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

Will the map be updated to reflect the final results of states?
For example, Kansas is shown as for Clinton on the map, but it was a win for Sanders. Massachusetts is shown as shared, but it was a victory for clinton. Will the colours of the states be changed to their winners? Or could there be some other way of distinguishing states that have already voted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:640:C200:5D53:B107:492A:EDF7:E774 (talk) 00:19, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

The reasoning for the map is so dumb. They say it shouldn't reflect results yet Nevada and Iowa are solid green when polls show showed before the election that it was tied. So why are those states green? They also decided to completely discredit Overtime Politics when their results have been more accurate than PPP. The conclusion that I've made is that they have a massive Clinton bias here. Post an poll that doesn't favor Clinton like in Michigan? Remove it. That's how they operate here. I won't be surprised if someone removes this comment too. Gordomono (talk) 15:43, 8 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Lets take a look at the latest polls for those two states you mentioned; Nevada has Gravis Marketing as the latest poll (February 14–15, 2016 is more recent than a poll started 4 days earlier), the poll shows Clinton leading . For the state of Iowa, Emerson College has Clinton also leading in that poll taken as well (January 29–31, 2016 again with the 4 day difference) . Both polls I mentioned take into account the margin of error so I do not really know how you can see a tie in it. Simply put the map reflects the LATEST polling conducted, if you can find a more recent poll that has Bernie leading by all means post it. As for as Overtime Politics is concerned though you need to establish a consensus for its inclusion, it was deemed unreliable over at Talk:Statewide opinion polling for the Republican Party presidential primaries, 2016. So no there is no Clinton bias, and I find it disrespectful that you would accuse editors of having one. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:57, 8 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Actually Gordomono, the Overtime Politics poll got Arkansas entirely wrong. Regardless, you need to assume good faith. By the way, I am a Sanders supporter and totally against the inclusion of Overtime Politics polls because they are not reliable. So I assure you that there is no Clinton bias going on whatsoever. Prcc27🍀 (talk) 00:04, 9 March 2016 (UTC)


 * How would people feel about including the results map below the latest polling map? MathematicalMadHatter (talk) 10:13, 31 March 2016 (UTC)


 * The inclusion old polls is an irrelevant criteria, its more of a curiosity than anything else, and yes, it seems to be pro-Hillary RDS001 (talk) 18:51, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Green + Yellow map = Crap
The gradient isn't visual even. It looks like Green with a slight Yellow highlight. It's also ugly and convoluded. A neutral shared color should be used rather than patterns and gradients. For states with no recent polling, leave them blank (ie White). Before you say "let's keep it the same as the republican party one" consider if we really want to be modeling anything off of them. They should change to match us! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.54.125.244 (talk) 18:27, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't know how to use any of this, just wanted to tell y'all that democratic statewide polling for California, its been 3 months. It shouldn't say 'for clinton', it should be grey. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.199.202.226 (talk) 15:34, 13 March 2016 (UTC)


 * It's been two months only actually. California will be removed on April 9th if a new poll isn't released by then. Prcc27🍀 (talk) 07:44, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Order states by date of primary/caucus
Could we include an option to arrange the states by when their primary/caucus was/will be held? This seems like something which people might find helpful. (I'm new to wikipedia editing and am not sure whether it's doable or a good idea) MathematicalMadHatter (talk) 10:26, 31 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree with your proposal. While listing the states alphabetically makes it easier to find a specific state, we can either have an index on top, or rely on people using the search function. Otherwise, date matters more than the alphabet does, so the primary order should probably be by date of primary/caucus. --PanchoS (talk) 21:47, 31 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Done, and much better Manful0103 (talk) 12:42, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

I've undone this for the following reasons: Also, would everyone please, please, please use edit summaries? Thanks.  Rami  R  13:46, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) You've managed to drop New York in the process, and some Indiana polls.
 * 2) It doesn't appear to have been well liked.
 * 3) Editors have found confusing, and I agree: alphabetical is simpler and standard.


 * My response:

People reverting edits with no given reason(s) on talk pages is not worth much value, at least no more than my edits. I was not even the one who started the discussion on the order. I again remind you and others that all past presidential election polling is in chronological order. You cannot just say "I don't like it" as a reason. I am giving reasons to put it in chronological order. Can you please say why not? And for the record, I do not like edit wars so I will no longer attempt to edit the pages. But I do support the polls being in chronological order if anyone else is interested. Manful0103 (talk) 15:34, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) If I accidentally dropped polls it was not intentional, then just add them back.  Easy fix.
 * 2) And not sure how reverting editing with no given reason on the talk page means it's not well liked.
 * 3) Why is it confusing?  Are you saying all the other primary polling pages are confusing?  You are just showing reverts, not discussions on talk pages.


 * Alphabetical order is just simpler. You find the state you are interested in based on a predefined and well-known order. I also find it to just be more "correct" - the chronological ordering is mostly relevant now, while the primaries are ongoing. But once the primaries are over, the chronological order will be of little relevance to the typical article reader. And it is for that reader we need to aim: this is after all an encyclopedia, not a newspaper.  Rami  R  19:31, 1 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree here, we should stick to the more simple alpha order. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:36, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

So you guys think that all the other pages for past elections are wrong??? Amazing — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:589:4780:4A6C:7070:727E:2EC6:68F8 (talk) 20:00, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

MoE and its use
As per Ramaksoud2000 in August, refer to this discussion to preemt any dispute on how they work. : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Statewide_opinion_polling_for_the_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_2016/Archive_1#Note_on_margins_of_errors_and_statistical_ties To sum up, a statistical tie occurs when two data points from within a set are within twice the margin of error of each other.

Tubadave (talk) 17:55, 14 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Okay fair enough, thank you for linking the discussion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:03, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Non states
While looking at Statewide opinion polling for the Republican Party presidential primaries, 2016 I saw District of Columbia but then reminded myself that this isn't a state. Rather than be exclusive I chose to add all of the territories with DC as Puerto Rico might be polled (It has twice the delegates DC has). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:58, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

So the first question I assume that would be on ones mind "Why are we including these, nobody ever polls them". So far during the primaries there have been no polling from the states of Hawaii, Nebraska, and Wyoming. In addition when it comes to to polling both Dakotas have historically come up short when it comes to the democrats. So why would we add those states but not the non states? Another possible answer to this could be "Because this article is just about statewide polling..." to that I would say; okay how many years have we added the District of Columbia to these "statewide" presidential primary polling articles? Maybe we should consider a rename? There is this issue, and the fact that not all of the states listed have primaries (some have caucuses). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:11, 2 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's about whether or not they are states, I think it's that there are no polls to show. If any state doesn't have a poll to show I would delete that too.  2601:589:4780:4A6C:C594:3F39:48E6:C7E1 (talk) 12:46, 3 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't see why this an issue though, if there are polls great if not then at the end of the primaries we can get rid of the non polling entries. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:08, 3 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Are we gonna add Democrats abroad too..? Anyways, I'm open to changing the title of the article but IDK what it would be changed to. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 20:08, 3 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I think that would be too complex seeing how many places democrats are voting from but yeah I agree the title should be changed but indeed to what? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:21, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

File:America Symbol.svg
Can someone explain the use of on this article. This symbol, in addition to being useless, is also modeled after the Republican Party logo. Unless a good reason is given for its inclusion, I think we should do without it. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 13:37, 6 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't see it as a Republican symbol but as one of America, it draws attention to the winners of the contests amid all of the text. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:39, 6 June 2016 (UTC)


 * commons:User talk:Lolthatswonderful shows that it was meant for the Republican Party. The winner of each contest is easily discernible by being right under the word Winner in bold. That is sufficient. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 13:42, 6 June 2016 (UTC)


 * All I see is a free use image, I disagree with readers having to look at a wall of text as the images makes the article easier to navigate without having to scroll to the top for the TOC. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:45, 6 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Then let's find another picture, one that has fewer partisan implications. A simple star, though also superfluous in my opinion, would be enough. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 13:49, 6 June 2016 (UTC)


 * If the partisan issue bothers you then yeah a star could work. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:50, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Done. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 15:33, 6 June 2016 (UTC)