One of the things which Graham mentions is the heavy investment in TV advertising by labor.
This medium is almost entirely based on image - it is used to establish perceptions about a product or issue, and then confirm them.
One of the things which Abbott and his cohort have working against them is their apparant arrogance, particularly on the part of Morisson, over a refusal to inform us, their masters, of what they are doing and why.
I suspect that they are falling victim to the increasing encroachment on information sharing by the "intelligence" communities.
In any case, Abbot's smug, patronising demeanour is a very bad component to flaunt in any image building campaign, and I suggest it gave great credibity to Labour in its "knocking copy".

Graham,

I would have thought that there was little left of KR's personal following after the 5.something swing against Labor in 2013 (he had apparently built it up in two previous elections). And while I see the argument for using Senate voting as an index of true party support, people can and do see the two contests as separate, and will vote accordingly.

I can't see any sign of a voter backlash in the by-election result, and I would think it a good outcome for the Government.

So how do you explain the difference between his first preference vote and the Senate ALP first preference vote Don? It is quite striking. I also used the same method to predict that Peter Slipper probably had a negative personal vote, which his meagre showing as an independent tended to bear out.

Dear Graham,

I sometimes think you are ever the contrarian?

Picking up this Griffith “dead rubber” for even more reinterpretation seems futile but it also sounds like a bit of fun, so here goes.

All sides of the result will tell us the same thing, The winner says it endorses their position and reflects badly on the loser. The looser says the winner actually lost primary support and claims a moral victory?

Nothing new here, unless you have something new? Like a statistical “model” perhaps?

I guess that your “modeled” interpretation will have to go through regular iterations between now and 2016. Having produced the GY1 from your model, could you do a “hockey stick” next?

I think I might just wait until 2016

I would agree with your general thoughts about Rudd' popularity/personal vote.

Perhaps Glasson benefited from the reverse donkey vote. Certainly the Stable Population Party picked up less than 1% from the top position. A breakdown of preference flows would be useful in a final analysis.

Your assert that "Labor's campaign was dishonest" but at least it focused on an issue (Medicare) that is important to voters. It wasn't just based on personal attacks, like the LNP video and other propaganda, portraying Butler as a union hack. Once upon a time it would have been called 'playing the man'. Sometimes good lawyers make good lawmakers but I can't remember the last former President of the AMA who did, despite it being Australia's most successful union.

I think you are missing one thing Graham. It is some time since I lived in the electorate, but I think it is still now the "public servant town" it was then. Not only that, it was a middle/top end public servant town.

The proximity to the city, & the property values have ensured this result. I was amazed at how many of my neighbors were bureaucrats, they were virtually wall to wall in my area.

I am amazed that the libs can do so well there, after the drubbing Newman gave the bureaucracy. They must be fuming still, that he could dump so much useless garbage, & the effect disappear without trace in a matter of weeks.

Newman set the stage for Abbott when he moved into Canberra, demonstrating just how over manned our bureaucracies are. Unfortunately Tony squibbed it, but it has still not attracted any love from public servants to the libs

GY,

There are a number of factors that should have affected the vote external to the local campaign.

1 Rudd gone - LNP + 3%
2 By election - ALP + 2-5%
3 Federal gov popularity slip - ALP + 3%
etc.

The range of expected results go from a very narrow LNP win to an ALP landslide.

The reality on the ground is that while the ALP won the seat, the LNP increased their share of the vote against the expectation of most Australians (whether justified or not). This gives the coalition's claim of voter endorsement some plausibility, in a field where facts are scarce and perception is king.

It's been reported that Labor's primary vote fell from 53% to 47% in Griffith: they had to rely on preferences. Nevertheless, Labor won; but, it's still a long time to the next election, and the result could hardly be called a 'message to Abbott' as some Laborites seem to think it was.

What I find most interesting about this post and two others in today's OLO (one concerning the ABC and the other the GBR) is the extent to which our PM has come to dominate our discourse.
It seems like just yesterday when the "Mad Monk" was elected leader of the then Opposition and given a chance midway between Buckley's and None to ever win a general election. And yet slowly, slowly he has emerged the clear winner, first by forcing a hung parliament, them by winning outright. And say what you might about the ALP destroying itself and its chances through the antics of Rudd and Gillard, Abbott has still emerged the clear winner.
Some throw up their hands in horror about the damage done to, or planned for, the Great Barrier Reef, the ABC, our relations with our near neighbours, the health and well-being of asylum seekers and their children, the environment, the independence of unions, etc ad infinitum. It is a long list.
And yet, and yet... Eventually Abbott will stumble and be forced out, or he will go on his own initiative, but until then he's PM. Is he a clown? Of course he's a clown. He's a politician. And a damned good one for all that. I suggest we learn to deal with it - stick to our different guns, by all means, but deal with it and not pretend it ain't happening.

Just a little aside I thought that the Palmer United no show would have seen more of their votes (3.35%) go to Bill Glasson. Doesn't appear to have eventuated.

One wonders how anyone could of voted Labour after Rudd's stupidity into inviting illegals her has cost tax payers billions and over a thousand lives. Some people must love remaining ignorant.

Graham
Wouldn't the vote in the General Election won by Gillard have impacted somewhat on K Rudd's personal vote. Didn't he suffer a larger swing against him than that experienced by the Labour Party?

What effect did that have on last years result and this by election.

If Rudd's personal vote had mostly evaporated in the Gillard election, as I contend, then the effect on the result in this election would have been less than your figures indicate.

What's the demographics of Griffith ? I bet it's all public servants, uni students, single mums & a handful of unemployed by choice. Abbott didn't lose, he won by not having these morons' votes. Griffith lost.

As always Graham, a measured approach to things. Could it just be that even the diminished Rudd personal Vote was simply taken over by Labor's Butler.

She is very, very personable, good on her feet and had a virtual trouble free campaign. Her put-down of Julie Bishop's comment of the quality of Solicitor Clients was brilliant.

Keep up the good work.

Will Janine be coming back to radio ?

Speaking as a former resident of the seat, and someone who grew up there, Individual you have no idea what you are talking about. http://www.censusdata.abs.gov.au/census_services/getproduct/census/2011/quickstat/CED313?opendocument&navpos=220

Ima, the figures I quote are from the last election. I was surprised that his personal vote had held up so well as I had a sense Glasson was getting a lot of support from people who hated Rudd. Obviously the pro-group was even larger.

Condi, I don't think you can just take over a personal vote - Rudd worked very hard to establish it. But it's personal because it goes with the person. I bet Butler has hardly made a dint on impressions. It takes years to do that. And yes, Janine is back this week.

Graham Y,
Interesting link & info. Just as I thought. cheers

'If Abbott goes into the next election with the suspicion that there are more cuts to come, then Bill Shorten may prove to be just as effective an opposition leader as Abbott was.'

The next election is a long way off and if the Abbott government's first few months are any indication there won't be much left to cut after another 30 months. Bill Shorten is unlikely to be opposition leader at the next election: he is there against the wishes of the Labor rank and file, is a poor performer and his union power base will make him an electoral liability once Royal Commission hits it straps.

What are the govt waiting for, been there five months and done nothing except watch our debt grow. We now owe more per capita than America, another 10,000 / head than the US. Before the election they had all problems fixed and since then nothing.

Graham,

There are sufficient other possibilities in the Comments for me to respond that, as I put it in my own post on the subject, what we are all doing is reading tea-leaves. But at least there's no sign of a great movement against either the Qld or Cwth governments.

Or if you think there is one, you'll need a highly contrived set of reasons! But no matter, I enjoyed your post.

Don

Graham,

I had a look at the latest count. Labor is ahead by 51.7% 2pp which by any means is a poor result in a "safe" seat.

Sm
If that is indeed the latest count then Bill Glasson was quite justified in waiting for the count of the postal and prepolls before conceeding.

Labours margin is signifiantly less that Sat nights margin.

I thought at the General Election Glasson concede far to early as only 1000 of 15000 prepoll votes had been counted and the view by by both Lab and Lib supporters at the prepolling was that voters were heavily favouring Glasson. No one scrutinized the 14000 counted in the following week.

Don't know about by election as did not get involved.

'Terry Butler for Labor winning with 52.27% of the 2PP vote.'

This % after the counting of all votes reduced to 51.75% 2PP. And Glasson moved closer to winning by 1.26% rather than the mere 0.74% 2PP.

I'd say that was hardly indicative of a draw and given all factors, including historical, it is a hefty reversal for Labor and especially Bill Shorten as well as a positive result for the Fed Libs and Tony Abbott.

A swing of just 1.75% is needed for the Liberals to win at the next election. It is now Labor's 8th least safe seat on a margin of 3.5% and among 13 Labor seats on margins of less than 6%.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-election_pendulum_for_the_Australian_federal_election,_2013

Without Rudd campaigning for Labor Federally, Shorten continuing his inadequate performance and Abbott neutralising much of the scare campaign a result closer to that had Gillard campaigned can be reasonably expected in 2016.

I'd like to see your updated analysis, especially the effect of Rudd's personal vote, given the difference between the election night 52.27% and the final count of 51.75%