http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,316482,00.html

Talk about a meaningless poll!!!

It's one thing to ask, "Which candidate will you vote for?" It's another to ask, "Which people do you THINK are important in influencing your vote?" People rarely really know the answer to such questions, even if they think they do.

Here's a test: ask the average person whether they think they are more likely to buy Product X based on advertising? Most people would laugh at the suggestion that they can't make up their own minds and tell you the ads don't influence them at all. But advertisers clearly spend billions on media advertising for a reason: because it works, despite what people may think about their own behavior.

I'd say the average voter has no conscious idea the true effect of someone like Oprah on their choice to support Obama or someone else. In fact, some people may know but deny it because they know it looks silly to say they support a candidate based on the endorsement of a talk show host. By contrast, it appears much more intelligent to support a candidate based on the endorsement of a respected former president and/or the candidate's spouse.

Finally, Oprah helps Obama not because she is just another celebrity endorser but because she has a large following of people who may normally not so interested in politics. Oprah can make an unknown author a best-selling author overnight, by plugging the author's book on her show. Can Bill Clinton do that? And is Bill Clinton going to reach many people who don't normally pay attention to politics or get them to vote in a primary election for the first time? I think not.

This poll is really stupid, taking the results at face value to mean anything. The poll question itself is flawed. The fact that CBS/NYT are behind it only shows how dumbed-down the mainstream media has become.

Andrew

I just saw the link to FoxNews and ignored it!

Hey guys, the neocons were not around today, so I thought I would take their place and post it

The fact that the story came from Fox is irrelevant. The story was based on a CBS/New York Times poll...

Andrew

Oprah is a net gain for Obama. She will introduce him to many women that may allow their husbands to influence their votes because those women may not be that political. By learning about Obama on Oprah, these women may take more initiative to ignore their husband's wishes and vote for Obama. I guarantee you that the majority of Oprah's followers are white collar, conservative, stay at home moms. Not to mention, I'm sure a fair share of rednecks and blacks tune in as well. Obama has a ripe chance to steal some votes that might normally go GOP, or Hillary for that matter, based on the audience Oprah has. Don't underestimate Oprah. Like Andrew said, she has influence and proof of it.

Radioblog...
That's neo-CON....

It could backfire. I'm thinking less of Oprah right now. IMO, she should have waited until Obama is the nominee.

I agree with Vitalogy, she's not my daily cup of tea, but Oprah's influence is HUGE and shouldn't be underestimated...I know plenty of women who watch her every day, women who don't give a hoot about politics but do pay attention to everything Oprah. They probably spend more quality time M-F with her than their husbands. Look what she does to book sales. If she gets even a fraction of her audience to vote for Obama, especially over Hillary, she will make a difference.

P.S. I cheerfully ignore Mr. M's wishes almost on a daily basis. He's sadly delusional if he thinks he can tell me how to vote. We continue to cancel each other out on almost every single candidate and election issue.

Why should she have waited? I say good for Oprah. There is nothing more American than doing what you can (legally) to help the person you support get elected to office.