2004 User Predictions - Technical

[Dave Leip]

Cool.  BTW, I did get your mail and that is the best way to email me. (one can always use the email form as well).

[English]

My 2nd prediction failed again! I think I uploaded OK but then it wouldn't let me enter my username!

[Dave Leip]

English -
I reset the database when I created the ability to add the confidence map.  You need to start fresh (check the initial prediction button and choose your username and password).
Dave

[Ryan]

BTW I forgot to mention that after taking care of the probs I mentioned I had no probs uploading with IE 5 ans Win 98- SE so there is no conflict with that system

[Floridude]

I am confused completely how to make this map.  Could someone please help this newbie to the site but not politics?  Thanks

[Dave Leip]

Steps:
1. Start in this page.
2. Download the template maps.
3. modify template .gif files with graphic program (such as graphicconverter (Mac) or default paint program (PC) or gimp (Linux), etc.  Be sure to rename according to the guidelines and save a .gif
4. upload the files on the page listed in step 1.
5. once you upload, fill out the comments and EV totals fields.
6. If you need to update, just repeat these steps.

[GBD4]

okay, I figured out how to edit the maps in Paint, but I am having trouble uploading them.  do I have to rename the files every time I update (i.e. version 1, 2, 3, etc.?) I assumed that's what "revised prediction" is for, but I think I'm confused

btw, it's been a few months since I've been on the forum, actually my first time on since the forum was redone, glad to be back

[Dave Leip]

Glad to see you back.  I see that you tried to upload a number of files - but they all had a file lenght of 0... meaning that they did not upload properly.  The version number is intended for you to use when you actually update the maps, but if the maps don't upload correctly, then you need to change the name when you try again.  I can't explain the upload problem.  I've not been able to reproduce this problem.  Can you tell me what browser and OS you used when trying to upload?
Dave

[GBD4]

I'm using Windows 98 & Internet Explorer, I'm going to rename the maps and try again

[Ryan]

Well even though I had said earlier that simplicity was best; in this case, I do think the colors are a useful addition. Nice job Dave.  

I having been using the EV calculator a good bit and maintain its the best one I've used yet. I do not find the lack of a map to be a negative point at all.
However Dave, if like all techies you like to continually make improvements to your work I would suggest a horizontal bar graph depicting the new dem/rep totals

This is the only feature from Edwards EV calc on
http://www.johnedwards2004.com/map/

that I find could be a good addition here and even then its obviously not vital.

[Dave Leip]

New User Prediction pages available!  I've redesigned the user-prediction scripts and now have removed all the pain associated with downloading, editing, and uploading maps.  The computer now generates them.  Try it out!

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

THAT IS THE BOMB!!!!  I updated my prediction just to use it  It is so much easier and you don't have to go through and count the EV's.  Thanks!

[Vetiver]

Any way to delete a map? I wanted to update my original (I hadn't noticed the percentage drop-down boxes weren't all set the same), but after I finished updating my map I somehow wound up with two entries of the exact same thing.

[Dave Leip]

Hi Vetiver,
your two entries aren't the same - the prediction maps have different percentage wins (look at the version history on your individual prediction page).  You can't delete maps, but you can create a new version - and it will become the default version in the list.  There is currently a bug in the "most recent" page that I will address shortly that repeats the most recent version when you submitted multiple versions.
Dave

[southernnorthcarolina]

Dave, great site!

Question for you, or anyone who cares to answer...  What does, for example, >70% mean?  Is it that I think there's an 70%+ chance of a candidate carrying the state in question?  Or is it a prediction that the candidate will get 70%+ of the popular vote in that state?

[Dave Leip]

The Percent column is intended to be the popular vote total for the winning candidate of that state... so > 70% means that the candidate wins the state with > 70% of the vote.
Dave

[© Tweed the Younger]

great new calcultaor dave---I didn't need to used the smrs.tamu.edu page to make the map.  Alot easier.

How come you hide your political opinions with the indpendent avatar?  

[southernnorthcarolina]

The Percent column is intended to be the popular vote total for the winning candidate of that state... so > 70% means that the candidate wins the state with > 70% of the vote.
Dave

Thanks, Dave.  My updated prediction map doesn't have as many dark colors now.

[So the Heroes Fall]

whenever I complete my maps and try to submit them, I get an error that shuts my IE down.

[Mort from NewYawk]

How is it that the 2004 predictions mimic the 2000 outcomes, even down to the color shading?

Given the variation in predictions, including the number of all-blue and all-red maps, it seems highly unlikely.

Are we sure this represents the median prediction for each state?

[© Tweed the Younger]

How is it that the 2004 predictions mimic the 2000 outcomes, even down to the color shading?

Given the variation in predictions, including the number of all-blue and all-red maps, it seems highly unlikely.

Are we sure this represents the median prediction for each state?

Am I the only one who doesn't understand what he is saying?

We use Red for dem and blue for Republicans.

[Gustaf]

How is it that the 2004 predictions mimic the 2000 outcomes, even down to the color shading?

Given the variation in predictions, including the number of all-blue and all-red maps, it seems highly unlikely.

Are we sure this represents the median prediction for each state?

Am I the only one who doesn't understand what he is saying?

We use Red for dem and blue for Republicans.

Actually, I don't understand what you are saying
He doesn't mention party colours as far as I can see. I asked the same thing on the other thread. The median prediction map is an exact copy of the 2000 results map, which does seem weird. It is not impossible though.

[opebo]

I think that the matchup between the 2000 map and the 2004 compiled map of user predictions is very suspicious.  Recently the map had begun to reflect a larger Republican victory, with New Mexico, Wisconsin, and Iowa switching to Republican, but this did not last long.  I think a large number of Republican prediction maps were removed to make the average or median more Democratic.  This can be seen by the fact that the number of submitted user predictions drops occasionally.  Interestingly, this adjustmet always favors the Democrats.

[Gustaf]

I think that the matchup between the 2000 map and the 2004 compiled map of user predictions is very suspicious.  Recently the map had begun to reflect a larger Republican victory, with New Mexico, Wisconsin, and Iowa switching to Republican, but this did not last long.  I think a large number of Republican prediction maps were removed to make the average or median more Democratic.  This can be seen by the fact that the number of submitted user predictions drops occasionally.  Interestingly, this adjustmet always favors the Democrats.

OK...I seriously doubt that Leip is purposefully trying to favour the Democrats in the prediction maps. That makes abolutely no sense.

[opebo]

OK...I seriously doubt that Leip is purposefully trying to favour the Democrats in the prediction maps. That makes abolutely no sense.

Well, I'm open to alternative explanations.  Can you think of any?  There's no doubt the number of entries drops occasionally, and the result is a shift back to 269-269 from a substantial Republican lead.