What the Left Doesn't Understand About Winning Elections

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (D-NY)

This past week, former First Lady, Secretary of State, and 2016 Democratic Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton tweeted a graphic about the climate plans of Joe Biden and Donald Trump.  In it, you can see that Trump has significantly higher carbon emissions by 2050 than Biden, though neither are currently projecting to their target.  For rational people, the graphic and Clinton's intent is simple: she is showing how Biden is actually trying to improve the climate crisis while Trump ignores it, and also points out that voters have some say in the matter if we want to get to zero emissions.  Biden has been very public about wanting to get zero emissions by 2050; this is, in fact, on his official White House page.  Trump, on the other hand, has publicly backed growing coal production if he is elected.  Two very different plans on a vital issue.

This was not, however, how Twitter reacted, and it was in fact the far left on Twitter who regularly disparaged the graph claiming "there's no difference between the two candidates" despite Clinton's graph clearly illustrating that there is a difference between the two.  This is not a singular phenomenon, nor is it a new one.  Other issues-of-the-day, such as the situation in Gaza, public healthcare, & criminal justice reform are all situations where the left has recently stated "there's no difference between the two candidates...what does it matter?" even when there was clearly a big gap between the two.

As a Democrat my whole life, this is is the single most annoying thing about my party (that, and how we always seem to lose Florida in even the tightest of elections).  We regularly make the perfect the enemy of the good, and as a result, we get neither.  Some will claim this is a Gen Z issue, but it's not-it goes back as far as I can remember.  I recall distinctly in the 2000 election, for example, that people were claiming there was no difference between Bush and Gore that cycle, a profoundly stupid proclamation given both their politics (Bush was considerably more conservative than Gore) and what would happen next (on one side you have An Inconvenient Truth, the other side you have the Iraq War, two polar opposite situations for the planet).  This has frequently been an issue from the young, and that has made it more pronounced now, not just because social media becomes an echo chamber where you're rewarded for having less-nuanced takes, but also because the youth vote continues to be more liberal.  In 1980, Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan received roughly the same percentage of voters under 25; in 2020, Joe Biden beat Donald Trump with voters under 25 by 20-points.  If young voters stay home, Democrats lose.

And low turnout among Democrats cost them elections.  I'll give you an example with the 2014 midterms.  In 2012, Democrats had a 6-point advantage in turnout over the Republicans, with 38D-32R-29I in terms of the electorate.  Mitt Romney actually won Independents slightly over President Obama, but the sheer force of turnout amongst Democrats got Obama a victory in both the popular and electoral votes that year.  If you compare that with 2014, though, you have a situation where the electorate was 36R-35D-28I, a three-point loss for Democrats and a four-point gain for Republicans.  This isn't because the Republicans did a marvelous job in 2014 with turnout, as turnout that cycle was the worst for a presidential midterm since 1942.  No, this happened because more Democrats stayed home, despite President Obama & congressional Democrats trying to persuade progressives to get out the vote by centering the campaign around key issues from the left such as a minimum wage increase, climate change, & same-sex marriage protection, Democrats abandoned their position, and let the Republicans win.  As we would see two years later with the contentious campaign between Hillary Clinton & Bernie Sanders, this showed a serious gap between Democrats who wanted to get as much as what they could from a plausible electorate, and Democrats who would threaten to stay home if they didn't get their specific way.

This causes serious issues.  You all know the story of what happened to Clinton, where a dip in both Democratic turnout (she had an overall two-point drop from Obama, likely enough to cost her Wisconsin, Florida, Pennsylvania, & Michigan, and with that, the election) caused her to lose to Donald Trump (and if you can't see there would've been a difference between a President Clinton and a President Trump at this point, you are beyond repair).  But 2014 is just as important.  Let's assume that the Democrats can get a 4-point swing by just matching the 2012 turnout percentages (that seems roughly in the sweet spot).  Democrats in that case will hold the Senate races in North Carolina, Colorado, & Alaska.  Not quite enough to flip the Senate, but enough to make Mitch McConnell's stop of the Merrick Garland nomination moot.  After all, the Democrats netted two seats in 2016 in the Senate...meaning the Democrats would flip the Senate in 2016 under this scenario, and Neil Gorsuch & Brett Kavanaugh are not able to get confirmed.  Staying home in 2014, making the perfect the enemy of the good in a low-turnout election, cost the Democrats the Supreme Court for decades (also side note given I slammed them earlier-that increase of turnout would've ended Rick Scott's career as he would've lost in 2014 and never run in 2018, meaning Bill Nelson wins again...so two Florida losses prevented in one moment).

Democrats cannot win every election-it's not possible, and quite frankly it shouldn't be possible.  But Democrats frequently leave election victories on the table because they seem to be convinced that winning by inches doesn't count...the only way that it counts is an undisputed, immediate victory.  But as Clinton's graph clearly illustrated-that's not how it works.  You win as many victories as you can, in hopes of not just getting to your end goal, but also by knowing that every additional Democrat you elect, you win a better seat at the table.  In an increasingly partisan era, every new Democrat brings your legislation further to the left (even if they're a moderate) as long as they're beating a Republican.  With winning elections, it's almost always a game of quantity, not quality.

OVP: Cinematography (2023)

OVP: Best Cinematography (2023)

The Nominees Were...

Edward Lachman, El Conde

Rodrigo Prieto, Killers of the Flower Moon

Matthew Libatique, Maestro

Hoyte van Hoytema, Oppenheimer

Robbie Ryan, Poor Things

My Thoughts: One of the easiest and best ways to get a nomination for Best Cinematography at the Oscars is to do some (or all) of your film in black-and-white.  For years, this has been the easiest path, and for most of the past 15 years, there's been generally at least one film in black-and-white nominated.  That stat exploded in 2023, when four of the five nominated films featured some or all black-and-white scenes in their pictures.  This appears to be the first time this has happened since the 1960's, when black-and-white cinematography had its own category at the Oscars.  It's a good reminder, though that just because it's in black-and-white does not mean that it gets a free pass as being "great" cinematography.

A good example of that is Poor Things.  The films overuse of CGI really gets in the way of a lot of the imagery in the movie.  I get what they were trying to do here.  Showing a hyper-saturated view of the world in the same way that Bella, who is experiencing it for the first time, is living it makes total sense, but it doesn't work.  Much of the movie's CGI is downright ugly, and the black-and-white depth adds very little, even if you get what they're doing (trying to evoke calls to Arthur Edeson's camerawork in Frankenstein).  I was not impressed by this-if you're nominated here, you need to either be inventive or pretty...this is neither.

That's definitely not the case with Oppenheimer, another film that alternated between black-and-white and color, here to distinguish the two timelines the film is facing.  I loved the depth of the black-and-white cinematography (Kodak apparently had to develop new 65mm film stock to achieve this), and I think that van Hoytema's ability to give us so much light in certain scenes (like the explosions) so as to overwhelm the senses, works in the film's favor.  Combined with some bewitching golden hour scenes and the frenetic way he makes the combative scenes feel like you're at the table with Downey & Murphy, Oppenheimer shows the way with a big idea.

Maestro is nominated for its black-and-white cinematography specifically.  The film's camera approach seems to age the older that Leonard Bernstein gets, with a sort of washed-out lens in the 1970's but in the 1950's he's very much in youthful, exuberant black-and-white.  I didn't love all of this (I think the modern photography lacks the style the earlier scenes do, to the point where I also wonder if the substance is a bit lacking throughout), but it's well-constructed and there are certain scenes (like with Mulligan & Cooper sitting back-to-back) that sing off of the screen.

The only one of these films to be entirely in black-and-white was El Conde, Pablo Larrain's vampire political spoof.  The film's cinematography can be beautiful.  The way that we see this cavernous look at Augusto Pinochet's mansion, and the contrast of bright clouds against the dark reality of this man's lonely existence is lovely.  It's also sandwiched between scenes that aren't very interesting.  The movie alternates between practically oil paintings and just standard work, almost as if it's trying to win an Oscar nomination with its flashiest bits.  It has to be noted that both Maestro and El Conde I saw at home, in front of a television screen because they're Netflix movies...I always find that when this happens, I tend to feel less connected to the movies visually (thus is the curse that Netflix has wrought upon the Oscars as normally these would have been in a more controlled, immersive environment like a theater).

Killers of the Flower Moon is the only movie that is entirely in color of this quintet, and proof that you can have lovely movies with a full palette too.  I think the movie does really well with the outdoor sequences, using Oklahoma's unyielding landscape to the cinematographer's advantage, making it feel like we're back in time which is not easy to do in a world this vast.  I also think there's an interiority to the camera-look at how small they make Mollie's world look as she gets further & further into this marriage, seemingly never able to escape it.  There's an intelligence to it, and is a good reminder that this is not just about gorgeous imagery, but also about creativity behind-the-camera.

Other Precursor Contenders: The American Society of Cinematographers, generally one of the classiest & most interesting of the precursors, were an exact copy of the Oscar nominations, and they gave their win to Oppenheimer.  BAFTA also picked Oppenheimer, and their only distinguishing characteristic was going for The Zone of Interest instead of El Conde.  I predicted The Zone of Interest in fifth place over El Conde at sixth, and while I think that this is another place that Saltburn could've shown up (but didn't), I feel relatively confident that I was right with Zone of Interest coming from the back.

Films I Would Have Nominated: The over-dependence on black-and-white cinematography meant that we didn't get to recognize one of the most ravishing films of the year, The Taste of Things, a sumptuous feast for all of the senses as we watch the care and love put into Michelin-star cuisine.
Oscar's Choice: There was no beating Oppenheimer here, and Hoyte van Hoytema finally won an Academy Award after years of fans (including me) cheering him on.

My Choice: And I'm going to echo that, giving Oppenheimer its first Oscar statue, though not at the expense of Barbie so the matchup doesn't get any new points.  Behind it (in order) are Killers of the Flower Moon, Maestro, El Conde, and Poor Things.

Those are my thoughts-how about yours?  Are we all on the same page with wanting to honor Oppenheimer, or did Oscar & I miss something in one of the other nominees?  Do you think Oscar will ever get over his massive crush on black-and-white cinematography?  And was it The Zone of Interest or Saltburn in sixth place?  Share your thoughts below!

Also in 2023: Costume, Film Editing, Visual Effects, Makeup & Hairstyling, Previously in 2023

Past Best Cinematography Contests: 1931-32, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022

OVP: Costume (2023)

OVP: Best Costume (2023)

The Nominees Were...

Jacqueline Durran, Barbie

Jacqueline West, Killers of the Flower Moon

Janty Yates & Dave Crossman, Napoleon

Ellen Mirojnick, Oppenheimer

Holly Waddington, Poor Things

My Thoughts: And now we arrive at the real centerpiece-the first of six battles between the "Barbenheimer" rivals Oppenheimer and Barbie.  A true case of strange bedfellows forever linked (similar in spirit to Saving Private Ryan and Shakespeare in Love), the 96th Oscars will forever be known for this amalgamation, one that pitted the frothiest of comedies against a serious biopic made by one of our most celebrated working filmmakers.  The Oscars, though, didn't really give us much of a competition.  This was mocked during the ceremony, but Barbie's only Oscar win came in a category that Oppenheimer didn't get nominated for, and because they don't release the vote totals, we only know that Oppenheimer beat Barbie in two categories (Picture and Supporting Actor) since it won those.  We, though, have the ability to know where they ranked here, so in addition to the ultimate winner (there are, after all, three other nominees to consider in this lineup), we'll also do a running tally to see if I end up Team Barbie or Team Oppenheimer when it comes to their battles in the coming weeks.

Let's begin, since it's our first dance with her (she missed for Editing), with Barbie.  The work done by Jacqueline Durran here is definitely go-the-distance stuff.  She's aided by the production design, but the hyper-glossy, perfectly pressed looks in this film, all monochromatic color that splashily invites pink (even when something is not pink) is fantastic.  Special kudos for a few key looks: the fluorescent yellow-green rollerblades, Ken's gigantic fur coat, and Margot Robbie's opening "wake-up" look.  Truly every scene in this, though, is jam-packed with eye candy.

Oppenheimer does not have the flashy recreation of decades of dolls to rely upon, but I do think that the realism here with a sense of style is fascinating.  Look at the way that Cillian Murphy's wide-brimmed hat makes him more imposing (and taller) against men who are actually taller than him).  I also loved the effortless detailing of Florence Pugh's fashion, always a touch more glamorous and ethereal than Emily Blunt's more demure, respectable Kitty.  This is what I want in a costume design-I want it to inform things that the script can't (or shouldn't) about how the audience should feel about the characters.  

Deprived of his longtime collaborator Sandy Powell, Martin Scorsese's partnership with Jacqueline West in Flower Moon also shows us things about this story that the script is only hinting at.  Look at the vibrancy of Lily Gladstone and the other Osage women's beautiful designs, full of color against a drab skyline, and more importantly, a series of interchangeable suits on men that are trying to rob them of that uniqueness.  I also loved Jesse Plemons, similar to Cillian Murphy, trying on a hat that is way too big for him in hopes of seeming more imposing, and the best costume in the film (seen above) where Lily Gladstone has an air of a drum majorette.

The dramatic looks of Napoleon do not leave enough room for character like the first three (all of which, I'll be honest, would've made fine winners & sadly Oscar picked none of them).  This doesn't mean that we get bad looks here.  The coronation scene, in particular, is dramatically scrumptious with the gigantic gold crowns and Joaquin Phoenix's ten-foot crimson train.  In many ways this is recalling the oil paintings that are the only way modern viewers know Napoleon by.  It just doesn't have enough-in a category where so many films are adding depth and story detailing, historical reconstruction alone is not going to cut it.

Which brings us to Poor Things.  This is a movie that I generally liked (particularly Emma Stone in the lead), but I'll totally own that I think the Costume Design Oscar it won was a cheat.  The looks here are largely boiled to some variation on the hyper-dramatic, canary yellow dress Bella wears in the film's middle where she has gigantic winged shoulder pads.  There is a liberated sexuality coming from the costumes, I guess, but they don't have enough variation and they don't really seem to tell me the same story that Bella's education is bringing to the plot.  I get why people liked them (they are flashy), but I don't think they're substantive in the way the rest of these looks are.

Other Precursor Contenders: The Costume Designer's Guild splits its nominations between Contemporary, Sci-Fi/Fantasy, and Period Films, so we get fifteen names in all.  Period film mirrored Oscar with Poor Things besting Killers of the Flower Moon, Maestro, Napoleon, & Oppenheimer, while Contemporary went with Saltburn against American Fiction, May December, Nyad, & Renfield and Sci-Fi/Fantasy picked Barbie atop Haunted Mansion, Rebel Moon - Part One: A Child of Fire, The Hunger Games: The Ballad of Songbirds & Snakes, and The Little Mermaid (weirdly Colleen Atwood, even though that got no mention all season despite her being an Oscar favorite).  BAFTA also went with Poor Things against the exact Oscar lineup, which makes sixth place a challenge.  I'm thinking Maestro, despite no mention elsewhere, might be the kind of film that gets in here, particularly given the Production Design nominees were also a carbon copy of this lineup, so honestly there's no clue other than these five were really solid.  If you want to make a case for this being a "this would've been their only nomination" citation for The Little Mermaid or Saltburn, I'm not totally opposed, but I'll guess Maestro.

Films I Would Have Nominated: Perhaps the most discussed and polarizing film of the awards season (that Oscar wanted nothing to do with), this would've been a marvelous time to give Saltburn some love, given how well they captured the "chic, unfathomably rich, sometimes tacky" fashions of the obscenely wealthy circa 2006.

Oscar's Choice: In a sign more people should've seen coming, Poor Things carried its precursor wins to a victory over Barbie's best chance at a second statue.

My Choice: Like I said, any of the first three films discussed would've been good choices for a statue, but when it comes down to it I'll give gold/silver/bronze to Barbie, Flower Moon, and Oppenheimer, respectably.  I just can't deny how special Jacqueline Durran's looks were-it's the sort of film that will forever be linked to this category even though it didn't win.  Napoleon is fourth, with Poor Things in last.

And now, it's your turn. Are you fine with me skipping Bella Baxter's many gowns, or do you want to take me to the laboratory for thinking pink?  We're currently 1-0 in favor of Barbie...where do you think we end this run?  And was it Maestro, The Little Mermaid, or Saltburn that nearly made it here?  Share your thoughts below!

Also in 2023: Film Editing, Visual Effects, Makeup & Hairstyling, Previously in 2023

Past Best Costume Contests: 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022

OVP: Film Editing (2023)

OVP: Best Film Editing (2023)

The Nominees Were...

Lauren Senechal, Anatomy of a Fall

Kevin Tent, The Holdovers

Thelma Schoonmaker, Killers of the Flower Moon

Jennifer Lame, Oppenheimer

Yorgos Mavropsaridis, Poor Things

My Thoughts: I always feel that the first two rounds of the OVP Ballots are kind of fun-quirky, giving us the personality of the year in some fashion.  And then we hit Editing, and it's all about those Best Pictures, honey.  That's the case this year.  In the era of ten-wide Best Picture nominees, Best Film Editing either goes 4/5 or 5/5 with Best Picture, and this was the latter, with all five of these showing up for the top spot.  The movies aren't quite what I'd guess would be the "real five" nominees that would've made it in a pre-2009 universe (I think Barbie would've still found a way given its box office), but this is darn close to that list.

We'll start as our entry point, therefore, with Oppenheimer, the winner and the big winner in general at the Oscars in 2023.  Oppenheimer is one of those omnipresent films with Oscar that I liked but didn't love, which can be a challenge to write about because it feels like I'm criticizing it more than I need to.  For its editing, I think this is one of its better attributes.  Nolan covers a lot of ground, and Jennifer Lame brings it together, tying the stories in connected patterns without always giving us all of the road maps of where we're going, an appropriate strategy for a film about wandering through the dark of scientific discovery.  No complaints here-this is a really strong start to the category.

And it continues with the film's chief rival, Killers of the Flower Moon.  Thelma Schoonmaker is a legend, and there's an inclination at this point to just give her all of the accolades in the way I kind of want to do for people like Roger Deakins & John Williams whom I always love, but it needs to be said-the editing here really ties it together.  Look at the ways that Schoonmaker builds the story from both directions.  We have lots of characters (but particularly Robert de Niro's William Hale), whose actions are only understood scenes later, and Thelma both obviously telegraphs that with the way that reaction shots & hints are put throughout the movie, while never telling the audience it in an opaque way.

Poor Things does something similar.  When an actor wins a statue for their performance, there's usually at least one tech category that they owe it to, and for Emma Stone that is most assuredly her film's editors.  The best part about her evolution is that you see, in fact, her evolution in front of you.  Each scene pushes her Bella Baxter further & further toward her destiny.  The editors do this, and they do it with a large amount of CGI and green screens, some that feel sort of disconnected from reality (and therefore harder to place in this very real story), with great precision.  Poor Things needs that pruning (and maybe honestly less of it, given that we could've used a bit more growth from the side characters), but if this is meant to be Bella's story, it shows.

Every year there's at least one movie that gets into this category less because it has a lot of or good editing, and more because it theoretically could win Best Picture and this branch doesn't like to skip the Best Picture winner.  The Holdovers, for me, is that film in 2023.  The movie doesn't necessarily have bad editing (it's frequently funny, which needs decent editing-comedy is so reliant on this category it's a shame we don't see that more often in the nominations), but it also doesn't standout.  There's nothing here that feels like the editors are adding anything to the conversation, or aiding it.  Editing is the invisible art, but if we're handing out an Oscar nomination, you've gotta give me something to judge.

Anatomy of a Fall on the flip side, is our one example of bad editing in this bunch.  I am grading this by the American release of the film (I don't know if international films had this), but opening the film with a title card instructing the audience to go to a website called "Did She Do It?" is about as insulting of a way to get you into a 152-minute movie where you realize from the opening frame that you are going to get no resolution by the movie's ending.  The film's over-use of the prosecution to underscore its misogyny message, combined with the inability to come up with a decent ending are the true reasons I'm going to score this low, but I will totally be honest-wasting my time with that title card & giving a spoiler in the movie (the first time I've ever seen that) is weighing on my rankings as well.

Other Precursor Contenders: The ACE Eddie Awards separate their categories between Comedy and Drama, so we have ten nominations.  For Drama, we of course have Oppenheimer winning against fellow Oscar nominees Anatomy of a Fall & Killers of the Flower Moon, as well as Maestro and Past Lives, while The Holdovers won for Comedy against Poor Things, Air, Barbie, and American Fiction.  BAFTA also gave its statue to Oppenheimer, here against the exact Oscar lineup except we skip The Holdovers in favor of The Zone of Interest.  The sixth place is a challenge, because I think it's a question mark as to when The Zone of Interest's momentum picked up steam.  Did the film already have some momentum enough to get in here, or were its wins secured when people started watching it more post the nominations?  If it's the latter, Barbie for sure makes sense here given its strength otherwise (for the nominations, at least), but I buy either argument.

Films I Would Have Nominated: I'm for sure going to give this nomination to The Zone of Interest when I get the chance.  The movie's terrifying ability to have a domestic drama taking place in the confines of a truly horrifying look at the Holocaust and the "banality of evil" is built by the editing team's judicious use of longer tracking shots combined with quick peaks at what's beyond the wall.

Oscar's Choice: Best Picture winners as certain as Oppenheimer always win Best Editing, and I don't think anything else was even that close.

My Choice: I'm going to favor Killers of the Flower Moon, whose editing I think picks up the movie more, over Oppenheimer, a sweep win that totally holds up to post-ceremony scrutiny.  Behind these two would be Poor Things, The Holdovers, and then Anatomy of a Fall, in that order.

Those are my thoughts-what are yours?  Is everyone staying in the Oppenheimer camp, or does someone want to join Thelma & I in Oklahoma?  Am I missing something with The Holdovers editing nomination (or is this just a default situation)?  And was it The Zone of Interest or Barbie in sixth place?  Share your thoughts below!

Also in 2023: Visual Effects, Makeup & Hairstyling, Previously in 2023

Past Best Film Editing Contests: 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022

The State of the Race

We are in the middle of the election cycle, and I have been asked quite a bit in recent weeks if I think that Joe Biden or Donald Trump is currently winning.  This is a question I don't have a proper answer for at the moment.  In December, I wrote about how Donald Trump was a mild favorite to win.  Five months later, I feel very much like his odds have decreased.  I would now categorize the race as a "tossup"-both sides are roughly the same in terms of getting the victory.  But a friend of mine pressed me a bit on this, and asked "gun to your head, who is going to win in November," and so I decided to turn that posit into a post.  We're going to do a "State of the Race" (if you're a fan of my "State of" articles I have every intention of doing one specifically about the Senate in the next couple of weeks, but my To Do list is really long presently so I won't promise it even if I have the bones for that article in my drafts folder right now).  This article is specifically about "if I had to call every race TODAY for how I think it would land, this is what I'd predict."  This will change between now and November, and I will point out some of the inconsistencies I'm allowing myself right now that I would never allow myself in an official prediction as we're writing.

President

We're going to pull the bandaid off right away-I will predict that Donald Trump wins as of today, primarily because he has broken the "Blue Wall" (the nickname for the states of Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, & Michigan).  I will note, to start, that I think that Biden has gained ground here.  In December, I would've predicted Wisconsin & Arizona as being red-that's not the case now, as Biden (and the Democrats) have done the ground work there and I think he'd come out on top, albeit in a tight election.

This map clearly shows that Biden has to pick up at least one more state to win.  That is a lot to put on an election, and it's not entirely clear to me which of these states it would be.  Nevada and Michigan stand out primarily because Democrats did decently there in 2022-Catherine Cortez Masto defied the odds and won the state, while in Michigan you have Gretchen Whitmer as the poster child for "how to be a popular governor."  We are talking in millimeters here, but I think both of these states are likelier to go blue than Wisconsin & Arizona are to go red (Pennsylvania being the likeliest to stay blue), so this is a very, very close election, and these are probably the four states that decide it.

Outside of them, I am increasingly wondering what both sides strategies will be as we continue into the Spring and Summer election season.  Trump has a clear advantage in North Carolina & Georgia, but these are states that Democrats are capable of winning in-Biden needs to start showing that, though, for them to be seriously considered part of the electoral math in 2024 (the closeness of the Senate means Republicans are likely ecstatic neither of their NC Senate seats are up, while Democrats are jumping for joy that Jon Ossoff gets a few more years before he's on the ballot again).  No other states matter (these are the only seven anyone cares about), and I'm not seeing any signs in New Hampshire, Minnesota, Texas, or Florida that the side that won in 2020 should be concerned.

Senate

I said above that this is not how I would predict this race if it was an actual prediction and not just a snapshot I know is going to change, and the primary reason I said that is the Senate and POTUS maps are not in alignment.  This map, specifically, has the Republicans flipping three seats (Ohio, Montana, & West Virginia), but in reality-if Trump won with the above map-they'd almost certainly take more.

Here's the reason why: since 2016, only one Senate candidate (Susan Collins in Maine in 2020) was able to win while her party's presidential nominee was losing the state at the top of the ticket.  That is increasingly impossible to do.  It's the main reason why I'm predicting Brown & Tester to lose in November based on this map even though they are running really superb campaigns.

But if this map happened, that number would double-Jacky Rosen (NV) and Elissa Slotkin (MI) would both win in this scenario, outrunning Joe Biden.  I do expect that Democrats will outrun Biden at this point (particularly in states like Wisconsin & Pennsylvania, where the incumbent Democrats are basically superheroes in their electoral prowess).  But if Trump is winning, at least one of Rosen & Slotkin are going down with Biden, if not both of them.  The question between now and November is-can Rosen & Slotkin get Biden any sort of victory in their states (which would ensure they get their W's), or will they fall with the tide.  There are other questions with the Senate that we'll get to in the State of the Senate race (namely, do the Democrats have a shot at a trifecta still, and yes, I think they do), but the big one for a snapshot situation is around Nevada & Michigan.

House

This was the main reason I wrote this article-to illustrate just how close the battle for the House is.  This is an insane margin, somehow even smaller than the current one, but it does get the Republicans a trifecta that would terrify pretty much every progressive issue known to man.

Obviously, this map underscores two things.  The first is that every district will count.  At this juncture, I don't think either side would get above 225 seats, meaning we'd be looking at a very tight margin on either side, and while that could change, I think individual races matter at this point for the House in 2024.  This is not usually the case.  While we're used to one Senate race potentially deciding control, that's not the case in the House, but looking at a map like this, if, say Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick were to lose his primary to a hard-right Republican (Fitzpatrick's district is Biden-leaning, but he's favored if he's in the general), that would get the Democrats a guaranteed pickup & another seat.  Every seat in a contest this close can matter, so watch for individual scandals, especially as we get to the fall.

The second is that I was somewhat pessimistic in a couple of areas for Democrats.  While certain places (Arizona, Oregon, Nebraska, parts of California & New York) I assumed Biden's coattails would help him out, on the flip side, I favored a lot of competent Republicans in marginal seats.  David Valadao, Tom Kean, & Jen Kiggans all represent districts Biden won in 2020, and could well win again (in Valadao & Kean's cases, that seems probable), but I am assuming they can outrun Biden by enough to get through.  If they don't, the House flips.

I also was pessimistic about Democrats running in Trump territory or new territory.  Six races specifically stand out as crucial here.  Currently, I'm predicting Matt Cartwright, Marie Gluesenkamp Perez, & Jared Golden aren't able to buck Trump winning their districts, and that would cost them their seats, while Don Davis running in a new, tougher district I also have losing.  Since I have Trump winning up top for Michigan, I'm also predicting two marginal House districts (the 7th and the 8th) currently held by Elissa Slotkin & Dan Kildee, would go down in this map.  If the Democrats were to stop these six losses, again, they'd have the majority.  The House, more than anything this year, is a battle of inches.

Governor

Last but not least, we're going through the governor's mansions.  I'll be honest-this year is super boring for governor's.  There's still the giant question mark over whether or not Phil Scott will run for reelection in Vermont (my working theory is he's waiting to see if Bernie Sanders retires or not, as he could easily run an Angus King-style campaign and win).  If he retires, this flips, if he doesn't it doesn't.  It's that simple.

So the only two races that matter are New Hampshire & North Carolina, and in both cases I say the Democrats are currently favored.  Biden appears likely to win in New Hampshire, and Chris Sununu's weird sharp right turn is only going to hurt the Republicans (likely former Sen. Kelly Ayotte) in their quest to win back this mansion.  Add in that this is the best way to combat the New Hampshire Republican trifecta, and I think Democrats get the only flip on the map.

On the other side, I think that Attorney General Josh Stein is favored in North Carolina.  This shouldn't be a win for the Democrats-they've held the office for eight years, and Trump likely wins this state in November.  But nominating Lt. Gov. Mark Robinson, maybe the most extreme Republican running for a major race in the country in 2024 (that's not hyperbole-I truly mean that) puts the Democrats in the position where we will see a number of Trump/Stein voters similar to how we saw a number of Trump/Cooper voters in 2020, enough to get Stein the victory.

The Lowdown

All-in-all, this is a rough picture for Democrats.  Not only are they losing all three branches of federal government, they're also losing them by tiny margins.  The good news is-they're still over 6 months out from the election, and the Republican nominee is currently on trial in NYC.  The bad news is-every day they don't regain the leads is another day that this becomes less about campaigning and more about blaming.  In the digital age where everyone wants to be first, if Biden is at the numbers he's currently at by late September, an upset becomes less likely not because of Biden's lack of time to do it, but more because his party will throw him under the bus far before votes are actually cast.  The blame game in a tight race can oftentimes become self-fulfilling prophecy.

The Battle for the House: President's Edition

We have not done a good old-fashioned election list for 2024 in a while, and I am cleaning old items off of my To Do list this morning, so I figured today was the day.  One of the things I'm continually fascinated by in American politics is the constantly changing electorate.  Every election cycle, particularly at a presidential level, we see states flip from red to blue and blue to red.  This used to be, outside of the presidential races, more fluid and less important down-ballot.  However, with ticket-splitting going out of style in the US (in 2016 & 2020 only one US Senator, Susan Collins of Maine, was able to win a Senate election from a state that her party lost on a presidential level), it's important to understand the presidential lean of a district to understand if it might flip for the House.  And with the House shockingly close in 2024, every district can count.

In 2020, Joe Biden won the popular vote by 4.5-points, a 2.4-point gain on Hillary Clinton's margin in 2016.  This meant that Biden was the first Democrat since Barack Obama in 2008 to win the popular vote in the majority of our nation's congressional districts, delivering 226 districts to Trump's 209 (Clinton would only win 209).  To do this, Biden actually flipped 17 congressional districts, most of them in surburban districts that have seen a sharp leftward tilt during the Trump years.  Trump actually flipped two districts (TX-23 and FL-26), both with larger Latino populations that year, but it wasn't enough to save his majority.

After redistricting, heading into 2024, Biden is defending 224 districts while Trump won 211 districts in 2020 based on today's lines (redraws in New York, Alabama, North Carolina, & Louisiana altered the math above slightly).  The question I'm asking today is-which seats are most likely to flip.  It seems certain that districts we refer to as "Biden districts" today will go to Trump if Trump's polling position is accurate, and if it isn't, Biden will likely pick up a couple (hell, Trump got walloped in the popular vote in 2020 and still picked up districts-it's likely both sides swap).  Below I take a look at the six likeliest on each side to bolt...in some cases in critical swing states that could decide the electoral college, and in all cases House seats that could decide the congressional majority.

(Editor's Note: This is about whether they flip on a presidential level.  Some of these seats are currently held by a Republican for Congress but Biden for president, for example, but I'm focusing on a presidential level flip, not the House.  Conversely, there are a couple of seats on this list that I don't think are flippable on a House seat but are on a presidential level due to Trump's unpopularity with a specific type of Democratic voter...so this is just about presidential flips, not necessarily the six most competitive House flips, as quite frankly only one of these seats would make that particular list).

The Flippable 6 (for Biden)

President Biden with California Gov. Gavin Newsom

California-41

House Incumbent: Ken Calvert (R)

Presidential Results in 2020: Trump +1.1%

Why I think It's Flippable: California is going to be a large question mark when it comes to the 2024 presidential election.  Biden's low approval ratings, and the state's status as one of the safest blue havens on the map means that Democrats can skip the election (or cast protest votes) without much worry about it going to Trump (though it could hurt Biden's margins in the popular vote, and if they skip, the chances the Democrats have at winning the House).  But if Biden makes a strong showing, the 41st could go blue.  It has the Coachella Valley (home to the famous music festival), a strong blue area that is among the fastest-growing parts of the district.  Calvert's surprisingly close race here in 2022 combined with Trump's extremist politics means that this is flippable.  It's not a guarantee (Gavin Newsom lost it in 2022), but this is one to watch.

Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-CO)

Colorado-3

House Incumbent: Lauren Boebert (R)

Presidential Results in 2020: Trump +8.3%

Why I think It's Flippable: Of all of the districts on this list, this would be the biggest swing if it flipped.  Colorado's 3rd congressional district went for Trump by more than 8-points, so on the surface it feels like the sort of district where you'd be confident that Biden will gain more than it is that he will flip (that the margin will be closer in 2024 than 2020, we can pretty much guarantee).  But it's worth noting that Jared Polis won this district in 2022 by 1.8-points, and Michael Bennet lost it by just over a point.  The metro areas around Grand Junction, La Plata, & Pueblo continue to get bluer (much like the whole state), and this is definitely a ticking time bomb for the Republicans later this decade, even if it might be a stretch to say that Biden can fully flip it.  The bigger question is-with the district opening and Adam Frisch having mountains of money from when he could campaign against Rep. Boebert (who has since moved to the 4th district), this is a prime opportunity for an actual House flip to get the Democrats closer to a majority.

Rep. Zach Nunn (R-IA)

Iowa-3

House Incumbent: Zach Nunn (R)

Presidential Results in 2020: Trump +0.3%

Why I think It's Flippable: First off, Trump won this district by three-tenths of a percentage point, making it the closest seat that he won on this list (and I believe in the nation).  Despite Zach Nunn beating Cindy Axne by less than a percentage point in 2022, this is a district that Democrats probably would've won had they thought they could win it (Axne's one of several districts that the party seemed to abandon during the "red wave" press in late October, and it shows when you look at the results), but Rob Sand (the only Democrat who won statewide in 2022) took this district by 12-points, so there's lots of room for Democrats here.  The district includes much of the increasingly blue Des Moines metro area, and that trending is going to make this a harder hold for Trump, even if I do wonder if this is a case of a district that Biden wins but Nunn does as well given we don't have a candidate as good as Axne in 2024.

Former President Trump with Rep. John James

Michigan-10

House Incumbent: John James (R)

Presidential Results in 2020: Trump +1.0%

Why I think It's Flippable: This is a quintessential swing district, with portions of southern Macomb County being slight blue while the remainder is slight red.  It's all part of the Detroit metro area, though, which makes it rife for potential swings as the suburbs of most metro areas have become increasingly blue during the Trump years.  Despite having virtually every advantage in the midterms, John James (who had run statewide twice) only won this district by a half-a-percentage point in 2022 for the House against an underfunded opponent (James out-raised him 6:1), proving this is increasingly tough territory for the Republicans.  Gretchen Whitmer won this district in both 2018 & 2022, while Gary Peters also won it by just under a percentage point in 2020 (the rare split district between he and Biden).  Honestly, I'm a little flummoxed why the DCCC isn't getting more involved here to also flip this away from James, as this feels like a majority-builder seat for Hakeem Jeffries.

President Trump shaking hands with Rep. Wagner

Missouri-2

House Incumbent: Ann Wagner (R)

Presidential Results in 2020: Trump +7.8%

Why I think It's Flippable: Similar to the seat in Colorado, this would be a pretty big jump for Biden, and it's perhaps more likely that he just sees a gain rather than actually flipping the seat.  But I have to admit-there's a lot of things in Missouri's 2nd congressional district that read as a "future Biden district."  It's 50% college-educated, one of the most highly-educated districts that Donald Trump won in 2020, and it's also the wealthiest and most suburban district in the state of Missouri.  Despite winning the state by 13-points in 2022, Eric Schmitt only won the district by 3-points in the same election; it's probable had controversial former Gov. Eric Greitens been the nominee in 2022 that he would've lost the district even if he won statewide.  The question here is around how much the Democrats invest-they got a B-Tier candidate to run against Wagner, but this isn't a swing state for the White House or Senate...will it just flip naturally without much competition in an otherwise locked-down red state?

President Biden campaigning in Wisconsin

Wisconsin-3

House Incumbent: Derrick van Orden (R)

Presidential Results in 2020: Trump +4.7%

Why I think It's Flippable: Both of the Wisconsin swing seats are worth watching, not just for the presidential race, but also for the House.  Of the two, I think Wisconsin's 3rd is the one to pay more attention to because the Democrats did flip it on a gubernatorial level in 2022; Tony Evers won the seat in 2022 by a half-a-point, and Derrick van Orden's rather extreme behavior (and his weird habit of yelling at children-seriously, Google it) doesn't help.  My thought, though, is if Biden is the right candidate to flip this seat.  It's a majority rural district...is this the kind of district that Democrats with a more local flare can flip, but that Biden won't be able to have the magic words?

The Flippable 6 (for Trump)

Rep. Young Kim (R-CA)

California-40

House Incumbent: Young Kim (R)

Presidential Results in 2020: Biden +1.9%

Why I think It's Flippable: Here's the deal with California's 40th-paired with the 45th, it is the kind of district that Donald Trump should be winning.  Newsom lost this district by 11-points in 2022, and Young Kim is so heavily favored to win the seat in November that her opponent is almost always left off of the list of "competitive seats" in California when people are name-checking Mike Garcia, David Valadao, & John Duarte, even though Biden won here too.  The problem is that it's Trump-I think Nikki Haley easily takes this district (even if she loses nationally) because the seat is basically a "Never Trump" district.  The question is how long that dam will hold-it could be a case where Trump under-performs Kim, but still flips the seat.

President Biden greeting Rep. Slotkin

Michigan-7 & Michigan-8

House Incumbent: Elissa Slotkin (D) & Dan Kildee (D)

Presidential Results in 2020: Biden +1.0% & Biden +2.1%

Why I think It's Flippable: I'm combining these two, because they're roughly on the same page.  Both are districts Biden barely won in 2020, but have had strong Democratic House incumbents who managed to hold on in 2022...and are both retiring in 2024 (though Slotkin is running for the Senate, not actually retiring).  Biden's polling trouble in Michigan would point to trouble in both of these seats.  If he underperforms at all, we could see one (or both) of these two disappear.  However, it's worth noting that both favored Biden compared to the state in the recent battle between Biden & Uncommitted, so it's not a lost cause situation, and Slotkin campaigning could help general turnout in the 7th (the more marginal of the two), specifically.  Also, Whitmer won both of these districts handily in both 2018 & 2022 (though Gary Peters lost the 7th by a minuscule margin in 2020 in his Senate campaign).

Rep. Davis (far right) with President & Dr. Biden

North Carolina-1

House Incumbent: Don Davis (D)

Presidential Results in 2020: Biden +1.7%

Why I think It's Flippable: Much of the reason that the House remains a tossup for the Democrats rather than a likely flip comes from North Carolina.  Three of the districts (those held by Kathy Manning, Jeff Jackson, & Wiley Nickel) will flip red, to the point that none of the incumbents are bothering to even run for re-election in 2024, and so we only have one swing district left.  The 1st did go for Joe Biden in 2020, albeit by a very small margin, but in her relatively close Senate campaign in 2022, Cheri Beasley would've lost it.  The real question in this race is more practical than whether Biden can hold it (though I suspect at the end of the day they're linked): will Don Davis be able to keep this seat, which has a large African-American population (the only reason it's still competitive), but is otherwise pretty red.  If Davis can't hold this, it makes the math for a House majority for the Democrats much harder.

Rep. Wild greeting President Biden at the
State of the Union

Pennsylvania-7

House Incumbent: Susan Wild (D)

Presidential Results in 2020: Biden +0.6%

Why I think It's Flippable: This is on the list more out of precaution, but of all of the districts in the Biden-to-Trump section, this is the seat I'm feeling the best about him holding, even though it was his closest.  The closeness is why it's on this list-Biden won this by less than a percentage point in 2020, when he was giving everything he had into Pennsylvania.  But Pennsylvania, it's worth noting, is the swing state that Biden is doing the best in in polling, Wild managed to win (against all odds) in 2022, and John Fetterman won this seat in 2022 by 4.3 points even though Katie McGinty lost it by nearly the same margin in 2016 for the Senate.  The district includes Allentown, a swing area of Pennsylvania, and one that Biden will probably need to win to secure the state.  If Trump is winning statewide, this is certainly flipping, but if Biden does...it's still in his column.  Similar to Davis, Wild is a key component to a Democratic majority, so the Dems need Biden to hold this if they don't want to suffer an important loss in their House battle.

Rep. Jen Kiggans (R-VA)

Virginia-2

House Incumbent: Jen Kiggans (R)

Presidential Results in 2020: Biden +1.9%

Why I think It's Flippable: First off, it literally flipped in 2022.  Even though Biden won this district in 2020, Jen Kiggans defeated incumbent Elaine Luria by 3.4-points, a sizable defeat against a well-funded incumbent.  The district also was the home to much of Glenn Youngkin's victory in 2021, with Youngkin winning the district by 11-points, a huge swing from 2020, and one that has to make Democrats nervous.  The biggest question is around Virginia Beach, which saw a flip from the Republicans in the last presidential race, as the GOP had long had the upper-hand in tight elections here, with Trump winning the city by 4-points in 2016, but the Democrats flipped the region in 2020 for a 5-point Biden victory.  If Biden can hold those gains, this could potentially stay blue (though I'm doubtful by enough to knock out Kiggans...Biden will likely need a bigger margin than last time to get the DCCC a victory here in 2024), but if Trump reverts this region back to 2016 margins, he'll take the district.

OVP: The Nun's Story (1959)

Film: The Nun's Story (1959)

Stars: Audrey Hepburn, Peter Finch, Edith Evans, Peggy Ashcroft, Dean Jagger, Mildred Dunnock

Director: Fred Zinnemann

Oscar History: 8 nominations (Best Picture, Director, Actress-Audrey Hepburn, Adapted Screenplay, Cinematography, Film Editing, Score, Sound)

Snap Judgment Ranking: 4/5 stars

Each month, as part of our 2024 Saturdays with the Stars series, we are looking at the women who were once crowned as "America's Sweethearts" and the careers that inspired that title (and what happened when they eventually lost it to a new generation).  This month, our focus is on Audrey Hepburn: click here to learn more about Ms. Hepburn (and why I picked her), and click here for other Saturdays with the Stars articles.

Like many women who wore the title of "America's Sweetheart" Audrey Hepburn's critical acclaim has been questioned through the years by some, claiming she was a "limited" actress.  This feels like an odd thing to point out for Hepburn, who more than almost any actress we're going to profile this year, received a lot of critical acclaim.  Hepburn was cited for five Oscars in her career, winning for Roman Holiday, and that didn't include her lauded work in My Fair Lady, which was widely-expected by many to be a spot for her to get a nomination.  She also was one of the first people to win an EGOT (an Emmy, Grammy, Oscar, & Tony) and did so as a performer.  Today, we are going to discuss one of Hepburn's Oscar-nominated turns, the final one that I had yet to see, and one that I think shows the versatility of her acting, rather than calling it (as her critics have) "one-note": The Nun's Story.

(Spoilers Ahead) The movie focuses on the life of Gaby, a young postulant who for most of the film is known as Sister Luke (Hepburn).  She has, before the start of the film, decided to devote herself to a life as a nun, something that we don't get a lot of insight into the rationale why, though we think it's to become a nurse in the Congo (there's a throwaway line about a boy she liked late in the film, and I rather liked that this might be a secondary reason for her, because it adds a depth to the film even if it might also be a touch antifeminist to assume she couldn't just want this for a career).  Of course, being a nun is not just about nursing, but instead also about devotion to God, and throughout the film we get to see Sister Luke struggle with a crisis-of-faith, trying to find a way to help those around her through her scientific skills, but also to get back to her devotion to the church, and wanting to show that she can be worthy of her new calling, and not just being a nurse.  As the film progresses, it becomes evident that she cannot, and in the final moments of the film, she leaves the convent forever.

The movie was cited for 8 Academy Awards, including Best Picture, and it's worthy of most of them.  The film is wonderfully-structured, giving us a glimpse not only into the life of a woman trying to become a nun, but giving it two-dimensionally.  I have read that some (particularly composer Franz Waxman) were critical of the Catholic Church, but I'll be honest-I don't think the story gets that across.  If you want to debate the Church, you've got your evidence there-the constant critiquing of Sister Luke for having human impulses feels cruel in parts.  But there's also a spot for those who are sympathetic to the church, showing how becoming a nun isn't a calling for everyone, even for the most kindhearted of women (i.e. there's more to being a nun than being good).  I loved that approach, and honestly really liked this movie.  There are critiques to be had (I don't think that it gives us enough connection to those around Sister Luke for us to really understand why she ultimately gives up the church after sacrificing so much), but they're thin.  Zinnemann's approach, the film's lovely cinematography, and the way that it wordlessly adds depth to the ending by foregoing Waxman's score as Hepburn leaves the convent, rather than giving us a dramatic swell, is marvelous.  It's clear at that moment that Sister Luke is picking the only way out, but she's not sure if it's the right one, and the music not giving the audience any indication this is the correct path is really well-designed.

Hepburn's performance here is really stellar.  The cinematography & makeup work are helping her cause, to be fair.  I love the way we start to see the angelic Hepburn's eyes start to become sallow with the weight of the world on her, highlighted by the constant focus on her face (in many ways copying what cinematographer Arthur C. Miller did for Jennifer Jones in The Song of Bernadette).  But Hepburn is also giving something extra to her work here.  Her internal struggles, the way that her inner-monologue never shuts off, particularly when we see that she can't speak to other people, is very reminiscent of Robert Bresson's Diary of a Country Priest, and it's very effective.  Hepburn shows here she might always look like a pixie, but she also was able to use that to create versatility.  She's up against actresses like Simone Signoret & Katharine Hepburn, generally considered to be "better" actresses than she is, but her performance honestly is more nuanced and stronger in the way it highlights the picture than either of those two more celebrated thespians.  Hepburn's critical reputation from some snobbish cinephiles as one-note is, well, wrong.