ADVERTISEMENT

Obama inspired the Class of 2020. And the rest of us as well...

Nugent is an exception because he plays into that psychotic, gun-toting, rugged individualist that is authentic to that part of the Republican Party. He lives on a ranch in the middle of nowhere. The rest of the celebrities come across as shills. I trust you’re aware of the pushback sentiment against celebrities telling “regular” people how to live. Look at the comment section under any article about a celebrity quarantined at home in their 15,000 square foot home.
So, once again, you say Democrats should shun celebrities, except for a lunatic like Nugent. This is not political science you're speaking.
 
So, once again, you say Democrats should shun celebrities, except for a lunatic like Nugent. This is not political science you're speaking.
The lion’s share of voters don’t speak political science. That’s why Trump won.
 
The lion’s share of voters don’t speak political science. That’s why Trump won.
But with your baseless claims about how politics works, you are claiming to speak about political science. And your theory is that Democrats should shun celebrities, except (in your idiosyncratic opinion) when they shouldn't. You're obviously infected with cat scratch fever.
 
But with your baseless claims about how politics works, you are claiming to speak about political science. And your theory is that Democrats should shun celebrities, except (in your idiosyncratic opinion) when they shouldn't. You're obviously infected with cat scratch fever.
Good Lord go to bed professor. The real world starts at 5:30 am for me tomorrow.
 
I assume it's because you should be sleeping that you supply a link instead of an argument, and leave it to readers to sort out what you may be saying.
I told you in plain english. The democrats should avoid having celebrities stomp for them. It turns people off. The same holds true for the republicans, but given the left-leaning nature of celebrities it’s more relevant for the democrats. Do you want me to start cutting and pasting comments under celebrity articles for you? Any article. Comments from voters. People want entertainers to entertain, not opine on anything that bears on the real world.

The article is an interesting read on the subject. Was that hard? For an anonymous message board at midnight, not a 9 am exam at Claremont.
 
I told you in plain english. The democrats should avoid having celebrities stomp for them. It turns people off. The same holds true for the republicans, but given the left-leaning nature of celebrities it’s more relevant for the democrats.

The article is an interesting read on the subject? Was that hard? For an anonymous message board at midnight, not a 9 am exam at Claremont.
You said Democrats should avoid celebrities, except for lunatics like Nugent. Does your article explain this contradiction?

Also, do you understand why it doesn't help you to suggest I'm drunk? Imagine how cruelly I could toy with you if (you suppose) I weren't.

Maybe you should just stop expressing baseless opinions.
 
You said Democrats should avoid celebrities, except for lunatics like Nugent. Does your article explain this contradiction?

Also, do you understand why it doesn't help you to suggest I'm drunk? Imagine how cruelly I could toy with you if (you suppose) I weren't.

Maybe you should just stop expressing baseless opinions.
The article alone shows it’s not baseless. As for you toying with me, that’s hardly worth a response. Your absurd rants and personal attacks on an anonymous message board reveal you to be nothing short of a fool.
 
The article alone shows it’s not baseless. As for you toying with me, that’s hardly worth a response. Your absurd rants and personal attacks on an anonymous message board reveal you to be nothing short of a fool.
How does the article show that? Please explain in your own words.
 
The article alone shows it’s not baseless. As for you toying with me, that’s hardly worth a response. Your absurd rants and personal attacks on an anonymous message board reveal you to be nothing short of a fool.
For the record, your article quotes people expressing their opinions -- which may or may not be true; I don't know -- that celebrity endorsements don't matter. It included someone expressing their opinion -- which may or may not be true; I don't know -- that Ted Nugent's endorsement didn't matter. None of these opinions are supported by data. They're just people spouting off on the internet.

So, in support of your opinion that Democrats should avoid celebrities except for lunatics like Nugent, you cite other people's apparently unfounded opinions that celebrity endorsements make no difference -- even from lunatics like Nugent. None of this persuades me of anything, except that you don't know what you're talking about.
 
How does the article show that? Please explain in your own words.
Last post on this because frankly it’s not that impt to me. Cynicism has reached an all time high when it comes to celebrities commenting on politics.
How does the article show that? Please explain in your own words.
in my own words. Lol. Yeah. I’ll show my work. The article speaks for itself. Read it. Or don’t. Tomorrow’s a new work week. Get some sleep.
 
Last post on this because frankly it’s not that impt to me. Cynicism has reached an all time high when it comes to celebrities commenting on politics.

in my own words. Lol. Yeah. I’ll show my work. The article speaks for itself. Read it. Or don’t. Tomorrow’s a new work week. Get some sleep.
I read it. As I explained above, it's no help to you that others baselessly express opinions that are different from what you claim.
 
For the record, your article quotes people expressing their opinions -- which may or may not be true; I don't know -- that celebrity endorsements don't matter. It included someone expressing their opinion -- which may or may not be true; I don't know -- that Ted Nugent's endorsement didn't matter. None of these opinions are supported by data. They're just people spouting off on the internet.

So, in support of your opinion that Democrats should avoid celebrities except for lunatics like Nugent, you cite other people's apparently unfounded opinions that celebrity endorsements make no difference -- even from lunatics like Nugent. None of this persuades me of anything, except that you don't know what you're talking about.
No I didn’t say democrats should avoid celebrities except for nugent. My point was that nugemt was an nra guy already and fit the bill of that segment of Republicans. He was/is an anomaly. A boon to the republicans in an authentic way.

People are cynical of hearing the political views of garden-variety celebs. That’s in keeping with the article. As the title suggests, and other articles, celebrity endorsements may have backfired for the democrats. They may appear to be elitist, establishment, etc. this doesn’t play well with joe bag of doughnuts from Kansas working as a mechanic. I haven’t vetted any dissertations on the subject to see if my hypothesis is supported beyond anecdotal accounts and articles online etc.

Now I really am going to bed.
 
No I didn’t say democrats should avoid celebrities except for nugent. My point was that nugemt was an nra guy already and fit the bill of that segment of Republicans. He was/is an anomaly. A boon to the republicans in an authentic way.

People are cynical of hearing the political views of garden-variety celebs. That’s in keeping with the article. As the title suggests, and other articles, celebrity endorsements may have backfired for the democrats. They may appear to be elitist, establishment, etc. this doesn’t play well with joe bag of doughnuts from Kansas working as a mechanic. I haven’t vetted any dissertations on the subject to see if my hypothesis is supported beyond anecdotal accounts and articles online etc.

Now I really am going to bed.
Yes, that is what you said, and in support you linked an article expressing the apparently unfounded opinion that even Nugent doesn't matter. There is only your baseless and self-regarding opinion to support what you say. You believe what you believe because that's what you believe, even though your own source contradicts you. This is classic Dunning-Kruger.
 
The article alone shows it’s not baseless. As for you toying with me, that’s hardly worth a response. Your absurd rants and personal attacks on an anonymous message board reveal you to be nothing short of a fool.

Not surprisingly, the article doesn't say what you claims it says, mcmurtry. It says a lot of things about the topic and offers several different conclusions, but not really the one you are offering. Once you get past the headline, it mostly says that celebrity endorsements don't provide the help you think they might (except for Oprah...who was a big help for Obama) and that there usually isn't a transitive property in celebrity endorsements...except when there is.

It seems to me that conservatives don't like celebrities speaking about politics...except when they speak favorably about something conservatives like. Then they are totally giddy about celebrities talking politics. See Kanye, Ted Nugent, Kid Rock, Clint Eastwood, and so-on. Towards that, I think your article mostly hits the mark. Celebrity endorsements generally don't matter much. It's just not the point you were making.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cosmickid
Not surprisingly, the article doesn't say what you claims it says, mcmurtry. It says a lot of things about the topic and offers several different conclusions, but not really the one you are offering. Once you get past the headline, it mostly says that celebrity endorsements don't provide the help you think they might (except for Oprah...who was a big help for Obama) and that there usually isn't a transitive property in celebrity endorsements...except when there is.

It seems to me that conservatives don't like celebrities speaking about politics...except when they speak favorably about something conservatives like. Then they are totally giddy about celebrities talking politics. See Kanye, Ted Nugent, Kid Rock, Clint Eastwood, and so-on. Towards that, I think your article mostly hits the mark. Celebrity endorsements generally don't matter much. It's just not the point you were making.

you better break the news to Ol Trump...

 
Yes, that is what you said, and in support you linked an article expressing the apparently unfounded opinion that even Nugent doesn't matter. There is only your baseless and self-regarding opinion to support what you say. You believe what you believe because that's what you believe, even though your own source contradicts you. This is classic Dunning-Kruger.
Here’s another one based on polling. It doesn’t contradict my assertion.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehil...say-celebrity-political-endorsements-have?amp
 
Not surprisingly, the article doesn't say what you claims it says, mcmurtry. It says a lot of things about the topic and offers several different conclusions, but not really the one you are offering. Once you get past the headline, it mostly says that celebrity endorsements don't provide the help you think they might (except for Oprah...who was a big help for Obama) and that there usually isn't a transitive property in celebrity endorsements...except when there is.

It seems to me that conservatives don't like celebrities speaking about politics...except when they speak favorably about something conservatives like. Then they are totally giddy about celebrities talking politics. See Kanye, Ted Nugent, Kid Rock, Clint Eastwood, and so-on. Towards that, I think your article mostly hits the mark. Celebrity endorsements generally don't matter much. It's just not the point you were making.
Here’s a polling article.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/hilltv/what-americas-thinking/448585-poll-most-americans-say-celebrity-political-endorsements-have?amp
 
That poll says that people say celebrity endorsements have no effect on their vote. It doesn't show whether celebrity endorsements do have an effect. (People also report that advertising has no effect on them, even though it does.) Nor does that poll say that celebrity endorsements hurt Democrats, but Nugent's helps Republicans.

I have no idea what effect celebrity endorsements may have. Neither do you.
 

That's a great article...that specifically doesn't say what you have been claiming. Heck, even the headline specifically contradicts what you've been saying. And then the first line of the article is:

"A large majority of registered voters say political endorsements from celebrities have no impact on their voting, according to a new poll."

Does "no impact" mean something different to you?
 
That poll says that people say celebrity endorsements have no effect on their vote. It doesn't show whether celebrity endorsements do have an effect. (People also report that advertising has no effect on them, even though it does.) Nor does that poll say that celebrity endorsements hurt Democrats, but Nugent's helps Republicans.

I have no idea what effect celebrity endorsements may have. Neither do you.
Apparently we have some idea. Is it dispositive? No. But if 24 percent say that a celebrity endorsement would cause them not to vote for that candidate and one party relies upon celebrity endorsements far more than another party, as was the case in the last election with Clinton, then we can begin to surmise the effect. Again who the F knows how influential it is, as it’s one factor/variable, but it is salient information.
 
That's a great article...that specifically doesn't say what you have been claiming. Heck, even the headline specifically contradicts what you've been saying. And then the first line of the article is:

"A large majority of registered voters say political endorsements from celebrities have no impact on their voting, according to a new poll."

Does "no impact" mean something different to you?
Does 24 percent mean anything to you? It says exactly what I claimed. 65 percent are a wash. They are immaterial. But 24 percent would make them less likely to vote for the person the celebrity endorsed. Now think how close the Clinton election was and how much she relied on celebs, as set forth in the prior article.
 
Last edited:
Apparently we have some idea. Is it dispositive? No. But if 24 percent say that a celebrity endorsement would cause them not to vote for that candidate and one party relies upon celebrity endorsements far more than another party, as was the case in the last election with Clinton, then we can begin to surmise the effect. Again who the F knows how influential it is, as it’s one factor/variable, but it is salient information.
No, no, no. It's irrelevant what people say influences them, because none of us really knows what influences us, and we aren't likely to be truthful about even what we think we know. And in any event that poll doesn't show that celebrity endorsements hurt Democrats, but Ted Nugent's helps Republicans. Also, who says that Democrats rely more on "celebrities" than Republicans? Maybe they rely on different "celebrities".

You keep "proving" things by reference to your own opinions, backed up by sources that either contradict or don't support what you claim. Worse, you seem unaware you're doing this. That is very Dunning-Kruger.
 
No, no, no. It's irrelevant what people say influences them, because none of us really knows what influences us, and we aren't likely to be truthful about even what we think we know. And in any event that poll doesn't show that celebrity endorsements hurt Democrats, but Ted Nugent's helps Republicans. Also, who says that Democrats rely more on "celebrities" than Republicans? Maybe they rely on different "celebrities".

You keep "proving" things by reference to your own opinions, backed up by sources that either contradict or don't support what you claim. Worse, you seem unaware you're doing this. That is very Dunning-Kruger.
No, no, no. It's irrelevant what people say influences them, because none of us really knows what influences us, and we aren't likely to be truthful about even what we think we know. And in any event that poll doesn't show that celebrity endorsements hurt Democrats, but Ted Nugent's helps Republicans. Also, who says that Democrats rely more on "celebrities" than Republicans? Maybe they rely on different "celebrities".

You keep "proving" things by reference to your own opinions, backed up by sources that either contradict or don't support what you claim. Worse, you seem unaware you're doing this. That is very Dunning-Kruger.
good Lord it said it ten times in the prior article. Clinton had an overwhelming number of celebrity endorsements leading up to the nov 8 election. You keep ignoring what’s been written. And refuse to draw simple inferences. Doesn’t show that it hurts Dems? 24 percent said it makes them less likely. The Dems had an overwhelming number. Now you want to get into how what people say is irrelevant. And have the blatant temerity to cite your bullshit dunning-Kruger. You can’t add 1 plus 1. Democrats had an overwhelming number of celebrity endorsements. People are less likely to vote for a person with a celebrity endorsement. 1 plus 1 = democrats. But we can’t take people at their word. Pure silliness. Dunning-Kruger. Dumb. I’m going to bed.
 
good Lord it said it ten times in the prior article. Clinton had an overwhelming number of celebrity endorsements leading up to the nov 8 election. You keep ignoring what’s been written. And refuse to draw simple inferences. Doesn’t show that it hurts Dems? 24 percent said it makes them less likely. The Dems had an overwhelming number. Now you want to get into how what people say is irrelevant. And have the blatant temerity to cite your bullshit dunning-Kruger. You can’t add 1 plus 1. Democrats had an overwhelming number of celebrity endorsements. People are less likely to vote for a person with a celebrity endorsement. 1 plus 1 = democrats. But we can’t take people at their word. Pure silliness. Dunning-Kruger. Dumb. I’m going to bed.
I refuse to draw baseless inferences, and I haven't ignored what's been written. Instead I've explained why your conclusion doesn't follow from your premises.

For example, we can't conclude from your premise that "Clinton had an overwhelming number of celebrity endorsements" that these endorsements hurt her, because we don't know how she'd have performed in their absence. (Your initial link argues that they didn't matter, but you erroneously read it to say they hurt her.) Then there's the problem that you claim celebrity endorsements hurt candidates, except when they don't (in the case of the lunatic Ted Nugent). To the extent we can "take people at their word," this suggests at most that people like endorsements by celebrities they like and dislike endorsements by celebrities they dislike.

Your conclusion seems so obvious to you ("1 plus 1 = democrats," whatever that means) that you can't see that the arguments you've advanced make no sense.
 
I refuse to draw baseless inferences, and I haven't ignored what's been written. Instead I've explained why your conclusion doesn't follow from your premises.

For example, we can't conclude from your premise that "Clinton had an overwhelming number of celebrity endorsements" that these endorsements hurt her, because we don't know how she'd have performed in their absence. (Your initial link argues that they didn't matter, but you erroneously read it to say they hurt her.) Then there's the problem that you claim celebrity endorsements hurt candidates, except when they don't (in the case of the lunatic Ted Nugent). To the extent we can "take people at their word," this suggests at most that people like endorsements by celebrities they like and dislike endorsements by celebrities they dislike.

Your conclusion seems so obvious to you ("1 plus 1 = democrats," whatever that means) that you can't see that the arguments you've advanced make no sense.

Article 1 - Clinton/Dems had overwhelmingly more celebrity endorsements than trump.

Article 2 - 24% are less likely to vote for a candidate with celebrity endorsements.

My hypothesis - celebrity endorsements are not good for the Dems.

Could other factors have been in play to cause clinton’s demise? Absolutely. For sure. All I’m saying is that there is some evidence that celeb endorsements are not good for Dems. I trust the same holds true for republicans, absent an outlier like nugent. But bc the Dems have relied on them in greater numbers more recently and given the left leaning nature of celebs it stands to reason the Dems will be more adversely impacted.
 
Last edited:
More hyperbole. Idiots this idiots that. It’s hard to have a discussion when you ignore the stock market, the unemployment rates, the minority unemployment rates, prison reform, trade efforts, hospital transparency, manufacturing etc. it’s just dumb. There were a hell of a lot of good things happening prior to the virus. If you want to ignore that, fine, but you’re being dishonest. Trump is such a vile guy that some of you can’t separate the results from the guy. Confidence among businesses was sky high going into this year.

Trump managed to not screw up everything he inherited from Obama for about three years. Awesome. Obama d Fred Trump have something in common. Little Donnie eventually wasted everything he inherited from both.
 
Article 1 - Clinton/Dems had overwhelmingly more celebrity endorsements than trump.

Article 2 - 24% are less likely to vote for a candidate with celebrity endorsements.

My hypothesis - celebrity endorsements are not good for the Dems.

Could other factors have been in play to cause clinton’s demise? Absolutely. For sure. All I’m saying is that there is some evidence that celeb endorsements are not good for Dems. I trust the same holds true for republicans, absent an outlier like nugent. But bc the Dems have relied on them in greater numbers more recently and given the left leaning nature of celebs it stands to reason the Dems will be more adversely impacted.

I think we are missing the role of celebrities. Trump used celebrities, when he spoke in Indiana he had Bob Knight there. It was not because people would vote Trump because Knight. Rather people who were on the fence about going (few people really love seeing a politician), the celebrity gives normals a reason to go.

If having Bruce Springsteen play a couple songs at a Clinton rally helped pack the rally, the boss did his job.

It just turns out the same people who hate "libtards" hate most celebrities. They pretty much hate anything associated with a coast. And for a few, being anti-Hollywood is a socially acceptable way of saying they are anti-Semitic.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hoosboot
I think we are missing the role of celebrities. Trump used celebrities, when he spoke in Indiana he had Bob Knight there. It was not because people would vote Trump because Knight. Rather people who were on the fence about going (few people really love seeing a politician), the celebrity gives normals a reason to go.

If having Bruce Springsteen play a couple songs at a Clinton rally helped pack the rally, the boss did his job.

It just turns out the same people who hate "libtards" hate most celebrities. They pretty much hate anything associated with a coast. And for a few, being anti-Hollywood is a socially acceptable way of saying they are anti-Semitic.
Yeah Marvin I agree with much of this - not to mention the value of their financial contributions. The point I was making was specifically Clinton’s campaign and the number of celebrities she would bring onstage etc. if I were biden I’d give it some thought this go around.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Marvin the Martian
No, no, no. It's irrelevant what people say influences them, because none of us really knows what influences us, and we aren't likely to be truthful about even what we think we know. And in any event that poll doesn't show that celebrity endorsements hurt Democrats, but Ted Nugent's helps Republicans. Also, who says that Democrats rely more on "celebrities" than Republicans? Maybe they rely on different "celebrities".

You keep "proving" things by reference to your own opinions, backed up by sources that either contradict or don't support what you claim. Worse, you seem unaware you're doing this. That is very Dunning-Kruger.

The irony is rich
 
In my view the fact that someone is an entertainer or a celebrity in general adds absolutely no credibility to what they have to say. In fact, they have a hurdle or two to clear for me to take them seriously.

But lots of people flock to what Kim Kardashian or Ryan Seacrest has to say. Hell one guy on this board from Ahia got very upset when his call to listen to a has-been comedian's brilliance was rebuffed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mcmurtry66
You mean as in John?
Page 3 is where I started reading this thread. The thread title was a double negative with “Obama” and “inspire” in the same sentence. I didn’t need to read anymore..... To think a group of people are inspired after just experiencing at least 4 years of indoctrination that crescendo’s into the all-mighty claiming the Trump Whitehouse is not leading isn’t too difficult to predict. He could have waived and said nothing and I could have written what was on his mind..... Not to difficult to predict. Inspired? Prove it
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lucy01
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT