New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

It’s Not Who Follows Hillary Clinton, It's How She Uses Them

Political Twitter followers are largely useless filler according to Obama's re-election architect

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Hillary Clinton’s inevitable presidential campaign is now official, and the former secretary of state heads into battle with a Twitter army of 3.2 million followers and counting. The other two declared candidates, Republican senators Ted Cruz and Rand Paul, have 432,000 and 539,000 followers respectively. On a bar chart (see below), it looks like a huge gap but in reality, it may mean absolutely nothing.

A study of Twitter use during the 2012 campaign suggested that only a tiny subset of followers were of any value. The study, published in December by Daniel Kreiss, an assistant professor at the University of North Carolina’s School of Journalism and Mass Communication, found that Twitter is used in political campaigns primarily to influence journalists and “an elite core of supporters.”

“Most likely not one thing we did on Twitter persuaded any voter or even necessarily reached any undecided voters,” Teddy Goff, President Obama’s digital director in the 2012 campaign, said in the study, but it “reached the somewhat elite core of supporters and then, very importantly, reached reporters as well.”


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


The study also concluded that social media effectiveness of social media can get bogged down by bureaucracy, as during Mitt Romney’s 2012 social media campaign, where anything posted on social media had be approved by 22 campaign staffers.

“The downfall of that, of course, is as fast as we are moving, it can take a little bit of time to get that approval to happen,” Caitlin Checkett, Romney’s digital integration director, said in the study. Obama’s six-person digital team had the autonomy to engage in social media discussions in real time, which they did to devastating effect, as with their epic shut-down of Clint Eastwood’s rambling speech during the Republican Convention in 2012. In a nutshell, it’s all about agility of thought and smart choices.

This article is reproduced with permission from Vocativ (© Vocativ). The article was first published on April 12, 2015.

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe