Political campaigns and elections continue to change with the development of technology and trends. Debates now take place not only on the stage, but in 140 characters or less of cyberspace. Facebook, Instagram and Twitter all help to develop the voters perception of the various candidates. Social media allows everyone to see a glimpse into not only the candidates’ opinions, but also their personal lives. Simple tasks such as tweeting about their daily lives, to commenting on current events can all be done instantly and seen by the public. Information regarding each candidate is passed on via social media to the viewer directly from the candidates, their opponents and other voters.

Hashtags have been created in order to easily show what candidate you are supporting. #feelthebern, #Trump2016, and #imwithher for Sanders, Trump, and Clinton, respectively. While the hashtags may be seen as a rash decision, they are actually carefully crafted. Each hashtag they choose shows something about themselves. One can see that each hashtag portrays a different image. “Feel the Bern” is a fun and youthful saying, while “Trump 2016” has no frills, just what is necessary, all business. Hillary tries to get the woman vote by reminding everyone again that she is the only female candidate. No way is wrong, but the different angles and strategies are purposeful and should be noted.

Social media has become one of the most important tools in communicating with voters. It is important for the candidates and their teams to effectively reach all of their target audiences and potential swing voters, with the various forms of social media. One of the benefits for voters is the interactive feature of the social media platforms. Voters can ‘like”, share and even comment back to the candidate. With the help of computer programs all of the feedback can be analyzed for campaigns to react accordingly. Speech writing will be influenced, campaign trails may be changed and funds will be dispersed based on this feedback.

In the past political campaigns mostly relied on television commercials and newspaper ads; to convey the candididates’ opinions on issues or in the case of negative ads about their opponent. This type of communication is static; the viewer takes in the information and forms an opinion about the candidates. Sometimes voters are offended by negative ads, which backfires on the candidates agenda. The cost of producing a professional quality commercial or add is high; as well as buying advertising time or space. In contrast social media platforms are free. Also to be considered is the timing delay in producing these forms of communication. The issue in the add may no longer be relevant because of social media rapid fire discussion of issues.

It was estimated that the digital media advertisements will reach a shocking $1 billion in 2016. And that is just for the presidential election. Not only is the timing of the advertisements important, but also the location. More ads were served on mobile devices rather than computer websites. Different strategies of advertisements also work best on different platforms. For example, text ads work better than banner ads, but they both are more effective than native ads. It is important for the campaign strategy teams to take this into consideration for optimal interaction with voters.

Effective advertisements involve slight differences in branding. For example, almost all Bernie Sanders ads state his full name. Hillary Clinton’s ads seem to use her first name more than her full name, while Donald Trump does the exact opposite with using his last name. It is the fine details like this that help to fully develop the candidates and voters perceptions. Bernie Sanders still needs name recognition, Hillary wants to feel personal with voters and Trump wants to be perceived as business like.

One advantage about social media is the real time reactions that can happen. Instantly candidates can “speak’ with their supporters. A disadvantage in real time, tweets can be sent out before being corrected or strategized. Clinton’s tweets are much more refined than Trump’s. But, that can be because Trump writes all of his tweets after 7pm each day. During the day Trump says exactly what he wants to be posted, from the capitalization to the punctuation, and his team posts it. At night, and out of the office he can be seen personally controlling the twitter. This can lead to rash or reactionary tweets. He has gotten in trouble a few times for harsh tweets or retweets, but the personal connection cannot be denied.

All of the candidates have very distinct voices on social media as well. Hillary Clinton has been called out for trying to speak like a millennial. From the phrases and hashtags she uses, one would not predict her age. Donald Trump is very bold on twitter. From using capitalization and strong punctuation, to the reactionary words, he does not hold back. Bernie Sanders tweets also seem to be targeted to the millennial audience. A study found that Sanders had repeatedly used the words “social media” “video games” “college student” and “high school” more than any other candidate. Something as simple as the words used in an online post plays a role in the development of the candidate.

No longer are the days of carefully thought out and crafted statements via spokesmen. The public demands instant reactions to news and statements from the candidate. Because of that, the whole election game has forever been changed. Social media is no longer an option, but a necessity in order to influence voters. It is a platform that is immediate and informative and allows the voter to feel as if they are personally connecting with the candidates.

Social media has forever changed the path of political elections. Voters are able to feel more connected to the candidates in a way that was never possible before. While there are obvious disadvantages, it is now expected and considered a necessity. Supporter are able to know more about the different presidential candidates and interact like never before.