Packers vs. Redskins

A lot of people have noted that since 1936, when the Washington Redskins win their last home game before a presidential election, the incumbent party wins. When they lose their last home game before a presidential election, the incumbent party loses.

The Washington Post had an article about this on Wednesday:

The Redskins (2-4), who snapped their skid with a victory two weeks ago, will face the Green Bay Packers (3-4) at FedEx Field on Halloween. According to the streak, a Packers loss ensures that George Bush stays in office for a second term, but a Redskins loss means that John Kerry, the Democratic nominee, becomes the next president.

“That’s kind of amazing,” Coach Joe Gibbs said. “You wouldn’t think that something like that would line up that many times.”

Well, you wouldn’t.

Quarterback Mark Brunell [well, a quarterback in the sense that he’s listed as one on the roster–Murdoc], a Republican, was not impressed by the streak: “Pure coincidence. I don’t think there’s anything to it.”

But last week, Kerry’s running mate, Sen. John Edwards, told a television station in La Crosse, Wis., that he would root against the Redskins because of the streak. Edwards, who lives in Georgetown, told WKBT-TV, “We are for the Packers, period.”

When Gibbs was informed of Edwards’s remark, he made a swift reply, then asked that it be struck from the record. Then Gibbs offered a, well, politically correct response. “Hopefully, we’re going to have a lot of people pulling for us this weekend,” the coach said, chuckling.

Joe Bugel, Washington’s assistant head coach-offense, was more blunt when told about Edwards’s position. “John Edwards just lost my vote” he said, then added slyly, “He never had it in the first place.”

I haven’t actually checked the facts out, so I’m just taking it on faith that this streak actually exists.

And if it does, I’m looking at it in a slightly different way.

Given the Redskins injury problems, the DWI arrest of top rookie Sean Taylor, and the fact that the aforementioned Mark Brunell sucks, I’d fully expect the Redskins to be hard-pressed against a tough Packers team this afternoon.

But, since Bush is going to win the election, it means the ‘Skins will beat the Pack.

We’ll see.

UPDATE: The streak ends! Green Bay beats Washington in Washington 28-14.

MO predicts a 305-233 incumbent party win on Tuesday.

(One caveat: The Redskins would have takena 21-20 lead with a couple of minutes left if not for a questionable illegal motion call that nullified a great TD by Clinton Portis. I’d hate to see officials make questionable calls in the aftermath of an apparent Bush victory. But could this be an omen?

I think not.

We’ll see.)

Meanwhile, Paul at Wizbang writes about how a Kerry victory could be good for the Republicans in the long run, and I don’t really disagree with his reasoning. In fact, it mirrors very closely a lot of points that I made in a telephone conversation with a raving Right-winger this past summer, including Paul’s assertation that John Kerry would “out-Carter Carter” and lead to huge gains for the GOP in 2006 and 2008. I believe that this is the EXACT wording that I used in my telephone conversation, and as soon as I finish typing this post I am going to check my telephone for listening devices.

While I DO agree with what he says, I absolutely feel that we don’t have time for all that right now.

I don’t want sell the future short and all. But I want to get there. I truly feel that John Kerry would be a disasterous president for the United States during this time of war, mostly because he doesn’t seem to intend to wage the war.


  1. Hey, I get to comment on two statistics posts in a row. If you look hard enough, you can always find improbable correlations. The Redskins/Election correlation is one of those.