Eight years ago, progressives and liberals rallied behind an eloquent first-term senator who called himself a “skinny guy with a funny name.” Barack Obama won hearts and united the left like never before. He was to be our first black president and would succeed in rescuing the country from eight disastrous years under President George W. Bush. Bush had been selected by Florida’s Secretary of State (under the then governor, Jeb Bush, W’s brother) and a 5-4 decision from our conservative Supreme Court. Al Gore had won the popular vote but they handed it to Bush. We went to war with Iraq and Afghanistan, a catastrophic vendetta disguised as retribution for 9/11. Wall Street collapsed under the weight of greed and lack of Federal regulation. The economy tanked 5 months before Bush slipped out the back exit. Things could not have gotten much worse for Americans who had become accustomed to a well oiled empire. Obama came in to take the country in a different direction, or so the narrative went anyway. Obama’s supporters came from far and wide, from all sides of the liberal spectrum. He had the African-American vote, no question. He had the moderate liberal vote. He fired up the progressives, who seemed to believe he could single-handedly do things that no president can ever actually do in office. No one expected President Obama would have to confront the most hostile Congress in US history. That hostility created continual roadblocks to his platform of hope, change and reform. Obama had to act outside Congress on many things, thus got called a tyrant and a fascist. They called him a liar during his State of the Union Address. By the end of his second term our American government would consist of a Democrat in the White House in lone opposition to a Republican Congress and Republican-leaning Supreme Court.
With the Supreme Court finally making gay marriage legal, and trying to finally convince stubborn Republicans that the Affordable Care Act is here to stay, there is much upset on the conservative side of our country. So much so that the GOP are brewing a perfect storm for an all-out takeover of the U.S. government, with plans to take the presidency, Congress and the Supreme Court. With that kind of alignment of power they could finally enact all the legislation Obama has stopped them from jamming through. That Presidential VETO vote has been gold these past few years. Historically, two consecutive terms of a Democrat in the White is usually followed by a Republican president in office. That’s largely because the eligible voters who sit out elections every year (a staggering number) begin to feel angry enough to go to the polls to unseat the powers that be.
The Democrats have a formidable frontrunner in Hillary Clinton. She would be, at last, the first female president. She is still polling with higher support than anyone else in the race, Democrat or Republican. But now come the laments of respected trendsetters like Bill Maher on HBO, and more dubious armchair quarterbacks like Jeff Wells at Hollywood Elsewhere. Publicly they claim that they just don’t feel excited about Hillary — and privately they know if her nomination at the Democratic Convention is accepted as a done deal it will never drive conversations, TV panel disputes, site traffic, heated debate or ad money. As answer to their prayers to see a dramatic hero/villain scenario set in motion, Bernie Sanders came along, a good man and self-proclaimed socialist who can boast that he isn’t taking PAC money but is raising his campaign cash the old-fashioned way, with thousands of grassroots donors. Never mind that Hillary has enormous grass-roots support of her own in addition to impressive funding from essential major players. Bernie has positioned himself as the anti-Hillary.
All at once, loud voices on left have begun to attack their own party, with eager assistance from GOP operatives who’ve been continually feeding negative stories about Hillary through leftist Twitter accounts for months, according to the New York Times. Many complacent liberals have taken the bait, hook, line and sinker. Now we not only have Bernie Sanders supporters — we have Hillary Clinton haters on the left to do finish the hatchet job Republicans have been orchestrating ever since they tried to make Benghazi stick. That accomplishes two things. It helps to disillusion less-devoted Democrats, to ensure fewer votes for Hillary Clinton come election time, and it makes the Republicans look good because they can point to wobbly Democrat pundits. The Republican saboteurs no longer have to get their hands dirty trying to ruin her chances because the Democrats are doing it for them. And there is no stopping it now. A barrage of traffic-generating thinky-pieces on Salon, Huffington Post, DailyKos, Matt Taibbi are seeding the discontent, firmly in the Sanders camp, trying to get him, and not Hillary, the nomination next summer.
But those Republicans, they are just getting started. Obama has spent two exhausting terms defending himself against accusations that he was a closet socialist. Now there is a proud self-confessed socialist actually running? This is the GOP’s wet dream. It’s manna from heaven and they know it. Bernie Sanders will need to raise taxes to pay for his elaborate raft of programs and he naturally wants to raise them on the rich. While I personally think is a beautiful thing, because who with any sense of humanity wouldn’t, we all know how most Americans respond to that kind of talk. They hear “taxes” and they assume Democrats want half of everybody’s paycheck to pay for silly things like infrastructure. So yeah, do the math. Not a pretty picture. As John Steinbeck said, “Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
Though, in my worst nightmares, I fear we can pretty much stick a fork in it for Democrats this election cycle — divided we fall — there is hope on the horizon. Young people are fired up for Bernie Sanders, which could mean that further down the road someone as revolutionary as Bernie, might really get elected. No one wants to put a damper the involvement of young voters or their kill their spirit, so cynics like me will have to just hide out in our dark corners and wait for it all to be over. Even though deep down I’m thinking: Please don’t risk another conservative being appointed to the Supreme Court, please don’t let a climate change denier take control of the White House. I personally will fight for whomever gets the nomination but more and more I hear fervent liberals say they will only vote for Bernie Sanders and not for Hillary Clinton. I want to believe that devotion will shift once the dust settles and sensible people weigh the Clinton Dynasty against the Bush Dynasty. But for now, it’s a discouraging and nerve-racking situation. Nicely done, GOP. Nicely done.
Meanwhile, let’s look at how all of this — human nature, voting and campaigning — resembles familiar patterns in the Oscar race.
Early campaigning, candidates announcing = Film Festivals
The same way the presidential race feeds on the manufactured drama of divisive heroes and villains, so does the Oscar race for Best Picture. In 2012, 12 Years a Slave landed with thunderous acclaim in Telluride, was heralded as the de facto Best Picture winner, preordained as it were. That set into motion a divisive awards race that pit Gravity (a billion dollar juggernaut somehow morphed into the scrappy underdog) against 12 Years a Slave (the mean ol’ frontrunner who must be defeated). The pre-nominations phase offers up many opportunities for potential winners. Each film has its own lobbyist, an awards strategist who dutifully works the press, the blogs, twitter, doing damage control. As soon a film seems like a potentially viable contender a really good strategist is attached to it.
From this point, it is a matter of how each option plays in the real world. How did Hillary Clinton play in New Hampshire? How did Bernie Sanders play in Iowa? How did Jeb! Bush play in Texas? How did The Artist play in the Toronto? How did Birdman play at that Academy screening? How did The Wolf of Wall Street play at a special DGA screening? The process is the same.
It is all sunshine and roses until one film is positioned as the winner and one film the underdog. That’s when fickle public opinion can begin to shift.
Campaigning and fundraising – you pay to play with politics and the Oscars.
One of Hillary most potent advantages, like Obama’s last two terms, is her ability to fund-raise amid corruptive forces in the era of Super-PACs. Jeb Bush racked up $100 million in donations before he even announced the official launch of his campaign, exploiting a loophole in the Citizens United decision that says money counts as speech and is therefore covered under the 1st Amendment. Meanwhile, the deep-pocketed Koch brothers are backing Scott Walker who is now polling ahead in Iowa. Needless to say, the GOP have their guys more than covered. Seems every billionaire in America is ready to adopt his very own pet Republican candidate. They won’t be outspent by anyone except maybe Hillary Clinton. With the help of Bill Clinton and perhaps Big Hollywood, Clinton is the only Democrat on the horizon who’s able to compete with those guys — except for the fact that many the left are being fed the nonsense that any big money must be “dirty money.” Obama assembled the same sources of funding, but somehow he was cheered on while Hillary is seen as a MEAN OLD CORPORATE STOOGE for raising lots of fuck-you money.
This is similar to the charges leveled against The Social Network’s ad campaign vs. The King’s Speech in 2010. Somehow, someone got it out there that Sony was spending record amounts of money on the Social Network so that it was insinuated they were trying “to buy” a Best Picture victory. The same thing happened to Lincoln in 2012. As someone who is often the recipient of FYC money I can tell you that it’s really hard to win Best Picture, or even get an Oscar nomination at all, if you don’t pay to play.
The amount of money it costs to launch either a presidential campaign or an Oscar campaign often helps clarify one’s intentions, and by any sane evaluation monetary support should be a measure of confidence. Studios and distributors have to ask themselves do they really want to spent that money? Do they want or need to demonstrate loyalty to their talent? For what reason? To what end? What is in it for them? Likewise, in politics, there is a sense that everyone has a right and a responsibility to get involved in remaking our country with candidates of our own choosing lifted aloft with our own money. Everybody raises it, everybody spends it, but it still comes down to perception. Good guys vs. bad guys (and girls).
Bernie Sanders just sent out an email that reads:
Yesterday afternoon, Jeb Bush announced that a relatively small number of wealthy donors have contributed over one hundred million dollars to his Super PAC.
This is not a democracy. This is oligarchy.
Unfortunately, Jeb Bush is not alone. Almost all of our opponents have embraced this model of fundraising — begging billionaire benefactors who have bought up the private sector to try their hand at buying a presidential election.
One of those Super PACs is already running ads against our campaign.
Let me be clear: I am more than aware our opponents will outspend us, but we are going to win this election. They have the money, but we have the people.
This, before asking for another donation. In the months and days counting down to the election, anyone who’s ever visited a political site will have his or her inbox bombarded with emails asking for money. I’ve already donated, but they will keep asking and asking and asking and begging and begging and begging. Everyone will want something in return. It’s an illusion to think that only corporations are involved. So why do they need so much money? For advertising, of course.
I learned a hard lesson last year when Gone Girl did no advertising for the Oscar race. There was maybe one ad for Rosamund Pike I saw. Without advertising you can’t get nominations. You need to show voters that you want it, and you need to remind them that you’re out there — they need to remember the movie.
In politics, ads shape the message — here is a breakdown of where the money went in 2012. Obama spent $57 million in June to Romney’s $27 million. Of that, Romney only used $39 million for media buys to Obama’s $67 million. You can see that money drives everything. In politics, as with the Oscars.
As we can see by the way liberals are positioning Clinton this year, no one wants to be on the side of corporate money. That’s perception. Maybe Bernie Sanders really is the scrappy underdog that could. He still needs to raise lots and lots of money and without PACS or billionaire patrons he simply can’t compete with Bush or Walker.
Smear Campaigns — works for politics, works for Oscars
One of Hillary Clinton’s best hands to play at this table is that there isn’t much more people can dredge up about her past that hasn’t already been laid out there. She’s still standing. The latest accusation against her was the kerfuffle over private emails, and before that the one word accusation lobbed at her by many people who probably have no idea what it even means: BENGHAZI. Note: As of May 29, 2012, according to the U.S. Department of Defense casualty website, there were 4,425 total deaths (including both killed in action and non-hostile) and 32,223 wounded in action (WIA) as a result of Operation Iraqi Freedom. How many Americans were killed during the terrorist attacks in Benghazi? 4.
Conservatives are continually trying to turn liberals against Hillary. A recent example was this college photo doctored to look like she had a confederate flag in the background. (Source? Our old pal Dinesh D’Souza).
Why try to turn the left against the left? The GOP learned the strategy from the 2012 election:
Conservative strategists and operatives say they are simply filling a vacuum on the far left, as well as applying the lesson they learned in 2012, when they watched in frustration as Mitt Romney was forced to expend time and resources in a protracted primary fight. By the time he secured his party’s nomination, President Obama hardly had to make the case that his opponent was a cold-hearted plutocrat; Republicans like Newt Gingrich had already made the argument for him in the primaries.
Few Republicans are more familiar with that nightmare than Matt Rhoades, who was Mr. Romney’s campaign manager. He founded America Rising in response to a recommendation contained in an autopsy of Romney’s failed presidential run that was ordered by the Republican National Committee. The group’s original goal was to compete with American Bridge, the Democratic opposition research group, but its focus under Mr. Rhoades has been to subject Mrs. Clinton to an ordeal similar to Mr. Romney’s.
“The idea is to make her life difficult in the primary and challenge her from the left,” said Colin Reed, America Rising’s executive director. “We don’t want her to enter the general election not having been pushed from the left, so if we have opportunities — creative ways, especially online — to push her from the left, we’ll do it just to show those folks who she needs to turn out that she’s not in line with them.”
Worked like a charm, at least so far. A similar dynamic played out when Kathryn Bigelow directed Zero Dark Thirty and last year when Ava DuVernay directed Selma. It’s apparently a lot easier to try to undermine someone’s integrity when a woman is in the driver’s seat. The idea that these female directors were irresponsible with their message orignated from the left. Martin Sheen and Ed Asner with Zero Dark Thirty and various journalists attacking Selma. The debate over torture rages on but the so-called Selma scandal was a joke. Doesn’t matter because perception is everything, at the Oscars, in politics and especially during presidential elections.
Voting for the winners – the eternal dilemma of whether to vote with your heart or vote for the winner
Academy voters are always conflicted about whether to vote for a film that has no chance of winning or whether to vote for one of the two or three films that really have a chance. Does your vote count if it’s thrown away just because you voted with your heart? Idealists would say yes. Vote how you want or else the entire system of voting is pointless. While I can’t render an opinion on what Academy members should do (though I would hope their decision goes beyond what they merely “like”), it’s a certainty that elections are always won by those who turn out to vote at all. With the Academy, that means they should at the very least see all of the films. They traditionally have a pretty high turnout when it comes to voting. Unlike many other Americans, Oscar voters know their ballot is a privilege.
Where Americans at large are concerned, things get trickier. Only a little over 50% of the voting age population even votes at all. An estimated 93 million eligible voters dfailed to show up at the ballot booth in 2012. Most of the people who do vote do so because they feel personally invested in something. They care about something. The rest of them dwell in apathy. They’ve checked out of the system because they either think the system is rigged or they don’t think their vote will count. Idealists would tell you that their votes DO count, especially if everyone was required to vote as part of their citizenship. Anyone who has watched the presidential election for several decades might tell you that you should throw your vote behind the one who can win or else risk losing.
Once the Producers Guild announces their winner, the DGA and SAG follow suit — the cumulative weight of those kinds of numbers in the thousands cannot be shaken up with one or two votes here or there. It has become a massive, unshakable consensus since the Academy expanded their Best Picture contenders from five to more than five. The PGA mostly decides Best Picture now.
We’re lucky that in America we have a choice whether or not to vote. We’re lucky we have so many wonderful films to see every year. But the Oscars, like American politics, tend to make the race towards the winner about one or two choices rather than a multitude. I fear that this year the Democrats have already lost the election before we even get started. At the same time I don’t want to disillusion potential young people who are fired up to vote, even if they are ultimately voting for someone who can’t win.
I don’t think any one president can change this country into a liberal utopia. It’s just not possible under the current structure on Capitol Hill, riddled with systemic bureaucratic malady. For me, the choice is clear and the reason why was made crystal clear last month: it’s the Supreme Court, stupid.
![2025 Oscars: Can a Late-Breaker Still Win Best Picture? [POLL]](https://www.awardsdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/gladiator-350x250.jpg)
