As the election draws inexorably closer the pundits are getting nervous. Their reputations are on the line. Some remember the 1961 election when Menzies was saved by the donkey vote in Jim Killen’s electorate in Queensland. To hedge their bets some are saying that it will be close. Of course, the politicians are saying the same, but no one believes they really mean it.

Even Sol Lebovic, the thoughtful former CEO of Newspoll, says the result could be close. In an article in The Australian on 6 October 2007 he wrote:

(In the 2004 election) Primary support for the Coalition during the seven-week campaign increased from 41 per cent to 46.7 per cent, a gain of 5.7 percentage points, the largest increase in the past 20 years. If the gain made by the Coalition and the loss made by the Australian Labor Party during the 2004 campaign were repeated this year, with last weekend’s Newspoll as the pre-campaign level, then both the Coalition and Labor would end up with a primary vote of about 45 per cent, suggesting a Labor victory on preferences in a close election result.

However, he also made the point that only twice in the last twenty years has an incumbent government gained in support during an election campaign.

What do the polls show? Overwhelmingly and consistently they show that Labor is at the moment, and has been for many months, a country mile ahead. So why the nervousness? Could the polls be wrong? Of course they could, but this is extremely unlikely. They have been too consistent for too many months for all of them to be wrong together.

Could the electorate change its mind? Of course it could, but here too it would need a major event to put it off course. John Howard, in delaying the election, may be hoping one will come along or that he will be able to manufacture one, but the odds are not great. It would need to be a pretty big one to harness enough votes to make a difference.

Could voters change their minds during the campaign? Of course they could – but it would need a lot of them to do so to make a difference. Again, we would not hold our breath. The mood of the electorate seems to be for change. If this is correct, the likelihood of a major shift during the campaign, other things being equal, is not great.

Could the “Don’t know’s” flood towards the Coalition? Of course they could, but at the moment their numbers do not appear to be large. Morgan is showing them at some 4% to 5%. Newspoll, since May this year, has shown undecided and refused as fluctuating from 4% to 10%, with the figure in most months ranging around 7% or 8%. In their latest poll it reached the 10% mentioned above. Nielsen has the “Don’t know etc.” running between 5% and 9% over the last eight months, with 8% in their two most recent polls. But these numbers are hardly enough to make a difference, given that even in a flood the current does not always go the same way.

Could Kevin Rudd fall in a heap or be cornered by Howard? Of course he could, but at present he is stepping so carefully that he is more likely to become immobilised than to fall or be cut off.

Could preferences be different from last time, thus affecting the two-party preferred vote? Of course they could, but what is the probability of this happening in a way disastrous to Labor? Not very great, we would suggest.

So where is the risk? In all these places and in none of them. Think about it.