This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Nationwide opinion polling for the 2008 United States presidential election article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 25 December 2007. The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
There seems to be a lot of Fox News polls listed. I know a poll is a poll is a poll, but still there's a reason they always have the highest approval rating for Bush of all the pollsters. (Creator22 21:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC))
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News_Channel_controversies
Program on International Policy Attitudes,[28] in the Winter 03-04 issue of Political Science Quarterly, reported that viewers of the Fox Network local affiliates or Fox News were more likely than viewers of other news networks to hold three views which the authors labeled as misperceptions [29] :
* 67% of Fox viewers believed that the "U.S. has found clear evidence in Iraq that Saddam Hussein was working closely with the al Qaeda terrorist organization" (Compared with 56% for CBS, 49% for NBC, 48% for CNN, 45% for ABC, 16% for NPR/PBS). However, the belief that "Iraq was directly involved in September 11" was held by 33% of CBS viewers and only 24% of Fox viewers, 23% for ABC, 22% for NBC, 21% for CNN and 10% for NPR/PBS * 33% of Fox viewers believed that the "U.S. has found Iraqi weapons of mass destruction" "since the war ended". (Compared with 23% for CBS, 20% for both CNN and NBC, 19% for ABC and 11% for both NPR/PBS) * 35% of Fox viewers believed that "the majority of people [in the world] favor the U.S. having gone to war" with Iraq. (Compared with 28% for CBS, 27% for ABC, 24% for CNN, 20% for NBC, 5% for NPR/PBS)
what do you,my fellow people of this country think?
hillary clinton should of won the race.she would've been the 1st lady president!
Arnold Schwarzenegger is included in at least one of the polls here. If he is barred by the constitution from running, why can such a poll be included in a speculative article such as this? Cymra37 00:17, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
In that case why not Bill CLinton again? The Const can be cahnged.
--Cymra37 01:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
What is this "Institute?" Why is there web page hosted by Angelfire, and why can't I find a single news article about them?
Should their polls be removed from the page? 129.2.227.93 17:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Polls were conducted by the Opinion Research Corporation on behalf of CNN during December 5th through 7th. Here's the link: [1]
Is he allowed to run?
I can tell that someone did a lot of work on this, but this is really just a collection of poll results, not an encyclopedia article. If it were cleaned up, maybe it could be moved to Wikinews? I'm interested in hearing the arguments for this page, but I think this page should probably be nominated for deletion. Mikeliveshere 11:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
The sorting by date doesn't work correctly on this page. It uses the year as the last sorting criteria when it should be the first.
What about polls for primary states released by American Research Group, Zogby or Research 2000 ? http://americanresearchgroup.com http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1237 http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1236 http://research2000.us They give insight to how voters in Iowa and New Hampshire tend to vote next year. Polls for Iowa and NH are important because the winner of the 2 states gets huge media attention afterwards. Should they therefore be posted on this page too ? Or on a seperate page ? Your opinions please :-) --The Pollster 20:23, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
shouldn't they put up the general election poll numbers for each state? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.22.1.98 (talk) 04:12, 11 May 2007 (UTC).
I've added a chart from Excel summarizing all results to date. This chart includes a linear trendline, which is a best-fit straight line, i.e. there are just as many points above the line as below. The data in this case does not conform closely to the linear trendline, so the trendline cannot be used to predict future results. However, the trendline is useful for showing the overall average results at any particular point in time, and, for example, showing that the overall average results shifted from Republican to Democratic in October 2006. I think this is objective information that helps quickly visually summarize the massive amount of data on this page. Suggestions for improvement are welcome.--Robapalooza 19:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
(updated May 29, 2007 to include May 7-8, 2007, Rasmussen Reports Poll)--Robapalooza 17:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
(updated May 30, 2007 to include latest Zogby poll numbers)--Robapalooza 19:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
(updated June 14, 2007 to include latest Rasmussen Reports Polls and a series of polls published by PollingReport.com)--Robapalooza 22:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Is there a way to archive polls before June 2006 so we could shorten this page a bit? Gang14 20:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
The following sections have not been updated since February:
* 1.1.3 Support likelihood * 1.4.1 Candidate distinctions * 1.4.2 Candidate quality * 1.4.3 Candidate ideology
Either there is no new data or it's not being updated. Does someone have time to check if new data exists and update them as needed? If this type of poll is no longer being administered by the polling community, then should we keep them?--Robapalooza 19:39, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
There have been several recent, significant updates from a user identified by an IP address 85.164.4.205 [[2]] as follows:
I've not had a chance to review the data for accuracy. Does anyone have the time to do so?
Any comments or suggestions? Is there a policy on anonymous posts?--Robapalooza 14:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Should John Edwards and Mitt Romney be included in the match-ups? From what I have seen, in the head-to-head general election polling, Mr. Edwards has an even greater margin of support than Clinton or Obama against the various likely Republican nominees. (I, personally, am supporting Obama...but I think the data is important) -Alex.rosenheim 13:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I, of course, am referring to the graphical summary charts at the top of the article. _Alex.rosenheim 13:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I recently added the following charts:
These 7 candidates represent candidates that are currently drawing, on average, at least 10% of the vote in state-by-state polling, and, thus, have a realistic chance of being the party candidate. --Robapalooza 15:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
To address the concerns some of you have over the use of linear regressions, I've added links to sites that summarize polling data in a similar manner, but use different methods for plotting averages. I will keep maintaining the charts on this site, since it includes more data than the images in the attached links. Thoughts, questions, suggestions, etc. are welcome. This example is from the Republican California primary section, but similar links appear on this page. [3] --Robapalooza 00:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
In the article Opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2008 (Undid revision 157131099 by 65.41.196.242 (talk) Appears to be vandalism of legitimate data) (undo) --Robapalooza 15:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I split the page into two, and linked to the graphical representations from the main page. This makes it easier to find the polls, and satisfies the Wikipedia article size rule of thumb - articles over 100 KB should be divided up. There is a link to the graphical representations at the top of the poll table - they should still be easy to find. Merry 11:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Is there a home for non scientific polls? Such as http://ourvote.us ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Viet124 (talk • contribs) 00:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
From now on, all Opinion Polling Should Include Nader, since he announced he's running this morning.
Matt34544 (talk) 14:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Posed the problem on the Help_talk:Sorting page and got an answer. As it stood, sorting produced an untenable chart like the one below.
Poll Source | Date administered | Democrat | % | Republican | % |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Rasmussen Reports Tracking | March 25-28, 2008 | Hillary Clinton | 40% | John McCain | 51% |
Barack Obama | 43% | John McCain | 48% | ||
Gallup Tracking | March 24-28, 2008 | Hillary Clinton | 44% | John McCain | 48% |
Barack Obama | 44% | John McCain | 46% | ||
NBC News/Wall Street Journal | March 24-25, 2008 | Hillary Clinton | 44% | John McCain | 46% |
Barack Obama | 44% | John McCain | 42% | ||
Pew Research Center | March 19-22, 2008 | Hillary Clinton | 49% | John McCain | 44% |
Barack Obama | 49% | John McCain | 43% | ||
Fox News/Opinion Dynamics | March 18-19, 2008 | Hillary Clinton | 46% | John McCain | 43% |
Barack Obama | 43% | John McCain | 44% | ||
CBS News | March 15-18, 2008 | Hillary Clinton | 46% | John McCain | 44% |
Barack Obama | 44% | John McCain | 46% |
EncMstr jumped in and produced this:
Poll Source | Date administered | Democrat | % | Republican | % |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Rasmussen Reports Tracking | March 25-28, 2008 | Hillary Clinton Barack Obama |
40% 43% |
John McCain | 51% |
Gallup Tracking | March 24-28, 2008 | Hillary Clinton Barack Obama |
44% 44% |
John McCain | 48% 46% |
NBC News/Wall Street Journal | March 24-25, 2008 | Hillary Clinton Barack Obama |
44% 44% |
John McCain | 46% 42% |
Pew Research Center | March 19-22, 2008 | Hillary Clinton Barack Obama |
49% | John McCain | 44% 43% |
Fox News/Opinion Dynamics | March 18-19, 2008 | Hillary Clinton Barack Obama |
46% 43% |
John McCain | 43% |
CBS News | March 15-18, 2008 | Hillary Clinton Barack Obama |
46% 44% |
John McCain | 44% 46% |
As you can tell, the splitting of the boxes at the end is removed, but the look is identical; moreover, the sort makes this more useful (Gallup can be compared to Gallup, etc.). Thoughts? --Kallahan (talk) 20:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Umm, what's up with all the 'John McCain' entries? Has Ron Paul changed his name? 84.13.76.4 (talk) 14:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
This page should include the margin of error (or confidence interval) in percentage points for each poll as reported by the polling institution. --130.221.224.7 (talk) 02:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Time to start moving the Clinton/Obama matchups with McCain to a different section now she definately will not be the democratic nominee? (88.105.15.96 (talk) 09:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC))
All right, we have a lot of huge tables in this article. How about we make some graphs out of them? ⟳ausa کui × 08:16, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
So as soon as polls like Rasmussen (one of the most accurate pollsters in recent history) stop showing Obama with a 5+ point lead, does this site effectively stop recording them? 128.143.47.61 (talk) 19:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)mbauer 7/22/08
It looks like whoever it was that was putting the polls up has lost interest and stopped, because I'm sure there have been quite a few over the last couple weeks. Whoever you(s) are, please come back! Maybe you didn't get enough appreciation? I thought the page was great! I read it all the time! It's one of the most useful websites for following the US election on the web!Wikidea 13:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Rasmussen does nightly telephone polls and pulls them into a three day rolling average every day. I'll put them in daily from here on in. Any complaints? aremisasling (talk) 17:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
As a matter of note Rasmussen gives two set of numbers, a straight preference and preference + undecided leaners. I'm using the preference + undecided numbers every time I update as a matter of keeping a standard practice. The raw preferences differ usually only slightly. Today (Aug 28th) the preference only showed a 1 point lead for Obama and a tie on the composite. aremisasling (talk) 14:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
I certainly don't have any issues with Gilbertine's decision to trim the daily load of Rasmussen polls. I do, however, think that their rolling three day poll release offers currency that the others don't. It could be informative to keep the most current data there and perhaps leave a permanent record every 3 days or so (3 days since the period on rasmussen is 3 days, though I have no argument with a longer period). Such regular poll results can offer a pulse of sorts with it's continuous string of regularly spaced data. It also offers an objective timetable for adding the information so the article isn't accused, as it has been already, of only including polls that favor candidate X when there are other polls present. The only reservation I have is on keeping the most current data. Does that make sense, or am I off base here? aremisasling (talk) 15:38, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Now that Palin is the official nominee, it seems that there should be a section for VP polling. I'm not a regular on this page, so I'm just suggesting. Mostlyharmless (talk) 01:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone agree that McCain is simply too old and broken up to be president for the next eight years. Personally, I don't think his health is in good shape. Lets say he up and kicks the bucket two years winning the presidency, (only speculating) then who will become our president? Please don't say Palin? Who would anyone choose for pres. god forbid J. McCain keals over? Biden or Palin ? Smylynn (talk) 02:29, 25 October 2008 (UTC)Smylynn Oct 24, 2008 Smylynn (talk) 02:29, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Does it make sense to drop the sign on these and make it point spread instead of BO-JM? I'm actually an Obama supporter, but it seems very biased to have it be one candidate minus the other. It's one thing that has bugged me about the presidential section since I first started viewing this page. Besides the bias issue BO-JM is a rather odd heading for a column. If there are no complaints by 9/17 I'm going to make the change. aremisasling (talk) 15:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Is there any objection to adding fivethirtyeight.com to the external links section at the bottom? I don't want it to become a link farm, certainly, but it does seem like one of the most useful aggregators. I'll add it if there is no objection. (It might also make sense to clean out the links sooner or later too.) Mostlyharmless (talk) 05:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Someone's edited and removed a couple of tracking polls as they 'overlap'. I think daily polls should be posted and by nature tracking polls will overlap.
It hasn't improved the section now we have no poll results for three days. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.34.208.164 (talk) 13:45, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
The Daily KOS/Research 2000 polls have become increasingly deviated from the average of the other polls listed. I also question whether this organization is sufficiently neutral to warrant the inclusion of their polling on the Wikipedia site. The Wikipedia article on Daily KOS states the following:
Daily Kos (IPA: /koʊs/) is an American political blog, publishing news and opinion from a liberal or progressive point of view. It functions as a discussion forum and group blog for a variety of netroots activists, whose efforts are primarily directed toward influencing and strengthening the Democratic Party. Additionally, the site features a participatory political encyclopedia, glossaries, and other permanent content.
Should data from an organization with a very obvious political agenda be incuded in a WIkipedia article seeking unbiased information?
Edokin (talk) 05:44, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
HERE IS WHAT I SENT TO A WIKIPEDIA EDITOR FOR REVIEW:
Dear Editor,
An unregistered user has delted vaid presidential polls from "Nationwide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2008"
Here is the deletion history:
(cur) (last) 22:08, 22 October 2008 216.27.182.48 (Talk) (152,713 bytes) (→Democratic nominee vs. Republican nominee: The AP poll of likely voters overwieghted evangelicals. See http://www.americablog.com/2008/10/new-flawed-ap-poll-claims-mccain-and.html) (undo)
(cur) (last) 22:18, 23 October 2008 216.27.182.48 (Talk) (152,964 bytes) (→Democratic nominee vs. Republican nominee: Gfk poll removed again (uses too absurd Democrat-to-Republican ratio to be a credible poll; the +10 Obama Gfk poll was removed too)) (undo)
The user says: too absurd Democratic-to-Republican ratio." Then he says "the AP poll of likely voters overwieghted evangelicals." How does 216.27.182.48 possibly know that?
I didn't hear any complaints on October 7-9 when Reuters/C-Span/Zogby had only a 5pt spread, but the biased, in the tank for Obama Daily KOS had a 12 point spread!
Here is the methodology of the AP poll: http://www.ap-gfkpoll.com/pdf/AP-GfK_Poll_3_Topline_FINAL.pdf This poll has THIRTY PAGES of documentation!!
216.27.182.48 has no basis for removing this poll and should be blocked if 216.27.182.48 perists in delting valid data.
Thank you for your review of this matter!
Edokin (talk) 04:19, 24 October 2008 (UTC)edokin
The AP-GfK poll at issue is their October 16-20 (2008) Presidential Opinion poll. The claims by the two users are that the poll "severely overweighted Democrats" or "has a too absurd Democrat to Republican ratio to be credible." The basis for this, I assume, is the 40% who self-identify as strong or moderate Democrat v. the 29% who self-identify as strong or moderate Republican." This is very close to the actual percentages of registerde voters claimed by the respective parties as members. Per the article in our very own Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_parties_in_the_United_States) the percentage of Democrats in 2004 was 42% and of Republicans was 32%.
Thus I don't see how using a sample which is very close to the actual percentages registed with each party is a problem. In fact, would it not be more accurate? If someone can explain why this is a bad poll, I'll quit posting it.
Now isn't it curious that a poll with more Democrats responding should have the Republican nominee in a closer race with the Democratic nominee than most other polls?
The Associated Press in a long-standing, respected, worldwide news agency and apparently GfK's credentials are good. So why should they mess it up?
With all due courtesy and respect to my fellow Wikipedia users, would you rather trust the Associated Press or two individuals whose credentials are unknown. Let me also point out that Wikipedia staff has noted the following regarding the user at IP address 64.81.59.139 as follows: "Someone using this IP address has made unhelpful edits to the page Todd Palin, which have been reverted. If you did this, in the future please try to contribute in a more constructive manner." This would appear to impair that user's credibility.
Edokin (talk) 05:10, 25 October 2008 (UTC)edokin
Dear Fellow Wikipedia Users,
Good evening! I hope you are all well.
In accordance with Wikipedia guidelines I will assume that the individuals who remove various polls due to issues with their credibility are seeking to have only valid and accurate information.
Wikipedia relies on individuals to update articles with verifiable information that is pertinent to the subject matter of the article. By its nature Wikipedia acepts contributions from all provided that Wikipedia guidelines are followed.
What needs to be discussed is the question of who decides whether a particular poll data should or should not be included. It does no good to have polls posted, taken down and then reposted in an endless succession. If a particular poll is taken by a reputable organization, particularly one associated with a reputable news organization, then how can an anonymous Wikipedia user determine, in his or her sole discretion, that a particular is or is not worthy of inclusion? I've asked this question before. I would respectfully suggest that if certain users honestly believe themselves qualified to pass such judgements that they provide the basis for their expertise in polling data. I admit that I do not have such expertise. If, for example, John Zogby or Scott Rasmussen were to post here and explain why a particular poll was or was not valid, I'd be inclined to listen.
But what is to be done when one Wikipedia user disagrees with another? There is obviously some disparity in these polls...some quite large. I don't see any of the polls with large Obama leads being deleted by anyone. I assume good faith, but when the deleted polls are those which reflect favorably on one candidate, a question must be raised.
I hope that other users will partcipate in a ameaningful dialogue.
Edokin (talk) 04:39, 30 October 2008 (UTC)edokin
This could use some more basic explanation on how polls are reported. The chart lists the "lead margin", but I tried looking that up to see what it was and there is no explanation. Likewise, the info I came here to find was what things like +2 mean, which I see often regarding the polls, and it doesn't explain that either. I'm good at looking stuff up, but it's hard to do a google search on "+" 24.18.238.28 (talk) 23:36, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
What do you think about the opinion poll on the mccain/obama election or debate?
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 19 external links on Nationwide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2008. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check))
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:57, 14 February 2018 (UTC)