Donald Trump, the man with the Best Memory in the World, doesn't seem to recall David Duke. He described Duke in the past as "not company I wish to keep" but has apparently forgotten both Duke and the Ku Klux Klan. Jonathan Chait has more as does the video I'm about to post.

This isn't really a review of the Academy Awards since I watched the whole show in about an hour thanks to the magic of Fast Forward. Basically, I skip the awards themselves and most of the thank-you speeches. But I thought Chris Rock's opening monologue was dead-on to the point where it made most of the later talk about racism in Hollywood seem hollow and repetitive. As causes go, it was eclipsed in the latter half of the program by Joe Biden's awkward speech and Lady Gaga's powerful song about sexual victimhood. (I'm not suggesting a contest. They're both important issues and not inappropriate to the Oscar ceremony.)

Funniest speech I saw all night not counting Rock's monologue was Louis C.K. talking about the financial non-rewards for the Documentary Shorts makers. The most disappointing speech went with the most surprising win — to great audience delight — of Mark Rylance over the expected Sylvester Stallone. Rylance gave two of the most wonderful, non-traditional acceptance speeches when he won his two Tony Awards. How odd to see him give a conventional "thank you" at the Oscars. (Actually, the oddest thing in the whole telecast was hearing them play "Fight the Power" at length over the interminable closing credits. That was when it really felt like pandering.)

As these ceremonies go, it seemed fine to me…and I would suggest that anyone who calls it the worst Academy Awards show ever, as some always do, is expecting the Oscars to be something they cannot be and probably never were. I hope they have Rock back but he might not be as effective next year when, no matter what, they're gonna nominate some black people. For the wrong reason.

Our friend Chip Kidd designs books that are often so pretty the design overshadows the text. Here he is discussing his art 'n' craft…

Three separate Bernie Sanders supporters wrote me yesterday, apparently having figured out that his path to the White House involves convincing the guy who works on Groo the Wanderer that Hillary doesn't have a lock on it. Not that I've said she does — though Nate Silver, who actually counts votes as opposed to assessing "momentum," seems to think it's just about over. I just don't have a lot of emotion invested in that race. I'll be voting for whichever one gets the nomination and it won't matter because I live in a state that's going to go overwhemingly Democratic with or without my ballot.

I'm also getting e-mails from folks linking me to articles saying Hillary is certain to beat Donald or that Donald is certain to beat Hillary. Most of the latter seem to have been written by pundits who, 48 hours before the polls closed in 2012 were confidently predicting a Romney landslide. It seems that though they got that wrong two days before that election, they've become infallible 253 days ahead of Election Day. And that's without knowing who the running mates will be, who'll win the debates, what additional stances and promises we'll hear from the nominees, what new scandals will emerge, what stupid things each of them will say, etc.

I'm unimpressed by predictions that are unaccompanied by maps or lists that break down each candidate's chances in each state and how many electoral votes each could win. In fact, I think those are the only forecasts that have any value at all. You want to convince me your guy or gal will be sworn in next Inauguration Day? Break out the electoral map and tell me which states he or she will win…and don't kid yourself or me. The G.O.P. nominee ain't gonna lose Texas or Utah and the Democratic candidate has New York and California for sure.

But you can't do that now with any real data. There simply hasn't been enough polling of most of the arguable states and even where there's been some, it's testing the match-up of Clinton and Somebody versus Trump and Somebody in an election that will have many twists 'n' turns in those 253 days. Obviously, the Democrat starts with a big electoral advantage. He or she just has to replicate the 2012 Obama win and not lose more than 126 of the electoral votes he won. The Republican has to win all the states Romney got plus flip around ten additional ones. It can be done but there's insufficient data to prove it at this time.

Until there is, all of it is wishful thinking as far as I'm concerned. Plus, don't you just get the feeling that this is going to be the kind of election where every even-numbered day, one of the candidates is going to say something really, really outrageous and possibly game-changing? And that every odd-numbered day, we're going to hear a possibly-true story of something really, really scandalous and possibly illegal (but not clearly disprovable) that one of them did? Those 253 days are going to feel like 253 years.

Watch this. Just watch this. (Thanks, Shelly Goldstein…)

Here's a summary of Oscar predictions. I don't really have many, other than that Chris Rock will do a lot of jokes about the absence of black nominees and a few solid slams at Donald Trump. Maybe Rock will come out in whiteface or something.

At some point, there will be some stunt that is designed to drive traffic to the Internet in a measurable way. And I'd give 50-50 odds of someone on stage getting attacked by a guy in a bear suit.

Someone will probably give some wildly-exaggerated estimate of how many people watch the Academy Awards. The number constantly grows and will soon be greater than the number of people on Earth.

Several people will be outraged at the omission of several people from the "In Memoriam" reel.

A few winners will thank their agents and maybe Jesus Christ (surely in that order) and at least one will take a shot at Trump and/or give a shout-out to Bernie Sanders.

Following the ceremony, many people will write articles about why certain votes went the way they did. These articles will be based on the assumption that (a) everyone in Hollywood votes and (b) they all vote the way they did for the same reasons. Be especially wary of any statement that begins, "This is Hollywood's way of sending a message that…" Most people in Hollywood don't vote and there's no way of knowing why the ones who do vote make the choices they make.

I'll TiVo it and start watching at least an hour after it starts with my finger on the Skip Ahead button. And no matter how good it is, everyone will say the next day that it was The Worst Oscar Telecast ever. Which it won't be but everyone always says that.

17 favorite movies before and after visual effects.

Never mind that silly presidential election. Someone at Nate Silver's site has finally done a survey on a matter of true importance: Guests on late night talk shows. The occasion that triggered this was the 100th episode of The Late Show with Stephen Colbert.

It shows that Colbert is not booking quite the same kinds of guests as either Jimmy on a competing channel…and good for him. I happen to like Colbert's show a lot. I think he's a much better interviewer than anyone else currently doing that kind of program and his comedy spots are strong enough that I don't miss his old show on Comedy Central too much. He also seems to be enjoying himself…which you might think is a silly quality but I think it's one of the main reasons that Jimmy Fallon is doing so well and why Mr. Leno bested Mr. Letterman for such a long time.

Not that I like everything about Colbert's show. It may not be his fault that studio audiences now believe their job is to overcheer everything and chant the host's name and give everyone and everything a standing ovation…but I'll bet he could do more to dial that back. I also expected him to do more to monkey with talk show conventions and format, and the physical bits he does — like a guest teaching him to dance or cook — all have that well-rehearsed air that all talk shows now have.

The Legendary Carson used to at least partially wing those and trust in his own ability to ad-lib if things went wrong. Then it became S.O.P. in the Letterman-Leno years that the host must never be surprised in any way, even though both Dave and Jay could probably have handled anything that did not go as planned. I'll bet Colbert could too but his show doesn't take enough of a chance in those directions.

The ratings are OK. CBS is probably quite happy with what they're getting, which is roughly a neck-and-neck finish with Jimmy Kimmel. They'd be happier, as would ABC, if their guy was more competitive with Fallon, who is out-and-away in the lead…but that doesn't seem to changing any time soon. CBS has got to be pretty pleased with James Corden as well so we have some long-range stability in late night. I guess for some, that makes it less fun.

Ring Lardner Jr. was the blacklisted writer who won an Academy Award for the 1942 Tracy-Hepburn film Woman of the Year, then had to work largely sans credit until the 1970 movie of M*A*S*H, for which he won another Oscar. A bio-pic of another blacklisted writer, Dalton Trumbo, is up for some Oscars on Sunday and James Lardner (son of Ring Jr.) has some notes on what is right and wrong with Trumbo.

I admired Trumbo but — and I know this is a minority viewpoint — felt bored by a lot of it. I thought The Front covered much of the same ground more effectively and that Trumbo was a little too foreseeable, going as it did exactly where you knew it would go. That's a problem with any historical drama but in the best of them, you get insights along the way and many opportunities to say, "I didn't know that" and you see analogies to larger issues. I'm afraid I didn't get enough of that from Trumbo. Bryan Cranston was sure perfect, though. I doubt he'll win Sunday night but it would not be wrong if he did.

Why am I working all night on a script for something the producer doesn't really need for months? We don't have the answer to that but we do know how rubber bands are made…

Can nothing stop or wound Donald Trump? Well, according to David Cay Johnston, Trump's income tax records might. There seems to be a good chance they'd show that thanks to all the loopholes that have been set up for rich guys in the real estate business, Trump lives very well paying no income taxes. That might lose him an admirer or two.

• Wish I had a buck for every fat joke we're going to get about Chris Christie wanting to be Trump's running mate and "balancing the ticket."

• Chris Christie endorses Donald Trump. Also, Colonel Sanders, Burger King and Aunt Jemima.

Busy with a deadline…so not much posting here today and I didn't watch the Republican Debate last night. I probably wouldn't have watched it even if I'd had nothing to do because those things aren't debates. They're theater…and not very good theater at that. From all reports, it was all about Trump and I pretty much know what I think about Trump, including my belief that nothing he says now has any bearing on what he'd actually do in the White House, except maybe for the things that benefit people in his income bracket.

We're receiving lots of nominations for the Bill Finger Award, including quite a few for folks who are ineligible because they've already won…and three so far to give the "posthumous" award for writers who are ineligible for that one because of the silly technicality that they're still alive. Please understand that many are worthy and that each year, the judges aren't saying that only the chosen recipients are deserving. Especially with the posthumous one, it's usually a matter of which of many will get it this year and which ones will have to wait for another time.

I continue to get incessant, unsolicited phone calls from contractors — or in many cases I'm sure, people who know nothing about construction work or remodeling but are trying to earn some bucks making cold calls for contractors. I have developed a nice repertoire of fibs to tell these callers…fibs which seem to get rid of them faster than telling them, "No, I'm not interested." One calls me the other day and, since he has not only my phone number but my address, he tells me, "We'll be out on [name of my street] tomorrow because several of your neighbors have asked us for free estimates and we can swing by your place to give you one on any home improvements you have planned."

I laid one of my little lies on the guy and he laughed and said, "That's not true. Come on, gimme a chance to give you a bid on some work." I said, "Hey, you lied to me about being out on my street tomorrow because neighbors of mine wanted estimates from you." He said, "You're right" and hung up.

But now I have to get back to my script. I wonder if that contractor guy could build me a better second act.

Matt Taibbi says a lot of interesting things about that Trump guy.

And here's Taibbi writing about Trump's relationship with Joe Scarborough over on MSNBC. People keeping calling MSNBC the Liberal equivalent of Fox News but it really isn't. At best, it's that three or four hours a day. An awful lot of the time, it's apolitical documentaries, mostly about prison. And when Scarborough's show is on — which seems like always — it's a weak imitation of Fox News.

The American Conservative site ranks all the still-in-it presidential contenders on their foreign policy stances and comes to the conclusion that Bernie Sanders is the best.

If you're following that O.J. Simpson mini-series — and I still am — you might want to read what the real Marcia Clark has to say about racial issues in the courtroom. I'm still following the series but I'm more and more convinced that Nathan Lane and Cuba Gooding should have switched roles and that that isn't John Travolta playing Robert Shapiro. It's a large walk-around Muppet with Caroll Spinney inside it.

Producer Roger Corman — who got wealthy giving young filmmakers breaks instead of money — says he's been fighting to keep all that money.