During the 2012 United States election the prevalence of political campaigning permeated throughout social network sites. It was not uncommon for political candidates on all levels of government to integrate an array of social network sites in their campaign communication strategies. Despite their vast use in elections and the recognition of their significance in the media, there is a lack of empirical research that examines the complex relationship between political campaigns and social network sites. The present research responds to this gap in the literature as it seeks to understand how two congressional campaigns employed social network sites to facilitate campaign communication. Following the collection of data from qualitative interviews with campaign staff, analysis revealed that social network sites were used to improve the effectiveness of their campaigns’ messages, to generate online engagement and offline activism, and to improve understanding the needs and opinions of the electorate.
AndrejevicM. (2007). Surveillance and power in the interactive era. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.
2.
BermanJ.WeitznerD. J. (1997). Technology and democracy. Social Research, 64(3), 1313–1319.
3.
BoydD. (2008). Can social network sites enable political action?International Journal of Media and Cultural Politics, 4(2), 241–244.
4.
BoydD. M.EllisonN. B. (2007). Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), 210–230.
5.
BurtonM. J.SheaD. M. (2010). Campaign craft: The strategies, tactics, and art of political campaign management. Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger.
6.
CanhamM. (2012, October, 15). Love outpaces Matheson in fundraising in past 3 months. The Salt Lake Tribune.
7.
CogburnD. L.Espinoza-VasquezF. K. (2011). From networked nominee to networked nation: Examining the impact of Web 2.0 and social media on political participation and civic engagement in the 2008 Obama campaign. Journal of Political Marketing, 10, 189–213.
8.
ColemanS. (2005). New mediation and direct representation: Reconceptualizing representation in the digital age. New Media & Society, 7(2), 177–198.
9.
CreswellJ. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
10.
DahlgreenP. (2005). The Internet, public spheres, and political communication: Dispersion and deliberation. Political Communication, 22, 147–162.
11.
DowneyJ.FentonN. (2003). New media, counter publicity and the public sphere. New Media & Society, 5(2), 185–202.
12.
GehrkeR. (2012, October2). Matheson, Love trade jabs over their records in third debate. The Salt Lake Tribute.
13.
GueorguievaV. (2008). Voters, MySpace, and YouTube: The impact of alternative communication channels on the 2006 election cycle and beyond. Social Science Computer Review, 26(3), 288–300.
14.
HagueB. N.LoaderB. D. (1999). Digital democracy: An introduction. In HagueB. N.LoaderB. D. (Eds.), Digital democracy: Discourse and decision making in the information age (pp. 3–22). London: Routledge.
15.
HansonG.HaridakisP.CunninghamA.SharmaR.PonderJ. D. (2010). The 2008 presidential campaign: Political cynicism in the age of Facebook, MySpace, and YouTube. Mass Communication & Society, 13(5), 584–607.
16.
HoffmannJ.KornweitzA. (2011). New media revolution?Media Development, 58(1), 7–11.
17.
JohnsonT. J.KayeB. K. (2000). Democracy’s rebirth or demise? The influence of the Internet on political attitude. In SchultzD. (Ed.), It’s show time! Media, politics, and popular culture (pp. 209–228). New York, NY: Peter Lang.
18.
JonesS. (1999). Doing internet research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
19.
KellnerD. (1999). Globalisation from below? Toward a radical democratic technopolitics. Angelaki: Journal of the Theoretical Humanities, 4(2), 101–113.
20.
LillekerD. G.JacksonN. A. (2011). Political campaigning, elections and the Internet. New York, NY: Routledge.
21.
LindlofT. R.TaylorB. C. (2011). Qualitative communication research methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
22.
MetzgarE.MaruggiA. (2009). Social media and the 2008 U.S. presidential election. Journal of New Communications Research, 4(1), 141–165.
23.
MilesM. B.HubermanA. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
SlotnickA. (2009). “Friend” the president: Facebook and the 2008 presidential election. In PanagopoulosC. (Ed.), Politiking online: The transformation of election campaign communications. (pp. 249–271). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
28.
Stromer-GalleyJ. (2000). On-line interaction and why candidates avoid it. Journal of Communication, 50(4), 111–132.
29.
TambiniD. (1999). New media and democracy: The civic networking movement. New Media & Society, 1(3), 305–329.
30.
VitakJ.ZubeP.SmockA.CarrC. T.EllisonN.LampeC. (2011). It’s complicated: Facebook users’ political participation in the 2008 election. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 14(3), 107–114.
31.
WilliamsC. B.GulatiG. J. (2009). The political impact of Facebook: Evidence from the 2006 elections and the 2008 nomination contest. In PanagopoulosC. (Ed.), Politiking online: The transformation of election campaign communications (pp. 272–291). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
