So, in that vein, does one specific team’s won-loss record in an election year correlate with who will occupy the White House in the following four years? I took each current franchise’s record in every “election year” since 1904 and categorized them as “under .500” or “at/over .500”. I then cross-referenced that with the party that won the election that year (D/R). For the record, the Democrats have won 13 of the 27 elections since 1904.
So, as an example in the chart below, Anaheim (ANA) has finished under .500 seven times during election years. During those seven seasons, the Democrats won three times, and the Republicans four times. They’ve finished at or over .500 fives times, and the Republicans won three of those times. So, Anaheim’s performance isn’t a good predictor.
Let’s find some instances where there DOES seem to be a correlation . . .
- The Cubs (CHC) seem to work, as the Democrats have won in 9 of 14 seasons where Chicago finished under .500, while the Republicans like when the Cubbies are winning, taking 9 of 13 elections when Chicago is at/over .500.
- The Reds (CIN) have a similar correlation. When they are under .500, Democrats win (7 of 11). When they are .500 or better, Republicans win (10 of 16).
- Count the A’s (OAK) and San Francisco (SFG) in with the Cubs and Reds in the “Democrats win when this team loses, Republicans win when this team wins” club.
- On the flip side, when the Cardinals (STL) finish under .500, the Republicans have won the elections eight out of 12 times, which the Democrats have won the White House in nine of the 15 seasons in which the Cards have played at or above .500.