Election 2016 on social media

I found that Hillary's constant presence and simplistic ads in social media were successful. There are a multitude of commericials or ads that demean Hillary and provide a postive outlook on Trump. Both are successful in their own ways; however, Hillary's simple commericials were very relaxed and not overwhelming. Overall, the constant pressure and negative outlook on other candidates I found less effective compared to a more simplisitic campaign. 

I noticed a lot of people make jokes about the whole election which makes me worried about how serious America is about our government. I think that the memes, videos, and articles generate a lot of buzz, especially towards millennials because they are drawn to sharing and posting media content in those stated contexts. I think it's effective that multiple voices are out there and perception is presented, but like I said, the twists and jokes made about each candidate has reduced the quality of the candidates, and it's now a "he said" "she said" story back and forth about who is a worse person. 

Using social media to fact check is almost like using an instant replay to validate sports on television. We should be using the technology we have to see the truth. I feel that both candidates are avoiding discussing real issues by having a contest on who was more right in the past. Lets stop looking into the past and start "tweeting" more relevant issues for the future of our country. To me, this election is kind of a joke. It has become a social media war and all I can do is hope that the media stays as unbiased as possible throughout this election and the rest to come. 

I find it very interesting that people dont do their own fact checking on whether there is credibility in the "fact checking" tweets. I try to often ask, is the person providing information credible and is the information credible. This real time fact checking is very effective though. People tend to trust everything they see on the internet. This has also been a problem in the early years of the internet with people research medical advice. What can be extremely ineffective is when a candidate doesnt fact check what they tweet. This can make them look ill informed and can damage their campaign. 

In my opinion, there have been significantly more ineffective things on social media than effective during this campaign cycle. Obviously, it's different than any other preseidental election we have ever seen, and hopefully will ever seen, in our lifetimes. I think that both candidates have been extremely immature and misleading on their social media accounts and that they haven't been using them in the progressive manners that they should be for their campaigns to be successful. Calling each other out with snappy comebacks and subtle digs is something that I would expect from high schoolers, not the next leader of our nation. While I may see the appeal when it comes to interacting with the younger generations, they way they have been presenting themselves is not in the manner that I would ever find ideal for a candidate.

This is a particularly interesting topic in that social media marketing is a relatively new technique, and has therefore revolutionized the way political campaigns organize themselves today. Social media is certainly an effective tool for candidates to reach their audiences, but perhaps even more influential in my opinion are the sentiments posted by everyday citizens on social media. Everyday I come across new articles, videos, and even status updates from people I follow on social regarding their political positions. Whether or not I approve of their viewpoints, I tend to be more receptive to what they have to say because I can relate to them more closely than I can to the presidential candidates. It would be a great experiement to monitor the effects of political talk on social media to see if professionally funded social media ad campaigns are really more effective than simple peer input.

Instant communication might be a danger for the candidates and instead of real users, this is just a possibility... One of the rich candidates can take the usage advantage because they are well prepared and organized because of their $budget$. Social media is a great way to measure their voters also the cheapest way to reach them. Donal Trump's side released only three TV commercial which is terrific result compare to the last election's commercials. Social media is rising every day and if you wanna be on the game, you should have an official account to reach your people as a candidate. what if people are misleading during the election just because they are using social media?

The thing i found most interesting on social media was, when anything was said from either party; social media was quick to put false or true statements on line. Twitter was a big platform with both positive adn getive comments follwing about both canidates. 

I think that social media for campaigning has actually been pretty effective. During the debate there were things that Trump said he didn't say even when he clearly had tweeted it before. It's very good for fact checking but there's also been ridiculous things that they've tweeted that start arguments with each other that aren't necessary.

I may be in the minority here but I feel like using Social Media is too immature for presidental candiates. I don't want robots ruining for president but i also don't want to see stuff on Twitter like "LOL just signing peace treaty with Canada #lovemyjob :)".

I think both candidates have utilized multiple social media outlets to their advantage throughout the election thus far. It is interesting to me to see the lengths the candidates are willing to go to in order to gain support. They often times are tweeting really mean things about each other. I think this is an effective way to get their information out there, especially to a younger audience. I stay informed of the elcetion mostly through social media. This may deem inefective in always providing accurate information. 

What I found most interesting about this this presidential race so far is how much Trump has been bashed for different things he has said on social media, and he continues to strongly use it. I feel like he needs to be more conscious in the material he post on his Twitter from here on out. Who do you think is being more effective on their social media so far?

I think that social media is playing a crucial part in this election. Social media has been extremely beneficial in efforts to reach younger voters. A lot of my thoughts are formed based on what my friends on Facebook are sharing about either party, which encourages me to do more research of my own. Social media has made the election more relatable for younger voters-- a demographic that hasn't cared much about voting in the past. For instance, the night of the debate, multiple friends shared a Buzzfeed article that was a drinking game for the debate. That alone raised awareness that a debate was even happening, and poked fun at it to encourage the younger demographic to watch. I think that without social media, young people would not be interested to learn more about the election and the candidates. 

In terms of the connection of elections to social media, I believe that the new age of social media is playing a crucial part in this year's election. There is so much more exposure and the candidates are definitley using it to their advantage. I think its effective that they are utilizing various outlets, espcially Twitter, to engage and say what they have to say. I feel as if social media is a wonderful tactic for younger voters that do not watch the news because they get to see and get involved with a lot of things involving the election via social media. 

Even though I watched the debate on TV, I still remembered that just before the debate, there was an interesting drinking post was making fun of them. It summed up major points that each can candidate kept saying, and as long as they say any point during the debate, the palyer need to drink a shot. Even it was a joke, but I can actually notice some politic views that they have. It is interesting but also informal approach to catch up the election. And I can see how important the social media is during the election.

The presidential campaign has been an epic whirlwind of different viewpoints, opinions and social media wars. Both Hilary Clinton and Donald Trump are guilty of miss using social media in the hopes of defeating the opposing candidate and bettering themselves. Donald Trump heavily uses Twitter to voice his opinion about politic events and policies, while Hilary also voices her opinion but on different platforms like her own campaign page. I strongly believe that social media has a large impact on the presidential elections as face acquisitions can be made and the media helps persuade people into thinking all types of dimensions. I find it effective that both candidates use social media to promote appearances and events, along with what they support and believe. It allows for their target audience to constantly be in the know about knowledgeable events. I don’t find it effective when the candidates bash each other on social media because it comes off petty and rude. Relating to the elections, social media should be used to showcase events, report stats and eventually welcome a new president.

Through the debate last week, Hillary and Trump have different and rough words to each other. The debat infulence the social meida network too. People on twitter and facebook have select to support one of persident candidates. However some have public the thory say that if Hillary and Trump fail into the river, who will be saved--Amercia. People can choose neither support each candidates and say about their own throughts on social meida. No one will judge them about their words. So more and more people are using social media to attrack Internet user. So how to manage the social website will become a huge problem.

What I have found most interesting about either candidate on social media is how Donald Trump goes to twitter after anything does not go his way and instantly says he was cheated or the thing is a lie or somthing absurd. What is even more interesting is that these things seem not to affect the polls much. Very interesting. Also, which candidate do you guys believe is using social media more effectively?

I'm not into the political scene but after checking out each of their websites and social media, it is pretty interesting. They know how to reach out and connect with citizens-by being on all social media as possible. This is very smart of them since a lot of the young adults spend a lot of their time on social media. Hillary Clinton concentrates on women and it's a good catch but then I feel like you should concentrate on everyone. She would get more votes that way. And for as Donald Trump, saying things against Clinton to make twitters go viral, but it's just showing more of his bad sides.

I think that social media has had a major impact on this election because of how much information is accessible on them.  It's extremely simple to search for posts, articles, and videos containing facts, candidate views, and campaign material.  I think they most interesting thing I've heard from the presidential campaign is how successful Trump has been in his campaign even after having little to no plans for his presidency.  There are videos and quotes of his answers to important questions regarding the future of our country and his answers never address the issues he is asked about.  It is great to have social media to give easy access to videos and exact quotes regarding each candidates plans and ideas.  With how successful Trump's campaign has been so far, it doesn't seem like many people are realizing his lack of preparedness.  My biggest question is whether or not social media will end up hurting Donald Trump's campaign in the end or not.

Social media is a great way for someone like a future president to connect with supporters accross the country. For me it almost makes them feel reachable, when in all reality they pay someone else to run their twitter or facebook page. All the social media can sometimes just be too much. This year especially it almost seems like every post and tweet that comes from either side is just bashing the other side. Social media bashing doesnt reflect well on our candidates, not only does it not reflect well on them but it reflects poorly on our country as a whole. I think social media is effective to show people where and how to register and I think its useful to see who endorses who. I know its politics but everyone in the world sees what they tweet or post and it bugs me that they sometimes use their twitter pages or facebook pages to troll the other candidate, I would prefer if we left the trolling for places like reddit.

What I find most interesting about the debate on social media is how the internet can convey the whole tone of each candidate's campaign. Social media can be short and brief but it’s amazing how clear a tone can come across to an audience by a simple tweet or picture. On one hand we have a tone that conveys that America is doomed and headed down a terrible path. That its needs a tremendous overhaul to be great again. This is seen very clearly in the campaigns and social medias. On the other hand, the opposing campaign wants to give America credit for all its accomplished. It wants to add to its greatness. You can feel the optimism of the campaign on social media. It’s interesting to see how social media plays a part in the over tone on the nominees message

I think its a great way for both of their campaign parties to tweet and post on different social media platforms. But some of their tweets and posts go too far. They end up bashing each other, by posting silly pictures or pointing out flaws in each other’s campaign speeches. But what really pushes it over the top is how they both post memes that really disrespect each other. The memes end up everywhere on social media from people re-posting about one another. Again, I think it’s good to use social media but it makes Hilary and Trump look crazy. We already know they have crazy in them by the way they talk and what they say on camera, but this presidential election is going over the top. It’s going so over the top, that it’s making some people not even want to vote because they don’t know who to vote for due to how chaotic everyone is. It’s to the point where the people seem like they don’t know who to trust because of how their acting right now over this election. So to answer the question I don’t find anything effective about it. Nothing! I’m personally scared if either of them wins. I don’t know know what its going to do for America to be honest. Whoever wins, just better know how to keep America together, and know how to make great decisions in a crunch time. Because if the other countries see that America is weak due to our President , then it won’t be good for us as far as our safety. I want to ask if Barak Obama could run again, would they vote for him, over Hilary and Trump?

I think the use of social media during this particular election makes for a very entertaining experience for viewers. It wasn't really until this election that social media has skyrocketed and it's made it so much easier for candidates to make statements on their twitter and bash the other candidate. It can also backlash and hurt a candidate because sometimes they don't filter what they say or come up with absurd comments that aren't backed with facts and/or don't give them credibility as a candidate. I find it very interesting though that they refer back to one anothers social media during debates because it really does have a huge impact on the election. I am curious to see how it all plays out and the research that will be done after the election as to how effective the social media was for the winning candidate. 

Regardless of who or what a topic is about on social media, I always find it incredibly low to bash another person on social media. Throughout the entire presidential campain Trump and Clinton have been taking shots at eachother via Twitter. I lose repsect for both of these professionals and find it hard to believe that these two, behaving this way, are the two in line to become our next President of the United States. Aside from the negativity, I have also seen some great uses of soical media to promote each candidates campain. I find the messages that focus on each candidates main goals and intentions for the country to be much more valuable than a social media campaign bashing the opponent.

Because of how much is at stake with this election, it has been silly and nonetheless entertaining seeing the many memes on social media in regards to the election. But specifically on Twitter, seeing both canidets go back and forth, tweet for tweet has been a bit annoying and childish in my opinion. 

I think it is very good way to show the campaign on social media. The most interesting thing for me is that to see how these candidates present themselves on social media, and it can make more young generation participate in the politics. In fact, it is my first time to view the election in this way. However, I think the ineffective part is also they using social media. In my opinion, politic election should be a serious thing, but social media is a platform to offer many funny things, combining them together just make the election looks like a joke. 

I find it interesting how both Trump and Hilary use social media to insult the other candidate in an immature manner. In my opinion, they should be utilyizing their publicity on social media in a way that reinforces their strengths as opposed to putting attention on the other candidate. Regardless, Twitter is a great platform for both cnadidates to express themselves. 

I think its interesting, although I'm not shocked, that both candidates do their fair share of mudslinging. Mudslinging in general is off putting but this presidential race has been overtaken by it. Donald Trump's campaign is very much about pointing out Hillary's flaws and not enough about policy and uniting the public. Hillary's twitter is showcasing Donald Trumps inexperience and promotes a lot of celebrity endorsement. I'd appreciate it if both candidates spent more time talking about policy and less time talking about how awful one another is. 

Social media has been really fun to look at during the past couple of weeks because of how much both sides do not like each other.  Both candidates use social media to persuade voters to vote for them.  I personally feel like both candidates are using social media in the wrong way, though.  They are using the idea of making fun of one another more than trying to get across their message of why you should vote for them.  I would rather read about policies rather than why Trump hasn't paid taxes or why Hillary is still with Bill.

In my opinion social media is a very important tour for Hilary and Trump to get more votes. Social media is being honest to everyone and I think there are  also some very scary things happening  in this election, some media webstie let voters know their true president such as wikileaks etc, very effective.

I actually did watch the debate and there was a lot of referencing of social media in general. Trump was attacked by his usage of twitter mostly and both did say to check out their websites many times, more than I would have liked to be honest. I think trump on twitter is really effective, I honestly love following him because he’s extremely entertaining on there. He kind of appeals to my sense of humor and how he calls people out whether it’s right or not. I don’t think Hilary uses it very efficiently, after the email scandal I think the general view of her and technology is tainted by that and I think that reflects that. Overall trump uses it well, but does shoot himself in the foot and I would say Hilary doesn’t use it well, but does on other platforms like anti trump ads.

I think it is very important to check out both styles and party posts on social media! Because the first time social media was really used was Obama and there is still this growing of what politians, especially presidential canidates, can and cannot say on the internet. A lot of it is bashing the other canidate and I think the hardest thing is that because everything is so public and saved through our computers that politians really have to be careful what they post. I think that some of social media can be very benefit, but other posts can be very juvenile. Having the race so predominately on the internet has created a lot of sub groups of people fighting via the internet for each canidate, which is pretty new.

What I found interesting was not necessarily any single event but the whole campaign. This election used social media perhaps the most out of any canidate in the history of the United States which is somewhat crazy to think about. There has been, in my memory, more twitter fights in this election than any before which just goes to show that social media has become a viable platform for canidates to respond to other conidate's claims. The calls to action via social media also has seen tremendous increases. 

I think one of the greatest things social media has done is it creates less distance from the normal people and your politicians. Now we are able to see through Twitter or other social media platforms real-time updates from our candidates and we don't just see what they want you to see. We are able to get a better sense of a candidates temperment depending on how they use a social media platform with a 150 word limit, as we have seen with a particular candidate this election. I think social media facilitates a more honest election, allowing the constituents to get a better feel for who it is we are really electing. 

The use of twitter during election season has proved to be both effective and hilarious for candidates and voters alike. The ability to reach millions of people by simply typing out a sentence has empowered both candidates. I find the use of twitter interesting and absurd at the same time. These candidates have the ability to influence the opinion of millions of people on social media but then tweet things that have no real facts to back them up. I find it very informative when a candidate tweets a particular fact and then backs it up with some sort of link to a reliable source. I find it ineffective and frustrating when candidates tweet something that is obviously meant to trigger an emotional response but has no actual credibilty. 

Social media has played a large role in this year's election. From canidates' posts to your friend's and follower's posts, it is nearly impossible to avoid politics on social media. Although I think that it can get a little bit too heated when two people do not share the same opinion, social media is a really neat way to communicate and campaign. It is a way that canidates can bridge the age gap with millenials and encourage a group that often does not vote, to vote. Personally, I do not follow either canidate on Twitter but I have seen quite a bit of people retweeting from the canidates. Many of the times these retweets are one of the canidates bad mouthing or "trolling" the other. While some may find it funny, I think that it comes off as immature and not professional. I think that if they focused more on what they themselves were doing, their social media use would be more effective. Do you think regulations should be in place for how canidates use social media?

I think social media is effective during a political campaign because it allows you to respond and reach out directly to your audience. I don't necessarily pay attention to their social media accounts, particularly when they announce they have a fact checker, due to obvious issues with bias. I did enjoy reading 3rd party fact checkers during the debate, though.

There's something called the Backfire Effect, the common misconception is that when your beliefs are challenged with facts, you alter your opinions and incorporate the new information into your thinking but in many cases when your deepest convictions are challenged by contradictory evidence, your beliefs get stronger. I think this is what's happening with social media. I actively post and repost evidence that supports my candidate but I've seen nothing via social media that makes me want to support the other candidate even though evidence towards my favored candidate is damning. So does it make a difference? I don't really think so, I think that in order to change your opinion on things like this it takes time and it takes conversing with someone you trust not just a flashy video or slogan.

i think social media make election really worling , and very effective, let people easily to get news about election and can use online to vote, so that is what i think, really useful, most people can enjoy it .

I think using social media is both effective and ineffective in someway. For example, Trump uses his Twitter page mocking or humiliating Clinton. In contrast, he seems very focused on the politics on his campaign website. It might be loved by Trump supporters, but I think it definately has down side of it. Also it is somehow sad that both candidates are busy humiliating each other this year. 

My question is How do people feel about two candidates humiliating each other through social media? 

In my opinion social media has made this election very entertaining and also very scary. The two candidates seem to be spending most of their time and effort on pointing out the flaws of their opponent rather than showing what they can. I do think that this has worked a little bit but it's beginning to get out of hand and I think that voters are just starting to listen to what the candidate they are voting for is saying which is causing a lot of hate and division between the political parites in our country. However, I believe this is the only thing these two weak candidates can do to reach out to younger voters to get their vote. 

In my opinion socail media is such a big part of today's society that it wouldn't be smart not to use it to their advantage. Trump's tweets are now being used against him in this election because of his back and forth statements but Hilary's campaign seems to be managing just fine. I would ask however if the candidates planned to use social media at such a high degree?

Because of the extremely important role that millenials and the younger generation play in elections, it is so important for presidential candidates to be vocal and heard by this audience. It is interesting to see how candidates represent/present themselves to these audiences on Twitter - whether or not their online personalities match up with their TV and real-life personalities is an interesting compare and contrast subject. 

I find the individual campaigns interesting, and find it easy to distinguish between the real candidate tweeting, and their campaign employees tweeting. Social media has been exploding with tweets from the candidates as well as supporters/opposers of each party, and I find it really convenient that so much news is readily available via the apps on my mobile device. 

I've found it interesting how the presidential candidates use their twitter very similar to how it was used after a bad breakup in high shool. While there is other substance in their social media, the parts that get noticed are the ones that are simply mudslinging and name calling. What I've found effective, truthfully, is none of it. It becomes apparent that there are no lows that either candidate will not stoop down to on social media and it casts both in a bad light politically although it is comically enjoying. The least effective, as mentioned above, is the degradation of either opponent. As a person, I thoroughly enjoy it and find it humorous, but as a voter I find it unnerving and sad.

I think it is important to observe the major impact social media has left in the political spectrum. Our remaining to candidates have previously composed many controversial, many of which being personal attacks on each other along with politicians in the White House. Who can forget the infamous Melania Trump/Heidi Cruz contastration tweet personally composed by Donald Trump last March. This tweet sparked public outrage and heavy criticism against the Republican candidate, yet he still recieved the publicity needed for him to obtain more votes. Many would ask, what kind of monster would have the guts to personally attack another candidate's wife? The truth is, Trump has a media expert who consults him on how to use social media to attract the public eye. This media expert is 29 year old Justin McConney, who serves as the director of new media for Trump's campaign. He effectively heightened the Trump platform and drastically raised the number of followers from 300,000 to 4.3 million on Twitter. His approach to social media, from personally responding to the public's tweets, sharing news articles from primarily conservitive news outlets, to even personal attacks on "Crooked Hilary", his radical strategy has attracted the attention of Trump supporters on a monumental scale.

With all that being said, why is it that McConney's contentious and radically rhetoric approach to handling a political candidate's social media account seems to be so effective in attracting his supporters? Should Trump have hired a different public relations specialist to handle his platform? If he did, what difference would it make in his candidacy?

This presidential election is undoubtedly the most distinct presidential election in history. I believe that social media is having a huge effect on this election. In previous year politicians spend millions of dollars on advertisements, they still are, but, the entire nation is definitely having a bigger say in it. Checking facebook every day you see a new video bashing Trump (mainly), and all the negative things he has done. Very rarely have i seen any positive videos/pictures/memes regarding either of the candidates. I believe the use of video content on all social media have the best results, there are statistically more shares, likes, comments, and views on this types of posts.

I think the real-time factchecking was a genius move and gets more people involved and checking her website. I agree that the best way to reach young voters is to have a huge social media present, positive or negative. Most youth don't watch the debates or anything on television concerning the election and get most of their information through social media, so if a candidate has no social media presence then they are missing out on a whole demographic of voters.  

This presidential election has by far used the most social media. Whatever one's opinion is on Trump is campaign's use of social media is astounding. No matter what he says it seems to blow up all over the internet, from Twitter to Facebook to even actual news shows. Hilary's social media though is not as effective, I personally at least have not seen her Tweets referenced often, even during the debate Trump didn't mention her tweets. Of course, Trump's tweets are a lot more in your face than Hilary's are, so maybe that's the main difference here. I think that Trump's outlandish opinions are an effective way to get people talking and to notice him. As for Hillary her tweets are a lot more quiet and therefore draw less attention. It will be interesting to see how it all plays out that's for sure. 

Social media campaigns for campaigns are effective because they help make the election more controversial. It also attracts young people who are not interested in the politics but enjoy seeing it on social media. However, social media campaigns for campaigns are ineffective because they only show a minor view of the policies and election topics. It is able to be funny but that makes it also less serious.