NEW YORK — (at)BarackObama is on Twitter. So is (at)MittRomney. And so are all the voters following
the 2012 presidential contest, whether they know it or not.
Candidates, strategists, journalists and political
junkies have all flocked to Twitter, the social networking hub where information from the mundane to the momentous is shared
through 140-character microbursts known as tweets.
While relatively few voters are on Twitter — a study by the Pew
Research Center found that about 13 percent of American adults have joined the site — it’s become an essential tool for
campaigns to test-drive themes and make news with a group of politically wired “influencers” who process and share those
messages with the broader world.
Put simply: When a voter is exposed to any information related to the presidential
contest, chances are it’s been through the Twitter filter first.
“The subset of people on Twitter may be relatively
small, but it’s a politically engaged audience whose influence extends both online and off,” said Heather LaMarre, a
University of Minnesota communications professor who studies social media. “It’s not the direct message that has the biggest
influence on people — it’s the indirect message.”
No one believes the campaign will be won or lost on Twitter — it’s
just one slice of an enormous communication effort the presidential campaigns are waging in cyberspace. But with a well-timed
140-character blast, candidates influence coverage, respond to charges or reinforce talking points.
This, of course,
is not the first time technology has changed the way campaigns are conducted. Radio, TV and the Internet all prompted
campaigns to adapt, giving both more avenues to reach voters and more control of their message. But radio and television are
top-down mediums at heart — from the broadcaster to the public. Never before has a grassroots technology like Twitter given
both voice and power to millions — and given candidates a real-time way to monitor the effects of their messages and
recalibrate on the fly.
And that means an ever-changing campaign narrative for 2012.
Four years ago, Twitter
was still in relative infancy and just 1.8 million tweets were sent on Election Day 2008. Now, Twitter gets that many
approximately every eight minutes.
Obama’s 2012 State of the Union address drew 800,000 tweets, Twitter said. And
tweets mentioning Rick Santorum jumped from 10-20 per minute to over 2,500 tweets per minute when news broke that he was
suspending his bid for the Republican presidential nomination.
Both the Obama and Romney campaigns have actively
embraced Twitter, using it to communicate directly with supporters and, more importantly, drive the political conversation in
a way that reaches far beyond the site. They’re also mindful of the hazards of Twitter, designating war room staffers to
monitor the site for problems to address or gaffes from their rivals to exploit.
“Our team understands that the most
important issues in this campaign are jobs and the economy, not the Twitter controversy of the day,” Romney spokesman Ryan
Williams said. “But we need to be on top of everything and monitor every aspect of this race. Twitter helps us keep our
finger on the pulse of the fast moving pace of new media.”
Twitter’s impact was on vivid display last
week.
Obama, warning a college audience that interest rates on their federal student loans could double if Congress
doesn’t act soon, urged students to make their voices heard on Twitter.
“Tweet them! Teach your parents how to
tweet!” Obama said, asking them to add the hash tag (hash)dontdoublemyrate.
The Obama campaign’s introduction of a
campaign tool named Julia also showcased what both parties will do to get the last word on Twitter.
The Obama team
unveiled an interactive slideshow on its website showing how a hypothetical woman named Julia whom the campaign says would
benefit from the president’s policies throughout her life.
“Follow Julia from age 3 to 67,” the Obama campaign
tweeted with a link to the tool — all but guaranteeing a level of buzz among Twitter users that then spilled into other
social media and into reporters’ stories.
Republicans, for their part, moved quickly on Twitter to respond — tying
Julia to the persistent weak economy.
“Did u tell (hash)Julia how much debt you left her?” Republican National
Committee spokesman Sean Spicer tweeted.
“Based on today’s bad unemployment report, it appears that Julia has given
up looking for work,” former George W. Bush spokesman Ari Fleischer tweeted after Friday’s unemployment figures showed tepid
job growth.
Twitter’s warp speed presents both an opportunity and a challenge to campaigns ever vigilant about
maintaining message discipline.
The Romney campaign sought to seize advantage after Democratic strategist Hilary Rosen
remarked that the presumptive Republican presidential nominee’s wife, Ann, a stay at home mother of 5 sons, had “never
worked a day in her life.” Polls show Romney lagging badly among women voters, and his advisers have sought ways to mitigate
the gender gap.
After Rosen’s comments on CNN quickly exploded — on Twitter — the Romney campaign launched a Twitter
feed from the candidate’s wife.
“I made a choice to stay home and raise five boys. Believe me, it was hard work,”
(at)AnnDRomney said in her first-ever tweet. “All moms are entitled to choose their path,” came her second.
Ann
Romney’s engagement on Twitter quickly earned her several thousand followers on the site. But it also scored news headlines
and helped cast Democrats as unsympathetic to women who stay home with children — a score for the Romney campaign that went
far beyond the Twitter audience.
Twitter has also caused both campaigns plenty of headaches.
The Obama team was
forced onto defense during the Rosen controversy, even though she has no connection to the president’s re-election effort.
The campaign deployed Michelle Obama to push back on Rosen.
“Every mother works hard and every woman deserves to be
respected,” the first lady tweeted.
In February, Romney delivered an economic speech at Ford Field in Detroit — a
must-win primary state for the Michigan native as he battled rival Santorum for the GOP nomination.
But hours earlier,
reporters began tweeting photos of the nearly empty football arena and the small section of it reserved for Romney’s event.
By the time the former Massachusetts governor delivered the address, the ill-chosen venue had become the story
instead.
Twitter helped lead to the resignation of a Romney foreign policy spokesman this week. Richard Grenell
stepped down from his post in part because of caustic tweets he had sent about a host of public figures including Rachel
Maddow and Newt and Callista Gingrich.
Indeed, Tom Rosenstiel, director of the Pew Research Center’s Project for
Excellence in Journalism, said the snark factor is one of Twitter’s biggest pitfalls.
“You’re more likely to be
embarrassed by what’s said on Twitter than to be praised,” Rosenstiel said. “The things that go viral tend to be jokes and
tend to be mocking.”
But, he added, “Twitter has this quality of being an alert system that elevates it above the
number of people using it.”
