Does Redskins Loss Presage A Kerry Win?

Puny Human Nick writes "As mentioned before, the last home game the Redskins play before the election has predicted who will win since 1944. Well, the Redskins v. Green Bay game ended a few hours ago and it looks as though Kerry is going to win on Tuesday."

Comments

Re:1944?

[Peyna]

Wrong.

"In 1932 the Washington Redskins were neither the Redskins nor a Washington team: they were the Boston Braves, and they played in Braves Field, which they shared with the National League baseball team of the same name. On 6 November 1932 they won at home against the Staten Island Stapletons, 19-6, a result that should have foretold a presidential victory for the incumbent Republican party. Neither the Redskins' team name nor their predictive powers were yet evident, however, as President Herbert Hoover lost to his Democratic challenger, Governor Franklin Delano Roosevelt of New York, on 8 November 1932"

http://www.snopes.com/sports/football/election.asp

Re:Statistics...

[Peyna]

The rule follows for the incumbent party, not just the incumbent president. That makes 17 data points now, possibly 18.

It's obviously just a coincidence, but an interesting one at that.

Also, I'm sure that if the Redskins won, we would have had the same story, and the same things would be said except with "Bush" instead of "Kerry".

Well, but, yes.

[mattdm]

That's because Gore was foolish, and only demanded a recount in counties where he expected to do well. That's a dubious strategy anyway, and as you say, it turns out Bush would have "won" counting that way too. (Never mind that it's really a statistical tie and we all pretty much lose.) But when a _real_ recount of all state ballots was conducted by a consortium of newspapers, the results came out with Gore winning by over 20,000 votes. Too bad the Supreme Court didn't order that!

Re:Well, but, yes.

[Aexia]

That's because Gore was foolish, and only demanded a recount in counties where he expected to do well. That's a dubious strategy anyway,

Gore had to follow state law that limited in the numbers of counties he could request a recount.

Re:No

[haus]

I am sorry, you have scored an incorrect answer. The real answer, which has been report to several times, but amazingly is ignored by people such as yourself is that Gore won the election in Florida. When the state wide recount was completed Gore simply had more votes that Bush.

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/12/politics/12VOT E. html

I now return you to your normal delusion.

Re:Florida recount study: Bush still wins

[FungiFromYuggoth]

That was the headline, but the body of the actual report showed that a statewide recount would have elected Gore.

So would a count of clear overvotes (where Gore was circled and also written in). The article you cited mentioned that, but didn't mention that the Florida judge was strongly considering counting these overvotes where the intent of the voter could be determined (since that was the Florida standard).

What is without a doubt true is that more people went to the polls in Florida with the intent to cast their ballots for Gore.

and watch out for fraud and suppression

[gad_zuki!]

dailykos has the details. The GOP doesnt like to lose.

ourvote.com has a site up and a hotline ready. See also: my earlier post on fraud and corruption in American politics.

I care who wins, but I care more about winning legally and properly. I care about every vote being counted. I wish more of my fellow countrymen felt the same way.

Re:Does this mean Kerry will win?

[DarkEdgeX]

Unless you earn > $200,000 a year, you should be safe. In fact, according to Kerry, you could be getting even more tax breaks under his administration. From the second debate--

Question 11: Sen. Kerry, will you pledge not to raise taxes on families making less than $200,000 during your first term?

GIBSON: Sen. Kerry, the next question will be for you, and it comes from James Varner, who I believe is in this section.

Mr. Varner? You need a microphone.

QUESTIONER: Thank you.

Sen. Kerry, would you be willing to look directly into the camera and, using simple and unequivocal language, give the American people your solemn pledge not to sign any legislation that will increase the tax burden on families earning less than $200,000 a year during your first term?

KERRY: Absolutely. Yes. Right into the camera. Yes. I am not going to raise taxes.

I have a tax cut. And here's my tax cut.

I raise the child-care credit by $1,000 for families to help them be able to take care of their kids.

I have a $4,000 tuition tax credit that goes to parents -- and kids, if they're earning for themselves -- to be able to pay for college.

And I lower the cost of health care in the way that I described to you.

Every part of my program I've shown how I'm going to pay for it.

And I've gotten good people, like former Secretary of the Treasury Bob Rubin, for instance, who showed how to balance budgets and give you a good economy, to help me crunch these numbers and make them work. I've even scaled back some of my favorite programs already, like the child-care program I wanted to fund and the national service program, because the president's deficit keeps growing and I've said as a pledge, I'm going to cut the deficit in half in four years.

Now, I'm going to restore what we did in the 1990s, ladies and gentlemen: pay as you go. We're going to do it like you do it. The president broke the pay-as-you-go rule.

Somebody here asked the question about, Why haven't you vetoed something? It's a good question. If you care about it, why don't you veto it?

I think John McCain called the energy bill the No Lobbyist Left Behind bill.

I mean, you've got to stand up and fight somewhere, folks.

I'm pledging I will not raise taxes; I'm giving a tax cut to the people earning less than $200,000 a year.

Now, for the people earning more than $200,000 a year, you're going to see a rollback to the level we were at with Bill Clinton, when people made a lot of money. And looking around here, at this group here, I suspect there are only three people here who are going to be affected: the president, me, and, Charlie, I'm sorry, you too.

(LAUGHTER)

GIBSON: Mr. President, 90 seconds.

BUSH: He's just not credible when he talks about being fiscally conservative. He's just not credible. If you look at his record in the Senate, he voted to break the caps -- the spending caps -- over 200 times.

And here he says he's going to be a fiscal conservative, all of a sudden. It's just not credible. You cannot believe it.

And of course he's going to raise your taxes. You see, he's proposed $2.2 trillion of new spending. And you say: Well, how are you going to pay for it? He says, well, he's going to raise the taxes on the rich -- that's what he said -- the top two brackets. That raises, he says $800 billion; we say $600 billion. We've got battling green eye shades.

Somewhere in between those numbers -- and so there's a difference, what he's promised and what he can raise.

Now, either he's going to break all these wonderful promises he's told you about or he's going to raise taxes. And I suspect, given his record, he's going to raise taxes.

Is my time up yet?

GIBSON: No, you can keep going.

(LAUGHTER)

BUSH: Good.

Re:Does this mean Kerry will win?

[LtOcelot]

so are you saying that it's GWB's fault that we did nothing before 9/11 (like a response to the first WTC bombing, the African embassies bombings or the Cole bombing)?

Nah, but what I'm saying is that you're full of shit.