Talk:Nationwide opinion polling for the 2016 Democratic Party presidential primaries

Please add poll
Someone should add this poll: http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/11/exclusive-clinton-would-dominate-iowa-caucuses-ppp-149064.html Ratemonth (talk) 14:11, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know. The title of the article is, "nationwide," which means every state, not just in Iowa. LM103 (talk) 18:09, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That poll is already included on this page. Tiller54 (talk) 12:33, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

NPOV: Anglo-American Focus
I think that the title of this article goes a little too far in the direction of this problem. Possibly needs to be changed to something like: "US opinion polling for the Democratic Party 2016 presidential primaries" or "Opinion polling for the US Democratic Party 2016 presidential primaries". To simply leave it as "Nationwide" implies that WIkipedia is only for the USA. Lokicarbis (talk) 23:59, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It's at "Nationwide" to differentiate it from Statewide opinion polling for the Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016. Tiller54 (talk) 12:31, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

why is there two separate graphs?
Would it not make more sense to keep the listing of these polls under one list? I find it unnecessary for them to be split apart. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sapphirewhirlwind (talk • contribs) 07:41, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * That would not be possible, the table would become too wide to be manageable or readable. Splitting the polls into separate tables allows us to show who the "top" candidates are. Tiller54 (talk) 12:32, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

map
Could we make a map of the polls?81.58.144.30 (talk) 13:50, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * This is nationwide polling, so no. Tiller54 (talk) 12:29, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

polls
There are some inconsistencies in the Sample Size and MOE columns. Sometimes, the size and MOE of the whole poll is included, but other times the sample size and MOE of just those Democratic/Dem Lean voters that were asked about their preference for the Democratic nominee. Another situation is where the two columns are not consistent with each other and include a mix of the types groups. I have corrected the most glaring errors, but just want to point this out for when future polls are entered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.19.187.87 (talk) 01:56, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

again new one :) http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2015/01/29/fox-news-poll-voters-believe-romney-clinton-remain-top-picks-for-2016-believe/83.80.208.22 (talk) 10:57, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Done, thanks. Tiller54 (talk) 21:16, 30 January 2015 (UTC)


 * http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2015/03/06/258941/clinton-loses-ground-against-gop.html83.80.208.22 (talk) 11:31, 7 March 2015 (UTC)


 * one with clinton and one without http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2015/04/02/fox-news-poll-more-families-feel-worse-than-better-as-result-obamacare-walker/83.80.208.22 (talk) 10:16, 3 April 2015 (UTC)


 * new one http://cms.monmouth.edu/assets/0/32212254770/32212254991/32212254992/32212254994/32212254995/30064771087/aa9cd63f-ee58-4b2d-bcad-81b1c91d6a0c.pdf83.80.208.22 (talk) 22:33, 7 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The Economist /YouGov Poll https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/olylop8wkh/econTabReport.pdf83.80.208.22 (talk) 08:48, 1 June 2015 (UTC)


 * ABC http://www.washingtonpost.com/page/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2015/06/02/National-Politics/Polling/release_396.xml83.80.208.22 (talk) 13:09, 2 June 2015 (UTC)


 * CNN http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2015/images/06/01/2016.poll.pdf83.80.208.22 (talk) 13:09, 2 June 2015 (UTC)


 * http://www.monmouth.edu/assets/0/32212254770/32212254991/32212254992/32212254994/32212254995/30064771087/d4823715-88e1-49f5-bd3d-f82581d0c338.pdf83.80.208.22 (talk) 09:36, 17 June 2015 (UTC)


 * NBC http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/A_Politics/6_22_PollPDF.pdf83.80.208.22 (talk) 09:39, 23 June 2015 (UTC)


 * http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/polls/morning-consult-2252683.80.208.22 (talk) 19:54, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

PPP poll is Washington State?
Am I misreading the PPP poll that has Hillary at 57 or is that Poll Washington State only? If so, it should be removed. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:28, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Change of title to maintain consistency
The title for statewide wikipage: Statewide opinion polling for the Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016 The title for nationwide wikipage: Nationwide opinion polling for the Democratic Party 2016 presidential primaries

You can see that the year (2016) is not consistent. I think we should change "Nationwide opinion polling for the Democratic Party 2016 presidential primaries" to "Nationwide opinion polling for the Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016". We will have to the same to the Republican articles as well. All4peace (talk) 20:45, 3 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Support. Prcc27 (talk) 06:37, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Lessig doesn't need his own column
He's only been included in one poll so far, there's no evidence that he'll be in the debates, and he's a complete unknown. Leave him in the "other" column. --Geoffrey.mcgee (talk) 22:11, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅. He should be listed in the "other" column along with the other minor candidates! Prcc27 (talk) 22:38, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * By what measure is Lessig more of a "minor candidate" than Chafee? Are there criteria by which someone has selected the six "major candidates" featured? To state the obvious, Biden isn't even a candidate. -hugeTim (talk) 20:20, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * If I may throw my opinion in. The criteria we currently use is dependent on what the national polls are asking. The polls have included Biden more times than not and for that reason he is grouped with the other "major" candidates.  Even the aggregate polls include Biden.  This is in clear contrast to Lessig, Cuomo, and Gillibrand who are only included in sporadic polls.  Chafee is consistently included in national polls time and time again and therefore is grouped with the other consistently asked candidates.  In my mind it is a matter of consistency.  If we were to include a Lessig column, every single row would have a dash except for one.  That is simply not enough for him to have his own column especially if Cuomo and Gillibrand are relegated to the other column as well. --Stabila711 (talk) 20:29, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It's important to note that neither Cuomo nor Gillibrand are declared candidates, so there is a clear rationale for including Lessig over them even if Lessig has been included in fewer polls. On the other hand, per WP:UNDUE, I am generally persuaded that it is appropriate to exclude a Lessig column for the time being. -hugeTim (talk) 14:02, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Lessig is now in the "other" column of three national polls, and he's the only one listed along with "no one" and "other" in the last 6, which looks a bit ridiculous. He's also the only declared candidate in the "other" category period. I don't see the rationale. RiverWild (talk) 23:30, 24 September 2015 (UTC)RiverWild

Maybe it's time to revisit this. Lessig has now been included in three different polls from three different pollsters, and he's been added to Huffpost's aggregate model. When does he become a major candidate?--Geoffrey.mcgee (talk) 15:46, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅. He's a major candidate now. -hugeTim (talk) 17:39, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I still oppose adding him. He doesn't deserve his own column especially since Andrew Cuomo and Kirsten Gillibrand have been polled more times and they don't have their own column. Lessig is recognized as a minor candidate on the U.S. 2016 presidential election page. What's the point in including him when every column except three is a dash for him? Prcc27 (talk) 00:21, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * If we were going by United_States_presidential_election,_2016, we shouldn't include Biden in the table. If we continue to include Biden, you can't pretend that being listed there as a major declared candidate is the relevant criteria for inclusion in a table here. (Note that Cuomo and Gillibrand are not even mentioned as potential candidates on that page. Maybe they should be?) -hugeTim (talk) 20:41, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * However, I wouldn't oppose adding those candidates since they've been polled quite a bit. Prcc27 (talk) 00:23, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The difference is that Cuomo and Gillibrand aren't declared candidates and won't ever be. Reuters is the only company that's still polling them, whereas Lessig is now seeing more broader inclusion. The table could be broken up (like it was when Chafee started being included in polls regularly) to get rid of a lot of the dashes.Geoffrey.mcgee (talk) 02:24, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Biden isn't a declared candidate either. And it's WP:CRYSTAL to assume they won't become a candidate especially when a reliable source recognizes that there is a chance they could become a candidate. Prcc27 (talk) 03:53, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * All of this is sort of subjective, but if we count "major candidates" as ones who: 1) Have been included in recent polls by several different pollsters; 2) Have actively expressed interest in running in the past several months or are already running; and 3) Haven't endorsed other candidates; Biden and Lessig fit all three, while Cuomo and Gillibrand fit none. It's not WP:CRYSTAL to assume a candidate isn't running when they've removed themselves from the race, and it's, frankly, quite odd that Reuters still includes them in its polling. --Geoffrey.mcgee (talk) 05:59, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed, Cuomo and Gillibrand have both formally declined to run and endorsed other candidates (prior to May 2015): Democratic_Party_presidential_candidates,_2016 Their arbitrary inclusion in polls should have no bearing on our treatment of Lessig. -hugeTim (talk) 20:59, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Sample Sizes and MOE's
Please pay more careful attention to the sample sizes and MOE's listed. These are sometimes being entered inaccurately. With each poll, there will be a sample size and MOE for the entire poll, but there will also be a sample size and MOE for just those that were asked about the Democratic nominee. The latter is the relevant number for the purposes of this page. Any sample size listed above 500 should throw up a red flag to be checked at the source. Any MOE less than 4% should be double checked as well. The information for the Democratic sample size and MOE will usually be found either before any of the poll questions are listed in the poll document, in the question itself, or at the end of the poll document after all the questions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jfaulk111 (talk • contribs) 13:38, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Which candidates to include in current tables
What is the justification for changing? Why would we exclude candidates that 2-3 of the third-party poll aggregators featured here include? Note the ongoing discussion at Talk:United_States_presidential_election,_2016 -hugeTim (talk) 18:02, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Tim, even more so for this page. Whether a candidate gets into the debates has been determined, in part, by their performance in the polls. So if a candidate or potential candidate is being included in the recent polls of most polling organizations (for Biden) or at least eight different polling organizations (Lessig), it makes sense to have a separate column in the table for that candidate. Considering that any miscellaneous candidates who get mentioned in a particular poll have their data reported in the "Others" column anyway, it is best for now to keep the columns for Biden and Lessig. If Biden makes his decision not to enter the race, he presumably won't be included in polls after that, and the table can be split again to a format that excludes him. Similarly, if another candidate drops out of the race, we can split the table to exclude their column for later polls, just as was done for Nationwide opinion polling for the Republican Party 2016 presidential primaries when Rick Perry and later Scott Walker dropped out of the race. Whether a candidate or potential candidate has a column in the table here is a separate issue from what is being discussed at Talk:United States presidential election, 2016 and we don't need to apply the same criteria for both. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:32, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Jim Webb is now to Switch Bid to Independent like
According to Articles around the internet that Jim Webb is withdraw from Democratic Party put instead running as Independent for President, So still possible to Moved him to Third Parties Candidates of 2016 list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:a000:85e7:4e00:8925:d4f3:b9b6:6a3d (talk • contribs)
 * Reportedly he is considering an independent run. He is already listed at United States third party and independent presidential candidates, 2016. We'll find out more later today. But the way that this page (the nationwide opinion polling page) should be affected is that there should be a "split" in the table, with the new table omitting a column for Webb since he's presumably not going to be included in future Democratic nomination polls. This is what was done at Nationwide opinion polling for the Republican Party 2016 presidential primaries when Rick Perry, and then Scott Walker, dropped out of the race. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:26, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't believe these numbers are correct.
I just looked up a bunch of these and they are so off from these numbers. Maybe they should not have totals in if they are not being properly updated? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.12.87.68 (talk) 17:23, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Shading multiple people in the same row
I have reverted a few people already on this issue since I thought that this was the previous consensus on the matter but I could be wrong so I wanted to make start a discussion. Are we shading multiple people in the same row if the numbers fall within the margin of error? Besides the previous consensus that I thought we had I believe we shouldn't since margins of error work both ways. They can increase or decrease both numbers equally, or increase the #1 and keep the #2 the same widening the gap, or decrease #2 and keep #1 the same. Shading more than one person is just confusing (at least to me it is). If someone wants to do that, I am fine with it, but they would have to go through the entire page and make sure everyone that falls within the margin is shaded. Not just one or two here and there. It has to be either all or nothing to maintain consistency. --Majora (talk) 05:54, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not aware of any discussion on this page, but there has been discussion on the statewide page about the margin of error. I feel like whatever we decide we should be consistent throughout the Wikipedia articles. Prcc27 (talk) 06:54, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Shading multiple people in the same row would be very messy. Just take a look at the statewide opinion polling for the GOP candidates. To reduce confusion and clutter, the poll leader should be shaded in only. The same thing is done for the nationwide polling for the Republican primaries page and other election pages. I agree with Majora that even if multiple candidates were shaded, it should be consistent regardless. Going back all the way to the 2013 polls may be too much work. -Infometric21 (talk) 22:44, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Stop including the "Polling explorer" Reuters polls.
The "Polling Explorer" Reuters polls (Link:http://polling.reuters.com/#poll/TR131/filters/PARTY_ID_:1,PD1:1) could be very "confusing" at times to many readers and should not be included. Even the Republican page does not include them. They firstly don't have "direct" indicative numbers like ALL OTHER regular polls like on the date the poll was performed, the margin of error, etc. Instead, it is basically up to the reader to calculate the overall average numbers and margin of errors on each day for a collection of dates which defeats the purpose. The point of polls on this page is to include regular "standard" polls that have been conducted in a specific amount of time, with margins of errors that are reported DIRECTLY on the page with readers not having to wonder about anything else (The exception being the polling averages section above). They are polls that are likely in a PDF file format or are reported on a web page in the form of an article. The problem with Reuters is that as new polls are added each day, old polling periods, like ones that date back a month or so, will be really hard to find and the reader will probably be wondering where we are getting the specific numbers on a specific set of dates. Therefore, for the sake of simplicity, we should probably just include standard polls that have the basic information reported DIRECTLY on the document which we need, instead of the crazy Reuters polls which literally requires work just to get the numbers that we need for dates and can be confusing to the average reader. The polls that are good are the REAL Ipsos/Reuters polls like this one here conducted February 1-7, 2016 (Link:http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN0VE2NG). Other than that, the "Polling Explorer" Reuters online polls should not be included. Thank you and I hope you understand what I mean, it was hard to word this out. Nike4564 (talk) 23:27, 18 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, as long as one of the four major aggregate pollsters listed in this page include the polls, which FiveThirtyEight does in this case, there is NO reason for you to decline the inclusion of the Reuter polls, thanks! I will add back the poll in in about 10 hours unless you have better reasons to rebut. Ryopus (talk) 12:19, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Firstly, thank you for taking the time to read my argument. Now, here's the thing. One thing is, even if one of the aggregate polls includes the Reuters polls, that's not enough, and I think you missed the point right there. At least half of the pollsters should include it (That is 2/4) to make it a credible "mainstream" poll with reliable data. FiveThirtyEight is a very advanced data site so it's no wonder why they are including it. But here's the problem. Would any of our readers be able to draw the exact numbers from, say, early January from the Reuters poll? Very unlikely! They would probably be spending hours trying to find the numbers whereas a standard poll in the form of a PDF or web article gives you the exact numbers and what dates the poll was performed directly on the spot. That's what I mean by saying the poll could be "confusing" to readers; they would have a hard time trying to track the numbers. Let FiveThirtyEight do what they do; I could hardly ever think that even Wiki users could make sense of the numbers during a specific time period in those polls. From my perspective, only few have tried to include polls like that. If half of the aggregate polls do not include it, then we shouldn't too. We should not follow FiveThirtyEight or a single aggregate poll, we should just keeps things simple on this Wiki page that includes solely "standard" polls that most people would be familiar and understanding of. You can add in regular Ipsos/Reuters polls like this one (Link:http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/2016ReutersTracking.pdf), but I wouldn't advise the polling explorer polls. Once you get a lot posted over a while, I find that it can mess things up with trouble finding where numbers were at during a specific time period. Thanks again! Respond back to me if you have any more questions, concerns or more reasons for you to include this type of poll! Have a great day! Nike4564 (talk) 00:02, 20 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Aggregate polls are not necessarily more authoritative than individual polls are. Statistically, they are heavily adjusted based on rather arbitrary, disputable assumptions. If the pollster is considered reliable, there's no reason to exclude a 5-day-rolling poll, which in any case is a more current depiction of public opinion than those long-term aggregated polls are. --PanchoS (talk) 09:08, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Also note that the Ipsos/Reuters polls indeed give a date, the number of respondents and an indication of credibility intervals, (see here), just the way other polls do, so your assumptions are altogether invalid and seem rather politically motivated. Personally, I rather suggest, you convince your favorite to abide by her campaign's prior agreement holding two more debates in April and May. --PanchoS (talk) 09:16, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay PanchoS, I think you've gone WAY too far here. Could I be overreacting? Probably not, since it seems you had no good intentions on what you said in the last sentence! To accuse me and bring allegations of being politically motivated with no concrete evidence is completely abhorrent! I have never told you who I support, so that gives you no right to make false ASSUMPTIONS of who I support or if I am being politically motivated! I was merely stating an opinion about the polling explorer polls which had both candidates leading at some point, and I didn't even bother removing the polls "cherrypickingly" when one particular candidate was in the lead. Yes, I might have removed them when a certain candidate was leading, but that doesn't give you the right to SPECULATE who I support, there is no connection whatsoever to who I support. I have actually removed almost all of them. There are the other polls with Hillary and Bernie leading, which I have not removed. On the other hand, your last sentence was the one that was really disrespectful and made me angry! You make an insult at me in the end, accusing me of being a Hillary supporter because (Of what it at least seems like) she has been dodging debates. I have never accused you of anything, so why should you? I have never insulted you and we had a great discussion when talking about the pages that you made (And I appreciate your hard work). Yes, we had our disagreements, but that does not give you the right to start lashing out at me and demonstrating this type of behavior! If you want to show this behavior, do it somewhere else, not on Wikipedia. Please stay civil. By the way, this seems to have been solved since no one is putting those types of polls back, so I don't think you needed to respond to me. Anyways, I would appreciate an apology please for what you said in your last response. Nike4564 (talk) 19:50, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry for being disrespectful, and indeed I was. I just happened not to be so sure you're here to help building an encyclopedia. I may be wrong, and then I'm even more sorry, but I honestly got the feeling you've been big time into talking, and into reverting and deleting, but actually less into contributing than into discarding what you deem irrelevant. This may be hugely unfair, but is the feeling I got. But again, I'm sorry for having speculated. I shouldn't have. --PanchoS (talk) 20:09, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It's okay, we all can get agitated at some point and make mistakes. Apology accepted; we are human after all! By the way, I am open to some sort of compromise on the Idaho caucus page, which you can give any suggestions on how we should resolve our edit war. Don't mind my last comment that I made there, it was when we were still in the heat of the edit war (However I still wanted to make some points clear). I have suggested making a new category, the "Campaigning" section, to include the info that I wanted to delete. Do you agree with that? Head over to the talk page and look at the article there so we can discuss! Nike4564 (talk) 21:39, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Are we including independents in the polls or just democrats?
Some polls here only include democratic voters in the numbers, and some include independents. For example, for the Ipsos/Reuters polls, some of them I believe we only included democrats, and now we are including independents. So I don't want to be misleading, therefore, are we including indepedents in the polls or just democrats? Nike4564 (talk) 00:10, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Nationwide opinion polling for the Democratic Party 2016 presidential primaries. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160204082921/http://www.oann.com/pollnational/ to http://www.oann.com/pollnational/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160723201017/http://www.oann.com/pollnational/ to http://www.oann.com/pollnational/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160723201017/http://www.oann.com/pollnational/ to http://www.oann.com/pollnational/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151126055559/http://www.oann.com/pollnational/ to http://www.oann.com/pollnational/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151017021609/http://www.oann.com/dncdebate/ to http://www.oann.com/dncdebate/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150628233135/http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2015/05/13/fox-news-polls-huckabee-seen-as-more-ethical-than-most-clintons-favorable-slips/ to http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2015/05/13/fox-news-polls-huckabee-seen-as-more-ethical-than-most-clintons-favorable-slips/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:55, 14 February 2018 (UTC)