base talk ABC POLL: Taylor endorsement has little to no impact on race.

[The Music Industry]

It does have impact, but it won't be measured properly by a poll question like that  Her impact is not that she got Republicans/independents to change their opinions on policy and suddenly support Kamala's views and vote for her. Her impact is that she's getting new people to register to vote/is motivating Democratic voters. 

Edited Sunday at 09:01 PM by The Music Industry

[Rotunda]

The Democratic Party's current voting strategy relies heavily on getting people to vote early and have voting plans so that they aren't just moseying in on Election Day without confirming that they're:

 

1. Registered to vote

2. Registered to vote in the correct state (which is important for college students)

3. Aware of where to vote 

 

Young people notoriously do not think about these things, especially if they're from a family that does not talk politics.

 

While there's probably some low-information voters who will be moved towards/away from a candidate due to an endorsement, a big point of this endorsement is to get voters who are poor planners into the fold. 

[45seconds]

36 minutes ago, elincomprendid said:

I doubt Trump posted he hates Taylor if it had no influence 💀

 

Also what are you even expecting for an artist? People clearly won't vote based on what an artist tell them. Even a small percentage is crazy

 

Why you talking about global when we talking about US elections? If you have nothing to say about her just shut up don't invent things 

Donald Trump's rage has little to do with the influence if this election. He'd rage against anybody who publicly opposed him.So that is a moot point. This truth is is that Taylor Swift's endorsement is meaningless and is statistically irrelevant. 

[Rep2000]

26 minutes ago, Digitalism said:

Was there really a registration spike? People just clicked on link. There's no way of quantifying how many actually registered from the people that clicked

You do realize that if they can track how many people clicked on that link, they could also track how many registered at the end of that process, right? It's pretty basic SEO. They are just not disclosing that numbers out to the public in case of political implications.

[Doctor Dick]

35 minutes ago, TayDuaStan said:

Well Gaga kinda fits that description. Let's see

Total tour gross: 

Gaga: 719 million $ (7 tours)

Taylor: 1.9 billion $ (6 tours)

 

Best selling tour:

Gaga: 230 million $

Taylor: 1 billion $ (60 shows)
 

Album debuts Spotify: 

Gaga: 48 million streams

Taylor: 313 million streams

 

Album sales: 

Gaga: 87 million albums sold

Taylor: 221 million album sales

 

Total streams on Spotify:

Gaga: 22 billion streams

Taylor: 90 billion streams

 

Most streamed albums:

Gaga: 5.9 billion streams (A Star Is Born)

Taylor: 11 billion (Lover)

 

 

But Taylor has been bigger in the streaming era so I don't know why you're posting these numbers, especially comparing album debuts with 30+ tracks to a 16+ track album. If we took Gaga vs. Taylor in the digital era then Gaga wins both in terms of singles and worldwide album sales or peaks but either way calling Gaga an 'ant' is as stupid as your constant need of downvoting. 

 

 

Edited Sunday at 09:14 PM by Doctor Dick

[Kingdom]

1 minute ago, 45seconds said:

Donald Trump's rage has little to do with the influence if this election. He'd rage against anybody who publicly opposed him.So that is a moot point. This truth is is that Taylor Swift's endorsement is meaningless and is statistically irrelevant. 

This

[By the Water]

5 minutes ago, 45seconds said:

Donald Trump's rage has little to do with the influence if this election. He'd rage against anybody who publicly opposed him.So that is a moot point. This truth is is that Taylor Swift's endorsement is meaningless and is statistically irrelevant. 

Is that so? What did he say about the brat singer? 

[By the Water]

5 minutes ago, 45seconds said:

Donald Trump's rage has little to do with the influence if this election. He'd rage against anybody who publicly opposed him.So that is a moot point. This truth is is that Taylor Swift's endorsement is meaningless and is statistically irrelevant. 

Is that so? What did he say about the brat singer? 

[Broadcastthatboom13]

Her endorsement wasn't ever going to make undecided voters or Trump voters switch to Kamala. The whole point is to encourage voter participation and turnout, which is always record low in the age demographics that have the most progressive-dem leaning values who are also Taylor's base. 

[Rep2000]

3 minutes ago, 45seconds said:

Donald Trump's rage has little to do with the influence if this election. He'd rage against anybody who publicly opposed him.So that is a moot point. This truth is is that Taylor Swift's endorsement is meaningless and is statistically irrelevant. 

Yeah, sure. If 406,000 out of 727,000 visits are based on her link alone is "meaningless". But you would rather believe a 3000 poll from a demographic that leans heavily on the Republican side instead.

[$ebert]

Were people actually expecting Taylor to have an impact on voting polls? She's an artist, not a politician 

[Broadcastthatboom13]

Her endorsement wasn't ever going to make undecided voters or Trump voters switch to Kamala. The whole point is to encourage voter participation and turnout, which is always record low in the age demographics that have the most progressive-dem leaning values who are also Taylor's base. 
 

With poor youth turnout you get 2016, with record highs you get 2020. 

Edited Sunday at 09:23 PM by Broadcastthatboom13

[$ebert]

Were people actually expecting Taylor to have an impact on voting polls? She's an artist, not a politician 

[Rep2000]

3 minutes ago, 45seconds said:

Donald Trump's rage has little to do with the influence if this election. He'd rage against anybody who publicly opposed him.So that is a moot point. This truth is is that Taylor Swift's endorsement is meaningless and is statistically irrelevant. 

Yeah, sure. If 406,000 out of 727,000 visits are based on her link alone is "meaningless". But you would rather believe a 3000 poll from a demographic that leans heavily on the Republican side instead.

[Digitalism]

7 minutes ago, Rep2000 said:

You do realize that if they can track how many people clicked on that link, they could also track how many registered at the end of that process, right? It's pretty basic SEO. They are just not disclosing that numbers out to the public in case of political implications.

Exactly that cannot be disclosed. So how do you know there was a spike from Taylor? Some user claimed that on that day there was a spike but that day was the debate, of course the numbers were bigger on that day. Artist have no influence in this, it's not just a Taylor thing. 

[Digitalism]

7 minutes ago, Rep2000 said:

You do realize that if they can track how many people clicked on that link, they could also track how many registered at the end of that process, right? It's pretty basic SEO. They are just not disclosing that numbers out to the public in case of political implications.

Exactly that cannot be disclosed. So how do you know there was a spike from Taylor? Some user claimed that on that day there was a spike but that day was the debate, of course the numbers were bigger on that day. Artist have no influence in this, it's not just a Taylor thing. 

[Rep2000]

7 minutes ago, Digitalism said:

Exactly that cannot be disclosed. So how do you know there was a spike from Taylor? Some user claimed that on that day there was a spike but that day was the debate, of course the numbers were bigger on that day. Artist have no influence in this, it's not just a Taylor thing. 

Oh my god, they literally provided the exact number of the spike: 406,000 out of 727,000 visitors post-debate on the Vote.gov is from Taylor's 24h story link. I feel like nobody is reading these days.

Edited Sunday at 09:30 PM by Rep2000

[nadiamendell]

Quote

while 13% say it makes them less likely to do so

Please.  I ******* hate polls and can't wait until the election is over so we can stop being bombarded with BS from pollsters who want us to think they're important. 

[Badgalbriel]

15 minutes ago, 45seconds said:

Donald Trump's rage has little to do with the influence if this election. He'd rage against anybody who publicly opposed him.So that is a moot point. This truth is is that Taylor Swift's endorsement is meaningless and is statistically irrelevant. 

Says who? An ABC pool? 

[nadiamendell]

Quote

while 13% say it makes them less likely to do so

Please.  I ******* hate polls and can't wait until the election is over so we can stop being bombarded with BS from pollsters who want us to think they're important. 

[Badgalbriel]

15 minutes ago, 45seconds said:

Donald Trump's rage has little to do with the influence if this election. He'd rage against anybody who publicly opposed him.So that is a moot point. This truth is is that Taylor Swift's endorsement is meaningless and is statistically irrelevant. 

Says who? An ABC pool? 

[Digitalism]

1 minute ago, Rep2000 said:

Oh my god, they literally provided the exact number of the spike: 406,000 out of 727,000 visitors on the Vote.gov is from Taylor's 24h story link. I feel like nobody is reading these days.

Clicking on a link is not registrating. A user posted the numbers of people who registrated on that day and they were 52.000. On the date of the debate. Taylor did not influence anything on that scale. Touch some grass

[getBusy]

58 minutes ago, elincomprendid said:

I doubt Trump posted he hates Taylor if it had no influence 💀

Girl are you new to Trump?? He behaves like a baby, and if he woke up feeling he wanted to post that, he will. Regardless of facts and data. He doesn't need a reason to be an *******. It's just what he is.  

[Digitalism]

1 minute ago, Rep2000 said:

Oh my god, they literally provided the exact number of the spike: 406,000 out of 727,000 visitors on the Vote.gov is from Taylor's 24h story link. I feel like nobody is reading these days.

Clicking on a link is not registrating. A user posted the numbers of people who registrated on that day and they were 52.000. On the date of the debate. Taylor did not influence anything on that scale. Touch some grass

[elincomprendid]

25 minutes ago, 45seconds said:

Donald Trump's rage has little to do with the influence if this election. He'd rage against anybody who publicly opposed him.So that is a moot point. This truth is is that Taylor Swift's endorsement is meaningless and is statistically irrelevant. 

 

3 minutes ago, getBusy said:

Girl are you new to Trump?? He behaves like a baby, and if he woke up feeling he wanted to post that, he will. Regardless of facts and data. He doesn't need a reason to be an *******. It's just what he is.  

Do you see him crying about any other artist? Cause I don't…

 

And artists like Charli XCX, Billie Eilish, Chappell Roan have all endorsed Kamala.
 

It's crazy he hasn't cried about them considering they have captured the zeitgeist opposed to Taylor that had no influence!!