November 22, 2016
Analysts Now Conclude Horrible Debate Performance Just as Likely to Win Voters as Magnificent Debate Performance
Analysts, admitting they had "been getting it all wrong," now say that a winning debate performance was just as likely to win voters as a horrendous, gut wrenching, mind-numbingly bad debate performance.
"We were either not asking the right questions," said Professor Ted Rarko, "or having some very long, tasty lunches and not asking the right questions." He remarked that political scientists had made the mistake of simply assuming that the candidate who displayed superior knowledge of foreign and domestic policies, and who articulately advanced convincing arguments for her leadership of the country, would garner increased electoral support.
"it's a head scratcher," said Professor Wilamena Panderson. "Maybe we've been wrong all these years, maybe up is down."
"Or maybe they're both up," Rarko added.
"We made a mistake," Senator Marco Rubio said of his failed campaign, "I told my campaign manager we didn't need to look like we were smart. That's two hours of my life I'll never get back."
Posted by Tom Burka at 9:00 AM
| TrackBack (0)