Slashdot Mirror


Redskins Football Games Predict Election Winner

jangobongo writes "The folks that investigate urban legends at Snopes.com have looked into the rumor going around on the internet that says, "The outcome of Washington Redskins football games has correctly predicted the winner of every U.S. presidential election since 1936." Their findings? It's true! The predictive game for this year will happen on October 31 vs. Green Bay. Which team are you gonna root for?"

91 comments

  1. Redskins!! by sithkhan · · Score: 2, Funny

    Redskins! or, the Lower Potomac Basin Indigenous peoples, if you will ....

    --

    is it that bad seein a hot chick again? if i see a hot chick walkin down the hall i dont say "repost"
    1. Re:Redskins!! by Golias · · Score: 1

      I don't care if effects the election or not, I'll root for the Skins, because each week my favorite two teams are the Minnesota Vikings and Whoever Is Playing The Packers.

      --

      Information wants to be anthropomorphized.

    2. Re:Redskins!! by LakeSolon · · Score: 1

      I'm a Vikings fan myself, but I have a slightly different tact on the Packers. I want them to win every week except those weeks which they are playing the Vikings. This way it makes the Vikings look all the better when they beat them. ::grin

      ~Lake

  2. This has to be a coincidence. by mind21_98 · · Score: 0

    There is no way they could be predicting the outcome of elections...unless they were being paid off by both parties. ;-) Even then, it's still not guaranteed.

    1. Re:This has to be a coincidence. by Prowl · · Score: 5, Funny

      thanks for clearing that up...

      --
      That man tried to kill mah Daddy
    2. Re:This has to be a coincidence. by bersl2 · · Score: 1

      This is a coincidence. That is not disputed. However, the point is that it is an exceedingly recurrent coincidence, regardless of whether or not it is a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

    3. Re:This has to be a coincidence. by program21 · · Score: 1

      Coincidence != causality.

      Just because two events may coincide does not mean one is a result of the other.

      --
      This has been a test. Had this been a real emergency, we would have fled in terror and you would not have been informed.
  3. Quirks of history by BandwidthHog · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Those little reflections in the matrix also have something to say about a President elected in a year that ends in 0, yet I never hear *anyone* mention that these days.

    --

    Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
    1. Re:Quirks of history by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's because you, and the predictor, are both wrong.

    2. Re:Quirks of history by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 2, Informative

      That's because Reagan dodged that bullet... literally and figuratively.

      Besides, these days, I suspect everyone is a little sensitive about the idea. A little superstition like this seems really immature in this context (as if it ever didn't).

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
    3. Re:Quirks of history by Guppy06 · · Score: 3, Funny

      "Those little reflections in the matrix also have something to say about a President elected in a year that ends in 0"

      Because you're hanging out with the wrong crowd to find people that have heard of the Curse of Tecumseh.

      Besides, it's more discriminatory than that, or else Bad Things would have happened to Jefferson (1800) and Monroe (1820). It began with W. H. Harrison, hence the "Curse of Tecumseh" name. And even then, while they may have been elected to a prior term in a year divisible by 20, occasionally Bad Things happened during a later term (Lincoln died after the 1864 election and F. D. Roosevelt died after the 1944 election, who wouldn't even have run in 1940 if he hadn't broken the two-term precedent).

    4. Re:Quirks of history by BandwidthHog · · Score: 1

      No, it's because I was referring more to the awkward berth people seem to be giving it this time around than the legend itself.

      --

      Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
  4. Complexity by dtfinch · · Score: 5, Informative

    15 correct predictions: 1/2^15=1 in 32768
    Some ways to interpret:
    incumbent vs challenger
    republican vs democrat
    the inverse of each
    =4, making it 1 in 8192
    X big teams (I have no idea how many, not a sports fan). Lets say 64.
    So 1 in 128 of a big sports team randomly predicting 15 elections in a row correctly, or somewhat greater considering the average odds of winning (team or president) is not exactly 50-50.

    And there are easily a couple hundred other possible predictors that people could identify with.
    So lets say the odds were 0.99 in 1 of finding something like this.

    1. Re:Complexity by Creepy+Crawler · · Score: 0

      Wrong. I invoke the Gamblers' Fallacy.

      Either they (some sports team) win or lose. 50/50 chance.

      Bush wins out of Bush or Kerry. 50/50 chance for either.

      --
    2. Re:Complexity by ewithrow · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If I read the article correctly, I counted 17 correct predictions, so that adds another couple powers of two to the odds.

      Also I think its significant that this is a Washington DC team, and there certainly aren't that many pro sports teams in DC

      Still, I think its just a big coincidence. Interestingly, both teams are at the bottom of their division with only 1 win since the start of the season, so it should be interesting to see if the rumor holds true.

    3. Re:Complexity by syrinx · · Score: 2, Informative

      there certainly aren't that many pro sports teams in DC

      Besides the (American) football, soccer, basketball, and baseball teams?

      Granted, only the football team has existed continuously since 1936, but that's probably true for most American cities (only one or two teams continously existing for that long), so there's nothing special about Washington.

      --
      Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.
    4. Re:Complexity by ewithrow · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's true that the chance of either team winning this game is 50/50 assuming that they are of equal skill level, however I think the parent was differentiating the odds of this happening so many times in a row. Certainly if you started flipping a penny it would be highly unusual to see heads come up 17 times in a row, and there is a certain probability to how often this occurs if the penny is flipped continually.

    5. Re:Complexity by heinousjay · · Score: 1

      and hockey.

      --
      Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
    6. Re:Complexity by dtfinch · · Score: 1

      I invoke the Gamblers' Fallacy.

      Where? Did I attempt to predict the future somewhere?

      Either they (some sports team) win or lose. 50/50 chance.

      Bush wins out of Bush or Kerry. 50/50 chance for either.


      Are all things created equal?

    7. Re:Complexity by Deliveranc3 · · Score: 2, Informative

      As someone in stats I think the most interesting thing is the actual effect the game has on voter opnion.

      Which is very real in a race where people don't follow the actual issues. Conservatism vs Progress Pessimism vs Optomism.

    8. Re:Complexity by grammar+nazi · · Score: 3, Funny
      Shut up with your logic.


      I want REDSKINS to lose for two reasons:
      1. I support Kerry - Edwards
      2. I have Ahmed Green (GB) on my fantasy football team.

      --

      Keeping /. free of grammatical errors for ~5 years.
    9. Re:Complexity by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 3, Informative
      It's true that the chance of either team winning this game is 50/50 assuming that they are of equal skill level

      Even that's not true. Among equal teams, the home team will win over 60% of the time.

    10. Re:Complexity by dtfinch · · Score: 1

      My intent was to show that they are likely completely unrelated. Sorry if I wasn't clear enough.

    11. Re:Complexity by Creepy+Crawler · · Score: 1

      Ahh, I thought you were linking the winning of the team compared to the estimated winning this time.

      If you were talking about the chances of that comnnection being held 12 opr so times, then youre right... but those 12 or so do not hold this current game to that same percantage of win. It's still 50% chance.

      --
    12. Re:Complexity by psavo · · Score: 1

      Actually it's not one penny that is flipping, you have 'several pennies' as there are several teams, many sports (Why not basketball, squash or golf?). In that environment, one of thousands of pennies flipping 1 a bit too long wouldn't be that unexpectable.

      --
      fucktard is a tenderhearted description
    13. Re:Complexity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      I'm still planning on rooting for the Lions to win the Skins-Packers game. Yeah, yeah, most of you will tell me that the Lions aren't actually playing in the Skins-Packers game, but I just can't, in good conscience, root for either of the two teams that get to play in this game.

      So I'm planning on pledging my allegiance to the Lions anyway. Isn't it about time that we allowed a third team to have at least one player in this game?

    14. Re:Complexity by grammar+nazi · · Score: 3, Funny
      B = Bush wins

      R = Redskins win

      L = Lions win

      Then,

      P(B|R) = P(B|L,R) * P(L|R) / P(L|B,R)

      It's a true statement! The election depends upon the Lions game outcome!! But wait...


      M = your mamma

      P(B|R) = P(B|M,R) * P(M|R) / P(M|B,R)

      Wow! Ugh oh... Whether Bush is reelected also depends upon your mamma! Dammit Bayes Rule!! I thought I was the only one depending your mamma for a piece of...

      --

      Keeping /. free of grammatical errors for ~5 years.
    15. Re:Complexity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Ravens arent at the bottom of there division and they now have 3 wins.

    16. Re:Complexity by rherbert · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's AHMAN Green. Sheesh, get to know your players a little better than the A. Green on the summary page.

    17. Re:Complexity by Dachannien · · Score: 1

      B = Bush wins ....but does he beat the spread?

    18. Re:Complexity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I heard that the Lions were not allowed to play in last year's Redskins-Packers game. In fact, when two of the players tried to step onto the field, they were restrained by stadium "officials."

      I see this as a sign that the football league in this country is fundamentally flawed, and therefore I have no choice than to stage a massive Internet boycott.

    19. Re:Complexity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you have a shoebox of pennies and you're flipping it 17 times, the bigger the shoebox the more likely one penny will show heads 17 times.

      That's why this is funny, and not spookey.

      Between the NFL, MLB, NBA, NHL, NCAA sports, there are a lot of teams tracked through scores of major statistics the odds that in one of them you'll find a pattern that matches another selected pattern is high. In fact one might expect to find more than one such pattern.

    20. Re:Complexity by Cy+Guy · · Score: 1

      And women's pro basketball, and while they lasted women's pro soccer.

      I think we are currently missing Arena Football, and pro-lacrosse tho.

    21. Re:Complexity by fucksl4shd0t · · Score: 1

      Actually, the chances of a coin turning up heads 17 times in a row is identical to the chance of it turning up heads once. This is because past performance doesn't influence future performance in any way. So while it may seem at first glance to be unlikely that a coin would turn up heads any number of times in a row, it's not.

      The football thing is a little weird, since the odds of a team winning a football game have many variables that affect it, and the odds of a candidate winning an election also have many variables affecting it, and the two sets of variables are unrelated and completely different from one another.

      Or are they? Someone who knows more than I want to chime in and start working up the odds of both, piecemeal, so we can see what the variables are?

      --
      Like what I said? You might like my music
    22. Re:Complexity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dear Grammar Nazi:
      Just wanted to let you know that Mr. Green's first name is spelled Ahman, not Ahmed. It's really easy to confuse it with Ahmad Carroll, too (our rookie linebacker). Ahman had a great game at Lambeau today against the Cowboys...he's a super player! I, too, heartily support Kerry-Edwards and will be cheering extra hard for the Packers this coming Sunday!
      Susan Owens
      Eagle River, WI
      packfan4@verizon.net

  5. In Communist Russia... by MasterDirk · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...the incumbent party decides what the outcome of the games are...

    OK, not funny, I know, mod me down...

    --

    "Programming is like sex: one mistake and you have to support it for the rest of your life."

  6. It's unbeatable! by ghostlibrary · · Score: 4, Funny

    It's true, I swear. Every election year the Redskins win, someone also wins the presidency.

    And I'll lay money that the same happens this year.

    --
    A.
    1. Re:It's unbeatable! by TMLink · · Score: 1

      Let's just pray they never have a really bad season during an election year.

      --
      Every time a guy gets a threesome, somewhere in heaven an angel gets his wings. --Cary Tennis
  7. Hardly any odds at all by wildzeke · · Score: 1

    Simply put, this is just comparing any two annual events (or in this case, every 4 or 8 years) and observing some common pattern. Given the amount of annual events that exist in the world, how hard can it be to find a coincidence between two events.

  8. packers, hey packers! by Mr.Coffee · · Score: 5, Funny

    man, i'm glad they're playing green bay. for a while there i was worried bush was gonna get re-elected.

    --
    Cogito Eggo Sum, I think therefore I'm a waffle
    1. Re:packers, hey packers! by wan-fu · · Score: 1

      I guess the only way Bush doesn't get re-elected is if we resurrect Favre's father and have him play one more inspirational game.

    2. Re:packers, hey packers! by Slime-dogg · · Score: 1

      I dunno... Green Bay isn't the team that it used to be. Heck, even the Bears kicked their ass.

      heh. heh.

      --
      You need to restart your computer. Hold down the Power button for several seconds or press the Restart button.
  9. Patterns in randomness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Redundant

    This is, of course, nothing but a pattern in randomness. That plus a confusion of causation with coincidence.

    1. Re:Patterns in randomness by HyperChicken · · Score: 1

      There is no such thing as random. There's only chaos.

      --
      Free of Flash! Free of Flash!
  10. Third party? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    what would have to happen for nader to win?

    1. Re:Third party? by britneys+9th+husband · · Score: 4, Funny

      The game ends in a tie.

      --
      Hear recorded Slashdot headlines on your phone! New service beta testing. Just call (248) 434-5508
    2. Re:Third party? by Hassman · · Score: 1

      But that's impossible! ... Oh I get it. :)

      --
      -Mark
      Dovie'andi se tovya sagain.
    3. Re:Third party? by rufuseddy · · Score: 0

      And in other news Nader wins election by a landslide.

      --
      Giggidy Giggidy Gigg-a-dy
    4. Re:Third party? by JavaLord · · Score: 1

      But that's impossible! ... Oh I get it. :)

      Actually it's not, ties happen in the NFL every few years. There was one in 2002 the last one before that was in 1997. Ralph Nader winning the election would be more like the team planes for Every NFL team other than the Miami Dolphins going down in the same weekend and the Dolphins winning the superbowl by default.

    5. Re:Third party? by britneys+9th+husband · · Score: 1

      But that's impossible! Half the teams play their games at home on any given weekend!... Oh I get it. :)

      --
      Hear recorded Slashdot headlines on your phone! New service beta testing. Just call (248) 434-5508
  11. Untrue !! by dbcad7 · · Score: 1
    Look at 2002 election

    regards

    dbcad7

    --
    waiting for ad.doubleclick.net
    1. Re:Untrue !! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I get it! You're holding onto a four year old fallacy! That's funny!

  12. correction by dbcad7 · · Score: 1
    Sorry .. meant 2000 election

    shoulda Preveiwed, but who'd a thunk I could mess up such a short post

    dbcad7

    --
    waiting for ad.doubleclick.net
    1. Re:correction by gmhowell · · Score: 1

      Shoulda also read the article. Or maybe you did, and are trolling with 'Bush didn't win'. Yeah, I know, you know, we all know he didn't win. But since he's not getting BJ's in the oval office, there's no impeachment for later incompetence.

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    2. Re:correction by Hassman · · Score: 1

      I know. It's nuts...

      Get a BJ...get impeached.

      Fuck up the country and take part of the world with you...4 more years?

      I'll never understand.

      --
      -Mark
      Dovie'andi se tovya sagain.
  13. I think I understand.. by Klowner · · Score: 2, Funny

    So if they win, then a presidential election will result in a win by one of the delegates? That's absolutely fantastic, and very very scientifically confusing at the same time.

  14. If this were true. . . by Daikiki · · Score: 5, Funny

    If this were ture then the Redskins would have won the game by scoring a touchdown with four minutes of play left in the fourth quarter of their october 30th, 2000 game against the Titans while the referee wasn't watching. ESPN would have reported that the Redskins had won two minutes after the end of the game, but Fox Sports would clain that the game was too close to call until midnight, when they'd claim that the Titans had been victorious.

    Two days after the game, Jeff Fisher, the Titan's coach, would have mailed a red flag to NFL headquarters, thereby challenging the play. The NFL commisionner would have informed him that the referee on the field that day had final discretion. The referee would have been Jeff Fisher's brother, Jeb Fisher. Jeb would have claimed that the tocuhdown never happened.

    Steve Spurrier would then appeal the decision with Paul Tagliabue who, after long deliberation, would have ruled that the final decision lies with the scorekeeper. The scorekeeper would have been found to be keeping tally of the score using marbles. He would eventually admit that he wasn't quite sure how many marbles had been on his table and how many of them had been in which team's box. He would however claim that he was almost entirely certain that there had been more marbles in the Titan's box than in the Redskin's. Eventually everybody would have been confused to the point of desperation and the Titans would have been handed the victory by the gist of having won three of the four quarters.

    --
    I want the fire back.
    1. Re:If this were true. . . by gmhowell · · Score: 0, Troll

      You forgot the clincher: two years later, college students would recount the marbles, and find out that the Redskins had, in fact, won.

      You could also probably mention how certain people with names similar to, but not exactly the same as certain ineligible players were not allowed in the game.

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    2. Re:If this were true. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The person who challenged the official Florida election results was Al Gore, not George Bush.

  15. Considering the facts... by binaryspiral · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The Packers have been playing like sh!t with a quaterback on his last leg who is under the crosshairs of anyone who can get past the offensive line...

    Mike Sherman's playbook was posted online somewhere in PDF format - because no team has been surprised at anything they've been doing.

    I'm a nerd, but I support my team - I just wish they didn't suck ass this year... :(

    1. Re:Considering the facts... by gmhowell · · Score: 1

      Take heart: the Redskins also suck ass this year.

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    2. Re:Considering the facts... by FriedTurkey · · Score: 1

      Farve is still the man. He is still doing his thing. An old Farve is still better than a young Kyle Boller or Mark Burnell at any age. You'll see the Packers make a comeback. Farve's got 3 more years in him at least.

    3. Re:Considering the facts... by servoled · · Score: 1

      As a Packers fan born and raised who has been transplanted to the DC area, I can tell you that both teams have played like shit so far this year.

      Packers D is pretty laughable, but the Redskins have something like 2 defensive starters brought over from last year. Arrington is injured, Coles can't catch shit and Portis on the some kind of "learn the new offense by fumbling" plan.

      It should be an interesting game, in the same way that the Arizona - San Francisco game this week was interesting.

      I still have to root for the Packers though.

      --
      "I have a porkchop, you have a porkchop. I have a veal, you have a veal".
    4. Re:Considering the facts... by binaryspiral · · Score: 1

      oh my.... they got slaughtered.

      Someone please take the defensive line, coaches, and trainers out back and shoot them.

    5. Re:Considering the facts... by 13thirteen · · Score: 1

      So...do you think the fact that both teams suck ass this year is reflective of the quality of the candidates? Another funny coinkydink...

    6. Re:Considering the facts... by binaryspiral · · Score: 1

      If I had mod points, you'd get one for being true!

      It would be funny if the stadium fell down or the field suddenly flooded. What kind of a sign would that be?

  16. *shakes head* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You sir, are a retard

  17. Streaks by Ancient+Devices+King · · Score: 1

    When you have random events, streaks are expected to occur. Even so (and despite my living deep in Bears territory), go Greenbay!

    --
    -"It seems like you're trying to exploit a security hole. Would you like help?"
    1. Re:Streaks by binaryspiral · · Score: 1

      My (whatever) god (you trust) bless you. If I see you in Wisconsin, I won't flip you off for having Illinois plates. :P

    2. Re:Streaks by Hassman · · Score: 1

      Indeed. GO PACK...may my friends never know that I will, just this once, go against the long Chicago tradition of boo-ing the Packers.

      --
      -Mark
      Dovie'andi se tovya sagain.
  18. Okay, tell me quickly... by YouHaveSnail · · Score: 1

    ...where can I get one of those foam cheese hats?

    1. Re:Okay, tell me quickly... by binaryspiral · · Score: 1
  19. Redskin's chances by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

    Incidentally, for anyone rooting for Washington, this is the same football team that managed to lose to the Cleveland Browns not too long ago. So the Packers have a pretty decent chance.

    --
    I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    1. Re:Redskin's chances by jlanthripp · · Score: 4, Funny
      Yes, but the Packers managed to lose to both the Panthers and the Bears...Washington and Green Bay are both bottom-of-the-barrel teams this year.

      Kind of like the major-party presidential candidates.

      --
      "Alcohol, Tobacco, & Firearms" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
    2. Re:Redskin's chances by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Green Bay did not lose to Carolina. They beat the Carolina Panters the first Monday night game of the regular season.

    3. Re:Redskin's chances by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The Packers BEAT the Panthers, idiot. Many would argue that the Panthers are the best team they have played thus far.

      Mod down troll

    4. Re:Redskin's chances by jlanthripp · · Score: 1
      Oops, my bad, was thinking of every other team they've played this season..

      If you weren't being such an asshat, I wouldn't point out that the Panthers are the only team the Packers have beaten this year, nor that the Packers are at the BOTTOM of the NFC North just like the Redskins are at the bottom of the NFC East, but since you are, I will.

      God Damnyankee Packers fans, only capable of posting as Anonymous Cowards. Have you recovered yet from last weekend, when the real men from Tennessee rode through and handed you your ass on a plate?

      --
      "Alcohol, Tobacco, & Firearms" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
  20. Nader Has A Bye Week by notmtwain · · Score: 2, Funny

    I'm rooting for Nader but he has a bye that week. Chat It Up With Nader

  21. Joe Gibbs payoff? by jokach · · Score: 1


    Makes you wonder which political party paid off Joe Gibbs to come back to the Redskins in an election year?

    A real coincidence is that even with Gibbs, they still can't win ...

  22. Bush will be re-elected... and die in office? by mrkurt · · Score: 1

    If Bush is re-elected, then dies in office, it would fit the pattern.

    What we've seen is that it isn't just the curse of Tecumseh, this view of things also involves astrology. Every 20 years, a conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn takes place. Every 20 years since 1840, it has taken place in either Taurus, Capricorn, or Virgo (known in western astrology as "earth" signs). The one exception to this was in 1980-81, when the conjunction took place in Libra (an "air" sign). This would explain how Reagan survived an assassination attempt but every other president elected after a Jupiter-Saturn conjunction died in office.


    In addition, the pattern has been that the deaths alternated between the first and second term of the incumbent:

    • William Henry Harrison dies in April 1841, one month after taking office.
    • Abraham Lincoln dies on April 14, 1865, a month and a half into his second term.
    • James Garfield dies on Sept. 19, 1881, from wounds inflicted by a gunshot on July 2, six months into his first term.
    • William McKinley was assassinated in September 1901, six months into his second term.
    • Warren G. Harding dies in August 1923, 2 1/2 years after taking office.
    • Franklin D. Roosevelt dies on April 12, 1945, in his second term after the Jupiter-Saturn conjunction in the earth sign of Taurus in 1940-41.
    • John F. Kennedy is assassinated on Nov. 22, 1963, almost three years into his first term.
    • Ronald Reagan survives an assassination attempt by John Hinckley in March 1981. The Jupiter-Saturn conjuntion that took place prior to his taking office was in an air sign (Libra), not one of the earth signs.

    The last Jupiter-Saturn conjunction that took place was on May 28, 2000, in the earth sign of Taurus. G.W. Bush has apparently survived his first term in office, but if the pattern holds he will die in his second term. Provided, of course, he's re-elected.


    This pattern doesn't explain the death of Zachary Taylor in July 1850, after Harrison's death, and only time will be able to tell us if the pattern otherwise holds up.

    --
    Always look on the briight side of life! (whistle, whistle)
    1. Re:Bush will be re-elected... and die in office? by BandwidthHog · · Score: 1

      Umm, the pattern doesn't actually *explain* anything, not does the price of a gallon of piss on any given planet ten minutes after local sunrise.

      Why did Reagan survive? Becuase the bullet missed his heart and he was able to get immediate medical attention.

      --

      Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
    2. Re:Bush will be re-elected... and die in office? by 13thirteen · · Score: 1

      So, according to this pattern, Bush will definitely win the election, since a second term is required for the assassination since the last attempt happened during the first term...

  23. Both stink by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 1
    They both stink.

    Perhaps that's the most telling thing of all.

  24. To clarify an ambiguity... by abb3w · · Score: 1
    They both stink.

    Are you refering to both candidates, both teams, or both the sport of football and the presidential election process?

    --
    //Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
  25. I'm hoping for a tie. by MisterMoney · · Score: 1

    That should really shake things up.

  26. Lambert Field by sybert · · Score: 1

    John Kerry has already messed with fate when he was in Green Bay and referred to Lambeau Field as 'Lambert Field'. His disgraceful sacrilege has already cost the Packers two home losses. Kerry's heresy will cost him dearly when the Packers win in Washington and then Bush wins Wisconsin and wins the election in a landslide.

    Go Bush, Go Packers, Go Football Fans For Truth.

    1. Re:Lambert Field by AfterSchoolSpecial · · Score: 1

      I'm from northern Minnesota, and when Bush was up here, he referred to the northern part of the state as the "Iron Ridge" (its actually called the Iron Range). That might seem minor, but not to the people who live and work up there... I don't think Kerry's mistake is all that bad. I mean, if you're comparing mistakes, don't get me started on Bush's history ("Strategery, Nucleear"). Kerry didn't cost the "Pack" two home losses, their crappy play did (and a lack of a defense). I think you might have missed the point of the article. If the "Pack" win, then Bush LOSES. I'm a Vikings fan, but all I can say is "Go Pack!"

  27. Actually... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The chance of a coin turning up heads the seventeenth time, after turning up heads the previous sixteen times, is exactly the same as it turning up heads once. The actual chance of it turning up heads seventeen times in a row is .5^17, or 1 in 131072.