In 2016, do endorsements even matter?

In announcing he had the support of former vice presidential candidate and tea party icon Sarah Palin Tuesday, current Republican presidential hopeful Donald J. Trump did what he does best: grab headlines and take over cable news.

But there’s no clear evidence that Palin’s endorsement — or any, frankly — registers with voters beyond the initial media frenzy surrounding big-name gets. In fact, even at the height of her popularity and influence with the conservative base, the 2010 midterm election that brought a wave of tea party candidates to office, Palin had a decidedly mixed record as one of the nation’s most sought-after endorsers.

In the 34 House races where Palin endorsed a candidate that year, only 15 of her picks won on Election Day — in an election where Republicans netted 63 seats and took over the majority. An additional 10 Palin picks in 2010 lost their primaries. In the 2012 presidential race, Palin urged South Carolina voters to back former House Speaker Newt Gingrich in order to send a message to the D.C. establishment, but did not issue a formal endorsement. Gingrich bowed out to Republican nominee Mitt Romney, whom Palin would go on to endorse the day before the general election.

At the same time, the endorsements game has broadened in recent elections. Once a battle waged exclusively on establishment fields, the endorsement horse race now includes niche conservative stars, like the patriarch of the “Duck Dynasty” family. Phil Robertson has announced his support for GOP presidential candidate Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, filming an ad in which both men go duck hunting and Robertson calls the Harvard and Princeton graduate “one of us.” The Cruz campaign announced on Tuesday it had purchased $700,000 of radio and TV ad time to air the spot in Iowa this week.

Republican presidential hopeful Donald J. Trump embraces former Gov. Sarah Palin in Iowa, where she endorsed his candidacy this week. (Photo: Aaron P. Bernstein/Getty Images)

In the crush of antiestablishment fervor in 2016, some candidates appear out-of-touch when announcing their roster of endorsers, especially when the names include members of the much-maligned Congress. Putting forth a list of current and former representatives creates awkward optics for candidates who dedicate significant amounts of time trying to prove that they are Washington outsiders, even if they are presently employed there.

Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio, who are both jockeying for more traditional Republican Party support, have been the most aggressive in courting and touting endorsements of congressional backers, old and new.

Rubio, for instance, has played up support from colleagues — such as upstart Sen. Cory Gardner of Colorado, prominent climate change denier Sen. Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma and Rep. Trey Gowdy of South Carolina, made famous within conservative circles by his chairmanship of the high-profile Benghazi Committee.

Bush has the public support of old-guard stalwarts, like former Senate Majority Leader and GOP presidential nominee Bob Dole, as well as some of the more establishment members of the Senate, like Orrin Hatch of Utah and Susan Collins of Maine.

“In a changing political climate, congressional endorsements don’t matter nearly as much as they once did. It’s not so much what political network helps you tap into — it’s what message that endorsement helps you continue to drive,” said one Republican operative who has worked on multiple presidential campaigns. “If you’re managing the time of the political staff on a campaign, securing endorsements is not nearly as important or effective a use of time as it might have been two or three presidential cycles ago.”

Cruz endorser Robertson poses for a picture with Trump endorser Palin at the U.S. Capitol in 2015. (Photo: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

Congressional endorsements once were considered a key piece of any presidential campaign. Romney solidified 110 congressional endorsements in the 2012 primary, besting his nearest opponent by almost 100. In fairness, Romney also had the most congressional endorsements in 2008 and still lost the Republican primary to Sen. John McCain of Arizona, so maybe the endorsement game always has played out in the press more than in the will of the people.

“It’s [primarily] a story for the donor class and the political reporter class — it doesn’t have that much importance to activists and voters,” the operative said.

In a cycle dominated by outsiders and candidates who compete to be the most dismissive of the media, perhaps the amount of attention given to endorsements is disproportionate to their effect.

On the other side of the ballot, Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders of Vermont is enjoying surprising success against the assumed juggernaut of the Hillary Clinton campaign — even without endorsements from major Democratic groups who are significant players in primary fights.

Clinton this week received the backing of the Human Rights Campaign and before that was endorsed by women’s health advocacy groups Planned Parenthood and NARAL.

When asked on Tuesday by MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow if he is “competing” for these endorsements, Sanders answered candidly that he was not and that those groups comprise the establishment of the party that has long favored his opponent and that he sees himself as “taking on.” The answer painted an accurate picture of his successful campaign but also unintentionally helped to explain some of the chaos being endured on the Republican side, as historic players in intraparty politics appear to be losing their influence with primary voters.

“I would love to have the endorsement of every progressive organization in America. We’re very proud to have received recently the endorsement of MoveOn.org. We’ve received the endorsement of Democracy for America. These are grassroots organizations representing millions of workers,” Sanders said. “We’re taking on the political establishment. So, I have friends and supporters in the Human Rights Fund and Planned Parenthood. But, you know what? Hillary Clinton has been around there for a very, very long time. Some of these groups are, in fact, part of the establishment.

“I’m not going to get establishment support. I’m not going to get the support of the governors and the senators, with few exceptions, and many of the major organizations,” Sander said. “But the reason that we are doing so well, why we’re ahead now, I believe, in New Hampshire, why we’re closing the gap in Iowa, why we’re gaining, why we are gaining in Nevada and South Carolina and why we’re doing better and better all over the country is not from the establishment. It is from the grassroots of America.”

In a few short weeks, Americans will begin to caucus and vote to choose their nominees in both parties. Polling suggests that voters are not as deferential to establishment conventions as some campaigns thought they would be. And it has made for closer contests across the board.