The 2016 presidential election may happen to be one of the most memorable elections to have ever been. From the campaign speeches, to the Democratic and Republican National conventions, and even the presidential debates; Americans seemed to constantly be voicing their opinions on every aspect of the election, and who they believe is the more suitable candidate for president, especially on social media. The 2016 presidential election marks one of the more recent elections where we start to see social media’s impact on it. We see how presidential candidates use social media as a platform to voice about updates on their campaign as well as communicate with their supporters. With the continue rise in the number of social media users as well as politicians now using social media, how much has its impact had on elections and Americans outlook on the campaign. According to textbook ‘Communication Theory’, metatheory is the stated or inherent assumptions made when creating a theory. If you aren’t familiar with a theory’s underlying assumptions about truth, human nature, the purpose of the theory, and its values, then a person can’t fully understand a theory. We’ll see the studies of people who have implied metatheory on whether or not social media has had an effect on presidential elections. We start to see social media’s trans figurative impact back in the 2008 presidential election. J. Gregory concluded in his article ‘Impact of Social Media in 2012 Presidential Election’
President Obama not only was the first African American to be elected, but was also the first presidential candidate to effectively use social media as a major campaign strategy. In many ways the election of Barack Obama mimicked that of John F. Kennedy, both having changed politics forever. For John F. Kennedy it was the television and for Obama it was the internet. Barack Obama’s strategy of using the internet as a campaigning tool was a key to his victory in the election. He used the internet to organize his supporters. He had many more friends and followers on his Facebook and Twitter than his opponent John McCain did. The social media landscape looks a lot different now. There has been an increasing number of social media tools now than there were
In today’s modern time, social media has a huge impact on political environment. How the World Changed Social Media claims, “ Such political activity as there is on social media is usually at a national level and is conducted mainly by supporters…” (Miller 142,143). Social media presents a national level bias. During the last ten years, politics has gained much traction on these sites. For example, campaigns for national
The 1980 presidential election of the United States featured three primary candidates, Republican Ronald Reagan, Democrat Jimmy Carter and liberal Republican John Anderson. Ronald Reagan was the governor of California before he decided to run for the presidency. John Anderson was a representative in Illinois and Carter was the incumbent. The lengthy Iran hostage crisis sharpened public opinions by the beginning of the election season. In the 1970s, the United States were experiencing a straining episode of low economic growth, high price increases and interest rates and an irregular energy crisis. The sense of discomfort in both domestic and foreign affairs in the nation were heading downward, this added to the downward spiral that was already going on. Between Carter, Anderson and Reagan, the general election campaign of the 1980s seemed more concerned with shadowboxing around political issues rather than a serious discussion of the issues that concerned voters.
How presidential candidates present themselves in the media can be proven to impact election results dramatically. Political figure using social media did not start to become more common until after the 2008 election because Twitter and Facebook were just recently created, but by looking at data from the past two elections it shows that the news presidential candidates put on their social media can correlate with how people will decide to vote. After researching what topics political candidates post and how they present themselves in the media with election results it can be established that a candidate’s presence in social media can have an impact on how people might vote in an election. “By 2008 candidate websites were standard and campaigns
In the past ten years the way we as a people communicate has changed greatly. No longer is it uncommon for conversations to not be face to face and now more so than ever conversations take place through text. As with any change there will be and is push back to it. The conflict over the consequences of the social media dependent society have now intensified as a result of social media playing ever greater roles in how politics is seen and even conducted. This has been a major societal question since the presidential election of 2008 and the debate has been written about, discussed, and argued by thousands of different politicians,
This campaign season, I worked for Bruce Davis. Bruce Davis was the Democratic candidate chosen in the primary to run for House of Representatives in the Thirteen District in North Carolina. This campaign season was not a traditional one in comparison to what I’ve studied of past campaign’s. Our world has changed with the creation of social media and campaign’s have changed with it. In our campaign we had to look harder to find a proper strategy for using social media to are advantage and think outside the box. Bruce Davis chose to give his intern’s and his staff free reign to come up with ideas to move our campaign into modern times. These ideas will be discussed throughout this paper. I will discuss my personal experience, which was an
More and more people are getting their news from social media sites like Twitter, Facebook, Snapchat, Tumbler and many more, and candidates are using this to their advantage. This election is probably one of the first were candidates have actually used social media sites as their direct communication line to potential voters. Social media today had gone from gossip and family pictures to a location for political strategy. Thanks largely to trumps regular social media first declarations and its actually working particularly with the younger voters. A study released last year from the Pew Research Center that Marissa Lang cited showed that “Among 18- to 29-year-olds, nearly two-thirds said social media is the most helpful means of learning new things about politics.” (Lang, 2016). Even if the candidate isn’t the one posting the video or message in the end it will still end up on social media. For example, Trump had announced his plan to ban all Muslims from entering the united states in South Carolina not on social media however it found its way there and spread like wild fire. This sent those who were outraged to respond in disgust and those who encouraged it to share it so that their friends could see and so on and so on. Even if those who shared it did it to
Does Nicolas Carr, author of “How Social Media Is Ruining Politics” provide enough evidence that social media is ruining politics? The answer is a very obvious yes. Overtime, social media has slowly polarized the political perception of the American people. Social Networking is a new, popular medium that has changed the nature of political conversation. Therefore, it has become both a good thing and a bad thing. It has encouraged those who once did not partake in the political process to participate. Social networking is very useful to find out news and information ahead of the news media.. “It has become an easy way for political candidates to connect and communicate with the American people.” (Carr 1) While social media might provide the candidates with a form of convenience because it simplifies and speeds up the communication process, it also provides many ways for their campaigns to be easily and deliberately attacked. Unfortunately, what receives the most attention on social media is outrageous statements. Some candidates like Donald Trump know how to use this to their advantage. The danger in this is that candidates tend to use abrasive soundbites to grab the attention of the social media user. Unfortunately, the abrasive soundbites are often taken out the intended context. Other candidates like Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush did not come to this realization as quickly because they did not want to take the chance of hindering their image. They understood that a
Congress, 80% of our representatives use social media to engage with constituents. That has never been done before and is changing how politicians respond. We even see some votes in Congress made based on their Facebook feedback.”(The Economic) The Internet is like being there in the whole scene. Missing out information is impossible, a simply Google search, all the information is stored. When computers came out, it cost thousands, now it’s cheaper and faster. There’s tablets and phones with the opportunity to surf the web. More than half the candidates have some type of social media, either them or a fan.
Watching the 2016 Republican candidates battle for the presidency of the United States, one might reach the conclusion that Ronald Reagan never left the campaign trail. In the second GOP debate alone, the “Great Communicator’s” name was brought up a total of 23 times, which even exceeds the number of times Donald Trump mentioned China. One of the comments coming from Jeb Bush was “I’m on the Reagan side of this.” Additionally, Senator Marco Rubio stated that “Reagan and his approach worked (CITE).” The candidates worked hard to evoke memories of and make comparisons to the beloved former president. The debate even took place in the Ronald Reagan Library in Simi Valley, California. Reagan has been constantly praised by those on the
Social media has given the human race an unprecedented amount of access to news and information. However, the validity and vetting of this information is often questionable at best. The emergence of websites such as Breitbart, Occupy Democrats, and TheBlaze have given way to a constant stream of partisan
Barrack Obama’s tenure as President of the United States is coming to a close and voters should understand how to gather reliable information on new candidates, such as Jeb Bush. Even though paying attention to all four major types of media platforms; digital, legacy, a candidates’ own media, and social media, creates a sound informative opinion on Republican Presidential hopeful Jeb Bush, digital media provides voters with the most holistic view. The benefits of digital media, throughout the week of September 15th through the 22nd, created an opportunity to construct a different point of view on Bush and what he stands for.
As election season draws closer, we see the candidates debate more and more. These debates are a huge part in the elections, but, there is another debate that has had the hot seat since the 2000 election of Gore and Bush. In 2000, Democratic candidate Al Gore won the popular vote across the United States, but, more controversy was created by the Republican candidate George W. Bush winning the presidential election because he surpassed the 270 electoral votes needed to win. An outcry arose from all across the country saying that the people’s voices are not heard through the Electoral College and that a true democratic country would allow for direct election of the President. So why did the founding fathers not allow a direct election? And why hasn’t the Electoral College been reformed yet if it is so bad? The answers are simple. Our founding fathers didn’t allow for a direct election because they were afraid that the voters would be not well enough informed about the candidates, a reform to the Electoral College would mean a new amendment to the constitution, and because in all actuality, the Electoral College helps keep little states involved with the elections.
In the writing by Briggs (Young People and Political Participation: Teen Players) she notes that “social media are a critical new space for political discourse and engagement, which political institutions cannot afford to neglect” as the younger audiences use social media, and the people they follow as a guide it seemed vital that modern day politics has to infiltrate social media formats. This can be utilised by politicians and their agenda to widen the scope of their message. In the Praeger Handbook of Political Campaigning in the United States, Benoit investigates how successful an organised strategy using new media to win an election can be for political candidates. He states that “the innovative use of new media contributed to President Barack Obama's presidential campaign win in 2008” (Benoit, 2016). Obama's presidential campaign was one of the first to set the standard for political strategy online. The literature talks about the expansion of the internet and how that has provided a suitable platform for political agendas to grow exponentially. With the focus of the research project highlighting the specific use of social media it is important to reflect on the initial stages of online political campaigning, and to understand how Trump has cultivated this style of political
Social media has grown at phenomenal rates over the past decade, with its rise being easily visible in several fields such as publishing, business, and activism, among others. The rise of its use in the field of politics is well known by those who are on and off social media, as a result of increasing number of politicians using this global platform to their maximum advantage.