Since 1940 — when the Redskins moved to D.C. — the team’s outcome in its final game before the presidential election has predicted which party would win the White House each time but once.
When the Redskins win their game before the election, the incumbent party wins the presidential vote. If the Redskins lose, the non-incumbent wins.
The only exception was in 2004, when Washington fell to Green Bay, but George W. Bush still went on to win the election over John Kerry.
Here’s a rundown of the Redskins Rule games since 1940:
- 1940 – Redskins 37, Steelers 10 – Roosevelt (D) defeats Willkie.
- 1944 – Redskins 14, Rams 10 – Roosevelt defeats Dewey.
- 1948 – Redskins 59, Boston Yanks 21 – Truman (D) defeats Dewey.
- 1952 – Steelers 24, Redskins 23 – Eisenhower (R) defeats Stevenson.
- 1956 – Redskins 20, Browns 9 – Eisenhower defeats Stevenson.
- 1960 – Browns 31, Redskins 10 – Kennedy (D) defeats Nixon.
- 1964 – Redskins 27, Bears 20 – Johnson (D) defeats Goldwater.
- 1968 – Giants 13, Redskins 10 – Nixon (R) defeats Humphrey.
- 1972 – Redskins 24, Cowboys 20 – Nixon defeats McGovern.
- 1976 – Cowboys 20, Redskins 7 – Carter (D) defeats Ford.
- 1980 – Vikings 39, Redskins 14 – Reagan (R) defeats Carter.
- 1984 – Redskins 27, Falcons 14 – Reagan defeats Mondale.
- 1988 – Redskins 27, Saints 24 – Bush defeats Dukakis.
- 1992 – Giants 24, Redskins 7 – Clinton (D) defeats Bush.
- 1996 – Redskins 31, Colts 16 – Clinton defeats Dole.
- 2000 – Titans 27, Redskins 21 – Bush (R) defeats Gore.
- 2004 – Packers 28, Redskins 13 – Bush defeats Kerry, ending the streak.
- 2008 – Steelers 23, Redskins 6 – Obama (D) defeats McCain, restoring the Redskins Rule.
- 2012 – Redskins vs. Panthers – Obama vs. Romney – TBD
REDSKINS LOSE. THE REDSKINS RULE SAYS MR. ROMNEY WINS, BUT OBAMA IS SPIKING ON INTRADE. IT WILL BE CLOSE.
If you enjoy the content at iBankCoin, please follow us on Twitter
that is hilarious!
Intrade is a joke.
it’s a wonderful example of how correlation is not causation, especially on small sample sizes like this
Yeah. Also selection bias. There are a trillion different data points you could look at and notice 1000 of them that predicted the last 10 elections. If everyone in the world flipped a coin everytime before election you would be able to find one who’s coin-flip picked the election. If it predicted the last x events (elections) you could even say you have an adequate sample size to statistically be “90% confident” that the results will be predicted based off of that specific coin flip. You could skew the data even worse to fit your argument by having everyone flip 100 different coins and only choosing the coin itself that predicts the election… MAGIC COIN! Both sides are guilty of this but few people understand. Even so called economic data points that might seem to actually be indicators that could reflect actual data and may make reasonable sense are hand selected. For example, the misery index supports Obama if you look at how it’s CHANGED. But that doesn’t consider that since 1994 (or 1996) the numbers and how they determine inflation and unemployment have drastically changed. The “out of work” percentage at around 16% or so for example is very supportive in favor of Romney even if you look at how it changes. You can find the set of fundamentals that favor either side because you are generally looking AFTER the fact. but this data can be hand selected to produce the desired bias.
The Redskins rule is data mining at its worst. I would like a Romney win, but it will be close either way and will matter less that the rhetoric suggests.
The Redskin indicator is actually 100% right. If the only exception was Bush in 2004, the indicator obviously either favored the popular vote or the hanging chads for Gore in 2000. Forget those skewed national polls, Congratualtions, President Elect Romney. You can thank RG3.
RG have not read u talebs books?
I don’t entirely rule out the possibility of “omens” and “superstitions” and things like this working. There perhaps is even a scientific explanation that just isn’t known because we don’t have enough data. We don’t know all the factors at work in the world. Look at an event, perhaps if something superstitious happens it changes perception of reality, and what is reality but a perception? There is nothing to confirm that we don’t live in a multiverse and that there aren’t constantly shifts of consciousness between alternate parallel realities/universes and that these superstitions could somehow cause them. But it would be impossible to ever measure scientifically. I think the chances are very slim, but possible.
If for example the change in thought patterns that result from the win or from the belief that the win would hcange result, maybe t makes a difference, perhaps the outcome of the game is only a winif enough of the fans believe in the team and they only will do so under high moral that can only be caused by leadership in washington. Although this explination is wild and seems insane, and perhaps is, there is no way to confirm or deny that there aren’t varaibles beyond our understandig. There is no way to test the theory that there is or isn’t a God. Or that the stars alignment don’t cause a change in events and leadership in Washington including their team/ It’s a holographic reality and the inside is a reflection of the outside world. reality is nothing more than a composition of our collective thoughts, beliefs and ideas and those same thoughts beliefs and ideas that caused the redskins to lose will also cause the incumbant to lose.
Who really knows. We can’t objectively observe this reality from outside of it to see how our experiments will be effeted based upon beliefs, other experimets changes in perception and whether or not our perception of reality or the experiments themselves are wrong. Reticular activating system says that we will believe in what we want to believe despite evidence to the contrary, so if that occurs on a grander scale, perhaps even the scientific results are skewed based upon reality Perhps the world always was round, or perhaps the belief and conviction of Columbus to prove everyone wrong and continue sailing along with others that believed it was round changed the composition of the universe or transformed that alternate universe into one that could be adapted to fit the current paradigm.
This sounds like metaphysical garbage and perhaps is, but scientifically do we have any data to rule it out or any way of collecting data to do so? no. So a statistician AND scientist can NEVER rule out the possibility that any particular “known” fact or law is ever 100% true with 100% certainty. we don’t even know that reality exists and isn’t some advanced form of a dream.