As I said, the Newspoll was taken on a holiday weekend and the Labor vote therefore falsely reduced by three or four percent because the younger Labor voters were out of the house, which the Nielsen, taken on a normal weekend, shows.
Yet Nielsen still keeps up the fiction that a Gillard versus Rudd poll is useful when all it does is allow Liberal voters to say which Labor leader they most want to lose an election. The only polls that make any sense are Rudd versus Abbott, Gillard versus Abbott, Shorten versus Abbott, Smith versus Abbott, Beazley versus Abbott, and so on. They would show, I think, in order, 50-50. 49-51, 53-47, 51.5-48.5 and 54.5-45.5. They are as easy to take as any other poll, and it would be surprising that there have been none taken except for the fact that the polling company CEOs choose not to take them.
Why, when polling, have a CEO at all? Can no-one else count? Why do polling companies need CEOs? Why are they paid so much? What do they do? Why, especially have a Newspoll CEO? Only to tweak the figures, is my guess; or to say, in this case, which figures to avoid — in order to most please Murdoch, the biggest client.
I invite Stirton to say why he does not do the obvious at Nielsen, and say which politician if made leader would be most likely to beat Abbott.
Why not do it?
Why not do it?
Who’s telling you not to?
Name:
Actually Bob, I think you and Rupert Murdoch would have a lot in common.
His latest tweets:
“Gillard once good education minister, now prisoner of minority greenies. Rudd still delusional who nobody could work with. Nobody else?”
“Don’t understand Aussie politics. Can Kevin Rudd really come back and knife Gillard? Weird place mucking up great future.”
“With Internet no such thing as monopoly media. Ask Zuckerberg.”
A lot of common sense spoken there Bob.
Rupert got it right about Rudd.
The rest is absurd; what minority government can afford to ignore the party which holds the balance of power in the Senate?
As a Murdoch employee you would say that.
Say something of your own.