posted
What do you think? I know Oprah's huge, but beyond that I don't really know any specifics. I don't watch her and I have no idea about specifics regarding numbers of viewers and how influenced by her they are. I know she can get a lot of people to read a book if she wants. But can she get that many people to vote for a politician?
Just looking to hear some thoughts about what her endorsement of Obama might mean for the upcoming caucuses and possibly general election.
For anyone who doesn't know what I'm talking about:
posted
Let's put it this way....Barnes and Noble sees at least an 80% jump in sales from every single one of her book picks within two weeks of it being on her show.
No one in the history of publishing has ever done what she does every single time.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
From memory, I believe the polls in Iowa show that 29% said they were more likely to vote for him because of her, 29% were less likely, and 40% didn't care one way or the other.
Maybe she'll have a different effect in South Carolina, but in Iowa she seems to be a non factor.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
She doesn't have to, the races are so tight in the areas she's going to that all she has to do is give him a 2-5 point bump and he'll win it by himself. She, by and large, plays largely with women and older people, two demographics that Hillary enjoys a large lead in. Any bite Oprah could help him take will come right out of the front runner.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm rather curious about the age of the poll you're citing. I can't find anything later than when Oprah first announced her endorcement, which is a FAR cry from the "walk the talk" of actually campaigning for him. Money with a backslap is cheap. Time&Energy is precious.
quote:For all the hype and attention she has received, the poll indicates that Oprah Winfrey may not be having much of an impact on moving voters. Just one percent of Democrats said Winfrey's endorsement of Obama would make it more likely to vote for him while 14 percent said it would make it less likely they would support his candidacy and 80 percent said it would make no difference. By contrast, 44 percent said Bill Clinton's involvement with his wife's campaign would make it more likely for the them to support her, 7 percent said less and 46 percent said it would make no difference.
...don't know if this really is that accurate because it seems a lot of polls about the 2008 cycle are messed up, but the 80% indifference figure seems significant.
Posts: 1592 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
My perception is that Oprah would have had more influence a decade ago than she does now, but it could easily be that I'm just more out of touch with popular culture now than I was a decade ago. I would guess that fluctuations in her level of influence, whatever that influence might be, would be positively correlated with her show's ratings, though; anybody have ratings figures for her show over time?
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the impact she might have is getting people to the polls who might not otherwise bother and "introducing" Obama to disengaged people who may not really know who he is. I don't think that she will have a big impact on people who are already paying attention.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, sure. Just as I doubt that most of the people who buy the books she recommends would be buying some other book absent her suggestions.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think she has influence on some things and not others. I think she can probably influence a good number of people. I would be surprised if her negative influence numbers were really that high among people who were only looking at voting for Hillary or Obama. You have to remember that scuffle she had with the Beef people a while back, that's going to show up in the midwest and Texas.
Oprah is much more my idea of an "uppity woman", as we were discussing re: Hillary last week. She's a woman who's also uppity, and not an uppity person who happens to be a woman.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
If the rest of her fans are anything like my mother, my faith in America has slipped another couple notches. My mom is like a mindless drone who just does what Oprah tells her to do. It's rather annoying to me....but in any case, I predict a slight benefit for Obama being possible, though I wouldn't be surprised if her influence made no difference at all. I'd be kinda happy too Posts: 349 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh yeah, Saephon? Well, your mom is like a mindless drone who... Oh, right. I, uh, guess that doesn't really work in this situation.
I can definately see Oprah having an effect in the "get out the vote" part, probably more than changing anyone's mind who already had a candidate picked. She could possibly swing some of the undecideds, too, but that seems (to me) harder to judge.
On a related note, from a CNN poll:
quote: "Democratic voters see Obama as the most likeable candidate and the one who is least likely to act like a typical politician," Holland said. "He ties with Clinton on believability and the ability to unite the country, but loses badly to her on experience and electability. Moderate Democrats think Clinton shares their values; liberal Democrats feel that way about Obama."
I don't get why people see Clinton as the most "electable" candidate. To me it seems like there are a significant number of people who would vote Republican just to vote against Clinton, where with most of the other candidates they might of just stayed home.
posted
I read the reader responses on the tvguide webpages and there was a lot of negative statements. However, based on the implied racism (comments like, see, this proves Obama only likes other black people), I doubt that they were going to vote for him anyway. I read that the big thing Oprah is doing for Obama is getting people out there listening to him. She is getting him a chance with people, which it seems like is really all Obama needs.
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: I think the impact she might have is getting people to the polls who might not otherwise bother and "introducing" Obama to disengaged people who may not really know who he is. I don't think that she will have a big impact on people who are already paying attention.
That is the part I am curious about--will she actually motivate people who normally wouldn't make the effort to get out in primaries to go ahead and vote?
I am not sure she can. I think she will continue to draw large crowds for her celebrity factor, but voting only happens on one day and is inconvenient. It is not like buying a book you can put off till the weekend.
If she truly swings it to Obama, I will be very happy for him and her. I think Hillary is declining despite Oprah, not because of her.
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sure people will come out to the polls. There's always the chance that Oprah will give them all new cars.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think what all the polls are missing is that in typical US elections, only about 60% the eligible voters vote. The number is much lower in primaries. Since the margins in most races are small, an election outcome can often be swung simply by getting people who usually don't vote excited enough about a candidate to vote.
While I doubt that your typical celebrity endorsement means anything at all, Oprah is a different kind of celebrity. She is the kind of celebrity who gets people who aren't usually readers to buy books and read them. So I think its very likely that she could get people who aren't normally politically active, excited enough about Obama to vote. And that does indeed have the potential to swing the election.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The number of people who vote in the Iowa primary is very, very small, especially this year since it falls on a day with a lot of other things going on. Every person will make a difference in the final tally.
quote:Originally posted by Dan_raven: Sure people will come out to the polls. There's always the chance that Oprah will give them all new cars.
"You get a vote, you get a vote, you get a vote, everybody gets a vote!"
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Iowa has a caucus, not a primary. Which contributes to the low turn-out, since instead of showing up for a few minutes anytime during the day you have to attend a hour+ event in the evening.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The trouble is that Bill Clinton is actually more popular among black voters than Oprah is.
Personally, I'm just as likely to vote for Obama as before, but my opinion of Oprah has gone up.
As for polls...I don't have much faith in them. Lies, damned lies, and statistics, after all. There are many ways of asking questions to get the answer you want and many ways of presenting results to make things look a certain way.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: The number of people who vote in the Iowa primary is very, very small, especially this year since it falls on a day with a lot of other things going on. Every person will make a difference in the final tally.
quote:Originally posted by Dan_raven: Sure people will come out to the polls. There's always the chance that Oprah will give them all new cars.
"You get a vote, you get a vote, you get a vote, everybody gets a vote!"
posted
Yeah, I really don't like the polls this election. They are almost always set up (the questions they ask, the way they frame the answers) to support Hilary and none of the others. It's really pissing me off.
Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Alcon: Yeah, I really don't like the polls this election. They are almost always set up (the questions they ask, the way they frame the answers) to support Hilary and none of the others. It's really pissing me off.
I'm glad I'm not the only one who has seen this. I can't even stand to look at them anymore.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oprah might get people to *consider* Obama, but for them to like him, they're going to have to like *him*.
Posts: 544 | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Last night I overheard some people at the next checkout lane over talking about this and got some insight into the "Oprah's endorsement might hurt Obama" perspective. Basically this woman was saying that Oprah had some doctor on who wasn't even a "real" doctor and had endorsed that book that turned out to be fake (Million Little Pieces, I think?) so then this Obama guy might not really be legit, or something.
It was interesting, but I didn't really get to hear the whole conversation to follow where it went from there.
posted
I've been thinking. I think I'm a fan of partisan journalism. It's democratic to have celebrities and journalists have political opinions. Sure, there are dangers, but I still think that I'd rather live in a world where everyone is expected to have a thoughtful, engaged opinion than the alternative. I like the idea of putting it out in the open. I think it could actually raise the quality of political discourse if journalists and media personalities were forthright with their opinions.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Enigmatic: Last night I overheard some people at the next checkout lane over talking about this and got some insight into the "Oprah's endorsement might hurt Obama" perspective. Basically this woman was saying that Oprah had some doctor on who wasn't even a "real" doctor and had endorsed that book that turned out to be fake (Million Little Pieces, I think?) so then this Obama guy might not really be legit, or something.
It was interesting, but I didn't really get to hear the whole conversation to follow where it went from there.
--Enigmatic
Wow, that is almost painful to read. That reasoning makes no sense at all. SO Oprah's been wrong before, she might be wrong about Obama? If this "logic" is at all representative of voters, then it's no wonder we have such awful politicians in office.
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong: I've been thinking. I think I'm a fan of partisan journalism. It's democratic to have celebrities and journalists have political opinions. Sure, there are dangers, but I still think that I'd rather live in a world where everyone is expected to have a thoughtful, engaged opinion than the alternative. I like the idea of putting it out in the open. I think it could actually raise the quality of political discourse if journalists and media personalities were forthright with their opinions.
I like partisan reporting too -- but I want them to really put it out there and tell me their opinions. I hate when reporters claim not to be biased and then report clearly biased information.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wouldn't put it past her. I work in a bookstore, and while what she writes pretty much doesn't sell, anything she endorses automatically becomes one of our best-sellers. Anyone heard of 'The Secret' by Rhonda Byrne? That was a nightmare here. Still is, really.
Given generally low voter turnouts, and the demographic that watch Oprah reports better with Hillary than Obama (which may now change some), it wouldn't surprise me if she was a major factor.
Posts: 39 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
What do you mean about it being a nightmare? Just that people are really insistent about getting it and you can't keep it in stock, or are angry people returning it, demanding a refund? Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I meant caucus. More than just the style of the vote, there's also a couple other factors that will mean lower turnout this year, not the least of which is the Orange Bowl. People just won't be in town to have those meetings, and from what I understand goes on at the meetings, anything can happen.
I kind of like the idea of the sort of discussions that go on, but it also sounds like a bit of a hindrance to voters.
I don't think there's a comparison between Oprah and Bill. Bill has higher ratings than ANY Democratic candidate or their spouses. Democrats still love Bill Clinton, which means if used carefully, he'll always be the best asset any Democratic candidate could have, and that will become more apparent if she ends up getting the nomination, and might regardless if he stumps for whoever wins.
Oprah will help Obama eat into Hillary's lead, by a couple points I think, at most, if that even. But Bill is a powerhouse on the road.
Edit to add: The last CNN poll I just saw said that Obama has finally caught up to Hillary in New Hampshire. He's ahead of her in Iowa, barely, and now it's Clinton/Obama 31/30. In less than two months Obama has gone from being down 24 points to a statistical dead heat. This is extremely good news for Obama. I can't stress enough the importance of winning in these two states early on. Also a fantastic number for him, he has a 10 point lead over the next closest candidate with Independents, even though registered Democrats still give Hillary a 5 point lead. Independents can cross over and vote in either primary in New Hampshire. And a large number of people are still undecided; this race could go either way.
Scoring with independents now means you can take those votes with you to the General.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Granted that I have only lived in Iowa through one previous caucus season, I really don't see the Orange Bowl having much effect on people who would have otherwise attended the caucus. If an Iowa team were in it, sure, but as is? Nah.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't think there's a comparison between Oprah and Bill.
Well that much of your comment I agree with.
Bill's influence is very different from Oprah's. Bill's popularity is with the democratic establishment and with kind of people who will donate lots of money to the campaign but he isn't going to get people who usually aren't interested in politics excited. He isn't going to inspire grassroots participation.
Hillary is the establishment candidate. Obama is the reform candidate. Obama gets the grassroots excited and if he is going to win it will be because of grassroots support. If Oprah can get people who don't usually follow politics excited about Obama, that will be enormously helpful.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't think there's a comparison between Oprah and Bill.
Well that much of your comment I agree with.
Bill's influence is very different from Oprah's. Bill's popularity is with the democratic establishment and with kind of people who will donate lots of money to the campaign but he isn't going to get people who usually aren't interested in politics excited. He isn't going to inspire grassroots participation.
Hillary is the establishment candidate. Obama is the reform candidate. Obama gets the grassroots excited and if he is going to win it will be because of grassroots support. If Oprah can get people who don't usually follow politics excited about Obama, that will be enormously helpful.
I agree with this here Rabbit.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Enigmatic: [qb] Last night I overheard some people at the next checkout lane over talking about this and got some insight into the "Oprah's endorsement might hurt Obama" perspective. Basically this woman was saying that Oprah had some doctor on who wasn't even a "real" doctor and had endorsed that book that turned out to be fake (Million Little Pieces, I think?) so then this Obama guy might not really be legit, or something.
It was interesting, but I didn't really get to hear the whole conversation to follow where it went from there.
--Enigmatic
Wow, that is almost painful to read. That reasoning makes no sense at all. SO Oprah's been wrong before, she might be wrong about Obama? If this "logic" is at all representative of voters, then it's no wonder we have such awful politicians in office.
Have any of you heard of the new-ish book, The Myth of the Rational Voter: Why Why Democracies Choose Bad Policies by Bryan Caplan? It's a very readable book about the systematic bias and poor reasoning that voters employ. I highly recommend it (as do a bunch of "best of" lists).
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by dkw: Granted that I have only lived in Iowa through one previous caucus season, I really don't see the Orange Bowl having much effect on people who would have otherwise attended the caucus. If an Iowa team were in it, sure, but as is? Nah.
Not a college football fan are you?
There's some question as to how useful the Iowa Caucus will even be in deciding a candidate given how horrible it usually is at predicting the final contender, but this year especially, given the timing of the caucus, really calls into question its usefulness.
On the other side, there has been a poll released that say a relatively small number of people will stay home for the game that otherwise would have gone out, but if you look at who those people are, its mostly guys who would have supported Edwards and Hillary, not Obama. In Iowa you also have to get %15 of the vote, and if you don't, you have to support a different candidate. When you put all that together it looks good for Clinton and Obama, and really bad for everyone else. It's also part of why Iowa isn't much good except for media fodder for the candidates that do well, which is currency I guess, but not very valuable in determining what the people of Iowa really want.
If it even effects 5-10% of the people, people who either aren't in town right after the holidays, or don't want to brave the elements when a game is on the TV in a very pro-college football state, it'll be a big difference. It could swing the race to one guy or another entirely.
Personally I hope it breaks for Obama, and I hope he gets a lot of good press going into New Hampshire, but I'm looking to New Hampshire to really tell me what the national trend will look like. Iowans are kooky.
Another thing that breaks for Obama is the fact that since it's so early, a lot of college kids will be home from school, and that age demographic is heavily pro-Obama. He's been crisscrossing the state urging University students to stay in town and caucus for him, and I'm betting a lot will listen.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't think there's a comparison between Oprah and Bill.
Well that much of your comment I agree with.
Bill's influence is very different from Oprah's. Bill's popularity is with the democratic establishment and with kind of people who will donate lots of money to the campaign but he isn't going to get people who usually aren't interested in politics excited. He isn't going to inspire grassroots participation.
Hillary is the establishment candidate. Obama is the reform candidate. Obama gets the grassroots excited and if he is going to win it will be because of grassroots support. If Oprah can get people who don't usually follow politics excited about Obama, that will be enormously helpful.
I don't see how Oprah has anything to do with grassroots support. Obama is having zero trouble whipping up that support. He's turned himself into the anti-establishment candidate, and a grassroots fundraising titan all without any help from Oprah. I've seen no data that supports the theory that Oprah is targeting people who aren't normally interested in politics, or that the demographics she usually hits are people who also don't care about politics.
Do you have any polling numbers that show the crowds that Bill has been talking to are people who were already going to vote for the establishment candidate wheras the people Oprah has been talking to are brand new to the process?
The way I see it, Oprah is a targeted strike on a smaller demographic, mostly women and older people, the kind of people who watch her show and trust her. The bright spot there is that's a demographic Hillary has largely ruled in recent months. Probably the African American vote too. Most of the support that Hillary recently lost in New Hampshire came because she's losing support amongst women, and it's flowing to Obama. But most analysts say that's actually part of a bigger trend started before Oprah even got involved, and it's impossible to gauge her actual effect when Obama has done so much for himself. She's an unknown quantity.
It's true that Bill is a huge fundraiser, and that Hillary has access to a ton of assets (funding and organizational) she wouldn't have otherwise had, but those are HUGE advantages. Obama is tapping into something that no one else has in his grassroots efforts. Hillary and the others are almost all going for the traditional Democratic votes and dollars, and Hillary is mopping most of them up, and a lot of the reason why is Bill.
In general I don't disagree with your assessment of the two of them, but other than you saying you don't agree with me, I don't see how the rest of your post is really in disagreement with mine. Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
My experience of the caucuses is that the only people who go are people who are fairly committed to the political process. I can't imagine a single person who was at my site in 2004 staying home to watch anything on TV.
I guess I'm just assuming a lower turn-out as the status quo. Without the Orange Bowl maybe more folks who aren't highly committed could be motivated to get out and caucus. But I would look at that as an increase, rather than looking at them not being there as a decrease.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
We'll see. It's likely it won't be the huge effect that some are predicting, but it doesn't have to be. When a race is this tight, every guy (or girl I guess) that stays home to watch that game that would have gone out (also keeping in mind this is the FIRST year that anyone has even had to make such a choice since the caucus is so early) makes a huge difference in the final tally. It's already a small pool.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Enigmatic: Last night I overheard some people at the next checkout lane over talking about this and got some insight into the "Oprah's endorsement might hurt Obama" perspective. Basically this woman was saying that Oprah had some doctor on who wasn't even a "real" doctor and had endorsed that book that turned out to be fake (Million Little Pieces, I think?) so then this Obama guy might not really be legit, or something.
It was interesting, but I didn't really get to hear the whole conversation to follow where it went from there.
--Enigmatic
Wow, that is almost painful to read. That reasoning makes no sense at all. SO Oprah's been wrong before, she might be wrong about Obama? If this "logic" is at all representative of voters, then it's no wonder we have such awful politicians in office.
I disagree. Oprah has a proven track record of promoting things (people, books, ideas) with little or no research, simply because she has a positive emotional reaction to them. A Million Little Pieces is only one of the more egregious examples.
I simply ignore her opinions on most things, but I can understand why someone (especially someone who used to respect her opinion and got burned) might actually feel that her endorsement is a count against someone.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't get how that'd be a negative reaction. Wouldn't that mean you just need to double check her recommendations?
Her track record is apparently that she picks whoever writes a book that she likes, regardless of the background, it doesn't mean that she purposely picks BAD books with BAD authors.
I don't get the negative reaction, I'd think it'd either be one of indifference or be positive.
I can see why they'd say "oh, well she might be wrong this time since she's been wrong so much lately, so I'd better do my homework and double check her recommendation." I don't see why they'd say "Well she might be wrong this time since she's always been wrong, so I'll just disregard this guy entirely."
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah I pay little attention to Oprah. But this fall I read an artical that she bought three "white" golden retriever puppies from a puppy mill. That would be much more reasonable if she would admit something of the sort instead of putting pictures up on her very popular website of the wonderful breeder she went to, to get dogs that go against akc standards and at least one had a birth defect.
Posts: 5362 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
