File talk:Polling map for the 2016 Democratic primaries.svg

Get rid of percentages

I fell like it's time to get rid of the percentages on the map. They are not used on the GOP primary article, and they were not used on the 2008 Democratic primary article even though in August 2007 Clinton had just as much of a commanding lead as she does now in 2015. She had a lead in 29 states compared to her current lead in 28 states. I think it would be smart to be consistent throughout the articles. If a map without percentages can be used in 2007 when she had a commanding lead- a map like that can also be used now since Clinton's situation is as similar then as it is now! We should only have three colors (unless other candidates start to lead in states): "Clinton lead", "Clinton/Sanders tied", and "Sanders lead". Since there are three states that Sanders leads or ties in- the percentages are no longer needed. The reason why the map had them in the first place is because Clinton used to lead in every single state (except for Vermont which was incorrectly colored in her favor). But now we have two candidates that are leading in states instead of one. Prcc27 (talk) 18:40, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Ramaksoud2000 (talk) 17:01, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

A note on how the margin of error works

See this discussion. Ramaksoud2000 (talk) 23:08, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

The above page is the "talk page" that has been referred to. Ramaksoud2000 (talk) 17:40, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Wisconsin?

Aren't the last two Wisconsin polls, August and September, within the margin of error for a lead for Bernie Sanders? 67.1.137.31 11:22, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Washington State

The last poll for Washington was 6 months ago, (May 18-19) and needs to be made gray.—SPESH531Other 13:15, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

How margin of error works — Statewide opinion polling, Democratic Party primaries, 2016

User All4peace (talk) has initiated a discussion, on the article talk page on English Wikipedia about how we present MOE.

I would very‐much appreciate your participation ! Info por favor (talk) 22:08, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Tied in Iowa

They are now tied in Iowa, so I will revert it.

Colors

The colors should be the same as on File:Democratic Party presidential primaries results, 2016.svg.

• Seconded, it's very confusing that green represents Sanders on the actual results, and represents Clinton on this map. BigD527 (talk) 12:43, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Polling map VS results

I understand that you consider this map only as a summary of the polls, and not of the results, but I think that showing at the same level polls for states where the final result already arrived and polls for states where the primaries are already finished is simply causing confusion to the reader.
I suggest you three possible solutions:

1. Maintain on the map only the future votes
2. Add here a second map that presents the polls only for the states that have not voted yet.
3. My preferred one: find a way to indicate on the map that a state concluded its vote (e.g. a different opacity in the color, a letter B or H indicating the winner, as you prefer).
   

As it is, the map is misleading, in my opinion. Take into account that people probably read this map in order to obtain a quick information on how the polls are evolving, so polls that can evolve and polls that cannot should be differently separated.

California is out of date

As an IP editor on :en noted, the last poll in CA was over three months ago. Can somebody make it grey (or tell me how)? FourViolas (talk) 19:51, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Re-adding polls for primaries that have already been completed

@Prcc27: I think polls for Alaska, Iowa, Minnesota, New Hampshire, etc. should be re-added and the legend changed for the three-month margin only to reflect primaries that have not been completed. As they have already been completed, you will not get any more polls from those states. MB298 (talk) 00:45, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

 Done Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 14:48, 8 June 2016 (UTC)