Why Twitter doesn’t matter at all (in this election)
At the beginning of the campaign we weren’t really sure, but by last night it was blindly clear.
Twitter, and social media generally, in this election campaign do not matter – not in the wider scheme of things at least.
The blizzard of tweets last night, 154,342 in all (up on the second debate but down on the first) were in the main anti Cameron in nature– Tweetminister’s sentiment score had it as Clegg 3.13 (-0.5), Brown 2.99 (-0.15), Cameron 2.96 (-0.22) #leadersdebate.
Clegg was the clear winner on Twitter and on Facebook and Brown it appeared to be agreed had done better. It was Clegg one; Brown two; and Cameron three.
But as the camera’s stopped rolling and drew away from the stage, and as the three awkwardly stepped forward, Cameron doing his prime ministerial hand on Clegg’s shoulder, and the polls started to come in the wider truth became quickly apparently.
There was a brief few minutes that Channel 4′s self selecting poll (easily won by Clegg) was eagerly retweeted, but online Tories like Craig Elder and Samuel Coates tweeted back to wait for the real polls. He wasn’t wrong.
Both YouGov, ICM, Angus Reid, ComRes and Populus polls told a different story.
Angus Reid: Cameron 37%, Clegg 30%, Brown 23%.
YouGov: Cameron 41%, Nick Clegg 32%, Gordon Brown 25%.
ComRes: Cameron 35%, Clegg 33%, Brown 26%
Populus: Cameron 38%, Clegg 38%, Brown 25%.
ICM: Cameron 35% Brown 29% Clegg 27%
Rory Sutherland tweeted “Yougov calls it for Cameron. Twittersphere dissolves in incomprehension – unable to believe that Twitter not representative of the UK.” I laughed as I read it, but it was an accurate assessment of what happened.
No one believed it. YouGov was the first one to go around. It does the Sun’s polling and is biased came a chorus of tweets (and it is the one poll that gave Cameron the biggest poll present), but then as Angus Reid and ComRes polls followed were also for Cameron as well. It was once as rumour, twice as fact and third time well that’s strike three and the umpire has called it. Then more polls and really it is time to move on.
On Twitter, on Facebook, and online generally the story was different, but its wider impact, its ability to affect the real world was and has been throughout wholly marginal.
Twitter has proved good copy for lazy and social media obsessed journalists (guilty of the latter for sure). Its fast reaction, its buzzy atmosphere, and variety of views is a treat for journalists with a story to file and deadlines to meet.
But beyond the media story, beyond Westminster, it isn’t the story.
That isn’t to say that it has not had an affect on this campaign and not had an impact as it has. It has proved a really useful tool for helping to organise supporters, rally activists and hopefully get the vote out. It has helped to galvanise and got people involved in politics in different ways. Its impact has been positive.
We’ve seen some innovation as well. Online phone banks, #hastag campaigns, online spoofing and use of video (everyone will remember Webcam and SamCam).
But it just hasn’t happened. It hasn’t happened on Twitter and it hasn’t happened with social media in a wider sense and I think there is a pretty good reason for that: there just hasn’t been the candidate.
Not for Labour as Brown is just the wrong generation. Certain not for Cameron kitchen sink chats and all. That early start never led to embracing online. He is too schooled in the top down Tory politics, which has never been a democratized process and is the antithesis of social media. Cameron is the old media candidate and at heart an old media man and he their candidate.
Clegg, of course, of all of them has proved the digital winner. He has scored biggest online, won more friends, followers and C4 votes, but with him it doesn’t feel real. He appeared from nowhere, it was like he was there three weeks ago and three debates later it doesn’t feel real or completely authentic.
Clegg is the winner in that realm, but not I think really a digital candidate. That person, that candidate, just wasn’t here this time around. Maybe if he or she had have been it would have been a different online election story to the one that has played out.
Now we’ve had polls, we’ve had the tweets, it is pretty much only the voting that is left to do.
All Comments
I think you’ve missed the point. Twitter doesn’t change opinions so much as give an indication of them. Twitterers like Clegg more than Brown and Brown more than Cameron.
Great analysis Gordon. The disconnect between the Twitter (and C4) opinion and real opinion perhaps indicates the level of hype that surrounds social media. However, it’s important not to underplay the point you make about social media’s ability to engaging people in politics. There will be no way to measure it, but if all those people who tweeted during the election debates stepped out next week to vote, what a good outcome. Perhaps engagement of a specific section of the electorate is the big win here, rather than Twitter’s use as another communications channel.
Doesn’t this ignore the demographics of people using Twitter and what is tells us about them and the election.
Or does it not give us an interesting sociological insight into how and where people are willing to express their political beliefs.
The amount of open political discussion that has taken place on Facebook is also not taken account of in this article. That has been unique to this election and just because it is impossible to measure, it doesn’t mean it hasn’t been important.
Thanks @psigrist — you’re right if those people engaged here all go out and vote that’s a #win. Although my feeling is they are the politically engaged. Mostly.
@Stef, you make a really good point about Facebook. It has been important. All the main parties have more fans (likers?) on Facebook than on Twitter and the base of Facebook is broader. Twitter is more insular although we have seen that changed by various “moments — such as a rush of celebrity interest. I know various people who tried it then and then went away.
The headline is deliberately provocative, but Twitter has just not had its moment yet.
As i said i think that is partly about the galavanising power of movements behind candidates that wasn’t there. Stephen Fry is probably with his 1.4 million followers is still bigger than all of the political parties and their candidates/MPs combined.
[...] according to some none of this Social Media stuff even matters. This article by Gordon MacMillan from The Wall suggests that Twitter and Facebook are unrepresentative. While [...]