Criticism should be based on fact

So if Abjorensen feels obliged to attack Abbott, how about a bit more analysis of key policy issues rather than misleading comparisons with the past or the use of selective quotes from unnamed Coalition MPs?

After all, there may be many areas of justified concern. For example, why should Abbott prevent a conscience vote on gay marriage for Coalition members given general community acceptance and this possible restriction being alien to the Liberal Party tradition.

Abjorensen could have examined whether Abbott was opposed to a decent social welfare system? He could have noted that it was an Abbott-led Coalition that upped the ante in terms of greater public resources for disability services, although Abbott admits that all demands cannot be met and that tougher demands on social security recipients may be required to reduce dependence for those able to work.

Does Abbott offer environmental credentials? Again, despite opposing the carbon tax for legitimate reasons like the possible move offshore of polluting industries to nations with much less stringent environmental accountability, the Coalition remains committed to a similar level of greenhouse emissions reductions as Labor.

Does Abbott lead by example in terms of his actions? Abjorensen could have referred to his level of fitness and his participation in the fire volunteer service.

In the end Abjorensen needs to do much more than state that Abbott is not popular with woman or suggest that he fluked the Opposition leadership.

Again, Abjorensen displays poor analysis when he suggests that (the still ambitious) Malcolm Turnbull remains "a clear alternative and a far less polarising figure". After all, it was Turnbull that made an enormous political mistake when he relied on the dodgy advice of the disgraced Treasury official Godwin Grech in a failed attempt to undermine the then Prime Minister Rudd's leadership, a strategy which led to a decline in the Liberal Party's approval rating.

It was also Abbott that seized the moment and took advantage of mixed support within the Coalition for Turnbull's support for Labor's Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, a policy which indeed has helped restore the Coalition's political fortunes.

If political commentators are going to attack Abbott, please be as objective as much as possible through adequate analysis. Even if one also resents cutbacks to the public service, as Abjorensen indicates, a political scientist should give adequate attention to the many factors and players that determine political success or failure in Australia's liberal democracy. A better explanation of context and analysis of Abbott's policies may indeed explain why he is a hot favourite to become Australia's next prime minister, much to the annoyance of those Australian political scientists who still struggle to prevent their personal bias from getting in the way of a story they would rather tell.