Talk:Nationwide opinion polling for the 2012 Republican Party presidential primaries

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles

United States: Presidential elections Mid‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections.

Remove McCotter and Johnson's Columns

I say that we need to remove McCotter and Johnson columns due to the fact that a vast majority of their entries are the - indicating that they were not part of the poll. The columns are for candidates who are expected to be in almost every poll, with the other section for candidates who only appear occasionally. Since these two are appearing barely any more than Fred Karger is, I say that they both ought to be sent into the "other" section. Thunderstone99 (talk) 23:22, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I support that, and was just about to propose it myself. McCotter has also dropped out - even more reason to remove his column. Tiller54 (talk) 23:47, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As McCotter has dropped out, and was not included as a major candidate on the main primary page, I am removing him. Johnson just went to a debate, and is still listed as a major candidate, so I will wait to see if more polls include him after the recent debate. Thunderstone99 (talk) 22:34, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's a good idea. Rick Perry should be given his own column in the second table, in my opinion. He's in 23 of the 42 polls, more than Johnson and only 2 behind Palin. If there are no objections, I'll make that change? I'll also clean up the hyperlinks, they've become rather inconsistent. Tiller54 (talk) 00:25, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction

Can we replace this sentence in the introduction? "The persons named in the polls have either formally declared their candidacy for president, formed exploratory committees, or have done neither." It doesn't make any sense and it doesn't even include "all the persons" since the polls also include candidates who have declined to make bids (Huckabee, Jindal etc) or were once candidates but have now dropped out (Pawlenty, McCotter etc). How about something along the lines of "The persons named in the polls are either candidates, former candidates or have received media speculation about their possible candidacy."? Tiller54 (talk) 15:46, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Line graph

Wouldn't this be much more comprehensible as a line graph? As it is, one has trouble seeing who is rising, falling, holding, fluctuating, in second or third place etc.68.110.104.80 (talk) 13:35, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Polling

If these polls are done from voting lists, I believe that would create numbers from old established voters. Dr. Paul I believe is drawing from the pool of non-voting people like myself who have not participated in the process or simply do not cast a vote if their is not a candidate that represents my views. So I think his numbers are actually higher than these polls represent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrpom (talk • contribs) 16:08, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gallup poll with or without Bachmann

The link to the Gallup page has data from Dec 28 through Jan 4 and doesn't include Bachmann in those numbers. Am I missing the information somewhere else? The Gallup page moved Bachmann's numbers to the other category, since the Jan 4 polling didn't include her, I believe. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 16:23, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically, if you go to the link and look at the chart, there is no dot for Bachmann for the Dec 28-Jan 4 dates. So I don't see where the 5% number is coming from. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 16:44, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Nationwide opinion polling for the Republican Party 2012 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:

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) 13:56, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]