Why do these numbers represent "fizzle"? Let say that 9% of the electorate has seen the film, as in the sample. Let's say 18% of those who've seen the film are more likely to vote against Bush as a result, as reported in the sample. Multiplying, we find that 1.6% of the electorate are more likely to vote against Bush, as a result of seeing the film.
Now, if you're an anti-Bush campaign consultant, and you have an opportunity for an ad buy that has the potential to move 1.6% of the electorate against Bush, how much would you be willing to pay for that?
And that doesn't count the people who have not yet seen the film but will do so before the election, who one would expect would be less committedly anti-Bush then people who saw the movie right away.
Did this reporter do the math?
- Robert Naiman
At 08:23 AM 7/23/2004 -0700, you wrote:
________________________________
http://www.latimes.com/la-et-horn23jul23,1,1478123.story <http://www.latimes.com/la-et-horn23jul23,1,1478123.story>
THE [Los Angeles] TIMES POLL
Public Keeping Its Cool Over Election Effect of 'Fahrenheit'
By John Horn Times Staff Writer
July 23, 2004
Despite its continuing success with the box-office electorate, "Fahrenheit 9/11," Michael Moore's sharply satirical attack on President Bush and his administration, appears to be wielding less influence among potential voters than the filmmaker and his supporters might have hoped, a Los Angeles Times Poll has found.
The survey found that "Fahrenheit" is drawing an overwhelmingly Democratic audience, and of the Republicans who have ventured to see it, few appear to be swayed.
One of those polled, 27- year-old Thomas Winney, a Republican construction worker who saw the movie in Washington, Mo., said it had no effect on how he views the election. "It didn't change my mind at all," Winney said, noting that he was and remains a Bush supporter. "Kerry says one thing one time, and another thing the next time."
Of the 1,529 registered voters surveyed in the poll, conducted nationwide July 17-21, 9% had seen Moore's film, which has taken in more than $97 million since it opened last month and established itself as the highest-grossing feature-length documentary ever. Of those who have seen the movie, 78% identified themselves as Democrats, 9% as independents and 6% as Republicans.
Predictably, the vast majority of those who had seen the film - 92% - said they were planning to vote for Sen. John F. Kerry and Sen. John Edwards for president. Only 3% planned to vote for Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney.
Seventy-nine percent of those who had seen "Fahrenheit" said the film would not change their November votes; 18% said it made them more likely to vote against Bush; and 3% said it bolstered their resolve to vote for him.
Because the "Fahrenheit" questions were asked only of registered voters, it was not possible to determine whether the film was prompting people to sign up to vote for the first time.
Moore closes the film with the message "Do something." At a celebrity-studded Beverly Hills screening of the film last month, he said: "I hope this country will be back in our hands in a very short period of time." He could not be reached for comment by press time Thursday.
Andrew Kohut, director of the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, said he was not surprised that the film was appealing to a narrow political segment and added that it didn't necessarily need to win over GOP voters in order to have an effect on the election.
"The important role [movies like this] play is that they are energizers for political points of view," Kohut said. "Rush Limbaugh is important not because he converts people - he can't convert anyone. But he gets people riled up."
Catherine Krause, a 20-year-old student in Houston, is among the choir to whom Moore is preaching. Even though she identified herself as a Republican, Krause said she went into "Fahrenheit" intending to vote against Bush - and came out with the same opinion.
"I'm not a fan of the president," Krause, one of the Times Poll respondents, said in an interview Thursday. "If Michael Moore had done the film more truthfully, I would have been more impressed with it. But I agree with the main premise."
Overall, the Times Poll found that audience members had mixed feelings about the accuracy of Moore's brand of documentary filmmaking. Nine percent found it "somewhat" or "completely" inaccurate. But despite attacks from conservative critics, most others granted it at least some credibility, with 31% calling it "completely accurate" and 58% calling it "somewhat accurate." The poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.
...
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
