A surprise: Oprah pays a real cost for supporting Barack Obama

(UPDATE: This Ticket item has aroused so much interest, traffic and hundreds of comments that a new one has been published this morning. After you've read this item and are ready to go to the new one, just click here to read the reactions of hundreds of Oprah fans and former fans. Thanks for reading.)

Most of the attention on the O2 effect -- Obama and Oprah -- has been focused on how much the daytime TV cult leader helped her home state senator by endorsing him and appearing at all those rallies in Iowa and South Carolina with Barack and Michelle.

The 54-year-old Chicago TV hostess certainly helped raise a hefty chunk of change by loaning out her estate for that Obama fundraiser last summer.

Oprah Winfrey has long enjoyed an immense popularity tied to her long-running daytime TV show, which started in 1986, and helped give her favorable ratings around 78% by 1996. So well known is she that one name will suffice, as in our headline.

In one 1999 survey of the most admired and respected 20th-century women, Oprah (26%) came in only second to Mother Teresa (33%), who didn't have her own TV show. And in 2003 a Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll found that 60% thought Oprah was a more powerful woman than someone named Hillary Clinton, a former first lady and senator, who drew only 28%.

Fourteen months ago, a Gallup/USA Today poll found 74% of Americans had a favorable view of the TV personality.

Then on May 1 last year, Oprah announced during....

the Larry King show that she was, for the first time, going to throw her considerable weight behind a political candidate -- Obama.  King's suspenders nearly snapped.

“I think," she told old Lar, "that my value to him, my support of him, is probably worth more than any check.” Although, to be honest, her estimated $2.5 billion in wealth could buy an awful lot of TV ads in Indiana. It might even be able to purchase the Hoosier State. 

But little attention has been paid to the effect of Obama on Oprah. Now along comes Costas Panagopoulos, an assistant professor of political science at New York's Fordham University, to ask and answer just that question.

Writing at Politico.com, he suggests the aging empress of TV has paid a price for getting into the dirty business of politics with and for her man Barack. By August last year, a CBS poll found her favorable rating had plunged from 74% to 61%, still twice as good as the president but nearly a 20% drop.

Around Thanksgiving she announced that not only was she supporting Obama, but she would campaign with him and we'd see if her political recommendation carried as much weight as her book recommendations. Oprah's political travels produced a media feeding frenzy and a publicity bonanza with women routinely fainting in the front row. The campaign said her rallies produced 10,000 new volunteers.

Winfrey campaigned for Obama in Iowa, which he won, in South Carolina, where he won, and in New Hampshire, where he lost. We haven't heard much about Winfrey since the voting started. Did she realize something we're just getting?  We heard only that she left the controversial Rev. Jeremiah Wright's Trinity United Church of Christ several years ago, reportedly over some of his more militant sermons that Obama says he never heard.

But 10 days after the campaign media explosion her favorable rating had dropped further to 55% and her unfavorable ratings for the first time climbed to 1 in 3.

A December ABC/Washington Post poll of Democrats found 8% were persuaded by her Obama endorsement, 82% said it wouldn't matter either way and 10% said her recommendation had turned them off Obama.

Now, Panagopoulos has discovered an AOL TV popularity survey of 1.35 million Americans that found 46% said the daytime TV host who "made their day" was Ellen DeGeneres while only 19% chose Winfrey. Forty-seven percent said they'd like to have dinner with Ellen, while only 14% chose Oprah.

Apparently, neither Ellen nor Oprah were asked who they'd like to dine with.

Panagopoulos draws the conclusion that in these days of pervasive media, in reality, celebrity endorsements run the real risk of costing the celebrity more than they benefit the endorsee. So celebs may want to think twice before hitting the stump.

But then how many hundred million dollars a year does an assistant professor at Fordham pull down?

-- Andrew Malcolm

Photo credit: Newsday, Archdiocese of Colombo

Comments

[Chris]

Brings up another famous Chicago icon...Micheal Jordan:

When asked why he wouldn't endorse a democrat he was friendly with he replied: "Republicans buy shoes too"

Jordan understood what Oprah doesn't...while he and she had the right to endorse anyone they wanted, there may be a price to pay. People of course, have the right as well to let your words and choices reflect on their opinions of you...and if your image is your meal ticket, you might be better off keeping your mouth shut with regards to politics, of which many have strong ingrained opinions.

[long]

Popularity polls fluxuate a lot and she will probably bounce back. I don't support Obama or watch Oprah but she ws a great actress even before she became an icon and it makes me happy that she is making all that money.

[Gary]

Maybe people just don't like Oprah anymore. Maybe her brand has lost its appeal. Perhaps her fans are tired of being preached at by a rich celebrity.

And then again, maybe her fans have figured out that Obama is a racist and his true feelings reflect those of his pastor of 20 years.

[J Bankey]

I think it has more to do with her views on Christianity and her profession that we can all be Gods. The repudiation of mainline Christianity has more of an affect on her popularity than her political views. Not that many Americans are new agers.

[Chief]

Lincoln's comment about FOX NEWS shows a common misconception among liberals. The fact is, according to a survey done 6 - 9 months ago, the MAJORITY of viewers of FOX NEWS are INDEPENDENTS. As an indenpendent voter, I can understand that as you do get both sides to the story on FOX. Of course no self respecting liberal news outlet like MSNBC would give you the same courtesy.

[Chris]

Many of you are confusing the difference between 74% and 61%, which is 13% ,with the percent change which is 17.6%. (13/74) * 100 =17.6%

Glass houses.

[W Kennedy]

Oprah Winfrey goes to the same church that Barack Obama attends. People should start questioning BOTH of them and what they think of the minister who spouts hatred of white people and anti-US sentiments.

[John]

There are a lot of people criticizing the number 20%.
In fact the reporter is right because (74-61)/74 is 17.6% close to 20%.

[Sign]

It amazes me that so many people are angry at Oprah for supporting Obama because he's black, yet these SAME people contend that she should support Hillary because she's a woman.

First off, let's get this straight, as a black woman, I'm black first of all. My experiences in this world as a black woman is not that of white women, who have been the primary benefactors of affirmative action policies, which I am against. The fact remains, Hillary is not the right woman candidate, no matter how you slice it. She's polarizing and way too desperate to become President, which is a major turn-off because she could careless about the Democratic Party or anyone else, she just wants to achieve a goal.

[Oliver]

How is a drop from 74% to 61% "nearly 20%?" How is 14 close to 20? Why is this even newsworthy. If you have to fudge the facts, there is an agenda behind the article. What could it be?

Posted by: alison | April 09,

61% divided by 74% is 82.4% of previous level. Therefore a drop of 17.6% which is a nearly 20% drop.

[Gene]

For all the math-challendge people.
74% to 61% is a difference of 13 percentage points. 13 percentage points represents 18% of the original 74 percent popularity. So, when you go from 74% down to 61% that represents an 18% drop. Again, based on the original 74%. So, he rounded up from 18.

None of it matters anyway, Obamas getting votes from people who never watch Oprah and don't care who she is.

[adrian]

You know if I see one more person say that 74-61=13 i will blow up...we get that ok? Here is my issue, everyone can say what is wrong and bash someone, but no one will give any different ideas.

All I hear from any dem. is lets make government bigger! Lets take the money from the rich! Who will pay for all this free healthcare? Hard working Americans, thats who. So you can have free health care, food stamps, welfare, free housing, free power to watch BIG Oprah..Why work? Its all free.

No, No, No,its not free you non-thinking so called Americans. It is paid for by hard working American Taxes. I could write all day to you people, but it would do no good, everyone is entitled to their opinion, so am I. Thats my word for today.

[Quentin Beck]

All this talk makes me wonder one thing: Is Ellen Degenress trying to be a man or a woman?

[Sam]

I met blessed Mother Teresa. Trust this - Oprah Winfrey is NO Mother Teresa! Not even close.

Mother Teresa never tried to throw "her weight" around.

While Mother Teresa only wanted to bring the compassion of our Savior Jesus Christ to the world's sick and needy, Oprah Winfrey just wants to showcase herself.

Blessed Mother Teresa never politicized anything, Oprah has been building for this moment for a long time. She has a candidate, and she's gunning for for him to win.

[DOUG]

IT'S TO BAD OPRAH PICKED A RACIST TO SUPPORT. SHE SHOULD HAVE DONE HER HOMEWORK! THE DEMOCRAT PARTY WILL AGAIN SEE A REPEAT OF 2004. NOBAMA08

[Michael Sanford]

If you think Oompa's tv show has become a moral statement on her interpretation of life, then listen to her real New-Age program on XM radio. Talk about a bunch of crap.

I also find it troubling that Oompa would pick a black man over a white woman. Where's the press and the shame!

[jdavislive]

Hey Dom,

You stated that the drop was from 74% to 61% and that was closer to 10% than 20%.

Read on down the article bro. It states that she has fallen further down to 55%. That is 19 points, close to 20, don't you think?

[MathMan]

The intellegence level in you oprah fans is astounding. Great math skills. I can see why you still support Big O. As a discount it is 17.5%. As a percentage difference, calculate 61+20% (12.2)=73.2 which is the 20% referred to in the article. Either way is acceptable depending on the verbage. Those of you who think it is 13% or 10% are idiots.

Personally, I liked the O before her endorsement and it had nothing to do with whom she endorsed. I was offended that she presumes to come off the throne and tell us phesants who to vote fore like all the other hollywood morons that do the same. It's like Ted danson telling us the oceans would be uninhabitable in 10 years like he was some kind of expert. 10 years are long gone and no fish died. Thanks King Ted and Queen O.

[Mike]

All celebrities should keep their political views to themselves. I don't care! You aren't going to sway me if I disagree with you. I have my own mind and can make my own decisions.

As far as Obama's hate filled preacher goes... Absolutely, he has the right to be as bitter and hateful as he wants to be. However, the difference between him and Pat Robertson or whoever else is being thrown about in this discussion... J.Wright is Obama's mentor! There is a close relationship there. It's not some random preacher jumping on the band wagon cause you are the only candidate left that may even remotely support something they agree with. Big difference!

All three of these candidates stink! Can we just get a "do over"? Obama is a typical, liberal socialist who won't defend the country and will tax and spend us into oblivion. Plus, he's a possible racist. Actually read his books people! Hillary is about the same as Obama politically, just maybe not as extreme. McCain is a somewhat liberal, hot head. At least, everyone will be able to agree with McCain about half the time. He wants to leave the border open and throw money at the global warming fantasy (just like Obama and Hillary) so that should make the libs happy, but he will be willing to defend the country more than the other two and that should make the conservatives happy. Either way... We're screwed big time!

[NCMike]

The foolish article is only interesting from the standpoint of the number of readers, apparently adults, who are unable to do math. Although Peter has already noted the fact, I'll reiterate for the dozen or so folks that can only comprehend percentages as 3rd grade math and can only subtract. The drop of 13 percentage points from 74 to 61 (for those who can't follow this it's 74 minus 61 equals 13) needs to be divided by the starting percentage (74% if you're still awake). 13 divided by 74 equals 17.5. Rounding up to 18%, the original contention of almost 20% quoted by the author means that 18% is pretty ##&)(& close to 20%. In everything except horseshoes and hand grenades that's true. The bottom line is that the left*wing biased educational system is still not teaching people how to do math, or else the morons who can't remember make up a larger population than people who can count on more than they're fingers and toes. Ughh!!!

[Ron]

She has sacrificed her credibility and impartiality on politics. Anything she says from this point forward on any subject will scrutinized for partisan content. She certainly has the right to do so, but it wasn't a good career move.

[Jim]

For all you math deficient people, going from 74% to 61% approval is a drop of exactly 17.57% not 13%. Go back to school and re-learn 4th grade math.

If she went from 74% to 66.6%, it would be a 10% drop. Get it liberal geniuses? or does this troglodyte conservative need to spell it out further?

[louis]

To the mathematics wizards on this thread,

RE: "By August last year, a CBS poll found her favorable rating had plunged from 74% to 61%, still twice as good as the president but nearly a 20% drop."

The ratio is 61% to 74%, which is 0.8243, so the "drop" was 17.57%, or "nearly a 20% drop."

Wake up, read, and think ! ! !

[Dummy]

To clear things up, I'm no genious but article said 20%, not 20 percentage points. There is a big difference. This is why blogs should be taken down, people are too $tupid and they prove it each time they post.

[Joe W.]

Thank you to James Marsden for doing the math properly.

Going from 74% to 61% is a 17.6% drop just like going from 74% to 37% would have been a 50% drop.

And I thought Obama supporters were supposed to be the educated ones... Yikes!