OT: SNL's New Season Begins
-
ecarle — 9 years ago(October 24, 2016 07:55 AM)
The "pet bloopers." Laughing very, very hard at the shot of the one cat "watching a horrible murder" and the other cat "being prepared for the morgue."
I guess so but it just compiling a few youtube cat clips struck me as not much of of a sketch.
In the interest of "comity," and because you are kind enough to respond to these things, I shall agree to disagree on every sketch except the above.
Because, the first time I saw it, I laughed until I had the proverbial tears in my eyes(harder and harder to achieve these days), and then I showed it to other people and it got the same result, AND I've "analyzed it" to the point where I realize it carries(for me, just for me), that incisive comedy writing that SNL used to have under some writers whose names I can't remember now, other than Jack Handy.
The gag, to me, is that while "Ron Howard"(Hanks) is trying to get his rather ominous female French guests to offer "funny" narration of THEIR cat shots, they turn THEIR cat shots into grim and macabre nightmares or lowlife tales:
One cat is "watching a serial killer commit his crime, the victim cries for mercy but the cat , she cannot bring herself to help."
One cat is "starving under the neglect of his deadbeat dad, as the father cavorts with whores across the street and the child begs for care."
A dog walking around in a supermarket on two feet (funny enough as it is) is "trying to walk away as my owner has been stabbed in the back room, and this will look bad for me, as I am on parole. Worse, I believe my owner is still breathing, even as he was split down the middle."
And one cat lying motionless on its back(sleeping in real life, no doubt), gets the narration "theez one eez being prepared for ze morgue."
The cuts to Hanks reacting to these remarks, and the accent humor seals the deal for me.
As I've noted before, I'm not sure SNL has spent its decades delivering consistent comedy greatness, but enough stuff has scored to make it worth the w while.
My only concern with this cat sketch which was borderline "one of the greats" for me is that SNL will figure that out and start doing it over and over and over. Though they may have a problem finding enough weird clips of cats and dogs.
On Lady Gaga, I defer to your critical expertise and for the rest:
"Its only a TV show." -
swanstep — 9 years ago(October 24, 2016 10:34 PM)
I guess so but it just compiling a few youtube cat clips struck me as not much of of a sketch.
In the interest of "comity," and because you are kind enough to respond to these things, I shall agree to disagree on every sketch except the above.
Because, the first time I saw it, I laughed until I had the proverbial tears in my eyes(harder and harder to achieve these days), and then I showed it to other people and it got the same result, AND I've "analyzed it" to the point where I realize it carries(for me, just for me), that incisive comedy writing that SNL used to have under some writers whose names I can't remember now, other than Jack Handy.
The gag, to me, is that while "Ron Howard"(Hanks) is trying to get his rather ominous female French guests to offer "funny" narration of THEIR cat shots, they turn THEIR cat shots into grim and macabre nightmares or lowlife tales:
Fair enough. I guess that everything you say is in there (and more). Maybe I'm just in a rotten mood right now - maybe the election and all its grim humor has ruined scripted comedy for me for a while! I watched the Simpsons Halloween ep. for the first time in ages this week.and it struck me as almost anti-funny. Maybe my sense of humor is on the fritz, or, rather, Colbert (who's finally got his CBS show on track in this election season), John Oliver, Samantha Bee and other cynicism-mongers maybe are using all all my LOLs or Lulz as the kids often type these days.
On Lady Gaga, I defer to your critical expertise
Oh, no real expertise - I just find her song-writing kind of laborious and her voice lacking in feel/expression (the meta-message of 'Look at me!' is all I end up hearing). But these are strongly personal judgments. Nobody has to agree with me! -
ecarle — 9 years ago(October 30, 2016 04:07 PM)
Ha!
Could happen.
But its known that SNL usually does three live ones in a row and then runs a repeatand they broke that tradition(as they have in the past in Presidential election autumns) to do four in a row and THEN run a repeat(Margot Robbie.)
And a different update: Hanks' "Inferno" has tanked in its US debut which seems to have been expected. I've seen the trailer at theaters many times this fall and it never seems very exciting even with the concept of a villain out to kill half the world' population. I think the key is that the "Da Vinci' series has never seemed plotted like "real thrillers" are. The mix of art history and theology goes other places. And Hanks character isn't exactly Jack Reacher, if you get my drift.
I'll hold to my speculation that Hanks did this one because the payday was huge. Its no skin off his back if no one sees this. But of course, "hopes for the international market are strong." I don't think there are flops anymore, just levels of financial success.
I did read this: "Inferno" gives director Ron Howard a dangerous four-flops-in-a-row. It remains fascinating that Ron Howard could rise high enough in Hollywood to win one of those Best Director Oscars that Hitchcock never got, but it looks like Opie's running out of luck.
But Howard might spring back. His Oscar for "A Beautiful Mind"(which shares a lot with Psycho, except no horror) came three years after he produced the flop that was Van Sant's Psycho. -
ecarle — 9 years ago(November 07, 2016 02:53 PM)
or however you spell it.
The episode was immeasurably helped by the appearances, within minutes of each other on Weekend Update of "Church Lady"(Dana Carvey) and Bill Murray(with some Chicago Cubs as a glee club with great backup singers; Bill's from Chicago himself.)
One was reminded of the sweep of SNL across four decades Carvey was the long-ago 80's and Murray even further back, ALMOST the beginning, 1976-1977. (When he came aboard in Year Two for Chevy Chase, he was resented for awhile.)
And can I declare it now: when all is said and done, Bill Murray will likely stand as THE Saturday Night Live star of the era unless it goes another great 40 years.
Eddie Murphy, was, for a time, the biggest movie superstar launched from the show, but he eventually crashed and burned as a movie star. Adam Sandler has had a longer run, but rather sputtering, as a major star, with no really great works(oh, Punch Drunk Love maybe, but its little seen).
Murray was a superstar for awhile(Caddyshack/Stripes/Tootsie/Ghostbusters peak), but then Murray sidestepped into "ultra-cool old guy" character man status(of a movie he did with Bruce Willis for Wes Anderson, Murray said "Well, Bruce is a movie star. I USED to be a movie star.")
Moreover, Bill Murray less one start-up year of SNL that really doesn't feel like SNL goes back to the roots of the show. Belushi is gone. Gilda Radner is gone. Chevy Chase and Dan Ackroyd are irrelevant. Murray has gone the distance.Dana Carvey, btw, is promoting some new something or other. Cable show? Streaming show? I heard him on the radio the other day. Good for him. That poor fellow he had heart bypass surgery when he was young, and the doctor found out he operated on the WRONG artery it had to be done all over again. Yikes.
I'm pretty sure Murray put in an earlier appearance, in the Times Square street, as "Hillary Clinton"(Kate MacKinnon) and "Donald Trump"(Alec Baldwin) tried to hug people and Murray was shown wearing a "Trump that Bch" shirt.
Though actually, Baldwin and MacKinnon opted to play themselves in this segment, throwing off the "gross" characters they were playing and trying to make us happy after this rock-bottom campaign season.
I rather liked host Benedict's advice about the election: "Do what we do in Englanddrink! A lot!"
Can't say the sketches sent me except for the one in which the grandmother was dead while being dry-humped by male strippers. "Weekend at Bernie's" never gets old; nor "The Trouble With Harry" for that matter.
The "cool toilet" was funny. (Benedict sitting and facing backwards on a toilet so he could fold his arms on the bowl unit and act cool this is EXACTLY how Martin Balsam posed for his Arbogast cast photo which I've only seen once; there, I found a Psycho connection.)
SNL manages to get fairly funny toilet humor. Years ago that had "side by side his and her toilets" for man and wife to sit facing each other. Of course, the issue is: women sit for two uses, men only sit for one. So it was gross to see the man sitting there.
And even farther back: Guest Host Harvey Keitel did a bit where, at a restaurant, he goes in to sit on the toilet(waist below the shot) and finds his every need attended to by an attendant who stands right next to him and the toilet.
All that said and the toilet aspects of Psycho duly noted I'm not big on toilet humor.
That's all I got on this one.
Next week's host: the return of the long-lost Dave Chappelle. -
swanstep — 9 years ago(November 07, 2016 04:52 PM)
I rather liked host Benedict's advice about the election: "Do what we do in Englanddrink! A lot!"
I was suprised that Cumberbatch wasn't given more of a monologuesurely, for example, he has some Brit-advice that could be both interesting and funny stemming from the shock of the Brexit-referendum. These days. almost everybody it seems gets to do a musical # for most their monologue rather than a bit of quasi-stand up. But I would have thought that mister hyper-verbal Cumberbatch is absolutely candidate for the latter.
Effectively, too, the monologue song was a goof on Cumberbatch as a kind of Barry White for Nerd-girlswhich was also much of the content of the first couple of sketches. This was SNL stepping all over itself again in my view.
Can't say the sketches sent me except for the one in which the grandmother was dead while being dry-humped by male strippers. "Weekend at Bernie's" never gets old; nor "The Trouble With Harry" for that matter.
I was highly criticial of the sketches on Tom Hanks's ep a few weeks back.but this ep. showed I was way too harsh. Truly dire stuff this week, no 'Weekend at Bernies' exception!
I do like SNL's Putin though! That guy's got a job for the next 4 years if Trump wins and maybe in any case. -
ecarle — 9 years ago(November 07, 2016 06:52 PM)
I was highly criticial of the sketches on Tom Hanks's ep a few weeks back.
There seem to be some internet mags out there that might just be PAID or something(I'm just sayin') to promote certain things each week on SNL as "good." The Hanks episode was singled out for his "David Pumpkins" character and for the game show that showed Trumpsters and Black Lives Matter folks to have more in common than you'd think.
No such article about the Cumberbatch show, though.
this ep. showed I was way too harsh. Truly dire stuff this week, no 'Weekend at Bernies' exception!
Fair enough. I didn't LOVE it, but I liked it.
I worry we won't make it through this SNL season, swanstep. These episodes are about as good as that show seems to get anymore. Though I vaguely remember a pretty good Woody Harrelson episode last year.
Interesting to me: sometimes SNL scores by bringing back former "funny cast members" and doing former "funny routines." I wonder who will come back this time?
All this said, I have been watching SNL for decades now, and I recall many much funnier sketches in the 80's and 90's, let alone the 70's, than we're getting nowadays. For different reasons, cast members like Chris Guest, Billy Crystal, David Spade, Phil Hartman, Chris Farley and (a personal favorite) Cheri Oteri just had the goods to make us laugh, in sketches well-written enough to "sell." Hosts like Chris Walken and Alec Baldwin were hilarious.
Walken, I hear, is kinda banned from the show; but I loved him on an anniversary special asking Tom Hanks, "Tell mehow do you do those crazy-make-em-ups on this show."
Chris Walken saying "Crazy make-em-ups" has to be seen.
Today, I think if you subtract the political parodies and the Update jokes from SNLits in very desperate straits practically every week in terms of sketches. Though Kate MacKinnon and some others still got the goods. Off to the movies with HER.
I shan't abandon ship though! I've come a few decades with SNL. I'll go a few more.
I do like SNL's Putin though! That guy's got a job for the next 4 years if Trump wins and maybe in any case.
Beck Bennett. He seems to have come single-handedly to SNL from those phone commercials where he talked in great seriousness to little kids. He was on my "promising but wasted" list up til now, but they seem to be bringing him up now that Tarem Killian or whatever his name was is gone.
I also think maybe he's gonna for the "good looking guy " slot on the show that was recently given to Jason Sudekis. -
ecarle — 9 years ago(November 11, 2016 08:55 AM)
Interesting to me: sometimes SNL scores by bringing back former "funny cast members" and doing former "funny routines." I wonder who will come back this time?
Kristen Wiig. In a couple of weeks.
I feel like I called it this time. Methinks that whenever Lorne Michaels feels that his new sketches and players aren't cutting it, its time to bring back a veteran with his/her reliable old sketches.
Funny thing about Wiig, though. A few years ago, she was the Big Cheese on SNL and headed for movies, but now she is outshined by Kate MacKinnon..both on SNL and in a big movie together(Ghostbusters.)
That's show biz. -
swanstep — 9 years ago(November 11, 2016 09:19 PM)
Funny thing about Wiig, though. A few years ago, she was the Big Cheese on SNL and headed for movies, but now she is outshined by Kate MacKinnon..both on SNL and in a big movie together(Ghostbusters.)
HmmOne thing that can never be taken awayn from Wiig is that she starred in and co-wrote Bridesmaids, which made a ton of money (the biggest comedy for an SNL alum since Austin Powers - which reminds me, what the hell has happened to Mike Myers' career?) and lots of people think it's the most significant comedy of the millennium - opening up comedy for women in a way that hadn't been achieved before.
We'll see on MacKinnon. Her Ghostbusters schtick did nothing for me (Leslie Jones and McCarthy were my MVPs)
I wonder who's going to do President Trump? They'll need a regular. Surely Alec Baldwin won't commit for whole seasons? -
ecarle — 9 years ago(November 12, 2016 07:51 AM)
HmmOne thing that can never be taken awayn from Wiig is that she starred in and co-wrote Bridesmaids, which made a ton of money (the biggest comedy for an SNL alum since Austin Powers
I did not KNOW that. Though I will note in passing that Melissa McCarthy made her name in that one, too; I remember seeing it and thinking "Well, whaddya know, they came up with a female Bluto."- which reminds me, what the hell has happened to Mike Myers' career?)
He certainly had the superstar thing going for awhile. Two franchises Wayne's World(from SNL, but actually funny) and Austin Powers but evidently he had a bit of a mental breakdown, lost his marriage, and dropped out.
And yet, there he was, oddly "straight" as a British character in "Inglorious Basterds"(acting with Rod Taylor as Chuchill yet), and he did a great new "Wayne's World" sketch on the 40th Anniversay SNL special.
Here's hoping he gets his mind straight and comes back. We need Austin Powers to go back to the 80's!
and lots of people think it's the most significant comedy of the millennium - opening up comedy for women in a way that hadn't been achieved before.
Well, OKI remember all the buzz, and I've seen the picture and it made me laugh.
But Wiig didn't really ride the wave from it.
I recall seeing her in a perfectly straight small role in "The Martian" and thinking: "THIS is gonna be her career?"
We will see.
Same with MacKinnon, too. Ghostbusters flopped and now Kate doesn't have her Hillary gig for much longer.
We'll see on MacKinnon. Her Ghostbusters schtick did nothing for me (Leslie Jones and McCarthy were my MVPs)
Umm..well, I liked her. It was the movie I hated.
I wonder who's going to do President Trump? They'll need a regular. Surely Alec Baldwin won't commit for whole seasons?
I think I read somewhere that he committed to do Trump for one full season "just in case".
Should Baldwin drop out, they have former cast member Darrell Hammond(who did a great, boorish Trump in the 00's) on board. He took over Trump from Tarem Killian last seasoneverybody knew "Darrell was the best one" so they brought Darrell back in and dumped Killian. Darrell's also better, IMHO, at Trump than Baldwin. But Darrell Hammond has indicated a need to escape SNL except for one thinghe's been the announcer's voice at the beginning ever since Don Pardo died.
- which reminds me, what the hell has happened to Mike Myers' career?)
-
swanstep — 9 years ago(November 13, 2016 08:05 AM)
Hallelujah indeed, this was an all killer no filler episode - easily the best since The Rock last season. Chappelle was great throughout but his opening monologue was one of the show's best ever. Tribe called Quest slayed with both their numbers and overall this felt like the 'blackest' SNL ep. ever. Skeptics might say they turned SNL into The Chappelle Show (he's back baby and will be able to write his own ticket for a series on the network of his choice after this), which they won't be able to reproduce.but that's a problem for another day. For this night, however, SNL felt urgent, whip-smart, cutting-edge, down-and-dirty, and funny-as-hell. 10/10.
-
ecarle — 9 years ago(November 14, 2016 10:02 PM)
Hallelujah indeed, this was an all killer no filler episode - easily the best since The Rock last season. 10/10.
Well, we are on the Psycho board, "home of the twist ending." I felt you had about given up on SNL swanstep. 10/10? Wow.
And they've got Kristen Wiig coming next week with some funny old characters in tow(well, I never thought a lot of her characters were funny, but many did.)
Chappelle was great throughout but his opening monologue was one of the show's best ever.
They've given their ace stand-ups(Louis K comes to mind, Chapelle this time) "extra time" to really roll with their monologues its not the hard duty with a musical number that most "actor only" hosts have to endure.
Some years ago, Mr. Chapelle famously hit big and dropped out; I don't know the full story. But he seems to be back and ready to go. At the sign-off at the end, he spoke of a comeback soI guess he's ready.
Tribe called Quest slayed with both their numbers and overall this felt like the 'blackest' SNL ep. ever.
I recall that it was only two seasons ago that SNL debuted with about 6 new white guys. Complaints were issued. They hired one black female who is still on the show but barely used now that they've had a break-out star in Leslie Jones. But meanwhilethey have the African-American thing well covered from time to time. As with this episode. And Chris Rock was this week's "returnee guest star." Fitting.
Using Chapelle and Rock to "comment" on the disillusioned white people watching the election returns "put some things in context." I thought the references to Slate and Huffington Post made a point..those internet mags tended to make so much fun of Trump for so longand then so pushed an "inevitable Hillary" at the end, that maybe, just maybe, they hurt her chances and raised his. There's never any clear reason why any of this happens. Election Day is it own special thing. But the tone of inevitability sure seems to have backfired. And I knowpopular vote went her way, big. But as long as the Electoral College exists, these things will happen.
Skeptics might say they turned SNL into The Chappelle Show (he's back baby and will be able to write his own ticket for a series on the network of his choice after this), which they won't be able to reproduce.but that's a problem for another day.
All those characters in the Walking Dead sketch which put this episode into the stratosphere for "honoring what's hot."
For this night, however, SNL felt urgent, whip-smart, cutting-edge, down-and-dirty, and funny-as-hell.
Well, a naturally funny host who pretty much writes his own lines helps. And SNL HAS positioned itself as the "go to" network show for Presidential politics.
Nowwho is gonna play Trump? He was notably absent from this episode -
swanstep — 9 years ago(November 18, 2016 05:34 PM)
Nowwho is gonna play Trump? He was notably absent from this episode
Reportedly Baldwin is back as Trump this weekend. (That can't be the permanent solution, but I wouldn't mind betting that Baldwin will continue to do the odd special episode.) -
ecarle — 9 years ago(November 20, 2016 08:33 PM)
I haven't watched my taped version yet, but yeahBaldwin came back. Insultingly about Trump, from what I've read.
Trump tweeted insults at SNL: "The show is unfunny and biased."
Baldwin tweeted insults back at Trump.
Welcome to 21st Century politics.
I see some irony here: many modern critics(and occasionally you, swanstep, and occasionally me) DO see the modern incarnation of SNL as "unfunny" and not on par with its illustrious past.
But now that it is a "political football" watch SNL get extolled from coast to coast as a great comedy program under unfair fire from a thin-skinned President-elect.
My inclination is to "close down my political blog," but it seems to me that we are about to enter a new incarnation of an old era: the political scene as a never-ending fight to the death. We've been here before. Nixon. Bill Clinton. And yes, recently, Obama. It never ends. It is what it is. But with Twitter, it can be all nasty, all the time.
Even as most people simply go about their lives. Half of America didn't vote in this election.
When I see this week's SNL, I'll try to say something. But I dunnoI feel like its been hijacked by the ugliness of our times. -
swanstep — 9 years ago(November 20, 2016 10:19 PM)
Even as most people simply go about their lives. Half of America didn't vote in this election.
It's anomalous how few people vote in the US. Every other advanced democracy has much higher voter participation rates.
There were a few good gags on SNL this week: mostly the pre-taped inserts on 'Life In The Bubble' (which could be understood as an anti-anti-Trump gag) and a fake Target ad offering itself as a respite from family on Thanksgiving. (As I've mentioned before, post-Election Thanksgivings in the US blew my mind: it's like the whole country gets to live through the same, but personalized for them SNL skit/ep. from Seinfeld.)
Kristen Wiig looked like she was auditioning for her SNL job back. She was good bouncing off MacKinnon in Cats R We, and looming as a crazy Macy's Parade balloon, and as panel member in a CNN/Anderson 360 bit (which could again be understood as an anti-anti-Trump bit).
None of the Trump stuff in the cold open or in Update, however, was particularly funny or good. -
ecarle — 9 years ago(November 21, 2016 05:47 AM)
It's anomalous how few people vote in the US. Every other advanced democracy has much higher voter participation rates.
I can only guess, I would assume there is some research somewhere.
Perhaps the size and population within a "free society" where people aren't forced to do anything political simply allows millions to opt out. The "only two candidates" finale can leave you with two that a lot of people simply didn't want(Trump and Clinton in this case; both had huge cases made against them) and so they don't vote.
But that "two candidates only" finale also gives us what's happening now: the sudden sainthood of the loser IN losing; SNL spent two years portraying Hillary Clinton as a heartless ambition-robot and turned her into a thwarted saint with that "Hallelujah" number.
I'm a bit amused by some screeds against those who didn't vote "You cannot join the dialogue on what is about to happen." As if it was one's civic duty to pick between two awful choices and thus endorse one of them. In America, you have the right to take a hike on the whole thing. You don't have to join the dialogue.
There were a few good gags on SNL this week: mostly the pre-taped inserts on 'Life In The Bubble' (which could be understood as an anti-anti-Trump gag)
I haven't seen the show yet, but I've been reading "post mortems" and that bit certainly seems to show a satirical even-handedness on SNL's part.
and a fake Target ad offering itself as a respite from family on Thanksgiving. (As I've mentioned before, post-Election Thanksgivings in the US blew my mind: it's like the whole country gets to live through the same, but personalized for them SNL skit/ep. from Seinfeld.)
Hah. I've generally had OK holidays like that in my life; folks lived so far away from each other that just seeing family overtook politics and family feuds. I guess I was lucky.Kristen Wiig looked like she was auditioning for her SNL job back.
I think two or three of them did come back over the years, as permanent cast members again. I guess she could if somebody really wanted the deal to be made.
Wiig may be running into the Dan Ackroyd problem: much funnier with a much greater range of characters to play on the TV series; rather diluted and hard to make an impression in movies. I'll exclude "Bridesmaids" from this analysis, but as for some directors and male stars, sometimes that one big hit can't keep the rest of your career going.
She was good bouncing off MacKinnon in Cats R We, and looming as a crazy Macy's Parade balloon, and as panel member in a CNN/Anderson 360 bit (which could again be understood as an anti-anti-Trump bit).
None of the Trump stuff in the cold open or in Update, however, was particularly funny or good.
Some of this sounds funny, some not. Sounds like good ol' SNL to me.
Also, it occurs to me: Trump did win(in the Electoral College, where it counts, if not in the popular vote, which will feed rage for decades, which is the American Way.) Perhaps SNL feels like making sure that the opposition is properly mocked, too. No favoritism; even-steven. -
swanstep — 9 years ago(November 21, 2016 04:15 PM)
Also, it occurs to me: Trump did win(in the Electoral College, where it counts, if not in the popular vote, which will feed rage for decades, which is the American Way.)
Hillary's popular vote lead is up to 1.7 million now (more than triple the edge Gore had over Bush).
When you do the math it turns out that (even without expanding the number of candidates), in principle, the electoral college system could give the presidency to someone who only won about 22% of the vote (i.e., if a candidate won in a squeaker in the minimum number of states for an EC victory, and got literally no votes elsewhere. (If there were 3+ competitive candidates in the 'squeaker states' then there's no limit to how low the popular vote share could go with which someone could win the Presidency.)
Moreover, the electoral college system gives the presidency to whoever gets a majority in the EC (not just whoever gets the most EC votes). But we could easily imagine a future there where three or more candidates get significant numbers of votes in the EC, where nobody ever gets a majority there. In that case every presidential election would get decided by the House of Reps (forming a special 50 member sub-house), and that House could decide to not to elect a candidate who got the most popular votes and had the most votes in the EC. Something like that could happen every time in future.
And if the future (not implausibly) also had 3+ parties with large numbers of reps in the House then the selection of the sub-House would become very difficult, and in any case a majority (which is what the US Constitution calls for) in the special sub-House could be impossible to get. At that point the Constitution does not say what should happen, who should be president. Brilliant.
Basically, when you work it through, this whole side of the US Constitution is a mess: it's not future-proofed, it isn't even present-proofed. The founders just didn't think this side of things through at all well. They' didn't even really predict or allow for the emergence of political parties - they thought every learned gentleman in the House and the Senate would and should be an independent free-thinker not the member of any faction. By as early as 1800 this was seen to be a mistake.
But, look, there are lots of states in the country that now that pack almost all their voters of one party into a few districts. E.g., Pennylvania is a roughly 50/50 Dem/Repub state but since 2010 its House delegation has been 5 Dems, 13 Repubs. The US electoral system at every level allows for these kind of distortions, and by now the system has been truly gamed so that it produces those distortions and massive illicit partisan advantage they represent every time.
If Madison and Hamilton were here today they'd be appalled that their descendants have all this additional experience and analytical machinery to spot their mistakes and yet so little of their political will to try to correct those mistakes, generally do better. -
ecarle — 9 years ago(November 21, 2016 05:26 PM)
If Madison and Hamilton were here today they'd be appalled that their descendants have all this additional experience and analytical machinery to spot their mistakes and yet so little of their political will to try to correct those mistakes, generally do better.
Well it seems to this layman that the law of unintended consequences is at work bigtime.
250 years ago or so isn't THAT long ago in the history of the world; the Constitution is probably closer to its roots in time than it seems. But of course, the timeline accelerated in the 20th Century to bring in jet planes, rockets and computers.
So many things require fixin' via changes to the Constitution. Perhaps the Founding Fathers maybe figured out that their best bet for the future was to make it VERY hard to make changes to it, no matter what the future holds.
So "alternative routes" must be found.
In the internet magazine and 24/7 cable age, I'm almost detecting a glee at the chance to wage warfare(though supposedly "non-lethal") with Trump over the results of this election a "resistance" has been declared, and I'm thinking its gonna be a lot of fun for some people who like that sort of thing.
I mean, Congress has been rigged "not to work" for about a decade now. Its as if the accepted means of governmental authority have been paralyzed on purpose. Time to "rumble" to get things done?
One big question I have about the Electoral College is: are these EC/popular vote splits now going to be more common?
It seems to me that many elections since, say, Nixon vs Kennedy, have often been landslide things: LBJ, Nixon the second time, Reagan, Clinton the second time, Obama, etc. When your race is "clear cut," the EC doesn't come so much into play.
But when the nation is seen to be "split in half, 50/50" in some way, EC troubles begin. Its happened twice in 16 years; when was the last time BEFORE 2000?
Its benefitted the Reps twice in 16 years so they won't move to fix it.
But like I say..alternative means.
Meanwhile, back to the Twitter universe:
Trump tweeted his insults at SNL and Alec Baldwin. Baldwin tweeted back a rather measured response, but SNL comic Pete Davidson's tweet back at Trump is evidently "Never been prouder. F you, Btch!"
And so, a modern President is now swapping profane insults over Twitter with an NBC comedian.
It took us a long time to reach this point. Its gonna take us a long time to move on from it. But maybe we never do -
swanstep — 9 years ago(November 21, 2016 07:17 PM)
It seems to me that many elections since, say, Nixon vs Kennedy, have often been landslide things: LBJ, Nixon the second time, Reagan, Clinton the second time, Obama, etc. When your race is "clear cut," the EC doesn't come so much into play.
But even in case when the victory is clear-cut the EC (or any system like it) distorts the margin of victory.
E.g. 1, In 1984 Reagan got about 59% of the popular vote so a huge 59:41 or roughly 3:2 victory. But in the EC, Reagan won 49 states or 525:13 electoral college votes. That makes the basic political situation in the country looks much more one-sided than it really was, which encouraged arrogance and over-reaching
or:
E.g. 2 UK election in 2001. Tony Blair's Labour party only got 40.7% of the vote (of a US horrible level turnout of only just under 60% eligible voters) but they won 413/659 = a landslide majority of seats in parliament. Blair goes on to think and talk as though he'd got some sort of super-duper-mandate to do all sorts of blimin' nonsense when his true support in the country was only 40.7% (and really only 40.7% of 60% = 25% tops!).
Electoral systems that aggregate the results of winnner-takes-all mechanisms in separate districts just do produce distortions that do damage to a democracy even when they don't actually get the flat-out wrong answer.
E.g. 3. Pennsylvania's Federal House elections 2012 and 2016. Dems got >50% of the votes but only 5/18 reps in 2012, which seemed clearly to be the wrong answer. In 2016 Repubs got >50% of the votes and the Dems something like 48%. From a certain perspective there's no 'wrong answer' this time, the Repubs 'won' so they should get a majority of the House reps for the state. Still, the size of the majority produced is wrong. Really both cases are about equally bad: the Dems have about 50% support each time and are stuck with only getting 5/18 of their House delegation regardless. Repubs in Pennsylvania get to crow nauseatingly about how they are landslide-winners, use the powers of incumbency to further tilt the state in their direction at other levels of govt, and so on.
If people don't wise up about this sort of stuff, it's not going to stop. Rather, orse and worse results should be expected as systems well-known, myriad weaknesses get exposed and exploited more and more profoundly.