The 2016 election saw a huge increase in political awareness, both good and bad.
One of the negative aspects of newfound political agendas were those of Hollywood’s elites.
With paid endorsements of Hillary Clinton by certain liberal celebrities pining for the Electoral College to change votes to an unwanted candidate, Hollywood definitely took a special interest in the election.
Many of these celebrities were endorsers of Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton, and were upset over the loss of their candidate.
Celebrities like Sally Field, Martin Sheen, and Amy Schumer have been incredibly vocal in their feelings towards the election.
Some of the celebrities have taken to protest events against President-elect Trump, while others have made campaign videos against the decision of the Electoral College.
The fact of the matter is that real people are sick of white-collar America trying to have a say in their lives, so the opinions of celebrities ultimately had no effect on the election.
The Daily Caller reported:
The important thing is that our moral, ethical, and intellectual betters have been given yet another opportunity to browbeat us. In their minds, they lost because they just didn’t sneer at us enough. After all, they’re on TV and we’re not.
It sure is a different message than the one they send us when they win, huh?
While these B-list celebrities have made it their personal mission to make a “change in the life of all Americans,” their political agendas are not geared towards Middle America.
Furthermore, the campaigning was essentially useless, as certain celebrities only appeal to certain demographic groups. A person like Katy Perry, a strong supporter of Planned Parenthood, does not appeal to conservatives in any way. The singer is rather popular with liberal Millennials, however.
The Atlantic reported:
David J. Jackson, a political science professor at Bowling Green State University, studies the influence of celebrities on elections. In a 2015 survey of 804 likely general-election voters in Ohio, he asked people whether particular celebrity endorsements would make people more or less likely to support a candidate. In almost all the cases, the net effect of any particular endorsement on a sample of the general electorate was negative—voters were less likely to support the endorsed candidate. But the effect often switched to positive when you just focused on demographics already favorable to any given celebrity.
Some celebrities have tried to campaign for Clinton in ways that were only geared toward the upper classes.
For example, Amy Schumer is one celebrity who openly campaigned for Clinton. Her efforts only led to public humiliation as the comic became overly aggressive towards the victorious Trump and his supporters.
Schumer’s actions included helping people register to vote in Florida. Ironically, Trump won electoral votes in Florida by a landslide.
Business Insider reported:
The actress and comedian has shown support for Clinton on Twitter and even crashed Clinton’s interview on “The Ellen DeGeneres Show,” which actually led Clinton to praise her.
Schumer satirized the potential historical moment of the first female president on her variety show “Inside Amy Schumer.” She volunteered to register voters for Clinton in Florida last month and has spoken out against Donald Trump in her standup act.
Overall, the support of celebrities did not lead to victory of their candidate.
Not surprisingly, Trump did not want many celebrity endorsers, and instead asked that “real people” show up to his inauguration rather than celebrities.
What are your thoughts?
Do you believe that celebrity endorsements mattered at all in the election?
Leave us your thoughts in the comment section below.