And the winner of the Climate Progress political pundit award for calling the 2008 election is …

… in the tradition of American Idol, let me hold off the winner’s name until I review the contest and the runners-up.

First off, my apology for the delay, but I was waiting for the Minnesota Senate race to be called. As it turned out, though, the winner and the runners-up all had the same exact call — 57 Senate Dems (plus 2 Inds).

The contest was to predict

  • The popular vote margin of victory — in percentage points
  • The winner’s electoral vote count
  • The total number of Senate Dems (currently 49)
  • The number of House Dems (currently 235 Ds).

The actual final numbers were:

I was the second runner up (by a nose) for these predictions:

  • 7.5% (for Obama)
  • 367
  • 57 Ds
  • 260 Ds

Let this serve as a permalink — but not actually much scientific evidence — for anyone who doubts the energy and climate predictions on Climate Progress.

The first runner up was…

Hal C, with this call:

  • 6.7%
  • 364 EVs
  • 59 Ds (including 2 indies)
  • 258 House Ds

But the winner and official Climate Progress pundit of 2008 is Dana:

  • 7%
  • 364
  • 57
  • 258

Congrats to Dana. She wins a post on Climate Progress — estimated cash value for tax purposes is $0.02.

[Note: The formula for weighting was 40, 15, 25, 10 — the error of each of the four predicted numbers were multiped by those weightings, then the total was summed and averaged. Lowest score won.]

9 Responses to And the winner of the Climate Progress political pundit award for calling the 2008 election is …

  1. Congratulations Dana! Well done.

    And the best news is that those numbers mean all of us won this time around.

  2. Congratulations Dana! Joe, I your delightfully unscientific “permalink” is an example to us all. :D

  3. Dana says:

    Yay for me! Thanks Creative and Mitchell.

    By the way, I’m a “he”, not a “she”. I get that a lot.

  4. Thanks Joe, Congrat Dana -Now I hope you will give us another set of predictions. Maybe CO2 levels one year hence? Or Obama’s popularity levels in 6 months?

  5. Hal C says:

    Just Kidding. Great job Dana and thanks for the contest Joe!

  6. Kathy N says:

    Great Job Dana! And to all of us for giving the future a fighting change

  7. As far as renewable energy votes – a Senate with 57 Dems + Lieberman/Sanders + Collins/Snowe – Mary Landriaeu = unfilibusterable 60…. And the House is well over the numbers needed.

    So why was Pelosi going on with Jim Lehrer about being “bipartisan”? Now is the time to cut to the chase.

  8. Rick says:

    it may be time to cut to the chase – but this is an old politicians club we’re talking about. There’s no need for a chase when the race is over – because winning elections is all any of them are about.

  9. P. G. Dudda says:

    “…winning elections is all any of them are about.”

    Which is why I sometimes half-jokingly say that congressional pay should be federal minimum wage. ;-) [Let’s just see how fast welfare law would change if they had to live on that pay scale!]