Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

L0RDZ (81.88)

The Washington Redskin rule and the 2012 elections

Recs

7

November 04, 2012 – Comments (8)

So  regardless  of  all  the  hundreds  of  millions  of  dollars  blown  much like  powdered cola,  supposedly   the  2012  presidential  election  may  come  down  between   the  NFL's  game  between  the  Redskins  and  the  Panthers.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1394487-washington-redskins-2012-how-redskins-rule-picks-a-us-president

There are many superstitions, omens, indicators and predictors that determine the results of a presidential election. None has greater accuracy than the "Redskins Rule," as noted by the Elias Sports Bureau in 2000. It goes something like this: Since the Redskins moved from Boston to Washington, D.C., in 1937, there have been 18 presidential elections. If the Redskins win their last home game before the election, the incumbent party has held office.

Although not perfect, and we are talking superstition, this has held true in 17 of 18 presidential elections. In 2004, the visiting Green Bay Packers defeated the Washington Redskins, 28-14.  George Bush held onto his presidency, defeating John Kerry. That election had to even be reviewed by the officials. (Too bad there was no political equivalent of a coach throwing a red flag on the play for that one.)

Bush had secured the electoral votes but not the popular vote. Otherwise, it could be a perfect 18 of 18 instances this had occurred. The rule worked 17 of 18 times, resulting in an accuracy rating of 94.4 percent.

So  who  are  you  routing  for  ?

Sunday afternoon, let RG3 and Cam Newton just go all out until the last second, and whichever team has the ball last has a chance to win the game. There is much more at stake than a win in the win-loss column between these two teams. The future of the country over the next four years needs a clear-cut winner.

Although it has not happened in the NFL in four years, let's hope the game does not end in a tie.  

8 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On November 04, 2012 at 3:00 PM, L0RDZ (81.88) wrote:

In 2004, the Redskins lost their last home game before the presidential election, indicating the incumbent should have lost; however, George W. Bush (the incumbent) went on to defeat John Kerry. Steve Hirdt, credited with the discovery of the rule, then modified it to refer not to the incumbent party in the White House but to the party that last won the popular vote. In the election in 2000, Al Gore won the popular vote, and thereby the revised Redskin Rule has been upheld.[2]

On November 3, 2008, the Redskins lost to the Pittsburgh Steelers, thereby predicting a win for Illinois Senator Barack Obama over Arizona Senator John McCain (as George W. Bush won the popular vote in 2004).[1]

On November 4, 2012, the Redskins will play against the Carolina Panthers. This will be the last home game for the Redskins before the 2012 Presidential Election which will take place on November 6. According to the rule, if the Redskins win the game, then Barack Obama will be re-elected for a second term; if the Panthers win instead, then Obama will be ousted and Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney will be elected.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redskins_Rule

Report this comment
#2) On November 04, 2012 at 3:37 PM, L0RDZ (81.88) wrote:

It  doesn't  look  good  for  the POTUS...    as   the  Panthers  are  leading  the  skins   21 - 6.

Barring  a  late  scoring surge  or  the  breaking  of  the Redskins rule,  we   should  see  come  tuesday  a  new  administration.

Oh  and  how about  them LIONS....

ALSO  FYI   to  simplify  the electorial  process....  I  heard  they are  having   Republicans  vote  this  tuesday  and  Democrats  are  to  vote   thursday  to  make it  easy on voters.

LMAO...

Report this comment
#3) On November 05, 2012 at 9:57 AM, drgroup (68.85) wrote:

Oh, I see. If the Reps vote tues then the dems know how many phony ballots they have to come up with on thurs, to beat Romney. Brody obama said it best, "vote, it is the best revenge". Be careful what you ask for, you just might get it...

Report this comment
#4) On November 05, 2012 at 11:44 AM, ikkyu2 (99.24) wrote:

John Kerry in 2004?  Really?

Report this comment
#5) On November 05, 2012 at 2:32 PM, L0RDZ (81.88) wrote:

DR  the  only  thing  worse  sometimes  than not getting what  you  wanted   was ~  is  ~   actually  getting  what  you  wanted.

In 2008  plenty  of  fool  wanted  change  and  boy did they ever  as  their  dollars   got  converted  into a  little  more than pocket  change  you  give  out  to  beggars  and  kids  instead  of  candy during  halloween.

 

Report this comment
#6) On November 06, 2012 at 8:27 AM, drgroup (68.85) wrote:

LZ.. great points, but worse than financial lose is the lose of personal freedoms imposed by brody when the exec. orders he has on the shelf are implemented. Also, brodycare is filled with personal freedom fish hooks. Prepare for the complete unavailing of a dictator and his sick, twisted view points of his muslim brothers....

Report this comment
#7) On November 07, 2012 at 1:48 AM, awallejr (79.57) wrote:

Bizarro Alstry don't you get tired of always making the wrong predictions?

Report this comment
#8) On November 07, 2012 at 12:09 PM, EnigmaDude (84.94) wrote:

Past performance is no guarantee of future results...

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners


Advertisement