Oh what a difference a year, and two new leaders, make to predicting electoral outcomes

Maybe it's time for pundits to start eating their words in the wake of the poll they didn't call.

Michelle Grattan in The Age December 10, 2009:

ABBOTT, with his million and one ideas and right-wing philosophy, is a big target for Labor. No one thinks Abbott can win in 2010; he would be doing well if he held the line.

The vote will be in the second half of 2010, giving Rudd time to focus on Abbott's weaknesses. The next few months could see Abbott discredit himself by being too out there, with the Coalition remaining in the doldrums in the polls and bracing itself for a large seat loss.

Peter Hartcher in the SMH August 26, 2009:

"THE Coalition's big problem is Kevin Rudd -- it really is that simple," says the Herald's pollster, Nielsen's John Stirton. "Rudd's popularity is unprecedented in the modern era."

Hartcher, December 1, 2009:

BY electing Tony Abbott leader, the Liberal Party has chosen to fight on climate change and to risk all on an unpopular cause. This is a fundamental choice, and by the narrowest of margins. The opposition will now block the Rudd government's emissions trading scheme and campaign hard against it. The next election will be fought on it. And on the choice of candidate as well as the decision on policy, the Liberal Party has made it harder for itself to win. The Labor Party's former national secretary, Tim Gartrell, compared the Liberals' ill-fated choice to the Labor decision to elect Mark Latham leader. "So now I know how the Libs felt when we made Latham leader!" he quipped. Although the government is very risk-averse and is inclined to run the full term to the end of next year, the wilful combativeness of the Liberals' choice, the spirit of kamikaze fundamentalism, will make it very tempting for Kevin Rudd to bring it on.

The Australian December 14, 2007:

MR Shorten said former prime minister John Howard was in great danger of becoming a bad dream and noted that Peter Costello, Philip Ruddock, Fran Bailey and Kevin Andrews were gone as ministers. Of Mr Andrews, he said: "He's on the backbench and he shouldn't stop there." He expressed amazement that Tony Abbott would put himself forward for the Liberal leadership after gaffes during the election campaign. "What is it to live in a house with no mirrors?" he said.

Paul Howes in The Sunday Telegraph December 27, 2009:

A GOVERNMENT led by prime minister Tony Abbott would not only be a social disaster, it would divide the conservatives in this country on a scale never seen before. We'll have a choice between a zealot who sits slightly to the Right of Genghis Khan, or a mainstream leader governing in the interest of all.

Kerry O'Brien lets the cat out of the bag while hosting ABC's election coverage on Saturday night.

"A SLIGHT swing to the ABC, er, I mean ALP, that's the second time I've done that in 10 years."

Peter Hartcher on Lateline last Friday:

I WOULD simply look at the assembled evidence on the preponderance of the weight of both the betting markets and the polling. You would have to say the likely outcome is a narrow Labor victory. We'd probably [say] on those polling numbers, again setting Newspoll aside because their primary vote and their two-party preferred vote are out of line with the other 10 telephone polls of the past 10 days, you'd have to say you'll see a Labor loss of something around the nine to 12 seat mark. But just barely clinging to power, that would be where the balance of probabilities lie.

Dennis Shanahan in The Weekend Australian:

ON these numbers, on the primary vote numbers, you would have to say the Coalition is more likely to win than Labor and probably, or possibly the most likely, result is a hung parliament. It seems that Labor will lose its 13 seats to lose power. The question is will the Coalition win enough to form government?

[e-mail]