During the highly volatile primary season, it sometimes feels like the caucus has become the red carpet.
There’s Chuck Norris kicking border patrol butt for Huckabee, Oprah Winfrey putting Obama in her book club, and Barbara Streisand singing Hillary’s praises.
While these big name endorsements certainly garner a lot of media attention, it’s questionable as to whether celebrities and high-profile religious and political leaders are worth a candidate’s time and money. In the end, do the big names really help sway our vote?
One would hope that even in our celebrity-obsessed culture we’d have more sense than to follow like sheep behind a famous person’s endorsement. And as it turns out, we do.
Even though a well-liked celeb like Oprah can sell books and make movies, it is dubious as to whether her support alone can pave the way to presidency. A recent study by the non-partisan Pew Research Center found that nearly seven in ten Americans say that if Winfrey were supporting a presidential candidate it would not influence their vote. Among the 30 percent who say they would be influenced by a Winfrey endorsement, 15 percent would be more likely to vote for the candidate and 15 percent would be less likely to do so. In essence, a null effect.
While some celebrities have no effect, others can have a negative one. Looking to land the notoriously fickle and hard to stereotype 18–24 voting segment (or the non-voting segment—less than 50 percent voted last year), politicians may seek popular celebrities support as a way to do so. But even if this group is young, they’re still not naive; celebrity endorsements may backfire. A 2007 study in the Journal of Political Marketing found that some young adults voted opposite what celebrities told them to, because they felt the celebrities lacked credibility and were only in it for themselves.
And maybe they’re right. Even though Ben Affleck went on tour with Gore, making it seem as if the star of Good Will Hunting and Shakespeare in Love is a die-hard public policy guy—he purportedly didn’t end up voting at all. And although Puff Daddy attempted to “rock the vote” in ’04, how much can the guy who raps, Lamp in Cancun, lounge in the Ritz (c’mon)/What you spent on your rent, I spent on my wrist (that’s right), really care about middle class issues?
This same article found that social norms—how friends and family voted—was as much greater predictor of voting trends than a celebrity’s endorsement.
So why do candidates want celebrity support in the first place? High-profile endorsements can generate media attention and help make a politician’s name a household one. Positively received name recognition—as Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has proven here in California—is sometimes more important than political prowess.
Perhaps most importantly, big names help raise big funds. The billionaire Warren Buffet, speaking with Clinton and Mayor Gavin Newsom in San Francisco this December, helped raise one million dollars. Oprah’s fundraising helped raise three million for Obama. Campaigns need all the funds they can get and celebrities like to brand and market themselves as much as the politicians do.
Although Hollywood may not be able to influence a voter’s choice, religious and political leaders just might.
Back to the Pew Research Center’s study, which found that state governors are able to influence 37 percent of the population’s vote, but 19 percent would vote with their governor’s choice, and 18 would vote against it. Again, null effect.
However, just like with celebrities, a politician’s support may not always function in the way in which it’s intended.
While some governors and politicians may not strike a chord with national voters, others are easy targets for the opposing political party. I think it’s great that San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom endorsed Hillary Clinton; they have a lot of overlapping policies—health insurance for all, environmental sustainability, and innovation. But on the national level, Newsom just might be an albatross around Clinton’s neck. The Republican National Committee calls him her “San Francisco Treat” and takes him to town for his support of identification cards for immigrants, saying he gives “benefits to illegal immigrants.” He is the liberal outlier—supporting gay marriage, medical marijuana, and other “whacky” things like gun control. They’re happy he supports Clinton—all the more fodder to show how she’s caters to the far left, even when she doesn’t necessarily agree with Newsom on all issues.
