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

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 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. — 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]
~~Maps and averages~~
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 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.~~