How Snapchat Wants to Win the 2016 Election
Snapchat is getting a lot of attention for its presidential ambitions.
In an effort to both appeal to the youth vote and bolster its events coverage built on a growing volume of video posted by its users, the app recently posted a job opening for a Content Analyst in Politics & News.
The new hire will curate photos and videos for the app’s “Our Story” curated events coverage of the presidential race and other news events. That stories feature has already proven to be a massive success. On average, Snapchat’s Our Stories draws around 20 million people in a 24-hour window, director of partnerships at Snapchat, Ben Schwerin, told Re/code. The three-day story in April about Coachella, the music festival, generated 40 million unique visitors.
Political events might not be draws on that same scale, but Snapchat apparently believes its massive influence with younger Americans could attract millions millennials to engage in the political process at a time when voter turnout is at its lowest levels since World War II. In the 2012 mid-term election, the national turnout rate was 35.9 percent. Of that, only 13 percent were between the ages of 18 and 29.
Related: Can ‘Project Lightning’ Give Twitter a Fresh Jolt?
Boasting more than 100 million daily users, Snapchat is valued at $16 billion — giving it the reach and the financial clout to become a force in 2016 campaign coverage. About 60 percent of U.S. smartphone users aged between 13 and 24 have used the app, according to The Financial Times. The largest demographic of users is between the ages of 18 and 24 (45 percent), followed by those between 25 and 34 (26 percent).
To capitalize on that user base, Snapchat recently hired former CNN political reporter Peter Hamby to oversee its expanding news team. Snapchat wants to promote content from debates, rallies, appearances and other election events and allow users to follow along. But this isn’t purely an experiment in civic participation. Candidates can pay for political ads to appear on the social media app.
The social media app has an ace up its sleeve to incentivize candidates to purchase ads. The app already has age-gating technology and a form of geographic targeting. Originally put into place to make sure underage kids wouldn’t see alcohol ads, the age gate could be used to reach only voting-age users. The geographic targeting allows Our Stories to only be viewable by people in the same city or area, so politicians could target specific areas, especially ones in a tight race.
Snapchat, best known as the service that allows users to send disappearing photos, claims that ads inserted into “Our Stories” have an advantage over other social media advertisements because they leave more lasting impressions.
If campaigns buy into that and turn to Snapchat as a way to connect with a hard-to-reach demographic, the social media company could be the big winner in the 2016 election.
The 10 Worst States to Have a Baby
The birth rate in the U.S. is finally seeing an uptick after falling during the recession. Births tend to fall during hard economic times because having a baby and raising a child are expensive propositions.
Costs are not the same everywhere, though. Some states are better than others for family budgets, and health care quality varies widely from place to place.
A new report from WalletHub looks at the cost of delivering a baby in the 50 states and the District of Columbia, as well as overall health care quality and the general “baby-friendliness” of each state – a mix of variables including average birth weights, pollution levels and the availability of child care.
Mississippi ranks as the worst state to have a baby, despite having the lowest average infant-care costs in the nation. Unfortunately, the Magnolia State also has the highest rate of infant deaths and one of lowest numbers of pediatricians per capita.
Related: Which States Have the Most Unwanted Babies?
On the other end of the scale, Vermont ranks as the best state for having a baby. Vermont has both the highest number of pediatricians and the highest number of child centers per capita. But before packing your bags, it’s worth considering the frigid winters in the Green Mountain State and the amount of money you’ll need to spend on winter clothing and heat.
Here are the 10 worst and 10 best states for having a baby:
Top 10 Worst States to Have a Baby
1. Mississippi
- Budget Rank: 18
- Health Care Rank: 51
- Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 29
2. Pennsylvania
- Budget Rank: 37
- Health Care Rank: 36
- Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 51
3. West Virginia
- Budget Rank: 13
- Health Care Rank: 48
- Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 50
4. South Carolina
- Budget Rank: 22
- Health Care Rank: 43
- Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 49
5. Nevada
- Budget Rank: 39
- Health Care Rank: 35
- Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 46
6. New York
- Budget Rank: 46
- Health Care Rank: 12
- Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 47
7. Louisiana
- Budget Rank: 8
- Health Care Rank: 50
- Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 26
8. Georgia
- Budget Rank: 6
- Health Care Rank: 46
- Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 43
9. Alabama
- Budget Rank: 3
- Health Care Rank: 47
- Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 44
10. Arkansas
- Budget Rank: 12
- Health Care Rank: 49
- Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 37
Top 10 Best States to Have a Baby
1. Vermont
- Budget Ranks: 17
- Health Care Rank: 1
- Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 5
2. North Dakota
- Budget Rank: 10
- Health Care Rank: 14
- Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 10
3. Oregon
- Budget Rank: 38
- Health Care Rank: 2
- Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 14
4. Hawaii
- Budget Rank: 31
- Health Care Rank: 25
- Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 1
5. Minnesota
- Budget Rank: 32
- Health Care Rank: 5
- Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 12
6. Kentucky
- Budget Rank: 1
- Health Care Rank: 33
- Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 20
7. Maine
- Budget Rank: 25
- Health Care Rank: 10
- Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 15
8. Wyoming
- Budget Rank: 22
- Health Care Rank: 17
- Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 7
9. Iowa
- Budget Rank: 14
- Health Care Rank: 25
- Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 9
10. Alaska
- Budget Rank: 50
- Health Care Rank: 6
- Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 2
Top Reads From The Fiscal Times
- The 10 Worst States for Property Taxes
- Americans Are About to Get a Nice Fat Pay Raise
- You’re Richer Than You Think. Really.
Worried About a Recession? Here’s When the Next Slump Will Hit
The next recession may be coming sooner than you think.
Eleven of the 31 economists recently surveyed by Bloomberg believed the American recession would hit in 2018, and all but two of them expected the recession to begin within the next five years.
If the recession begins in 2018, the expansion would have lasted nine years, making it the second-longest period of growth in U.S. history after the decade-long expansion that ended when the tech bubble burst in 2001. This average postwar expansion averages about five years.
The recent turmoil in the stock market and the slowdown in China has more investors and analysts using the “R-word,” but the economists surveyed by Bloomberg think we have a bit of time. They pegged the chance of recession over the next 12 months to just 10 percent.
Related: Stocks Are Sending a Recession Warning
While economists talk about the next official recession, many average Americans feel like they’re still climbing out of the last one. In a data brief released last week, the National Employment Law Project found that wages have declined since 2009 for most U.S. workers, when factoring in cost of living increases.
A full jobs recovery is at least two years away, according to an analysis by economist Elise Gould with the Economic Policy Institute. “Wage growth needs to be stronger—and consistently strong for a solid spell—before we can call this a healthy economy,” she wrote in a recent blog post.
Top Reads from The Fiscal Times:
- This CEO Makes 1,951 Times More Than Most of His Workers
- Seven Reasons Why the Fed Won’t Hike Interest Rates
- $42 Million for 54 Recruits: U.S. Program to Train Syrian Rebels Is a Disaster