The NPR Politics Podcast - The Taylor Swift Super Bowl Conspiracy Theory

Episode Date: February 2, 2024

This NFL season, popstar Taylor Swift has been a mainstay at the Kansas City Chiefs games cheering on her boyfriend Travis Kelce. Now far-right Donald Trump-supporting conservatives are and circulating conspiracy theories about Swift, the 2024 election and Kelce's participation in the Super Bowl. This episode: White House correspondent Asma Khalid, political correspondent Susan Davis, national political correspondent Don Gonyea, and correspondent Shannon Bond.This podcast was produced by Jeongyoon Han, Casey Morell & Kelli Wessinger. Our editor is Erica Morrison. Our executive producer is Muthoni Muturi. Listen to every episode of the NPR Politics Podcast sponsor-free, unlock access to bonus episodes with more from the NPR Politics team, and support public media when you sign up for The NPR Politics Podcast+ at plus.npr.org/politics.Correction: This episode mistakenly states that the International Brotherhood of Teamsters is the largest union in the country. In fact, the National Education Association is the largest union in the country. Connect:Email the show at [e-mail] the NPR Politics Podcast Facebook Group.Subscribe to the NPR Politics Newsletter.Learn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy

Hi, this is Sam from Tucson, Arizona, and I'm not skiing in a state park, climbing a mountain, or training for a marathon. I'm in the same place I am every day, sitting in front of my computer, working on my dissertation. This podcast was recorded at 109 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, February 2nd of 2024. Things may have changed by the time you hear this, but I will hopefully be one day closer to finally finishing grad school. Enjoy the show. Sam's my kind of guy, as I sit here in front of my computer. Yeah, I love it.

Well, hey there, it's the NPR Politics Podcast. I'm Asma Khalid. I cover the White House. I'm Susan Davis. I cover politics. And I'm Don Gagne. I cover the White House. I'm Susan Davis. I cover politics. And I'm Don Gagne. I cover the presidential election. Well, since it is Friday, we have got our weekly wrap and there is lots to discuss. But we are going to begin the show with a deep dive on unions, their political influence, and why both parties are vying for their votes. And Don, I want to start the conversation with you because you have long covered Michigan politics, you have long covered labor politics, and you are based in Detroit. We saw President Biden recently secure the endorsement of the United Auto Workers, and he was in fact in your state of Michigan yesterday meeting with union members. What stood out to you from the president's trip?

Well, it comes just over a week after he got that big UAW endorsement. And that's a very important endorsement for him to get. This visit, though, here's what struck me. It was small, even low-key. There were no big events. There was no big rally with union members. It felt like it was just his presence that was the important thing there. Then later on, before he headed back to DC, there was a stop at a local restaurant in Macomb County. And this was just for kind of smaller, more intimate conversations with some UAW members. UAW President Sean Fain was with him the whole time and was kind of his guide. There were two things that really stuck out to me. One, it kind of felt like they were gathering footage for TV commercials for the campaign. To show Biden in intimate settings, right?

But the other thing is it felt like he was just collecting more points. It's like, oh, that's Joe. He's here all the time. We saw him on the picket line this summer, and we endorsed him in Washington last week, just like collecting more points. It's like, oh, that's Joe. He's here all the time. You know, we saw him on the picket line this summer and we endorsed him in Washington last week and now he's here. That's just Joe. He's always around. Don, I'm curious about the energy right now in the labor movement because the movement broadly, but the UAW specifically has had some actual wins lately. It seems like the labor movement is more energized than it has been in the past. And I wonder if you can feel that in sort of the room or in the organization of

the people you talk to that are part of these unions. I think that's absolutely the case, but I mostly think it is the case with the UAW because the UAW's particular set of circumstances. They got a new president just about a year ago, Sean Fain. He led them through a long and successful, key word there, successful strike against the Detroit Three automakers. And these auto workers got the best contract they have gotten in decades. Big raises, more job security, eliminating some of those tiers that paid some people less for doing the same job. That was a big victory, and it was kind of an unexpected victory. And now Fain is using what you can only call grassroots support for him among his rank and file, among his membership to endorse President Biden. And the question will be if that does then drive

more union votes, more UAW votes for Biden than he would typically get. Don, that actually leads me to the big question I've had in my mind, which is, how much does an endorsement from the United Auto Workers really mean? And I ask that because I think back to the 2016 election, Hillary Clinton was running on the Democratic ticket. She got the UAW endorsement. Ultimately, she did not win enough union voters. And ultimately, she lost the state of Michigan and lost the presidency. Right. Here's the thing with the union vote. It is not this lockstep block of votes that the union leadership delivers with an endorsement, right?

In a good year, let's just say even in a normal year, about 58 percent, somewhere in that that range of union households in the country. Again, we're talking union households broadly, not just the UAW here. But something shy of 60% would vote for the Democrats. And that is typically, not always, but typically where the union endorsement goes as well. But the rub for the unions is whether or not they are able to actually deliver that. to get 51, 52% of the union vote in 2016 against Donald Trump, that can be enough to cost her in close battleground states like Michigan, as it did that year. I think we have to put in a ton of caveats when we talk about 2016 and Hillary Clinton and the UAW. Democrats are still finger pointing over what went wrong in Michigan that year. But part of what the Clinton campaign did wrong was they messed up

union relations. They famously did not engage with unions on the ground in the way that was typical of campaign. The Clinton campaign, I think in many ways, took the union vote for granted. Hillary Clinton did not campaign as much in Michigan. I don't think she ever did a UAW event in 2016. Like they thought they had Michigan in lockdown. It was a safe blue wall state and it wasn't. The Biden campaign, knowing that now, I don't think they're taking Michigan for granted. I don't, you know, Joe Biden has already done several UAW events. I think that they see the union as critical to victory there. You know, Michigan is one of the seven states that was decided by three percentage points or less in 2020. It's probably going to be

that way again. And states like this are one on the margins. And in a state like Michigan, the union vote can be decisive. And let's remember, it's not just about the union vote. Unions have money, they have organization, they have get out the vote operations. They don't just turn out the union vote, they help turn out the vote. I think it especially matters when you're up against a party that is led by someone who continues to throw doubt about the electoral system, about the safety of the vote, things like mail-in voting, downplaying voters to do that, when the unions right now focus a lot of efforts on doing things like getting people to vote early, vote by mail and show up and vote. So the structural advantage that I think a big union endorsement can give you in a state like this is still a pretty big deal. You know, so we've seen Biden make this point repeatedly and deliberately that he is not going to assume that the union vote is necessarily his. He's really trying to work for it. On the flip side, what do we see the former President Donald Trump doing? I know that he met with the Teamsters Union in Washington,

D.C. this week. This is, of course, the largest union in the country. Does he have a chance at winning their endorsement? It certainly feels like it would be a long shot for Donald Trump to win the Teamsters endorsement. And again, look, this is a union that has endorsed Republicans famously in its career. They endorsed Richard Nixon. They endorsed Ronald Reagan twice, but they endorsed Joe Biden. And before that, they endorsed Hillary Clinton. The Teamsters of today have been more in the fold with the labor movement writ large in terms of their endorsements, in terms of their approach to policy. That said, they too have a relatively new president, Sean O'Brien, and he sees it as

in the union's interest to be bringing in all of these candidates, having conversations with them. And I suspect, based on what I'm hearing and how I'm hearing these meetings described, Sean O'Brien is doing much more talking at these meetings with candidates than the candidates themselves. He is using this as an opportunity to make sure they understand, the candidates understand, or at the very least that the candidates hear what issues are important to the unions and why. And there are plenty of issues where they are going to be at odds with Donald Trump. All right, Don, thank you so much for sharing your reporting with us.

We really appreciate it. It's my pleasure. All right, we are going to let you go and we're going to take a quick break. And when we get back, we'll talk about the conspiracy theories surrounding Taylor Swift in the presidential election. And welcome back. And we're joined now by NPR's Shannon Bond, who covers disinformation and democracy. And Shannon, it is wonderful to have you with us. I'm glad to be here to talk about this topic particularly.

I know. You always know the conversation is going to get weird when Shannon's on the podcast. I know. I know. I'm sorry, guys. But, you know, I like to bring the weird. Shannon, I'm glad that you are here with us because I think we all need to sit and try to make sense of what transpired this week. So the basics for folks who have not been following the story is that the pop star, the pop mega superstar Taylor Swift has been, of course, you know, making a lot of headlines for her music, her film all year. And, of course, she's been making a lot of headlines for her romance with Kansas City Chiefs tight end Travis Kelsey. But this week she became the center of some wild conspiracy theories.

Shannon, why don't we begin there for folks who have not been following the news or maybe paying attention to the corners of the Internet. What are the claims being made about Taylor Swift? I'm very envious of the people who have not had to encounter this. But so here it goes. So the idea here is that Taylor Swift is part of a Democratic plot to reelect President Biden and that this involves the NFL rigging the season and specifically rigging the Super Bowl so that the Chiefs win. We know Taylor has been going to Chiefs games to see her boyfriend, Travis Kelsey. And then the idea is

that Taylor and maybe Travis as well will come out on the field to endorse Joe Biden. Okay. So where did these ideas come from? Well, there's been sort of some stuff circulating around on the right for a while now, this idea that Taylor Swift is some sort of democratic government psyop, that she's maybe an asset of like the Pentagon or the CIA, that she's sort of being used to influence voters. She, you know, very successfully recently, you know, called on her fans to register to vote. And that drove a surge in voter registration. That's one of the sort of data points that's pointed to like, oh, is she being used to juice turnout? But specifically, these kind of crazy ideas about

the Super Bowl really exploded after the Chiefs won their playoff game last weekend, advanced the Super Bowl. They were sort of most prominently aired by former Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy, who we know has previously pushed debunked conspiracy theories, plus a whole host of far-right influencers. And then we saw conservative media outlets like Fox News and Newsmax also pile in. They spent a lot of time talking about Swift this week, and they seem to be really worked up over this idea that Swift might endorse Biden, which is kind of weird because Taylor Swift endorsed Joe Biden in 2020. It wouldn't be particularly surprising for her to do so again this year. There's actually been reporting that the campaign is seeking her endorsement. But why this has to involve the Super Bowl being rigged, right, and Swift being a government asset, because as someone who has covered the workings

of government for the better part of the past 20 years, the idea that you have a government sophisticated enough to pull off these kind of plots is very funny to me. I'm here to say to America, your government is not that well organized. If anything, it's very disorganized. But I mean, the conspiracy theories in general have always sort of been a feature of American politics, but it does feel like they have more of a stranglehold on the current political debate. And I think part of that is driven by the fact of who legitimizes them. You know, they used to be much more in sort of the corners of the internet or, you know,

conspiracy minded people. But people like Vivek Ramaswamy, someone who was running for president United States, just is very publicly stating these things as if they're fact. Donald Trump has engaged in conspiracy theories of his own making. And I do think that that helps legitimize some of these theories that lets them take a stronger grip with people because they're sort of their validators. They believe what these people are telling them. And if they're saying it's true, then, hey, maybe there's something to it.

The thing I've been so confused by is why anyone would think that this is an effective political message. I mean, Taylor Swift is this huge celebrity. Fine, take her out of the equation. The NFL is one of the few things in America that is still bipartisan. Republicans and Democrats watch the Super Bowl. It is not like a fully Democratic operation. I don't understand who thinks that this is a winning message. Right. It might seem really counterproductive, right?

Like, as you say, they're both popular across the political spectrum. And like also, I mean, this focus on like Taylor and Travis Kelsey. But, you know, I think I think if we're thinking about it as like, oh, you know, what's the appeal here to regular voters? I mean, this is not about how this might land with like everyday voters or everyday NFL watchers. For folks like Vivek Ramaswamy and these other influencers in particular, it's very much about engagement and attention. Right. And like driving attention in this very online world. And then I also think it's about, you know, sort of seeding this idea more broadly that Democrats are trying to cheat in the election and undermining Taylor Swift if she does, in fact, come out and endorse Biden. Right. Like these are people that cannot be trusted. And also, I think it's separate but related. When you look at Travis Kelsey, there's also been conspiracy theorizing around him because he's been an advocate for the COVID vaccines, which fits deeply into the same sort of corners of conspiracy

theorizing about government and government control. So it rings all the bells of people who are sort of already inclined to believe that there is deep, dark, nefarious things happening behind the scenes in government. One last question for you, Shannon. I mean, we talk about conspiracy theories, and we kind of jokingly refer to them initially as being from the corners of the internet. But one of the things that I think is really alarming to me as someone who covers politics is that things do come and they trickle down into, say, partisan news sources and then they trickle down into like late night comedy shows. And what was once just in the dark corners maybe of the Internet are actually able to influence like large. They're able to influence the conversation writ large.

And that to me is concerning. I totally agree. I mean, I think that that is a concern. And we've seen this happen before. Right. I mean, this has very much been the trajectory of the idea that our elections are rigged or somehow insecure. Right. Or that there's you should be suspicious of various methods of voting. We've even seen the same thing happen with QAnon conspiracy theories, which very much did start sort of in the dark corners of the Internet. And then there are pieces of these bizarre, baseless, and often violent QAnon beliefs that are now like accepted by surprisingly large numbers of people. And so exactly. I mean, like Sue said, it can be sort of easy to, this is very silly in a lot of ways,

it seems kind of nonsense, and maybe it seems harmless. But this is the kind of stuff that gets kind of baked into broader culture, and ultimately kind of erodes our ability to sort of trust and believe in anything. I mean, there was a really interesting poll that YouGov put out at the end of last year that asked American attitudes towards this whole range of different conspiracy theories that have been popular over the years. And what it tells you is that there is a significant chunk of the electorate, although it probably depends on the conspiracy, that does believe in these certain ideas. It's anywhere between 20 to 50% of the country, depending on what type of conspiracy theory you ask them about. So I do think that like this, this is just a part of the

electorate. It is a real part of the electorate. My caveat, I would say is like, I still don't view this as the sort of critical voter of 2024. You know, I think that if anything, when we talk about swing voters, independents, suburban women. They tend to not be a huge chunk of this type of voter. And if anything, the party that is seen as being popularizing these or embracing these could actually be sort of a turnoff for someone who's not deeply invested in these sort of conspiratorial ideas. Yeah, I mean, the thing I always say covering in this beat is everyone probably believes in some kind of conspiracy theory or some kind of really like out there idea. And probably most of those beliefs are not particularly harmful because we're not acting on them. It's when we have the intersection of people acting on these beliefs in ways that are fundamentally anti-democratic that we need to get worried. And on that note, Shannon, I presume this will not be

the last time that we talk to you this election cycle. But let's take a quick break and we're going to be back in a moment with Can't Let It Go. And we're back. And it's time now for Can't Let It Go. That's the part of the show where we talk about the things that we just cannot stop thinking about, politics or otherwise. And this week, folks, I actually have a political one. So last Sunday, the former Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, was on CNN. And this made quite a bit of the round, so you all may have already heard of this story. But I seriously cannot let this go. So she was on CNN's, I think it was State of the Union, and she was talking about protests of the Gaza War. And he said essentially that these were, quote, connected to Russia.

For them to call for a ceasefire is Mr. Putin's message. Some of these protesters are spontaneous and organic and sincere. Some, I think, are connected to Russia. And she goes on to say that she thinks some of the financing should be investigated by the FBI. Now, I will say, you know, to be clear, having covered elections for a while, I don't think that you can rule out that any country, say Russia, any adversary might try to, you know, amplify dissent ahead of a political election. I think that is a natural expectation, right? But I do think it was wild to say without evidence at the moment that there are people protesting the war,

bankrolled by a foreign government, because, look, I mean, the UN had a vote back in December, 153 countries called for a ceasefire. You look at the polling in the own Democratic Party, this is an increasingly popular opinion to call for a ceasefire amongst Democrats. And I just have not been able to let it go because I feel like, take away the substance of what she was saying. I was like, who thought this was a good message for Democrats to say out loud when they are already on, you know, pins and needles trying to wean back their young black and brown voters? So that is what I have not been able to let go. Having covered Pelosi for a long time, I think it is fair to say that she is not always the best messenger for the party and has often been articulate in explaining her positions on things. But I agree with you. I mean,

there may be some substance to what she said. We certainly know that foreign adversaries try to see these divisions in American society and exploit them. But this isn't the kind of thing, especially in such a heated political moment and in an issue that so divides your own party, that you can just sort of casually drop without any receipts. Like if you have reason to believe that, like expound on it, explain it, like point to something. Otherwise, it's only going to sort of kick up more opposition to you. And we were talking about erosion of trust. And I think this is kind of how that happens, too.

I mean, there's a concept that has to be brought up around AI, this idea called the liar's dividend, which is that like, I don't need to actually make a fake AI image of something. I can claim something real is AI generated, right? And like undermine confidence. And I think there's like a version of that where it's just like, if everything can be an operation, everything can be foreign influence, everything can be fake, then nothing can be real. And that's really harmful for our ability to talk about really tough issues. All right. Well, Shannon, what can you not let go of? So I cannot let go of this whole drama over Elon Musk's pay package at Tesla. So if you haven't been following this, about six years ago, Tesla's board of directors gave Elon Musk this insanely huge compensation package, potentially worth, I think it was something like $55, $56 billion.

And ultimately, a shareholder sued Tesla over this, saying this is an insane amount of money to be paying a CEO. And we've got a ruling this week from the business court in Delaware where the judge in Delaware agreed with the shareholders who said this was unfair. She said, you know, this was actually the product of sham negotiations, that you're supposed to have like independent directors, right, who decide about pay. But the directors who decided on this massive pay package for Musk were not independent. And the particular detail in her ruling that I cannot let go of was that one of the directors on this compensation committee, he's Tesla's general counsel, he was also Musk's personal divorce attorney. And apparently during his deposition in this trial, he cried while talking about how wonderful and brilliant Musk was as a leader, and he cried. And the judge was like, this is not a good reason to give him this much money.

So I'm pretty fascinated by this whole process. I'm torn because I, too, would like in a massive payout that people can't believe. And you, too, would like to have your friends decide to give that to you, right? Weep in court to defend how much I deserve that massive payout. You want me to cry, Sue? Yeah, just for me. Just, you know, just for you. Just sob at how much I deserve this disproportionate, insane amount of money because I'm such a

visionary. So I get it. I get it. It can be an inspiration to us all. Truly. Well, Sue, what can you not let go of? The thing I can't let go of this week is a seemingly innocuous little tweet that really went in a lot of directions people didn't expect in this country. And that is Elmo.

Our favorite Sesame Street character who tweeted this week very innocently, Elmo is just checking in. How's everybody doing? And this – can we still call them tweets? I don't even know. This X. This X. I don't know – can we still call them tweets? I don't even know. This X? Oh, X. This X? Yeah, I don't know.

Let's just call them tweets. Yeah, we'll just call them tweets for the purpose of this. And the conclusion is, guys, America is not okay because people responded. I think the term is called trauma dumping. America trauma dumped on Elmo this week, and it was pretty overwhelming. The tweet has had over 205 million views and required Elmo to follow up and just say that he was glad that everybody checked in, and he hopes that Elmo will check in again soon. Elmo loves you. Hashtag emotional well-being. So, you know, thanks to Elmo for checking in, but it was a good reminder that you need to check

on your people because apparently people are going through it right now. I mean, I do appreciate Elmo and how, you know, he's checking in for us all, but that is alarming, Sue. I had not seen the follow-up. 205 million people have like seen it or engaged with the tweet. So it really resonated. And the Sesame Street account actually like put out mental health resources like on their own Twitter account as part of a result of this. Right. I mean, right. We are. There is something deeply not well. I think it's all I will say. He also put this tweet out right in the last week of January. Not exactly the most uplifting time. Very good point.

You should do this in like the middle of summer and see if there's like a seasonal effectiveness element to it. It also forced even President Biden responded in his official Twitter saying, our friend Elmo is right. We have to be there for each other, offer our help to a neighbor in need, and above all else, ask for help when we need it. Also, maybe nice and a good reminder in its own way. But that's what I couldn't let go this week. It's kind of a little bit of a downer, though. So you usually don't come to us with downers. I know, but I think it's more that I was... It's important. It was more that I was amazed at how down everybody is. I didn't know. I didn't know. I was not used to it. We should

check in with each other. Yeah. All right. Well, that is a wrap for today. Some good words of parting wisdom. Our executive producer is Muthoni Mathuri. Our editor is Erica Morrison. Our producers are Casey Morrell and Kelly Wessinger. Special thanks to Krishna of Calamer and Jungyoon Han. I'm Asma Khalid. I cover the White House. I'm Susan Davis. I cover politics. I'm Shannon Bond. I cover disinformation. And thank you all, as always, for listening to the NPR Politics Podcast.