How does voting compare to watching the Superbowl?
One would think that there is a pretty big difference, but not if you listen to Sarah Palin. Her argument for voting for Gingrich is that it would be a shame for one person to take a commanding lead right away. Here is where the Superbowl analogy presents itself. If neither of the teams is your home team, which do you root for? To make things interesting, many people go with the underdog. You hope that the contest is close and just maybe the underdog will beat the odds and come out on top.
There are two significant ways that the analogy breaks down. First of all, an election is not a sporting event. It has real consequences. If your team loses in the Superbowl, you spend a day fretting about it and then go on with your life. On the other hand, we have to live with the consequences of an election. The second big difference is that an election is not a spectator event. The participants determine the outcome.
Granted, there are some similarities between the Superbowl and elections. They both seem to be run by corporations, especially now with all the Super Pack ads. Still I think there is enough of a difference not to mistake the one for the other.
Observing members:
0
Composing members:
0
10 Answers
Both are obscene fraudulent spectator sports corrupted by money?
If neither of the teams is your home team, which do you root for?
Usually (from my experience) a person will root for the team in the conference their home team or favorite team belongs to. I’m a Denver Broncos fan. They are part of the AFC, so I would probably root for the Patriots in this years Super Bowl since they are part of the AFC. though I can’t stand Tom Brady, but go AFC!
You could compare voting during the general election (not the primaries) to the Super Bowl. For example, a person may not like their choice in Obama or Romney (if Romney is the candidate for the Republicans), but if the person is Republican the chances are he/she will vote for Romney.
First of all, I don’t listen to Sarah Palin, so your whole premise is based on a false analogy. Secondly, most parties prefer that the nominee become evident fairly early on, so that there isn’t anymore internecine warfare than is necessary.
I am a Democrat, but even I know better than Sarah Palin that Ronald Reagan’s 11th Commandment for Republicans was “Never speak ill of another Republican.” Palin wants a blood battle to the end so she can remain in the spotlight, and not be relegated back to Wasilla. That’s why she is critical of others in her own party.
The fans…..They get really loud and boisterous.
The Superbowl commercials are fun and entertaining.
The results of the Superbowl matter…
Can you win money in Vegas on the presidential election?
Well one is entertainment that is watched for three hours by billions of people around the world and then forgotten, and the other has serious consequences for 300 plus million people. All in all, I’d rather be in Philadelphia.
Oh. Wait. I am in Philadelphia!
To rephrase @wundayatta (something I don’t get to do nearly often enough):
One is a nominal sporting event, often billed as “war”, “battle”, “conflict” and “strife”, the preamble to which drags on seemingly forever, costs tens of millions of dollars, entertains pundits, commentators and fans endlessly (and often mindlessly) rooting for their team, which makes little difference who wins in the end, and the other is a football game.
Answer this question 
Composing members:
0
