Before the end of 2013 Tony Abbott looks as though he will join Newman in a super-powerful position. He will become Super Tony. In an article published in The Canberra Times earlier this week, Malcolm Mackerras predicted a 50-seat majority for Tony Abbott's Coalition at an election on October 26, 2013. Furthermore he predicts that the Senate position will become 39 seats for the Coalition plus senators Madigan, Xenophon and Katter and 37 seats for Labor and the Greens. Mackerras's prediction may be on the high side for both houses but he is not alone. It is firming as the consensus position.

Those results would be the basis of Tony Abbott's parliamentary power. His situation would be similar to that of John Howard between 2005 and 2007.

The main ingredients of Abbott's power would be control of the House of Representatives and virtual control of the Senate. Though the three independents may not be as easy to deal with as the two independents, Xenophon and Fielding, that Howard had to negotiate with.

But Abbott would be in an even more powerful position than Howard because of the position at the state level. While Howard had to face state Labor governments Abbott will be in the position that the four major states at least will be Coalition-controlled states. Intergovernmental relations never just boils down to party politics but Abbott will be in a most favourable position. He will have to deal with Newman (Queensland), Colin Barnett (WA), Barry O'Farrell (NSW) and Ted Baillieu (Victoria). Abbott, unlike O'Farrell, who doesn't control the NSW upper house, will have been dealt a terrific hand of cards. He will have to play them more carefully than Howard did in what became his last term. But Abbott will face a political situation that most prime ministers only dream of. The Coalition states add the icing to Abbott's cake.

What are the chances, however, that those same Coalition state governments might play a part in dragging Abbott down before next October? The chances may be small but they are worth exploring in the absence of other likely circuit-breakers for Julia Gillard's Labor government. Is there any mileage at all in an idea that Howard frequently attempted to exploit, what he called the danger of wall-to-wall Labor governments across Australia?

There are two ways of looking at this possibility. One is the insurance policy approach. The idea is that voters should spread the risk between the two parties rather than putting all their eggs in one basket. There is some evidence that voters do sometimes act in this way. They may like the idea of being able to play off a Labor government against a Coalition government.

Howard also played on fear of the potential danger of Commonwealth-state collaboration at COAG between Labor governments. Once again he appealed to the desire of voters to spread the risk.

The second way of looking at the influence of the states on federal elections is the possibility that unpopular state governments might damage their party brand and therefore drag their party down at the federal level. At the 2007 federal election and especially at the 2010 federal election as the long-standing Labor state governments grew more unpopular they did seem to be dragging federal Labor down. There was plenty of speculation that Gillard had lots of lead in her saddle-bags from state Labor in 2010. This appeared to be the case in NSW and Queensland in particular.

Those state Labor governments of Kristina Keneally and Anna Bligh have gone now. They have been replaced by Coalition state governments that are still flying high in the polls. Is there any chance that some of the gloss will come off them in time to help the Gillard government? There are some general rules of politics that make this possible. One is political ageing; the pendulum tends to swing back when new governments accumulate tough decisions that produce losers. These Coalition governments are all relatively new but the honeymoon will be over by then in each case, except perhaps Queensland.

Another is a tight economic environment in some states in Australia's two-speed economy. Some state budgets are imposing savage cuts. Yet another is the pain following parliamentary deals. The O'Farrell government has made a deal with the Shooters and Fishers Party in the upper house to allow private shooting in public parks. That will cost it votes among environmentalists.

There are also particular state characteristics. The Baillieu Coalition government in Victoria, for instance, is relatively unpopular and only won government narrowly in the first place. That helps Gillard. There is no sign yet, however, that any of these state Coalition governments will be unpopular enough to save the Gillard government. What's more, two-speed economics produces two-speed politics. Gillard did well in Victoria and South Australia in 2010 and badly in Queensland, Western Australia and parts of NSW.

What may happen is that state politics enables Gillard to hold up in Victoria and South Australia. But there seem to be no state issues on the horizon to help her where she most needs help - in Queensland and Western Australia.

John Warhurst is an emeritus professor of political science at the Australian National University.

John.Warhurst@anu.edu.au