File talk:Democratic presidential primary.png

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))[reply]
- 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)[reply]
  - 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)[reply]
    - 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))[reply]
      - What are those little islands to the left of Puerto Rico (US Virgin Islands)? Shouldn't they be in their own box? SteveSims (talk) 04:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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))[reply]

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)[reply]

Are you talking about me? If so, do whatever you guys want.Chester-S (talk) 09:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hawaii

Shouldn't it be purple? not yellow? 68.175.28.66 (talk) 13:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

http://americanresearchgroup.com/pres08/vtdem8-702.html --Peephole (talk) 01:38, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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))[reply]

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)[reply]