In the last week, there’s been a vibrant disagreement in my household. My husband, ever the optimist, believes that Jeff Bezos’ refusal to endorse either candidate is an abdication of his responsibility. I, ever the cynic, believe that his decision probably won’t matter one way or the other.
When the 2024 US presidential election feels like everything and nothing matters, who is right between us?
Fundamentally, what are endorsements anyway?
At their core, political endorsements are third-party validations. These are people or institutions that are outside of the campaign throwing their weight behind their preferred candidate or outcome. We use them all the time in the political and advocacy campaign world, as well as in marketing in general. When a client says something nice about your product and you post it on your website or you collect past, successful project examples, these are all third-party validations, i.e. endorsements. We build entire strategies around this tactic largely because when done well they work.
At their best, third-party validator campaigns introduce you to a new audience, broaden your product-fit alignment, and make funders see you in a new and positive light. A classic example taught in grad schools is the White Lab Coat effect. Vox does a great job of breaking this phenomenon down, below. At worst, they trap you into something of a perception straightjacket, from which your desired audience recoils.
Why do endorsements and third-party validators matter?
As mentioned, and especially in a campaign context, they can significantly open doors for your candidate while narrowing the field of influence for your opponent.
For the candidate receiving the endorsement, it gives them access to the world of the endorser including fundraising opportunities and supporter development. For the endorser, they might be seen as important for the proximity they have to the candidate and increase their value in the eyes of their supporters. My friend, Joe Fuld, does a really good job of detailing the value of a political endorsement in his post over at The Campaign Workshop. At best, endorsements help expand that peer group and be taken seriously by people who might not otherwise. Recall the power of Congressman Clyburn's (D-SC-06) endorsement of then-candidate Joe Biden in 2020. Many credit that endorsement for turning the tide in the Democratic primary in favor of Joe Biden.
What’s happening with endorsements in 2024?
It’s hard to be an American and not see the flurry of endorsements for either candidate. Whether these are courted for months or opportunistic based on gaffes, the endorsements themselves are a significant narrative in this race.
Market Movers
One could argue that Taylor Swift’s endorsement of Vice President (VP) Harris is the singular largest endorsement of this cycle. When your concerts cause earthquakes from the coordinated fan movement during the show, it is kind of a big deal. While not entirely unexpected (she’s on record as disliking former President Trump in the past), a full-throated endorsement of VP Harris wasn’t assured. The fervor created from the rampant speculation about her possible endorsement that culminated in a very on-brand Instagram post was masterfully executed. While she didn’t say, “You should vote for VP Harris”, she did create a very short runway for her 272 million followers between, “I support her”, and “You should register to vote”. The result was a surge in hits to vote.gov of a demographic that both candidates have struggled with this cycle.
The Unexpected
The unexpected endorsements are often stickier in the minds of the public and media. For example, the public is generally primed to believe that organized labor will endorse Democrats for office, so when the Teamsters decline to, it's news. It also may have been bigger news than the subsequent announcements by the Teamster Locals electing to endorse her. Given the closer connection that the Locals have with their members, this move may be more beneficial to the Harris campaign in terms of funding, perception, and votes. Additionally, there are always a few Democrats for Republicans or Republicans for Democrats groups in each election. The Democrats who voted for Ronald Regan are still discussed as influential to his successful run for the presidency. Though, in this election its unexpected and notable that lifelong Republicans like Dick and Liz Cheney have endorsed Harris for President. And in Liz Cheney’s case, taking the next step and campaigning for her.
Then there’s Puerto Rico. The comments by Tony Hinchcliffe at Madison Square Garden and in the middle of one of the largest Puerto Rican diasporas in the country landed like a bomb. It didn’t matter that former President Trump wasn’t the one to utter that sentence, its guilt by association. But importantly, what this has led to are endorsements by musicians Nicky Jam (who previously endorsed Trump and changed it to Harris as a result of this), Jennifer Lopez, and Bad Bunny. Additionally, the Archbishop of Puerto Rico asked him to personally apologize for the speaker at the rally and Puerto Rico’s largest newspaper El Nuevo Dia, endorsed Harris in the wake of the scandal.
The collective reach of these endorsements is over 300 million people, almost as large as the total population of the US itself. And while that number doesn't cover all US voters, the estimated number of registered voters of Puerto Rican descent in swing states is significant, including nearly half a million in Pennsylvania alone. Of those Puerto Ricans endorsing VP Harris, you have a very credible messenger in Bad Bunny, who was also active and instrumental in the 2019 Puerto Rican protest that resulted in the removal of its Governor from office over a corruption scandal. He didn’t just parachute in and say, listen to me I’m a celebrity, he’s done the work and built the networks. This is the kind of connection we look for in third-party validators when campaigners and marketers consider spending their marketing budgets.
The most difficult part? These endorsements and messages are tearing through family group chats where familial pressure is heavy and the campaigns have no idea what’s being said and no ability to counter it with a few days left. Small-group, network-based organizing worked incredibly well for the Obama campaign; and a combination of credible celebrities, religious figures, and respected outlets became important. In our opinion, the Puerto Rico gaffe has resulted in the most important endorsements this cycle.
Why does this matter for The Washington Post?
Any campaign manager knows that your race is won by a combination of your base plus persuadable voters. Will my base run through walls for me? Will I get the shine for a new audience? Fundamentally, campaigns still need validation and access to keep their base close and to reach new voters.
So Jeff Bezos’ stated rationale behind why The Washington Post didn’t endorse anyone, “Most people believe the media is biased. Anyone who doesn’t see this is paying scant attention to reality, and those who fight reality lose,” misses the real reason why a newspaper like The Post should be less concerned with endorsing a candidate.
From a reach perspective, The Post’s 2.5m circulation number (less in the aftermath of this decision) pales compared to Taylor Swift or Bad Bunny. Swift’s audience is over 100 times larger than The Post’s circulation.
From a credibility standpoint, someone like Bad Bunny has built himself into a credible messenger with his audience in a way that The Post (and other newspapers) have struggled to do. While this reason most closely aligns with Bezos’ argument, much like how Bad Bunny did the work to build credibility, one would think that the owner of a newspaper has some ability to do the same.
History just isn’t on the side of the newspapers. When it comes to large, national elections, institutional endorsements like that of newspapers just don’t have a proven history of swaying votes. In 2011, FiveThirtyEight wrote an analysis called Political Newspaper Endorsements: History and Outcome. They found that newspaper endorsements don’t guarantee votes. While there is some interesting anecdotal information about their role in localized elections like transportation ballot measures, the jury is out on presidential elections.
How should we think about The Post’s change of heart?
Whether the reason is 100% Bezos’ publicly stated credibility rationale or the publicly-assumed reasons about not wanting to incur additional wrath from a possible second Trump Administration, or somewhere in the middle, our argument is that neither campaign should spend time worrying about not securing the endorsement of The Washington Post, or any newspaper. Were it up to us, rather than rely on an editorial board to make decisions, we’d empower reporters to make endorsements. These same reporters have been required by their outlets to build a social media presence and as a result, they’ve built credibility and a following on their issue.
In modern, post-social media presidential elections, the reach of even the largest newspapers is dwarfed by other third-party validators and it doesn’t have a clear path to swaying voters.