:dubious: That’s not at all what your cite says. It says that celebrity endorsements of candidates, not positions, can have an overall negative impact on voters, unless the voters already have positive impressions of the celebrity, in which case the endorsement has a positive impact. The research on celebrities and specific political positions reached different conclusions:
ITR summarises his cite inaccurately. Perhaps because of this, his conclusion is severely problematic.
The researcher in question says that celebrity endorsements tend to have both negative and positive affects on different groups, with the total trending towards a negative response to a positive endorsement (and in fact, even that isn’t exactly true; the researcher talks in terms of actually asking if there would be an effect, not whether there *was *an effect, for this particular result). To the contrary of what ITR claims, the researcher points out that targeted endorsements would actually seem to be effective in inspiring people towards the candidate that is being advocated. He also gives the example of Oprah endorsing Obama in the primaries as something which likely did have a meaningfully positive effect. He also points out that Trump benefited from the celebrity endorsement of… himself.
True enough, I left out details. Fact remains that all the celebrities releasing videos telling us why we have to vote for Hillary, probably moved voters towards Trump, if they had any effect at all.
Democrats like to bash rich people all the time. Thy hit “the one percent”, brag about making the rich pay their fair share in taxes, and so forth. Clearly they think it’s smart politics. But for some reason, it doesn’t seem to have occurred to the Hillary campaign that folks’ dislike of the rich might carry over even if the rich people in question are Robert Downey Jr. and Beyonce.
Exactly. Democrats are like Catholics, they seem to believe you can receive dispensation from the “sin” of being successful if you side with the right causes. But if you’ve told people that the rich are bad and not paying their fair share, that’s going to create enmity towards all rich people. Democrats understand how this works with ethnic and religious minorities, yet they seem confused about why this would also apply to rich people.
Fact remains that what you said there is not a fact, but rather your personal gut feeling. It might well be true, but nothing you’ve said or cited actually demonstrates that it is true.
[QUOTE=ITR champion]
Democrats like to bash rich people all the time. Thy hit “the one percent”, brag about making the rich pay their fair share in taxes, and so forth.
[/quote]
:dubious: It says something important about today’s political climate that merely making such reasonable and unremarkable statements as that the rich should pay their fair share in taxes, and that an economy that consistently enriches the top 1% while decreasing prosperity and security for the rest is not working properly, can be unironically described as “bashing rich people”.
No, no; “left out details” suggests that what you said was correct, but lacking in context. Or not as full an answer as could have been.
What you said was not correct. “I left out details” is not an adequate response to making affirmative claims that your own cite disagrees with. What you left out was truth.
You really shouldn’t take ITR’s summary of his cite as accurate; to the contrary; it actually speaks against the claim you’re making here. The researcher talks about how celebrities - including some very rich people - very much do entertain liking and respect which carries over to political endorsements, the key points being whether they’re liked and respected already.
He even goes into detail as to what factors seem to be important here. He lists, in order, how well-known the celebrity is, how well-liked the celebrity is, and how credible the celebrity is (again, to the audience in question). No “dispensation from the “sin” of being successful” to be noted. Do you have some other source for POV on this?
Do you have a reason to assume they wouldn’t?
Do you have a reason to generalize this observation to all celebrities/actors/Hollywood actors (note the sets are not equivalent)?
How does, to use a specific recent example, one’s conveniently negative opinion of Meryl Streep’s profession in and of itself justify a dismissal of her expressed opinion?
Of course, even a positive opinion of Steep’s profession should not automatically lend authority to her opinion, but that’s a quite different matter.
Which is why of course Bill Maher never states any opinions on those topics.
Oh, wait.
What exactly makes people in Hollywood different from ordinary Americans? They live in more expensive homes, but so do top politicians, TV journalists and Donald Trump. Hollywood stars work hard, travel a lot, meet a lot of different people. Celebrities have more opportunity to converse with well-informed people.
Contrast the celebrity’s life with Joe, an “ordinary American” in the Rust Belt. Joe travels little, feels like his local economy is suffering but doesn’t understand why, gets his knowledge of the world from a few cable-TV sources he selects himself.
Between the celebrity and Joe, the fact that one lives in a “private bubble” is a big problem for political discourse in America … but the celebrity is not the one who’s bubbling.
Cracked.com periodically runs articles along the lines “7 Celebrities with Wacky Beliefs” but they could as easily find similar nonsense from the Joe Sixpacks and Sally Housecoats of America.
Case in point…
Believes in UFOs, thinks 9/11 was an inside job, thinks the 2004 Bin Laden tapes were meant to swing the election to Bush, speaks in tongues…
Yeah, they’re crazy beliefs. Not that that stops your normal, average, everyday red-blooded red state American from believing that and crazier. Well, okay, Joe Sixpack probably ain’t buying the whole “Star Whackers” stuff, but…
My wife works on a site which is in almost constant use for film and television shoots (she doesn’t work in the industry; she just works in buildings that look cool). As I type, Will Ferrell and John C Reilly are filming something called “Holmes and Watson” there (because apparently the world was crying out for a film starring Will Ferrell as Sherlock Holmes :dubious:). And according to her the stars by and large not only mingle with the crew but also sometimes with the locals, schedules permitting - yesterday she spotted Hugh Laurie (also in the film) in the local pub. Sometimes they even do more. If it’s only a few days onsite they tend to fly in, work solidly through those days and fly out again but for the longer shoots they have more mingling time.
Yes, some stars are dicks - but then some of any group are dicks. During Pirates filming Johnny Depp actually came into her office to personally apologize for the behavior of some of the crew members (mostly local security hires)who had been acting like major dicks to the officeworkers there.
Funny you should use that example, given the contortions Evangelicals have gone through to support Donald Trump while ignoring the fact that he is pretty much the antithesis of every Christian virtue. And indeed some of the contortions others have gone through to excuse those contortions.
Motes and beams, man. Motes and beams.
See I think that is where democrats made their mistake. Sure Hollywood celebrities raised alot of money for Hillary, but the mistake was thinking that group of people would work out for the general public. So Hillarys campaign puts celebrities in ads and thinks that is all she will need to convince voters and they found out wrong. Hollywood is not Wisconsin.
I would believe you if even once in a while I saw a tv show or movie that actually looked like real life. It happens but its rare.
I’ll give you another example. About 20% of people in the US attend church but its very rare I ever see a realistic depiction of going to church. Oh, they make jokes of it and make every Christian look like an idiot and that is there right. But it also reinforces my idea they are clueless and again, live in their own bubble.
I think you have a vision of what Hollywood is in your mind and you’re judging people by that rather than the reality.
It’s very rare you see a realistic depiction of going to the grocery store. Or a realistic depiction of a normal day at work in an office.
Everyday events don’t seem to fill up much airtime. I don’t think going to church is an odd one out in that regard.
Cite?
This…is bizarre. Your argument is that celebrities are out of touch because the TV shows and movies you watch don’t reflect reality? You are aware that the actors don’t actually live in the towns on those shows or have the families or jobs their characters do, right? Matt LeBlanc and Matthew Perry didn’t have to share a studio apartment in New York, Dean Cain didn’t grow up in Smallville, and Mark Harmon has never been either a doctor or a Marine.
I mean, if you want to argue that television shows and movies aren’t realistic enough, fine, although that’s down to scriptwriters and producers rather than actors, and even more down to the fact that American audiences don’t generally want realistic shows and films. But actors are fully aware that the roles they play are not the same as “reality” (again, it’s usually the audience that have the problem making the distinction); acting is their job and there’s an awful lot of behind-the-scenes reality that goes into making the fantasies that you watch.
Watch more BET and Lifetime, turn off HBO, if that’s what you want.
What do you consider a “realistic depiction of going to church”? Seventh Heaven ran for eleven years and was pretty much exclusively about going to church, from what I can tell. For that matter, when have you seen a realistic depiction of anything on TV? And before you say court proceedings, I can assure you that there isn’t a single realistic law-related show on TV. It’s not supposed to be realistic. It’s entertainment. And church is - and I’m not making a value judgment here - boring.