Talk:Nationwide opinion polling for the 2024 United States presidential election

Question about Rasmussen Reports

Should we really continue using them as a source, even now that it's been revealed that they're working with the Trump team? ThrowawayEpic1000 (talk) 16:48, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I think we should delete Rasmussen across the board for 2024. 538 (and Split Ticket) have excluded them from their polling averages since March citing not just bias but unreliability and lack of transparency among other best-practices. I see no reason to include them anymore since polling experts think they have become so unreliable. Superb Owl (talk) 21:52, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

So only polling that favors Republicans should be removed? Nearly every polling source has some degree of bias. Some more than others, some less than others. Morning Consult's polls lean 'reliably' to the left. Do you support removing that source too? I think it's a bad idea to start mucking about with stable presentations of polling results in the immediate run-up to the election. We present the polls for readers to make their own determinations. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 04:17, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Please stop continuing to misrepresent good faith attempts to address reliability, @User:Anastrophe.
As I proposed here, I think we should exclude any poll that does not have at least a 1-star rating by 538 Superb Owl (talk) 04:28, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

The problem here is synthesis. I see Nate Silver's metrics as being more transparent in representing biases across polling sources, and in terms of reliability. You've stated a preference for 538. That's all fine, but editors aren't arbiters. Do you have a reliable source that says that 538's star ratings are the sine qua non? How did you determine that one star should be the threshold? Why not only sources better than two stars? It's not up to editors to decide which set of metadata is more reliable. I could easily make the argument that the four top left-leaning and four top right leaning sources be culled from all articles on presidential polling in 2024, based on Nate Silver's determinations. But it's not up to me. Or you. I strongly reject the idea that all articles presenting presidential polling results for 2024 should be tampered with less than two weeks from the election. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 04:58, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

538 appears to be the most comprehensive analysis of polling and uses more metrics than simply bias and accuracy. Being owned by a WP:RS (ABC) also helps. Silver's analysis is a blog post focusing on fewer pollsters with fewer variables, not a comprehensive updated ranking. If there's another similarly impressive ranking, then sure, let's discuss it, but for now this is the best I can find. I would also be fine with keeping any poll that is ranked by 538 (even those below 1-star) and excluding all the ones not notable or reliable enough to make their list for simplicity's sake. Superb Owl (talk) 05:21, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Now, after elections we can see who was more accurate (Rasmussen, Atlas, RCP) and who was not (538). That should be lesson learned for the future not to remove polling or aggregators just because they work with one or another party or simply because we don't like their polls. Such removals decrease Wikipedia's credibility. 188.122.20.86 (talk) 15:25, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Removal of RCP

Why was RCP removed from this aggreagator and the atate aggregators for the 2024 election? Zwearna2 (talk) 23:07, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Due to consensus in the main article (2024 United States presidential election) talk page. I can't figure out how to update averages; please do this if you can. But we've established they aren't credible enough to stay. 27.33.134.168 (talk) 07:16, 12 October 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock User:I would be bias if it was allowed CountyCountry (talk) 04:19, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

nevermind the second part. But this was previously established that RCP is unreliable. 27.33.134.168 (talk) 07:17, 12 October 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock User:I would be bias if it was allowed CountyCountry (talk) 04:19, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

(Redacted) Burns1889 (talk) 17:11, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Please don't use foul and racist language. I will report you to an administrator. CountyCountry (talk) 19:26, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Wow, he's a neo-nazi. I didn't expect that. (I read edit logs) 49.184.140.57 (talk) 03:16, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

RCP was verifiably the most accurate polling aggregator in 2020. 2601:5C6:8180:BAD0:55A2:1CBA:D74D:7D9 (talk) 05:20, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

There is no consensus as far as I can see, an RfC would be best ideally Quinby (talk) 11:39, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

To those interested, I encourage you to discuss at Talk:2024 United States presidential election#Remove RealClearPolitics from polling. As Quinnnnnby said, I would also support starting an RfC. CountyCountry (talk) 19:26, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

There already is a consensus that RCP is unreliable, as per the WP:RSP entry on it. 49.184.140.57 (talk) 03:13, 13 October 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock User:I would be bias if it was allowed CountyCountry (talk) 04:19, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I don’t modify this page, but I’m a user and I used to find this article very useful. RCP is constantly stated by major news outlets and nobody here should decide whether it is reliable or not. Please include this poll to have a proper overall picture of the election and stop deleting it. 2605:B100:530:D2F9:EC:90D0:C1BD:464 (talk) 20:49, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

If RCP is giving intentionally biased polls equal weight then it's not reliable and it doesn't contribute to a proper overall picture of the election. 103.8.18.128 (talk) 20:47, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Suggestion: Can we display RCP, but not use it when computing the averages? RCP's aggregate includes pollsters like Rasmussen Reports and Trafalgar Group, which are widely considered to be Republican-biased pollsters. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 14:22, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Wouldn’t this defeat the purpose of averages though? We have many aggregates which could have different results. The purpose of averages is to combine them to get a general view. To your other point, many aggregates have included polls that are biased towards Democrats. Morning Consult and some others. CountyCountry (talk) 21:24, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

By removing Real Clear Politics just because this does not match with how wikipedia writers want to see shows just how garbage this site has become 2A02:2F0D:200F:2800:8A6:3B22:F74F:809E (talk) 11:03, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a left-biased site, and therefore this article too is biased to the left. You will not find the truth on Wikipedia. 2A0D:6FC0:EF6:E00:505B:DFB:79DF:BC95 (talk) 04:12, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

@2A0D:6FC0:EF6:E00:505B:DFB:79DF:BC95: RCP was removed due to including Rasmussen Reports and Trafalgar Group, pollsters with a Republican Bias and inaccurate results, thus leading to RCP having similar, if not worse bias and accuracy, such as marking Minnesota, a very Democrat-leaning state, as a tossup (Or at least that's my understanding of the situation); If you feel as if this article includes pollsters which are similarly biased and have had similarly inaccurate results, then name them instead of just complaining that Wikipedia doesn't follow your political views. ThrowawayEpic1000 (talk) 22:47, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

"just complaining that Wikipedia doesn't follow your political views" . Neither do I live in USA nor do I have a favourite in these elections. I was just following this page daily for good quality information and got irritated by being devastated by biased edits. Minnesota is not very Democratic leaning, the difference between Trump and Clinton was small in 2016. 2A02:2F0D:2215:A400:5CA7:6234:CB0C:4547 (talk) 14:10, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

@2A02:2F0D:2215:A400:5CA7:6234:CB0C:4547: When I posted my last comment, I hadn't gone through the thread under the page for the US Elections where the removal of RCP was discussed, so I had gotten some things wrong; It is not merely the fact that it marked Minnesota as a tossup, it's the fact that it marked it as a tossup when every other pollster (Including Rasmussen Reports) marks it as Democrat leaning; There are most likely other reasons for this, but I couldn't be bothered to read through all of it (It can be found here.) ThrowawayEpic1000 (talk) 17:15, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

@ThrowawayEpic1000 I think the stark difference between RCP and all the other polls points to bias for the Republicans 2A02:8388:341:2780:7858:F158:4801:FCD2 (talk) 15:36, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

@2A02:8388:341:2780:7858:F158:4801:FCD2: Once again, if you feel as if a pollster with similar flaws (Such as marking a Republican-leaning state as a tossup) is included in this article, you can just make a separate thread where you talk about them. ThrowawayEpic1000 (talk) 17:18, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Realclearpolitics was more accurate during both the '16 and '20 elections than the sources you DO include. Seems ridiculous. 142.127.4.129 (talk) 00:59, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

@142.127.4.129: Hey, take it to the editors who actually voted to do this, not me. ThrowawayEpic1000 (talk) 15:42, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Very good point , it seems the most accurate , from the results it seems ALL other aggregations have democratic bias except RealClear who is neutral. Hopefully wikipedia writers now understand their mistake , those kind of behavious only motivates moderate voters not to vote ... Even Rasmussen were more accurate both in 2016 and 2020 than many other polls you mention as neutral. Minnessota was one of the last states getting called out by AP today ... 2A02:2F0D:2409:DD00:F4FC:820C:5A64:788A (talk) 08:26, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

@CountyCountry: Can you deal with this please ThrowawayEpic1000 (talk) 01:48, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

By what measure is Wikipedia a left-leaning site? Pollwatcher1234 (talk) 10:43, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

And again, RCP is included...

I object that those who play politics here are too lazy to adjust the average, necessary if RCP is included. It should be +0.8% for Harris instead of +1.0%. 178.197.219.108 (talk) 14:12, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

And they restore it,after the election... hypocrits 186.173.130.133 (talk) 14:37, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Notice: 27.33.134.168 is a block evader that uses the indef blocked account of User:I would be bias if it was allowed. Their (and other IPs that they use) contributions and talk page comments should be reverted and striked respectively. CountyCountry (talk) 17:58, 14 October 2024 (UTC) I don't think it is a reliable source. See RSNP which has it yellow, "There is no consensus as to RealClearPolitics's reliability. They appear to have the trappings of a reliable source, but their tactics in news reporting suggest they may be publishing non-factual or misleading information. Use as a source in a Wikipedia article should probably only be done with caution, and better yet should be avoided." Doug Weller talk 16:47, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Information contradicts its own source

According to the information provided in the source for the TIPP poll (October 16–18, 2024), which is currently the second reference in this article (https://tippinsights.com/tipp-tracking-poll-day-7-trump-surges-past-harris-seizing-2-point-lead/), Trump has established a lead over Harris by two percentage points (49% to 47%), but for some reason it is stated in the table that Harris is currently at 48% while Trump has the support of 47% of the people who answered the poll. Is it a mistake, am I misreading the article or maybe these figures are actually from another polling organization?

RCP is biased

against Democrats, because there's just a big gulf between the average of RCP and all the other pollsters averages. 84.115.224.223 (talk) 16:26, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

RealClearPolitics are a right-leaning aggregator and have been removed from the polling table as can be seen here [1] ---- "Unlike its competitors, RealClearPolitics does not filter out low-quality polls, incorporating results from pollsters with a poor track record that other aggregators reject. It also does not weight its averages."[2] Somedifferentstuff (talk) 15:03, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

How about we include RCP now since they give Trump less advantage than Decision Desk HQ/The Hill? Governor Sheng (talk) 13:45, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

That doesn't address why they were removed. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 21:17, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

its clear that democrats gamed wikipedias policies and the heirarchy of what can be called "reliable" to the point that it just looks like a pool of nonsense on top of nonsense. the fact that every single poll was wrong is just a staggering thing to behold, and then to compound it further one of the aggregators was removed because it wasnt wrong enough. guys.....what are we doing here? Flynnwasframed (talk) 03:27, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Removing an aggregator due to poor methodology isn't a flaw (e.g. a broken clock is right twice a day) ---- you mention "nonsense" but then proceed with word salad. What's your argument?? Most polls' margin of error is +/- 3 points and understand that polling isn't actual science. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 00:28, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

We should remove all polls that show a republican winning next time. We might be able to have a bigger impact on the election. We're not going to change any minds on the far left, or far right, but we can make a serious difference to uninformed voters. 98.97.41.16 (talk) 14:57, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

You should have no business editing this encyclopedia with this attitude. You're not an editor. You're an activist. Clashwho (talk) 15:16, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Their methodology is not poor and differs very little from others. You are simply making excuses for this railroading. Also polling is a science. You do not understand the philosophy of science. 2.98.88.164 (talk) 18:56, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

When an aggregator is consistently more accurate and than others, it means it isn't a "broken clock" and to claim its relative success is due to coincidence or luck is outright farcical. At that point you're just showing you don't actually care about accuracy, you don't like them because they don't tell you your preferred political party is winning.

Their methodology isn't "poor". The so-called "experts" who say it is, are the same people who got the election completely wrong, yet again. The conclusion after another election where the "right-leaning" pollsters turn out to be the most accurate, should be that we misjudged who the real "experts" are and should reevaluate which sources qualify as "reliable". That this doesn't happen in any way and the regulars here keep clinging to the same discredited outlets, simply because those outlets favor their political camp, is astonishing. Agnat86 (talk) 10:12, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Well, RCP's "flawed" methodology and bias turned out to be more accurate than any of the other aggregators other than Decision Desk (by a small margin)...Rlendog (talk) 00:42, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

As it turns out RCP was the least biased poll aggregator as it was closest to the margin by which Trump beat Harris. What was actually biased was the decision by Wiki editors to remove the most accurate predictors in favor of those demonstrably biased towards the Democratic ticket. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ian 1975 (talk • contribs) 12:24, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

The bogus reasons for removing RCP did a bang up job of revealing the political opinions and the lack of good faith of this page's editors. Clashwho (talk) 15:18, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

@Ian 1975: I was gonna wait for someone else to deal with this in my stead, but I'm getting impatient; I really don't know what you are getting at here; Looking at the electoral maps from the other poll aggregators mentioned in the page[3][4][5][6][7] and comparing them to RCP's electoral tossup map[8] shows them to be pretty similar, except for RCP's Minnesota tossup anomaly, which was what led editors to initially doubt it's accuracy. ThrowawayEpic1000 (talk) 22:21, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

LOL, no! The other poll aggregators throughout the campaign had Harris either winning the electoral college or a toss up. RCP was the one that come closer to the actual results and they still came a bit short in estimating Trumps margins. What prompted Wiki to remove it before the election and then quietly restore it was partisanship and then embarrassed by the results restored it without any explanation. Also kindly have your editor Doug Weller stop threatening me. Kind regards. Ian 1975 (talk) 10:57, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

@Ian 1975 I haven't seen many editors with as many warnings as you've had. One in 2020 by User:Swarm for personal attacks after warning, another by User:Ad Orientem for disruptive editing. As for RCP, consensus is "There is no consensus as to RealClearPolitics's reliability. They appear to have the trappings of a reliable source, but their tactics in news reporting suggest they may be publishing non-factual or misleading information. Use as a source in a Wikipedia article should probably only be done with caution, and better yet should be avoided." Doug Weller talk 12:04, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I knew it that only threats and attempts to shut down the discussion were to come. And you guys still wonder why the election went this way... Ian 1975 (talk) 12:39, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Telling the truth about you is not a threat. Doug Weller talk 14:48, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Coping with reality and truth is not your strongest suit, right? Ian 1975 (talk) 07:51, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Damn dude, no wonder you get so many warnings if this is how you treat others in this wiki. ThrowawayEpic1000 (talk) 17:31, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Cope, Doug. You think you're high and mighty here, eh? 50.32.154.61 (talk) 19:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I mean, I linked all of my sources, it doesn't take being a genius to open them all on separate tabs and see that they're all pretty similar and put Trump in the lead; I would've used RCP's no tossups map, but I don't think the other ones have a map like that, so the comparison would've been pretty unfair if I used that one. ThrowawayEpic1000 (talk) 18:52, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I think the lesson people SHOULD be learning here, is that it's nonsensical to declare aggregators inaccurate simply because they disagree with other aggregators. In the case of Minnesota for example, RCP got it wrong because Harris won by 4.2%, but they also had Arizona a tossup, which Trump won by 5.5%. So why was the Minnesota miss a problem, but not the bigger Arizona miss?

Reliability of polls and aggregators should be judged on past election results, not their peers, because if these peers are themselves consistently wrong every election cycle, you'll end up removing the few accurate ones simply because they disagree with the inaccurate majority. Had the community here had the sense to judge RCP based on its past performance, they wouldn't have made the blunder to remove it.

And the same applies to their crusade against other "right-leaning" (aka, accurate) pollsters here. There is a clear trend that a pollster with even a narrow miss in favor of the right is labeled "right-wing", but pollsters with consistent massive misses to the left retain their "reliable" status no matter what.

Sure, the "experts" say these "right-wing" pollsters are unreliable, but these experts themselves run their own polls that are consistently less accurate, so why are they even treated as experts in the first place? At what point should we start to consider that maybe the people who get it right every time should be considered the real experts, instead of the people who get it wrong every time? Agnat86 (talk) 10:34, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

@Agnat86 That's your opinion and although WP:NOR#original is allowed on talk pages, it's not really relevant.. The issue is does it meet WP:RS. The community consensus is that "Raw Story is generally unreliable for factual reporting, based upon a pattern of publishing false and sensationalized stories. Editors almost unanimously agree that the source is biased and that in-text attribution should accompany each use of the source."[9] Doug Weller talk 11:31, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

That's exactly the problem I'm getting at. The community consensus is simply WRONG here, and it has been demonstrated to be wrong.

For example, the NYT is used as a reliable source here, which it is CLEARLY not, as the NYT not only is itself heavily involved in the polling industry and is therefore anything but neutral in this discussion (they're effectively attacking their competitors in the industry), but they also were one of the less accurate pollsters the past cycles, and this cycle again, which should impact the community's assessment of their credibility.

So why are they still used as a reliable source? Because they tell community members what they want to hear?

Facts should matter. Instead of stubbornly arguing "well, we decided that these guys are reliable and these other guys aren't", no matter how often the 'reliable' guys get it wrong, the community should be mature enough to change their consensus when new data comes in and sources turn out to be less reliable than previously thought. Otherwise, the logic is just "any source that tells me things I like to hear is reliable", and whoever has the biggest echo chamber gets to promote their personal opinion to unassailable truth. Agnat86 (talk) 12:32, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

@Agnat86 I see that you've only made 3 edits since your account was created, all on behalf of RCP. We CANNOT change the community consensus here, and without change, it can't be overridden. Go to WP:RSN with your complaints and get it changed. Doug Weller talk 13:19, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Marist College vs Marist Poll

On the list of polls, some are listed as Marist College and others as Marist Poll. As far as I'm aware, the college itself does not do any polling, it is all done through MIPO (Marist Poll). Is there any particular reason why it is presented this way? CFMASS (talk) 13:53, 7 November 2024 (UTC)