As we saw on Tuesday, the Greens fare better in upper houses around the country than in electorate-based jurisdictions. So it has been at the federal level, and not just because of proportional representation. In 2007, the Greens picked up a full 1% higher vote in the Senate across the country, except in South Australia, where the House of Reps vote was about 0.5% lower.

The biggest difference was in the ACT, where the Greens scored more than 20%, compared to 13% in the lower house, reflecting tactical voting by Labor voters to try to remove Liberal senator Gary Humphries. In major states, Victoria delivered the best upper house result, just over 10% compared to 8.2% in the Reps. The worst states for the Greens were Queensland and South Australia.

There is no current polling of the Green vote in the Senate, although one firm is putting together some numbers at the moment. Newspoll’s demographic breakdown for April-June for House of Reps voting intention shows Western Australia has been the Greens’ strongest state for most of the past 18 months, ahead of Victoria. Essential Research polling since June confirms that. In WA, Senator Rachel Siewert is standing for re-election and on current levels of support for the Greens in WA, especially after factoring in a small increase in the party’s vote in the Senate, she may go close to earning a quota in her own right (indeed Newspoll suggests she will), and in any event should be elected for another term on Labor preferences, meaning she’ll return to join Scott Ludlam as the Greens’ representatives from the west.

That, incidentally, does give the Greens some moral leverage if the MRRT should ever come to the Senate for passage.

In Victoria, the Greens are confident about Richard Di Natale taking the Senate spot they were deprived of by Labor’s Family First debacle of a preference deal in 2004. Victoria was the Greens’ strongest large state in 2007 (when Di Natale narrowly missed out on election) and, based on Newspoll results to June and recent Essential research numbers, Di Natale, who has twice run a close contest with Bronwyn Pike in the state seat of Melbourne, might also secure a quota in his own right. Di Natale is a doctor, amateur farmer and party spokesman on health issues.

In Tasmania, Senator Christine Milne will be comfortably returned, even without the galvanising issue of the Gunns pulp mill that boosted the Greens’ vote there in 2007.

According to both Essential and Newspoll, the Greens’ next best state is South Australia, where the Greens performed relatively poorly in 2007, with less than half a quota, but Labor preferences got Sarah Hanson-Young into the Senate. They’re currently polling not much under a quota, meaning lawyer Penny Wright, whose husband Mark Parnell was the first Green elected to the SA Upper House, looks well-placed to take a second Senate spot for the Greens, possibly off the Liberals.

NSW looks more problematic. Legislative Councillor Lee Rhiannon leads the Greens ticket and has been dogged by controversy over her use of Parliamentary resources. Essential’s data — from a larger state, so the numbers are higher-quality — suggests the Greens vote has been stuck at about 9%-10% in NSW in recent months. In 2007, the Greens struggled to attract small party preferences, and barely picked up 110,000 votes from the start to the finish of preference distribution. If that’s repeated, Rhiannon won’t be following Kerry Nettle into the Senate from NSW.

Queensland looks worse, but can’t be written off.  Newspoll suggests it’s the only state where Greens support remains in single figures, and Essential’s recent numbers — we’re dealing with only small sample sizes — are poor for them in Queensland. But in 2007, environmental lawyer Larissa Waters nearly gained the last spot, only for Labor’s Mark Furner to get across the line on the back of One Nation and other right-wing party preferences. Without One Nation, the Greens may benefit from LNP preferences and secure their first Queensland Greens representation at state or federal level.

In the ACT, hope springs eternal in Labor and Green breasts that the Liberal Senate position can be knocked off, but it would take a catastrophic fall in Gary Humphries’ vote to place him in any danger. If Humphries couldn’t be knocked off in 2007, he won’t be this time around.

Without NSW or Queensland, that would leave the Greens with seven senators and the balance of power in the Senate.

As everyone knows, the Greens also hold high hopes of snaring at least one inner-city seat. Melbourne, Sydney, Denison and Grayndler are most often mentioned. These all depend on the Greens out-polling the Liberals, and that’s a tough ask even in inner-city seats. You can forget Grayndler, where Anthony Albanese got 55% on the primary vote. Denison also looks beyond the Greens’ reach, given they would have to increase their vote by 33% on 2007 to overtake the Liberals, which Duncan Kerr’s retirement is unlikely to deliver them. Tanya Plibersek’s seat of Sydney looks mathematically possible, but again the Greens need a big rise in their primary vote to overtake the Liberals.

In Melbourne, high-profile lawyer Adam Bandt has the strongest chance of securing the Greens’ second-ever Reps seat. In 2007, he was neck-and-neck with the Liberal candidate, leading by just a handful of votes, but pushed ahead courtesy of Democrat preferences, enabling him to pick up Liberal preferences. Minus Lindsay Tanner’s personal vote, it will be even more interesting, especially as the Liberals have been polling more poorly in Victoria than elsewhere of late. But remember that it is tougher for the Greens in lower house seats and they will be heavily outspent by Labor in Cath Bowtell’s campaign.

While Bandt’s victory would deliver a high-profile win for the party, the Reps will not be the main game for the Greens for years, if ever. As  negotiating partners for the Rudd government in the Senate, the Greens proved realistic and practical, but refused to compromise on core issues such as emissions trading. As a warm-up for the main game of holding the balance of power themselves, it suggests they could work effectively with an Abbott or Gillard government on issues other than climate change. But don’t expect them to make the Democrats’ mistake of abandoning their base by compromising on core issues.