![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 25 December 2007. The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
When you add a poll that would gives or adds a state to candidate make sure to note the change in the Current Leaders sections. Also, under that section, post the date of accuracy. Rougher07 21:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Also, the map has Mississippi colored blue instead of Alabama. You can tell that whoever made the map (and decided the color scheme) wasn't from the South. Neodanite 15 February 2007
Could whoever maintains the map please choose a different color scheme? The red-green colorblind can't tell the McCain from the Huckabee. If it's simply a stock image, is there a possibility of finding another image? Michael F ( talk) 21:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
This page, as it stands, is worthless. There is no standard being used for reflecting leads within the margin of error. Second and third tier polls are carrying more weight than credible pollsters like Rasmussen and Gallup. Others are just not being updated.
Why not make this easy and use Realclearpolitics.com's averages whenever possible. Check out their web page and see if you like it. Keep a running average of polls as they are released, and it is used widely in the media when commenting on election trends. This will eliminate the need for an editorial board on this page to argue over such things as margins of error and whether or not Zogby has any credibility after his embarrassing 2004 showing.
I vote for RCP averages [1].
I agree that this page is pretty much worthless as long as there is no standard for when to put a certain state in a certain candidates column. One poll showing Romney in the lead in California didn't shift it to him (as it shouldn't have), but one poll showing Giuliani in the lead in Iowa by 1% (within the margin of error) shifts it to Giuliani (who I feel the most eager editors of this page are biased towards).—Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.69.231.226 ( talk • contribs)
The democratic equivalent of this article has deleted all the polls of states which already held their primaries, yet, this aticle keep not just those but also very old polls that make it incredibly and riculously long. Shouldn't this article be arranged to keep only polls of the states that haven't had primaries? (Oscar Sanchez) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oscar Sanchez ( talk • contribs) 04:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Whoever posted the latest Insider Advantage poll in South Carolina needs to make an edit, the poll clearly states that Giuliani, McCain, Romney, and Thompson are tied within the margin of error. Mburn16 21:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
1. Thanks to whomever got rid of the chart that had too much information to be really useful, but I thought the chart showing the first 5 or so state races was useful. Can we bring that one back?
2. It might be fun and interesting to include results on a population-proportionate map such as this:
http://www.georgehernandez.com/h/aaBlog/2004/media/11-09_Election-StateCartogram.png
or an Electoral Vote-proportionate map such as this:
http://files.blog-city.com/files/A05/141484/p/f/statecartogramelectoral.jpg
--
138.88.90.41
18:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Why is Illinois given to McCain when he has a 0.4% lead in a second tier poll? I know there isn't a lot of republican data for that state, but perhaps there needs to be a Maybe column added to the leader board when candidates leads are not statistically significant. Otherwise this article will lack credibility.
A decision needs to be made as to weather or not we are going to count candidates who are within the margin of error as tied. If we are, then the map needs to indicate ties. I think we should count them, I don't know if there are any objections? Mburn16 00:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I think we need to at least list the MoE, which I have started doing in Nevada and California. I also think we should probably list the Sampling Size. Michaelcox 02:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
I think the margin of error should be ignored and the winner be whomever received the highest percentage. Mr. DigDug 4:55 p.m., 14 August 2007.
Although dated earlier, it looks as if the May 16th map is more up to date by giving Romney Iowa. I am curious how Mississippi (given to McCain) can be colored for anyone since no polling has taken place there (at least according to our data). -- Aranae 21:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Twice now, I have placed a poll conducted by Datamar Inc. on the page under the "California results" - this is the poll that shows Mitt Romney with the lead. People keep taking it off. So far, the criticism seems to revolve around two facts: 1) The link did not take you to a poll and 2) Duncan Hunter was polling higher than in other places.
To fix this, I have: - Removed SacBee from the poll - It was my original source, but it looks like they were simply reporting the results. - Included a link to the .pdf document containing the results of the poll.
Also, Duncan Hunter is from California, he is a U.S. Representative from that state, he SHOULD be polling higher.
I have replaced the poll, please do not remove it without some kind of discussion on the talk page.
67.150.52.177 14:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Datamar is NOT a legitimate polling company:
http://www.pollster.com/blogs/poll_datamar_florida_primary.php
I am removing the California poll immediately.
Isaiah13066 07:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)\
Rather than listening to my arguments, michaelcox has repeatedly accused me of removing the poll because I "don't agree with it". That isn't the point at all. It's statistically a bad poll. I'd like to let the record show that Michaelcox is wrong--I had no problem with the poll's results. I had a problem with the poll and the polling company. I provided links to back up onpinion on why the company is not legitimate. Others would rather whine about me "disagreeing with the results".
Isaiah13066 17:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
First of from what I can see you posted a link not links. I really don't know your standard of proof is but for me a few people's suspicions (mixed in with others defending it) on a comments section of a website could be hardly construed as proof.-- 69.176.56.232 16:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
I was just looking at the polls for California, where Romney is shown with a more than 2-to-1 lead, and I think this is obviously wrong. I mean, just a few days before the newest poll Giuliani was the leader, with Romney in third or fourth place. I just don't understand how there could have been such a massive shift, especially since I live and CA and haven't heard a single thing to convince me to support Romney (I haven't even seen so much as one ad, or even a single pro-Romney bumper sticker). Also, I live in L.A., so if there was any major support for Romney I would've had to hear about (not to mention I pay close attention to CA politics). I just think you guys should check this polling source, it just seems a bit too shady this great website, which I have always been a big fan of (as far as information gathering goes). Also, you posted a poll from Texas that is so old it might have been smarter to just keep the old one. I also think that the TX poll is off for the same reason I explained earlier about CA, although I don't live in TX. Finally, you guys should start filtering out polls that are over a month old, or at least indicate on the map when a poll is possibly outdated. Thanks for reading and I hope to see some changes soon. Sincerely, John
Just to clarify why I changed the CA poll: I just don't see any logical sense why a nobody like Romney could have such a gigantic lead, especially since he spent so much time in the last debate explaining why he agreed with Giuliani (he looked like Giuliani's cheerleader sometimes). I invite anyone to put the original poll back, if you wouldn't mind explaining how this poll makes any sense (outside of Romney's dreams).
Well, look at how Romney has been doing of late - three debate wins, leading in cash, winning in Iowa, New Hampshire, Michigan, Utah, second in Nevada, reasonable in South Carolina - it is not out of reasonable thought that Romney is picking up momentum. McCain has hit a snag on immigration, so it is not supprising at all to see him dropping. I don't know how Conservative California Republicans are, but if they oppose Abortion, it is reasonable for Giuliani to have such a big drop. I think the best thing to do is to include the poll now, and let it be confirmed or debunked by the next poll. Sure, the numbers are strange, but so is the big jump by Fred Thompson in South Carolina, and I don't have any problems with including that poll.
67.150.75.145
16:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
I guess I understand what you're saying, but I'm still a little unsure. I mean, I live in CA and interact with Republicans almost daily (through volunteering and fund raising), and I hear no major support for Romney; unless you count the Mormons who aren't a big enough group to change the CA results. Also, CA Republicans aren't anti-abortion crusaders (Romney even strikes most I've spoken to as a flip flopper on abortion) and few I have met have even the slightest intention of voting purely on the abortion issue. Posting a poll showing such a sudden and completely out of the blue lead for Romney would be like saying George Bush's approval ratings climbed 50% after his state of the union addressee; it just doesn't make any logical sense. As for Romney's strength's, you're right, he is leading in Iowa and New Hampshire, but that's only because he has been campaigning actively out there. Here I haven't seen or heard anything about Romney, and many people I have spoken to said they probably wouldn't have known Romney even existed if the media didn't talk about him. Also, I watched those debates and heard post-debate analysis, the vast majority of experts said either McCain or Giuliani won the last one. In fact, the only debate most analysts said Romney won was the first, and yet that debate yielded little gains in CA polls. But now this debate where he answered half the questions starting with "I agree with Mayor Giuliani..." got him a gigantic lead with CA Republicans? It seems very, very fishy to me. However, I'm not challenging you on the results in NH or IA; those Republicans could be ultraconservative, anti-abortion fanatics. But I live out here in CA, and I know we are a bit more accepting of abortion. You must also keep in mind that Giuliani has an almost unstoppable appeal to big states; so is it even remotely conceivable that Romney can have had such a huge swing in his favor? I've looked at the money tracker on CNN.com, Romney has spent away his monetary lead (almost none of those funds came out here), so it's really Giuliani who has the lead in money (at least at this point). Finally, I have never heard of the polling source you guys used. I've heard of pollsters like ABC/Gallup, Zogby, etc., but never this polling . After all, Romney himself could get some Mormon activist to type up a fake poll and leave it online to get suckers to think Romney is leading. There is also the possibility that this poll was taken from Mormons in CA, thus gerrymandering the results in Romney's favor. I have once again taken this poll off and believe that we should leave the old poll up until another one (from a more well known, reliable source) comes up. The point I'm trying to make is that you must look at a poll before posting and you must ask yourself, "Does this poll make sense?".
I guess I agree with what you're saying, but I'm still confused by the poll's findings. It's like the example I gave earlier with Bush's approval ratings; wouldn't you be a little suspicious if Bush's approval ratings rose 50% after his State of the Union addresses? I mean nobody thought Bush's speech was that good. And again, we should be able to look at a poll and question it if it gives such an extreme and inconceivable result.
Sure we should be able to question, but Wikipedeia deals with FACTS, and that FACT is that a poll came out in California that shows Romney with the lead. Sure, we can question it, but the best thing to do is to post the poll, keep California in the Romney column, and wait for another poll. Let people decide for themselves what to think of the poll. The poll is replaced. 67.150.75.54 17:16, 18 June 2007
I understand that Wikipedia deals in facts, but you're not posting facts. What that poll is, is raw data meaning that it is just random information, not necessarily factual information. For example, if historians wanted to determine the population of L.A. in 1996 they would look at raw data and draw conclusions that in tern become facts. In this example they might get data saying the population was 23,478, but they would determine this data is wrong because it is too low for the real population. Then they might get data saying the population was 3,000,000,000,000 but they would realize that the data gave a population that is way to high. Here on Wikipedia, that is what we are supposed to do; take data we know is false and not post it as fact. Part of determining whether a poll is true or not is listening to people, like me, who live in the state and can say how much truth there is to a poll. And take the SC poll you posted, Thompson's lead is way to big, especially considering other media sources say Giuliani is leading (the NY Times I know for a fact says this). This is the second part of what we must do to make sure we are posting fact; look at what other pollsters and media sources are saying and see if we are at least close to their findings (if it is a credible source like the NY Times). So I won't take off the CA poll or the other polls that seem a bit off, but I guarantee I will look into other polls in the future, so save me the trouble and make sure your "facts" are actually true (or at least realistic).
I just saw that you added a poll showing Thompson with a more realistic lead in SC, that's exactly what I was talking about. Keep up the good work and make sure the polls you put are FACT, not raw data. And don't forget, the reason we can edit articles is because we are supposed to throw away data that doesn't make sense.
I did not remove this poll, but I would like to thank who ever did; this poll is totally ridiculous and we should have a right to remove a poll from a probably fake pollster. Its findings are totally insane, I AM A CALIFORNIAN REPUBLICAN AND I CAN'T EVEN BEGIN TO IMAGINE HOW THAT POLL MAKES ANY SENSE. Once again, I talk to CA Republicans on a daily basis as a party volunteer, the only way that I could see that poll making sense is if Giuliani was the leader. CA Republicans are strongly behind Giuliani, that's the only conclusion I can reach after talking to so many Republicans and hearing what they think of the primary candidates. I think there is a point where so many people think badly of a poll that we should begin to wonder whether they might know what they're talking about; so do us all a favor and get rid of that weird poll, nobody likes or agrees with its finding.-John
Can you read? I never said I wouldn't believe a poll not showing Giuliani in the lead, I even stated that if I saw one showing him a few points behind I would have no problem. The only difficulty I had wiht that poll was the incredible jump for a candidate that hasn't come out here once. Also, I never said I knew every CA Republicam; I said I volunteer for the party and meet many GOP voters. That means that I have a fairly good sample, not that I was claiming to know the thinking of every CA Republican. And for the future, read and then answer, IN THAT ORDER. But this debate is over, a new poll showed that I WAS RIGHT; I can only hope you will take my word over some fake pollster in the future.-John
Michaelcox, I wasn't the one who wrote any of the section above. I NOWHERE stated that "the only way I could see that poll making sense is if Giuliani was the leader" so don't attribute that quote to me *whatsoever*. Stop quoting biased things other individuals are saying and using their bias to discredit my argument. My argument has nothing to do with what they are syaing.
Isaiah13066 17:10, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Let me add my agreement that the June 6-11 Datamar poll in California is clearly skewed and should be thrown out. There's no need to rely on anecdotal evidence or opinions, as much of the above discussion focuses on. Simply looking at the data, it's an outlier. It doesn't fit. Nobody jumps from 11% to 32% (and then back down again) in a few weeks' time. I don't know why the numbers are off -- whether Datamar used shoddy polling tactics, whether the random sampling was just incredibly unlucky, etc. -- but they are.
Smith.dan 03:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
This isn't the first time datamar has been proven to be completely off in its data. It had John Edwards leading in Florida. A Florida poll a week later revealed that Edwards wasn't leading in ANY subpopulation or demographic. Thanks, Smith.dan.
Isaiah13066 02:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
I find it very interesting that Ron Paul and Jim Gilmore are not mentioned on the bar graph on the beginning of the page. Tommy Thompson, Tom Tancredo, and Duncan Hunter who are polling lower than Paul are yet, on the graph. Maybe these two forgotten candidates should be added to have an acurate unbiased view. Casey14 01:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Hate to say I told you so; I knew CA would never support Romney.-John
What happened to the poll showing Giuliani as the leader in PA?-John
The bar-graph was removed as follows (according to the history)-- 23:24, 27 June 2007 Mh10190 but with no explanation. Any reason not to restore it? Korky Day 23:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Let's try to get a later one showing all the candidates. The old ones should stay until replaced, I say. You don't throw out your old toothbrush till you get a new one. Korky Day 23:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I just read a poll by American Research Group, Inc. that shows Giuliani with a lead over McCain and felt that I should tell you about it (as it is far more recent than the current Illinois poll). It can be found at American Research Group's website under Illinois.-John
You need to add the new Michigan results to the totals at the bottom.-John
New Rossman Groups poll from Monday has Huckabee ahead of Romney 23-22. Here's the site if anyone wants to see. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/mi/michigan_republican_primary-237.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ultimahero ( talk • contribs) 20:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I just found a new poll for the results in the Wisconsin primary on RealClearPolitics website, under Election 2008-Latest polls (look for Wednesday, July 18)-John
Are you going to add this poll or not?-John
Quinnipiac University just did a new poll that found Giuliani in the lead in Florida with 30%, followed by Fred Thompson at 18%. The poll can be found on their website.-John
Why does the map still say 'July 14, 2007' on it?-John
Who regularly updates the map? Joseph Antley 04:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
"Other" candidates being unnamed is bad polling and bad reporting on our part. If the candidates' names are published, we should include them. If not published, why not? What is the pollster trying to hide? Maybe the fact that the poll is biased because when asking the public, they didn't name all the candidates! Maybe they don't want to show which candidates are trending upward and who might eventually win if the mainstream pollsters and media doesn't stop them! Korky Day 20:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I have no problem with a national map showing who is winning what states, but you guys are blowing that WAY out of proportion. As you probably know, but aren't clarifying in the article, delegates are not awarded in a "winner-take-all" system (like the Electoral College).
Two things should be changed to make this accurate: 1. The national map should include a clear indication that this just indicates who is LEADING in the polls in a given state, and that winning a plurality (or even majority) of the popular vote in that state doesn't mean a candidate wins all the delegates.
2. The whole "Current Leaders" section should be scrapped or significantly overhauled. It's beyond misleading at this point and of little-to-no strategic importance. I might be satisfied if the number of delegates were removed completely, and a clear explanation was made that the list is for informational purposes only (as primaries are not winner-take-all contests). Heck, we're breaking down fifth and six place between two candidates on the basis of them each "winning" ONLY their home states, which are of similar size. It's silly. jparkman 172.144.77.18 14:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
The following primaries are "winner-takes-all": Arizona, California, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin. The Green Papers Website has a detailed description of each nomination process http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P08/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.233.99.136 ( talk) 20:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
If I could edit the map, I would, but because I can't I thought I would put this out there. Arkansas and Kansas are mixed up for who is leading in the polls. The polls, and the obvious answer, suggest that Huckabee would lead in Arkansas and Brownback in Kansas. The problem is that the colors are mixed up on the map, so who ever created that map,could you fix it? Thanks. Alex
I believe this page should have two maps. One should be the current map, showing the main stream media's perception of this race. The other should be a map colored according to who is winning online polls in each state. Or do you guys not want to admit who is really winning this race?
This is a collection of scientific state-wide polls. Internet polls are not scientific, and therefore should not be included at least in this page. I have no problem if a diferent page is created for online polls only, but it should not be like this that has state-wide online polls, as someone from, say, Texas, could vote in an online Iowa poll. Mr. DigDug. 4:09 p.m. 8-18-2007. 14:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Fact: Only the smatest americans use the internet. Fact: 95% of online polls regarding the 2008 election have been won by Ron Paul. Therefore: Fact: Ron Paul has a support of a majority of the smartest people in america, and you don't think this is "scientifically" significant? The smartest people are the people that win elections, therefore Ron Paul has the best chance at winning the nomination and the election.
What other evidence do I need to throw at you people to get it through your heads?!?!?!?! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.147.63.209 ( talk) 16:09, August 20, 2007 (UTC)
All right kids, let's calm down. And let's sign our posts, please! This talk page isn't too debate who's worthy to win the election, it's about opinion polling. Joseph Antley 20:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Lol. Yous the child if you can't see the truth and just drink whatever the main stream media feeds you. Romney, Giuliani, McCain? Thompson? (Lol) You think the peoples will support any of these? No, they support Ron Paul, he's the not the puppet that the others are. You'l be happier the sooner you wake up. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.147.63.209 ( talk • contribs) 01:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC).
I concur that non-scientific polls should not be added to this article. The polls in this article attempt to determine what percentages of the population prefer which candidates. Scientific polls do this by attempting to select a fairly random sample of people and by extrapolating their responses to the general population using confidence intervals. Online polls neither use random samples of people (rather, voters are self-selected) nor attempt to use confidence intervals to determine the relevancy of the poll results. As such, online polls cannot be used logically to infer much useful information at all. Thus, which type of poll is best is not a matter of political ideology: online polls should not be used because the information we want (i.e. what most people think about the candidates) cannot be logically inferred from those poll results. --
SirEditALot
05:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
What makes a poll "scientific" exactly? 66.222.249.8 ( talk) Paulk 66.222.249.8 ( talk) 09:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
With respect to the November polling data, I believe Ron Paul should be represented on the New Hampshire results graph. He (as well as Mike Huckabee) show strength over Fred Thompson. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.46.199.237 ( talk) 23:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
If Ron Paul doesn't win the election it'll be ashame. He truly is the best choice for 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.162.21.187 ( talk) 02:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
There's a poll dated July 11-13, 2007 attributed to Reichle Firm. The link is dead and I haven't been able to find any other information about Reichle Firm. Is this a legitimate poll? Merola491 20:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
To address the concerns some of you have over the use of linear regressions, I've added links to sites that summarize polling data in a similar manner, but use different methods for plotting averages. I will keep maintaining the charts on this site, since it includes more data than the images in the attached links. Thoughts, questions, suggestions, etc. are welcome. This example is from the Republican California primary section, but similar links appear on this page. [2] -- Robapalooza 00:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
On the latest poll for Ohio, it says Strategic vision found Giuliani with 24%; but I checked the link and it actually says he has 34%. Just wanted to point out the typo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.122.161.115 ( talk) 04:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello? It's been almost an entire now (I hope wikipedia isn't always this slow to correct typos)! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.47.226.34 ( talk) 22:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
A new poll by PPIC (found under RealClearPolitics's CA GOP primary polls) shows a more recent 6% advantage for Giuliani. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.47.228.179 ( talk) 22:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
The polls since April 1 show McCain winning in Rhode Island. I assumed that this section meant polls since April 1, 2007? The last pol for Rhode Island is marked April 2006. Can someone explain or fix this? Goodleh 02:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Hey! What happened to the map?- John —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.47.235.112 ( talk) 00:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Why did VA change on 10/12, but NV did not turn blue? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.47.251.9 ( talk) 00:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
RealClearPolitics has a new polls concerning CA, and Strategic Vision just released a new poll for the WA GOP primary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.47.251.9 ( talk) 22:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
many of the links to polls, especially the older ones, no longer lead anywhere it seems like those polls should be left on the page, but they all now are unsourced how to proceed? Perpetualization 01:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't see why Kansas is given to Mitt Romney just because Brownback MAY be resigning (which he hasn't officially at the time of my writing this article) and even if he does resign, he still didn't win the poll. What does everyone else think? 74.240.193.120 17:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Wikipedia, it just seems fair to let the runner up have Kansas; and if it isn't true, then hopefully another poll will be taken to show that. Also, why didn't North Carolina change to blue on the map when Kansas was altered? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.47.243.166 ( talk) 22:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
many states have closed primaries, yet their polling results from American Research Group [ [3]] have the results of both the republicans and the independents...it seems to me that only the results for the Republicans should be included. Perpetualization 03:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I noticed that according to RealClearPolitics you guys have missed about 6 new polls from FL. So please put up the new one from Quinnipiac, it can't be that hard to find considering its from a major pollster. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.47.231.192 ( talk) 13:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to say that I like how the new graphs look, like in Iowa and California, and was wondering if all the graphs are going to be changed. I'd be happy to change them myself, but I don't know how. Also, the last two New York polls have not been added to the graph. Mr. DigDug 13:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
A new poll for Arizona just came out, the link it here: http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/story/102381. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.47.247.109 ( talk) 13:40, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
New Poll: http://www.strategicvision.biz/political/iowa_poll_112807.htm
I'm not good with the tables etc. other wise I would add it myself... Wikifan5554 ( talk) 00:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
The U.S. map shows Huckabee leading Iowa. No polls in the Iowa section support this. Just wishful thinking? Or is there a poll missing? Smith.dan 14:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
ARG came out with a new poll today which had romney on top.
http://americanresearchgroup.com/
Romney should get Iowa back now.
Why has Romney not got Iowa colored back in for him. He leads the average of the polls and was on top of the latest poll done! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.0.141.231 ( talk) 15:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
The rasmussen poll showed him leading, but he is no longer leading. Feel free to change it back. Also two Iowa polls need to be added [4] and [5] 71.163.172.99 17:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Why is the Ramussen poll (11/29/07) after the Amercian Research Group poll (11/26/07-11/29/07)? Dosen't the time window make the Ramussen poll more recent? Just wondering. Wikifan5554 03:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I added a "Controversy" section with this text:
Many of those polled have found that one or more candidates are not being mentioned as options in the polls. Worse, in some polls the voter cannot even select anything but one of the provided options. [6]
It was removed with the reason given that youtube is not a verifiable source and IMC polls are not listed on this page. However, this is a recording, not an opinion. I can give another source: [7] (recording of call: [8]). —Preceding unsigned comment added by McCart42 ( talk • contribs) 17:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
The issue of bias against Ron Paul still has not been addressed. This article needs to be flagged until more accurate samples are provided. JLMadrigal ( talk) 14:30, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I've been following this discussion and often visit this article. I support most of what Rami has said. I think the value of this article (like any good encyclopedia article) is predicated on editors making judgement calls about what is worthwhile information. "Worthwhile" in the context of this article is best described as "polls that provide an accurate estimate of how voters will vote in a particular state primary." That's what I come to the article for. The point that seems to be in question is how we define "accurate" in some objective way. Well, that's what statisticians do. As a foundational point, I think we can accept that typical telephone polls are accurate by this standard, and that online polls, straw polls, etc., are not. (If you disagree, as suggested here: "Landline polls can be considered just as "blatantly unscientific" (probably more so) than straw polls," you ought to be appealing to published statistical research to back up your position.) Within that framework, if there are specific polls that can be argued are exceptions to this general position, then we ought to be talking about them specifically. If, for example, a poll neglects to include Ron Paul in its list of candidates, while other polls around the same time demonstrate significant support for him, then we've got a specific issue that could be addressed. Smith.dan ( talk) 16:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
The article should be divided into (at least) three sections: Republican landline polls, Republican straw polls, and Republican online polls. The methodology, advantages, and disadvantages of each type should be addressed in the main article. The bulk of the data currently in this article should be summarized, and extrapolated in a separate article on Republican landline polls. Polls that omit candidates will need to be grouped together so as not to provide incorrect or misleading statistics. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to describe - not prescribe. JLMadrigal ( talk) 02:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
the chart for california acts as a template for future charts that i will be producing to replace the old ones i produced for iowa, florida, and california, as well as the even older ones produced by others. Any comments, please post on the my talk page, or here. Once i start duplicating it for other states, it becomes increasingly complicated to change. Note to Ron Paul fans: Ron Paul is included on these graphs. The complete list of candidates is Guiliani, McCain, Romney, Thompson, Huckabee, and Paul (Other and Undecided fields are included as well). The methodology for the other field is that if all of the 6 candidates listed as well as undecided have data for them, then other is computed. In any other scenario, other is not included on the graph. Thank you in advance for your feedback. Perpetualization ( talk) 22:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
This is primarily directed at User:JLMadrigal, but any users who agree with his suggestions could also read this. I agree with User:Rami_R and User:Smith_Dan, that this page should remain how it is an not experience any major layout/idea changes. It would surprise me very greatly if a page doesn't already exist that talks about the problems with different types of polling. I would encourage you to find that page, provide a link to it in the summary at the top of this page, and edit that page to add any additional information that you have regarding the advantages and disadvantages of different types of polling. This page is about very specific opinion polling (read the title), not about the advantages or disadvantages of different types of polling. Links to straw polls and nationwide polls are provided at the top of the article. I would also encourage you to make a page for internet polls and provide a link to that at the top of the page.
Regardless of what you do however, I think that it would be improper to modify the page significantly as you suggest. The page is, though not perfect, well organized, accurate, and well laid out. It is also a comparatively long page, though not absurdly long. If you were to add the additional sections as you suggest, then it would become too long and would have to be split into multiple pages, which is essentially the same thing as if you provided links to each of those other pages at the top of the current page. It is a bad idea to wreck good pages. Perpetualization ( talk) 22:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
The Alaska poll that was put up earlier today was legitimately done by a local news station in Anchorage. It is a media poll regarding the Alaska Caucus among Republicans in Alaska. The poll should not have been deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.33.75.140 ( talk) 06:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
First of all, I want to thank those who are keeping the graphics up to date. I'm sure everyone recognizes that they can't be maintained as quickly as the text in the article. As such, would you consider including a statement on the graphic saying "As of <date>" or something to that effect? That way the discrepencies between text and images will be clear. -- Aranae ( talk) 00:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I recently decided to update the line graph representing the early states' delegates, and noticed that the national map, directly above it, seems wildly misleading as many of the polls used to "decide" the outcome of a state are over 6 months old. I've quickly made a new map which only uses poll information from states which have had a poll in the last 3 months (i.e. since 9/24/07):
Thoughts? Comments? Should I replace the current map with this one? -- happyferret ( talk) 09:41, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure how we should put the results of the winners of the Caucuses/Primaries as it is not a winner takes all. So, to say that, for example, Huckabee has won Iowa for 40 delegates or that Romney has won Wyoming for 14 delegates is just not correct. Nor am I sure that this is the right page or if 2008 Republican Presidential Primaries (Results) is the right page to put this. But, as of right now, Romney has won an estimated 40 delegates, Huckabee an estimated delegates, Thompson 5 delegates, McCain 3 delegates, Paul 2 delegates, Giuliani 1 delegate, and Hunter 1 delegate. Based on the information on both these pages, it would appear that Huckabee is the leader with 40 and Romney in 2nd with 14. But that is not correct. Suggestions? Comments? I'm also going to post this under the Primary results talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelcox ( talk • contribs) 09:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Most of these polls are from a long time ago. Now, McCain and Huckabee have much higher numbers. This article, since it isn't properly updated, is HISTORICAL in nature, and doesn't show the current situation. Contralya ( talk) 17:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Predicted results????????? You got to be kidding. Who is predicting here and on which grounds? Historical polls? the results of ancient polls are NO basis for a political prediction. I can predict one thing for sure - less then 3 weeks from now and I´ll have a good laugh at the 'predicted results' 20.01.08 AB —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.56.135.160 ( talk) 21:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Predicted results are given as a snapshot of poll averages. This shows a rough barometer of where the race is at this point. It's not perfect I'll admit but it is the best we can do at this point. I would love to do like Stephen Colbert and just spin a wheel on all these states but that would be unscientific as would predicting results based on a whim. RCP averages are the best projections we have and must be used when available, these rules have been set previously, even before my time and should be followed until new ones are set. I also see no harm in keeping old polls on here as a picture of how the dynamics of this race have changed over time. -- PollShark
Poll Shark: Keep up your sensible explanations; they might take root in fertile minds. I am amused and frustrated at those who (a) live and die by polls, and/or (b) have no faith in polls, and/or (c) measure a polls' validity by the extent that it mirrors their own thinking (L-rd help us if it doesn't because that poll is automatically rated as bogus), and/or (d) consistently demand the impossible.
I aced a full year of statistics and polling (core curriculem for my PolySci degree) but it was tougher than Constitutional law. Over the years, in many campaigns (including a presidential), I tracked TV buys to see what they actually ran and if our poll numbers changed; comparing our budget against gain. I have tracked poll numbers after: debates, TV appearances, interviews, yard sign campaigns, walk 'n talk, sign wavings, phone campaigns, mailings, and anything else that might get our message out. After all that, I still don't feel qualified to argue the subject because it is so complex; people spend their entire lives studying the "art" of persuasion. I am amazed when folks who haven't cracked a statistics book in their lives feel qualified to argue the subject. Your "sensible" approach is wonderful.
"It's not perfect I'll admit but it is the best we can do at this point."
"RCP averages are the best projections we have and must be used when available, these rules have been set previously, even before my time and should be followed until new ones are set."
I would only add one more caveat.
"The only reason that polls fall short on the scientific scale is because they are practiced on humans."
Suttonplacesouth ( talk) 20:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Anyone got the official louisiana results? John McCain is claiming victory, and Ron Paul is in second for the Caucus, however there is still the primary feb. 9th... wow what a confusing system... perhaps the most confusing in the world (i mean, after that, you still have the delegate elections which are unique in louisiana and you could have multiple democrats or multiple republicans competing against each other) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.248.28.74 ( talk) 11:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I removed the proportional delegate map for a number of reasons. It seems to be lagging in terms of updates, and is inaccurate to begin with - "delegate" was misspelled, Arizona was not shown to be a winner-takes-all state (which it is), and there may have been other inaccuracies. It was also a bit difficult to understand, and the fact that a disclaimer section was required below it seems to indicate that it is not terribly useful. No objections to a better map - but the one that was up there was too problematic. ɑʀк ʏɑɴ 15:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm outraged that the map at the top is showing wrong results. Mossuri and Tennesse need to be full John McCain not half Romney half McCain and Half Huckabee. I hate that a Romney supporter wants to act like the polls are showing something there not. I hate that he or she is ruining the Nuetral ststus of this article. Signed, an outraged Wikipedia surfer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.54.244.191 ( talk) 01:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I think the scatter plot graphs should be taken out. They are not accurate and outdated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.54.244.191 ( talk) 03:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Why did you guys change the name of this article? "Statewide" makes the whole article seem awkward. - 165.134.208.120 ( talk) 16:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
McCain has clinched nothing, the delegates decide the nominee. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.226.152.184 ( talk) 13:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Looks like Strategic Vision polls are very likely complete fabrications. Statistical analysis show they're probably made up by people, and SV refuses to release methodology and has been sanctioned by AAPOR. Removing them to more accurately reflect the title of the article: Statewide OPINION POLLING... Can't call it that if it wasn't actually polled! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.188.247.5 ( talk) 23:39, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
When one clicks the date to arrange the state polls chronologically they instead are thrown scatter shot. Aug '07, Dec 07 then March 08 etc. Can that malfunction be corrected? It worked fine the other week. -- Dudeman5685 ( talk) 04:18, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
This designation is confusing and needs further clarification as to did they not vote or what. LimeyCinema1960 ( talk) 23:16, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 10 external links on
Statewide opinion polling for the Republican Party presidential primaries, 2008. 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 to let others know.
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 11:56, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Statewide opinion polling for the Republican Party presidential primaries, 2008. 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 10:11, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 19 external links on Statewide opinion polling for the Republican Party presidential primaries, 2008. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.rgj.com/blogs/inside-nevada-politics/2008/01/new-poll-democratic-race-in-nevada-dead.htmlWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:46, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Statewide opinion polling for the Republican Party presidential primaries, 2008. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.inrich.com/cva/ric/news.PrintView.-content-articles-RTD-2008-02-10-0270.htmlWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:02, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 25 December 2007. The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
When you add a poll that would gives or adds a state to candidate make sure to note the change in the Current Leaders sections. Also, under that section, post the date of accuracy. Rougher07 21:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Also, the map has Mississippi colored blue instead of Alabama. You can tell that whoever made the map (and decided the color scheme) wasn't from the South. Neodanite 15 February 2007
Could whoever maintains the map please choose a different color scheme? The red-green colorblind can't tell the McCain from the Huckabee. If it's simply a stock image, is there a possibility of finding another image? Michael F ( talk) 21:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
This page, as it stands, is worthless. There is no standard being used for reflecting leads within the margin of error. Second and third tier polls are carrying more weight than credible pollsters like Rasmussen and Gallup. Others are just not being updated.
Why not make this easy and use Realclearpolitics.com's averages whenever possible. Check out their web page and see if you like it. Keep a running average of polls as they are released, and it is used widely in the media when commenting on election trends. This will eliminate the need for an editorial board on this page to argue over such things as margins of error and whether or not Zogby has any credibility after his embarrassing 2004 showing.
I vote for RCP averages [1].
I agree that this page is pretty much worthless as long as there is no standard for when to put a certain state in a certain candidates column. One poll showing Romney in the lead in California didn't shift it to him (as it shouldn't have), but one poll showing Giuliani in the lead in Iowa by 1% (within the margin of error) shifts it to Giuliani (who I feel the most eager editors of this page are biased towards).—Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.69.231.226 ( talk • contribs)
The democratic equivalent of this article has deleted all the polls of states which already held their primaries, yet, this aticle keep not just those but also very old polls that make it incredibly and riculously long. Shouldn't this article be arranged to keep only polls of the states that haven't had primaries? (Oscar Sanchez) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oscar Sanchez ( talk • contribs) 04:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Whoever posted the latest Insider Advantage poll in South Carolina needs to make an edit, the poll clearly states that Giuliani, McCain, Romney, and Thompson are tied within the margin of error. Mburn16 21:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
1. Thanks to whomever got rid of the chart that had too much information to be really useful, but I thought the chart showing the first 5 or so state races was useful. Can we bring that one back?
2. It might be fun and interesting to include results on a population-proportionate map such as this:
http://www.georgehernandez.com/h/aaBlog/2004/media/11-09_Election-StateCartogram.png
or an Electoral Vote-proportionate map such as this:
http://files.blog-city.com/files/A05/141484/p/f/statecartogramelectoral.jpg
--
138.88.90.41
18:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Why is Illinois given to McCain when he has a 0.4% lead in a second tier poll? I know there isn't a lot of republican data for that state, but perhaps there needs to be a Maybe column added to the leader board when candidates leads are not statistically significant. Otherwise this article will lack credibility.
A decision needs to be made as to weather or not we are going to count candidates who are within the margin of error as tied. If we are, then the map needs to indicate ties. I think we should count them, I don't know if there are any objections? Mburn16 00:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I think we need to at least list the MoE, which I have started doing in Nevada and California. I also think we should probably list the Sampling Size. Michaelcox 02:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
I think the margin of error should be ignored and the winner be whomever received the highest percentage. Mr. DigDug 4:55 p.m., 14 August 2007.
Although dated earlier, it looks as if the May 16th map is more up to date by giving Romney Iowa. I am curious how Mississippi (given to McCain) can be colored for anyone since no polling has taken place there (at least according to our data). -- Aranae 21:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Twice now, I have placed a poll conducted by Datamar Inc. on the page under the "California results" - this is the poll that shows Mitt Romney with the lead. People keep taking it off. So far, the criticism seems to revolve around two facts: 1) The link did not take you to a poll and 2) Duncan Hunter was polling higher than in other places.
To fix this, I have: - Removed SacBee from the poll - It was my original source, but it looks like they were simply reporting the results. - Included a link to the .pdf document containing the results of the poll.
Also, Duncan Hunter is from California, he is a U.S. Representative from that state, he SHOULD be polling higher.
I have replaced the poll, please do not remove it without some kind of discussion on the talk page.
67.150.52.177 14:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Datamar is NOT a legitimate polling company:
http://www.pollster.com/blogs/poll_datamar_florida_primary.php
I am removing the California poll immediately.
Isaiah13066 07:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)\
Rather than listening to my arguments, michaelcox has repeatedly accused me of removing the poll because I "don't agree with it". That isn't the point at all. It's statistically a bad poll. I'd like to let the record show that Michaelcox is wrong--I had no problem with the poll's results. I had a problem with the poll and the polling company. I provided links to back up onpinion on why the company is not legitimate. Others would rather whine about me "disagreeing with the results".
Isaiah13066 17:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
First of from what I can see you posted a link not links. I really don't know your standard of proof is but for me a few people's suspicions (mixed in with others defending it) on a comments section of a website could be hardly construed as proof.-- 69.176.56.232 16:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
I was just looking at the polls for California, where Romney is shown with a more than 2-to-1 lead, and I think this is obviously wrong. I mean, just a few days before the newest poll Giuliani was the leader, with Romney in third or fourth place. I just don't understand how there could have been such a massive shift, especially since I live and CA and haven't heard a single thing to convince me to support Romney (I haven't even seen so much as one ad, or even a single pro-Romney bumper sticker). Also, I live in L.A., so if there was any major support for Romney I would've had to hear about (not to mention I pay close attention to CA politics). I just think you guys should check this polling source, it just seems a bit too shady this great website, which I have always been a big fan of (as far as information gathering goes). Also, you posted a poll from Texas that is so old it might have been smarter to just keep the old one. I also think that the TX poll is off for the same reason I explained earlier about CA, although I don't live in TX. Finally, you guys should start filtering out polls that are over a month old, or at least indicate on the map when a poll is possibly outdated. Thanks for reading and I hope to see some changes soon. Sincerely, John
Just to clarify why I changed the CA poll: I just don't see any logical sense why a nobody like Romney could have such a gigantic lead, especially since he spent so much time in the last debate explaining why he agreed with Giuliani (he looked like Giuliani's cheerleader sometimes). I invite anyone to put the original poll back, if you wouldn't mind explaining how this poll makes any sense (outside of Romney's dreams).
Well, look at how Romney has been doing of late - three debate wins, leading in cash, winning in Iowa, New Hampshire, Michigan, Utah, second in Nevada, reasonable in South Carolina - it is not out of reasonable thought that Romney is picking up momentum. McCain has hit a snag on immigration, so it is not supprising at all to see him dropping. I don't know how Conservative California Republicans are, but if they oppose Abortion, it is reasonable for Giuliani to have such a big drop. I think the best thing to do is to include the poll now, and let it be confirmed or debunked by the next poll. Sure, the numbers are strange, but so is the big jump by Fred Thompson in South Carolina, and I don't have any problems with including that poll.
67.150.75.145
16:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
I guess I understand what you're saying, but I'm still a little unsure. I mean, I live in CA and interact with Republicans almost daily (through volunteering and fund raising), and I hear no major support for Romney; unless you count the Mormons who aren't a big enough group to change the CA results. Also, CA Republicans aren't anti-abortion crusaders (Romney even strikes most I've spoken to as a flip flopper on abortion) and few I have met have even the slightest intention of voting purely on the abortion issue. Posting a poll showing such a sudden and completely out of the blue lead for Romney would be like saying George Bush's approval ratings climbed 50% after his state of the union addressee; it just doesn't make any logical sense. As for Romney's strength's, you're right, he is leading in Iowa and New Hampshire, but that's only because he has been campaigning actively out there. Here I haven't seen or heard anything about Romney, and many people I have spoken to said they probably wouldn't have known Romney even existed if the media didn't talk about him. Also, I watched those debates and heard post-debate analysis, the vast majority of experts said either McCain or Giuliani won the last one. In fact, the only debate most analysts said Romney won was the first, and yet that debate yielded little gains in CA polls. But now this debate where he answered half the questions starting with "I agree with Mayor Giuliani..." got him a gigantic lead with CA Republicans? It seems very, very fishy to me. However, I'm not challenging you on the results in NH or IA; those Republicans could be ultraconservative, anti-abortion fanatics. But I live out here in CA, and I know we are a bit more accepting of abortion. You must also keep in mind that Giuliani has an almost unstoppable appeal to big states; so is it even remotely conceivable that Romney can have had such a huge swing in his favor? I've looked at the money tracker on CNN.com, Romney has spent away his monetary lead (almost none of those funds came out here), so it's really Giuliani who has the lead in money (at least at this point). Finally, I have never heard of the polling source you guys used. I've heard of pollsters like ABC/Gallup, Zogby, etc., but never this polling . After all, Romney himself could get some Mormon activist to type up a fake poll and leave it online to get suckers to think Romney is leading. There is also the possibility that this poll was taken from Mormons in CA, thus gerrymandering the results in Romney's favor. I have once again taken this poll off and believe that we should leave the old poll up until another one (from a more well known, reliable source) comes up. The point I'm trying to make is that you must look at a poll before posting and you must ask yourself, "Does this poll make sense?".
I guess I agree with what you're saying, but I'm still confused by the poll's findings. It's like the example I gave earlier with Bush's approval ratings; wouldn't you be a little suspicious if Bush's approval ratings rose 50% after his State of the Union addresses? I mean nobody thought Bush's speech was that good. And again, we should be able to look at a poll and question it if it gives such an extreme and inconceivable result.
Sure we should be able to question, but Wikipedeia deals with FACTS, and that FACT is that a poll came out in California that shows Romney with the lead. Sure, we can question it, but the best thing to do is to post the poll, keep California in the Romney column, and wait for another poll. Let people decide for themselves what to think of the poll. The poll is replaced. 67.150.75.54 17:16, 18 June 2007
I understand that Wikipedia deals in facts, but you're not posting facts. What that poll is, is raw data meaning that it is just random information, not necessarily factual information. For example, if historians wanted to determine the population of L.A. in 1996 they would look at raw data and draw conclusions that in tern become facts. In this example they might get data saying the population was 23,478, but they would determine this data is wrong because it is too low for the real population. Then they might get data saying the population was 3,000,000,000,000 but they would realize that the data gave a population that is way to high. Here on Wikipedia, that is what we are supposed to do; take data we know is false and not post it as fact. Part of determining whether a poll is true or not is listening to people, like me, who live in the state and can say how much truth there is to a poll. And take the SC poll you posted, Thompson's lead is way to big, especially considering other media sources say Giuliani is leading (the NY Times I know for a fact says this). This is the second part of what we must do to make sure we are posting fact; look at what other pollsters and media sources are saying and see if we are at least close to their findings (if it is a credible source like the NY Times). So I won't take off the CA poll or the other polls that seem a bit off, but I guarantee I will look into other polls in the future, so save me the trouble and make sure your "facts" are actually true (or at least realistic).
I just saw that you added a poll showing Thompson with a more realistic lead in SC, that's exactly what I was talking about. Keep up the good work and make sure the polls you put are FACT, not raw data. And don't forget, the reason we can edit articles is because we are supposed to throw away data that doesn't make sense.
I did not remove this poll, but I would like to thank who ever did; this poll is totally ridiculous and we should have a right to remove a poll from a probably fake pollster. Its findings are totally insane, I AM A CALIFORNIAN REPUBLICAN AND I CAN'T EVEN BEGIN TO IMAGINE HOW THAT POLL MAKES ANY SENSE. Once again, I talk to CA Republicans on a daily basis as a party volunteer, the only way that I could see that poll making sense is if Giuliani was the leader. CA Republicans are strongly behind Giuliani, that's the only conclusion I can reach after talking to so many Republicans and hearing what they think of the primary candidates. I think there is a point where so many people think badly of a poll that we should begin to wonder whether they might know what they're talking about; so do us all a favor and get rid of that weird poll, nobody likes or agrees with its finding.-John
Can you read? I never said I wouldn't believe a poll not showing Giuliani in the lead, I even stated that if I saw one showing him a few points behind I would have no problem. The only difficulty I had wiht that poll was the incredible jump for a candidate that hasn't come out here once. Also, I never said I knew every CA Republicam; I said I volunteer for the party and meet many GOP voters. That means that I have a fairly good sample, not that I was claiming to know the thinking of every CA Republican. And for the future, read and then answer, IN THAT ORDER. But this debate is over, a new poll showed that I WAS RIGHT; I can only hope you will take my word over some fake pollster in the future.-John
Michaelcox, I wasn't the one who wrote any of the section above. I NOWHERE stated that "the only way I could see that poll making sense is if Giuliani was the leader" so don't attribute that quote to me *whatsoever*. Stop quoting biased things other individuals are saying and using their bias to discredit my argument. My argument has nothing to do with what they are syaing.
Isaiah13066 17:10, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Let me add my agreement that the June 6-11 Datamar poll in California is clearly skewed and should be thrown out. There's no need to rely on anecdotal evidence or opinions, as much of the above discussion focuses on. Simply looking at the data, it's an outlier. It doesn't fit. Nobody jumps from 11% to 32% (and then back down again) in a few weeks' time. I don't know why the numbers are off -- whether Datamar used shoddy polling tactics, whether the random sampling was just incredibly unlucky, etc. -- but they are.
Smith.dan 03:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
This isn't the first time datamar has been proven to be completely off in its data. It had John Edwards leading in Florida. A Florida poll a week later revealed that Edwards wasn't leading in ANY subpopulation or demographic. Thanks, Smith.dan.
Isaiah13066 02:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
I find it very interesting that Ron Paul and Jim Gilmore are not mentioned on the bar graph on the beginning of the page. Tommy Thompson, Tom Tancredo, and Duncan Hunter who are polling lower than Paul are yet, on the graph. Maybe these two forgotten candidates should be added to have an acurate unbiased view. Casey14 01:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Hate to say I told you so; I knew CA would never support Romney.-John
What happened to the poll showing Giuliani as the leader in PA?-John
The bar-graph was removed as follows (according to the history)-- 23:24, 27 June 2007 Mh10190 but with no explanation. Any reason not to restore it? Korky Day 23:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Let's try to get a later one showing all the candidates. The old ones should stay until replaced, I say. You don't throw out your old toothbrush till you get a new one. Korky Day 23:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I just read a poll by American Research Group, Inc. that shows Giuliani with a lead over McCain and felt that I should tell you about it (as it is far more recent than the current Illinois poll). It can be found at American Research Group's website under Illinois.-John
You need to add the new Michigan results to the totals at the bottom.-John
New Rossman Groups poll from Monday has Huckabee ahead of Romney 23-22. Here's the site if anyone wants to see. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/mi/michigan_republican_primary-237.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ultimahero ( talk • contribs) 20:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I just found a new poll for the results in the Wisconsin primary on RealClearPolitics website, under Election 2008-Latest polls (look for Wednesday, July 18)-John
Are you going to add this poll or not?-John
Quinnipiac University just did a new poll that found Giuliani in the lead in Florida with 30%, followed by Fred Thompson at 18%. The poll can be found on their website.-John
Why does the map still say 'July 14, 2007' on it?-John
Who regularly updates the map? Joseph Antley 04:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
"Other" candidates being unnamed is bad polling and bad reporting on our part. If the candidates' names are published, we should include them. If not published, why not? What is the pollster trying to hide? Maybe the fact that the poll is biased because when asking the public, they didn't name all the candidates! Maybe they don't want to show which candidates are trending upward and who might eventually win if the mainstream pollsters and media doesn't stop them! Korky Day 20:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I have no problem with a national map showing who is winning what states, but you guys are blowing that WAY out of proportion. As you probably know, but aren't clarifying in the article, delegates are not awarded in a "winner-take-all" system (like the Electoral College).
Two things should be changed to make this accurate: 1. The national map should include a clear indication that this just indicates who is LEADING in the polls in a given state, and that winning a plurality (or even majority) of the popular vote in that state doesn't mean a candidate wins all the delegates.
2. The whole "Current Leaders" section should be scrapped or significantly overhauled. It's beyond misleading at this point and of little-to-no strategic importance. I might be satisfied if the number of delegates were removed completely, and a clear explanation was made that the list is for informational purposes only (as primaries are not winner-take-all contests). Heck, we're breaking down fifth and six place between two candidates on the basis of them each "winning" ONLY their home states, which are of similar size. It's silly. jparkman 172.144.77.18 14:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
The following primaries are "winner-takes-all": Arizona, California, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin. The Green Papers Website has a detailed description of each nomination process http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P08/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.233.99.136 ( talk) 20:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
If I could edit the map, I would, but because I can't I thought I would put this out there. Arkansas and Kansas are mixed up for who is leading in the polls. The polls, and the obvious answer, suggest that Huckabee would lead in Arkansas and Brownback in Kansas. The problem is that the colors are mixed up on the map, so who ever created that map,could you fix it? Thanks. Alex
I believe this page should have two maps. One should be the current map, showing the main stream media's perception of this race. The other should be a map colored according to who is winning online polls in each state. Or do you guys not want to admit who is really winning this race?
This is a collection of scientific state-wide polls. Internet polls are not scientific, and therefore should not be included at least in this page. I have no problem if a diferent page is created for online polls only, but it should not be like this that has state-wide online polls, as someone from, say, Texas, could vote in an online Iowa poll. Mr. DigDug. 4:09 p.m. 8-18-2007. 14:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Fact: Only the smatest americans use the internet. Fact: 95% of online polls regarding the 2008 election have been won by Ron Paul. Therefore: Fact: Ron Paul has a support of a majority of the smartest people in america, and you don't think this is "scientifically" significant? The smartest people are the people that win elections, therefore Ron Paul has the best chance at winning the nomination and the election.
What other evidence do I need to throw at you people to get it through your heads?!?!?!?! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.147.63.209 ( talk) 16:09, August 20, 2007 (UTC)
All right kids, let's calm down. And let's sign our posts, please! This talk page isn't too debate who's worthy to win the election, it's about opinion polling. Joseph Antley 20:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Lol. Yous the child if you can't see the truth and just drink whatever the main stream media feeds you. Romney, Giuliani, McCain? Thompson? (Lol) You think the peoples will support any of these? No, they support Ron Paul, he's the not the puppet that the others are. You'l be happier the sooner you wake up. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.147.63.209 ( talk • contribs) 01:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC).
I concur that non-scientific polls should not be added to this article. The polls in this article attempt to determine what percentages of the population prefer which candidates. Scientific polls do this by attempting to select a fairly random sample of people and by extrapolating their responses to the general population using confidence intervals. Online polls neither use random samples of people (rather, voters are self-selected) nor attempt to use confidence intervals to determine the relevancy of the poll results. As such, online polls cannot be used logically to infer much useful information at all. Thus, which type of poll is best is not a matter of political ideology: online polls should not be used because the information we want (i.e. what most people think about the candidates) cannot be logically inferred from those poll results. --
SirEditALot
05:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
What makes a poll "scientific" exactly? 66.222.249.8 ( talk) Paulk 66.222.249.8 ( talk) 09:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
With respect to the November polling data, I believe Ron Paul should be represented on the New Hampshire results graph. He (as well as Mike Huckabee) show strength over Fred Thompson. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.46.199.237 ( talk) 23:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
If Ron Paul doesn't win the election it'll be ashame. He truly is the best choice for 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.162.21.187 ( talk) 02:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
There's a poll dated July 11-13, 2007 attributed to Reichle Firm. The link is dead and I haven't been able to find any other information about Reichle Firm. Is this a legitimate poll? Merola491 20:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
To address the concerns some of you have over the use of linear regressions, I've added links to sites that summarize polling data in a similar manner, but use different methods for plotting averages. I will keep maintaining the charts on this site, since it includes more data than the images in the attached links. Thoughts, questions, suggestions, etc. are welcome. This example is from the Republican California primary section, but similar links appear on this page. [2] -- Robapalooza 00:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
On the latest poll for Ohio, it says Strategic vision found Giuliani with 24%; but I checked the link and it actually says he has 34%. Just wanted to point out the typo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.122.161.115 ( talk) 04:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello? It's been almost an entire now (I hope wikipedia isn't always this slow to correct typos)! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.47.226.34 ( talk) 22:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
A new poll by PPIC (found under RealClearPolitics's CA GOP primary polls) shows a more recent 6% advantage for Giuliani. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.47.228.179 ( talk) 22:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
The polls since April 1 show McCain winning in Rhode Island. I assumed that this section meant polls since April 1, 2007? The last pol for Rhode Island is marked April 2006. Can someone explain or fix this? Goodleh 02:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Hey! What happened to the map?- John —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.47.235.112 ( talk) 00:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Why did VA change on 10/12, but NV did not turn blue? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.47.251.9 ( talk) 00:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
RealClearPolitics has a new polls concerning CA, and Strategic Vision just released a new poll for the WA GOP primary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.47.251.9 ( talk) 22:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
many of the links to polls, especially the older ones, no longer lead anywhere it seems like those polls should be left on the page, but they all now are unsourced how to proceed? Perpetualization 01:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't see why Kansas is given to Mitt Romney just because Brownback MAY be resigning (which he hasn't officially at the time of my writing this article) and even if he does resign, he still didn't win the poll. What does everyone else think? 74.240.193.120 17:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Wikipedia, it just seems fair to let the runner up have Kansas; and if it isn't true, then hopefully another poll will be taken to show that. Also, why didn't North Carolina change to blue on the map when Kansas was altered? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.47.243.166 ( talk) 22:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
many states have closed primaries, yet their polling results from American Research Group [ [3]] have the results of both the republicans and the independents...it seems to me that only the results for the Republicans should be included. Perpetualization 03:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I noticed that according to RealClearPolitics you guys have missed about 6 new polls from FL. So please put up the new one from Quinnipiac, it can't be that hard to find considering its from a major pollster. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.47.231.192 ( talk) 13:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to say that I like how the new graphs look, like in Iowa and California, and was wondering if all the graphs are going to be changed. I'd be happy to change them myself, but I don't know how. Also, the last two New York polls have not been added to the graph. Mr. DigDug 13:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
A new poll for Arizona just came out, the link it here: http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/story/102381. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.47.247.109 ( talk) 13:40, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
New Poll: http://www.strategicvision.biz/political/iowa_poll_112807.htm
I'm not good with the tables etc. other wise I would add it myself... Wikifan5554 ( talk) 00:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
The U.S. map shows Huckabee leading Iowa. No polls in the Iowa section support this. Just wishful thinking? Or is there a poll missing? Smith.dan 14:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
ARG came out with a new poll today which had romney on top.
http://americanresearchgroup.com/
Romney should get Iowa back now.
Why has Romney not got Iowa colored back in for him. He leads the average of the polls and was on top of the latest poll done! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.0.141.231 ( talk) 15:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
The rasmussen poll showed him leading, but he is no longer leading. Feel free to change it back. Also two Iowa polls need to be added [4] and [5] 71.163.172.99 17:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Why is the Ramussen poll (11/29/07) after the Amercian Research Group poll (11/26/07-11/29/07)? Dosen't the time window make the Ramussen poll more recent? Just wondering. Wikifan5554 03:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I added a "Controversy" section with this text:
Many of those polled have found that one or more candidates are not being mentioned as options in the polls. Worse, in some polls the voter cannot even select anything but one of the provided options. [6]
It was removed with the reason given that youtube is not a verifiable source and IMC polls are not listed on this page. However, this is a recording, not an opinion. I can give another source: [7] (recording of call: [8]). —Preceding unsigned comment added by McCart42 ( talk • contribs) 17:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
The issue of bias against Ron Paul still has not been addressed. This article needs to be flagged until more accurate samples are provided. JLMadrigal ( talk) 14:30, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I've been following this discussion and often visit this article. I support most of what Rami has said. I think the value of this article (like any good encyclopedia article) is predicated on editors making judgement calls about what is worthwhile information. "Worthwhile" in the context of this article is best described as "polls that provide an accurate estimate of how voters will vote in a particular state primary." That's what I come to the article for. The point that seems to be in question is how we define "accurate" in some objective way. Well, that's what statisticians do. As a foundational point, I think we can accept that typical telephone polls are accurate by this standard, and that online polls, straw polls, etc., are not. (If you disagree, as suggested here: "Landline polls can be considered just as "blatantly unscientific" (probably more so) than straw polls," you ought to be appealing to published statistical research to back up your position.) Within that framework, if there are specific polls that can be argued are exceptions to this general position, then we ought to be talking about them specifically. If, for example, a poll neglects to include Ron Paul in its list of candidates, while other polls around the same time demonstrate significant support for him, then we've got a specific issue that could be addressed. Smith.dan ( talk) 16:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
The article should be divided into (at least) three sections: Republican landline polls, Republican straw polls, and Republican online polls. The methodology, advantages, and disadvantages of each type should be addressed in the main article. The bulk of the data currently in this article should be summarized, and extrapolated in a separate article on Republican landline polls. Polls that omit candidates will need to be grouped together so as not to provide incorrect or misleading statistics. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to describe - not prescribe. JLMadrigal ( talk) 02:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
the chart for california acts as a template for future charts that i will be producing to replace the old ones i produced for iowa, florida, and california, as well as the even older ones produced by others. Any comments, please post on the my talk page, or here. Once i start duplicating it for other states, it becomes increasingly complicated to change. Note to Ron Paul fans: Ron Paul is included on these graphs. The complete list of candidates is Guiliani, McCain, Romney, Thompson, Huckabee, and Paul (Other and Undecided fields are included as well). The methodology for the other field is that if all of the 6 candidates listed as well as undecided have data for them, then other is computed. In any other scenario, other is not included on the graph. Thank you in advance for your feedback. Perpetualization ( talk) 22:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
This is primarily directed at User:JLMadrigal, but any users who agree with his suggestions could also read this. I agree with User:Rami_R and User:Smith_Dan, that this page should remain how it is an not experience any major layout/idea changes. It would surprise me very greatly if a page doesn't already exist that talks about the problems with different types of polling. I would encourage you to find that page, provide a link to it in the summary at the top of this page, and edit that page to add any additional information that you have regarding the advantages and disadvantages of different types of polling. This page is about very specific opinion polling (read the title), not about the advantages or disadvantages of different types of polling. Links to straw polls and nationwide polls are provided at the top of the article. I would also encourage you to make a page for internet polls and provide a link to that at the top of the page.
Regardless of what you do however, I think that it would be improper to modify the page significantly as you suggest. The page is, though not perfect, well organized, accurate, and well laid out. It is also a comparatively long page, though not absurdly long. If you were to add the additional sections as you suggest, then it would become too long and would have to be split into multiple pages, which is essentially the same thing as if you provided links to each of those other pages at the top of the current page. It is a bad idea to wreck good pages. Perpetualization ( talk) 22:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
The Alaska poll that was put up earlier today was legitimately done by a local news station in Anchorage. It is a media poll regarding the Alaska Caucus among Republicans in Alaska. The poll should not have been deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.33.75.140 ( talk) 06:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
First of all, I want to thank those who are keeping the graphics up to date. I'm sure everyone recognizes that they can't be maintained as quickly as the text in the article. As such, would you consider including a statement on the graphic saying "As of <date>" or something to that effect? That way the discrepencies between text and images will be clear. -- Aranae ( talk) 00:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I recently decided to update the line graph representing the early states' delegates, and noticed that the national map, directly above it, seems wildly misleading as many of the polls used to "decide" the outcome of a state are over 6 months old. I've quickly made a new map which only uses poll information from states which have had a poll in the last 3 months (i.e. since 9/24/07):
Thoughts? Comments? Should I replace the current map with this one? -- happyferret ( talk) 09:41, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure how we should put the results of the winners of the Caucuses/Primaries as it is not a winner takes all. So, to say that, for example, Huckabee has won Iowa for 40 delegates or that Romney has won Wyoming for 14 delegates is just not correct. Nor am I sure that this is the right page or if 2008 Republican Presidential Primaries (Results) is the right page to put this. But, as of right now, Romney has won an estimated 40 delegates, Huckabee an estimated delegates, Thompson 5 delegates, McCain 3 delegates, Paul 2 delegates, Giuliani 1 delegate, and Hunter 1 delegate. Based on the information on both these pages, it would appear that Huckabee is the leader with 40 and Romney in 2nd with 14. But that is not correct. Suggestions? Comments? I'm also going to post this under the Primary results talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelcox ( talk • contribs) 09:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Most of these polls are from a long time ago. Now, McCain and Huckabee have much higher numbers. This article, since it isn't properly updated, is HISTORICAL in nature, and doesn't show the current situation. Contralya ( talk) 17:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Predicted results????????? You got to be kidding. Who is predicting here and on which grounds? Historical polls? the results of ancient polls are NO basis for a political prediction. I can predict one thing for sure - less then 3 weeks from now and I´ll have a good laugh at the 'predicted results' 20.01.08 AB —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.56.135.160 ( talk) 21:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Predicted results are given as a snapshot of poll averages. This shows a rough barometer of where the race is at this point. It's not perfect I'll admit but it is the best we can do at this point. I would love to do like Stephen Colbert and just spin a wheel on all these states but that would be unscientific as would predicting results based on a whim. RCP averages are the best projections we have and must be used when available, these rules have been set previously, even before my time and should be followed until new ones are set. I also see no harm in keeping old polls on here as a picture of how the dynamics of this race have changed over time. -- PollShark
Poll Shark: Keep up your sensible explanations; they might take root in fertile minds. I am amused and frustrated at those who (a) live and die by polls, and/or (b) have no faith in polls, and/or (c) measure a polls' validity by the extent that it mirrors their own thinking (L-rd help us if it doesn't because that poll is automatically rated as bogus), and/or (d) consistently demand the impossible.
I aced a full year of statistics and polling (core curriculem for my PolySci degree) but it was tougher than Constitutional law. Over the years, in many campaigns (including a presidential), I tracked TV buys to see what they actually ran and if our poll numbers changed; comparing our budget against gain. I have tracked poll numbers after: debates, TV appearances, interviews, yard sign campaigns, walk 'n talk, sign wavings, phone campaigns, mailings, and anything else that might get our message out. After all that, I still don't feel qualified to argue the subject because it is so complex; people spend their entire lives studying the "art" of persuasion. I am amazed when folks who haven't cracked a statistics book in their lives feel qualified to argue the subject. Your "sensible" approach is wonderful.
"It's not perfect I'll admit but it is the best we can do at this point."
"RCP averages are the best projections we have and must be used when available, these rules have been set previously, even before my time and should be followed until new ones are set."
I would only add one more caveat.
"The only reason that polls fall short on the scientific scale is because they are practiced on humans."
Suttonplacesouth ( talk) 20:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Anyone got the official louisiana results? John McCain is claiming victory, and Ron Paul is in second for the Caucus, however there is still the primary feb. 9th... wow what a confusing system... perhaps the most confusing in the world (i mean, after that, you still have the delegate elections which are unique in louisiana and you could have multiple democrats or multiple republicans competing against each other) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.248.28.74 ( talk) 11:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I removed the proportional delegate map for a number of reasons. It seems to be lagging in terms of updates, and is inaccurate to begin with - "delegate" was misspelled, Arizona was not shown to be a winner-takes-all state (which it is), and there may have been other inaccuracies. It was also a bit difficult to understand, and the fact that a disclaimer section was required below it seems to indicate that it is not terribly useful. No objections to a better map - but the one that was up there was too problematic. ɑʀк ʏɑɴ 15:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm outraged that the map at the top is showing wrong results. Mossuri and Tennesse need to be full John McCain not half Romney half McCain and Half Huckabee. I hate that a Romney supporter wants to act like the polls are showing something there not. I hate that he or she is ruining the Nuetral ststus of this article. Signed, an outraged Wikipedia surfer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.54.244.191 ( talk) 01:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I think the scatter plot graphs should be taken out. They are not accurate and outdated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.54.244.191 ( talk) 03:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Why did you guys change the name of this article? "Statewide" makes the whole article seem awkward. - 165.134.208.120 ( talk) 16:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
McCain has clinched nothing, the delegates decide the nominee. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.226.152.184 ( talk) 13:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Looks like Strategic Vision polls are very likely complete fabrications. Statistical analysis show they're probably made up by people, and SV refuses to release methodology and has been sanctioned by AAPOR. Removing them to more accurately reflect the title of the article: Statewide OPINION POLLING... Can't call it that if it wasn't actually polled! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.188.247.5 ( talk) 23:39, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
When one clicks the date to arrange the state polls chronologically they instead are thrown scatter shot. Aug '07, Dec 07 then March 08 etc. Can that malfunction be corrected? It worked fine the other week. -- Dudeman5685 ( talk) 04:18, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
This designation is confusing and needs further clarification as to did they not vote or what. LimeyCinema1960 ( talk) 23:16, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 10 external links on
Statewide opinion polling for the Republican Party presidential primaries, 2008. 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 to let others know.
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 11:56, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Statewide opinion polling for the Republican Party presidential primaries, 2008. 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 10:11, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 19 external links on Statewide opinion polling for the Republican Party presidential primaries, 2008. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.rgj.com/blogs/inside-nevada-politics/2008/01/new-poll-democratic-race-in-nevada-dead.htmlWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:46, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Statewide opinion polling for the Republican Party presidential primaries, 2008. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.inrich.com/cva/ric/news.PrintView.-content-articles-RTD-2008-02-10-0270.htmlWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:02, 20 November 2017 (UTC)