Political parties use the internet, and social media in particular, for fundraising, advertising, and mobilizing to achieve desirable ends. Local parties are first and foremost organizations, and so as they make their decisions, they have to use their resources wisely. Through our analysis of over 6000 county-level Democratic and Republican parties in the United States, we find a high degree of variation in the use of social media platforms (Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram) by parties. In explaining this variation, we focus on parties as organizations and so find the choice to use social media and their overall activity on it reflects the resources available to the party organization, as well as the size of potential audience and the competitiveness of their political environment. These variables explain local Democratic parties better than they explain local Republican parties.
AldrichJGibsonRKCantijochM, et al. (2016) Getting out the vote in the social media era: are digital tools changing the extent, nature and impact of party contacting in elections?Party Politics22(2): 165–178.
AugerGA (2013) Fostering democracy through social media: evaluating diametrically opposed nonprofit advocacy organizations’ use of Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube. Public Relations Review39: 369–376.
BeckPAHeidemannED (2014) Changing strategies in grassroots canvassing: 1956-2012. Party Politics20(2): 261–274.
6.
BekafigoMAMcBrideA (2013) Who tweets about politics? Political participation of Twitter users during the 2011 Gubernatorial Elections. Social Science Computer Review31(5): 625–643.
7.
BlankG (2017) The digital divide among Twitter users and its implication for social research. Social Science Computer Review35(6): 679–697.
8.
BossettaM (2018) The digital architectures of social media: comparing political campaigning on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Snapchat in the 2016 U.S. Election. Journalism & Mass Communications Quarterly95(2): 471–496.
9.
BroockmanDECarnesNCrowder-MeyerM, et al. (2021) Why local party leaders don’t support nominating centrists. British Journal of Political Science51: 724–749.
10.
ClarkJALockerbieBWielhouwerPW (1998) Campaign activities. In: SteedRPClarkJABowmanL, et al. (eds) Party Organization and Activism in the American South. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press, 119–133.
11.
ClarkA (2004) The continued relevance of local parties in representative democracies. Politics24(1): 35–45.
12.
ConnollyJMBodeLEpsteinB (2018) Explaining the varying levels of adoption of E-government services in American Municipal Government. State and Local Government Review50(3): 150–164.
13.
ConroyMFeezellJTGuerreroM (2012) Facebook and political engagement: a study of online political group membership and offline political engagement. Computers in Human Behavior28: 1535–1546.
CotterCPGibsonJLBibbyJF, et al. (1984) Party Organizations in American Politics. New York, NY: Praeger Publishers.
16.
Crowder-MeyerM (2011) The party’s still going: local party strength and activity in 2008. In: GreenJCCoffeyDJ (eds) State of the Parties: The Changing Role of Contemporary American Parties, 6th edition. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 115–134.
17.
DohertyDDowlingCMMillerMG (2019) The conditional effect of local party organization activity on federal election outcomes. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties31: 368–387.
18.
EkmanMWidholmA (2017) Political communication in an age of visual connectivity: exploring Instagram practices among Swedish politicians. Northern Lights15: 15–32.
19.
FarkasJSchwartzSA (2016) Please like, comment and share our campaign! How social media managers for danish political parties perceive user-generated content. Nordicom Review39: 19–33.
20.
Federal Communications Commission (2020) 2020 Broadband Deployment Report.
21.
FeigertFBToddJR (1998) Party maintenance activities. In: SteedRPClarkJABowmanL, et al. (eds) Party Organization and Activism in the American South. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press, 105–118.
22.
FilimonovKRussmannUSvenssonJ (2016) Picturing the party: Instagram and Party Campaigning in the 2014 Swedish Elections. Social Media + Society2: 1–11.
23.
FrendreisJPGibsonJLVertzLL (1990) The electoral relevance of local party organizations. The American Political Science Review84(1): 225–235.
GershtensonJ (2003) Mobilization strategies of Democrats and Republicans, 1956-2000. Political Research Quarterly56(3): 293–308.
26.
GibsonJLFrendreisJPVertzLL (1989) Party dynamics in the 1980s: change in County Party Organizational Strength, 1980-1984. American Journal of Political Science33(1): 67–90.
27.
GimpelJames GLeeFrances EKaminskiJoshua (2016) The political geography of campaign contributions in American politics. Journal of Politics68(3): 626–639.
28.
GolbeckJGrimesJMRogersA (2010) Twitter use by the U.S. Congress. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology61(8): 1612–1621.
29.
GuoCSaxtonGD (2020) The Quest for Attention: Nonprofit Advocacy in a Social Media Age.Stanford, CA, USA: Stanford University Press.
30.
HatchRS (2016) Party organizational strength and technological capacity: The adaptation of the state-level party organizations in the United States to voter outreach and data analytics in the Internet age. Party Politics22(2): 191–202.
LarssonAO (2017) Going viral? Comparing parties on social media during the 2014 Swedish election. Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies23(2): 117–131.
37.
MetagJMarcinkowskiF (2012) Strategic, structural and individual determinants of online campaigning in German Elections. Policy & Internet4(3–4): 136–158
38.
PenneyJDadasC (2014) (Re)Tweeting in the service of protest: digital composition and circulation in the Occupy Wall Street movement. New Media & Society16(1): 74–90.
PotterJDOlivellaS (2015) Electoral strategy in geographic space: accounting for spatial proximity in district-level party competition. Electoral Studies40(4): 76–86.
41.
RoscoeDDJenkinsS (2016) Local Party Organizations in the Twenty-First Century. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
42.
SchlesingerJA (1985) The New American political party. American Political Science Review79(4): 1152–1169.
43.
SkoricMMZhuQGohD, et al. (2016) Social media and citizen engagement: a meta-analytic review. new Media & Society18(9): 1817–1839.
Stan Development Team (2021) Stan Language Reference Manual 2.26.
46.
SudulichMLWallM (2009) Keeping up with the Murphys? Candidate Cyber-campaigning in the 2007 Irish General Election. Parliamentary Affairs62(3): 456–475.
TownerTLMuñozCL (2018) Picture perfect? The role of Instagram in issue agenda setting during the 2016 Presidential Primary Campaign. Social Science Computer Review36(4): 484–499.
van der GraafAOtjesSRasmussenA (2016) Weapon of the weak? The social media landscape of interest groups. European Journal of Communication31(2): 120–135.
51.
VelasquezARojasH (2017) Political expression on social media: the role of communication competence and expected outcomes. Social Media + Society7: 1–13.
WhitesellA (2019) Interest groups and social media in the age of the Twitter president. Politics, Groups, and Identities7(1): 219–230.
54.
XenosMAMacafeeTPoleA (2017) Understanding variations in user response to social media campaigns: A study of Facebook posts in the 2010 US elecitons. New Media & Society19(6): 826–842.
