Does any one possibly care about ESPN.com/Page 2’s fictional election? As far as a silly election parodies go, it’s not near as captivating to me as, say, the Cartoon Network election (goooooooo Edd/Grim). I don’t think I’ve even seen anyone as much as blink in it’s direction (except maybe a vague allusion on
Does any one possibly care about ESPN.com/Page 2’s fictional election? As far as a silly election parodies go, it’s not near as captivating to me as, say, the Cartoon Network election (goooooooo Edd/Grim). I don’t think I’ve even seen anyone as much as blink in it’s direction (except maybe a vague allusion on ). Kinda sorry for something they’ve pushed hard. (You’ll notice that, breaking new ESPN.com policy, all of the archived ‘election’ coverage is not only Insider.)
The problem, of course, it’s all quite lame (and one of a million things doing the same election parody, as noted above.) You’ve got weakly thought out political parties (old school vs new school took what, two seconds), fictional characters running for office (so they could be character – or so no one would have to attach their real names to this) who didn’t exist five seconds ago and don’t exist the second you click away from the page, but we’re supposed to care about, and those annoying talking head animations which slow down your computer and creep you out.
It’s a freaking internet website, a brain dead crocodile could’ve called the new school side winning the moment the election was announced. When the campaign can be boiled down to “ain’t the XBox cool?” vs “No it’s not” , you kinda have to throw the whole thing to lose. The point was to make a buzz about it, and they’ve failed miserably.
I mean, it’s not the worst thing on Page 2 – there’s Jim Caple! Someone thought it was a good idea to pay Skip Bayless! You don’t need me to be the fiftieth person to tell you that everything on Page 2 besides perhaps Eric Neel on Baseball and Sports Guy can be tremendously worthless – what you need from me is to find ways to make it all better.
I live to serve. Following is the summary of the crucial final debate between the imaginary person leading the Progressive Party and the imaginary person leading the Purists party. (Sometime between now and their election, they’ll actually be having a debate between actual real people as a VP debate. Real people with no lives, sure, but closer.)
Take time to note the immense differences in these campaigns, and remember they’ve been written to expose the difference between the two sides.
Was the A-Rod play cheap?
Progressive: Random nonsense, but yes.
Purists: Who cares, but yes,
Should there be instant replay?
Purists: Yes, but limited and quick.
Progressive: Yes, but limited and quick. And let the fans in the stands decide!
Purists: Are you nuts?
Progressive: Yes. Yes I am.
Should Baseball Games Start Earlier?
Purists: Yes.
Progressives: Yes.
What should be done with the BCS?
Purists: Get rid of it.
Progressives: Get rid of it.
Does the NCAA have too many nonsensical rules?
Progressives: Yes.
Purists: Yes.
Should they get rid of Yankee Stadium?
Purists: No.
Progressives: No.
Eye rolling “scandal” accusations back and forth for the next bunch of paragraphs.
Who has too much power in sports?
Purists: Owners. The fans should get more.
Progressives. Ditto. “Finally, we agree on something.”
Is Sox vs Yankees every year bad for baseball? Should we have a salary cap?
Purists: Good baseball is good for baseball. (Ducks salary cap question)
Progressive: It’s not Sox vs Yankees every year, stupid.
Lame joke (y espanol!) to close us out.
The differences are astounding.
