In today’s world, the American government’s image is tainted by collusion, deception and everything in between. One element of U.S. politics that embodies these characteristics is televised political ads and the inaccuracies that they are made up of. Both Republicans and Democrats are guilty of using slights, slams and slurs to invalidate their opponent’s credibility through the use of political ads. In these commercials, the truth is almost always skewed or distorted. However, the public’s awareness of this belligerent disregard of the truth is increasing, as more and more news networks are beginning to call out these falisies (“encourage”). As a result, televised political ads are starting to lose their relevancy. This fact is becoming even more evident, as today’s voters commonly regard political commercials as spam rather than an adequate means of receiving information on their potential leader. But what else can a politician do to secure the support of enough citizens to solidify his or her victory? The answer is simple: social networks and media. This internet sensation is sweeping the globe and is becoming the unsung hero of political elections at local, state and national levels.
According to the website, Social Media Today, nearly 40% of social network users consider the sites they use as “...’very important’ or ‘somewhat important’ to them in keeping up with politics.” (“Go Ahead”) And what better way to acquaint oneself with those who possess the most overlooked yet crucial vote of all --the rebelliously independent younger voter-- than to litter their Facebook homepages and Twitter feeds with an unprecedented amount of information on policies and ideas on how to make America the greatest country in the world. These younger voters and their anti-establishment mentality are tricky targets to shoot, but if a campaign is able to effectively connect with them in their own internet domain, they are sure to have an advantage over their opponent.

One reason why social networks are a valuable tool in campaigning is because they create a personal connection with voters (“5 Reasons”). One great example of a gateway to connecting with voters is Twitter. While this strategy is usually used in full force by mayors and other state or local government leaders and officials, the advantages are quite wide-ranging. Politicians who communicate with individuals using social networks appear to be more authentic in the eyes of the voters. These candidates also show a greater understanding of the need to be open and candid with their audience (“Mashable"). Twitter can also play a crucial role in national political races. In fact this past presidential election, President Obama and Governor Mitt Romney confirmed the importance of Twitter in more substantial races. The Huffington Post reported that President Obama’s campaign was much more zealous in using Twitter to connect with voters when compared to the Romney Campaign. This fervency towards social networks may have helped Obama get a leg-up on Romney when targeting younger voters (“Social Networking”).
Twitter is accompanied by another social network superpower, Facebook, which tops the list of websites used in political campaigns. While Twitter acts as a glorified town hall discussion between potential voters and candidates, Facebook is used as a massive, intertwining community where a single post from a candidate can be spread around the nation in an impressively efficient amount of time. The Facebook demographic also consists of a majority of younger voters, all of whom spend much more time on social networks than they do catching up on their political current events.
The harnessing of Facebook’s power to allow the candidates’ supporters to play an active role in the campaign is what makes it so valuable in political races. With just a click of a mouse, policies and stances on issues can be “shared”, thus expanding the audience this information reaches. This is a viable strategy to use when trying to spread an office-seeker’s policies among uninformed voters, as well as when attempting to rally the support of their base (“Mashable”). President Obama adheres to this winning formula. His campaign is famous for its ability to get his message heard and accepted. This is thanks in large part to his loyal followers who eagerly and tirelessly spread his word through social networks. Again, this is another exemplification of how President Obama was able to capture the support of the youth of America (“Barack”).
Social networks can also be extremely handy in fattening the wallets of political campaigns. (Those expensive and irrelevant attack ads on TV don’t pay for themselves.) While large campaign donation events can be beneficial, the number of individuals who come across virtual campaign donation requests surpasses that of individual events. The total 5-year value of an offline donor who started donating in 2004 is $86. In comparison, that value nearly triples for donors acquired online (“5 Reasons”). Social media engagement is also less expensive when compared to television ads (“Winning”). If a campaign fully commits themselves to the social network approach, they will be rewarded with more spending money to use on something other than useless TV ads.
I believe the number of televised political ads that are thrust upon us each election season will begin to decline. Therefore, the amount of political information we receive from our use of social networks will greatly increase. This source is more effective and less expensive when compared with televised ads and is also a key component in reaching out to the younger demographic. Quite frankly, the strategies of political campaigns are evolving. Voters used to show their support for a candidate by wearing buttons with popular slogans such as, “I Like Ike,” and “Put Hoover On.” However, this same support will now be touted in the form of a “like” on a candidate’s Facebook page instead of a cheesy bumper sticker or button.