Image talk:Democratic presidential primary.png
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Bias In The Map
- Wisconsin has two seperate polls in the past four days from different sources, each poll shows a different leader by a significant margin. The map shouldn't show Obama as the leader, it should be a neutral color. (Tjliles2007 (talk) 19:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC))
- I have to disagree with that. The latest PPP poll has the lead outside both the calculated margin of error and the pollster's average real error this primary season. The dates for the fieldwork don't overlap so there's no ambiguity as to which is the more recent poll. The map has been updated thus far based on a policy of "most recent poll". While I agree that this could be misleading and a rolling average would likely be more accurate, we should at least be consistent. California and Massachusetts have been flipped in the past based on outliers that show a lead within the MoE - by comparison this is far less controversial. I would do the same with a poll showing Clinton ahead. Umeeksk (talk) 21:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- I was just about to mention that the map incorrectly showed Clinton leading in Wisconsin, but I see it has been changed to neutral. That's fair considering the data, but I live in MN, which is similar to WI in many ways, and based on what I'm hearing, I'd bet $100 that Obama will take WI handily.--Appraiser (talk) 22:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- The BIG difference is Minnesota was a caucus and Wisconsin is a primary. While i'm not saying either poll is more accurate I just think it's fair to leave it neutral while theres two recent polls from different groups showing different leaders... If theres a third poll that shows either ahead by similar margins then it probably could be changed. If the first poll was say two weeks ago you could make an argument that it should be colored for Obama but both polls were completed within a few days of each other. (Tjliles2007 (talk) 23:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC))
- I was just about to mention that the map incorrectly showed Clinton leading in Wisconsin, but I see it has been changed to neutral. That's fair considering the data, but I live in MN, which is similar to WI in many ways, and based on what I'm hearing, I'd bet $100 that Obama will take WI handily.--Appraiser (talk) 22:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- I have to disagree with that. The latest PPP poll has the lead outside both the calculated margin of error and the pollster's average real error this primary season. The dates for the fieldwork don't overlap so there's no ambiguity as to which is the more recent poll. The map has been updated thus far based on a policy of "most recent poll". While I agree that this could be misleading and a rolling average would likely be more accurate, we should at least be consistent. California and Massachusetts have been flipped in the past based on outliers that show a lead within the MoE - by comparison this is far less controversial. I would do the same with a poll showing Clinton ahead. Umeeksk (talk) 21:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] NM update
According to CNN's Political Ticker, Hillary has won the New Mexico caucuses today, but I'm not sure how to edit this image. (Tajm (talk) 17:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC))
[edit] CC-by-sa dual license?
Can all the contributors agree to relicense it under the CC-by-sa-3.0 license too, just so that if we want to print over 100 copies of it we don't have to print a giant license with each copy too?
I think we'll also need the original author of the base image too, since I believe that image is GPL'd. SteveSims (talk) 02:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- Are you talking about me? If so, do whatever you guys want.Chester-S (talk) 09:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Hawaii
Shouldn't it be purple? not yellow? 68.175.28.66 (talk) 13:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Vermont for Clinton
The latest poll here shows Vermont in Hillary Clinton's favor but it is shaded as if Obama is leading. Does the polling information need to be updated?--Docjay8406 (talk) 17:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
http://americanresearchgroup.com/pres08/vtdem8-702.html --Peephole (talk) 01:38, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] THIS MAP IS BOGUS
You Obama supporters really need to stop with the bias.
5 polls were released within 24 hours of each other 4 with Clinton ahead and 1 with Obama ahead, 4 trumps 1 and Texas should still be colored for Clinton~ (Tjliles2007 (talk) 02:06, 23 February 2008 (UTC))
- Learn how to read a poll. It's three polls with a statistical tie and one showing a win for Clinton just outside the margin of error. The newest poll has Obama leading well outside the margin of error. --Peephole (talk) 13:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- The latest poll, the only multiple day poll taking place entirely after the Wisconsin primary finishing polling a day after all other polls, showed Obama ahead so coloring it for him would not be biased, however, given the nature of this it seems reasonable to have it colored for both as it shows generally an indefinite lead, an accurate summation of the situation I think.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- I think that Texas should be colored both, as RCP's average for the polls show Clinton with an overall lead of 0.7%.--Tajm (talk) 17:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Could someone add the gray element to the key? It is wildly unclear that a gray state means "no recent data. Cbeien (talk) 23:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Pledged Delegates vs. Popular Vote
I'm updating the map to go based on Pledged Delegates instead of Popular Vote, since this is what will matter when it comes to the convention. The popular vote will not be used in determining the winner of this primary. Vir4030 (talk) 19:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
West Virginia's last poll was over 30 days ago, so I changed this to gray, also. Vir4030 (talk) 19:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- This map is primarily meant to show who's leading in the polls. There's other maps on other pages that show the amount of delegates. --Peephole (talk) 18:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- This is good for states which have not yet voted. States which have already know how many delegates will be sent from that state based on the vote. The popular vote only determines this as far as it produces the delegates. The delegates are ultimately who will vote at the convention. If you win the most delegates, then you win the state. The popular vote does not matter. (You can argue that it SHOULD matter, but it doesn't change the fact that it doesn't.) Vir4030 (talk) 00:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, that's all nice but that doesn't prevent us from making a map that purely measures who has the most popular support in the individual states. --Peephole (talk) 16:10, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
- True, but wikipedia is not the place to publish your personal work. The popular vote does not determine the winner, the Democratic National Convention does. It does this based on delegates earned, not by popular vote. To suggest that a candidate has won a state in which they are receiving less delegates than their opponent is misleading. Vir4030 (talk) 16:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
We already have a map that shows delegate counts. --Peephole (talk) 17:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2008_Democratic_Primaries_Delegate_Vote.png
[edit] Texas shading
It seems there is a lot of back and forth on the map between seperating the Texas Primary and the Caucus. I don't care which way it goes (putting the caucus to the side of the map or striping the state to indicate a split decision, as both are accurate), but it should be discussed on here. WTStoffs (talk) 20:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- Using a box is kind of silly. The boxes were meant to clarify the results of a couple of smaller states and the Democrats Abroad. I'd go for stripes. --Peephole (talk) 16:12, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Completely New Idea
What do you think of this idea which might resolve this debate once and for all:
This is a page all about statewide polling. If people want to see results they can go look at the results page which has a lot of nice maps. How about just showing the polling results for states where elections are still to come. All the other states where elections have already occurred could be some neutral color. Thus the debate about Texas would be over. If you want to know about Texas, people can go look a the results page.
Here is an example:
Image:Democratic presidential primary polls.png
What do you think?--Chimera16 (talk) 14:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Delegate Counts for Disputed States
Delegate counts are what will be used to determine the nominee at the convention. This is a complicated system, and many people are not aware of how it works. Here are the delegate counts:
- MO: Clinton 36, Obama 36 (TIED) [1]
- NH: Clinton 9, Edwards 4, Obama 9 (TIED) [2]
- NV: Clinton 12, Obama 13 (OBAMA WINS) [3]
- TX: Clinton 65 + 29 = 94, Obama 61 + 38 = 99 (OBAMA WINS) [4]
In Texas, the first number is the delegates earned from the primary, and the second from the caucus. You cannot simply add the votes from the primary and the caucus, because that counts people multiple times and it's not how it works. Ultimately, only the delegate count matters, and this is what is used for the primary.
To be more accurate, we could include superdelegates, but there's less consensus about these counts, and they are expected to change to a certain degree. The Pledged Delegate counts above are agreed between CNN and MSNBC. Vir4030 (talk) 16:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Edit War
This edit war needs to stop. If it doesn't and there is no real discussion on this page or on Talk:Statewide opinion polling for the Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2008#Map_edit_war where I've made the same plea, I will ask for full protection on this image. The easy way to solve this is to create two separate maps and do all the discussion on the article page. The hard way is to force this to happen through protection.--Burzum (talk) 17:20, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Do not delete this image. It isn't a copyright violation.
It is a derivative of one of the many, many blank American maps on the Wikimedia Commons. SteveSims (talk) 04:08, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] MI/FL Decision
I know this is a derivative of a generic map, but what with the decision to seat Florida and Michigan, could someone rerun this to add those states? I don't want to revert to an older version in case the design has changed since then. ryright (talk) 00:53, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] New maps with Florida/Michigan
I made an SVG version with Florida and Michigan. Inkscape is acting funny so I wasn't able to put in a box for Texas' caucus, nor was I able to add text describing the map as in the PNG version. I also did this for the delegate map, but I replaced the PNG version with it since I didn't need to add much text nor add a separate box for the Texas caucus.
The SVG version: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Democratic_presidential_primary%2C_2008.svg
They're both derivatives of this map: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2008RepPrimaryDates.svg
