|
|
|
|
prohemp
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 14 May 2002
Posts: 7716
Location: in the cradle of liberty
|
| Back to top
|
|
 Posted: 12/07/04 - 12:29 Post subject: Did Hollywood help or hurt Democrats ...
...in this past election??
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=7010042
| Quote: | By Steve Gorman
BEVERLY HILLS, Calif. (Reuters) - "Fahrenheit 9/11" director Michael Moore on Monday rejected the idea that Hollywood had hurt John Kerry's chances of winning the White House, insisting that he and other entertainers helped spare Democrats an even bigger defeat.
"For the last month, we've had to listen to a lot of conservative pundits talk about how Democrats need to run away from Hollywood," Moore said. "It's actually the opposite. Democrats need to embrace Hollywood because this is where they need to come to learn how to tell a story."
In the final analysis, Moore said, Democratic presidential nominee Kerry was "not the best candidate." President Bush "had a more compelling story to tell and the Democrats didn't, and that has to change."
Moore, making a string of public appearances in the weeks leading up to the Oscar nominations, for which "Fahrenheit 9/11" is seen as a potential contender, spoke to reporters before addressing the Los Angeles World Affairs Council on the impact of filmmaking on politics.
Before the election, many Democrats and liberal activists in groups like MoveOn.org hailed "Fahrenheit 9/11" for its scathing critique of Bush and the U.S.-led war in Iraq and saw the film as a tool for rallying opposition.
After Bush's re-election last month, some analysts suggested that Moore and other outspoken celebrities on the left had had become polarizing figures who alienated Middle America as much as they galvanized the Democratic faithful.
But Moore said he and liberal activists, including show business figures, had helped turn out millions of new voters who backed the Democrats on Election Day.
"What 'Fahrenheit 9/11' and Bruce Springsteen and MoveOn and all the other people that were working during this election, what we did was we prevented a Bush landslide," Moore said. "We're all going to continue to do this in the near future. No one's giving up."
Citing California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and former President Ronald Reagan, Moore said, "America loves Hollywood. America loves the people in the movies and on TV. And the thing that the Republicans have already figured out is that America likes to vote for Hollywood...
"And I think we need to turn to Hollywood, because who wouldn't vote for Tom Hanks or Paul Newman or Robert Redford or Oprah?" |
|
|
|
|
|
Pug
The Movie Geek
|
|
|
Joined: 21 Aug 2003
Posts: 8924
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 12/07/04 - 12:35 Post subject:
I don't think they had an impact. Or, they shouldn't have had an impact other than perhaps getting more people to actually look at the candidates and consider voting.
Anyone who actually voted for a particular candidate because the Boss (much as I love his music) told him to should be disenfranchised.
Yeah, I said it.
|
|
|
|
|
cherylpf
crazy cat lady
|
|
|
Joined: 14 May 2002
Posts: 17305
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 12/07/04 - 12:40 Post subject:
My dad felt it made an impact. This came up after the election when I asked my dad why Bush won on "moral values" when I don't think Kerry is amoral, or any more so than Bush. My dad (who was never a swing voter but said he voted based on morals) said that he felt that when Hollywood and its looser morals aligned with Kerry it signaled to him that Kerry could somehow sympathize with people my dad couldn't and therefore Kerry may not support the needs of a normal guy like my dad. I can see that. It obviously didn't affect my vote, but I can kind of see it.
|
|
|
|
|
robp
Pyromaniac
|
|
|
Joined: 26 Jul 2002
Posts: 16242
Location: Waiting in line at the beer store...
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 12/07/04 - 13:11 Post subject:
I think it hurt Kerry in the long run. Hollywood is viewed, for the most part, as being VERY liberal and I think it could've turned many swing voters to see the likes of Micheal Moore, et al, so vehemently pushing against Bush.
|
|
|
|
|
RexRacer
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 17 Aug 2004
Posts: 814
Location: A pancake house of ineffable crappiness
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 12/07/04 - 15:36 Post subject:
I think it was mixed. He certainly appreciated the cash they had to dole out. When you're doing a 'culture war' kind of campaign it will in fact hurt you in the heartland.
But those folks who were more active and vocal were just a sliver of those giving the cash, and I think they did so (in the case of Springsteen for the first time) out of personal conviction more than anything else.
|
|
|
|
|
bburgoyne26
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 16 Sep 2003
Posts: 2959
Location: Ft. Worth, Texas
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 12/07/04 - 16:50 Post subject:
| robp wrote: | | I think it hurt Kerry in the long run. Hollywood is viewed, for the most part, as being VERY liberal and I think it could've turned many swing voters to see the likes of Micheal Moore, et al, so vehemently pushing against Bush. |
I can see it like that too......
|
|
|
|
|
runaroundsue
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 18 Sep 2002
Posts: 6629
Location: supporting GREENer pastures
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 12/08/04 - 10:43 Post subject:
I'm not sure. But it does bother me that MM was willing to stir up Hollywood and can easily say now "oh maybe that wasn't a good idea". The dems should publicly thrash him in the next election, maybe some of us would swing with the dem nominee.
|
|
|
|
|
Gogirlgo
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 25 Jul 2002
Posts: 4777
Location: No deal, stalker.
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 12/08/04 - 12:02 Post subject:
| runaroundsue wrote: | | I'm not sure. But it does bother me that MM was willing to stir up Hollywood and can easily say now "oh maybe that wasn't a good idea". The dems should publicly thrash him in the next election, maybe some of us would swing with the dem nominee. |
Doubtful. I don't really think it mattered what either coast felt. You There are more of you guys in the middle, and you all felt the same way.
|
|
|
|
|
phillycat
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 14 Jul 2004
Posts: 1953
Location: Da hood
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 12/08/04 - 12:21 Post subject:
| Gogirlgo wrote: |
Doubtful. I don't really think it mattered what either coast felt. You There are more of you guys in the middle, and you all felt the same way. |
|
|
|
|
|
Bill_Sev
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 21 Sep 2004
Posts: 727
Location: Marietta, GA
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 12/08/04 - 13:12 Post subject:
Kerry's problem was he is tooooo liberal. Now, Hillary on the other hand would be very formidable! She is closer to the center than Kerry could ever hope to be. As for Hollywood, I don't think MM cost Kerry the election. Ping-Ponging cost Kerry the election......Take a FIRM stance!
|
|
|
|
|
RexRacer
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 17 Aug 2004
Posts: 814
Location: A pancake house of ineffable crappiness
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 12/08/04 - 15:10 Post subject:
| Bill_Sev wrote: | | Kerry's problem was he is tooooo liberal. Now, Hillary on the other hand would be very formidable! She is closer to the center than Kerry could ever hope to be. As for Hollywood, I don't think MM cost Kerry the election. Ping-Ponging cost Kerry the election......Take a FIRM stance! |
Hey Bill,
I don't know whether to take that as baiting or not!  There is no way that Hillary could win national office. Not and take one of those currently-red states. She's too toxic, I think. She was, and remains, the whipping girl for AM talk radio.
Why do you think she could do it?
|
|
|
|
|
runaroundsue
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 18 Sep 2002
Posts: 6629
Location: supporting GREENer pastures
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 12/08/04 - 15:44 Post subject:
| Bill_Sev wrote: | | Kerry's problem was he is tooooo liberal. Now, Hillary on the other hand would be very formidable! She is closer to the center than Kerry could ever hope to be. As for Hollywood, I don't think MM cost Kerry the election. Ping-Ponging cost Kerry the election......Take a FIRM stance! |
too liberal? For me, that was NOT the problem. He was afraid of "appearing" too liberal to me. You can't change directions to please all. He didn't make a stand.
Hillary center???? Again, I don't see it, but I do see her "staying true to the course"  Hillary's going to have to "soften" to get the women vote and in a man's world......I don't see her getting the male vote, our country is not that evolved 
|
|
|
|
|
runaroundsue
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 18 Sep 2002
Posts: 6629
Location: supporting GREENer pastures
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 12/08/04 - 15:46 Post subject:
| Gogirlgo wrote: |
Doubtful. I don't really think it mattered what either coast felt. You There are more of you guys in the middle, and you all felt the same way. |
wow, that's like saying that both coasts felt the same way. What a generalization.
|
|
|
|
|
RexRacer
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 17 Aug 2004
Posts: 814
Location: A pancake house of ineffable crappiness
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 12/08/04 - 16:13 Post subject:
| runaroundsue wrote: |
wow, that's like saying that both coasts felt the same way. What a generalization. |
Looking at the electoral map I'd say that's more of an obvious observation rather than generalization, though it would be wrong to say there were no Kerry supporters in the south and central US and no Bush supporters on the coasts.
|
|
|
|
|
runaroundsue
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 18 Sep 2002
Posts: 6629
Location: supporting GREENer pastures
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 12/08/04 - 16:31 Post subject:
| RexRacer wrote: |
Looking at the electoral map I'd say that's more of an obvious observation rather than generalization, though it would be wrong to say there were no Kerry supporters in the south and central US and no Bush supporters on the coasts. |
I always consider MN, MI, WI central. I guess, because I reside in one of those states, it is easier for me see disparity. I believe my very own small community of 20,000 was 51% vs 49%. You probably think that we are provinces 
|
|
|
|
