Election 2016 on social media

Usually I see social media as being used in a positive way, but the election campaign also shows how social media can also be problematic.  In particular, the way that Donald Trump has used social media, especially Twitter, shows how a Tweet made in haste can haunt a candidate.  I was also interested to see how there was a lot of discussion about the time Trump sent his Tweet, which introduces another aspect that can be analyzed in the use of social media for political purposes.  Trump's use of Twitter seems to show how counter productive it can be, as it was most effective as ammunition for opponents rather than supporters.  campaigns are usually very careful in their media use, but currently there are many examples of poor use of social media.

I watched only so much of the debate because I was honestly annoyed watching the two on the screen. But I did notice how they threw up social media a lot in their debate. I believe that social media is very effective because it is the age we are in now and the age a lot of us were born into. I feel social media will always be effective and it can be very damagaing for gaining for either campaign. What I don't feel is effective is the bickering on tv, that only made rating go up in social media and tv but I don't see it being effective to the people because its looked at as entertainment. Do you think apart of this is entertaining? 

One interesting thing to note here is it’s not only candidates who are showing an affinity towards social media; websites like Facebook, Google, Twitter and Snapchat are doing their bit to warm up to politicos too. Twitter, for instance,shut down two apps that showed tweets that politicians had deleted – if ever a social network pandered to political advantage, this was it. Twitter later formed an agreement with Politwoops. They even hosted a breakfast event in Washington rolling out the proverbial red carpet for election candidates. And they went on to partner with Square so people could tweet their donations to their preferred parties and candidates.

For the presidential debate, I felt like I didn't even have to turn on the TV to know the highlights of what was being said. Most of that was covered for me on social media especially Twitter and Facebook. I find it particulary interesting to see what Clinton and Trump post on their social media accounts. It's odd to think how vital social media in general is so important, in my opinion that's how the presidential nominees will win over the Millienials but even beyond that most young adults and adults our parents age are on social media constantly especailly Facebook so it's hard to escape the contast options and back in forth between canidates themselves.

I think social media now need to be managed and updated from candidates espeically during presidential election. They can provide their political strategy through social media, and debate each other to try and win over citizens. I found on Hillary Clinton's Twitter that tells people different ways to vote. I think this is a kind behavior that without debating on oppenent candidate, she just tells everyone to vote for the country. I also found few tweets that showing negative sides of donald trump. I think both candidates do similar postings on social media and it shows strong political orientation.

I think the commercials that Hillary uses to bash Donald Trump are working very well for her campaign. It is a very effective way to get the attention of the voters, and most of the time it helps them out in their campaign. I also think that the way the two candidates use their twitter accounts is effective if they use them in the right way, meaning they shouldn't be subtweeting each other, instead they should promote their campaign more.

I have found the campaign videos on Facebook quite interesting through out this debate. These video clips only last a few minutes but they are able to leave a lasting impression also. One video that I saw the other day was promoting Hillary Clinton. It was about young girls self appeareance and it was juxtaposted against clips of Trump saying really derodatory things about woman. This left a really terrible image of Trump in woman's minds because of some of the things that he said. It was smart that Hillary's campagin used young girls because these young woman will be the ones growing up during the next presidancy and they want someone who will support them also and not think of them less than a man. After seeing that video it got the reaction from me that it intended to and that is why I saw it as a successful campaign clip. 

After watching a debate the other day people were tweeting and comparing Hillary's outfit to looking like the KoolAid punch bowl in the commercials. This had nothing to do with the event or the topics discussed but it began trending very quickly. This shows that social media sometimes completely misses the point of what is should be covering and instead can turn into just a social site again to make a joke. That is why social media isn't always a very reliable source to follow news of important events. 

The Presidential Debates were heavily covered on Twitter and Snapchat. So much so that I did not even find any interest in watching them due to my timeline filled with updates about Both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. To me, I find it very fitting that both candidates promote supporters to use their campaign sites and social media to follow their arguments. I feel as if both candidates find it essential to use social media to reach out to the younger voting population. I am a lot more likely to follow debates and campaign info on Facebook and Twitter instead of going to their individual websites. Even though I don't follow the presedential election as closely as I should, I always find it interesting to see what both are talking about on Twitter. Sadly it's usually tweets regarding eachother which I find very childish and unneeded. But hey, I guess it's all fun and games. 

I think that social media is a great tool to use during the Presidential Race if you are using it correctly. A lot of the tweets or retweets from both candidates are jabs at each other which is underdstandable to an extent. I think that it has gotten out of hand at some points on Twitter with them going back and forth at each other. I think that their websites are probably the most effective place to go for people to learn about the candidates.

I am so appreciated that presidential debate is using social media to increase their Probability Of victory.  You can go to Hilary Clinton’s website to find out more funny things about Donald Trump. In addition, you can use tweeter to follow this huge event However, I think they should be more careful about social media. It is kind of like a two-edged sword to both of parties. Although I am not a citizen in here, I still think this is what we should learn from United States. 

Today, using social media for film promotion or product promotion is a very common phenomenon, but with the development of social media, the US presidential election began to frequent the use of social media to promote or attack the competitors. In my twitter and facebook, I also concerned about two US presidential candidates. Although I am an international student, but I am very concerned about the practical things of the United States, because I am very interested in the culture of the United States.  I think using social media to track the US presidential campaign is a very interesting way, because it can mobilize the enthusiasm of the whole country, so that we ordinary people can have the opportunity to participate.  Election of the President has always been an important matter for the whole country, so everyone should have the right to participate. But I have a question about the US election, if the US election can increase the participation of international students the right will be better? Because the US election results will not only affect the United States, but also affect the global international issues

After watching the presidential debate, I logged into Twitter only to find my timeline filled with numerous tweets and retweets from both presidential candidates. While this may have been an effective platform for each candidate to post their views prior to the debate, I don't think it was effective after the debate. I think it was more of a way for each Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton to throw jabs at each other. Both parties were retweeting each other's tweets or quoting the tweet and talking bad about one another. In my opinion, this is very immature and petty and neither of them should have been on social media immediately after the debate. Sure, some of the memes people made about Clinton and Trump were funny to look at, but seeing tweets from the actual candidates was not very professional. I don't think social media should be a factor in any election, nonetheless a presidential election. We are told many times that once you post to social media, it stays there forever so you would think presidential candidates would be smart enough to stay off of it. I am wondering if presidential elections in the future will involve more or less social media campaigns after the results of this election?

This election has by far been the most interesting, and at times humorous in the history of our country. Therefore social media has been widely used to debate, critique, and talk about both candidates. One article I found interesting was about who won the debate last Monday. There have been a vast amount of polls that say either Clinton won by a landslide, or Trump won. From what I read it just depends on the Poll's affiliation with each party who they say won. This obviously means many of these cannot be trusted. So, one source took to social media to see who was the real winner. The source says it is possible to analyze how voters reacted in real time to judge a winner. They can see how many tweets or Facebook post were for or against each candidate and judge who won based on social media users. It also says what the most talked about part of the debate was (It was about a claim that said Donald said was untrue but actually was). I think this is a new, more reliable way to judge debate winners instead of bias poll sources.

Source

Although I did not see the debate, I had seen a lot of jokes about it on social media and they were all very interesting. Trump is talking a lot about Hillary on Facebook, he talks about email and other things. Hillary also talks about the tax return of Trump. I dont think it is effective but for a foreigner, it is really interesting. and my question is : How can social media help the candidates? Is it a helpful platform? 

This election is definitely being shaped by social media more than any other before due to this in large part being the first election for many children that grew up in a digital age. I personally think both campaigns are effectively using social media. For Trump despite his antics has really used Twitter as a form of engaging with his followers. Whether if you agree or not with what he is saying, he is doing a great job of using this platform to express his opinion. Clinton is also doing a pretty good job of this, her video production team is fantastic in creating short but impactful ads and messages to get people excited about the election. She is using sites like Facebook and Snapchat to get this message across and to reach a younger audience. The Obama adminstration during his re-elction in 2012 really became the first presidential campaign to use social media as a means to reach out to supporters. It worked really well for him and one of the reasons he beat Romney so easily four years ago. Clinton and Trump are both using those platforms to engage with their desired voters and it has made the conversation about this election online one of the most intriguing yet.   

As an international student, I am not really care about who will be the president. Because I think the realtion between China and United States is sensitive. From the internation relation angel, who put others benefit in the first who will not be a celver president. I think Trump stand with higher level people and make them more and more rich although he emphasized he will support more jobs for the lower level people. I think he is a celver CEO to manage his business such as hotel, commerical however he probably cannot really control the country. 

I love the way the two candidates are using social media for campaign. That is the best platform for communication in this century and they would be wrong not using it. I have not experienced any other election period in the USA but I think this one seems really hot. I love the way their posts are informative example Hillary posts againts her oppenent has some facts on external links and if youd did not know about a certain story you can go to the link and read, this is effective. Something I have enjoyed most are the memes and videos about their battle

Even though I am not a citizen here, I find the U.S. presidential election most fascinating. It's the biggest and most talked about election in the world, and this election seems to be the most controversial one. I'm sure Hillary Clinton is going to win, but it feels like she's degrading because of her opponent, Donald Trump. We all know how Trump is and can be, so there's not much to lose for Trump. However, people expect a lot from Clinton which is great but also not so great for her at the same time. I think celebrities have great impact on people on social media, and I've seen so many celebrities on Instagram supporting Clinton. I follow many celebrities, but I haven't seen anyone supporting Trump. Although most celebrities and users are just expressing their opinions about the candidates on social media, their posts can affect other users' thoughts. 

As we all can probably agree, this election is a complete nightmare, one that can become a funny punchline on social media.  It's important to remember that while this election is comical and a complete joke, the state of our country lies between these two candidates.  While it is undeniable that Clinton is the clear winner,  I fear the internet's extreme favortism of her, will only push people to vote for Trump.  I mean, if you tell someone not to do something, generally they will do it out of spite.  By having Clinton supporters degrade and belittle Trump supporters, I fear it will only encourage those people to NOT vote for her.  While everyone's opinion is important and valid, I think it may be best to keep it to yourself, especially for something as tempremental as having Donald Trump in office.

I think that Donald Trump is very bold in his social media statements especially on twitter. He uses short blurts to really pinpoint ideas and make people believe that Hilary really is "crooked". I think Donald Trumps campaign is strong and his message is consistent throughout his social media pages. His tagline of "Make America Great Again" is plastered all over his social media accounts and stays consistent making him very easily recognizeable by his followers. In regards to Hilary's website, i find it interesting that the first thing they ask you for before you can get any information is your email address. By doing this they are able to aquire free information that they can later use to reach the public. I am not a huge fan of the look of her website. I think is it too bland and there is too much white space. I think she would benefit from using more Red and Blue on her home page and making it feel more warm. 

After looking at both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump's Twitter accounts I found both candidates post very interesting things. I am not following this election so I am shocked to see some of the things posted on Twitter by both candidates. I noticed that both candidates are not really advertising their views or what they plan to do for the country, but instead are just bashing eachother. Hillary Clinton tweeted, "Trump obsessively bullies Rosie O'Donnell--an accomplished actor. He insulted Kim Kardashian for her weight-- when she was pregnant. Pathetic." To me, this seems pathetic and has little to do with the future of our country. I also looked at Donald Trump's Twitter, where immaturity was found as well. Trump stated on Twitter "Hillary's been failing for 30 years in not getting the job done - it will never change". I think it is interesting how both candidates are only advertising how awful the other person is, and not really focusing on things that are important. I don't think this type of advertising is effective at all. It would be more effective if both candidates could be mature and advertise the things they plan to do to imporove the United States, rather than to bash eachother publically. My question for this blog post is:

What is the most effective way to advertise for a political campaign? I am in a class called Evaluating Evidence and my professor said something about how TV ads are not effective because people block them out. 

The social media from each party was just a form of PR, so I dont have any feelings toward it. If something is said, that is taken out of context, the social media post will do damage control. Even if it was clear what was meant, the social media posts will always cover them, and people then say "oh okay." That in itself is interesting. My question is at what point will a simple social media post not be enough? What type of event will it take more than just a post to make everything okay? 

I think it is kind of fun to see their pages on Facebook. They attack each other and even make video. Each message has at least 200 commitments. It is a way of customer community. People can make commitment and show their attitude.

My feelings towards politicians using social media can be summed up with the scene from Jurassic Park where Jeff Goldblum's character brings the ethics of the whole operation into question. Politicians are so preoccupied with whether or not they could use social media to advance their platform that they didn't stop to think if they should. All joking aside, I personally feel the current candidates running for POTUS are abusing social media. In no way do I find their twitter feeds and sponsored ads informative or effective. When I read through their profiles all I can picture are poor interns and staffers frantically creating content or encouraging the creation of content with the hopes that it will facilitate engagement with a hint of mudslinging. Politics can get dirty and social media platforms can perpetuate the negativity.

What I find interesting is that in the business world one of the issues with advertising on social media is that there is no guarantee that the engagement on content will translate into any sales or actual revenue. If this is a concern then why do politicians think that promoting themselves on social media will translate into physical votes? One could argue that a candidate is different from a brand and an election is more complex than your everyday sales pitch but I think it is an interesting question to consider. Either way, I agree that elections are an exciting time to watch social media marketing take center stage.

I love this question! We all need to be educated citizens, especially people pursuing college degrees.

Well, the best thing about social media as all the readings suggest, is that you can INTERACT with your followers, rather than just shove information down their throat. I think this is the most important aspect, it also gives both campaigns a chance to FIGHT BACK against the mainstream media, which is out of their control.

It would be naive and childish to assume that media companies do not hold bias. This is life. Campaigns themselves hold bias, but at least with social media they have a platform to set the record.

Brings me to my point.... SETTING THE RECORD, as Clinton did with factchecker is extremely valuable. 

It is not effective to use social media to mudsling, since it drops credibility. You need to act 'presidential' to gain the confidence of voters.

My question would be, as discussed in the reading, blogs are no different than another media format, just like traditional outlets like CNN and NYTimes are doing now. Do you think social media already has achieved or will achieve the same level of credibility as traditional forms of media? Many people are getting news directly from Facebook and Twitter now, which is making 'official' forms such as paper news irrelevant. People are sensitive to the words used to describe media, but it is all one package. Delivering information. Are the Trump and Clinton campaigns committed to being credible? Or are they spinning? If they are spinning, would this not become obvious and drop credibility? Thanks. 

This year’s presidential election is a different animal. To add to the confusion, modern day candidates are desperately trying to gain traction on the Internet. Social media is an important factor of an effective political campaign, just ask President Obama who used Twitter and Facebook quite effectively to gain support in 2011. Like many of my peers, I followed Barack Obama on Facebook and Twitter. Since 2011 social media has continued to expand leaving me to wonder… Where are today’s presidential candidates on social media? They do not seem to have a very big presence on social media even when compared to Bernie Sanders. I do not think either candidate has effectively marketed to young people like myself.

Let me start off by saying I am not big into the politcial scene even though I really try to be. What I do know about the elections is, for the most part, I find through Social Media. I think that politician using social media in general is very effective when politicians are trying to reach younger voters. Younger generations spend more time in front of their phone and on social media than they do watching TV (and even when they are watching TV most of their attention is still directed towards their phone). The most effective social media I think that candidates can use is Twitter. Even though Twitter is a dying social media, when things go viral on Twitter pretty much every active Twitter user will see it. Oddly enough, I also think the Trump and Clinton's Twitter startegies have been some of the least effective. One specific moment in which Trump and Clinton used Twitter to their disadvantage started when Clinton Tweeted at Trump to delete his account. Even though the candidates were not the ones tweeting these things, it still made their campaigns turn into somewhat of a joke. This social media attack tatic was ineffective because it got people interested in them for reasons that had nothing to do with their politics. 

Overall, I'm not sure there is any perfect way to use social media to your advantage. What social media is considered the best for politicians? Which social media is used the most often by the candidates?

I find what's effective for campaign social media is using real life stories and endorsements for a particular candidate. I think Hillary does this really well with her promotional videos. She had a promotional video with a bunch of young girls and their aspirations. The video's main point was we need someone as our next president for women to look up to. What's not effective is personal opinions that aren't well thought out. Trump has repredetley been in the news regarding his tweets that sound ridiculous. Like his tweet about the Chinese causing global warming. My question is, A lot of politicians relesase negative ads/social media posts about their opponents, has there been any research on their effectiveness and what is it?

Comparing Clinton and Trump's campaigns I see noticeable differences in their approaches. Trump tweets about his upcoming locations he will be at, some of his plans and what Hilary says and why it is wrong. There were seven tweets in a row of starting with Hilary Clinton and goes on to say what she has said or one of her policies. I think he would benefit from promoting more of his plans and things he has said on his own personal twitter. It would be more effective in his social media marketing to focus on branding himself and in a presidential manner. Clinton on the other hand seems to have more of a consistent theme for her social media campaign. Most tweets use the same language, same format, and most of her tweets are statements about her and she signs them "-Hilary." I feel Clinton is branding herself in her social media-marketing plan and that it is done in a professional manner. The same font and colors are used across her campaign and I think that makes it look more cohesive. The aspect of her campaign that I liked the most however was that she is promoting voting and getting registered to vote and very frequently tweets links to get registered. I feel she is targeting a young undecided audience with this and encouragin them to get invovled. 

Wall Street Journal has a cool page that compares Clinton and Trump's Twitter pages side by side : http://graphics.wsj.com/clinton-trump-twitter/

I found the debate night very interesting on social media like Twitter where both the Presidential candidates put forward their opinions in their own style. I felt that Hillary Clinton put forward her views in a more effective and sensible manner than Trump. One example by which Hillary Clinton put forward her views in a more effective and sensible manner was with regard to creating jobs for Middle class Americans that will make America great again which was a great point. However, I felt that Trump put forward his views in an ineffective manner during the debate where he talks about topics that get a lot of criticism from many people.

I also feel that social media like Twitter has played a great role for helping many viewers watch election debates and it can be a great marketing tool for helping many viewers watch election debates like this in the near future. I still remember few decades back where the only medium for viewers to watch election debates were the news channels. However, times have changed where there are other mediums that can help viewers watch election debates. My question though is that in the future which other social media platform apart from twitter can be used as a great marketing tool for helping viewers watch election debates?

With a big feminist movement going on, I think it is very effective and smart of Hillary Clinton to put a lot of her focus on gaining female voters. She could potentially be our first women president, so her focus on that topic through videos, tweets, rallies, etc. has been very interesting and effective. Her campaign has also spent a lot of money making commercials that put down Donald Trump, where Trump has not done much, if any, of that. Unfortunately, both candidates have been caught in lies, so it has not been effective for them when they go against something they previously said. This election has been drastically different than any other in the past, so it is going to be very interesting to see how it plays out.

I thought what was most interesting that I found on social media was the amount of people bashing both candidates on not answering any questions they were given. I think that it was funny to see all of the tweets go by about how terrible this debate was, and the random arguing and bickering that went on throughout it. What was also interesting was the many different reactions from news stations. The news stations are all very bias. The ones that support democractics talk about how Clinton won the debate, and the ones that are republican say Trump won the debate. I thought it was funny because they aren't supporting anything with facts or important messages they examined. They just voiced their opinion of who they like. I personally didn't find much effecitive about what people were Tweeting or posting. I think the best way for people to decide who to vote for is to watch the debates and research the candidates because at this time most information that will be posted will be bias and un-useful. What I don't find effective is posting who people thought won the debate, and who is going to gain more voters after this. I think it is more important to post what the candidates mentioned in the debate, and what they support. 

As an international student, it is interesting to me to see how elections play out so diferently from elections in Guatemala. However, this one was different. After Obama's win in 2008, politicians understood that the undecided youth held most of the voting power. I think that now that Clinton and Trump understand that, they rely on social media more heavily. Trump tries to keep his face in our newsfeed by saying things that most people consider controversial, and Hillary tries to do so by creating "sharable content" like the video she released of the former Miss Universe. I think this is really interesting and it has been effective. Every time one of these videos become viral, the supporters and opposers for each candidate stand up in arms and type their opinion wherever they can.However, this is a completely ineffective way to educate the public on policy and government plans.  

Factchecking has always been a big part of election campaigns, but it seems to have a heightened sense of importance this year because neither of the two candidates running for President are what you would call trustworthy. Luckily enough, social media provides an excellent platform to find out the truth behind the things that the candidates say! Twitter is a very effective method to factcheck the candidates because it is so easy to obtain information on it. It is also a perfect platform for people to voice their opinions and post facts as soon as they hear what the candidates say. 

Instagram, on the other hand, isn't very effective because you can only deal with pictures and that can sometimes be an adherence for someone trying to quickly post information on whether or not a candidate is telling the truth. Overall, social media is an awesome tool for people to use during this political race. The question is, what candidate will use it better?

Although I don't believe you should vote for Hillary just because she is a woman, I think she is so effective in gaining female votes. Of course it is very easy with a target like Donald Trump to really rally women against him. She really shares fact about Donald Trump's behavior towards women. Recently she posted an interview with a former Miss Universe contestant who Donald Trump would call "Miss Piggy" because of the way she looked. At that point in time she was bringing in a more than average profit for the Miss Universe organization and never recieved her 10% from the campaigns she was in. For Hillary this is extremely effective for gaining votes.

On the other hand Trump is real on social media. While what he says isn't politically correct, it is refreshing for people to recieve an unreserved post like Hillary would do.

 I think that Hillary's Mirrors video on Donald Trump ruining little girl's body images and self esteem has been super effective and interesting, as has the Role Model's video she posted. I think the best thing I've seen on social media about the campaign is the memes.