In 2016, US political ad spending was $4.25 billion. In 2024, the value hit $12.32 billion. 71.9% of this spending is found to be put into traditional media, with the rest 28.1% implemented into social media. To touch upon young voters, both Harris and Trump present their campaigns on Instagram, Facebook, and TikTok. Especially, Harris’ campaign make relatable videos with trending sounds and jokes to bring them onto eye-level with this voter demographic. However, do all the trends and viral content actually help to share real ideas or propose legitimate solutions to the various issues the country is facing?
Attention is something especially younger parties need to even make them applicable for the race. To simply gain validity and be remembered by the audience, both traditional and social media is great. However, for a country like the US this is not extremely applicable since realistically, only two parties have the opportunity at the top. Social media campaigns are used to create shareable content rather than deep, substantive policies. Yes, these look to aim millions of possible voters quickly, however the complexity needed to tackle the countries large issues isn’t addressed. A balance between content and ideas is extremely difficult to maintain, and a parties’ preference strongly depends on their goals.
The short, and eye-catching campaigns that are pushed through adverts focus on short, emotional visuals. Hereby, nuanced policy explanations may be ignored and voters can form opinions simply based on emotion rather than actually speak on the issues that at are necessary. The dominance of fast-paced and short information bursts that we get from advertisements and social media limits the electorates ability to engage with policies relevant to their lives and their country.
However, this isn’t only applicable for social media or advertisements. Many US presidential candidates use conventions in their respective parties to further support within, and to garner support from unsure voters. In her speech at the Democratic National Convention, an event where Democrats from all states celebrate the achievements of the Democratic ticket, Harris touches upon many issues like unity, democracy, reproductive rights, and economic inequality. She highlights these through emotionally charged topics and personal anecdotes, such as “My early memories of our parents together are very joyful ones. A home filled with laughter and music: Aretha, Coltrane and Miles. At the park, my mother would say, “Stay close.” But my father would say, as he smiled, “Run, Kamala, run. Don’t be afraid. Don’t let anything stop you.” From my earliest years, he taught me to be fearless.”-. And thought she does capture attention and rally support, Harris does not delve deeply into specific policies or detailed ideas. Of course, it is difficult to fit a policy for an entire nation into a 35-minute speech, however it might be beneficial to propose certain ideas.
The same goes for Trumps speech at the Republican National Convention. He started by describing his near-death experience, praising his crowd for staying with him while he was on the floor: “Incredible people. They’re incredible people. Bullets were flying over us, yet I felt serene.”. Evidently, Trumps speech is also very emotional by mentioning the assassination attempt. Although he does also mention some policy like energy independence and lowering taxes, the speech was largely about rallying support and gaining pity rather than delivering a substantial policy for change.
The conclusion we can draw from this is that online platforms, using things like social media and online advertisements, are useful for gaining fast and large amounts of information. They often sacrifice the opportunity for actually talking to and informing the public. Both speeches from the conventions prove how campaigns are typically geared towards fostering an emotional connection with potential voters and visibility. The result of this is that the easy, sharable content we are becoming reliant on hinders deep engagement with issues in the political sphere. It makes it difficult for individuals to form opinions on actual proposals rather than short-lived emotional ideas.
