Talk:2012 United States Senate election in North Dakota

Mellman Poll

I realize that there are no polls listed yet, and there is a good reason for: no reliable polls have been conducted. The Mellman poll that was posted was conducted on behalf of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee by the Democratic polling firm the Mellman Group. You can see how this is a definite inherent bias, as the results of these types of polls usually show. Groups that may have a partisan lean such as Magellan Strategies or PPP conduct polls independently, not for a campaign committee. They also release the actual wording and methodologies that they use, something that truly partisan groups like Mellman do not do because they often use loaded or leading questions to bias the results. There is a reason that experts like Nate Silver from FiveThirtyEight don't even consider them in their election predictions. Rxguy (talk) 23:40, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

To address your point that it appears in multiple news sources: there are lots of internals polls conducted such as the one you posted, and the results (not the polls themselves) are usually released to political news sources when they are favorable to the candidate paying for the poll. The fact that they are reported does not make them reliable in any way. You will not see these partisan polls (either Democratic or Republican) in any election page on Wikipedia. Rxguy (talk) 00:20, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

You mention Nate Silver. Here's an article from Silver discussing at length the bias and inaccuracy of Rassmussen polls.[1] Yet Rasmussen polls are included in wikipedia articles. [2]

"To address your point that it appears in multiple news sources... The fact that they are reported does not make them reliable in any way." So what? The Mellman poll results are quoted by any number of reliable sources; information from reliable sources is acceptable for wikipedia as long as it's in context and doesn't violate any other wiki policies. Time magazine may quote a well-known UFO conspiracy theorist. Just because you believe, or can demonstrate that the guy is nuts doesn't mean that the information is not germane to wikipedia articles on UFOs; Time magazine is a reliable source.

"You will not see these partisan polls (either Democratic or Republican) in any election page on Wikipedia." If that were true, you'd have a strong argument. Have a look at Hawaii's 1st congressional district special election, 2010, you'll see two campaign committee-based polls, one DCCC internal poll and one DNC commissioned poll (Harstad)[3]. Joegoodfriend (talk) 00:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

General consensus if you look at any senate page is that only reliable polls are included. There are tons of internal polls that have been conducted so far, but these are not included in polling sections of major races. The fact that they appear in one congressional race's page doesn't mean much, not many people even look at those pages so if someone decides to add one there may not be anyone watching the page to remove it. Yes, Nate Silver explained that Rasmussen showed a bias as a result of how they contact people, but they at least make their data public so we know why. Internal polls do not, so there is no way of knowing if the questions are leading the respondents one way or another. Rasmussen also conducts polls independently, unlike Mellman which is paid by the campaign committee, a serious bias that makes it impossible to consider these polls as valid. Every reliable firm is going to be off by a certain percent: Rasmussen is around 2.5%, PPP is off by about 1%, etc. Nate Silver does a good job of describing internal polls, which are so far off that they do not figure into predictions [4]:

"I’m not sure why people take polls released by campaigns at face value. This does not mean that campaigns don’t have very good pollsters working for them. But the subset of polls which they release to the general public is another matter, and are almost always designed to drive media narrative... What we’ve found is that is that polls commissioned by campaigns and released to the public show, on average, a result that is about 6 points points more favorable to their candidate’s standing than nonpartisan polls released at the same time... One circumstance where I tend to be particularly suspicious of internal polls is when a candidate is on what I’d call the “threshold of viability.” That is, a poll could conceivably change the perception of whether he has a realistic chance to win his race or not—and therefore, could impact the allocation of scarce resources like activist energy and national party funds."

Candidates use these promotional polls to raise funds and support. All they are good for is energizing their base, not providing an accurate picture of the race, which is what we editors are trying to accomplish with the polling sections on these pages. Rxguy (talk) 01:29, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm only seeing FiveThirtyEight mentioned so I want to add that other poll aggregators don't trust internal polls either. RealClearPolitics doesn't report them. I think including them on this page will be misleading to viewers. Incitatus13 (talk) 02:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Mellman Group has twice been named "Pollster of the Year" by the American Association of Political Consultants.[5]

Mellman is also cited in United States Senate election in Georgia, 2008, United States Senate election in Nevada, 2010 and United States Senate election in Louisiana, 2008.

I'm willing to make the compromise of including the poll, but with an asterisk and a strongly-worded disclaimer about the reliability of internal polls. Joegoodfriend (talk) 02:45, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I really don't see any problem with including polls conducted on behalf of campaigns as long as that's made clear in the article. I think Pennsylvania's 12th congressional district special election, 2010 provides some clarity on how that can be achieved. Also, regardless of the result of this discussion, i'd really rather no one involved in it ever claims it has in some way established a precedent to be followed on other election articles. Thanks! – hysteria18 (talk) 12:51, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I have always believed that internal polls should not be included here on Wikipedia for General Election polling. General election polls conducted via partisan polling firms usually exhibit a slight bias, and are not reliable. I do, however, tend not to mind internals being used in Primary election polling, as primary election polling is scarce. But in this case, the Mellman poll, in my view, should not be inserted, due to likely bias as known Democratic polling firm. With regards to claim that other articles use partisan polling firms results, I was not aware of that. If true, let's wait to see the outcome here. I also must agree with Hysteria18 with regards in not using the conversation being formed to establish future precedent to be followed later on. That's just my 2 cents! All the best to all! America69 (talk) 23:26, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Four editors, all of whom are clearly nice folks, are against it. Ok, you win. Joegoodfriend (talk) 05:22, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Seeing as this is seemingly considered an important race it's strange that a large polling firm like PPP hasn't polled here yet. I would assume that there will be a lot more focus on the senate races when the GOP primary is no longer the leading political story. It's just a matter of time until they start polling. Rxguy (talk) 05:56, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

It looks like this has been settled now, but Rxguy asked me for my 2 cents on the issue so just to say that I agree with him, America69 and the others that internal and partisan polls aren't suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia. I agree also that this shouldn't be taken as establishing some kind of rigid precedent that should always be followed. Tiller54 (talk) 13:31, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Well well well. Turns out that the "biased" and "unreliable" Mellman poll was right all along and the rest of the polls were the ones that were inaccurate. Mellman is cited in at least a dozen wikipedia articles, including the Presidential race. You guys ganged up on me and won the battle, but you were wrong, wrong, wrong. Joegoodfriend (talk) 05:47, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Each passing year proves you guys more wrong. Today, every Wikipedia article on every major political race in America includes partisan polling. Joegoodfriend (talk) 22:39, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on United States Senate election in North Dakota, 2012. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20121011025651/http://www.valleynewslive.com:80/story/19767078/poll to http://www.valleynewslive.com/story/19767078/poll

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:13, 21 July 2016 (UTC)