Given the Newspoll result yesterday I won't be putting my money on Turnbull to win the election.

It will be interesting now how the senators will react to Turnbull's challenge in light of the Newspoll result. One would image that the poll will give them the courage to dig their heels in and call Turnbull's bluff on the double dissolution threat.

Suze, sadly personalities do have a lot to do with politics today and one way to fix that would be to do away with compulsory voting. Remember those who refused to vote for Husten because he divorced his wife and drove a Farrari.

The other problem with politics is that the only people who actually vote for a prime minster are those in that persons electorate and given the topsy turvy way our PM's have been chopped and changed in recent history, its anyones guess who will be leader of this country.

So I agree that personalities do play a large part today.

The fact remains that since Howard, we have only had one PM that has actually done anything constructive by way of addressing costs, and that's Abbott, and most hate his guts, however, if Turnbull is right and we do have to live within our means, Abbott is the only one so far capable to do the job, but the plebs hated him for trying last time.

In the past decade or so we have pumped hundreds of billions into waste such as indigenous welfare (certain areas), illegals (thanks to Rudd)to name some and, with our mining boom now gone, the chickens have come back to roost and no one has a clue how to deal with the situation.

Continued waste must be followed with tough times and those times are now upon us.

We have a PM who wants to do nothing, and a wannabe who wants to ruin the housing market and building industry.

Tip. If we don't have a DD, Abbott will role Turnbull pre election. Remember, the party votes for a PM, not the people.

Sorry Suze, Morrison is my other pick.

So Malcom Turnbull must call a DD election or in my view he will be gone.

Hasbeen, "the only people who actually vote for a prime minster are those in that persons electorate" In theory that's true, in practice there is a difference, with the front man with the media, the Prime Minister, the opposition leader (always battling for coverage) the voters very much formulate their opinion based on the persona of the leaders, who they recognize, most voters wouldn't know their local member if they walked past him or her in the street, and certainly wouldn't have a clue about the opposition candidates. The second important factor is the parties and their policies, particularly the governments as they are the ones who have been putting their policies into practice pre-election.
Call it populists politics, but what gets you voted in, is to identify what resonates with voters then formulate a positive policy on that issue which will appeal to the majority. One of the leaders jobs is to sell policy to the voters, he or she has to be the parties number one salesperson. If the party can get that right more than not, and the leader and his team look like one big happy family then that mob will do well.
Turnball tried to go early to cash in on his new boy popularity and strong voter confidence in unannounced anticipated policies. i think he has missed the boat (vote). Left at the bus stop. Can Turnball pull it back, maybe!

Paul, in my view Turnbull is no longer in control of his destiny, rather, it will be a matter of whether or not Shorten can convince the voters that he is any different to Rudd and Gillard, remembering that he was right there through the whole six odd years of the waste and mismanagement.
Not only was he there, but he was the 'King Maker' as his influence was critical in the overturning of Gillard in the end.
He was also head of the corrupt union movement, but most people are aware the unions have been corrupt for decades, but true labor voters are able to ignore such situations as they are almost brainwashed to a degree. My late father wore the same type of glasses as to him his beloved labor could do no wrong.

Butch, one of the biggest shifts in my lifetime has been the move away from a solid core of rusted on voters, call them class voters if you want, which in the 1950's-60's accounted for about 80% of the voting population, today that figure is down to about 50%. 50% of people who walk into a polling booth will vote Labor or Coalition, based on the fact that is the party they have voted for in every state and federal election since they first voted. When that figure was at 80% it was of great comfort to the major parties, your starting from a base of 40%, not 25%. In early days political news like all news was slow to be received, it came mainly through newspapers, it was very biased, and that made the newspaper moguls very powerful men (they were all men), they could tip the balance of a small percentage one way or the other and therefore influence the outcome, They were not always anti Labor but by and large they were pro conservative. They backed the Liberal/Country Party coalition in every federal election post WWII under Menzies. It was not until Murdoch in particular threw his support behind Whitlam in 1972 that Labor won government.

The electorates biggest gripe with Rudd/Gillard was not so much policy but the changing of leadership and the perceived instability of government. If Abbott pulled a leadership challenge now, and won or lost, the Coalition would lose the next election, for the very same reason, perceived instability.