The Associated Press has called New Mexico for President Bush, making it the second state to switch parties from the 2000 results and putting Mike Wiser one state away from a perfect 51-for-51 sweep in his Electoral College predictions.
Mike predicted that undecided Iowa would vote for Bush as well. Currently, Bush leads in Iowa by just over 13,000 votes, but it is still considered “too close to call.”
Mike will win the BrendanLoy.com Electoral College Contest regardless of the outcome of Iowa, but he would finish with 517 points instead of a perfect 538, and would be ten points behind the hypothetical contestant picking all the same results from 2000.
I will post a fuller update once Iowa is called. For now, here are the standings with 49 out of 50 states (plus D.C.) decided:
538 : Mike Wiser (Bush 286-252) — 0 EVs wrong, 0 differential (States wrong: none)
527 : SAME AS 2000 (Bush 278-260) — 9 EVs wrong, 2 differential (States wrong: NH, NM)
501 : Kevin Moot (Bush 288-250) — 19 EVs wrong, 18 differential (States wrong: NH, NM, WI)
497 : Boi From Troy (Bush 285-253) — 39 EVs wrong, 2 differential (States wrong: HI, ME2, NH, OH, WI)
492 : AGGREGATE (Bush 280-258) — 34 EVs wrong, 12 differential (States wrong: NH, OH, WI)
490 : Darrell Owenby (Bush 302-236) — 16 EVs wrong, 32 differential (States wrong: MA, NH)
483 : Leanna Loomer (Kerry 274-264) — 25 EVs wrong, 30 differential (States wrong: ME2, NH, OH)
482 : Jennifer Pease (Bush 270-268) — 24 EVs wrong, 32 differential (States wrong: NH, OH)
481 : Miss Jeeves (Bush 272-266) — 43 EVs wrong, 14 differential (States wrong: HI, NH, NM, OH, WI)
480 : Brendan Loy (Bush 302-236) — 26 EVs wrong, 32 differential (States wrong: ME2, MN, NM, WI)
478 : Brooke Bennett (Kerry 272-266) — 20 EVs wrong, 40 differential (States wrong: OH)
478 : Alex Ho (Kerry 279-259) — 20 EVs wrong, 40 differential (States wrong: OH)
475 : Andrew Long (Bush 307-231) — 21 EVs wrong, 42 differential (States wrong: ME2, MN, WI)
473 : Joe Loy (Kerry 274-264) — 35 EVs wrong, 30 differential (States wrong: NV, OH, WI)
436 : Nick Surmacz (Kerry 293-245) — 34 EVs wrong, 68 differential (States wrong: CO, OH, WV)
428 : Brian Kiolbasa (Kerry 286-252) — 42 EVs wrong, 68 differential (States wrong: AR, FL, NH, NM)
428 : Chris Aemisegger (Bush 270-268) — 78 EVs wrong, 32 differential (States wrong: FL, HI, MI, OH, WI)
421 : Brian Foster (Bush 273-265) — 91 EVs wrong, 26 differential (States wrong: FL, HI, NH, NM, OH, PA, WI)
415 : Lisa Velte (Kerry 288-250) — 65 EVs wrong, 58 differential (States wrong: FL, HI, NH, OH, WI)
411 : Becky Zak (Bush 300-238) — 85 EVs wrong, 42 differential (States wrong: FL, IL, NJ, NV, OR, WI)
401 : David Kreutz (Kerry 295-243) — 51 EVs wrong, 86 differential (States wrong: FL, NH, OH)
386 : Josh Rubin (Kerry 307-231) — 56 EVs wrong, 96 differential (States wrong: FL, NH, NM, OH)
382 : Greg Rauen (Kerry 304-234) — 52 EVs wrong, 104 differential (States wrong: FL, NM, OH)
382 : Kenneth Stern (Kerry 311-227) — 52 EVs wrong, 104 differential (States wrong: FL, NM, OH)
353 : Dmytro Aponte (Kerry 310-228) — 83 EVs wrong, 102 differential (States wrong: FL, KS, ME, ME2, NE, NE1, NE2, NM, OH, VT, WI, WV)
211 : Antonia Byers (Bush 388-150) — 109 EVs wrong, 218 differential (States wrong: CT, HI, IL, MI, MN, NH, NJ, PA, WI)
-78 : Charles Chambers (Bush 488-50) — 212 EVs wrong, 404 differential (States wrong: CA, CT, DE, HI, IL, MA, MD, ME, ME1, ME2, MI, MN, NH, NJ, NM, OR, PA, RI, VT, WI)
|
Categories: Election 2004
|
November 3rd, 2004 at 10:35:09 pm
GO MIKE!! Go Dubya!!! Io-WA! Io-WA!! If Wiser attains Perfection I shall never diss Gnosticism again. :)
November 4th, 2004 at 5:07:58 pm
I’M PROTESTING THESE RESULTS! Assuming Bush goes for Iowa, I will have the second-most accurate results, but I’m in ninth place. I know you had this really complicated system of calculating the results, but it seems unjust. I called every state except Ohio…that just screams second place to me. I mean, if you were going to pick the second-most accurate map, whose would it be? MINE! Maybe there’s some court I can argue my case…
:)
November 4th, 2004 at 7:24:25 pm
Brooke, I would argue that getting New Hampshire and New Mexico wrong, as Kevin did, but getting everything else right, is a more accurate map than getting only Ohio wrong, even if I wasn’t using a weird-ass formula. This is an Electoral College contest, and now all states are not created equal. However, when the final final final results are in, I will post “alternate” leaderboard for fewest states wrong, fewest Electoral Votes wrong, etc., and I’ll welcome comments on what’s the most fair judging system.
November 4th, 2004 at 8:05:05 pm
P.S. Looking at it another way, Brooke… would you seriously argue that someone who got Ohio and Florida wrong (2 states, 47 electoral votes) did better than someone who got New Hampshire, New Mexico and Iowa wrong (3 states, 16 electoral votes)? I just don’t think the “counting states” method is a viable option. There’s a stronger case to be made for the pure “counting electoral votes” method… but it too has its drawbacks. Anyway, I will post all of those hypothetical standings once Iowa is decided, and y’all can decide for yourselves. :)
November 4th, 2004 at 8:54:24 pm
But, Brendan, Kevin didn’t get just NM and NH wrong. There’s also WI to think of–people seem to be forgetting about the Power of Cheese… :) Also, if we’re tossing out alternate methods in ways for things to be compared, how about fewest popular votes needed to change the actual result into your exact prediction once the official totals are in? Not that any of these methods really matter much to me, the way things are leaning at the moment…
November 4th, 2004 at 9:02:29 pm
Oh yeah, heh heh, I knew that.
The popular-vote thing is a good idea, but far too work-intensive. I’d need an intern for something like that. Alas, I’m not Wonkette. :)
November 4th, 2004 at 11:16:11 pm
OK, Brendan, you have a bit of a point. But I’m still protesting! Why? Because this Miss Jeeves person, whoever she may be, got Hawaii, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Wisconsin AND Ohio wrong, yet she’s 3 points ahead of me. Boi from Troy got Hawaii, New Hampshire, Wisconsin, Maine2 AND Ohio wrong, yet he’s 19 points ahead of me. I understand your example of just getting New Hampshire and New Mexico wrong (coincidentally, no one picked that map), but it definitely breaks down if you consider that I got every state right except the “Florida of 2004.” Who could blame me, right? And this Darrell Owenby person may have only gotten two states wrong, but MASSACHUSETTS? Come on, there should be penalty points for that! I think the flaw is in this differential canceling out thing (that I didn’t understand) because it doesn’t make sense that someone who got New Hampshire and Ohio wrong is ahead of someone who only got Ohio wrong. After all, which pick is more accurate? So I’m still protesting. And I’m just a sore loser.
Prepare to see picket signs outside your window!
November 4th, 2004 at 11:18:53 pm
I just read my own comment and realized that it might sound to someone who doesn’t actually know me like I’m really serious about this whole thing. So, uh, just to clarify, I’m not a maniac who has to win everything. I just find it fun to harass Brendan. I mean, who doesn’t, really?
November 4th, 2004 at 11:25:24 pm
We all know that harassing Brendan is fun, Brooke. You don’t come across as needing to win–which is good, as you can’t. You’re merely arguing that you should be 2nd, rather than further down. That’s not the same as winning. :)
PS: I’m still having fun with the fact that I’m one of the few people involved with this blog without training in political science, law, journalism, or US history, and yet…
November 5th, 2004 at 12:57:56 pm
I think Brooke brings up an interesting point. You may want to take into consideration next time Brendan, the idea of which states a person got wrong. Getting a state like New Mexico wrong shouldn’t hurt you as much as getting Utah wrong, even though they have the same electoral count. Some way to weight the system so that getting a close state wrong doesn’t cost as much. Now I’m not entirely sure of the best way to do this but we have some smart mathemtically minded people on this blog and four years to figure it out.
November 5th, 2004 at 2:15:01 pm
Mike is actually working on this… determining the number of popular votes that a person is away from getting it 100% right. (In other words, the combined margins of defeat in all the states they got wrong.) The only problem with this system is that it would take much longer to determine the winner in a close contest, since states do not certify their final popular vote counts for weeks in some if not all cases.
Brooke, you make some good points, but I would argue that the final result matters too — i.e., yeah you only got Ohio wrong, and Ohio was close, but Ohio also decided the election. I feel like picking the overall winner should count for something… which is why I included the “differential” in the formula (hence the “cancelling out” issue).