2024-11-19 21:50:00
There has rarely been more spectacle in a presidential election. To mobilize voters in America’s swing states, Democrats and their candidate Kamala Harris have invited an army of stars to the stage ahead of November 5th. Jon Bon Jovi tried to convince fans in Detroit, Michigan to vote with “Livin’ On A Prayer.” In Pennsylvania, Katy Perry and Lady Gaga were on stage for “Kamala,” and in Nevada, Christina Aguilera. Rapper 2 Chainz endorsed the vice president three days before the polls in his home state of Georgia, while Jennifer Lopez, Cardi B and Beyoncé took to the podium in Nevada, Texas and Wisconsin to tout Harris as a possible US president.
Celebrities such as Taylor Swift, George Clooney and Bruce Springsteen have previously made voting recommendations for them. Even Oprah Winfrey, lauded as Hollywood’s presidential maker since her support of then-Democratic nominee Barack Obama in 2008, was recruited. And Oscar winners Julia Roberts and Meryl Streep recalled “hope” and “joy”, the pillars of Harris’ campaign, at the “Unite for America” election rally.
Personal political attitudes prevail
However, the fact that Donald Trump not only did better with the electorate, but also beat Harris in the popular vote, i.e. the votes of Americans eligible to vote, continues to be discussed two weeks after the Democrat’s defeat. Media scientist Robert Thompson, who researches at Syracuse University in New York, points to the more personal political beliefs that many Americans have developed in recent years. “It’s become a lot harder to let a celebrity change your opinion,” Thompson told the San Francisco Chronicle.
A voting recommendation usually says more about the celebrity than the politician they support. Taylor Swift was praised by her Democratic supporters when she publicly supported Harris and her possible running mate Tim Walz and urged them to vote on social media. But the message remained in Swift herself, not in the electoral program of the two Democrats. But observers also admit that it is difficult to measure the influence of star power on elections. After Swift’s endorsement of Harris and a link to Vote.gov, a voter registration website, more than 400,000 Swifties registered there within 24 hours. Whether young people, mostly women, voted for Harris or Trump remains an open question.
Is the entertainment industry still useful as a political compass?
Hollywood’s tarnished reputation may also have dissuaded many voters from voting for the Harris/Walz team. Trump supporter Elon Musk had repeatedly linked Democrats to rapper Sean “Diddy” Combs, who was charged with sex trafficking and organized crime in mid-September. “Jennifer Lopez was his girlfriend. Today he warns against Trump. How many people did he warn about Diddy before? Nobody!” Musk raged on comedian Joe Rogan’s podcast. At the height of the #MeToo movement, the scandal surrounding Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein had already painted a picture of a film industry driven by sex and greed. Why, many Americans asked before November 5, should representatives of the entertainment industry serve as a political compass?
Speculation that Harris paid for celebrity endorsements also undermined credibility. According to research by the American media, the Democratic campaign managers spent almost four million dollars on influencer posts alone. Winfrey’s commitment also came at a price. As the talk icon assured, she was not paid for the “United for America” election rally. Her production company Harpo, meanwhile, has received at least $1 million from Harris’ campaign coffers. Since Winfrey, like Springsteen or Beyoncé, appealed only to Americans who voted Democratic anyway, many observers thought Harris could have spared herself the expense. According to calculations by the New York Times, in the 15 weeks of his candidacy he spent about 1.5 billion dollars. According to accountants at the Democratic National Convention, on Election Day Harris’ cash register still showed a loss of nearly $20 million, the sum she had unsuccessfully invested in celebrities and concerts during the final spurt.
Interview between Maxwell McGraw, Editor of Time.news, and Robert Thompson, Media Scientist at Syracuse University
Maxwell McGraw: Welcome, Robert! It’s great to have you here to discuss the recent spectacle of celebrity endorsements in the 2024 presidential elections, particularly Kamala Harris’s campaign. With a lineup that includes stars like Beyoncé, Taylor Swift, and even Jon Bon Jovi, do you think celebrity power still holds sway in politics?
Robert Thompson: Thank you for having me, Maxwell! The answer is a bit nuanced. On one hand, we’ve seen significant celebrity involvement intended to mobilize younger voters. Performers like Taylor Swift can inspire a surge in voter registration, as evidenced by the 400,000 registrations following her endorsement of Harris. However, the effectiveness of these endorsements seems to vary among different demographics and political affiliations.
Maxwell McGraw: Interesting point! While these stars can ignite initial enthusiasm, do you feel that personal political beliefs have begun to overshadow celebrity influence, especially after Harris’ recent defeat to Trump?
Robert Thompson: Absolutely. As we’ve seen over the past few electoral cycles, many voters have developed very personal ideological beliefs. This has made it increasingly difficult for celebrity endorsements alone to sway opinions. In fact, many people may view these endorsements more as a reflection of the celebrity’s opinions rather than a strong endorsement of any political platform. As you noted, Harris did poorly in the popular vote, and that could indicate that factors beyond star power are at play.
Maxwell McGraw: Does that imply that voters today are less susceptible to the influence of celebrities compared to previous elections, especially when you consider the historical context of figures like Oprah Winfrey in Obama’s campaign?
Robert Thompson: Yes, there’s been a noticeable shift. Celebrities like Oprah indeed built significant goodwill and had the power to influence public opinion in 2008. However, today’s polarized political climate and the rise of highly personalized political ideologies suggest that people are less inclined to change their minds just because a beloved celebrity endorses someone. It highlights a significant evolution in the relationship between celebrity culture and politics.
Maxwell McGraw: So, what does this mean for campaigns relying heavily on celebrity endorsements? Is there a risk of alienating certain voter segments?
Robert Thompson: Definitely. While star power can mobilize some voters, it can also provoke backlash, especially among those who may view the entertainment industry as disconnected from their realities. For instance, the negative associations with certain celebrities can detract from the message. When figures like Elon Musk try to tie prominent Democrats to controversial individuals in Hollywood, it can reinforce negative perceptions among some voter segments, particularly among Trump supporters.
Maxwell McGraw: Given your insights, how should political campaigns adapt their strategies in the age of celebrity influence? Should they reconsider their reliance on such endorsements?
Robert Thompson: Campaigns need to strike a balance. While celebrity endorsements can bring attention and initial excitement, it’s crucial that campaigns focus on concrete policies and relatable messaging that resonates with voters’ experiences. They should also consider engaging local influencers or community leaders who may have a more direct connection with constituents. It’s about creating genuine dialogue rather than relying solely on star power.
Maxwell McGraw: do you think the upcoming electoral landscape will continue to evolve in this direction, possibly moving away from celebrity endorsements altogether?
Robert Thompson: I wouldn’t say we’ll see a complete move away from celebrity influence, but rather a transformation. As voters become more discerning, I expect we might see a more strategic approach where celebrity endorsements are used sparingly and in alignment with broader, more relatable campaign messages. The entertainment industry can still play a role, but it needs to be part of a holistic strategy that prioritizes genuine connection over mere spectacle.
Maxwell McGraw: Thank you, Robert, for sharing your valuable perspective on this evolving intersection of fame and politics. It will be fascinating to observe how these dynamics unfold as we approach the election!
Robert Thompson: Thank you for the conversation, Maxwell! I look forward to seeing how it all plays out.
