Saturday Night Live is influencial and very important during a presidential election!
gopdiva said 05/20, 08:03 PM
Political Satire takes central stage on SNL. Each candidate has appeared. They have access to the youth vote and their sketches appear on Cable news the next day. Making fun of themselves makes them human and makes voters laugh. Also, the cast members impressions are hysterical and the material they appear in is very relevant. on Hulu.com they have clips of the sketches. There is one with Obama and Clinton ( played by Armisen and Poehler ) and its split screen. They are talking about the election and say hysterical things. SNL's season is over, but leading up to the election they will have political specials. In order for the candidates to win they need to reach out to voters. All of the candidates have made appearances and will make more if they really want to win!
USA Pit Bull 63 said 05/20, 09:10 PM
I will outline several reasons why your thesis is inaccurate (or, as Will Farrell said while imitating George W. Bush in the classic 2000 first pres. debate spoof, "in-akk-er-itt").
Satire is important for remembering to observe faults of candidates, rather than always their strengths. (i.e., How do the candidates approach self-deprecation and humility?) But in reality, SNL will not change any significant number of votes come November.
One reason is because the show has suffered from poor writing and casting over the past five years, and plummeting ratings over the past ten years. (Darryl Hammond cannot be expected to imitate everybody, folks.) Fewer ratings = fewer voters being influenced by it. And to be honest, I can't even name 5 members of the current cast.
Another reason why it's irrelevant (in terms of its influence and importance on/with the general election) is that the youth vote is unreliable and historically insubstantial. Democrats usually pander to the 18-25 vote, and every election, pundits recap how unfortunate it was that the youth electorate just didn't act on the enthusiasm they seemed to possess during the campaigns.
As for Hulu.com, never heard of it.
gopdiva said 05/21, 05:28 PM
Did you know that kids in my class had never heard of John McCain? After he came on SNL, they knew who he was. They are not of voting age, but will be next election. Saturday Night LIve introduces candidates to youth before they are of voting age. They may like the candidate on the show and look into who they are online. I am ashamed to admit this, but I only found out who Nancy Pelosi was from SNL! I watch a lot of cable news now, but this was before I did. I learned who Tom Delay was along with other politicians. I for example do not agree with Pelosi, when I looked her up after the show I found that out. If I had agreed with her, I would have likely supported her. The same is true in the race for the white house. Today more and more youth get their news from the Daily SHow and Colbert Report. I would not be suprised if some people get politicals from SNL political sketches and news from Weekend Update. Huckabee appeared on SNL, i did not support him origionally, but seeing "the true him" made me like him a little bit more. Whether you agree with me or not, we can agree SNL won't be ignored. Cable news loves to show the clips!!!
USA Pit Bull 63 said 05/21, 05:56 PM
Let's be clear: I'm not arguing that SNL has no entertainment value or significance. In fact, I outlined in my counterargument the significance of political satire.
That said, the focus of this debate is whether or not SNL is "very important" and "influential" to/on a general election (which it's not).
You said, "Saturday Night LIve introduces candidates to youth before they are of voting age." But that doesn't help the current candidate. Politicians don't line up to reach 15-year-olds because the return on such an investment is too unpredictable and not immediate.
Next election is never as important as the current one, especially for president; most candidates are not official party candidates for two consecutive cycles---unless they won the first time. And if one wins, people will know who (s)he is in time for the next election (a lot better than if one merely appears on SNL).
Sadly, I agree that some people actually get their "news" from "The Daily Show" and "Colbert Report" --- but that is not your thesis/argument. And despite the influence of both these shows, they are not enough force to counter those who DON'T vote based on Jon Stewart's viewpoints.
SNL: even less.
gopdiva said 05/27, 08:34 PM
If the show was not important I doubt the ALL THE CANDIDATES would take the time to go on. There is campaigning to be done, they aren't foolish. They don"t waste their time on things that won't help them. They are aiming for the demographic that watches SNL (the youth). They also get press from their appearances. They are reaching out to voters and showing their playful sides. That is something voters want to see.
USA Pit Bull 63 said 05/27, 10:02 PM
This debate centers not on SNL carrying any importance whatsoever; I stated that the program has historically carried, and even somewhat still carries, some influence. But the real flaw of your thesis is that SNL is "very important," which also implies "very" influential.
Candidates do it because they don't want to give their opponents an opportunity to claim they're "out of touch" with modern times and "real" people (which is itself kind of silly, based on poor SNL ratings). It's more a seasonal tradition than vitally important to either camp. Ideas and policies will still trump glitz come November.
Again, the demographic that watches SNL is not a key demographic in general elections; the 18-25-y/o (particularly male) vote has traditionally been one of the poorest turnout percentages in general election history (especially the past 20 years). It's nice to appeal to that demographic generally, during campaigns; but no candidate will spend the eleventh hour on a college campus rather than a more older-adult-concentrated venue.
Bottom line: In November, the majority---or even difference of votes---won't stem from a "very important" SNL appearance over issues and ideas.
Comments
Add Your Comment
I agree with Pit Bull and POST. Wow, there's a sentence I never thought I'd write.. gopdiva, no offense to the "kids in your class," but how did you wind up with a class full of 14-17 year old kids who have never even heard of John McCain??
DonkeyDude | 05/21/08
Report Offensive Comment
Well, there is a girl in my homeroom who had only heard of Obama. Legally they can't out us in "smart" classes for homeroom or well, anything but math and spanish.
gopdiva | 05/22/08
Report Offensive Comment
Been on location in Appleton/Green Bay, Wisconsin this weekend. That's why I haven't checked in or posted much. I've been drinking too much milk and beer while eating various cheeses.
USA Pit Bull 63 | 05/25/08
Report Offensive Comment
so was the comment before last the the song of drunken bliss? ;)
MorgMcA | 05/26/08
Report Offensive Comment
No, but I wish it was. It was the Smurfs theme song. I'm just kinda waiting on Diva, so I thought I'd hum a tune. And what else was there to do in Wisconsin? (j/k!)
USA Pit Bull 63 | 05/26/08
Report Offensive Comment
I'm starting to favor the ideas of being able to choose who can accept your challenges, etc. I'm tired of people not finishing what they start.
USA Pit Bull 63 | 05/27/08
Report Offensive Comment
Yeah, Gopdiva has spurts, i hope she at least forfeits if she doesn't intend to finish. Or maybe wait a month and you'll suddenly get a response, however i doubt it, since her last comment was after your last arguement.
MorgMcA | 05/27/08
Report Offensive Comment
BTW, how about that Race debate with DD, I'm looking forward to watching and now that both of you are relatively free of pressing debates.
MorgMcA | 05/27/08
Report Offensive Comment
Well, I'm really busy right now with work, but I'm looking to be a little freer next week, so maybe then. DD had a month before challenging me (as per my request) on the Pledge of Allegiance, so y'all can be a little patient on this one. I won't take a month, but I probably won't get to it until next week. Hey, at least I'm full disclosure and honest about it.
USA Pit Bull 63 | 05/27/08
Report Offensive Comment
sorry Gopdiva, I guess i simply figured you were real busy
MorgMcA | 05/28/08
Report Offensive Comment
PB, you want me to start it off? Here's my problem: I think you're going to note a one-sided historical account of the GOP's civil rights accomplishments, ignoring the enormous demographic shift in the parties' respective bases that occurred after the signing into law of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. I don't care about that and I agree: The Dems, largely consisting of overtly racist southerners, were notably not the party for racial equality prior to the mid-60s. I'm only interested in talking about the last 40 years, as that is all that is relevant since people's party alignments have strongly shifted since then.
DonkeyDude | 05/28/08
Report Offensive Comment
Even with those parameters, Pit can still make a good arguement for his case, but still whoever starts, let it start when both have the time to commit to it.
MorgMcA | 05/28/08
Report Offensive Comment
DD, I wasn't discrediting you for taking a while to set up the last debate. I understand, and I understood at the time. I'm just telling others who want to see it to be patient, and I'll get it going soon. I'm just really busy this week, and I won't be around much this weekend, but I should have some more time perhaps next week. We'll see. If I don't get to you by next week, start it, and I'll do my best to respond promptly. As for your "problem" -- that's what every left-leaning person thinks when I first tell them my thesis, so I'm not surprised you expect that. I expect you to expect that. But I will likely bring up the entire history of the party, including, but not limited to, the last 40 years. I won't let it get pigeon-holed, but I will discuss recent history, as well. :)
USA Pit Bull 63 | 05/28/08
Report Offensive Comment
PB: I know you weren't. My comment wasn't meant to suggest anything about our last debate or the time it took to do it. By all means, take your time. And I'm not trying to pigeon-hole anything, but I do not care to debate against something I agree with (Dems prior to 40 years ago) just for the sake of arguing. I'm genuinely interested to hear your arguments, which I'm sure will consist at least partially of the culture of dependency and "victimhood" created by pandering policies, etc. Should be interesting and could go either way, but I think it depends in large part on exactly how the topic is phrased.
DonkeyDude | 05/29/08
Report Offensive CommentPost A Comment
Please keep it clean. Bad words will get filtered, and offensive comments will be removed.
CNN TOP POLITICAL STORIES
TOP STORIES on TIME.COM
TIME PHOTO ESSAYS
More than 50 years of cover stories about the 35th PresidentThe Brazen Pirates of Somalia
This year, close to 90 ships have been seized in and around the Gulf of Aden, more than triple the number of 2007
(Jason R. Zalasky / US Navy / EPA )
I love SNL, but not as much as I used to 5-6 years ago. Given the current arguments I must agree with Puppet for now. The motive is not just to entertain and show the lighter side of candidates, but to make fun of their weaknesses or mistakes committed during the campaign trail. I wonder if public perception ever changes after those sketches. Do voters remember those sketches at all and do they make their decision based on them? I doubt it. Also remember that the demographics of the show continuously change, Pit Bull I don't think the issue is poor casting, I think you are one of those people who outgrew the show, which is natural. The humor tends to either be predictable or target a different market (mostly new market), which is not necessarily a bad thing.
POST | 05/21/08
Report Offensive Comment