PDA

View Full Version : Football decides Presidential election


ambico17
29-10-04, 06:17
According to this article http://www.snopes.com/sports/football/election.asp

the Washington Redskins last home game before the election has determined the outcome of the race. This has been true for every election dating back to 1936.

Have a read for yourself and then watch football on Sunday. Let's see if this will hold true for another election.

ambico17
31-10-04, 22:18
The Green Bay Packers have beaten the Washington Redskins.

Looks like this means John Kerry will be are next President. If you believe in this kind of stuff?

andromeda_eats
31-10-04, 22:26
How long does it take to count the polls? Australians voted between 8-6pm on saturday the 10th and the results were released on saturday the 10th at 10pm. True that we have the same population size as that of N.Y....

Yours_in_darkness
31-10-04, 22:33
My dad told me about that and I was super-psyched because I really want Kerry to win.

Draco
31-10-04, 22:34
Theoretically we should know on November 3rd how the elections turned out. But I don't think the Democrats will accept a victory for Bush until the Supreme Court says so...again.

Then again, Kerry might actually win.

Draco
31-10-04, 22:35
Originally posted by Yours_in_darkness:
My dad told me about that and I was super-psyched because I really want Kerry to win.Don't get your hopes up, the Red Sox did win the World Series this year after all.

tazmine
31-10-04, 22:52
Originally posted by Draco:
Theoretically we should know on November 3rd how the elections turned out. But I don't think the Democrats will accept a victory for Bush until the Supreme Court says so...again.

Then again, Kerry might actually win.Draco, Draco, Draco...sigh.

I think it will be at least a few days before there is a decisive winner, just cuz of all the problems with the voting machinery. But if it's a close electon...could be January.

BTW, what is your opinion of Nader in all of this?

Draco
31-10-04, 23:06
Well I don't know what Nader's personal goals in all of this are, but his votes do make a difference. What might be interesting is how Badnarik does.

tazmine
31-10-04, 23:27
Both spoilers, imo. Neither one has a chance to win, & are just siphoning votes from the main candidates.

Draco
31-10-04, 23:42
Well that won't stop either of them, what I haven't figured out is why Nader is so persistant.

tazmine
31-10-04, 23:56
I know, I really don't get that either. If it was just to prove a point, well, he did that years ago.

I realize our system is totally different from yours, but in Canada, if your party gets enough votes, you actually become a recognized party: perhaps not the "official opposition", but a dark horse, with a say in Parliament.

[ 31. October 2004, 23:59: Message edited by: tazmine ]

Flipper1987
01-11-04, 04:51
There's also another sports tradition that relates to the presidential election; however, it's not as famous as the Redskins' example.

If the St. Louis (baseball) Cardinals make the World Series during a presidential election year, their performance predicts the winner. If the Cardinals WIN the World Series, the Democrats win. If they LOSE, the Republicans win.

1944: Cardinals beat the Browns; FDR (Democrat) wins re-election to a 4th term.

1964: Cardinals beat the Yankees; LBJ (Democrat) defeats Barry Goldwater (Republican).

1968: Cardinals lose to the Tigers: Richard Nixon (Republican) defeats Hubert Humphrey (Democrat).

2004: Cardinals lose to the Boston Red Sox: hmm, we'll see. :D

Yeah, it's not as consistent as the Redskins' example, but it's 3 for 3!

FLIPPER