Talk:Statewide opinion polling for the 2016 United States presidential election

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Elections and Referendums

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles

Politics: American Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Low-importance).

United States: Presidential elections Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections (assessed as High-importance).

2010s Low‑importance

	2010s portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject 2010s, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 2010s on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.2010sWikipedia:WikiProject 2010sTemplate:WikiProject 2010s2010s articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Section sizes

Section size for Statewide opinion polling for the 2016 United States presidential election (56 sections)
Section name	Byte count	Section total
(Top)	4,167	4,167
Most recent polling	19,430	19,430
Alabama	1,002	1,002
Alaska	3,494	3,494
Arizona	13,819	13,819
Arkansas	2,570	2,570
California	9,716	9,716
Colorado	13,660	13,660
Connecticut	1,245	1,245
Delaware	1,276	1,276
District of Columbia	464	464
Florida	425	425
Georgia	12,132	12,132
Hawaii	371	371
Idaho	2,331	2,331
Illinois	6,655	6,655
Indiana	6,798	6,798
Iowa	7,979	7,979
Kansas	3,008	3,008
Kentucky	2,016	2,016
Louisiana	4,535	4,535
Maine	7,048	7,048
Maryland	2,017	2,017
Massachusetts	5,163	5,163
Michigan	20,148	20,148
Minnesota	3,734	3,734
Mississippi	403	403
Missouri	10,137	10,137
Montana	1,937	1,937
Nebraska	1,272	1,272
Nevada	18,744	18,744
New Hampshire	16,296	16,296
New Jersey	3,629	3,629
New Mexico	4,796	4,796
New York	3,493	3,493
North Carolina	25,616	25,616
North Dakota	975	975
Ohio	19,984	19,984
Oklahoma	1,542	1,542
Oregon	5,290	5,290
Pennsylvania	24,754	24,754
Rhode Island	1,118	1,118
South Carolina	3,215	3,215
South Dakota	2,695	2,695
Tennessee	2,574	2,574
Texas	7,583	7,583
Utah	10,058	10,058
Vermont	2,668	2,668
Virginia	18,857	18,857
Washington	4,491	4,491
West Virginia	2,014	2,014
Wisconsin	9,874	9,874
Wyoming	1,578	1,578
See also	822	822
Notes	143	143
References	159	159
Total	361,920	361,920

Suggestion: a table of all states

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)[reply]

Map

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)[reply]

But there are several candidates, and there were no maps in the early version. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:09, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Polls

Iowa, New ham and South Carolina:

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)[reply]

Colorado, Iowa, Virginia http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/2016-presidential-swing-state-polls/release-detail?ReleaseID=2149

Iowa http://gravismarketing.com/uncategorized/iowa-poll-walker-garners-24-of-gop-support-paul-clinton-beats-walker-others-head-to-head/83.80.208.22 (talk) 17:20, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All done. Tiller54 (talk) 13:14, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nevada http://gravismarketing.com/polling-and-market-research/current-nevada-polling-scott-walker-leads-bush-does-best-against-clinton/83.80.208.22 (talk) 11:53, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

http://gravismarketing.com/polling-and-market-research/current-new-hampshire-primary-political-poll/83.80.208.22 (talk) 15:21, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

http://gravismarketing.com/polling-and-market-research/current-montana-polling-2/83.80.208.22 (talk) 11:23, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Swing states http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/2016-presidential-swing-state-polls/release-detail?ReleaseID=2180 145.52.142.104 (talk) 13:57, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NJ and Florida http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/new-jersey/release-detail?ReleaseID=2219 and http://mason-dixon.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/FL-POLL-APRIL-20TH-RELEASE-PRESIDENTIAL-CLINTON-BUSH-RUBIO.pdf 83.80.208.22 (talk) 13:21, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NH http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_NH_42115.pdf 83.80.208.22 (talk) 19:44, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WI http://www.wpr.org/poll-clinton-tops-walker-hypothetical-presidential-matchup-within-surveys-margin-error 83.80.208.22 (talk) 07:14, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NH http://gravismarketing.com/polling-and-market-research/new-hampshire-poll-ayotte-opens-up-6-point-lead-walker-others-lead-clinton/83.80.208.22 (talk) 11:39, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NC http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=e12280bf-3fbd-4bb8-876a-b484c2a95cb4 83.80.208.22 (talk) 13:59, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NH http://rockefeller.dartmouth.edu/library/2015nhstatepoll.pdf 83.80.208.22 (talk) 20:42, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CALIFORNIA http://www.field.com/fieldpollonline/subscribers/Rls2506.pdf 83.80.208.22 (talk) 16:26, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ohio, FL and PA http://www.quinnipiac.edu/images/polling/sw/ps06172015_S63hvd.pdf 83.80.208.22 (talk) 13:11, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Michigan http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2015/06/16/poll-president/28843571/83.80.208.22 (talk) 09:33, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Virginia 3 race https://www.umw.edu/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/7/2015/11/UMW-VA-Survey-2015_Topline-Day-One.pdf 83.86.208.191 (talk) 11:27, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Massachusetts

Where's mah state at? --173.76.108.247 (talk) 03:40, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Right here. Tiller54 (talk) 13:14, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion: Thicker/darker lines to separate polls

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)[reply]

That's a very good suggestion, but I'm not sure if it could be enacted. If anyone does know, feel free to chime in. Tiller54 (talk) 13:14, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Summary

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)[reply]

The summary section lacks explanation. I can't figure out how the shading for each state name is chosen. I can't figure out how the "preferred candidate" in each state is chosen. Your method is not clear from looking at the poll results. It is similar to something I'm doing on my own, and might be good information later in the election season (after primaries), but your summary is clearly original research. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 14:13, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted it twice now because, as Spiffy sperry says, it's original research. Tiller54 (talk) 18:37, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oklahoma is empty

Oklahoma is empty. Why is it still on this page?Tenor12 (talk) 19:45, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

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: 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:52, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rocky missing

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)[reply]

Has he been included in any statewide opinion polls? I'm guessing not. He is listed in the template at the bottom of the page (which is initially hidden). --Spiffy sperry (talk) 16:58, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Latest Polling

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)[reply]

Right now the polls here are very slow, I would wait for both parties to nominate their candidates first. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:20, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Polling Map

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)[reply]

Remove - The striping needs to be fixed so it matches 2012's map, as well as too soon. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:15, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it because it's a violation of WP:CRYSTAL to assume that the nominees will be the current frontrunners. I also concur with the other problems with the map you noted. Prcc27🎂 (talk) 19:52, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

The lighter colors need to stay as an indicator for old polls. As we get closer to the election, the threshold for old polls should also move, ultimately ending up at August 2016, similar to the 2012 polling map. As for your other suggestion, I favor simply displaying the most recent poll results, leaving the display of aggregate polls to other sources like Real Clear Politics. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 22:03, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks User:Spiffy sperry, I think I agree about the older polls being a lighter shade. I see the point about just taking the most recent poll as an objective measure, but that makes the map unnecessarily misleading (not to mention painful to look at). A state where one candidate has a significant lead may appear TCTC simply because a poll with the latest end date has a small sample size and large MOE. It may not even be the most current (ex., If there are a number of polls taken June 10-22 and June 20-21, the June 20-21 are on average the most current but the June 10-22 polls supersede). Perhaps we could 1) use purple if the last 3 polls are all within the MOE, 2) use current red and blue stripes if at least one of the last three polls shows the Republican ahead beyond the MOE and at least one of the last three shows the Democrat ahead, and 3) use blue and red or purple and red stripes if the last 3 polls have Dem or Rep ahead beyond MOE respectively but latest is within MOE. If Johnson surges, Johnson/Clinton races can be green and Johnson/Trump races Orange. I don't mind leaving maps to RCP, 538 etc entirely, but if we have them, I think we can make them a tad more accurate, sophisticated and visually appealing while maintaining objectivity. --Mmulroney (talk) 23:54, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting..

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)[reply]

Map (revisited)

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)[reply]

Here is a map, the image just needs to be updated to show the results. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:54, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose using the 2012 map for 2016. In fact, isn't that map still being used on the 2012 article. If we were to add a map we would need a new map. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 22:58, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So why not make a map for 2016 that replaces the 2012 map? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:59, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Who me..? I barely have enough time for these discussions. I have finals this week. And I didn't say I supported adding a map this early on in the election. But what I am saying is we should not use a map created for a different election cycle that is still in use on another article. Having a map with two democratic candidates is too confusing. If Bernie is leading in one state but Clinton is within the margin of error in that same state, how would you even color that..? Prcc27🌍 (talk) 23:05, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

That makes no sense. How would Donald Trump be represented? Prcc27🌍 (talk) 23:13, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You asked a question about two democrats that lead in the same state I gave an answer for that. In other states Trump would either be red/blue or red/light blue. if there is a 3 way tie in all three states then a tri stripe could be used or another color (dark grey). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:16, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did not ask a question about two democrats leading in the same state; Clinton being within the margin of error (aka a statistical tie) ≠ 2 democrats leading in a state. If Sanders is leading in a state but Clinton is tied with Trump in that same state, three stripes is inaccurate because it is not a 3 way tie, solid blue for Sanders is inaccurate because it ignores that Clinton and Trump are in a tie. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 23:21, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay then sorry, hopefully it wont be much longer. I also want to point out that in 2012 we made two different maps, one for Romney, and the other for the next leading person. There are ways around this just nobody wants to do the work (in your case I cant blame you). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:32, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Two separate maps would be okay and certainly better than shoving too much information onto one map. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 23:35, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I made the info-box here into a stub if Clinton is the nominee which is the likely result someone can make a new map. I provided all of the latest state polling info, where the numbers are. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:46, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Polls shown are misleading here (MoE)

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)[reply]

Colorado on map

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)[reply]

Colorado was polled in 2015. At the top of the article, there is a link to pre-2016 polls. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 13:43, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clinton/Trump

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)[reply]

No as they are there for historical records. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:43, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, those polls are historical information. We can use the 2012 election as a guide. There are three articles on statewide polling for the 2012 general election:

pre-2012 polls (we already have an article for pre-2016 polls for this election)
early/mid 2012 polls, with various Republican candidates (presumably that is what the data in this article will become)
latest polls, which contained mostly the main two candidates (~~the equivalent for 2016 is yet to come~~ what this article will eventually turn into)

--Spiffy sperry (talk) 18:46, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For the early/mid 2016 polls I feel it would be best to split those off into a new article and keep this article for the most recent polling (preserves the edit history better). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:50, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the split should be done according to policy whenever it becomes necessary. I didn't mean to imply otherwise (my previous reply is edited accordingly). --Spiffy sperry (talk) 19:57, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

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:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www1.wne.edu/assets/184/MA0416PresidentialTables_04_12_16.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:29, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Texas

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)[reply]

The poll showing a +7 margin was listed in the article when this comment was made. (The poll was added on June 23). It is in the Three way race table, which is underneath the first table in the state's section. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 14:32, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Most recent polls 3rd party

3rd party candidates should also be included in the "most recent polls" section. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 07:45, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

We should nix the 3rd party

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)[reply]

Your revert of my edit makes no sense. The 3-way results that I added to the Most Recent Polling table were done in the exact same polls as the 2-way results. You should notice that I didn't change the dates. I did not put outdated information in the table. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 16:13, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but the dates do not match up with those percentages so you are splicing together different data. There is this issue as well as the issue of Jill Stein not being mentioned in the table when she is also present in the polling. Its getting to be too much of a headache having all this data in one table. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:17, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that other editors were splicing together different data, but for the record, I was not. Nor was I was confused by the extra information in the table. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 16:25, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is fine, but even after I undid your edit I still found problems in the table. Is there a better way we can present the third party data? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:29, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I could go either way with respect to how 3rd parties are displayed in the table. Maybe add an indication (like a footnote) for poll results which include 3rd parties. However, the bigger question is how to address polls which have results both with and without 3rd parties (there are seven, currently). For instance, the California result is 61/31 in the two-way question, and 54/28 with question with 3rd parties included. These are from the same poll, conducted on the same dates. I think the 54/28 result is more reflective of reality, since the November ballot will in fact include 3rd parties. This doesn't change the projected EV's for California, but it could for other states (e.g., Connecticut, Georgia). --Spiffy sperry (talk) 16:55, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I cant discuss on the matter right now as my lunch break is ending, but encourage other editors to join in to work out a solution. I agree with you that polls on the same date presents an issue, footnotes might be best here. I will be back on editing in a few hours. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:59, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We should include Gary Johnson and Jill Stein in the most recent polls section because they are both included on the main article. That way we are being consistent throughout the articles and not giving an undue bias towards Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 08:09, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine to include both Gary Johnson and Jill Stein the in the recent polls section. This election is not only about Trump and Clinton.DrFargi (talk) 10:25, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think we all agree on that, the problem is how to present the info. But ask yourself...

Which poll is going to take preference if they are both on the same date, one showing a 2 way and the other a 3+ way race?
Would the most recent poll that is 2 way be used that would erase an old 3+ way poll? (There is a 3 way poll on the table, and a new 2 way poll comes along, we then erase all the old info?)

There are pretty much the issues I have, I do not want to see more poll info be spliced together as it is misleading. If the poll occurred on June x then the info that goes along with it is the info we should include. We should not say, "okay so the poll happened on June x so we are adding May x's info to it just because it is a 3+ way poll. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:19, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@DrFargi: @Prcc27: Would you support three different tables (2 way, 3 way, and 4 way) to avoid the two polls on the same date issue? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:00, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let's put it this way. If there are more 3 or 4 way polls in the following months leading to the presidential election, we should then have 3 different tables. It would be fine to remove the 2 way poll between Clinton and Trump, provided there is enough info from 3 or 4 way polls.DrFargi (talk) 15:10, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I support have separate tables for 3+ way polls. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 03:38, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Congressional district polls

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)[reply]

For what it's worth, the 2012 article includes congressional district polling for Nebraska. Such polls are relevant for Maine and Nebraska, the only two states that are not winner-take-all for electoral votes. They are necessary to make complete electoral vote projections, but do not appear to warrant a separate article. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 13:39, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that eventhough Maine and Nebraska has congressional district polling in the elections, we should include these type of polls elsewhere. Maybe place them in United States presidential election in Nebraska, 2016 and United States presidential election in Maine, 2016. Plus they do not have sample numbers of those poll in the respective districts and the margin of error is not stated.DrFargi (talk) 15:06, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If we don't include them on this article then the electoral college vote estimates will be incomplete. Furthermore, there are other polls in this article that do not have margin of errors. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 19:14, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me how will the electoral college vote estimates be incomplete without the inclusion of the congressional district polls? Yes there are polls in this article without margin of errors but there they always come with number of people poll. These polls don't have that, plus the margin of errors.DrFargi (talk) 00:57, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I again would like to state that these polls should be relocated elsewhere, not in a statewide opinion polling article. Plus some of these polls don't have any sample size or margin of error.DrFargi (talk) 12:15, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ballotpedia

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)[reply]

We had this issue with Overtime Politics in the past state primary polls. So far Real Clear Politics and the Huffingtonpost websites have not included the polls from Ballotpedia. So if we are to take that into consideration, we should remove these polls until further notice.DrFargi (talk) 01:03, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I took it to WP:RSN where I got a reply, with your opinion though I am a bit split here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:04, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@DrFargi: I originally responded to Knowledgekid87's RSN post but I'm now having second thoughts given your comments. I'd also like to maintain consistency here but with in text attribution noting that the polls are from Ballotpedia, it might be worth including, no? Meatsgains (talk) 01:37, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What worries me is the past RSN discussion remarking how it falls under a type of wiki. From the website: [2] "Ballotpedia's articles are 100 percent written by our professional staff and a small group of guest editors. All content written by our guest editors is reviewed and fact-checked by our staff." - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:07, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is true... It might be best to remove the Ballotpedia rows and instead add external links for readers that may be interested. Meatsgains (talk) 15:15, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will start removing the Ballotpedia rows during this weekend.DrFargi (talk) 00:50, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alaska

Shouldn't Alaska be striped since the margin of error isn't even recorded..? Prcc27🌍 (talk) 00:22, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that Alaska is feeling blue given the history, but for NPOV sake yes it should. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:46, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

50 state polls released today

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)[reply]

Should these polls have been included without sample sizes? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:42, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Has Real Clear Politics and Huffingtonpost quoted them this week? I read on the link provided Morning Consult did a poll of 57,000 people. No further information was given in their methodology on how many people were from which state. Just the margin of error was given for each individual state. Plus the timeline the polls given was April till June. User:RPF94 has already added them to the several of the statewide polls lists. I would be incline to remove these polls in the next few days if RCP and Huffington does not quote or reference them.DrFargi (talk) 00:46, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay fair enough, no I haven't seen any inclusion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:03, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It might be time to do some spring cleaning - these poll and Ballotpedia.DrFargi (talk) 02:01, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't stop you, yes the HP & RCP don't cover all of the polls but these in particular are showing problems. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:05, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think a criteria such as

A - a reliable polling firm must conduct the poll
B. There must be a polling sample

should be put into place. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:08, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria having a reliable polling firm that must conduct the poll and polling sample size is a must. Even though Morning Consult is a reliable polling firm, they did themselves no favors by not including a breakdown of the number of partipants polled in each state. User:RPF94 has added more of these polls in the last 6 hours. So far I have check RCP and HP has not referenced this latest Morning Consult poll. Give them another two or three days before we begin to remove these polls.DrFargi (talk) 10:01, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm okay with removing the polls. If they aren't removed we should at least have "April" spelled correctly. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 11:04, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They should be removed, the polling firm is reliable but it did an overall picture of the USA. In my opinion the polling is too vauge. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:01, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maine should be flipped

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Flipped to what, exactly? The map shows the statewide poll result. The asterisk notes that the 1st Congressional District is projected for Clinton, and the numbers below the map reflect this. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 15:12, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I should have been more clear, in the "Most recent polling" section Hillary should have 3 pts from Maine not 1. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:14, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. In the latest poll shown in this article, Clinton does not have a sufficient lead to have the 2 statewide electoral votes. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 13:55, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, the states with the congressional districts in play can become murky and confusing. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:49, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Connecticut Harper poll

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)[reply]

Margin of error and assigning the state

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)[reply]

No per this discussion: "To sum up, a statistical tie occurs when two data points from within a set are within twice the margin of error of each other." - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:03, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Latest Missouri poll

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)[reply]

The poll has a margin of error is 1.6% while the sample size and the date in which it was conducted is missing. I would leave it out until SurveyUSA comes out with a report on their website.DrFargi (talk) 15:46, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, it isn't going to change the map anyways. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:49, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SurveyUSA just release a report on the poll on their website.DrFargi (talk) 09:36, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@DrFargi: That is good and all but what sto;; bothers me is that @ChickDaniels: showed zero communication after being reverted by multiple editors. This is a problem as things on Wikipedia are often discussed. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 11:50, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Aggregate polls for each state

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)[reply]

They bloat the article, and are a pain to keep updating. Seeing they were added without a discussion per WP:BRD I am removing them. My suggestion is a separate split off article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:16, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that they add a more accurate representation for readers less-versed in statistics. Simply being a pain to update is not sufficient enough to validly warrant against their inclusion. They are highly relevant and extremely helpful at helping provide a more appropriate perspective in this article. They most certainly warrant inclusion in the article.SecretName101 (talk) 13:56, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

additionally, many of these aggregates infrequently experience major changes. Only states where frequent polling occurs are constantly changing. Editors would be wise to regularly update aggregates after a new poll has been added to a state. Other states could be verified occasionally to keep them up-to-date .it is not as complicated as you are portraying it to be.SecretName101 (talk) 14:00, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MY biggest worry is WP:SIZE and readability, as it is the polls should be split off like they were last election. I cant make such a move now but if you want to make separate articles then feel free. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:09, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You could always partially remedy that issue by making the tables auto collapsed. SecretName101 (talk) 00:25, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That could work but then there is the time the page takes to load. I will split off the older polls into a new article like was done last year soon, so re-adding the aggregates will be easier then anyways if need be. I get the feeling though that when we go more towards November, those polls are going to pick up fast. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:33, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How about we determine a tentative cut-off date for what polls would be moved to a new article. Would the end of of the political conventions be a sensible choice?SecretName101 (talk) 20:02, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again like last year I had planned for the end of august (this month), unless you think that it should be sooner or later? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:47, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since it appears that earlier polls have now been moved to such an article, I presume it would be appropriate to begin adding state aggregate polls. I, however, purpose that in early September (perhaps by as earlier as September 5th) we move the threshold for Early/Mid 2016 statewide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2016 from article predated May 1, 2016 (which is what it currently is) to articles predated September 1, 2016. SecretName101 (talk) 23:03, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I am still against the aggregates being added here though as it is going to add bloat. To navigate better we might want to consider adding sub-headers as there are already three/four way polls present. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:08, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you add the agreegate polls on the top of the page after the Most Recent Polling section? That will address the bloat issue since you have moved the early/mid 2016 polls to another article.DrFargi (talk) 00:03, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, there are 50 tables so how would you group them? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:09, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@SecretName101: Tomorrow I know that more polls are likely to be added, do you want to take the aggregates to your sandbox before adding all of them? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:09, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just have the aggregate polls at the nationwide opinion polling article as a guide. You can make the polling aggregate table have a collapsing feature. The only other issue I can see there are several states with 2-way, 3-way or 4 way aggregates which might complicate things.DrFargi (talk) 11:40, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Separate statewide presidential polls

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)[reply]

I agree as it appears to be redundant. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:55, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have added links on each statewide poll article with links to the statewide opinion polling article over here. This should stop all the poll duplication and the improper referencing.DrFargi (talk) 09:12, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can always add (Template:onlyinclude) to the polls, and link the most recent results. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:11, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advise. I am also going to go after the senate and gubernatorial election articles as well - eg. United States Senate election in New Hampshire, 2016, Missouri gubernatorial election, 2016. Many of these articles are not properly reference and there are like over 400 of these polling articles going back 10 years. Editors like Ehlla refuse make the effort to fix the references with proper citations and dates after I message him a couple of times in his talk page. I am thinking of taking this to an administrator to see what can be done.DrFargi (talk) 09:12, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The map needs to be fixed

Some user tried to overhaul the map without any discussion here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:08, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More than 2 candidates

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)[reply]

I agree that Johnson and Stein should be included. They are being listed as major third parties in the main election article. There is no reason for them to be excluded at this point. WhySoMan (talk) 11:29, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As virtually all polls shows results for etiher two or four candidates, it is rather confusing that the table now shows result for three. I propose either two or four canidaidtes shown, not three.Yger (talk) 12:52, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I feel this is not a good idea, either we include just the 2 main parties or include all of the major third parties that have a shot at winning. We should keep the table manageable. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:06, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are only 4 candidates that have a chance of winning the election by obtaining a majority of electoral votes: Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, Gary Johnson, and Jill Stein, as per this page. So it would still only be 4 candidates. WhySoMan (talk) 18:45, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe all major third parties with enough ballot access to win should be listed. Excluding them is misleading. ~Fewfre ✍ 14:25, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not all of them though are on every state poll, those who are don't even carry a single state. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:01, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Would it make sense to add a candidate when they poll high enough to win a state or get the percentage needed to be on the debate stage? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:12, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As stated before, I think we should follow the lead of the much more established pages like this one, and include all four of the candidates with access to 270 or more electoral votes. WhySoMan (talk) 18:49, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The other candidates are included in the polls here, none are leading in any state though so placing them on the table would be pointless. A more established page is this one, where are the third party candidates and why don't you think they are included? For both of these cases there is no data to show on the maps. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:28, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We should go with the current election page, not one from 4 years ago. Also, if we're going with who is leading, I will point out, according to RCP and FiveThirtyEight, Johnson is leading over Trump in Washington, D.C. So there is an argument in favor of Johnson to be made.WhySoMan (talk) 21:38, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing has changed, in that case if the third parties do not receive a certain percentage of the vote then they will be dropped from the info-box. This isn't about being unfair, it is about making the most useful info visible first. As for the DC poll, do you have a reference for a poll in particular? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:42, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I extended a proposal, show that the third party candidates carry at least one state/district then we can add them to the most recent polls table. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:48, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think the majority of the commenters here disagree with the proposal. WhySoMan (talk) 23:37, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't heard any opinions of it yet. I am also still waiting to hear why the candidate mentions in the form of footnotes isn't enough. No polls show either Johnson/Stein having any EV's so for each column the info would be left blank. As for the map, same issue the EV's for both candidates would remain at 0 until anything changes. This isn't helpful info, and just makes the article more cluttered. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:47, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I propose we include Gary Johnson and Jill Stein in each state (where applicable) but leave the Most Recent Polling information Clinton and Trump only at this time. WhySoMan (talk) 23:56, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The third parties are already mentioned in the polls by states that include them, they just aren't mentioned in the most recent polling table. We don't just include 2 way polls in the article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:59, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think all candidates that are on enough state ballots to reach 270 should be included in polls and have their poll numbers included in polling results. antony.trupe (talk) 17:51, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The fact is though that they aren't, some states have third parties in their polls, some don't. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:31, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure where you are seeing the fact that there are not third parties on enough state ballots to reach 270 electoral votes? In fact, there are two. Gary Johnson and Jill Stein. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WhySoMan (talk • contribs) 21:55, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"... should be included in polls" Not all third party candidates are included in state polls, it depends on the state. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:57, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah man, gary johnson should be included, jill stein can bit the dust. CannibalisticBanshee (talk) 22:03, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The state to keep an eye on is Utah for Johnson, he has the highest chance of turning that gold based on polling. Another possible high polling state is New Mexico. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:13, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Likely or registered voters?

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I would favor inclusion of likely voters over registered voters when they are mentioned in polling. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:18, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think I would favour registered voters for a few reasons. First, I think they represent the best NPOV because the results are not filtered on the basis of a subjective factor that varies from pollster to pollster. Second, registered voters samples are larger, have a smaller margin of error, and include more information (sentence corrected - MM). Third, both likely and registered voter samples contain a statistically significant mean bias. Nate Silver found that, in presidential elections, RV has a 1.1% Democratic bias and LV has a 0.7% Republican bias. While LV samples have had slightly better predictive validity, RV seems to include the more objective and larger sample. However, I have no information about the proportion of polls that are LV-only, RV-only and both. If somebody had time to canvass the polls currently cited and found that LV-only polls are far more common than RV-only, this would change my position. I don't have time to canvass the polls on this page. - Mmulroney (talk) 14:15, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well my opinion above isn't a strong one so would go with whatever consensus decides for this one. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:59, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mmulroney, I think your assessments are spot on. However, I too have little time for canvassing all these polls. I hope I didn't open a can of worms with my original comment. There's just so much nuance and variation when it comes to detailed polling of this kind, and I don't think the subtleties are properly reflected in this article. I honestly don't know if they can be. But yes, consistency is paramount.Kerdooskis (talk) 19:39, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New Hampshire polls

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)[reply]

Both polls were added to the article on Aug. 11. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 14:20, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Including third party in top table

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)[reply]

Third party polls are included, it is redundant to add the third parties to the top table as they currently have no EVs. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:03, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Texas within the margin?

Why is the map displaying Texas as within margin? I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 06:29, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@I.am.a.qwerty: The latest polling done by Public Policy Polling on August 12–14, 2016 has Trump leading by 6 percentage points. If the margin of error for the polling were plus or minus 2.9% then the spread would be 5.8, because though the margin is 3.2% the spread increases to 6.4%. In a nutshell Trump would have to be leading by 7 points to be completely outside the margin of error for a tie. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:13, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

{{re|User talk:Knowledgekid87]], I might add that one of the Dem primary polling pages (I think the statewide one) had different ways of calculating margins, or so I recall. I forget details but they had two options and a vote was taken... And I think they averaged the recent polls rather than use the latest one... I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 22:44, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't remember that, and I was there in 2012, I think we ran into the problem with the margin of error but feel it was handled the same way. As for averaging the polls, I suppose it is possible I mean RCP does it. In order for us to average the last 5 polls or so the same polling source cant be used more than once. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:47, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Overlinking

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)[reply]

No pruning until there are at least 200+ links, I don't want our readers to miss a link... Seriously though, yeah you can delink most of them. It is a chore to go back and delink the names every time a new poll is added (copy/paste is preferred) so I can see why it hasn't really been done before the election is over. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:21, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New poll dump

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.

The link is here: [8]

- Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:02, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just to provide the context for some of the discussion, the link above will change as HP releases new poll results. I think the following link will point to the original set of polls under discussion here (scroll down to questions 3 & 4): [9]

NameIsRon (talk) 20:44, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Link - Other than the problem with the missing margin of error with these polls, are that these polls will affect the aggregate poll figures for Huffington Post and FiveThirtyEight. These polls so far are not in included in Real Clear Politics site. Going by their inclusion in both sites I would include them in this article, but maybe if all 3 or more aggregate poll sites mention them. The other issue will be the Recent Polling section, where these polls will drastically affect the Tied EVs and throw everything out of whack. And since these are not random samples like most polls included in these articles, I would hesitate to include them.DrFargi (talk) 16:58, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Maybe just include the polling for the states (6 total) we don't have data for then? I can see this as a compromise between both your comments. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:28, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick glance I can see in the Recent Polls section just less than 5 polls will not be affected if you include these polls into the mix. The rest of the states will be affected since these 2-way polls also come with 4-way polls. You either include all the polls across the board or don't add them. Its just a matter of consistency.DrFargi (talk) 17:52, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to add them until RCP or another major source includes them. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:04, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Have a read of Talk:Statewide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2016#50 state polls released today. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:45, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That Morning Consult poll didn't have dates on when those polls were conducted and information on their sample sizes. Plus Huffington Post and Real Clear Politics did not list that poll in their polls lists.DrFargi (talk) 10:09, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New Mexico Polls

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)[reply]

Because those are 50 state polls, the discussion can be found above under "New poll dump". - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:42, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay so I just saw the Reuters polling that is now on The Huffington Post, as I have said before none of the individual polls have a margin of error which is a problem. Suppose we do add all of the polls, can you picture a table of recent polling with no margin of errors present? The unfortunate fact is that none of the 50 state polls include enough information on the states but were designed to show how the country is as a whole. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:32, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

High margins of error

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)[reply]

I think its not necessary to have a MOE cap for the polls. Most polls right now have margins of error of ±5% or less. But let us wait and observe how that will work running up until the elections. DrFargi (talk) 02:50, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

6 months worth of polls enough for 1 article is plenty

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)[reply]

It is what was done last presidential election, someone somewhere out there could find them useful for like a college essay or something. I don't see any guideline or policy that would go against it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:41, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed that you have moved some of the polls ranging from July-August to Early/Mid 2016 statewide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2016. Will this round of relocating the polls be the final move or do you think that we might have to move all the August polls eventually? DrFargi (talk) 19:58, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

August would be the final month to move, I have no preference though for the older statewide polling articles. If you think they should be kept, keep them, of not then place them up for AfD. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:11, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maps and Electoral Vote Total

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)[reply]

Furthermore links to the earlier state polls leading up to the middle of the year have been deleted.DrFargi (talk) 08:19, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Such a mass deletion should have consensus, and I have restored everything until there is a consensus to delete it. There certainly isn't a BLP issue that I can see. In fact, I'm not sure what policy the map or table was violating. St Anselm (talk) 09:23, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

       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)[reply]

Anyway - to address the substance of the issue - I'm not sure the sporting analogy is a good one. This article does not "claim to show the current state of the election". I agree that we would not update the vote hour by hour on election night - but this is not what this is. In any case, the arguments against the map don't seem to apply to the table. St Anselm (talk) 09:29, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article shows the current polling, not the current state of the race. As for the margin of error please read the discussion here: [10]. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:40, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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 updatedAllSportsfan16 (talk) 14:53, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The ones that are the most recent would be the ones to go with. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:55, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

They can be verified as they come from who is leading in the polls. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:00, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

This map isn't reflecting a prediction though, it is tracking where the latest polls stand. If two polls come out the same day for the same state then we would go with the poll that has a 4 way race versus a 2 way race as it is more accurate for example. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:07, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Polling and predictions are two different things as polling asks people who they would vote for. Predictions take averages from different sources and try to guess from there. This isn't guesswork, and by no means are we trying to predict the outcome of the race. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:14, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Any electoral vote count is unverifiable speculation and thus should not be includedAllSportsfan16 (talk) 15:20, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The polls show who is leading in the states, I will wait for other editors to weigh in and explain things to you. Consensus building takes time so please do not make any more changes until we can establish a discussion here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:23, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Most of the arguments right now is regarding the electoral vote table and the map. Now regarding the polling averages tables being included for each state article, I feel that these averages does not constitute original research and you can get that information from respected sources like Huffington Post, Real Clear Politics and FiveThirtyEight. So in the meantime while discussion continues in regards to the maps and the electoral vote table, the state polling averages should be reinstated.DrFargi (talk) 17:53, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I say KEEP THE MAP It has been there this long, there is no need to remove it now!Subman758 (talk) 18:36, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a fact based argument. Length of time displayed is not relevant. AllSportsfan16 (talk) 20:54, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Im with keeping the map as we are not predicting anything but reflecting the current poll trends. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:59, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Those poll numbers are in the body of the article, just click on the state and you will see what poll the numbers reflect. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:46, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I support keeping both the map and the state polling averages, because I believe the article is better (more useful) with them than without them. Note that this comment was made above: If you look at previous election articles they do not show a map. Actually, both the 2008 and 2012 articles included a map; the map was deleted from the 2012 article just a few hours ago. As far as the state polling averages are concerned, I do find it helpful to be able to scan through the states in this fairly compact listing rather than having to page down through the entire article. When I see figures for a given state that I want to know more about, as Knowledgekid87 observed I just click on the state name and I can usually find the details I'm interested in within a few seconds. There have been hundreds of edits of this table by editors who have been willing to put in the time to add polling data as it has become available, and to make sure the content and format are consistent. I believe this establishes that there is a consensus that what's here is useful and appropriate for an article that is dealing with an ongoing activity: the polling of voter opinion in the various states. I believe the point isn't that Wikipedia is trying to predict what's going to happen in the election on November 8, but rather that this article shows a good-faith attempt to document the fact that various reliable sources have been reporting on the results of efforts by reputable polling firms to gather and report on what they have found when they ask voters for their opinion. NameIsRon (talk) 04:30, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The 2008 page is a good model. The maps actually make sense and don't burn your eyes out. 75.74.129.241 (talk) 04:57, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How does the map make the article better, when it doesn't match what the table says. Also showing a possible electoral vote total is in clear violation of original reporting.AllSportsfan16 (talk) 02:01, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The map is completely without value. When you have over half the states within MOE it tells very little. Even states we all know are not swing states like Indiana and Texas are not targets for Democrats this year. Perhaps when polls stabilize in a few more weeks a map will be appropriate. But when you have almost 300 EV within the MOE it does little to help show anything. It's a waste of space and confusing as of now.

Also, as others have pointed out. New polls are released literally every day at this point and many with very different results. There is no way to prioritize one over the other right now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.248.14.235 (talk) 22:07, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To go off of what you said. The map and the table currently do not even match each other and I've visited this page multiple time to see that the table and map don't match each other. Also it is very obvious that showing a possible electoral vote table is a violation of original reporting. Furthermore some polls are very unreliable. Take the Minnesota one from Breitbart, Breitbart is already heavily biased and is the only poll that has showed Minnesota tied. The table and map diminish the articles value.AllSportsfan16 (talk) 00:49, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I have no idea how to update the map and it isn't my job to update it. If it isn't properly being maintained it should be deleted. The article is inaccurate if the table and map don't match and that looks very poor on Wikipedia. I'll drop the analogy to sports scores, but it baffles me how you and others clearly don't see how showing electoral votes violates original reporting. The electoral vote numbers in the article cannot be cited outside of this article and exist nowhere else on the internet. I see that there is a disclaimer, but that really doesn't matter, by showing electoral votes you are essentially predicting how the race currently stands. So it is still a prediction even though isn't a final prediction. Articles on Wikipedia should be kept accurate and this one is not. Just because states are within the margin of error doesn't mean that they are swing states. Also some polls are vastly better than others. I'd really like an admin to weight in on this, because the people who have contributed to this article are clearly biased.AllSportsfan16 (talk) 16:19, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have not shown any bias in the contents of this article. I submit that the table and map are being properly maintained. I check them regularly, but not every minute of every day. If you don't know how to update the map, then I suggest you leave it to more experienced users. It is baffling to me that you to want something deleted because you don't know how to update it. You really should respond to the exception on original research that I cited above if you want to continue that argument. If a poll is of poor quality, then it should be removed from the article altogether following appropriate discussion on this talk page. (For instance, see the discussion on #Ballotpedia above.) --Spiffy sperry (talk) 17:00, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again you are missing my point. My point is that by displaying an electoral vote total you are predicting how the race currently stands, which is something that can't be cited. Wikpedia is about facts and the vote totals that are shown are not facts and are very misleading. It doesn't say potential electoral votes, it just says electoral votes. This implies that they are real. Sure the poll numbers can be sourced, but electoral vote numbers cannot be cited, because none have been cast. No other source is reporting these electoral votes. The current electoral votes are: Clinton 0, Trump 0. You're argument about adding numbers together does not apply here.AllSportsfan16 (talk) 19:38, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Then you are missing the point of this article. It is clear that this article is about polling and is not about the results of any election. No one is assigning actual electoral votes here. You are free to add the word "potential" in the article, if you feel that is necessary. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 20:14, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another 50 state vote poll

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)[reply]

Quoting from this page with detailed info regarding their 50-state polling, UPI says: "Because the poll is conducted online and individuals self-select to participate, a margin of error cannot be calculated...Statistical margins of error are not applicable to online polls. The precision of online polls is measured using a credibility interval. The error due to sampling for projections based on the Likely Voter sample; could be plus or minus 3 percentage points at the national level and plus or minus 5 percentage points at state level." I think this collection of online polling results is interesting, particularly because it can be interpreted as displaying a trend, but I don't think it matches the validity of the polls that are currently represented in this article. NameIsRon (talk) 14:04, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The table revisited

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)[reply]

It is a good idea in theory but would make the table too crowded, is there an idea that wouldn't make the table a wall of text? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:58, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We could go with your previous suggestion to have separate tables for 3-way and 4-way polls. We could even make those tables collapsible. It just doesn't feel right keeping Johnson out of the table when he is almost within the margin of error of Clinton in New Mexico. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 19:51, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

With McMullen now tied in Utah we would be adding 3 third party candidates, again though I just don't know where to place them. I could create a separate article if you would like. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:13, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A separate article for the most recent statewide polling? Alright. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 14:50, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking more along the lines for just third party candidates. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:11, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But which article would be the "main" article? If we do split the articles I think there would have to be two separate maps per article: Clinton vs. Trump and Clinton vs. Trump vs. the third party candidates. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 18:22, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Margin of error - Texas

Is not MoE 1,96?. The Texas with 7% och 3,5% is then outside MoE?Yger (talk) 05:07, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I know found that teh exact figures are 6,92 lead and 3,51% so it is inside the MoE.Yger (talk) 17:47, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is a crazy election year, that is for sure so I am not entirely surprised with this one. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:27, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Three way strip issue

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)[reply]

Should we even use triple striping..? For the GOP primary we used a dark gray color whenever 3 or more candidates were statistically tied. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 16:56, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's an old comment on the template's talk page that asks if there is a way to allow the template to display an image rather than just two stripes, but no one came up with a way to do that so they corrected the template's documentation to remove the statement about an image. It might be good if the template could display an image, but I don't know a way to do this. NameIsRon (talk) 18:06, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

McMullin color: cyan or orange?

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)[reply]

IMO, cyan is more likely to be confused with green or blue than orange is to be confused with yellow or red. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 18:19, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Soon after the new color was added, another poll moved Utah into a two-way tossup, removing the need for a third color at the moment. If the issue comes up again, I prefer consistency within articles, so we should use the same color that is used in the infobox at the top of this page. (I note, however, that there is an active discussion to remove that entry in the infobox.) Regarding which color looks more like another color, I lean with Chessrat's opinion on this. Also, I would hope that any image file used for this purpose would be correctly named (blue ≠ clue). --Spiffy sperry (talk) 15:11, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The color in the infobox isn't the same as the one on the map on that page. The colors are inconsistent on that page. I don't think blending a primary color with secondary color is ever a good idea. It would be like blending orange with red. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 20:12, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Two polls on the same date

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)[reply]

If the poll isn't reliable then we shouldn't be including it. All we have is the MoE in some cases, and assuming both sources are solid the one with the lower margin should be the one that is used. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:46, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Using the MoE as a determining factor is objective. It is a measure of reliability. The time that a poll is added to this article says nothing about the poll itself. And discussion on the talk page prior to undoing an edit is not always necessary; an explanation in the edit summary can be sufficient. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 14:26, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There was no explanation in the edit summary. Also when the margin of error is that close it makes more sense to go with the poll that aligns with previous polls. Clinton has been up in Ohio, so the more relevant poll would be the one that has her ahead.AllSportsfan16 (talk) 02:34, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please include poll citation alongside most recent poll

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I don't think this is a good idea, it is more table work that would need to be handled every-time someone adds a new poll. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:31, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The polls right now is in a constant state of flux. There will be new polls added every few days. If you wish to add the ref name to each and every new state poll that is your prerogative. It will get messy down the line. Not to mentioned some polls like Quinnipiac or Public Policy Polling or NBC/WSJ/Marist has a couple of polls that include several different states. If you have a ref name for those polls, you have to navigate through the states in the Recent Polling Section and add them accordingly.DrFargi (talk) 06:00, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Evan McMullin

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)[reply]

I always look a this issue as something we can always try to navigate. Right now the lion's share of the polling numbers are for Clinton and Trump. Its seldom you see poll numbers in the double digits for Johnson, Stein and McMullin. But there are instances. Right now I see McMullin is featured in state polls for Utah, Texas and Virginia. Are there more polls in other states featuring McMullin that we have overlooked? DrFargi (talk) 06:08, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I found a way to include McMullin without having to devote an almost full grey column to him due to lack of polling. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:04, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like how the "for Utah" column has two words, but the other columns have one word. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 00:08, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:12, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You know if you squeeze the names like Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump and Gary Johnson, you can make each column more compact. You might even have room to include Evan McMullin into one column for himself. DrFargi (talk) 07:42, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just notice that McMullin's name has shown up in an Idaho poll. Will keep track of this in case his name shows up in other state polls.DrFargi (talk) 02:15, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Breitbart Polls

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)[reply]

Again you need to look at who does the polling for Breitbart. The way I see it is that Breitbart has contracted the work out to Gravis Marketing, a non-partisan research polling firm. Gravis Marketing has also done polling work for other organisations in the past and so that argument doesn't hold water. Also if going by the argument, we should also delete all polls sponsored by newspapers who have officially endorsed Hillary Clinton such as New York Times, Wall Street Journal, etc.DrFargi (talk) 03:48, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Endorsing a candidate is different than being directly involved with their campaign. It's a different relationship than WSJ and NYT.

And how certain are you that they have not been directly involved with their campaign too? Did you read the recent Wikileaks revelations on the news reporters on her campaign payroll? So let's leave it at that and move on.DrFargi (talk) 05:25, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DrFargi, it appears that there is well-verified doubt about the accuracy of Breitbart's polling to say the least. I suppose you can keep those polls in this article as a sort of comic relief or instructive contrast, but I don't think many take those polls seriously. "About that poll showing a candidate up 29 points — before he lost by 67", "5 examples of just how hard Breitbart has worked to defend Donald Trump", "Harry Talks Polls With The Guardian’s Tom McCarthy", " Meet Trump’s Polling Truthers Who Say the Numbers Are Lies". That's just a real quick Google search, first few hits--and those are reliable secondary sources, except for 538, which is, as far as I know, a well-regarded opinion poll analysis outfit. Drmies (talk) 01:13, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DrmiesI understand that's the case of different news outlets putting down different pollsters. eg LA Times, TIPP, etc from other news outlets. But again I said that Gravis Marketing is a non-partisan polling research firm. They have been contracted by not only Breitbart, but One America News Network and a couple of news outlets. So I don't think there is a ulterior motive here. As long as they all have a sample size and margin of error show, then there should be no issue in terms of reliability. Plus its always the case that some polling aggregator sites will quote certain polls and leave out some, while others will do different ones.DrFargi (talk) 01:25, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you are suggesting that the criticism by such sources is partisan because those sources also do polling, then you have to let go of the very idea of WP:RS. If you are correct about that polling firm ("Marketing"? That's another type of enterprise, isn't it?), then that's one thing--but I am just struck, reading a few dozen news articles every day from all across the spectrum, including those who are reliable without being on a spectrum, by the difference between Breitbart polls and other polls in some key states. Breitbart is itself of course not accepted as a reliable source (Paul Ryan leads a secret campaign to elect Clinton?--ha, the pop-up ad is asking me to contribute to Trump's wall). Anyway, like I said, I don't really want to fight over this, but that there is no ulterior motive in what Breitbart publishes, well, that's just not true, and I hope that your faith in the company that does the polling for them is justified. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:14, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

McMullin now up in Utah?

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)[reply]

Well if you round it he's in a statistical tie with Trump, but not Hillary. The map should be changed to show Utah split Trump and McMullin.XavierGreen (talk) 20:00, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, margin of error works on each candidate's percentage. Dem./Rep./Ind. all still overlap, albeit just barely. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 20:13, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adding an Average Table

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)[reply]

WaunaKeegan11, I believe each state has their own average tables. You are welcome to edit and update those average tables if there are any changes.DrFargi (talk) 05:29, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Emerson / Gravis polls

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)[reply]

Tied Polls

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

What are you talking about, there are no formal rules. I see nowhere on this document where it has rules.AllSportsfan16 (talk) 16:49, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We used the more recent poll when it comes to this type of situation. When 20-26 and 25-26 comes out, we use 25-26 because it is the more recent of the two. The longer time period will not reflect the current voting sentiment and show us if any current news has change the voting patterns. That's logic for you.DrFargi (talk) 05:28, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

25-26 is a not any newer than 20-26.They both came out on the same day so the one with the lowest margin of error should be used.AllSportsfan16 (talk) 07:19, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let me put it this way. If a poll that was done during the 20-26 period, this would have taken place in blocks of say for example 100 people per day. Current information would not have been made available to people who would have been polled during the 20-24 period. That is why the poll that came out during the 25-26 period supersedes 20-26 period, and that makes the 25-26 poll more current. The lowest margin of error argument is then void here. I hope that explains this situation more clearly to you and hope you should not try to undo Gladkyandrey's edits. DrFargi (talk) 09:02, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No it doesn't. People who were polled during 25-26 still have information from 20-24 despite not being contacted on those days. No I'm tired of Gladkyandrey undoing my edits, not just this time he's undone them in the pastAllSportsfan16 (talk) 14:45, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I will try my best to convince you otherwise. Since you seem to have trouble understanding my previous explanation. I already explain to you that different sets of people are polled on different days. Say we use the 20-26 example, 100 people are polled on 20th, 100 people are polled on 21st, etc. So that's 600 people polled on that poll altogether. Do you think people contacted on 20-24 on the 20-26 poll have current information than the people who were polled on the other 25-26 poll? Or do you think the 400 people who were polled on the 20-24 have the current information needed to give the pollsters an accurate answer? Or do you think a poll that was conducted during two days from 25-26 is more current? Which is more accurate here? Now back to both you and Gladkyandrey. You two sometimes need to understand that undoing edits continously, without putting reasons in the edit summary is bad as well.DrFargi (talk) 15:44, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. If the poll was 25-27 it would be newer than 20-26, but it's 25-26 which means it does not include new information compared to 20-26. Well he shows no respect to the 3RR rules so I'm not going to. I usually say in the edit summary if the poll is outside the margin of error. I don't always put something in the summary, but it doesn't seem like a lot of people do either.AllSportsfan16 (talk) 16:20, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There you go again, changing the goal posts. You talk about 25-27 range when I am talking about the two poll ranges (25-26 and 20-26). Do you even understand the value of current events? I will give you another example. If for example the news of the current email scandal came out on the night of the 24th. So which poll will accurately reflect current sentiments of the electorate? Of course the 25-26 poll. So there you have it, just admit you are wrong here in that the 25-26 poll supersedes the 20-26 poll. Anyway I think you need a time out anyway, since we will be getting many new polls in the coming days, so you don't need to get so work up. And also admit you are guilty in terms of the 3RR rules as well when you revert people's edits.DrFargi (talk) 01:47, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even read my post. Do you really expect public opinion to change over 1 or 2 days in a drastic amount. The 20-26 poll would still take into account events on the 24th. I've looked at the breakdown of some of these polls by day and all of them had the same candidate in the lead each day. I never said I wasn't guilty of that, it's just other editors don't seem to follow that rule anyways. No, The 25-26 poll does not supersede the 20-26 poll. Clearly I'm not going to change your mind and you're not going to change mine.AllSportsfan16 (talk) 07:47, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I read your post. And you don't seem to understand that simple current events will affect the polls that take place over longer periods. The 25-26 poll is current, and we will use that poll in the recent polls section. Granted you refuse to change your mind but I hope you will allow Gladkyandrey continue posting the updates to the current polling using the current system without reverting his posts. Irregardless whether other editors not following the rules, its better you show a better example for all of them. DrFargi (talk) 10:50, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, if a poll is dated the 20th to the 26th but something major happens on the 23rd then a poll dated 24-26 would be more accurate on the fallout (if any). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:21, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Remington Research

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)[reply]

hmm,i thought that RCP meant Real Clear Politics.Alhanuty (talk) 00:32, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, (R) means a republican firm while (D) means Democrat. It is either a politically leaning polling firm, or they polled a slight majority of x party. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:40, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Map colors

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)[reply]

the new red shade is too bright.Alhanuty (talk) 21:09, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just changed the colors to match the 2016 Electoral College map. Prcc27🎃 (talk) 21:38, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That looks better. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 21:55, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gender-based Voting Maps

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)[reply]

Those maps were not adequately sourced or explained, based on out-of-date polling data. Yes, if they were legitimate, they might be appropriate for the "demographics" article. I have removed them from this article. Hadn't noticed them before, surprised to see them here. NameIsRon (talk) 01:38, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reverting but not pinging me here :( Instead of nitpicking it would be nice to improve content, there are more than enough sources on that: [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] ... ... --S I 13:15, 4 November 2016 (UTC) P.S. sorry, I'm afraid my words might sound unfriendly, while I intended the opposite. Please accept my friendlyness being added retroactively, OK? :-) --S I 01:51, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161024013023/http://www.csus.edu/isr/calspeaks/surveys/october%202016%20election%20topline.pdf to http://www.csus.edu/isr/calspeaks/surveys/october%202016%20election%20topline.pdf

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) 09:02, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

About the polling table

To be honest, this polling table 2016 is so confusing & weirdly placed how it works. Syaz351 (talk) 06:17, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Spitting into any -way races is unecessary Syaz351 (talk) 08:31, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]