Australia’s media giants have had their say on who should win the federal election tomorrow, and while everyone has backed a horse, no-one seems overly impressed by what’s in the stable.

The headline on The Sydney Morning Herald’s editorial this morning read: “Dutton should not be our prime minister. But the Albanese government needs to be so much better.”

Editor Bevan Shields and his team wrote that “Ultimately, the Herald believes Dutton has not done enough to tell us who he is, what he believes in and what sort of leader he would be.”

But while Dutton “is not ready to be prime minister” and his Coalition isn’t “fit to return to office after just three years in opposition”, the paper’s endorsement of Anthony Albanese came with some major caveats. 

“The government has been competent but lacked ideas, reforming zeal and at times dithered in the crouch position as the world crashes around us,” the editorial stated.

If Albanese does indeed manage to win another term tomorrow, it “should not be seen as a victory” or a “glowing endorsement of the previous three years”, but rather a “lucky second shot”, it read.

The Australian backed Dutton, saying in its overnight editorial that it owes its “allegiance to no party but rather what’s in the national interest”. 

“The choice facing the nation — one of great consequence — must be made against the backdrop of a dispiriting campaign characterised by short-term thinking and a paucity of vision from both sides,” the editorial said. “But in the key areas of defence, energy and the economy, the Coalition provides the best option for managing the demands of challenging and uncertain times.”

Still, the paper reckoned Dutton has shown a “lack of policy work in key areas, and a misreading of the Australian public” during the campaign.

Albanese, in The Australian’s view, has appeared unable to understand what it’s like to run a small business, unwilling to rein in government spending, and incapable of properly steering Australia through “a time of great global uncertainty”, both when it comes to foreign relations and the world economy. 

In Canberra, the Coalition’s attack on public sector jobs has understandably rubbed the local paper the wrong way. 

According to The Canberra Times, the choice on Saturday is “simple”: Albanese’s “safe set of hands looks a far better electoral choice than a grasping one”.

The Australian Financial Review wrote that 2025 will “go down as one of the worst campaigns on record for the damage it will do to Australian prosperity and the abject failure of both protagonists to confront difficult truths”.

But faced with the “difficult choice” between “the prospect of Labor falling under the influence of Green recklessness in the event of a hung parliament” and the Coalition’s “slim and underwhelming policy offerings”, the paper sided with the latter.

“A Dutton government that has offered up slightly more in the way of budget responsibility might be our least worst bet, as unconvincing as he has been,” the editorial concluded.

“Unlike the Coalition, Labor has not portrayed Canberra as the enemy of good government, but rather as the essential home of it. This difference in policy reveals more about this election than just the fate of public service jobs,” the paper writes in its editorial. 

Western Australia’s The Nightly, helmed by ex-Australian editor Chris Dore, sticks out from the crowd with its note of certainty. 

“Anthony Albanese must be punished for a poor three years,” read the headline of an overnight editorial. 

“The opposition has been disappointing during this campaign, but when we vote on Saturday, it’s a judgment on the past three years of compounding failure. And Anthony Albanese should be punished for it,” it said. 

Still, the publication reckons Dutton “gives off thug vibes” and says the opposition leader, like the prime minister, is a “multimillionaire” who is “out of touch with the struggles of families in the suburbs”.

“Neither of them really gets Western Australia, they don’t understand business, and certainly have no idea how young people think. These guys — and their mates — are in it for themselves,” the editorial said. 

In Queensland, The Courier-Mail warned readers not to vote Greens on Saturday, saying the party would hold Parliament “to ransom” if given too much power.

“Prime Minister Albanese has been the better campaigner,” the paper’s editorial read, while Dutton “has had a shocking campaign”.

“But running a less trouble-plagued campaign than your opponent is not exactly a ringing endorsement that demands another three years as leader,” the paper’s editorial said. 

“Our message to [young voters] is the same as it is to all of our readers today. Do not throw your vote away by voting on ‘the vibe’. Vote instead on proven vision, and on leadership,” the piece finished. 

At Guardian Australia, editor Lenore Taylor appeared on a podcast to offer her take on the campaign. 

Taylor said she believed Dutton had been “inherently the better communicator”, but suffered from a lack of clarity about what his message was. 

“It wasn’t clear precisely what he was trying to say … I think his campaign was let down a bit by his performance, by the absence of a very coherent and disciplined strategy, whereas Anthony Albanese was on message about the cost of living the whole way through,” Taylor said. 

“Even though he doesn’t always deliver a message particularly eloquently … he’s stuck to the script, and kind of grew in confidence as the campaign went on, and it went well for him, and I think the opposite could be said for Peter Dutton.”

Who are you voting for — and why?

We want to hear from you. Write to us at letters@crikey.com.au to be published in Crikey. Please include your full name. We reserve the right to edit for length and clarity.