POLL: Who's Your Favorite Duo?

Please select only one:

A. Laurel and Hardy

B. Hall and Oates

C. Bert and Ernie

D. Salt-N-Pepa

E. Marx and Engels

F. Starsky and Hutch

G. McCain and Graham

Leave answers in the comments below, or on Facebook. Thank you.

Participation in this poll helps me with my personal research. (I don't own these images -- used for educational purposes only.) TE

Update on Saturday, March 23, 2013 at 1:03PM by Tim

The results are in! After compiling countless responses on this blog and on Facebook (including many thoughtful write-ins), the clear winners are C. Bert & Ernie. Although a related poll by Katie Levin showed some support for calling them "Ernie & Bert" instead -- that opinion coming mainly from former Vermont residents (I don't know why). In truth, I think I started this in order to make a McCain & Graham joke -- remember those guys? They were hilarious! But it turned into something much more fun...and informative. Thank you for your participation!

Comments

[John A.]

Myrna Loy and William Powell in "The Thin Man" movies. Screen magic and Nora didn't care how drunk Nick got. ;-)

[Dan Mc]

How about Chico and the Man? BJ and the Bear? Bo and Luke Duke? Smokey and the Bandit?

[Dan Mc]

But my vote is definitely ... Calvin and Hobbes.

[Kiersten]

Bert and Ernie!

[Nick]

C

[Dan Mc]

I'd like to file a formal protest against this poll result. I think that it is elitist and wrong to not give equal and fair consider to Calvin and Hobbes. Just because they lack 3 dimensions, doesn't make them any less dynamic of a duo. People should be more accepting of duos that lack all 3 dimensions.

In this enlightened age, I think it's wrong to give preferential treatment to duos like Ernie and Bert because they are fuzzy, ambiguously platonic life mates, who taught us that men sleeping together, (in separate beds) is acceptable; or Graham and McCain simply because they are fuzzy, ambiguously platonic life mates, that eat dinner at 4:30; or Oates and Hall because they are fuzzy, ambiguously platonic life mates, that can charm us with melodies about rich girls and man-eaters; or Hardy and Laurel because they are fuzzy, ambiguously platonic life mates, whose clumsy charm entertained generations of geriatrics like Graham and McCain; or Hutch and Starsky because they are fuzzy, ambiguously platonic life mates, with a sensible, yet reckless law enforcement style that defined public perceptions about cops during the decadent decade of disco; or Pepa n Salt because they are fuzzy, ambiguously platonic life mates, who infected our brains with spicy talk about sex; or Engels and Marx because of their festering manifestos, spicy talk about sex,* and of course their fuzzy, ambiguously platonic relationship. * (Their spicy sex talks were strictly an inner circle thing.)

Don't get me wrong, I fully respect all of their contributions to society. They did for civilization, what the duo of BJ and the Bear did for man/chimpanzee relations; while providing evident proof of Darwin's theory of idiots evolving into apes. (I'll forego pointing out their obvious fuzzy, ambiguously platonic relationship.)

I'm just appealing for equal considerations of duos that lack all of the "accepted" dimensions. Thank you. ... Calvin and Hobbes, represented. Peace out.

[Tim]

Thanks, Dan Mc, for your formal complaint and passionate screed about overturning these results and naming Calvin and Hobbes, who were not even on the list of choices, as "favorite duo." Let me think about it...nah, the result stays the same. I mean, I don't even know if I have the power to do what you're asking. The people have spoken. But I see your point about discrimination against duos lacking 3 dimensions, I really do. But life isn't fair. Maybe Calvin & Hobbes would agree with me there. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go read some Calvin & Hobbes...