Unofficial Academy Awards Discussion Board

OscarGuy wrote
I would agree, but we're likely to pick up a seat in Pennsylvania this year with a fire-breathing liberal who just so happen has a biker aesthetic.

"Biker aesthetic" is a polite word for John Fetterman. I'm not convinced he's going to win. He's polarizing to say the least. A Fetterman vs. Oz matchup is as close to Sanders vs. Trump as we're likely to see. I do not feel good about it, although I'll admit to being curious to see how it plays out. Unlike if Conor Lamb was the nominee (which would be far more down party lines), it’ll basically be two candidates running against the Democratic Party, but it's a midterm and Democrats are unpopular so... maybe?

NOTE: I realize that it's inappropriate to hide my major concern when it comes to Fetterman. He held a black person at gunpoint several years ago, mistaking him for someone who stole his bike. He's never apologized. He's largely ducked confrontation about it. Whoever wins Pennsylvania is going to have to mobilize African-American voters in Philadelphia. It's a real question as to whether Fetterman can do that. His only strength is his appeal to flip rural voters from voting Republican, which is no sure thing. I would say it would be impossible if Dr. Oz wasn't such a weird candidate. He doesn't even live in Pennsylvania and generally speaking Fetterman polls well with rural voters who consider him one of them. To be honest, it's an uphill battle for either Lamb or Fetterman. I just get a real sense of chaos-bringer with Fetterman. Beyond simply having the seat, I can't imagine there's a world where we ever say "I'm glad that guy's in the Senate."

Sabin wrote: 1. The kids today are too self-righteous and judgmental.
2. The Democratic Party is corrupt and uninspiring.
3. Donald Trump wasn’t nearly as bad as everyone said.
4. I miss the good old days.

This is the exact same thing that's happening in the Philippines: Replace "Democratic party" with "Liberal Party"/"Dilawans"/"Aquinos"/"Leni Robredo" and Donald Trump with "Marcos and it's the same.

I would agree, but we're likely to pick up a seat in Pennsylvania this year with a fire-breathing liberal who just so happen has a biker aesthetic. We could also conceivably pick up a seat in North Carolina or Wisconsin, and if disgraced former MO governor is nominated, we could have a puncher's chance at Missouri. Once we have 52 votes, Joe Manchin and Krysten Sinema would have less power and we might be able to get a few things done.

Sabin wrote:Millennials in my life are divided into the disappointments that I've discussed above and those who have been so activated by Trump and the right-wing's attack on civil liberties that they are blue no matter who for life. That number should be substantially higher and that is what is so frustrating.

I totally agree.

OscarGuy wrote:A lot of what forms a person's political identity is formed in their teens and twenties. They don't magically change as they age. I think this myth is a byproduct of the fact that we've mostly seen the last of the boomers who've realigned politically because they were always a touch racist, but it wasn't until the last quarter century or so where their racism has been rejected by Democrats and thus they find no home in the Dem party any longer. That's why people like Trump and others of his ilk have switched party affiliations, not because they became more conservative, but that the Dems have become less tolerant of casual racism and are more willing to call people out on that bull shit than they used to be.

That's true to a degree but it also applies to the longtime Republicans who became MAGA Republicans.

Most people in this country are Democrats or Democrat leaning Independents. Unfortunately, that doesn't mean much when the MAGA Republicans control the small population states that elect small-minded Republicans to the Senate which keeps the Democrats from exercising control thanks to the Jim Crow era filibuster that still reigns supreme in their chambers.

I've read many people who say that people get more conservative as they age, but in practice, that isn't really true. A lot of what forms a person's political identity is formed in their teens and twenties. They don't magically change as they age. I think this myth is a byproduct of the fact that we've mostly seen the last of the boomers who've realigned politically because they were always a touch racist, but it wasn't until the last quarter century or so where their racism has been rejected by Democrats and thus they find no home in the Dem party any longer. That's why people like Trump and others of his ilk have switched party affiliations, not because they became more conservative, but that the Dems have become less tolerant of casual racism and are more willing to call people out on that bull shit than they used to be.

Magilla, I'm not going to respond to your post point for point. I'll just say I'm observing different things than you are. I'm observing a lot of grievance from the Millennials (towards Zoomers and towards the world at large) I know both in Los Angeles and Arizona, both first hand and in my feed. It really concerns me. Are they all going to vote Republicans in 2024? No. But the first of them began to do so in 2016 and 2020 in my life and it's shocking me.

I'll also add something that I really should have added to my original post and it's the only thing that gives me hope: the Millennials in my life are divided into the disappointments that I've discussed above and those who have been so activated by Trump and the right-wing's attack on civil liberties that they are blue no matter who for life. That number should be substantially higher and that is what is so frustrating.

Sabin, how do you get another Trump term out of the article you're referencing?

J.J. McCullogh is a Canadian You-Tuber and satirist. He is talking about millennials turning conservative in a decade or two down the road when they're in their 50s and beyond. That may be, but they're not going to vote for Trump in sufficient enough numbers to put him back in the White House in 2024.

I never heard anyone of any age use any of those four phrases, not even the old coots I know in their 80s and 90s, and certainly not millennials.

1. Who are the kids today who are too self-righteous and judgmental? That's something I would ascribe to a good portion of the middle-aged me-too movement, not the "kids".

2. Many people believe that all politicians are corrupt and uninspiring. Most Republicans and some Democrats prove that every day.

3. Donald Trump is worse than most people think.

4. People have always had nostalgia for the past, but few would give up the advances in medicine, technology, and other things we have today to return to "the good old days". That's a pre-World War I phrase, not something anyone has used in the last 100 or more years.

This is something I've been experiencing from those around me.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... t-wingers/

This guy gets it right. I encounter so many people who parrot exactly these phrases, with special emphasis on the fourth one (which I definitely hold most culpable).

1. The kids today are too self-righteous and judgmental.
2. The Democratic Party is corrupt and uninspiring.
3. Donald Trump wasn’t nearly as bad as everyone said.
4. I miss the good old days.

My question is whether this is a movement or a moment. I'm praying it's a moment and there are plenty of boogie-men this cohort, including but not limited to fading from the zeitgeist. Issue for issue, the Millennials I speak to remain center-left to left-wing. It's just that everything has been consumed by personality not principle and it's easier to participate in culture war bullshit. Assuming that the republic will persist beyond another Trump term (and most days I do), they'll swing back into the fold once they experience the inevitable financial toll that 8-12 years of Republican policy will wreak on their wallets in the end. To put it another way, they're all very lucky to be too young to have experienced the fullest effects of George W. Bush's policies on their wallet as well as too nostalgic for their youth under Bush to carry the lesson they saw but did not feel with them forward in life. To which I say: good, fuck 'em.

Heksagon wrote:How high are the odds that Marcos will finish his entire term?

I'm hearing some rumors that there's a very distinct possibility that he may not even start it. Sara Duterte (daughter of Rodrigo Duterte) is currently leading as Vice President (VP is voted separately here). There are pending disqualification cases against Marcos in the Commission on Elections and the courts. It's wholly possible that he would be disqualified and as the winning VP, Sara Duterte would take over as President. Over here, Presidents get only one six-year term. But if this happens to Sara, she could run for re-election and get another six-year term and she could be president for as long as 12 years. This might have been the plan all along.

How high are the odds that Marcos will finish his entire term?

The outlook isn't good anywhere. If the inflation and cost of living keeps increasing, it will be difficult for establishment parties to convince working class people to vote for them, no matter how corrupt, incompetent or "illiberal" the opposition is. In a lot of places people are already upset with the establishment parties after the last depression. Frustratingly, just when the employment numbers start looking better, the cost of living is taking off.

Pray for my country (or let me move to yours). The Philippines just put a Marcos back in power.

Big Magilla wrote
I never paid any attention to Meghan McCain. I found her shrill and annoying. Didn't realize she was as bad as all that.

I'm not remotely surprised. She's just awful. I watched a little bit of The View during the Trump years. She clearly doesn't know what the hell she's talking about and just reads briefly off the cards they give her.

taki15 wrote
He picked her because he wanted to win and she (theoretically) gave him a chance unlike the other picks (Pawlenty, Romney) who gave him none.
That was of course before he learned, along with everyone else, that she was a publicity-hungry ignoramus.

I remember vaguely that McCain wanted to choose Joe Lieberman but there were some fears that his selection would result in a floor fight at the convention or a third party conservative party run. I could be wrong about that. Palin shored up his base but lost independents and moderates. I'm not sure if John McCain would have done better against Obama with Lieberman by his side, but it would've doubled-down on his message more which is probably a good thing. Certainly, we'd all be better off today.

taki15 wrote:

Big Magilla wrote:I never paid any attention to Meaghan McCain. I found her shrill and annoying. Didn't realize she was as bad as all that.

I wonder why the McCain-Putin connection never saw the light of day before. I knew of course that the Russians tried to infiltrate our government before Trump but never knew they got that close. Schmidt says that it was a Putin operative who was in charge of picking Palin for McCain's VP but doesn't say why McCain went along with it.

He picked her because he wanted to win and she (theoretically) gave him a chance unlike the other picks (Pawlenty, Romney) who gave him none.
That was of course before he learned, along with everyone else, that she was a publicity-hungry ignoramus.

Yes, that's the conventional wisdom, but knowing she was the pick of the Kremlin should have given him pause.

Big Magilla wrote:I never paid any attention to Meaghan McCain. I found her shrill and annoying. Didn't realize she was as bad as all that.

I wonder why the McCain-Putin connection never saw the light of day before. I knew of course that the Russians tried to infiltrate our government before Trump but never knew they got that close. Schmidt says that it was a Putin operative who was in charge of picking Palin for McCain's VP but doesn't say why McCain went along with it.

He picked her because he wanted to win and she (theoretically) gave him a chance unlike the other picks (Pawlenty, Romney) who gave him none.
That was of course before he learned, along with everyone else, that she was a publicity-hungry ignoramus.

I never paid any attention to Meaghan McCain. I found her shrill and annoying. Didn't realize she was as bad as all that.

I wonder why the McCain-Putin connection never saw the light of day before. I knew of course that the Russians tried to infiltrate our government before Trump but never knew they got that close. Schmidt says that it was a Putin operative who was in charge of picking Palin for McCain's VP but doesn't say why McCain went along with it.

The rallying cry of the left now is over Amy Coney Barrett's flippant and repeated exhortation to pregnant women to "do your nine" and donate to the "domestic supply of infants" instead of having abortions. It is now as infamous as Mitt Romney's "binders full of women" remark and anything that Trump ever said. It's incensed more women than Alito's leaked opinion. Kate McKinnon's Coney Barrett on Saturday Night Live last night is already the most celebrated takedown of an esteemed Republican woman since Tina Fey "could see Russia from her house" as Sarah Palin.