Let’s talk for just a moment about Taylor Swift. I know, you’d rather to listen to her than talk about her, but just for now, let’s consider her beyond her place as a phenomenal performer, a fine songwriter, an extraordinary businesswoman – and look at her role in politics.
What difference will Taylor Swift’s endorsement of Kamala Harris make, after all?
There’s evidence that she could have a small but not insignificant impact on the vote. Here’s the evidence: In an April poll of people in Tennessee who said they were Swifties, 12% said that if Taylor Swift endorsed a candidate for president or the U.S. Senate, it would make them more likely to vote for that candidate. That’s just a sliver of voters – but since the presidential candidates are pretty much neck-and-neck in most swing states, it could help just enough to make a difference. After all, Taylor Swift has a net favorability rating that is 20 points above Kamala Harris’s, and 30 points above Donald Trump’s.
But there’s really more to this. Let’s talk about Swift’s plea – in that Instagram post to her 283 million followers – that people register to vote. She wrote, “I’ve done my research, and I’ve made my choice. Your research is all yours to do, and the choice is yours to make.” And then she posted a link to vote (dot) org – the nonpartisan website that helps people figure out how to register, and especially helps people new to the process keep track of how to vote.
That could make a bigger difference. In the month before the Harris-Trump debate, vote (dot) org typically got 40,000 visits a day. Swift’s post drove 338,000 people to the site in just 15 hours. There will surely be a lot more – her post was quickly shared by more than 1.5 million other Instagram users. And on the day last year when she made a similar plea, voter registration went up 23 percent, meaning that more than 35,000 people registered as a result on that one day.
So there could be what you might call a “Swift bump” to voter rolls: More people could register to vote – and likely more young people, who tend to vote Democratic.
This matters because, folks, the election is upon us: Alabama began mailing out absentee ballots last week, and in-person voting begins this week in some states, including the crucial swing state of Pennsylvania. Millions of voters are expected to cast their ballots before Election Day, November 5th.
Why is early voting important? Because there’s legitimate worry about whether people will even get their mailed ballots, and whether everybody who wants to vote will be able to.
Last week, the bipartisan group of to state election officials wrote to the postmaster general about its worries that the U.S. Postal Service won’t be able to handle the job of delivering ballots in a timely way. It noted that there were problems in the last presidential race -- “in nearly every state” -- of ballots being delivered “well after Election Day.”
You may remember that the postmaster general, Louis DeJoy, didn’t really have experience for the job when he was appointed, unless you count being a Trump campaign donor as a credential for a top federal post. And DeJoy then set about a sweeping overhaul of the Postal Service in order to save money, which has led to worse service in many areas around the country. In some cases, on-time delivery of mail has dropped to below 40 percent. The state officials said problems with delivering ballots “demonstrated a pervasive lack of understanding and enforcement” of what should be the post office’s priorities and policies.
It's not the fault of postal workers. The problem really stems from decades of under-funding of the Postal Service. Congress is filled with people who like to say that the post office ought to operate more like a business. That’s a preposterous idea: A business would cut its inefficient routes and narrow the scope of its work to only what’s profitable. That isn’t what a government service can or should do. Standing in the way of adequate postal funding are powerful lobbies – starting with the competing private companies, like UPS and FedEx.
And there’s this, too: Countering the push to get people to vote – by the top state voting officials, by Taylor Swift, by campaign workers for Kamala Harris and others – is a conscious vote suppression effort by many Republican-run state legislature. In Florida, Kansas, Missouri, Texas and elsewhere, Republicans have enacted voting restrictions since 2021 that created or enhanced criminal penalties and fines for those who assist voters. The laws have forced some voter outreach groups to cut back their activities or even shut down operations entirely. The laws are clearly aimed at curtailing voting in segments of the population that tend to support Democrats – including young or first-time voters.
Which brings us back to the people who are most likely to notice Taylor Swift’s endorsement. Beyond backing Kamala Harris, Taylor Swift is standing up for the fundamental right and responsibility of citizenship – that is, the vote. And that’s why one of the 21st century’s most prominent celebrities – a “childless cat lady,” as she called herself in the Harris endorsement – might really make a difference.
Rex Smith, the co-host of The Media Project on WAMC, is the former editor of the Times Union of Albany and The Record in Troy. His weekly digital report, The Upstate American, is published by Substack.
The views expressed by commentators are solely those of the authors. They do not necessarily reflect the views of this station or its management.