Many Americans wrongly believe that Sarah Palin once said the phrase “I can see Russia from my house,” yet this line was delivered by comedian Tina Fey during a parody of Palin on Saturday Night Live (SNL) back in 2008.
That this quote came to be associated with Palin herself, rather than with Fey’s comedic impression, brings up key questions about how political comedy can influence public perceptions in the United States. And this type of confusion between satire and reality is far from rare.
Since around the 2008 presidential election, comedy has taken a more politically engaged shape, marking what some scholars describe as a return to political focus in humour.
Satire shows like SNL quietly shape real political views (Photo: Alamy)In more recent elections, political comedy has begun borrowing features from journalism (Kilby 2018; Ödmark 2023; Ödmark and Nicolai 2024) while also contributing to activism and encouraging political involvement (Baym and Shah 2011; Becker 2021; Jones et al. 2012; Meier and Berg 2024). Many people in the United States now depend on political comedy for news and political commentary (ANES 2021; Gottfried et al. 2016).
US voters regularly turn to political comedy for information
Based on an examination of data from the 2020 American National Election Study (ANES), it is evident that political comedy serves as an important media source for voters during campaigns. The large majority of respondents said they received campaign information from television (83.4%) and the internet (68.8%).
These preferences appear to still hold in the current election season. According to Pew Research Center, many Americans are continuing to depend on TV (35%), online news platforms (21%), and social media (20%) for election-related updates (Shearer et al. 2024).
Alongside these broader patterns in media consumption, the 2020 ANES offers a closer look at the specific TV shows people followed during the campaign season. Saturday Night Live was ranked 11th among 32 listed programmes that mix entertainment and news, placing it ahead of several long-running news shows like Meet the Press (NBC), Tucker Carlson Tonight (Fox News), and CBS Evening News.
Every respondent who regularly viewed SNL also mentioned that television played a role in how they received election updates. The audience of the show was broadly reflective of the American population, cutting across lines of gender, income levels, political party affiliations, and age groups.
These comedy-based programmes are also useful for drawing in people who might not normally show interest in politics or are yet to make up their minds about who to vote for. Audiences of such shows include both those seeking political jokes and those who are simply watching for fun.
Yet even those who tune in for entertainment are still likely to absorb political content without actively trying to do so (Baum 2002). Scholars have described political comedy as a doorway for those who were not previously engaged in politics (Andersen 2019), as it can trigger further interest in political issues following initial exposure.
Have political candidates started choosing late-night comedy shows instead of traditional interviews?
Candidates and their campaign teams have come to recognise how effective political comedy shows can be. In past election years, presidential hopefuls like John McCain, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Donald Trump have all appeared on SNL or other late-night shows as part of their campaign strategies.
Trump’s attitude toward these shows changed later when he began to claim they were biased against him, which is why he hasn’t appeared much in the current cycle. On the other hand, Kamala Harris seems to be following a media strategy that embraces comedy, and this will be addressed further in this article.
As campaign season progressed, discussions began surfacing about Kamala Harris’s limited number of media interviews. Despite this, one of the few platforms she did choose was The Late Show with Stephen Colbert in October.
Colbert has been a topic of academic interest for his influence on his audience, many of whom feel a sense of personal connection to him through years of television appearances (Becker 2020; Leicht 2023a, 2023b). The Harris campaign’s decision to engage with him reflects a deliberate effort to reach audiences that trust his voice and opinion.
During her appearance, Harris managed to balance humour with more pressing political matters. She addressed serious issues such as Trump’s refusal to acknowledge the 2020 election results, spoke about life on the campaign trail, and shared policy ideas meant to support American citizens.
She also loosened up and participated in more relaxed conversations, including chatting about her sports preferences and drinking beer with Colbert. This last bit is of interest because voters in the US often assess candidates based on their relatability, frequently summarised by the question of whether one would enjoy having a beer with them (Hesse 2019; Leicht 2024b). Colbert even joked about measuring Harris’s appeal using that exact standard.
Harris memes shaped public attention during early campaign efforts
Aside from her stop at The Late Show, Harris also made a surprise visit to SNL just days before the election. Appearing alongside Maya Rudolph, who often impersonates her on the show, Harris showed that she could laugh at herself.
This appearance aligned with the unique media approach her campaign has embraced since she entered the race. After her campaign launch, social media was flooded with memes and online references, including emojis of coconuts and palm trees, black text on bright lime green backgrounds referencing the “brat” aesthetic of the summer, and many pop culture references (Leicht 2024b).
Entertainment is now part of how Americans follow the news (Getty Images)Harris and her team seemed very aware of the social media trends and even participated in shaping them. For example, her “kamalahq” profile header on X (formerly Twitter) adopted the same “brat” visual style after singer Charli XCX called her “brat” online.
It’s worth noting that other candidates have also made use of viral moments. Hillary Clinton turned lines like “nasty woman” and “deal me in” into campaign tools during 2016. Joe Biden embraced the “Dark Brandon” meme, referencing it humorously and creating merchandise based on it. Harris, however, has chosen a different path.
Unlike those who came before her, Harris has intentionally avoided overusing the memes or drawing too much attention to them. The way memes about her have developed without prompting from the campaign has encouraged a more natural and lively conversation about her online.
There is a shared enjoyment among people imagining what Harris thinks about these jokes—part of the appeal is the idea that she may or may not be aware of them. If the campaign were to commercialise or lean heavily into the memes, it could reduce the enthusiasm surrounding them.
Beyond helping to maintain interest on social media, the humorous content has worked to Harris’s advantage in traditional media coverage, too. News outlets focused more on explaining her popularity and the cultural appeal of the memes instead of framing her campaign in terms of electability or stereotypical gender-based questions.
This change in focus likely made her more relatable to voters, especially those tuned into online conversations. While researchers are still working to determine exactly how this type of coverage affects public perception, it has provided a positive alternative during a time when much of the political discourse has turned hostile and serious.
Moments of laughter, especially those involving women candidates like Harris, whose laugh has attracted unfair criticism, can help lighten public attitudes and restore a bit of optimism (Higgie 2017; Leicht 2024b, 2024c).
Gender stereotypes in political comedy could shape voter attitudes
While humour has offered some advantages to the Harris campaign, it also brings concerns, particularly when it contributes to reinforcing gender stereotypes. Research has shown that comedy can be useful for learning and sparking political dialogue (Leicht 2023a).
But it’s important to ask what happens if audiences absorb biased messages through this content. The idea behind cultivation theory is that repeated portrayals in media, especially gender-based ones, can influence viewers’ beliefs about roles and identity (Aley and Hahn 2020; Gerbner et al. 2002; Scharrer and Blackburn 2018; Ward and Grower 2020).
If political comedy shows like SNL, which a large number of Americans watch for news, repeatedly portray women in certain ways, these portrayals can shape how audiences see female politicians like Harris, especially when humour is involved in shaping public opinion.
Even though political comedy has long been praised for its educational and civic value, the risks tied to reinforcing harmful biases must be taken seriously. When comedy repeatedly reflects gendered patterns, it may influence how viewers assess female politicians, not based on their qualifications or ideas, but through distorted perceptions rooted in stereotypes.
Female leaders, including Harris, have frequently had to manage a double standard in how their actions and expressions are interpreted, with humour often used to criticise or undermine rather than support their image. The widespread consumption of satirical content that exaggerates or mocks traits associated with gender can create subtle but lasting impressions in the minds of voters.
Previous studies have shown that women in politics are often portrayed in comedic sketches through lenses that highlight emotional reactions, physical appearance, or perceived likability. Such portrayals can contribute to stories that question competence or toughness, qualities traditionally tied to leadership.
For someone like Harris, whose laugh has become a subject of parody and commentary, these portrayals may shape public attitudes in ways that reinforce old gendered assumptions. When comedy shows repeatedly choose to focus on these aspects rather than policy, the message absorbed by audiences can be skewed.
As a result, Harris and others in similar positions may find themselves working harder to present a controlled, composed image while still appearing relatable and authentic.
The balancing act between staying approachable and being taken seriously is far more delicate for women candidates. This contrast with male politicians, who are more often allowed to be humorous or casual without it affecting their image, reveals an uneven playing field.
Given the influence of comedic programs as a source of political information for many Americans, it becomes essential to consider how they frame candidates across different demographics. The tone, themes, and focus of jokes have far-reaching effects.
When satire leans into dated or simplistic characterisations, it does more than make people laugh—it contributes to a cycle where public perception is filtered through biased lenses. This is especially relevant when audiences are receiving their primary impressions of a candidate from such content.
Comedy fans might not intend to get political but often do (Photo: Alamy)It is important to acknowledge how voters’ attitudes are shaped by repeated exposure to these portrayals, particularly among those who are less engaged with traditional news. For undecided or casual viewers, first impressions drawn from comedy may become fixed views. If these portrayals lean on stereotype or caricature, they risk overshadowing the actual policies and leadership qualities that matter in governance.
Therefore, while humour in political commentary can provide relief from the gravity of elections, it also carries weight. It plays a role in shaping the political culture and in influencing what voters expect from their leaders.
The case of Harris illustrates how comedy, far from being harmless, becomes part of the electoral environment, with real implications for how candidates are judged. Those behind these comedic portrayals must recognise the responsibility they hold, especially in an age where media saturation leaves little room for nuance or deeper understanding.
This dynamic isn’t limited to Harris alone—it reflects a broader challenge faced by women in high-profile political roles. From Hillary Clinton to Elizabeth Warren, female candidates have often been subject to comedic tropes that reinforce perceptions of being “too serious,” “too emotional,” or “unrelatable.”
These recurring stories shape expectations and influence how the public measures leadership potential. While men are more frequently portrayed as strong, assertive, or even humorous themselves, women face a narrower path where any deviation from a tightly controlled image can become the punchline.
The issue becomes even more complex in an election year, when comedic portrayals intersect with real-time campaign messaging. If Harris is consistently mocked for her laugh or mannerisms, this portrayal may end up detracting from substantive coverage of her platform, achievements, or policy positions.
Instead of helping audiences engage critically with her candidacy, comedy can flatten her identity into a set of recurring gags. This comedic shorthand becomes part of the public’s mental framework, shaping gut reactions and voter instincts in ways that aren’t always conscious.
Importantly, audiences often perceive satire as harmless or apolitical, which gives it a unique form of persuasive power. When jokes are told night after night on popular programs, they help crystallise collective opinions—even if unintentionally.
These impressions can persist, particularly in a fragmented media environment where viewers selectively consume content that aligns with their existing views. That’s why it’s crucial to consider how political comedy, however well-intentioned, can reinforce old hierarchies rather than challenge them.
While comedy can be a tool for resistance and critique, it also carries the risk of upholding the very structures it claims to mock. In Harris’s case, the continued focus on superficial traits over substance reflects deeper discomforts within political discourse: about race, gender, and who gets to wield power without ridicule. Breaking that cycle requires both creators and consumers of satire to interrogate the jokes they tell and the norms they reinforce.