Does Oprah Winfrey's endorsement make you more or less likely to vote for Obama? | Golden Skate

Does Oprah Winfrey's endorsement make you more or less likely to vote for Obama?

Does Oprah's endorsement make you more or less likley to vote for Obama

  • More likely

    Votes: 1 3.0%
  • Less likely

    Votes: 7 21.2%
  • No difference

    Votes: 25 75.8%

  • Total voters
    33

netnuts

Match Penalty
Joined
May 3, 2007
Does Oprah Winfrey's endorsement make you more or less likely to vote for Obama?

Pick you answer...
 
Last edited:

Ptichka

Forum translator
Record Breaker
Joined
Jul 28, 2003
In general, I don't get celebrities' endorsements. The only endorsements that make sense to me are well-reasoned ones from analysts, economists, and media that I trust. Please note the use of trust as opposed to like. For example, we subscribe to two magazines - New Yorker and Economist. While I enjoy reading the former more, I would take an endoresement coming from the latter far more seriously.
 

Ptichka

Forum translator
Record Breaker
Joined
Jul 28, 2003
Those who vote for being less likely to vote for Obama because of Oprah's endorsement - can you explain your thinking? I am not slamming you in any way, I am just genuinely curious.
 

netnuts

Match Penalty
Joined
May 3, 2007
Those who vote for being less likely to vote for Obama because of Oprah's endorsement - can you explain your thinking? I am not slamming you in any way, I am just genuinely curious.

I voted for 'less likely'...

For me, Obama is a 'magzine cover boy' type of candidate who lacks of substance. He is a media darling. What Oprah did was to further make a serious presidential election into an 'American Idol' reality show.

It just shows you Obama may have a pretty face, but he is not a serious presidential candidate.

If a talk-show host can persuade the mass to tip the election results, it will become another sad day for democracy.

Say he won. We would have a presidential candidate that needed an Oprah concert tour to win the nomination? I mean, how pathetically sad that would be. Seriously, every image I have of Obama now includes Oprah carrying him like a baby toward the finish line.
 
Last edited:

netnuts

Match Penalty
Joined
May 3, 2007
http://select.nytimes.com/2006/10/21/opinion/21dowd.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

Obama’s Project Runway
by MAUREEN DOWD

So the question before us is, should Barack Obama stop lounging around in fashion magazines and do some honest work, like running for president?

How will we ever persuade him to give up his modeling gigs in Men’s Vogue, Marie Claire, Vanity Fair and Washington Life? How can we lure the lanky young senator from Illinois out of the glossy celebrity pages and back to gritty substance, away from Annie Leibovitz’s camera and back to Abraham Lincoln’s tradition? He may not want to come back, now that he has mastered that J.F.K. casual glamour pose in shirt sleeves and tie, suit jacket slung over his shoulder, elegant wife and pretty children accessorizing.

The Washington Post’s fashion reporter, Robin Givhan, analyzed the Men’s Vogue spread, with its “touch football” aura: “Obama is pictured in warm light or soft focus. He is pondering, nurturing, working. But never glad-handing, pontificating or fund-raising. The pictures celebrate the idea of Obama rather than the reality of politics.”

Mr. Obama, who fears being seen as fluffy and who has been known to mock pretty boys in his party, never seems to take off his makeup these days, as he pads from one soft perch to the next, from Oprah to Meredith to Larry. The first black president of the Harvard Law Review is spending too much time in green rooms.

He also logs a lot of time at the gym. (You never know when Anna Wintour will call.) It is the only thing this intellectually nimble, preternaturally articulate smarty-pants has in common with W.

“Politics sometimes blends in with celebrity,” he told Oprah this week. “And it gobbles you up because the tendency is for people to want to see you perform and say what they want to hear, as opposed to you trying to stay in touch with, you know, that deepest part of you, that kernel of truth inside.” Doesn’t he see that when you express this skepticism on Oprah it is not skepticism at all?
 

netnuts

Match Penalty
Joined
May 3, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/02/opinion/02dowd.html

Brother, Where Art Thou

Customarily in presidential races, Americans seek a patriarchal figure, a strong parent to protect the house from invaders and financial turbulence.

But with Barack Obama, this dynamic seems reversed.

He seems more like a child prodigy. Those enraptured with his gifts urge him on, like anxious parents, trying to pull that sustained, dazzling performance out of him that they believe he’s capable of; they are willing to put up with the prodigy’s occasional listlessness and crabbiness, his flights of self-regard and self-righteousness. Despite his uneven efforts and distaste for the claws of competition, they can see he is a golden child, one who moves, speaks, smiles and thinks with amazing grace.

His advisers and fund-raisers have pressed him to go fortissimo. Many voters with great expectations are hovering, hoping for a crescendo.

Except for panicked Clintonistas, everyone seems eager to see if the young pol can live up to his potential. Responding to his more combative style, the press has relaunched him, giving him a second chance to shine, on this week’s cover of Time, in the pages of The New Yorker, in the up arrow of Newsweek, which now declares him “poised to be the comeback kid,” and at The Times, where young female assistants lined the halls on Wednesday to watch him glide into a second meeting with editorial board writers and editors.
 

Ptichka

Forum translator
Record Breaker
Joined
Jul 28, 2003
Netnuts, I do hear you. Unfortunately, I feel that this problem applies to both Obama and Edwards on the democratic side, leaving Hillary as the only substantial candidate (and I am not a fan of her in any real way). Now, the Republic contest is, IMHO, a bit more interesting, with a greater variety. Though it tends to have some candidates I'd be genuinely excited about (McCain), and some that would send me running to any other candidate there is (Huckabee).
 

netnuts

Match Penalty
Joined
May 3, 2007
Netnuts, I do hear you. Unfortunately, I feel that this problem applies to both Obama and Edwards on the democratic side, leaving Hillary as the only substantial candidate (and I am not a fan of her in any real way). Now, the Republic contest is, IMHO, a bit more interesting, with a greater variety. Though it tends to have some candidates I'd be genuinely excited about (McCain), and some that would send me running to any other candidate there is (Huckabee).

Unfortunately, I think Clinton will probably lose the nomination battle. The big media is definitely on Obama's side. Iowa democrats are basically a bunch of extreme leftists and peaniks, Obama seems to have the big MO for the time being. If Clinton loses IA, NH and other early states, she will not win democratic nominee. If this scenario pans out, the ultra-liberal wing of the democratic party for the first time in history will win primary fight.

It is going to be a disaster for democratic party's chance in 2008. Obama has no chance whatsoever to win OH, FL and other swing states. This guy's positions are extreme, he even supported a ban on all weapons in the past. I predict a landslide defeat on the scale of Dukakis...

Huckabee is a very attractive candidate. He is another triangulator from Arkansas. If he wins GOP nominee, I predict he will win the white house despite dismal polling #s of George W. Bush.

Democratic party will continue in their wilderness for good.
 

netnuts

Match Penalty
Joined
May 3, 2007
Here's the latest foxnews poll on so-called 'Oprah' effect... It's pretty hilarious...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,317673,00.html

Among Democrats, 13 percent say Oprah’s endorsement makes them more likely to support Obama and 22 percent less likely (64 percent no difference).

Since the endorsement and her participation in several major campaign events, Oprah’s favorability rating has suffered. While she still receives a positive 55 percent, that’s down from a 68 percent favorable rating in September.

"After the initial flurry of excitement surrounding Oprah’s endorsement, it’s clear that the enhanced visibility she brought him is not really what Obama needed. He needed to convert that raw energy into hard votes. From the other results, it appears Clinton may have weathered Tropical Storm Oprah," stated Ernie Paicopolos, principal at Opinion Dynamics Corporation.
 

netnuts

Match Penalty
Joined
May 3, 2007
Whoever voted 'more likely', Can you please explain to us why ?

Does not sound very logical... :bow:
 

julietvalcouer

Final Flight
Joined
Sep 10, 2005
No difference, as I'm not voting for the Democrat Nominee (regardless of whom it is), but count me as another who does not get the celebrity endorsement deal. I mean, at least Oprah is reasonably smart and savvy, but your average rock singer or actor? Who CARES who they're voting for?
 

netnuts

Match Penalty
Joined
May 3, 2007
No difference, as I'm not voting for the Democrat Nominee (regardless of whom it is), but count me as another who does not get the celebrity endorsement deal. I mean, at least Oprah is reasonably smart and savvy, but your average rock singer or actor? Who CARES who they're voting for?

Yeah, she is smart... She's selling us another George W. Bush style 'hope' candidate.

Oprah is the BIGGEST racist. I'm cringed at the thought of her black male restoration project.
 

mmscfdcsu

On the Ice
Joined
May 25, 2005
I doubt that anyone who would watch Oprah and/or give a darn about her opinion, would be intelligent enough to even find the voting booth, much less actually vote.
 
Top