Talk:Nationwide opinion polling for the 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries/Archive 3

On low polling candidates
Hi everyone. Myself and some of the other people originally maintaining this page have been largely absent, and I'd like to thank everybody adding new polls to the article. However, we've had some instances where editors are adding columns for low polling candidates such as Tulsi Gabbard, which only clutters the article and extends the width of the table. This makes it increasingly hard for readers to navigate on mobile devices. I'd just like to urge everybody to be aware of this, and move data into the Other column where applicable. Cheers. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:48, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok. I agree Gabbard's and Booker's columns should have been removed - there seemed to be a user consensus to remove Booker's October column if he did not average close to 3% within the month's first 15 polls, but that was not implemented. I'm not sure why Gabbard's December column was added to begin with as she hadn't polled well enough to enter the previous month's table. User:PutItOnAMap (talk) 21:50, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * @PutItOnAMap, you've removed a poll showing Gabbard at 9% among Likely Voters nationally in October. Why did you remove this poll, which was reliably sourced? Your edit summary states, "Democrat-leaning independents, where polled, are better than pure democrats if they are likely primary voters, but otherwise, we tend to stick to democrat samples", but that is exactly what the poll measured: Question 9, on page 55: "If your local Democratic Party primary or caucus were TODAY, which candidate would you support?" (emphasis mine). You've twice removed this sourced data, both times with misleading edit summaries. I'm asking you to restore it until a consensus can take place on this page, for the sake of transparency and neutral point of view. 67.1.251.8 (talk) 13:16, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The phrase "if your local primary or caucus were today" appearing in a poll is very different from polling likely voters as a sample. WMSR (talk) 17:12, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I concur. In some primaries, independents who do not register as Democrats will not be able to vote (that is why there is value in polling Democratic-leaning independents over independents as a whole), and that goes twice for registered Republicans, which the sample included. As it was not a sample of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents, I decided to remove it in line with precedent here so far (where one sample tends to be kept in the mix while the others are done away with - the same goes for favourability). That said, if you'd like to set up a section for polls of the general population regarding the Democratic primary on this page, I'd fully support the poll's inclusion there. User:PutItOnAMap (talk) 17:15, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Moving Lower-Polling Candidates to "Others"
I'm seeing a lot of lower-polling candidates clogging up the table and making it look clunky. Should there be some sort of higher standard implemented, say, at least 3% in 4 polls in a given month, or alternatively at least 4% in 2 polls that month? This would remove several more minor candidates from the table, and would reflect candidates who have struggled to gain momentum. This would include Cory Booker, Tulsi Gabbard, and Amy Klobuchar. Slinkyo (talk) 04:21, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * No. There's already a standard in place, but if candidates' whose polling has been worsening fail to meet that standard within a couple of weeks, they will be removed from the December table. I fully expect there'll be some streamlining in a short while, but think it's best to exercise caution until then. User:PutItOnAMap (talk) 13:33, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The standard is already that candidates should be reaching 5%, it just hasn't been enforced. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:20, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Is that an agreed standard? I recall having a discussion with others (in the archives) in which a heuristic of 3% in 3 of the last 15 polls was used (to decide whether or not Booker should be included in a specific month's polling table). In the archives, I've not found any user consensus for 5% as opposed to that figure. User:PutItOnAMap (talk) 21:41, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I found some discussions from early 2019 in archives, in January, February, early March, and late March. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 22:00, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * 3% in three polls is far too low or few. 3% consistently would be much more defensible. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:02, 6 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I think we should at least include anyone who is still qualifying for debates or at least nearly qualifying in the sense that they're still relevant. --Moscowdreams (talk) 21:00, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

538
I talked about this with and they seemed to be fine with it but I want to know what you think before continuing.

So, I was wondering what you do you think of including 538? They've been doing updates every few days for about a few weeks now. The thing though is that they currently do them through Nate Silver's Twitter : https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/1202417527143272448

I'm guessing it still counts as a reliable source since it's technically 538? That's what we did for info that came from Twitter during the Canadian election (i.e. if it came from a journalist from a trusted publication we used them). - MikkelJSmith (talk) 00:24, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * They plan on publishing this data on their website within the next week, so it's probably better to just wait until they do. WMSR (talk) 00:48, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , oh I think I missed this can I get a link? MikkelJSmith (talk) 01:27, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * They mentioned it on their podcast. I don't have a source other than that per se. WMSR (talk) 01:57, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , thanks for the info. MikkelJSmith (talk) 13:12, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It's live.
 * Thanks for the info, will we modify the average then since it seems to go back to April - MikkelJSmith (talk) 01:39, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Merging 2019 polls
I merged them all together; reverted. Here's what the tables looked like merged together. Personally I think it looks better to have the tables merged: it comes at the cost of having a few low-polling candidates visible in months when they don't need to be, but it does provide consistency and make it easier to look at trends in polling over the whole year. Thoughts? Chessrat ( talk, contributions ) 19:17, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The way the tables were merged makes it extremely difficult to keep track of which column is which as you scroll down the table. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 19:35, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * That could easily be fixed by repeating the column labels like this. Chessrat  ( talk, contributions ) 20:34, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The labels get thrown away if you sort the table. WittyRecluse (talk) 09:42, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I admire the effort and the courage to try something like this, but it's too much with displaying lower tier candidates. If another candidate rises into notability, a column would have to be added for the entire article, and maybe one removed. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:02, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I would support merging months into quarters. That would give more continuity to the tables. Fancy trying that? — JFG talk 06:08, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

NPR/PBS/Marist poll qualifying?
This is the first time NPR conducted a poll during this election cycle, is it going to be qualifying for the future debates? TXephy (talk) 14:30, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I presume the DNC will tell us, but NPR is not listed as a qualifying poll currently. We will have to wait and see. WittyRecluse (talk) 14:34, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Should be, unless I'm understanding this tweet by Zach wrong TXephy (talk) 15:59, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , it does seem to be a qualifying poll. MikkelJSmith (talk) 17:06, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * To clarify, it is probably a qualifying poll for the January debate, since it would have been for the December debate had it been released earlier. That said, the qualification rules have not yet been released by the DNC for the January debate, so it's impossible to say anything definitive. Between the second and third debates, Reuters and one other pollster (can't remember which at the moment) were removed from the list of approved pollsters, so anything is possible. WMSR (talk) 18:02, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , I think it was a poll by NBC, but they didn't remove it. They just said that you can only count one poll sponsored by NBC (one campaign was counting two NBC polls at the time I think). IIRC, it was Andrew Yang's campaign. MikkelJSmith (talk) 18:46, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * that's not what I was talking about at all. For the first and second debates, the Las Vegas Review-Journal and Reuters were approved pollsters, but they have not been approved since then. My point is that even if polls by a certain pollster have counted for previous debates, there is no guarantee that they will count moving forward. It's been a rule since the first debate that multiple polls of the same geographic area by the same pollster cannot count (with the exception of the early state criterion in later debates). WMSR (talk) 18:52, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , Oh, sorry about that. Thanks for the correction. I kind of was focused on the Canadian election for a while and my memory got fuzzy on the Democratic Primary. Man, do U.S. campaigns last long. MikkelJSmith (talk) 19:25, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Kamala Harris in December table
Considering Harris was only in 3 polls for December (And dropped out only on December 3rd), would it make sense to leave here in the "other" section? O'Rourke was not included in November and he dropped out November 1st. Otherwise there's going to be a column of "-" for almost the entire month.—SP E SH 531 Other  04:41, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * This is something I'd been wondering as well. I would prefer leaving her out too.  Usedtobecool  TALK ✨ 05:26, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, the table for all of 2019 has been merged now, that might change things. Harris and Beto are included while Gabbard is not. How did she miss out (criteria for inclusion)? She's still in the race and almost made it to the debates in December as well. And, Booker, who's nowhere near qualifying for December is included.  Usedtobecool  TALK ✨ 05:35, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I included everyone who's included in the main graph of polls- using the same criteria. (namely, polling average over 3% at some point) Chessrat  ( talk, contributions ) 06:16, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , thanks! That's interesting. I did not know it. Like half of all views to this page are mine, and this week my main concern was whether Gabbard will get the fourth poll she needs to qualify. I saw two new polls added but she wasn't listed. That's why I commented here. Thanks again, I will leave you all to it. Cheers!  Usedtobecool  TALK ✨ 07:05, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah! I see the merger of all of 2019 polls makes my concern moot. My question was asked before the merger. Carry on! ( I don't know if you can claim that moniker for half of all page views considering I've also been looking at this page daily for a considerable time :P ) Spesh531(talk, contrib., ext.) 07:27, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , Isn't the deadline soon? MikkelJSmith (talk) 00:21, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , it was yesterday.  Usedtobecool  TALK ✨ 05:35, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , thanks for the info. I was busy so I missed that. MikkelJSmith (talk) 13:12, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Ok, now that this merger of all of 2019 has since been reverted, my moot question now has meaning again! Let me ask the question again: Considering Harris was only in 3 polls for December (And dropped out only on December 3rd), would it make sense to leave here in the "other" section? O'Rourke was not included in November and he dropped out November 1st. Otherwise there's going to be a column of "-" for almost the entire month.Spesh531(talk, contrib., <b style="color:#ADADAD">ext.)</b> 23:24, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree, Harris should go into the other section for the points listed above. WittyRecluse (talk) 09:42, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , yeah the arguments above make sense Harris should be in the others section. MikkelJSmith (talk) 00:21, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I think the Harris column should stay for December. Polls taken recently show that her campaign withdrawal boosted support for Amy Klobuchar, and we would lose that if we lumped her into the "other" votes. — JFG talk 06:06, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think Harris dropping really had that big of an impact on Klobuchar. She was already on a very slow incline, and every candidate has had their numbers go up ever so slightly when Harris dropped out (though this was basically negated by Bloomberg buying his way to where he is now in the polls due to ad bombing the airwaves.)<b style="color:#3A58AF">Spesh531</b><b style="color:#58AF3A">(talk</b>, <b style="color:#AF3A58">contrib.</b>, <b style="color:#ADADAD">ext.)</b> 11:34, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Replace chart in statewide polling?
The polling chart for the first 4 states is non-standard and rather illegible. Could a volunteer replace it with a similar chart to what we use here? Please reply at Talk:Statewide opinion polling for the 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries — JFG talk 06:26, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Looks good now, thanks for @all help. I have now transcluded the early-state polling graph into the main primary page, alongside the nationwide polling graph for easy comparison. — JFG talk 19:49, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Correlating DNC Eligible Polls
I am unable to identify the DNC qualifying debate polls. This page does attempt to highlight the qualifying polls but it doesn't add up to the totals on each monthly debate on the debate article page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Democratic_Party_presidential_debates_and_forums). Is there are way to show all the qualified polls? Thank you Bunion12 (talk) 02:19, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * This is because repeat qualifying polls (polls from the same pollster covering the same geographic area) cannot count twice for a candidate. WMSR (talk) 16:26, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , it's also 1 state poll per debate I believe (e.g. if you have an Iowa poll you can't use another Iowa poll). Or am I wrong? MikkelJSmith (talk) 15:22, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * no, multiple polls from the same state count, as long as they are from different pollsters. Actually, I think for the later debates that duplicate early state polls actually would count, but there weren't any repeats during the qualification period. WMSR (talk) 19:00, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , thank you for the information. MikkelJSmith (talk) 19:05, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

There should be a way to correlate the polls on the debate page with this page since they are linked. Why does Amy Klobuchar have 8 qualifying debate polls and Andrew Yang only has 4 yet he is out polling her on a national basis?Bunion12 (talk) 04:42, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Because the four-poll threshold includes polls from the first four primary/caucus states (IA, NH, NV, and SC). Five of the eight qualifying polls for Klobuchar are from Iowa, where she is polling higher than Yang. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 17:54, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

"Others" legend in graph
In the graph legend, I have moved "Others" to the bottom of the list, after active candidates and before withdrawn ones. It makes more sense this way, otherwise readers may be confused that "Others" line represents a sum of all other candidates besides the top 3 contenders (Biden/Sanders/Warren). Do other editors agree? — JFG talk 06:18, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me WittyRecluse (talk) 14:32, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

A column for the lead
There was one thing that I realized when looking at the polls. The lead column is missing. I'm probably biased (due to my work on other pages with a lead column) but I think it would be better if it was shown in its separate column. To give you an example here is what it looks like on Opinion polling for the 2019 United Kingdom general election and on Opinion polling for the 2019 Canadian federal election. I feel like adding a column for it would improve the page. What do you think? - MikkelJSmith (talk) 17:04, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Would we then color coordinate each candidate like in those two pages? WittyRecluse (talk) 22:51, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , I'll be honest I didn't think of that when writing the paragraph. The reason they do that there is due to the fact that the polls have different parties, whereas here each candidate is in the Dem Primary. MikkelJSmith (talk) 23:08, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , I like the idea of a lead column, it is just that I'd think that we need some way to indicate who is leading in the lead column, so we either would need to have it say who is leading and then by how much, use colors and have it in the candidate's colors, or have two seperate columns, one naming the leading candidate and then one with the value. The first and third would be weird for sorting, the second requires us to determine who gets what color. I'm for the third, unless you can find a better solution.
 * We could use the colors in the graph I think - MikkelJSmith (talk) 00:19, 30 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I like the idea, but what if "undecided" has the lead in a poll? --Comment by <b style="color:#14866d">Selfie City</b> ( talk about my  contributions ) 14:24, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , we could ignore the column in that case though, since it's not really a lead is it? MikkelJSmith (talk) 19:17, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * True; alternatively, we could assign the lead to the candidate with the most support. --Comment by <b style="color:#14866d">Selfie City</b> ( talk about my  contributions ) 19:51, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Attempt to use graph at SGB Premiership
As some of you know, I originally created the opinion polling graph. It has since been implemented into other polling-related articles and improved by users far better at code than I am. I decided to use the same kind of graph at Template:SGB Premiership history to represent success of sports teams. Unfortunately, it didn't go quite as well as I planned. The worst problem is that the graph does not display on mobile, even if I log out. Could someone give me an idea what's causing that particular issue? Thanks! --Comment by <b style="color:#14866d">Selfie City</b> ( talk about my  contributions ) 00:35, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , I think it's the fact that the width is in px (when no units are involved I believe it goes to px by default), so on certain screens it wouldn't show up, try setting with a % and look at what happens. Although, in some cases I'm not sure how to translate code to wikipedia, since it isn't used in the same way all the time. MikkelJSmith (talk) 00:58, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I’ll definitely give that a try. --Comment by <b style="color:#14866d">Selfie City</b> ( talk about my  contributions ) 12:13, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Booker and Gabbard in December
Looking at the December polls, I would suggest adding Booker and Gabbard to the table, because they are credited with 3% or above in several polls, thus meeting our usual inclusion threshold. Thoughts? — JFG talk 12:31, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * 3% is far too trivial and susceptible to any margin of error. I would wait for several results of 5%. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:26, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * 3% has been the consensus threshold for inclusion, although only when a candidate reaches 3% repeatedly in recent polls, so we avoid one-off upticks that indeed can be ascribed to error margins. — JFG talk 08:17, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Doesn't it have to be an average of 3% at some point in time, rather than reaching that number in a poll? --Comment by <b style="color:#14866d">Selfie City</b> ( talk about my  contributions ) 21:53, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The main problem with an average is that at one time they could very well have an average above 3%, and then they have less than 3% in a new poll and they drop below an average of 3%. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:57, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , there's also going to be less polls for a while, which does not help. Although, it's worse for the state polls, I think we haven't had any since mid-November? MikkelJSmith (talk) 00:18, 30 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I'd support adding Steyer too for the same reason. Another option would be to just include all candidates in their own columns, similarly to in Nationwide_opinion_polling_for_the_2016_Republican_Party_presidential_primaries. Chessrat  ( talk, contributions ) 11:06, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Still too many candidates to list them all. Let's do that when we're down to eight contenders. — JFG talk 08:03, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I see that somebody added Booker, Gabbard and Steyer. Thanks! — JFG talk 08:16, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Aggregate average
In September, the aggregate average was changed to exclude data from the New York Times, which used one less significant figures than the other sources. (The NYT has since been removed from this section of the article.) On December 19, I noticed that The Economist changed its averages and is now doing the same, rounding to the nearest whole number. (And yes, I do click on the face of each candidate. They honestly changed their rounding method last week.) Accordingly, I removed The Economist from the average, using the same reasoning, but that has since been undone. I am ok with keeping the Economist in the average, but just wanted to make it known that this is a change from our past practice. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 18:14, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree that we should only use aggregates with the specific significant figures to the tenth place. --Comment by <b style="color:#14866d">Selfie City</b> ( talk about my  contributions ) 18:18, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , I would wait a bit to see if the Economist reverts to its old method (where they had decimals).
 * Also, for the NYT part of the argument at the time was that they didn't update frequently enough, whereas the Economist does. I'm not voicing an opinion on the Economist here btw, just leaving this as a reminder. MikkelJSmith (talk) 19:45, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Especially as an aggregation, I don't think it's all that necessary to round to the tenths place. The margin of error in these polls is well beyond 1%, let alone 0.1%. Reminds me of a joke in which a docent is taking a group on a tour of a museum, and they stop at a fossilized dinosaur skeleton. Someone in the group asks how old the fossil is, and the docent replies that it is 1,000,014 years old. Someone else asks the docent how it can be calculated with such precision, and the docent replies, "When I started working here, I was told it was one million years old, and I've worked here for 14 years!" WMSR (talk) 20:29, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , that is true as well. MikkelJSmith (talk) 20:33, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The margin of error of an aggregation is theoretically much smaller than the margins of the individual polls though. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:12, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Adding a number (like the Economist aggregate) that has less significant digits than the rest of the numbers into the set of numbers for the average calculation reduces the precision of the average. Therefore all aggregates that have no digit behind the comma need to be removed from the average calculation. The Economist aggregate has another big problem that reduces its usability for the average: The Economist uses a smaller set of polls than all other aggregates and thereby has a lower precision than the other aggregates. Onetwothreeip is correct, btw. Xenagoras (talk) 22:24, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Adding a number (like the Economist aggregate) that has less significant digits than the rest of the numbers into the set of numbers for the average calculation reduces the precision of the average. Therefore all aggregates that have no digit behind the comma need to be removed from the average calculation. The Economist aggregate has another big problem that reduces its usability for the average: The Economist uses a smaller set of polls than all other aggregates and thereby has a lower precision than the other aggregates. Onetwothreeip is correct, btw. Xenagoras (talk) 22:24, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Possible error in the information?
The page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Democratic_Party_presidential_debates says that as of December 20th, Yang only has 1 qualifying debate (i.e. with 5% or more). However, looking at this page, it seems that he already has the 4 that he needs. Since the DNC hasn't declared him to qualify for the debates yet, I am assuming this page is the one that's off. Or am I missing something? Possibly some of the polls don't qualify for the DNC?

p.s., I am new, so I apologize if this should be in another place; feel free to move this if need be. 137.226.152.81 (talk) 11:35, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Andrew Yang has not qualified for the January debate. Only polls shaded purple are considered qualifying polls. WMSR (talk) 06:00, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Call for opinions on debate lines in graph
Editors are invited to voice their opinion above at. — JFG talk 00:20, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Debates in graph
There's not really any reason to colour code them individually, right?--Pokelova (talk) 03:40, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , I'm with you on that I would prefer them to be the same colour. MikkelJSmith (talk) 16:14, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I also agree they should all be the same color. WittyRecluse (talk) 17:10, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, at first I made them all the same color, and I tried to have only one legend "Debates", but that prevented me from displaying the bars vertically. Once I was forced to list each debate on a separate legend, I figured that alternating colors would be easier to distinguish. No big deal either way. — JFG talk 23:29, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The lines make the graph harder to read. I doubt we need them at all. If consensus is that the lines should exist, I agree with the above comments that one color should be used for all of the debates. --Comment by <b style="color:#14866d">Selfie City</b> ( talk about my  contributions ) 14:15, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure, as I mentioned when creating them, it's experimental. That had been a requested feature in earlier discussions. If most editors think they're not great, I'd be happy with removing them. — JFG talk 16:48, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , I think we can keep them as a darker color. They're hard to seen on some screens do to them being pale MikkelJSmith (talk) 17:37, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thoughts on the lines now? MikkelJSmith (talk) 01:35, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I would prefer if lines far in the future were not included such that the graph was not squished to the left. Other than that, I like it. WittyRecluse (talk) 05:54, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , I didn't include the lines in the future. I think that was MikkelJSmith (talk) 13:06, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we should make the lines more transparent, so they look like the 'others/undecided' line. That would allow the actual lines in the graph to be more visible by comparison. WittyRecluse (talk) 18:47, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , we could make them gray, but we would have to remove others/undecided MikkelJSmith (talk) 02:14, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Phoey. As is is preferable to me then. WittyRecluse (talk) 02:56, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Can we have just one entry in the legend for debates, and also remove the line for Others/Undecided? Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:10, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Seconded, the graph looks super cluttered now. If there can't be only one entry for the debates, the lines should be removed. Catiline52 (talk) 22:41, 22 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm a reader of this page rather than a regular editor of it, but I'd like to suggest that debates probably shouldn't be included in the main graph. The article isn't Nationwide opinion polling and debates for the 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries and the combination seems a bit synthy to me, by implying that there's an important relationship between them, and that this relationship is the thing that deserves such a high degree of weight. Beyond that, it's quite awkward to read the graph and I don't think there's precedent in reliable sources or other Wikipedia articles for this display format.
 * The graph without them clearly and effectively shows one thing, which is the change in support of primary candidates, over time, according to opinion polls. Anything added detracts. Ralbegen (talk) 21:32, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Consensus on debate lines?
After a few weeks of this experiment, there seems to be diverse opinions on the appropriateness of including vertical lines for the debates. To avoid slow-moving edit wars, I'd like to gauge consensus. Here is what participating editors have said so far: I'll add a ping in a new section and on the main talk page for the primaries, to gather more input. — JFG talk 00:19, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support lines with multiple colors: (nobody)
 * Support lines in a single color: Pokelova, WittyRecluse, MikkelJSmith
 * Oppose lines: Selfie City, Catiline52, Ralbegen, 216.96.189.16
 * Neutral: JFG
 * Would support lines with a single legend (technically not possible for now): Onetwothreeip, Catiline52, JFG
 * , so does this mean consensus has changed (it used to lean more towards inclusion)? MikkelJSmith (talk) 11:02, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Looks like no consensus either way, and some people are editing the lines in and out every few days; that's why I called for more input. — JFG talk 11:52, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Would a single legend be possible if a single piecewise function is used to show debate dates? WMSR (talk) 19:43, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I was able to get a single function to work, but it required adding a third data point for each debate (there are currently two, to define the bottom and top of the vertical line), and removing the interpolation feature (which is used to smooth the candidate's lines). I did not like the result.  Maybe someone with more skills can make it work without degrading the quality. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 20:42, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * But what's the case that including debate lines isn't synthesis? This should be a policy- or source-driven discussion rather than an aesthetic one. Ralbegen (talk) 21:40, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * That seems like an odd case to make. This is essentially just a timeline with important dates added for context. Often times news reports say that a candidate dropped out "after the last debate" or something along those lines. SYNTH would be if we added in wikivoice that said that a candidate dropped out or saw a polling spike because of their debate performance. That's not what's happening here. WMSR (talk) 01:32, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , yeah, that was my understanding as well. MikkelJSmith (talk) 01:36, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * This page is about opinion polling for the primary, so it makes sense to have a graph of opinion polls. Adding debate lines stops it being a graph about opinion polls and makes it into a graph about the relationship between the debates and opinion polls, which isn't what the page is about. Emphasising that relationship instead of just providing a visualisation of the subject of the article is at least a bit synthy. Ralbegen (talk) 22:01, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , I pretty much agree with what said, so I don't really think it's synthy so I guess we'll have to agree to disagree here. MikkelJSmith (talk) 02:40, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

No yellow line for Castro's withdrawal
There's still no horizontal yellow bar for when Castro withdrew, the way there is for Harris and earlier drop-outs. Seems to be an oversight? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.101.158.217 (talk) 13:28, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Maybe, although he never had the success that, for example, Kamala Harris and Beto O'Rourke did when they peaked in the nationwide opinion polls. --Comment by <b style="color:#14866d">Selfie City</b> ( talk about my  contributions ) 00:23, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * His withdrawl was not relevent to polling. WittyRecluse (talk) 05:21, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Exactly. We have consensus to mention withdrawn candidates only if they already had an individual column in the poll tables. — JFG talk 18:44, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Too many people in aggregation table
With this edit, added all the remaining candidates to the polling aggregation table. I think that's overkill, and we should keep following the usual consensus to list only candidates whose average is at 2.0% or above. What's the general feeling about that among editors? — JFG talk 11:03, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that a comprehensive aggregation table is not a good idea. It's less accessible on mobile devices, and doesn't tell the reader very much. It could be an even stricter threshold than 2%: both FiveThirtyEight and the Economist headline a smaller number of candidates on the pages for their averages. Ralbegen (talk) 11:57, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed, and also I think the 2% threshold is the best option at the moment. When there are 7-8 candidates, we can include all remaining in the race, but at the moment, there are still too many candidates to include them all in a table as is currently being done. --Comment by <b style="color:#14866d">Selfie City</b> ( talk about my  contributions ) 12:10, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , pretty much agree here. MikkelJSmith (talk) 18:47, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I will join in on the consensus that 2% is a good threshold. WittyRecluse (talk) 23:00, 4 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I think that it makes sense to include columns for all candidates, now the number is down to 14. After all, Nationwide opinion polling for the 2016 Republican Party presidential primaries has different columns for all candidates even at times when there were 17 of them. Chessrat  ( talk, contributions ) 23:20, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , I can understand the case for Steyer, since he's been on the debate stage recently and is likely to make the next one as well. But, I'm not sure about the others. MikkelJSmith (talk) 23:54, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thus far, Steyer has not qualified for the next debate, and I doubt he will. 2% seems reasonable for now. WMSR (talk) 05:58, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * If I'd been editing on WP in 2015/2016, I would have supported drastically reducing the number of candidates displayed in the Republican nomination polling averages for the same reasons I support it here. It's worth noting, however, that consensus (?) has shifted since 2016. --Comment by <b style="color:#14866d">Selfie City</b> ( talk about my  contributions ) 13:18, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅: Most editors agree that we should keep the 2% threshold for now. I will shorten the table accordingly. — JFG talk 23:45, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * With Williamson no longer being listed in the polling average, I'd advocate revisiting this decision - the table would only grow by two columns if candidates were listed separately. Having tested this with a preview page, it seems the text does not wrap excessively in a table listing all candidates even if the page width is restricted to that of the graph. I would suggest that unless higher thresholds for inclusion than the current ones are supported, we now move to inclusion of all remaining candidates. — PutItOnAMaptalk 19:10, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Not just yet. Booker just bowed out, and while Patrick may try to take the "black candidate" mantle from him, it's hard to see how Delaney and Bennett would remain in the race for much longer. In any case, candidates who never reached 1% should not be mentioned here at all, in my opinion. — JFG talk 18:47, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , I honestly don't get how the latter two are still in this... Delaney's even wasting his own money. MikkelJSmith (talk) 00:18, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Protecting the page
Can we protect the page? We have IP users removing the debates from the graph (it's happened multiple times now) even though there is consensus to keep them. Furthermore, they don't seem to want to start a discussion and just keep removing them. - MikkelJSmith (talk) 21:02, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, supporters of particular candidates are likely to adjust the numbers to help themselves, or just for the sake of vandalism &mdash; this happened before the EU elections, and it could easily happen now. In ideal circumstances for vandalism, it might even go unnoticed. Therefore, semi-protection is a good idea. --Comment by <b style="color:#14866d">Selfie City</b> ( talk about my  contributions ) 00:25, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , vandalism was prominent on the Canadian election pages as well, semi-protection was used throughout the campaign and beforehand as well. MikkelJSmith (talk) 00:55, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree that it’s the best option for this article. --Comment by <b style="color:#14866d">Selfie City</b> ( talk about my  contributions ) 12:15, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , I've went ahead and asked since vandalism has occurred -- again. The last time I asked they said it wasn't frequent enough, but now it almost happens every two days. MikkelJSmith (talk) 17:32, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Aggregation graph display issue
In my mobile desktop view, legends now overlap the graph. I remember seeing some readjustment edits in the past few days. Did someone do something to mess with the relative positioning or is it just my device that's got this issue? Please take a look. Thanks! Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:30, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It also has this display issue on my device (phone using desktop view). redsparta  talk 12:07, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , we could move the legend below the graph? MikkelJSmith (talk) 15:29, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , it displays just fine on the above illustrative example in the thread about color consistency, if that helps. Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:57, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , I see, I'll try to fix it. I have an idea, but I'm trying to figure it out (mix the bottom legend with the colour legend) to give you an example look at Opinion polling for the 2019 Canadian federal election, I'm trying to see how to put that coloured bar below each candidate's name. MikkelJSmith (talk) 22:54, 26 January 2020 (UTC}
 * I think it looks fine in the example further up this talk page because it is just an image. The graph on the main article page has the image graph and text as separate elements which seems to be what's causing issues with smaller displays wanting to force the text to the next line. redsparta  talk 12:25, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

, is the issue now sorted? I made some changes. - MikkelJSmith (talk) 22:09, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , thank you for your attention. I see the legends have been moved below the graph but they are now missing the main candidates whose colors are integrated into the aggregation table just below. Works for me, except perhaps the legends ought to be moved a pixel or two lower as "other candidates" currently overlaps with the first letters of months on the graphs axis. Usedtobecool ☎️ 01:32, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Been busy, sorry for the late response. Mostly ditto the comments by User:Usedtobecool. I'm fine with it being below the graph but I think the main candidates should be listed there as well. I might try my hand at some adjustments in a little bit. redsparta  talk 12:25, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I added the other candidates to the legend. I’m sure it could be presented better but switching to div col seems to have fixed the overlapping issue anyway. redsparta  talk 14:59, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Color change for consistency with table on primaries page
The following table uses the colors from the table on the primaries page; it also changes Harris' color to a darker shade to make it more distinct from Buttigieg's. For the reasoning behind the other color changes, see the talk page on the primaries page.

Thoughts on implementing this color scheme? I'd like to make sure everyone is good with it before I put it on. Cookieo131 (talk) 05:03, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Looks great. It makes sense to have consistent colour schemes. Catiline52 (talk) 06:18, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , go for it, the differences in color allow us to identify each line a lot better. MikkelJSmith (talk) 21:13, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Alright, I went ahead and put it up. Thanks! Cookieo131 (talk) 04:04, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Just a thought, but it seems unnecessary to include debate numbers in the legend, since they're all the same color anyway. I would suggest just writing Debate after the legend - I don't know if that makes any substantial changes to the way the graph works though.Fjantelov (talk) 12:28, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with that: here's an alternative. The regular legend that Template:Graph:Chart uses doesn't seem to allow us to line-item exclude items from the legend. However, we could deactivate the legend entirely and in its place put a simple wikitable, as below. This would remove duplicate entries on the legend like the two Bloombergs and the six debates. It also has the added benefit that the current legend is somewhat incorrectly titled, as it is called Candidates but also includes debates and a caucus and is overall very bloated. Thoughts on this? I'm also not great at making these so I'm sure it could be improved. Cookieo131 (talk) 23:53, 22 January 2020 (UTC)


 * YES PLEASE! --WMSR (talk) 00:58, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * This is a fantastic idea! WittyRecluse (talk) 02:35, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I tried to implement it with the graph in my sandbox, but I haven't been able to get it to always draw the chart directly to the right of the graph. if anyone knows how, it would be much appreciated! Cookieo131 (talk) 02:40, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , I fixed it for you. I also went ahead and put it on the page per consensus. - MikkelJSmith (talk) 12:26, 23 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I like the colors on the table. --Comment by <b style="color:#14866d">Selfie City</b> ( talk about my  contributions ) 01:28, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Should the Ipsos/Reuters polls be excluded?
Looking at the Ipsos/Reuters polls from jan 15-16 and 22-23, it appears as if the data from the Ipson/Reuters polls has not yet been released. Instead the poll numbers are coming from an article written by Reuters, which is excluding some candidates, whose polling numbers need to be sourced from third party sources like fivethirtyeight.com - this can be seen in the jan 15-16 poll where Kloubachars and Yangs polling numbers are coming from a third party, while Steyer, as well as 'others' and 'undecided' are left blank. I don't think we should be listing polls which are not fully documented, so I suggest to delete the two polls and wait until they release either the full information on each candidate, or until they release the full dataset, like they have in their jan 8-9 poll.

I won't be removing the polls until I can gather that there is a consensus to do so, but keep in mind that it is only Ipsos/Reuters who there are such issues with. Normally when the full dataset is not released from another pollster, it is released within just a couple of days. Fjantelov (talk) 11:09, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * No, it should not be excluded. But the original numbers should have been restored. Someone edited it so as to show only the numbers according to Democratic registered voters (n=428) when previously the numbers used the combined totals of registered Democratic and Dem-leaning independent voters (n=552), as is typical. None of the polling aggregators that utilize Ipsos data — such as 538, The Economist, or 270ToWin — report the numbers as they are on the page right now; they use the previous version, with independents included. — Rafe87 (talk) 05:20, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I use RVs where available (and where there aren't LVs). I edited out an 'adult' sample of Dems and independents to add in an 'RV' sample. The new releases (see Chris Kahn's twitter) omit the results for old candidates so should not be used where fuller datasets are also available. However, where alternative datasets aren't available, incomplete data is better than no data, hence the use of these releases. I've jsut edited a January sample to account for this. — User:PutItOnAMap (talk) 15:35, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

"Others" column
Now the number of candidates has dropped down to 11, I think it'd make sense to remove the "others" column in the poll aggregation table and just have a column for everyone, and also possibly do the same in the February 2020 polling table when it's created. Thoughts? Chessrat ( talk, contributions ) 16:35, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * If all other candidates meet the current threshold by then, only Patrick and Bennet won't, meaning only one column would be added to the table. I support this measure. — User:PutItOnAMap (talk), 18:04, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Heat map
Is there a way to color the Favorability ratings as a heatmap instead of coloring the highest cell blue? — Omegatron (talk) 19:33, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * That's a pretty good idea, right not the favorability section is a bit of a mess. I personally don't have time to work it, but you certainly have my full support to propose some good colors to use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fjantelov (talk • contribs) 18:16, 22 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Fjantelov I would just suggest a color scheme like Excel's, with green for good and red for bad: https://www.excel-easy.com/examples/heat-map.html
 * My question is really about whether the functionality exists to color them this way without manually calculating and editing the colors in each cell (which would be a nightmare).  I know there are heatmaps in articles about cities to show their temperatures, such as Template:Weather_box.  Not sure how those work.  — Omegatron (talk) 22:12, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Actually, shades of blue would look better with the gray blanks, and fit the theme of the page better? https://imgur.com/a/qL0hOO1 — Omegatron (talk) 07:49, 31 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree with you, I definitely prefer the blue shading, the other colors becomes a bit too intrusive in my opinion and it also complements the blue colors of the Democratic Party. I'm all for it! Fjantelov (talk) 13:38, 31 January 2020 (UTC)


 * User:Fjantelov, I started a discussion. — Omegatron (talk) 06:07, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

RfC participation invitation
? : Please participate in the RfC about change proposal for infobox for caucus results. Xenagoras (talk) 21:28, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Few minor things (Query)
I understand there was good reason for including Bennet and Patrick in the February table but since they withdrew relatively early and the columns are populated with 0's and 1's only, could we remove them? Also, withdrawal of minor major candidates was omitted from the polling tables earlier. So, we should probably either add them back to earlier months for completeness or remove Bennet's and Patrick's withdrawal from February list. Are there good reasons for the inconsistency to be maintained? Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 02:09, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Remove Economist aggregator?
Should we remove Economist poll aggregator?

Pros

Economist removed decimals, removing this aggregate would increase precision

Economist does not show what polls they use for their aggregate

Bloomberg currently sits at 21%, even though his highest poll was 20%

Cons

This takes away a perspective from the article

Slinkyo (talk) 02:50, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I do not think the thing about 21% is a big problem (I am fairly sure that 538 also does things like that) but not showing the polls used and especially the removed decimals means it should be removed, since that calls its accuracy into question. Devonian Wombat (talk) 11:17, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * My main issue is with the polls not being shown, as that makes it very difficult to verify. I support removal. WittyRecluse (talk) 15:34, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * What am I missing? I see the polls listed on the same page as the averages. There are currently ten polls shown up front, with a button to "See all".  --Spiffy sperry (talk) 15:39, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I should clarify, the methodology used to condense the polls into an average is not shown. Unless I'm missing an explanation somewhere, then I don't see how we can verify this. This also brings up issues with 538. WittyRecluse (talk) 13:54, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , you reverted my removal of the Economist aggregate and asked for discussion. In September 2019, the New York Times aggregate was removed from our average because NYT did not report decimal places. After the Economist did the same mid December 2019, it was discussed to remove their aggregate as well. Eventually Economist was given a grace period to see whether they would return to reporting decimal places. They did not, which is why I removed  the Economist aggregate. Including a number without decimal places to an average build from numbers with decimal places reduces the the precision of the average.  Additionally, yesterday the Economist reported a 21% aggregate polling for Bloomberg although Bloomberg's highest result in Economist's poll table was 19%. And Economist uses a smaller set of polls than all other aggregators, which causes Economist's aggregate to skew our average towards their selected small set of pollsters. Xenagoras (talk) 19:23, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with this. 538 also does some weird things by adjusting numbers to eliminate a so-called "house effect." I does not seem super objective to say the least. Schnittkease (talk) 19:59, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It seems like we have a pretty solid consensus. Economist has some strange numbers, as well as a lack of decimals that makes our table not as precise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slinkyo (talk • contribs) 20:13, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I propose to let this discussion run at least 24 hours before acting on the consensus. Xenagoras (talk) 20:30, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd say I'd also probably agree to a possible removal, especially given the lack of preciseness (the removed decimals) and due to the lack of clarity of which polls are used and how they end up with that aggregation/average. Paintspot Infez (talk) 22:29, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The Economist should be restored and FiveThirtyEight should remain. They're attributed, and it can be noted that they adjust for different variables. The polls that feed into the numbers are transparent though, and the tenths place is less than relevant given the margin of error in primary polls. I'm fine with the removal of NYT though, since they only update once a week. --WMSR (talk) 02:18, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Very wise decision to remove Economics aggregator poll from the article. It was a very strange polling without any logic behind the numbers! It seems they just put some random numbers for candidates based on their own desire. Koorosh1234 (talk|contribs)             08:47, 21 February 2020 (UTC)