OT: Are you superstitious? (politics)

[Rich Grise]

On the NFL show today, they mentioned that every Washington Redskins
game the Sunday before an election, when the Redskins won, the incumbent
got reelected.

Every. Single. Time.

And conversely, when the Redskins lost, the incumbent lost.

It's currently 20-14 Green Bay, 4:46 to go.
http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/live/NFL_20041031_GB%40WAS

Keep your fingers crossed!

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Rich Grise]

On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 21:02:07 +0000, Rich Grise wrote:

On the NFL show today, they mentioned that every Washington Redskins game
the Sunday before an election, when the Redskins won, the incumbent got
reelected.

Every. Single. Time.

And conversely, when the Redskins lost, the incumbent lost.

It's currently 20-14 Green Bay, 4:46 to go.
http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/live/NFL_20041031_GB%40WAS

Keep your fingers crossed!

Washington lost!

They made a valiant effort at at last-minute tying score, but it
was called back on an illegal procedure penalty.

Is this synchronicity, or what?

So, Republicans, listen up!

Bush has already lost, so if you want your vote to count, you'd
better go Badnarik. At least he's fiscally conservative!

Cheers!
Rich

 

[John Larkin]

On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 21:02:07 GMT, Rich Grise <rich@example.net> wrote:

On the NFL show today, they mentioned that every Washington Redskins
game the Sunday before an election, when the Redskins won, the incumbent
got reelected.

Every. Single. Time.

And conversely, when the Redskins lost, the incumbent lost.

It's currently 20-14 Green Bay, 4:46 to go.
http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/live/NFL_20041031_GB%40WAS

Keep your fingers crossed!

Cheers!
Rich

The President with the most pets always wins. And W has more pets than
K.

John

 

[Paul Burridge]

On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 15:23:47 -0800, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highlandSNIPtechTHISnologyPLEASE.com> wrote:

The President with the most pets always wins. And W has more pets than
K.

And what pets might *they* be, young man?
--

"What is now proved was once only imagin'd." - William Blake, 1793.

 

[Ken Taylor]

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highlandSNIPtechTHISnologyPLEASE.com> wrote in
message news:musao05ticuh4co3v5q5o9aqefp1f3854v@4ax.com...

On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 21:02:07 GMT, Rich Grise <rich@example.net> wrote:

On the NFL show today, they mentioned that every Washington Redskins
game the Sunday before an election, when the Redskins won, the incumbent
got reelected.

Every. Single. Time.

And conversely, when the Redskins lost, the incumbent lost.

It's currently 20-14 Green Bay, 4:46 to go.
http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/live/NFL_20041031_GB%40WAS

Keep your fingers crossed!

Cheers!
Rich


The President with the most pets always wins. And W has more pets than
K.

John

The candidate with more votes wins every time. Oh, hang on........

 

[Rich Grise]

On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 00:31:18 +0000, Paul Burridge wrote:

On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 15:23:47 -0800, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highlandSNIPtechTHISnologyPLEASE.com> wrote:

The President with the most pets always wins. And W has more pets than
K.

And what pets might *they* be, young man?

I dunno, but I didn't make up the legend:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20041101/ts_alt_afp/us_vote_myths&cid=1506&ncid=2043

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Dirk Bruere at Neopax]

Ken Smith wrote:

In article <musao05ticuh4co3v5q5o9aqefp1f3854v@4ax.com>,
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandSNIPtechTHISnologyPLEASE.com> wrote:
[...]

The President with the most pets always wins. And W has more pets than
K.


Kerry is taller than Bush. The taller man wins.

Traditionally, the one who spends most on advertising wins.

--
Dirk

The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millenium
http://www.theconsensus.org

 

[Scott Stephens]

Rich Grise wrote:

On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 12:21:06 +0000, Scott Stephens top-posted:

Oh my, are we confusing correlation with causation?

Of course not. That's a tactic of the Antismokerists and other
neonazis.

There are known carcinogens in tobacco smoke, so there is a reasonable
cause to assign correlation to causation regarding smoking and cancer.

The link between a sporting event and an election is a far more tenuous
hypothesis. Sure, there may be some cultural and psychological link, but
I should think it would be easier to correlate the delusion of
"magical thinking" with a propensity to pull non-causal correlations out
of a statistical database.

Perhaps I can select
one of thousands of psychics, or stock-brokers, or tipsters for
horse-races, that have an infallible track record for you to bet on.

That'd be awesome, if you could find one.

Perhaps I could. But unless they are fixing the stocks with insider info
or fixing the horse race, a truly random non-causal stream would have no
greater chance of the next "prediction" turning out correct. If you flip
a coin "heads" ten times, the chance is still 50-50 its going to come up
tail on flip #11.

Go for it! Find _any_ statistical correlator that has been 100%
accurate for the past 38 years, i.e., the entire existence of the
team.

And, have you ever heard the term, "self-fulfilling prophecy"?

Again, in this case the probability that some people will be inspired or
discouraged because of this correlation is probably trivial.

Perhaps you can get a Bible and use the "Bible-code"? How about using
that software on comrade Hill's AoE? =)

--
Scott

**********************************

DIY Piezo-Gyro, PCB Drill Bot & More Soon!

http://home.comcast.net/~scottxs/

POLITICS, n.
A strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles.
The conduct of public affairs for private advantage. - Ambrose Bierce

**********************************

 

[Rich Grise]

On Tue, 02 Nov 2004 00:26:43 +0000, Scott Stephens wrote:

Rich Grise wrote:

On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 12:21:06 +0000, Scott Stephens top-posted:

Oh my, are we confusing correlation with causation?

Of course not. That's a tactic of the Antismokerists and other
neonazis.

There are known carcinogens in tobacco smoke, so there is a reasonable
cause to assign correlation to causation regarding smoking and cancer.

Well, unfortunately, that "causal" link that the antis have shoved
down everybody just plain is not true, but to find out, you have to
be willing to read something that's contrary to your religious dogma.

You are showing an example of the mindlessness of the antis. Correlation
IS NOT causation, even though your high priest says it is.

So, well, go and follow your leader to where he's inexorably leading
you to.

May God have mercy on your soul.

Remember, Bush is a dangerous liar.

Thanks,
Rich

 

[Rich Grise]

Monday night football just did about a 60 second spot (which
is a long time for a commercial in the middle of a game)
essentially endorsing Kerry because of the Redskin Legend.

They interviewed a couple of Redskin players, and one of
them said, "President, Kerry, you gonna owe me!<grin>"

These guys want him reelected, because he's an apparently
limitless source of material:
http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/images/blbushpictures.htm

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Clarence]

"JeffM" <jeffm_@email.com> wrote in message
news:f8b945bc.0411021303.668f24a9@posting.google.com...

Kerry is taller than Bush. The taller man wins.
Ken Smith

Sometimes.
http://www.google.com/search?&q=height+6-1+Dewey+Humphrey+Dukakis+Mondale

Only in an African tribe for selecting a King!
IN Politics a taller man just makes a easier target. (For a Pie)