Hillary Clinton has the biggest and most effective Twitter reach of any potential 2016 candidate.

[joshcryer]

If retweets were votes, Hillary Clinton would win a 2016 Twitter election in a blowout.

Clinton has only tweeted three times in the past four weeks, but those three tweets racked up more retweets than any other possible 2016 candidate by a margin of tens of thousands. Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ken.) is her nearest competition, but he tweeted nearly 200 times, and he was still more than 16,000 retweets behind her.

There are a few things from Twitter that mirror what is going on in real life, namely that Clinton is an early front-runner who's laying low, Chris Christie is preoccupied with things going on at home, and Rand Paul is a troll.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/02/25/hillary-clinton-has-the-biggest-and-most-effective-twitter-reach-of-any-potential-2016-candidate-its-not-even-close/

[misterhighwasted]

1. "Aw Fuck!!" said the Rovian anti-Hillary campaign machine as they all stared at the chart.

Their morning meeting must have been reeealy depressing.
HA!

[misterhighwasted]

2. What? No chirps from the Hillary haters? Awfully quiet in here.

Thought they'd be all over this post with the usual GOP spin.
Hmmm

[jeff47]

3. That's because it's about the most worthless metric possible.

Clinton 14k retweets? That's nice. Justin Bieber got 271,000 retweets for "I'M SEXY AND I KNOW IT". So clearly we need to be lining up behind Bieber, since he's 19 times more popular.

Or we could give a fuck about their political positions instead. Your call.

[nichomachus]

4. +100

I don't know anyone who uses Twitter. And basing popularity, electability, or value as a candidate on the number of tweets is just stupid.

If I were a politician, I would steer as clear of Twitter as humanly possible.

Besides, we know Hillary isn't really tweeting at all. She has people for that. So what you get are carefully crafted, focus-group tested, campaign ads.

Just come out and tell us your position.

[RufusTFirefly]

5. Whaatt??? And I suppose you're going to diss her selfies next, eh?

Clearly, you've lost all perspective on what's truly important, nicho!

Senator Warren Posts Cute Selfie While on Self-Promoting Tour, Woo Hoo!!!

[misterhighwasted]

6. Expected some sour grapes from the HHClub.

Meh

[xocet]

7. Why do you think RT's are a valid metric? n/t

[joshcryer]

8. What would you propose?

Surely you can't off hand dismiss a media platform that some politicians chose to present on, can you?

Your reply is akin to saying twitter is irrelevant thus who cares if politicians use it.

[jeff47]

9. Let's go with appearances on Meet The Press!!

That'll be a valuable metric!!!

How 'bout we set up a system where people can make their choice on a piece of paper. We can count those, and determine the winner. We could call it an "election".

Or less snarky, no politician at this level actually uses twitter. Their PR staff does. Clinton having better PR staff really is not an indication of anything other than having a better PR staff.

[misterhighwasted]

10. We'd have to change the Supreme Court to have choices on a piece of paper again..

I don't think there's a chance in hell of any SC being chosen with Jeb, Paul, Cruz, Christie, Rubio, Walker etc as President of the USA to ever select a reasonable SC Judge.
I will vote the most winnable Dem Ticket we can provide.

Mrs Clinton appears to be the unbeatable candidate, and that's where my vote & election work will go.
Absolutely NO Way will I help hand this Nation over to the Teabaggin Pukes to deliver the final death blow to what is left of our democracy.
I will save my haterisms for the Republican 2016 ticket.

Do whatever you like