Graham,

Yours was an excellent analysis of the polls, pollsters and election idiosyncrasies.

<<Either the pollsters are incredibly unlucky, or something is wrong, but what?>>

There is one factor you and many in the media missed, in my view. I've written an article for my homepage that addresses this matter, 'God and elections: The God factor cannot be measured in elections', http://truthchallenge.one/blog/2019/05/28/the-god-factor-cannot-be-measured-in-elections/

Through the Christian Scriptures we are exhorted, '‘Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God’ (Romans 13:1).

So, God raises national leaders and causes others to fall.

I am not convinced that any pollster could ever measure the God, prayer and fasting factors in the elections of any nation’s political representatives.

Look at what happened on Q&A, 27 May 2019: http://www.abc.net.au/qanda/2019-27-05/11130358.

"Ruth McKie asked: The Liberal Party just won the unwinnable election that even the secular press was calling a miracle and a miracle it was. Unbeknown to them there was a massive groundswell of united prayer and fasting that went out across our nation, from small groups to the large denominations; the likes of which I have never seen in my lifetime....”

The Sydney Morning Herald response was …

(continued)

How did Neil McMahon in The Sydney Morning Herald respond? 'Q&A recap: Panel goes to hell and back in religious freedom debate', http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/tv-and-radio/q-and-a-recap-panel-goes-to-hell-and-back-in-religious-freedom-debate-20190528-p51rrs.html.

He scoffed at:

+ 'Ruth McKie, who had apparently recovered from weeks of fasting to offer some thoughts on the election result’. This is a pathetic insult to a woman who offered other details that could have contributed to the outcome of the election.

McMahon didn’t treat her contribution in a compassionate and acceptable way. He effectively sneered at what he inferred she had been doing, with no understanding of the value of fasting in the Christian life.

+ McKie spoke about 'the secular press'. McMahon's response was, 'Pray tell, what is that?’ McMahon is a journalist and he gave this kind of insulting, ignorant reply. Doesn’t he want to own up to the secular nature of his own media organisation?

His comment demonstrated how secular it is. Secular means, ‘Not connected with religious or spiritual matters’ (Oxford Living Dictionaries 2019. s.v. secular).

+ ‘”Prayer and fasting”? The analysts and the pollsters missed it: it was the starving and the prayers wot won it – even if Liberal panellist Tim Wilson didn’t really want to go there’. 'WOT WON IT' is the lowest form of attempted wit, sarcasm.

ScoMo’s leading the Australian Coalition to victory was described by him as a ‘miracle’, thanks to the ‘quiet Australians’.

In spite of the commentary by some cynical journalists, it was a victory by the Lord God Almighty, King of kings and Lord of Lords. This is what we saw on 18 May 2019:

"[God] controls the course of world events;
he removes kings and sets up other kings.
He gives wisdom to the wise
and knowledge to the scholars" (Daniel 2:21).

I don’t expect any pollster in the world will discover how to measure God’s sovereign activity in a nation.

Polls are just guides, not final outcomes. A problem is that too many people accept them as more significant than they really are.
The only way to guarantee the correctness of your interpretation, is to know everything about every thing.

We can agree tha the so-called polls and their claimed results were patently the product of quite malicious invention/intention?

And done in order, I believe, to create complacency among the younger voter, who as per usual, saw no reason to perform their civic duty?

That said, the smiling assassin didn't help his cause by his Juxtaposition on coal. And completely overshadowed some inherently good policies.

Nor assisted by the premature celebratory drink with union/Labor mates.

As for coal, I believe, its only foreseeable and fundable future, is as a source of alternative fuel for transport. As extracted methane cooked from coal, then compressed to power most transport.

Catalytic conversion can produce methanol, an excellent substitute for avgas?

And for a fraction of the cost of fully imported refined fuel. Moreover, enable us to put back in our pocket the 26 plus billions now extracted buying fully imported foreign fuel.

Further as compressed gas able to be piped anywhere in Oz. Minus, the usual transmission/distribution losses caused by resistance in millions of miles of wires.

As for coal-fired power? Technically possible without very much CO2 emission. But not the most economical way to power the nation!

That task ought to be assigned to MSR thorium, which can also be tasked with burning the world's nuclear waste stockpile. And be paid annual billions for providing that service as we reduce the half-life to 300 years.

ALL WHILE PRODUCING VIRTUALLY FREE POWER!

UNDERSTAND, LABOR GENIUSES, WHAT THAT WOULD MEAN TO THE NATION AND JOBS, JOBS, JOBS?

In power stations that are safer than coal-fired, cleaner, carbon-free and vastly cheaper! That together with battery production, keeps most of the mining industry jobs! And in minerals without the spectre of black lung disease!
Alan B.

The polls were done by ALP supporting outfits & they pushed them too obviously & this back-fired !

Anything but the obvious:

Everyone knows that when Labor wins, Australian shares and currency fall (and bonds rise): I am not saying that this is good or bad, but as a shrewd strategy, one should tell the pollsters that they intend to vote/preference Labor, then buy shares on the day before elections, when cheapest, and/or sell foreign currency and bonds, then vote/preference the coalition and make a profit!

And yes also, in face-to-face polls or even in unautomated telephone polls, one can easily be intimidated or just be too shy to reveal their true voting intentions. This especially is the case with Chinese-born Australians.

I do believe that deliberately-misleading responses count for much more than all statistical factors.

Polls are meant to influence voters,especially the undecided voter.

I find the pollsters are decidedly Left Wing for the most, not all. They take their Polls where they feel they will get the best predetermined result.

In this case they all got it seriously wrong. Ay? Ha, ha.

Then again Bob Brown & his Caravan didn't help the Pollsters with their surveys in Queensland. or, maybe they didn't Poll Queenslanders.

I find with a lot of Polls, not yours Graham, that the way they phrase some questions can be misleading, or leading, in some cases. Especially with Product Samplers. ;-) But I don't take them seriously anyway (Product Samplers).

Jayb,

<<They take their Polls where they feel they will get the best predetermined result.>>

If that is so (and I don't understand it is), then the pollsters got an F mark for Labor and an F mark for the Coalition as Labor was expected to win and the Coalition was expected to lose.

.

Dear Graham,

.

As I see it …

The polls were an indication of the state of mind of the electors before the election. The vote was an indication of their final resignation ... after all was said and done.

.

"The future is uncertain, and no matter how many polls you take, it will still be uncertain. Blaming pollsters for failing to be fortunetellers says more about the state of political commentary in Australia than it does polling.

If we reported elections on the issues and policies, rather than as though they were horse races, polling would be less relevant. But that would be too hard for journalists and politicians who love the false security of round numbers."

Well said, Graham. Well said.