Despite a lineup of high-profile endorsements from cultural icons like Beyoncé, Taylor Swift, and even Hollywood heavyweights like Harrison Ford, Kamala Harris’s campaign didn’t see the anticipated surge from celebrity backing in the recent election. When pop star Charli XCX tweeted, “Kamala IS Brat” shortly after Harris announced her candidacy, it set the stage for what some believed would be a wave of high-energy support from influential voices in entertainment. Yet, as results rolled in, it became clear that star-studded endorsements, while plentiful, failed to generate meaningful traction.
Experts suggest the lackluster impact of celebrity endorsements can be attributed to an evolving cultural climate. According to Seth Abramovitch from The Hollywood Reporter, Harris’s endorsements primarily came from artists with audiences already aligned with her politically: Oprah, Beyoncé, and Lady Gaga all speak to a base that’s predominantly liberal, urban, and female.
Although stars like Swift brought in a more diverse following, even she could not bridge the widening divide among voters, particularly among Latinos and Black men, two groups whose support swung in favor of Trump.
POLL: News drops as top source of election information in 2024 pic.twitter.com/DWL4k7NYo3
— Jack Poso 🇺🇸 (@JackPosobiec) November 19, 2024
Academic research also suggests that celebrity endorsements, while boosting voter registrations, don’t necessarily change voting behavior. Margaretha Bentley, a professor at Arizona State University, has observed that family, friends, and personal values are far more influential on voting decisions than endorsements from Hollywood.
Even when Taylor Swift’s post drove over 400,000 visitors to vote.gov, the resulting increase in voter turnout wasn’t directly tied to Harris’s favorability. Ashley Spillane’s Harvard study highlights that while celebrities can inspire civic engagement, translating that enthusiasm into votes for specific candidates remains difficult to quantify.
And then there’s the backlash against Hollywood endorsements, which has been building for years. Laurence F. Maslon, an arts professor at NYU, points out that celebrity endorsements often do more for the celebrities themselves than the candidates, as stars “hitch their star” to politicians and causes that amplify their own brand. But the Democrats’ cozy relationship with celebrities has also provided fodder for Republicans, who frequently characterize Hollywood as out of touch with everyday Americans.
Ricky Gervais’s satirical take, where he pretends to lecture the public on politics as a celebrity, has gone viral repeatedly, underscoring a growing sentiment that celebrities are out of touch with “real-world” struggles.
Conspiracies and controversies in Hollywood have also tainted celebrity endorsement power. For instance, this election cycle saw Trump supporters attacking the credibility of certain stars by linking them to figures like Diddy, who is currently facing serious criminal charges. Conspiratorial associations like these, while fringe, have gained traction on social media, further eroding the credibility of Hollywood endorsements in the eyes of skeptical voters.
Still, as Maslon notes, Harris’s campaign may have fared worse without this visible celebrity support, especially when it came to endorsements from figures like Beyoncé, whose absence might have been interpreted as a lack of confidence in the candidate. Yet, Maslon believes there is one endorsement that has consistently proven effective in American elections—when the candidate is the celebrity. Figures like Ronald Reagan, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and Donald Trump achieved significant political success by leveraging their own star power. Celebrity status, it seems, has the most sway when it’s wielded from within the ballot, not beside it.
