Guest Nanks Posted October 27, 2004 Report Posted October 27, 2004 Since voters elected Franklin Roosevelt to his first of four terms in 1932, the Redskins have forecasted the next President. Over the past 18 elections, a Redskins win the weekend before Election Day has preceded a win by the incumbent party. On the other hand, a Redskins loss before the vote has preceded a loss by the incumbent party. This really doesn't belong in either CE or Sports so I figured here would do. Now whilst I realise that 76% of all people realise statistics can be made up to prove anything, I still found this mildly interesting. The question is, is MikeSC a Packers man???
kkktookmybabyaway Posted October 27, 2004 Report Posted October 27, 2004 Mike's a Packer, but I'm not sure if it has anything to do with football...
Guest Agent of Oblivion Posted October 27, 2004 Report Posted October 27, 2004 If that's true, it's a fascinating fact. Is there a page connected to that that shows the Skins' w-l record before an election, and the election results?
Guest Nanks Posted October 27, 2004 Report Posted October 27, 2004 No, I didn't explore it further. I probably should've sourced that, it's from the Packers official website.
NYU Posted October 27, 2004 Report Posted October 27, 2004 Snopes: Washington Redskins The Urban Legends Reference Page says it's true as well.
Slayer Posted October 27, 2004 Report Posted October 27, 2004 Now I have another reason to want the Packers to lose
Kahran Ramsus Posted October 27, 2004 Report Posted October 27, 2004 Its about time John Kerry got some good news.
Guest Evolution Posted October 27, 2004 Report Posted October 27, 2004 What does incumbent mean again? A President who is running for re-election.
Richard Posted October 27, 2004 Report Posted October 27, 2004 Is it really worth rooting for the Pack to spite Bush? probably
Guest The Shadow Behind You Posted October 27, 2004 Report Posted October 27, 2004 What happens if the game ends in a tie?
Dr. Tom Posted October 27, 2004 Report Posted October 27, 2004 We get the 2000 Election part II. Actually, we're probably getting that anyway. As much as I loathe the Redskins, I have to root for them this weekend. Thankfully, the Packers have a bad rushing defense, so maybe Clinton (OMG another presidential reference~!!!11) Portis can own them on the ground.
Guest Smues Posted October 28, 2004 Report Posted October 28, 2004 Well I voted for Bush (good absentee ballot) but the Redskins aren't winning this weekend. And Bush probably isn't either. Bah
bob_barron Posted October 28, 2004 Report Posted October 28, 2004 ::Buys $45 Redskins hat with plans to return it on Monday::
Dr. Tyler; Captain America Posted October 28, 2004 Report Posted October 28, 2004 http://www.snopes.com/sports/football/election.asp
kkktookmybabyaway Posted October 28, 2004 Report Posted October 28, 2004 Thankfully, the Packers have a bad rushing defense, so maybe Clinton (OMG another presidential reference~!!!11) Portis can own them on the ground. Yeah, but the Redskins will still have a crappy season and Joe Gibbs will get... impeached (omgroflmao2004...)
MarvinisaLunatic Posted October 28, 2004 Report Posted October 28, 2004 Take a look at this thread I posted.. To go a long with this, don't forget that every wartime President has been re-elected only to either die or be forced out of office during his 2nd term (or in Madison's case have both his VPs die). Oh, and since I hate the Redskins..go Packers regardless.
2GOLD Posted October 28, 2004 Report Posted October 28, 2004 Take a look at this thread I posted.. To go a long with this, don't forget that every wartime President has been re-elected only to either die or be forced out of office during his 2nd term (or in Madison's case have both his VPs die). Oh, and since I hate the Redskins..go Packers regardless. Wasn't George Sr a wartime President?
Guest Agent of Oblivion Posted October 28, 2004 Report Posted October 28, 2004 I like random presidential patterns and such. I'd forgotten about that thread.
Guest MikeSC Posted October 29, 2004 Report Posted October 29, 2004 Snopes: Washington Redskins The Urban Legends Reference Page says it's true as well. Too bad they're incorrect. The last game the Redskins played in 1996 before the election was 11/3, against Buffalo. And they lost 38-13. -=Mike
treble Posted October 29, 2004 Report Posted October 29, 2004 That was a road game, though. The pattern is dependant on the 'Skins last home game.
Guest MikeSC Posted October 29, 2004 Report Posted October 29, 2004 That was a road game, though. The pattern is dependant on the 'Skins last home game. Doesn't really say that --- however, it does make the pattern even more useless. -=Mike
treble Posted October 29, 2004 Report Posted October 29, 2004 It's on the Snopes site: "A recent item of this ilk maintains that the results of the last game played at home by the NFL's Washington Redskins (a football team based in the national capital, Washington, D.C.) before the U.S. presidential elections has accurately foretold the winner of the last fifteen of those political contests, going back to 1944." It's kind of interesting.
CBright7831 Posted October 29, 2004 Report Posted October 29, 2004 Since I don't keep up with football, who is the favorite to win?
snuffbox Posted October 29, 2004 Report Posted October 29, 2004 Packers by 2 I think/hope it wont be nearly that close...but GB has struggled against subpar teams this year.
MarvinisaLunatic Posted October 30, 2004 Report Posted October 30, 2004 Take a look at this thread I posted.. To go a long with this, don't forget that every wartime President has been re-elected only to either die or be forced out of office during his 2nd term (or in Madison's case have both his VPs die). Oh, and since I hate the Redskins..go Packers regardless. Wasn't George Sr a wartime President? I think the Gulf War was over before the elections in 1992.
Guest Vitamin X Posted October 30, 2004 Report Posted October 30, 2004 Thank goodness Green Bay is playing better on the road this year.
Slayer Posted October 30, 2004 Report Posted October 30, 2004 I find it odd that NoCalMike hasn't said anything yet
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now