I would have my money on Albo, a steadfast Rudd man. The message is – I told you so, we should have always stuck with the chump.
But there are two points to make:
- Does this counterfactual really work? Julia would probably have campaigned better than Krudd and been able to refer to her government’s record. (Yes, I know what you are thinking, but hear out the argument.) So the 40 seats she was supposed to gather in based on earlier polling could have been surpassed in practice.
- I thought the Ruddster’s KPI was 60 seats? He needed to secure 60 seats to make the change worthwhile – he only got 55. I guess altering the goal posts is something the Labor Party does well.
Here’s the piece from The Age, also in the SMH:
Labor would have been reduced to a parliamentary rump worse than in the Whitlam defeat of 1975 had it not replaced Julia Gillard with Kevin Rudd as prime minister, according to leaked internal polling.
Mr Rudd saved Labor at least 15 seats, including those of enemies Wayne Swan, Warren Snowdon and Gary Gray, who would all have lost their jobs if Labor had persisted with Ms Gillard, according to the polling.
In the months before the June 26 leadership coup, Labor’s pollster told the party’s national office to expect negative swings as large as 18 per cent, wiping out key electorates across Australia. It suggests Labor seats would have been reduced from 71 to 40, rather than the 55 it is now expected to hold.
There are also some peculiarities seat by seat. Kate Ellis lose Adelaide? She is a sort of local celebrity and her opposing candidate was weak. She was never going to lose.
Some of the other ‘potential’ losses looks pretty unlikely as well.