In the 2016 US presidential election campaign, social media platforms were increasingly used as direct sources of news, bypassing the editorial media. With the candidates’ millions of followers, Twitter has become a platform for mass communication and the candidate’s main online information channel. Likewise, social media has provided a platform for debating and critiquing the mainstream media by the campaigns and their networks. This article discusses the Twitter strategies of the democratic candidate Hillary Clinton and republican candidate Donald Trump during their US 2016 presidential election campaigns. While the Clinton campaign’s strategy confirms theories regarding the professionalisation of election campaigns, the Trump campaign’s more amateurish yet authentic style in social media points towards de-professionalisation and even amateurism as a counter-trend in political communication.
BarberBR (1998) Three scenarios for the future of technology and strong democracy. Political Science Quarterly113(4): 573–589.
2.
BenklerY (2006) The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
3.
BlumlerJGKavanaghD (1999) The third age of political communication: Influences and features. Political Communication16(3): 209–230.
4.
BrechtB (1983 [1930]) Radio as a means of communication. In: MattelartASiegelaubS (eds) Communication and Class Struggle v. 2: Liberation, Socialism. New York: International General, pp. 167–171.
5.
BrunsAHighfieldT (2016) May the best tweeter win: The Twitter strategies of key campaign accounts in the 2012 US election. In: BieberCKampsK (eds) Die US-Präsidentschaftswahl 2012. Wiesbaden: Springer, pp. 425–442.
6.
ChadwickA (2014) The hybrid media system: Politics and power. Public Administration92(4): 1106–1114.
7.
ColemanS (2001) Online campaigning. In: NorrisP (ed.) Britain Votes. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 115–124.
8.
CraigG (2016) Performing Politics: Media Interviews, Debates and Press Conferences. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
9.
EnliG (2015) Mediated Authenticity: How the Media Constructs Reality. New York: Peter Lang Publishing, Inc.
10.
EnliGNaperAA (2016) Social media incumbent advantage: Barack Obama’s and Mitt Romney’s Tweets in the 2012 U.S. Presidential Election Campaign. In: BrunsAEnliGSkogerbøE (eds) The Routledge Companion to Social Media and Politics. New York: Routledge, pp. 364–377.
11.
EnliGSkogerbøE (2013) Personalized campaigns in party-centred politics: Twitter and Facebook as arenas for political communications (Special issue: EnliGMoeH (eds) Social Media and Election Campaigns). Information, Communication, and Society16(15): 757–774.
12.
EnliGSyvertsenT (2016) The end of television – Again! How TV is still influenced by cultural factors in the age of digital intermediaries. Media and Communication4(3): 142–153.
13.
GrahamTBroersmaMHazelhoffK. (2013) Between broadcasting political messages and interacting with voters: The use of Twitter during the 2010 UK General Election Campaign (Special issue: EnliGMoeH (eds) Social Media and Election Campaigns). Information, Communication, and Society16(15): 692–716.
14.
HowardPN (2006) New Media Campaigns and the Managed Citizen. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
15.
JacksonNLillekerD (2011) Microblogging, constituency service and impression management: UK MPs use of Twitter. The Journal of Legislative Studies17(1): 86–105.
16.
KarlsenR (2013) Obama’s online success and European party organizations: Adoption and adaption of U.S. online practices in the Norwegian Labor Party. Journal of Information Technology & Politics10(2): 158–170.
17.
KendallKPaineS (1995) Political images and voting decisions. In: Hacker (ed.) Candidate Images in Presidential Elections. Westport, CT: Praeger, pp. 19–36.
18.
KreissD (2012) Taking Our Country Back: The Crafting of Networked Politics from Howard Dean to Barack Obama. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
19.
KreissD (2014) Seizing the moment: The presidential campaigns’ use of Twitter during the 2012 electoral cycle. New Media and Society18(8): 1473–1490.
20.
KreissDJasinskiC (2016) The tech industry meets presidential politics: Explaining the democratic party’s technological advantage in electoral campaigning, 2004–2012. Political Communication33: 544–562.
21.
LarssonAOIhlenØ (2015) Birds of a feather flock together? Party leaders on Twitter during the 2013 Norwegian elections.European Journal of Communication30(6): 666–681.
22.
LarssonAOMoeH (2013) Twitter in politics and elections: Insights from Scandinavia. In: BrunsABurgessJWellerK. (eds) Twitter and Society. New York: Peter Lang Publishing, Inc., pp. 319–330.
23.
LillekerDNegrineR (2002) The professionalization of political communication continuities and change in media practices. European Journal of Communication17(3): 305–323.
24.
MaarekPJ (2011) Campaign Communication and Political Marketing. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
25.
NielsenRK (2012) Ground Wars: Personalized Communication in Political Campaigns. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
26.
NimmoDSavageR (1976) Candidates and Their Images: Concepts, Methods, and Findings. Pacific Palisades, CA: Goodyear Publishing Company.
27.
Parry-GilesSJ (2014) Hillary Clinton in the News: Gender and Authenticity in American Politics. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
28.
Pew Research (2016) Election 2016: Campaigns as a Direct Source of News. Washington. D.C.: Pew Research Center.
Stromer-GalleyJ (2000) On-line interaction and why candidates avoid it. Journal of Communication50: 111–132.
31.
Stromer-GalleyJ (2004) Interactivity-as-product and interactivity-as-process. The Information Society20(5): 391–394.
32.
Stromer-GalleyJ (2014) Presidential Campaigning in the Internet Age. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
33.
VavreckL (2009) The Message Matters: The Economy and Presidential Campaigns. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
34.
WallstenK (2013) Old media, new media sources: The blogosphere’s influence on print media news coverage. International Journal of E-Politics4(2): 1–20.
35.
WestenD (2008) Political Brain: The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation. New York: PublicAffairs.
