Why Kamala Harris was wrong to rely so much on American stars to beat Donald Trump

PEOPLE – Beyoncé, Jennifer Lopez, Lady Gaga, Katy Perry, Taylor Swift, Stephen Curry, Oprah Winfrey, Eminem, George Clooney… The list is long but it was not enough to tip the scales in favor of Kamala Harris. The Democratic candidate lost to Donald Trump who will return to the White House. The Republican camp in fact won largely despite people's calls for votes, widely relayed on social networks, their speeches and their singing during the meetings of the current vice-president.

After Taylor Swift's call to vote, around 35,000 voters registered on the lists. After that of Sabrina Carpenter, nearly 36,000. In total, as recalled by Hollywood Reporterthe voting census site HeadCount counted more than 450,000 new voters after establishing a partnership with the interpreter ofEspressoAriana Grande or Green Day. At each of her meetings, Kamala Harris had one or more stars by her side on stage, among the most influential in the world of cinema, television, sport, and even music.

An overmobilization of celebrities which probably had an effect opposite to that expected, analyzed in an interview with HuffPost Alexis Pichard, doctor in American civilization and researcher at the Nanterre Anglophone Research Center.

HuffPost. Is Kamala Harris' defeat a demonstration that the call for celebrity votes is useless?

Alexis Pichard. The result of the vote proves that it did not have a big impact. Furthermore, first-time voters who registered, those targeted by Taylor Swift for example, did not vote for Kamala Harris. On the contrary and this is a big difference with 2020. First-time voters then voted more than 64% for Joe Biden, compared to only 45% for Kamala Harris in 2024.

Does this mean that this accumulation of stars was a bad strategy for Kamala Harris?

This is a pitfall, because there was a precedent. Hillary Clinton did the same thing in 2016, somewhat in spite of herself. The stars had rallied behind his candidacy, while populism was already sweeping the country. This was seen as a sign of a Democratic Party sold out to the system. She was THE candidate of the system: member of a Clinton dynasty, ex-Secretary of State, senator, First Lady. On top of that, she was supported by the Hollywood industry, very far from the people.

Kamala Harris reiterated this campaign error with this amassing of celebrities who are part of the moral left. Many are millionaires, far from the concerns of average Americans, but who will give injunctions on how they must behave, be anti-racist, anti-misogynist, advocate integration. These are messages perceived as very hypocritical by some Americans and in particular Trumpists.

On the contrary, one might think that the stars have influence…

We are still in a populist America, which today has a fascist tendency, and everything that is identified as belonging to the ” system “ is assimilated to ” devil “ and considered deeply hostile to American interests. These stars embody disconnection. And they reinforced the disconnected image of Kamala Harris herself. She's a successful woman in California. It is a state apart, ahead of social progress, with a very favorable economic situation, and which is in fact perceived by a majority of the 49 other states as disconnected. Especially in rural and post-industrial states where the situation is very complicated, particularly for low-skilled workers and employees.

Did the over-mobilization of stars in the Harris camp at the end of the campaign reflect a sense of urgency?

In the final days of the campaign, the candidates are no longer in a position of broadening their electoral base but in mobilizing their acquired voters. With obviously for Kamala Harris still the same message of defending the rights of women and minorities, added to the message of a Donald Trump who has lost his mental health and is not fit to lead. When she appears in the Saturday Night Live or that she invites democratic superstars to her meetings, it is to galvanize her electoral base, to call on the people of the elitist left to go en masse to the polls.

But seeing such complacency from the entertainment industry, this impression of a system that maintains and supports itself, disgusts Trumpist voters and visibly beyond.

The Washington Post / The Washington Post via Getty Im

Elon Musk was one of the people invited by Donald Trump to his meeting at Madison Square Garden in New York on October 27.

Donald Trump, on the other hand, timidly played this celebrity support card. For what ?

He played it to a lesser extent, especially at the end, during his meeting at Madison Square Garden where many stars of the right and the far right mobilized. Unlike 2016, this time there really was an entertainment industry with Hulk Hogan, Dr. Phil, and even Elon Musk who is a successful businessman. These personalities give credibility to Donald Trump as President again, in particular by certifying his virility. These are all archetypes of the alpha male and toxic masculinity, and that's what he also surfed on during his campaign. This was undoubtedly a decisive element in the choice of voters because the question of the masculinity of the office was very important in this election.

Also see on HuffPost :