Oscar betting continued...
#2) Oscar loves to share the wealth. This is actually in two parts.
Part 1:
The macrocosm of the history of the award show and the politics found within the Hollywood community.
This refers to awards being given for a persons body of work as opposed to the specific film of that year. As mentioned earlier in the thread by JBRAN, we've seen this happen for years. Examples being Al Pacino for "Scent of a Woman" or Martin Scorsese for "The Departed." Hollywood is a very "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" kind of town. If you've played the game long enough, made money for the right people, and not pissed off the wrong people, eventually you will win an Oscar. This is a strong factor in not only predicting who will win, but also who wont.
Of course there have been multiple winners in the past, but it is quite rare and previous winners, especially multiple winners are actually at a disadvantage because 1) the Academy is more likely "share the wealth" and award a first time winner, and 2) the person that has won before will have to compete with their previous win in the mind of the voters. Meaning, the bar is set too high for people who already have the hardware. A perfect example is Meryl Streep. She has the most nominations in history with her 17th this year. However, she hasn't won since 1983, coming up short 12 times since then.
This is definitely something to be kept in mind when breaking down the respective categories.
more to come...