digital door-knocking

Political canvassing dates all the way back to elections in the Roman Republic. Candidates met in the Forum to meet and shake hands with prospective voters, donning chalk-whitened togas candidas to stand out among the crowd. As these rituals became a core part of Roman elections, candidates from non-elite backgrounds—those who weren't already well-known—were increasingly able to run for office and win.



It's been a long while since the fall of Caesar, but canvassing remains central to what modern campaigns call the "ground game." Plastering a candidate's face on billboards and websites might increase name recognition, but direct contact and quality conversations with prospective voters have shown the best strategy, accounting for breakthrough successes like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's 2018 triumph over Democratic challenger Joe Crowley.



Knock every door. Smile. Stay open-minded. Avoid flashy clothing. Don't take rejection personally.



These are all common-sense tips that campaigns give their canvassers. They've been effective for millennia, and will continue to work. But the digital sphere—namely, social media—complicates all this.



"bernie bros"

Let's turn our attention to one of the issues plaguing the Sanders campaign: accusations of online harassment by his supporters, often dubbed 'Bernie Bros.' To be clear, supporters of all candidates have engaged in online nastiness—I only discuss Sanders because of the prominence of the Bernie Bro narrative.

Most of the discourse on online harassment has asked questions like:



1. Why hasn't Bernie denounced this? (He has.)

2. Is his campaign sexist/racist? (It's actually incredibly diverse!)

3. Why are his supporters alienating potential voters? (Most aren’t.)



But while only a vocal minority of Bernie supporters engage in “toxic online behavior,” hat last point is where I'll pay the most attention.



A quick case study



After Elizabeth Warren dropped out of the Democratic presidential primary, Twitter became rife with speculation over who she'd endorse, and who her supporters would float to. Many assumed ex-Warren voters would jump over to Bernie Sanders, her closest ideological peer in the Senate. But some instead endorsed Joe Biden: a candidate who, like Warren, led with a message of "unity"—and who is loyal to the Democratic party, unlike Senate Independent Sanders.



The response from some online Sanders supporters was swift:





Twitter user @hilaryagro and others who share her frustration aren't wrong. They have a good point: Warren entered politics to fight Biden's bankruptcy bill, and a Sanders presidency would be far more likely than Biden's to implement Warren's chief policies. From a purely logical standpoint, Warren supporters should shift to Sanders en masse, and not doing so means abandoning many of Warren's progressive positions.



Tragically, humans are not logical. Most voters are not policy wonks; they do not identify with a coherent ideology. They don't go to ISideWith.com and immediately cast their vote whoever ranks first in the list. Most voters are not so attentive to legislative history, but they do remember their personal interactions with campaign representatives.



Isn't that why canvassing works in the first place?



digital door-knocking

Sanders supporters know personal interactions matter. They've had an incredibly effective ground game—especially in outreach to Latino communities. I doubt @hilaryagro would have ever called a Warren-to-Biden voter a "selfish husk of a person" to their face.



But canvassing is no longer confined to sidewalks and city streets. Whether Facebook comments or quote tweets, voters are also impacted by the online interactions they have with a candidate's supporters, and that's a reality all campaigners now have to contend with.



So why is it so much harder to stay civil online? There are a few reasons, all unique to the unique dynamics of social media platforms. I'll go through three:



Decentralization



Most obviously, the digital world is far more decentralized than a campaign organization. Many vocal Sanders supporters may also volunteer for his campaign, but many do not. They don't report to anyone, don't receive official scripts to follow, and don't sign codes of conduct.



That doesn't make non-affiliated supporters' contributions less important, nor does it mean they aren't part of the Bernie Sanders movement. It just means that it's really hard—likely impossible—for the organization to monitor and control these individuals' behavior. So when commentators ask Sanders himself to reign in his loudest supporters, he probably just... can't.



Anonymity



In discussions of online political polarization, one of the most popular ideas is the veil of anonymity that the digital world creates. Aside from real-name networks like Facebook, individuals do not have to provide their full name or other forms of identity verification before using a site. Supposedly, this makes people braver—more comfortable spreading vitriol, confident that their reputation will remain protected from social consequence.



But the research is less clear. A recent paper testing the so-called "psychological mismatch hypothesis" revealed that social media does not cause nice people to lose control of their emotions. Some people are just hostile both online and off, and don't care all that much if their name is attached, as should be evident by the vitriol and racism on Facebook.



Context collapse



Instead, the most likely reason is 'context collapse,' a phenomenon described by researchers danah boyd and Alice Marwick:

Like many social network sites, Twitter flattens multiple audiences into one – a phenomenon known as ‘context collapse’. The requirement to present a verifiable, singular identity makes it impossible to differ self-presentation strategies, creating tension as diverse groups of people flock to social network sites.

Before social media, a campaign volunteer could blow off steam to their peers in the office, then put on a smile to knock doors in the streets. Today, though, much of organizing and activism happens online. Twitter brings allies and potential voters in the same space: when Bernie supporters vent their frustration to each other, as @hilaryagro did, that tweet appears on the feeds of undecided voters as well.



So it's not wrong to be angry in your politics, especially when lives are on the line. People have criticized opponents, often with strong language, as long as elections have been around. But the universal visibility of social media reveals those internal vent sessions to the wider world—what strengthens your own base now alienates others. Isolated instances of harassment go viral and feel commonplace.



Unsurprisingly, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is one of the few political officials to really get these new dynamics. She has killer rhetorical talent, and I hope others follow her lead.





so what?

Personally, I want to see Sanders and the progressive movement win. He's faced a lot of unfair attacks, and his base has gotten by far the most criticism for their online antics.



But it's up to his movement (all of us!) to adapt to the changing terrain of politics. Adhering to arbitrary standards of civility feels unjust, but America is far more unjust. I think it's only right to swallow our pride for the sake of the movement.



Here are a few things I will try to do on my own social media presence:



1. Seek semi-private online spaces. If I’m angry, I’ll go to group chats, campaign Slacks, or a private Twitter/Instagram. Even candidate subreddits and Facebook groups, which tend to be frequented only by subscribers, are a better option.

2. Don't say anything in a 1:1 online interaction you wouldn't say while canvassing. That specifically refers to replies and quote tweets—individual attacks on random voters tend to seem rude. I’ll criticize candidates themselves or post on my own timeline if I really have to say something.

3. Be wary of generational humor. A lot of semi-ironic Gen Z humor is not interpreted so nicely by older users. Yes, they do frequent social media, and yes, they do turn out to vote. I don't want to ban memeing... but, you know, I’ll be cognizant.



Note: I know one of the counter-arguments is that it's productive to bully people out of the race. That may be true when there's a field to winnow down, but it certainly isn't with two remaining Democratic contenders. And even the best viral attacks only reach those who keep up with politics Twitter, which isn't most voters—thank God!