Green Bay wins, 28-14, thanks to a controversial Supreme Court decision illegal-procedure call. It’s all over! John Kerry is assured of victory! :)
P.S. Possible GOP spin on the Redskins’ loss: “Damn those liberal activist referees!”
UPDATE: Kerry: “I couldn’t be more thrilled with the Packers win today. … The Packers have done their part, this Tuesday I’ll do mine.”
This, however, may not be the best attitude, especially for a Wisconsin voter:
“Oh, yeah, he’s going to win. It’s guaranteed,” said Packers safety Darren Sharper, a Kerry supporter. “I don’t have to vote now. Don’t even have to go to the polls. Saved me a trip on Tuesday.”
Why don’t you make that trip to the polls on Tuesday anyway, just in case, okay Darren? :)
|
Categories: Sports, Election 2004
|
October 31st, 2004 at 4:22:02 pm
YAAAAAAAAY!!!
October 31st, 2004 at 10:09:28 pm
Er, except as “Best of the Web” pointed out, the Redskins now play in Maryland.
October 31st, 2004 at 10:13:27 pm
Very amusing photoshopping, btw.
October 31st, 2004 at 10:58:56 pm
They played in Maryland in 2000 also.
October 31st, 2004 at 11:07:11 pm
Right, and there was no incumbent in 2000.
October 31st, 2004 at 11:39:40 pm
Incumbent party.
November 1st, 2004 at 12:45:05 am
I quote from “Best of the Web” Tuesday, Thursday, and finally, Friday:
The Redskins Rule
Huh? How can anyone say the Redskins rule when they’re 2-4 and in last place? Actually, it turns out blogger Justin Taylor is using rule as a noun. Here’s his claim:
“For the past 72 years, the fate of the Redskins in their last game before the election has predicted whether or not the incumbent party holds the White House. If the Redskins win, the incumbent party stays. If the Redskins lose or tie, the incumbent loses the White House. The rule has held for the last 18 elections. . . .”
“David Dolan, an assistant professor of mathematics at the University of Wisconsin-Green Bay, calculated the odds of this happening for PackerNews.com: 1 in 263.5 million. (By the way, that’s 2,600 times higher than the chance of getting killed by lightning!)”
This number seems vastly out of line. If we assume that the Skins have a 50% chance of winning each game and the incumbent party has a 50% chance of winning each election, the odds of the two indicators matching up for 18 elections in a row are 1 in 262,144 (2 to the 18th power). The odds that they will match up for 19 elections in a row are 1 in 524,288. Does this mean you should bet against the pattern repeating? Of course not. The odds that it will are 50-50 (with Bush and the Skins both slightly favored).
“As in sports,” we noted in July, “streaks and slumps in politics go on only until they end.” That’s doubly true in this case.
———-
Clinton 1, Redskins 0
On Tuesday we discussed the “Redskins rule,” according to which if the Washington NFL team wins its last game before a presidential election, the incumbent party prevails; otherwise, it goes down to defeat. “As in sports,” we noted, quoting an earlier article of ours, “streaks and slumps in politics go on only until they end.”
Well, it turns out this particular streak already ended, eight years ago. According to blogger Justin Taylor, on whose posting we relied, the Redskins beat the Indianapolis Colts in 1996’s last pre-election game, and the incumbent, Bill Clinton, was re-elected.
It’s true of course that Clinton won, and the Redskins did beat the Colts, 31-16–but that game took place Oct. 27, eight years ago yesterday. On Nov. 3, the 7-1 Skins lost to the 5-3 Buffalo Bills, 38-13–and the incumbent president won two days later.
———-
The Maryland Redskins
It turns out the source on which we relied for “Redskins rule” got it wrong: The rule posits a correlation between the Washington Redskins’ last home game before a presidential election and the election’s outcome, not the last game. The 1996 loss to the Bills that we cited yesterday was a road game, so it doesn’t count.
Well, fair enough. But what isn’t as widely known is that the Redskins haven’t played in Washington since 1996, when they began playing “home” games in Maryland. The team played its last true home game Dec. 22, 1996, beating the Dallas Cowboys 37-10. If the Redskins rule–victory means a win for the incumbent party–applied, Al Gore would now be president.
The inescapable conclusion is that the Redskins rule doesn’t predict the actual election, only the popular vote.
November 1st, 2004 at 1:23:11 am
Um, yeah, except the streak stretches back all the way to 1936, when the Redskins played in Boston. Regardless of the team’s location, it has held true ever since the franchise has been called the “Redskins.” The last time the franchise’s final home game before the presidential election didn’t predict the outcome was 1932, when the team was called the Boston Braves. So there is no particular reason to believe that the move to Maryland would affect the Redskins Rule. Sorry. :)
November 1st, 2004 at 1:23:17 am
I think it’s mighty generous of the Packers to win one for the… (What will his nickname be? Something really preppy.) after he slaughtered the name of their home field when he was in Wisconsin.
I just watched a talk between Bill Moyers and Richard Viguerie on public television. Viguerie is kind of a cool guy. A real down-to-earth pitch-in-and-get-your-hands-dirty old-style Conservative. Heard about him ever since I met Joe and at last I hear from him in his own words.
November 1st, 2004 at 1:26:10 am
Wow. You and I both posted at 1:23 A.M., Brendan. That is cosmic.
November 1st, 2004 at 1:26:34 am
Hehe. Lambert Field. :)
“win one for the… (What will his nickname be?…)”
Win one for the crypt-keeper! :)
November 1st, 2004 at 2:38:23 am
Bah, I knew I shouldn’t have checked it one last time before I shut off the computer.
Anyway, I do recall seeing a list somewhere–probably BOTW–that had all these types of streaks. There was the Redskins thing, the taller candidate wins thing, and on down the line. Basically, some proved Kerry would win, others proved Bush would win, so inevitably many of them will no longer hold after this election.
Part of the problem is, with a presidential election only every four years, that’s not a very big sample to work with, so such things are easy to concoct.
November 1st, 2004 at 11:13:44 am
While I’ve only been able to vote in four elections. Every time I voted before 2:30 PM, the candidate I voted for has won. The one year I didn’t get to vote until late in the evening. Didn’t work. I’m telling you, it’s really freaky!!!! :-)
November 1st, 2004 at 2:27:00 pm
Hmmmm … OK - if everyone else has too much dignity to go with the obvious, it should be …
“Win one for the Flipper !”
November 1st, 2004 at 2:28:33 pm
LOL!