This year's nominees are: Beholder, the three-time Eclipse Award winning racemare whose brilliant performances earned more than $1.7 million and included a breathtaking win in the Breeders' Cup Distaff; California Chrome, the recipient of the 2014 Vox Populi Award whose celebrated comeback was highlighted by five wins including the Dubai World Cup, vaulting him to racing's all-time leading earner; Songbird, the sensational 3-year-old filly who earned $2.2 million in her coast-to-coast campaign and finished just a nose shy of an undefeated season after a Breeders' Cup Distaff stretch dual for the ages; and Tepin, the Kentucky-bred 5-year-old bay mare who has been an international darling, blazing turf courses on two continents and amassing almost $1.5 million in earnings with five wins in seven starts.
Fans can vote at http://Secretariat.com
I'll go with Songbird.
Gotta go with CHROME!
Thinking Lady Eli should be there, as similar to Paynter overcoming that adversity to shine again.
I'm changing my vote to Lady Eli. What a heart warming story.
Lady Eli.
I know its the popularity contest award, but I think it should really be to honor horses not traditionally honored.
Beholder, Chrome and Songbird will each win Eclipse awards.
On the other hand, it's not the "overcame laminitis and returned to previous form" award either.
Not that there is anything wrong with that... ;)
Quote from: Man o Taz on November 29, 2016, 06:16:11 AM
Not that there is anything wrong with that... ;)
There isn't, of course. Curiosity's sake, what ARE the selection criteria? Something that attracts more fans to the sport?
Quote from: Catalina on November 29, 2016, 04:56:21 PM
There isn't, of course. Curiosity's sake, what ARE the selection criteria? Something that attracts more fans to the sport?
It's whatever Penny Chennery wants it to be and it can change from year to year, or as some might suggest.....it's rigged.
I voted for Chrome because he's created a big fan base and has raced for several years at the top level. Granted, the same can be said for Beholder, but in terms of fans, interest and $$, Chrome's got everyone's beat.
In terms of popularity, he's this decade's Zenyatta, with personality and copper penny looks to boot.
Not a bad choice among them. I'll stick with Lady Eli. A dark horse..
:)
Quote from: stark on November 29, 2016, 05:50:08 PM
It's whatever Penny Chennery wants it to be and it can change from year to year, or as some might suggest.....it's rigged.
I don't want to hyjack this thread and make it political, but there's a similar poll going on right now for the TIME magazine person of the year. The results are in, the people have voted.
Voters in the online readers' poll for Time's Person of the Year nominated Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi as the most influential figure in 2016..
Time says Modi had 18 percent of the vote when the poll closed Sunday at midnight, pulling ahead of his closest contenders, Barack Obama, Donald Trump and Julian Assange, who each received 7 percent.
Editors have the final say, anybody want to bet on Modi?
Quote from: stark on December 06, 2016, 02:33:59 PM
I don't want to hyjack this thread and make it political, but there's a similar poll going on right now for the TIME magazine person of the year. The results are in, the people have voted.
Voters in the online readers' poll for Time's Person of the Year nominated Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi as the most influential figure in 2016..
Time says Modi had 18 percent of the vote when the poll closed Sunday at midnight, pulling ahead of his closest contenders, Barack Obama, Donald Trump and Julian Assange, who each received 7 percent.
Editors have the final say, anybody want to bet on Modi?
I'm not sure the popular vote really matters. I did hear some scuttlebutt about some of the Time readers voting illegally, however. Of course that was a report from a couple of years ago. ;)
I wrote in Hoppertunity, lol...
Quote from: stark on December 06, 2016, 02:33:59 PM
I don't want to hyjack this thread and make it political, but there's a similar poll going on right now for the TIME magazine person of the year. The results are in, the people have voted.
Voters in the online readers' poll for Time's Person of the Year nominated Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi as the most influential figure in 2016..
Time says Modi had 18 percent of the vote when the poll closed Sunday at midnight, pulling ahead of his closest contenders, Barack Obama, Donald Trump and Julian Assange, who each received 7 percent.
Editors have the final say, anybody want to bet on Modi?
No matter what you think of Donald Trump's politics I do not think there is any doubt he should be Time's Person of the Year.
Quote from: Man o Taz on December 07, 2016, 07:42:17 AM
No matter what you think of Donald Trump's politics I do not think there is any doubt he should be Time's Person of the Year.
I thought his shtick was--besides that mysogionistic, multiple bankruptcy thing--that he's not a politician?
Personally, if Time tried to sell the Electoral College Select as Person of the Year, I would never so much as pick up another issue. Even if they put me on the cover
Jill Stein on behalf of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi is raising money for a recount @ Time.
Penny Chennery is taking notes on behalf of Arrogate, Beholder, Lady Eli and Songbird.
Quote from: stark on December 07, 2016, 05:48:15 PM
Jill Stein on behalf of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi is raising money for a recount @ Time.
Penny Chennery is taking notes on behalf of Arrogate, Beholder, Lady Eli and Songbird.
LOL! I was going to reply to the Electoral College slam but thought the better of it since this is a racing board, not a political one. Your comment is perfect and very funny. :thanks:
Quote from: curtis on December 07, 2016, 09:26:36 AM
I thought his shtick was--besides that mysogionistic, multiple bankruptcy thing--that he's not a politician?
Personally, if Time tried to sell the Electoral College Select as Person of the Year, I would never so much as pick up another issue. Even if they put me on the cover
You are right again, but in fairness if Putin can win it so should Trump.
Quote from: CA_Chrome on December 08, 2016, 03:48:54 AM
LOL! I was going to reply to the Electoral College slam but thought the better of it since this is a racing board, not a political one. Your comment is perfect and very funny. :thanks:
I wasn't slamming the Electoral College. I don't believe that a candidate should be able to win the election by winning NY, CA, IL and one or two other highly populated states. Without the Electoral College, the same candidate would have won, and probably easier, as there would be no mechanism in place to limit the number of candidates. Enough Democrats would have "Felt the Bern" and would have thus weakened Hillary further. I do think the Electoral College needs some tweaking but not elimination. Since the winner compared himself to Secretariat--well he's half right😉--I figured it's fair game in here.
Quote from: Man o Taz on December 08, 2016, 06:47:20 AM
You are right again, but in fairness if Putin can win it so should Trump.
They can promote Charlie Manson for Person of the Year for all I care. I just think they should be more sensitive to the public since that is who buys their product.
Quote from: curtis on December 08, 2016, 09:50:52 AM
I wasn't slamming the Electoral College. I don't believe that a candidate should be able to win the election by winning NY, CA, IL and one or two other highly populated states. Without the Electoral College, the same candidate would have won, and probably easier, as there would be no mechanism in place to limit the number of candidates. Enough Democrats would have "Felt the Bern" and would have thus weakened Hillary further. I do think the Electoral College needs some tweaking but not elimination. Since the winner compared himself to Secretariat--well he's half right😉--I figured it's fair game in here.
...since he has red hair and "blows hard"? ;)
Quote from: peeptoad on December 08, 2016, 11:49:00 AM
...since he has red hair and "blows hard"? ;)
I think it might be fair to say, or at least arguable that Mr. Trump outperformed Secretariat in the breeding shed.
Quote from: stark on December 08, 2016, 01:31:12 PM
I think it might be fair to say, or at least arguable that Mr. Trump outperformed Secretariat in the breeding shed.
I dunno, what's the old saying: Those that speak the most, get the least? When I met Secretariat, he was pretty quiet. Book was full, though.😉
Let us not forget....
(https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTGQBaH2Aash89OKYUsBlUJzsoSkizqBoq4DSO73K8ugKwAYFO3)
Quote from: curtis on December 08, 2016, 09:50:52 AM
I wasn't slamming the Electoral College. I don't believe that a candidate should be able to win the election by winning NY, CA, IL and one or two other highly populated states. Without the Electoral College, the same candidate would have won, and probably easier, as there would be no mechanism in place to limit the number of candidates. Enough Democrats would have "Felt the Bern" and would have thus weakened Hillary further. I do think the Electoral College needs some tweaking but not elimination. Since the winner compared himself to Secretariat--well he's half right😉--I figured it's fair game in here.
Oh, I misunderstood your previous post. My apologies.
I think the Electoral College is genius. If one looks at the electoral map of counties, it's easy to see that a few huge metro areas would completely dominate presidential elections if the Electoral College did not exist. Not even states, but only Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, New York, Seattle, Boston, DC and a few other densely populated urban areas would decide all presidential elections. The Electoral College not only prevents that, but ensures that the state elections are what matters. After all, we are a union of states, not a union of huge metroplexes. Hillary Clinton won over 8.7 million votes in California. Over 2.4 million from Los Angeles County alone. That is where her so-called popular vote lead comes from, but there really is no nationwide popular vote because we don't have a single national election. We have 50 state elections, and the Electoral College ensures a degree of parity among them when we vote for presidential tickets.
Quote from: CA_Chrome on December 08, 2016, 03:53:12 PM
Oh, I misunderstood your previous post. My apologies.
I think the Electoral College is genius. If one looks at the electoral map of counties, it's easy to see that a few huge metro areas would completely dominate presidential elections if the Electoral College did not exist. Not even states, but only Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, New York, Seattle, Boston, DC and a few other densely populated urban areas would decide all presidential elections. The Electoral College not only prevents that, but ensures that the state elections are what matters. After all, we are a union of states, not a union of huge metroplexes. Hillary Clinton won over 8.7 million votes in California. Over 2.4 million from Los Angeles County alone. That is where her so-called popular vote lead comes from, but there really is no nationwide popular vote because we don't have a single national election. We have 50 state elections, and the Electoral College ensures a degree of parity among them when we vote for presidential tickets.
It is what it is. Whoever gets more votes wins the Popular Vote. Where they live is irrelevant.
This premise assumes that there would only be two major candidates if the Electoral College did not exist. What the Electoral College does is ensure that there will be only one candidate from each party along with evening up the playing field. I don't think the disparity was that much different this time around from the last two. The winner got people to vote that haven't been doing so, people who thought that their vote didn't matter. Onward, for me, I get to now spend the next four years getting other things done during the State of the Union addresses.