Since Taylor Swift announced her endorsement of Vice President Kamala Harris on the night of the debate with former President Donald Trump, publications from NBC to Fox have been debating what it might mean for Harris’ campaign and the outcome of November’s election.
An Instagram post from Sept. 10 shows the pop star posing with a fluffy cat in her arms—a direct reference to JD Vance’s quip deriding single and childless women. Before signing the post, “With love and hope, Taylor Swift, Childless Cat Lady,” Swift told followers that she plans to vote for Harris “because she fights for the rights and causes I believe need a warrior to champion them. I think she is a steady-handed, gifted leader and I believe we can accomplish so much more in this country if we are led by calm and not chaos.”
Swift’s emphasis on “calm and not chaos” is a subtle nod to Trump’s more unhinged points of the night—including baseless claims that immigrants in Ohio are “eating the pets of the people that live there,” that some states allow doctors to “execute [a] baby” after birth, and that Jan. 6 wouldn’t have happened “if Nancy Pelosi and the mayor of Washington did their jobs.” Rather than tell voters not to vote for Trump, Swift urged every voter do their research: “As a voter, I make sure to watch and read everything I can about their proposed policies and plans for this country.”
Swift also reminded her followers they have to be registered in order to vote, and provided information and links in her Instagram story. It was met with immense response: Nearly 406,000 visitors to Vote.gov in the first 24 hours after the post came out.
The web traffic from voters registering is an example of what professors and economists have dubbed the “Taylor Swift effect”—the superstar’s influence on everything, from tourism, to sports, to individual cities’ economies, with the trail of fans coming to see Swift perform around the world at the records-breaking Eras Tour, splurging on hotel rooms, meals out and merchandise. According to Duke University finance professor Ed Tiryakian’s in Time‘s 2023 “Person of the Year” profile of Swift, “When the Federal Reserve mentions you as the reason economic growth is going up, that’s a big deal.” (And one of Time’s covers featured Taylor Swift with one of her cats on her shoulders.)
The Trump campaign is well aware of Swift’s megalithic effect on worldwide culture. In the singer’s endorsement post, her only direct reference to Trump described how she recently learned that “AI of ‘me’ falsely endorsing Donald Trump’s presidential run was posted to his site. It brought me to the conclusion that I need to be very transparent about my actual plans for this election as a voter. The simplest way to combat misinformation is with the truth.”
The Trump campaign’s attempt to co-opt Swift’s image is evidence of the power of the star’s endorsement. (And Trump’s frustration is all too clear in his Sept. 15 post on Truth Social, which simply states, “I HATE TAYLOR SWIFT!”)
At the same time, pro-Harris activists are cautiously optimistic about the staggering effect Swift’s endorsement could have on the election. But with less than two months until the election, could the singer’s endorsement change the minds of voters already sold on Trump?
I got the chance to speak with Dr. Janell Hobson, Ms. scholar and professor of women’s, gender and sexuality studies at the University of Albany, about what the endorsement might mean for Harris’ campaign.
This interview has been lightly edited for clarity.
Ava Slocum: You’ve already written about Beyoncé’s influence on Harris’ campaign. Why are women pop singers like Beyoncé and Swift in a unique position of being able to influence cultural debates?
Janell Hobson: I think Taylor Swift is a very interesting yardstick for our cultural debate.
On the one hand, she’s very similar to Beyoncé—as we know, last year she and Taylor Swift dominated the global economy with their world tours. They have really become very important cultural symbols for women’s empowerment. Before the whole #MeToo movement, Taylor Swift had that court case where she stood up for herself against sexual harassment and even consulted with a gender studies professor to help with her legal defense. So they’re definitely out there in terms of women trying to be public feminists, and also having a kind of progressive agenda around social justice issues.
Because she started out as a country music singer, Swift’s music often doesn’t really have that political edge, because she tends to focus on romances and her breakups and that sort of thing. Because of that, there was a moment where she seemed like she was a “safe” celebrity, in terms of being apolitical—but her image had been mobilized among white supremacists, for example, the neo-Nazis who wanted to use her as an avatar for their ideal woman. Taylor Swift realized that she couldn’t just be apolitical when you have extremists trying to adopt her as some kind of ideal.
Slocum: Taylor Swift announced her endorsement the night of the debate. Do you think her endorsement will have a tangible effect on the election?
Hobson: That’s hard to say. She endorsed Kamala Harris, and then she herself encouraged her fans to register to vote. So she had an impact on voter registration. Now it’s going to be hard to say if that translates into votes for Kamala Harris, because I think people have made up their mind already.
I’d like to be cautiously optimistic and say that this probably will do wonders for Kamala Harris. But 2016 makes me cautious, because there were enough celebrities who were supportive of Hillary Clinton, and yet that wasn’t enough. So I don’t want us to get excited, because I don’t know that celebrity necessarily moves the needle in terms of how people vote, because that really does come down to the candidate and whether or not people are excited about the candidate. And if your only engagement with a candidate is through a celebrity, then your engagement is going to be very superficial.
Taylor Swift realized that she couldn’t just be apolitical when you have extremists trying to adopt her as some kind of ideal.
Janell Hobson
Slocum: I thought it was interesting how Taylor Swift’s Instagram post makes sure to explain that in order to vote, you have to be registered. So it seems like she’s really catering toward a younger audience who maybe doesn’t know how voting works, or people who are 18 and are just voting for the first time.
Hobson: Yeah, and I think that’s important. It’s good that she is reaching young voters where they’re at and helping them with the process. And I think it’s also important that she told people to do their research instead of just, “Hey, I’m gonna vote for Kamala, and you should vote for Kamala too.”
Slocum: Trump posted on Truth Social, “I HATE TAYLOR SWIFT!” in all caps with an exclamation point. I was wondering if you have any thoughts on why the Trump campaign is willing to attack such a popular figure. Presumably, there are Trump supporters who like Taylor Swift?
Hobson: White supremacists and neo-Nazis have kind of held up Taylor Swift as an avatar for their ideal woman—but not lately, because now she’s disappointed them.
One, back in 2020 she endorsed Biden. Now she’s endorsed Kamala Harris. Two, she’s progressive. Three, she is the “childless cat lady,” but Taylor sort of embraced that identity in her Instagram post.
Trump’s issue is his ego, and he wants to be liked. He wants people to validate him and legitimize him—and the biggest pop star in the world, who happens to be Taylor Swift, had she endorsed him, that would have been enough to not necessarily give him votes, but to validate him. He wanted validation, and she didn’t give it to him, and that’s why he’s in that race saying, “I hate Taylor Swift.”
For whatever reason, Taylor Swift’s image, her representation, maybe just being someone who started out in country music, lends herself to a kind of right-wing, white conservative culture. It’s like, “Taylor Swift, you’re supposed to be on our side”—but she’s progressive. So this is like a betrayal.
Slocum: That’s interesting. She seemed to realize at some point that, as if she remains apolitical, people will make up their own minds about her politics, which is why she needs to get out in front of that.
Hobson: The other part is that she hasn’t followed the script. She’s 34 years old, she’s a billionaire and probably the first woman entertainer to make her billions just from her music alone. Everybody else has ventured into business and cosmetics like Rihanna, or they combined their wealth with somebody else, like Beyoncé and her husband, or they have a whole family business like the Kardashians.
Taylor Swift made her billions just on her music alone. So there is tremendous power that she represents. And for a lot of conservative men, that is an affront to their ideas about what a woman like her is supposed to be. A young country music singer singing about romance is somebody who should only be caught up in settling down, getting married and having as many children as possible. They’ve already decided that as a 34-year-old childless cat lady, she’s passed her time to settle down, and she won’t do it. She’s busy making billions. And can you imagine what they’re thinking of her influence on younger girls, telling them that you can go out do what you love and be able to capitalize off of it on your own terms.
There’s a lot of things that she’s been doing, like defending herself in court, like she did when she was sexually violated. There are all of those wonderful things that she is modeling for younger women and girls, saying: You can reclaim your stuff, and you can have your life, make your own money, claim your own work and, yeah, go out and date.
Many people have tried to slut shame her, and she doesn’t care. She’s still all about going on, even if the relationship doesn’t work. Women are not supposed to do that, right? And she’s doing it. I think that’s very powerful.
They’ve already decided that as a 34-year-old childless cat lady, she’s passed her time to settle down, and she won’t do it.
Hobson
Slocum: JD Vance said that he thinks most Americans will not be swayed by “a billionaire celebrity who I think is fundamentally disconnected from the interests and the problems of most Americans.” That is obviously a hilarious thing coming from JD Vance. But I was also wondering if you think that Taylor Swift, who is a rich, white celebrity, might in some ways be difficult to relate to for the population of Americans she’s trying to reach with her endorsement?
Hobson: Taylor Swift is a billionaire *because* so many young women relate to her, right? What JD Vance said“That’s not somebody who people are relating to”—that’s something you would say about somebody who was born a billionaire, somebody who has no concept of what real world middle class people struggle with.
Taylor Swift is a self-made person. She also comes from a kind of life of privilege because she grew up middle class, but she didn’t grow up a billionaire. That’s definitely not like Trump. So I think young people relate to her, and that comment is just silly.
Slocum: Do you have any thoughts on Swift’s specific timing of the endorsement? People online have been saying, “When will Taylor Swift endorse Kamala Harris?” Do you think there was any significance to specifically when she chose to endorse Kamala Harris?
Hobson: Well, I’m not sure what the motivation was, but I thought it was a good time. It was as good a time as any to do it after the debate that everybody was watching. She also did it when it was very clear that Kamala Harris won the night, so she kind of rode on that wave of enthusiasm. I think doing it after the debate makes sense, especially because, in her Instagram post, she says, do your research and decide. I think it was an interesting choice, and maybe it worked well, because then it kind of extended the conversations we were having about who won the night.
At Ms. magazine, our mission is to deliver facts about the feminist movement (and those who stand in its way) and foster informed discussions—not to tell you who to vote for or what to think. We believe in empowering our readers to form their own opinions based on reliable reporting. To continue providing you with independent feminist journalism, we rely on the generous support of our readers. Please consider making a tax-deductible donation today if you value the work we do and want to see it continue. Thank you for supporting women’s voices and rights.
