Skip to main content

PED (Post Election Denial)

In the run-up to the 2012 presidential election, the Republican super PAC - American Crossroads - spent around $300 million on advertising. How did American Crossroads fare? According to the Sunlight Foundation, which tracks money in politics - only 6% of Crossroads' spending went to winners. For math majors out there, that means 94% of the organization's spending went to losing candidates. To put it another way - if Crossroads had taken a 1,000-question exam, they would have answered only 60 questions correctly, while answering 940 of them incorrectly.

Judging by those numbers, I think we can all agree that American Crossroads failed miserably, right? Not so fast...

As Mitt Romney's campaign manager - Matt Rhoades - recently stated with regard to Crossroads and other like-super PACs: "[They] had a very positive impact on leveling the playing field in target states."

He continued by saying: "Obama for America had a strategy to put Governor Romney and his campaign away early. In looking back, it might have worked if these organizations [Crossroads...] hadn't countered them in the spring and summer."

It might have worked? Did Mr. Rhoades not hear who won the election? Did he feel that Mr. Romney's concession speech was in fact a victory speech - perhaps the shortest one in the history of mankind? Was the 206 placed next to Romney's name to showcase how many electoral votes he won a special, lucky number of some sort? Is Romney's 206 electoral votes superior to Obama's 332? Whatever is the case, Mr. Rhoades is going to be awfully disappointed come January when he sees President Obama being inaugurated for his second term and calls Mitt in a panic, wondering why in the world he's not the one on television at that very moment. As Doug Heffernan once said, "Denial is more than a river in Spain." Indeed it is.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/karl-rove-and-his-super-pac-vow-to-press-on/2012/11/10/19ed28ea-2a96-11e2-b4e0-346287b7e56c_print.html

http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/results/main

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun...

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i...