You manage to completely ignore the question of why the Libs replaced Abbott with Turnbull there, Trip.
It’s because Abbott was historically, epically unpopular. The Libs knew it, every single opinion poll had made it really clear for multiple years. He was in line for an epic electoral smashing. The Libs got a brief popularity bump when Turnbull took over and managed to squeak a marginal election victory in the honeymoon period, but then it all went down the tubes for them again once it became clear that Turnbull in office was going to be Abbott in a Turnbull mask and not the leather-jacketed Turnbull that he marketed himself as.
Turnbull has been Abbott. His climate policies are the same, his economic policies have been the same, he’s blocked gay marriage the same, he’s cut welfare the same, he’s locked refugees up in shithole overseas camps run by low-rent mercenaries the same. The only thing Abbott did that Turnbull didn’t do was knights and dames, and I suspect that’s probably not the #1 concern of Howard’s mythical ‘battlers’.
It’s delusional thinking like this that’ll put Dutton in the lodge via palace coup via the right-wing loonies in the Liberal party, and get the Libs pantsed at the next election, even though Shorten is the Hillary Clinton of the ALP and is slightly less interesting than porridge. And then half the plotters responsible will run off and join Bernardi or One Nation and claim that the loss was all the fault of drifting too far to the left, rather than entirely in their own lap.
You manage to completely ignore the question of why the Libs replaced Abbott with Turnbull there, Trip.
It’s because Abbott was historically, epically unpopular. The Libs knew it, every single opinion poll had made it really clear for multiple years. He was in line for an epic electoral smashing. The Libs got a brief popularity bump when Turnbull took over and managed to squeak a marginal election victory in the honeymoon period, but then it all went down the tubes for them again once it became clear that Turnbull in office was going to be Abbott in a Turnbull mask and not the leather-jacketed Turnbull that he marketed himself as.
Turnbull has been Abbott. His climate policies are the same, his economic policies have been the same, he’s blocked gay marriage the same, he’s cut welfare the same, he’s locked refugees up in shithole overseas camps run by low-rent mercenaries the same. The only thing Abbott did that Turnbull didn’t do was knights and dames, and I suspect that’s probably not the #1 concern of Howard’s mythical ‘battlers’.
It’s delusional thinking like this that’ll put Dutton in the lodge via palace coup via the right-wing loonies in the Liberal party, and get the Libs pantsed at the next election, even though Shorten is the Hillary Clinton of the ALP and is slightly less interesting than porridge. And then half the plotters responsible will run off and join Bernardi or One Nation and claim that the loss was all the fault of drifting too far to the left, rather than entirely in their own lap.
Again, I disagree.
The polls have been historically wrong for almost the past decade and they traditionally lean to the left. There’s a reason for this as:
a) they sample by person and not by electorate/state etc.
b) people are often too ‘scared’ to publicly go outside the media group think and leave their intentions to the sanctity of the ballot box.
For example.
ie Polls leant heavily to Clinton but Trump won.
Polls leant heavily to Remain but Leave won.
Abbott was never historically or epically unpopular. He smashed Rudd at one election and came within a whisker of winning another. On both occasions the pundits again got both margins wrong.
All anecdotal evidence indicates that Abbott still remains popular amongst the so called Howards battlers. He is welcomed warmly at most gatherings outside the inner-city.
Dutton is not a right wing loony either. Well he is if you think the centre is Penny Wong and Sarah Hanson Young is a moderate. But that is not most peoples starting point.
The middle is where the majority of people sit. Not where the kids and lecturers at Monash University sit.
Trip, PP2 has already called you out on the clear falsehoods about polling in general, but even the most trifling google tells you that in early 2015 Abbot’s personal popularity was 27% (vs Shorten at 44%) and the ALP led the Libs 57-43. Polling predictably gets it wrong to a margin of error of a couple of percent, but not by THAT much.
I had a bit of a laugh about your defence of Dutton though. Can you name someone that you DO think is a right wing looney? I’m a Greens voter and I’ll happily admit that Lee Rhiannon and the dogs breakfast of aging delusional commies and hippie vaccine deniers that sneak their way into the greens in NSW especially are loopy elements on my side of politics that we’d be better off without. Who (if anyone) in Australian politics is too extreme on the far right for you?
Abbott was never historically or epically unpopular.
Suggest you review the polls in 2015. In February 2015, Tony approval dropped to 24%. 2PP was Labor 57% - LNP 43%. EVen Bill shorten beat Tony Abbott in preferred PM.
This is the reason why Turnbull shafted Abbott; and if he was still PM by mid 2016 election then it would have been a blood bath. At the end of 2015 when Turnbull took over there was a complete turnaround, but hey wizz-kid don’t believe me search for yourself.
Polls had clinton winning the national vote by 3% and she won by 2%
Polls had brexit too close to call.
The polls were generally correct at least within the statistical margin of error. People’s interpretation of them might have been wrong.
Your narrative is based on falsehoods.
Both Brexit and Trump were $6 on the morning of their respective elections.
That equates to a 16% chance of winning.
The polls and the media/pundits were miles out on both occasions. Besides its easily proved. Try and name 10 mainstream pundits who got either result correct. You won’t be able to.
But you can believe what you want to believe I guess.
Trip, PP2 has already called you out on the clear falsehoods about polling in general, but even the most trifling google tells you that in early 2015 Abbot's personal popularity was 27% (vs Shorten at 44%) and the ALP led the Libs 57-43. Polling predictably gets it wrong to a margin of error of a couple of percent, but not by THAT much.
I had a bit of a laugh about your defence of Dutton though. Can you name someone that you DO think is a right wing looney? I’m a Greens voter and I’ll happily admit that Lee Rhiannon and the dogs breakfast of aging delusional commies and hippie vaccine deniers that sneak their way into the greens in NSW especially are loopy elements on my side of politics that we’d be better off without. Who (if anyone) in Australian politics is too extreme on the far right for you?
Only one that really comes to mind is Malcolm Roberts.
He has some fairly interesting conspiracy theories.
Other than that people like Dutton are far more representative of the average Australian than what you may think. But if you surround yourself with like minded people and only read the Guardian then of course you will have a warped sense of what is important to the average person.
Polls had clinton winning the national vote by 3% and she won by 2%
Polls had brexit too close to call.
The polls were generally correct at least within the statistical margin of error. People’s interpretation of them might have been wrong.
Your narrative is based on falsehoods.
Both Brexit and Trump were $6 on the morning of their respective elections.
That equates to a 16% chance of winning.
The polls and the media/pundits were miles out on both occasions. Besides its easily proved. Try and name 10 mainstream pundits who got either result correct. You won’t be able to.
But you can believe what you want to believe I guess.
Oh ffs, really?
Polls are not odds.
Odds are set so that bookies make a profit no matter the outcome, and so odds have to take the history of past betting into account, while polls aim to get the most accurate picture of how things are now.
The bookies would have taken a lot of early money on No. They would have had to offer tempting odds on Yes in order to tempt people into betting so they could make their money back.
Actual polls, especially the ones close to the referendum, had the Brexit vote too close to call.
But you knew that, which is why, in a conversation about polls, you suddenly started talking about odds, because the polls didn’t fit your predetermined and false version of reality.
Only the Guardian? What a load of crock. What are you reading Trip?
What are the posters reading that think Dutton is more representative of the average Australian? Where is that reported? Is Dutton just another Attack dog like Abbott? Some reporting suggests that Turnbull’s problem is that he is losing the middle ground in the Coalition.
Wait for Dutton’s response to the Auditor General’s General’s report on Border Force.
Polls had clinton winning the national vote by 3% and she won by 2%
Polls had brexit too close to call.
The polls were generally correct at least within the statistical margin of error. People’s interpretation of them might have been wrong.
Your narrative is based on falsehoods.
Both Brexit and Trump were $6 on the morning of their respective elections.
That equates to a 16% chance of winning.
The polls and the media/pundits were miles out on both occasions. Besides its easily proved. Try and name 10 mainstream pundits who got either result correct. You won’t be able to.
But you can believe what you want to believe I guess.
Oh ffs, really?
Polls are not odds.
Odds are set so that bookies make a profit no matter the outcome, and so odds have to take the history of past betting into account, while polls aim to get the most accurate picture of how things are now.
The bookies would have taken a lot of early money on No. They would have had to offer tempting odds on Yes in order to tempt people into betting so they could make their money back.
Actual polls, especially the ones close to the referendum, had the Brexit vote too close to call.
But you knew that, which is why, in a conversation about polls, you suddenly started talking about odds, because the polls didn’t fit your predetermined and false version of reality.
That has been his m.o for years. I don’t know why you bother.
Polls had clinton winning the national vote by 3% and she won by 2%
Polls had brexit too close to call.
The polls were generally correct at least within the statistical margin of error. People’s interpretation of them might have been wrong.
Your narrative is based on falsehoods.
Both Brexit and Trump were $6 on the morning of their respective elections.
That equates to a 16% chance of winning.
The polls and the media/pundits were miles out on both occasions. Besides its easily proved. Try and name 10 mainstream pundits who got either result correct. You won’t be able to.
But you can believe what you want to believe I guess.
Oh ffs, really?
Polls are not odds.
Odds are set so that bookies make a profit no matter the outcome, and so odds have to take the history of past betting into account, while polls aim to get the most accurate picture of how things are now.
The bookies would have taken a lot of early money on No. They would have had to offer tempting odds on Yes in order to tempt people into betting so they could make their money back.
Actual polls, especially the ones close to the referendum, had the Brexit vote too close to call.
But you knew that, which is why, in a conversation about polls, you suddenly started talking about odds, because the polls didn’t fit your predetermined and false version of reality.
That has been his m.o for years. I don’t know why you bother.
Me neither, sometimes. But sometimes it’s cathartic to be able to clearly call out bullshit for what it is. It’s a very small audience reading this, but if bullshitters are permitted to continue bullshitting unchallenged, then bullshit becomes normalised.
Sometimes you’ve just gotta call bullshit for what it is.
(I suspect this post will be utterly unreadable once the swear filter is done with it…)
Polls had clinton winning the national vote by 3% and she won by 2%
Polls had brexit too close to call.
The polls were generally correct at least within the statistical margin of error. People’s interpretation of them might have been wrong.
Your narrative is based on falsehoods.
Both Brexit and Trump were $6 on the morning of their respective elections.
That equates to a 16% chance of winning.
The polls and the media/pundits were miles out on both occasions. Besides its easily proved. Try and name 10 mainstream pundits who got either result correct. You won’t be able to.
But you can believe what you want to believe I guess.
Oh ffs, really?
Polls are not odds.
Odds are set so that bookies make a profit no matter the outcome, and so odds have to take the history of past betting into account, while polls aim to get the most accurate picture of how things are now.
The bookies would have taken a lot of early money on No. They would have had to offer tempting odds on Yes in order to tempt people into betting so they could make their money back.
Actual polls, especially the ones close to the referendum, had the Brexit vote too close to call.
But you knew that, which is why, in a conversation about polls, you suddenly started talking about odds, because the polls didn’t fit your predetermined and false version of reality.
You are completely and utterly clueless as to how markets are set.
Let me explain something to you coming from someone who was in the industry for over 20 years.
The market reflects probability and is based on supply and demand. If you thought Trump had a probability of winning of 47% yet set your market at 16% then you would go broke very quickly. Some bookies do like to have a book that has them winning either way but most these days have to take an opinion or are pushed into an opinion by the market (punters). The reason for this is there is qreater pot of gold by having an opinion and getting it right over mathematically balancing your book - where at best you are looking at margins of 2% on turnover or less.
Anyway, I’ll humour you. If both results were too close to call then you ought to be able to name ten mainstream pundits who said either Brexit and/or Trump would win.
They were all singing from the same hymn book and they all got it spectacularly wrong.
And you want to keep on following these lemmings ???
Fool me once - shame on you.
Fool me twice - shame on me.
Anthony Green’s WA election blog reminds voters in upper house that the Revised Federal Senate voting system does not apply to the Upper House in WA. If you vote below the line, you must number all candidates from 1 through to 50. And I thought it hard to vote for 12 below the line in the Senate.
I presume the WA system will help Pauline.
Trip, PP2 has already called you out on the clear falsehoods about polling in general, but even the most trifling google tells you that in early 2015 Abbot's personal popularity was 27% (vs Shorten at 44%) and the ALP led the Libs 57-43. Polling predictably gets it wrong to a margin of error of a couple of percent, but not by THAT much.
I had a bit of a laugh about your defence of Dutton though. Can you name someone that you DO think is a right wing looney? I’m a Greens voter and I’ll happily admit that Lee Rhiannon and the dogs breakfast of aging delusional commies and hippie vaccine deniers that sneak their way into the greens in NSW especially are loopy elements on my side of politics that we’d be better off without. Who (if anyone) in Australian politics is too extreme on the far right for you?
Only one that really comes to mind is Malcolm Roberts.
He has some fairly interesting conspiracy theories.
Other than that people like Dutton are far more representative of the average Australian than what you may think. But if you surround yourself with like minded people and only read the Guardian then of course you will have a warped sense of what is important to the average person.
If Dutton is an image of the average Australian, then I’m trapped in an episode of the Walking Dead.
It’s the thin edge of the wedge. If they start releasing any information on some nebulous authority under the act, which many people are saying needs to be tested in court, then no ones information is safe.
Bear in mind this department has information on nearly every Australian, and have access to medical records, tax information as well as addresses, refuges, people who have changed their names, people in witness protection.
They have it all.
