Jump to content

Talk:Polling for United States presidential elections

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

2012 section

[edit]

Surely there must be enough for a 2012 section? GiantSnowman 11:41, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source of poll numbers

[edit]

What is the source of the poll numbers on this page? Kaltenmeyer (talk) 22:04, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure about 2012, since I am not the one who posted [b]those[/b] numbers here, but here is the source for the poll numbers for 1936 to 2008: http://www.gallup.com/poll/110548/gallup-presidential-election-trialheat-trends-19362004.aspx#4 Futurist110 (talk) 23:27, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Historical polling for United States presidential elections. 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) 00:37, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Historical polling for United States presidential elections. 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) 13:17, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gallup-centric

[edit]

What is the point of an article that is centered upon only one polling source??? Seems it would be more logical to split each election cycle into their own article, and include all available polls from every reputable polling source.SecretName101 (talk) 03:13, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV/Irrelevant Information

[edit]

Hello everybody,

In the sections regarding the 2000 and 2016 presidential elections, there is text that refers to the popular vote as 'meaningless'. Additionally, in the 2000 section the article states that 'most people don't know' how the electoral college works. At the very least, that is a citation needed. I think the article would be fine without all of those statements. - Xenologer48 (talk) 20:59, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would note that it looks like that information was added in a series of edits made April 24, 2020, so this is a new addition to the page

The person who made the change also seems to have a history of making similar politically charged edits such as these ones (which were reverted) https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Kirstjen_Nielsen&diff=prev&oldid=867642099 https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Jennifer_Rubin_(journalist)&diff=prev&oldid=848684025

I also would agree with removing them personally

--Melvni (talk) 00:15, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I have done it, though I forgot to sign in because I haven't done this before. Le sigh. Xenologer48 (talk) 16:46, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete

[edit]

User:GamerKiller2347, you recently proposed deleting this article because it lacks some sources. Shouldn't we just add the sources? Xenologer48 (talk) 15:45, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Xenologer48, if we can find them, yes. GamerKiller2347 (talk) 16:32, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]