"Swing Vote" Analysis

I think that those who see the new Kevin Costner movie "Swing Vote" as a comedy--whether a successful (i.e., funny) one or an unsuccessful (i.e., limited box office) one-- are missing the forest for the trees.

To me, it's a cautionary tale--a warning to us--lightened up a bit by the family scenes of Costner's character, ordinary man Bud Johnson, with his character's daughter. And by some comic pratfalls by Costner, who's willing to take some pokes at his inflated self for the worthy cause of the movie. Which seems to be, "learn your civics lessons--or die". OK, maybe just suffer and flame out. But you better learn!

Certainly one that I agree with, but not one that will either get through to or impress the average moviegoer, I'm afraid. It may well be dismissed as "contrived" (unlike, say, a James Bond film or a Kung fu movie) or "not funny enough". I can accept those esthetic judgments and
ultimate distaste for the film, for a variety of reasons. The one that I don't accept is that it's "not real enough". Bud Johnson is very close to a composite sketch of the true swing voter--at least the predominant form of it--as someone who's basically not paid enough attention to make up his or her mind. Once again, it will be the swing voter who makes the difference in a few, critical states. Such as my New Mexico.

Re: The New Mexico-ness of it

I have to defend those aspects: one and all. First is the notion that it could come down to New Mexico, and then the state be a virtual tie. That was almost the case in 2000--I have no doubt that, if New Mexico had been the critical state (say, if Bush clearly won on election night in Florida but lost New Hampshire), then, the outcome in The Land of Enchantment would have been challenged by the Bush campaign, and we would've gone through the whole fiasco with Santa Fe as the backdrop instead of Tallahassee. It was that close here, and the count that irregular. The final, official margin in New Mexico in 2000 was actually smaller here than it was in Florida.

Ah, the critics say, but Florida and 2000 was such an amazing statistical coincidence--nothing like that could ever happen again. They would only say that if they have not studied American history, for similar catastrophic virtual-tie outcomes have occurred with our Electoral College and Presidential election mechanisms repeatedly through our history. 1876 is the biggest and clearest example, but there are also 1824, 1800, and (to be charitable to Republicans) 1960. The reality is, the thingamajiggie screws up periodically, and it hasn't been fixed in the slightest.

By some map-watcher's counts, it could come down to New Mexico this year, too. I tend toward the belief that we will get that 1-2% Democratic turnout boost that will make it a safe win for Obama, but it's hard to be sure of that. But on the whole, I'd characterize the whole New- Mexico's-5-Electoral-votes-determine-the-outcome hypothesis as totally plausible. Particularly in the abstract (this movie's script was written before the current campaign started and does not refer to it) .

A virtual tie is different from an exact tie, though, and that is what this movie postulates. Still theoretically possible, but the probability becomes much more remote.

A more plausible premise might have been one precinct whose votes had to be thrown out and re-cast, with the state's electoral votes and the whole shebang in play. Then you could look at various characters, show them making up their minds, and it gradually boiling down to one nitwit who can't make up his mind--the Costner character. Kind of like "Twelve Angry Men" updated to be multi-racial, with both genders.

Next, I have to praise the New Mexico actors in there--and there were clearly many of them, both as extras and in more featured roles. I should name names but I won't. The word is out: New Mexico is a great place to make a Hollywood movie!

As for the geography, the story is set in a town, Texico, in Curry County. There is a Curry County, and Texico is in it, on the border with Texas. Curry County is way Republican, and I don't think it's quite as multi-racial as it's portrayed in the movie (though voters' mix and residents' mix of races could be two quite different flavors). The sets certainly look like New Mexico. There is a scene at the "Pecos River" (two counties over from Curry), but it looks like the Rio Grande.

Costner could certainly pass for a typical New Mexican of Curry County. We got all types.

Heaviness

I admit that political satire is my favorite genre of movie. This one has elements of satire, but it is really about something much less worthy of mockery--nothing less than The Lincoln Question: whether a nation of the people, by the people, for the people can long endure. With elections like these, with voters like these, politicians like these, how can there be hope for us?

The key to the story is Costner's daughter, Molly, played by Madeline Carroll in a breakout performance. She sets up the serious theme in one of the first scenes, with her class essay filmed by the local TV station (whose beautiful reporter--played by Paula Patton--will become a central character of the story). Her essay is beautifully and powerfully phrased (though it is all cribbed from modern philosophers), but basically expresses the notion that we are doomed if we can not get it together, civics-wise. Certainly just what her teacher wanted to hear....

All of the reasons to doubt our fate are thus shown, mostly through the Costner character. Bud is lazy, a screw-up, a drunk, and neglectful. Like our country, he's had every opportunity.

The movie generally takes a non-partisan tone--both parties' faults are exposed. There is a Bob Shrum-type character, played by Nathan Lane, who is sick of losing elections and is ready to do anything to win. His candidate, played by Dennis Hopper, reluctantly goes along. Stanley Tucci plays a Machiavellian manager for the Republican incumbent (Kelsey Grammer), who is basically Bushite but draws the line at offering a second-term job to Costner's Bud for his vote.

In the end, after some family drama and lots of caricature of the media circus, Bud does the right thing and educates himself a bit before voting. Who he votes for is not the point; the point is, that if we spend the effort to know what we're voting for, it will come out OK.

P.S. August 17: The movie has already disappeared from the local cinema and the Box Office standings. Supposedly it didn't cost much to make, but it didn't make much, either. Looking at the rather-low 6.0 rating it got on IMDb, I see that there are a lot of 1.0 ratings (scale of 10)--about 20% of raters. I feel these are people who don't like the portrayal of "typical" Americans as uninvolved, ignorant, and civically clueless. People who don't like politics or anything that refers to it, unless it mouths their point of view. Tough!