This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Statewide opinion polling for the 2016 United States presidential election article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
As far as I can see this wiki pages gives the best current overview of the state of the election on the internet. However, only including recent polling in the master table means to get an accurate view one has to export the data then add in the extra states with the (very likely) winner. I /would/ add the missing states into the master table, the date field is already there for the necessary caveat, but that seems a step too far without a wider community discussion. What do people think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.254.200.2 ( talk) 13:05, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Can someone create a map of the polls similar to that used in the 2012 article? Thanks, Ypnypn ( talk) 21:05, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
http://newscms.nbcnews.com/sites/newscms/files/iowa_february_2015_annotated_questionnaire_nbc_news-marist_poll.pdf http://newscms.nbcnews.com/sites/newscms/files/new_hampshire_february_2015_annotated_questionnaire_nbc_news-marist_poll.pdf http://newscms.nbcnews.com/sites/newscms/files/south_carolina_february_2015_annotated_questionnaire_nbc_news-marist_poll.pdf 83.80.208.22 ( talk) 17:24, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Where's mah state at? -- 173.76.108.247 ( talk) 03:40, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
On the polling pages I would like to see a thicker/darker line to separate polls from different polling firms. It would be simpler to discern which polls are from when and from whom.
Currently it is a little confusing (or at least has the potential to to so) when I see the same line between different candidates within poll X when compared to the separation line between poll X and poll Y.
This is more so on my mobile phone when I have to zoom in to see it and can't automatically see the part of the graph indicating what firm commissioned the poll and when.
Thanks! 98.253.175.243 ( talk) 05:58, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Due to large number of states with large and growing number of poll results in many of them, some summary for quick perception very need.
But map requested here above is very trouble because can dinamically change sometimes often.
Summary as table will be better and real.
Both - map and table - is not WP:OR like maps by results of elections not WP:OR although born in WP. 46.61.152.186 ( talk) 09:15, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Oklahoma is empty. Why is it still on this page? Tenor12 ( talk) 19:45, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 15 external links on
Statewide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2016. 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 12:52, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Rocky De La Fuente is a contender on the Democratic primary/caucus in many states. He is not mentioned on this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:400:C101:A16A:30C2:7646:B010:64DA ( talk) 14:01, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Would it not be a good idea to add a Latest Polling section as is the norm on Statewide opinion polling for the two parties? I for one rely a lot on polling so it would be useful if I could quickly identify new polls each time I come to the page without having to sift through all the states. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.200.31.50 ( talk) 20:08, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
I agree with the original poster...it's very difficult (and therefore unhelpful) to see NEW polls in this page without reviewing the page revision history. A Latest Polling section would be nice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.172.27 ( talk) 16:10, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Removing the map
I believe the map should be removed at this point, for the same reason it was removed on April 1, plus other reasons. 1) This is too soon, since the primary/caucus process is not yet complete and no candidate has passed the minimum threshold for nomination. 2) While the editor claims in the edit summary that "I took polls only Dem. front runner (Clinton) vs. Rep. front runner (Trump)", there are at least eight states for which the shading is not reflected by such a poll listed on this page or the pre-2016 page (Arkansas, Idaho, Maine, New Mexico, Oregon, Vermont, Washington, Wyoming). 3) The map is in a format (png) that is less user-friendly for editors (see WP:IUP#FORMAT and WP:USOP) (The color around the number in Maine is particularly difficult to adjust, since it's not all the same blue). 4) The striping is reversed from the direction in the legend. -- Spiffy sperry ( talk) 15:18, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Leading outside margin of error
I believe that a "lead" should not be changed to "within the margin of error" simply on the basis of a later poll that still shows the same candidate leading within the margin of error. If a poll shows a candidate in the lead outside the margin of error, and a poll a few days later shows the same candidate leading, but within the margin of error - whether because the lead is slightly smaller or the sample size of the newer poll is just smaller - the current system seems to be to update the map to show that the difference is within the margin of error. This seems a bit oversimplified, as the polls collectively show that one candidate is very likely ahead. For example, a large sample poll showing a lead of 6 with a MOE of 2.5 shows a lead. A small-sample poll completed two days later may show the same candidate ahead by 7 but with a MOE of 4. The second poll should reinforce the lead, but would actually result in the map being changed to show the race as TCTC.
I suggest that once a candidate has a lead outside the margin of error, the state is shown in their column until 1) three successive subsequent polls show the race shows the same candidate either a) leading within the margin of error or b) tied; or 2) any subsequent poll shows the other candidate ahead, whether or not it is within the margin of error. Even my proposal is a bit too cautious, but it's still an improvement and it's relatively simple.
In the alternative, we should have the baby blue and pink represent leads within the margin of error once all of the states have been polled in 2016. Mmulroney ( talk) 16:46, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Early days but pretty much most of the polls show the same thing; namely that Kasich v Democrat would be a close race. Yet the GOP look unlikely to pick the more moderate Kasich and with Trump/Cruz look like losing. Things may change of course. But maybe the GOP should spend a little more time on Wikipedia before picking their candidate! 213.114.6.75 ( talk) 10:37, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
How about inventing different colours for "Both Clinton and Sanders beat Trump" - "Clinton beats Trump" and "Sanders beats Trump"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Supermaster2 ( talk • contribs) 22:01, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
| |||
| |||
|
Here is a map, the image just needs to be updated to show the results. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 22:54, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Stripe the state blue/light blue, we had a similar thing with the SSM in the USA template remember? - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 23:06, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Can we get a map like we have for Statewide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2012 in the info-box now? - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 01:58, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
I have noticed that the margin of error is misleading in this article per Talk:Statewide opinion polling for the 2016 Democratic Party presidential primaries/Archive 1#Note on margins of errors and statistical ties. "A statistical tie occurs when two data points from within a set are within twice the margin of error of each other." In other words for the given margin of error you have to double that amount. A margin of error of 4% would become a 8% spread so if the poll is 55% to 49% it would still be tied within the MoE so both candidates would be highlighted in their colors. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 13:21, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Why is Colorado counted as having polling showing Trump ahead (which would be a gain), despite the Colorado section of the article saying there have been no polls? I'm intrigued to know why. MoreofaGlorifiedPond,Really... ( talk) 12:40, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Since it's certain the nominees will be Clinton and Trump, could somebody delete all the polls featuring Bernie Sanders, Ted Cruz, and others?
I'd do it myself, but I'm not familiar enough with wikitext.
RadderGuy ( talk) 18:25, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Statewide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2016. 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:
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 09:29, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
The "latest polling" table shows a +7 margin for Trump, but there's no source for it. The Texas section of the article shows him only +3 (from SurveyUSA back in February). It's important to update the table & the individual states, with links to the most recent polls. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.212.131.54 ( talk) 16:28, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
3rd party candidates should also be included in the "most recent polls" section. Prcc27🌍 ( talk) 07:45, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
There is an issue with putting 3rd party polls into the most recent polling. If a 2 way poll is more recent then it should take priority over a three way outdated poll. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 16:02, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
This is causing too many problems, nix the 3rd party in the most recent polls table or add another table. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 16:11, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
I have just removed 2 congressional district polls from Maine that did not have any sample numbers and margin of error. I would suggest these polls are not included in the article as they are not statewide polls and should be placed somewhere else if necessary. DrFargi ( talk) 10:27, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
This source raises red flags for me, I think I remember clearly that the polls were removed for being unreliable. Here is a past WP:RSN discussion: [1]. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 14:26, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Shouldn't Alaska be striped since the margin of error isn't even recorded..? Prcc27🌍 ( talk) 00:22, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
The Morning Consult has released a 50 state polling map today but it does not give the dates for when the polls were conducted nor does it give sample sizes: [3]. Would this map be useful at all? - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 15:11, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
This map is just a prediction but I believe the 2nd congressional district just has 1 point to it while the rest of the state along 1st district have three [4]. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 13:30, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
I just want to add that the reasoning behind this is that the population centers are in the 1st district. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 14:32, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
I have removed a poll alleged to be "unpublished" per WP:V. In the source ( [5]) I noticed some red flags, they mention the Harper poll as "unpublished", and that the poll is "well mentioned in state political circles". I have nothing against Harper, but we should wait for them to release the poll. [6] - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 22:01, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
The states are assigned to Trump or Clinton when they have double the margin of error. Shouldn't a margin of error lead be enough to say they have the lead? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.81.5.252 ( talk) 23:48, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
I have removed it for now as it appears to have incomplete data. The reference can be found here: [7]. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 15:41, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
I didn't know anyone was trying to communicate with me. Just noticed that the poll kept getting removed. Polls often don't get released with all desirable information. If it was a pollster no one has ever heard of that is one thing, but SurveyUSA has been around for years and is well known.
I saw a couple of editors in the past day trying to include aggregate polls for each individual state. Do anyone think they are necessary and should be included or done away with altogether. DrFargi ( talk) 12:18, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Statewide polls are appearing in each separate presidential statewide articles, which is a duplicate of statewide polls here. Plus they are not properly reference with citations and dates. - United States presidential election in Alabama, 2016, United States presidential election in Alaska, 2016, United States presidential election in Arizona, 2016, United States presidential election in Arkansas, 2016. It is probably better we add direct links to those articles to the polls here and delete those outlying polls. DrFargi ( talk) 23:47, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Some user tried to overhaul the map without any discussion here. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 00:08, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Polls indicate that 3rd party candidate Gary Johnson of the Libertarians will have an effect. Please include his numbers. AbuButterbean ( talk) 09:15, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
This article makes it unclear whether polling reflects responses from likely voters or from registered voters. Most polls compile data from both groups, leading to two separate sets of numbers. Is one standard over the other? I seriously don't know. Kerdooskis ( talk) 18:06, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
There's now a consistency problem as well. The August 4-7 Marquette Wisconsin poll shows registered voters in both the latest polls section and the state section. The August 11-14 Washington Post Virginia poll shows registered voters in the latest polls section and likely voters in the state section.
Where a poll shows results for both LV and RV, a consensus of either bifurcation (show both) or a preference (ex. show registered voters only unless the poll results are LV only, in which case use a footnote) is required. If bifurcation is the standard, either LV or RV (not both) should form the basis for the map. Based on the two polls mentioned, the map is currently correct in respect of RV 4-way (WI lead of 9 is not beyond 5.0 MOE x 2; VA lead of 11 is beyond 4.0 MOE x 2). Mmulroney ( talk) 00:24, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Can someone add these two recent NH polls? I don't have the time to do it myself right now:
PPP, Clinton +13: http://americansforresponsiblesolutions.org/files/2016/08/Polling-Memo.pdf
Vox Populi, Clinton +10: http://www.wmur.com/blob/view/-/41140016/data/1/-/jxy7pq/-/Vox-Populi-Polling-memo.pdf
538 has them both listed: http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/new-hampshire/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.193.136.200 ( talk) 02:51, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
This page needs to have the poll numbers for Gary Johnson included please he has up to 16$ of the vote in some states — Preceding unsigned comment added by Us.terross ( talk • contribs) 08:40, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Why is the map displaying Texas as within margin? I.am.a.qwerty ( talk) 06:29, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
There must be 100+ links to both the Clinton and Trump articles. Is there any reason for this or can we start pruning. Tigerboy1966 06:11, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Okay so The Washington Post/SurveyMonkey just released a lot of polls which do have a breakdown of participants, the problem is that none have a margin of error that the HP reported. Following the website it looks like the MoE is 1.0%? Is this even possible? Before adding these polls I would like a discussion regarding inclusion or not.
- Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 14:02, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
NameIsRon ( talk) 20:44, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
These polls were taken August 9 - September 1st, so if included, the recent polling section could be left largely unaffected as these Survey Monkey polls would not be the latest for many states. I would be inclined toward including these polls, warts and all, because many states have no polling at all, and these polls are probably better than nothing.
I tend to agree. Normally I am a guy voting for full inclusion of all polls, but keep in mind the irregular nature of this collection. These were part of the national polling sweep over 3 weeks. They were not crafted as state polls to begin with, taking into account the local nuances a given state poll should. A poll is supposed to be a snapshot in time, but a three week long poll is of much less value due to the overall shifting nature of public opinion. ChickDaniels ( talk) 16:39, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Morning Consult has now joined Ipsos and Survey Monkey in providing 50-state polls: https://morningconsult.com/50-state-poll/ Should these be included? ChickDaniels ( talk) 19:20, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Why aren't the recent New Mexico Polls included ? See (Morning Consult) & (Reuters) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GinoKolle ( talk • contribs) 22:26, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
I am a bit worried that going forward we are going to see more polling with an above 5.0% margin of error. I would consider 5.0% (10% spread) to be the maximum in terms of reliability, any higher than that puts the polling into doubt. I want to point out that last election polling with margins of error at like 8.0% were not uncommon, so my question would be should we have a MoE cap? - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 13:38, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Isn't 6 months worth of polls enough for 1 article? That is if there are polls that come out in November just before the elections. Do we really need to move the June polls to the other article - Early/Mid 2016 statewide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2016? Are we going to move the July polls as well too? DrFargi ( talk) 21:46, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Any new disputes regarding the inclusion of maps and state polling averages should be discussed here. Please include the pros and cons on why the maps and state polling averages should be included in this article. This is in response to the massive deletion by AllSportsfan16. DrFargi ( talk) 08:17, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
If you look at previous election articles they only contain polls that have been collected. A map that claims to show the current state of the election day to day is not something that belongs on Wikipedia. You can compare it to live scoring in sports. On Wikipedia you are not allowed to update scores until they are final. The same should hold true for an election. These states have not been decided yet, so there should be no map coloring them in for either party. If you look at previous election articles they do not show a map. There is no reason to discuss pro's and con's. The only thing that needs to be discussed is if it violates wikipedia policy and it clearly does. Wikipedia is meant to show finished results, not live updates. Furthermore averages also change over time and have not been used before in these articles. AllSportsfan16 ( talk) 08:27, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
By showing an updated electoral vote table the article is in violation of original reporting and being a newspaper. If you look on the internet you will not find a source that displays this electoral vote count. It is not verifiable and it cannot be cited. AllSportsfan16 ( talk) 15:39, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Again if you look at past articles there is no map or table. The problem with the table multiple polls on the same state can come out on any given day, which means what poll are you going to choose then if there is more than one. It is highly unreliable. Wikipedia is not meant to be FiveThiryEight, 270 to win, or any other site that displays a map that is constantly updated AllSportsfan16 ( talk) 14:53, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
You are giving candidates current electoral vote totals, which are not facts that cannot be verified. It is done not belong on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AllSportsfan16 ( talk • contribs) 14:59, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
No it is not factual to post suggested electoral vote totals when not a single vote has been cast in the election. Polls change daily and like I said before a lot of time there is more than one poll on a state per day. Again wikipedia is not meant to be a newspaper. AllSportsfan16 ( talk) 15:03, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Again how can you say that providing an updated electoral vote table is within the rules. No vote has been cast so electoral votes stand at zero. By showing any form of electoral vote total you are showing a prediction. Think about it. AllSportsfan16 ( talk) 15:09, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
However you are implying that is is a prediction because you are providing an electoral vote number. No votes have been cast, so possible electoral votes could change daily. If you remove the electoral vote count and just show the map it's fine. AllSportsfan16 ( talk) 15:18, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Any electoral vote count is unverifiable speculation and thus should not be included AllSportsfan16 ( talk) 15:20, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Also with polls. Here's an example. Let's say two different polls come out on Michigan on the same day. One shows that Hillary is up by 7 and one shows that she is only up be 3. Which poll do you use for your map and table. Some days there can be three or four different polls per state. Also look at Wikipedia, do you see any other election articles that are like this. AllSportsfan16 ( talk) 15:25, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
I get that the polls show who is leading in each state. However you can not show a suggested electoral vote total, that constantly updates. Wikipedia is meant to be a research tool. AllSportsfan16 ( talk) 15:27, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
If you can not a cite a source it should not be on Wikipedia. Right now you can not cite a source to show the current electoral vote total that you are displaying. AllSportsfan16 ( talk) 15:30, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
The following rules are violated: WP:SPECULATION, WP:NOTNEWS. The map and table are breaches of original reporting. You will not find them anywhere else on the internet. AllSportsfan16 ( talk) 15:33, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
I agree with AllSportsfan. Wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopedia. The map and table that show an updated electoral vote table constitute original reporting. The total cannot not be cited outside of Wikipedia, therefore it should not be mentioned. I think it's fine to display a map of the states, but do not mention an electoral vote total. 47.147.179.96 ( talk) 15:44, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Ok that's fine as long as someone updates them every day and makes sure that they are always accurate. AllSportsfan16 ( talk) 20:54, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
That is not a fact based argument. Length of time displayed is not relevant. AllSportsfan16 ( talk) 20:54, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm willing to accept keeping the map if both the table and the electoral vote count on the map and table are removed. The problem with the table is that it doesn't even say what poll those numbers come from. It just has the state, the percentage and the margin of error. You need to cite them. Also no electoral votes have been cast, so any numbers mentioned represent a prediction for the current state of the race. AllSportsfan16 ( talk) 20:54, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
It is incorrect to say that previous election articles do not show a polling map. I contributed to the 2012 maps myself. The complaint that a table and a map don't match misses the point. Update them rather than delete them if they don't match. The analogy to sports scores is misplaced. A single game does not span over dozen of months. Adding numbers together does not violate the no original research policy, and the numbers in this article that are added together are properly sourced. The fact that many states are currently polling within the margin of error is not a good reason to reject the map. It is certainly useful information. The bottom line is that this is a polling article with a polling map, not a results article with a results map. We are not giving candidates any electoral votes. It is very clear that this entire article is about polling prior to the election. -- Spiffy sperry ( talk) 14:53, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
I just took a closer look at this 50 state poll [ UPI]. Now in previous massive polls such as Morning Consult or Ipsos/Reuters, they were missing margin of error or sample size. Whereas this latest poll has both of those that I have mentioned. Is it alright to include the UPI poll? DrFargi ( talk) 12:23, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Now that most of the state polls include third party candidates I feel like we should add them to the table. Prcc27🌍 ( talk) 17:51, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Is not MoE 1,96?. The Texas with 7% och 3,5% is then outside MoE? Yger ( talk) 05:07, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Does anyone here know a way to get a three way striped legend up? We have File:Legendstriped red clue cyan.png but the colors need to be placed into |{{legend|... format or else it will not properly show. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 16:01, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
I uploaded a polling map showing McMullin in cyan in Utah. User:Prcc27 decided to change this cyan to orange under the rationale that "Green should be reserved for Jill Stein if she polls high enough in a state."
In my view, this logic is erroneous because: it's not green; it's cyan. It looks nothing like Stein's shade of green.
The problem with using orange is that it's very similar to the existing Republican red color! I made a handy chart showing the difference between our two proposed colors; as can be seen, Prcc27's orange is difficult to distinguish from Republican red at first glance, while my cyan is clearly distinct from Stein's green.
Also, Wikipedia already uses a bluish-cyan for McMullin, so sticking with cyan for him is more consistent than using orange.
As a result of this, I propose we change the orange McMullin on the map back to the original cyan.
Pinging @ Prcc27:.
Chessrat ( talk, contributions) 18:10, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
If their are two polls on the same date I think that the poll that an editor adds last should be the one that is listed first. I don't see any consensus for using the poll with the lowest margin of error, because some polls are not as reliable. Also I was under the impression that you aren't supposed to undo other users edits without discussing it first. AllSportsfan16 ( talk) 21:59, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
It should not be difficult to copy the poll's reference name (either beside the state name, or beside the date) when copying the poll data. Omitting the reference makes the table seem unverified, makes the table harder for the reader to verify, and makes it somewhat confusing for at least some new readers (well, at least one anyway - me - it took me some time to work out that the apparent discrepancies were because the first poll shown for a state is a two-way poll, while the latest poll is usually a 4-way poll; confused readers who don't take the time to work this out may cause a certain amount of undeserved damage to Wikipedia's reputation). Tlhslobus ( talk) 02:41, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
To kickstart the process, I've added in the ref name for Alabama (beside the state name, just in case it might affect the date sort - it clearly doesn't affect the statename sort). Two clicks now gets you to the poll in the state's tables (clicking on the reference number gets you to the reference in the table of references, and then clicking on 'b' gets you to the poll in the state's tables - maybe somebody might tell the reader that in the italics above the 'most recent' table if and when a lot of citation numbers have been added to it?). However I'm reluctant to do any more states just yet, for fear of putting in lots of work only to find it reverted for some reason that I haven't thought of. Tlhslobus ( talk) 02:52, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
He has 20%+ in just one state is there any way to include him without creating a whole column dedicated to just this one poll? I am thinking of just nixing the third party candidates again as I knew this would happen. We simply cant include every third party candidate on a single table that has ever been on a poll. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 04:02, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
I think the Breitbart polls should be deleted since they are basically running Trump's campaign, which is a conflict of interest. Also Breitbart is a far right website that promotes Obama being a muslim and not being born in the USA. Also there most recent polls have results that differ greatly from polls conducted at around the same time, such as Colorado and Minnesota. AllSportsfan16 ( talk) 19:10, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
New Emerson poll has McMullin up four, barely outside the 3.6% margin of error. Should the map be reshaded to match? Toa Nidhiki05 19:39, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
I am proposing that we add an average table of all of the polls on Wikipedia from September 1st to present. This would give a more accurate representation of the current state of the race. WaunaKeegan11 ( talk) 14:57, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Why aren't we using the Emerson / Gravis poll released today in PA, NV, NH?? 178.85.48.46 ( talk) 23:31, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Think about this for a second. If you have two polls, one that comes out Oct 20-26 and one that comes out 25-26 it makes way more sense to use the 20-26 one because it covers the same time period 25-26 plus it covers 20-24. Also it has a lower margin of error. It shouldn't matter what day the poll starts it matters what day it comes out. It makes more sense to use a longer time period than a shorter one. It's simple logic. The 25-26 one isn't newer it covers the end of the 20-26 time period. AllSportsfan16 ( talk) 16:14, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
I understand, but your opinion is not the reason to change formal rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gladkyandrey ( talk • contribs) 16:35, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
It migh tbe good to note that this is a Republican leaning polling firm hence the (R) at RCP [11]. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 22:39, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
hmm,i thought that RCP meant Real Clear Politics. Alhanuty ( talk) 00:32, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
An orange shade was introduced on the map for an Independent candidate, and it looks like it will stay. I am having a difficult time with the contrast between the orange and red shades on the map. The orange is equivalent to the color used on the main election page, but the red is not (it is what was used on last year's polling map). So I boldly adjusted the red color on the map for better contrast. If anyone wants to change it again, feel free to discuss it here or change it yourself if you can. -- Spiffy sperry ( talk) 20:24, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
the new red shade is too bright. Alhanuty ( talk) 21:09, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Shouldn't the gender-based voting maps be moved to another article? Most probably this article - Nationwide opinion polling for the United States presidential election by demographics, 2016. DrFargi ( talk) 01:14, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Statewide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2016. 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:
When 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:02, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
To be honest, this polling table 2016 is so confusing & weirdly placed how it works. Syaz351 ( talk) 06:17, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
Spitting into any -way races is unecessary Syaz351 ( talk) 08:31, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Statewide opinion polling for the 2016 United States presidential election article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
As far as I can see this wiki pages gives the best current overview of the state of the election on the internet. However, only including recent polling in the master table means to get an accurate view one has to export the data then add in the extra states with the (very likely) winner. I /would/ add the missing states into the master table, the date field is already there for the necessary caveat, but that seems a step too far without a wider community discussion. What do people think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.254.200.2 ( talk) 13:05, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Can someone create a map of the polls similar to that used in the 2012 article? Thanks, Ypnypn ( talk) 21:05, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
http://newscms.nbcnews.com/sites/newscms/files/iowa_february_2015_annotated_questionnaire_nbc_news-marist_poll.pdf http://newscms.nbcnews.com/sites/newscms/files/new_hampshire_february_2015_annotated_questionnaire_nbc_news-marist_poll.pdf http://newscms.nbcnews.com/sites/newscms/files/south_carolina_february_2015_annotated_questionnaire_nbc_news-marist_poll.pdf 83.80.208.22 ( talk) 17:24, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Where's mah state at? -- 173.76.108.247 ( talk) 03:40, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
On the polling pages I would like to see a thicker/darker line to separate polls from different polling firms. It would be simpler to discern which polls are from when and from whom.
Currently it is a little confusing (or at least has the potential to to so) when I see the same line between different candidates within poll X when compared to the separation line between poll X and poll Y.
This is more so on my mobile phone when I have to zoom in to see it and can't automatically see the part of the graph indicating what firm commissioned the poll and when.
Thanks! 98.253.175.243 ( talk) 05:58, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Due to large number of states with large and growing number of poll results in many of them, some summary for quick perception very need.
But map requested here above is very trouble because can dinamically change sometimes often.
Summary as table will be better and real.
Both - map and table - is not WP:OR like maps by results of elections not WP:OR although born in WP. 46.61.152.186 ( talk) 09:15, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Oklahoma is empty. Why is it still on this page? Tenor12 ( talk) 19:45, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 15 external links on
Statewide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2016. 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 12:52, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Rocky De La Fuente is a contender on the Democratic primary/caucus in many states. He is not mentioned on this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:400:C101:A16A:30C2:7646:B010:64DA ( talk) 14:01, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Would it not be a good idea to add a Latest Polling section as is the norm on Statewide opinion polling for the two parties? I for one rely a lot on polling so it would be useful if I could quickly identify new polls each time I come to the page without having to sift through all the states. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.200.31.50 ( talk) 20:08, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
I agree with the original poster...it's very difficult (and therefore unhelpful) to see NEW polls in this page without reviewing the page revision history. A Latest Polling section would be nice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.172.27 ( talk) 16:10, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Removing the map
I believe the map should be removed at this point, for the same reason it was removed on April 1, plus other reasons. 1) This is too soon, since the primary/caucus process is not yet complete and no candidate has passed the minimum threshold for nomination. 2) While the editor claims in the edit summary that "I took polls only Dem. front runner (Clinton) vs. Rep. front runner (Trump)", there are at least eight states for which the shading is not reflected by such a poll listed on this page or the pre-2016 page (Arkansas, Idaho, Maine, New Mexico, Oregon, Vermont, Washington, Wyoming). 3) The map is in a format (png) that is less user-friendly for editors (see WP:IUP#FORMAT and WP:USOP) (The color around the number in Maine is particularly difficult to adjust, since it's not all the same blue). 4) The striping is reversed from the direction in the legend. -- Spiffy sperry ( talk) 15:18, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Leading outside margin of error
I believe that a "lead" should not be changed to "within the margin of error" simply on the basis of a later poll that still shows the same candidate leading within the margin of error. If a poll shows a candidate in the lead outside the margin of error, and a poll a few days later shows the same candidate leading, but within the margin of error - whether because the lead is slightly smaller or the sample size of the newer poll is just smaller - the current system seems to be to update the map to show that the difference is within the margin of error. This seems a bit oversimplified, as the polls collectively show that one candidate is very likely ahead. For example, a large sample poll showing a lead of 6 with a MOE of 2.5 shows a lead. A small-sample poll completed two days later may show the same candidate ahead by 7 but with a MOE of 4. The second poll should reinforce the lead, but would actually result in the map being changed to show the race as TCTC.
I suggest that once a candidate has a lead outside the margin of error, the state is shown in their column until 1) three successive subsequent polls show the race shows the same candidate either a) leading within the margin of error or b) tied; or 2) any subsequent poll shows the other candidate ahead, whether or not it is within the margin of error. Even my proposal is a bit too cautious, but it's still an improvement and it's relatively simple.
In the alternative, we should have the baby blue and pink represent leads within the margin of error once all of the states have been polled in 2016. Mmulroney ( talk) 16:46, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Early days but pretty much most of the polls show the same thing; namely that Kasich v Democrat would be a close race. Yet the GOP look unlikely to pick the more moderate Kasich and with Trump/Cruz look like losing. Things may change of course. But maybe the GOP should spend a little more time on Wikipedia before picking their candidate! 213.114.6.75 ( talk) 10:37, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
How about inventing different colours for "Both Clinton and Sanders beat Trump" - "Clinton beats Trump" and "Sanders beats Trump"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Supermaster2 ( talk • contribs) 22:01, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
| |||
| |||
|
Here is a map, the image just needs to be updated to show the results. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 22:54, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Stripe the state blue/light blue, we had a similar thing with the SSM in the USA template remember? - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 23:06, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Can we get a map like we have for Statewide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2012 in the info-box now? - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 01:58, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
I have noticed that the margin of error is misleading in this article per Talk:Statewide opinion polling for the 2016 Democratic Party presidential primaries/Archive 1#Note on margins of errors and statistical ties. "A statistical tie occurs when two data points from within a set are within twice the margin of error of each other." In other words for the given margin of error you have to double that amount. A margin of error of 4% would become a 8% spread so if the poll is 55% to 49% it would still be tied within the MoE so both candidates would be highlighted in their colors. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 13:21, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Why is Colorado counted as having polling showing Trump ahead (which would be a gain), despite the Colorado section of the article saying there have been no polls? I'm intrigued to know why. MoreofaGlorifiedPond,Really... ( talk) 12:40, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Since it's certain the nominees will be Clinton and Trump, could somebody delete all the polls featuring Bernie Sanders, Ted Cruz, and others?
I'd do it myself, but I'm not familiar enough with wikitext.
RadderGuy ( talk) 18:25, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Statewide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2016. 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:
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 09:29, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
The "latest polling" table shows a +7 margin for Trump, but there's no source for it. The Texas section of the article shows him only +3 (from SurveyUSA back in February). It's important to update the table & the individual states, with links to the most recent polls. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.212.131.54 ( talk) 16:28, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
3rd party candidates should also be included in the "most recent polls" section. Prcc27🌍 ( talk) 07:45, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
There is an issue with putting 3rd party polls into the most recent polling. If a 2 way poll is more recent then it should take priority over a three way outdated poll. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 16:02, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
This is causing too many problems, nix the 3rd party in the most recent polls table or add another table. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 16:11, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
I have just removed 2 congressional district polls from Maine that did not have any sample numbers and margin of error. I would suggest these polls are not included in the article as they are not statewide polls and should be placed somewhere else if necessary. DrFargi ( talk) 10:27, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
This source raises red flags for me, I think I remember clearly that the polls were removed for being unreliable. Here is a past WP:RSN discussion: [1]. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 14:26, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Shouldn't Alaska be striped since the margin of error isn't even recorded..? Prcc27🌍 ( talk) 00:22, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
The Morning Consult has released a 50 state polling map today but it does not give the dates for when the polls were conducted nor does it give sample sizes: [3]. Would this map be useful at all? - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 15:11, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
This map is just a prediction but I believe the 2nd congressional district just has 1 point to it while the rest of the state along 1st district have three [4]. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 13:30, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
I just want to add that the reasoning behind this is that the population centers are in the 1st district. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 14:32, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
I have removed a poll alleged to be "unpublished" per WP:V. In the source ( [5]) I noticed some red flags, they mention the Harper poll as "unpublished", and that the poll is "well mentioned in state political circles". I have nothing against Harper, but we should wait for them to release the poll. [6] - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 22:01, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
The states are assigned to Trump or Clinton when they have double the margin of error. Shouldn't a margin of error lead be enough to say they have the lead? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.81.5.252 ( talk) 23:48, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
I have removed it for now as it appears to have incomplete data. The reference can be found here: [7]. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 15:41, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
I didn't know anyone was trying to communicate with me. Just noticed that the poll kept getting removed. Polls often don't get released with all desirable information. If it was a pollster no one has ever heard of that is one thing, but SurveyUSA has been around for years and is well known.
I saw a couple of editors in the past day trying to include aggregate polls for each individual state. Do anyone think they are necessary and should be included or done away with altogether. DrFargi ( talk) 12:18, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Statewide polls are appearing in each separate presidential statewide articles, which is a duplicate of statewide polls here. Plus they are not properly reference with citations and dates. - United States presidential election in Alabama, 2016, United States presidential election in Alaska, 2016, United States presidential election in Arizona, 2016, United States presidential election in Arkansas, 2016. It is probably better we add direct links to those articles to the polls here and delete those outlying polls. DrFargi ( talk) 23:47, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Some user tried to overhaul the map without any discussion here. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 00:08, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Polls indicate that 3rd party candidate Gary Johnson of the Libertarians will have an effect. Please include his numbers. AbuButterbean ( talk) 09:15, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
This article makes it unclear whether polling reflects responses from likely voters or from registered voters. Most polls compile data from both groups, leading to two separate sets of numbers. Is one standard over the other? I seriously don't know. Kerdooskis ( talk) 18:06, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
There's now a consistency problem as well. The August 4-7 Marquette Wisconsin poll shows registered voters in both the latest polls section and the state section. The August 11-14 Washington Post Virginia poll shows registered voters in the latest polls section and likely voters in the state section.
Where a poll shows results for both LV and RV, a consensus of either bifurcation (show both) or a preference (ex. show registered voters only unless the poll results are LV only, in which case use a footnote) is required. If bifurcation is the standard, either LV or RV (not both) should form the basis for the map. Based on the two polls mentioned, the map is currently correct in respect of RV 4-way (WI lead of 9 is not beyond 5.0 MOE x 2; VA lead of 11 is beyond 4.0 MOE x 2). Mmulroney ( talk) 00:24, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Can someone add these two recent NH polls? I don't have the time to do it myself right now:
PPP, Clinton +13: http://americansforresponsiblesolutions.org/files/2016/08/Polling-Memo.pdf
Vox Populi, Clinton +10: http://www.wmur.com/blob/view/-/41140016/data/1/-/jxy7pq/-/Vox-Populi-Polling-memo.pdf
538 has them both listed: http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/new-hampshire/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.193.136.200 ( talk) 02:51, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
This page needs to have the poll numbers for Gary Johnson included please he has up to 16$ of the vote in some states — Preceding unsigned comment added by Us.terross ( talk • contribs) 08:40, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Why is the map displaying Texas as within margin? I.am.a.qwerty ( talk) 06:29, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
There must be 100+ links to both the Clinton and Trump articles. Is there any reason for this or can we start pruning. Tigerboy1966 06:11, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Okay so The Washington Post/SurveyMonkey just released a lot of polls which do have a breakdown of participants, the problem is that none have a margin of error that the HP reported. Following the website it looks like the MoE is 1.0%? Is this even possible? Before adding these polls I would like a discussion regarding inclusion or not.
- Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 14:02, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
NameIsRon ( talk) 20:44, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
These polls were taken August 9 - September 1st, so if included, the recent polling section could be left largely unaffected as these Survey Monkey polls would not be the latest for many states. I would be inclined toward including these polls, warts and all, because many states have no polling at all, and these polls are probably better than nothing.
I tend to agree. Normally I am a guy voting for full inclusion of all polls, but keep in mind the irregular nature of this collection. These were part of the national polling sweep over 3 weeks. They were not crafted as state polls to begin with, taking into account the local nuances a given state poll should. A poll is supposed to be a snapshot in time, but a three week long poll is of much less value due to the overall shifting nature of public opinion. ChickDaniels ( talk) 16:39, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Morning Consult has now joined Ipsos and Survey Monkey in providing 50-state polls: https://morningconsult.com/50-state-poll/ Should these be included? ChickDaniels ( talk) 19:20, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Why aren't the recent New Mexico Polls included ? See (Morning Consult) & (Reuters) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GinoKolle ( talk • contribs) 22:26, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
I am a bit worried that going forward we are going to see more polling with an above 5.0% margin of error. I would consider 5.0% (10% spread) to be the maximum in terms of reliability, any higher than that puts the polling into doubt. I want to point out that last election polling with margins of error at like 8.0% were not uncommon, so my question would be should we have a MoE cap? - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 13:38, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Isn't 6 months worth of polls enough for 1 article? That is if there are polls that come out in November just before the elections. Do we really need to move the June polls to the other article - Early/Mid 2016 statewide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2016? Are we going to move the July polls as well too? DrFargi ( talk) 21:46, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Any new disputes regarding the inclusion of maps and state polling averages should be discussed here. Please include the pros and cons on why the maps and state polling averages should be included in this article. This is in response to the massive deletion by AllSportsfan16. DrFargi ( talk) 08:17, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
If you look at previous election articles they only contain polls that have been collected. A map that claims to show the current state of the election day to day is not something that belongs on Wikipedia. You can compare it to live scoring in sports. On Wikipedia you are not allowed to update scores until they are final. The same should hold true for an election. These states have not been decided yet, so there should be no map coloring them in for either party. If you look at previous election articles they do not show a map. There is no reason to discuss pro's and con's. The only thing that needs to be discussed is if it violates wikipedia policy and it clearly does. Wikipedia is meant to show finished results, not live updates. Furthermore averages also change over time and have not been used before in these articles. AllSportsfan16 ( talk) 08:27, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
By showing an updated electoral vote table the article is in violation of original reporting and being a newspaper. If you look on the internet you will not find a source that displays this electoral vote count. It is not verifiable and it cannot be cited. AllSportsfan16 ( talk) 15:39, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Again if you look at past articles there is no map or table. The problem with the table multiple polls on the same state can come out on any given day, which means what poll are you going to choose then if there is more than one. It is highly unreliable. Wikipedia is not meant to be FiveThiryEight, 270 to win, or any other site that displays a map that is constantly updated AllSportsfan16 ( talk) 14:53, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
You are giving candidates current electoral vote totals, which are not facts that cannot be verified. It is done not belong on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AllSportsfan16 ( talk • contribs) 14:59, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
No it is not factual to post suggested electoral vote totals when not a single vote has been cast in the election. Polls change daily and like I said before a lot of time there is more than one poll on a state per day. Again wikipedia is not meant to be a newspaper. AllSportsfan16 ( talk) 15:03, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Again how can you say that providing an updated electoral vote table is within the rules. No vote has been cast so electoral votes stand at zero. By showing any form of electoral vote total you are showing a prediction. Think about it. AllSportsfan16 ( talk) 15:09, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
However you are implying that is is a prediction because you are providing an electoral vote number. No votes have been cast, so possible electoral votes could change daily. If you remove the electoral vote count and just show the map it's fine. AllSportsfan16 ( talk) 15:18, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Any electoral vote count is unverifiable speculation and thus should not be included AllSportsfan16 ( talk) 15:20, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Also with polls. Here's an example. Let's say two different polls come out on Michigan on the same day. One shows that Hillary is up by 7 and one shows that she is only up be 3. Which poll do you use for your map and table. Some days there can be three or four different polls per state. Also look at Wikipedia, do you see any other election articles that are like this. AllSportsfan16 ( talk) 15:25, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
I get that the polls show who is leading in each state. However you can not show a suggested electoral vote total, that constantly updates. Wikipedia is meant to be a research tool. AllSportsfan16 ( talk) 15:27, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
If you can not a cite a source it should not be on Wikipedia. Right now you can not cite a source to show the current electoral vote total that you are displaying. AllSportsfan16 ( talk) 15:30, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
The following rules are violated: WP:SPECULATION, WP:NOTNEWS. The map and table are breaches of original reporting. You will not find them anywhere else on the internet. AllSportsfan16 ( talk) 15:33, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
I agree with AllSportsfan. Wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopedia. The map and table that show an updated electoral vote table constitute original reporting. The total cannot not be cited outside of Wikipedia, therefore it should not be mentioned. I think it's fine to display a map of the states, but do not mention an electoral vote total. 47.147.179.96 ( talk) 15:44, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Ok that's fine as long as someone updates them every day and makes sure that they are always accurate. AllSportsfan16 ( talk) 20:54, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
That is not a fact based argument. Length of time displayed is not relevant. AllSportsfan16 ( talk) 20:54, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm willing to accept keeping the map if both the table and the electoral vote count on the map and table are removed. The problem with the table is that it doesn't even say what poll those numbers come from. It just has the state, the percentage and the margin of error. You need to cite them. Also no electoral votes have been cast, so any numbers mentioned represent a prediction for the current state of the race. AllSportsfan16 ( talk) 20:54, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
It is incorrect to say that previous election articles do not show a polling map. I contributed to the 2012 maps myself. The complaint that a table and a map don't match misses the point. Update them rather than delete them if they don't match. The analogy to sports scores is misplaced. A single game does not span over dozen of months. Adding numbers together does not violate the no original research policy, and the numbers in this article that are added together are properly sourced. The fact that many states are currently polling within the margin of error is not a good reason to reject the map. It is certainly useful information. The bottom line is that this is a polling article with a polling map, not a results article with a results map. We are not giving candidates any electoral votes. It is very clear that this entire article is about polling prior to the election. -- Spiffy sperry ( talk) 14:53, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
I just took a closer look at this 50 state poll [ UPI]. Now in previous massive polls such as Morning Consult or Ipsos/Reuters, they were missing margin of error or sample size. Whereas this latest poll has both of those that I have mentioned. Is it alright to include the UPI poll? DrFargi ( talk) 12:23, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Now that most of the state polls include third party candidates I feel like we should add them to the table. Prcc27🌍 ( talk) 17:51, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Is not MoE 1,96?. The Texas with 7% och 3,5% is then outside MoE? Yger ( talk) 05:07, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Does anyone here know a way to get a three way striped legend up? We have File:Legendstriped red clue cyan.png but the colors need to be placed into |{{legend|... format or else it will not properly show. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 16:01, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
I uploaded a polling map showing McMullin in cyan in Utah. User:Prcc27 decided to change this cyan to orange under the rationale that "Green should be reserved for Jill Stein if she polls high enough in a state."
In my view, this logic is erroneous because: it's not green; it's cyan. It looks nothing like Stein's shade of green.
The problem with using orange is that it's very similar to the existing Republican red color! I made a handy chart showing the difference between our two proposed colors; as can be seen, Prcc27's orange is difficult to distinguish from Republican red at first glance, while my cyan is clearly distinct from Stein's green.
Also, Wikipedia already uses a bluish-cyan for McMullin, so sticking with cyan for him is more consistent than using orange.
As a result of this, I propose we change the orange McMullin on the map back to the original cyan.
Pinging @ Prcc27:.
Chessrat ( talk, contributions) 18:10, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
If their are two polls on the same date I think that the poll that an editor adds last should be the one that is listed first. I don't see any consensus for using the poll with the lowest margin of error, because some polls are not as reliable. Also I was under the impression that you aren't supposed to undo other users edits without discussing it first. AllSportsfan16 ( talk) 21:59, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
It should not be difficult to copy the poll's reference name (either beside the state name, or beside the date) when copying the poll data. Omitting the reference makes the table seem unverified, makes the table harder for the reader to verify, and makes it somewhat confusing for at least some new readers (well, at least one anyway - me - it took me some time to work out that the apparent discrepancies were because the first poll shown for a state is a two-way poll, while the latest poll is usually a 4-way poll; confused readers who don't take the time to work this out may cause a certain amount of undeserved damage to Wikipedia's reputation). Tlhslobus ( talk) 02:41, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
To kickstart the process, I've added in the ref name for Alabama (beside the state name, just in case it might affect the date sort - it clearly doesn't affect the statename sort). Two clicks now gets you to the poll in the state's tables (clicking on the reference number gets you to the reference in the table of references, and then clicking on 'b' gets you to the poll in the state's tables - maybe somebody might tell the reader that in the italics above the 'most recent' table if and when a lot of citation numbers have been added to it?). However I'm reluctant to do any more states just yet, for fear of putting in lots of work only to find it reverted for some reason that I haven't thought of. Tlhslobus ( talk) 02:52, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
He has 20%+ in just one state is there any way to include him without creating a whole column dedicated to just this one poll? I am thinking of just nixing the third party candidates again as I knew this would happen. We simply cant include every third party candidate on a single table that has ever been on a poll. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 04:02, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
I think the Breitbart polls should be deleted since they are basically running Trump's campaign, which is a conflict of interest. Also Breitbart is a far right website that promotes Obama being a muslim and not being born in the USA. Also there most recent polls have results that differ greatly from polls conducted at around the same time, such as Colorado and Minnesota. AllSportsfan16 ( talk) 19:10, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
New Emerson poll has McMullin up four, barely outside the 3.6% margin of error. Should the map be reshaded to match? Toa Nidhiki05 19:39, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
I am proposing that we add an average table of all of the polls on Wikipedia from September 1st to present. This would give a more accurate representation of the current state of the race. WaunaKeegan11 ( talk) 14:57, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Why aren't we using the Emerson / Gravis poll released today in PA, NV, NH?? 178.85.48.46 ( talk) 23:31, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Think about this for a second. If you have two polls, one that comes out Oct 20-26 and one that comes out 25-26 it makes way more sense to use the 20-26 one because it covers the same time period 25-26 plus it covers 20-24. Also it has a lower margin of error. It shouldn't matter what day the poll starts it matters what day it comes out. It makes more sense to use a longer time period than a shorter one. It's simple logic. The 25-26 one isn't newer it covers the end of the 20-26 time period. AllSportsfan16 ( talk) 16:14, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
I understand, but your opinion is not the reason to change formal rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gladkyandrey ( talk • contribs) 16:35, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
It migh tbe good to note that this is a Republican leaning polling firm hence the (R) at RCP [11]. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 22:39, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
hmm,i thought that RCP meant Real Clear Politics. Alhanuty ( talk) 00:32, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
An orange shade was introduced on the map for an Independent candidate, and it looks like it will stay. I am having a difficult time with the contrast between the orange and red shades on the map. The orange is equivalent to the color used on the main election page, but the red is not (it is what was used on last year's polling map). So I boldly adjusted the red color on the map for better contrast. If anyone wants to change it again, feel free to discuss it here or change it yourself if you can. -- Spiffy sperry ( talk) 20:24, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
the new red shade is too bright. Alhanuty ( talk) 21:09, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Shouldn't the gender-based voting maps be moved to another article? Most probably this article - Nationwide opinion polling for the United States presidential election by demographics, 2016. DrFargi ( talk) 01:14, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Statewide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2016. 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:
When 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:02, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
To be honest, this polling table 2016 is so confusing & weirdly placed how it works. Syaz351 ( talk) 06:17, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
Spitting into any -way races is unecessary Syaz351 ( talk) 08:31, 11 March 2022 (UTC)