Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Shereth (talk | contribs) at 20:09, 12 August 2015 (→Hideous map and other clarifications needed: done). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Elections and Referendums Unassessed

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 ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

United States: Presidential elections Unassessed

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 Misplaced Pages. 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 ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections.

Note by the 29 Jan Iowa Poll?

As Mike Huckabee (who was leading in the other two polls) and Jeb Bush (Who had around 10% support) as well as Condoleezza Rice (Who got 9% support in the last poll) were not included in the "Harper Polling" poll should a note be attached as it looks odd that the candidate who was leading in both the other polls is suddenly no where to be seen on this Harper Polling poll? Guyb123321 (talk) 11:56, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

New New Hampshire Poll

http://www.unh.edu/survey-center/news/pdf/gsp2013_spring_2016primary042513.pdf Guyb123321 (talk) 12:21, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Margins of Error

Ted Cruz is technically within the margin of error vs. Chris Christie in the only Illinois poll that's posted here. Shouldn't this be reflected in the color-coding? Meanwhile, without a margin of error reported, it's rather arbitrary that the color coding suggests that Rubio is competitive with Paul in Arkansas, even though they're 4 points apart. TBSchemer (talk) 07:25, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Also, in the most recent Oklahoma poll listed, Rand Paul could be within the margin of error of Ted Cruz, but this possibility is obscured only by a discrepancy in the number of significant figures used. TBSchemer (talk) 07:30, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Confusing and Not Up to Date

Some of the polls listed on the map are over a year old. They don't really apply to recent polling and can make the map more confusing to read. And if you look at the map totals, you would think that Chris Christie is the frontrunner. He used to, but that data isn't very relevant. And if you really want to show the complexities, you can turn this map into a timelapse video of different polling at different times. States' opinions change over time and maps should represent this. If anyone has the time for this task, it would make the map more educational and representational and time conscious. And hopefully less confusing. If that is too difficult, a simpler solution would involve only recent polling and not all polls. 198.228.228.24 (talk) 00:49, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

In 2012, we ended up eventually splitting the article into multiple articles as more and more polls were taken. First we split off older polls into new articles, but later they were reorganized based on when the primaries were held in each state. I'm sure we'll end up doing something similar here. But I only see two polls that are extremely out of date. One is New Jersey, where Christie is probably still leading, and the other is Wyoming, which honestly isn't too crucial. Every other state has been polled within the last six months, which isn't too bad. Poll frequency will only increase, so things will continue to get more up-to-date as time passes. —Torchiest _edits 12:38, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

New York, Montana, Maine, and Illinois are also more than 6 months out of date. These states are quite significant, and except for Montana, were all polled within a two week period of each other- never before and never again. I think it's fair to say that the situation in these four states in November 2013 misrepresents the current state of the race. TBSchemer (talk) 20:05, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Map Template

I was wondering if the original creator of the map could post the template used for striping the states, so that the community can update the maps more completely. The most similar blank, fully-striped version I can find in the Wikimedia archives is here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/File:Blank_US_Map,_striped2.svg

But of course, the stripes go in the opposite direction for that one. Not sure if anyone here cares that much about the aesthetics or not. TBSchemer (talk) 21:40, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Mitt Romney's map color designation

I think Rand Paul's and Mitt Romney's map color chosen to represent their poll numbers are too similar. They are both orange-ish. What if we try gray instead? (For Mitt Romney) Btw, I'm not an editor, so I can't change it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.253.175.243 (talk) 01:24, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Mitt Romney's States: Suffolk Poll Methodology Problem

Currently, two states on the map are labeled as Mitt Romney's, because of his victory in the second part of two-part Suffolk University polls. However, these Suffolk polls have a severe methodological problem, in that Part 1 gives the candidate list without Mitt Romney, and then Part 2 prompts the participants to consider switching their vote to Mitt Romney. It is no surprise, then, that Mitt Romney always wins in Part 2 of these Suffolk primary polls.

I thought it was for this reason that the Suffolk Part 2 polls were previously ignored when coloring the map and tallying the states. But it seems a few users have broken this convention and given North Carolina and Massachusetts to Romney. I do not believe it is scientifically justifiable to give him either state. Shouldn't we change it back? TBSchemer (talk) 22:31, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree they should be ignored, but I don't think they should be removed. Tiller54 (talk) 23:15, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Unaccessible map

The map is unaccessible and should be removed. Way too difficult to read. Prcc27 (talk) 09:25, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. I think it's legible. TBSchemer (talk) 11:49, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I hold the same sentiment as TBSchemer, the map is easy to read and I also think it's easy to edit and update. Bullshark44 (talk) 13:40, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree. I feel like the striped state format isn't well suited to ties of more than three candidates. It becomes difficult to distinguish who and how many candidates are leading. Furthermore, there are so many candidates that several of the colors look to similar. I think the ultimate problem is that it's just too early for a map to be informative. Most of the polls on the page are many months old, making them basically useless. Even current polls are largely meaningless, because of how far away the primary is, and how undefined the field is. As candidates start declaring or declining this will become more meaningful, but that's still a ways off. ThrawnRocks (talk) 17:48, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I would also agree with removing the map for now, and adding it again later when we can agree that it's providing more useful information. It is pretty messy right now, and yes many polls are months old as well. —Torchiest _edits 20:46, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Even if it's frustrating that the races are too divided to have any idea who might take the lead, I think that, in itself, is information worth of inclusion and visualization. This situation is rather distinct from what the Democratic Party has in the works for this round. The map shows that some states are much more divided than others, and some candidates are at much higher levels of support than others. Besides, we're already at the point that the races will consolidate fairly soon, now that the 2014 elections are over. TBSchemer (talk) 05:10, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

When opened up, the map is much more accessible and very easy to read. TBSchemer's points are also very well made: it highlights the fractured Republican field but will settle down more once candidates actually make up their minds and more frequent polls are taken. Tiller54 (talk) 16:34, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Mitt Romney Map

Add Mitt Romney on the map again?83.80.208.22 (talk) 12:54, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I think that would be appropriate. He's no longer being polled as the second question, "now who would you vote for if Romney were running as well" option. Although, this would only presently affect New Hampshire. Tiller54 (talk) 12:56, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree. The methodology problems I brought up earlier have been resolved in some recent polls. TBSchemer (talk) 01:38, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

At present this would only result in one change - New Hampshire being marked for Romney whereas previously it was tied Christie/Paul/Bush. Tiller54 (talk) 03:14, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I think we should add him now, because he is now with Publicly expressed interest83.80.208.22 (talk) 20:24, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Then is he the winner of: Arkansas, Colorado, Kansas, Massachusetts, Michigan and New Hampshire83.80.208.22 (talk) 11:54, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/01/09/us-usa-politics-romney-idUSKBN0KI26Q2015010983.80.208.22 (talk) 12:09, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

• The question of whether to include him on the map has never been whether or not he's an "official" candidate. Most of the candidates included are not yet "officially running" or "exploring" or whatever they want to call it. The determining factor in whether or not Romney polls should be included in the map is whether Romney was included in the initial lineup of candidates suggested to the poll respondents, or if the respondents were given a no-Romney lineup, and then prompted to change their vote to Romney. The Suffolk polls listed for Arkansas, Colorado, Kansas, Massachusetts, and Michigan use the bad-methodology "prompting" tactic to include Romney after the fact, so Romney cannot be considered the winner of those states until we get better polls. On the other hand, the latest New Hampshire poll includes Romney in the initial lineup of candidates, and then prompts Romney voters to choose someone else. So in this case, the first lineup, that includes Romney and gives him the victory, is the correct poll to use. We can include both the initial candidate lineups and the prompted lineups in the poll listings (as we have already done), but the map should only reflect the results from the initial candidate lineups presented to poll respondents.
• Hence, the map should be adjusted to show Romney as the sole winner in New Hampshire, but at this time we should not change Arkansas, Colorado, Kansas, Massachusetts, or Michigan. TBSchemer (talk) 23:26, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Then we only change New Hampshire?83.80.208.22 (talk) 19:30, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Can anyone change it?83.80.208.22 (talk) 12:54, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

What TBSchemer said. Tiller54 (talk) 19:55, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Although now Romney leads in Iowa too. Tiller54 (talk) 23:40, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

polls

2 new Iowa. http://loras.edu/LorasCollege/files/d6/d69775e6-870f-465d-98fa-370cba8097b6.pdf http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/iowa-poll/2015/01/31/iowa-poll-walker-leads-tight-pack/22659477/83.80.208.22 (talk) 11:43, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Done. Tiller54 (talk) 12:05, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

New Hampshire http://images.businessweek.com/cms/2015-02-07/sunday-rev.pdf83.80.208.22 (talk) 11:29, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Done. Tiller54 (talk) 22:58, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Iowa, New ham and South Carolina:

http://newscms.nbcnews.com/sites/newscms/files/iowa_february_2015_annotated_questionnaire_nbc_news-marist_poll.pdf http://newscms.nbcnews.com/sites/newscms/files/new_hampshire_february_2015_annotated_questionnaire_nbc_news-marist_poll.pdf http://newscms.nbcnews.com/sites/newscms/files/south_carolina_february_2015_annotated_questionnaire_nbc_news-marist_poll.pdf83.80.208.22 (talk) 17:25, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

again

California Republican Presidential Primary http://www.field.com/fieldpollonline/subscribers/Rls2496.pdf

Iowa Republican Presidential Caucus http://gravismarketing.com/uncategorized/iowa-poll-walker-garners-24-of-gop-support-paul-clinton-beats-walker-others-head-to-head/83.80.208.22 (talk) 17:21, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

All done. Tiller54 (talk) 13:14, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Nevada http://gravismarketing.com/polling-and-market-research/current-nevada-polling-scott-walker-leads-bush-does-best-against-clinton/83.80.208.22 (talk) 11:39, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

again http://gravismarketing.com/polling-and-market-research/florida-poll-jeb-walker-lead-in-gop-sunshine-state-poll/ and http://gravismarketing.com/polling-and-market-research/current-south-carolina-polling-republican-primary-polling-2016/83.80.208.22 (talk) 14:54, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

http://gravismarketing.com/polling-and-market-research/current-new-hampshire-primary-political-poll/83.80.208.22 (talk) 15:22, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

http://gravismarketing.com/polling-and-market-research/current-montana-polling-2/83.80.208.22 (talk) 11:21, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

new NH http://www.bostonherald.com/sites/default/files/blog_posts/Franklin_Pierce_Herald_GOP_Poll.pdf83.80.208.22 (talk) 09:50, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

SC http://gravismarketing.com/polling-and-market-research/south-carolina-political-polling-ted-cruz-bounce/145.52.142.104 (talk) 13:59, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

NC http://www.nccivitas.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/GOP-poll-PR-xtabs-3-31-15.pdf83.80.208.22 (talk) 13:50, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Ohio, Florida and Pennsylvania http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/2016-presidential-swing-state-polls/release-detail?ReleaseID=2182145.52.140.192 (talk) 11:16, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

NJ http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/new-jersey/release-detail?ReleaseID=221983.80.208.22 (talk) 13:18, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

WV http://harperpolling.com/docs/default-source/default-document-library/hp-15-04-wv-gov-gop-toplines.pdf83.80.208.22 (talk) 19:42, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

NH http://gravismarketing.com/polling-and-market-research/new-hampshire-poll-ayotte-opens-up-6-point-lead-walker-others-lead-clinton/83.80.208.22 (talk) 11:40, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Iowa http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/iowa/release-detail?ReleaseID=222383.80.208.22 (talk) 11:36, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

NH https://cola.unh.edu/sites/cola.unh.edu/files/research_publications/gsp2015_spring_gopprim050615.pdf83.80.208.22 (talk) 07:11, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Georgia http://landmarkcommunications.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Georgia-Presidential-Primary-Poll.pdf83.80.208.22 (talk) 10:05, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

CALIFORNIA http://www.field.com/fieldpollonline/subscribers/Rls2506.pdf83.80.208.22 (talk) 16:28, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

NH http://gravismarketing.com/blogs/current-new-hampshire-republican-polling/ and NY http://www.quinnipiac.edu/images/polling/ny/ny06082015_n7p28rr.pdf83.80.208.22 (talk) 09:45, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

SC http://morningconsult.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/150502_crosstabs_mc_SC_v1_AD.pdf83.80.208.22 (talk) 09:40, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

NH http://morningconsult.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/150502_crosstabs_mc_NH_v1_AD.pdf83.80.208.22 (talk) 09:40, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Iowa http://morningconsult.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/150502_crosstabs_mc_IA_v1_AD.pdf83.80.208.22 (talk) 09:40, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Ohio, FL, PA http://www.quinnipiac.edu/images/polling/ps/ps06182015_Sk32gth.pdf83.80.208.22 (talk) 09:35, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

NH http://www.realclearpolitics.com/docs/2015/6_23_for_posting_FINAL_NH_GOP_Marginals.pdf/ https://www.suffolk.edu/news/60149.php83.80.208.22 (talk) 20:01, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Map

The map does not match with the polls, I think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.80.208.22 (talk) 17:25, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Is there a particular state that you think needs updating? There's a consensus to not include those who have officially dropped out, so that accounts for some of the mismatch. Also, polls are added and maps are updated by different editors, so it takes time for one to catch up with the other. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 06:49, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry my a fault it was a bug in my screen, stupid mobile :)83.80.208.22 (talk) 11:32, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Illinois/Old Data

So Illinois's data is from November 22–25, 2013. Should we keep Illinois's colors on the map? I note this is the only piolling data for IL yet on this page. Perhaps a better question could be: How long do we keep state polling data on the map to keep it timely?98.253.175.243 (talk) 04:15, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I have no particular problem with keeping old data, but if there is a consensus for removal, I wouldn't object either. If I recall, previous election polling articles used lighter shades for old data, but with so many colors at this point, that method wouldn't work well. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 04:03, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps we could cross-hatch states with polls more than, say six months old with diagonal black lines, in the opposite direction to the colored stripes? Polls from before the beginning of 2015 are pretty useless at this point. I mean, come on, the map shows Sarah Palin sharing a state, and she's not even remotely going to run. It's worse to have misleading data than none at all. Antony–22 (⁄_contribs) 22:23, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

FYI, there are currently 24 states where the newest poll is from 2015, 12 from 2014, and 3 from 2013. That leaves 11 states, all 5 territories, and DC unaccounted for. Antony–22 (⁄_contribs) 22:29, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Utah Poll

The numbers for Utah's single poll have been changed numerous times now. The only relevant line from the linked article is "Utah Republicans mostly favor Jeb Bush (21%), followed by Scott Walker (14%) and Rand Paul (10%)." That leaves us with no information on other candidates, on the exact sample size, or the margin of error. Admittedly, this is a poor amount of data, but it is all we have. The other numbers reported in the linked article are the combined percentages for polled Republicans and Democrats, that is, the general population. The point of this Misplaced Pages article is Republican primaries, thus we include polling results of those who will vote in Republican primaries, not the general population. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 13:27, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Sarah Palin is not a candidate

Sarah Palin is not running for President, so I don't think she should be on here. When Mitt Romney announced he was not running, his map color was removed. Tenor12 (talk) 05:20, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Hideous map and other clarifications needed

First the lesser of the evils - the table needs some clarification on what is going on. It is not clear what the pink/red shading of the names indicates. At a glance it seems to indicate that the frontrunners are within a certain margin of error in terms of their respective leads, but if this is the case, and what the margin for cutoff is, is not mentioned anywhere in the article and thus renders the shading useless. With no context, the shading could mean virtually anything.

Secondly .. what gives with the map being used here? It is quite possibly the most hideous and useless infographic I have stumbled upon recently. No offense meant to those who are spending the time and effort maintaining it, but .. what on earth is going on? I presume that the intent is to show the current frontrunner in any given state, and that the striping is intended to communicate when frontrunner status is split among more than one candidate. If that is the case, it suffers from the same lack of context as the table - what is the margin required before one candidate is considered a frontrunner? What are the circumstances in which two or three candidates "share" frontrunner status but not the others? None of this information is offered anywhere and thus it makes the distinction useless and practically nonexistent. Also, at what point do you yield the point and say that there simply is no frontrunner rather than trying to show everyone who is "close"? I mean, dear god, California is a rainbow of 8 or 9 different colors. I cannot tell what is going on there. Even as someone with good color vision, I have a hard time distinguishing that there are 2 color stripes in Connecticut and Massachusetts. This map has serious accessibility issues for colorblind folks.

I must strongly suggest and propose that the map be remedied and propose the following:

• The map be replaced with a SVG version so as to be editable without the need of graphics software and for superior display. If help is needed creating an initial SVG file I would be happy to oblige, and they are easy to modify via text editors.
• An attempt should be made to select colors that are more accessible for colorblindness (though this may be a challenge due to the number of candidates)
• States with no recent polling data should be omitted (Maine and Wyoming are both from 2013 and thus useless)
• The map be modified to show only the frontrunner and no "shared" statuses:
  • To qualify as a frontrunner a candidate should have a lead of at least some minimum percentage, say 5%
  • A darker shade could be employed to show when a candidate has at least a lead of at least 10%
  • If no candidate has a lead of at least 5%, instead of displaying a tie, a neutral "no clear frontrunner" color could be employed

Please consider the above or some variation on the above to make the situation clearer and more useful. Shereth 21:48, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

SUPPORT: I am in support of a neutral color to indicate lack of a clear front runner, and also removing states whose polling is more than three months old. The sheer number of candidates makes striping inefficient as a manner of indicating shared frontrunner status, especially when it's four or five different candidates. At most, striping should be used for two candidates at most. Otherwise, the infographic becomes too cumbersome and fails to provide clear, useful information. --Vrivasfl (talk) 22:32, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I've thrown together a simple SVG map based on the latest polls as of this morning. I used the 5% cutoff, and didn't bother with shading to represent stronger leads (there's just too many colors). The map should now be visible above/to the right, along with a simple legend that could probably use some formatting. I've only included candidates that RealClearPolitics is currently tracking in their polling average and using their color scheme (with the exception of Fiorina, as they use light gray) as they are a fairly well known and neutral source. I've employed striping for 2 way ties but fall back to a generic color for 3 or more. I've also arbitrarily set a cutoff for polls for anytime in 2015 but that is of course easily modified. The source SVG file is also easily modified, and if we employ it we can create a set of simple instructions that anyone can follow to make easy changes to the map. It's still not perfect - Bush and Trump's colors are hard to tell apart in Florida, for example - but there's only so much you can do when dealing with over a dozen colors on one map. Still, I believe this map communicates the information much more clearly. Unless someone voices some reasonable opposition to using this in lieu of the rainbow-stripe disaster of a map currently in place I intend to replace it with this. Shereth 15:07, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I generally like this idea. It's similar to something I've been trying, except I use more striping for statistical ties. I particularly like the idea of using a single color for 3+ ties. However, I have two thoughts/concerns. First, I'm not sure it's a good idea to use an arbitrary 5% cutoff rather than the actual margin-of-error for each individual poll. It seems to skirt the Original Research line. Second, while I like the idea of using a color palette that another site uses, the Real Clear Politics colors are simply too close together. For instance, the Fiorina/Perry/Walker and Kasich/Trump combinations are difficult for me. For what it's worth, the colors that are currently used on the "hideous" map are close to the palette found here, with a few expections. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 20:36, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I originally thought about staring with the old web specification, but I remembered why it's been more or less abandoned - the high contrast is just hard on the eyes. Granted that's a subjective sort of thing, and of course the actual colors that we use are quite mutable. Perhaps the existing selections could be tweaked for better clarity? In any case we're kind of stuck between a rock and a hard place given the number of candidates, so we'll never actually find a "perfect" solution. Any discussion on the color palette to use would be welcome. I also tend to agree about the cutoff, as long as whoever is doing the maintenance on the map is willing to do the legwork and select shades based upon the actual margin of error in the polls (rather than a set amount) then that is probably better. Shereth 21:11, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the suggested map would be an improvement on the current map, and that the margin of error should determine statistical ties. As far as colors are concerned, I have no problem with the current color scheme in place and would rather not change it, but the colors is a conversation that we could continue to have separately. The map itself would be a huge improvement. After all, if someone really wanted to know which eight candidates were statistically tied in California, all they would have to do is scroll down. Rainbow map is entirely unhelpful.--Vrivasfl (talk) 21:49, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't mind switching to the current color scheme, looking at it it should be fine for the most part. The current map, however, has colors for candidates who are not running (ie. Palin) and lacks colors for some who are (ie. Fiorina). There are 17 declared candidates (and indeed 17 candidates who participated in yesterday's debates). Should we pick a color for each of them, even if they are not now, nor likely will be, on the map? Or shall we have some other minimum bar for inclusion? Shereth 23:19, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I think colors reserved for cadidates not running (like Palin) should be taken and reused for candidates currently unassigned a color (like Fiorina), but we can cross that bridge when we come to it. There is no need to assign Jim Gilmore a color right now, for example, and there's a pretty good change there never will be. Go forward with as it is now. --Vrivasfl (talk) 00:28, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

All right, I've finally gotten around to updating the map to use (where possible) the colors already in use in the extant PNG map. I attempted to make a judgement call on candidates who were not previously in the list. If anyone has issues with the specific colors in use (at any time) it would be relatively trivial to update them. I also switched to using the published margin of error for each poll, and where that is not available defaulted to a 5% margin to determine frontrunner status.

I created a tool that makes updating this map vastly simpler. I may look into getting it hosted on the toolserver since it is dedicated to use here, but in the meantime anyone can access the tool to create an updated version of the map. I am creating a short list of instructions that will be included at the top of this page on how to use the tool and how to update the map. Please provide any feedback on how I can make this process easier. Shereth 20:08, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

• Unassessed Elections and Referendums articles
• WikiProject Elections and Referendums articles
• Unassessed United States articles
• Unknown-importance United States articles
• Unassessed United States articles of Unknown-importance
• Unassessed United States presidential elections articles
• Unknown-importance United States presidential elections articles
• WikiProject United States presidential elections articles
• WikiProject United States articles