Is Doctor Who Republican?

[Heradel]

I know the first question you're going to ask and no, the fine white powder on my desk is chalk.

Nielsen just did a study of shows and their engagement among Democrats, Republicans, and both. Apparently Doctor Who gets put in the Republican column. Which is surprising, because A. the show's unabashedly gay (though not continuously), though not to the extent of Torchwood, and B. it doesn't really seem that conservative in other ways (the Doctor's a pacifist, though only up to a point), unless we do some sort of archetyping about the Doctor as a God/Jesus/Savior figure and that's what's drawing them to the show.

Thoughts?

[eytanz]

Is it new Doctor Who? Or classic Doctor Who? Or both?

[Heradel]

Is it new Doctor Who? Or classic Doctor Who? Or both?

It says it is Doctor Who on SciFi, so it must be the new one because I don't think they do reruns of the classics.

[wintermute]

South Park is also in the Republican column. That surprises me far more than Dr Who, which at least doesn't actively mock everything the right stands for...

[Russell Nash]

South Park is also in the Republican column. That surprises me far more than Dr Who, which at least doesn't actively mock everything the right stands for...

I think it's partly because so many of them love Cartman.

[wintermute]

South Park is also in the Republican column. That surprises me far more than Dr Who, which at least doesn't actively mock everything the right stands for...

I think it's partly because so many of them love Cartman.

Having read the comments, it seems that South Park is Republicans' favourite show on Comedy Central, which might be asking Democrats who their favourite Fox News anchor is...

[stePH]

... the show's unabashedly gay (though not continuously),

As the great sage and eminent twit Britney Spears once said: "Huh?"

Are you sure that white stuff is chalk? 

[Alasdair5000]

...The Todd says what now?

...

   Okay, no it's not.  Fundamentally it's a pacifist show, a series about an incredibly intelligent man who solves problems with his brain ('The DOCTOR.  The one who MAKES PEOPLE BETTER.' as Harold Saxon once said).  And, as you say, it's a show which is quite happy, and open, about homosexuality.

[Heradel]

... the show's unabashedly gay (though not continuously),

As the great sage and eminent twit Britney Spears once said: "Huh?"

Are you sure that white stuff is chalk? 

Ok, it's not on LOGO, but it is very gay-friendly/was executive produced by an openly gay may who includes that in his work. Probably should have appended a -friendly.

[stePH]

Ok, it's not on LOGO, but it is very gay-friendly/was executive produced by an openly gay may who includes that in his work. Probably should have appended a -friendly.

Even Six Feet Under, which was created and produced by eminent gay Alan Ball, and had a couple of regular characters who were gay, wasn't really a "gay" show. 

Come to think of it, I'm not sure what exactly would qualify as a "gay" show.

[Russell Nash]

Ok, it's not on LOGO, but it is very gay-friendly/was executive produced by an openly gay may who includes that in his work. Probably should have appended a -friendly.

Even Six Feet Under, which was created and produced by eminent gay Alan Ball, and had a couple of regular characters who were gay, wasn't really a "gay" show. 

Come to think of it, I'm not sure what exactly would qualify as a "gay" show.

Queer as Folk??

[Zathras]

Ok, it's not on LOGO, but it is very gay-friendly/was executive produced by an openly gay may who includes that in his work. Probably should have appended a -friendly.

Even Six Feet Under, which was created and produced by eminent gay Alan Ball, and had a couple of regular characters who were gay, wasn't really a "gay" show. 

Come to think of it, I'm not sure what exactly would qualify as a "gay" show.

Ren and Stimpy?  Especially the remake that they foolishly aired on Spike TV

[stePH]

Come to think of it, I'm not sure what exactly would qualify as a "gay" show.

Queer as Folk??

Isn't that a remake of a British show?  And wasn't RTD the producer of the British show?

Anyway, I'm not more than passingly familiar with the program in question.  But you're probably right.

[edit] fixed quoting

[wakela]

Well, there's a lot of cool sci-fi action, which repubs are not too proud to enjoy.  The enemies are often truly evil and no one tries to get all touchy-feely with them.  IMHO, I would expect a higher percentage of republicans to be into some kind of science fiction than democrats.  Yeah, yeah, I know who is winning on the Escape Pod presidential poll.  Most SF fans are probably democrats, but most democrats are not SF fans.  And the SF I'm talking about is the SF/action combo that we mostly see in movies and TV.  Not thoughtful SF books.  When I think of democrats I think of members of the intellectual culture, and they usually consider SF to be beneath them.

I have absolutely no evidence to back me up on this.

Republicans like South Park because there are so few shows that take on liberals that conservatives will cling to anything, even if it attacks them, too.   One of the South Park guys once said, "We hate conservatives.  But we REALLY f***ing hate liberals." 

I wonder what the Nielsens considered BSG.

[wakela]

Almost forgot.  There was the Christopher Eccleston episode in WWII where people are turning into gas mask-wearing zombies.  At the end when he calls out to the citizens of London to be brave and hang on because they are going to win the war and rebuild he says, "And don't forget the welfare state!"  I hadn't heard the doctor make such an overt political statement before.  So I think the Doctor, himself,  is definitely not a Republican. 

[Heradel]

Well, there's a lot of cool sci-fi action, which repubs are not too proud to enjoy.  The enemies are often truly evil and no one tries to get all touchy-feely with them.  IMHO, I would expect a higher percentage of republicans to be into some kind of science fiction than democrats.  Yeah, yeah, I know who is winning on the Escape Pod presidential poll.  Most SF fans are probably democrats, but most democrats are not SF fans.  And the SF I'm talking about is the SF/action combo that we mostly see in movies and TV.  Not thoughtful SF books.  When I think of democrats I think of members of the intellectual culture, and they usually consider SF to be beneath them.

I have absolutely no evidence to back me up on this.

Republicans like South Park because there are so few shows that take on liberals that conservatives will cling to anything, even if it attacks them, too.   One of the South Park guys once said, "We hate conservatives.  But we REALLY f***ing hate liberals." 

I wonder what the Nielsens considered BSG.

I don't know about your point about intellectuals thinking that SF is beneath them — I'm sure some do, but to be fair there aren't a lot of stories that rise to that rarified level of being great beyond the genre. There's a lot of stereotyping of SF/F/H/Graphic Novels/Manga that keeps it toward the bottom of the pile (the Post (Washington) had a good story on this), but a lot of genre fiction tend to distract attention away from the center of any story — the relationships. The SF/F/... we love does focus on relationships (people love Firefly because of the characters, not the ship, ditto Harry Potter), but a lot of it treads too lightly in terms of the characters and their psychologies. There are very few SF stories that have given me the complexity of How To Date A Brown Girl (black girl, white girl, or halfie) and that's ok. The author of that piece (Junot Diaz) won the Pulitzer for his first novel this year.

SF/F/... has a lot of pulp. Which is fine, but it also stereotypes the genre. That said, great works and authors have a tendency to float to the top and out of their respective fields though it may take decades for them to do so.

Don't get me wrong, I love SF/F/..., but when I read it most of the time I'm not expecting for it to have a lot of levels, to have to go through a thorough textual analysis to really enjoy it, and end up walking away from it with the nagging feeling that I'm still missing something. Of course those stories exist within genre, but they're the exception. They're the exception in the regular fiction world too, but the percentage is higher in regular because they aspire more towards it than genre fiction usually does.

[oddpod]

i think the desiding factor in this is probably that unlike much sifi dr who is firmly entrenched in the "fun family entertainment" camp, making it far more acsesabul to the majority of fokes who would otherwise never bother with sifi

[davedoty]

South Park is also in the Republican column. That surprises me far more than Dr Who, which at least doesn't actively mock everything the right stands for...

One of the South Park creators was quoted as saying "I hate conservatives, but I really fucking hate liberals."  While they're equal opportunity offenders, many of the eps with the most visceral, personally tinged messages seem to be those that go after the left.  While it doesn't fit comfortably in either column, I can see why, if you had to narrow it down, it's viewership might skew slightly to the right.  Just watch them go after Rob Reiner's anti-smoking campaign.

[wintermute]

Ok, it's not on LOGO, but it is very gay-friendly/was executive produced by an openly gay may who includes that in his work. Probably should have appended a -friendly.

Even Six Feet Under, which was created and produced by eminent gay Alan Ball, and had a couple of regular characters who were gay, wasn't really a "gay" show. 

Come to think of it, I'm not sure what exactly would qualify as a "gay" show.

Project Runway?

[stePH]

Ok, it's not on LOGO, but it is very gay-friendly/was executive produced by an openly gay may who includes that in his work. Probably should have appended a -friendly.

Even Six Feet Under, which was created and produced by eminent gay Alan Ball, and had a couple of regular characters who were gay, wasn't really a "gay" show. 

Come to think of it, I'm not sure what exactly would qualify as a "gay" show.

Project Runway?

  From the clips I've seen on "The Dish", I think you may have something there.

[Talia]

I think of members of the intellectual culture, and they usually consider SF to be beneath them.

Um. Sorry, but that's not true at all. Though it may be in your experience, Its been my experience that that's TOTALLY untrue.

[stePH]

Most SF fans are probably democrats, but most democrats are not SF fans.  And the SF I'm talking about is the SF/action combo that we mostly see in movies and TV.  Not thoughtful SF books.  When I think of democrats I think of members of the intellectual culture, and they usually consider SF to be beneath them.

I would think that the more intelligent people would see past the charade of the American "two" party system, and be neither Democrat nor Republican.

As for the Doctor, he's not political.  He's firmly set against tyranny, cruelty, unrequited love, and burnt toast, but that doesn't make him political.

[wintermute]

Being firmly against tyranny and cruelty is indeed a political position, though one one which most political parties tend to agree, in most democratic nations.

[Talia]

I would think that the more intelligent people would see past the charade of the American "two" party system, and be neither Democrat nor Republican.

Sorry, I can't agree. There's reasonable reasons to be in either party. Voting in primaries for example. For the time being its a two party system, so might as well wield as much power in that regards as you can.

Gotta admit I'm a little defensive here, as a registered Democrat its implied then I'm in the "less intelligent" crowd. So, yeah.

[wintermute]

OK, while we're on the subject of the two-party system, there's a question that I've asked several times of various people, and never managed to get a straight answer for:

What does it mean, exactly, to say that the US has a two party system? Why does "everyone know" that a third party can't win an election? Is there anything actually stopping them from doing so, other than that "everyone knows" not to waste their vote on third parties?

OK, that was more than one question. But I've never really understood how you can have thirteen different parties nominating candidates for the presidency in a two-party system...

Edit: I miscounted, and perhaps misunderstood the electoral rules. Only six parties are on enough ballots to get 270 electoral votes, and take the presidency directly. However, if I'm understanding this correctly, it's not a plurality of votes that's required, but an absolute majority (that is, if one party gets 269 votes, another gets 200 and a third gets 69, then we don't know who will be the new president), so if no party gets 270 votes or more, then the House of Representatives gets to choose a president. And I get the impression they can choose from any of the 13 people who've put their name forward in any state? Of maybe anyone they damn well please?

Does that sound more right?