Is Social Media a Significant Political Force?

Most people assume that the online craze in American politics online and in social networks has lead to increased political involvement. Supporters of the technology revolution credit Obama's success in 2008 and the Republican's success in 2010 to the effectiveness of their online campaigning and use of social media. However, there is much evidence to suggest it takes more than a million facebook fans or thousands of twitter followers to win an election. Peter Daou, Hillary Clinton’s online campaign manager, explains: “Devoid of a compelling message to spur their use, the most advanced web tools will lie fallow” (Basen 2). Daou argues that although the internet is an effective tool, the real reason for Obama’s victory was his message of change and the real game winner for the Republicans in 2010 was their “mad as hell” message (Basen 3). In his New Yorker article: Small Change: Why the revolution will not be tweeted. Malcolm Gladwell explains: "The platforms of social media are built around weak ties… But weak ties seldom lead to high-risk activism” (Gladwell 3). He is saying that it takes almost no effort to follow someone on twitter or friend them on facebook, it doesn’t cost anything and it doesn’t require any sacrifices. This idea suggests that the social media doesn’t cultivate monumental political activism undermines predictions that the Internet will revolutionize politics.