Election prediction
So yes, I voted this morning. Had I realized that the past six weeks would be like this I would never have complained so much in the past about our primary being too late to make any difference.
Our polls close at 8 p.m. or, rather, when the last person in line by 8 p.m. finishes voting -- and there will be lines.
I've seen dozens of opinion polls in the past week. Taken together, they point to a single undeniable trend, so let me make a bold prediction: John McCain will win the Republican primary here in Pennsylvania.
You heard it here first.
As far as the Democratic side, the only clear trend the polls seem to agree on is that the candidates' names are Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.
In any case, starting tomorrow we shouldn't have to put up with another visit from Chris Matthews et. al. any time soon. That's something every Pennsylvanian can agree to celebrate.
If Pennsylvania is one of the last primaries, why does one of the first mandatory "Regular Guy" checks involve a Philadelphia cheese steak?
Posted by: cjmr's husband | Apr 22, 2008 at 11:39 AM
As an Iowan, let me just say that I envy you having to go through this for a mere six weeks before your state is forgotten. It tends to go three or four months here, and most of the news coverage is of the "Who the hell do these hicks think they are?" variety.
Oh, and I wouldn't be so sure about McCain. Ron Paul could still win. He could! Really! ...Right?
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip | Apr 22, 2008 at 12:01 PM
"In any case, starting tomorrow we shouldn't have to put up with another visit from Chris Matthews et. al. any time soon. That's something every Pennsylvanian can agree to celebrate."
Ain't that the truth. I live in Maryland: not a battleground state. From a strictly lifestyle position, this is a Good Thing, what with avoiding the worst of political blather ads and the like.
So Fred, were there lines to vote?
Posted by: Richard Hershberger | Apr 22, 2008 at 12:03 PM
Poor NC and IN...
Posted by: zzyzx | Apr 22, 2008 at 12:24 PM
Cop out! Come on, which candidate did the world's most progressive evangelical vote for?
Posted by: K | Apr 22, 2008 at 12:26 PM
Naked Bunny with a Whip: whereabouts in old Ioway are you posting from? reading this from ye olde IC, myself.
Posted by: Myriad | Apr 22, 2008 at 12:26 PM
Naked Bunny with a Whip: my brain is weirded by that mental image (your username).
When is the last, last, final primary election, anyway? How long until it's OVR? (And how long a deep breath can we take before the general election mudslinging begins?)
Posted by: Nenya | Apr 22, 2008 at 12:38 PM
I live in Maryland
Illinois was even better than that. It was on Super Tuesday and a foregone conclusion from the moment Obama came out as a candidate.
Come on, which candidate did the world's most progressive evangelical vote for?
Mick Huckabee, naturally. It's right there in the Bible...
Posted by: Geds | Apr 22, 2008 at 12:38 PM
"whereabouts in old Ioway are you posting from? "
I've lived in Ames for going on four years, Des Moines three years prior to that.
"my brain is weirded by that mental image (your username)."
Hehe. No need to imagine...I have an icon at Wonkette. (Possibly NSFW, but that's true of Wonkette in general.)
http://wonkette.com/commenter/Tukla_in_Iowa/
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip | Apr 22, 2008 at 01:14 PM
Butthead: WHOA! Check it out, Beavis! This chick calls herself "Naked Bunny with a Whip!" That is, like, the coolest user name EVER!
Beavis: Yeah, heh, heh, heh! BOINNNNG!
Posted by: Raj | Apr 22, 2008 at 02:08 PM
Mick Huckabee, naturally. It's right there in the Bible...
Geds wins the thread!
Posted by: Jesurgislac | Apr 22, 2008 at 02:28 PM
This chick calls herself "Naked Bunny with a Whip!" That is, like, the coolest user name EVER!
A quick check of NBW's profile on Flickr, linked from Wonkette, reveals that he is a naked boy bunny with a whip.
Posted by: MikhailBorg | Apr 22, 2008 at 02:43 PM
Taken together, they point to a single undeniable trend, so let me make a bold prediction: John McCain will win the Republican primary here in Pennsylvania
WHY DO YOU HATE RON PAUL SO MUCH? WHOSE PAYROLL ARE YOU ON?!
Posted by: mcc | Apr 22, 2008 at 02:49 PM
Wow, 2 slacktivist readers in Ames (in other words, me too). I just moved here from Kentucky, and find it ironic that the year I move to Iowa is the the year the Kentucky might even matter somewhat. That being said, I'm still inclined to complain about how the primary calendar is set up. And I think with the mess of this year (FL and Mich, ect) I wonder if we don't start moving toward a May primary.
Posted by: Eric B. | Apr 22, 2008 at 02:54 PM
Thoughts on this article? My first impulse is to simply dismiss the Norgens as xenophobic bigots.
Posted by: Tonio | Apr 22, 2008 at 02:55 PM
Link begone!
Posted by: Tonio | Apr 22, 2008 at 02:57 PM
Tonio - My first impulse is to wonder why Milbank was only able to interview one couple in the town, and why he felt that the single interview was enough to a) predict the election and b) write off the town.
Posted by: mike timonin | Apr 22, 2008 at 03:34 PM
@Tonio: I, too, get the impression that the Norgrens are xenophobic, bigoted pieces of wasted protoplasm. As a naturalized American, I am SO FUCKING SICK of people who try to define "American" in terms of ethnic or national origins. Indeed, I am not only sick of such people, I am sickened by them.
Posted by: Raj | Apr 22, 2008 at 03:46 PM
Oh, and I wouldn't be so sure about McCain. Ron Paul could still win. He could! Really! ...Right?
WHY DO YOU HATE RON PAUL SO MUCH? WHOSE PAYROLL ARE YOU ON?!
There were twelve, now there are only two!
I can't wait for that movie to come out.
Posted by: practicallyevil | Apr 22, 2008 at 03:55 PM
Raj: Thank you from the bottom of my fishbelly-white, straight-except-for-John-Barrowman, son-of-lesbian, Jewish, atheist, Israeli, liberal, pro-Palestinian, pro-gun, pro-choice, upper-middle-class, college-educated, raised-in-poverty, bluegrass-loving, currently-in-a-mixed-race-cross-religious-cross-economic-class-relationship heart.
Posted by: Froborr | Apr 22, 2008 at 03:58 PM
straight-except-for-John-Barrowman
I've known several ladies who were straight-except-for-Angelina-Jolie. I think we may now have found the male equivalent.
Posted by: MikhailBorg | Apr 22, 2008 at 04:02 PM
Geds wins the thread!
Woohoo! Also, I love the way I couldn't get his first name right...
I think we may now have found the male equivalent.
You're a bit late to the game. George Clooney has had that one wrapped up for as long as it's been discussed. Although Barrowman seems to be the prime choice for a successor. He's like the Kobe to Clooney's Jordan...
Posted by: Geds | Apr 22, 2008 at 04:16 PM
Well, just to reveal my own personal tastes: Clooney: no. Barrowman: perhaps.
Posted by: MikhailBorg | Apr 22, 2008 at 04:18 PM
John Krasinski is my "exception."
Posted by: Eric B. | Apr 22, 2008 at 04:40 PM
Clooney's interview in last month's Esquire was golden. Read it if possible.
Posted by: twig | Apr 22, 2008 at 04:40 PM
Fred,
"starting tomorrow we shouldn't have to put up with another visit from Chris Matthews et. al. any time soon."
Fat chance. (Or, rather, depends upon what you mean by 'any time soon.') He's clearly thinking very strongly of running for U.S. Senate in 2010. Sad to say, we're probably going to be seeing quite a bit of his chauvinist ass starting around mid-2009. With any luck he'll have been dissuaded by the start of 2010 and he'll leave us alone, but I predict a run of Tweetie appearances before then as he tests the waters.
Posted by: The Navigator | Apr 22, 2008 at 04:53 PM
[Chris Matthews is] clearly thinking very strongly of running for U.S. Senate in 2010.
Wait, so if he does that then does that mean he doesn't get to keep his TV show?
Posted by: mcc | Apr 22, 2008 at 04:59 PM
Keep in mind, though, that if Chris Matthews falls there will be nothing left to protect us from Skynet. :P
In all seriousness, though, I envy you Fred. Your state got, for better or for worse, weeks of virtually undivided attention from the candidate. Utah got one visit from Obama - last year.
Posted by: Brett | Apr 22, 2008 at 05:21 PM
Hah! Lucky Utah. I live in the one place no candidate for federal office can ever go, on pain of political death: DC.
Posted by: Froborr | Apr 22, 2008 at 05:34 PM
Very funny, mcc, but no way I'm willing to pay that price. Not worth it, no way, no day. Keep him in his low-rated basic cable show, and if you find yourself watching, reach for that clicker.
Posted by: The Navigator | Apr 22, 2008 at 05:54 PM
John-Barrowman
*reflexive drool* I finally got to see Torchwood--and it was the episode in which he snogs James Marsters. Hel-looo.
(What happens if you go from no-women-except-Angelina-Jolie to few-men-except-John-Barrowman?)
And NBW, I think yours is the first furry av I've seen whom I actually thought was cute. Alas, I don't recognize any of your hangouts (but if you're wearing formal clothing of that sort, we may hang out in similar sims).
Posted by: Nenya | Apr 22, 2008 at 06:24 PM
As a fellow Iowan (greetings from darkest Hardin County!) I was so glad when the primaries were over...weeks of the phone shrieking off the hook had worn my patience very thin.
Posted by: Technomad | Apr 22, 2008 at 06:25 PM
All I have is my cell, so missed the endless phonecalls.
Posted by: Eric | Apr 22, 2008 at 08:00 PM
Man, what a bunch of fruits, huh shirtless picture of Collin Ferrell?
Posted by: practicallyevil | Apr 22, 2008 at 08:34 PM
...And what if you like women, but singularly fail to comprehend why anyone would find Angelina Jolie attractive?
Posted by: not someone else | Apr 22, 2008 at 08:51 PM
Mmmm, Barrowman is yummy, but I don't know that I'd sleep with him... Mind you, Jolie isn't on my list either.
Posted by: mike timonin | Apr 22, 2008 at 09:14 PM
John Barrowman does nothing for me; neither does Clooney. I'd put Denzel at the top of my straight-but-for list. I don't care for Jolie's lips, but other than that, she's very pretty to me.
Posted by: Jeff | Apr 22, 2008 at 09:17 PM
Hmm. Never seen the appeal of actors myself.
Personally, I'm more of a into-funny-gentle-smart-and-most-importantly-real-people-but-for-various-literary-characters-of-assorted-genders-but-usually-short-darkhaired-deadly-and-psychotic.
Posted by: hapax | Apr 22, 2008 at 10:02 PM
Hapax, you seem a bit similar to my sister-in-law (although not so much the short-darkhaired-deadly-and-psychotic part.) Sexual attraction just doesn't kick in for her until she knows the person, so actors/musicians/whatever don't do it for her (with the exception of Oded Fehr in The Mummy). Attraction based on physical appearance and charisma doesn't seem to be part of her wiring.
For myself, when it comes to actors, I tend to react more to the characters than the performers (not always, but mostly). I have no particular opinions about John Barrowman except that sometimes his line readings drive me totally up the wall; Captain Jack, on the other hand, I find off-puttingly sexy and charismatic. Similarly, I don't get worked up about Gina Torres, but goddamn if Zoe isn't smoking hot. And so on.
I've seen Brad Pitt mentioned as some straight men's exception. That he and Angelina Jolie are so often held up as some kind of paragon of sexiness is an enduring mystery to me.
Posted by: burgundy | Apr 23, 2008 at 01:39 AM
I do not *get* Brad Pitt as "hot"--except in Troy, and that was because of the shirtlessness. He's not exactly ugly, but I don't get why so many people drool over him. Huh.
I think the thing with Angelina Jolie is that she's got a reputation for being a bit transgressive and edgy--that's probably part of the attraction for a lot of people. (Personally, I thought she was cuter in her short-pixie-haircut days. *waves at hapax* There is something about people with short dark hair. )
Posted by: Nenya | Apr 23, 2008 at 03:33 AM
Have we successfully derailed the thread yet from talking about the primaries to talking about hot thespians? Who would YOU vote for president, Jolie or Barrowman?
Posted by: Nenya | Apr 23, 2008 at 03:34 AM
My main problem with Brad Pitt is that he's all looks and no talent. I think that, somewhere out there, there's some poor schlub with bags of actual acting talent, but he can't get any decent roles because he "doesn't have that Brad Pitt thing goin' for him." Hollywood sucks...
Posted by: Reynard | Apr 23, 2008 at 04:28 AM
At a charity "celebrities auction" in the UK, for Stonewall I think, Jack Barrowman announced he was putting himself up for sale with the minimum bid set at £2000.
He went for £420.
I can't verify this piece of gossip, so I just repeat it.
I think Barrowman is awfully cute, especially when he's dancing with Christopher Eccleston, and his fellow actors say he's great to work with, but I wouldn't want him running the country.
Or Captain Jack Harkness either.
Posted by: Jesurgislac | Apr 23, 2008 at 05:49 AM
Burgundy's point about the need to separate the actual acting ability of John Barrowman from the awesomeness of the Real Jack Harkness (meta-Captain Jack?) reminds me of Avon in Blake's 7. Well, most of the characters in Blake's 7, to be honest...
Posted by: Rosina | Apr 23, 2008 at 05:54 AM
I agree that, at a certain level, you should keep a creative person separate from their works. To make the obligatory Trek reference, I'm a fan of Jim Kirk, but I'm not sure I'd want to hang around William Shatner.
Since I know more about Jack Harkness than I do about John Barrowman, obviously I'm more attracted to the character than to the actor. Nevertheless, both people are about as 'real' to me - even though I know that Barrowman is far more real to (for example) his husband and parents than Harkness is, I'm not likely to find myself in the company of either anytime soon.
I'm reminded of a Dresden Dolls concert I attended a few month ago. Unexpectedly, in the middle of a song, Amanda Palmer came down into the standing-only crowd and wandered through it, passing within arm's reach of me and making eye contact while she sang. In my database, she suddenly became more 'real' than she'd been on the stage. 'Weird Al' Yankovic, with whom I've shared a brief conversation, is even more so.
So, yeah. Any attraction I may have to an actor or character is certainly restricted to fantasy, and a fantasy that would probably be spoiled in real life at that.
Posted by: MikhailBorg | Apr 23, 2008 at 08:30 AM
and a fantasy that would probably be spoiled in real life at that.
I tend to shun celebrity news coverage for that reason. I just don't care about a person's real life because I happen to enjoy them in a certain role (which I'd probably enjoy if someone else was playing the role). I'm not much of a "fan"; I don't follow artists' careers, and putting an actor in another role in another show isn't likely to induce me to watch because it's usually the role I'm interested in, not who's playing it. To keep to the "Doctor Who" theme developed in this thread, I liked Christopher Eccleston in that role, but I didn't tune into "Heroes" just to see him there. The fact that I didn't even hear about it until afterward made no difference.
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip | Apr 23, 2008 at 09:28 AM
Thinking about it, yeah, it's really Jack Harkness, not John Barrowman, hat's the exception for me.
There are a very few actors that I respect enough to go see a movie just because they're in it. The main one I can think of off the top of my head is Philip Seymour Hoffman.
Posted by: Froborr | Apr 23, 2008 at 10:36 AM
My main problem with Brad Pitt is that he's all looks and no talent.
Noooo.... Brad Pitt has plenty of talent. He just doesn't always use it.
My list of movies that demonstrate the fact of his acting ability:
Thelma & Louise
Interview with the Vampire
Se7en
Twelve Monkeys
Fight Club
Snatch
Of course, your mileage may vary.
Posted by: McJulie | Apr 23, 2008 at 10:40 AM
I have to confess to being completely baffled about the fascination with celebrity of any sort, with actors, singers, or just rich people. I just don't get how obsessive people can get about (for example) whether a certain "famous" person's breasts are "real" or not, or what they did on a date, how many failed relationships s/he has had, or how awful their clothes looked at such-and-such an event.
As an aside, I also don't see the physical attraction of Jolie either, I'm afraid, though Zeta Jones, definitely.
Posted by: Myriad | Apr 23, 2008 at 10:56 AM
I have to confess to being completely baffled
Yeah, me too. I just don't care. Doesn't help that so much of the celebrity "news" is just unsubstantiated rumors. Gossip is even less interesting than news.
I don't follow sports for the same reason. Just don't care.
If I want "real world" information, I'll follow current events...stuff that actually affects me, either directly or indirectly. If I want escapism, I'll look to fiction. I guess I don't like the in-between nature of sports, celebrity gossip, or reality shows. (Quiz shows are okay sometimes, though I don't get excited about them either.)
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip | Apr 23, 2008 at 11:23 AM