Social media has become increasingly central to political campaigns; politicians now use short-form video on platforms like TikTok and Instagram to attract Gen Z and build political traction.
Candidates constantly try to figure out how to get onto feeds, whether by explaining lawmaking or jumping on viral trends. However, for young people scrolling through these apps, there is a fine line between a post that is meant to teach you something and one that feels desperate for attention.
Campaign strategies using digital platforms generally fall into two types. On one end, some politicians use short videos to make complex political topics easy to understand. For instance, New York City mayor Zohran Mamdani gained traction by making creator-style videos that explain local government. In one clip, he used glasses of mango lassi to explain ranked-choice voting in simple terms.
Instead of sounding like a standard campaign speech, videos like that serve as tools for people who do not watch traditional news. Vice President of the School’s chapter of Voters of Tomorrow, Sophomore Zachary Sade sees value in that strategy, noting that social media can be useful when candidates use it to “demystify policy and help people who otherwise don’t know.” When a post takes a complex system and breaks it down in under a minute, it gives viewers useful information without forcing them to read through a long document.
In contrast, other content is made purely for outreach. National campaign pages like former Vice President Kamala Harris’ @kamalahq leaned into TikTok “fan edits” and trending audio clips like Beyoncé songs to get attention. These accounts post fast-paced edits, memes, and trending music to stay relevant. Even though these posts get millions of views, they do not prove anything political. As Sade points out, short trendy videos are rarely “a means of trying to explain policy.” Instead, they act like a hook to “grab people in” so viewers look up the candidate on their own. The main goal is brand recognition: if a candidate stays on your screen, you remember their name when you reach voting age.
There is also a certain risk of trying to stay relevant via social media feeds. Gen Z quickly notices when campaign posts feel forced or out of touch. For instance, a video of politician Vivek Ramaswamy making campaign promises within a battle cage, was heavily ridiculed and eventually deleted. In his analysis of the stunt, Sade pointed out that when a video comes across as cringy or distracting, “all it does is get negative attention,” taking focus away from the politics. In such cases, it becomes evident that there is a significant problem with social media politics in that one bad video may tank a candidate’s image deteriorate much faster than good videos would be able to boost the candidate’s reputation. A viral video may be the first time for a student to hear a politician’s name, but a video stunt may not influence their political preferences.
Along with analyzing individual clips, students have to navigate the online environment overflowing with tailored political messages. Because algorithms push content based on what holds the attention of viewers, feeds start to repeat the same perspective. Sade highlights this danger, explaining that if media is consumed passively, then “social media can reinforce bias without people realizing it.” The solution, as he suggests, is for students to be responsible for what they see online: “You have to be willing to look outside of what the algorithm gives you if you actually want to understand an issue.” For students at the School, social media serves only as an initial source of information about candidates. As Sade points out, politicians who want real respect need to stop using social media tricks and talk about real issues like housing, jobs, and student debt.