Talk:Straw polls for the 2012 Republican Party presidential primaries

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Straw polls for the 2012 Republican Party presidential primaries 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

Conservatism Low‑importance

	Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism 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.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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 Low-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.

Lazy mathematics?

The cumulative results table is a really nice idea, but it seems a bit slap dash. A poll with 16,000 votes is given equal weight as a poll with 20. It also gives Rick Perry almost nothing, because he's only been in the most recent couple of polls. Overall, I don't think in its current form it adds much to the article, though I cannot think of any way to improve it. Perhaps not putting the figures to two decimal places (which gives a false illusion of accuracy) would be a start. Wikiditm (talk) 10:10, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot mathematically combine and average percents. The cumulative totals section is not correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.194.184.230 (talk) 15:14, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ordering

Given the fact that more recent straw polls are are generally considered to be more relevant than ones that are a year old, should we revers the order and put the latest straw polls at the top? 76.194.211.63 (talk) 18:16, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Correction on West Alabama Straw Poll

According to the source article, Gary Johnson and Rick Santorum both got one vote. This probably should be corrected on the article page.

http://blog.al.com/tuscaloosa/2011/10/herman_cain_tuscaloosa.html "Other candidates who received votes in the straw poll were Newt Gingrich (5), Rick Perry (5), Mitt Romney (3), Gary Johnson (1), Rick Santorum (1)." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.109.25.121 (talk) 17:31, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Map

Missouri needs recoloring blue after the full results were added. Light-jet pilot (talk) 18:58, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Iowa

Why is Iowa coloured gold for a Ron Paul win, when Michele Bachmann won the Iowa straw poll? Tiller54 (talk) 12:38, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because Ron Paul won the most recent Iowa straw poll (see October 29, 2011, Des Moines, Iowa - National Federation of Republican Assemblies Presidential Straw Poll) Light-jet pilot (talk) 21:03, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, OK. Thanks Tiller54 (talk) 20:17, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Map issue - from village pump

From Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Falsified_document "If you look up 2012 straw poll results and find the map of U.S.A. you will find someone has changed the state of illinois to look like Newt Gingrich won the straw poll there. This is a Lie. Dr.Ron Paul won illinois, someone should please change the color of illinois back to yellow as to keep wikipedia as accurate as possible." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronpaul2 (talk • contribs) 23:47, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is an error. The one on Nov 18 is only for Springfield. The reference for state wide straw poll is here. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 14:37, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another map issue — how about the exit polls of primary election?

The reader sees first the excellent map graphic "latest polling" and it is quite obviously not keeping current. It is not the latest. Look at Florida that went for Romney. Look at the three states that Santorum swept: MN, IA, MO. Compare the map in this article (latest polling) with the map of 'won states' in the main article, [[1]] and ask what can be done to make the map reflect "latest polling"? Is the answer to have the AP exit polling? Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:01, 12 February 2012 (UTC) PS: I realize this Article is an encyclopedic and historic reporting of the 'straw polls', but it seems woefully 'not current'. What can one do???[reply]

Overlink?

Why is every instance of the candidates linked? Is this not overlinking? doktorb _words^deeds 12:15, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TWITTER is on the rise (consider polling implications some day soon)

Here is a little twitter we had on Republican_Party_presidential_primaries,_2012:

Twitter Poll

Is there any point in including a Twitter based poll here or in a related page? e.g. that compares the relative number of followers or mentions of candidates? e.g. http://tpredict.com/predict.php?predictId=41 The split of followers for Romney v Santorum 69/31 correlates with their delegate count (568 v 273). But the split including Gingrich and Paul looks very strange with Newt winning the follower battle. http://tpredict.com/predict.php?predictId=154 Is there value to this data in any of the articles? Obviously, it is verifiable fact (since all data is accessible at Twitter.com) but is it neutral or relevant? Uptodateinfo (talk) 10:15, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is an article with strawpolls, it sounds like it would be the place to put it. Straw polls for the Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012 Jack Bornholm (talk) 11:07, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Twitter is on the rise and I'm ramping up myself. Jack's point is well-spoken: put it in the 'Straw Poll' article. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:58, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(End of quoting from other main WP article)

>>>>>>>>>>>> *** <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Would you care to comment? Can we discuss here? TIA, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:06, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is absolutely no credibility in a poll of this kind. Wikipedia has very strict rules and guidance on social media. To extract any kind of statistic from an arbitrary snapshot in time is a complete non-starter. No merit whatever exists in this proposal. doktorb _words^deeds 21:30, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a poll is not the right way to characterise this. In particular since the politically minded could follow all 4 candidates. Plus followers does not imply support. It is more a comparison of followers. Separately, could someone point me to the rules and guidance on social media. Much appreciated. Uptodateinfo (talk) 13:45, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]