Election 2016 on social media

I think Hilary's Moment by moment fact check was great. It was nice to see that everytime Trump claimed hilliary was lying she was able to say, "check my campaign page" where the evdience to back her was posted. I had never seen so many of my peers post, tweet, or snap about an election or debate. Snapchat even had a filiter users could use during the debate when snapping. The first debate had superbowl record veiwing numbers! 

I think that Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump's social media strategies are very different. For example, on Twitter, Trump has far more followers than Hillary. I think that this is because he often makes inappropriate and bold statements. I think that people are attracted to seeing this kind of information and that they are intrigued by it. On the contrary, Hillary seems to be more reserved on Twitter. She has fewer followers than Trump and appeals more to the older generation. I find Trumps approach very effective at gaining attention, but I do not think this means that he will get more votes because of his strategy. I would like to see the analytics of who is more favorable on social media and then compare that to the outcome of the election. I would be curious to see if they correlate or not. 

Hilary and Donald trump use twitter all the time for political reasons.  They tweet about current news, their strategic plans, and to insult each other.  I have seen some pretty harsh tweets aimed to damage their credibility.  I find Donald Trumps tweets more effective because it exposes Hilary's mistakes.  She created a website on how she will defeat ISIS.  ISIS can just go on her website and read her strategies.  My question is what demograhic are these tweets targeting?    

Hillary's campaign is lacking in a connection with young people on social media.  This could be skewed because many of the people that I follow are not Hillary supporters however I see a disconnect between Hillary's target audience and the savvy with which her campaign attempts to reach them.  Donald Trump's media team is constantly highlighting his victories while discrediting his obvious flaws.  It appears that they have a much better understanding of the audience that they want to target through their social media campaign.  Although Trump's tactics of nicknaming his opponents with less than proper names can be seen as immature, it is a tactic that I find has helped him through every step of the election.  He may be a name caller, but every time someone thinks of those people they automatically associate that name with the negative prefix whether they agree with it or not.  It's interesting to see how Pavlov's Dogs can be such an integral part of everyday life, even with something as complex as naming someone Crooked Hillary.

I think the use of social media for a political campaign is a very effective way to gain awareness. Hillary Clintons use of fact check during the debate was smart and got people to go to her political page. A lead to her political page benefits her because people become educated on her political views. Any use of social media to spread a message for a political campaign is effective because the candidate gains public awareness.  Trump uses social media very effectively because he is constantly in the medias eye and going viral daily. Even if his message are not agreeable thousands are seeing them every second.

I find that social media has shaped a lot of how people now look at the election. On Twitter, opinions on the debate were instantly shared with live tweet. Both canidates have used social media to reach out to the younger generation. I feel that both canidates have also used Twitter to make jabs and negative comments at each outher. Lately Trump has been making a lot of posts with the term "Crooked H," while Hillary has been pushing to just get people out to vote. I feel that the route of getting more people out to vote is a better approach. They both also use social media to spread what they are all about, which I think is most effective because it is more informative. Sure, these posts might not get the most clicks because they aren't starting fights, but I feel that this is what the canidates should be doing.

I don't follow either of the two major candidates on any social media site (or any related accounts of any nature) but the tweets and posts concerning them still manage to find their way into my feed/timeline. In particular, I see a lot of tweets and posts made by "Donald Trump" (presumably made by his social media managers). However, a lot of these posts were actually criticizing Trump rather than supporting him. I saw almost none related to Hillary. Although this sounds as though it would be bad for Trump, it's hard not to notice that he is "winning" the social media game. What's the old saying? "There is no such thing as bad publicity." Social media is well known for viral content and what makes the best viral content? Things that are unbelievable. One candidate in particular seems to have cracked the code on viral content. No longer are commercials supporting certain candidats solely for television: they've found a front-row seat on my Facebook timeline. What interests me is if being "social media popular" (or not) will play into the actual election?

  I think this a person example for where Twitter is headed and is already there for most of the part. It is a way for things to have live comunication on a specific topic. However, I don't believe in the way Trump has been handline his Twitter. It is obvious that his little outbursts has helped him to some degree, however I don't think the way hes doing is very professional. Although, Twitter is suppose to be a light hearted kind of thing I think professionals should still be proffesional on it. I think Hilary Clinton needs to stop trying to be all young and hip on the social media. She needs to stick to what she knows which is her smart/serious side. 

I believe that campaigning on social media can be effective and ineffective. It is effective as it captures the short-attention span millenials. This generation has proven to have short-attention spans and to not take the time to read lengthy information. With social media it can be very effective in reaching this generation and getting them to listen to what they have to say about the campaign. On the flip side, social media can be very ineffective as it doesn't provide enough information. While millenials like quick, attention-grabbing social media posts, these posts often lack the appropriate amount of information to make a decision on the next President. It is most likely abused on purpose for this very reason. Candidates, and their parties, know that people tend to not look for more information than what is presented to them. This puts a filter over the information at hand and only highlights what supports said candidate.

I believe that campaigning on social media can be effective and ineffective. It is effective as it captures the short-attention span millenials. This generation has proven to have short-attention spans and to not take the time to read lengthy information. With social media it can be very effective in reaching this generation and getting them to listen to what they have to say about the campaign. On the flip side, social media can be very ineffective as it doesn't provide enough information. While millenials like quick, attention-grabbing social media posts, these posts often lack the appropriate amount of information to make a decision on the next President. It is most likely abused on purpose for this very reason. Candidates, and their parties, know that people tend to not look for more information than what is presented to them. This puts a filter over the information at hand and only highlights what supports said candidate.

I believe that campaigning on social media can be effective and ineffective. It is effective as it captures the short-attention span millenials. This generation has proven to have short-attention spans and to not take the time to read lengthy information. With social media it can be very effective in reaching this generation and getting them to listen to what they have to say about the campaign. On the flip side, social media can be very ineffective as it doesn't provide enough information. While millenials like quick, attention-grabbing social media posts, these posts often lack the appropriate amount of information to make a decision on the next President. It is most likely abused on purpose for this very reason. Candidates, and their parties, know that people tend to not look for more information than what is presented to them. This puts a filter over the information at hand and only highlights what supports said candidate.

Social media use within this campaign can be effective in the sense that it is able to grab the attention of the younger voters since they use social media much more than the other generations that are able to vote. However, it can get a bit out of hand when the two candidates are bickering back and forth constantly, although it is rather entertaining. I sometimes have to take a step back and think about if it really is Clinton or Trump creating and writing these posts or if it is someone from their campaign team that is in charge of the social media accounts. 

I feel like social media is very effective for political candidates. However, I find them to get carried away with insults and going after each other rather than talking about topics people may want to hear about. I think for a candidate to be successful on social media, they need to learn how to not retaliate.

Sadly I do not keep up with the Election since i believe this is our worst one and am very upset with our candidates. 

I do agree that elections are a great place to watch social media marketing in action! However, candidates sometimes hurt themselves more than they benefit from social media posts. I found it very interesting when Trump took to Twitter at 3 a.m. to bash Clinton and Clinton responded by saying that the presedential candidate should be doing something else during the wee hours of the morning. Trump responded with "no matter what time of the day/night ill be there if someone needs me." What candidate do you think has the stronger social media presence?  

Personally I think that by using social media they are really making sure to stay relevent. Having their responses and information in the main stream of what people are using is important. If the Cabadats stayed away from what was posted and shared on social then I belibve they would miss a huge audience that only uses social media. It is very intresting to see how much more in this election technology and social media are used than in any one before. I am intrested to see what the future of using social media in campains will look like. 

I think the biggest flaw in social media, or the internet in general, is that once you post something, it's out there.  You can delete and take down whatever you want, but you will never know how many people have actually seen your content.  What I found interesting was the denial of personal tweets, that EVERYONE had screenshots of.  To be honest I don't even think the tweets being denyed were deleted but still I think it was embarassing.  I find that someone denying facts that are right in front of them is hilarious as well as ineffective towards their argument.  

I find it both effective and somewhat ineffective when Trump uses his Twitter page. His supporters love it because he will publicaly humiliate Clinton and is very vulgar on his page. However on his campaign site, he is much more conservative and more focuse souly on politics and his goal of becoming the president instead of just bashing Clinton to get his people hyped up and excited. I find it most intersting that the two canidates this year are more focused on publicly humiliating each other than on actual politics. 

Since the debate is intense and the content is controversial, social media is a great way to publish own views. The debate could be watched on YouTube, which is also partially considered as a social media platform. It is a good way for both of the candidate to promote themselves on the social media which can reach age range from teenagers’ generation to elders. So I believe the campaign on social media is effective.

After watching the election play out on social media online, I search both candidates' facebook and try to follow their update post. Both of them are very encourage people and very communicate on social media platform. They also use social media to seeking to win the precidency and try very hard to encourge supporters to vote. Their social media website is useful and imortant for select presidential process, so that people can know more their idea and get to communicate with candidate; In addition, social media also help to reach more follower, so that they have change to increase more voter.

My question is: By reaching new follower, does new follower just become new voter by see what the candidate post on social media? do they believe what they write on social media without listen and watch their speak?

I think social media is a double-edged sword. I find social media is an effective way for candidates to communicate with both supporters and haters. However, through comment sections, a great amount of unproductive polarizing discourse entails. These arguments often perpetuate crude language and the alienation of those with minority opinions. In conclusion,Social media allows both the candidates and the public to project their ideas nearly instantaneously. The question I want to ask is how might I be able to use social media in assisting my future employer?

I personally think this whole presidential eletion has been a joke and quite annoying. I don't find social media to be completely ineffective but I also don't think its really effective in regards to either opponents campaign. Twitter has been the only social media i' ve paid attention to in regards to the election. What I find to be effective about it is the fact that it gives the younger audience more exposure to politics and what's going on within the presidential race because most of us don't watch much tv and won't keep up with debates that way. It is also a platform where you can easily access articles and fact check what the candidates are saying. What I don't find effective is the role social media has played with both parties when it comes to creating this smear campaign from both Hilary and Trump. They constantly tweet ridiculous child like things to each other that are not even relevant to the campaign. Trump tweeted about an alleged sex tape from his twitter account which I thought was completely disgusting and ridiculous. I think they use social media more for bashing rather than informing us with the information that will be effective in pushing this country forward. I think social media does a great job at distracting us from the seriousness of being president and puts the focus on jokes and negative comments being made toward each party. It's honestly been a mockery of the presidential election and position in my opinion. How do you guys feel about what this election has meant for future candidates who hope to run for president one day?

I find social media for the campaign completely ineffective. I think that the candidates postings are similar to postings from high schoolers. Social media is filled with opinions, and I feel supporters for either campaigns use social media to bash opponents more than look up actual facts. It's interesting how the candidates use social media as a tool to help fuel their campaign, and I definitely think it plays a major role in today's election. I know I wasn't able to watch the debate, and I feel a lot of other young voters use social media to keep up with the election rather than TV.

This is the era of social media, and is almost a requirement if you want to reach mass numbers effectively (especially for the younger crowd). However, I do not think social media is very effective. I find it as a joke, and is an unreliable source for facts. I personally follow both Clinton and Trump on Twitter. They both talk themselves up saying all of the good they can and will do as president, while also running a smear campaign against their opponent. If you actually click on any post to see what others write to them, it's just a bunch of trolls tweeting anything that pops into their heads. Followers can't talk about their views without someone throwing mean comments their way. On Facebook, the presidential nominees post just about the same information, but the people who talk on their are more willing to actually have a conversation about their views. 

I think social media is a great tool for both candidates to use because it reaches a younger demographic that may not watch or read news articles.  However, I think both candidates have looked foolish and unprofessional with certain tweets directed at the other.  It is effective to point out credible flaws of their opponents but it must be done in a professional manner, with jokes aside.  However, this does effectively make an impact on younger voters.  In addition, using social media to fact check does increase their credibility and strengthens their following.

I'm a little uneasy about the whole politicians using social media thing. Maybe it's because of the recent Donald Trump tirade but it seems at times to be sort of immature and unprofessional. I guess it depends on how it's used. There have been both "subtweets" and direct tweets targeting each candidate and it feels like it's a constant debate about how bad the other condidate is, and to me some of tweets sound very childish, from both parties. It's bad enough that a lot of news talks about what's wrong with each candidate as appose to how good that specific candidate is, now that's being blasted all over social media as well and it gets kind of old. However with that said, I do like the fact checking aspect and pushing policies and ideas on social media. I think that makes those important points much more accessible. All in all, I do like when candidates use social media as a way to communicate what they plan to do but I don't like when they use it to constantly jab at the other candidate. That's not appealing to me at all.

I have not followed either candidate on Twitter.  I have felt that they are using this form of social media as nothing but a propaganda tool and to personally attack each other.  However, I did watch the entire debate and was still not persuaded to follow them on Twitter. I am ashamed at both parties bahavior on social media and will not be a part of it.  I am old enough to remember when a Presidental Election was respectable.

This election is incredibly interesting. I have not seen media effect an election so much since Kennedy. What is interesting to me is that no matter the attention, it is good attention in an election. I believe both candidates are aware of this. In this instance the saying, "Not all attention is good attention" does not apply. The election has become more personal due to social media. Usually each candidate tries to appear perfect, social media has made them appear more human. Whenever there is a scandal or a fight it is made public within seconds. Social media has changed this election, as well as all that follow.

Right now the presidential election is very different than before. Because candidate can use social media to propagandist and make more people to support them. This is a big advantage for the preisdent to increase more follower. Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump both have their own website. It was base on their speach on the campaign. I didn't find the interesting part from their social media website. But i find social media can effect people know more detail about the persident debate and what is going on right now. Social media website is more convenience for people to focus on election. 

Politicians today most definitely use more social networks than in the past elections. Their strategy of targeting voters via social media networks will play a very significant role in the outcome of the election. People today are so involved in the Internet and social media that it has become one of the main ways voters are getting informed on their presidential candidates. Clinton and Trump both have a strong presence on the popular social media sites. I believe their constant referencing to their opponents tweets or posts has helped reveal more truth than previous elections. It definitely creates a lot of controversy throughout the nation and reveals things about the candidates that we may not have figured out on our own. So in that aspect of things I think it is a good thing that we are being made aware of our candidates and their right or wrong doings. But, on the contrary, I do think the 2016 candidates have been especially cruel on social media toward one another. I think it is great that we are being informed of these issues, but I do think the 2016 candidates should focus more on their campaign and this nations well being rather than focusing on only bashing their opponent. 

Due to the lack of respect both candidates have for each other, I find it difficult to have any interest in following them on social media. It seems as though this election has entailed much more controversy than previous elections. Whether it’s due to who the major party candidates are or how they present themselves, this election is nothing short of dramatic. Social media has played a huge role in recent campaign, even more so now than before. With both candidates having a well-known presence on Twitter, this platform is where many arguments, fact checks, call-outs, and attacks have taken place. Candidates and their teams have resurfaced old tweets from their own accounts as well as the other party, allowing followers to stay informed of the current conversations. While there are many ways to effectively use social media in one’s favor, I have found that both candidates lack professionalism and maturity when it comes down to what has been posted in the past year. Obviously this leads to a nerve-wracking decision. Entertainment is one thing, and the President of the United States is another. To what extent does a candidate’s social media presence and actions influence the public vote? 

Since social media has been bogged down with uneducated political talk for the last year, I've done my best to tune it out. I know my sources and people to go to that I find credible and can have intelligent talks with. The most interesting part of the campaign on social media is when candidates pull old tweets or posts and make them relevant again. On both sides I have seen people post old videos or quotes to show the opposite of what the candidate is trying to currently convey. Something that isn't as effective is that all I hear the candidates say are "check out my website" and they don't lead the voters to any other avenue. The websites are great, but they aren't the end all, be all. We already saw President Obama use social media/online/texting to raise funds effectively; what do you think the main way to contribute to a campaign financially in 2036 will be?

So far is in the middle of the presidential election, and it's getting really interesting. And I watch the debate last week, and I think so far the election is pretty balanced between both sides. From my own perspectives, social media plays a really important in this campaign. There are many people who are trying to find out the result from things like Facebook, Twitter and things like that. I think the speed of the spread of the news is really effectives for the social media. However, sometimes it can't be as reliable as the TV or newspaper. My question is there a huge advantage for the candidates to create their own site?

I think that social media has become a huge tool for gaining attention of voting during this presidential election. Social media has become an outlet for presidential candidates to share their different policies or points of view. It has also become a way for candidate to fact check each other in real time during debates. I think the use of social media has been particularly effective in this election because it’s such an easy way to keep informed about day to day happenings. That being said, it’s disheartening to see two powerful grown adults “sub-tweeting” each other and hastily responding to tweets made by the opposing camp. It hard to think that an adult who can’t control their emotions on social and reacts so hastily can effectively run our country. All in all the use of social media has made the election significantly easier to follow and more entertaining in my opinion.

I think it's interesting that both candidates seem to spend more time on attack each other than the actual issues they plan to work to solve if they were elected. Both their social media accounts seem like an endless string of attacks. Using social media seems effective to increase the reach of the candidates and make people more involved, but I also think it gives some a completely narrow outlook on it and the real issues at hand are not always recognized. Does using social media make voters more strongly opinionatated then they used to be because they have the ability to speak out whevener they'd like through social media?

I have been following both candidates on Twitter. Most of their tweets, especially the ones directed at eachother, honestly seem pretty childish. Some of the tweets look like siblings arguing with eachother. They post unproffesional content and treat the election as if the winner is chosen by who is better at calling the other one names. It really makes me not respect either of them. The whole thing just feels like a mud slinging contest. 

My question is - How much has the unproffesionalism of their Twitters affected the number of their supporters? 

Tweet: ' Donald J. Trump ‏@realDonaldTrump  17h

I saw an article the other day where Trump was upset because ther had been a mindless game called "Trump Dump" created dispite him. He immediantly respocded to the game by creating a tweet saying the app was DISRESPECTFUL and if it wasn't taken down he was going to sue. I understand that the game is disrespectul but at the same time it is a mindless game that he probably brought more awareness to by tweeting about. My question is, when something as small as a mini game is created how do you respond or do you not at all? Do you think becuase Trump responded and made it seem like such a big deal it showed him as sensative and trying too hard? Are there cases where not responding to the hate may better represent your company?

After the debate, I followed both candidtate on Snapchat, I though it would be interesting to see the campaign from a social media point of view. Clinton and Trump can reach new voters thanks to social media, especially Facebook and Twitter (Trump is known for his account and his provocative tweets). Their website is also important to show their program and ideas. Internet is a fantastic resource for them to communicate and reach new voters.

My question is: should Clinton and Trump make more social media marketing when the election day comes closer and closer?

After watched the debate on CNN, I followed the two candidates' Twitter accounts to see how they back up their points. The debate to me was like a show in which two candidate tried their best to attack each other. And the attack went on in Twitter, which made me a little tired of following their tweets. While Hillary Cliton continues attacking on Donald Trump's not paying tax, disrepect for women, and squandered business on the back of taxpayers, Trump defends himself and attacks back tweeting thousands of jobs he made, the children plan he proposed and "Crooked Hillary" did nothing meaningful. This kind of nasty attackment may work effectively on their supporters, but I doubt if it works on the neutral group. 

Except the attackment, the two candidates do proposed their limited political points and future plans on Twitter, which may be effective to encourage voting. For example, the college debt-free plan from Hillary Clinton, and the child-care plan from Donald Trump. But I doubt if any tweets are drafted by candidates themselve. Or are the tweeted all drafted by their social media teams?

Also, I found the bio of Hillary Clinton is the most interesting part on Twitter. She describes herself as a "wife, mom, grandma, women+kids advocates" before "Senator, SecState". The depiction of feminine image attenuates an image of cold female politican. And "hair icon, pansuit aficionado" makes her bio funny. 

I see a lot of attention drawn to Twitter accounts of both Clinton and Trump. I find it humorous because everything Trump says can be contradicted with other things he had previously posted. Rather than using their Twitter accounts to judge the two candidates on their campaigns, I believe that their social media accounts can be used to determine the type of people they are. However, it does register to me that it may not always be the two people directly tweeting or posting.

As we can see now, both presidential candidates spend tremendous money on the social media and trying to improve their public impression. Here is my question: Will people actually see the advertisements and change their views towards the both presidential candidates?

Although i don't have any position in this presidential election but i think social media must took a great effect, the most interesting thing for me is some TV program made their election like a duel comic and some entertainment magazines always disclose some interesting news of two candidates, some of news will influence people's position, the information provided by the social media is very important.

As im from a different country and can't really participate in politics in the United States, i haven't been really paying so much attention to 2016 election. However, It is an undoubted fact that Campaigns on social media is very effective in terms of applying political propaganda while reaching out to people and influencing their political affliations. My question is do you think banning any form of political activity on social media will bring a devastating result for political outcomes?

I believe that social media is can be very effective in gaining the attention of a voters and bring attention to a candidate or their different policies or points of view.  For example when Donald Trump first announced his running for the president social media as well as the news and other forms of media went crazy.  Although it may not always be what people consider politically correct he often posts things on social media, which draw a lot of attention from the media and many people who follow what he says. Whether the attention he receives on social media is good or bad it seems to have gotten him this far.  As for any candidate who is looking to share their points of view of draw attention to themselves and their beliefs social media is certainly a good tool.  Do you think that after the election the president should use social media to express their views?

I haven't been paying that much to social media regarding the election because I don't follow either candidate on any social media but I think they're using social media in a pretty effecrive way. Since they both tweet things bashing each other and things that are very absurd, they both have been getting many retweets which means it is reaching a high amount of people. 

I find social media to play a large controversial roll in the presidential campaign. I do believe that social media sites such as Twitter have been beneficial to the candidates and their promotion of their campaign, however, I also believe that these accounts create an opportunity for supporters, non supporters and other account users to argue and debate.  In many of the posts there are several comments that range from support to criticism and excessive opinion input.  Social media both have a beneficial and problematic contribution to the campaigns in my opinion. One question I do have is how active do you believe these social media accounts, such as Twitter, will be once the presidential election is over?

In regards to the election, I find that the social media usage is effective. They pop up everywhere and then make one, or me at least, dig deeper into what is going on that day. If one candidate’s tweets something interesting or funny, I always go further into trying to understand more about the election as well as just doing basic research. It is effective because it makes people aware of what is going on, and it is engaging the younger generation of users. The campaign has been vey interesting so far, and using social media just makes it more interesting. Both candidates reach to their supporters via social media, as well as reaching to people that might despise them. When social media is positive I think this reflects better on the candidates and gains more engagement. 

I have not been keeping up with the election on social media beyond the articles I see that are bashing either candidate. Some of the most interesting things from what I've seen on social media is how much both sides are targetting our age groups. Never would I have expected to see presidential nominees use memes or emojis on social media. I don't really find these things effective to me because it just seems like pandering.

Since the campaign started, I found it very interesting (and entertaining) how much the candidates utilize social media, especially Twitter. They use it to be more in touch with supporters and to respond to opponents as quickly as they can. I think this tactic is effective, well at least using it to be more in touch with supporters is effective. I think it comes across as childish when they use social media to argue. Besides Twitter and Facebook, I think it is really cool that candidates have started using Snapchat as a medium to connect with supporters. That way they can keep people up to date with their campaign, and it is more personal. This election has definitely been an interesting one to watch unfold on social media. 

I haven't really been paying too much attention about the candidates on Social Media because It's really hard for me to take any of it seriously. I feel like every piece of information either about themselves or their opponents is stretched from the truth. What effectively works for me personally is looking at which candidate's beliefs are more aligned with mine.I find the name calling and shaming inappropriate, disprtespective and ineffective. I wonder if some of this social media backlash will continue in future presidential debates. I feel like these people have some of the best Public Relations and they would steer away from childish back and forth bickering on social media.