Prof. John Street
Emeritus Professor of Politics at the University of East Anglia, and the author of Media, Politics and Democracy (Bloomsbury, 2021), Music and Politics (Polity, 2012), and co-author of the forthcoming Our Subversive Voice: the history and politics of English protest songs (McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2025).
Email: j.street@uea.ac.uk
U.S. Election 2024
78. Momentum is a meme (Prof Ryan M. Milner)
79. Partisan memes and how they were perceived in the 2024 U.S. presidential election (Dr Prateekshit “Kanu” Pandey, Dr Daniel Lane)
80. The intersection of misogyny, race, and political memes... America has a long way to go, baby! (Dr Gabriel B. Tait)
81. Needs Musk: Trump turns to the manosphere (Dr Michael Higgins, Prof Angela Smith)
82. “Wooing the manosphere: He’s just a bro.” Donald Trump’s digital transactions with "dude" influencers (Prof Mark Wheeler)
83. Star supporters (Prof John Street)
84. Pet sounds: Celebrity, meme culture and political messaging in the music of election 2024 (Dr Adam Behr)
85. The stars came out for the 2024 election. Did it make a difference? (Mark Turner)
86. Podcasting as presidential campaign outreach (Ava Kalinauskas, Dr Rodney Taveira)
87. Value of TV debates reduced during Trump era (Prof Richard Thomas, Dr Matthew Wall)
88. America’s “fun aunt”: How gendered stereotypes can shape perceptions of women candidates (Dr Caroline Leicht)
One of the strangest sentences, from an election campaign that did not lack for strangeness, was uttered by Tim Walz in his debate with J.D. Vance. “I’m as surprised as anybody of this coalition that Kamala Harris has built,” he said, “from Bernie Sanders to Dick Cheney to Taylor Swift.” He was wearing as he spoke, and as Billboard noted, “Eras Tour-inspired friendship bracelets.”
Most political analysts might be comfortable with the idea of Cheney’s or Sanders’s political constituencies, even if it is a stretch to see them as part of a coalition. But they might – not unreasonably – be mystified by what is meant by the ‘constituency’ of a global pop superstar. She may have passionate fans in prodigious numbers, but that is not the same as representing their interests or values.
Walz’s claim followed Swift’s much publicised (and much anticipated) endorsement of Harris after her only debate with Donald Trump. Swift told her 280+ million Instagram followers, “if you haven’t already, now is a great time to do your research on the issues at hand and the stances these candidates take on the topics that matter to you the most.” Then she announced her own decision: “I’m voting for @kamalaharris because she fights for the rights and causes I believe need a warrior to champion them.” “Remember that in order to vote,” she ended, “you have to be registered!’” signing off as “Taylor Swift, Childless Cat Lady.”
This was not just another, albeit well expressed, celebrity endorsement. It was coming from an extraordinarily successful and highly skilled songwriter, with a vast army of supporters, whose fanbase had been carefully nurtured by Swift (and the corporate network that supports her) from adolescence to voting age. Nor was this her first entry into the political realm. She had taken stands on other public issues and encouraged voter registration in previous elections. She was Time’s Person of the Year in 2023.
Harris was rather more cautious than her running mate in acknowledging her newly won celebrity advocate: “I am very proud to have the support of Taylor Swift. She’s an incredible artist. I really respect the courage that she has had in her career to stand up for what she believes is right.” Her campaign team were less reticent, using rally billboards – “I’m in my voting era” – that reminded supporters of Harris’s famous admirer.
Swift’s intervention was inevitably accompanied by much speculation about what, if any, significance it held for the election outcome. An unofficial ‘Swifties for Kamala’ campaign group was formed, which, according to Vogue, raised $213k. A BBC story supplied anecdotal evidence of fans who said they had been swayed by their idol. More cautiously, the New York Times reported that “Ms. Swift’s endorsement in September drove about 406,000 people to Vote.gov, a government-run website with voter-registration tools, but that number does not mean that many people actually registered to vote.”
Swift may have been the most high profile musical celebrity recruited to the Democratic cause, but she was not alone. Beyoncé, Bruce Springsteen, Eminem, Insane Clown Posse, Willie Nelson and Jennifer Lopez were also part of the campaign, each welcomed, we might guess, because they are assumed to reach a particular demographic.
The Republicans, as always, struggled to find rival performers (if not rival billionaires), having to settle for the likes of Joe Aldean and Kid Rock. But, as is often noted, it is a mistake to assume that fandom translates directly to political support. Privileged superstars can inspire resentment as well as adoration, as Donald Trump seemed to recognise when he was reported to sneer at Beyoncé’s involvement.
Nonetheless, there is research which suggests that endorsements can indeed make a difference. It is true that the findings often depend upon experimental work (with a captive audience of students), but sometimes it makes use of natural experiments in the world beyond the campus. Mostly, though, it predates the Swift phenomenon. However, a recent article in American Political Research concludes, on the basis of another university-based experiment, that Taylor Swift could have an impact. “A minor celebrity may influence a relatively small number of voters,” the authors write, “but a super celebrity [like Swift] can potentially influence many more voters, and as long as presidential elections in the US come down to several thousand voters in a handful of swing states, these celebrities ought to be taken seriously as political influencers.” Quite how seriously Taylor Swift affected this campaign, we may never know. We can be sure, though, that the media will continue to get excited by, speculate about, celebrity support and impact. And political scientists, while reluctant to adopt the idea of Cheney-Sanders-Swift coalitions, will be aware of how – in a post-democratic world – stars can be deemed more ‘considerate, competent, credible, intelligent and trustworthy than most politicians.’