ReachTEL - State Labor Back To The Lifeboats

ReachTEL (Tas State): Lib 52.5 ALP 19.7 Green 15.6 Other 6 Undecided 6.3
Interpretation: Lib 57 ALP 22 Green 17 Other 4 (Other perhaps higher)
Outcome based on this poll "if election was held now": Liberal Victory (c. 15 seats)
Projection based on all polling: 14-8-3

We have reached a useful milestone in Tasmanian polling since, for the first time since the last state election, EMRS has competition from another poll that is commissioned by the media and that is not merely an internal poll released by the party.  Historically it has been a long time since we have seen public polling by someone other than EMRS, apart from during an election campaign.  Indeed, the Mercury-commissioned ReachTEL is to my knowledge the largest poll of state voting intention ever conducted in Tasmania.

These are the headline figures, which I'll discuss after a small but important diversion:

Diversion: The Dog Ate My Undecided Rate

What I would really like people to notice there is not the yawning disparity between the top two figures but rather the Undecided figure of 6.3%.  This is for a way of asking the question for which the equivalent undecided rate in the last EMRS poll was 19%.  It is still further evidence (not that any is actually necessary as the point has already been proven using old Morgan polling) that the high Undecided rates recorded by EMRS are not an innate feature of Tasmanian politics, and indeed are just not real!  Every time a media source draws attention to there being supposedly 25% or 30% of Tasmanian voters "undecided" on the basis of an EMRS poll, what they are saying is nonsense.   The high undecided rates that occur in EMRS polls are not because voters are genuinely so unsure of their vote, but because EMRS are not as effective in getting a response out of voters as other polling methods.  Indeed, their interviewers are three times more likely to fail than an automated recording.  Scary!

The Overall State Picture

This poll is yet another state poll that shows the Liberals headed for majority government and leading by a ridiculously large margin - the result recorded by every poll whether public or private that I have seen since early 2011.  Indeed, the Labor vote following simple redistribution of the undecided, 21%, is lower (by one point) than any poll in the EMRS series, while the Liberal vote (56%) is one point higher than any EMRS result.  This could indicate that this ReachTEL is an unnaturally extreme result, but it doesn't have to.  Another possibility is that the assumptions that are used in distributing the high EMRS undecided rate are actually a bit generous to Labor and that the EMRS-undecided voters are actually more than proportionally Liberal-leaning.

By comparison with the Federal poll, Labor is down 6.6 points, and the Liberals are up 7.  The Greens are up 5.1 points, and Others (mainly because of the absence of Andrew Wilkie from the mix) are down 5. These differences are practically identical to the gaps between the parties' state and federal performances in 2010 (Labor -7.2. Liberals +5.3, Greens -4.8).

The February and May EMRS polls offered a sharp contrast in their readings of the fates of the two coalition parties.  The February EMRS poll suggested that if an election was held then, Labor would have copped the brunt of the damage while the Greens would have escaped with the loss of one seat.  The May EMRS poll suggested Labor could retain most or even potentially all of its seats, but would still lose because the Liberals would win three seats from the Greens.  Now this ReachTEL poll looks like the February scenario all over again (and then some). It is notable that the last EMRS was taken almost immediately after the passage of the forestry "peace deal", and it's possible that it picked up a backlash against the Greens that has since faded.  Or it could just have been a nasty sample for them.

Anyway this again raises the prospect of Labor incumbent pairs like Michelle O'Byrne and Brian Wightman, Brenton Best and Bryan Green and even Lara Giddings and David O'Byrne, scrambling for the lifeboats and fighting for single seats, a scenario which might well increase interest in the on-again-off-again concept of increasing the size of the House of Assembly.  Some see Brenton Best's recent behaviour in exactly this sort of light - he thinks the party won't win two in Braddon, and he wants to be the sole survivor.

On to the very useful crosstab for ratings of the Labor/Green government's performance:

The government has a net satisfaction rating of -44.6 and a frightfully low 3.9% of respondents think it is performing very well.  This table is handy because it gives us a fix on the leanings of Other and Undecided voters.  Unlike the Others voters in the federal poll, who were fairly evenly split in their views of the federal government's performance, these Others voters rate the government's performance poorly, as do the Undecided voters.  The difference is that many Andrew Wilkie voters would be supporting the Greens at state level.  In the absence of significant 4th-party candidates (meaning that the Others vote is probably a bit too high), or assuming they are excluded, this poll points to the Liberals picking up still more support.  Hence my interpretation figure of 57%.  Again, this is an extreme result, but only a touch more so than a number from EMRS.

The Seat Breakdowns

The size of the seat breakdowns (just over 500 votes each) is such that they are actually useful.  As they are the first seat data to come out since a Liberal-commissioned ReachTEL last October, and given the sample sizes, the value of earlier seat data is much reduced.

The following is the breakdown of the poll with Undecided redistributed proportionally:

A few comments at this point:

1. When you have 20 individual readings by party and electorate off a sample size of 500, some of them are going to be significantly wrong by chance. You would expect on average to get one result that would normally be considered "rogue". One that just doesn't seem believable here is that Labor would be below a quota in Bass.  The Liberal score in Franklin also seems a little difficult to credit.

2. In comparison to the Liberal-released ReachTEL last October, this one has a modest Others rate for Denison.  The asking of a federal voting intention question first has probably primed respondents with the information that Wilkie is a federal member and prevented them from getting confused and trying to express support for him in the state poll.

3. The Others vote is highest in Braddon (and generally pretty high across the board, despite the note above.)  There doesn't seem to be a lot of logic to this unless there are a lot of Brenton Best fans who believe he will run as an independent.

4. There's no real suggestion that any Others would win a seat.  In Denison, if a single candidate could tap just a little bit more than the 7.1% Others vote, they would have a good chance.  But there's no evidence yet of such a candidate running.

In past polls I have produced a three-party-preferred breakdown and projection with Others votes distributed equally between the three parties.  That's a rather dubious modelling practice in this case because it appears the Others voters are Lib-leaning, but I think the Libs are having quite enough fun here as it is so let's give it a whirl (click for larger version):

If this poll is correct then Labor loses seats everywhere except perhaps Denison, while the Greens lose only Braddon (and that narrowly) and possibly pick up two in Denison.  A very different picture to the most recent EMRS.

Now that we have two polls from different companies, the natural thing to do is aggregate them!

ReachTEL/EMRS May-June Three Party Aggregate


I've decided to aggregate the ReachTEL in the three-party form above with the uneven swing model for the last EMRS (which represented my reading of the last EMRS allowing for the pollster's known house effects and for evidence on regional variation culled from two EMRS and one ReachTEL polls during 2012.)

In so doing I am weighting the ReachTEL at double in view of its much larger sample size, freshness, not having been taken very soon after a major state event, and in my view better polling design.  (Although ReachTEL robopolls and weights, I'll take that over anything that has an undecided rate of 19% even after prodding the respondent, any day).  There is a case for weighting the ReachTEL much more than double, but I always prefer to be cautious rather than to have an aggregate too captive to a single pollster or method just because one pollster has a large sample size.

Here's the aggregate (click for larger version):

I think this has knocked a few of the rough edges off the results in both of the polls.  The Liberal vote in Denison is still a bit too high (according to what everyone tells me!) but it is what the public data say, and it makes little difference anyway. 

The projection continues to show the Liberals easily winning three in Bass, Braddon and Lyons with the possibility of a third in Franklin.  Also they are not far shy of four in Braddon, though in this aggregate it's more likely Labor would retain.  (Some may wonder why I give the Greens Franklin when they are short of quota and the others are not; the answer is that the others would be much more exposed to leakage.)  The projection allows for results ranging from 13-9-3 to 15-7-3, although Tim Morris in this projection is not that far shy of holding his seat.  While Labor would have slightly better chances than the Liberals in each of the individual close seat contests, I've assumed one each to be the most likely outcome, and on that basis left my state projection at 14-8-3.

And for the record, with 35 seats, the ReachTEL alone comes out at 21-8-6 (five Libs in both Bass and Braddon), the last EMRS would have been about 18-13-4, and the aggregate returns either 20-10-5 or 21-9-5.  Switching to 35 seats, it seems, would save the existing furniture ... and give all the new stuff to the Liberals.

Federal Labor Getting Smashed All Over Tasmania

...being the sequel to "Federal Labor Getting Smashed In Bass".

The monster Mercury-commissioned ReachTEL, which I believe to be the largest opinion poll in Tasmanian history, is out!  I saw the results on Friday afternoon but under embargo conditions.  The survey includes federal and state polling for each electorate and statewide.  Today I am releasing my federal comments and tomorrow my analysis of the state results.

Advance Summary: Federal

A federal ReachTEL poll of all Tasmanian electorates shows a massive swing against the Gillard Government in Tasmania.  Based on the poll results:

1. The Liberal Party is easily winning the Labor-held seats of Bass, Braddon and Lyons.

2. The Labor-held seat of Franklin is too close to call and is winnable for the Coalition.

3. Andrew Wilkie could lose Denison only if several other parties preference against him, and not necessarily even then.  Otherwise he is safe.

Statewide Federal Patterns

The statewide federal poll, with the 6.8% undecided redistributed proportionally shows the Liberal Party on 48.8% (+15.2 since last election), the ALP on 28.2 (-15.8), the Greens on 11.3 (-5.5) and Others on 11.8 (+5.2).  Most of the increase in the Others vote occurs in Denison, which alone accounts for 7.7 points of the statewide Others vote.

A state 2PP figure is not given, and no 2PP figure is given for Denison.  However, overall the poll points to a state 2PP swing of around 16 points.  This is higher than estimates previously available, which were typically (and based on very limited data) in the 10-14 point range.  However, those estimates were largely made at times when Labor was doing less badly in federal polling than now. The polling was all taken on Thursday night and it is plausible that Labor's failed attempt to convincingly exploit the tawdry menu saga had some small impact on the results.

The following table shows responses statewide to the question of how voters rate the federal government's performance:

This table is important because it gives us a handle on the preferences of Undecided voters.  Undecided voters are more than five times as likely to think the government is performing poorly than to think it is doing well.  Others voters have a mild tendency to think the government is performing poorly and Labor and Green voters think the government is performing well by a ratio of over 3:1.  Liberal voters think the government is performing badly by a ratio of 36:1.  The impression is that Undecided voters are leaning towards the Liberal view and could break towards the Liberal Party.  Therefore, in distributing the "undecided" voters evenly, I might be being generous to Labor and the Greens. 

We don't know anything here about the views of Others voters who are not Wilkie voters and hence it's hard to say if they would take any edge off the swing.  But there are not many of them anyway.  There are hints in the state poll results (released tomorrow) that those Others who are not Wilkie voters are Liberal-leaning.  They may be supporters of right wing minor parties (KAP and PUP and so on) or there may be some voters who are displeased with the government but have other reservations about the Liberal Party.

On to the electorates:

Bass (2010: ALP +6.7%)

This is one we already have a poll for (see Federal Labor Getting Smashed In Bass).

Apart from a significant increase in the Green vote (and a similar drop in the Others vote) this poll is basically the same as the previous Bass ReachTEL.  Nothing to see here except that nothing has changed.

Braddon (2010: ALP +7.5%)

For some time there has been a disparity in betting between Bass and Braddon, for no better reason than that Bass had had a poll released and Braddon had not.  (Some people might say that Sid Sidebottom is a better regarded local member than Geoff Lyons but this, if true, would have been already factored into the previous result.)  Braddon is on only a slightly larger margin, and the sitting Bass MHR has "sophomore effect" on his side, the state Labor government is copping it in both, so there was no basis for the difference.  And indeed the poll result for Braddon is much the same:

Any questions?  No, I didn't think there would be.  Okay, the Others vote is a bit high and it is possible to speculate endlessly about whether these are KAPpers and/or PUPpers and/or something else entirely, but it really doesn't matter.  Moving right along then ...

Lyons(ALP +12.3)

This is the one that's going to hurt.  Dick Adams has held this seat for twenty years and been said to be in danger (usually incorrectly) at most of the elections in that time, but just when he'd beefed up the margin to what should be the "seat for life" level, along comes a swing of enormous proportions.

The poll shows a swing of a staggering 21%.  I'm not yet convinced it's quite that bad for Labor in this seat, but however you slice it with your 4.2%-margin-of-error knife, this, the only published seat poll for Lyons thus far shows Labor not just behind, but in an uncompetitive position. I've been pointing out for some time that despite the margin in Lyons being larger than that in Franklin, Lyons could well be the more at-risk of the two seats.  But I did not expect to be seeing anything quite like this.

Franklin (ALP 10.8%)

The last of the four ALP-held seats is the only one this particular poll gives them a hope of retaining.

If you see any claims that this poll shows that the Liberals "would win" Franklin, they are nonsense, as the difference between the two candidates is well within the poll's margin of error.  All the same, did you know that if a correct sample of this size is 51:49 to one party, the chance of that party actually being ahead in the electorate is 68%?  I didn't either until I checked it!  There are other sources of uncertainty of course, such as the true intentions or behaviour of Other/Undecided voters, the day the poll was taken on, any slight lean in the polling, and changes between now and the election, so we shouldn't expect to see Black at $1.50 tomorrow unless there are some very silly punters out there. What the poll points to is that the seat is very much in play and may go either way.  Given that the seat only marginally prefers Julia Gillard as PM over Tony Abbott (50.7:49.3) and given that PPM is an indicator that greatly advantages incumbents, it seems that Labor may even be punching above its weight in still being competitive here.

Denison (Ind 1.2% vs ALP)

Another one that would have to sting for Labor, unless they have a very big bundle of internal polls showing it all to be nonsense (or more likely, saying the same thing, so they're used to it by now). They've replaced the hapless Jonathan Jackson with a good candidate who is ideally suited to the left-leaning electorate and speaks as if she's been in politics for years (you can see the footage of a rather dull "debate" involving her, Wilkie and Greens candidate Anna Reynolds here).   Meanwhile the Liberals are messing about with still no candidate announced three months out (they had one, then they didn't - failed due diligence is the scuttlebutt I heard) and are widely accused of running dead to help Wilkie retain the seat.  And yet who is in second place?

The Liberals! Ouch.

Now, I don't believe for a moment that the Green vote in a once heartland seat has fallen into single figures, not even with the triple whammy of the party's general decline, state disillusionment over the peace deal and continuing gouging of their vote by Andrew Wilkie.  But this poll clearly underlines that the Greens are running fourth and cannot win, not that that is news to anyone.   It confirms that Wilkie will make the final two easily, but it does suggest genuine uncertainty about who else will make it with him.

As for the result, if preference distributions fall along normal ideological lines then Wilkie will be safe.  But if there is a gang-up against the Independent by other parties, perhaps not.  The most difficult scenario for Wilkie on the above figures is if the Labor vote picks up and the Liberals drop back before polling day, the Greens preference Labor and enough Greens follow the card (not that that many do) to put Labor in second.  Now at this point, if the Liberals preferenced Labor as well it's just possible that the generally slavish following of HTV cards by Liberal voters would put Labor over the line.  (It is harder for the Liberals to win on Labor preferences, since it is hard to see them getting much joy from the Greens)

I'm doubtful it's that easy for Labor even given those assumptions.  If the parties, for whatever reason, try to stitch up the incumbent it will give him a lot of publicity with which to attack their deals and increase his vote further, and furthermore party supporters might refuse to follow the cards (especially given Tasmania's tradition of cross-party-lines voting in state elections).  He would have real chances to just get home even with all parties targeting him.  But it is worth keeping an eye on as evidence that the retention of Denison, while likely, is not yet a sure thing.

Overall, this Denison result suggests that at the moment Denison left-wingers are quite annoyed with Labor and the Greens, and are not inclined to vote for a good candidate from what they see as a bad party.  And in the apparent slump in the Labor primary here (even Jonathan Jackson got 35) we can see the signs of a government that isn't cutting through to either of the very different voter bases north and south of the so-called "flannelette curtain". (For those unfamiliar with that local term replete with lashings of dated anti-bogan snobbery, it refers to the divide between inner-suburban Hobart and working-class Glenorchy, that in 2010 perfectly demarcated booths won on 2PP by Wilkie over Labor and booths won by Labor over Wilkie.)  To the northern suburbanites this is a government that has sold out to the Greens to the detriment of job prospects, and to the proverbial latte-sippers  it is not socially progressive enough.

As for the Greens, while I don't believe their vote is quite that low, it does show that their rather negative tactics of continually attacking Wilkie over minutiae of how many times he has spoken on bills, said positive things about Tony Abbott, and so on are not accomplishing anything, just as personal attacks on Jim Wilkinson by forces linked to the Greens did nothing in the LegCo poll for Nelson.

More of this was on display at the Denison Debate (linked above) with Reynolds unsoundly claiming that Wilkie would be required in a hung parliament to give confidence to one side or the other so that a party could tell the Governor-General it had confidence and supply.  The answer, of course, is that confidence is determined on the floor of the parliament and that the Governor-General will allow for it to be tested if uncertain - but why are we even canvassing the question in the first place?

It's obvious enough that a hung parliament is an extremely unlikely outcome of the upcoming election - what Denison voters really need to know is who will deliver the best for a left-leaning electorate in a right-wing parliament.  I'm doubtful Labor and the Greens will win back many votes from Wilkie while they continue playing their politics in the fairylands of hung parliaments and Labor majorities.

The poll result is not greatly different to a previous ReachTEL conducted almost a year ago.

Senate Implications

These are covered in an update in my Senate Race article.  In short, as dire as this polling is for Labor and the Greens, it doesn't change the Senate projection picture greatly.

Leadership Implications

Yes, I know, the leadership thing was supposed to be dead following the non-challenge in March.  But there is certainly, again, a lot of talk about it, although not yet a lot of verifiable action.  And it's very likely this poll especially will add fuel to the fires on that count.

This poll provides strong evidence that if Julia Gillard remains Prime Minister, Labor is very likely to lose at least three Tasmanian seats and possibly the lot.  It is consistent with (and more important than, because internal polls are less trustworthy) recent reports that "Party figures anticipate the loss of all seats in Tasmania".   All the ifs and buts that can be raised against this (or any other) poll count for little because the seat margins are so wide. Even leadership change is probably not a big enough if/but to counter the size of apparent Coalition leads in Bass and Braddon.  If a switch to Kevin Rudd (or another leader who was well received following the switch) went reasonably smoothly would secure Franklin and might save Lyons.  That said, concerning the latter, I am sceptical that the Rudd bounces shown in hypothetical polling would last at full strength all the way to polling day, and a lot of the issues affecting Labor's standing in Tasmania are not leadership-driven.

Footnote: Does ReachTEL Have A House Effect?

The dire nature of this polling for Labor has raised questions about whether the poll can be entirely trusted.  The following are some points I think are relevant in considering whether ReachTEL has any kind of "house effect" that might affect the results:

* Newspoll and ReachTEL tracking in Victoria has been very similar.

* Two Seven News Federal ReachTELs with large sample sizes have both produced results that were more Coalition-friendly than the average of other polling at the time.  A federal ReachTEL on 12 April was 57:43 and one on 3 May was 58:42.  At the same time the Mark the Ballot aggregate for other pollsters (without reference to prior election results) had the Coalition around the mid-55s and low-55s respectively (just looking at the graphs) suggesting that in those two polls ReachTEL was about two points more Coalition-favourable than other pollsters. 

* A ReachTEL of the Legislative Council seat of Nelson proved an extremely accurate portent of the result, allowing for vagaries involving some candidates not being technically of a given party in what was a very party-polarised campaign on a "shadow" basis.

* Two ReachTEL state polls I have seen from last year (one commissioned by the Liberal Party and publicly released, one commissioned by an activist group that is no friend of the Liberals) had similar patterns to my corrected interpretation of EMRS state polling.

It is too early to conclude ReachTEL federal results have any skew to the Coalition based on a mere two national polls, but even if it is assumed there is a skew of about two points in the current results it changes very little.  Labor still heavily loses Bass, Braddon and Lyons and Franklin remains too close to call (but favouritism would then switch to Labor).

Given that past Tasmanian federal polling has mainly been conducted by EMRS which has displayed massive undecided rates and rather large house effects (such as a persistent lean of around 4 points to the Greens in headline rates, and largely missing the Wilkie surge) this is very likely as good as we are going to get, at least until very close to the election.

Prospects for the Tasmanian Senate Race

Advance Summary
 
This article models possible outcomes for the six Tasmanian Senate seats up for election this year and concludes that an outcome of three Liberal, two Labor and one Green is by far the most likely.

======================================================================

Antony Green has written a preview for the five Tasmanian House of Representatives seats at the
upcoming federal election that is so comprehensive that there is not a lot to add until there is more detailed polling publicly available on statewide trends or individual seats.  Projections for these seats will be posted here much closer to the election.

However, I think it is already possible to say useful things about the Tasmanian Senate race.  This is most likely at this stage to produce a result of 3 Liberal, 2 Labor, 1 Green (a net change of one seat from Labor to the Liberals) but various other results are possible.  In particular, state polling showing the Greens at below the Senate quota level has some asking whether the seat held by Peter Whish-Wilson is safe.

Until recently, the composition of the 12 Tasmanian Senate seats has been extremely stable.  Norm Sanders won the Australian Democrats' first Tasmanian Senate seat in 1984 and the balance at that time was five Liberal, five Labor, Independent Brian Harradine, and one Democrat.  This balance survived the 1987 double dissolution, and for the next five half-senate elections after that, one cycle would return 3 Liberals, 2 Labor, 1 Democrat (or from 1996 onwards, Green) and the alternate cycle would return 2 Liberal, 3 Labor and Harradine.

Twenty years of 5-5-1-1 ended in 2004 when Harradine retired.  With Harradine no longer competing for the Liberal vote, Tasmania returned 3 Liberal, 2 Labor and 1 Green for the second election in a row, putting the numbers at 6-4-2.

Counting Harradine as loosely of the "right" and Labor as in some sense "left", this meant there had been a 6-6 left-right balance for a very long time, but in both 2007 and 2010 the ALP won three seats, the Liberals two and the Greens one.  These two unusual 4-2 left-right splits have been very significant outcomes nationally.  Had the state returned three Liberals in both 2007 and 2010, then (i) the Coalition could have blocked legislation alone during most of Kevin Rudd's Prime Ministership and (ii) Labor in its current term would have needed support from the Greens and one of Nick Xenephon or John Madigan to pass legislation.

This is what the half-Senate blocks for Tasmania since the last double dissolution look like as a graph:

  

The Greens (or in 1990, Democrats) have won a seat in every half-Senate election except 1993 and 1998, which were Harradine years (though whether that caused them to not win in either year is quite debatable).  In both 1993 and 1998 the Greens were reasonably, but not very, close to winning the final seat at the expense of Labor.

This is what the patterns in primary vote quota total for Liberal, Labor, Green and Others look like for the last four elections:

 In 2001 the Liberal Party polled only slightly higher than Labor and well short of a third quota, but they were put over three quotas by the preferences of One Nation and the Australian Democrats' practice of splitting preferences between the two major parties.  In 2007 and 2010 the third Labor candidate was put over quota as a result of the Greens' surplus.  The 2010 Liberal results in the state were generally very bad, with the party making relatively little campaign effort and being seen as neglecting the state on broadband policy.

The most interesting election was 2004 in which a strong flow of above the line preferences to Family First gave the Greens, who had just fallen short of a quota, a bit of a potential scare.  The 2004 count has been the subject of a persistent myth that the result between the Greens and Family First was especially close; it was not, and Milne's margin of victory had all preferences been distributed would have been about 6000 votes.  It just looked very close based on figures on the night before changes in the balance of the parties in post-counting made it less so.

The Case For 3-2-1

Looking at the 2010 results (Liberal 33%, ALP 41.4, Greens 20.3) the case for a 3-2-1 Liberal-Labor-Green result is rather easily made.

Firstly, given general (if scanty) state evidence that the swing to the Coalition at House of Reps level is likely to be at least 10% on a two-party preferred basis, it is quite plausible the Liberals will gain a sufficient swing to reach the 42.8% bar for three quotas directly on primaries.  Even if this does not quite happen, the Liberals frequently receive preferences from right-wing minor parties.  In the 2010 count they gained around 4% during the count by this method.  So the swing effectively required is about 6%.

The swing against the ALP's primary needed to even create a chance of them missing a second seat is 12.8%.  That's very unlikely to happen (discussed at length in Scenario 6 below).

A swing of 6% against the Greens is needed to knock them below a quota on primaries.  Even then the Greens are likely to receive some preferences from feeder micro-parties (in 2010 just over 1%) and should also benefit from any ALP surplus over a second seat.

If the Liberals reach 43%, the ALP 28% and the Greens 14% on primaries, then the election is simply over, and it doesn't matter whether soemone else has even, say, 10% of the vote. 

Will The Greens Get Quota?

The Greens have a long history of usually not polling as well in Senate elections (and for that matter, House of Reps elections) as they do in state politics:

* In 2001 the party polled 13.8%; at the subsequent year's state poll the party polled 18.1%.

* In 2004 the party polled 13.3% midway between state elections in which it polled 18.1% and 16.6%.

* In 2007 the party polled 18.1%, a result which is just ahead of a line between the party's state results of 16.6% in 2006 and 21.6% in 2010.

* In 2010 the party polled 20.3%, slightly down on the state vote of 21.6%.

The 2001 result was affected significantly by competition from Democrats and in 2004 ex-Labor forestry dissident Independent Senator Shayne Murphy may have taken votes from them.  Competition with micro-parties is always a factor, but based on 2007 and 2010 there doesn't seem much reason to believe the party's Senate vote now would be worse than its state result now.

That said, the party's state result now would be hideous.  The last three EMRS state polls show the party with state votes of 15, 18 and 14%, for an average 6% swing since the 2010 result. That is from a pollster that habitually overstates the Green vote because of historically false assumptions about the voting behaviour of "undecided" voters; a current state vote around 12.5% for a 9% swing away seems a more realistic reading unless EMRS have fixed the problems they have had with polling the Green vote in the past. [Update: Since this paragraph was written the ReachTEL poll has pointed to a better state result for the Greens than the recent EMRS polls have suggested.  There would still, however, be a substantial swing away from the party at state level.]

Another possible line of modelling is to look at evidence concerning the federal decline in the Green vote. The Pollbludger Bludgertrack aggregate presently projects an 8.5% vote for the Greens in the House of Representatives nationwide, a loss of 28% of the party's 2010 vote.  The same decline applied proportionally to the state Senate vote cuts it to fractionally above a quota (14.6%).

It is possible Green voters will take a different view of the federal Greens to the state Greens, since the latter are seen as selling out on the forestry peace deal, while Christine Milne has strongly criticised it.  Even so it's clearly possible at this stage that the Greens will not get 14% on primaries, and it's plausible that, as in 2004, they will be far enough short of a quota to have to work for their victory, rather than being tipped straight over by feeder groups.

Scenario 1: The Right Gets Four

Rather than just looking at individual party totals it is often worth splitting the parties into "left" and "right" on the assumption that, with rare exceptions, the right wing parties will feed to the Liberals and the left-wing to the Greens and then to Labor.  In 2010 there was about a 37-63 right-left split in Tasmanian Senate voting.  A 6% swing brings the right above three quotas and the left below four, and I've treated this as a done deal.  However, for the Right to get four, there has to be either a 20-point swing, or a preference defection at some point.  An example of preference defection was Labor preferencing Family First ahead of the Greens in Victoria in 2004, causing Steve Fielding to get elected.  (Had Labor outlasted Fielding in the count it would have been a defection in the other direction, albeit a smaller one.) 

The size of swing required is so large that even given what we know about possible double-figure swings in the state, I don't think this is realistic unless we see a further meltdown in Labor's federal vote.

It is worth looking at the dire Federal ReachTEL for the electorate of Bass for some insight into the difficulties of finding four Senate seats for the Liberals.  That poll (of House of Reps voting intention) showed the Liberals on 54.7%, Labor on 26.7 and the Greens on 8.7 with "other" getting most of the rest.  In that case the Liberals are much closer to their 57% than Labor and the Greens are to their 43%.  However, in 2010 the Liberals outperformed their state Senate average by 2.7 points in Bass, and Labor and the Greens combined underperformed by 2.5 points.  On that basis (assuming the Reps vote was a reasonable model for the Senate) the two sides would be about equally distant from their quota before we considered the impact of ReachTEL's "Others" (who are not all that conservative in my view).  And that's even before we consider that the Bass ReachTEL showed a seat swing that is far higher than the (albeit large) swings believed to be occurring across the state (on the other hand, those may have increased a bit since January).  That in turn is not surprising because at state level swings appear likely to be larger in the north than in the south, the north of the state always being more vulnerable to economic downturns. 

We did get fairly close to a 4-2 right-left result in 2004 (as discussed above).  However, that was only the case because the ALP, the Democrats and Shayne Murphy were all directing preferences to Family First ahead of the Greens.  In other words, a lot of preference defection from parties that would have attracted centre-left votes, an unusual scenario and not too likely to be repeated.

Scenario 2: Three-All And The Greens Miss Out

In this scenario the Liberals poll in the mid 40s, Labor in the mid-30s, and the Greens a bit below 13, with an increased fourth-party vote.  If the fourth-party vote consists mostly of right parties, and the left parties include some that preference Labor ahead of the Greens, it's just possible at a stretch that Labor's third candidate stays ahead of the Liberals' fourth.  Then if the Liberals have decided to direct preferences to Labor ahead of the Greens, Labor wins a third seat.

I think this scenario is artificial and very unlikely - it relies on too many conditions that must all be met, and even then it only just works. Assuming that the Green vote really crashes badly (to, say, 11) makes it easier to make it fly but it's doubtful the Green vote would go that low

Scenario 3: 3-2-1 And The One is Not The Greens

In this scenario, the Liberals poll in the low to mid 40s, Labor in the low to the mid 30s and the Greens 13 or less.  A fourth-party candidate with a moderate orientation (or two such candidates with each feeding the other) gets about 6% statewide and right feeder groups get most of the rest.  In this scenario, the Liberals have their three quotas, the right preferences pool to the moderate and put them over Labor, and the Labor preferences pool to the moderate and put them over the Greens. 

Even given the vote levels in question, this is not as easy as it might sound, because of Tasmania's high rate of below-the-line voting, which makes it hard for a candidate to catch another from well behind (as we saw in 2004).  But the biggest obstacle is that at this stage there is no such candidate openly running.  Capturing a hefty Senate vote statewide usually requires resources, organisation and hard work on profile building over a much longer period.

Scenario 4: The Right Gets 3, but the Libs Get Only 2

In this scenario, the Liberals get about 41, Labor 34, the Greens about 15, and minor mostly right parties ten points with substantial showings for new parties like KAP and PUP plus the usual stuff for Shooters and Fishers, FF and so on.  The minor right preferences pool strongly enough to one of them to just get them over Labor, and then they beat the Liberals on Labor preferences.

I don't think this is realistic for Tasmania - there is just not the evidence there that the minor right parties have that sort of vote-pulling power between them in this state.  At the high-water mark of minor right party populism in Australia, 1998, the minor right parties polled only about 5% combined in Tasmania (and slightly less in 2001).  Furthermore the ALP will frequently preference the more controversial right-wing parties below the Liberals anyway.  So this scenario too seems very remote.

Scenario 5: The Status Quo

In this scenario, Julia Gillard resigns fifteen minutes after you read this, and Kevin Rudd is installed.  There is a lasting swing back to Labor resulting in a close election and altering expected swings everywhere.  The swing in Tasmania is still substantial but Labor and the Greens cut their losses to six points between them and Labor is pushed over a third quota on Greens preferences.

I think this is even less realistic than some of the above, because it depends on heroic assumptions about the party's federal performance from a situation that is obviously a deep crisis.  Even assuming that the national picture did lift to the region of 50-50, Tasmanian state and economic factors could well keep the left-to-right swing too high for the status quo to be possible anyway.

Candidates? What Candidates?

I haven't talked about candidate factors in this election because there is just so much evidence that they simply do not matter.  Most voters whack a 1 in the party box and may not even read the names underneath; many of the remainder follow the party ticket down the line but just want to allocate their own preferences between other parties.

So, unless something extraordinary happens, when the next Senate takes its position, then Carol Brown and Catryna Bilyk will be there for Labor, as will Liberals Richard Colbeck and David Bushby.  The at-risk incumbents are Lin Thorp for Labor and Peter Whish-Wilson for the Greens, and the most likely new Senator would be Sally Chandler for the Liberals.

In Conclusion

Assuming that the final federal nationwide voting pattern is anywhere near what current polling is showing, I believe that three Liberal, two Labor and one Green is overwhelmingly the most likely Senate result in Tasmania.  The ALP is highly likely to poll two quotas on primary votes alone, while the Liberals and Greens may either poll their targets on primaries or cross the line assisted by feeder groups.

It is easy to play up the chances of the Greens missing out by pointing to the real chance that they will poll below a quota.  However, to argue that they are at serious risk of losing, it is not enough to just project their vote as landing below a quota.  It is necessary to also construct a credible scenario in which that causes them to lose, in spite of the likelihood of Labor preferences.

I have tried, above, to come up with a credible way in which an outcome other than 3-2-1 might occur.  I think these alternative scenarios are at best remote, and more likely very remote, possibilities.

This article will be updated closer to the election, especially as contesting parties and preference flows are known.

Update 15 June: ReachTEL

As reader intuitivereason has already pointed out in comments, as dire as the ReachTEL polling is for "the left" it still points to a 3-2-1 Senate result.  Labor has its two quotas with the undecided redistributed and Labor + Green are much closer to 3 than the Libs are to 4. Indeed, the Greens House of Reps vote is strongly deflated by competition from Andrew Wilkie in Denison and it would be much closer to a quota, if not over, in the Senate.  The good news for the Greens when it comes to competition from Wilkie is that there is so far only one of him and he cannot run against them everywhere at once.  If Wilkie clones start hatching out all over the place, they'll have big problems. 

Newspoll Upfront Exclusion Rates Since 2002

Advance Summary

1.  Some observers think that the proportion of voters who are indicated by Newspoll as "uncommitted" or "refused" gives Labor a much greater chance in the upcoming federal election, because the Government may attract a late swing from undecided voters.

2. The view that there is generally a late swing to an incumbent Government is false.

3. The view that there is usually a late swing to the party that is trailing is true, but it is not clear whether this is because there is a genuine "narrowing" effect, or whether this is because the Coalition tends to outperform its polling and the Coalition has often been the trailing party.

4. It is possible (and logical) that there is a link between increases in the Newspoll exclusion rate and poor polling for Labor, suggesting that when the party is performing poorly more of its voters become "uncommitted".  However, the evidence on this is inconclusive.

5. While it is plausible that undecided voters will move back to the Government and improve its result by, say, two points, this is also something that may not happen at all.

6. The issue of uncommitted and refused rates is only relevant to the margin of an overwhelmingly likely Coalition win.  There is nothing to suggest it is capable of turning the election.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How Common Is A Five-Point Swing In Under Four Months?

Advance Summary

1. The Gillard government now probably needs a swing back in public opinion of around 5% in three and a half months to win the federal election. [Update:  After Monday's polls, it's even more than that.]

2. A recent article by Simon Jackman draws attention to swings of this magnitude, from one election to the next, being rare events that mainly (not exclusively!) accompany changes of power.

3. It is not correct to infer that swings of this size in a much shorter period are even less probable, because in fact 5-point swings within 16 weeks are commoner than 5-point swings between elections.

4. However, 5-point swings in shorter time periods typically result from temporary factors - leadership and event bounces, honeymoon effects, policy mistakes that are corrected, bad patches etc.  

5. Fast swings that have occurred in the leadup to elections have usually washed out of the system partly or entirely by election day.

6. The past history of quick 5-point swings in polling provides no sound basis for belief that even an extreme event such as the S11 attacks or leadership change would save the Government now.

Brenton Best Crosses the Floor!

I was going to write a pretty standard number-crunchy thing about prospects for the Tasmanian Senate, given that the Greens have just polled below a Senate quota in state-level polling on the EMRS headline rate for the first time in a very long time.  (In short, this is some cause for concern, but probably not a major one at present).
However that can wait a bit because on Thursday we saw something very unusual in Tasmanian politics, when Labor backbench lifer Brenton Best crossed the floor to vote with a Liberal motion of no-confidence in Corrections Minister (and Greens Leader) Nick McKim.  It was not just a once-off, with an unrepentant Best on Friday repeating his critique of Nick McKim and extending it to the whole Labor-Green coalition. 

While I wasn't watching live at the time, it's quite clear from the footage and also even from the bare bones Votes and Proceedings that there was a party keen for Mr Best to have his say, and it wasn't his own:

EMRS - Greens hit new low

EMRS: Lib 54 (-1) Labor 28 (+5) Green 14 (-4) Ind 4 (+1)
Interpretation: Lib 53 Labor 33 Green 11 Ind 3
Outcome: Comfortable Liberal Majority Win (Approx 14 seats)

The May 2013 EMRS poll has been released and the trend graph for the headline figures is here.  The headline figures have a history of overestimating Green support so there is a possibility that this poll is pointing to an even worse result for the party than indicated.

During the last polling period the Tasmanian forestry peace deal passed parliament and the party split on this major legislation on the floor of the House of Assembly, with four members voting in favour of the version returned by the Legislative Council and Bass Green MHA Kim Booth, long the least Labor-friendly and forestry-friendly of the five, voting against.

The poll shows the Liberal vote largely unaltered from the soaring levels of the last two polls, but what is interesting here is that the Labor vote is up to its highest headline level since November 2010 (not that 28% is any great triumph) while the Green headline rate is the lowest of this term in office, at 14%.  The core Green vote, counting only firmly supportive voters, is shown at a ridiculously low 9%.  I cannot remember it being this low for a very long time and suspect it would be necessary to go back to the earliest EMRS readings from the late 1990s to find a similar figure.