Alyssa Tomins

Social Media and Presidential Campaigns

POLS 4430 Dr. Jackson

 2

Introduction

Social media has been playing an increasingly important roles in U.S. presidential

campaigns over the last three election cycles. Young voters look to Facebook and Twitter for

their current news more than they look to traditional methods, such as newspapers and television.

While these more traditional news mediums still play a critical role in the coverage of

presidential campaigns, social media has revolutionized the way candidates interact directly with

voters (Owen, 2017). The purpose of this paper is to analyze the use of social media by

candidates during the 2008 and 2016 presidential elections. I will explore the role social media

played in candidates’ ability to fundraise, mobilize supporters, and the innovative ways they used

social media to win the presidency. Looking at these two election cycles, there is a pattern of

candidates who used social media in unconventional ways also gaining the support to win their

election. I will further discuss the similarities between social media use in 2008 and 2016 and

how these social media methods translated into wins for their respective candidates.

Obama and McCain’s Social Media

Barack Obama’s historical 2008 campaign utilized social media in ways never seen

before. His campaigns savvy understanding of how to best reach voters through personalized

media messages led to his reputation of being the, “first social media presidency” (Acker, 2017).

From the moment when President Obama announced his run for president, his campaign was

focused on conveying a message that inspired voters to action. He launched his campaign on the

steps of the Old State Capitol in Illinois where President Lincoln once stated a “house divided

could not stand,” with his announcement broadcast live on YouTube (Gupta-Carlson, 2016).

Researchers have compared this tactical move by Obama to that of President Kennedy, who was

known to have benefited from media such as television while Obama used the internet to his
 3

benefit (Bimber, 2014). Messages such as this continued throughout Obama’s campaign as he

used numerous forms of social media to directly interact with his supporters. For example, the

Obama campaign heavily relied on text messages to recruit volunteers and maintain excitement

for his campaign, such as through the announcement of his running mate (Bimber, 2014).

The Obama campaign employed several social media sites, such as Facebook, Twitter,

and YouTube. The use of social media in a presidential campaign was not new with Obama, but

his use of those tools to inspire voters was a new strategy. His campaign messaging utilized

digital storytelling where they inspired regular people to share how his candidacy was affecting

them on a virtual platform (Gupta-Carlson, 2016). The use of digital storytelling inspired voters

to share in his historical campaign and inspired them to action. The Obama campaign tapped into

their social media tools to recreate the ground game by recruiting supporters to volunteer, host

house parties, and canvass. They maintained personal contact with supporters all the way

through election day to get them to the polls. This use of social media to enhance traditional field

work carried Barack Obama into the presidency.

While the Obama campaign embraced the new role that social media was going to play in

people’s lives, John McCain struggled to adapt to this newly popular form of communication.

McCain described himself as “not literate with the Internet and as dependent on his wife and

aides to get online in order to read newspapers” in an interview with the New York Times

(Bimber, 2014). McCain active on far fewer social media sites than Barack Obama, and the sites

he was on were very limited in following and engagements. While the Obama campaign was

actively using social media to further its message and grow support, John McCain’s campaign

was engaging in business as usual with more traditional methods. Obama’s campaign was

creatively interacting with voters through digital storytelling, while McCain’s campaign
 4

continued to view online engagement in terms of lists of emails or phone numbers. McCain’s

inability to integrate social media as a tool to effectively run his ground game dearly cost him in

supporters and fundraising abilities. McCain only opened 400 field offices compared to Obama’s

700, largely because he was outspent and left behind using old campaign tactics (Bimber, 2014).

In some sense, the growth of social media helped campaigns to enhance the traditional campaign

tactics like canvassing by being able to support those efforts with their supporter’s social medias.

By and large, John McCain was unable to adapt to social media in the 2008 election, where

Barack Obama was able to not only use it, but excel at reaching voters.

Obama and McCain’s Fundraising Abilities

The innovative ways Obama used social media to inspire voters also translated into

intense fundraising capabilities, and ultimately a win in his race for the presidency. With Obama

being the first candidate to decline public funding for his campaign, they needed a strong social

media game to secure donations (Bimber, 2014). At the time of the 2008 election, 74% of

internet users of all ages were using the internet to receive news about the election, further

highlighting the importance of having a strong online presence (Smith, 2009). Himanee Gupta-

Carlson summed up Obama’s social media statistics best in her journal article, Re-Imagining the

Nation: Storytelling and Social Media in the Obama Campaigns: “By November 2008, the

campaign had connected with 5 million supporters on 15 separate social networks. Obama had

2.5 million Facebook followers; 115,000 Twitter followers; and drew some 50 million visitors to

YouTube to watch Obama related videos” (Gupta-Carlson, 2016). These millions of followers

and interactions on social media led supporters to Obama’s campaign website, which ultimately

amassed nearly $640 million in campaign contributions mostly from individual donors making

small donations (Gupta-Carlson, 2016). Their ability to interact with voters in real time on social
 5

media proved beneficial in securing donations, such as when the Obama campaign raised $10

million immediately following Sarah Palin’s acceptance speech as John McCain’s running mate

(Bimber, 2014).

In comparison, Senator John McCain, lagged in online engagement in world that was

starting to use the internet as their main source of information. Even though McCain’s supporters

were more likely than Obama’s supporters to use the internet (83% compared to 76%), McCain’s

supporters still participated in online political activism less than Obama’s supporters (Smith,

2009). For example, 26% of internet-using Obama supporters were posted political content on

their social media, compared to only 15% of McCain supporters, as is indicated in Figure 1 taken

from Pew Research Center’s report on the 2008 election (Smith, 2009).

Figure 1.
 6

Taking it a step further, Obama internet users were overwhelmingly morel likely to volunteer

online, donate online, and sign up for campaign updates. This ability to inspire supporters to

action is one of the hallmarks of President Obama’s campaigns, and it showed through his

immense fundraising capabilities. While John McCain accepted public funding for his

presidential campaign, his campaign struggled for money during his primary and ultimately had

a difficult time competing against Obama’s fundraising abilities bolstered by social media

(Kenski, 2011).

Trump and Clinton’s Social Media

By 2016, social media was quickly bypassing other forms of media in terms of where

users got their news. Candidates Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump both capitalized on this

surge of social media to establish themselves on many platforms, but most notably was Twitter.

Clinton and Trump each took very different approaches to the way they used Twitter to convey

their respective messages and communicate with followers. Clinton’s campaign took the one-

way communication tactic in order to have more control over their messaging (Enli, 2017). This

involved using the social media platform more as a means to promote their own messages and

present Clinton as a polished candidate, and less as a way to engage with the public. In

comparison, Donald Trump personally used his Twitter as a means of directly communicating

with the public by voicing his own unfettered opinions and interacting with followers. Trump

participated in retweets on Twitter at a much higher frequency than Clinton or any of her

campaign-related accounts, with 25% of Trumps tweets being retweets compared to only 15% of

Clintons (Enli, 2017). Nearly all of Trumps retweets were originally written by ordinary people

on Twitter whose messages resonated enough with Trump, thus his retweeting to his millions of

followers. While Clinton minimally participated in retweets, when she did, they were always
 7

retweeting from one of her campaign-related accounts—not content from the general public

(Enil, 2017). The Trump campaign demonstrated a willingness to engage with the public on

social media at the risk of not being able to control all of the content that would be elevated to

Trumps following. The Clinton campaign sought to maintain control of their messaging. This

stark difference in approach to social media enforces the pattern that candidates who use social

media in unconventional ways win their elections.

Clinton and Trump’s tweets not only differ in content, but also in tone and style. Clinton,

as an experienced politician and public servant, chose to maintain her standards for

professionalism as is traditionally expected from someone who runs for president. Donald

Trump, as a political outsider, opted for the non-traditional route consistent with his navigation

of the media as a celebrity. His tone and style have been described as amateur for having bucked

the traditional professionalism expected of presidential candidates. Listed below is Figure 2,

which demonstrates this difference between Clinton and Trumps tweeting styles (Enil, 2017).

Clinton’s tweets were overwhelmingly categorized as falling within the traditional style expected

of presidential candidates, while Trump was more often categorized as non-traditional in his

style (Enil, 2017).

Figure 2.
 8

Donald Trump’s use of social media in the 2016 campaign conveyed authenticity and

genuineness that was not demonstrated through Clinton’s use of traditional methods. Between

his willingness to interact with the general public and his authentic messaging, he clearly

demonstrated there is some level of effectiveness in using social media in unconventional ways.

Trump and Clinton’s Fundraising Abilities

The 2016 election was the first where both candidates declined the public financing

option, instead choosing to tap into their personal resources and fundraise from their supporters.

This was an interesting election in that Hillary Clinton outspent Donald Trump by nearly 2 to 1,

but still lost the race (Francia, 2018). This can be largely attributed to Donald Trump’s ability to

garner free media attention with his social media. His frequent Twitter postings were often the

subject of the news, allowing Trump to attract significant media coverage without having to pay

for it. While Clinton was spending millions on television ads and paid media, Donald Trump was

tweeting provocative statements that became news headlines. Not only was he able to

communicate directly with the public with his Twitter, but he was gaining so much free media

coverage that it changed the trajectory of his campaign to a win (Francia, 2018). This election

helped to demonstrate the importance of media coverage in communicating with voters, and how

a candidate is not guaranteed to win if they have massive fundraising capabilities. Compared to

Clinton, Donald Trump’s campaign was poorly funded, but he made up for it through his

authentically aggressive social media strategy that earned him billions of dollars’ worth of free

coverage (Francia, 2018).

Conclusion

While Donald Trump and Barack Obama differ greatly in their messaging on social

media, they share the fact that social media played a crucial role in their ability to win their races.
 9

Both Trump and Obama competed against candidates who chose to use the conventional

strategies of social media that were known at that point in time. John McCain and Hillary

Clinton stuck with social media tactics and messaging that were predictable of their campaigns.

On the hand with Obama and Trump, their messaging on social media was innovative and

grabbed the attention of voters looking to rally behind a candidate. Obama’s use of digital

storytelling and Trumps direct interactions on Twitter helped to mobilize their supporters more

so than that of their competitors. Trump and Obama strayed from the traditional, professional use

of social media often used by presidential candidates. They infused their messaging with their

own personal styles, and this authenticity on social media rallied their bases to support them.

President Obama changed presidential campaigns though his use of digital storytelling to reach

voters in a personal manner, and President Trump’s direct communication on Twitter solidified

the support of voters who liked his authentic approach to social media. While Obama and Trump

have handled the presidency quite differently, the paths they took to the White House are similar

in their use of unconventional social media methods to gain traction. As social media continues

to influence elections, it is important to reflect on how candidates have used social media as a

way to change the game of campaigning.

 10

References

Acker, A, and A Kreisberg. 2017. “Tweets May Be Archived: Civic Engagement, Digital

Preservation and Obama White House Social Media Data.” Proceedings of the

Association for Information Science and Technology 54(1): 1–9. doi:

10.1002/pra2.2017.14505401001.

Bimber, Bruce. 2014. “Digital Media in the Obama Campaigns of 2008 and 2012: Adaptation to

the Personalized Political Communication Environment.” Journal of Information

Technology & Politics 11(2): 130–50. doi: 10.1080/19331681.2014.895691.

Enli, G. 2017. “Twitter as Arena for the Authentic Outsider: Exploring the Social Media

Campaigns of Trump and Clinton in the 2016 US Presidential Election.” European

Journal of Communication 32(1): 50–61. doi: 10.1177/0267323116682802.

Francia, P L. 2018. “Free Media and Twitter in the 2016 Presidential Election: The

Unconventional Campaign of Donald Trump.” Social Science Computer Review 36(4):

440–55. doi: 10.1177/0894439317730302 (May 5, 2020).

Gupta-Carlson, Himanee. 2016. “Re-Imagining the Nation: Storytelling and Social Media in the

Obama Campaigns.” PS: Political Science & Politics 49(1): 71–75. doi:

10.1017/S1049096515001274.

Kenski, Henry C. 2014. “The 2008 Republican Nomination: John McCain as the Comeback

Kid.” American Behavioral Scientist 55(4): 502–14. doi: 10.1177/0002764211400570.

Owen, Diana. 2017. “New Media and Political Campaigns.” The Oxford Handbook of Political

Communication. doi: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199793471.013.016_update_001.

Smith, Aaron. 2009. “The Internet’s Role in Campaign 2008.” Pew Research Center.

https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2009/04/15/the-internets-role-in-campaign-2008/.