Taylor Swift

  • Thread starter Thread starter aGDevil2k
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 199
  • Views: 4K
  • Politics 
ZenMode said:
I agree that a few thousand votes could be big. It would be an interesting exist poll question: "Are you here because of a celebrity endorsement or was your vote influenced by a celebrity endorsement?"

I've never seen any research on the topic.
Click to expand...
Me either. But Trump himself is the best evidence of people basing voting preferences on celebrity status; it's the whole reason he became the nominee and won in 2016.
 
rodoheel said:
Definitely more. Cheney's endorsement arguably hurts Kamala more than it helps. I personally wish she hadn't mentioned it during the debate.
Click to expand...
I don’t know. I don’t think his endorsement dissuades all that many people from voting for her. But what it may do is make it so that some of those older country club republicans who can’t stomach Trump feel like that have a seal of approval to vote for Kamala to attempt to finally rid the Republican Party of Trump.
 
Icky Mettle said:
I don’t know. I don’t think his endorsement dissuades all that many people from voting for her. But what it may do is make it so that some of those older country club republicans who can’t stomach Trump feel like that have a seal of approval to vote for Kamala to attempt to finally rid the Republican Party of Trump.
Click to expand...
This. Anyone who was going to vote for Harris, but backs off because Cheney endorsed her, is completely missing the point. It’s not about having a platform that Cheney supports politically…it’s about showing how awful Trump is.
 
I think for a not insignificant amount of people, they just want to vote for the winning side so they can feel cool, successful, part of the "in" group, etc. So while a single celebrity endorsement may not move the needle for many people, if enough "vibes" start slanting heavily towards one side then these "cool chasers" for lack of a better term will go that way. This is why the meme about being weird was so devastating to the GOP. No one wants to be a weirdo supporter or associated with weirdos. They're not basing their voting decision on what's best for the country -- they're basing it on how it reflects on them in their everyday lives. They want to say "we won" and laugh at the other side as part of the "cool group" whoever that is. The underpinning policies and governing decisions are largely irrelevant.
 
ZenMode said:
I don't think, despite her popularity, her endorsement will have much impact. The demographic she appeals to either can't vote or isn't likely to vote when compared to other demographics. If they're young and were intending to vote, they're likely already interested in/informed about politics and are going to base their decision on facts, not the endorsement of a pop singer.
Click to expand...
This is dumb. Bluntly, there are young people in Trumper land that are so dumb they would base their vote SOLELY on an endorsement from Taylor Swift. Very little actual logic goes into voting decisions when you get into rural America. That's why most of them vote Trump.
 
RockyMtnHoo said:
This. Anyone who was going to vote for Harris, but backs off because Cheney endorsed her, is completely missing the point. It’s not about having a platform that Cheney supports politically…it’s about showing how awful Trump is.
Click to expand...
And also how Kamala is trying to get us back to an era where it was possible for Republicans and Democrats to see eye-to-eye on core values and use that agreement to create good laws for the country. Dick Cheney is not the best vehicle for that particular idea, but in general that's one purpose of the Republicans For Harris stuff.

It's interesting to look back at 80s legislation that we take for granted now, and how it was put into law. Generic drugs became a big thing because of a bipartisan law known as Hatch-Waxman -- after arch conservative Utah Senator Hatch and Dem Henry Waxman. There was a lot of wrangling about it behind the scenes, because it's complicated and because there were many different industries who had adverse interests there -- but when it came up for a vote, according to wikipedia, they didn't even do a roll call. It was a voice vote. Imagine having a complicated bill today that would have so much support they wouldn't even need to count the votes.

We've talked about some of the factors that created today's polarization. Newt Gingrich gets a lot of blame in these stories. I can't really evaluate that. Gerrymandering also plays a big role, as does the Southern Strategy. During the 80s, most states had competitive Senate races, and party splits among a state's Senators were common. For instance, in the 1986 Senate races, Dems won CA, MO, LA,and NC, whereas Pubs won NY. In 1988, Pubs won CA and MO, whereas the Dems won NY (and Pubs would of course win NC in 1990).

Even as recently as the Obama administration, Pubs held seats in CO and PA, whereas Dems had seats in NE and IN. Now, few states have split Senate representation. I think it's only WI, MT, OH, WV and ME -- and WV is done for, MT looks untenable and OH maybe. Plus, Ron Johnson in WI is perpetually in danger of losing, so he might go down soon. It's entirely possible that by 2028, Susan Collins will be the only opposing-party Senator with any substantial popularity or longevity. I'm not counting GA because it's been about as close to pure purple as it gets. Also assuming MD voters don't become overcome by idiocy and vote Larry Hogan.

A lack of real competition produces polarization. Few Senate races are truly competitive these days, and the ones that are typically occur in battleground states where Rs and Ds are in roughly equal numbers. Ben Nelsons and Joe Manchins and Pat Toomeys are increasingly rare.
 
I want to believe it will have a huge impact, I’m just not sure. It can’t possibly hurt! And the timing was PERFECT. I was watching MSNBC live when the endorsement came in. They were interviewing Tim Walz and when it was read live on air he was absolutely giddy. So they definitely feel that it helped.

I absolutely loved that she signed it childless cat lady.
 
superrific said:
And also how Kamala is trying to get us back to an era where it was possible for Republicans and Democrats to see eye-to-eye on core values and use that agreement to create good laws for the country. Dick Cheney is not the best vehicle for that particular idea, but in general that's one purpose of the Republicans For Harris stuff.

It's interesting to look back at 80s legislation that we take for granted now, and how it was put into law. Generic drugs became a big thing because of a bipartisan law known as Hatch-Waxman -- after arch conservative Utah Senator Hatch and Dem Henry Waxman. There was a lot of wrangling about it behind the scenes, because it's complicated and because there were many different industries who had adverse interests there -- but when it came up for a vote, according to wikipedia, they didn't even do a roll call. It was a voice vote. Imagine having a complicated bill today that would have so much support they wouldn't even need to count the votes.

We've talked about some of the factors that created today's polarization. Newt Gingrich gets a lot of blame in these stories. I can't really evaluate that. Gerrymandering also plays a big role, as does the Southern Strategy. During the 80s, most states had competitive Senate races, and party splits among a state's Senators were common. For instance, in the 1986 Senate races, Dems won CA, MO, LA,and NC, whereas Pubs won NY. In 1988, Pubs won CA and MO, whereas the Dems won NY (and Pubs would of course win NC in 1990).

Even as recently as the Obama administration, Pubs held seats in CO and PA, whereas Dems had seats in NE and IN. Now, few states have split Senate representation. I think it's only WI, MT, OH, WV and ME -- and WV is done for, MT looks untenable and OH maybe. Plus, Ron Johnson in WI is perpetually in danger of losing, so he might go down soon. It's entirely possible that by 2028, Susan Collins will be the only opposing-party Senator with any substantial popularity or longevity. I'm not counting GA because it's been about as close to pure purple as it gets. Also assuming MD voters don't become overcome by idiocy and vote Larry Hogan.

A lack of real competition produces polarization. Few Senate races are truly competitive these days, and the ones that are typically occur in battleground states where Rs and Ds are in roughly equal numbers. Ben Nelsons and Joe Manchins and Pat Toomeys are increasingly rare.
Click to expand...
I think it is helpful for the @HeelYeah2012’s of the world to think about not voting for the magic R.

Cheney obviously is as anti-woke and pro-conservative judges as @HeelYeah2012. And neither likes Trump. But HeelYeah2012 thinks it is more important that republicans control the levers of power at the federal level for policy reasons.

If Cheney can realize that Trump is a threat that requires him to cross party lines, maybe there are some college educated Republicans that would likewise get a little more comfortable crossing party lines.

Most likely, these magic R voters will discount Cheney as just having a personal grudge against Trump. Hopefully, Bush jr will jump on the bandwagon soon, too, to give a little more comfort to those Republicans thinking about making the switch.
 
superrific said:
For real. But there are so many ways for her to respond to that. One would be to post side-by-side shirtless pics of Travis and Elon. I have a feeling that would get the goober to STFU.
Click to expand...
She isn’t going to respond to Elon.
 

Since Taylor Swift endorsed Kamala Harris for president Tuesday night, more than 306,000 people have visited Vote.govusing the voter registration link Swift shared alongside it, according to NPR.

….

Flashback: An April poll from the Beacon Center, a libertarian political think tank, found 37% of registered Tennessee voters considered themselves Taylor Swift fans.

  • Within that group of Swifties, 12% said that if Taylor Swift endorsed a candidate for president or U.S. Senate, it would make them more likely to vote for that candidate.
Reality check: That is a small sliver of the electorate, and it isn't expected to sway the results in Tennessee, where polls show former President Trump in a commanding lead.

Yes, but: The Beacon Center poll could be more impactful in close swing states where results often come down to the wire.

What they're saying: "While Taylor Swift's endorsement likely wouldn't impact the outcome of the presidential or Senate race in Tennessee, it could make a huge difference in swing states if the numbers are similar in other parts of the country," Beacon Center spokesperson Mark Cunningham told us in April.
 
Is that Hair Club for Men or are you closely protecting a Chantilly-Tiffany?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top