Subscribe
There are a few categories that have certainly set the pace in these last American elections. As an example we can look at influencers and those who have made electoral endorsement an element aimed at boosting their popularity.
WHO THEY ARE AND WHY WE TALK ABOUT THEM
They are stars of all ranks, who in this last election campaign felt the need to have their say on issues for which, very often, their preparation was far from thorough. While it’s obviously important to support the freedom of expression of any citizen, it has to be said that the new technologies and the new social constructs that have emerged from them have greatly broadened the audience for some people. And these same people, perhaps, should consider more attentively the value of their words. In this case, we are not talking about ‘weight’ – and we will shortly see why – but about value and preparation on topics towards which there is a risk of real misinformation. There are many who have spent themselves for Kamala Harris through meetings, videos, appearances, posts on social media, interviews and declarations designed to grab the highlights of online newspapers for a quarter of an hour. There have been endorsements for the tycoon too, sure. But these came from far less influential personalities that together do not collect dozens of Oscars, various awards won or thousands of copies of books and records sold. A specific weight, on the electoral front, that differs greatly among the influencers who have championed the two candidates. One only has to think of an artist of the caliber of Taylor Swift who, with her photo and the words ‘childless cat lady’, expressed her preference in front of the oceanic crowd of her followers on social media.
EXPECTATIONS AND THE REALITY OF THE FACTS
With this volume of fire in the media, the Democrats’ expectation was to surely see a strong shift in public opinion towards them. Especially within minorities, primarily Hispanics who, instead, voted en masse for the GOP candidate. If there was a shift, it ended up being practically irrelevant. It must also be said that some analysts claimed, in the days immediately following the election (although such specific analyses can only be made cold), that the Democrats achieved the opposite effect. The continuous presence of film stars, music stars, show business personalities and cultural figures bombarding their followers – because that is what it was all about – with continuous endorsements of Kamala Harris and attacks on Donald Trump, would have changed the perception of a part of the American citizens of the Democratic candidate. From daughter of the people, belonging to a minority and possible first woman President of the United States, she was instead perceived as the chosen one by the elites, above the expectations and needs of the common man, of the average American citizen. This situation can also be read by scrutinizing Harris’s voting performance, in which she wins by a landslide in the large urban conglomerates and takes a heavy beating in rural and small-town America.
IT IS THE VOTERS WHO COUNT
What we have therefore been able to detect in this election round is that big stars with staggering numbers of followers on social media move little or nothing. In this case, the levity of the Democratic spin doctors was, once again apparently, to underestimate the value and intelligence of the voters. Very few citizens are swayed by the (albeit global) star who more or less veiledly tells them who to vote for. Instead, there are many more who look at the simple issues, that touch them personally in their everyday lives and that look at the answers that one or the other political party has given in the past and promises to give in the future should they be elected. Relying on stars is easy and suggestive, while working in a well-rounded way on issues is more complex and exhausting, but in the end we saw what paid off in this election.