![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Having the polls back in the regular form would be much better because it shows the all candidates, and provides a better. The provided does not and contains less information Please stop reverting.
-electoral jew2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.72.140 ( talk) 02:33, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
apologies for any confusion i might've caused there. i was trying to do too many things at once and wrongly reverted an edit which added a totally correct poll result. i've since fixed it, though i'm now wondering how best to make the distinction between the 'Republicans' and 'All voters' polls clear. Hysteria18 ( talk) 18:06, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm not even sure how valid these polls are - every poll seems to show a different leader. But I think there were two polls that came out, can't remember from who, that showed Romney in the lead. One might have been a Wall Street Journal poll.
76.230.57.176 ( talk) 02:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
The CPAC straw poll is unscientific and, as unscientific polls are not reliable sources, shouldn't be included here. Please don't restore it, or any other future unscientific polls, without commenting here first. Thanks. — Hysteria18 ( Talk • Contributions) 21:28, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but the way links and the like work on Wikipedia, having both general election and primary opinion polling on the same page makes it difficult to find the information specific to the Republican Primaries. Unless someone raises major objections, I'm going to move the information on the Republican primaries to a new page by this thursday. Mburn16 ( talk) 22:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Forgot to put this in my edit summary, but the article giving the results for the recent Newsmax/Zogby poll doesn't appear to give the date the poll was administered. Any thoughts on how best to deal with this? I've just left the cell empty for now, but there's probably a better way to do it. Thanks. – Hysteria18 ( Talk • Contributions) 22:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I think this would look better, only it would include all the candidates:
Poll Source | Margin of Error | Sample Size | Dates Administered | Haley Barbour | Newt Gingrich | Mike Huckabee | Bobby Jindal | Sarah Palin | Tim Pawlenty | Mitt Romney | Not Sure/Others |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Gallup | ±5% | 455 | July 10-12, 2009 | 2% | 14% | 19% | - | 21% | 3% | 26% | ??? |
Please be open minded. I think this is a great idea.-- Jerzeykydd ( talk) 01:22, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Since I was asked, I find giving all candidates their own column too error prone. So I'd say either the old method should be used, or only the major candidates should be included. It would remain to be defined where "major" begins; I'd suggest getting 10% in the last 3 months or something like that.
Poll Source | Margin of Error | Sample Size | Dates Administered | Newt Gingrich | Mike Huckabee | Sarah Palin | Mitt Romney | Others |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Gallup | ±5% | 455 | July 10-12, 2009 | 14% | 19% | 21% | 26% | Haley Barbour 2%, Tim Pawlenty 3% |
I hope I'm not making matters worse. But if people couldn't agree on a new method, I'd say let's just keep the old one. Ambi Valent ( talk) 17:05, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I agree with most of Fat&Happy's points. By my count, there are 17 potential candidates who've been included in Republican primary polling. Combining this with at least five permutations of "other"/"none"/"no opinion"/"would not vote"/"too soon to say" etc. (which of these responses have the same meaning as others is itself ambiguous) would lead to a somewhat unwieldy table and excessive horizontal scrolling, something WP:ACCESS warns against. Also, as Fat&Happy points out, the current table is relatively easy for newer users to navigate in the edit window and to add content, something we'll rely on more as 2012 draws near. Under your idea, if one pollster decides to include, for instance, Gary Johnson in their poll, we'd need to create an entire new column for Johnson, which in a large table is a fairly time-consuming exercise in my experience. So I'm afraid I remain in favour of keeping the article as it is now, unless there's substantial evidence that these problems are solvable. – Hysteria18 ( Talk • Contributions) 17:38, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Poll Source | Sample size |
Date(s) Administered |
Haley Barbour |
Dick Cheney |
Newt Gingrich |
Rudy Guiliani |
Mike Huckabee |
Bobby Jindal |
Sarah Palin |
Tim Pawlenty |
Ron Paul |
Mitt Romney |
Others |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Gallup | 455 | July 10-12, 2009 | 2% | - | 14% | - | 19% | - | 21% | 3% | - | 26% | None |
In addition I wanted to mention that the problem with the current format is that it's difficult to see how gaining popularity and seeing comparisons in percentages between each candidate.
What do you think of this table?-- Jerzeykydd ( talk) 19:10, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Looking at the statewide polls shows that except for Utah (Romney before Huntsman) you find Romney, Huckabee and Palin as the top three in different orders. Other candidates are often left out, but there are patterns: Gingrich was included in 4 state polls, getting 12-13%, never beating any of the top 3. Paul was included in 4 polls, getting 4-8%, never beating any of the top 4. Pawlenty was included in 6 polls, getting 1-3%, never beating any of the top 5. And no other candidate named there was beating any of the top 6.
Of course, things will only turn serious after the midterm elections, and the primaries themselves are almost two years away, so there's still lot of room for game changers left. Ambi Valent ( talk) 20:39, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
I think this format looks better and is more readable, so I support it. I also agree with the suggestion about shading leaders, as that would bring greater clarity.-- Polly Ticker ( talk) 18:17, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm afraid I remain opposed, for most of the same reasons I articulated above. I don't think the readability problems of the current table are significant enough to justify using a table founded on arbitrary distinctions, which is difficult for newer editors to contribute to. (If consensus remains in favor of this version, I too support shading the leaders, and would propose also shading (perhaps in a lighter color) runners-up who trail within the margin of error.) – Hysteria18 ( Talk • Contributions) 19:14, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
I support shading the leaders and shading runners-up who trail within the margin of error. I also would like Hysteria to clarify what he means by arbitrary distinctions.-- Jerzeykydd ( talk) 20:10, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
In the Republican primary section: Is any of it really necessary? The table looks nice, is intuitive, and tells you everything you need to know. I don't see the point of the paragraph above and the statistics table. – Hysteria18 ( Talk • Contributions) 17:52, 19 April 2010 (UTC),
In response to this: this article conveys polling numbers for the 2012 primaries and general election. We don't include numbers only related to those elections (e.g. favourability, "would you re-elect?" questions, Obama v. generic Republican questions, and running-mate preferences), mostly because of the sheer volume of polling in each of these areas compared to the very little actual value it has to the reader given that none of those questions will ever appear on an actual ballot paper. – Hysteria18 ( Talk • Contributions) 15:15, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Newsmax has put out a bunch of polls conducted by SurveyUSA pitting Obama against folks like David Petraeus, Hillary Clinton, Bill Gates, Warren Buffett and Donald Trump and various others. The problem is, it's never specified what party, if any, these challengers are coming from, so I don't know how we include them in this article. Any ideas? – Hysteria18 ( Talk • Contributions) 21:39, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Now more than a year has passed that Giuliani has been in a poll, and Jindal has only been in one poll in that time, reaching 1%. Of those not in the TOP 10 with their own column, Christie and Daniels seem to be the currently strongest.
Does anybody else think the TOP 10 columns should be changed? Ambi Valent ( talk) 01:51, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
He's definitively denied he's thinking about running and he's only been on 9 polls and even then, not since last November. Imo, he should be moved to the "others" sections. Whether he's replaced with anyone else is a different matter. Trump and Bachmann have been polled a lot recently, but whether that will turn into consistent polling is unclear. Either way, Jeb Bush should be removed. Does anyone disagree? Tiller54 ( talk) 15:11, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure yet how to add a new poll to the table, but this one is interesting because it has Bachmann in the lead: [1] Difluoroethene ( talk) 23:21, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Should the article be broken in half between the primaries and the general election polling? I mention that because the article is a little long, and will only keep getting longer as it continues. Behun ( talk) 21:35, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
I support this measure. Thunderstone99 ( talk) 01:01, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
I think this really needs to be carried out now, the Republican part is getting larger and larger, so is the General Election PArt. Thunderstone99 ( talk) 01:00, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Seems pretty obvious to me. SOXROX ( talk) 21:29, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
It would be nice. Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 01:06, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
When the margin of error exceeds "Leading by", the "Leading by" column ought to say "tie". -- Gerrit C U T E D H 16:14, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
A misleading feature of most current media stories on political polls is that they report the margin of error associated with the proportion favoring one candidate, not the margin of error of the lead of one candidate over another.
In more technical terms, a law of probability dictates that the difference between two uncertain proportions (e.g., the lead of one candidate over another in a political poll in which both are estimated) has more uncertainty associated with it than either proportion alone. Accordingly, the margin of error associated with the lead of one candidate over another should be larger than the margin of error associated with a single proportion, which is what media reports typically mention (thus the need to keep your eye on what’s being estimated!).
Until media organizations get their reporting practices in line with actual variation in results across political polls, a rule of thumb is to multiply the currently reported margin of error by 1.7 to obtain a more accurate estimate of the margin of error for the lead of one candidate over another. Thus, a reported 3 percent margin of error becomes about 5 percent and a reported 4 percent margin of error becomes about 7 percent when the size of the lead is being considered.
I would like to suggest leading with the Four-way race table, which is currently the best representation of the ballots that voters will see this fall. Leading with the Two-way race table can be construed as biased towards a two-party electoral system, which is inappropriate for this medium. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.187.61.208 ( talk) 15:10, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Comment and Edit: 00:01, 14 September 2012 142.103.225.99 (talk) . . (194,181 bytes) (+2) . . (→Two-way race: Opposing is the inccorect term used.)
Response and Further Edit: 02:52, 14 September 2012 72.187.61.208 (talk) . . (196,316 bytes) (+636) . . (Separated General Election Polls before and after Convention Nominating process and corrected column heading)
"Opposing" may not be the best term, but "Republican" is certainly not an appropriate heading for a column that includes "Hillary Rodham Clinton" as data. Added "Since Convention Nominations" and "Before Convention Nominations" headings. Moved Four-way race and Two-way race tables data into "Since Convention Nominations" heading. Changed "Republican" back to "Opposing" under "Before Convention Nominations" heading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.187.61.208 ( talk) 02:57, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
On the Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election it lists major events that would affect the polls such as party conventions, debates, scandals e.c.t would it be a good idea to put things like this on these pages to explain sudden changes in attitudes?. C. 22468 Talk to me 11:54, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Doing so would be a form of original research if it directly implied that the event "caused" the poll shift. Without citing an external source that had proposed and demonstrated a causative link, it would not be suitable for wikipedia. Duster ( talk) 13:29, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
The colouring representing when a winner is predicted (as opposed to a tie) is incorrect. Anyone with a basic grasp of statistics and polling will be able to confirm that when a poll has, for instance, Obama 49%, Romney 46%, Margin of Error +/-4%, then that poll has not predicted an Obama win. It is as much a tie as a poll that has them both on 47%. The colouring/bold text that indicates a predicted winner should be changed to reflect this. Otherwise it is in error. Duster ( talk) 13:27, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
This new format of the page is making things look alot messier. I really prefer the previous way of doing it, it looks nicer, and is the same format as sites like RCP follow. By including a "margin of error" section, there is no reason why someone should get confused over who is actually ahead Green-Halcyon (formerly Aunty-S) ( talk) 20:29, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
With just days remaining prior to the end of the election, it would be useful for post-election analysis to gather all the remaining posts, including tracking polls. Which polls will most accurately predict the election results? Dezastru ( talk) 01:47, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Good idea, lets do that Green-Halcyon (formerly Aunty-S) ( talk) 20:23, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
In the New York Times Nate Silver gives the numbers: 80.9 Obama, 19.1 Romney
How does he come to this numbers? And why are they so far from the listed polls in the article? -- RicardAnufriev ( talk) 16:37, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Yesterday's Rasmussen poll (3/12) is currently included in our list, but Rasmussen plans on doing daily polls of Obama vs. the Republican front-runners from now until the election and have done another one today as well. Obviously, the day-to-day fluctuations are kind of irrelevant and will make for a very, very long list. But if we do want to have as much data as possible, it might make sense to update this Wiki page every single day with the latest poll...otherwise, I'd recommend keeping the Rasmussen polls to a weekly thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.205.50.158 ( talk) 16:09, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
There are several daily polls and average of polls. It makes little sense to include them all or update them daily. These would include Rasmussen, RCP, Gallup, and perhaps some others as well. I would suggest at most a once a week usage for Rasmussen and Gallup (Wednesday is my preference) and removal of RCP. I have nothing against RCP, but as a poll of polls it is probably doesn't add anything that isn't already obvious from stated polls. Arzel ( talk) 00:58, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
I agree, the Rasmussen Polls should be added more regularly as it approachs the election, every week would be a good idea. RCP should be kept though, maybe only one average at a time Green-Halcyon (formerly Aunty-S) ( talk) 19:50, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Last two weeks of the race. Anyone else think Gallup and Rasmussen should be added to the list once a week from now on? Green-Halcyon (formerly Aunty-S) ( talk) 13:47, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
A couple of reviews have been published that have looked at the accuracy of the pollsters leading up to the 2012 presidential election. [2] [3] Rasmussen and Gallup were among the least accurate in both studies. In one of the studies, that by Nate Silver, they were also judged among the most biased. Silver writes, "For the second consecutive election — the same was true in 2010 — Rasmussen Reports polls had a statistical bias toward Republicans, overestimating Mr. Romney’s performance by about four percentage points, on average.... In late October, Gallup consistently showed Mr. Romney ahead by about six percentage points among likely voters, far different from the average of other surveys. Gallup’s final poll of the election, which had Mr. Romney up by one point, was slightly better, but still identified the wrong winner in the election. Gallup has now had three poor elections in a row." [3] Dezastru ( talk) 17:55, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi all. Given your experiences in editing this article, I wondered if some here could offer some opinions on the opinion polling article for the next UK general election and a debate over possible OR. The key discussions are at Talk:Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election#Graph_to_show_tie_for_3rd_Place, with a summary at Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Description_of_opinion_polls_results_in_UK_w.r.t._UKIP. Bondegezou ( talk) 11:51, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
If somebody could include the nonpartisan 2012 NORC Presidential Election Study (September-November 2012), that would be nice. Data reports are on the right hand side of the following link: http://www.norc.org/Research/Projects/Pages/2012-norc-presidential-election-study.aspx — Preceding unsigned comment added by Userser ( talk • contribs) 23:18, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Nationwide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2012. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 23:34, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Having the polls back in the regular form would be much better because it shows the all candidates, and provides a better. The provided does not and contains less information Please stop reverting.
-electoral jew2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.72.140 ( talk) 02:33, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
apologies for any confusion i might've caused there. i was trying to do too many things at once and wrongly reverted an edit which added a totally correct poll result. i've since fixed it, though i'm now wondering how best to make the distinction between the 'Republicans' and 'All voters' polls clear. Hysteria18 ( talk) 18:06, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm not even sure how valid these polls are - every poll seems to show a different leader. But I think there were two polls that came out, can't remember from who, that showed Romney in the lead. One might have been a Wall Street Journal poll.
76.230.57.176 ( talk) 02:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
The CPAC straw poll is unscientific and, as unscientific polls are not reliable sources, shouldn't be included here. Please don't restore it, or any other future unscientific polls, without commenting here first. Thanks. — Hysteria18 ( Talk • Contributions) 21:28, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but the way links and the like work on Wikipedia, having both general election and primary opinion polling on the same page makes it difficult to find the information specific to the Republican Primaries. Unless someone raises major objections, I'm going to move the information on the Republican primaries to a new page by this thursday. Mburn16 ( talk) 22:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Forgot to put this in my edit summary, but the article giving the results for the recent Newsmax/Zogby poll doesn't appear to give the date the poll was administered. Any thoughts on how best to deal with this? I've just left the cell empty for now, but there's probably a better way to do it. Thanks. – Hysteria18 ( Talk • Contributions) 22:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I think this would look better, only it would include all the candidates:
Poll Source | Margin of Error | Sample Size | Dates Administered | Haley Barbour | Newt Gingrich | Mike Huckabee | Bobby Jindal | Sarah Palin | Tim Pawlenty | Mitt Romney | Not Sure/Others |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Gallup | ±5% | 455 | July 10-12, 2009 | 2% | 14% | 19% | - | 21% | 3% | 26% | ??? |
Please be open minded. I think this is a great idea.-- Jerzeykydd ( talk) 01:22, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Since I was asked, I find giving all candidates their own column too error prone. So I'd say either the old method should be used, or only the major candidates should be included. It would remain to be defined where "major" begins; I'd suggest getting 10% in the last 3 months or something like that.
Poll Source | Margin of Error | Sample Size | Dates Administered | Newt Gingrich | Mike Huckabee | Sarah Palin | Mitt Romney | Others |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Gallup | ±5% | 455 | July 10-12, 2009 | 14% | 19% | 21% | 26% | Haley Barbour 2%, Tim Pawlenty 3% |
I hope I'm not making matters worse. But if people couldn't agree on a new method, I'd say let's just keep the old one. Ambi Valent ( talk) 17:05, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I agree with most of Fat&Happy's points. By my count, there are 17 potential candidates who've been included in Republican primary polling. Combining this with at least five permutations of "other"/"none"/"no opinion"/"would not vote"/"too soon to say" etc. (which of these responses have the same meaning as others is itself ambiguous) would lead to a somewhat unwieldy table and excessive horizontal scrolling, something WP:ACCESS warns against. Also, as Fat&Happy points out, the current table is relatively easy for newer users to navigate in the edit window and to add content, something we'll rely on more as 2012 draws near. Under your idea, if one pollster decides to include, for instance, Gary Johnson in their poll, we'd need to create an entire new column for Johnson, which in a large table is a fairly time-consuming exercise in my experience. So I'm afraid I remain in favour of keeping the article as it is now, unless there's substantial evidence that these problems are solvable. – Hysteria18 ( Talk • Contributions) 17:38, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Poll Source | Sample size |
Date(s) Administered |
Haley Barbour |
Dick Cheney |
Newt Gingrich |
Rudy Guiliani |
Mike Huckabee |
Bobby Jindal |
Sarah Palin |
Tim Pawlenty |
Ron Paul |
Mitt Romney |
Others |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Gallup | 455 | July 10-12, 2009 | 2% | - | 14% | - | 19% | - | 21% | 3% | - | 26% | None |
In addition I wanted to mention that the problem with the current format is that it's difficult to see how gaining popularity and seeing comparisons in percentages between each candidate.
What do you think of this table?-- Jerzeykydd ( talk) 19:10, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Looking at the statewide polls shows that except for Utah (Romney before Huntsman) you find Romney, Huckabee and Palin as the top three in different orders. Other candidates are often left out, but there are patterns: Gingrich was included in 4 state polls, getting 12-13%, never beating any of the top 3. Paul was included in 4 polls, getting 4-8%, never beating any of the top 4. Pawlenty was included in 6 polls, getting 1-3%, never beating any of the top 5. And no other candidate named there was beating any of the top 6.
Of course, things will only turn serious after the midterm elections, and the primaries themselves are almost two years away, so there's still lot of room for game changers left. Ambi Valent ( talk) 20:39, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
I think this format looks better and is more readable, so I support it. I also agree with the suggestion about shading leaders, as that would bring greater clarity.-- Polly Ticker ( talk) 18:17, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm afraid I remain opposed, for most of the same reasons I articulated above. I don't think the readability problems of the current table are significant enough to justify using a table founded on arbitrary distinctions, which is difficult for newer editors to contribute to. (If consensus remains in favor of this version, I too support shading the leaders, and would propose also shading (perhaps in a lighter color) runners-up who trail within the margin of error.) – Hysteria18 ( Talk • Contributions) 19:14, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
I support shading the leaders and shading runners-up who trail within the margin of error. I also would like Hysteria to clarify what he means by arbitrary distinctions.-- Jerzeykydd ( talk) 20:10, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
In the Republican primary section: Is any of it really necessary? The table looks nice, is intuitive, and tells you everything you need to know. I don't see the point of the paragraph above and the statistics table. – Hysteria18 ( Talk • Contributions) 17:52, 19 April 2010 (UTC),
In response to this: this article conveys polling numbers for the 2012 primaries and general election. We don't include numbers only related to those elections (e.g. favourability, "would you re-elect?" questions, Obama v. generic Republican questions, and running-mate preferences), mostly because of the sheer volume of polling in each of these areas compared to the very little actual value it has to the reader given that none of those questions will ever appear on an actual ballot paper. – Hysteria18 ( Talk • Contributions) 15:15, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Newsmax has put out a bunch of polls conducted by SurveyUSA pitting Obama against folks like David Petraeus, Hillary Clinton, Bill Gates, Warren Buffett and Donald Trump and various others. The problem is, it's never specified what party, if any, these challengers are coming from, so I don't know how we include them in this article. Any ideas? – Hysteria18 ( Talk • Contributions) 21:39, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Now more than a year has passed that Giuliani has been in a poll, and Jindal has only been in one poll in that time, reaching 1%. Of those not in the TOP 10 with their own column, Christie and Daniels seem to be the currently strongest.
Does anybody else think the TOP 10 columns should be changed? Ambi Valent ( talk) 01:51, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
He's definitively denied he's thinking about running and he's only been on 9 polls and even then, not since last November. Imo, he should be moved to the "others" sections. Whether he's replaced with anyone else is a different matter. Trump and Bachmann have been polled a lot recently, but whether that will turn into consistent polling is unclear. Either way, Jeb Bush should be removed. Does anyone disagree? Tiller54 ( talk) 15:11, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure yet how to add a new poll to the table, but this one is interesting because it has Bachmann in the lead: [1] Difluoroethene ( talk) 23:21, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Should the article be broken in half between the primaries and the general election polling? I mention that because the article is a little long, and will only keep getting longer as it continues. Behun ( talk) 21:35, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
I support this measure. Thunderstone99 ( talk) 01:01, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
I think this really needs to be carried out now, the Republican part is getting larger and larger, so is the General Election PArt. Thunderstone99 ( talk) 01:00, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Seems pretty obvious to me. SOXROX ( talk) 21:29, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
It would be nice. Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 01:06, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
When the margin of error exceeds "Leading by", the "Leading by" column ought to say "tie". -- Gerrit C U T E D H 16:14, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
A misleading feature of most current media stories on political polls is that they report the margin of error associated with the proportion favoring one candidate, not the margin of error of the lead of one candidate over another.
In more technical terms, a law of probability dictates that the difference between two uncertain proportions (e.g., the lead of one candidate over another in a political poll in which both are estimated) has more uncertainty associated with it than either proportion alone. Accordingly, the margin of error associated with the lead of one candidate over another should be larger than the margin of error associated with a single proportion, which is what media reports typically mention (thus the need to keep your eye on what’s being estimated!).
Until media organizations get their reporting practices in line with actual variation in results across political polls, a rule of thumb is to multiply the currently reported margin of error by 1.7 to obtain a more accurate estimate of the margin of error for the lead of one candidate over another. Thus, a reported 3 percent margin of error becomes about 5 percent and a reported 4 percent margin of error becomes about 7 percent when the size of the lead is being considered.
I would like to suggest leading with the Four-way race table, which is currently the best representation of the ballots that voters will see this fall. Leading with the Two-way race table can be construed as biased towards a two-party electoral system, which is inappropriate for this medium. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.187.61.208 ( talk) 15:10, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Comment and Edit: 00:01, 14 September 2012 142.103.225.99 (talk) . . (194,181 bytes) (+2) . . (→Two-way race: Opposing is the inccorect term used.)
Response and Further Edit: 02:52, 14 September 2012 72.187.61.208 (talk) . . (196,316 bytes) (+636) . . (Separated General Election Polls before and after Convention Nominating process and corrected column heading)
"Opposing" may not be the best term, but "Republican" is certainly not an appropriate heading for a column that includes "Hillary Rodham Clinton" as data. Added "Since Convention Nominations" and "Before Convention Nominations" headings. Moved Four-way race and Two-way race tables data into "Since Convention Nominations" heading. Changed "Republican" back to "Opposing" under "Before Convention Nominations" heading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.187.61.208 ( talk) 02:57, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
On the Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election it lists major events that would affect the polls such as party conventions, debates, scandals e.c.t would it be a good idea to put things like this on these pages to explain sudden changes in attitudes?. C. 22468 Talk to me 11:54, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Doing so would be a form of original research if it directly implied that the event "caused" the poll shift. Without citing an external source that had proposed and demonstrated a causative link, it would not be suitable for wikipedia. Duster ( talk) 13:29, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
The colouring representing when a winner is predicted (as opposed to a tie) is incorrect. Anyone with a basic grasp of statistics and polling will be able to confirm that when a poll has, for instance, Obama 49%, Romney 46%, Margin of Error +/-4%, then that poll has not predicted an Obama win. It is as much a tie as a poll that has them both on 47%. The colouring/bold text that indicates a predicted winner should be changed to reflect this. Otherwise it is in error. Duster ( talk) 13:27, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
This new format of the page is making things look alot messier. I really prefer the previous way of doing it, it looks nicer, and is the same format as sites like RCP follow. By including a "margin of error" section, there is no reason why someone should get confused over who is actually ahead Green-Halcyon (formerly Aunty-S) ( talk) 20:29, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
With just days remaining prior to the end of the election, it would be useful for post-election analysis to gather all the remaining posts, including tracking polls. Which polls will most accurately predict the election results? Dezastru ( talk) 01:47, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Good idea, lets do that Green-Halcyon (formerly Aunty-S) ( talk) 20:23, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
In the New York Times Nate Silver gives the numbers: 80.9 Obama, 19.1 Romney
How does he come to this numbers? And why are they so far from the listed polls in the article? -- RicardAnufriev ( talk) 16:37, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Yesterday's Rasmussen poll (3/12) is currently included in our list, but Rasmussen plans on doing daily polls of Obama vs. the Republican front-runners from now until the election and have done another one today as well. Obviously, the day-to-day fluctuations are kind of irrelevant and will make for a very, very long list. But if we do want to have as much data as possible, it might make sense to update this Wiki page every single day with the latest poll...otherwise, I'd recommend keeping the Rasmussen polls to a weekly thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.205.50.158 ( talk) 16:09, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
There are several daily polls and average of polls. It makes little sense to include them all or update them daily. These would include Rasmussen, RCP, Gallup, and perhaps some others as well. I would suggest at most a once a week usage for Rasmussen and Gallup (Wednesday is my preference) and removal of RCP. I have nothing against RCP, but as a poll of polls it is probably doesn't add anything that isn't already obvious from stated polls. Arzel ( talk) 00:58, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
I agree, the Rasmussen Polls should be added more regularly as it approachs the election, every week would be a good idea. RCP should be kept though, maybe only one average at a time Green-Halcyon (formerly Aunty-S) ( talk) 19:50, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Last two weeks of the race. Anyone else think Gallup and Rasmussen should be added to the list once a week from now on? Green-Halcyon (formerly Aunty-S) ( talk) 13:47, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
A couple of reviews have been published that have looked at the accuracy of the pollsters leading up to the 2012 presidential election. [2] [3] Rasmussen and Gallup were among the least accurate in both studies. In one of the studies, that by Nate Silver, they were also judged among the most biased. Silver writes, "For the second consecutive election — the same was true in 2010 — Rasmussen Reports polls had a statistical bias toward Republicans, overestimating Mr. Romney’s performance by about four percentage points, on average.... In late October, Gallup consistently showed Mr. Romney ahead by about six percentage points among likely voters, far different from the average of other surveys. Gallup’s final poll of the election, which had Mr. Romney up by one point, was slightly better, but still identified the wrong winner in the election. Gallup has now had three poor elections in a row." [3] Dezastru ( talk) 17:55, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi all. Given your experiences in editing this article, I wondered if some here could offer some opinions on the opinion polling article for the next UK general election and a debate over possible OR. The key discussions are at Talk:Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election#Graph_to_show_tie_for_3rd_Place, with a summary at Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Description_of_opinion_polls_results_in_UK_w.r.t._UKIP. Bondegezou ( talk) 11:51, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
If somebody could include the nonpartisan 2012 NORC Presidential Election Study (September-November 2012), that would be nice. Data reports are on the right hand side of the following link: http://www.norc.org/Research/Projects/Pages/2012-norc-presidential-election-study.aspx — Preceding unsigned comment added by Userser ( talk • contribs) 23:18, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Nationwide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2012. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 23:34, 1 March 2016 (UTC)