climate change or the one that denies it's even a thing you say the former, but it's a different matter when you're in the privacy of the voting booth and you're thinking selfishly about your income tax and so on.
We seem to be polling like it's 1992, and frequently coming up with answers that are not only wrong, but completely wrong, like literally the dead opposite. And yet there's still so much weight and news coverage given to the results of them.
Yours, confused of N20.
This post has been edited by an administrator |
It makes you wonder about whether polls have ever actually been accurate. Or whether they were just a means to an end. |  |
| |
| Election in Oz on 00:24 - May 20 with 1737 views | ozexile |
The electorate here are scarred from Kevin Rudd's labour prime ministership.
No matter what they promised if elected, the country simply don't think they can deliver it. | | | |
| Election in Oz on 03:35 - May 20 with 1686 views | Loftgirl |
| Election in Oz on 00:24 - May 20 by ozexile |
The electorate here are scarred from Kevin Rudd's labour prime ministership.
No matter what they promised if elected, the country simply don't think they can deliver it. |
We are still recovering from that witch Julia Gillard as well. |  | | |
| Election in Oz on 04:17 - May 20 with 1674 views | SydneyRs |
| Election in Oz on 16:28 - May 19 by Northernr |
As I understand it this is another big election where the opinion polls said one thing would definitely happen all the way through and it turned out to be the opposite - same with Brexit (this is not a Brexit thread), Trump, Corbyn etc.
It seems to me, with no insight whatsoever, that current methods of polling just aren't fit for the time we're living in, where traditional media and newspaper influence is being replaced by social media.
I find it bizarre personally that despite Brexit, Trump and everything else that's happened, the newspapers that would like to think of themselves as intelligent still regularly splash their front page with an opinion poll. Telegraph, Sunday Times and Observer do it just about every week. There are polls on the front page of two papers today I think (quick look as I walked past the petrol station) and when you read down the story it turns out it's based on a survey of 869 people in a country of 60 million.
- Now, first of all, surely pure mathematics tells you that's no kind of cross section. Poll 40,000, 50,000 people and I might start listening. Telegraph led the other week with a poll of 40 Tory members.
- Secondly, although I'm sure they do take steps to ensure it's a cross section asked, by and large aren't these the 'sort of people of take part in polls'? I've never been asked, and I'm reasonably engaged, but then I've never signed up to be asked.
- Thirdly, even if it is a perfect cross section, that's not how modern elections are fought now is it? It's all targeted ads, analytics and data. That Cambridge Analytica guy that Channel 4 got on camera said Trump won because they swung 40,000 votes in three key states, in a country of 327m people. No point asking a cross section and making sure you've got equal numbers of men and women, rich and poor, old and young, black and white, two conservatives, three mavericks and a racist in that circumstance is there?
- And fourthly, now more than ever that idea that people never tell the truth to opinion polls seems very relevant, because politics is very polarised at the moment. I know a couple of people who voted Brexit, but should the conversation ever come up in a pub or whatever they don't admit it, perhaps because they regret it, but also because they know that in London admitting in a group of people you voted Brexit is like saying you've got syphilis. Same reason the Tories always do poorly in polls, nobody wants to admit they vote Tory. Same with Trump. Same with Australia maybe - somebody asks you, amidst the hottest Australian summer on record, whether you're voting for the party that wants to do something about climate change or the one that denies it's even a thing you say the former, but it's a different matter when you're in the privacy of the voting booth and you're thinking selfishly about your income tax and so on.
We seem to be polling like it's 1992, and frequently coming up with answers that are not only wrong, but completely wrong, like literally the dead opposite. And yet there's still so much weight and news coverage given to the results of them.
Yours, confused of N20.
This post has been edited by an administrator |
Your line about thinking selfishly about income tax etc hits the nail on the head. Basically that's where it was decided.
Australia likes to make itself out to be a nation full of kind hearted, generous types who care for the welfare of others. This election has shown this is no longer the case, if indeed it ever was. Its a very selfish nation now. To a degree the high cost of living, especially housing, causes this attitude.
The winning Liberal party campaigned almost exclusively with negativity about the other side and how they will take away your hard earned and ruin "the economy", not that its in a very good place anyway. Labor campaigned around sharing wealth more, reducing certain tax breaks that mainly benefit the well off, action on climate change etc. The people made their choice and it was a selfish one on the whole. We think our taxes might be a bit higher under Labor so we'll keep the current lot in.
Of course people are free to vote how they want, but lets tone down the media nonsense about how generous and warm hearted we are compared to other countries shall we? I've been here almost 20 years and the shift in that time towards only caring about yourself and your hip pocket has been obvious.
As for the polls, yes completely wrong again. There's definitely something wrong in the way they are sampling people. I don't just think its people not admitting who they vote for. A pollster is never going to shout at you about why you don't vote the other way like some people on social media might, so why would you want to lie? And, if you are so ashamed about who you vote that you won't admit it in a poll where you remain anonymous, then perhaps reconsider your choice? Brexit and Trump are different more extreme matters, but the differences between the main parties here are not anything I would expect voters to be ashamed of.
You could get 7.5/1 n Saturday afternoon while voting was still open for a Liberal win and only about 1.15/1 on Labor so even the bookies were miles off. One had already paid out on a Labor win.
And before anyone points it out, they do spell it Labor here. Annoying, but I have learned to live with it. [Post edited 20 May 2019 4:20]
| | | |
| Election in Oz on 07:57 - May 20 with 1615 views | distortR |
| Election in Oz on 00:24 - May 20 by ozexile |
The electorate here are scarred from Kevin Rudd's labour prime ministership.
No matter what they promised if elected, the country simply don't think they can deliver it. |
was it Rudd's leadership, or the way he was removed by his own party, while in office, and replaced by an unelected labour politician at the behest of the mining industry and it's lobbyists? | | | |
| Election in Oz on 09:02 - May 20 with 1583 views | robith |
| Election in Oz on 17:31 - May 19 by Boston |
People don't admit things because of the level of intimidation, potential for confrontation that can come with a wrong answer. |
What intimidation comes from doing an online poll????????????? |  | | |
| Election in Oz on 09:07 - May 20 with 1577 views | ozexile |
| Election in Oz on 07:57 - May 20 by distortR |
was it Rudd's leadership, or the way he was removed by his own party, while in office, and replaced by an unelected labour politician at the behest of the mining industry and it's lobbyists? |
And then reinstalled just before the election. | | | |
| Election in Oz on 09:16 - May 20 with 1576 views | robith |
@Northern (cos I don't want to quote the whole thing
You can do a nationally representative poll with 1,000, ideally 2,000 with a margin of error o 3-5% (you can do 500, but the margin of error because too large for me).
The issues are threefold for me
- Profiling of base - for e.g YouGov constantly hilariously underestimates Labour support , likewise Opinium seems to overstate it.
- How the press then report polls. YG currently have Labour at 15% in the EU elections when the average of all other polls have them at 25%. But then what is the poll that's on the front pages?
- No one seems to think about how the polls relate to the electoral map. In 2015 the polls on the day had Tories 34%, Labour 33%. Tories got 36, Labour 29%. All inside margin of error.
But because it's amalgamated at a national level, it failed to notice that the Lib Dems haemorrhaged support to Conservatives specifically in the South and West and coughed up a load of seats that gave them an unexpected majority. It matters less what the numbers in the poll are, but where they are | | | |
| Election in Oz on 09:25 - May 20 with 1567 views | Northernr |
| Election in Oz on 09:16 - May 20 by robith |
@Northern (cos I don't want to quote the whole thing
You can do a nationally representative poll with 1,000, ideally 2,000 with a margin of error o 3-5% (you can do 500, but the margin of error because too large for me).
The issues are threefold for me
- Profiling of base - for e.g YouGov constantly hilariously underestimates Labour support , likewise Opinium seems to overstate it.
- How the press then report polls. YG currently have Labour at 15% in the EU elections when the average of all other polls have them at 25%. But then what is the poll that's on the front pages?
- No one seems to think about how the polls relate to the electoral map. In 2015 the polls on the day had Tories 34%, Labour 33%. Tories got 36, Labour 29%. All inside margin of error.
But because it's amalgamated at a national level, it failed to notice that the Lib Dems haemorrhaged support to Conservatives specifically in the South and West and coughed up a load of seats that gave them an unexpected majority. It matters less what the numbers in the poll are, but where they are |
Interesting, cheers. | | | |
| Election in Oz on 13:42 - May 20 with 1467 views | DavieQPR |
It's because newspapers, and TV, are so politically biased that people turn to Social Media to hear both sides of the coin. The Establishment is doing what it can to silence these sites. |  | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
