Social media is being used to target the disenfranchised in swing states. Highly influential celebrities may influence the opinions of disenfranchised voters, particularly in swing states.
The argument
Proponents of this argument hold that celebrity endorsements have become a genuine force in shaping how voters think. The reasoning begins with a simple observation about persuasion: people take cues from figures they already know and like. Celebrities toward whom audiences feel positively carry a reserve of goodwill and trust, and when such a figure endorses a presidential candidate or speaks out on a political issue, that goodwill can transfer to the candidate or position being endorsed. For voters with limited time or attention for politics, a trusted celebrity's stance offers a shortcut — a signal about which candidate or issue deserves their support. The argument's second premise acknowledges that the effect cuts both ways: endorsements from celebrities who are disliked may backfire, pushing voters away from the very candidate the endorsement was meant to help. On this view, the backfire risk does not weaken the case but strengthens it, because it shows the mechanism is real in both directions — voter opinion moves in response to celebrity endorsements, whether toward or away from a candidate. Advocates connect this to the broader claim about social media by pointing to where these endorsements now live and circulate. Celebrities reach their audiences largely through social platforms, so an endorsement is not a one-time broadcast but a message that can be aimed, shared, and amplified toward particular audiences. Among those audiences, proponents argue, are disenfranchised voters in swing states — people who may feel alienated from parties and conventional political messaging but who still follow and trust the public figures they like. Deploying well-liked celebrity voices on social media toward these persuadable, disaffected populations in electorally decisive states is, on this account, one of the ways social media is being used to target the disenfranchised.
Premises
Counter-arguments
Voters are not easily influenced by celebrity endorsements. They may use the endorsements to educate themselves more on a particular candidate or issue, but they will not let influencers change their personal opinions during the 2020 US presidential election.
Rejecting the premises
[Rejecting P1] The influence is asserted rather than measured, and the counter-argument offers the rival reading: an endorsement may prompt a voter to look further into a candidate without changing what they already think. [Rejecting P2] Taken together the two premises make the claim unfalsifiable, since an endorsement that moves people toward a candidate and one that moves them away are both counted as influence. Neither premise mentions the disenfranchised, swing states, or targeting of any kind — which is the whole of what the conclusion asserts.