So I was going to watch #insiders but there is literally no tv host I hate more than Rowland.
I trust the pre-election data. It's the post-election data I think is wrong.
But so much of election study is done post-election. Is it all bad? Is it all not reflective of genuine voter behaviour when they walked into the booth? That would render the entire catalogue of the Australian Election Study since the 1980's bin-worthy.
I've re-merged and re-analysed 4 times now, and it's undeniable. Very, very unstable voters who indicated a different vote intent every survey, saying after the election they decided a long time ago or were always going to vote that way. Those who posted emotional messages about Bob Hawke dying just two weeks later saying it didn't affect them at all.
The post-election responses are absolute nonsense. People regurgitating what the media has told them is their reason for voting, post-event rationalisation, and all manner of people claiming they knew what the outcome would be. Most significantly, the post election responses do not match the pre-election responses.
So the suspension of mate @email@example.com inspired me - @TwitterAU@twitter.com can go jump imo, but the way network effects work is everyone else needs to as well, but the good thing is that it's not an all or nothing scenario. I'll explain more in a forthcoming post. For now - #DepreciateTwitter
Can't put this on the noisy place but I thought you may enjoy - raw, unweighted, survey's still open - testing framing; Scomo at church image.
Oh wait, maybe just URL squatting. https://www.pedestrian.tv/news/scott-morrison-scotty-doesnt-know/
Scott Morrison's website has been hacked - playing 'Scotty doesn't know' on loop. http://www.scottmorrison.com.au/
Welcome to thundertoot! A Mastodon Instance for 'straya