Social media has become a powerful tool that does more than communicate individuals to one another. Twitter, for example, allows users to instantly share their ideas through either a 140 word count message, photos, or videos. In addition to the general public, celebrities, organizations, and politicians also share out tweets that represent their views, opinions, and so forth. Celebrity feuds are very common in popular culture and sometimes can be witnessed online with celebrities arguing over Twitter. Whenever celebrities or media personalities argue and start “beef” people usually tune in because it is entertaining and expected behavior. Yet, what about when politicians and presidential candidates act that way? What does their actions say about their presidential campaign and overall rhetoric?
Earlier in August, presidential democratic candidate Hillary Clinton and republican candidate Jeb Bush got into a fight on Twitter that definitely drew attention from the younger crowd. Hillary Clinton tweeted an image focusing on student debt in America and the amount of Americans suffering in debt.
Then, from Jeb Bush’s account, there was an image logo in reply to Clinton’s that looked very similar, but attacked her. The logo graphic stated, “100%. The increase in student debt under this Democratic White House. Hillary Clinton: mortgaging the future of college grads for 4 more years.”
Then Clinton replied to Bush with another logo graphic that gave him an “F” as a grade for “college affordability” in the state of Florida under his leadership with the text attached, “Fixed it for you.”
Finally, Bush had the final say in the Twitter beef with another logo graphic that showed taxes rising and the text attached that read, “fixed your logo for you.”
Both candidates were immature because their behavior was not professional. Bush and Clinton were replying to one another like children as they altered each other’s graphic logos to get their points across. Considering both candidates are running for president of the United States, their interactions on Twitter reflect them poorly because of its lack of formality.
Apart from the situations immaturity, this Twitter fight might have just benefited both candidates more than it hurt them in portrayal. Nonetheless, the interaction got people talking. Bush and Clinton could have done this Twitter interaction through verbal speeches and had a different effect. Both candidates really drew in the younger crowd of voters. My friends do not watch political debates or any of the candidate’s speeches unless they truly are interested. Yet, they always are on Twitter or some sort of social media. Therefore, they came across the information easier as it was presented a bit more entertaining and less boring than what could be expected from a 10 minute long speech.
The connection that is made from social media and politics really is a clever one. In today’s world, it is essential to include social media in your plan of informing a mass amount of people about a certain topic or idea. What Clinton and Bush lacked in professionalism, they made up for in strategic campaign moves.