Captain Nemo wrote on Jul 6
th, 2020 at 10:41am:
It is a win ...
BUTA by-election would normally see a swing
against the government of between 3% and 4%.
This result is a small swing
to the government. In a by-election!
Last year, the winning margin was 1,685 votes.
This year ... in a by-election! ... the margin is currently 742 votes.
i.e. Labor went
backwards.
That's
with the donkey vote and leakage from the Nats!
On first preferences ...
Labor is -3.20% Libs are
+1.28% "Mr. 26%*" has nothing to crow about.
* Albo's current Preferred PM rating.
Don't try electoral analysis. You're rubbish at it.
Again - since you seem to be a little slow understanding this - Mike Kelly's personal vote was about 3%. His personal vote was good enough in 2016 to win Eden-Monaro for an opposition party for the first time since 1969 and he retained it in 2019. Losing that personal vote explains almost the entire drop in Labor's vote.
Secondly, the election is being run at a time of great convenience for the government: at the height of the pandemic (where Morrison has succeeded in claiming some credit for the work of others) and not during the aftermath (the consequent economic issues). If you're smart, you would have noticed how the timing of some of the less popular decisions have been conveniently timed to fall after the by-election.
Thirdly, elections in Australia are not run using first past the post, it uses preferential voting. Citing primary votes is irrelevant without any objective analysis of preferences.
Fourthly, you're ignoring the reasonable quality of both major party candidates. Both locals, both polled well in their respective localities.
Lastly, you've not given any consideration to the field. In particular, the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party did not run during the election but got around 5% of the vote this time. Their preferences split evenly. Palmer's party did not run this time, they did in 2016 (when they received 2.8% of the vote). What was the effect on the major parties' primary votes of these candidates? What about the other 11 candidates?
All in all, it was not a very good analysis. I could pick more holes in it, but what I have posted will do.