Posted on 09/23/2004 9:43:08 PM PDT by Hazzardgate
JOHN Howard is in danger of losing the election. If he continues to campaign as badly as he has during the past two weeks, he is a goner. This is a big statement. All the bookies have the Government as a firm favourite and the bookies are usually the best guide. The latest Newspoll says that 55 per cent believe the Coalition will win against 25 per cent who believe Labor will triumph, a number that is growing in the Coalition's favour rather than declining.
Newspoll also showed a jump in Labor's vote, taking it to a winning margin of 52.5per cent. But that rise is within the boundaries of the margin of error of political polls and normally not too much should be read into it. But the problem for Howard is that the 2.5 per cent jump in Labor's vote feels about right as a reflection of how the campaign has gone in the weeks since the debate.
That debate took place two weeks after the campaign began. Those first two weeks undoubtedly went the Coalition's way. Howard in particular performed strongly. He looked good, calm, prime ministerial, confident but not complacent and respectful of the people's judgment. He had the agenda firmly focused on the Coalition's greatest strengths: economic management and interest rates. Latham, hardly surprisingly since he is a novice at campaigning, was reactive and looked uncomfortable and uncertain. Then came the bombing outside the Australian embassy in Jakarta. There was a widespread feeling that this could only help the Coalition.
But Howard's problem was that the so-called great debate was about to take place. In what was one of the more boring political exchanges you'll see, Howard managed to lose comprehensively. But then he always does. He is a lousy debater and no one should have been surprised that he did not do well.
What was surprising about the debate, however, is that he got comprehensively done over on security issues. This reflects the fact that Latham, since Kim Beazley's return to the frontbench, has not only been bolstered by his presence but the weight and quality of Latham's arguments are now sharper and more compelling.
It is said that these debates don't often matter that much. But sometimes they do and this one did. First of all, it made Latham, who is a moody character who rides high on confidence, perform much better. He suddenly realised that he was being treated equally with the PM and could match him in campaigning. He launched his schools policy, an absolute classic of the politics of envy (a school of politics that is highly potent in winning votes) and which also gave much-needed support to government schools.
But what really changed was Howard. He has seemed totally rattled for the past 10 days. He has not been able to get back on his economic message. He has been all over the place.
Witness his ridiculous and confused efforts to get across the message of pre-emptive action against terrorists in other countries. He seemed to be floundering and the more he tried the more he got cranky and impatient with perfectly legitimate questions.
Latham made one big error in that regard in his unjustified reaction to a fair question about where he intended to have his children educated. But Latham quickly recovered his composure. Howard hasn't. He is snappy, irritable and looks desperately worried.
Just in case you think this means the election is all over bar the shouting, there are still a lot of fundamentals on which the Coalition and Howard can draw. Newspoll also showed that the level of commitment of professed Labor voters was substantially softer than that of professed Liberal voters.
For example, 10 per cent of professed Labor voters said there was just as much chance they would vote for someone else, while 33 per cent said there was a slight chance they might. Comparable numbers for the Coalition were 5 per cent and 28 per cent respectively.
And although Labor is doing much better than it was on national security, the fact remains that the Newspoll published only two days ago showed that the Liberals maintain a solid lead on who is best to handle security (50 per cent for Howard against 31 per cent for Latham). More tellingly, the gap on who is best to handle the economy is still huge (59 per cent say Howard, 25 per cent say Latham). These underlying realities make this election tough for Labor.
But the No.1 underlying reality is that what in the end will win over many swinging voters is their overall impression of the two leaders. If Howard continues to campaign as bad-temperedly for the next two weeks as he has for the past two, Latham will be prime minister.
God bless Howard...Kerry's sister is there explaining how they are in more danger because of Bush...and Kerry expects to wow the world into more support in the war on terror as President?
Ping!
Sadly, Howard could be a victim of supporting Bush and the war in Iraq. Berlusconi of Italy will probably face the same thing. Blair doesn't have the same problem because he is of the Left party in the UK, whereas Howard and Berlusconi are not.
It would be a shame if Howard loses. I remember reading about him standing up the UN and refusing to admit some Asian illegal immigrants who had taken over a ship a few yrs ago and demanded entry into Australia. Howard said no the them and the UN. Of course I don't know how that eventually turned out, but the fact that he even willing to take a stand against illegal immigration makes him stand out for bravery in the Western World.
I also think that Howard's govt passed a gay marriage ban earlier this year. That was even more shocking, though again I'm not certain about the facts involved.
It would be a shame if Iraq is his undoing.
Indeed. And such an event will embolden the Left in this country. I guess we'll see in 20 days ...
The Labor Party opposition has withdrawn its initial promise to withdraw troops from Iraq. They have also joined the Liberal Party (Howard) in refusing to legalize gay marriage. It's hard to differentiate between the parties - the result of our election will come down to just one question; Who will best look after Australia's security?
My guess is the answer will be Howard.
"COTW"? All I can think of is "Call of the Wild"...
Maybe the opposition is worse, I don't know.
Your absolutely right, you know almost nothing about Australian politics.
He has been a staunch ally and I thank him for the support.
Maybe one can say others that would replace him and his administration are much worse -- but that don't make Howard any good.
That's about it.
Interesting. What is it you so dislike about "Howrad's" administration?
His support for the US in fighting the war on terror? His stand against gay marriages? His actions in regard to illegal immigration?
Oh I know!
Spineless toady who'd sell his mother for a farthing? Sounds more like your DemoCRAT candidate to me.
Even if Howard were to lose the election, which I doubt, it won't be because of Iraq. The Labor Party opposition has made it quite clear they would support the troops and beef up our security, increase defense spending etc. A win for the left here would be due to the fact that Labor has promised to pump billions into health care and education. (In other words, spend every cent the conservatives have managed to accumulate (and then some) which will of course, result in increased taxes, higher interest rates etc...but when did spending/inflation ever bother the voters who can't wait to live in a welfare state?
Guess we will have to wait and see if the Aussie population has any common sense or not. The Labor opposition is doing a very good job of 'buying' the election with taxpayers money, that's all.
ANZUS is "symbolic'?
Not really. My feeling is it's not that unpopular with Australian voters.
The Latest opinion poll I could find More Now Against Australia's Military Presence in Iraq shows a 49-47 majority against involvement
However the breakdown of voting intention shows that driven by the 7-1 against of the hard left Greens voters, who were never going to suppport Howard anyway
The major party voter response is as expected: 2-1 in favour of the party postion. (With a caveat that the labor voters are usually more party loyal going 75-80% support to the party position on anything. So 68% suggests an issue that does not have passionate Labor voter support)
Of interest is that there is a small majority in favour of involvment from Other/Independent voters, and perhaps surprisingly from Australian Democrat voters who are against the official Party position.
But that's normal. The Dems have always been schizoid, their voters supporting soft-Right Centrist positions, while party control has been in the hands of extreme leftists.
But all that's "would you like a million dollars?". The real question is Table 2 "since we're there should we withdraw?" This is more relevant to whether it's a poll issue, and 57 to 40 the answer is no.
Howard and the Liberal (read 'conservative) party have provided Australia with the best economic conditions in the past 25 years. A strong economy and attitude of doing what's right by your allies (read USA & UK)! He and his party are certainly the best option for these times and troubles. He has no problem taking a hard line towards terrorists and the like!
If Latham (a loose cannon leftie)gets in - Australia will become the 'banana republic' of the South Pacific!! Not to mention that he has some of the same attributes as sKerry - appeasement comes to mind!!
Howard's appeasement of China has gone well beyond that of even Clinton's. If his opponent is worse, Australia is in a lot of trouble.
It's an election and this is simply an opinion piece.
My gut feeling at this stage is that Howard will be returned, but it's nowhere near a sure thing. The election could go Labor's way.
The problem is we have compulsory voting here. That has some advantages in referendums which are held to determine whether our constitution should change, because in those cases, people tend to really focus on the specific issue discussed and most people make a fairly informed decision.
But when it comes to normal general elections, it really complicates things - because around 20% of the electorate (my estimate) don't make an informed decision - and that group is large enough to determine the results. And while these people tend to support the status quo, there's no real way of knowing how they will jump.
If any single issue captures their attention just before the election, they can change their votes dramatically.
The big issues here for this election are probably national security, the economy, healthcare, and education.
The Howard government has national security and the economy pretty much sewn up - so Labor is throwing policy after policy at healthcare and education in the hope that one of their policies will attract public imagination.
So far, I don't think they've succeeded - but they could.
I don't think Howard's temper will have much impact. It might if Latham was a calm collected person himself - but he isn't. He's rather renowned for his outbursts.
I don't know much about Australian politics, you said. Boy, you sure learn fast. Now we are guilty of appeasement of China and worse than Clinton, and, if Howard's opponent is worse, you say we are in a lot of trouble. What's your beef? Some little Aussie sheilagh gave you the b*m's rush on your last vacation down under?
Save your concern for your own neck of the woods. We are going just fine, thank you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.