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.
I tend to agree on being baffled by celebrity-worship. I can underestand admiring an artist's work and keeping informed about their current and upcoming projects. I do that with a number of authors, three or four composers, a couple of actors, and one or two directors, because literature, classical music, and film are the art forms which most appeal to me. I can understand following a sports star for a similar reason, though I don't particularly care for watching sports, so I don't do it.
I can even understand, if you really, really, really like an artist, keeping track of such elements of their personal life as might impact their art. "Oh no, [singer] has gone into rehab. His concert tour I was looking forward to might be cancelled!" "Oh no, [actress] is pregnant. Now [movie] will be delayed or replace her!"
But the obsession? The gossip? Are people's lives really that empty? Do they really have such inferiority complexes that they need to see the dirty underwear of the glamorous?
Also, Angelina Jolie = blech. Catherine Zeta Jones is okay. My taste in physical beauty appears to be a couple of generations out of date, so give me peak-of-their-careers Audrey Hepburn or Ingrid Bergman any day.
My girlfriend says she would do Rosario Dawson in a heartbeat, but my girlfriend's already bi, so I don't know if that counts as an exception.
Posted by: Froborr | Apr 23, 2008 at 01:20 PM
Posted by: Bugmaster | Apr 23, 2008 at 01:39 PM
Oh, yes. Ingrid Berman FTW.
(Ilsa Lund, really. I know little about Bergman. And really just on the basis of looks; Lund's personality was a bit weak.)
I mentioned Jolie solely on the basis of an unscientific survey of heterosexual lady friends of mine. The individual lesbian in the survey chose Gabrielle; we both agreed that Xena wasn't quite our type.
Posted by: MikhailBorg | Apr 23, 2008 at 01:41 PM
La majestueuse égalité des lois, qui interdit au riche comme au pauvre de coucher sous les ponts, de mendier dans les rues et de voler du pain.
The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.
Anatole France
Posted by: Hawker Hurricane | Apr 23, 2008 at 01:44 PM
Am I the only one who would go not-quite-straight for Hugh Jackman?
I suffered through Kate & Leopold for that man! Twice!
The other name on my little list would be Kent, but since he's a videogame character he probably doesn't really count.
Posted by: Jos | Apr 23, 2008 at 02:19 PM
So.
I take it we're all avoiding talking about the actual Pennsylvania results, not just me?
Posted by: Froborr | Apr 23, 2008 at 02:31 PM
Straight woman here. I don't find Brad Pitt attractive in the least. (But then, like previous posters, I'm not generally attracted to celebrities.)
I don't find Angelina Jolie attractive, and don't think I would even if I were attracted to women.
Posted by: Chris | Apr 23, 2008 at 02:38 PM
Pennsylvania results were as predicted:
Senator Clinton won by 10%. Which doesn't cut into Senator Obama's lead by enough. Obama needed a win to get Clinton to drop out, Clinton needed a BIG win to get within shouting distance. And the bloodletting will continue while Senator McCain sits and waits for the survivor to be declared.
Posted by: Hawker Hurricane | Apr 23, 2008 at 02:51 PM
Indeed, Hawk. Hence the avoiding, I presume.
Posted by: Froborr | Apr 23, 2008 at 03:13 PM
Personally, I think that the process has gone too far already. McCain will, most likely, be the next President of the United States; the Democrats practically handed him the power. Discussing primary election results at this point is kind of like discussing which stag beetle will win the headbutting match to be triumphantly squished by the steamroller.
Posted by: Bugmaster | Apr 23, 2008 at 03:20 PM
Somehow, I posted this in the wrong thread:
Similarly, I don't get worked up about Gina Torres, but goddamn if Zoe isn't smoking hot. And so on.
Torres has been "smokin' hot" in just about everything I've seen her in (even Cleopatra 2525). Surrender to Jasmine? Where do I sign?
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."
Not quite -- Matt Damon can get the roles. He's got the chops to back himself up with, too.
I'm a fan of Jim Kirk, but I'm not sure I'd want to hang around William Shatner.
I'm kind of the other way around. Kirk was a smug womanizer. Shatner, at least these days, seems to have a sense of humor to him.
There are a very few actors that I respect enough to go see a movie just because they're in it.
The "make a bad movie bearable; make a good movie great" list:
Sean Connery
Michael Caine
Morgan Freeman
Angela Bassett
Gina Torres
Forrest Whitaker
Posted by: Jeff | Apr 23, 2008 at 03:23 PM
McCain will, most likely, be the next President of the United States; the Democrats practically handed him the power. Discussing primary election results at this point is kind of like discussing which stag beetle will win the headbutting match to be triumphantly squished by the steamroller.
Can you imagine McCain in a debate with Obama, or even Clinton? He has no charm, no charisnma, no grasp of facts and a rediculously short temper. Shrub was able to con people with his fake "charm" -- McCain doesn't even have that.
I'm much more worried about Diebold than I am about the way the primaries have been run.
Posted by: Jeff | Apr 23, 2008 at 03:26 PM
Can you imagine McCain in a debate with Obama, or even Clinton?
Can you imagine the average voter actually watching a debate? I'm sorry, I got caught up in the season of hope along with everyone else, but it's over now. 2004 proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the American people are incapable of making informed electoral decisions. We can argue whether it's their fault or the fault of a careful half-century-long undermining of our educational and social institutions or whatever you want to blame it on, you can ask "who do we shoot", but the damage is done. This country is sliding into an abyss of conservative pseudo-values and jingoistic, reflexive hate, a process which has been ongoing for at least as long as I've been alive, probably significantly longer. I keep on fighting and struggling to stem the tide, but aside from the last few months, I've had no illusions about the possibility of success.
Posted by: Froborr | Apr 23, 2008 at 03:42 PM
Can you imagine McCain in a debate with Obama, or even Clinton? He has no charm, no charisnma, no grasp of facts and a rediculously short temper. Shrub was able to con people with his fake "charm" -- McCain doesn't even have that.
I'm not sure McCain would do too badly in a debate with Clinton. McCain has the image of being an old wrinkled prune, sure -- but at the same time he is a much better "father figure" than Clinton is "mother figure."
A McCain/Clinton matchup would probably have him doing a "Father knows best" campaign. It would get the right pretty easily, and it would be attractive to independents that want simple, uncomplicated solutions to problems. "Stay the course" is a lot shorter than "the Middle East is a nuanced region, and various ethnic factions [etc]," even if it's entirely wrong. In short, McCain would be a better demagogue than Clinton, and I don't think anybody's accused Clinton of having charm.
In contrast, Obama's reputation is that of an anti-demagogue. "Yes we can," despite having no intrinsic content, is the antithesis of "be very afraid." The best charge so far against Obama is that he is "elitist and out of touch," but to me that sounds like calling him "too much JFK." A successful smear would have to be "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing," but so Clinton's attempts to do so have not stuck.
If (and it's a big if) Obama becomes the nominee without a shattered reputation, he stands a good chance against McCain. If the only path to victory is scorched earth, however, it would be in his best interests to concede to Clinton and try again in 4 years.
Posted by: Majromax | Apr 23, 2008 at 03:42 PM
Can you imagine the average voter actually watching a debate? I'm sorry, I got caught up in the season of hope along with everyone else, but it's over now.
Actually, yes. The latest Obama/Clinton debate on ABC aired in prime time. It wasn't "the last of two" or even "the last of four," it was one of about twenty-three so far. It still garnered 10 million viewers (at least for the first half), and the only people who still had a choice to make were Democrats in Pennsylvania and the remaining primary states.
The reason the debates aren't watched is because they're boring. The format is all wrong, turning the debates into dueling sound-bites rather than a true debate. The candidates aren't allowed to speak to each other, and they usually don't even answer the same point in the rebuttal!
If you want a more interesting debate, look at the ones from a parliamentary system. I can attest firsthand that Canada's prime ministerial debates are more interesting, and in my opinion they give a much better sense of the candidates. It's still no competition for actually reading the parties' policy papers, but a televised debate format is not an infodump and nor should it be.
Posted by: Majromax | Apr 23, 2008 at 03:50 PM
I resolutely stay out of the Obama/Clinton argument (my state already had its primary; *I* voted for Edwards, fat lot of good it did) I wish it were over, but I'm content to let the system work as it was set up to, and reform it for the next election. I will actively, financially, shoe-leatheringly support WHOEVER the Democratic party nominates against McShame.
Jeff: The "make a bad movie bearable; make a good movie great" list:
You forgot Alan Rickman.
Posted by: hapax | Apr 23, 2008 at 03:54 PM
"Yes we can" is not at all empty. Normally it would be, but after nearly a decade of "be very afraid", "trust no one except Big Brother," and "OBEY", it is something that we desperately need to hear. Especially when backed up by pages and pages of specific plans for how we can, all publically available yet mysteriously failing to appear in media that sells a lot more ads when people are afraid.
But that's beside the point. The point is: up until Pennsylvania, it was still possible to pretend that there was hope. Now we know the truth: America didn't wake up and suddenly get sane. People still vote out of identity politics, anger, and fear, rather than hope and the desire to create a better future.
Mind you, I'm still sticking with Obama until he drops out. Then, I suppose, I'll hold my nose and pick the lesser evil. The extreme improbability of success is no reason not to do the right thing. Despair is no excuse for failing to fight the rearguard battle for as long as you're still standing.
"It's a democracy. The lizards rule the people and the people hate the lizards."
"I thought you said it was a democracy? Why do they vote for the lizards if they hate them so much?"
"Well, otherwise the wrong lizard might get in."
--Douglas Adams, So Long and Thanks for All the Fish (quoted from memory, probably inaccurately)
Posted by: Froborr | Apr 23, 2008 at 03:56 PM
I am amused by the "would switch sides for" game. Do you have to be straight to play (excluding Froborr's significant other, of course)?
Posted by: Cowboy Diva | Apr 23, 2008 at 04:12 PM
You forgot Alan Rickman.
Quite so. (Did you see him in Sense and Sensibility? I'm so used to him being Teh Villain -- or at least villain-like, such as Snape in the Harry Potter films, that his tturn as Teh Hero was unexpected and fun.)
Posted by: Jeff | Apr 23, 2008 at 04:17 PM
I am amused by the "would switch sides for" game. Do you have to be straight to play (excluding Froborr's significant other, of course)?
I don't believe so. A gay person could "switch sides for" a person of the opposite sex they were especially attracted to. If one has a gender-specific nickname, it might be less confusing to indicate that you're switching sides based on your normal preference, though.
Posted by: Jeff | Apr 23, 2008 at 04:22 PM
Froborr:
Don't be sad, Froborr. When you compare OH exit polls to PA exit polls, it is interesting to see a shift to BHO in just those demographics most readily defined by identity politics. You have to remember PA is old-school democratic party, the type of state the HRC candidacy was made for, and Carville sussed its tricks during the Casey (then for governor, now a senator) campaign and fed those identity politics accordingly.
People still want security for their future and a better life for their children and grandchildren, and do not want to knowingly hurt other people in the process. If Obama can respond with good answers to that, then McCain is superfluous.
Posted by: Cowboy DIva | Apr 23, 2008 at 04:22 PM
Hey, the more the merrier!
I would switch teams for Alan Rickman IFF his looks matched his voice. I cannot believe I forgot Sean Connery and Morgan Freeman from my see-any-movies-they're-in list. I guess I just haven't seen any movies with them in a while. Another addition to the list: Judi Dench.
What about the opposite -- people who make good movies mediocre, and mediocre movies terrible, by the mere fact of their presence? I nominate Will Ferrell.
Posted by: Froborr | Apr 23, 2008 at 04:31 PM
re: switching sides
Odd. While I can come up with at several women of my acquaintance I wouldn't mind snogging, I can't come up with a single actress.
Now if we could just get John Barrowman (and not just his characters) to swing both ways...
Posted by: cjmr | Apr 23, 2008 at 04:35 PM
People still want security for their future and a better life for their children and grandchildren, and do not want to knowingly hurt other people in the process.
The first part? Maybe. The second part? I'm pretty sure most people want precisely the opposite. In fact, most people seem to prefer hurting their Other of Choice to helping themselves. Why not? After all, it's the fault of Teh Enemy that they have problems, right? Eliminate him, and everything will be perfect forever.
Posted by: Froborr | Apr 23, 2008 at 04:38 PM
lemme rephrase:
to
as for switching sides, Pierce Brosnan and Val Kilmer are both very pretty to watch.
Posted by: Cowboy DIva | Apr 23, 2008 at 04:45 PM
Will Ferrell certainly tops my list, with Dane Cook not far behind. Most of the current cast of SNL are fairly repellant -- Amy Poehller can fall off a bridge for all I care.
Julia Roberts is an anti-draw as well.
Posted by: Jeff | Apr 23, 2008 at 05:03 PM
I suspect that much of the fascination with celebrities is sublimated envy. It's easy to resent those people precisely because many of them achieve wealth and fame despite having little or no talent. Particularly when they waste their wealth like MC Hammer or become train wrecks like Britney Spears and Lindsay Lohan. The latter surely involves sexual resentment for both men and women. Women resent the Britney type because she achieves success purely by sexually exciting men. Men resent this type because they want to sleep with her and know they never will. So both genders feel vindicated when Britney and Lindsay turn their lives into sordid dramas.
Instead of being rich and famous, I would rather be rich and relatively unknown. I wouldn't be able to enjoy the quasi-imperial status that would come with fame. The cost of that status is always being under the media spotlight, having every aspect of your life scrutinized.
Posted by: Tonio | Apr 24, 2008 at 08:42 AM
Tonio...
"Instead of being rich and famous, I would rather be rich and relatively unknown. I wouldn't be able to enjoy the quasi-imperial status that would come with fame. The cost of that status is always being under the media spotlight, having every aspect of your life scrutinized."
The vast majority of the truly wealthy are fairly unknown. They still have the quasi-imperial status, because the people who know them treat them well. Remember, Paris Hilton isn't the richest member of the Hilton clan... and the majority of Kennedys don't go into politics.
Posted by: Hawker Hurricane | Apr 24, 2008 at 09:17 AM
cjmr: Now if we could just get John Barrowman (and not just his characters) to swing both ways...
Oh, I think you could probably get John Barrowman to snog you. In the friendliest possible way. But he's married, and so are you, so anything more would require... well, a lot of negotiation, even if you were both the right gender for each other. ;-)
Posted by: Jesurgislac | Apr 24, 2008 at 09:29 AM
The vast majority of the truly wealthy are fairly unknown. They still have the quasi-imperial status, because the people who know them treat them well.
Good point. It reminds me of the "What's the Matter With Kansas" phenomenon, which I've noticed among the conservatives I know. When they think of the "elite," they think of celebrities with liberal leanings. I've heard them rant about Alec Baldwin and Rosie O'Donnell and the Dixie Chicks and Barbra Striesand. They don't recognize that these celebrities have little political power and influence as compared with the truly wealthy that you mentioned.
Posted by: Tonio | Apr 24, 2008 at 09:45 AM
But he's married, and so are you, so anything more would require... well, a lot of negotiation,
Umm. Yeah. I don't know what John's husband would say, but I have a fair idea of what mine would--and it wouldn't be, "Cool. Can I watch?"
(Having now thoroughly embarrassed my husband, I will now return to folding his laundry...)
Posted by: cjmr | Apr 24, 2008 at 10:42 AM
I'd switch sides for David Krumholtz.
As for Michael Caine making movies better? Watch 'JAWS: The Revenge' before committing yourself to that answer...
Posted by: yagowe | Apr 24, 2008 at 12:08 PM
As for Michael Caine making movies better? Watch 'JAWS: The Revenge' before committing yourself to that answer...
He can't make a bad movie great, but wouldn't have been much worse if, say, Patrick McGoohan (no slouch, but quite in Caine's league) had filled the role?
Posted by: Jeff | Apr 25, 2008 at 02:07 AM