Social media & the US election

The world is currently on tenterhooks watching what has undoubtedly become one of the most newsworthy elections ever – the US Presidential race.

It would also be fair to say that this particular election is the “social media election”. The last race, in 2012, was the first since Twitter use became mainstream, with around 200 million monthly active users counted at the end of the year. Now, however, Twitter sees more than 320 million monthly active users and its use in campaigning has become a given rather than an option (all the prospective candidates had a significant Twitter presence). The new kid on the block – in an electoral context – is Snapchat. With over 100 million daily users and a daily viewership of 6 billion, it simply cannot be ignored.

These days, it is no longer about whether a candidate should use a particular medium, but rather how they should use it. With this in mind, a main problem encountered in elections is the hurdle of low turnout from young voters. In 2012, only 45% of people between the ages of 18 and 29 voted. This was the fourth lowest turnout ever for young people since the voting age was decreased to 18 back in 1972 (after 1988, 1996 and 2000).

It also just so happens that 23 million of Twitter’s American users, amounting to 45.5%, are between the ages of 18 and 34 (data from 2015; Statista) and that 41% of all Americans in the same age bracket are reached by Snapchat daily. It therefore comes as no surprise that the three remaining candidates have adopted more holistic social media strategies, and have taken different approaches, to reach as many audiences as possible.

Bernie Sanders’ #FeelTheBern hashtag sees around 500 posts in a 48-hour period, with his committed supporters engaging with him and each another to discuss the progress of his campaign and share success stories. He also has the most followers on Snapchat and has decided to use the platform as a behind-the-scenes look into his campaign trail. On the whole, it’s an engaging campaign that encourages people to get involved on a regular basis and also thrives off user-generated content and third-party endorsements.

Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, is taking a more casual approach in a more obvious attempt to appeal to the younger voters. While this should have the advantage of appealing to young people, it has been shown to backfire – her tweet asking how student loan debt made her followers feel, asking for replies “in 3 emojis or less” – was mocked by other users.

Finally, Donald Trump, who has referred to himself as “one of [Facebook’s] great stars” and whose social media presence is captivating. His Twitter timeline reads almost like a children’s book filled with caricatures: Crooked Hillary Clinton; Crazy Bernie Sanders; Lyin’ Ted Cruz; Little Marco Rubio; Low Energy Jeb Bush; and Goofy Elizabeth Warren. He fluctuates between negatively posting about his fellow candidates, expressing his gratitude to his followers, or making outlandish statements and promises – all of which makes for a wild ride of authentic stream of consciousness.

As a result of this, he has seen excellent engagement rates and almost all of his tweets from the past six months have been retweeted (compared with Clinton’s 75% and Sanders’ 70%). However, while Trump’s Twitter account certainly makes for compelling reading (as evidenced by his 8 million followers compared with Clinton’s 6 million and Sanders’ 2 million), only time will tell whether this will translate into votes in November or whether he is simply a source of humour for followers. It’s too early to conclude whose approach will encourage more young people to actually vote, but it will undeniably be interesting to watch it unfold.

Written by Rebecca Ingram, Senior Digital Account Executive (@_beccaingram)

, , , , , , , ,

Back to blog

X