The 2012 US election has become a revolution in and of itself. Of course, I could be referring to the dramatic changes in campaign finances or the outlandish comments made by candidates such as Todd Aiken. However, my focus is more on how social media and the abilities to use the variety of different platforms to strengthen or, in some cases, weaken a campaign. Social media has evolved dramatically in the past several years. It has become part of the daily routine for many. Thus, it comes as no surprise that the revolution of social media in campaigns is helping to shape the 2012 US election in a significant way.
A recent video released by the Pew Research Center analyzed the latest social media trends in the race between Obama and Romney. The Obama campaign leads the race in the number of platforms being used (nine) and the total reach of tweets and messages being sent. The Romney campaign’s social media strategy is clearly lacking in content as well as planning. The Obama campaign is using a variety of platforms, including social media in different languages, to engage with potential voters, send news about the party platform, and fundraise. Although the Romney campaign uses a similar content strategy, the engagement level is much lower than that of the Obama campaign. Clearly, Obama is the winner in the social media stakes, but strategies out of that camp are not honed enough. Both presidential campaigns need to grasp the knowledge of this important platform in order to create more effective outreach.
So, what’s my point? Social media platforms have a future in changing the political landscape. But, at the moment, I don’t believe either party is capitalizing them on. There is not enough data yet to determine how effective social media is. Only four years out from the first presidential election to use social media on a large-scale, no definitive conclusions can be reached. What can be discussed is what could be done in the future.
In 2008, there was a record number of youth voters, or Generation Y voters. It was a breaking point in a long series of reports that showed a decrease in voter turnout. A renewed effort of civic engagement among the youth was what many analysts and commentators argued. However, what is often overlooked was that 2008 was the first social media election that targeted a national race. Therefore, the 2012 election will be different in the respect that 2008 is now a base point to compare with. I believe that Generation Y will return to the polls this fall, but not in the same renewed effort as there was in 2008.
Overall, I do see the potential of using social media platforms to engage with potential voters of all ages. Platforms are constantly changing (i.e. Facebook), and new ones are emerging (such as Pinterest). More often than not, campaigns are using social media as a one-way conversation tool, much as it was used in 2008 and 2010. A one-way conversation is not going to produce a mobilization of citizens to attend rallies, volunteer, or vote. Mobilization requires citizens to become actively involved. Campaigns need to create a two-way conversation, and perhaps, then, social media and the use of it in elections can be improved upon.
Effective use of social media in elections still has a long way to go. Comparable to the introduction of television debates in the 1960 election, social media will move develop forward. When the 2012 election is over, new studies will be reported, and perhaps, my predictions will be wrong. My belief is that social media does hold potential for two-way conversations, mobilization, and information sharing. It just needs to be improved.
About the Author
