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

	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
List	This article has been rated as List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

United States: Presidential elections List‑class High‑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
List	This article has been rated as List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections.

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

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]

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 Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016/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.