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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Misc. 

message: 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.
: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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Should this page be useful or not? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  South Carolina 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Chart for the first 5 or so races | Population-Proportionate or an Electoral Vote-Proportionate Cartogram? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Margins of Error, yes or no?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Maps and Mississippi

message: 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)
thread_title:  Sacremento Bee / Datamar Poll 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Polling questions 

message: 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)
thread_title: Chart not mentioning Paul or Gilmore

message: 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)
thread_title:  Michigan 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: I have no idea.  Look at the image's talk page.  The Jade Knight 01:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image (map) 

message: "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)
replies: text: Is this just a rant or do you have a suggestion to fix it? Joseph Antley 21:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "Other" is an attempt to manipulate the voters 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Fundamental Flaw in "Delegates Race" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Michigan Polling 

message: 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.  
--Robapalooza 00:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: sorry about the lack of signing Perpetualization 02:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  To address the concerns some of you have over the use of linear regressions 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Ohio primary poll 

message: 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)
thread_title:  CA poll 9/21 

message: 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)
thread_title: Polls since April 1

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  WA and CA 10/12 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Removed Polls 

message: 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)
thread_title: Kansas

message: many states have closed primaries, yet their polling results from American Research Group [] 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)
thread_title:  closed primaries 

message: 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)
thread_title:  FL polls 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  State graphs + NY

message: 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)
replies: text: Yeah, and the map needs to be changed to show Giuliani leading in that state. Mr. DigDug 22:22, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New polls (AZ) 

message: 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)
thread_title:  New Poll 

message: 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)
replies: text: I would guess it is based on that Rasmussen poll.  --Aranae 15:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Huckabee leads Iowa? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  New Hampshire order? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Proposed format  

message: 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)
thread_title:  Charts 

message: 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)
thread_title:  regarding disputes about layout 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:   Alaska  

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: As it is, most charts have a last updated date on the page for the image. Perpetualization (talk) 01:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Alright, cool.  I wasn't aware of that. Perpetualization (talk) 20:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Date on graphics

message: 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):
Image:Republican Primary Presidential Polling Map Update.PNG
Thoughts?  Comments?  Should I replace the current map with this one?  --happyferret (talk) 09:41, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  National Map Adjustments 

message: 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)
thread_title: Delegate results

message: 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)
thread_title:  Poll Shark should be required reading! 

message: 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)
thread_title:  louisiana 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Proportional map 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Outraged 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Accuracy 

message: 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)
thread_title: Moved page?

message: 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)
thread_title: McCain

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Fictional Polls

message: 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)
thread_title:  Something wrong with the dates 

message: This designation is confusing and needs further clarification as to did they not vote or what.LimeyCinema1960 (talk) 23:16, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wouldn't vote 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Statewide opinion polling for the Republican Party presidential primaries, 2008. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071012162243/http://americanresearchgroup.com:80/pres08/carep8-703.html to http://americanresearchgroup.com/pres08/carep8-703.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071012162253/http://americanresearchgroup.com:80/pres08/ctrep8-701.html to http://americanresearchgroup.com/pres08/ctrep8-701.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071217214819/http://americanresearchgroup.com:80/pres08/flrep8-705.html to http://americanresearchgroup.com/pres08/flrep8-705.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071012162313/http://americanresearchgroup.com:80/pres08/ilrep8-702.html to http://americanresearchgroup.com/pres08/ilrep8-702.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071012162344/http://americanresearchgroup.com:80/pres08/morep8-702.html to http://americanresearchgroup.com/pres08/morep8-702.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071213003459/http://americanresearchgroup.com:80/pres08/nvrep8-703.html to http://americanresearchgroup.com/pres08/nvrep8-703.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071012162500/http://americanresearchgroup.com:80/pres08/rirep8-701.html to http://americanresearchgroup.com/pres08/rirep8-701.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071016003626/http://americanresearchgroup.com/pres08/screp8-708.html to http://americanresearchgroup.com/pres08/screp8-708.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071012162510/http://americanresearchgroup.com:80/pres08/txrep8-701.html to http://americanresearchgroup.com/pres08/txrep8-701.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070912234934/http://americanresearchgroup.com:80/pres08/vtrep8-701.html to http://americanresearchgroup.com/pres08/vtrep8-701.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:56, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Statewide opinion polling for the Republican Party presidential primaries, 2008. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20071223203549/http://www.americanresearchgroup.com:80/pres08/iarep8-710.html to http://americanresearchgroup.com/pres08/iarep8-710.html
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20071217234813/http://americanresearchgroup.com:80/pres08/nhrep8-710.html to http://americanresearchgroup.com/pres08/nhrep8-710.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:11, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080509091509/http://www.pollster.com/08-IA-Rep-Pres-Primary.php to http://www.pollster.com/08-IA-Rep-Pres-Primary.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080119110102/http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/california/election_2008_california_republican_presidential_primary to http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/california/election_2008_california_republican_presidential_primary
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071217214819/http://americanresearchgroup.com/pres08/flrep8-705.html to http://americanresearchgroup.com/pres08/flrep8-705.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071216011100/http://www.strategicvision.biz/political/georgia_poll_121207.htm to http://www.strategicvision.biz/political/georgia_poll_121207.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071118084951/http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2008__1/2008_presidential_election/iowa/republican_iowa_caucus to http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2008__1/2008_presidential_election/iowa/republican_iowa_caucus
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071118084951/http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2008__1/2008_presidential_election/iowa/republican_iowa_caucus to http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2008__1/2008_presidential_election/iowa/republican_iowa_caucus
*Added  tag to http://www.rgj.com/blogs/inside-nevada-politics/2008/01/new-poll-democratic-race-in-nevada-dead.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071213003459/http://americanresearchgroup.com/pres08/nvrep8-703.html to http://americanresearchgroup.com/pres08/nvrep8-703.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071213003459/http://americanresearchgroup.com/pres08/nvrep8-703.html to http://americanresearchgroup.com/pres08/nvrep8-703.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071213003459/http://americanresearchgroup.com/pres08/nvrep8-703.html to http://americanresearchgroup.com/pres08/nvrep8-703.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071213003459/http://americanresearchgroup.com/pres08/nvrep8-703.html to http://americanresearchgroup.com/pres08/nvrep8-703.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080116202229/http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2008/01/obama-up-by-13.html to http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2008/01/obama-up-by-13.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080119110112/http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/new_jersey/new_jersey_republican_presidential_primary to http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/new_jersey/new_jersey_republican_presidential_primary
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081029033626/http://www.monmouth.edu/polling/admin/polls/MUP10_1.pdf to http://www.monmouth.edu/polling/admin/polls/MUP10_1.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071012162500/http://americanresearchgroup.com/pres08/rirep8-701.html to http://americanresearchgroup.com/pres08/rirep8-701.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071016003626/http://americanresearchgroup.com/pres08/screp8-708.html to http://americanresearchgroup.com/pres08/screp8-708.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071012162510/http://americanresearchgroup.com/pres08/txrep8-701.html to http://americanresearchgroup.com/pres08/txrep8-701.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070912234934/http://americanresearchgroup.com/pres08/vtrep8-701.html to http://americanresearchgroup.com/pres08/vtrep8-701.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071114073902/http://www.strategicvision.biz/political/washington_poll_101207.htm to http://www.strategicvision.biz/political/washington_poll_101207.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070704072841/http://www.strategicvision.biz/political/washington_poll_110606.htm to http://www.strategicvision.biz/political/washington_poll_110606.htm
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) 00:46, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080919101816/http://www.strategicvision.biz/political/results.htm to http://www.strategicvision.biz/political/results.htm
*Added  tag to http://www.inrich.com/cva/ric/news.PrintView.-content-articles-RTD-2008-02-10-0270.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080217150426/http://www.strategicvision.biz/political/wisconsin_poll_021308.htm to http://www.strategicvision.biz/political/wisconsin_poll_021308.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080216022253/http://www.strategicvision.biz/political/wisconsin_poll_121307.htm to http://www.strategicvision.biz/political/wisconsin_poll_121307.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080306051019/http://www.strategicvision.biz/political/wisconsin_poll_091907.htm to http://strategicvision.biz/political/wisconsin_poll_091907.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080220051245/http://strategicvision.biz/political/wisconsin_poll_050907.htm to http://strategicvision.biz/political/wisconsin_poll_050907.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080207084759/http://www.strategicvision.biz/political/wisconsin_poll_110606.htm to http://www.strategicvision.biz/political/wisconsin_poll_110606.htm
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) 21:02, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified