Posted on 09/06/2013 11:42:58 PM PDT by naturalman1975
BREAKING: The first exit poll from Sky News projects a landslide 46-seat election win to the Coalition. It has been a nightmare day for Kevin Rudd, who woke up to devastating polls and faced a media circus as he cast his vote in Brisbane.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.com.au ...
If they win big and start kicking all the trouble making, immigrants....MUSLIMS....out of the country, where will they go?
To the US of A and Obama’s amnesty.
Mate, they called this election about 30 seconds after Oakshott finished his 17 minute waffle back in 2010.
I think Labor will loose 17 or 18 seats. Everyone keeps talking about a 20+ loss but Labor, the Unions, and the A(LP)BC have been sandbagging seats like crazy.
Hope I’m wrong and they copy an epic flogging.
Watching streaming coverage on http://a-pac.tv/ - now saying it’s 50-50 that Rudd will lose his own seat.
Blame that lying pos Julia Gillard and her plans to tax carbon emissions. Australians came to their senses are getting rid their version of Barack Obama be it Kevin Rudd or Mizzz Julia. Big win for the climate skeptics and the anti-asylum seekers who are 90% muzzzie
Now Canada and Australia look better than America with Federal governments headed up by common sense conservatives. Neither has Mexico or any 3rd world nation on their borders plus no large pissed off black minority
Here in the US we call that guy "Lizard People". He ran for the Senate in Minnesota in 2008 (or rather someone wrote his name in and also checked the bubble for Al Franken, they counted the vote for Franken.)
I take ut GORRRRRRRRRRRN means "gone"? ;) gone
Yes, it’s supposed to sound like somebody shouting ‘Gone’.
Oh my, Rudd could lose his own seat?
That would be sweet.
To the US of A and Obama’s amnesty.
Yep.
And where will America's decent, taxpaying, traditional American familes go?
Maybe to Australia, if that country's trend toward sanity continues and they get rid of their ludicrous gun control.
Hey Ruddy, how'd that selling your soul to support "marriage equality" working out? ;-)
It’s so difficult for any coalition gov’t to get anything constructive done. Every party is more concerned about posturing for a bigger share of the power pie than solving problems.
How far apart are the coalition members politically?
I am not that optimistic but still think he should win well. It has been one of the most measured campaigns I have seen from a conservative opposition - KRUDD has looked like a “Hyperventilating” cheeseball in comparison!
Yep, but only works if you yell it with an Aussie accent. ;-p
The nationals and Liberals are very close - at times they seem like the same Party - the Nationals tend to lobby more for the rural sector of our country.
Mel
Not far at all. In fact, it's not a typical coalition as compared to the rest of the world - it's been in place, not quite continually, but as the normal state of affairs, since 1922. They are much closer to being one party (and indeed in part of the country have merged). The only reason they haven't actually merged years ago is the Nationals represent rural conservatives, while the Liberals represent urban conservatives - and the Nationals know that if they merged with the Liberal party, rural issues would be much less important than they can make them by remaining a separate party, with the ability to split away if the Liberals ever took them for granted.
The Nationals accept that, on a national level, they are the junior party - but know they get a lot more done in that role than they would by themselves.
Bayner you mean. Pelsoi and Bayner have very safe seats, Pelosi’s must be in the top 10.
Foley had a GOP leaning seat that he won in a rat landslide and managed to hold on to.
In the last Canadian election the Liberal Party leader lost his seat, that was awesome, so did the Quebec separatist leader but he lost it to the NPD socialists.
In the British Columbia election a few months ago the Liberal Party (main center-right party in the province, not affiliated with the federal liberals though some of it’s left wing are also federal liberals) defied the polls to make a slight gain and hold on to power when they were supposed to get clobbered but the Premier Christy Clark lost her own seat. Someone in a safe seat had to resign so she could take his seat in a by-election.
Foley won his seat by defeating a Republican incumbent, and I think it always had a large number of conservatives, but he held on to it for 30 years (1965-1995), so it was quite a shocker when he lost to a little known first time candidate in the GOP. Like the lefties in Canada, Daschle lost his seat as well when he was party leader. However, he wasn't Senate Majority leader at the time... Trent Lott was.
It's probably much more difficult to defeat a party leader who is in charge of the RULING party, for obvious reasons.
Out of curiosity, I looked up the guy running against Rudd. Someone asked why Liberal and National don't merge. They remain separate parties at the federal level, but they're the same party in some states. This guy's candidacy is an example of a Liberal-National party merger at the state level. He is the "Liberal National Party" nominee for the Griffith constituency of Queensland. Private sector guy who is a career medical surgeon. Reminds me a bit of Bill Frist when he challenged an entrenched left-wing Democrat for the U.S. Senate.
( https://www.lnp.org.au/campaign/candidates/bill-glasson/ )
It seems like the Liberal and National Parties work together quite well. National tends to put their resources into rural districts where they have a better chance of beating Labor, and Liberal puts their resources into urban districts where they have a better chance of beating Labor. In some states, they're one party. Exactly the opposite of those two silly right-of-center parties in Ireland, who spend all their time beating each other up and refusing to form governments together, even though nobody can tell them apart ideologically.
Question for Naturalman, though. In Australia, do you have to physically live in the Griffith district to vote against Rudd (as would be the case in the UK and Canadian elections if you wanted to vote against the Prime Minster), or do all Australians get to cast a vote on who they want as Prime Minister (even if it's non-binding "advisory" vote or whatever)
Same as in the UK and Canada - only people in his own electorate directly vote for the Prime Minister, as he is their Member of Parliament.
You have to live in a candidates electorate to directly vote for or against them. The position of PM is no different.
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.