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:
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.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
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.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote: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
wow, do enough people dislike her *that* much that her endorsement actually has a negative affect on their voting?
[ December 11, 2007, 02:28 AM: Message edited by: Strider ]
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
A successful back woman? Perhaps....
I think that she could be crucial in getting the womans vote out, one way or another.
She can't win it, bit she can really help for sure.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
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.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
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.
[ December 11, 2007, 04:48 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by anti_maven (Member # 9789) on :
When I saw this article yesterday, I thought that this must be the one thing that could swing the election for Obama.
I wonder who Mrs. C will bring out of the woodwork?
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Touring with Led Zepplin
[ December 11, 2007, 05:10 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
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.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
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?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
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.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
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.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
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.
Posted by Saephon (Member # 9623) on :
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 Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Uppity woman?!
I hope it does. Obama is awesome.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Who did Oprah back in previous primaries anyways?
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
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.
--Enigmatic
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
"Who did Oprah back in previous primaries anyways?"
She never has previously.
[ December 11, 2007, 02:12 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
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.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
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.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Sure people will come out to the polls. There's always the chance that Oprah will give them all new cars.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
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.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
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 by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
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.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
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.
Posted by EmpSquared (Member # 10890) on :
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!"
"Everybody gets Humpback WHAAAAAAALES!"
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
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.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
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.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Bill Clinton may be more popular, but is Hillary?
Posted by Qaz (Member # 10298) on :
Oprah might get people to *consider* Obama, but for them to like him, they're going to have to like *him*.
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
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
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
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.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
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.
Posted by Timoty (Member # 10389) on :
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.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
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? Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
hopefully the latter pooka!
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
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.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
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.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
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.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
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.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
quote:Originally posted by Christine:
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).
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
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.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
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. Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
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.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
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.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Christine:
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.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
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."
Posted by breyerchic04 (Member # 6423) on :
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.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I don't get how that'd be a negative reaction. Wouldn't that mean you just need to double check her recommendations?
No. She has statistically unlikely reactions, I guess. She's wrong far more often than she's right (IMO). I am less likely to read a book if she has recommended it.
(I couldn't care less who she thinks I should vote for, though.)
Posted by breyerchic04 (Member # 6423) on :
East of Eden is still the best Steinbeck even after she reccomended it.
Posted by Saephon (Member # 9623) on :
If I ever get rid of the bad taste The Winter of Our Discontent left in my mouth, I'd love to give Eden a shot.
I still get the impression that Oprah was not so much upset over the scandal as she was distraught that Frey had lied to Oprah Winfrey. Blehh, I'm just a cynical jerk when it comes to anything millions of people are fans of I watched as one by one, like dominos, classmates in my reading class showed up to school with A Million Little Pieces in their hands after the controversy came to light. Things like that bother me.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Christine:
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.
I don't think we do disagree. My point is that the logic is faulty -- that you would be LESS likely to vote for someone just because Oprah is supporting them. Sure, I have yet to run across a book she likes that I think is worth anything, but that just means I don't read her books. If I liked a book and she happened to recommend it, I wouldn't STOP liking the book. That's the faulty logic here.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Does it matter whether they're AKC or not?
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I guess it's a question of whether the sub-AKC puppy market should be supported.
But then, I'm not too impressed with AKC dogs. I don't know many dogs, though. But I'm sure these white puppies are probably even worse than the average AKC dog, if they are being bred for that trait.
Okay, to clarify, I've known two AKC dogs, and one was a champion setter who was rather dim. I also know a German Shepherd who appears to have ADD or something. She goes beyond dim to dotty. But in fairness, I believe the prior dogs this family had were also AKC and one of them saved the eldest son from drowning in a canal, and the dogs in between were nice enough that they kept getting Shepherds. Just this last dog is so weird, they are thinking of retiring from dog ownership.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote: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.
I'm not quite sure that's a bad place to start, when thinking about people, books, and ideas.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:If I liked a book and she happened to recommend it, I wouldn't STOP liking the book. That's the faulty logic here.
It's only faulty if the person has already reached a conclusion (in your example, liking the book). In cases where they have not, there's nothing faulty about the logic at all.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:If I liked a book and she happened to recommend it, I wouldn't STOP liking the book. That's the faulty logic here.
It's only faulty if the person has already reached a conclusion (in your example, liking the book). In cases where they have not, there's nothing faulty about the logic at all.
I disagree. This logic makes Oprah into some kind of negative force -- anything unproven that Oprah likes must suck.
The logic might make sense if you specifically disagree with all of Oprah's politics. Going back to the book example...if I thought a book sounded good and found out Oprah didn't like it, I might reconsider unless a few people I did trust also recommended it. I happen to hate most of Oprah's book ideas, but this doesn't mean I wouldn't watch a movie she liked or try a new body butter.
Obama isn't a book. He's a politician. I don't point-blank disagree with Oprah's politics and I have trouble believing that anyone who was seriously considering Obama in the first place does.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:This logic makes Oprah into some kind of negative force -- anything unproven that Oprah likes must suck.
Yes, "anything unproven that Oprah likes must suck" would be illogical. But no one has said that. You've turned qualified statements into absolutist ones and then attacked the absolutist position.
Each post discussing the possible negative impact of Oprah's endorsement has used qualifier terms such as "might" or "less likely."
Posted by Mick from Mars (Member # 11347) on :
This is either the best or the worst election ever.
Posted by breyerchic04 (Member # 6423) on :
It doesn't really matter whether they are AKC or not. It does matter that they are using unsound breeding policies, like breeding a female every time she comes into heat, having many many litters out of many females at the same time.
But if I were buying a dog, there is no way I would buy one that was not AKC registered. Why? You can adopt one that isn't. I don't know much about Goldens so I don't know why they don't approve white ones. If it's aesthetic, I am not too concerned. In the breed I know the most about, Shetland Sheepdogs, double merles and color headed whites are a fault. A blue merle is considered a gorgeous color so people breed for it. Problem, if you breed two merles you get double merles, which are predisposed to many health problems including deafness, blindness, and skin conditions. So responsible breeders never breed a merle to a merle, they breed a merle to a tri color.
Pooka, I'm not willing to believe you've only known two akc registered dogs, unless you've only known two purebred dogs. Most puppy mill dogs that come through pet stores are registered, as are almost all dogs from reputable breeders (I know a border collie and a jack russell breeder that do not akc register because they were opposed to them becoming registerable)
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I've only known two dogs that I knew were AKC. But my husband and I have pretty limited social lives.
Like, I wouldn't consider that I know the dog who lives next door.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
My dog is a pure bred AKC registered Cocker Spaniel, but the next time I'll likely get a puppy from the shelter or a registered breeder, as opposed to a pet shop.
Posted by breyerchic04 (Member # 6423) on :
Registered breeders are often a can of horse poop.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I think I've missed something major. How exactly did this thread evolve from discussing Oprah and Obama to dog breeders?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Well, registered breeder that I've personally checked out, and likely on recommendation from a friend.
Rabbit, it's the magic of thread drift, but I think it had something to do with Oprah buying a dog.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Oprah was promoting some dogs from an off-AKC breeder, which was characterized as a puppy-mill. I could see how her recommendations might make their demand go through the roof.
Though in most cases a recommendation from Oprah is unlikely to increase the net suffering in the world. Okay, maybe in the case of the Secret.
I just want everyone to appreciate that I have not created the dobie "Can Oprah swing an electron?"
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
That's nowhere near as bad as the dobie I've been refraining from making.
--Enigmatic
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Well, I have been looking for a link tying the Secret to Quantum Physics. But there's just too much pro-Secret out there on the web.
Posted by Mick from Mars (Member # 11347) on :
quote:Originally posted by Enigmatic: That's nowhere near as bad as the dobie I've been refraining from making.
--Enigmatic
Hmm. Thanks for putting that image in my head. I'll never look at this thread the same. Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Mick, you know dobies? You are a very savvy lurker!
So ... what's your take on land wars in Asia?
Posted by Tammy (Member # 4119) on :
Oh CT, I wish I could carry your brain around in my head for one day.
Posted by Mick from Mars (Member # 11347) on :
I don't know exactly what a dobie is, but I gleaned that it had something to do with changing a thread title, possibly making it dirtier. All I know is that I got the mental image of Oprah doing something that I never wanted to imagine Oprah doing.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
*nods
Dobie was a poster who would post a new thread with a title just barely off from the original. The first post text was a link (usually to some pun-ish sort of thing). He/she was often quite funny, but was then banned for a time (that rarely happens, by the way) for an unrelated foral matter -- maybe it was crashing the forum with some computer program?
Anyway, later imitators have often fell short of the funny, and many oldtimers are sick to death of the "dobie" threads. However, some have been brilliant, e.g., "Good COD, OSC!" (from "Good God, OSC!") and the link to an aptly-named OSC fish site.
When people are especially trying to be polite (like pooka), they mention the "dobie" instead of creating it.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)