< PREVIOUS ] [ 2000 Index ] [ Ed Quillen HOME ] [ SEARCH ] [ NEXT >
This used to be an exciting time of year. For one thing, everybody wondered what the new cars would look like. You'd go by a dealer's showroom, and there would be the new model, draped in cloth until the early autumn day when it would be unveiled.
After that, there were lengthy discussions about the merits of the cat-eye taillights on the '59 Chevy vs. the soaring tail fins on the '59 Plymouth, or whether the 406 Ford V-8 could outrun a Chevy 396 .
But now I can't remember the last time I saw a draped car in a showroom, and we've been seeing some 2001 models in ads since May or June.
Besides that, there were only three real car companies back then: the Big Three. It was easy to keep track of them. Now cars come from all over the world, and they get introduced throughout the year. That September thrill is gone.
Also gone is the annual fall excitement about the new television season.
The major networks still try to generate some excitement about their new schedules, but their audience share has dropped from 58 percent in 1989 to 41 percent in 1998.
Also, there used to be only three TV networks, so they were easy to keep track of. Now there are more broadcast networks, as well as hundreds of channels available by satellite or cable.
Programs come and programs go. Even when the major
networks offer fine programs like my favorites, Law and
Order
and West Wing,
they make so few new
installments (22 for a year that had 52 weeks the last time
I checked) that you're about as likely to get a rerun as an
all-new episode.
The only time you can be half-sure of getting the good
stuff is during the Sweeps Periods,
when the ratings
are being compiled. I suspect that TV programming would
improve dramatically if the sweeps ratings were conducted
at random, rather than at specified times.
At any rate, the fall TV excitement is starting to rank right up there with watching nails rust.
That's the way a lot of people feel about the presidential election this year, too, and those also used to be somewhat exciting.
The major contention this year, among people I know anyway, is not between George W. Bush and Al Gore, the only candidates likely to appear in televised debates -- thereby insuring more tedious television.
Instead, I hear delicate calculations about the possible effects of voting Green or Libertarian.
One reckoning says that a vote for Ralph Nader is a vote that Gore would have otherwise received, and thus Bush comes out ahead. Another theory has it that Colorado is so Republican that Bush gets our eight electoral votes anyway, and so intelligent Coloradans should vote for minor-party candidates to increase their visibility, and to make the campaign interesting.
What sort of election will this be? I searched for precedents.
One is the election of 1844. That was the last one in which both major candidates had four-letter last names: James Knox Polk and Henry Clay.
Or we could look at 1976. That was the last one in which both major candidates had last names that were also common nouns: Carter and Ford. (Also note that in every election, starting in 1976, someone named Bush or Dole has been on the Republican ticket.)
We could try 1836 and 1988. Those are the only two times a sitting vice-president has been elevated since the passage of the 12th amendment in 1804, which began the current system of having a candidate for vice-president. Before that, the job went to the runner-up for the presidency.
Those don't sound that interesting. The elections in which the sitting vice-president didn't move up -- Hubert Humphrey in 1968 and Richard Nixon in 1960 -- were close, anyway.
We might draw a parallel with 1948 -- the Democrat held a reputation as a career hack who associated with scandalous sorts, while the congenial Republican held a substantial lead in the polls.
Minor parties were a factor that year: the Progressives behind Henry Wallace and the States Rights Party behind Strom Thurmond (the same one who, 52 years later, now serves in the U.S. Senate).
That sounds interesting. Maybe a re-run is order, even if they're supposed to be introducing new stuff this time of year.
< PREVIOUS ] [ 2000 Index ] [ Ed Quillen HOME ] [ SEARCH ] [ NEXT >