Maybe. Or they could be like Labour in the UK - something that gets torn down and rebuilt into something equally ineffective and prone to loosing, just in a different way. But I'm the sort who found the ending of "A Face In The Crowd" too optimistic even before Trump.

"He only wins if you sit back and let him win." Pretty soon to say for sure, but I think we're already seeing the beginning of that. OK, so you're seeing some scattered protests in liberal strongholds. I suspect those will have about as much lasting effect as Occupy Wall Street (which is to say, none what so ever).…

Not just him. Christie will probably escape any serious consequences for Bridgegate. Giuliani will go from being a has-been and a punchline into one of the most powerful people in America. Who knows, Roger Ailes will also likely get a plum assignment. All courtesy of the American public.

The young ones with short memories certainly do. Also, there's a tendency (in fairness, conservatives do this too when they loose) to believe that the loss was mainly attributable to flaws in the particular candidate, rather than the fact that the other sides message resonates better with voters.

That's President-Elect Orange Bigot to you, ma'am.

"In the real world, Lonesome Rhodes wins." You know, you could've saved yourself the trouble of writing the whole review just by posting that.

The girls' costumes are at least quasi-50's, Joanie's got an Elvis poster in her room. I guess they hadn't completely given up the ghost of doing a 50's theme in season six. Of course, the surgeon general's report wouldn't come out until '64, but as anybody who's seen "Mad Men" knows, rumblings about the dangers of…

What "trappings" did the Big Bang Theory have to begin with?

Ultimately they had him in as a high school teacher wearing a three piece suit. But by that point Ted McGinley had shown up, Joanie and Chiachi had gone and come back, Jenny Piccolo had taken on corporeal form, and Heather "They're heeeayer" O'Rourke was a recurring character.

It's 1955, not 1965. Also, I'm with Mw Fuller in that Mary Steenburgen is always delightful, but particularly so in Part III. In fact, a good double feature would to have Part III follow the other really good movie featuring Steenburgen falling for a time traveler - Time After Time.

It's 1955, not 1965.

Win Ben Stein's Money, aka the launching pad for Jimmy Kimmel.

Kilborn's show also spoofed a different phenomenon - the vacuous "magazine" style shows that were proliferating at that time (Dateline, Primetime, 20/20, 48 hours (in it's pre-"real life mystery" guise), etc.). Within that guise they could pull off some good satire (outside of their usual stock and trade of cheap…

I always felt this film and The Shining are sort of natural bookends - Rosemary's Baby is about how a mother and her child are betrayed and coopted by their husband/father and larger social patriarchy. The Shining is about how the husband/father becomes obsessed with maintaining that same order, yet both wife and…

"It’s not a bad speech, for what it is, but it makes no sense within the context of the film. This debate is not about him." Nonsense. If this guy is supposed to epitomize a typical American voter, he would absolutely think the debate is about him. He'd think the whole goddamned election is about him. Maybe a little…

In fact, you'd think they would have multiple versions of popular hosts, just to cover that contingency.

Well, OK, but that's the point. You'd have people who are like, "I paid a fortune for a set amount of time here with the idea that I'd be spending it riding horseback through the canyon with Delores/Teddy/Whoever. And now you're telling me they're going to be down for repairs for half of it because some Ed Harris…

The whole mechanics of not being able to easily distinguish hosts from guests, combined with the idea of guests getting whatever they want is kind of an interesting line of thought to pursue, particularly when guests' ideas of what to do with the hosts conflict with one another (as they inevitably would in real life).

The difference between "bet my life savings he's gay" and "dressed by his wife" is pretty subtle and sometimes it's easy to mistake one for the other.

Americans have a perpetual love affair for the trope of the "regular guy" who "doesn't really support either party," and speaks succinctly enough to sound as if he's got some common sense without coming across as a smarty pants or something. It leads them to catastrophic errors like voting for the candidate they'd…