Following Vice President Harris’s crushing defeat, many within the Democratic Party are reconsidering their strategy of leaning heavily on celebrity endorsements. The loss has led to concerns about the party’s growing detachment from the concerns of working-class voters.
While Harris’s policies aimed at assisting working-class families, such as expanding the child tax credit and introducing plans to make housing more affordable, the campaign was also marked by a strong celebrity presence.
Celebrities like Taylor Swift and Beyoncé played a prominent role in supporting Harris, with Beyoncé even making a high-profile campaign appearance. Her 2016 anthem “Freedom” became a focal point of Harris’s campaign, despite the focus on policy.
Beyoncé’s campaign presence for Harris sparks debate on celebrity influence in politics
In addition to Swift and Beyoncé, a list of figures such as Bruce Springsteen, Jennifer Lopez, George Clooney, Jon Bon Jovi, and Cardi B also endorsed Harris. Despite this star power, Harris’s campaign faltered, with her losing all key swing states and even seeing Trump make gains in traditionally Democratic strongholds.
The only state to shift toward Harris was Washington, while states like California, New York, and New Jersey—traditionally solid Democratic bases—saw some movement toward Trump.
As a result, several Democrats are now questioning whether the party’s reliance on Hollywood and celebrities has been misguided, arguing that such endorsements may have only reinforced the perception of the party as elitist and disconnected from working-class Americans.
One Democratic strategist noted that the party’s overemphasis on celebrity influence may backfire, saying, “We seem to think that Beyoncé’s appearance will solve all our problems,” but in reality, it may only worsen the party’s image as out of touch.
Jennifer Brubaker, a professor at the University of North Carolina Wilmington, argued that Harris’s celebrity endorsements inadvertently helped Trump by aligning her campaign with figures who are often seen as part of the elite class. This, she suggested, contradicted Trump’s narrative of being an anti-establishment figure.
While Bernie Sanders did not directly blame celebrity endorsements for the loss, he highlighted the broader issue of the party’s alienation from working-class voters. “It shouldn’t be surprising that when the Democratic Party abandons the working class, the working class abandons them,” Sanders remarked in response to the election results.
Harris’s team had defended their celebrity outreach, stating that these figures represented “trusted voices” who could mobilize voters by using their platforms to raise awareness about the election’s stakes.
However, commentator Stephen A. Smith criticized the campaign’s reliance on wealthy, famous figures who many voters perceive as detached from everyday life. He pointed out that such celebrities, like Oprah Winfrey, would struggle to connect with voters facing different challenges.
Political strategist Mark Penn also expressed skepticism, noting that most voters see Hollywood as a source of entertainment, not as a guide for political decision-making.
While some within the party argued that the primary purpose of celebrity involvement was to garner attention rather than sway votes, strategist Jamal Simmons acknowledged that while celebrities helped attract eyes to the campaign, they did little to influence the final outcome.
On the other side, Trump—a celebrity in his own right—focused his campaign on figures who were more relatable to certain demographics, like Hulk Hogan and Kid Rock, rather than A-list celebrities. These figures, though not high-profile stars, may have resonated with voters in a way that Democratic celebrity endorsements did not.
Though Democrats had mocked Trump’s celebrity supporters, it became clear that his unconventional choice of public figures might have been a strategic advantage, appealing to voters who felt disconnected from the mainstream.
Despite the potential drawbacks, star power can certainly boost visibility and fundraising, but it risks alienating voters who feel that candidates are out of touch. In light of this, Democrats may need to rethink how they incorporate celebrities into future campaigns.
Nonetheless, the influence of celebrities on elections is unlikely to fade. The 2016 election saw a shift in Hollywood’s political engagement, with many entertainers becoming vocal opponents of Trump, a trend that is unlikely to reverse anytime soon.
Going forward, campaigns may explore more targeted ways of utilizing celebrity endorsements, such as focusing on voter mobilization efforts that highlight issues important to everyday Americans. One potential example is Barack Obama’s 2008 rally, where he, rather than any celebrity, was the central figure drawing the crowds.
