Talk:Opinion polling on the first Donald Trump administration/Archive 1

Archive 1

Randomness

Rasmussen and Gallup publish a daily 3-day average but the job approval ratings table on this site now lists a random selection of these (9 for Rasmussen, 6 for Gallup since inauguration). A table is not the way to display this anyway as Gallup and Rasmussen will completely overwhelm the rest. A graph would be the way to go for those. Also, missing from the table are some prominent once like the latest Quinnipiac (Feb 6), Pew (Feb 12) and Fox (Feb 13) polls. To avoid the appearance of a sampling bias, I recommend copying the polls listed by pollingreport.com, as we've done on the main job approval site for a decade or so, perhaps in combination with another polling aggregate site. Afasmit (talk) 20:49, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Afasmit - thank you for the pollingreport.com source. I checked it and this is something that should be used for this page. Can DarjeelingTea comment? Dinkytown talk 01:46, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I absolutely think the more polls we add the better! DarjeelingTea (talk) 02:50, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Update - I've added in the Pew and CNN polls. It appears everything else from Polling Report (Thank you for alerting us to this source!) was already captured, except for a FOX poll. Out of deference to User:Dinkytown's concerns in the thread below I didn't add it pending further discussion. DarjeelingTea (talk) 03:11, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Afasmit - I understand and largely agree with your position that, as a reporting exercise, we wouldn't want Gallup or Rasmussen to overwhelm all other polls. My hope behind this page was more of a documentary exercise, however, which I think is very much in the spirit of WP. That is, capturing and preserving in one place as many polls reported in RS as possible. Each poll here brings something rich and unique, from the segment or geography it's polling, to the questions it's asking, to the methodology it employs, etc., that isn't reflected in the United States presidential approval rating article which only preserves the most recent 30 days of information on one-dimension of analysis (the approval rating). You're absolutely right, graphs are ideal for the presentation of information, but tables - I feel - are most appropriate for the preservation of information. Each serve a purpose and I hope we can find room for both. DarjeelingTea (talk) 04:08, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Undue weight on conservative sources, and other issues...

This page relies on too much on conservative or biased sources, namely: Rasmussen Reports; Russian Public Opinion Research Center (VTsIOM); and others. Also, why is Alaska opinion polls relevant for the "Construction of border wall" between the US and Mexico? What is the point of this page, that is not covered here: Dinkytown talk 01:27, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I assure you, no bias is intended. I've simply been trying to document every single opinion poll I find reported in RS as a documentary and knowledge-preservation exercise but I'm only one person and my attempts to encourage other editors to help out here have, so far, not met with much interest (I'll make another attempt). In fact, I've managed to chronicle 100% of Public Policy Polling's released polls (a Democratic-aligned pollster) and only something like 20% of Rasmussen (a Republican-aligned pollster) polls. (I guess I'm actually surprised the first objection was that this page was "too conservative" ... I was thinking the first objection raised would be that it was "too liberal", for that reason!)

Anyway, I think our objective should be to add every single poll reported by RS we can find as an important part of the historical record rather than trying to make an editorial judgment on which should be included / excluded; if people six years from now want to quickly check the polling numbers for February 2017 but don't, for instance, like Rasmussen's methodology, they can use the sorting arrows to filter it out, or if they only want to see polls that were surveying Registered Voters they can do the same, etc. Anyway, that's just my 0.02. It's great to have a discussion! DarjeelingTea (talk) 02:57, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

The Comparative favorability ratings for Trump and far more obscure people should be removed

I don't think it's notable enough to include how Trump compares to Conway, Ryan, McConnell, Schumer and Pelosi. These other people are not as known as Trump, which is partly reflected in the large numbers of 'don't know' responses. The comparison is therefore misleading. As the page looks at the moment, readers get the impression that Trump is vastly more popular than these other individuals, but that's only because lots of people have no clue who they are. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:35, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Why is SurveyMonkey a creidble source?

What a joke. It is an internet poll sent by link. There is no garuntee that real people even responded, if they were even in the united states. Politico rates them as C- polls, the worst of all polls. They do not belong here. Bomberswarm2 (talk) 10:39, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

>FiveThirtyEight also gives them a C- score.

Gallup

This page should incorporate Gallup's poll.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/201617/gallup-daily-trump-job-approval.aspx

Job approval on economy and on foreign policy

Should we perhaps create sections that list polls on his job approval on the economy and his job approval on foreign policy ?? SecretName101 (talk) 19:38, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Rolling averages

What is our policy on how we incorporate rolling averages (such as Gallup and Rasmussen into this article? SecretName101 (talk) 19:50, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

The administrator is including Rasmussen but excluding Gallup (one of the most respected polling organizations). It doesn't make sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.209.97.47 (talk) 22:38, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Fake poll lookout

Hi, I was reading a 538 article (https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/fake-polls-are-a-real-problem/amp/, https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-to-avoid-falling-for-a-fake-poll/ ) on the problems with fake polls. I think we should decide on methodological standards for this article for reliability. Thx Benwitt (talk) , 23 Aug 2017 (UTC)

And here are the members of AAPOR's transparency initiative: http://www.aapor.org/Standards-Ethics/Transparency-Initiative/Current-Members.aspx. (talk) , 24 August 2017 19:35:00 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 23 external links on Opinion polling on the Donald Trump administration. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gallup.com/poll/203198/presidential-approval-ratings-donald-trump.aspx
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://americanresearchgroup.com/economy/
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_trump_job_approval-6179.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://americanresearchgroup.com/economy/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://americanresearchgroup.com/economy/
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://americanresearchgroup.com/economy/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/polls/arg-27852
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.pollingreport.com/djt_job2.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://americanresearchgroup.com/economy/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/polls/gallup-27440
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/trump_administration/prez_track_mar27
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://americanresearchgroup.com/economy/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/trump_administration/prez_track_mar20
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/trump_administration/prez_track_mar8
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/trump_administration/prez_track_mar8
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/polls/gallup-27188
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/trump_administration/prez_track_mar6
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/trump_administration/prez_track_mar2
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/trump_administration/prez_track_feb27
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://americanresearchgroup.com/economy/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_trump_job_approval-6179.html
• Replaced archive link http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:https://www.psra.com/filesave/2017-06-05%2520Paris%2520Agreement_Website_FINAL.pdf with https://web.archive.org/web/20170606204617/https://www.psra.com/filesave/2017-06-05%20Paris%20Agreement_Website_FINAL.pdf on https://www.psra.com/filesave/2017-06-05%2520Paris%2520Agreement_Website_FINAL.pdf

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) 18:06, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

More sectioning needed

It's really confusing having all the job approval polls in one big section whatever geographical region they were taken in. Instead of splitting by month, it would make far more sense (to me at least) to split by region - one section for nationwide polls and one for subnational ones. (Plus another for polls conducted outside the US I guess, since we have that weird Russia poll in there too.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.100.245.192 (talk) 23:13, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree, it is important to separate nation-wide polls with regional polls to minimise confusion. Not sure why the article was set up in this way. KU2018 (talk) 13:51, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Opinion polling on the Donald Trump administration. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://americanresearchgroup.com/economy/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170215203510/http://ipsos-na.com/download/pr.aspx?id=16426 to http://ipsos-na.com/download/pr.aspx?id=16426

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) 17:43, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Introduction out of date

The introduction is out of date. It needs updating. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.130.54.210 (talk) 05:33, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Split by year

This is already getting about as long as it should be and we may unfortunately be in for a few more years of this mess. I recommend that we split this by year. Better to do it before 2018 gets far underway and it's harder to do. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:00, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Maybe we could have a dropdown menu for each month, similar to the page for the 2020 election polls: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2020#General_election_polling. Benwitt (talk) 18:14, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

More importantly, I think we should split statewide polls from nationwide ones. Also, do we need to include each and every pollster, or should there be a threshold for inclusion? Don Cuan (talk) 16:45, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Why do those two polls keep getting removed?

A while back, I added three statewide polls by the same pollster (SurveyMonkey), only to see them removed by Benwitt without explanation as to why they did not belong on the page. After adding them back, they were later removed again by the same user, who claimed they were making the page too listy. While the page is very listy and very long, I don't understand why it is those two polls that keep getting singled out for removal when there are hundreds on the page. Splitting the page by year has been discussed, and maybe we should have one page for national and one for statewide polling as well, but for now there does not seem to be a reason not to include those specific polls. Even though Benwitt edits this page the most, they do not own the article, per WP:OWN, and therefore are not the sole decision maker. I'm adding them back for now because there has not been a reason provided why those specific polls should not be on the page. If consensus forms that SurveyMonkey polls should not be included, they should all be taken out, even the other national ones that I did not add. Otherwise, I don't see why those specific ones need to be removed, when they are two out of hundreds and not going to make any impact on the page's overall length. If other editors have opinions on this, that would be appreciated. Tillerh11 (talk) 16:08, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello, I took the two down because I thought it was getting a little listy. I have no problem adding them back. Thanks, Benwitt (talk) 16:26, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

SurveyMonkey etc

Hello, I saw that 538 updated its pollster ratings (https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/pollster-ratings/) and saw that SurveyMonkey currently has a D-. I am wondering if we might want to add a "standards of inclusion" so it's only like polls with a C- or better. thanks Benwitt (talk) 21:03 , 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I think it would be a good idea to have some sort of standard for inclusion, and there does not really seem to be one at the moment. I don't think we need to list each and every poll when some pollsters are better than others. My only concern is how that would be determined, specifically would we want to rely on the 538 ratings as the page's standard? I would not really be opposed to that in this case because nobody else seems to analyze the pollsters in the way that 538 does, but it is still just one source. Tillerh11 (talk) 22:50, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree. HuffPost Pollster also has a standards page as well (http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/faq). We could also try to get the pollsters with better grades on 538. 538 itself notes that the highest performers are live telephone ones that are transparent. We could try to mostly report telephone ones (Pew, Quinnipiac, Marist etc) thanks. Benwitt (talk) 18:32, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Help: Add a polling average graph to Presidency of Donald Trump

Hello, can someone skilled in graphics add (and update) a graphical summary of Trump's approval/disapproval ratings from a specific polling aggregator (538, RCP) to the 'approval ratings' section[1] of Presidency of Donald Trump? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:05, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Or instead of adding it there (and needing to continuously update it), would it be possible to simply transclude one of the illustrations from this article? --MelanieN (talk) 13:12, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

User:MelanieN - Done, Maybe. One more try to answer the requests using illustration here. User:Pheonix777 might be who you want for any changes. Though I wonder if the desire to use 538 or RCP is feasible as RCP ratings and 538 ratings list all sources in chronological order, but I'm not seeing a list of their aggregate score that could be used as an input to make a chart. They themselves show a chart or scatterplot, but it's not a simple image and would seem WP:COPYVIO to dupe the image they produced. Whether anyone here would want to do thousands of all the polls instead of hundreds of Gallup polls might also be a hurdle, guess that depends on what the method is. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:39, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Markbassett - HuffPost Pollster (http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/trump-job-approval) does a chronological aggregate, though it isn't as complete as the others. Perhaps that would work. thanks

Benwitt (talk) 23:45, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Missing Stanford poll

Should add the Stanford poll of California from May 2018. Included a question of respondents' approval of Trump. SecretName101 (talk) 17:37, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Inclusion of poll of Canada

There is a poll of Canada included under the issue of Keystone Pipeline. Am I wrong in thinkin that this does not belong in this article in the same table of U.S. polling? SecretName101 (talk) 17:42, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

intro paragraph

Hi, I'm wondering what happened w/ the first few intro paragraphs at the top. -Benwitt, 10/14/2019

Racial polls

Hi I am just wondering this page should have polls of white and black Americans approval rating.MroWikipedian (talk) 05:27, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Recommend removal of the "Graphical summary"

I recommend the removal of the "Graphical summary" as it describes no year and has not really changed at all for some time. Comments? Dinkytown talk 21:04, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Gallup_Poll-Approval_Rating-Donald_Trump.svg

HoffPostPollster

It is not updated, latest data from Dec 4. Should it be removed?Yger (talk) 19:18, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Recommend removal of the entire article

This is the only article of this kind of any US president, and shows completely undue weight. The very fact that no other president has this kind of separate article is quite clear testament of that. This much minute detail is completely unnecessary and superfluous. It's amply clear that this article exists only because of political bias by Wikipedia editors, who want to list as much material to use as political ammunition as possible. Wikipedia should not be a resource for political activism. Wikipedia should not consist of needlessly long lists of minutiae that have been clearly created as political ammunition for activists and journalists. If you want endlessly long lists of minutiae to use for political activism, go to conservapedia. Wikipedia is not the place for that. Just remove this completely superfluous article. Wopr (talk) 22:03, 7 July 2019 (UTC)