“Popularity should be no scale for the election of politicians. If it would depend on popularity, Donald Duck and the Muppets would take seats in senate.” So said American actor and director Orson Wells, but in the bitter and polarised world of contemporary politics, popularity is what all politicians dream of. They strive to build broad coalitions, connect with the "center ground," and resonate with the so-called "middle of the country." The goal is to unite diverse groups under one banner, a task that seems almost impossible in today’s polarized climate.
Perhaps that is why both parties in the current US election are trying to leverage the endless star power of the cultural phenomenon that is Taylor Swift, with even Donald Trump who she has previously eschewed in favour of Joe Biden clamouring for her allegiance. Swifts Eras Tour, a retrospective of her genre-spanning career, is a masterclass in appealing to the masses—a blueprint from which politicians could learn a thing or two.
Swift’s journey from country music prodigy to pop sensation with her album "Lover" mirrors the evolution of a political campaign broadening its base. With nearly half of her fanbase being male, she’s clearly not just the idol of teenage girls. She’s adored by both mothers and daughters alike, cutting across demographics in a way that politicians can only dream of. Swift's ability to engage such a wide audience speaks to the power of versatility and the importance of evolving while staying true to one's roots—something that could benefit any political figure.
For most of her career, Swift maintained a notably apolitical stance, much like another music icon, Dolly Parton. Parton, with her deep roots in country music, has long been careful to avoid the political fray, recognizing the importance of her broad, national fanbase. Similarly, Swift chose not to endorse any candidate in the 2016 election, staying quiet during one of the most contentious political periods in recent history. This approach kept her in good stead with fans across the political spectrum, but it didn’t last forever.
In 2018, Swift broke her silence, endorsing Democratic candidates during the "Blue Wave" midterm elections, a move that infuriated many on the right. The backlash was swift (pun intended), with conspiracy theories about her political motives persisting even today. This incident raises the question: what is the real value of celebrity endorsements in politics? Hillary Clinton, after all, had no shortage of Hollywood supporters in 2016, from George Clooney to Kim Kardashian. Yet, despite winning the popular vote, she fell short in critical swing states, leading to her electoral defeat.
The truth is, celebrity endorsements do have power, but their effectiveness hinges on strategy. It’s not just about securing the support of any celebrity; it’s about finding the right one, at the right time, to sway the right audience. The "Oprah effect" is a prime example. Oprah Winfrey's endorsement of Barack Obama during the 2008 primaries is credited with delivering him over a million votes, particularly in caucus states like Iowa—an essential battleground in the Democratic primary.
This history is surely keenly felt in the context of recent developments in the Harris campaign. With Pennsylvania being a crucial swing state, and Harris opting not to select its governor, Josh Shapiro, for her VP pick, the strategic value of a Taylor Swift endorsement cannot be understated. Pennsylvania is Swift’s home state, and in 2023, the state’s House of Representatives even declared it the "Taylor Swift era."
As Harris's triumphant "Brat Girl Summer" melts into “Sad Girl Autumn”, the Democrats are still in anticipation of any nod from la Swift more meaningful than her choice of sweater. A well-timed endorsement from Miss Americana herself could be the perfect Thanksgiving gift, one that might just sway the crucial votes needed to secure a victory.
by Poppy Kirby-Green