hmm beginning to think it may have been better if rudd let gillard fire him.
I agree with what Michael Rowland said, Rudd would have needed to get less than three votes for this to stamp out his second bid later in the year. Sure an extra ten or fifteen votes for Rudd would have been better for him but there should be no delusions about his campaign ever having been about caucus support. If he had been serious about courting votes from caucus he wouldn't have used surprise tactics press conferences from the United States, he would not have had Bruce Hawker acting as his defacto spokesperson while he was on a plane. His strategy is to effectively wave polling in the face of caucus and dared them to ignore it, they have as we all expected, now it will be about him delivering upon his threat. He's a former prime minister with no cabinet bonds to loyalty or secrecy now, he will be hitting Qanda, Sunrise, (maybe not Insiders) and he will choose his appearances at the most awkward moments (budget week perhaps) and it will bury Gillard's vote.
That being said his next campaign will be more subtle. He will dial down the rhetoric about faceless men, he will start looking for some factional backing, promising senior ministries etc. The next (and final) challenge will be a more conventional struggle between two uncomfortably strung together alliances of factions and mavericks, it will be under the specter of a general election looming on the horizon. Will it work? I think it probably will be sufficient to unseat Gillard, the third candidate issue is still very much relevant.
