Opinion | It’s Too Early to Dismiss Democratic Celebrities
A-listers serve as a valuable asset for campaigns—provided you know how to leverage their influence effectively.
TroibNews 
On the evening of November 4, Joe Rogan, the former host of Fear Factor, encouraged his millions of followers to vote for Donald Trump, the previous host of The Apprentice. Just a day later, Trump emerged as the president-elect. Since that moment, many journalists and political analysts have contended that celebrity influence on campaigns has diminished. Mark Penn, a former adviser to the Clintons and a counselor to Trump during his first impeachment, remarked, “Voters don’t listen to Hollywood celebrities when it comes to voting.” The Guardian posed the question, “Is the era of celebrity endorsements over?” while The New York Times stated with certainty: “Hollywood endorsements, once an essential part of a campaign playbook, may have backfired in this election.”
This conclusion seems reasonable at first glance. Taylor Swift endorsed Kamala Harris; Bruce Springsteen campaigned alongside her; Katy Perry took a selfie with her; Beyoncé rallied support for her; Megan Thee Stallion performed for her; Charli XCX named her a “brat.” Regardless, Harris lost the election. Following this highly celebrity-driven campaign's defeat, many assert that endorsements from high-profile figures are ineffective, if not detrimental.
Yet there lies a significant flaw in this assertion. Trump’s successful campaign was the second-most celebrity-driven in history, trailing only Harris’s unsuccessful bid. The celebrity aspect was not limited to the candidate; it extended to the Republican convention, where Hulk Hogan received a prime speaking opportunity. In the final days of the campaign, NFL icon Brett Favre rallied alongside Trump. Other entertainers, including actor Zachary Levi, country musician Jason Aldean, OnlyFans model Amber Rose, and reality star Savannah Chrisley, also lent their support. While these figures may not boast the same level of fame as Beyoncé or Taylor Swift, their contributions nonetheless played a vital role in Trump’s victory, including winning the popular vote.
This raises the question: Does Harris’s loss demonstrate that celebrity endorsements are ineffective, or does Trump’s success indicate otherwise?
The answer is complex.
Having written speeches and jokes for former President Barack Obama, and subsequently joining the D.C. office of Funny Or Die in 2016, I witnessed the sometimes cringeworthy intertwining of politics and entertainment. However, I also observed its remarkable effectiveness. Celebrities function as A-list surrogates—much like TV advertisements, fundraising efforts, or volunteer campaigns. The real issue lies in not merely having these resources but in how they are utilized. In our fragmented media landscape, leveraging celebrity influence is notably more challenging than it was in 2008, when Oprah Winfrey’s endorsement of Obama reportedly garnered him an additional million votes. If the Democrats disregard star power in 2024 due to a lackluster presidential year, they risk sacrificing one of their few remaining advantages over Trump’s Republican party.
Rejecting celebrity endorsements due to a disappointing election cycle would be paradoxical—and potentially catastrophic. Typically, celebrity endorsements hold the least sway during presidential elections when potential voters are well aware of when the election occurs. By the time ballots are cast, candidates boast nearly complete name recognition.
The upcoming election cycles will differ significantly. Between now and 2028, various special elections, off-off-year races in select states, and a midterm election will take place. These other contests generally see lower participation rates compared to presidential elections, with many registered voters lacking familiarity with the candidates on their ballots.
This phenomenon often leads to "differential turnout." The party that effectively mobilizes its base gains a significant edge, making celebrity endorsements potentially pivotal. In the special election for an Alabama Senate seat in 2017—one year after Trump’s initial election—celebrities such as Kerry Washington, Billy Eichner, Connie Britton, and Ellen DeGeneres rallied behind Doug Jones. Expected turnout was a mere 25 percent, compared to 67 percent in the previous presidential election. Surprisingly, 40 percent of registered voters participated, with a notable increase among Democratic-leaning demographics, particularly younger voters, culminating in Jones’s victory in a staunchly Republican state. While it wouldn't be fair to attribute the entire surge in turnout to celebrities—Roy Moore’s serious misconduct allegations played a significant role—the focus entertainers brought to the election effectively enabled the Jones campaign to capitalize on a favorable matchup and mobilize its voters.
Celebrities can also demonstrate a party's readiness to broaden its coalition—a tactic the Trump campaign adeptly employed. While the endorsements from figures like Mel Gibson or Ted Nugent came as no surprise, Trump also showcased his support from younger Black men, including rapper Lil Pump and former NFL player Mike Wallace, alongside young white men like Chiefs kicker Harrison Butker and YouTuber-turned-boxer Jake Paul. Additionally, he garnered backing from Puerto Rican rapper Anuel AA and left-leaning Silicon Valley executives, particularly Elon Musk. Each of these endorsements signaled Trump’s willingness to engage voters beyond the traditional MAGA base.
Conversely, Democrats find themselves increasingly concerned about their own coalition’s size. In their pursuit of expansion, they might consider emulating Trump’s approach. Can the next Democratic candidates supplement their Hollywood enthusiasm with supporters emerging from unexpected spheres, such as country music, NASCAR, tech, or the unapologetically masculine corners of hip-hop and comedy? The party's future, and possibly the country’s, could hinge on this strategy.
Moreover, Democrats and celebrities alike must recognize the importance of social media presence over physical appearances. Although my engagement with celebrities during the 2024 campaign was limited, it became evident that many left-leaning entertainers hesitated to fully utilize their platforms. They encouraged fans to vote and expressed their candidate preferences, particularly in the final weeks of the campaign. However, they largely refrained from expounding upon their political beliefs or sharing persuasive information to advance a campaign's message.
The fears plaguing left-wing celebrities are understandable, especially in light of instances like the 2023 Bud Light boycott over its partnership with a trans influencer, which signified the risks of misaligning with audience sentiments. On the other hand, supporters of the MAGA movement often engage in online intimidation, discouraging those who express anything beyond a generic call for civic duty. Such incidents understandably lead A-listers to worry that strong Democratic support could jeopardize their careers or expose their families to harassment.
Nevertheless, influential figures don’t need to adopt a hyper-political stance to wield influence. They can transition from merely endorsing voting as a civic duty, or even a particular candidate, to sharing information that their followers may not encounter otherwise. This could involve distributing news articles, opinion pieces by experts, or other relevant content. By doing so, celebrities can embrace their roles as conduits of information, reaching audiences increasingly detached from traditional news sources. This aspect is especially crucial for Democrats, who in the 2024 elections gained voters attentive to political news by six points yet lost those less aware by a staggering 19 points.
While the term “silver lining” has become relative for many outside of the dominant MAGA framework, there are notable examples of celebrities who effectively used their platforms beyond mere endorsements. For instance, LeBron James not only backed Harris but also shared highlights from Trump’s Madison Square Garden rally with his 159 million Instagram followers. Scooter Braun, known for his activism within the Jewish community following the October 7 Hamas attacks, circulated op-eds from pro-Israel writers in support of Harris. Jennifer Lopez did more than just make an appearance alongside the candidate; she engaged her audience about her Puerto Rican heritage, thereby keeping a favorable narrative for Harris in circulation.
Individually, none of these actions guaranteed Harris’s victory, yet they exemplify a type of celebrity engagement that could leverage opportunities previously unavailable. As Democrats contemplate their political future, they face a critical decision: relinquish their edge in celebrity support to Trump and the GOP or leverage that advantage to enhance turnout in non-presidential elections, broaden their coalition, and engage politically uninformed voters. Given the high stakes of the 2024 election, the importance of making the right choice cannot be overstated.
Debra A Smith contributed to this report for TROIB News
This conclusion seems reasonable at first glance. Taylor Swift endorsed Kamala Harris; Bruce Springsteen campaigned alongside her; Katy Perry took a selfie with her; Beyoncé rallied support for her; Megan Thee Stallion performed for her; Charli XCX named her a “brat.” Regardless, Harris lost the election. Following this highly celebrity-driven campaign's defeat, many assert that endorsements from high-profile figures are ineffective, if not detrimental.
Yet there lies a significant flaw in this assertion. Trump’s successful campaign was the second-most celebrity-driven in history, trailing only Harris’s unsuccessful bid. The celebrity aspect was not limited to the candidate; it extended to the Republican convention, where Hulk Hogan received a prime speaking opportunity. In the final days of the campaign, NFL icon Brett Favre rallied alongside Trump. Other entertainers, including actor Zachary Levi, country musician Jason Aldean, OnlyFans model Amber Rose, and reality star Savannah Chrisley, also lent their support. While these figures may not boast the same level of fame as Beyoncé or Taylor Swift, their contributions nonetheless played a vital role in Trump’s victory, including winning the popular vote.
This raises the question: Does Harris’s loss demonstrate that celebrity endorsements are ineffective, or does Trump’s success indicate otherwise?
The answer is complex.
Having written speeches and jokes for former President Barack Obama, and subsequently joining the D.C. office of Funny Or Die in 2016, I witnessed the sometimes cringeworthy intertwining of politics and entertainment. However, I also observed its remarkable effectiveness. Celebrities function as A-list surrogates—much like TV advertisements, fundraising efforts, or volunteer campaigns. The real issue lies in not merely having these resources but in how they are utilized. In our fragmented media landscape, leveraging celebrity influence is notably more challenging than it was in 2008, when Oprah Winfrey’s endorsement of Obama reportedly garnered him an additional million votes. If the Democrats disregard star power in 2024 due to a lackluster presidential year, they risk sacrificing one of their few remaining advantages over Trump’s Republican party.
Rejecting celebrity endorsements due to a disappointing election cycle would be paradoxical—and potentially catastrophic. Typically, celebrity endorsements hold the least sway during presidential elections when potential voters are well aware of when the election occurs. By the time ballots are cast, candidates boast nearly complete name recognition.
The upcoming election cycles will differ significantly. Between now and 2028, various special elections, off-off-year races in select states, and a midterm election will take place. These other contests generally see lower participation rates compared to presidential elections, with many registered voters lacking familiarity with the candidates on their ballots.
This phenomenon often leads to "differential turnout." The party that effectively mobilizes its base gains a significant edge, making celebrity endorsements potentially pivotal. In the special election for an Alabama Senate seat in 2017—one year after Trump’s initial election—celebrities such as Kerry Washington, Billy Eichner, Connie Britton, and Ellen DeGeneres rallied behind Doug Jones. Expected turnout was a mere 25 percent, compared to 67 percent in the previous presidential election. Surprisingly, 40 percent of registered voters participated, with a notable increase among Democratic-leaning demographics, particularly younger voters, culminating in Jones’s victory in a staunchly Republican state. While it wouldn't be fair to attribute the entire surge in turnout to celebrities—Roy Moore’s serious misconduct allegations played a significant role—the focus entertainers brought to the election effectively enabled the Jones campaign to capitalize on a favorable matchup and mobilize its voters.
Celebrities can also demonstrate a party's readiness to broaden its coalition—a tactic the Trump campaign adeptly employed. While the endorsements from figures like Mel Gibson or Ted Nugent came as no surprise, Trump also showcased his support from younger Black men, including rapper Lil Pump and former NFL player Mike Wallace, alongside young white men like Chiefs kicker Harrison Butker and YouTuber-turned-boxer Jake Paul. Additionally, he garnered backing from Puerto Rican rapper Anuel AA and left-leaning Silicon Valley executives, particularly Elon Musk. Each of these endorsements signaled Trump’s willingness to engage voters beyond the traditional MAGA base.
Conversely, Democrats find themselves increasingly concerned about their own coalition’s size. In their pursuit of expansion, they might consider emulating Trump’s approach. Can the next Democratic candidates supplement their Hollywood enthusiasm with supporters emerging from unexpected spheres, such as country music, NASCAR, tech, or the unapologetically masculine corners of hip-hop and comedy? The party's future, and possibly the country’s, could hinge on this strategy.
Moreover, Democrats and celebrities alike must recognize the importance of social media presence over physical appearances. Although my engagement with celebrities during the 2024 campaign was limited, it became evident that many left-leaning entertainers hesitated to fully utilize their platforms. They encouraged fans to vote and expressed their candidate preferences, particularly in the final weeks of the campaign. However, they largely refrained from expounding upon their political beliefs or sharing persuasive information to advance a campaign's message.
The fears plaguing left-wing celebrities are understandable, especially in light of instances like the 2023 Bud Light boycott over its partnership with a trans influencer, which signified the risks of misaligning with audience sentiments. On the other hand, supporters of the MAGA movement often engage in online intimidation, discouraging those who express anything beyond a generic call for civic duty. Such incidents understandably lead A-listers to worry that strong Democratic support could jeopardize their careers or expose their families to harassment.
Nevertheless, influential figures don’t need to adopt a hyper-political stance to wield influence. They can transition from merely endorsing voting as a civic duty, or even a particular candidate, to sharing information that their followers may not encounter otherwise. This could involve distributing news articles, opinion pieces by experts, or other relevant content. By doing so, celebrities can embrace their roles as conduits of information, reaching audiences increasingly detached from traditional news sources. This aspect is especially crucial for Democrats, who in the 2024 elections gained voters attentive to political news by six points yet lost those less aware by a staggering 19 points.
While the term “silver lining” has become relative for many outside of the dominant MAGA framework, there are notable examples of celebrities who effectively used their platforms beyond mere endorsements. For instance, LeBron James not only backed Harris but also shared highlights from Trump’s Madison Square Garden rally with his 159 million Instagram followers. Scooter Braun, known for his activism within the Jewish community following the October 7 Hamas attacks, circulated op-eds from pro-Israel writers in support of Harris. Jennifer Lopez did more than just make an appearance alongside the candidate; she engaged her audience about her Puerto Rican heritage, thereby keeping a favorable narrative for Harris in circulation.
Individually, none of these actions guaranteed Harris’s victory, yet they exemplify a type of celebrity engagement that could leverage opportunities previously unavailable. As Democrats contemplate their political future, they face a critical decision: relinquish their edge in celebrity support to Trump and the GOP or leverage that advantage to enhance turnout in non-presidential elections, broaden their coalition, and engage politically uninformed voters. Given the high stakes of the 2024 election, the importance of making the right choice cannot be overstated.
Debra A Smith contributed to this report for TROIB News
