Talk:Opinion polling for the 2022 Philippine presidential election

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Request to add surveys[edit]

I don't wanna screw up the article, so here's a survey that can be added:

Manila Standard released an article about a vice presidential survey conducted by RPMD. FierceKnight (talk) 10:53, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The results of the RPMD Vice Presidential survey was as follows. 51% Davao City Mayor Sara Duterte 40% Senate President Tito Sotto 5% Senator Pangilinan 1% Doctor Willie Ong 1% Congressman Lito Atienza 10,000 respondents 1% MOE The survey was conducted from April 1-6 and used random sampling. https://manilastandard.net/news/314223064/survey-sara-sotto-still-1-2-in-vp-race.html Arslan - Euphemia (talk) 00:10, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New survey by Publicus conducted in mid april https://www.manilatimes.net/2022/04/25/news/marcos-keeps-lead-in-mid-april-survey-publicus/1841196 Arslan - Euphemia (talk) 06:26, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Questions about Publicus Asia[edit]

There have been considerable numbers of people, including some politicians, questioning the integrity of Publicus Asia's recent presidential poll, given their latest poll gives Marcos and Sara Duterte over 50 oercent each over their nearest opponents. While Social Weather Stations also put the Marcos-Duterte tandem in the lead, there are nonetheless accusations layed against the firm. These accusations include the methods used by the firm, their other services in political campaigning and lobbying potentially raising conflict of interest concerns, and also questions about their Chief Data Analyst and CEO, Malou Tiquia, having a political bias towards one aspirant, given they are also an opinion columnist.

I ask editors here that especially now, some here may leave integrity and truthfulness behind to push their agenda, and given the vast impact on social media and the misinformation and manipulation spreading there, Wikipedia is a place that opposes all that. JohnDotto (talk) 11:06, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If WP:RS regards Publicus Asia as a reputable pollster, there's no reason for Wikipedia not to. FWIW, this is similar to allegations against either SWS or Pulse Asia (I forgot which) that they're connected to FPJ in 2004.
We could write something about this here if WP:RS says so, though. Howard the Duck (talk) 21:23, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think the last Publicus Asia survey that was just added is an NCR survey, not national. Also, on the topic of integrity... who is 'Mobilis Research'? Does anyone know if their polling method is legit? Jinmac (talk) 21:28, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also a second Feb22-28 RP-MDF Survey was added with completely different numbers and a link to a non-exixtent Fb link. Jinmac (talk) 21:37, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also the Feb Laylo poll was removed. Nicoelvis1987 (talk)'s latest edits are a complete mess. Jinmac (talk) 21:41, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And the entire VP section is gone?? Jinmac (talk) 21:45, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've restored the previous RP-MDF numbers and the Laylo surveys. Keeping the Mobilis Research survey for now, although I do question their inclusion since they don't have any track record or proven statistical method. Itsquietuptown ✉️📜 07:56, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I reverted the VP deletion before it got superseded by another edit. The Mobilis Research is quite an outlier so I have doubts over their methodology. But their number are plausible considering that Robredo has a 32.3 performance approval rating. But you are right, they don't have any track record or proven statistical method. Jinmac (talk) 17:59, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Others, undecided, none and refused[edit]

Others, undecided, none and refused should be separated if the survey separates them. These are different things and should be kept separate if possible. Howard the Duck (talk) 14:48, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request to remove MB-Tangere survey[edit]

The MB-Tangere survey has no proven statistical method to back up its survey. Tangere is a mobile app for matket polling purposes. As such, the sample of the poll is limited to people who downloaded the application, not representative of the Filipino population.

}} 2001:569:7DF0:B700:5DB5:571B:DBC:D457 (talk) 03:27, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just finished watching Rappler Talk with Tangere. The Tangere CEO claim that they are using stratified random sampling in their surveys(the same as other survey firms). They also claim to conduct hybrid surveys in their surveys to ensure that even those who do not have internet/app are also accounted for. They also screen their respondents ensuring no alt or troll accounts would be included in their sample. They also claim that they did a survey for the 2019 election in Metro Manila and it ended up accurate to the result of the elections there but I can't seem to find any. The survey results of the candidates are comparable to other surveys but for one Manila Mayor Isko Moreno's. What are your thoughts about this? FierceKnight (talk) 10:43, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 13 February 2022[edit]

Update with the January Surveys from Pulse Asia and SWS, among others. Anonbunch (talk) 08:26, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pulse Asia has been added. SWS was leaked but is apparently embargoed. Should be added once a WP:RS reports about it. Howard the Duck (talk) 10:49, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of events to include[edit]

We already include in this cycle:

  1. Debates

We have already included in other cycles:

  1. Supreme Court case about a candidate is resolved

We can include:

  1. Candidate's change in party affiliation
  2. Candidate withdraws
  3. Candidate is disqualified or candidacy canceled
  4. Candidate dies

Basically, if we'd have to edit results tables and explain something, that's the gist of these last four items. What else? The 2016 survey article had a few more events such as Trillanes releasing anti-Duterte ads and Duterte uttering tasteless jokes, but I guess it's reasonable to exclude these things such as those. Howard the Duck (talk) 19:26, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The kind of events to include should focus on events that affect the opinion polling numbers since the page is mainly focused on opinion polling.
There is already a much more extensive page which discusses each candidates' party affiliations etc. Jinmac (talk) 20:25, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CRYSTAL and all, but a party dropping someone, much less a presidential candidate, has to affect polling numbers. Plus if we'd be presenting Lacson as an independent candidate moving forward the table has to show when the change occurred. Howard the Duck (talk) 13:46, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If that so, you should include the late endorsement of Marcos by the ruling party PDP Laban and NUP which is one of the biggest political party. 158.62.64.38 (talk) 03:27, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree to this! last minute endorsement of the rulling party and an influential party will surely change the perspective of many undecided voters. Hunneybunch (talk) 03:47, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Endorsements of major parties that do not have a standard-bearer should be included. I'm talking about Nacionalista Party, NPC, NUP and PDP–Laban. Of these parties, only NUP and PDP-Laban Cusi wing have endorsed a ticket, and both endorsed the Marcos-Duterte tandem. And another note, just keep Lacson's red colour throughout the page to keep it cohesive, or even blue in the table "From the end of candidacy filing to the start of the campaign period" as the colour in the graph is blue already. --Janbryan (talk) 06:01, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
While I do agree that this would make it fair for all candidates, it would further clutter the table. @Howard the Duck, this is exactly what I was referring to when I said the addition of Lacson's party switch/Robredo endorsement "would open the floodgates". The top of the table already looks cluttered and ridiculous as it is rn. Jinmac (talk) 08:10, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would've limited it to a presidential candidate resigning from a party and that party endorsing somebody else. This hasn't happened in the 90 years of Philippine presidential history. Parties who don't have candidates endorsing/supporting/nominating candidates shouldn't be here because we don't have to change everything from infoboxes and results templates. Howard the Duck (talk) 08:53, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if there's an endorsement by an organization that should be here, but obviously we're not putting that here is the endorsement of the Iglesia ni Cristo. We're not adding that, so we won't be adding endorsements by parties who do not have candidates in the first place. Now, we have people saying we'd remove events where a candidate resigns from the party he is running with, then that party endorses someone else from a rival party. Preposterous. Howard the Duck (talk) 09:18, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but what was the point of encouraging a discussion if you yourself are putting a "limit" to what can be included in the events and basically taking ownership over the content? I was not aware of WP:OWN before but this is sounding like one. Jinmac (talk) 09:45, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're putting limits as well. This is a discussion. We're discussing which makes sense: Non-participating parties with no history of changing voter preferences endorsing a candidate gets in, while participating party ditches its candidate and endorses an erstwhile rival gets removed, and an organization that has a history of changing voter preferences endorsing a candidate won't be added. Makes sense, no? Howard the Duck (talk) 10:24, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was putting limits until I was made aware of WP:OWN. But now that I've been made aware that it is not allowed, I add my Support to the 3 editors who wishes to add the endorsements of major parties that do not have a standard-bearer (Nacionalista Party, NPC, NUP and PDP–Laban) I was merely pointing out the cluttered look which prompted my initial inclination to putting limit (which I now know is not allowed). Jinmac. (talk) 11:17, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be sure, you're into adding endorsement of parties that do not have a standard bearer, and removing a change of standard bearer of a party that already has one to a rival. Is that right? Howard the Duck (talk) 11:22, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm into adding endorsements of major parties that do not have a standard bearer since we are already adding a change of standard bearer (not sure if this is the right term since the filing of CONAs has ended) of a party that already has one to a rival as per the spirit of WP:OWN. Jinmac (talk) 11:32, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also the spirit of fairness. Jinmac (talk) 11:33, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fairness, apples and oranges, but be my guest, I guess? Howard the Duck (talk) 11:36, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW we don't add similar endorsements in previous polling articles. NPC notably endorsed Grace Poe, LDP endorsed Duterte in 2016 and LP endorsed Arroyo in 2004... but do we even remember when those happened?... Exactly. These are non-events. Lacson ditching his party then his party endorsing a rival? Historic. Never happened in 90 years of Philippine presidential elections. Fairness? You sure? Howard the Duck (talk) 11:39, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But isn't it also historic that the Administration party does not have a standard bearer and is forced to endorse another instead. Jinmac (talk) 11:43, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's true, but that's the choice they made. We don't have a separate column for a "potential" PDP-Laban/PDDS/NUP/NP candidate in the table or results template. For purposes of this article, those parties are and stay irrelevant. Do you actually believe the argument that a random voter will change preferences "because NUP endorsed candidate X?" Sure, INC endorsing someone will make someone change preferences. Even individual politicians. But political parties? You buy that? Howard the Duck (talk) 11:50, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's same choice/mistake that Alvarez made by backing the wrong candidate during the filing of CONAs. Both are historic blunder tbs but if you believe that Partido Reporma changing their allegiance can persuade a random voter... why can't you apply it towards another party? Jinmac (talk) 11:57, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My arguments are not Partido Reporma persuading voters to change preferences; I suppose that's your argument that organizations can persuade people to change preferences so those get in.
Entities that are not direct participants do not get in; conversely, events that affect entities in the election, may get in. PDP-Laban, NUP, NP, are non-participants in the election. They do not have candidates in election, and no one is running under them. Lacson, Reporma and Robredo are. Lacson and Robredo are actual candidates in the election. Reporma used to have a candidate, and now merely just endorses one. (I suppose an extension of this argument is if Reporma endorses another person in the future, I'd oppse its addition.) Consider my original list above: all of these concern "Candidates". Howard the Duck (talk) 12:42, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If that is your argument for adding Lacson/Reporma/Robredo then we have to respect it.
Then our argument (that endorsements by major parties affect opinion pollings) is separate from yours which you must also respect. Jinmac (talk) 13:00, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think I heard "Respect my opinion" line on social media. You see, not all opinions are created equally. Adding non-participant entities in the table absolutely does not make sense. Adding participant entities in the table does make sense.

It's like adding Celtics results in 2021–22 Los Angeles Lakers season game log. The Celtics are non-participants in all but 2 regular season Lakers games. Why add instances like... I dunno Jayson Tatum scored 50+ in a random game against some random team... in the Lakers season game log? It doesn't make sense, right? Same thing here. Why add non-participants in the tables? There isn't even quantitative proof that what you are suggesting does change voter preferences (I'd be glad to be disproven), unlike say, a non-participant like INC, which does change voter preferences, endorsing someone. Now, that's something we can discuss about. Howard the Duck (talk) 13:05, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stick to the topic at hand. This content pertains to opinion pollings and events that affects the public's opinion and valid event. Jinmac (talk) 13:11, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And if you want to start a separate discussion about religious endorsements like INC, El Shaddai etc then that is another discussion. Jinmac (talk) 13:13, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I made an analogy. Opinion has to be based on facts. Yours plainly isn't, or at the very least, not proven empirically. Howard the Duck (talk) 13:13, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the events you are adding here have to be in sync with 2022 Philippine presidential election. The events you are adding are so insignificant it's not even discussed there. Howard the Duck (talk) 13:15, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is literally 3 editors who Support the additions. Please read the discussion board. Thanks. Jinmac (talk) 13:16, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And you were the one who educated me on the importance of [WP:OWN]] Jinmac (talk) 13:18, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is a daughter article of 2022 Philippine presidential election. As a daughter article, this should subscribe to WP:SUMMARY. The events you are suggesting aren't even discussed there. This is not a vote count. Your arguments do not make sense. Howard the Duck (talk) 13:20, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OWN states that I should be civil and not accuse anyone of abusing WP:OWN so I'll leave it to everyone else what they think. You were literally the one who was telling me about respecting WP:OWN Jinmac (talk) 13:22, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You literally edit warred three different people violating WP:3RR imposing your own version of the article. Howard the Duck (talk) 13:24, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes then you sent me the link to WP:OWN and I educated myself. I hope you have read the link which you sent me. Jinmac (talk) 13:30, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't edit warred (3RR) anyone on this article lately. Howard the Duck (talk) 13:32, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good for you. These rules/links are good to post so that all are educated as to what is allowed and not. Jinmac (talk) 13:34, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Great. I never reverted to my "own" version. I reverted to the version of the three people you edit warred with. Howard the Duck (talk) 13:35, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter who's was reverted. As long as rules are communicated and followed. Jinmac (talk) 13:36, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it does. You could have been banned for now if I used up my 3 edits reverting to the established version, leading you to overuse yours to impose your own version.
Either way, again, the events you are imposing on this article, which is the current version right now, isn't even at the primary 2022 Philippine presidential election article. It's so insignificant, it's not even discussed here. (Unlike amazingly, the event that you wanted to remove!) I could take the liberty to revert to the version that doesn't violate WP:SUMMARY but here you are discussing WP:OWN, after saying we should not veer off-topic. Howard the Duck (talk) 13:41, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please read all the links you are sending me. 3 reverts is a 24hr ban and it's not edit-warring until the 4th revert. Also, as per WP:OWN not one single person can dictate what is allowed or not allowed on an article especially by saying that opinion changing endorsements are not allowed on an opinion polling page. Jinmac (talk) 13:45, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said I will leave this discussion up to the rest of my fellow editors. I will no longer reply. Jinmac (talk) 13:48, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
At the very least, please edit your own version of the article. "PDP-Laban(Cusi)" is badly entered. Howard the Duck (talk) 13:49, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You had 3 reverts. If I reverted you for a second time and you still reverted me, it would have been the 4th and could've been penalized.
No one's imposing anything. Your own version of the article, the one that violates WP:SUMMARY is the one that's live. Howard the Duck (talk) 13:48, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have to agree with Howard the Duck here. Only major parties which have a standard bearer and would later switch to another candidate should be included here. Otherwise, this table would be cluttered by the endorsements of parties without candidates, many of which would have little to no effect on survey standings. PS: Guys, please chill and remember to be civil. Itsquietuptown ✉️📜 02:00, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nacionalista Party, the second biggest political party after PDP, just released their official endorsement to the Marcos-Duterte tandem. Also Laylo just released their March survey. The second SMNI debate was not posted in the table. 158.62.64.38 (talk) 03:52, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All major party endorsements should be included to keep the article fair. 72.143.219.243 (talk) 13:12, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I love the fact IP users suddenly are all here for some reason. Howard the Duck (talk) 13:41, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I've removed all party endorsements except for Reporma and PDPL Cusi and the start of local campaign (which shouldn't show up here, if we're going by 2016 and 2010). Itsquietuptown ✉️📜 10:54, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Will the presscon of Lacson, Pacquiao, Domagoso, Abella and Gonzales will be included here? I think they are all running against Leni’s issue about backing out and buying them. Hunneybunch (talk) 04:27, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. The press conference is only a minor event. I also don't think that the event have any impact on any of the candidates. FierceKnight (talk) 12:56, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The third presidential and vice presidential debates are moved. The schedule is now April 30 and May 1. FierceKnight (talk) 03:40, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 26 March 2022[edit]

Remove unecessary information on the table like Lacson resigns, robredo was endorsed and start of the local campaign. Only the debates should appear on the table 158.62.64.38 (talk) 03:25, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I agree big time! The top of the table looks ridiculous as it is rn. 4 events within a 7 day period is overkill. I would suggest to keep the start of the local campaign tho. Jinmac (talk) 08:13, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
TBH I would even suggest removing the SMNI debates. It only benefits BBM since most of their viewers are already BBM supporters and the debates have failed to move the needle for the other minor candidates involved. (I have nothing against the SMNI debates btw. I'm watching it rn and the format is quite impressive actually.) Jinmac (talk) 08:15, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
First SMNI debate should be there, but the supposed second one isn't a debate at all and has to be removed.
It appears that way because we don't have surveys yet. These will be spaced out in the future once we have new surveys. Howard the Duck (talk) 08:54, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Note: I'm closing the request while it's under discussion, per template instructions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:52, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Graphical Summary[edit]

If I am correct, the graphical summary is using a 3 point moving average. I suggest using a 5 point moving average to make the graphical summary "neat" and less sporadic which can be seen in Marcos' Oct - Nov 2021 and Sotto's early 2022 graphical survey scores. FierceKnight (talk) 13:27, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno if you're right but this seems to be a good idea. If you notice the final plot point is always where the trendline ends up, so there's nothing we can do about that. Howard the Duck (talk) 13:31, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Let's wait for other people's responses on this topic and if most agree, then let someone change it because I can't do it. Seeing those deviations in the graphical summary may give the general public an "illusion" that something big happened during the survey dates when there hadn't FierceKnight (talk) 14:29, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this suggestion but I'm just not sure how would this be implemented using the current template. Janbryan (talk) 22:12, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think we could change it in the interpolation part. FierceKnight (talk) 11:50, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I support this, but I don't know how this would be implemented; tried changing some related parameters to no avail. Itsquietuptown ✉️📜 02:12, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the y axis on the graph on the vice president should ne extended to 65.. the highest score was already roofing the graph. Hunneybunch (talk) 03:09, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

France's 2022 presidential election graphical summary seems to be using a program to follow a spline and I've read some are using a program to implement it. It's in the talk section of Opinion polling of french presidential candidates for 2022. FierceKnight (talk) 13:23, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion polling for France, UK and other countries seems to use LOESS for creating trendlines for their graphs. These can be implemented by using statistical programs like R or SPSS. I'm thinking of creating these graphs when I get some free time. Janbryan (talk) 14:30, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please see this graph I've created. This uses local regressions for the trendlines.
Janbryan (talk) 02:29, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That looks better than the one we currently use. Great job. Arslan - Euphemia (talk) 12:21, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This missed out the undecided, none and others. Howard the Duck (talk) 18:57, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How does one shows none and undecided if some polls have two different numbers for them? I realize that they're combined in the old graphs. Janbryan (talk) 19:19, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think those are supposed to be combined if possible? Howard the Duck (talk) 19:49, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ohh so you just add them together. Ok I'll modify the graphs to include those %. Janbryan (talk) 20:02, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno which in the old graph were combined. These were none, others and undecided. Howard the Duck (talk) 20:13, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
None and undecided were combined in the old graphs while others is separate. Janbryan (talk) 22:27, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The new graph is very neat and appealing to the eye. By the way, can you add the latest OCTA survey in both president and vice president? Thanks Hunneybunch (talk) 10:40, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Kindly add the Mobilis Research April 22-30 presidential survey results in your graph once you have free time, thank you. Arslan - Euphemia (talk) 05:58, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The new graph looks fresh af. Thank you so much for taking the time to make it. Great job! Jinmac (talk) 03:37, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The 2016 Republican primary polling have different sizes for points for different sizes of survey sample size. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationwide_opinion_polling_for_the_2016_Republican_Party_presidential_primaries Should we add this in? Arslan - Euphemia (talk) 08:35, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Candidates in tandem colours[edit]

Just a suggestion: is it possible to match the VP candidate's graph colours with the colour of the Presidential candidate they are in tandem with? ie Marcos/Duterte green, Robredo/Pangilinan pink etc. 2605:8D80:423:F69:C357:B5D:723:4B56 (talk) 13:22, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The colors are the party colors as they are found in the presidential and vice presidential election results table. We use the same color if 1) both candidates are from the same party (Roxas-Robredo 2016), 2) the president is from a party and has an independent VP running mate (Santiago-Marcos 2016), 3) both candidates are independents and on the same ticket (Poe-Escudero 2016). If both candidates are from different parties we use party colors to emphasize the point that they are elected separately. This is what we've been doing since 2004. Howard the Duck (talk) 13:39, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We do it this way also for historical reasons: so that all Liberal Party nominees since 1946 use buff, all Nacionalistas since 1935 use light green, and so on.
Advertisement: I'm trying to change the colors. We'd need a big discussion and a massive effort to update everything. Details are here. Howard the Duck (talk) 13:44, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 11 April 2022: There's a new poll yesterday, April 11, 2022[edit]

Hi Wikipedians,

There's a new poll for the Philippine Presidential Election 2022 as per this article.

https://rmn.ph/bbm-sara-tandem-nangunguna-pa-rin-sa-rmn-apcore-pre-election-survey/

As per that article the numbers are as follows: President

Marcos 59% Robredo 21% Moreno 8% Pacquiao 4% Lason 2% Undecided 6%

Vice President

Duterte 57% Sotto 17% Pangilinan 13% Ong 5% Atienza 1% Undecided 6%

Please include this recent data as RMN APCORE March Survey was included on this article 112.201.143.255 (talk) 17:50, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done Howard the Duck (talk) 18:24, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The December SWS survey was not listed, as well as the latest March SWS survey Marcos: Oct (47%), Dec (51%), Jan (50%), Mar (58%) Robredo: Oct (18%), Dec (14%), Jan (19%), Mar (18%) Domagoso: Oct (13%), Dec (6%), Jan (11%), Mar (6%) Pacquiao: Oct (9%), Dec (12%), Jan (11%), Mar (7%) Lacson: Oct (5%), Dec (5%), Jan (6%), Mar (2%) Hunneybunch (talk) 12:43, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not done. These are not found in the SWS website. Furthermore, for the supposed March survey, if you don't want to be sued, you can remove that here. Howard the Duck (talk) 12:50, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Authenticity of January SWS poll[edit]

Although reported by Manila Standard and ABS-CBN News, SWS' head Mahar Mangahas has denied the legitimacy of the SWS Presidential survey conducted in January.


Ethics in election surveys | Inquirer Opinion


In this case, should the SWS data be removed? Hijo de Caridad95 (talk) 17:10, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite conflicted with this January poll. Usually SWS releases a media release confirming the authenticity of a survey, whether it's commissioned or not in their website, as seen in this link. No article was released confirming this survey. Another column written by Mangahas confirms that only the October VP and senatorial surveys were released for this elections and these were commissioned by Stratbase ADR. But, the articles reported by the news outlets regarding the January survey were supported and apparently commissioned by Stratbase ADR and this were confirmed by them in their FB page, here and here. So I'm unsure what's the best resolution for this? I wanna hear other people's thoughts about this. Thanks! Janbryan (talk) 00:06, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This article needs more prose explaining this and not just tables. Howard the Duck (talk) 22:03, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is also a leaked March SWS survey reported by Business Mirror https://businessmirror.com.ph/2022/04/18/bbm-keeps-huge-lead-overrivals-gets-57-in-octa/ Not sure if SWS has confirmed its authenticity yet. 172.103.134.113 (talk) 01:08, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The supposed March SWS survey had already been denied by SWS. Unlike the January survey, which was reported by its supposed sponsor, this latest one hasn't been backed by anyone/anything of note. Howard the Duck (talk) 17:08, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mobilis Research[edit]

Where is the soure of the Mobilis Research? According to their definition, Mobile Integrated Survey (MOBILIS) Research Inc. is a marketing research service and technology company in the Philippines. Is it same as the mobile-based Tangere survey? If yes, i think it should be removed form the table. Hunneybunch (talk) 14:29, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Upon some digging, I found this: https://ms-my.facebook.com/PaulinesMediaCenterLipa/posts/1350756908778005
Supposedly it is a survey conducted by "academics" with the help of MOBILIS and apparently, the numbers being reported are not the actual results of the MOBILIS survey (though where the ACTUAL/official results can be found is still a question).
According to this FB post, the original numbers of the MOBILIS research was Marcos 52%, Robredo 30% (did not mention the original numbers for Lacson, Isko, Manny et al.) And they go on a tangent about how 3% should be for Robredo and not Marcos and so they came up with made up numbers of Marcos 49%, Robredo 33% LOL Jinmac (talk) 23:45, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I found the closest I could find to the source of the MOBILIS poll: https://truthwatchph.org/2022/04/13/ph-poll-survey-032222-0401222/
No WP:RS has reported the real numbers but rather the made up one LOL so I'm removing the MOBILIS poll. Jinmac (talk) 14:30, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! I just found the March 15-22 survey of RP-MDF posted last April 18: https://www.facebook.com/111449430328597/posts/540733777400158/?d=n and I believe it was not in the graph and table Hunneybunch (talk) 22:44, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Added the RP-MDF Presidential survey. I was gonna add the RP-MDF VP survey reported by Manila Standard https://manilastandard.net/news/314223064/survey-sara-sotto-still-1-2-in-vp-race.html but their number seems off. They have Sotto at 40% while the other pollsters has Sotto in the 10s and 20s percentages. Also, it doesn't show on RP-MDF's page. Jinmac (talk) 22:54, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Added the RP-MDF VP survey for March 15-22 Jinmac (talk) 16:54, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done: Not really an edit request. You can use other tags to ask for sources/assistance. ★Ama TALK CONTRIBS 18:31, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just found another Mobilis Research and TruthWatch Philippines survey that was conducted last April 22-30. https://www.philstar.com/pilipino-star-ngayon/bansa/2022/05/05/2178807/robredo-umangat-sa-pinakahuling-truth-watch-mobilis-survey It put Marcos in the lead with 55% and Robredo at 2nd with 32% but it doesn't include the numbers for the other candidates. I checked their website to see the results for other candidates and here's their numbers. Pacquiao - 5%, Moreno - 3%, Lacson - 2%, others - 1%. Meanwhile for their VP survey the results are; Duterte - 55%, Sotto - 24%, Pangilinan - 13%, Ong - 4%, Atienza - 1% and others - 3% Should we add this survey or not? Arslan - Euphemia (talk) 08:45, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Their numbers seems pretty consistent with the rest of the polling firms and not too far from the actual results so I think it should be added. And the numbers being reported by WP:RS are the real numbers this time and not made up ones lol. Jinmac (talk) 00:34, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If no one oppose in adding Mobilis Research April 22-30 survey within 1 day then I'll add it in the chart on Monday morning. Arslan - Euphemia (talk) 12:20, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Last COMELEC Presidential/VP Debate[edit]

What is the status of the last debates. The table has it as a GMA Presidential Debate. I haven't heard anything about a GMA sponsored debate. Also, last I heard the last COMELEC debates has been scrapped in favour of pre-tapes interviews. Jinmac (talk) 23:38, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like that the GMA debate is cancelled cos they removed promo videos about it on their pages. Janbryan (talk) 03:43, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I didn't know they were considering holding one. Should we remove it from the table until they confirm if they are indeed following through? Jinmac (talk) 04:11, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's safe to delete it now. For the Comelec panel interviews, it seems like they're going to do on May 2-6. Tbh, it seems like it's still up in the air, pending the participation of the candidates. Janbryan (talk) 17:01, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Laylo April survey[edit]

Latest Laylo pre-election survey result (Apr.14-20) shows presidential frontrunner Bongbong Marcos with 64% of votes, a three-percentage point increase from his March figure and a 43-point advantage over closest rival. https://www.facebook.com/499151633499640/posts/5290495997698489/?d=n VP Leni Robredo still in 2nd place with 21% (a 2-point increase from her March’s 19%), while Mayor Isko Moreno and Sen. Manny Pacquiao now tied in 3rd place with 5% each (Moreno dropping by 4 pts. and Pacquiao increasing by 3 pts). Hunneybunch (talk) 11:39, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that too. I'm waiting for a WP:RS before adding it to the table. Hopefully it's not just a leaked poll. Jinmac (talk) 04:08, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I thought that FB link was to Erwin Tulfo's posts LOL. I guess DZRH qualifies as WP:RS. Jinmac (talk) 04:17, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add it now. Hopefully the VP Laylo survey comes out as well. Jinmac (talk) 04:20, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also waiting for the RP-MDF April survey. Looks like they release it a month after the field date lol Jinmac (talk) 04:38, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 27 April 2022[edit]

Laylo report is not credible and has no historical track record for surveys. 136.158.29.227 (talk) 00:37, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. --*Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 03:24, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
LMAOOOOOO what? Laylo is pretty much in the same tier as Pulse Asia and SWS. Jinmac (talk) 03:37, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pulse Asia just released their April 16-21 survey! MARCOS (58), ROBREDO (23), PACQUIAO (7), DOMAGOSOS (4), LACSON (2), ABELLA (1), MANGINDATO (1), DE GUZMAN (0.3), GONZALES (0.1), MONTEMAYOR (0.1), REFUSED (5), and NONE/BLANK (1) for the president and DUTERTE (55), SOTTO (18), PANGILINAN (16), ONG (3), LOPEZ (1), ATIENZA (0.5), BELLO (0.4), SERAPIO (0.3), DAVID (0.1), REFUSED (5), and NONE/BLANK (1) fot he vice president. Hunneybunch (talk) 02:42, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Opinion_polling_for_the_2022_Philippine_presidential_election&oldid=1204444381"