If you have "no place to go," come here!

Meteorologists Demand Recount In Groundhog Day Results

Shane-O's picture

On February 2, 2008, Punxsutawney Phil, the most well known of groundhog Spring prognosticators, did indeed see his shadow and predicted six more weeks of Winter.

However, Buckeye Chuck has challenged the outcome of Groundhog Day, citing the name recognition of Phil – a result of Bill Murray’s solid endorsement of Phil back in 1993.

Groundhog day insiders confirm that it is unlikely that the case of Chuck v. Phil will reach the highest Court.

Counsel to Chuck has advised against any legal action in light of the precedent set forth in Bush v. Gore.

Despite his 39% approval rating, Phil stressed his experience in making predictions and chastised Chuck’s audacity in hoping for an early Spring. Adding, “I believe Chuck’s prediction is merely the result of his watching Al Gore’s movie, ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ too many times.”

Deibold executives would not officially comment. However a Deibold representative did state, off the record, “On Groundhog Day, there is no chance for the manipulation of shadows. All necessary precautions have been taken to prevent shadow fraud.”

Exit polls proved nearly useless on this Groundhog Day. John Zogby pointed out that the sample size was just too small to get an accurate forecast of the Groundhog Day outcome. Fox News/Opinion Dynamics pollsters claimed language barriers as the key difficulty in obtaining precise polling results.

Foreign observers, such as Canada’s Wiarton Willie and Shubenacadie Sam were dumbfounded at the inconsistencies in the United States’ Groundhog Day results. Willie commented, “That’s the type of democracy the U.S. is trying to spread?”

If the Groundhog Day results are brought for a recount or Chuck were to seek judicial oversight, Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia stated,

The law does not refrain from searching for the intent of the Groundhog in a multitude of circumstances; and in some cases the general command to ascertain intent is not susceptible to much further refinement. In this instance, however, the question is not whether to believe a Groundhog but how to interpret the shadow. The factfinder confronts a silhouette, not a Groundhog. The search for intent can be confined by specific rules designed to ensure uniform treatment.

Yeah. It makes as much sense here as it did in 2000.

No votes yet