Jump to content

Talk:Nationwide opinion polling for the 2008 United States presidential election

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fox

[edit]

There seems to be a lot of Fox News polls listed. I know a poll is a poll is a poll, but still there's a reason they always have the highest approval rating for Bush of all the pollsters. (Creator22 21:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Fox doesn't seem to be any more represented than any other. Still, your analysis of their results doesn't seem too off. Always remember, there are lies, damn lies, and then there are statistics. That's why it is always good to take any one with a grain of salt and as many as you can get to have a general idea of what is going on. --StuffOfInterest 22:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For that matter I don't know if there is evidence that Opinion Dynamics is associated with Fox News, except for Fox News being the chief publicizer of their results. Charges of partiality would have to be made on the responsible corporation. Decatur 05:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


From http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Fox_News_Channel_controversies


Program on International Policy Attitudes,[28] in the Winter 03-04 issue of Political Science Quarterly, reported that viewers of the Fox Network local affiliates or Fox News were more likely than viewers of other news networks to hold three views which the authors labeled as misperceptions [29] : 

   * 67% of Fox viewers believed that the "U.S. has found clear evidence in Iraq that Saddam Hussein was working closely with the al Qaeda terrorist organization" (Compared with 56% for CBS, 49% for NBC, 48% for CNN, 45% for ABC, 16% for NPR/PBS). However, the belief that "Iraq was directly involved in September 11" was held by 33% of CBS viewers and only 24% of Fox viewers, 23% for ABC, 22% for NBC, 21% for CNN and 10% for NPR/PBS
   * 33% of Fox viewers believed that the "U.S. has found Iraqi weapons of mass destruction" "since the war ended". (Compared with 23% for CBS, 20% for both CNN and NBC, 19% for ABC and 11% for both NPR/PBS)
   * 35% of Fox viewers believed that "the majority of people [in the world] favor the U.S. having gone to war" with Iraq. (Compared with 28% for CBS, 27% for ABC, 24% for CNN, 20% for NBC, 5% for NPR/PBS)


what do you,my fellow people of this country think? hillary clinton should of won the race.she would've been the 1st lady president!

Rule Out Someone who can't run

[edit]

Arnold Schwarzenegger is included in at least one of the polls here. If he is barred by the constitution from running, why can such a poll be included in a speculative article such as this? Cymra37 00:17, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because theoretically, the constitution could be changed before 2008. —Nightstallion (?) 11:02, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In that case why not Bill CLinton again? The Const can be cahnged.

  • Exactly. Under that assumption, anyone could run. But the polls are based on current events and current laws, and that means that the constitution will be the same in 2008.

--Cymra37 01:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

American Polling Research Institute?

[edit]

What is this "Institute?" Why is there web page hosted by Angelfire, and why can't I find a single news article about them?

Should their polls be removed from the page? 129.2.227.93 17:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CNN Dec. 5-7

[edit]

Polls were conducted by the Opinion Research Corporation on behalf of CNN during December 5th through 7th. Here's the link: [1]

Al Gore

[edit]

Is he allowed to run?

yes —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 125.237.72.98 (talk) 07:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Deletion?

[edit]

I can tell that someone did a lot of work on this, but this is really just a collection of poll results, not an encyclopedia article. If it were cleaned up, maybe it could be moved to Wikinews? I'm interested in hearing the arguments for this page, but I think this page should probably be nominated for deletion. Mikeliveshere 11:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two reasons to keep: 1. Per WP:5, Wikipedia does have room for articles that might show up in an almanac, and this is clearly almanac-y. 2. This will be extremely helpful data to write a post-election narrative. -- RobLa 06:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I completely disagree. I agree with RobLa's comments. Also, this article is cited by other more general articles about the election and serves as a more objective-data-oriented article with a singular focus on poll data.--Robapalooza 12:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorting By Date Error

[edit]

The sorting by date doesn't work correctly on this page. It uses the year as the last sorting criteria when it should be the first.

Actually, the table is sorted by the first letter in each field of that column. If you look at the code, class="wikitable sortable" has been used, which uses a very simple type of sorting, that doesn't differentiate between plain text and dates, for example (like you might see in Excel). One solution would be to change the dates to yyyy/mm/dd format, then the wikitable sortable format would work, but that would require a fairly substantial amount of rework and would make the information a bit less easy-to-read, particularly for US readers who are used to [month] dd, yyyy format. In any event, since the data is presented in reverse chronological order anyway, I'm not sure this is a huge problem. Anyone else have an opinion on this? Is there another type of wikitable with better sorting features? Perhaps if someone has time, the answer could be found here: Help:Sorting#Dates.--Robapalooza 12:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Primary Polling

[edit]

What about polls for primary states released by American Research Group, Zogby or Research 2000 ? http://americanresearchgroup.com http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1237 http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1236 http://research2000.us They give insight to how voters in Iowa and New Hampshire tend to vote next year. Polls for Iowa and NH are important because the winner of the 2 states gets huge media attention afterwards. Should they therefore be posted on this page too ? Or on a seperate page ? Your opinions please :-) --The Pollster 20:23, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See my comments in the next section.--Robapalooza 12:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not by state

[edit]

shouldn't they put up the general election poll numbers for each state? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.22.1.98 (talk) 04:12, 11 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

*** This has already been done in separate articles, i.e.:
http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_Democratic_Party_%28United_States%29_presidential_primaries%2C_2008#Graphical_Representation_of_Polling
http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_Republican_Party_%28United_States%29_presidential_primaries%2C_2008#Graphical_Representation_of_Polling
--Robapalooza 20:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, it hasn't. That is a separate concept. There should, if anything, be projected electoral college totals on the main page. For some odd reason, people only seem to discover the electoral college once every four years, and forget about it 1000 days of any election cycle. Not to quote a truism, but there will be 51 separate US presidential elections in November 2008, not one. The election of 2000 should have taught us that absolute numbers at a federal level do not matter. What should be posted here is how {California|Texas|Delaware} voters would vote in each of the hypothetical scenarios. Has anyone seen projected electoral college results? samwaltz 00:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I understand exactly what you're looking for, state-by-state head-to-head races for the hypothetical candidates, i.e. what would Hillary v. Rudy look like in Florida and Ohio and Pennsylvania and Michigan and the other battleground states?. Other than state-by-state data for the nomination for each party (noted above), I'm not aware of such polls yet. As much as I'd love to see such polls, until a candidate is named for each party, I don't think the pollsters are that interested in state-by-state results. I agree that the electorate should be interested in such data. Eventually, such polling will appear on sites such as this: Election 2008: Presidential, Senate and House Races Updated Daily--Robapalooza 18:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chart Summarizing all Results to Date

[edit]

I've added a chart from Excel summarizing all results to date. This chart includes a linear trendline, which is a best-fit straight line, i.e. there are just as many points above the line as below. The data in this case does not conform closely to the linear trendline, so the trendline cannot be used to predict future results. However, the trendline is useful for showing the overall average results at any particular point in time, and, for example, showing that the overall average results shifted from Republican to Democratic in October 2006. I think this is objective information that helps quickly visually summarize the massive amount of data on this page. Suggestions for improvement are welcome.--Robapalooza 19:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(updated May 29, 2007 to include May 7-8, 2007, Rasmussen Reports Poll)--Robapalooza 17:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(updated May 30, 2007 to include latest Zogby poll numbers)--Robapalooza 19:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The overall trend as indicated by the regression line is interesting for now (seeing the relative increase in Democratic winners vs. Republicans), but I wonder how informative that actually is. These numbers are likely to oscillate as things progress and seeing the bouncing up and down is probably more useful. Perhaps overlaying a line graph by monthly averages for the two parties would be as useful or more useful. Just an idea. Thanks for working on the graph either way, Robapalooza. --Aranae 23:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Great suggestions Aranae. I've added a 30-day moving average and a YTD chart.--Robapalooza 17:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's a great approach. Both the moving average and the two separate Unfortunately the pastels are a bit hard to see, but I suspect darkening it would only make things so busy as to be near unreadable. Now it's emerging that the midterm election seems to be a turning point for Republican dominance in the polls. Not to read too much into that though since it could be anything from that election, issues brought up there, name recognition, or having actual declared candidates. Anyway, the point is that now such shifts can bee seen more clearly. --Aranae 17:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the next iteration, I'll tinker with the marker size and color to see if I can come up with something that is a bit clearer, if possible.--Robapalooza 15:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(updated June 14, 2007 to include latest Rasmussen Reports Polls and a series of polls published by PollingReport.com)--Robapalooza 22:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't useful unless you have the R^2 value and the confidence interval. Also disparity in the number of candidates on either side well result in erroneous results. --206.191.28.13 21:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Archive?

[edit]

Is there a way to archive polls before June 2006 so we could shorten this page a bit? Gang14 20:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support likelihood, Candidate distinctions, quality and ideology not being updated. Update? Keep?

[edit]

The following sections have not been updated since February: 

   * 1.1.3 Support likelihood
   * 1.4.1 Candidate distinctions
   * 1.4.2 Candidate quality
   * 1.4.3 Candidate ideology

Either there is no new data or it's not being updated. Does someone have time to check if new data exists and update them as needed? If this type of poll is no longer being administered by the polling community, then should we keep them?--Robapalooza 19:39, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are posts from anonymous users (e.g. 85.164.4.205) acceptable?

[edit]

There have been several recent, significant updates from a user identified by an IP address 85.164.4.205 [[2]] as follows:

  1. (cur) (last) 21:36, 16 June 2007 85.164.4.205 (Talk) (79,058 bytes) (→Two-way contest)
  2. (cur) (last) 21:17, 16 June 2007 85.164.4.205 (Talk) (79,028 bytes) (→Two-way contest)
  3. (cur) (last) 21:08, 16 June 2007 85.164.4.205 (Talk) (79,028 bytes) (→Two-way contest)
  4. (cur) (last) 21:06, 16 June 2007 85.164.4.205 (Talk) (79,018 bytes) (→Two-way contest)
  5. (cur) (last) 20:57, 16 June 2007 85.164.4.205 (Talk) (78,983 bytes) (→Two-way contest)
  6. (cur) (last) 19:47, 15 June 2007 85.164.4.205 (Talk) (78,563 bytes) (→Two-way contest)
  7. (cur) (last) 17:52, 15 June 2007 85.164.4.205 (Talk) (78,312 bytes) (→Two-way contest)
  8. (cur) (last) 23:46, 14 June 2007 85.164.4.205 (Talk) (77,396 bytes) (→Two-way contest)
  9. (cur) (last) 23:30, 13 June 2007 85.164.4.205 (Talk) (73,517 bytes) (→Two-way contest)
  10. (cur) (last) 16:53, 12 June 2007 85.164.4.205 (Talk) (73,095 bytes) (→Three-way contest)
  11. (cur) (last) 16:51, 12 June 2007 85.164.4.205 (Talk) (73,056 bytes) (→Three-way contest)
  12. (cur) (last) 16:50, 12 June 2007 85.164.4.205 (Talk) (73,057 bytes) (→Three-way contest)
  13. (cur) (last) 22:24, 11 June 2007 85.164.4.205 (Talk) (72,212 bytes) (→Two-way contest)
  14. (cur) (last) 22:21, 11 June 2007 85.164.4.205 (Talk) (71,832 bytes) (→Two-way contest)
  15. (cur) (last) 22:08, 11 June 2007 85.164.4.205 (Talk) (71,833 bytes) (→Two-way contest)
  16. (cur) (last) 22:07, 11 June 2007 85.164.4.205 (Talk) (71,821 bytes) (→Two-way contest)
  17. (cur) (last) 22:03, 11 June 2007 85.164.4.205 (Talk) (71,439 bytes) (→Two-way contest)
  18. (cur) (last) 22:02, 11 June 2007 85.164.4.205 (Talk) (71,439 bytes) (→Two-way contest)
  19. (cur) (last) 21:57, 11 June 2007 85.164.4.205 (Talk) (71,015 bytes) (→Two-way contest)

I've not had a chance to review the data for accuracy. Does anyone have the time to do so?

Any comments or suggestions? Is there a policy on anonymous posts?--Robapalooza 14:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia accepts edits from anyone, including anonymous users (WP:ANON), but the edits should be verifiable (WP:V). If the edits are vandalism (WP:VAND), they should be reverted and the user blocked, if necessary. (WP:BLOCK) - PatrikR 18:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Edwards and Mitt Romney?

[edit]

Should John Edwards and Mitt Romney be included in the match-ups? From what I have seen, in the head-to-head general election polling, Mr. Edwards has an even greater margin of support than Clinton or Obama against the various likely Republican nominees. (I, personally, am supporting Obama...but I think the data is important) -Alex.rosenheim 13:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I, of course, am referring to the graphical summary charts at the top of the article. _Alex.rosenheim 13:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It was a matter of time to add such charts. Previously, the following charts were provided:
1.1.1.3 Obama v. Thompson
1.1.1.6 Obama v. Giuliani
1.1.1.7 Clinton v. Thompson
1.1.1.10 Clinton v. Giuliani

I recently added the following charts:

1.1.1.4 Obama v. McCain
1.1.1.5 Obama v. Romney
1.1.1.8 Clinton v. McCain
1.1.1.9 Clinton v. Romney
1.1.1.11 Edwards v. Thompson
1.1.1.12 Edwards v. McCain
1.1.1.13 Edwards v. Romney
1.1.1.14 Edwards v. Giuliani

These 7 candidates represent candidates that are currently drawing, on average, at least 10% of the vote in state-by-state polling, and, thus, have a realistic chance of being the party candidate. --Robapalooza 15:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To address the concerns some of you have over the use of linear regressions

[edit]

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. [3] --Robapalooza 00:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

apparent vandalism from IP address 65.41.196.242, any way to track?

[edit]

In the article Opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2008 (Undid revision 157131099 by 65.41.196.242 (talk) Appears to be vandalism of legitimate data) (undo) --Robapalooza 15:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Created two pages by splitting main page and graphical representations

[edit]

I split the page into two, and linked to the graphical representations from the main page. This makes it easier to find the polls, and satisfies the Wikipedia article size rule of thumb - articles over 100 KB should be divided up. There is a link to the graphical representations at the top of the poll table - they should still be easy to find. Merry 11:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a section for non scientific polls?

[edit]

Is there a home for non scientific polls? Such as http://ourvote.us ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Viet124 (talk • contribs) 00:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There shouldn't be; they are inherently unreliable sources, uncitable for the same reason we can't cite wikis. --- tqbf 19:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nader

[edit]

From now on, all Opinion Polling Should Include Nader, since he announced he's running this morning.

Matt34544 (talk) 14:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal for making the table(s) sortable

[edit]

Posed the problem on the Help_talk:Sorting page and got an answer. As it stood, sorting produced an untenable chart like the one below.

Poll Source Date administered Democrat % Republican %
Rasmussen Reports Tracking March 25-28, 2008 Hillary Clinton 40% John McCain 51%
Barack Obama 43% John McCain 48%
Gallup Tracking March 24-28, 2008 Hillary Clinton 44% John McCain 48%
Barack Obama 44% John McCain 46%
NBC News/Wall Street Journal March 24-25, 2008 Hillary Clinton 44% John McCain 46%
Barack Obama 44% John McCain 42%
Pew Research Center March 19-22, 2008 Hillary Clinton 49% John McCain 44%
Barack Obama 49% John McCain 43%
Fox News/Opinion Dynamics March 18-19, 2008 Hillary Clinton 46% John McCain 43%
Barack Obama 43% John McCain 44%
CBS News March 15-18, 2008 Hillary Clinton 46% John McCain 44%
Barack Obama 44% John McCain 46%

EncMstr jumped in and produced this:

Poll Source Date administered Democrat % Republican %
Rasmussen Reports Tracking March 25-28, 2008 Hillary Clinton
Barack Obama 		40%
43% 		John McCain 51%
Gallup Tracking March 24-28, 2008 Hillary Clinton
Barack Obama 		44%
44% 		John McCain 48%
46%
NBC News/Wall Street Journal March 24-25, 2008 Hillary Clinton
Barack Obama 		44%
44% 		John McCain 46%
42%
Pew Research Center March 19-22, 2008 Hillary Clinton
Barack Obama 		49% John McCain 44%
43%
Fox News/Opinion Dynamics March 18-19, 2008 Hillary Clinton
Barack Obama 		46%
43% 		John McCain 43%
CBS News March 15-18, 2008 Hillary Clinton
Barack Obama 		46%
44% 		John McCain 44%
46%

As you can tell, the splitting of the boxes at the end is removed, but the look is identical; moreover, the sort makes this more useful (Gallup can be compared to Gallup, etc.). Thoughts? --Kallahan (talk) 20:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, what's up with all the 'John McCain' entries? Has Ron Paul changed his name? 84.13.76.4 (talk) 14:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Margin of Error

[edit]

This page should include the margin of error (or confidence interval) in percentage points for each poll as reported by the polling institution. --130.221.224.7 (talk) 02:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obama v McCain minus Hillary

[edit]

Time to start moving the Clinton/Obama matchups with McCain to a different section now she definately will not be the democratic nominee? (88.105.15.96 (talk) 09:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Graphs

[edit]

All right, we have a lot of huge tables in this article. How about we make some graphs out of them? ⟳ausa کui × 08:16, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rasmussen

[edit]

So as soon as polls like Rasmussen (one of the most accurate pollsters in recent history) stop showing Obama with a 5+ point lead, does this site effectively stop recording them? 128.143.47.61 (talk) 19:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)mbauer 7/22/08[reply]

If you have links to a newer poll, please add it to the list. Nobody is stopping you. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 01:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Oh no!

[edit]

It looks like whoever it was that was putting the polls up has lost interest and stopped, because I'm sure there have been quite a few over the last couple weeks. Whoever you(s) are, please come back! Maybe you didn't get enough appreciation? I thought the page was great! I read it all the time! It's one of the most useful websites for following the US election on the web!Wikidea 13:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And look at how many people agree with me - the statistics for viewing the page - here! I think that if it were linked into a few more pages, it'd come up even higher on google and you'd get even more. Wikidea 13:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rasmussen regular updates

[edit]

Rasmussen does nightly telephone polls and pulls them into a three day rolling average every day. I'll put them in daily from here on in. Any complaints? aremisasling (talk) 17:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of note Rasmussen gives two set of numbers, a straight preference and preference + undecided leaners. I'm using the preference + undecided numbers every time I update as a matter of keeping a standard practice. The raw preferences differ usually only slightly. Today (Aug 28th) the preference only showed a 1 point lead for Obama and a tie on the composite. aremisasling (talk) 14:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly don't have any issues with Gilbertine's decision to trim the daily load of Rasmussen polls. I do, however, think that their rolling three day poll release offers currency that the others don't. It could be informative to keep the most current data there and perhaps leave a permanent record every 3 days or so (3 days since the period on rasmussen is 3 days, though I have no argument with a longer period). Such regular poll results can offer a pulse of sorts with it's continuous string of regularly spaced data. It also offers an objective timetable for adding the information so the article isn't accused, as it has been already, of only including polls that favor candidate X when there are other polls present. The only reservation I have is on keeping the most current data. Does that make sense, or am I off base here? aremisasling (talk) 15:38, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think running the daily numbers from Rasmussen and Gallup once a week would be a good compromise. Daily numbers will drown out other polls and will really bloat the article. I think weekly would be timely without being overwhelming. The other thing I want to keep emphasizing is to mark the dates by when the poll was actually taken, not when it was released, to give a truly accurate look at the poll. Does anyone have a problem with running the tracking polls weekly? Gilbertine goldmark (talk) 17:11, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No problems here. aremisasling (talk) 17:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do not agree. Let's run numbers from Rasmussen and Gallup daily, deleting those added the day before, and keeping them once a week. Nothing will be drowned, no bloating, and we will have the most current data. Achero (talk) 16:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That seems wacky. This is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. Adding a poll and deleting the one before each day does not seem consistent with that. Moreover, daily updates will still serve to give the tracking polls more weight than they deserve, since not only do they show up the most frequently, but they will always be at the top of the page, the first poll that anyone looks at because of their daily update. Anyhow, again, the purpose of this article isn't to serve the function of a newspaper with the daily changes in a tracking poll--Anyone can go to pollster.com for that. The purpose is to fulfill an encyclopedia's role of showing the shape of the race over a lengthy period of time. Gilbertine goldmark (talk) 18:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An encyclopedia does not necessarily keep everything forever. Sometimes the most up-to-date information (for example, a new edition of a reference text) drives away the least up-to-date. In an encyclopedia like Wikipedia this may very well mean a flow of continuous updates, since we are committed to offer the most reliable information available. And I do not understand why tracking polls do not deserve the (relative) weight they are given: do you mean they are less reliable than the other polls? If this is the case, then we should ignore them altogether. Achero (talk) 21:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mean that they are less reliable as a poll per se. However, the way they are calculated can leave people with misperceptions when they are reported daily. Since the "daily" tracking poll from Gallup or Rasmussen uses a three day rolling average, the poll can have a sudden rise or decline that isn't a result of the newest day's polling, but instead a result of the previous last day of the three days suddenly dropping out of the average. What I meant when I said they are given overweight is that they will always be at the top of the list if they are always updated each day. That, combined with them being listed every week, makes them more prominent in this article than other polls. A final problem with daily updates is that none of us are paid editors here. It's likely that there will be days when one or both of the tracking polls doesn't make it into the article because no one happens to be editing this article that day. So you'll have a poll that sometimes is updated and sometimes not. This is all just my opinion--If there's a consensus for doing it your way, I'll go with it. I don't mean to be argumentative--Just trying to put some order into an article where it's been pretty much anyone posting whatever poll whenever they feel like it. Gilbertine goldmark (talk) 14:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The issue of those polls appearing always at the top of the list and therefore suggesting some sort of superiority of the polls is one of the primary reasons I decided I needed a talk page note about the original dailies I was doing. I'm somewhat agnostic on this matter. I definitely think we need up to date information, but due to the 3-day rolling average I think, as Gilbertine stated, that it may be misleading to continuously roll it forward. aremisasling (talk) 18:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

VP Candidates

[edit]

Now that Palin is the official nominee, it seems that there should be a section for VP polling. I'm not a regular on this page, so I'm just suggesting. Mostlyharmless (talk) 01:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone agree that McCain is simply too old and broken up to be president for the next eight years. Personally, I don't think his health is in good shape. Lets say he up and kicks the bucket two years winning the presidency, (only speculating) then who will become our president? Please don't say Palin? Who would anyone choose for pres. god forbid J. McCain keals over? Biden or Palin ? Smylynn (talk) 02:29, 25 October 2008 (UTC)Smylynn Oct 24, 2008 Smylynn (talk) 02:29, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does it make sense to drop the sign on these and make it point spread instead of BO-JM? I'm actually an Obama supporter, but it seems very biased to have it be one candidate minus the other. It's one thing that has bugged me about the presidential section since I first started viewing this page. Besides the bias issue BO-JM is a rather odd heading for a column. If there are no complaints by 9/17 I'm going to make the change. aremisasling (talk) 15:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dropping the sign would make it difficult to see which direction the spread is leaning. If there is an issue over "+" vs "-", one option might be to relist the column with the heading of "Spread" and have the values be formatted like "BO +1" or "JM +5". That way, you can still see the pattern with a quick glance rather than having to lool left to see which one is ahead in a particular poll. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 17:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would tend to agree that seeing the trend is what makes this whole article useful, and that by removing the sign you make it very hard to do that. I don't think it's important what candidate is listed as + or -, but if anyone thinks it's a big problem, they can do like the above editor says and put the initials before the +. Gilbertine goldmark (talk) 06:26, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was also concerned with the bias this seemed to convey towards Obama. Although it was probably not done with bias in mind, I do believe that it unintentionally spreads the wrong message. If you can make it better please do so. I like the before mentioned suggestion to put BO +2, JM +2, and so on. 201.170.225.145 (talk) 00:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How about a Red/Blue coloring? Or is that too cheesy or partisan? aremisasling (talk) 13:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing as there were no objections, I changed the coloring and dropped the signs. In the event of likely vs all splits in the same cell I took the advice of putting BO+ or JM+ to indicate who was in the lead and left the shading grey. aremisasling (talk) 15:35, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fivethirtyeight

[edit]

Is there any objection to adding fivethirtyeight.com to the external links section at the bottom? I don't want it to become a link farm, certainly, but it does seem like one of the most useful aggregators. I'll add it if there is no objection. (It might also make sense to clean out the links sooner or later too.) Mostlyharmless (talk) 05:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overlapping polls are a necessity

[edit]

Someone's edited and removed a couple of tracking polls as they 'overlap'. I think daily polls should be posted and by nature tracking polls will overlap.

It hasn't improved the section now we have no poll results for three days. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.34.208.164 (talk) 13:45, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It does improve the article on several levels. See "Rasmussen regular updates" above for the discussion as it has gone so far. I agreed with you at first, indeed I started the Rasmussen thread, but there are some clear issues with data overlap and showing preference of tracking polls over other polls that are addressed by avoiding overlap. The tracking polls themselves note issues with data overlap in their articles so this isn't a particularly unknown or controversial issue. And due to the overlap ultimately we actually aren't missing any data. In addition the posts link to articles where you can get current results and historical data. You are certainly welcome to disagree and feel free to discuss in the topic above. aremisasling (talk) 17:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Among likely voters

[edit]
  • Why do some of the poll results say "among likely voters" and others don't? My understanding is that all of the major surveys are done only among those that claim they intend to vote. --Jleon (talk) 17:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Accuracy of Daily KOS/Research 2000 Polls?

[edit]

The Daily KOS/Research 2000 polls have become increasingly deviated from the average of the other polls listed. I also question whether this organization is sufficiently neutral to warrant the inclusion of their polling on the Wikipedia site. The Wikipedia article on Daily KOS states the following:

Daily Kos (IPA: /koʊs/) is an American political blog, publishing news and opinion from a liberal or progressive point of view. It functions as a discussion forum and group blog for a variety of netroots activists, whose efforts are primarily directed toward influencing and strengthening the Democratic Party. Additionally, the site features a participatory political encyclopedia, glossaries, and other permanent content.

Should data from an organization with a very obvious political agenda be incuded in a WIkipedia article seeking unbiased information?

Edokin (talk) 05:44, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, I was just thinking the same thing myself as I looked at the article and checked the discussion page for mention of Daily Kos. How does DK gather its data? If it's from its members, it's clearly biased by design. Otherwise, if we do not delete their tracking polls, could we at least point out their partisanship? It's probably not a coincidence that the polls lean more heavily to their candidate than the rest. As it stands, if their methods are faulty, the inclusion of the polls misleads and distracts viewers from the more accurate polls. For example, I have read that Obama's lead, while still strong, has dropped a few points, and the latest results from the reputable Gallup organization indicate as much.Minutiaman (talk) 06:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fivethirtyeight's discussion of the relative accuracy of the pollsters is worth looking at. Mostlyharmless (talk) 06:14, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deltions By Unregistered User of Valid Poll Showing Tight Race

[edit]

HERE IS WHAT I SENT TO A WIKIPEDIA EDITOR FOR REVIEW:

Dear Editor,

An unregistered user has delted vaid presidential polls from "Nationwide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2008"

Here is the deletion history:

(cur) (last) 22:08, 22 October 2008 216.27.182.48 (Talk) (152,713 bytes) (→Democratic nominee vs. Republican nominee: The AP poll of likely voters overwieghted evangelicals. See http://www.americablog.com/2008/10/new-flawed-ap-poll-claims-mccain-and.html) (undo)

(cur) (last) 22:18, 23 October 2008 216.27.182.48 (Talk) (152,964 bytes) (→Democratic nominee vs. Republican nominee: Gfk poll removed again (uses too absurd Democrat-to-Republican ratio to be a credible poll; the +10 Obama Gfk poll was removed too)) (undo)

The user says: too absurd Democratic-to-Republican ratio." Then he says "the AP poll of likely voters overwieghted evangelicals." How does 216.27.182.48 possibly know that?

I didn't hear any complaints on October 7-9 when Reuters/C-Span/Zogby had only a 5pt spread, but the biased, in the tank for Obama Daily KOS had a 12 point spread!

Here is the methodology of the AP poll: http://www.ap-gfkpoll.com/pdf/AP-GfK_Poll_3_Topline_FINAL.pdf This poll has THIRTY PAGES of documentation!!

216.27.182.48 has no basis for removing this poll and should be blocked if 216.27.182.48 perists in delting valid data.

Thank you for your review of this matter!

Edokin (talk) 04:19, 24 October 2008 (UTC)edokin[reply]

Validity of AP-GfK poll

[edit]

The AP-GfK poll at issue is their October 16-20 (2008) Presidential Opinion poll. The claims by the two users are that the poll "severely overweighted Democrats" or "has a too absurd Democrat to Republican ratio to be credible." The basis for this, I assume, is the 40% who self-identify as strong or moderate Democrat v. the 29% who self-identify as strong or moderate Republican." This is very close to the actual percentages of registerde voters claimed by the respective parties as members. Per the article in our very own Wikipedia (http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Political_parties_in_the_United_States) the percentage of Democrats in 2004 was 42% and of Republicans was 32%.

Thus I don't see how using a sample which is very close to the actual percentages registed with each party is a problem. In fact, would it not be more accurate? If someone can explain why this is a bad poll, I'll quit posting it.

Now isn't it curious that a poll with more Democrats responding should have the Republican nominee in a closer race with the Democratic nominee than most other polls?

The Associated Press in a long-standing, respected, worldwide news agency and apparently GfK's credentials are good. So why should they mess it up?

With all due courtesy and respect to my fellow Wikipedia users, would you rather trust the Associated Press or two individuals whose credentials are unknown. Let me also point out that Wikipedia staff has noted the following regarding the user at IP address 64.81.59.139 as follows: "Someone using this IP address has made unhelpful edits to the page Todd Palin, which have been reverted. If you did this, in the future please try to contribute in a more constructive manner." This would appear to impair that user's credibility.

Edokin (talk) 05:10, 25 October 2008 (UTC)edokin[reply]

Who decides poll validity

[edit]

Dear Fellow Wikipedia Users,

Good evening! I hope you are all well.

In accordance with Wikipedia guidelines I will assume that the individuals who remove various polls due to issues with their credibility are seeking to have only valid and accurate information.

Wikipedia relies on individuals to update articles with verifiable information that is pertinent to the subject matter of the article. By its nature Wikipedia acepts contributions from all provided that Wikipedia guidelines are followed.

What needs to be discussed is the question of who decides whether a particular poll data should or should not be included. It does no good to have polls posted, taken down and then reposted in an endless succession. If a particular poll is taken by a reputable organization, particularly one associated with a reputable news organization, then how can an anonymous Wikipedia user determine, in his or her sole discretion, that a particular is or is not worthy of inclusion? I've asked this question before. I would respectfully suggest that if certain users honestly believe themselves qualified to pass such judgements that they provide the basis for their expertise in polling data. I admit that I do not have such expertise. If, for example, John Zogby or Scott Rasmussen were to post here and explain why a particular poll was or was not valid, I'd be inclined to listen.

But what is to be done when one Wikipedia user disagrees with another? There is obviously some disparity in these polls...some quite large. I don't see any of the polls with large Obama leads being deleted by anyone. I assume good faith, but when the deleted polls are those which reflect favorably on one candidate, a question must be raised.

I hope that other users will partcipate in a ameaningful dialogue.

Edokin (talk) 04:39, 30 October 2008 (UTC)edokin[reply]

needs more basic explanation

[edit]

This could use some more basic explanation on how polls are reported. The chart lists the "lead margin", but I tried looking that up to see what it was and there is no explanation. Likewise, the info I came here to find was what things like +2 mean, which I see often regarding the polls, and it doesn't explain that either. I'm good at looking stuff up, but it's hard to do a google search on "+" 24.18.238.28 (talk) 23:36, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "lead margin" is the margin. Of the lead. In other words, if it's 50% to 40%, the lead margin is 10%. 70.168.3.252 (talk) 06:47, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think about the opinion poll on the mccain/obama election or debate?

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 19 external links on Nationwide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:57, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nationwide_opinion_polling_for_the_2008_United_States_presidential_election&oldid=1204212127"