Is a 2nd nomination harder for an actor or easier?

Someone asked this question on a message board:

I think the second nomination is humongous because it t shows you're not just a one-hit wonder. I feel like 2-time noms like Brad Pitt, Rob Downey Jr, Joaquin Pheonix, Samantha Morton, Amy Adams*, Catherine Keener and now Matt Damon are now members of the club of established actors because they have two and if you look at their filmographies, it felt like they were being increasingly recognized for notable work around the time they earned their second nomination. I even feel like the above list of names is more established than a one-time winner like Rachel Weicz, Jennifer Hudson, Halle Berry, Helen Hunt, or Cuba Gooding Jr, because they've shown they can reach the threshold of Oscar nomination twice.

As a result, I think it's not hard to get a second nomination if you've deserved it but I think a voter would think twice if you're not a one-hit wonder (someone who had a really good role just once). I can't imagine someone like Eddie Murphy, Dan Akroyd, Sandra Locke, Casey Affleck, Sophie Okendo, even Alan Alda, getting a second nomination if they suddenly did a great film tomorrow unless it was amazing like Charlize Theron in monster. It would fall a little under the well they already have a nom rule.

To look at this further:
-Brad Pitt got nominated in Benjamin Buttons after turning in notable leading performances in Assassination of Jesse James and Babel. Babel was significant because he almost got nominated for it and the picture got nominated for an Oscar and won the golden globe that year.

-Catherine Keener got nomination #2 for Capote after she had one of those prolific years that people take note of: She was also in 40-Year Old Virgin and Interpreter and won the NBR prize for all three

-Rob Downey Jr. had the upcoming lead in Soloist (this was a little bit of reverse dues because the film was scheduled to be released in 08 and if the trailer doesn't make your heart melt alone, I don't know what would). Downey Jr. also had just become Tobey Maguire 2.0 by hemming a megablockbuster in Iron Man. Three years prior he garnered some note in Kiss Kiss Bang Bang and Good Night and Good Luck

-Matt Damon already had an Oscar in writing and acting but a decade later it was clear that he was one of the most respected and prolific actors in Hollywood and needed more to show for it. Bourne Ultimatum, Good Shephard, Syrianna and Departed were all memorable turns (he got zero Oscar buzz for the latter two because George Clooney and Leo DiCaprio, Jack Nicholson and Mark Wahlberg outshone him for the Oscar buzz). Even his role in All the Pretty Horses could have made a decent case for an Oscar nom. By 2009 with fading buzz for Informant, his best role to date, the voters needed to apologize to him by sticking him in the supporting category for a role that was (at least, in my opinion) pretty forgettable.

-Amy Adams filmography might be a little short compared to others on the list but she only started acting this decade and wasn't a commodity until 2005. She had been in a consistent number of pictures sup to 2008 where she has shown range and expanded her resume: She did a comedy with Will Ferrell, a Mike Nicholls picture with Hanks and Roberts, starred in a Disneyesque flick, did another indie in Sunshine Clearing, and shined in a theatrical piece in Doubt.

The falliable link between the SAG Awards and the Oscars

Oscar pundits are always trying to fit square pegs into round holes. One annoying habit they have is trying to take every award ceremony that comes along and use it for some kind of barometer for their predictions of the oscars from which they continually change those predictions with each new incoming set of results. The Oscars are treated like one of these trivia games were clues are slowly being given so that in time you will be able to make deductions and figure out the answers. Entertainment Weekly devotes three full issues exclusively to the Oscars each year (up from two five years ago), message boards swarm with people posting predictions and countless blogs and websites have surfaced that follow the phenemonen. Even the Toronto Star and the LA Times have put up exclusive websites to monitor awards buzz. In all this excitement, it might be lost that not every awards ceremony is a precursor to the Oscars and might not necessarily alter the results of the Oscars.

Take the SAG Awards. One publication noted that Little Miss Sunshine might win an Oscar because it won the SAG ensemble award, which is the "closest thing the SAGs have to a best picture award." Language like "the closest thing there is to _____" is indicative of how much people are trying to stretch things to fit in with the oscar buzz phenomenon. President Bush's line about how sunny skies lie ahead this year can be said to be the closest thing in his State of the Union address to an endorsement for Little Miss Sunshine for best picture, but so what?

The fact of the matter is that by their very definition, the SAG Awards have no award that serves as a vote for best picture and I wish people would stop treating it as such. A best ensemble award and a best movie award are too entirely different things. I personally was severely disappointed by the film Capote and consider it my least favorite Best Picture Oscar Nominee in years. At the same time, I liked the performances of Catherine Keener, Chris Cooper, and Clifton Collins Jr. enough to feel like it would be a very deserving best ensemble nominee. I would similarly feel that Batman Begins had the best ensemble of the year last year, but by no means, the best picture of the year or anywhere in the top five. Even great individual acting performances don't necessarily translate to a best ensemble award in my opinion. Morgan Freeman and Hillary Swank might have been great in Million Dollar Baby, but can they top the chemistry shared between the quartet of character actors in Sideways?

Any connection between SAG ensemble wins and best picture wins surely must be coincidence and statistically insignificant (scientifically speaking, all Oscar buzz precursors are statistically insignificant since the sample size is 78 at best). Last year, I noticed that in a crowded and somewhat deadlocked field, momentum shifted significantly toward Crash and Capote once they got nominated for SAG awards and once Crash won the SAG, momentum shifted toward Crash for the win. There might even be more dangerous consequences of this if one affects the other. If there's the question of life imitating art vs art imitating life than there could very well be the question of oscar buzz imitating results vs results imitating Oscar buzz. Whether that's the case or not, it would be helpful if pundits would stop making connections that aren't there, like with the SAG awards.