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

Cruz vs Huckabee

It's true Huckabee has been in more polls than Cruz, but Huckabee hasn't been included in a poll in six months. Considering he turned down a chance to run in 2012, when he was polling better and was included for a much longer time, I think it's safe to say he's not a serious candidate for this race. Cruz, meanwhile, has already jumped into the double digits, and seems to be surging in popularity. He's also currently in office, while Huckabee is just commentator at this point. But we can wait and see. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 22:54, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

map

Could we make a map of the polls?81.58.144.30 (talk) 13:52, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

This is nationwide opinion polling, so no. Tiller54 (talk) 12:29, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Polls

New one https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/1380855/mcclatchy-marist-poll-2016-december-2014.pdf81.58.144.30 (talk) 15:27, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

This has been added. Thanks! Tiller54 (talk) 01:00, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

again new one :) http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2015/01/29/fox-news-poll-voters-believe-romney-clinton-remain-top-picks-for-2016-believe/83.80.208.22 (talk) 10:58, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Done, thanks. Tiller54 (talk) 21:16, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

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

new one http://www.monmouth.edu/assets/0/32212254770/32212254991/32212254992/32212254994/32212254995/30064771087/597ba39c-825d-4da6-9fe8-ab47201b82fe.pdf83.80.208.22 (talk) 09:26, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

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

ABC http://www.washingtonpost.com/page/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2015/06/02/National-Politics/Polling/release_396.xml83.80.208.22 (talk) 13:08, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

CNN http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2015/images/06/01/2016.poll.pdf83.80.208.22 (talk) 13:08, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

http://www.monmouth.edu/assets/0/32212254770/32212254991/32212254992/32212254994/32212254995/30064771087/1c2a9e72-6933-46c4-9d68-87d264821039.pdf83.80.208.22 (talk) 09:37, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Links to well-updated lists of polls

If anyone wants to go back and add a bunch of older polls, these links have long lists. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/2016_republican_presidential_nomination-3823.html#polls http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-national-gop-primary PaperKooper (talk) 17:10, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Public Policy Polling - serious pollster

Just a question, is it worth including this poll?

The poll has only "436 usual Republican primary voters" and the wiki page for Public Policy Polling says

In addition to political issues, the company has polled the public on such diverse topics as the approval rating of God, whether Republican voters believe President Obama would be eligible to enter heaven in the event of the Rapture and whether hipsters should be subjected to a special tax for being annoying.

Is this group legitimate? Or are they a joke? -- Callinus (talk) 22:44, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

• PPP is definitely legitimate. They just happen to ask a lot of odd questions. You just have to pick out what is relevant for the article. --Stabila711 (talk) 22:49, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

• Is 463 a legitimate sample size? The Trump result just seemed about 5% larger than previous polls, wasn't sure whether the trend will show in other polls.-- Callinus (talk) 06:03, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

• Yes it is. Make sure to include the margin of error as well. The main difference that makes the polls size vary so much is registered vs. likely voters vs. general adults. The PPP poll is likely voters. The one I believe you are talking about (Gravis) is just adults. Since Gravis doesn't screen out for registered or likely voters their numbers are inflated compared to PPP. Speaking of which I have been meaning to put those distinctions into the table for about a week now. I am probably going to get on that tomorrow. --Stabila711 (talk) 06:13, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

refs
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Splitting polls by year and collapsing

This article is starting to get a tad cumbersome to scroll through with all the separate tables grouped into the same section. So I wanted to get community input on splitting the tables into sections based on when the polls occurred. This can be seen in the Nationwide opinion polling for the Republican Party 2012 presidential primaries article as well as in the Nationwide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2016 article. Thoughts? --Stabila711 (talk) 23:22, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree in collapsing the polls. I suggest having past years grouped together and then 2015 by month, and the current month is not collapsed. FirstDrop87 (talk) 00:16, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Alright, I collapsed the old polls and changed the headers. I also changed "Latest polls" to "Individual polls" since latest doesn't really apply when there are polls in that section that happened 3 years ago. --Stabila711 (talk) 00:24, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree on splitting 2015 by month, how about splitting them at the July/August and eventually a new split at October/November. --ShadowDragon343 (talk) 22:19, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

New poll

Bloomberg http://images.businessweek.com/cms/2015-09-23/150924_thursday_8698175.pdf94.211.104.84 (talk) 20:17, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

New poll - Pew Research (2015-10-02)

This poll from Pew Research is showing some significant movement relative to what is posted here already.

http://www.people-press.org/2015/10/02/contrasting-partisan-perspectives-on-campaign-2016/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.220.224.47 (talk) 01:33, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Margin of error on aggrgations

An IP (@128.175.227.5:) just undid my edit marking Carson (24.8%) and Trump (24.6%) as tied. If they had been rounded to the nearest percent, both would have been rounded to 25%. Isn't it reasonable to count being within 0.2% of each other as tied? pbp 18:03, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

• Aggregates don't really have margin of errors. I mean they do, but they aren't reported so we can't go on something we don't explicitly know. Also, since 0.2% can decide who wins rounding is not an option. As for the individual polls that is a different issue that can be discussed if you want to go down that road. --Stabila711 (talk) 18:15, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Latest YouGov/Economist Polling Results Entered Incorrectly

Latest YouGov/Economist Polling Results Entered Incorrectly

Correct Numbers are on page 32 of this document

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/88txvi0ixm/econTabReport.pdf

LouisianaLoyal (talk) 09:19, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

 Done. I will note that previously, the percentages had been entered from page 33 (Republican demographic), while the percentages on page 32 are likely Republican primary voters, which presumably includes Republicans and Independents. Page 32 seems to be better suited to the intent of this article. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 20:56, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Reuters Polling Explorer!

Reuters Polling Explorer should not be in the Aggregate polling list!

Unlike the other three (RealClear Politics Average, HuffPost Pollster Model, and 270 to Win Average) which are the average of different national polls, the Reuters Polling Explorer is only the average of one national poll conducted by Ipsos/Reuters!

If we are going to consider Reuters Polling Explorer in Aggregate polling list, then we need to do the same for all other national polls like YouGov/Economist, CNN/ORC, Emerson College, Quinnipiac, Fox News, Public Policy Polling, Morning Consult, etc. And therefore make a separate list for all of them in Aggregate polling list which is not correct!

So I remove Reuters Polling Explorer from the Aggregate polling list.

Koorosh1234 (talk|contribs) 15:34, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

There is no "Jeb Bush"

Jeb is an acronym or nickname that stands for John Ellis Bush. saying "Jeb Bush" is like calling him John Ellis Bush Bush. 63.152.61.1 (talk) 18:47, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Jeb is the name by which he is commonly known, so per WP:COMMONNAME that is the name used on Wikipedia.--NextUSprez (talk) 19:31, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Aggregate Polling

Maybe it is obvious to everyone but me, but I have no idea what "Aggregate polling" means, and I don't see any definition anywhere on the page.Juve2000 (talk) 03:14, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

@Juve2000: Aggregates take all (or some) of the individual polls, weight them according to their specific algorithms, and provide an average. Since, individual polls can vary widely aggregates provide a more general overview of the polls. If you want to add a definition, I'm sure nobody would object. --Majora (talk) 04:17, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Nationwide opinion polling for the Republican Party 2016 presidential primaries. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150715095934/https://www.suffolk.edu/documents/SUPRC/7_14_2015_marginals.pdf to https://www.suffolk.edu/documents/SUPRC/7_14_2015_marginals.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:31, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Party shading

Should "party shading" be added on the sole first candidate (status quo on this page) or to each cadidate within the margin of error (like on other pages) ? please apologize my english, it's not what it used to be. Kartouche (talk) 11:02, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Graph

I'll try to watch this page periodically and update the polling graph when needed, but if I take too long to update the source code is available here. It requires R. I personally use RStudio which allows me to export graphs as svg. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 14:49, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Nationwide opinion polling for the Republican Party 2016 presidential primaries. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151112042812/http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/election/article43727049.ece/BINARY/Poll%20details to http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/election/article43727049.ece/BINARY/Poll%20details
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150628233135/http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2015/05/13/fox-news-polls-huckabee-seen-as-more-ethical-than-most-clintons-favorable-slips/ to http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2015/05/13/fox-news-polls-huckabee-seen-as-more-ethical-than-most-clintons-favorable-slips/

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

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) 00:01, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Nationwide opinion polling for the Republican Party 2016 presidential primaries. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160204082921/http://www.oann.com/pollnational/ to http://www.oann.com/pollnational/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160204082921/http://www.oann.com/pollnational/ to http://www.oann.com/pollnational/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150924231807/http://images.businessweek.com/cms/2015-09-22/150923_wednesday_2121165.pdf to http://images.businessweek.com/cms/2015-09-22/150923_wednesday_2121165.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150805123928/http://images.businessweek.com/cms/2015-08-04/8302475320_tue.pdf to http://images.businessweek.com/cms/2015-08-04/8302475320_tue.pdf

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

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) 13:57, 14 February 2018 (UTC)