The Only Oscars Review You Could Possibly Need

With notes on the history of “A Star Is Born” below.

My sources:  Stoner Household polling preferences, first and second (SH#1, SH#2)+, Vanity Fair prediction (VF), My somewhat cynical view of the favorite (JS).   See also my 2018 fall preview, my “Vice” review. Any movie which I have not seen will be marked with an asterisk in its first mention. (*) I have in bold your handicapper’s “Best Bet”, which is not necessarily the betting favorite, but looks like best value for your money.

Listed in reverse order of the awards.  If you want to follow along, go to the end of this section and then scroll up, slowly.

Best Picture - Alfonso Cuaron’s “Roma” has ten nominations, which makes it the betting favorite for this one.  All are expecting it to win, but I have my doubts. It was not favored in the Stoner household (“Black Panther” and “Vice” led in our polling).  It would break a lot of ground for this conservative institution, being a movie that was released initially only on Netflix (ew) It would also be the first-ever foreign language movie to win Best Picture.  There are eight nominees for this one category, which allows votes to be split more than others. “Roma” will definitely win other categories, allowing voters to look elsewhere if they don’t want to concentrate awards too much.  I expect awards to be split among many movies this year, and capping off the night with an upset has been happening more recently. If so, “Green Book”, “The Favourite”, and “Black Panther” would be contenders.   Winner: Green Book. 

Best Actress -  There was some early sentiment for Olivia Colman, who plays a batty, ill Queen Anne in “The Favourite” (SH#2)  and Lady Gaga’s performance in “A Star Is Born” (SH#1) is notable, but the expectation (VF, JS) is that Glenn Close will win for a role in which she played the hidden talent behind her husband’s award-winning writing (‘The Wife”*).  For her, it would be “finally” winning; for voters, do they want this veteran to win?  Winner: Olivia Colman, The Favourite.

Best Actor  - In my initial preview, I thought it would be between the two guys who put on big weight for their roles (Viggo Mortensen (SH#2) in “Green Book”, Christian Bale in “Vice”), over the guy who put on extra teeth (Rami Malek (SH#1) in “Bohemian Rhapsody”).   I still think those are the main candidates but Malek is drawing more support now.  Winner: Rami Malek, Bohemian Rhapsody. 

Director - This is the most legitimate and logical category for Cuaron to win (“Roma”).  This is a real auteur with his most personal vision, based on his childhood experiences with his mother and the family’s housekeeper in Mexico City (not Rome, Italy).  The other top candidates would be for Spike Lee (SH#1), who I think will be honored elsewhere, or Adam McKay, for “Vice” (SH#2). Yorgos Lanthanos, “The Favourite”, would be a longshot choice that would annoy many, including me.  Winner:  Cuaron, Roma. 

Adapted Screenplay - I think this will be the one Spike will win (for “BlacKKKlansman”, SH#1); he is in the writing credits with some others.  That will give him the chance to give a (short) speech, the best outcome for all.  “If Beale Street Could Talk” and “A Star Is Born” are more classic source material that could provide an upset.   Winner:  BlacKKklansman. 

Original Screenplay -  This is one of the most wide-open categories.  “Vice” (SH#2) and “Green Book” (SH#1) both had a lot of clever dialogue, though the stories are somewhat familiar.  “The Favourite” (VF) is off-the-wall, surreal history. “Roma” is nominated, overcoming the fact that the original script is not in English (so some may be “lost in translation’ for many viewers).  The longshot bet is “First Reformed”*, a religious story by well-known writer Paul Schrader.  Winner:  Green Book.

Original Song - “Shallow” (SH#1), Lady Gaga’s character’s top song from “A Star Is Born”, seems like a sure winner.  I was shocked that they seem to have decided not to invite Lin-Manuel Miranda to perform his rap from “Mary Poppins Returns” (SH#2).  Oscar producers really didn’t like that movie.  Winner: A Star Is Born. 

Original Score - The usual award in this category goes to a recognized Hollywood music director who produces a big sound to go with the visuals--this would argue for Alexandre Desplat for “Isle of Dogs” (JS); he’s won before.  There are more interesting choices this year, though, including jazz musician Terrence Blanchard’s score for “BlacKKKlansman”, and the African-oriented score for “Black Panther” (SH#1).  Yet another: Vanity Fair picked the score for “If Beale Street Could Talk”, good electronic ambience. Winner: Black Panther. 

Cinematography -  Another Cuaron controversy.  Unusually, he was the Director of Photography for “Roma” (VF, JS) when ace cinematographer “Chivo” Lubezki (his buddy) had to pull out.  He’s still favored, but I’m thinking instead it will be “The Favourite” (SH#1, JS), its cinematography being an unquestioned highlight of viewing the film.   Winner:  Roma. 

Live Action Short, Documentary Short-- I saw none of them, have no clue.  If you want a non-random pick, Vanity Fair went with “Marguerite”* and “Period. End of Sentence”*.  The latter is clearly a good title.   Winner: Period. End of Sentence. 

Film Editing -  This is a core skill area for making good films; there are no accidents among the nominees here.  Two where the film editing is especially noticeable: “Vice” (SH#2, VF) had so many cuts forward and backward in time to be handled skillfully, and “Bohemian Rhapsody” (SH#1)  had to splice together some live-looking performances.  Winner:  Bohemian Rhapsody. 

Visual Effects - Vanity Fair liked the effects in “Avengers: The Infinity War”* (VF), which was also #2 in box office for the year, and that does count for something these days.  The only nominee I saw was the Neil Armstrong movie, “First Man” (SH#1), and it definitely was strong in this area.  There was a Star Wars movie, but it was the critically-panned generic “Solo: A Star Wars Movie” *(JS), and a Spielberg sci-fi (“Ready Player One”*), so I guess you could say it was a strong field.  Winner:  First Man. 

Production Design - This is about the quality and suitability of the physical environment (“the set”)--in terms of the award, the more elaborate, the better.  The clear choices among the nominees are “Mary Poppins Returns” (SH#2) and “Black Panther” (SH#1, VF, JS).  Bet “Roma” (JS) if you believe in the sweep.   Winner: Black Panther. 

Animated Feature - Competitive this year.  “Isle of Dogs” (SH#1) would be the critics’ favorite; “Spiderman: Toward the Spider-verse”* (VF, JS) is the trendy pick.  I heard some good things about “Incredibles 2”*.   Winner:  Spiderman. 

Animated Short - I only heard anything about one nominee, “Bao”*  (means pouch, or dumpling).  Good luck with any of the others.  Winner: Bao. 

Foreign Language Movie - A very strong field of nominees, but there’s only one pick: “Roma”.  I read a counter-argument for “Cold War”*, which is also one of the Best Picture nominees, out of a spread-the-wealth philosophy, but I think that’s more likely to show up in the Best Picture voting.   I’m going to see “Capernaum”* tomorrow night--I’m very excited about this film done by a Lebanese about a stateless Syrian refugee youth there who sues his parents for the offense of giving birth to him.  (fiction, but filmed with local homeless youth).  Winner:  Roma. 

Actress (Supporting Role) - I want Amy Adams (SH#1) to win for her role as Lynne Cheney in “Vice”; she so deserves an Oscar.  Instead, it seems destined to go to Regina King in If Beale Street Could Talk (VF, JS), which was a worthy, emotionally powerful, role, and there’s some support for the character playing Cuaron’s mother in “Roma” (again, if you believe in the sweep theory).  

Winner:  Regina King, If Beale Street Could Talk

Sound Mixing, Sound Editing - Two different things:  mixing is about putting the sounds together, editing is about putting in sounds.  Not what you might have thought. Anyway, the first would likely be between “A Star Is Born” (SH#2) and “Bohemian Rhapsody” (SH#1, VF), though “Roma” (JS) is also there.   The editing award tends toward war and horror movie sound effects: “Quiet Place”* is about the absence of sound; “First Man” is real loud.   Winners:  Bohemian Rhapsody, Bohemian Rhapsody

Documentary Feature - Appears to be a strong category.  “RBG” (SH#1, JS) should be popular, as the life-story of the sainted Ruth Bader Ginsburg; I wished I’d seen “Free Solo”*, which is about the first person to climb El Capitan, in Yosemite National Park, in a single session, without any ropes or aids.  My wife likes the brave idea in “Of Fathers and Sons” (SH#2), a reporter embedded with ISIS, while Vanity Fair picked “Minding the Gap” (VF), a story of hardscrabble skateboarders in Rockville, Illinois.  Winner: Free Solo.  

Costume Design, Makeup - On Costume Design, a couple of likely nominees are “Mary, Queen of Scots”* and “The Favourite” (SH#2), being movies featuring folks dressed in centuries-old fancy stuff.   But the likely winner this year is “Black Panther” (SH#1, VF), with a famed longtime costume director Ruth Carter expected to win her deserved Oscar.  It will be important for her to win this early to set a good tone in terms of a diverse set of award-winners, which the Academy is definitely seeking.  On Makeup, there are only three nominees and “Vice” is the overwhelming favorite, due to the great job on Christian Bale’s prosthetics making him into Dick Cheney.  Winners:  Black Panther, Vice.

Actor (Supporting Role) - A very interesting category to start off the night, with five strong candidates. Stoner Household’s clear pick was Adam Driver, Spike Lee’s inspired choice to play the Jewish police guy who crashes the KKK on behalf of his black colleague who provided the “wypipo voice” (“BlacKKKlansman”).  If you don’t get what I’m saying, watch the movie. Mahershala Ali (“Green Book”, VF, SH#2) was excellent as the cultured concert pianist touring the Jim Crow South in 1960, but he won--very recently. Personally, I thought both Sam Rockwell as Dubya (“Vice”, SH#2) and Sam Elliott, the man of a Thousand Voice-Overs, in “A Star Is Born” were great.  There is a dark-horse pick, though, veteran Richard E. Grant in “Can You Ever Forgive Me?”* (JS), the movie starring comedian Melissa McCarthy, in a serious role, as an author turned forger (she’s nominated for Best Actress, should’ve mentioned that before).  Winner:  Mahershala Ali, Green Book. 

I will update. Best of luck, if you’re in a betting pool!

I chose to feature Vanity Fair's picks because a) it was written very late, so not trying to influence that limited voting pool that matters (the Academy, a few thousand people); b) they're very close to the event and the Oscars gossip.

+ N=2.  Basically,  the considered opinions of my wife Jenifer and me.  Our kids/parents don’t go to the cinemas anymore.

Notes on the history of "A Star Is Born"

I finally got to see the Bradley Cooper/Lady Gaga remake this past weekend.  It was my own fault--didn't see the first run in the theaters, then it disappeared from my sight/reach.  It was released in Pay Per View and DVD this past week.

This is the fourth feature-length version of the film.  A quote from Sam Elliott's character, in this year's model:  "It's the same story, over and over again."  He was talking about the variations that can be made of those twelve tones in the chromatic scale, but it applies to this--no doubt, planned by Cooper, who helmed every aspect of this one and heroically performed, too.

I did some penance research through imdb.com, one of the best sites on the Internet and the one-stop place to research movies there.  imdb.com is branching out, with the times, with ever more TV content, if you need that, too.

The film is always an older man, a veteran performer, who discovers a younger woman. Her rise to stardom coincides with his definitive fall from grace.  Someday they may change that ancient formula; the most politically correct change would be to have a younger man raise up an older woman, if you can imagine that!

Here are some notes, not edited too much.

1937--  Janet Gaynor, Frederic March.  Director William Wellman.    Won Oscar for best original story, by Wellman and Robert Carson. Also, a special honorary award for W. Howard Greene for color photography.  Nominated for six more (best picture, director, actor, actress, assistant director (!), and 'best writing, screenplay' (Alan Campbell, Robert Carson, Dorothy Parker--alphabetical order?)
imdb.com viewers Rated it 7.6  Mode, median 8;  16% @ 10, 1.1% at 1.

Additional:  Music from Franz Liszt.
A husband and wife, he is the successful one, but alcoholic; she is a rising star.  He dies at the end, by drowning (suicide?)  The dialogue is acerbic; it's a savage movie about movies.   Climax:  she says loudly, in public, "This is Mrs. Norman Maine"--the crowd goes wild.
Referenced in "Son of the Beach: A Star is Boned" (2000).  Gay surfer movie, I presume.

1954 Judy Garland, James Mason.   Director: George Cukor.  Writer: Moss Hart (with credits to 1937 writers).  Actor takes on younger singer/actress.  Big budget Technicolor.
Rated 7.7 (I gave it an 8--very good)  Mode,median 8.  21.7% at 10; 1.1% at 1.
Six Oscar nominations, won zero--Garland, Mason, Music score, music song "The Man that Got Away", art direction, costume design.  Judy Garland was crushed she didn't win (Grace Kelly "The Country Girl", very close vote).
Additional: Cukor was nominated for Best Director 5 times, won for My Fair Lady 1964  Also won Emmy for Direction of Love Among the Ruins (Hepburn, Olivier), TV movie--1975. (age 76)  only time Hepburn and Olivier worked together, though lifelong friends.  Cukor directed Hepburn 9 times.

There is a long history of people turning down one role or the other. Anecdote from imdb:

George Cukor offered Marlon Brando the role of Norman Maine on the set of Julius Caesar(1953). "Why would you come to me?" asked Brando. "I'm in the prime of my life... If you're looking around for some actor to play an alcoholic has-been, he's sitting right over there"- pointing at his costar James Mason, who got the part.

1976  Barbra Streisand, Kris Kristofferson.    Story is actually the closest to the current version (singer/songwriter with drug/alcohol problems on the way down finds an amateur singing in a bar and works to make her famous).   Barbra got an Oscar for singing her theme song ("Evergreen"); that may be the result for this one, too
Lowest-rated of them all.  Mean rating 6.4, median 7; mode 6.  16.4% at 10, 4.2% at 1.

2018  Lady Gaga (Stefani Germanotta), Bradley Cooper.  Directed by Bradley Cooper.  Norman Maine's name changed to Jackson Maine.

Other references in the search "A Star Is Born" on imdb.com: 

2010 - Documentary, from Hungary, with The Decemberists (American indie rock band!)
zvezda je rodena  Language: Serbian   Rated 4.7 (13 raters-- median 4, mode 1 and 7 !)  Director Vanja Kovacevic.  Stars Nemanja Acimovic, Nikola Bercek.

1973 - Described on imdb.com as "The Spanish version of the 1973 classic"; wrong in several ways. Director Armando de Guzman.  Stars Jeanne Young.  Philippines, in Tagalog.

1960 (translated Star tansaeng) --Korean 

A Pornstar is Born (2011--Video)

A Star is Bored  (1956--Short)  Daffy Duck, Bugs Bunny.  Daffy subs in for Bugs' dangerous scenes.

A Star is Born World Premiere - a live telecast from 1954 (!)  rated 5.8  (115 raters)
Median 7 Mode 8, 34% 10 (18) or 1(16)

Yearbook Photos and Quotes

I remember the quote I put on my picture for the high-school yearbook:

I had a good quote to put in, but I forgot it. 

I wasn't actually being truthful with that quote: I had thought about it and decided that was what I wanted to put in, and further, I liked the way it suggested that my answer was spur of the moment.

What's the point?  A conscientious person is careful about what he says in public.  Even in that pre-Facebook era (early '70's), we knew, or should have known, by the time we finished high school.

To some extent, responsibility for publishing filthy yearbook material should devolve on the institution:  Eastern Virginia Medical School, who was in charge back then!?  Unless, of course, a yearbook is published entirely independently of the school by some local printer, which I think would be the exception.  The conclusion you must unavoidably draw is that these school institutions tolerated expressions of racial supremacy, while they would not have tolerated, say, nudity.

Knowledge of that should have conditioned the editors of the yearbook, and in the case of Governor Northam of Virginia, I would think it is critical to consult them as to whether "Ralph"* had been expected to provide, or to consent, to the stuff on his page.

In this sense, I think the best possible move in Northam's case was to announce his resignation effective in 30 days, giving the issue time to be fully understood.  It may turn out that way, anyway; he might end up resigning, and it could be just as well.  The same goes for Lt. Gov. Fairfax, who may or may not survive but deserves the opportunity to remain and defend himself if he so chooses.  If Northam is to resign, he should have the chance to control the succession.

One thing was clear in the 2017 election:  Virginia voters chose against racial attacks (see the campaign of Ed Gillespie, the Republican loser).  If the only reason Northam wants to stay on is to have the discussion regarding the deep-seated enablement of racism in Virginia's culture, that's worth ten full one-term gubernatorial administrations in "the Commonwealth".

Back to My Favorite Subject
I went to Jr. high and high school in Virginia, in the beautiful Shenandoah Valley.  We wouldn't have put that kind of stuff in our yearbook, nor would we have it on our stages.  Why?  Because we had black people in our schools.  That's strictly-white-people stuff; the stuff some would do or say if they knew there were no blacks around,  such as in a segregated school or a private school.

Which is not to say there were no racial tensions where I was--there were plenty. Mostly they were below the surface, though a single incident could lead to big problems.+

So, there were a few people I knew who loved to make racial slurs.  Learned behavior, I'm guessing.  They sought to be careful, though, not to be overheard.  The rest of us, we didn't have to join in, agree or anything--just nudge them if they needed to shut up.  That's what I'm talking about when I say the problem--and I'm fairly sure it hasn't changed all that much--is the "enablement of racism".

I didn't get it for quite awhile afterwards.  It is the notion that it is not just a question of the safety of such talk, or of free speech; it is the need to challenge it.   What seems strange is that it isn't "on behalf of my'uns", but of course, that's just what it is!

 I don't know about Northam's area--he is from the Eastern Shore, I've heard, which is a place unto itself--and, as I say, this medical school's yearbook thing is quite suspicious (as are the folks' motivations for turning this up just now), but he gets the chance to say what his experience was growing up, how people treated him, and how he responded.   Then, preferably, he resigns and goes back to his life in peace. 


*His real name is Ralph?  Seriously?  (I always think of the actor Jeremy Northam, who could easily have portrayed the 'guvnor in the film biopic of this guy's tragedy.)

+We had about 20% blacks in our schools, typical of the area (Shenandoah Valley had less slaveholders than much of the South). Today, that population mix means "fervently Republican", for some strange reason.

"Vice", and More

I Wish I'd Written This One
An article in the English paper The Guardian titled  "Donald Trump's worst weeks of 2018--the definitive list"; with this classic English subtitle: "The administration’s base-level awfulness has made this a competitive category but some weeks stood out as truly dire". Kudos to the writer, Adam Gabbatt, who clearly had enough time to do thorough research (and add nice links).

Cliff's notes -  he has them in this order:   Feb.12-16; July 16-20; Aug. 20-24; Sept. 3-7; Dec. 10-14; Dec. 17-21. Set your WayBack machines and enjoy--repeatedly.

 I would go with the July one (Helsinki), because that one did real damage to his base. Although we always tend to remember the recent ones, it does make sense that it's back-end heavy, as the trend for him is worsening.

"Vice" -- the movie 
(contains spoilers, but you should already know the plot elements)
Rather than a historical document (though full of specific dates and factual events), this should be viewed as the creation of the director Adam McKay.  The subject is the life and career of former Vice President Dick Cheney. McKay's career started with writing comedy (SNL, Talladega Nights) but then stepped it up big-time with "The Big Short", for which he was nominated for the Oscar for Best Director and won for adapted screenplay.  This time he does not have the writing credits, but the movie clearly has his authorship.

In some respects, the film does recall "The Big Short" (the inside story of the financial cause of the Great Crater and those who got ahead of the curve investing on it). An example is that in these "nonfiction" films he allows himself a scene of total comedy invention. In Big Short, he had Margot Robbie explain mortgage-backed derivatives from inside her bathtub; in Vice, he imagines a scene of Cheney and his wife Lynne engaged in pillow talk quoting from Shakespeare.

As in Short, McKay manages to make a dry and depressing subject entertaining, actually full of action. The raw material he found in Cheney's earlier life makes it possible: Cheney's early drunkenness, with Lynne telling him off; Cheney telling off Lynne's father after her mother's suspicious death by drowning; the scene when daughter Mary comes out as lesbian to Lynne and Cheney. Eventually, we get to the meat of the matter, with Cheney taking over (usurping?) in the Situation Room on 9/11, Cheney shooting the judge with the shotgun "while hunting' (in the movie, it's from a car!), Cheney ordering Scooter Libby to link the Wilson couple--Ambassador Joseph Wilson and CIA undercover agent Valerie Plame--if that occurred according to the scene, it was a criminal act never prosecuted (Scooter, though--that's a different story).

More than entertainment, though, the movie strives for greatness with its ensemble of actors.  First I must name Amy Adams as Lynne Cheney - what is there to say, except she consistently gives great performance in a huge variety of roles?   Here, she is playing a person of note, a writer and a woman with sharp intellect who has a deep understanding of the limitations of her time for a woman, even more so for one from a humble background, but one who is still hugely ambitious. It is her relationship to Cheney that McKay keys upon in his use of the dialogue from MacBeth where she guides and goads him to take that VP role from Dubya.

Sam Rockwell as George W. Bush was the one who amazed me most, in his expert impersonation of the voice and manner  of someone we all know all too well.   Unlike Christian Bale as Cheney, he may have been unwilling to put  on an extra 20 pounds (maybe 40 for Bale?) for the role, but the intimate, friendly W. good-ol'-boy is critically important in making credible McKay's presentation of Bush's intention always to have Cheney as the running mate and Cheney's initial reluctance even to consider taking it.

Then there is Steve Carrell as Donald Rumsfeld, Cheney's first employer in Washington (Dick was Rummy's intern when Rumsfeld was a junior Representative from Illinois). McKay shows them as being Partners in Climb throughout their careers, ultimately placing Rumsfeld in the room to push for the Iraq invasion (I was surprised not to hear Carrell speak the words "target-rich environment") so that Cheney didn't have to do it.   And I must give credit to Tyler Perry, playing Colin Powell, and LisaGay Hamilton as Condi Rice.  And there are many others.

The Bottom LIne on "Vice"
This movie is propaganda, of the best sort.  It's not quite comedy, not quite satire (too real).  I have to say it puts Michael Moore in the shade, much as i like that dude and his style, too.  This is a pro hit job.  I saw a quote from McKay in which he said that he viewed Cheney as a much more serious threat to the country than Trump. (don't know where, now)  Although I think the judgment is premature, it is clear that McKay gave a great deal of study and thought to this film, and that he was deeply disturbed by what Cheney did.

At the same time, McKay was astonished by the nature of Cheney's accomplishment, assisted by his legal accomplice David Eddington, who developed the "unitary Executive" theory's VP-corollary that the job, uniquely, has no meaningful check-and-balance.    Beyond that, he is sympathetic to the challenges Cheney faced, with his health,  with being consistent in supporting his daughter Mary, as well as being a reformed alcoholic from his early adult days.

Oscar-wise, this one could get a bunch of nominations--screenplay, editing, directing, all four acting roles, and Best Picture--but I don't see it sweeping the board like that.  It is clearly not going to be popular universally, and there are many interpretations of fact that can be dissected and dissed.  Its enduring value, though, comes from the very serious charges McKay makes through the movie about  the conniving underpinning under legal cover which allowed Cheney--who was basically an unregulated missile in the Executive Mansion (and a bunch of other places, as McKay shows) --to expand his practical control of the powers of government way beyond those envisioned for the Vice-Presidency, and to set Bush up as the goat for entering the Iraq war.  Think of whether the Founders would have wanted Aaron Burr to be able to order around the military, potentially initiating conflict, while he kept Thomas Jefferson in the air and out of the way?

Quickies
HBO running through the past seasons of "Game of Thrones" is what I would call good TV programming.   Sets us up for the new one, I guess, and meanwhile fills our monthly quotas of sex and violence without having to view network schlock or football.   I missed the marathons of seasons 2-4 while on holiday, but it really doesn't matter.

Music:  It's such a fragmented scene, anything I can say would only pertain to my little shard of it..  I would mention MGMT, alt-J, Kurt Vile, Mitski, St. Vincent as younger ones for whom my appreciation appreciated notably.  Among veterans,  Jack White, Muse, Imagine Dragons.  I'm impressed by the persistence of Tom Petty encomia; there seems to be a permanent SiriusXM station for him (big deal, you say). My concert of the year was David Byrne's American Utopia tour.  I'm happy The Cure and Roxy Music will be in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame this year.  And Broken Bells is coming out with new music this year!


2018 was clearly better than 2017, which was probably the worst one since 2001.  I feel that 2019 is going to be good and 2020 even better. 
Does it go without saying?  Well, anyway, to all who read this:

Happy 2019!

Movie Guide, for the Holidays and the Oscars (2018)

I do not have a privileged viewpoint in seeing the end-of-year flood of films timed for maximum Oscar impact.  I just go to the cinema when I have the chance now, in a small town with big-city cinemas hours distant, but I still go often.  I admit to being a buff, though I limit myself to a couple of thunderous action movies, a couple of sequels,  and a couple of animated features a year.  I am mostly interested in comedy, drama, and the occasional musically-themed film. +  I am not a TV guy (nor do I write a TV Guide).

My main factual resource for this piece is the recently-announced set of Golden Globes movie nominations. The Globes  (GG, below) are a good, independently-drawn small-sample (without replacement),  providing a sense of future Oscar voters' likely views.  It's a good estimate, though early in the award season--later-released films will rise for Oscar consideration.

The Golden Globes have the weird feature of having two sets of awards for movies (for best picture and lead actor and actress), one for Drama and one for Comedy or Musical, and they have a very weird approach to assigning films to the categories. Still, if one puts together the nominees for best picture for the two categories, the result is 10 names, which is how many the Oscars are now possibly including in its nominations.

The (Preliminary) Nominees
Here they are, with the GG category, release date, and a note for each, intended primarily for those who have not heard of these names.
A Star is Born (D) (already--Oct. 5 ) - I would've put this under comedy/musical.  I have to admit I haven't seen it, though.  It could yet be one of my two sequels, but I'd have to hurry.  More likely to see it on HBO or something, later.  I do respect the effort, though; I was not at all surprised to read that Lady Gaga gave a great performance.  She was born to act...and play music.   (#redo category)

Black Panther (D) (Feb. 16)  I think all superhero movies should be under comedy/musical--it's not really ever serious. (#redo) That being said, very well made, a blockbuster that will also get award respect. it could still win for something like screenplay or effects, though the awards don't often go to movies released this early in the year.

BlackKKKlansman (D) (Aug. 10)  I'd say the best Spike Lee joint since the '90's.  A fantastic concocted story that's true, of a black who was admitted as a KKK member (with a white colleague for the face-to-mask meetings).  Casting Adam Driver was extremely smart.

Bohemian Rhapsody (D, but totally should be in musical #redo ) - (Nov. 2 ).  The story of Freddy Mercury, lead singer of Queen, and his meteoric life and death.  A story very well told.  Lead role is Rami Halek (Mr. Robot on TV) as Mercury, an award-worthy performance. The musical recapitulations are fantastic;  I don't know but I think they must have been lip-synched. 

If Beale Street Could Talk (D) --  (Dec. 25-limited release) -  Harlem story, there better be some good music. I want to say a dark-horse candidate for top awards, but I don't want that to be viewed as a disingenuous slur.  What I mean is, the pedigree (director from Moonlight, story from James Baldwin, top stars) is impeccable, but the box office and critical appeal are unproven at this point.*
  
Crazy Rich Asians (C or M) (Aug. 15) - My wife wouldn't let me take her to see it.  We used to live in Singapore, so we know the milieu.  I presume it was light, entertaining, good box office (especially abroad--this one's GG nomination could be a case of sample bias vs. the AMPAS) .

The Favourite (C or M) (Nov. 23) --the classification of this one seems totally absurd at first glance.  You would think: Costume drama-- Queen Anne of England, I think, with Emma Wood and Rachel Weisz; good on the eyes.  Actually, it's probably something completely different--satire, with esoteric comedy appeal, if any, by the writer/director Y.  Lanthimos (The Lobster).  If you saw that, you know what I mean. 

Green Book (C or M- #redo,  though there's great music)  (Nov. 16).  Driving Miss Daisy with a twist--the chauffeur is white, the passenger black.  Based on the true story of jazz pianist Don Shirley's visit to the segregated South in the '60's, and the 'goombah' bouncer who was his driver. Both Viggo Mortensen (lead actor, for the GG) and Mahershala Ali (supporting, as Shirley) will get serious consideration for awards.  Loved the American Italian dialogue, Ali's keyboard-acting artistry.  

Mary Poppins Returns (C or M) - (Dec. 25 )- Emily Blunt, Lin-Manuel Miranda, and others.  Modern depression, and its cure.  A true musical.

Vice  (C or M) ( Dec. 15 ) - #redo.   This is the one with the best buzz, as lead actors Christian Bale and Amy Adams re-create the magic from American Hustle, with Dick Cheney's career being the current subject.

(the listing is alphabetical, by GG category) 

Not Nominated by the Hollywood Foreign Press

(For Whatever Reason)

(with theoretical release dates--have you seen them? I have not nor seen that they are out)
Boy Erased (Nov. 8)  - Nicole Kidman and Lucas Hedges ('Young Actor of the Year') - Gay Conversion drama; 
At Eternity's Gate (Nov 15 -*)  Willem Dafeoe is Vincent Van Gogh.  artistic appeal, for sure;
Roma (Nov. 21*)  - The one I am most eager to see, the Amarcord of Alejandro Cuaron.   Cuaron's right at the top now; I prefer him slightly over his buddy Inarritu;
Ballad of Buster Scruggs (Nov. 9*) - the Coen Brothers' (latest) Western, in six parts.  If you can, translate O Brother, Where Art Thou to the Old West.   Works for me.

Finally, Vox Lux (Dec. 7) -Natalia Portman plays a Gaga-like performer.  Lady Gaga will be at the Oscars ceremony, will Portman?

Early Oscar Talk
 (skip if it annoys you):  
You might think that "Vice" will win Best Picture, but I think it will be 'Mary Poppins Returns'.  If it clicks, it will still be showing next summer.  'Roma' will be relegated to foreign language film. 
Best Actor would seem between two guys who put on weight for their roles--Mortensen (a/k/a Aragorn) and Bale. If Rami gets nominated, that would be something to note. 
Actress will be very interesting and telling.  I think Gaga will be nominated but not win, but it is a possibility.  Emily Blunt will be in there.  And there's others:  I just love Amy Adams.  Is this the year?  Rosamund Pike for "A Private War" (the story of Marie Colvin) has a shot. 
Director is always interesting.  I think Bradley Cooper will snag a nom. Spike Lee might.  Cuaron.  Probably no women. 


*I hate this release strategy (the Ol' Harvey Weinstein), though it is frequently chosen for critical faves with uncertain prospects. 

+The history of movie soundtracks is a favorite subject. 
#redo - the category shown is what GG did; I would disagree.  
(Did I forget to mention sex?  Another publick goode.) /s

Conjecture

(Much of this is true.)

Our President's bad mood last weekend was easy to read.  As they said in the old gangster movies, The Jig Is Up.  No more cake for you, Donald!

Though Paul Manafort had backed off his earlier plea deal by lying to Mueller and sharing information about the investigation with the White House (good!), Michael Cohen sprang a bigger leak in the Drumpfseeflotte by pleading guilty to lying to Congress about ongoing talks with Russia into 2016.  Very bad.

Trump had a dream--it was to be his crowning achievement.  He wanted to make it happen in Moscow, the biggest hotel of all time.  Running for President (not winning) was a strategy to build his brand up towards that. And, while he was running, he could raise holy Hell in the meantime with the media and those who had failed to respect him.

In 2015 and early 2016 the dealings with the Russians were proceeding, but Trump kept it at arms-length while his campaign was still a going concern.  The Republican candidates ended up falling like bowling pins, though. Worse, people liked what he had to say on these national issues, simple expression of his uninformed instincts,  by which his gut had always guided him.  It then became apparent that the nomination was his (though winning the general election was, and would always remain, unlikely).

No problem.  The deal was put on hold until after the election.  The day chosen was the same day Russia entered the campaign more aggressively on Trump's behalf through their agents Assange (and Snowden?).  Though the Trumps wanted the leaks, the timing was strange:  It could have been a trick from either side;  perhaps it was the subject of their private meeting in Helsinki, when Trump explained the necessity while not retracting his offer of the future penthouse.

Once again, though, fate intervened, and through a combination of errors and accidents, he won a smashing victory in the Electoral College despite never catching his opponent in popular opinion.  WTF?

Now things started to get very complicated quickly.  First Mike Flynn overstepped and had to be sacrificed....and so on.  Now Donald realizes that dream is never going to happen--this Presidency thing has gotten in the way, permanently.

Negotiated Withdrawal 
Donald Trump  claims to be the expert negotiator.  I think it's time to put this to the real test. The idea is very simple, though it will take some time to work out important details--so it's critical to begin soon.

Trump doesn't run in 2020, agreeing to be a one-term President No more indictments (from the date of the agreement) of White House personnel until after the completion of his term.

No tricks. Trump would agree not to seek or allow the nomination for President of the Republican party nor encourage nor allow his candidacy by any other entity.   He, his children, and certain named White House staff would remain immune from any criminal indictments through US courts until Jan., 2021. This agreement would preclude indictment (Federal or state courts), but would not  prejudice investigation, or even prosecution, subsequent to his administration for acts either before Election Day, 2016 or in his continuing role as a private citizen.  Congressional leaders would forswear impeachment for a set of past subjects

The benefits of such an agreement to all concerned can be described.  Trump leaves office with his head high, and his family intact.  (Whether they stick around afterwards to face the music or run for it, I don't know.)  The election can proceed normally; Congress can avoid having to put everybody through the pain of impeachment and even some of the endless subpoenas and fights over executive privilege..  The Presidency can avoid the contamination and condemnation that the Ford pardon of Nixon caused.  The voting public can focus on what comes next after this aberrant episode. The Special Prosecutor would continue its work, developing cases, but on a reduced budget, until the end of the term; that would reduce lasting damage to the Department of Justice, the FBI, etc.

The terms of the proposed agreement would  take some time to arrange, during which Mueller's investigation and prosecutions will continue, delivering hammer blows until Trump finally faces reality and accepts the need to talk (I would imagine he would turn the idea down flat the first couple times it would be suggested.) 

There are key details that must be worked out:   the specifics of the immunity for family members and Donald  (until January, 2021); and disposition of the money Trump has already raised for his 2020 campaign. (Reported to be $100 milion; as far as I'm concerned, he can keep it.)  There are a number of parties that need to agree on this, besides Trump, and he would need to make a Shermanesque statement of disavowing a run for 2020.   That would be the hardest part; he will need to be persuaded it's his best option.

Maybe then he could build his hotel in Moscow.

Preview of the 2020 Democratic Caravan

 It has been more than a week since Election Day, so here's a line-by-line review of the most likely Democratic candidates, as ranked--reverse order of top 15-- by a Post staffer last weekend, with a little additional detail and my preliminary opinion.  I don't endorse the WP ranking, but it does have semblance of reality.

15.Delaney (John; Rep. MD) --Of all the the thousands of emails I received asking for money in
the midterm campaign (yes, one of those; I had plenty of Republican and Gun Nut ones writing me, too)
Delaneys' were the best among those who are running for President, full of carefully considered positiions.
More successful candidates will crib heavily from them. *

14.Avenatti (Michael, no known affiliations or honors) - I will say this about him: he can take things to
lows that Trump has not yet achieved (no, I don't want to give him more time)

13.Deval Patrick -- (ex-Gov. MA) I don't think he'll run. If he does, it may put Obama in a difficult position
whether to get behind him and get that out of the way, or wait and see if he gets traction..
That's why I think Obama will advise him not to run

12. HRC (2016 nominee) --neither the most likely to declare, nor most wealthy, nor best
choice among NY millionaires.

11.Klobuchar (Sen. MN) (dark horse if we want non-confrontational, serious)--She will be game.
Will voters respond? It will be a test of the "looks don't matter that much for women" political hypothesis.
Personally, I find that theory dubious, as they certainly matter for men candidates. Another theory is that
a non-confrontational, serious approach could be the best opponent for Trump. Maybe, but I'm
afraid it could be the perfect foil, something completely different.

10.Terry McAuliffe --former VA Gov. and DNC Chair. Could become a favorite of the Clintonesque
moderates, which would mean enough money to compete. Probably can't break the eggshells
around him.

9. Mike Bloomberg (one of the finalists, if he runs this time). I can live with him as the
nominee (and thus, implicitly, our next President), despite the bad optics. He was the best
NYC mayor since before John Lindsay. Maybe he and Drumpf can agree at a max spending number--
$5 billion per?

8. Beto   (no Gillum, Abrams) all, nothing, in between, or doesn't run are each about 25%.
I prefer candidates that win.

7. Sherrod Brown - I want to see what others see; I see the 2020 winner if we admit the possibility..

6. Kirsten - She will be a finalist in future elections. Probably not this time, as I see her as
being far less well-known than Kamala or Elizabeth Warren and not having much time to change it.

5. Corybooker - He may be a finalist in future elections--he has a good record but his brand
has suffered. Kamala Harris puts him in the shade, charisma-wise. (no pun or ill intent)

4.Biden - Not again? I was a big fan in the mid '70's. Honestly, I was. He has frequently disappointed.
Yes, he would make up for all that disappointment if he gave Trump a good thorough beating (as he
has sort-of threatened to do)--and I mean in the election, damnit!

3. Kamala - Right now, the betting favorite at predictit (though Bloomberg, Sherrod, Beto,
Hillary are not in the pool right now). I don't particularly see it; the goal is to win the election.
I can hear Trump now saying "Camel-la!"--like he said "'Gina!" (like "angina") Does that matter?
It shouldn't, but it does. . I will say that winning SC would put her into the finalists, though.

2.  Bernie - A finalist if he runs, but I think he won't.

1. Warren--Not the showdown I am looking for, Dickhead vs. Pocahontas. Although she has the
intellectual chops to destroy him, I think the reality would play out
stupid and sleazy--like Clinton vs. Trump was.

Honorable mentions: 1) Steve Bullock, 2) Jason Kander, 3) Pete Buttigieg,
4) Eric Garcetti, 5) Julián Castro, 6) Tim Ryan, 7) Tom Steyer, 8) John Hickenlooper,
9) Jeff Merkley, 10) Seth Moulton, 11) Martin O’Malley, 12) Eric Swalwell,
13) Jay Inslee, 14) Howard Schultz

These are all guys (I see no women in that list!) who The Post thinks is at least a possible candidate.  Quick hits:  1) MT - Gov., that counts for me; 2) see Beto; 3) the South Bend, IN mayor--many are impressed, perhaps too easily; 4) Mayor of Los Angeles--deserves some attention?  5) Julian Castro--I think he may be running for consideration as VP--I prefer Carmen Yulin Ruiz, the mayor of San Juan,  Puerto Rico. 6) anti-Pelosi Dem. Congressman from Ohio--I give him credit for courage, if not coherence; 7) Big-time billionaire financier of Dems. who wanted Trump impeached in 2018! Crazy.
9) Solid lefty Senator from Oregon, if that's what we think the winning ticket would be; 10)  (MA Rep.) see Tim Ryan; 11) Remember him?  I do. Moving on...12) Do not know who he may be; 13) Gov. WA--see Jeff Merkley; 14) Starbucks CEO If Bloomberg doesn't run, he might have a chance to break through.


Since the Post published this list, Richard Ojeda (WV State Senator, loser in 2018 Congressional race) has announced he plans to run.  I say, let him run as a Republican (he voted for Trump in 2016); somebody needs to do it.   I've seen the interviews and he is a potent distraction; a Trump spin-off
who makes a good impression.

*(In other categories, I would cite Carolyn Boudreaux--in a race still undeclared race, but probably
a loser--and Alan Graham's (just for their humor; and his pungent contextual commentary). Graham
lost big in a Democratic Congressional primary and--depending on his campaign fund's balance--

probably done for good.
What happens to that money, anyway? I heard Donald Trump has $100MM;
I would be glad to call it a day and he can keep it, as long as he promises never to run again.

Fall Forward, Spring Back (Pt. 2)

The number one question which will be answered by the midterms is our political system's 2018 response to its catastrophic fall forward on its face in 2016.  Will it be to lie prostrate and pathetic, or to spring back ? There is a third option,  for it to rise groggily to its feet and ready itself for the real conflict which lies ahead.

Not for nothing, I have decided to spend the one hour given back by this day--and what an exceptionally lovely fall day it was here today--and post some of my current thoughts within a strict, one-hour limit. I am five minutes into it now as I write. Of course, this has nothing to do with the time zone change here, for which the mnemonic is the inverse. 

My predictions for the election, defined as of the first day of the new Congress' session:
 229 for Dems in the House  (vs. 205), and
 48 Dem. senators (including Independents).

With senators, the prediction comes from looking at the individual races and how they are likely to turn out.  Right now, there is one very likely D-to-R (Heitkamp in ND) and five that are basically toss-ups  (AZ and NV that the Republicans are defending, and IN, MO, and FL that the Democrats are defending).  Viewed as a product of the function of the number of seats changing party hands, 1, 3, and 5 are very likely results for that; each of those is most likely to result in the Republican Senator number being 52.  Considering only those, if the Democrats lose ND they cannot win the Senate, looking only at those states.

The main wild card is if the Democrats can win one of North Dakota (Heitkamp defending), Tennessee (open seat with Corker's retirement) or Texas (the Beto O'Rourke phenomenon).  Any of those outcomes is a game-changer and suddenly makes the Senate contest both relevant and a top story.  There are going to be a whole lot of states we can expect the Democats to win and hold their Senate seats, in spite of 2016 Trump wins (OH, PA, MI, WI, MT, WV, and the special case of Bob Menendez defending in the Clinton state of NJ ).  These will not be news--though Ohio should be--unless the Democrat is defeated.

Otherwise, the top story will be the governors' races.  Leading the coverage will be those of Florida and Georgia, where history can be made in 2018.  First African-American governor(s) in the Deep South (i.e., excluding Virginia) since Reconstruction?   Gillum seems very likely in FL, while Stacey Abrams' bid to become Governor of Georgia (!!) is highly plausible but very possibly will be wrecked on the (il)logic of the state's political system.  It looks to me as though she may have a plurality on Tuesday, but having less than 50% of the votes it would go to a runoff, which may be harder for her to win.  (It may take quite a while to determine if that's so; if there needs to be a runoff)

There are a whole lot of other close governors' races through the night, allowing national coverage to fill with plenty of content.  Iowa is a particularly important one; so is Kansas, where a total Trumpite voter suppression creep (Kris Kobach) has the opportunity to continue a Kansan tradition of failed Republican governors.  New Mexico should return a Democrat to office; real control of the state government remains just beyond reach, but the win takes out of the statewide picture a prominent right-wing elected official (Steve Pearce, no relation to the World Series MVP).

The Upper Midwest will be a good story for the Democrats.  Illinois, Michigan, Pennsyvania will all go Democratic or remain comfortably Democratic.  Wisconsin has an exciting race to see if Scott Walker can be displaced.  Ohio is a nail-biter, and a win for Richard Cordray would have implications for the 2020 voter issues in that critical state.

My House estimate is based on one statistic:  the average, between realclearpolitics' number and fivethirtyeight's one, for the difference between parties in the generic Congressional preference poll.  Those are themselves averages of various poll results, weighted according to their judgment.

From the results of studies, there is a definite mathematical relationship between that gap and the expected pick-up of Congressional seats for the Democrats.  Five38 has a 5.8% gap being the estimate of what is required for the Dems to have 218 seats (pickup of 23), while a 12% gap is estimated for the Democrats to reach 250 (pickup of 55).  The relationship is largely linear, but with non-linearities at the top and bottom of the distribution, and around the 8-10% range, this last one when the numerical net advantages the Republicans achieved through redistricting fall apart and accelerate the increase.  My fit of that, and the data showing about 7.8% average, gives me an estimate of a 34-seat pickup for the Democrats, to 229.

Enough about that.  I am moved to write by the beauty of the fall day here.  It is to protect the quality of life, for my kids, theirs, my neighbors kids, etc.  The sense of the meaning of quality of life that these kinds of days bring allows me to make my choices.

Start Thinking About Tomorrow--It'll Soon Be Here:  I can not choose between electoral reforms and climate change defenses that I should make as my top issue for 2020  (and polls have asked me that question, though about the 2018 elections, several times; I switch between the two, and typically I'd have to write-in either one, as they don't include those among the suggested answers.  If they don't let me write in, I put "Education".)

Next I would put, but don't even mention it, "it's not a priority" in choosing a President, foreign policy: Withdrawing for the Paris Climate Change accords is one of the great scars on the record of the Trump Administration, an unthinkable act of stubborn ignorance which brings shame upon the country.  I give Trump credit for avoiding getting us in a stupid war--so far, but no credit at all for unilaterally withdrawing from the Iran Nuclear accord and sabotaging his European trading partners.  When Mattis leaves, and Kelly, and it is just Stephen Miller and John Bolton, I fear the worst.

It's not on the horizon in the pre-race discussion but watch out, as it could easily overshadow any other issue (and could save Trump's bippy if the economy stalls).

For the Democratic platform, I recommend a plank for Electoral College representation for Puerto Rico.  A constitutional amendment if that's what it takes.  DC Statehood, also (a plank); whether legislatively or the same amendment.  It should help focus Republican attention on the fact that they are going to lose Florida real quick, and Texas maybe, also, in the next few years.  You take away those two states' votes and the Republicans will no longer look on the Electoral College as their friend.  If you make Puerto Rico and D.C. more viable, in several ways, this being one of them, you strengthen the nation.

In terms of tactics for all these, these should be bipartisan in scope and an attempt made to negotiate with the Republicans and Trump.  In return, they can agree to whatever middle-class tax cut the 3-D President would sign, an infrastructure agreement, and a gradual change in some of the legal immigration trajectories, bringing some sense and thought into that effort.



I saw the bold CBS 60 Minutes' piece on the AR-15, the weapon of choice for mass killers throughout the country.  That's #3 for me:  If you can't advocate changes to help our environment,  support some meaningful changes to the electoral system, or propose something positive on reducing gun violence (even through mental illness treatment), I got no use for you, and I don't care what party you're in, or how you feel about "welfare" or "entitlement programs" or even women's liberation or affirmative action.   Those things come later, after you've passed the initial intelligence test.


P.S. 3-D President was originatlly (Dumb Duck Dubya).  The King Duck title has now been passed on  (around Obama) to Trump, making him Dickhead Duck Drumpf.

2018 Midterms: Some Fearless/Fearful Predictions

Confusion will be my Epitaph
As I crawl a cracked and broken path
If we make it we can all sit back and laugh
But I fear tomorrow I'll be crying
--Epitaph, King Crimson

I'm thinking of the song lyrics above as an epigram for the elections themselves, or for one, or more likely, both parties, not for me personally.  I'm saving my emotions somewhat for the War of 2020.

Watching and reading the talking heads, I find that they were burned too badly in 2016; nobody is willing to step up and make a prediction on the outcome(s).  Is there a red wave, and will it cancel out the blue one?  Will this be an affirmation, a check, or a rejection of the Drumpfenreich?  Nobody is saying.

Not having a professional reputation in this area to defend, I am less constrained.  For the most part, I'm not going to make many specific predictions on individual races, as I don't have good enough sources of data.  However, I will do something that not many have done and make some broad general predictions, to wit:

1.  The most lasting result of the 2018 elections will be confusion and stagnation.  We can expect the Democrats to control the House of Representatives--how much or how little won't even matter that much in practical terms; we can expect the Senate control to stay in Republican hands, and most likely they will do a little bit better than the 51-49 margin they have now.  We can expect a fairly large number of state governors to flip from Republicans to Democrats,  and some in important states for the 2020 elections--that will be the most significant outcome in the longer run.

The expected split in control of the houses of Congress means that very little is likely to be accomplished legislatively in the next Congress.  The "do-nothing Congress" will be a term that both parties will overuse in the 2020 campaign; partisans on both sides will know whom to blame (the other side), while independents will be able to maintain their states of confusion and  of indifference-to-hate with which they view both sides.   President Trump will continue to do his best to undermine the effectiveness of the Federal government through his incompetent and destructive leadership.

2. It will take a long time for the final numbers of the 2018 midterms to be confirmed.  This will be very frustrating for the news organizations on Election Night; I think it is unlikely that they will be able to make a call on control of either the House or the Senate until deep into the night, or until the morning after.  There are so many close races--something like eight races listed as "tossup" in both the Senate and the Governors' categories, and 30 or so in the House, by the reckonings of most experts.   To make things worse, a runoff is likely in the Mississippi Senate special election, and very possible in the Georgia governor's race (more on this one later).  The former could be decisive on Senate control (a good result leading to a relatively bad outcome for the Democrats, if true); the latter is going to be full of controversy, it is already apparent, due to efforts by the Georgia Secretary of State and his minions to affect the outcome--in the race for which he is the Republican candidate--through voter suppression (or, if you like, "prevention of voter fraud") measures.  There are going to be many races in which the result will depend on absentee ballots, recounts, or even court decisions on disputed outcomes. The muddle will continue for weeks, or months.

3.  Donald Trump will declare the result "a huge victory"; so will the Democratic National Committee, and especially the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.  I guess this is obvious. I will be interested to see if the House results (the purview of the DCCC) will make my (very fine) Congressman, Ben Ray Lujan, a national star.  (he is the head of the DCCC this year) .  Again, in the House of Representatives, even a one-vote margin will suffice for the Democrats to claim victory, though they are shooting for more than that, to make sure they get control.  Same goes for the Republicans in the Senate, really, as getting to 60 Republican Senators, something which would give them full control on Senate legislative activity, seems out of the question.   If you're wondering, the head of the Republican Senate Campaign Committee is Cory Gardner of Colorado, who will be a key target for Democrats in 2020 trying once again to regain control of the Senate.   He's keeping a pretty low profile this year but will become a focal point later, particularly if he is not able to expand his party's current narrow margin.

4.  Bottom Line:  the can will effectively be kicked down the road, and the 2020 campaigns will begin immediately, even before the numbers are finalized.  Democratic Presidential candidates will not be able to tell whether to contest Trump's' bluster and insults fiercely, or matter-of-factly, or just to ignore them.  There will be enough candidates that several will try each strategy.  The one of those strategies that works best, and things like personality, name recognition, and organization will determine which candidates will survive the pre-primary and early-primary free-for-all.  For some of the debates, there will not be enough room on the stage for all of them, let alone enough time for each to make more than a sound-bite line or two.

5.  The incredible waste of money in the current format and (lack of) regulation of campaign financing and spending will itself become a major issue.  I really am just hoping this is true; it will not be resolved by 2020, but I expect to see some new approaches to the problem (how to raise enough money to defeat one's opponent without compromising oneself in the eyes of the constituents) from candidates--maybe from both parties!--who see what a problem it is, who see how it is leading to the bad outcomes (disapproval of all parties and candidates, low turnout, polarization, and the aforementioned stagnation) we are getting.  I would cite Beto O'Rourke's campaign as an early version of what I'm talking about, though the jury is out whether that will be a winning strategy in his Senate race in Texas.

2020 Democratic Presidential/Vice-Presidential Endorsements.   (I am only half-serious here, obviously there are many, many hills and valleys ahead, starting November 7.)
For President:  Sherrod Brown, Senator from Ohio.  Despite the Republicans' best efforts--multiple Trump/Pence visits, lots of money, etc.--Brown is headed for a resounding re-election victory in this super-critical, Republican-leaning state.   That in itself tells a lot, but there's more:  he is a strong Democratic partisan (critical for the nomination), something of a populist when it comes to foreign and trade policies (in line with most Americans' views these days, whether right or wrong), and his gruff, colloquial speaking style could appeal to disaffected blue-collar men all over the country.  But don't let that fool you too much:  he is a veteran (though not undefeated) electoral campaigner, highly knowledgeable (yes, a Yale graduate) and a convincing public speaker.

The negative:  he has denied any interest in running for President ("I don't want to do it"),  From my personal point of view, that's a positive for consideration--anyone who wants to be President too much, shouldn't be, and anyone who wants to run for President must be a masochist.  Still, the days of nomination by draft are probably over.

For Vice-President:  Carmen Yulin Cruz, Mayor of San Juan, Puerto Rico.  She has emerged into national semi-prominence in the aftermath of Hurricane Maria, the often-heroic efforts to address the devastation it caused, and the controversy over the blame for the failures to address life-and-death health issues in the territory since then. In every regard, she has emerged as a powerful, honest voice concerned above all for her constituents and unafraid of anyone.  She would make a great "attack dog"--no insult intended--to mock and counter Trump effectively (what the 2020 Democratic VP nominee must do, and what 2016 nominee Tim Kaine failed to do), as well as someone who could help bring attention to what should be a strong Democratic platform element:  statehood for DC, and a debate, leading to a referendum and Congressional action, on Puerto Rico's permanent status.  Better than .anyone, she can analyze why the current P.R. status does not work and what should be done about it.  In case anyone is wondering, she meets the constitutional eligibility requirements for the position.

While I'm at it:
For Speaker of the House (assuming Democrats win control):  former President Barack Obama. It amazes me that no one--at least as far as I have seen--has suggested this solution to the potential bloody internecine problem the House Democrats would have.  Sure, Nancy Pelosi will win a showdown if it comes to that, but that will leave many unhappy or unsatisfied, and the Democrats need a recognized party leader to take them to 2020.  I anticipate that Mitt Romney will become the new Republican "conscience of the Senate", the person who can stand up to our Banana Republic would-be autocrat, taking the place of the departed McCain, Corker, Flake, and the abdication from that role of Lindsay Graham; who better to top Romney than the man who comprehensively defeated him?  Who knows, I would bet Romney and Obama would be able to find some common ground behind closed doors and overcome the stagnation in some cases (like keeping the government running, despite Trump).   Like Cruz, he meets the requirements for the position--they do not include being an elected House Representative.

I will make two stipulations:  1)  Speaker Obama would not/can not be part of the line of succession to the Presidency; it would just skip over that office to the next person (I think Speaker is between President pro tempore of the Senate and Secretary of State); and 2) The possibility of this is really just between Pelosi, Obama, and Michelle Obama.  I know President Obama has some things he wants to accomplish outside of Washington, and Michelle can't wait to leave it behind, but neither does Obama seem comfortable sitting on the sidelines.  This would be a two-year commitment only; Pelosi would still get a "promotion" to Majority Leader.  It would be a great move of self-abnegation for Pelosi, historic in its significance, unprecedented--but these are times that cry out for innovative thinking.  I think if she made the announcement, he would be approved by acclamation in the Democratic caucus--he'd better be!

Do Due Diligence

I can only imagine the anguish that a Senator who had not decided whether to vote for Brett Kavanaugh, someone whose decision lay in resolving the truth of Professor Blasey Ford's accusation, might have felt watching the drama Thursday.  I wonder if there were any such Senators.

I have no trouble at all believing both Dr. Ford's account and Kavanaugh's protestations of innocence.  Innocence is a state of mind, and I can easily believe that it happened, just as she said (sketchy though the details may be) and that he remembers nothing of it.  I don't even believe he would have had to have been pass-out drunk to lose his memory of it, just that what happened was not sexual assault in his mind, and he forgot about it.  When it came up recently, he readily convinced himself that it couldn't have happened. There can be that much difference in how people perceive events.

I do thank Senator Flake for his crisis of confidence (or of conscience), his second thoughts just after announcing his intention to vote to confirm.  We can call it courage, but it was certainly human, in the best sense of the word.  The result was a well-drawn political compromise, in the way these finally occur:  not horse-trading, but the merging of varying interests.

We can all wish that a week's investigation will firmly establish the truth of the matter, or of the Yale freshman dorm indecent exposure charge, but that is not the way this life works.  Truth reveals itself much more subtly than that, if at all.  I have no doubt that a persistent investigation would show that Kavanaugh's "white lies" were much more numerous and substantial than those that have already been uncovered.  If I were the FBI investigator, I would want to talk to that ex-girlfriend of Mark Judge, someone whose name I have not heard mentioned as an investigation interview subject.  Though it would all be hearsay, there could be no better source to get the hidden dirt.

The Senators who have the true leverage in this story are Senators Collins and Murkowski, as they have been for weeks.  Though they were not in the Judiciary Committee, they enlisted Flake to be their voice there, and he came through for them.  I have heard that they are both very concerned about process, and this will give them a chance to satisfy themselves and vote for confirmation, if that is what they feel they must do.  As for Sen. Manchin and Sen. Heitkamp, they have correctly understood that their best interest  (vote maximizing in the midst of challenging re-election bids) is to wait until the last moment to make their decisions, thus having all the information of their respective states' public opinion. Their votes are unlikely to be decisive, unless Collins and Murkowski both vote No.

Just as Flake desperately needed to find another door when he was cornered in the elevator by the women demonstrating their despair, Friday's change of story provided Mitch McConnell a way out from a difficult situation, as the immediate agreement both he and President Trump gave to the one-week delay proposal showed.   There had been  a scheduled vote the next day to set the date of the final vote--that was looking like a vote that McConnell was going to lose.  The vote to end debate was always the one he had to find all 51 Republicans to support, and now he has the means to get it--or rather, he will, in a week.

What it appears to me from Thursday's session is that Justice Clarence "Uncle" Thomas may find that he need not stay on any longer in the Court, for Justice Kavanaugh should adequately represent the men-feeling-aggrieved-by-women's-accusations constituency.  I don't dispute its existence, and it's probably growing, but does it really need two Supreme Court justices (and a President) to defend its interests?

Professor Ford's civic-minded sacrifice should have at least one positive effect, though it may not stop Kavanaugh's confirmation:  she will have provided the national culture something permanent, in terms of women's ability to speak out against bad actors.  And, though regardless of his guilt, based on his performance Thursday I would indeed describe Kavanaugh as a bad actor, I also find that the Republican base is in love with them (see Reagan, Trump).  As such, I think Kavanaugh's stance will also help juice up Republican turnout, which will make Election Night even more uncertain and much too interesting.

"The Ranking Member"and Team
I cannot help giving some reviews to some of the Democratic members of the Judiciary Committee--for one thing, three of them seem likely to run for President, and this was their unavoidable national audition.  Of those three, Senator Klobuchar of Minnesota had the best moments, and she, along with moderates Blumenthal and Coons ended up winning the day for their team's search for delay, while Cory Booker and Kamala Harris were less successful in creating positive momentum for their embryonic candidacies.  I will cite the public service of Sen. Whitehouse (not in a close race this year, probably not running for President)  for taking on the ugly, unpopular task of going through Kavanaugh's damaging high-school yearbook quotations and the evasive and sarcastic responses that exercise was sure to elicit.

The Democrats on the committee stuck together, as they needed to do, and worked cooperatively.. I am concerned, though, about Sen. Feinstein, the "ranking member" (what a crummy title!) of the committee's Democratic contingent, who was unable to provide leadership in the meeting room--maybe she did better away from the cameras.  She was not able to provide a Kavanauvian denial of the leaking of Prof. Ford's original letter which had been entrusted to her (she denied it, but not very passionately), never showed much capacity to defend herself from the criticism (from all sides) for respecting Ford's privacy for so long,  and was clueless on Friday about what was going on.  While I don't see that she did anything improper, running for re-election this year at age 85, against another Democrat (the general election pits the two survivors of California's open primary), she might want to consider gracefully stepping aside.  Or, put another way, Californians might take another look, a more favorable one, at her opponent, Kevin de Leon. 

Just Baseball--Premature Postseason Analysis

It's premature to make too many specific guesses about winners in post-season series, when so many specific details of the National League brackets are yet to be finalized.  So please grant me the indulgence of allowing me to do so, anyway.

Whereas the focus during the close of the regular season is entirely on the NL, in the playoffs one should look first to see what's happening in the junior circuit, the American League.

I would say that the name of the game, until changed, will be "Who Can Stop the Red Sox"?  They have had a regular season of historically high quality, one of the best in our lifetimes.  They have few weaknesses, and they are relatively minor ones.  The offense is explosive,  they even have hitters like Brandon Phillips and Hanley Ramirez in reserve, and they have sufficient top-line starting pitching along with the best closer in the majors (over the past few years) in Craig Kimbrel.    They have lost so few series with opponents, so few games for that matter. They are certainly going to take some beating.  But, in a short series, or more precisely in a series of those series, the unexpected can surely happen.

First round for the Botox Dynasty Bid: 2018, will of course be the Yankees.  Well, it should be, but those upstart A's could take out the Bombers in a single-game playoff. Either team will come in with strong confidence in their capability, and it will be up to Boston to take them out, quickly and decisively.   And that includes getting that toughest win--the fourth (just ask the 2004 Yankees).

The ALCS should also be a true test for the wannabe-Warriors (referring of course to the current dynasty-holder in the NBA; the American League Championship Series is now the MLB equivalent of the Western Conference finals. On that note, remember the 2018 ones, Golden State vs. Houston?)  It will either be Cleveland or Houston, both hardened postseason veteran teams, coming off a similar series success.   Both are huge offensive-minded teams with great defense, like the Red Sox.  The series will likely come down to a hot starting pitcher:  the Red Sox have Chris Sale and David Price who could be That Man, but the Indians have Corey Kluber and the Astros have Justin Verlander (and Gerrit Cole, for that matter).

Let's say that, in spite of those two tough tests, the Red Sox win through to the World Series.  I would give that a probability in the 45-50% range (I'll check back with Fivethirtyeight's to see what they have or will have, once all the names are known).   Who the heck will they play in the Series, and what will the matchup be like?    Hard to say--I will take that up in a moment--but I would give the Red Sox a blanket 60% chance against the NL field. *  That 60% chance, layered on the 45-50% for the New-Look BTD (see above), gives the Red Sox something like a 27-30% chance.  Not so high, you could say, but it's several times higher than any other team's.

As for the NL races, they have turned out to be just as tight as promised earlier.  We have been able to eliminate 3-4 "pretenders"  (the Nationals, now the Phillies, Pirates and Diamondbacks), but there are still two division titles to be determined, as well as both Wild Card spots.  The Cubs and Dodgers would seem to be the best bets, to win the contested divisions, to survive the playoffs and to have a chance to stop the Red Sox' bats, or at least slow them, if Boston makes the Series.  For a NL team to win vs. Boston, should require one or two pitchers who can consistently demonstrate command of their pitches, under the conditions of the World Series.   But it could happen.

It could also happen that the AL pitchers--from any team--are not able to command and control the NL hitters; that might happen, for example, if any of the other three NL teams in serious running (Milwaukee, Atlanta, and Colorado) get to scalding temperature with their hitting.  In that vein, my two dark horse candidate for Series MVP are the leading candidates for Rookie of the Year and MVP in the NL, Ronald Acuna, Jr.  (sorry, no tilde) and Nolan Arenado.
(Note on 9/22:  I omitted the Cardinals from consideration, which is a very dangerous thing to do.  They will need to run the gauntlet through the Wild Card, but it is far from impossible.)


OK:  My bet is Red Sox defeat Braves, 4-2. If I'm given proper (longshot) odds on that Trifecta. 



* I think there is a higher probability for the underdog in MLB's 7-game series than in the NBA Championships, the random event distribution shifting more toward repeated wins by the underdog.  Subject for another day, I promised "just baseball".  Fact is, though the AL has consistently bettered the NL in interleague games (a little less margin this year, I think) and talent has tended to flow the AL's way in things like the trading deadline moves and thourgh the draft (again, a little more balanced this year), the NL has won 4 of 7 championships this decade (5 of 8, if you include 2010, which I do not).  We can mostly thank the SF Giants, who are now pretty much out of it, for that. 

The Lead, wth Jake Tapper

I just watched an interesting discussion on CNN moderated by Tapper.  He asked the panel the question what to make of it--it being Trump's latest Twit-off about the Kavanaugh assault allegation:  Ms. Kucinski clearly answered the question, it hurts the campaign for Kavanaugh's confirmation, by making the support of Senators Collins and Murkowski more problematic.  Tapper moved on, yes, clearly that is the case, but what is the strategy?

I was surprised that no one answered the question correctly.  Bill Kristol seemed so shell-shocked by the blunderbuss that he could not offer a rationale.  Robby Mook--how would Tapper go to him for a discussion of strategy?--expressed some talking points of the whole thing being the game of hopscotch (see previous post) and getting through it (so, the strategy of the tweet?) .

What I didn't hear (did I miss something?) was that, for Trump, this confirmation is not the real objective.  It doesn't matter to him, that much--particularly as long as he can blame someone else if he "loses" this one.  That would be easy.   He can find another guy like Kavanaugh, also relatively easily, he could "even be a woman"--Trump had just drawn Brett from a list of 10 vetted for their politics by the extreme right-wing Federalist society, perhaps particularly attracted by Kavanaugh's statements, on the record, limiting the ability of Justice to impede Presidential criminality, and there are confirmable women judges on the list.  And, unless McConnell somehow blows it in the Senate contest (it would be entirely his fault), he can get that person confirmed, preserving his "legacy".

Bottom line is:  As always, Trump is just trying to whip up his base.  Playing the long game, the one win that would matter for Trump in the midterms is if he can somehow save control of the House.  He can dare Collins or Murkowski to turn against him in the key vote, whether to proceed to the final confirmation vote, which will be as close to party-line as there is.  He can even shut the government down about his Stupid Wall (the crux will come by the end of the month, if it happens).  So far, he hasn't seen the need to do it; but he can still do it (to everyone) if he wants.  And he likes that.

Two Games Changed

1) Trump Dodgeball - If you know the game, we are now down to that last stage:  there's only one ball active in play, and Mueller's got it.  The question is, who is/are the target(s)?

Paul Manafort copping the plea will make it clear--finally--to Donald that he will not be able to snuff this out through use of his pardon.  Mueller didn't particularly need Manafort to turn in order to finalize his case, but this will allow him to connect the dots more clearly for the cases he will bring.  Whatever crimes were committed in the original Russian-political-interference case, Manafort was there and knows what they were.  He also should understand fully that any lies he gives to the investigators would invalidate his deal (and put him in jail forever, probably), so he would have to be extremely careful, saying nothing that anyone could prove false.  For Mueller, Manafort will help him wrap things up more quickly and effectively.

Based on what I've seen, there is no solid criminal case against the President for this stuff.  We can take a clue from the Anonymous op-ed (remember that?  It was six days ago!)  The way DrumpfOrg worked and continues to work is: the Boss is strictly on a Need-to-Know basis, the less the better.  Any funny business, these career hacks and dirty tricksters know, keep him out of it, protect him completely.  If we are waiting for Mueller to name him Un-Indicted Co-Conspirator (as happened with Nixon), we should stop waiting, as it really doesn't mean that much anyway.  The real danger to Donald is that Donald Jr. and maybe Jared could be implicated, in something like taking an illegal meeting with known foreign agents to benefit the campaign, and they wouldn't have any immunity from indictment.  Now, Trump could announce pre-emptively that he will "forgive" (read: pardon) any misstatements or missteps because they were trying to do right by him, our one and only President.  Trump used similar logic earlier in pardoning Scooter Libby, the top assistant for VP Dick Cheney who took the fall for the 2003 Valerie Plame outing scandal.

A pardon will keep them out of jail, but it won't keep The Donald from the jail he will come to see the White House being next year--it will be that bad for him.  The question is:  will he want to stick it out?  Supposedly he likes doing this and wants to continue; basically that is an unrealistic view of the job for any President, and if he does feel that way, I would expect that view to change.  I continue to think defeat in 2020 is the sure path to ending Drumpfenreich once and for all, but I would say the odds of him just quitting, or of announcing that he will not run in 2020, both just got shorter (I previously rated those two as #2 and #4 most-likely of the six ways it can end; maybe the opt-out from the 2020 run now passes the likelihood of Trump's death in office.)

2)  Hop-SCOTUS - There is a path to confirmation for any nominee, power dynamics permitting, and regardless of the nominee's ideology.  It resembles the kids' game of hop-scotch:  step in the right spots, stay off the lines, bounce over the selected blocked-off square (the one you put the chalk on, after your first run through).  It's a sort of solo dance, but not too difficult if you follow.

The game was going according to form until today, really.  The anonymous letter accusing Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault back in his high school days didn't appear to be much of an obstacle for him to leap over (along with the one from the previous round, Roe v. Wade) and get to victory.  Until the accuser chose--possibly under pressure from some unwelcome journalistic snooping--to reveal her identity and come forward.* 

Now it's going to be Anita Hill and Clarence Thomas, variations on a theme.  She said, he denied. Surely some things have changed, though.  One, of course, is that this is a white-on-white offense, which is viewed differently than a black-on-black one.  One was a "lynching" (Thomas' word); this will be a "witch hunt".  Let's see how long it takes Donald to come up with the use of his favorite phrase for the Mueller investigation for this one, too.

But seriously, when the accuser comes to testify, as it appears she will be bound to do, and the Republican senators have their chance to "cross-examine" (to use the court term), it is going to be ugly all the way around.  Apparently, she does not remember the particulars, like the date, address, anyone who else might be able to corroborate.  Though she passed an (unofficial) lie detector test that she is telling the truth, that will not count as evidence.  They will ask harrowing, hounding, speechlike-questions such as, "Who told you the alleged assailant was Brett Kavanaugh? How do you know it wasn't someone pretending to be him?  Had you ever met him before? He denies being there, wherever it was."

I do think that this "game-changer" gives pause to Susan Collins, and Lisa Murkowski, Republican Senators who were on the fence but leaning toward voting for confirmation.  Outgoing Republican Senator Jeff Flake, who feels free to do the right thing, has already announced he will vote against immediate approval in committee, which would mean the vote might well fail there if the party leadership tries to force it through now.  That defeat, however, would not prevent Kavanaugh's  nomination coming to the floor of the Senate.  The ultimate outcome there would now be uncertain (while it was not really uncertain before this development), but I feel it will make it almost impossible for any Democrats, no matter how red their states may be, to vote for confirmation now.  One phenomenon that seems likely to continue is that Democrats own up to their failings in the #metoo arena, while Republicans dare to defy their accusers.

Thus, even heavier implications for the massive gender divide emerging in the midterms.

*No need to call her out by name, since it seems she was originally trying to avoid the unwanted publicity.