Ballots and bangers: the politics of playlists
by JoJo Martin (class of ‘25)
“Let’s not do anymore questions, let’s just listen to music. Let’s make it into a music… Who the hell wants to hear questions right??”
Great question Mr. Trump. It may just be me, but it feels like music got lots of attention this election cycle. The DNC announced each state with a song, or Trump cutting a town hall short to just… dance? With celebrity endorsements including Taylor Swift’s, candidates use music to engage with voters. Does it work?
American politics has long used music to rally support, from revolutionary tunes like ‘“God Save Great Washington, sung to the tune of “God Save the King,” to Andrew Jackson’s War of 1812 anthem ‘The Hunters of Kentucky’.
Songs have been composed about specific candidates. The song “Real Women Vote for Trump” went viral in 2020. Parodies made by artists like Randy Rainbow amass millions of views.
In 2024, these viral moments are exactly the way that campaigns use music. In an age of short attention spans and Tiktok, where people battle for bite-sized content that is seen and shared across different platforms, any catchy hook or popular song can get a message across. Many campaign videos, Tiktoks, ads, or clips of speeches are set to popular music.
In the 2024 election, Beyonce’s “Freedom” became the anthem of the Harris campaign. It was used in ads, before speeches, and the single word “provided a sonic shift in messaging, offering Democrats a muscular keyword with widespread appeal to voters across partisan lines.” It was featured prominently in her campaign announcement: Kamala Harris Launches Her Campaign for President
While Harris blasted Beyonce with her blessing, Trump received a cease and desist for using her song “Lemonade” in a video posted on X.
Beyonce herself endorsed Kamala at a rally though she did not perform.
Celebrity appearances dominated the Harris campaign, including Eminem, who introduced Obama at a Detroit rally. Obama subsequently rapped lines from “Lose Yourself” — another viral moment.
A Harris rally in Wisconsin featured Gracie Abrams, Mumford & Sons, Remi Wolf, and The National, whose performances outnumbered political speeches. Trump rallies feature far fewer musical performances, with the notable exception of Lee Greenwood, who performed “God Bless the USA” at multiple rallies.
Bruce Springsteen has an extensive political history, and was a regular performer at Harris rallies. Springsteen’s political participation began when Ronald Reagan’s 1984 campaign slipped in quotes from the hit album “Born in the USA.” In response, Springsteen began to introduce his songs more politically, referencing “sense of dissatisfaction and even ownership of contemporary America”, which was directed towards the incumbent president.
In 2004, musical acts including Springsteen, the Chicks (who themselves have a rich history of political involvement), Pearl Jam, Neil Young, James Taylor, and others embarked on a tour of swing states. The tour was called “Vote for Change,” and aimed to increase voter registration. Though ostensibly non-partisan, many of the acts urged concert goers to support John Kerry.
While the tour raised funds for political initiatives and many of the artists spoke out against Bush, John Kerry lost that election.
Springsteen’s image and lyrics are understably attractive to political movements. His powerful, singable music and lyrics celebrate patriotism and work in small-town America, summed up by the album cover of Born in The U.S.A.
I believe this connection between Sprinsteen and politics is deeper than just image. It is the music itself. If there is one thing most Americans agree on, it is classic rock — Springsteen’s defining genre. According to a yougov poll, one in five Americans identifies classic rock as their favorite genre, and one in four call it the most representative genre of America today.
This poll illustrates why campaigns seek out celebrity endorsements and appearances. Artists courted by the Harris campaign, like Eminem, are incredibly popular among a majority of Americans. 54 percent of respondents said they either liked or loved his music.
Musical celebrities are more popular than politicians, so perhaps people are more likely to engage with their messages. According to a separate NBC poll, Beyonce has an approval rating of 52 percent among black registered voters, a demographic Democrats sorely needed.
That same NBC poll also asked about Taylor Swift and found that 94 percent of people recognized her name, 39 percent of respondents expressed having “very positive” or “somewhat positive” views of her.
The immense success of the Eras Tour rocketed Swift into becoming one of the most famous people in the world. Her endorsement was sought by both sides. The Trump campaign posted an AI-generated endorsement from Swift. Swift subsequently endorsed Harris to her 284 million Instagram followers.
Celebrities like Swift certainly have a role to play in campaigns. Celebrity endorsement is shown to have a mixed effect, with some studies showing it is helpful and some showing that it can damage campaigns. But what is the role of music itself?
While Taylor Swift’s endorsement might have had a measurable effect, I believe that effect is more about her celebrity status than her music. This contrasts with Springsteen, whose music is more overtly political.
The literature on the tangible effects of music itself is limited, and oftentimes overgeneralizes. Paul Christiansen, author of the book Orchestrating Public Opinion, writes:
“Scholars from fields such as journalism, political science, or media studies often make sweeping pronouncements about music’s effectiveness in persuasion without the requisite skills or knowledge, thus distorting our understanding of music’s role in persuasion. Much of the most up-to-date scholarship on music in political ads is woefully lacking in musico-theoretical sophistication” (2018, page 25).
Christiansen examines music written for political ads from the perspective of a musicologist.
In this election, videos were often set to popular songs. Familiar music is most likely to produce the viral moments sought by campaigns.
One of my favorite viral moments was when “ Not Like Us” by Kendrick Lamar came on at a Harris rally and one young supporter went crazy dancing. The very next day Kamala Harris posted a tiktok featuring a clip of her speaking overtop the same song. It is still her most liked tiktok, and many of the comments make note of the music choice.
The election felt neck and neck until the end, every view and viral moment mattered, but at the end of the day, as one Atlantic article put it “The guys who voted for Trump aren’t going to listen to Bruce Springsteen. They might listen to [his] music, but it’s just another rich guy.”
In the aftermath of the election this last point feels true. Does music matter? I think it does for capturing those viral moments but I believe those were not what the Harris campaign needed. The widespread critique of Democrats is that they have become the party of the elite, wealthy, and educated class. The countless musicians’ performances and celebrity endorsements may have damaged the Harris campaign’s image by making Harris feel more like a pop culture figure than a political leader. By leaning so heavily on celebrity appeal, the campaign might have unintentionally amplified the very narrative that the party was out of touch with everyday Americans.
There has always been a political component to music and art but it seems that this was perhaps not the moment for Mumford and Sons to tell Wisconsinites how to vote.
