Talk:Statewide opinion polling for the 2008 Republican Party presidential primaries

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Misc.[edit]

When you add a poll that would gives or adds a state to candidate make sure to note the change in the Current Leaders sections. Also, under that section, post the date of accuracy.Rougher07 21:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the map has Mississippi colored blue instead of Alabama. You can tell that whoever made the map (and decided the color scheme) wasn't from the South. Neodanite 15 February 2007

Could whoever maintains the map please choose a different color scheme? The red-green colorblind can't tell the McCain from the Huckabee. If it's simply a stock image, is there a possibility of finding another image? Michael F (talk) 21:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should this page be useful or not?[edit]

This page, as it stands, is worthless. There is no standard being used for reflecting leads within the margin of error. Second and third tier polls are carrying more weight than credible pollsters like Rasmussen and Gallup. Others are just not being updated.

Why not make this easy and use Realclearpolitics.com's averages whenever possible. Check out their web page and see if you like it. Keep a running average of polls as they are released, and it is used widely in the media when commenting on election trends. This will eliminate the need for an editorial board on this page to argue over such things as margins of error and whether or not Zogby has any credibility after his embarrassing 2004 showing.

I vote for RCP averages[1].

RCP is fine for determining national averages, but RCP only has 4 states (IA, NH, SC, FL). National data is next to worthless, because a candidate typically needs to attain some critical mass before "Super Tuesday" on February 5, 2008. Therefore, state-by-state is very important, particularly in the Republican race where so many different candidates are polling well in different parts of the country. Basically, you need to watch these races in this order to have an idea of what any given candidate's chances are of winning the overall nomination:
  • January 14, 2008 - Iowa (41)
  • January 19, 2008 - Nevada (34)
  • January 22, 2008 - New Hampshire (24), Wyoming (12 of 28)
  • January 29, 2008 - Florida (114)
  • February 2, 2008 - South Carolina (47)
  • February 5, 2008 - Alabama (48), Arizona (53), Arkansas (34), California (173), Connecticut (30), Delaware (18), Georgia (72), Illinois (70), Michigan (61), Missouri (58), New Jersey (52), New Mexico (32), New York (101), North Dakota (26), Oklahoma (42), Tennessee (55), Utah (36), West Virginia (18 of 30)
--Robapalooza 21:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
State-by-state is needed, but we need some overall view, too. I support trying the proposal.Korky Day 19:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I changed my mind. I just checked Realclearpolitics.com and found it terribly biased. No mention of Ron Paul in about 5 minutes of searching. Many mentions of Gingrich, who isn't even a candidate. Korky Day 20:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this page is pretty much worthless as long as there is no standard for when to put a certain state in a certain candidates column. One poll showing Romney in the lead in California didn't shift it to him (as it shouldn't have), but one poll showing Giuliani in the lead in Iowa by 1% (within the margin of error) shifts it to Giuliani (who I feel the most eager editors of this page are biased towards).—Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.69.231.226 (talk • contribs)

The democratic equivalent of this article has deleted all the polls of states which already held their primaries, yet, this aticle keep not just those but also very old polls that make it incredibly and riculously long. Shouldn't this article be arranged to keep only polls of the states that haven't had primaries? (Oscar Sanchez) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oscar Sanchez (talk • contribs) 04:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

South Carolina[edit]

Whoever posted the latest Insider Advantage poll in South Carolina needs to make an edit, the poll clearly states that Giuliani, McCain, Romney, and Thompson are tied within the margin of error. Mburn16 21:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • We've been marking the polls for whomever has the nominal edge, no matter how small. I wouldn't be opposed to changing this to marking two or three frontrunners if they're within a certain margin (there have certainly been some back-and-forth polls in a few states) or denoting the average (a la RealClearPolitics) to smooth out real oddballs, but as of now, only the leader is denoted, no matter how slim or questionable the lead is.Young Skywalker 23:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chart for the first 5 or so races | Population-Proportionate or an Electoral Vote-Proportionate Cartogram?[edit]

1. Thanks to whomever got rid of the chart that had too much information to be really useful, but I thought the chart showing the first 5 or so state races was useful. Can we bring that one back?
2. It might be fun and interesting to include results on a population-proportionate map such as this: http://www.georgehernandez.com/h/aaBlog/2004/media/11-09_Election-StateCartogram.png
or an Electoral Vote-proportionate map such as this:
http://files.blog-city.com/files/A05/141484/p/f/statecartogramelectoral.jpg --138.88.90.41 18:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statistical Significance[edit]

Why is Illinois given to McCain when he has a 0.4% lead in a second tier poll? I know there isn't a lot of republican data for that state, but perhaps there needs to be a Maybe column added to the leader board when candidates leads are not statistically significant. Otherwise this article will lack credibility.

Margins of Error, yes or no?[edit]

A decision needs to be made as to weather or not we are going to count candidates who are within the margin of error as tied. If we are, then the map needs to indicate ties. I think we should count them, I don't know if there are any objections? Mburn16 00:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that margins of error should be taken into account. This will lead to a lot of ties, but that's really a more accurate picture. --Aranae 21:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need to at least list the MoE, which I have started doing in Nevada and California. I also think we should probably list the Sampling Size. Michaelcox 02:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the margin of error should be ignored and the winner be whomever received the highest percentage. Mr. DigDug 4:55 p.m., 14 August 2007.

Maps and Mississippi[edit]

Although dated earlier, it looks as if the May 16th map is more up to date by giving Romney Iowa. I am curious how Mississippi (given to McCain) can be colored for anyone since no polling has taken place there (at least according to our data). --Aranae 21:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The new My 26th map still has Mississippi with McCain leading, but we still have no polls for that state. --Aranae 18:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sacremento Bee / Datamar Poll[edit]

Twice now, I have placed a poll conducted by Datamar Inc. on the page under the "California results" - this is the poll that shows Mitt Romney with the lead. People keep taking it off. So far, the criticism seems to revolve around two facts: 1) The link did not take you to a poll and 2) Duncan Hunter was polling higher than in other places.

To fix this, I have: - Removed SacBee from the poll - It was my original source, but it looks like they were simply reporting the results. - Included a link to the .pdf document containing the results of the poll.

Also, Duncan Hunter is from California, he is a U.S. Representative from that state, he SHOULD be polling higher.

I have replaced the poll, please do not remove it without some kind of discussion on the talk page.

67.150.52.177 14:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Datamar is NOT a legitimate polling company:

http://www.pollster.com/blogs/poll_datamar_florida_primary.php

I am removing the California poll immediately.

Isaiah13066 07:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)\[reply]


Rather than listening to my arguments, michaelcox has repeatedly accused me of removing the poll because I "don't agree with it". That isn't the point at all. It's statistically a bad poll. I'd like to let the record show that Michaelcox is wrong--I had no problem with the poll's results. I had a problem with the poll and the polling company. I provided links to back up onpinion on why the company is not legitimate. Others would rather whine about me "disagreeing with the results".

Isaiah13066 17:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of from what I can see you posted a link not links. I really don't know your standard of proof is but for me a few people's suspicions (mixed in with others defending it) on a comments section of a website could be hardly construed as proof.--69.176.56.232 16:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Polling questions[edit]

I was just looking at the polls for California, where Romney is shown with a more than 2-to-1 lead, and I think this is obviously wrong. I mean, just a few days before the newest poll Giuliani was the leader, with Romney in third or fourth place. I just don't understand how there could have been such a massive shift, especially since I live and CA and haven't heard a single thing to convince me to support Romney (I haven't even seen so much as one ad, or even a single pro-Romney bumper sticker). Also, I live in L.A., so if there was any major support for Romney I would've had to hear about (not to mention I pay close attention to CA politics). I just think you guys should check this polling source, it just seems a bit too shady this great website, which I have always been a big fan of (as far as information gathering goes). Also, you posted a poll from Texas that is so old it might have been smarter to just keep the old one. I also think that the TX poll is off for the same reason I explained earlier about CA, although I don't live in TX. Finally, you guys should start filtering out polls that are over a month old, or at least indicate on the map when a poll is possibly outdated. Thanks for reading and I hope to see some changes soon. Sincerely, John

Just to clarify why I changed the CA poll: I just don't see any logical sense why a nobody like Romney could have such a gigantic lead, especially since he spent so much time in the last debate explaining why he agreed with Giuliani (he looked like Giuliani's cheerleader sometimes). I invite anyone to put the original poll back, if you wouldn't mind explaining how this poll makes any sense (outside of Romney's dreams).


Well, look at how Romney has been doing of late - three debate wins, leading in cash, winning in Iowa, New Hampshire, Michigan, Utah, second in Nevada, reasonable in South Carolina - it is not out of reasonable thought that Romney is picking up momentum. McCain has hit a snag on immigration, so it is not supprising at all to see him dropping. I don't know how Conservative California Republicans are, but if they oppose Abortion, it is reasonable for Giuliani to have such a big drop. I think the best thing to do is to include the poll now, and let it be confirmed or debunked by the next poll. Sure, the numbers are strange, but so is the big jump by Fred Thompson in South Carolina, and I don't have any problems with including that poll. 67.150.75.145 16:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I understand what you're saying, but I'm still a little unsure. I mean, I live in CA and interact with Republicans almost daily (through volunteering and fund raising), and I hear no major support for Romney; unless you count the Mormons who aren't a big enough group to change the CA results. Also, CA Republicans aren't anti-abortion crusaders (Romney even strikes most I've spoken to as a flip flopper on abortion) and few I have met have even the slightest intention of voting purely on the abortion issue. Posting a poll showing such a sudden and completely out of the blue lead for Romney would be like saying George Bush's approval ratings climbed 50% after his state of the union addressee; it just doesn't make any logical sense. As for Romney's strength's, you're right, he is leading in Iowa and New Hampshire, but that's only because he has been campaigning actively out there. Here I haven't seen or heard anything about Romney, and many people I have spoken to said they probably wouldn't have known Romney even existed if the media didn't talk about him. Also, I watched those debates and heard post-debate analysis, the vast majority of experts said either McCain or Giuliani won the last one. In fact, the only debate most analysts said Romney won was the first, and yet that debate yielded little gains in CA polls. But now this debate where he answered half the questions starting with "I agree with Mayor Giuliani..." got him a gigantic lead with CA Republicans? It seems very, very fishy to me. However, I'm not challenging you on the results in NH or IA; those Republicans could be ultraconservative, anti-abortion fanatics. But I live out here in CA, and I know we are a bit more accepting of abortion. You must also keep in mind that Giuliani has an almost unstoppable appeal to big states; so is it even remotely conceivable that Romney can have had such a huge swing in his favor? I've looked at the money tracker on CNN.com, Romney has spent away his monetary lead (almost none of those funds came out here), so it's really Giuliani who has the lead in money (at least at this point). Finally, I have never heard of the polling source you guys used. I've heard of pollsters like ABC/Gallup, Zogby, etc., but never this polling . After all, Romney himself could get some Mormon activist to type up a fake poll and leave it online to get suckers to think Romney is leading. There is also the possibility that this poll was taken from Mormons in CA, thus gerrymandering the results in Romney's favor. I have once again taken this poll off and believe that we should leave the old poll up until another one (from a more well known, reliable source) comes up. The point I'm trying to make is that you must look at a poll before posting and you must ask yourself, "Does this poll make sense?".

Please sign your posts. Again, I disagree with the idea of removing posts because they seem off somehow to us. If there's a legitimate reason to be suspicious of a poll, that can be noted and we can exclude it from our tally at the bottom and map images. I think NPOV requires us to report these polls, though. --Aranae 06:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I agree with what you're saying, but I'm still confused by the poll's findings. It's like the example I gave earlier with Bush's approval ratings; wouldn't you be a little suspicious if Bush's approval ratings rose 50% after his State of the Union addresses? I mean nobody thought Bush's speech was that good. And again, we should be able to look at a poll and question it if it gives such an extreme and inconceivable result.

Sure we should be able to question, but Wikipedeia deals with FACTS, and that FACT is that a poll came out in California that shows Romney with the lead. Sure, we can question it, but the best thing to do is to post the poll, keep California in the Romney column, and wait for another poll. Let people decide for themselves what to think of the poll. The poll is replaced. 67.150.75.54 17:16, 18 June 2007

I understand that Wikipedia deals in facts, but you're not posting facts. What that poll is, is raw data meaning that it is just random information, not necessarily factual information. For example, if historians wanted to determine the population of L.A. in 1996 they would look at raw data and draw conclusions that in tern become facts. In this example they might get data saying the population was 23,478, but they would determine this data is wrong because it is too low for the real population. Then they might get data saying the population was 3,000,000,000,000 but they would realize that the data gave a population that is way to high. Here on Wikipedia, that is what we are supposed to do; take data we know is false and not post it as fact. Part of determining whether a poll is true or not is listening to people, like me, who live in the state and can say how much truth there is to a poll. And take the SC poll you posted, Thompson's lead is way to big, especially considering other media sources say Giuliani is leading (the NY Times I know for a fact says this). This is the second part of what we must do to make sure we are posting fact; look at what other pollsters and media sources are saying and see if we are at least close to their findings (if it is a credible source like the NY Times). So I won't take off the CA poll or the other polls that seem a bit off, but I guarantee I will look into other polls in the future, so save me the trouble and make sure your "facts" are actually true (or at least realistic).

I just saw that you added a poll showing Thompson with a more realistic lead in SC, that's exactly what I was talking about. Keep up the good work and make sure the polls you put are FACT, not raw data. And don't forget, the reason we can edit articles is because we are supposed to throw away data that doesn't make sense.

  • Please do not delete a poll simply because you do not agree with it or you think it has a bias. Michaelcox 14:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not remove this poll, but I would like to thank who ever did; this poll is totally ridiculous and we should have a right to remove a poll from a probably fake pollster. Its findings are totally insane, I AM A CALIFORNIAN REPUBLICAN AND I CAN'T EVEN BEGIN TO IMAGINE HOW THAT POLL MAKES ANY SENSE. Once again, I talk to CA Republicans on a daily basis as a party volunteer, the only way that I could see that poll making sense is if Giuliani was the leader. CA Republicans are strongly behind Giuliani, that's the only conclusion I can reach after talking to so many Republicans and hearing what they think of the primary candidates. I think there is a point where so many people think badly of a poll that we should begin to wonder whether they might know what they're talking about; so do us all a favor and get rid of that weird poll, nobody likes or agrees with its finding.-John

  • Do you have a source that shows they are "fake pollster" or the "PROFESSIONAL Statistical review of the Datamar company SLAMS this company as not a valid polling company"? If they are so bad, why did no one mind their Feb 9-13, 2007 California GOP poll? Or their September 18, 2006 California United States Senate election, 2006 poll? Or any of their Opinion polling for the Democratic Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2008 polls? These polls are all still on Wikipedia .It seems like you are bias with your comment: "the only way that I could see that poll making sense is if Giuliani was the leader". So, basically, any poll that doesn't show Giuliani in the leader is immediately wrong. It's amazing that in such a large state, you are able to talk to every Republican in California.

Can you read? I never said I wouldn't believe a poll not showing Giuliani in the lead, I even stated that if I saw one showing him a few points behind I would have no problem. The only difficulty I had wiht that poll was the incredible jump for a candidate that hasn't come out here once. Also, I never said I knew every CA Republicam; I said I volunteer for the party and meet many GOP voters. That means that I have a fairly good sample, not that I was claiming to know the thinking of every CA Republican. And for the future, read and then answer, IN THAT ORDER. But this debate is over, a new poll showed that I WAS RIGHT; I can only hope you will take my word over some fake pollster in the future.-John

Michaelcox, I wasn't the one who wrote any of the section above. I NOWHERE stated that "the only way I could see that poll making sense is if Giuliani was the leader" so don't attribute that quote to me *whatsoever*. Stop quoting biased things other individuals are saying and using their bias to discredit my argument. My argument has nothing to do with what they are syaing.

Isaiah13066 17:10, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Let me add my agreement that the June 6-11 Datamar poll in California is clearly skewed and should be thrown out. There's no need to rely on anecdotal evidence or opinions, as much of the above discussion focuses on. Simply looking at the data, it's an outlier. It doesn't fit. Nobody jumps from 11% to 32% (and then back down again) in a few weeks' time. I don't know why the numbers are off -- whether Datamar used shoddy polling tactics, whether the random sampling was just incredibly unlucky, etc. -- but they are.

Smith.dan 03:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


This isn't the first time datamar has been proven to be completely off in its data. It had John Edwards leading in Florida. A Florida poll a week later revealed that Edwards wasn't leading in ANY subpopulation or demographic. Thanks, Smith.dan.

Isaiah13066 02:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chart not mentioning Paul or Gilmore[edit]

I find it very interesting that Ron Paul and Jim Gilmore are not mentioned on the bar graph on the beginning of the page. Tommy Thompson, Tom Tancredo, and Duncan Hunter who are polling lower than Paul are yet, on the graph. Maybe these two forgotten candidates should be added to have an acurate unbiased view. Casey14 01:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hate to say I told you so; I knew CA would never support Romney.-John

What happened to the poll showing Giuliani as the leader in PA?-John

The bar-graph was removed as follows (according to the history)-- 23:24, 27 June 2007 Mh10190 but with no explanation. Any reason not to restore it? Korky Day 23:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's try to get a later one showing all the candidates. The old ones should stay until replaced, I say. You don't throw out your old toothbrush till you get a new one. Korky Day 23:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Illinois results[edit]

I just read a poll by American Research Group, Inc. that shows Giuliani with a lead over McCain and felt that I should tell you about it (as it is far more recent than the current Illinois poll). It can be found at American Research Group's website under Illinois.-John

Michigan[edit]

You need to add the new Michigan results to the totals at the bottom.-John

New Rossman Groups poll from Monday has Huckabee ahead of Romney 23-22. Here's the site if anyone wants to see. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/mi/michigan_republican_primary-237.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ultimahero (talk • contribs) 20:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New polls[edit]

I just found a new poll for the results in the Wisconsin primary on RealClearPolitics website, under Election 2008-Latest polls (look for Wednesday, July 18)-John

Are you going to add this poll or not?-John

Quinnipiac University just did a new poll that found Giuliani in the lead in Florida with 30%, followed by Fred Thompson at 18%. The poll can be found on their website.-John

Image (map)[edit]

Why does the map still say 'July 14, 2007' on it?-John

Could you sign your posts with four tildes please? ~~~~ Joseph Antley 18:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because that was the last time it was updated. Were it updated to reflect the current situation, Idaho would be colored yellow (the rest of the map would be unchanged). The Jade Knight 06:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who regularly updates the map? Joseph Antley 04:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea. Look at the image's talk page. The Jade Knight 01:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Other" is an attempt to manipulate the voters[edit]

"Other" candidates being unnamed is bad polling and bad reporting on our part. If the candidates' names are published, we should include them. If not published, why not? What is the pollster trying to hide? Maybe the fact that the poll is biased because when asking the public, they didn't name all the candidates! Maybe they don't want to show which candidates are trending upward and who might eventually win if the mainstream pollsters and media doesn't stop them! Korky Day 20:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this just a rant or do you have a suggestion to fix it? Joseph Antley 21:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The suggestion is the second sentence in my opening statement. If the answer is yes for a particular poll, then the Wikipedian who's entering the data should include it [all the candidates' names] for us to read in the article. If the answer is no for a particular poll, we should state that fact in our article or footnotes (so the reader can judge and not necessarily agree with my "rant"). Korky Day 22:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're accusation that whoever created the "other" category is an attempt to manipulate voters is out of line. I don't agree that a footnote is necessary. If you think it is, feel free to start editing the article. Joseph Antley 01:37, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why should I have to trail behind each negligent Wikipedian, cleaning up their mistakes after them? Whoever puts in the data in the first place should do it right, which means the data on all the candidates. If a pollster failed to name all the candidates in the original question to the public, the WP editor should write that, not expect me to research it and fix it for them. Korky Day 22:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fundamental Flaw in "Delegates Race"[edit]

I have no problem with a national map showing who is winning what states, but you guys are blowing that WAY out of proportion. As you probably know, but aren't clarifying in the article, delegates are not awarded in a "winner-take-all" system (like the Electoral College).

Two things should be changed to make this accurate: 1. The national map should include a clear indication that this just indicates who is LEADING in the polls in a given state, and that winning a plurality (or even majority) of the popular vote in that state doesn't mean a candidate wins all the delegates.

2. The whole "Current Leaders" section should be scrapped or significantly overhauled. It's beyond misleading at this point and of little-to-no strategic importance. I might be satisfied if the number of delegates were removed completely, and a clear explanation was made that the list is for informational purposes only (as primaries are not winner-take-all contests). Heck, we're breaking down fifth and six place between two candidates on the basis of them each "winning" ONLY their home states, which are of similar size. It's silly. jparkman172.144.77.18 14:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What would you recommend? (And, by the way, please register a username. People will generally take you more seriously if you do.) The Jade Knight 17:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following primaries are "winner-takes-all": Arizona, California, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin. The Green Papers Website has a detailed description of each nomination process http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P08/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.233.99.136 (talk) 20:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Map is Wrong![edit]

If I could edit the map, I would, but because I can't I thought I would put this out there. Arkansas and Kansas are mixed up for who is leading in the polls. The polls, and the obvious answer, suggest that Huckabee would lead in Arkansas and Brownback in Kansas. The problem is that the colors are mixed up on the map, so who ever created that map,could you fix it? Thanks. Alex

Bias against Ron Paul[edit]

I believe this page should have two maps. One should be the current map, showing the main stream media's perception of this race. The other should be a map colored according to who is winning online polls in each state. Or do you guys not want to admit who is really winning this race?

This is a collection of scientific state-wide polls. Internet polls are not scientific, and therefore should not be included at least in this page. I have no problem if a diferent page is created for online polls only, but it should not be like this that has state-wide online polls, as someone from, say, Texas, could vote in an online Iowa poll. Mr. DigDug. 4:09 p.m. 8-18-2007.14:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this article is for opinion polling for the presidential primaries. Online polls, which definitely do not show who is leading the race -- we should rely on scientific polls for that --, don't have anything to do with the presidential primaries, and I don't even think they deserve an article at all. Online polling is, unfortunately, scientifically inconsequential. Joseph Antley 00:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fact: Only the smatest americans use the internet. Fact: 95% of online polls regarding the 2008 election have been won by Ron Paul. Therefore: Fact: Ron Paul has a support of a majority of the smartest people in america, and you don't think this is "scientifically" significant? The smartest people are the people that win elections, therefore Ron Paul has the best chance at winning the nomination and the election.

Where can you prove Paul has won 95% of the polls? -Mr. DigDug 1:18 p.m. 8-20-2007
"The smartest people are the people that win elections" -- That is clearly not true. Smith.dan 14:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What other evidence do I need to throw at you people to get it through your heads?!?!?!?! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.147.63.209 (talk) 16:09, August 20, 2007 (UTC)

Just shut up.

All right kids, let's calm down. And let's sign our posts, please! This talk page isn't too debate who's worthy to win the election, it's about opinion polling. Joseph Antley 20:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lol. Yous the child if you can't see the truth and just drink whatever the main stream media feeds you. Romney, Giuliani, McCain? Thompson? (Lol) You think the peoples will support any of these? No, they support Ron Paul, he's the not the puppet that the others are. You'l be happier the sooner you wake up. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.147.63.209 (talk • contribs) 01:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]


I concur that non-scientific polls should not be added to this article. The polls in this article attempt to determine what percentages of the population prefer which candidates. Scientific polls do this by attempting to select a fairly random sample of people and by extrapolating their responses to the general population using confidence intervals. Online polls neither use random samples of people (rather, voters are self-selected) nor attempt to use confidence intervals to determine the relevancy of the poll results. As such, online polls cannot be used logically to infer much useful information at all. Thus, which type of poll is best is not a matter of political ideology: online polls should not be used because the information we want (i.e. what most people think about the candidates) cannot be logically inferred from those poll results. --SirEditALot 05:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What makes a poll "scientific" exactly? 66.222.249.8 (talk) Paulk66.222.249.8 (talk) 09:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Read the paragraph immediately preceding yours. There's your answer. Smith.dan 14:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With respect to the November polling data, I believe Ron Paul should be represented on the New Hampshire results graph. He (as well as Mike Huckabee) show strength over Fred Thompson. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.46.199.237 (talk) 23:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If Ron Paul doesn't win the election it'll be ashame. He truly is the best choice for 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.162.21.187 (talk) 02:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michigan Polling[edit]

There's a poll dated July 11-13, 2007 attributed to Reichle Firm. The link is dead and I haven't been able to find any other information about Reichle Firm. Is this a legitimate poll? Merola491 20:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To address the concerns some of you have over the use of linear regressions[edit]

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. [2] --Robapalooza 00:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest keeping the current linear regression diagrams but also adding similar ones which only contain data past a certain point like is used on the current leaders section —Preceding unsigned comment added by Perpetualization (talk • contribs) 01:03, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
sorry about the lack of signing Perpetualization 02:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If we must do original-research regression analysis, can we at least use something less ridiculous than linear regression on clearly non-linear data? Some standard nonparametric method like a kernel regression would be better and assume less. --Delirium (talk) 00:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ohio primary poll[edit]

On the latest poll for Ohio, it says Strategic vision found Giuliani with 24%; but I checked the link and it actually says he has 34%. Just wanted to point out the typo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.122.161.115 (talk) 04:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello? It's been almost an entire now (I hope wikipedia isn't always this slow to correct typos)! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.47.226.34 (talk) 22:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CA poll 9/21[edit]

A new poll by PPIC (found under RealClearPolitics's CA GOP primary polls) shows a more recent 6% advantage for Giuliani. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.47.228.179 (talk) 22:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Polls since April 1[edit]

The polls since April 1 show McCain winning in Rhode Island. I assumed that this section meant polls since April 1, 2007? The last pol for Rhode Island is marked April 2006. Can someone explain or fix this? Goodleh 02:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Map[edit]

Hey! What happened to the map?- John —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.47.235.112 (talk) 00:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why did VA change on 10/12, but NV did not turn blue? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.47.251.9 (talk) 00:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WA and CA 10/12[edit]

RealClearPolitics has a new polls concerning CA, and Strategic Vision just released a new poll for the WA GOP primary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.47.251.9 (talk) 22:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Polls[edit]

many of the links to polls, especially the older ones, no longer lead anywhere it seems like those polls should be left on the page, but they all now are unsourced how to proceed? Perpetualization 01:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kansas[edit]

I don't see why Kansas is given to Mitt Romney just because Brownback MAY be resigning (which he hasn't officially at the time of my writing this article) and even if he does resign, he still didn't win the poll. What does everyone else think? 74.240.193.120 17:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Wikipedia, it just seems fair to let the runner up have Kansas; and if it isn't true, then hopefully another poll will be taken to show that. Also, why didn't North Carolina change to blue on the map when Kansas was altered? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.47.243.166 (talk) 22:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

closed primaries[edit]

many states have closed primaries, yet their polling results from American Research Group [[3]] have the results of both the republicans and the independents...it seems to me that only the results for the Republicans should be included. Perpetualization 03:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FL polls[edit]

I noticed that according to RealClearPolitics you guys have missed about 6 new polls from FL. So please put up the new one from Quinnipiac, it can't be that hard to find considering its from a major pollster. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.47.231.192 (talk) 13:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

State graphs + NY[edit]

I'd like to say that I like how the new graphs look, like in Iowa and California, and was wondering if all the graphs are going to be changed. I'd be happy to change them myself, but I don't know how. Also, the last two New York polls have not been added to the graph. Mr. DigDug 13:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I am creating new graphs for many states, however it takes time to do, and i have been busy lately. I will get to them as soon as i have time, and i'm glad you like they way they look. Perpetualization (talk) 19:31, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FYI: I have been using OpenOffice.org Calc to create charts, which is a free download (Calc is a comparable program to Microsoft Office Excel). I believe Perpetualization uses different software to create charts. Perpetualization: What software do you use for charts? If what you're using is compatible with MS Excel, perhaps I can get you to email a copy to me, so I can use the same format. Generally, speaking, thank you Perpetualization for helping with the graphing duties. Perhaps, if the stars align, we can coordinate our style. I definitely appreciate what you mean by the time it takes to do charts.--Robapalooza (talk) 04:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New polls (AZ)[edit]

A new poll for Arizona just came out, the link it here: http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/story/102381. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.47.247.109 (talk) 13:40, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, and the map needs to be changed to show Giuliani leading in that state. Mr. DigDug 22:22, 24 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr. DigDug (talk • contribs)

New Poll[edit]

New Poll: http://www.strategicvision.biz/political/iowa_poll_112807.htm

I'm not good with the tables etc. other wise I would add it myself... Wikifan5554 (talk) 00:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huckabee leads Iowa?[edit]

The U.S. map shows Huckabee leading Iowa. No polls in the Iowa section support this. Just wishful thinking? Or is there a poll missing? Smith.dan 14:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would guess it is based on that Rasmussen poll. --Aranae 15:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


ARG came out with a new poll today which had romney on top. http://americanresearchgroup.com/

Romney should get Iowa back now.

Why has Romney not got Iowa colored back in for him. He leads the average of the polls and was on top of the latest poll done! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.0.141.231 (talk) 15:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The rasmussen poll showed him leading, but he is no longer leading. Feel free to change it back. Also two Iowa polls need to be added [4] and [5] 71.163.172.99 17:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Hampshire order?[edit]

Why is the Ramussen poll (11/29/07) after the Amercian Research Group poll (11/26/07-11/29/07)? Dosen't the time window make the Ramussen poll more recent? Just wondering. Wikifan5554 03:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy over polling where voters unable to express preference for Paul or Tancredo[edit]

I added a "Controversy" section with this text:

Many of those polled have found that one or more candidates are not being mentioned as options in the polls. Worse, in some polls the voter cannot even select anything but one of the provided options. [6]

It was removed with the reason given that youtube is not a verifiable source and IMC polls are not listed on this page. However, this is a recording, not an opinion. I can give another source: [7] (recording of call: [8]). —Preceding unsigned comment added by McCart42 (talk • contribs) 17:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of all I removed the "Controversy" section for not referencing a reliable (not verifiable) source. Let me expand on that: why should one believe that the recording is real, and not tampered with, or entirely made-up? This is actually very feasible, as anyone can publish anything on youtube. As for the other source, it is a blog (a self published source, and thus worthless).
Now, even if we were to assume that the information is reliable, it would still only indicate IMC polls reliability (which I remind you is not mentioned in the article), not polls in general. Concluding that it is an indication of polls in general is original research. Rami R 18:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Judging from the citations of many of the other polls [9] [10] [11], they also do not list Ron Paul or other candidates as options. SurveyUSA polls seem to be universally truncating the candidate lists. At what point do we conclude that this might bias the results, given that in nationwide polls Ron Paul is currently polling 7-8%? - McCart42 (talk) 00:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • How do you know that the polls did not ask about Ron Paul? All you know is that they don't display his name at the poll results page. Is it not possible that the pollsters did ask about Ron Paul, but he failed to show significant support, so they decided to bundle his support with the other minor contenders support?
  • And even if this isn't the case, so what? bundling minor contenders results together has always been the de-facto standard of polls.
  • Regarding nationwide polls showing 7-8% support for Ron Paul: If there is something that the 2000 elections should have taught us is that nationwide polls should be taken with grain of salt (to say the very least).
  • Still on same topic: How does this actually indicate bias? the polls showing 7-8% have margin of error of 4%. The polls you bring here show other/someone else receiving 5-6%: within margin of error.
Rami R 10:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Read the citations to the SurveyUSA polls. They give the exact language, which only specifies those five candidates. If Ron Paul's name was mentioned, he might poll more than they are showing, because people are more inclined to choose one of the available options.
  • How does a "minor" candidate become a first-tier candidate if some of the polls don't even specify him as an option? We aren't talking about 1-2% any more. Paul has clearly risen above the "margin of error" argument at this point. We should question the results of polls that do not even list him as an option, or allow him to be voted for (as the recording I've linked to shows). At the very least, we should put an asterisk beside polls which do not allow all primary candidates to be voted for. "Other" is clearly unreasonable as an option. - McCart42 (talk) 19:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where exactly does it say that given question description was the exact language? I somewhat doubt that pollsters said "names rotated".
  • How does a minor candidate become a first-tier candidate: not for wikipedia or wikipedians to determine (see WP:NOR).
  • We (as wikipedia editors) should not question the results of the polls as we (again as wikipedians) have no reason to question them.
Bottom line is that, in accordance with WP:NOR and WP:V, if there isn't a reliable source explicitly stating that there exists controversy about the Republican party primaries polls in general (individual polls can be dealt with individually), then, as far as wikipedia or wikipedians are concerned, there isn't a controversy. Rami R 20:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Biased samples and graphs[edit]

The issue of bias against Ron Paul still has not been addressed. This article needs to be flagged until more accurate samples are provided. JLMadrigal (talk) 14:30, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you are referring to the graphs, take note that many of them have not been updated since mid-November, and Ron Paul has been somewhat notable in the polls only recently. Thus this is not an WP:NPOV issue, but rather a "needs updating" issue. Rami R 20:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it is a bias, since using the title, "Opinion polling for the Republican Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2008" requires that all opinion polls be cited - including straw polls and internet polls. Such inclusion would unfuel the misperception that Ron Paul is not winning polls. Changing the title to "Samples from Select Landline Polls", would help solve this article's credibility problem. Hence, I am reflagging the article. JLMadrigal (talk) 14:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your suggestion is impractical ("Opinion polling for the Republican Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2008" is too long already) as it is improper: not all polls are land-line phone based (Zogby International, for instance, use a large panel of volunteers, polled via Internet surveys, with results weighed in accordance with the relevant population). Also, most people when told "opinion polling for presidential primaries" think about Statistical surveys, not blatantly unscientific polls such as straw polls or web polls (there is a reason they're called straw polls).
Anyway, I have edited the article's introduction in order to clarify what type of polls are listed in the article, and added links to other relevant polling articles. I hope this settles things (or at least helps in some way). Rami R 17:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It helps to clarify the problem, but the title is still misleading. Landline polls can be considered just as "blatantly unscientific" (probably more so) than straw polls (which use volunteers of likely voters in the current election), and online polls (which more accurately weigh the value of public support). In all fairness, antiquated landline polls should be relegated to a separate article (or a subsection of this one) if their disputed reliability is not otherwise disclaimed. JLMadrigal (talk) 12:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bullshit. Web polls are not worth mentioning anywhere, as they measure nothing and mean nothing. Anyone can vote in a web poll, including non-U.S. citizens, non-residents of the relevant state, those to young to vote, democrats, and botnets. Straw polls at most measure the size and organization of the candidates fan-bases, which is different than actual support.
Renaming this article, or mentioning web/straw polls in this article, would give these meaningless polls (and these polls beneficiaries) undue weight. Rami R 13:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bookburners shouldn't be editors. Different types of polls exist. All of them have warts, but that doesn't negate their existence - nor does it give any editor the authority to determine their value. Online polls and straw polls exist for a reason - and are very common for a reason. JLMadrigal (talk) 12:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes they exist for a reason: they're useful for those running them. Web polls generate traffic for the relevant site, and straw polls generate donations for the relevant political party. Also, they're both typically fun for those participating in them. Neither of these polls reflects public opinion, and this article is called "Opinion polling". Perhaps renaming the article to "Public opinion polling" will solve the problem? Rami R 13:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been following this discussion and often visit this article. I support most of what Rami has said. I think the value of this article (like any good encyclopedia article) is predicated on editors making judgement calls about what is worthwhile information. "Worthwhile" in the context of this article is best described as "polls that provide an accurate estimate of how voters will vote in a particular state primary." That's what I come to the article for. The point that seems to be in question is how we define "accurate" in some objective way. Well, that's what statisticians do. As a foundational point, I think we can accept that typical telephone polls are accurate by this standard, and that online polls, straw polls, etc., are not. (If you disagree, as suggested here: "Landline polls can be considered just as "blatantly unscientific" (probably more so) than straw polls," you ought to be appealing to published statistical research to back up your position.) Within that framework, if there are specific polls that can be argued are exceptions to this general position, then we ought to be talking about them specifically. If, for example, a poll neglects to include Ron Paul in its list of candidates, while other polls around the same time demonstrate significant support for him, then we've got a specific issue that could be addressed. Smith.dan (talk) 16:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed format[edit]

The article should be divided into (at least) three sections: Republican landline polls, Republican straw polls, and Republican online polls. The methodology, advantages, and disadvantages of each type should be addressed in the main article. The bulk of the data currently in this article should be summarized, and extrapolated in a separate article on Republican landline polls. Polls that omit candidates will need to be grouped together so as not to provide incorrect or misleading statistics. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to describe - not prescribe. JLMadrigal (talk) 02:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I reject your proposal: it doesn't deal with any of the concerns raised before, and requires a great deal of original research. Rami R 08:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I also disagree with the proposal. Rami R, calm down a little bit. You are not the only editor of the page, and while you can state your opposition to a proposal, you cannot reject it. Perpetualization (talk) 00:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Charts[edit]

the chart for california acts as a template for future charts that i will be producing to replace the old ones i produced for iowa, florida, and california, as well as the even older ones produced by others. Any comments, please post on the my talk page, or here. Once i start duplicating it for other states, it becomes increasingly complicated to change. Note to Ron Paul fans: Ron Paul is included on these graphs. The complete list of candidates is Guiliani, McCain, Romney, Thompson, Huckabee, and Paul (Other and Undecided fields are included as well). The methodology for the other field is that if all of the 6 candidates listed as well as undecided have data for them, then other is computed. In any other scenario, other is not included on the graph. Thank you in advance for your feedback. Perpetualization (talk) 22:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

regarding disputes about layout[edit]

This is primarily directed at User:JLMadrigal, but any users who agree with his suggestions could also read this. I agree with User:Rami_R and User:Smith_Dan, that this page should remain how it is an not experience any major layout/idea changes. It would surprise me very greatly if a page doesn't already exist that talks about the problems with different types of polling. I would encourage you to find that page, provide a link to it in the summary at the top of this page, and edit that page to add any additional information that you have regarding the advantages and disadvantages of different types of polling. This page is about very specific opinion polling (read the title), not about the advantages or disadvantages of different types of polling. Links to straw polls and nationwide polls are provided at the top of the article. I would also encourage you to make a page for internet polls and provide a link to that at the top of the page.

Regardless of what you do however, I think that it would be improper to modify the page significantly as you suggest. The page is, though not perfect, well organized, accurate, and well laid out. It is also a comparatively long page, though not absurdly long. If you were to add the additional sections as you suggest, then it would become too long and would have to be split into multiple pages, which is essentially the same thing as if you provided links to each of those other pages at the top of the current page. It is a bad idea to wreck good pages. Perpetualization (talk) 22:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alaska[edit]

The Alaska poll that was put up earlier today was legitimately done by a local news station in Anchorage. It is a media poll regarding the Alaska Caucus among Republicans in Alaska. The poll should not have been deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.33.75.140 (talk) 06:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it should have. I was not the editor who deleted it, but the poll in its text specifically said that it was non scientific. The editor who deleted it, also noted in his deletion that it was an internet poll. Perpetualization (talk) 01:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Date on graphics[edit]

First of all, I want to thank those who are keeping the graphics up to date. I'm sure everyone recognizes that they can't be maintained as quickly as the text in the article. As such, would you consider including a statement on the graphic saying "As of <date>" or something to that effect? That way the discrepencies between text and images will be clear. --Aranae (talk) 00:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am working on the graphs, but i do not yet have data for all of the graphs, and many of those currently on the page were not made by me. I will add the date to the graphs i make. Perpetualization (talk) 01:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As it is, most charts have a last updated date on the page for the image. Perpetualization (talk) 01:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Half of the point of this post was to thank you for the work and I repeat that. I actually brought it up in hopes of avoiding a three revert conflict with an editor who kept deleting the map and replacing it with a statement outlining which aspects were not up to date. I think s/he's given up now. --Aranae (talk) 03:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, cool. I wasn't aware of that. Perpetualization (talk) 20:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

National Map Adjustments[edit]

I recently decided to update the line graph representing the early states' delegates, and noticed that the national map, directly above it, seems wildly misleading as many of the polls used to "decide" the outcome of a state are over 6 months old. I've quickly made a new map which only uses poll information from states which have had a poll in the last 3 months (i.e. since 9/24/07):

Thoughts? Comments? Should I replace the current map with this one? --happyferret (talk) 09:41, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about replacing, but definitely placing next to the current map. Or perhaps a compromise between the two, such as showing the results for all the states but somehow marking the states with old polls... Rami R 11:39, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the compromise idea is an excellent one - I've gone ahead and created a compromise map showing polls older than 10/1/2007 in a lighter shade, in order to give a more accurate representation on the map of which information is less reliable. I'm going ahead and posting it; if anyone doesn't like it I guess you can always revert it. --happyferret (talk) 17:02, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Love the new graphic. What a clever way of combining geography vs. current leader vs. date of last poll. Kudos to you!Dawginroswell (talk) 19:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Love the new graphic too, but one suggestion. Change Huckabee's color. Huckabee's dark and light shades are too close in color and Huckabee's dark shade is too close to McCain's light shade. Amazing job though Perpetualization (talk) 05:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate results[edit]

I'm not quite sure how we should put the results of the winners of the Caucuses/Primaries as it is not a winner takes all. So, to say that, for example, Huckabee has won Iowa for 40 delegates or that Romney has won Wyoming for 14 delegates is just not correct. Nor am I sure that this is the right page or if 2008 Republican Presidential Primaries (Results) is the right page to put this. But, as of right now, Romney has won an estimated 40 delegates, Huckabee an estimated delegates, Thompson 5 delegates, McCain 3 delegates, Paul 2 delegates, Giuliani 1 delegate, and Hunter 1 delegate. Based on the information on both these pages, it would appear that Huckabee is the leader with 40 and Romney in 2nd with 14. But that is not correct. Suggestions? Comments? I'm also going to post this under the Primary results talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelcox (talk • contribs) 09:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree with the premise that these delegates at this point are divided. However as lesser candidates drop out of the race and endorse other candidates these numbers can and probably will change. So for right now its impossible to say how many delegates go to whom at the party convention in September. So declaring a simple majority winner in each individual state is about as accurate as we can be at this point. User:PollShark

Updates[edit]

Most of these polls are from a long time ago. Now, McCain and Huckabee have much higher numbers. This article, since it isn't properly updated, is HISTORICAL in nature, and doesn't show the current situation. Contralya (talk) 17:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. And not just that, it would be good to reming that this article has been criticised for not being "encyclopedical" enough considering wikipedia is and encyplopedia. Yet, yesterday I erased polls as old as 2006 and someone reverted my change.
I think this must be some kind of provisional article about recent information and not with hundreds of unuseful polls and charts which do not even match the current perception of the facts.
I'd like to know your position on this fact to see if I can re-do the editing I had already done. Oscar Sanchez 17:11, January 20th 2008 (GMT)
Articles in wikipedia are by nature a historical accounting of what happened. The goal is not to show the current situation o much as it is to start moving it toward something that will be worthwhile in ten or twenty years time. Reducing or summarizing polls may be a tactic we choose to take, but deleting old polls is contrary to our objective since that's part of the historical record. --Aranae (talk) 04:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Predicted results????????? You got to be kidding. Who is predicting here and on which grounds? Historical polls? the results of ancient polls are NO basis for a political prediction. I can predict one thing for sure - less then 3 weeks from now and I´ll have a good laugh at the 'predicted results' 20.01.08 AB —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.56.135.160 (talk) 21:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Predicted results are given as a snapshot of poll averages. This shows a rough barometer of where the race is at this point. It's not perfect I'll admit but it is the best we can do at this point. I would love to do like Stephen Colbert and just spin a wheel on all these states but that would be unscientific as would predicting results based on a whim. RCP averages are the best projections we have and must be used when available, these rules have been set previously, even before my time and should be followed until new ones are set. I also see no harm in keeping old polls on here as a picture of how the dynamics of this race have changed over time. --PollShark


Poll Shark should be required reading![edit]

Poll Shark: Keep up your sensible explanations; they might take root in fertile minds. I am amused and frustrated at those who (a) live and die by polls, and/or (b) have no faith in polls, and/or (c) measure a polls' validity by the extent that it mirrors their own thinking (L-rd help us if it doesn't because that poll is automatically rated as bogus), and/or (d) consistently demand the impossible.

I aced a full year of statistics and polling (core curriculem for my PolySci degree) but it was tougher than Constitutional law. Over the years, in many campaigns (including a presidential), I tracked TV buys to see what they actually ran and if our poll numbers changed; comparing our budget against gain. I have tracked poll numbers after: debates, TV appearances, interviews, yard sign campaigns, walk 'n talk, sign wavings, phone campaigns, mailings, and anything else that might get our message out. After all that, I still don't feel qualified to argue the subject because it is so complex; people spend their entire lives studying the "art" of persuasion. I am amazed when folks who haven't cracked a statistics book in their lives feel qualified to argue the subject. Your "sensible" approach is wonderful.

"It's not perfect I'll admit but it is the best we can do at this point."

"RCP averages are the best projections we have and must be used when available, these rules have been set previously, even before my time and should be followed until new ones are set."

I would only add one more caveat.

"The only reason that polls fall short on the scientific scale is because they are practiced on humans."

Suttonplacesouth (talk) 20:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

louisiana[edit]

Anyone got the official louisiana results? John McCain is claiming victory, and Ron Paul is in second for the Caucus, however there is still the primary feb. 9th... wow what a confusing system... perhaps the most confusing in the world (i mean, after that, you still have the delegate elections which are unique in louisiana and you could have multiple democrats or multiple republicans competing against each other) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.248.28.74 (talk) 11:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proportional map[edit]

I removed the proportional delegate map for a number of reasons. It seems to be lagging in terms of updates, and is inaccurate to begin with - "delegate" was misspelled, Arizona was not shown to be a winner-takes-all state (which it is), and there may have been other inaccuracies. It was also a bit difficult to understand, and the fact that a disclaimer section was required below it seems to indicate that it is not terribly useful. No objections to a better map - but the one that was up there was too problematic. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 15:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Outraged[edit]

I'm outraged that the map at the top is showing wrong results. Mossuri and Tennesse need to be full John McCain not half Romney half McCain and Half Huckabee. I hate that a Romney supporter wants to act like the polls are showing something there not. I hate that he or she is ruining the Nuetral ststus of this article. Signed, an outraged Wikipedia surfer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.54.244.191 (talk) 01:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Accuracy[edit]

I think the scatter plot graphs should be taken out. They are not accurate and outdated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.54.244.191 (talk) 03:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moved page?[edit]

Why did you guys change the name of this article? "Statewide" makes the whole article seem awkward. -165.134.208.120 (talk) 16:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not to mention that the article doesn't automatically forward... it's just a link on the previous page. -165.134.208.120 (talk) 16:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

McCain[edit]

McCain has clinched nothing, the delegates decide the nominee. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.226.152.184 (talk) 13:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional Polls[edit]

Looks like Strategic Vision polls are very likely complete fabrications. Statistical analysis show they're probably made up by people, and SV refuses to release methodology and has been sanctioned by AAPOR. Removing them to more accurately reflect the title of the article: Statewide OPINION POLLING... Can't call it that if it wasn't actually polled! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.188.247.5 (talk) 23:39, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's only in retrospect that we question the reliability of these polls. When they came out, they had were considered significant and had a barring on things. Obviously, with these new allegation we can't however leave the polls as is. I have implemented what I believe to be the best solution: and a note about the allegations, and clearly tag all SV's polls for this. Rami R 15:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Something wrong with the dates[edit]

When one clicks the date to arrange the state polls chronologically they instead are thrown scatter shot. Aug '07, Dec 07 then March 08 etc. Can that malfunction be corrected? It worked fine the other week. --Dudeman5685 (talk) 04:18, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't vote[edit]

This designation is confusing and needs further clarification as to did they not vote or what.LimeyCinema1960 (talk) 23:16, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 10 external links on Statewide opinion polling for the Republican Party presidential primaries, 2008. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 11:56, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Statewide opinion polling for the Republican Party presidential primaries, 2008. 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 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 10:11, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 19 external links on Statewide opinion polling for the Republican Party presidential primaries, 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: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:46, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Statewide opinion polling for the Republican Party presidential primaries, 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: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:02, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Statewide_opinion_polling_for_the_2008_Republican_Party_presidential_primaries&oldid=1205443171"