Hillary Clinton’s tweets aren’t particularly edgy or provocative. But no matter what she says, they tend to generate a passionate response – much of it negative.

No matter the message, whether it’s an opinion on a contentious issue or an unremarkable snapshot from the campaign trail, the result tends to be the same: an avalanche of cynicism, snark and some outright bile.


In part, it’s a function of the size of her account — with 3.5 million followers, Clinton’s Twitter following dwarves every other contender in the 2016 hunt. And Twitter trolling, as all of the prospective candidates and anyone in public life can attest, is the price of admission.

Still, when it comes to Clinton, the trolling is of a different scale and measure, a clear reflection of the strong feelings she provokes among her legion of detractors.

“How can you tell Hillary will fight every day for kids and families? Because it’s what she’s always done,” @HillaryClinton tweeted May 12, with a link to a Huffington Post story outlining her legacy as Arkansas’ first lady.

That relatively mundane tweet provoked anger from both the right and the left. “What about the ones she voted to send to war in Iraq,” replied Karen Geier, whose Twitter bio identifies her as a digital and social media strategist, a feminist and a proud progressive.

Ted Bingham, a self-described conservative Mormon from Sheboygan, WI, replied: “After she’s done lying about the 30,000 emails, how she was named, and her ‘immigrant grandparents. She’s a total waste!!!”

And Christopher Mahoney, who identified himself online as a retired vice chairman at Moody’s, replied to Clinton by reaching back to the suicide of a close Clinton confidante in the ‘90s: “Especially the family of Vince Foster.”

Amid a long stream of detractors, one fan account, whose handle is @HRC, tweeted encouragingly, like a small voice working up the nerve to express an unpopular opinion: “Next Prez.”

Clinton’s online detractors most often paint her as untrustworthy, or raise questions about the foreign money that has flowed to the Clinton Foundation while she was secretary of state. Some call her names like “witch,” dictator,” “monster,” and even “Hitlary,” all reminders of how polarizing Clinton can be — a feminist hero and glass-ceiling cracker to supporters; an untrustworthy, pandering operative to the haters. (Her most devoted supporters sometimes break through the noise with supportive exclamations of “Queen!”)

Her large Twitter following is, on the whole, an advantage for Clinton, who can exert more control over her own message and image: a recent picture of Clinton in Iowa was retweeted 251 times and favorited by 561 Twitter users. In contrast, a recent picture of New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie campaigning in New Hampshire with his wife, Mary Pat, was retweeted once and favorited three times.

With more followers than all the top-tier Republican candidates combined (her closest GOP competitor is Sen. Marco Rubio, who has 736,000), Clinton’s Twitter account is a powerful messaging tool for pushing out her own snapshots from campaign stops, weighing in on national issues in 140 characters, and directing supporters to her fundraising and volunteer pages online.

But that formidable footprint comes with a price: she also trumps her opponents in terms of her legions of trolls, who sometimes overwhelm the conversations she generates, picking at the scabs and scars Clinton has accumulated over nearly four decades in public life.

When Clinton recently tweeted “Healthy women ? healthy communities. Sign up if you agree with Hillary,” one quick response to that relatively anodyne message was, ““On average how much does Bill spend on hookers each week?”

Clinton’s physical appearance is not considered out of bounds among her Twitter tormenters. One response to photos of Clinton walking around Brooklyn last week, dressed in a long green jacket, that were posted on Twitter: “She’s a human pear.”

On May 14, Clinton’s tweet about “words that ring truer than ever today: ‘Human rights are women’s rights, and women’s rights are human rights.’ #TBT” — along with a picture of Clinton from her famous 1995 speech on human rights in Beijing — drew an especially pointed response. One Rachel Cohen — a self-described protestant Christian, conservative libertarian gun owner replied: “Oh for the days when you weren’t tired, fat, old and gray.”

The campaign doesn’t engage with its trolls — or even acknowledge them. “Hillary Clinton listens to everyone’s voices whether they have substantive feedback during the hours of roundtable discussions she’s had or 140 characters of feedback in response to a tweet,” said a Clinton campaign aide.

A Democratic strategist who is not affiliated with the campaign explained the Clinton approach this way: “Haters gonna hate.”

And they do.

“Hillary wants to call someone’s mom on Mother’s Day. It could be yours,” Clinton tweeted — seemingly innocuously — on May 4, with a link to the campaign contest fundraiser.

Not so innocuous, it turned out.

“I am so thank U R Not my mom or Grandma and U stay away from my MOM! Dictator Hypocrite!” replied one woman whose Twitter handle is Judy Ameil.

“How about calling the moms of those killed at Benghazi? that’s a great start. Instead, it’ll probably be rich donors. #Witch.” wrote Paul Hicks, who tweets under the handle @PaulAniston and responds often to Clinton’s tweets.

While the attacks seem to be personal and sometimes sexist, the attackers claim they are not.

“Yep. I troll quite a bit I guess,” Hicks, who works as a quality control engineer, explained in a direct message on Twitter. “I don’t dislike her personally because I don’t know her personally. As with all politicians, I’m sure she’s very likeable and says all the right things…. I’m as tired of old white men leading this country as the next guy. We need someone that’ll unite the country, protect it & stand up for its citizens.”

The constant stream of criticism “comes with the territory” of a high-profile campaign, said Rebecca Heisler, former social media director for Mitt Romney’s 2012 presidential campaign. “The key is to create enough quality content that you’re not just getting negative feedback, you’re also getting supporters to actively engage and drown out the noise.”

Reading the individual comments is counter-productive, she said, but getting a bigger picture of a candidate’s reception online can be helpful to a campaign. “There are social listening tools where you can monitor more broadly how people are engaging with your content,” Heisler said.

“There is a big difference between social noise and social action,” warned Betsy Hoover, a partner at 270 Strategies, who was President Obama’s 2012 digital organizing director and worked with Ready for Hillary. “You have to recognize that and know what you’re seeing and when. Engagement is high and the focus is really high. With Clinton, you have a very focused place for that energy to go in a way you don’t on the other side. It’s much easier to be against something on Twitter than for something, but the people that are pro-Hillary are donating money, sharing a video, or volunteering in their communities.”

By now, the campaign has come to expect a stream of trolling — especially when Clinton weighs in on divisive issues like abortion.

“When it comes to women’s health, there are two kinds of experts: women and their doctors. True 40+ years ago, true today. - H” she tweeted last Wednesday, weighing in on the debate surrounding a bill to ban 20 week abortions (it passed in the House earlier that day).

The responses were as expected: “Why don’t you just come out and say you have no problem with killing babies? We’re talking 20 weeks. you’re a monster…” tweeted “Ryan,” a self-described “Christian. Texan. Conservative,” who has over 6,000 followers.

Jeb Bush also weighed in on the bill on Twitter: “I urge Congress to support the late-term abortion ban today. We need to stand up for life and the most vulnerable among us. #HR36.” As with Clinton, some of his trolls also started a conversation that seemed to be more about general attacks on his candidacy than the 20-week abortion ban.

In the end, though, Clinton’s online presence trumped his, even if it came with a stream of ugly comments from those that will never vote for her.

Bush’s comment was retweeted 265 times, compared to Clinton’s 2,345.