|
|
Post by uthacalthing on Nov 14, 2024 9:03:10 GMT
We have no really examined the catastrophic failure of the celebrity endorsement. The great Larry Holmes once opined "I used to be black but now I am rich" Oprah and Beyonce are no longer black. Come to that, they are not women either. Their maids are women.
Just how much Oprah and Beyonce were paid to endorse Harris is the subject of debate. Oprah says she wasn't, but her company was. So that's clear
By contrast, Bryson De Chambeau endorsing Trump managed amazingly to come across as courageous. Trump BTW is when adjusted for age probably the best golfer to occupy the White House. Meaningless to all rational people, but Biden and Clinton both lied enthusiastically about their ability.
|
|
aargauer
Conservative
Posts: 5,909
Member is Online
|
Post by aargauer on Nov 14, 2024 9:07:06 GMT
The celebrity endorsement on stage will not happen in 2028 - or at least very sparingly.
|
|
|
|
Post by uthacalthing on Nov 14, 2024 9:08:39 GMT
Yes, but she may be just enough cover for Gaetz, Hesgeth or Musk.
|
|
|
|
Post by Devil Wincarnate on Nov 14, 2024 9:11:42 GMT
We have no really examined the catastrophic failure of the celebrity endorsement. The great Larry Holmes once opined "I used to be black but now I am rich" Oprah and Beyonce are no longer black. Come to that, they are not women either. Their maids are women. Just how much Oprah and Beyonce were paid to endorse Harris is the subject of debate. Oprah says she wasn't, but her company was. So that's clear By contrast, Bryson De Chambeau endorsing Trump managed amazingly to come across as courageous. Trump BTW is when adjusted for age probably the best golfer to occupy the White House. Meaningless to all rational people, but Biden and Clinton both lied enthusiastically about their ability. Yes, Oprah made some nice money off the Harris campaign. On a related note, one of the campaign senior bods said that the Joe Rogan proposal fell apart because they feared a backlash amongst the hard-line part of the base. It was set up, ready to go and crucially...free, other than flying to Texas. Instead she ended up being sent to do some women's sex and relationship podcast, and the campaign was stiffed for a six-figure sum to build a custom set. |
|
cathyc
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,056
|
Post by cathyc on Nov 14, 2024 10:02:38 GMT
It's genius. The Senate can refuse one, maybe two, and he has provided fireproof cover for his number 3 most bonkers pick A nation does not elect Trump if it wants a change of swamp. Yet that's exactly what they are about to get. An enlarged, poison filled, topped-up mega swamp. |
|
mboy
Liberal
Listen. Think. Speak.
Posts: 23,601
|
Post by mboy on Nov 14, 2024 10:09:08 GMT
I think you mean "maga swamp"  |
|
|
|
Post by sanders on Nov 14, 2024 10:25:22 GMT
After three days, fish and visitors begin to stink. The bromance will not last long.
|
|
batman
Labour
Posts: 12,285 
Member is Online
|
Post by batman on Nov 14, 2024 10:31:06 GMT
Now there is your election interference! Musk will die on this hill. Nominating Trump diehards worked so well! Look at Arizona if you're unsure! Or at Washington's 3rd Congressional District. Trump does well - his acolytes don't! One way to lose congressional majorities! Musk is a gift for Democrats! with all these exclamation marks I am wondering if you are German! |
|
graham
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,332
|
Post by graham on Nov 14, 2024 10:34:28 GMT
Gabbard is going to be a bloody tough confirmation in the Senate. Will GOP senators be prepared to block many nominees given the size of Trump's mandate? Trump's popular vote lead is now just 2% - not exactly an overwhelming mandate. |
|
iain
Lib Dem
Posts: 11,408
|
Post by iain on Nov 14, 2024 11:15:48 GMT
Most of the hysterical reaction to Musk's appointment is just more Musk Derangement Syndrome from people who still haven't got over their grief from when he trashed the loony-left echo-chamber that Western journalists were successfully turning Twitter into. It's an advisory role that will end up making hilarious proposals like "Abolish the Department of Transportation", which Trump can take or leave as he sees fit. It's hilarious that the lefty media is trying to portray Musk as someone who just wants to make more money for himself, when any observation of him and biographies of him are perfectly clear that he's never been much interested in personal wealth - he's only interested in goals (currently Mars). The US govt will benefit way more than anyone else in the world if Musk clears out the pen-pushers currently trying to tie down SpaceX for political reasons. Matt Gaetz as AG will be hilarious "bantz" in a disruptive sort of way. He's obviously been picked as someone will will reliably kill all the investigations into Trump and launch politically motivated investigations into whoever annoys Trump. His effect beyond that will be limited though. Tulsi Gabbard as Director of National Intelligence though is an entirely different train-wreck. This has serious real-world implications for both the USA and all its allies, including us in the UK. It is potentially a national security disaster, and allies should make it clear to Trump that we will consider the US a security liability of she is put into post. Not only is she herself a major liability, with all her absurd militant connections and beliefs, but the recent charges against a CIA operative for leaking Top Secret plans to Iran show that the US security services are already badly compromised - and throwing in a grenade like Gabbard will likely lead to even more insanity inside the intelligence community as both left and right-wing 5th columnists get motivated to play out their own destructive agendas as a result. If the Senate has the balls to block just one appointment it must be her. Agree on Gabbard. On Gaetz, he is an appalling pick on basically every level, and the chances of him being confirmed I would put at sub-10%. On Elon Musk - has there been any hysterical reaction? (Genuinely)? I mean his appointment is ridiculously corrupt (the government’s largest contractor making recommendations on cutting government spending. Hmm), but mostly it’s quite amusing. Trump appears to have sent Musk and Vivek off to do some homework which he can then ignore |
|
right
Conservative
Posts: 18,726
|
Post by right on Nov 14, 2024 11:27:44 GMT
Most of the hysterical reaction to Musk's appointment is just more Musk Derangement Syndrome from people who still haven't got over their grief from when he trashed the loony-left echo-chamber that Western journalists were successfully turning Twitter into. It's an advisory role that will end up making hilarious proposals like "Abolish the Department of Transportation", which Trump can take or leave as he sees fit. It's hilarious that the lefty media is trying to portray Musk as someone who just wants to make more money for himself, when any observation of him and biographies of him are perfectly clear that he's never been much interested in personal wealth - he's only interested in goals (currently Mars). The US govt will benefit way more than anyone else in the world if Musk clears out the pen-pushers currently trying to tie down SpaceX for political reasons. Matt Gaetz as AG will be hilarious "bantz" in a disruptive sort of way. He's obviously been picked as someone will will reliably kill all the investigations into Trump and launch politically motivated investigations into whoever annoys Trump. His effect beyond that will be limited though. Tulsi Gabbard as Director of National Intelligence though is an entirely different train-wreck. This has serious real-world implications for both the USA and all its allies, including us in the UK. It is potentially a national security disaster, and allies should make it clear to Trump that we will consider the US a security liability of she is put into post. Not only is she herself a major liability, with all her absurd militant connections and beliefs, but the recent charges against a CIA operative for leaking Top Secret plans to Iran show that the US security services are already badly compromised - and throwing in a grenade like Gabbard will likely lead to even more insanity inside the intelligence community as both left and right-wing 5th columnists get motivated to play out their own destructive agendas as a result. If the Senate has the balls to block just one appointment it must be her. www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/nov/13/cia-leak-israel-iran-attack-asif-rahmanIf Musk (and Trump) was serious about this he would have asked for a Cabinet position in a role that was to be abolished in say a year, and then wind it down publicly and with lots of fireworks and then at the end show that there's not really much to 90% of it. As he did with the Twitter payroll. And maybe then move on to the next department. But instead it's going to be another beltway think tank, although this time one which will be abolished at the very latest when the Democrats get in. But at least he'll have war stories and will be able for the rest of his life to say "if only they'd listened to me on [insert idea here] then they wouldn't be in this mess". |
|
right
Conservative
Posts: 18,726
|
Post by right on Nov 14, 2024 11:29:03 GMT
Will GOP senators be prepared to block many nominees given the size of Trump's mandate? Trump's popular vote lead is now just 2% - not exactly an overwhelming mandate. A Senator or Representative contemplating a primary challenge may not agree |
|
right
Conservative
Posts: 18,726
|
Post by right on Nov 14, 2024 11:34:54 GMT
We have no really examined the catastrophic failure of the celebrity endorsement. The great Larry Holmes once opined "I used to be black but now I am rich" Oprah and Beyonce are no longer black. Come to that, they are not women either. Their maids are women. Just how much Oprah and Beyonce were paid to endorse Harris is the subject of debate. Oprah says she wasn't, but her company was. So that's clear By contrast, Bryson De Chambeau endorsing Trump managed amazingly to come across as courageous. Trump BTW is when adjusted for age probably the best golfer to occupy the White House. Meaningless to all rational people, but Biden and Clinton both lied enthusiastically about their ability. Yes, Oprah made some nice money off the Harris campaign. On a related note, one of the campaign senior bods said that the Joe Rogan proposal fell apart because they feared a backlash amongst the hard-line part of the base. It was set up, ready to go and crucially...free, other than flying to Texas. Instead she ended up being sent to do some women's sex and relationship podcast, and the campaign was stiffed for a six-figure sum to build a custom set. Walk me through this, how on earth was Oprah paid for an endorsement? Isn't a paid endorsement not an endorsement in political terms? Which other celebrity endorsements were paid for, and if it was just Oprah and a couple of others why didn't they go around Country and Western singers, televangelists or pick up artists that would mess with Trump's base? I mean they could have dropped quite a lot of money on Hispanic media, they must have had some inkling that they were bleeding there. Was paying for endorsements (if it was done) just a function of the Harris campaign having a tonne more money than the Trump campaign, or was it just stupidity? |
|
|
|
Post by Devil Wincarnate on Nov 14, 2024 11:52:03 GMT
Yes, Oprah made some nice money off the Harris campaign. On a related note, one of the campaign senior bods said that the Joe Rogan proposal fell apart because they feared a backlash amongst the hard-line part of the base. It was set up, ready to go and crucially...free, other than flying to Texas. Instead she ended up being sent to do some women's sex and relationship podcast, and the campaign was stiffed for a six-figure sum to build a custom set. Walk me through this, how on earth was Oprah paid for an endorsement? Isn't a paid endorsement not an endorsement in political terms? Which other celebrity endorsements were paid for, and if it was just Oprah and a couple of others why didn't they go around Country and Western singers, televangelists or pick up artists that would mess with Trump's base? I mean they could have dropped quite a lot of money on Hispanic media, they must have had some inkling that they were bleeding there. Was paying for endorsements (if it was done) just a function of the Harris campaign having a tonne more money than the Trump campaign, or was it just stupidity? If you go off what Oprah says, and it's not an unreasonable response- she charged Harris a million dollars for setting up campaign events. Still, why a media tycoon didn't believe in it enough to do it for free is another question. There seems to be lots of noises from Dem sources that essentially suggest that numerous people offered their services to the campaign for a fee. Dubious value on a lot of them. Including 3.9m on an agency to identify social media influencers for them (a job you'd think existed in-house in the campaign). |
|
|
|
Post by timmullen on Nov 14, 2024 12:00:04 GMT
Yes, Oprah made some nice money off the Harris campaign. On a related note, one of the campaign senior bods said that the Joe Rogan proposal fell apart because they feared a backlash amongst the hard-line part of the base. It was set up, ready to go and crucially...free, other than flying to Texas. Instead she ended up being sent to do some women's sex and relationship podcast, and the campaign was stiffed for a six-figure sum to build a custom set. Walk me through this, how on earth was Oprah paid for an endorsement? Isn't a paid endorsement not an endorsement in political terms? Which other celebrity endorsements were paid for, and if it was just Oprah and a couple of others why didn't they go around Country and Western singers, televangelists or pick up artists that would mess with Trump's base? I mean they could have dropped quite a lot of money on Hispanic media, they must have had some inkling that they were bleeding there. Was paying for endorsements (if it was done) just a function of the Harris campaign having a tonne more money than the Trump campaign, or was it just stupidity? I’m baffled by the claim about Oprah, especially as she’s been publicly campaigning for Democrats since at least Bill Clinton’s campaigns, so it’s hardly a Damascene conversion. |
|
right
Conservative
Posts: 18,726
|
Post by right on Nov 14, 2024 12:08:05 GMT
Walk me through this, how on earth was Oprah paid for an endorsement? Isn't a paid endorsement not an endorsement in political terms? Which other celebrity endorsements were paid for, and if it was just Oprah and a couple of others why didn't they go around Country and Western singers, televangelists or pick up artists that would mess with Trump's base? I mean they could have dropped quite a lot of money on Hispanic media, they must have had some inkling that they were bleeding there. Was paying for endorsements (if it was done) just a function of the Harris campaign having a tonne more money than the Trump campaign, or was it just stupidity? If you go off what Oprah says, and it's not an unreasonable response- she charged Harris a million dollars for setting up campaign events. Still, why a media tycoon didn't believe in it enough to do it for free is another question. There seems to be lots of noises from Dem sources that essentially suggest that numerous people offered their services to the campaign for a fee. Dubious value on a lot of them. Including 3.9m on an agency to identify social media influencers for them (a job you'd think existed in-house in the campaign). Losing campaigns, particularly well funded ones like Hilary's or Romney's, often seem to have comical stories about waste. A lot of this is hindsight about misplaced effort and it's an easy trap to fall in to. Which I have fallen in plenty of times. Perhaps Oprah was seen as a gateway to Republican inclined middle aged to elderly white wives, which isn't on the face of it a ludicrous assumption. And perhaps the payment wasn't that unusual, covering supplier costs which sort of ties in with the reported explanation. |
|
|
|
Post by timmullen on Nov 14, 2024 12:14:15 GMT
If you go off what Oprah says, and it's not an unreasonable response- she charged Harris a million dollars for setting up campaign events. Still, why a media tycoon didn't believe in it enough to do it for free is another question. There seems to be lots of noises from Dem sources that essentially suggest that numerous people offered their services to the campaign for a fee. Dubious value on a lot of them. Including 3.9m on an agency to identify social media influencers for them (a job you'd think existed in-house in the campaign). Losing campaigns, particularly well funded ones like Hilary's or Romney's, often seem to have comical stories about waste. A lot of this is hindsight about misplaced effort and it's an easy trap to fall in to. Which I have fallen in plenty of times. Perhaps Oprah was seen as a gateway to Republican inclined middle aged to elderly white wives, which isn't on the face of it a ludicrous assumption. And perhaps the payment wasn't that unusual, covering supplier costs which sort of ties in with the reported explanation. Again, what payment, and why Oprah when she’s been on the stump for every candidate since Bill Clinton? Evidence please. |
|
right
Conservative
Posts: 18,726
|
Post by right on Nov 14, 2024 12:16:07 GMT
The celebrity endorsement on stage will not happen in 2028 - or at least very sparingly. Not sure. Hollywood is a big part of the Democratic fundraising operation particularly in bad years. And part of the price may be indulging a star's ego. Relatively politically switched on stars who understand that their endorsement is not always as valuable as their money, like George Clooney, are relatively rare. Hollywood stars collectively are probably the lowest IQ major donor group of either party, at least when you look at the decision makers (usually the stars themselves). |
|
right
Conservative
Posts: 18,726
|
Post by right on Nov 14, 2024 12:20:25 GMT
Losing campaigns, particularly well funded ones like Hilary's or Romney's, often seem to have comical stories about waste. A lot of this is hindsight about misplaced effort and it's an easy trap to fall in to. Which I have fallen in plenty of times. Perhaps Oprah was seen as a gateway to Republican inclined middle aged to elderly white wives, which isn't on the face of it a ludicrous assumption. And perhaps the payment wasn't that unusual, covering supplier costs which sort of ties in with the reported explanation. Again, what payment, and why Oprah when she’s been on the stump for every candidate since Bill Clinton? Evidence please. A bit surprised that you're responding to a post saying this is probably a nothing with a post demanding I prove this is a something But although distressingly on your side on this issue I don't think an appeal to Oprah's selfless love of the Democrats will get you as far as you think. She's an operator who (entirely understandably) pays a lot of attention to the bottom line. |
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Nov 14, 2024 12:23:30 GMT
There are various people (e.g. Marco Rubio, J.D. Vance) who used to not like Donald Trump, but now work with him. I don’t really know if Trump and/or Musk have a track record of falling out with people. If they eventually fall out with each other, it will be fun and/or interesting.
|
|
