I think it was Warren Buffett who said that when the tide goes out, you can see who's been bathing without their swimsuits. So it has been with Europe in these days: we are now seeing the continental Empire's New Clothes to be much less substantial than we thought.
The sins of the Euro, as regards Greece and Italy, were largely committed long ago. The rules of admission, having to do with size of budget deficit and national debt (as a percentage of GDP) were fudged for Italy at the Euro's founding in 1999; then
more brazenly so for Greece when it joined just a couple of years later, then these sins were swept under the rug since.
Now, having let these serial road-can-kickers in the club in the first place, and having compounded the mistake making their admissions irrevocable (instead of maintaining their old currencies, the lira and the drachma, on a shadow basis), the European authorities really have no choice but to make good on their sovereign debts, while compelling the national governments to start to follow the fiscal requirements they should have had to follow all along.
Politically, this is unpalatable in a variety of ways. Most significantly, though, it is that the situation has forced the regional powers that be (really it's the national governments in Germany and France) to impose rather nakedly their power through the European Central Bank. The requirements--for revenue enhancements and spending cuts, particularly for employees in government agencies and enterprises-- placed upon these governments have caused each country's parliamentary government to lose political control, succeeded now by willing, bankerly technocrats without political constituencies.
The austerity being imposed upon Italy and Greece, and the unelected governments that have been chosen to impose them, will no doubt be bitterly--even violently--resented and resisted by those two volatile societies. The irony, commented upon and lamented by some in these days, is that these two nations which in ancient times defined our original notion of what a "republic" is, now have lost political control of their economic destiny.
The fact is that these two countries have had very weak democracies throughout the postwar period; their people were poorly led and not doing much following, either. Like the Soviet workers who pretended to work while their government pretended to pay them, in Greece and Italy the companies and individuals pretended to pay their taxes and their governments pretended to have authority.
For Italy, at least, this crisis has already had one good outcome: what appears to be the definitive exodus from government of the Great Clown, that "Bounder", the Gentleman who is no gentleman, Silvio Berlusconi (it also appears that Umberto Bossi, head of the odious Lega Nord, will oppose the new government, a big plus as far as I'm concerned). The former political opposition, the center-left coalition which has traditionally governed with ineffectual honesty, as the alternative to Berlusconian disrepute and corruption, will have a good opportunity to provide implicit support for the needed reforms in the national interest, so they can claim credit if they work and disavow them if they don't--clearly a good position. Italy is not a player on the world stage, but it is a first-class prize for Europe, and as one of the original six members (with France, Germany, and the Benelux), dismissing it from the club would be unthinkable.
For the Greeks, the failure of the Socialist government will be borne bitterly, as it will be felt to have betrayed its supporters, then fell short of its aims. The right will gain power as a result of the Socialists' failure, but the timing will make its ascension a poison pill. Politically, I see the country wandering in the political wilderness for a long while, which could make it vulnerable both to vindictive forces in Europe looking to punish it, and to its hostile neighbor, Turkey, which now has a well-founded grudge against the EU. If the EU were to punish Greece beyond its capacity to accept humiliation, look for a shocker--a "historic compromise" with the Turks!
What the whole story illustrates is the internal contradiction in today's European Union, with its combination of strong and weak national economies, a centralized currency, and a weak central government. For those who remember the early days of American history, I would suggest that Europe is going through its Articles of Confederation moment. Even the Euro's legitimacy within the EU has big problems: think of how problematic the dollar would have been in those days if Virginia (think: the U.K.) had stayed out. We realized we needed a stronger central government, but it didn't come easily. Our Constitution, mighty as it is today, barely passed in several of the states, and we had to weather our Shay's Rebellion, our Burr-led Western Secession movement.
History doesn't exactly repeat itself, and it could go the other way with Europe, toward fragmentation and reasserted national sovereignty. The stakes are higher today; we're not talking about fledgling republics with a toehold on an undeveloped continent. I say that Americans should continue to provide quiet support and patience for them to work it out, and, most of all, refrain from gloating.
Monday, November 21, 2011
Sunday, November 20, 2011
Today Is Admission of Failure Day
Sometime today, probably in the evening, the co-chairs of the Supercommittee of 12, Sen. Patty Murray and Rep. Jeb Hensarling, will come forward, together or separately, and admit that the group has failed in its appointed task to come up with a package of deficit reduction proposals for Congress to review and approve. Technically, they have two more days to get the proposals passed, but House rules require posting a bill 48 hours before it's voted upon, so no posting today means no bill by the deadline of the 23rd, thus its failure.
This result is certainly no surprise; I predicted as much as soon as the concept was announced in the Big Deal Deal of August, even before the members of the committee were named (which basically clinched inertia). I don't fear in the slightest the "mandatory" cuts which must, by law, follow this absence of legislation. I would describe the billion dollars in spending cuts, half from defense, some from discretionary spending, and a tiny bit from Medicare, as "a good start". They won't kick in until 2013, anyway, and the lame duck Congress will change them at the end of 2012, or if not then, whatever Congress comes in after the 2012 elections will change them in 2013. Or not, and I'm fine with that, too.
I would suggest that the Democrats make a surprise ploy in the final hours, one last-ditch attempt to do the Big Deal for real. Half a billion in phased tax increases, half a billion more from restructuring the tax code (details TBD), half a billion from defense, half a billion from discretionary, half a billion in interest saving, and half a billion from Medicare and Social Security combined. It would never pass the committee, or the House, or the Senate, but it has the benefits of simplicity and fairness, and would put the Democrats on the right side of the moral divide.
In time, I think the collapse of the supercommittee's deliberations will be seen as the Pyrrhic victory of Grover Norquist. His "no tax increase" pledge bound all of the relevant Republican Congresspeople such that they could not propose anything that was reasonable. Sen. Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania did make a late proposal for $300 billion in increased revenue through removing some tax deductions; I have the feeling he got a waiver from Norquist because it included a clause to make the Bush tax cuts permanent, something which would lose much more than the $300 billion in revenue he claimed to produce, as compared to letting the tax cuts expire through inaction--something which now seems very likely.
It will be Pyrrhic because Norquist's Folk (sounds like a tribe of dwarves), now to be known not as the GOP but the "GNP", as in Grover Norquist Party, will bear the brunt of the failure--which will be manifested by end of day today or tomorrow in the form of a big market sell-off and downgrading of US debt. A few more Republicans will dare to leave his camp of indentured servants, and a few more will end up paying the political price next year. Pretty soon it will be like having voted for the invasion of Iraq--a political embarrassment for those who can't effectively repudiate it. Unpopular as tax increases are, and will remain, the Pledge will be an albatross, an artifact of the decrepit House of Orange.
This result is certainly no surprise; I predicted as much as soon as the concept was announced in the Big Deal Deal of August, even before the members of the committee were named (which basically clinched inertia). I don't fear in the slightest the "mandatory" cuts which must, by law, follow this absence of legislation. I would describe the billion dollars in spending cuts, half from defense, some from discretionary spending, and a tiny bit from Medicare, as "a good start". They won't kick in until 2013, anyway, and the lame duck Congress will change them at the end of 2012, or if not then, whatever Congress comes in after the 2012 elections will change them in 2013. Or not, and I'm fine with that, too.
I would suggest that the Democrats make a surprise ploy in the final hours, one last-ditch attempt to do the Big Deal for real. Half a billion in phased tax increases, half a billion more from restructuring the tax code (details TBD), half a billion from defense, half a billion from discretionary, half a billion in interest saving, and half a billion from Medicare and Social Security combined. It would never pass the committee, or the House, or the Senate, but it has the benefits of simplicity and fairness, and would put the Democrats on the right side of the moral divide.
In time, I think the collapse of the supercommittee's deliberations will be seen as the Pyrrhic victory of Grover Norquist. His "no tax increase" pledge bound all of the relevant Republican Congresspeople such that they could not propose anything that was reasonable. Sen. Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania did make a late proposal for $300 billion in increased revenue through removing some tax deductions; I have the feeling he got a waiver from Norquist because it included a clause to make the Bush tax cuts permanent, something which would lose much more than the $300 billion in revenue he claimed to produce, as compared to letting the tax cuts expire through inaction--something which now seems very likely.
It will be Pyrrhic because Norquist's Folk (sounds like a tribe of dwarves), now to be known not as the GOP but the "GNP", as in Grover Norquist Party, will bear the brunt of the failure--which will be manifested by end of day today or tomorrow in the form of a big market sell-off and downgrading of US debt. A few more Republicans will dare to leave his camp of indentured servants, and a few more will end up paying the political price next year. Pretty soon it will be like having voted for the invasion of Iraq--a political embarrassment for those who can't effectively repudiate it. Unpopular as tax increases are, and will remain, the Pledge will be an albatross, an artifact of the decrepit House of Orange.
Wednesday, November 16, 2011
The Devil We Know
This Month's Flavor is Amphibian, Hypocritical
I've been avoiding it, trying not to admit it, but the baton has been picked up, this time by someone who knows how to run with it and is unlikely to let it drop.
I have long--very long--kicked around in my mind an idea for a future-oriented story that I probably will never write. The heroes of the story are a couple--an interracial couple--who defy tradition and local custom and dare to become celebrities, working as a team, and put their love out there--too much. Their "transgressions" cause a rupture in society, and a right-wing demagogic leader, called "The Perfesser", leads forces of reaction in the country, rises to power, and brings things to a definitive, self-righteous confrontation with the rest of the world--the only way we can really lose. The Perfesser is the "intellectual" who unleashes the atavistic, anti-intellectual tendencies lying hidden within our society.
This idea goes back beyond the '90's, and I never really saw the Newt as the incarnation of my bad daydream--until now. I didn't see him as that great a threat to our way of life, even at the peak of his power in the 1994-1996 period. He seemed like someone whose appeal was too peripheral, who inspired little trust even among those who were his political allies. His career since that period, on the edge of significance, hasn't suggested the potential that he could re-emerge and do massive damage. His Presidential campaign hardly seemed serious; he seemed more interested in selling his books than convincing us he could win, and he turned over his whole staff in the early days; they left saying that he was not serious.
Perhaps not, but he's just kept up his ego-driven, impassioned, self-righteous invective, and now, with the fading of the other anti-Romney candidacies--Herman Cain being just the latest to lose his shine--Gingrich has risen to the top, like algae. Surely he can be stopped--he can fall short of the target, just as others have done, and his ceiling, in terms of his favorability rating and in the portion of the electorate that might ultimately vote for him would seem relatively low. One thing about Newt, though, is that he will persevere; his campaign to date has shown that.
I would give him little chance in a head-to-head race against President Obama; though Gingrich is a capable debater, he would find Obama more than a match, intellectually, and far better in other dimensions (humanity, military leadership, diplomacy, public policy, familial and moral virtue, etc.) The possibility that a third-party could arise and draw support of moderates could make the election's outcome unpredictable, though.
Gingrich is certainly vulnerable on all these counts. I also give some credence to the notion that, just as Rick Perry seemed less attractive to the right-wing when it came out that he had a human side, willing to help illegal immigrants go to college or young people get HPV vaccines, so Newt Gingrich's history may disqualify him in the minds of some purists for his willingness to peddle influence for Freddie Mac, a government-backed enterprise the right-wing places right at the heart of the causation of the economic crisis of 2008.
I certainly hope so. Because of his ruthless nature, his knowledge of legislative strategy, his big ideas, I consider Gingrich absolutely the most dangerous and destructive of the candidates if he were elected. In Romney and also in Gingrich I see a Nixonian quality: the real person is hidden behind screens, the arguments are for whatever will advance the personal cause, the ambition is relentless. Gingrich is worse than Romney, though, in that personal virtue is totally lacking in him, and I have to believe that he does know what he wants to do. And what he wants scares me.
I was wrong about whose balloon would rise after Cain's, inevitably, began to lose air (his has not totally deflated, but, as a gasbag capable of holding his air, his has little future). I thought it would be Ron Paul's turn, and that may still happen; I'm thinking it may surge with good, though not great, results in Iowa and New Hampshire, particularly if Gingrich turns off his current band of followers, and they turn to someone with greater moral authority and consistent political philosophy.
That would likely be too late, though, if Romney can spin his likely close second-place finish in Iowa as a tactical victory, which will be followed by a big win in New Hampshire. That combination might give him enough momentum to pull off a win on the difficult turf of South Carolina (Cain, Gingrich, and even Perry would seem to have the advantage there): if Romney wins there, it would all be over. Though South Carolina has a track record of deciding contested Republican races, I'd be betting that it will have an inconclusive result this year, which would then make Florida the likely decisive result.
I've been avoiding it, trying not to admit it, but the baton has been picked up, this time by someone who knows how to run with it and is unlikely to let it drop.
I have long--very long--kicked around in my mind an idea for a future-oriented story that I probably will never write. The heroes of the story are a couple--an interracial couple--who defy tradition and local custom and dare to become celebrities, working as a team, and put their love out there--too much. Their "transgressions" cause a rupture in society, and a right-wing demagogic leader, called "The Perfesser", leads forces of reaction in the country, rises to power, and brings things to a definitive, self-righteous confrontation with the rest of the world--the only way we can really lose. The Perfesser is the "intellectual" who unleashes the atavistic, anti-intellectual tendencies lying hidden within our society.
This idea goes back beyond the '90's, and I never really saw the Newt as the incarnation of my bad daydream--until now. I didn't see him as that great a threat to our way of life, even at the peak of his power in the 1994-1996 period. He seemed like someone whose appeal was too peripheral, who inspired little trust even among those who were his political allies. His career since that period, on the edge of significance, hasn't suggested the potential that he could re-emerge and do massive damage. His Presidential campaign hardly seemed serious; he seemed more interested in selling his books than convincing us he could win, and he turned over his whole staff in the early days; they left saying that he was not serious.
Perhaps not, but he's just kept up his ego-driven, impassioned, self-righteous invective, and now, with the fading of the other anti-Romney candidacies--Herman Cain being just the latest to lose his shine--Gingrich has risen to the top, like algae. Surely he can be stopped--he can fall short of the target, just as others have done, and his ceiling, in terms of his favorability rating and in the portion of the electorate that might ultimately vote for him would seem relatively low. One thing about Newt, though, is that he will persevere; his campaign to date has shown that.
I would give him little chance in a head-to-head race against President Obama; though Gingrich is a capable debater, he would find Obama more than a match, intellectually, and far better in other dimensions (humanity, military leadership, diplomacy, public policy, familial and moral virtue, etc.) The possibility that a third-party could arise and draw support of moderates could make the election's outcome unpredictable, though.
Gingrich is certainly vulnerable on all these counts. I also give some credence to the notion that, just as Rick Perry seemed less attractive to the right-wing when it came out that he had a human side, willing to help illegal immigrants go to college or young people get HPV vaccines, so Newt Gingrich's history may disqualify him in the minds of some purists for his willingness to peddle influence for Freddie Mac, a government-backed enterprise the right-wing places right at the heart of the causation of the economic crisis of 2008.
I certainly hope so. Because of his ruthless nature, his knowledge of legislative strategy, his big ideas, I consider Gingrich absolutely the most dangerous and destructive of the candidates if he were elected. In Romney and also in Gingrich I see a Nixonian quality: the real person is hidden behind screens, the arguments are for whatever will advance the personal cause, the ambition is relentless. Gingrich is worse than Romney, though, in that personal virtue is totally lacking in him, and I have to believe that he does know what he wants to do. And what he wants scares me.
I was wrong about whose balloon would rise after Cain's, inevitably, began to lose air (his has not totally deflated, but, as a gasbag capable of holding his air, his has little future). I thought it would be Ron Paul's turn, and that may still happen; I'm thinking it may surge with good, though not great, results in Iowa and New Hampshire, particularly if Gingrich turns off his current band of followers, and they turn to someone with greater moral authority and consistent political philosophy.
That would likely be too late, though, if Romney can spin his likely close second-place finish in Iowa as a tactical victory, which will be followed by a big win in New Hampshire. That combination might give him enough momentum to pull off a win on the difficult turf of South Carolina (Cain, Gingrich, and even Perry would seem to have the advantage there): if Romney wins there, it would all be over. Though South Carolina has a track record of deciding contested Republican races, I'd be betting that it will have an inconclusive result this year, which would then make Florida the likely decisive result.
Saturday, November 12, 2011
2011 Elections: It Don't Mean a Thing....
...if you can't get that swing.
Doppa-doppa do-bap a-bop bap boop.
That's the take-away from this week's voting in several states, and the theme for the 2012 elections: the return of the moderate voter, and the essential importance of the swing states' electoral behavior. It's not that the offyear elections we had yesterday were unimportant; sorry, if my title suggested that.
The facts in the key election contests are well documented, because there weren't really that many contests of note.
In Ohio, the voters sided with public employee unions and against Gov. John Kasich and the state legislature, which turned heavily toward the Republicans in 2010. A bill they had passed this year limiting the range of topics those unions could include in collective bargaining was decisively repealed; however, in the other direction, in the same state, ths voters chose in a symbolic vote to support an initiative negating the health insurance mandate of the Affordable Care Act (a/k/a "Obamacare"). That vote is symbolic because the mandate's constitutionality will be determined in the Supreme Court, and state laws about it will ultimately be superseded by Federal law.
In Mississippi, an extremist anti-abortion referendum giving legal protection to all fertilized zygotes went down to defeat. Even strongly pro-life Republican politicians expressed qualms about the referendum, though the state's new governor and pandering Mitt Romney said they supported it.
In Arizona, the state Senator who authored the odious anti-immigrant legislation, Russell Pearce, lost his seat in a recall vote. The person who defeated him was another Republican!
In Maine, another statehouse that had turned Republican in 2010, the law that blocked Maine's beloved same-day voter registration was repealed. In Kentucky, one of the redder states, a Democratic moderate governor won big.
The common thread in all these results was the re-emergence of the voice of the moderate voter. In 2006 and 2008, the swing voters rejected Bushite Misrule and chose Democrats. In 2010, they either rejected perceived excess from the Democrats or, disappointed, stayed home. This year, they seem to have found some topics which moved them.
Committed Democrats and committed Republicans can be counted on to turn out and vote their political passions in any contest where they are at stake. The swing voters can never be taken for granted, but in our political system, anytime they show up to vote and swing to one side or the other, their influence is decisive. This fact explains the persistent effort of President Obama to try to appease moderate factions of the Republicans, to seek compromise, to avoid full expression of his more left-wing views, and to take positions which he knows will irritate his left-wing supporters: It's all about getting and keeping the swing voters, whether independents or moderates from either party.
Next Year: What Could Swing it from Being a Swing Thing
The most probable scenario for next year is a close Presidential election, with serious contests for control of the Senate and the House. The Republicans have the edge for each house of Congress, though the dynamics of the two differ somewhat. The Presidential race, I hope to show, favors Obama as the incumbent, but it is likely to be close and depend on the outcome of a limited number of state contests.
There are four events which would change that scenario--three of them would favor Obama and the Democrats, while only one would put the Republicans in position to take decisive control of both houses of Congress and the White House. The events which would favor the Democrats, in increasing order of probability are as follows:
1) A dramatic improvement in the US economy, with GDP growth over 5% and unemployment dropping from today's 9% to something below 7%.
2) An outbreak of open warfare in Asia, possibly involving some kind of craziness in Pakistan, but more likely involving Israel fighting against (in decreasing order) Iran, Palestinians, Lebanon, Syria, or Egypt. Such hostilities would emphasize Obama's superior handling of international issues (and the Republican candidates unpreparedness); otherwise domestic issues would predominate.
3) The nomination of a looney-tune Tea Party nominee by the Republicans, or the fracturing of the Republicans' unity and a major third-party candidacy by the someone capturing the rump (losing) part of the party. In the category of the former, I would name (in increasing order of likelihood) Santorum, Bachmann, Perry, Paul, or Cain.
The nomination of any of these candidates should ensure an easy Obama victory, probable retention of the Senate, and likely recapture of the House. A split in the Republican party, which could occur either with one of these jokers winning the nomination, or with Romney or Huntsman winning the nomination but not the hearts of the Tea Party, would ensure an easy victory for Obama but Congress would still be in play, as Congressional races would play out tactically according to their local dynamics.
In the other sense, severe additional deterioration in the US economy, with unemployment breaking double digits and negative GDP growth, would likely doom Obama's chances, regardlsss of the degree to which anything he did or failed to do caused that recession.
But Swing Most Likely Be the Thing
Except for the economic alternatives, it is possible for more than one of the above to occur; the economic deterioration would take priority over anything else, but any other combination of would work in Obama's favor. I'd say the chances of none of them happening is upwards of 60%, which prompts our discussion of the states which will decide things in a close race for the Presidency and for control of the Senate.
One-Horse Races
There are a whole bunch of states which are really not expected to be contested in the Presidential race next year. You know, I know, everybody knows--I don't really have to recite them, but I will tell you that sum of their electoral votes, newly reallocated after the 2010 Census, totals 172 electoral votes for the Democrats and 151 for the Republicans. Failure to win any of them, as McCain somehow did with Indiana in 2008, is a clear signal for a landslide win.
There are a couple of important Senate races in these states, though most of them will not end up being close. Two very important ones will be the Democrats' attempt to reclaim the Senate seat held for some five decades by Ted Kennedy but lost to Scott Brown in a special election (Elizabeth Warren looks like a favorite to gain the seat to me, though it might help Brown if Romney is the nominee), and a possible close contest in North Dakota--the seat being given up by Kent Conrad is certainly endangered for the Democrats, but they have a plausible candidate.
Big Leans
These states will have fairly narrow margins, but the direction they should be expected to fall is clear from the outset.
Democrats: New Jersey (14); Minnesota (10). Except for Obama's home state of Illinois, Minnesota is the safest of the upper Midwest states, and Amy Klobuchar should be able to retain her Senate seat. New Jersey could be very close, but I like Dems' chances.
Republicans: Montana (3), Arizona (11), Georgia (16), and Missouri (10). Montana and Missouri have critical Senate races for the Democrats to hold (Tester, McCaskill) if they hope to retain control of the Senate. They will be narrow underdogs in both races, but this extra value in the state will make the Obama campaign work hard there, no matter what their assessment of the overall state of the race. Obama campaign folks claim that they can make Arizona and Georgia competitive because of their strong minority votes, but I don't see it, except in a blowout situation.
(Cumulative: Democrats 196, Republicans 191)
Moderate Leans The election may effectively be won by the ability of the parties to hold these states; if they can't, a break or two in the 50-50 atates won't do the trick.
Democrats: Pennsylvania (20), Michigan (16), Wisconsin (10), New Mexico (5), Colorado (9). Obama will go into the campaign with small leads in these states, and he must hold them. If he does, he will be very close to victory. Two Senate seats the Democrats must hold to keep their majority--the New Mexico one Jeff Bingaman is giving up, and the Wisconsin one Herb Kohl is yielding--will be extremely tough ones, as the Republicans are likely to run moderates--Heather Wilson in NM and Tommy Thompson in WI--who will make things very tough. I see Pennsylvania as the most vulnerable one of this group in the Presidential race, and its loss would be catastrophic.
Republicans: Florida (29), North Carolina (15). The importance of these two is reflected in the parties' choice of Tampa and Charlotte for the Republican and Democratic national conventions next year. I expect the Republicans to name Marco Rubio as their V.P. nominee, to further attempt to lock up that state, without which they will little chance to win. If they don't name him, it will mean something bad about Rubio, or an extremely high level of confidence about the state. Still, they should want to put maximum effort there to try and take the Senate seat from Bill Nelson.
(Cumulative: Democrats 256, Republicans 235).
Total War: The True Swing States
The final five states--New Hampshire (4), Nevada (6), Virginia (13), Iowa (6), and, of course, Ohio (18)--are the ones we'll be watching if the most likely scenarios play out. With the states above allocated as I've shown, Ohio would be an absolute necessity for the Republicans, but the Democrats could win without it. Note that three of them (Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada) are among the first five states to have primaries this year, so their early sentiments will be keenly watched.
If they were not already important enough, three of them--Virginia, Nevada, and Ohio--will have critical Senate races, as well. Nevada is a rare chance for a Democratic gain, while Virginia's battle for Jim Webb's seat--expected to be Tim Kaine vs. George Allen--will be one of the closest, and closest watched. I like Sherrod Brown's chances to hold his Ohio seat, but it will be well contested and his opponent very well financed. I like Iowa for the Democrats and New Hampshire for the Republicans (especially if it's Romney), which would make winning Virginia or Ohio decisive for Obama. I think he can win both, and Nevada, for a final tally of Obama 299, Romney 239, and I think Romney would do better than any other candidate.
As far as the Senate's concerned, I see the Democrats losing Ben Nelson's seat in Nebraska (good riddance), the seat in North Dakota, and I make them slight underdogs in New Mexico, Montana, and Wisconsin, while I make them slight favorites in Ohio, Missouri, Virginia, and for the possible pick-ups of Massachusetts and Nevada. If it plays out that way, the Republicans would net a gain of 3, making it a 50-50 result, with the V.P. breaking the tie for control.
The House is more difficult to handicap than this--and this has not been easy--but I would summarize by saying that the Democrats will find it very difficult to pick up the 25 seats they need without a decisive electoral victory for Obama and the Democratic party. The Democrats' best hope is for more Tea Party candidates--as the Presidential nominee, and in the House.
Doppa-doppa do-bap a-bop bap boop.
That's the take-away from this week's voting in several states, and the theme for the 2012 elections: the return of the moderate voter, and the essential importance of the swing states' electoral behavior. It's not that the offyear elections we had yesterday were unimportant; sorry, if my title suggested that.
The facts in the key election contests are well documented, because there weren't really that many contests of note.
In Ohio, the voters sided with public employee unions and against Gov. John Kasich and the state legislature, which turned heavily toward the Republicans in 2010. A bill they had passed this year limiting the range of topics those unions could include in collective bargaining was decisively repealed; however, in the other direction, in the same state, ths voters chose in a symbolic vote to support an initiative negating the health insurance mandate of the Affordable Care Act (a/k/a "Obamacare"). That vote is symbolic because the mandate's constitutionality will be determined in the Supreme Court, and state laws about it will ultimately be superseded by Federal law.
In Mississippi, an extremist anti-abortion referendum giving legal protection to all fertilized zygotes went down to defeat. Even strongly pro-life Republican politicians expressed qualms about the referendum, though the state's new governor and pandering Mitt Romney said they supported it.
In Arizona, the state Senator who authored the odious anti-immigrant legislation, Russell Pearce, lost his seat in a recall vote. The person who defeated him was another Republican!
In Maine, another statehouse that had turned Republican in 2010, the law that blocked Maine's beloved same-day voter registration was repealed. In Kentucky, one of the redder states, a Democratic moderate governor won big.
The common thread in all these results was the re-emergence of the voice of the moderate voter. In 2006 and 2008, the swing voters rejected Bushite Misrule and chose Democrats. In 2010, they either rejected perceived excess from the Democrats or, disappointed, stayed home. This year, they seem to have found some topics which moved them.
Committed Democrats and committed Republicans can be counted on to turn out and vote their political passions in any contest where they are at stake. The swing voters can never be taken for granted, but in our political system, anytime they show up to vote and swing to one side or the other, their influence is decisive. This fact explains the persistent effort of President Obama to try to appease moderate factions of the Republicans, to seek compromise, to avoid full expression of his more left-wing views, and to take positions which he knows will irritate his left-wing supporters: It's all about getting and keeping the swing voters, whether independents or moderates from either party.
Next Year: What Could Swing it from Being a Swing Thing
The most probable scenario for next year is a close Presidential election, with serious contests for control of the Senate and the House. The Republicans have the edge for each house of Congress, though the dynamics of the two differ somewhat. The Presidential race, I hope to show, favors Obama as the incumbent, but it is likely to be close and depend on the outcome of a limited number of state contests.
There are four events which would change that scenario--three of them would favor Obama and the Democrats, while only one would put the Republicans in position to take decisive control of both houses of Congress and the White House. The events which would favor the Democrats, in increasing order of probability are as follows:
1) A dramatic improvement in the US economy, with GDP growth over 5% and unemployment dropping from today's 9% to something below 7%.
2) An outbreak of open warfare in Asia, possibly involving some kind of craziness in Pakistan, but more likely involving Israel fighting against (in decreasing order) Iran, Palestinians, Lebanon, Syria, or Egypt. Such hostilities would emphasize Obama's superior handling of international issues (and the Republican candidates unpreparedness); otherwise domestic issues would predominate.
3) The nomination of a looney-tune Tea Party nominee by the Republicans, or the fracturing of the Republicans' unity and a major third-party candidacy by the someone capturing the rump (losing) part of the party. In the category of the former, I would name (in increasing order of likelihood) Santorum, Bachmann, Perry, Paul, or Cain.
The nomination of any of these candidates should ensure an easy Obama victory, probable retention of the Senate, and likely recapture of the House. A split in the Republican party, which could occur either with one of these jokers winning the nomination, or with Romney or Huntsman winning the nomination but not the hearts of the Tea Party, would ensure an easy victory for Obama but Congress would still be in play, as Congressional races would play out tactically according to their local dynamics.
In the other sense, severe additional deterioration in the US economy, with unemployment breaking double digits and negative GDP growth, would likely doom Obama's chances, regardlsss of the degree to which anything he did or failed to do caused that recession.
But Swing Most Likely Be the Thing
Except for the economic alternatives, it is possible for more than one of the above to occur; the economic deterioration would take priority over anything else, but any other combination of would work in Obama's favor. I'd say the chances of none of them happening is upwards of 60%, which prompts our discussion of the states which will decide things in a close race for the Presidency and for control of the Senate.
One-Horse Races
There are a whole bunch of states which are really not expected to be contested in the Presidential race next year. You know, I know, everybody knows--I don't really have to recite them, but I will tell you that sum of their electoral votes, newly reallocated after the 2010 Census, totals 172 electoral votes for the Democrats and 151 for the Republicans. Failure to win any of them, as McCain somehow did with Indiana in 2008, is a clear signal for a landslide win.
There are a couple of important Senate races in these states, though most of them will not end up being close. Two very important ones will be the Democrats' attempt to reclaim the Senate seat held for some five decades by Ted Kennedy but lost to Scott Brown in a special election (Elizabeth Warren looks like a favorite to gain the seat to me, though it might help Brown if Romney is the nominee), and a possible close contest in North Dakota--the seat being given up by Kent Conrad is certainly endangered for the Democrats, but they have a plausible candidate.
Big Leans
These states will have fairly narrow margins, but the direction they should be expected to fall is clear from the outset.
Democrats: New Jersey (14); Minnesota (10). Except for Obama's home state of Illinois, Minnesota is the safest of the upper Midwest states, and Amy Klobuchar should be able to retain her Senate seat. New Jersey could be very close, but I like Dems' chances.
Republicans: Montana (3), Arizona (11), Georgia (16), and Missouri (10). Montana and Missouri have critical Senate races for the Democrats to hold (Tester, McCaskill) if they hope to retain control of the Senate. They will be narrow underdogs in both races, but this extra value in the state will make the Obama campaign work hard there, no matter what their assessment of the overall state of the race. Obama campaign folks claim that they can make Arizona and Georgia competitive because of their strong minority votes, but I don't see it, except in a blowout situation.
(Cumulative: Democrats 196, Republicans 191)
Moderate Leans The election may effectively be won by the ability of the parties to hold these states; if they can't, a break or two in the 50-50 atates won't do the trick.
Democrats: Pennsylvania (20), Michigan (16), Wisconsin (10), New Mexico (5), Colorado (9). Obama will go into the campaign with small leads in these states, and he must hold them. If he does, he will be very close to victory. Two Senate seats the Democrats must hold to keep their majority--the New Mexico one Jeff Bingaman is giving up, and the Wisconsin one Herb Kohl is yielding--will be extremely tough ones, as the Republicans are likely to run moderates--Heather Wilson in NM and Tommy Thompson in WI--who will make things very tough. I see Pennsylvania as the most vulnerable one of this group in the Presidential race, and its loss would be catastrophic.
Republicans: Florida (29), North Carolina (15). The importance of these two is reflected in the parties' choice of Tampa and Charlotte for the Republican and Democratic national conventions next year. I expect the Republicans to name Marco Rubio as their V.P. nominee, to further attempt to lock up that state, without which they will little chance to win. If they don't name him, it will mean something bad about Rubio, or an extremely high level of confidence about the state. Still, they should want to put maximum effort there to try and take the Senate seat from Bill Nelson.
(Cumulative: Democrats 256, Republicans 235).
Total War: The True Swing States
The final five states--New Hampshire (4), Nevada (6), Virginia (13), Iowa (6), and, of course, Ohio (18)--are the ones we'll be watching if the most likely scenarios play out. With the states above allocated as I've shown, Ohio would be an absolute necessity for the Republicans, but the Democrats could win without it. Note that three of them (Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada) are among the first five states to have primaries this year, so their early sentiments will be keenly watched.
If they were not already important enough, three of them--Virginia, Nevada, and Ohio--will have critical Senate races, as well. Nevada is a rare chance for a Democratic gain, while Virginia's battle for Jim Webb's seat--expected to be Tim Kaine vs. George Allen--will be one of the closest, and closest watched. I like Sherrod Brown's chances to hold his Ohio seat, but it will be well contested and his opponent very well financed. I like Iowa for the Democrats and New Hampshire for the Republicans (especially if it's Romney), which would make winning Virginia or Ohio decisive for Obama. I think he can win both, and Nevada, for a final tally of Obama 299, Romney 239, and I think Romney would do better than any other candidate.
As far as the Senate's concerned, I see the Democrats losing Ben Nelson's seat in Nebraska (good riddance), the seat in North Dakota, and I make them slight underdogs in New Mexico, Montana, and Wisconsin, while I make them slight favorites in Ohio, Missouri, Virginia, and for the possible pick-ups of Massachusetts and Nevada. If it plays out that way, the Republicans would net a gain of 3, making it a 50-50 result, with the V.P. breaking the tie for control.
The House is more difficult to handicap than this--and this has not been easy--but I would summarize by saying that the Democrats will find it very difficult to pick up the 25 seats they need without a decisive electoral victory for Obama and the Democratic party. The Democrats' best hope is for more Tea Party candidates--as the Presidential nominee, and in the House.
Friday, November 11, 2011
Sports Update
With baseball over, NBA unable to get its act together (see below), and college hoops just in its early, it's-really-exchibition-though-the-games-technically-count phase, I'm more or less forced to watch football (thank goodness for soccer, though). So, we'll start with a few comments, and my annual pathetic attempt to pick against the point spread in NFL games.
The Shame of College Football
This season, the question is which is the greatest shame that the sport has suffered? Apart from the usual dose of inappropriate favors to players tolerated by college athletic officials (Ohio State was hit, not nearly hard enough, I'd say), there is also the usual shame of the Big Cheesy Series and the unremediated selection process for the quote-unquote National Championship game. This year, as the candidates progressively eliminate themselves, the quote-unquote looks to be a choice between the blowout matchup of LSU-Oklahoma State or a repeat of the recent "Game of the Century" snoozefest game between LSU and Alabama.
The tragedy of Penn State reached its ugly climax this week, and it was shameful in so many ways: the acts alleged to have been committed, over a very long period, by one of the top assistant coaches; the cover-up, the humiliation imposed on Joe Paterno after 45 hugely successful seasons of coaching; the behavior of the students who rioted in favor of the principle of concealing sexual assaults against children; and let's not even consider the victims' emotional devastation. I've never been much of a fan of the Nittany Lions, though I may have supported them situationally in certain games (and they usually provided good value, as in having sufficient beef to bang with the best of them). Now I've got a new team to root against.
I would select as the greatest shame, though, the unseemly scramble among the various colleges changing conference "loyalties". It's a derivative effect of the BCS folly: most of it is about the colleges from the conferences whose winners do not get one of the eight automatic BCS berths trying to upgrade their status. That, and for all of the major colleges, trying to make sure that their conference has the requisite 12 teams so they can have their big-money playoff game to earn that berth.
The culmination of this travesty is the invitations apparently offered to Boise State and Texas Christian University to be part of the no-longer Big no-longer East. Louisville and Cincinnati (and DePaul and Notre Dame) were pushing it, in basketball, but the departures of the likes of Syracuse and Pittsburgh for greener pastures meant this proud conference was headed the way of the dead-and-buried Southwest Conference and the doomed Big 12. You can't tell the conference players without a scorecard, and it's getting so nobody should even care.
Although there are some partial arrangements, in which some colleges participate in conferences for only certain sports, the part that disturbs me most is how the distortions of the BCS have affected the relatively intact other college sports. This somewhat includes men's basketball, but I suspect there will be ugly echoes in many others: women's basketball, baseball, soccer, etc.
NFL at the Halfway Point
The lockout suffered by the NFL was settled in time for the regular season's planned start; only a week of preseason games was lost, and that is less than nothing. The deal, I must admit, was quite fair to the players and much better than I expected. So, I'm not feeling too much guilt in enjoying the NFL games, which I have done on a few occasions--more than I usually do--this fall.
I would say that the stories so far are these:
1) The 8-0 unbeaten start of the defending champion Green Bay Packers. As one of the Tribune beat writers noted, their pass defense is too weak for the team to go undefeated, but their scoring punch should get them through most challenges and makes them a favorite with a good chance to repeat.
2) The Detroit Lions have emerged from--years? decades? generations? of mediocrity and have surged to a playoff-worthy start in the same division as Green Bay.
3) The Indianapolis Colts' weak defense has been fully exposed by the injury to Peyton Manning and they have lost all their games, mostly by large margins.
4) The AFC in general seems to be in decline, with the exception of the Baltimore Ravens and the Pittsburgh Steelers.
My system relies upon difficulty of schedule balancing out by this point in the year, and the weakness of the AFC makes that assumption invalid this year. An easy schedule is mostly defined by playing lots of AFC teams, and one should avoid picking AFC teams in inter-conference matchups. That being said, here are my picks against the spread this week:
1) Houston Texans giving 3 at Tampa Bay (I have them winning by 10);
2) Cincinnati Bengals getting 3 at home vs. the Steelers;
3) 49ers giving 3 1/2 at home vs. the Giants; and
4) Lions getting 3 at the Bears. This last one is probably the most controversial pick (though the Steelers may be due for a big game against their familiar patsy). The Tribune had eight writers and the results of a video game as guides to the game: all the writers picked the Bears, but the game had the Lions by 7. I'm going with the machine here.
Soccer: Chelsea Going Down?
The Blues are in fourth, just behind Newcastle (in whom I believe very little), but it is their style which makes me doubtful. They lost 5-3 to Arsenal in a game full of defensive lapses, then failed to win vs. Genk in the Champions League. If this season doesn't improve, I think they will end up keeping their young coach and jettisoning their veterans in a rebuilding move. The players to watch will be Drogba and Cech--if they go, Lampard and Terry will follow soon after.
Manchester City is the new team made with money; they look to be a terror upon the league after their 6-1 defeat of Manchester United two weeks ago. They have not lost in the Premier League yet, and some are thinking they may never do so this year.
Finally, the NBA?
The next few days will probably determine whether there will be a regular season worth talking about this year for the NBA. We have seen the owners' best offer, and it is spurned. 50-50 did have a certain charm, but the technical aspects--how the owners would hamstring the movement of free agents, protecting themselves from their own mistakes--were too many. I don't feel that the players will do well to sit this one out. If the season must be cancelled, let's see them put together their own barnstorming league of a few teams, whatever arenas they can find, and a squad of insurance claims agents and medical cut men to fix any problems. These are valuable commodities.
The Shame of College Football
This season, the question is which is the greatest shame that the sport has suffered? Apart from the usual dose of inappropriate favors to players tolerated by college athletic officials (Ohio State was hit, not nearly hard enough, I'd say), there is also the usual shame of the Big Cheesy Series and the unremediated selection process for the quote-unquote National Championship game. This year, as the candidates progressively eliminate themselves, the quote-unquote looks to be a choice between the blowout matchup of LSU-Oklahoma State or a repeat of the recent "Game of the Century" snoozefest game between LSU and Alabama.
The tragedy of Penn State reached its ugly climax this week, and it was shameful in so many ways: the acts alleged to have been committed, over a very long period, by one of the top assistant coaches; the cover-up, the humiliation imposed on Joe Paterno after 45 hugely successful seasons of coaching; the behavior of the students who rioted in favor of the principle of concealing sexual assaults against children; and let's not even consider the victims' emotional devastation. I've never been much of a fan of the Nittany Lions, though I may have supported them situationally in certain games (and they usually provided good value, as in having sufficient beef to bang with the best of them). Now I've got a new team to root against.
I would select as the greatest shame, though, the unseemly scramble among the various colleges changing conference "loyalties". It's a derivative effect of the BCS folly: most of it is about the colleges from the conferences whose winners do not get one of the eight automatic BCS berths trying to upgrade their status. That, and for all of the major colleges, trying to make sure that their conference has the requisite 12 teams so they can have their big-money playoff game to earn that berth.
The culmination of this travesty is the invitations apparently offered to Boise State and Texas Christian University to be part of the no-longer Big no-longer East. Louisville and Cincinnati (and DePaul and Notre Dame) were pushing it, in basketball, but the departures of the likes of Syracuse and Pittsburgh for greener pastures meant this proud conference was headed the way of the dead-and-buried Southwest Conference and the doomed Big 12. You can't tell the conference players without a scorecard, and it's getting so nobody should even care.
Although there are some partial arrangements, in which some colleges participate in conferences for only certain sports, the part that disturbs me most is how the distortions of the BCS have affected the relatively intact other college sports. This somewhat includes men's basketball, but I suspect there will be ugly echoes in many others: women's basketball, baseball, soccer, etc.
NFL at the Halfway Point
The lockout suffered by the NFL was settled in time for the regular season's planned start; only a week of preseason games was lost, and that is less than nothing. The deal, I must admit, was quite fair to the players and much better than I expected. So, I'm not feeling too much guilt in enjoying the NFL games, which I have done on a few occasions--more than I usually do--this fall.
I would say that the stories so far are these:
1) The 8-0 unbeaten start of the defending champion Green Bay Packers. As one of the Tribune beat writers noted, their pass defense is too weak for the team to go undefeated, but their scoring punch should get them through most challenges and makes them a favorite with a good chance to repeat.
2) The Detroit Lions have emerged from--years? decades? generations? of mediocrity and have surged to a playoff-worthy start in the same division as Green Bay.
3) The Indianapolis Colts' weak defense has been fully exposed by the injury to Peyton Manning and they have lost all their games, mostly by large margins.
4) The AFC in general seems to be in decline, with the exception of the Baltimore Ravens and the Pittsburgh Steelers.
My system relies upon difficulty of schedule balancing out by this point in the year, and the weakness of the AFC makes that assumption invalid this year. An easy schedule is mostly defined by playing lots of AFC teams, and one should avoid picking AFC teams in inter-conference matchups. That being said, here are my picks against the spread this week:
1) Houston Texans giving 3 at Tampa Bay (I have them winning by 10);
2) Cincinnati Bengals getting 3 at home vs. the Steelers;
3) 49ers giving 3 1/2 at home vs. the Giants; and
4) Lions getting 3 at the Bears. This last one is probably the most controversial pick (though the Steelers may be due for a big game against their familiar patsy). The Tribune had eight writers and the results of a video game as guides to the game: all the writers picked the Bears, but the game had the Lions by 7. I'm going with the machine here.
Soccer: Chelsea Going Down?
The Blues are in fourth, just behind Newcastle (in whom I believe very little), but it is their style which makes me doubtful. They lost 5-3 to Arsenal in a game full of defensive lapses, then failed to win vs. Genk in the Champions League. If this season doesn't improve, I think they will end up keeping their young coach and jettisoning their veterans in a rebuilding move. The players to watch will be Drogba and Cech--if they go, Lampard and Terry will follow soon after.
Manchester City is the new team made with money; they look to be a terror upon the league after their 6-1 defeat of Manchester United two weeks ago. They have not lost in the Premier League yet, and some are thinking they may never do so this year.
Finally, the NBA?
The next few days will probably determine whether there will be a regular season worth talking about this year for the NBA. We have seen the owners' best offer, and it is spurned. 50-50 did have a certain charm, but the technical aspects--how the owners would hamstring the movement of free agents, protecting themselves from their own mistakes--were too many. I don't feel that the players will do well to sit this one out. If the season must be cancelled, let's see them put together their own barnstorming league of a few teams, whatever arenas they can find, and a squad of insurance claims agents and medical cut men to fix any problems. These are valuable commodities.
Monday, November 07, 2011
2011 Oscars (almost entirely through) Previews
Now is the time for all good movies to rise to the service of their studios, if they want an Oscar. This Friday, the numerologically propitious 11/11/11, will mark the serious beginning of the serious movie season. I'd say that a couple of longer-shot contenders have come out, one last weekend and one several months ago (I'll get to those later), but the real players will be opening in the next six/seven weeks.
I've been reading from some critics that the Era of Movies is over and that television rules our visual popular culture. I don't agree with that, but I would say that the annual cycle of movies has become too predictable while TV, which now has new programs popping up in all seasons, with annual series of all different lengths, has a much more interesting seasonal execution plan. The problem with movies is that there is no plan, and that all the studios with major product are looking at the same promised land.
As I don't care much for splatter or most action pablum, I skip most of the movies released in the period starting February and ending October, but I have seen three or four respectable ones which had the previews for most of the big releases coming up this Oscar season. Those trailers, and a couple of season previews (I recommend the week-by-week one imdb.com has in its "Coming Soon" feature, at least if you look now, no critiques but a fairly complete list, as a research resource), give me enough material--without any special access--to have a good idea
what's coming, and on the Oscar outlook. It's presumptuous, not to say pretentious, to pick the Oscars purely off the trailers and the hype, but presumption and pretense are what the Academy Awards are all about. That, and entertainment.
As Warner Wolf used to say, Let's Go to the Video Tape!
Released Too EarlyAnything already out there has two strikes against it from an Oscars point of view. There are exceptions in the nominations, but very few in the actual awards. I'm suggesting here there may be basis for one this year, but I suppose I'll eventually be proved wrong once again in thinking that Oscars voters have a memory that extends beyond two months.
Melancholia--the Lars Von Trier end-of-the-world drama is getting some good commentary from the Film Festival circut. Von Trier isn't popular, but lead actress Kirsten Dunst could get a nomination (though probably not the prize).
Contagion--Soderbergh made it thoughtfully and well, but it wasn't sufficiently gross or scary to be popular; a movie like this has to cut a swath through society like the plague in order to make an impression.
Ides of March--It could've been a winner in a different scenario, but the cynical story didn't fit in 2008, and (despite some parallels with the breaking Cain story, and an overall increase in the level of disillusionment) it still doesn't. We could all see the fall of both the candidate and his handler from the first 15 minutes, we just weren't sure what the mechanism of their destruction would be. The answers--sex with an intern, ambition for the handler--were not imaginative enough, and that is the fault of the original play. I thought Clooney did well both acting and directing, but I don't see any awards coming.
Moneyball--I'm a huge baseball fan, I love Michael Lewis' storytelling, and I felt "The Blind Side" deserved its accolades, I even like Brad Pitt's acting, but I've never had any desire to watch this film. I was lukewarm about the book, and I feel its time (and those of Billy Beane and of the A's)passed some years ago.
Tree of Life--Watching this movie was excruciating: it was agonizingly slow, confusing, and also emotionally wrenching. I was glad when it was over, but I have been returning to it in my thoughts ever since (5 months ago). Is this the exception, or will it prove the rule (two different things, as far as I'm concerned)? Because of its early release, it could get shut out completely, but I think it could be a multiple nominee and could even win some major awards: Supporting Actress Jessica Chastain (few speaking lines, but unforgettable visual images), director Terence Malick, cinematographer, sound. Not, however, for its big stars--Pitt and Sean Penn.
"Tree of Life" brings to mind "2001: A Space Odyssey" in many of its aspects (tedium, obsessive attention to sensual detail, all-encompassing perspective), and I think that, like "2001" and regardless of Oscar, it will be marked as a classic and remembered through the years, mostly by people who have never sat through it. All of Malick's movies are near-masterpieces, and this one is unmistakably so.
Anonymous--It looked interesting, but the November 4 release date suggests the producers of this fantasy about the "real author" of Shakespeare may feel insecure about its prospects. I will see it and hope for the best, which would be a more thought-provoking "Shakespeare in Love".
Misguided Family Missives and/or Skewing Young
War Horse--I can't believe Spielberg is going to flog this one. It's a story of a horse that survives the horrors of World War I and returns to domestic life. I'm sure it will look good, and as always with Spielberg, it will manipulate your emotions mercilessly. It just seems a little too obvious for me.
Sherlock Holmes 2--There's some subtitle, I forget. The return of the cast of the debut album (Robert Downey Jr./Jude Law/Rachel McAdams), plus Professor Moriarty, suggests a big hit. I could be terribly wrong, but I think this one will be a bit too clearly repetitious of the formula that made 1 a success.
Hugo--Scorsese doing a sci-fi Jules Verne-y Paris kid story in a Metro hideout in 3-D. I'm disbelieving the hype.
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo--The Swedish mystery thriller trilogy has already been produced, and apparently well; this will be the big-money promoted version. The preview looks good, and I haven't been spoiled by reading the books.
Star Turns
I would expect that the preponderance of Best Actor and Best Actress nominations, as well as the eventual winners, will come from these big screen character profiles.
Tinker, Tailer, Soldier, Spy--Gary Oldman in the star role of the John LeCarre spy novel. It seems as though Oldman is an Oscar waiting to happen, and this could be the one.
Iron Lady--Meryl Streep as Margaret Thatcher: Her nomination is guaranteed; I think this could be a tough win this year, though, and Thatcher is not much of a crowd-pleasing persona, really.
My Week with Marilyn--Michele Williams as Marilyn Monroe. See "Iron Lady", except that I think Williams will win. She certainly looks the part, and there's a lot of residual sympathy for her out there since Heath Ledger's passing during the season of "Brokeback Mountain" (hers) and "The Dark Knight" (his).
J. Edgar--Leonardo DiCaprio playing J. Edgar Hoover, with direction by Clint Eastwood. This could be "The Aviator" all over again, though Eastwood has won before. What I want to know is how it took this long to have a major production of Hoover's life story, which would be impossible if it weren't true. The only way this could miss would be a failure to face up properly to Hoover's latent homosexuality, or whatever the dressing up in women's underwear stuff is supposed to represent. Somehow, I don't think they'll miss the story; DiCaprio would be my pre-viewing pick for Best Actor, and there could be more here.
W.E.--Madonna directed this story of Wallis Simpson and King Edward VIII, which you'll remember from "The King's Speech" last year. I'm sure they're looking for similar results, and reports are that relative unknown Andrea Riseborough as young Wallis could surprise in the Best Actress category. I have the feeling that anti-Madonna feelings, which I think are pretty strong in Hollywood, could poison Riseborough's chances after she gets the nomination.
Serious Stuff
In the Land of Blood and Honey--This movie, with Angelina Jolie directing a story of a cover-up of sex crimes in wartorn Bosnia, is a real dark horse. It could be a dramatic masterpiece or an overblown monstrosity. I'm fascinated, and, if it was filmed on location, should at least be scenic.
Pariah--another Film Fest fave, being released on Dec. 28 suggests its handlers like its chances for some "Precious"-type Oscar buzz. I hope it's good.
The Descendants--Alexander Payne ("Sideways") directing George Clooney. A humorous and bitter story set in Hawaii; I think this one has serious Best Picture potential.
Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close--when you look at the cast (including Tom Hanks, Max von Sydow, Sandra Bullock), the director (Stephen Daldry--"The Hours"), the storyline (a polymath kid's experience with the 9/11 disaster that killed his dad), you have to conclude that this is the early betting favorite for Best Picture. I'm extremely sure that it will be incredibly central to the Oscar balloting, and may be deservedly so.
I was a bit dismissive of some of these efforts, and I may have underrated several of them. Nevertheless, I think this looks to be quite a good Oscar season, really. I'm also looking forward to January, 2012, when the flawed efforts come out--some of those may be very interesting.
I've been reading from some critics that the Era of Movies is over and that television rules our visual popular culture. I don't agree with that, but I would say that the annual cycle of movies has become too predictable while TV, which now has new programs popping up in all seasons, with annual series of all different lengths, has a much more interesting seasonal execution plan. The problem with movies is that there is no plan, and that all the studios with major product are looking at the same promised land.
As I don't care much for splatter or most action pablum, I skip most of the movies released in the period starting February and ending October, but I have seen three or four respectable ones which had the previews for most of the big releases coming up this Oscar season. Those trailers, and a couple of season previews (I recommend the week-by-week one imdb.com has in its "Coming Soon" feature, at least if you look now, no critiques but a fairly complete list, as a research resource), give me enough material--without any special access--to have a good idea
what's coming, and on the Oscar outlook. It's presumptuous, not to say pretentious, to pick the Oscars purely off the trailers and the hype, but presumption and pretense are what the Academy Awards are all about. That, and entertainment.
As Warner Wolf used to say, Let's Go to the Video Tape!
Released Too EarlyAnything already out there has two strikes against it from an Oscars point of view. There are exceptions in the nominations, but very few in the actual awards. I'm suggesting here there may be basis for one this year, but I suppose I'll eventually be proved wrong once again in thinking that Oscars voters have a memory that extends beyond two months.
Melancholia--the Lars Von Trier end-of-the-world drama is getting some good commentary from the Film Festival circut. Von Trier isn't popular, but lead actress Kirsten Dunst could get a nomination (though probably not the prize).
Contagion--Soderbergh made it thoughtfully and well, but it wasn't sufficiently gross or scary to be popular; a movie like this has to cut a swath through society like the plague in order to make an impression.
Ides of March--It could've been a winner in a different scenario, but the cynical story didn't fit in 2008, and (despite some parallels with the breaking Cain story, and an overall increase in the level of disillusionment) it still doesn't. We could all see the fall of both the candidate and his handler from the first 15 minutes, we just weren't sure what the mechanism of their destruction would be. The answers--sex with an intern, ambition for the handler--were not imaginative enough, and that is the fault of the original play. I thought Clooney did well both acting and directing, but I don't see any awards coming.
Moneyball--I'm a huge baseball fan, I love Michael Lewis' storytelling, and I felt "The Blind Side" deserved its accolades, I even like Brad Pitt's acting, but I've never had any desire to watch this film. I was lukewarm about the book, and I feel its time (and those of Billy Beane and of the A's)passed some years ago.
Tree of Life--Watching this movie was excruciating: it was agonizingly slow, confusing, and also emotionally wrenching. I was glad when it was over, but I have been returning to it in my thoughts ever since (5 months ago). Is this the exception, or will it prove the rule (two different things, as far as I'm concerned)? Because of its early release, it could get shut out completely, but I think it could be a multiple nominee and could even win some major awards: Supporting Actress Jessica Chastain (few speaking lines, but unforgettable visual images), director Terence Malick, cinematographer, sound. Not, however, for its big stars--Pitt and Sean Penn.
"Tree of Life" brings to mind "2001: A Space Odyssey" in many of its aspects (tedium, obsessive attention to sensual detail, all-encompassing perspective), and I think that, like "2001" and regardless of Oscar, it will be marked as a classic and remembered through the years, mostly by people who have never sat through it. All of Malick's movies are near-masterpieces, and this one is unmistakably so.
Anonymous--It looked interesting, but the November 4 release date suggests the producers of this fantasy about the "real author" of Shakespeare may feel insecure about its prospects. I will see it and hope for the best, which would be a more thought-provoking "Shakespeare in Love".
Misguided Family Missives and/or Skewing Young
War Horse--I can't believe Spielberg is going to flog this one. It's a story of a horse that survives the horrors of World War I and returns to domestic life. I'm sure it will look good, and as always with Spielberg, it will manipulate your emotions mercilessly. It just seems a little too obvious for me.
Sherlock Holmes 2--There's some subtitle, I forget. The return of the cast of the debut album (Robert Downey Jr./Jude Law/Rachel McAdams), plus Professor Moriarty, suggests a big hit. I could be terribly wrong, but I think this one will be a bit too clearly repetitious of the formula that made 1 a success.
Hugo--Scorsese doing a sci-fi Jules Verne-y Paris kid story in a Metro hideout in 3-D. I'm disbelieving the hype.
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo--The Swedish mystery thriller trilogy has already been produced, and apparently well; this will be the big-money promoted version. The preview looks good, and I haven't been spoiled by reading the books.
Star Turns
I would expect that the preponderance of Best Actor and Best Actress nominations, as well as the eventual winners, will come from these big screen character profiles.
Tinker, Tailer, Soldier, Spy--Gary Oldman in the star role of the John LeCarre spy novel. It seems as though Oldman is an Oscar waiting to happen, and this could be the one.
Iron Lady--Meryl Streep as Margaret Thatcher: Her nomination is guaranteed; I think this could be a tough win this year, though, and Thatcher is not much of a crowd-pleasing persona, really.
My Week with Marilyn--Michele Williams as Marilyn Monroe. See "Iron Lady", except that I think Williams will win. She certainly looks the part, and there's a lot of residual sympathy for her out there since Heath Ledger's passing during the season of "Brokeback Mountain" (hers) and "The Dark Knight" (his).
J. Edgar--Leonardo DiCaprio playing J. Edgar Hoover, with direction by Clint Eastwood. This could be "The Aviator" all over again, though Eastwood has won before. What I want to know is how it took this long to have a major production of Hoover's life story, which would be impossible if it weren't true. The only way this could miss would be a failure to face up properly to Hoover's latent homosexuality, or whatever the dressing up in women's underwear stuff is supposed to represent. Somehow, I don't think they'll miss the story; DiCaprio would be my pre-viewing pick for Best Actor, and there could be more here.
W.E.--Madonna directed this story of Wallis Simpson and King Edward VIII, which you'll remember from "The King's Speech" last year. I'm sure they're looking for similar results, and reports are that relative unknown Andrea Riseborough as young Wallis could surprise in the Best Actress category. I have the feeling that anti-Madonna feelings, which I think are pretty strong in Hollywood, could poison Riseborough's chances after she gets the nomination.
Serious Stuff
In the Land of Blood and Honey--This movie, with Angelina Jolie directing a story of a cover-up of sex crimes in wartorn Bosnia, is a real dark horse. It could be a dramatic masterpiece or an overblown monstrosity. I'm fascinated, and, if it was filmed on location, should at least be scenic.
Pariah--another Film Fest fave, being released on Dec. 28 suggests its handlers like its chances for some "Precious"-type Oscar buzz. I hope it's good.
The Descendants--Alexander Payne ("Sideways") directing George Clooney. A humorous and bitter story set in Hawaii; I think this one has serious Best Picture potential.
Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close--when you look at the cast (including Tom Hanks, Max von Sydow, Sandra Bullock), the director (Stephen Daldry--"The Hours"), the storyline (a polymath kid's experience with the 9/11 disaster that killed his dad), you have to conclude that this is the early betting favorite for Best Picture. I'm extremely sure that it will be incredibly central to the Oscar balloting, and may be deservedly so.
I was a bit dismissive of some of these efforts, and I may have underrated several of them. Nevertheless, I think this looks to be quite a good Oscar season, really. I'm also looking forward to January, 2012, when the flawed efforts come out--some of those may be very interesting.
That $4 Trillion Thing
Out of nowhere comes a report that gives great hope. It appears that the Republican leaders in Congress, Mitch McConnell and John Boehner, have come to the conclusion that the thing that President Obama most fears is a comprehensive debt reduction agreement on a large scale--like $4 trillion over ten years--such as has been proposed repeatedly in the past.
Therefore, since they perceive Obama is against it, they're now for it. This after months when it appeared they would block a deal 70% less than that because it would be too difficult to pass.
I never realized that the "Tar-Baby" approach would work so well: all Obama had to do to get a deal was have some of his people suggest it was the thing he feared most. He needs to stick to this line long enough for something to come out of the Supercommittee (and that means a few well-placed whispers in the ears of Supercommittee Democrats). Then, once the Gang of 12 votes it out, he can give his support--and the rules will prevent a filibuster!
We're not in agreement with those of the left who are opposed to any deal like this. It does have to be the right kind of deal, though: reductions in military spending, reductions in "tax expenditures" (loopholes) or an increase in tax rates (the former is more likely), and sensible adjustments in Social Security and, in particular, in Medicare. We've been backing such a deal for a long time. President Obama needs to support such a deal, as the best way to provide for our future, and I believe he will. Just not too soon in the process.
Therefore, since they perceive Obama is against it, they're now for it. This after months when it appeared they would block a deal 70% less than that because it would be too difficult to pass.
I never realized that the "Tar-Baby" approach would work so well: all Obama had to do to get a deal was have some of his people suggest it was the thing he feared most. He needs to stick to this line long enough for something to come out of the Supercommittee (and that means a few well-placed whispers in the ears of Supercommittee Democrats). Then, once the Gang of 12 votes it out, he can give his support--and the rules will prevent a filibuster!
We're not in agreement with those of the left who are opposed to any deal like this. It does have to be the right kind of deal, though: reductions in military spending, reductions in "tax expenditures" (loopholes) or an increase in tax rates (the former is more likely), and sensible adjustments in Social Security and, in particular, in Medicare. We've been backing such a deal for a long time. President Obama needs to support such a deal, as the best way to provide for our future, and I believe he will. Just not too soon in the process.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
