On the evening of Nov. 4, Joe Rogan, the former host of the reality show Fear Factor, urged his millions of fans to vote for Donald Trump, the former host of the reality show The Apprentice. Twenty-four hours later, Trump was president-elect. But since then, a number of journalists and political thinkers has decided that celebrity no longer matters in campaigns. “Voters don’t listen to Hollywood celebrities when it comes to voting,” said Mark Penn, a former adviser to the Clintons who later served as a counselor to Trump during the ex-president’s first impeachment. “Is the era of celebrity endorsements over?” asked a headline from The Guardian. The New York Times was more declarative: “Hollywood endorsements, once an essential part of a campaign playbook, may have backfired in this election.”
It’s not hard to see how one might reach such conclusions. Taylor Swift endorsed Kamala Harris; Bruce Springsteen campaigned with her; Katy Perry snapped a selfie with her; Beyoncé rallied for her; Megan Thee Stallion twerked for her; Charli XCX declared her brat. She lost anyway. After the most celebrity-powered campaign in history fell short, it seems that nearly everyone can agree that support from A-listers is useless at best, and counterproductiveat worst.
There is, however, a glaring problem with this reasoning. The second-most celebrity-powered campaign in history, behind only Harris’ losing effort, was Trump’s winning one. It wasn’t just the top of the ticket, where the candidate’s Apprentice superstardom helped make him synonymous with prosperity and success. Hulk Hogan got a prime speaking slot at the Republican convention. NFL legend Brett Favre rallied with the candidate in the campaign’s final days. Actor Zachary Levi, country star Jason Aldean, OnlyFans model Amber Rose and reality star Savannah Chrisley were just a few of the entertainers who joined the Trump train in 2024. None of these figures has anywhere near the star power of a Beyoncé or Taylor — yet they apparently were enough to help Trump win not just the White House, but the popular vote as well.
So, does the Harris campaign prove that celebrities lose elections? Or does the Trump campaign prove that they win them?
The answer isn’t that simple.
I wrote speeches and jokes for former President Barack Obama, and left the White House in 2016 to join the D.C. office of Funny Or Die. I’ve seen firsthand that blending politics and entertainment can, at times, be cringey. But I’ve also seen that it can be remarkably effective. A-list surrogates — like TV ads, war chests or volunteers — are a campaign resource. As with any campaign resource, the question is not just whether they exist, but how they’re used. In our fractured media environment, deploying celebrities is far more difficult than it was in 2008, when Oprah Winfrey’s primary-season endorsement of Obama netted him an estimated 1 million additional votes. But if 2024 convinces Democrats to ignore star power entirely, they’ll be abandoning one of their few remaining advantages over Trump’s GOP.
It would be particularly ironic — not to mention disastrous — to reject celebrity support because of a disappointing presidential year. That’s because presidential elections are the ones in which celebrity endorsements matter least. Most potential voters know when the election is, and by the time ballots are cast, candidates enjoy name recognition of 100 percent.
The next set of campaigns will be different. Between now and 2028, America will have a handful of special elections; off-off-year races in a few states; and a midterm. Participation in these races will be lower, and in some cases much lower, than it is during a presidential year. Not only that, but a large percentage of registered voters won’t know much about the candidates on the ballot.
These non-presidential elections are often decided by “differential turnout.” The party that gets more of its base to the polls has a big advantage — which means that celebrity endorsements can provide a decisive boost. In 2017, one year after Trump’s first election, stars like Kerry Washington, Billy Eichner, Connie Britton and Ellen DeGeneres publicly supported Doug Jones in a special election for an Alabama senate seat. Turnout, which had been 67 percent in the prior year’s presidential election, was expected to drop to 25 percent. Instead, 40 percent of registered voters participated. The unexpected surge came disproportionately from Democratic-leaning groups, particularly young voters, and propelled Jones to a win in a deep-red state. It would be unreasonable to attribute the entire surge in turnout to celebrities — Roy Moore’s multiple credible allegations of sexual misconduct had a lot to do with it — but by focusing public attention on the election, entertainers were able to help the Jones campaign take advantage of a favorable matchup and get its voters to the polls.
Celebrities can also help signal a party’s willingness to expand its coalition. This is something the Trump campaign exploited to impressive effect. It’s unlikely that anyone was surprised when Mel Gibson or Ted Nugent endorsed the former president. But Trump also trumpeted the support of younger Black men like rapper Lil Pump, former NFL star Mike Wallace and current Tampa Bay Buccaneers wide receiver Antonio Brown; of young white men like Chiefs’ kicker Harrison Butker and Youtuber-turned-boxer Jake Paul; of Puerto Ricans like rapper Anuel AA; and of executives from left-leaning Silicon Valley, most notably Elon Musk. Each of these endorsements signaled Trump’s eagerness to court voters outside the traditional MAGA base, and helped make it acceptable for people from those groups to cross over and support him.
Now, Democrats are the ones worried about their too-small tent. As they seek to expand it, they should follow the Trump campaign’s example. Can the next wave of Democratic candidates augment their typical enthusiasm from Hollywood with supporters from surprising places: country music; NASCAR; the tech bro-sphere; or the unapologetically masculine, politically incorrect corners of hip-hop and comedy? The future of the party, and possibly the country, may hinge on the answer.
Finally, Democrats — and celebrities themselves — must recognize that social media presence is more valuable than physical presence. While my own engagement with celebrities in 2024 was limited, I got the sense that, compared to previous election cycles, many left-leaning entertainers were scared to fully use their platforms. They urged fans to vote and often, especially in the campaign’s final weeks, said which candidate they were voting for. But they didn’t want to elaborate on their political beliefs, share information that might persuade voters, or otherwise help spread a campaign’s message.
I don’t blame left-leaning celebrities for being frightened right now. A 2023 boycott of Bud Light over its partnership with a trans influencer sent a powerful message: Take the wrong side in the culture wars, and a good portion of your audience will feel pressure to abandon you. Meanwhile, MAGA’s reply-guy mobs act as online enforcers, intimidating those who go beyond a generic plea for civic engagement and take a firmer stand. It’s hardly surprising when A-listers worry that if they support Democrats too vociferously, it will damage their careers and subject their families to harassment.
But surrogates with large followings don’t have to be obsessively political in order to have an impact. They simply have to go beyond endorsing the civic duty of voting, or even endorsing a candidate, and start sharing information that their followers might not otherwise see. Whether this comes in the forms of news clips, articles or opinion pieces written by subject-matter experts, celebrities should embrace their role not just as personalities but as channels, reaching Americans increasingly uninclined to get their news from traditional sources. That’s particularly important for Democrats, who in 2024 won voters who pay a great deal of attention to political news by six points, but lost voters who pay no attention to political news by a whopping 19 points.
For those outside the ascendent MAGA ruling class, “silver lining” is currently a relative term. But when it comes to celebrity engagement, there are clear examples of famous people who used their platforms in ways that went beyond mere endorsements. LeBron James, for instance, didn’t just support Harris but shared highlights of Trump’s Madison Square Garden rally with his 159 million Instagram followers. Scooter Braun, widely known in the Jewish community for his activism after the post-Oct. 7 Hamas attacks, shared op-eds from pro-Israel writers who supported Harris. Jennifer Lopez didn’t just appear with a candidate, she spoke personally to her fans about her Puerto Rican identity, and in doing so helped keep a story favorable to Harris in the news.
Clearly, none of these things were on their own enough for the vice president to win the White House. But they’re examples of a type of celebrity engagement that would have been impossible 15 or 20 years ago — and that candidates, and the celebrities who support them, can learn from.
As Democrats stare into the political abyss, they can voluntarily cede their advantage in celebrity support to Donald Trump and the GOP. Or they can use that advantage to boost turnout in non-presidential races, broaden a shrinking coalition, and reach politically unengaged voters. Given the likely consequences of the 2024 election, it’s hard to overstate how much depends on Democrats making the right choice.
Comments
Post a Comment