Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Dec 12^th, 2010 at 2:15pm:







If you were a litle more educated in demographics, politics and life in general (plus a bit more versed in research skills) you would have realised the Newspolls on the eve of .....


Matched the outcomes of both the recent Federal and Victorian elections

Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Dec 12^th, 2010 at 3:08pm:



I don't understand that question?

You mean an opinion poll that has been wrong on the day?
Or ones that have been correct?

Opinion polls that were completely wrong (all of them) on the day of the election was in Britain.
Not sure of the year (1991, 1992?! - I was in final year of school) - but every poll had Labour to beat the Conservatives.

All polls, and TV stations who canvassed the voters.

At the end of the night John Major's Conservatives were returned with a maj of about 20 odd.

The answers (the pollsters were absolutely slaughtered in the next few weeks) was that people gave their answer before going in and did think they would vote Labour.

However on getting in there, certain concerns of Neil Kinnock's economic experience, the power of the Unions from 1979 still stuck in people's mind and also the fact Labour really struggled to answer if they would keep our nuclear deterrent -

It contributed to what they call the 23.59 thought forthe the day - and in the end far too many people backed what they knew, a Tory Government.

As for polls being right, many of them are right on the day.
Obama's win over McCain - though people didnt expect him to win North Carolina a southern conservative state.
There are loads of polls that have correctly predicted the winner.

Like I say though, to predict ON THE DAY OF THE ELECTION is hardly a major feat.

Akin to getting up in the morning, pulling the curtains and declaring what the weather will be today.

buzzanddidj wrote on Dec 12^th, 2010 at 3:31pm:



If you have the same scenario of people telling a pollster one thing and then at the last minute changing their mind, it doesn't matter a jot what your canvassing technique is, you'll still get the wrong answer.

1991 is not a long time ago and all of the modern methods of polling would have been in play then.

It can happen any time. You get people say one thing and then have a last minute "I'm not sure I trust him" moment and replicate that country wide and your polls are shot to shite.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Dec 12^th, 2010 at 3:38pm:







Here's a challenge ...

Find me an opinion poll taken in Australia on an election eve that has made a wrong call on an election held a day or two later
I don't mean an internet, Essential Research or newspaper poll
I mean a legitimate one, such as Newspoll or Galaxy Research

The Latham/Howard poll by Morggan is the closest you will find - but even THAT was declared "too close to call"
(though Latam's downward spiral should/could have been projected to a loss)

Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Dec 12^th, 2010 at 6:06pm:








CHRIST, you're a DILL

longweekend58 wrote on Dec 12^th, 2010 at 7:26pm:





I tought you'd be working on raising the IQ of the "political blond" you have partnered with up to YOURS ?

Instead, she seems to have dragged YOURS down to meet HERS

Baillieu struggles to find his feet
December 9, 2010


Ted Baillieu has been guilty in these first few days of using imprecise language and sending confusing signals.

Even before he was sworn in, Baillieu left open the possibility he might play that old trick of new premiers and prime ministers: dumping election promises on the grounds that the other mob left the budget in worse shape than they'd let on.

The Coalition would have to ''remain cautious about our funding commitments'' pending a comprehensive audit of the state's finances, taxes and debt management, Baillieu said.
But 24 hours later, after a collective ''here we go again'' sigh from the voters, the incoming Premier was able to say all was OK; he had had a preliminary briefing from public service chiefs and been assured there were no black holes in the budget.

Which raises a couple of questions: why did Baillieu publicly raise the prospect of having to ditch or delay some promises when he was only hours away from getting a crucial briefing that would put his mind at rest, and why will he nonetheless proceed with the audit of Victoria's finances (which presumably will be done by one of those expensive private consultants that Baillieu in opposition used to complain about)?

In the hours after he was sworn in, Baillieu started thinking aloud about the future of Victoria's hugely expensive desalination plant.

He had had some early ''global'' advice about it, and as a result ''we are looking at ways to minimise the ongoing cost for Victorians''. ''I hope we can find ways to reduce the ultimate cost of what is really now becoming a substantial burden on future generations,'' Baillieu said on Friday. ''It may be a question of containing the construction and containing the arrangements into the future … I think there is some room for modifications.''

This was news to a lot of people, not least the international consortium contracted by the state of Victoria to deliver the plant.

On Monday, Baillieu's Water Minister, Peter Walsh, was noticeably more cautious than his leader about the possibility of scaling back the plant. ''It's not something just to pass personal opinions on, it's about getting the facts and doing analysis of the detail,'' Walsh said. ''The Premier has made the comments he has; that's something we will talk about in the future.''

Then, on Tuesday, Baillieu got himself into a bit of a muddle about teachers' pay. As opposition leader, he had presented himself as a champion of Victoria's teachers; he wanted to ensure they were the best paid in the country.
But now he was Premier, he was refusing to repeat the phrase, instead saying his promise had been merely to ''pursue the best interests of teachers''.
Several hours after an awkward media conference, Baillieu's office issued a statement seeking to clarify the Premier's position. ''Our desire to return Victorian teachers to being the best paid in Australia has not changed,'' it said (emphasis added). Victoria's teachers will have to wait a while until they see the colour of Baillieu's money.

Perhaps none of this will matter in the long term. After all, the next state election is three years and 50 weeks away. But it's already pretty clear that Premier Baillieu will give the Labor opposition plenty to work with.

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/baillieu-struggles-to-find-his-feet-20101...