Political texting is everywhere, and Americans received billions of political texts last cycle, which raises the fair question: does it actually work? The honest answer is that texting is highly effective at some things, modestly effective at others, and its real advantage is reach and cost rather than a magic persuasion effect. Here's how to read the evidence.
What is texting good at?
Reach and mobilization, above all. Texting's defining strength is that it gets read, over 90% open rates within minutes, which makes it excellent for reminding people to act: return a ballot, show up to vote, attend an event, give before a deadline. For GOTV, where the job is nudging already-supportive voters to follow through, texting is one of the most cost-effective tools available, because a small lift across a large list adds up.
What about persuasion?
More modest, and format-dependent. Persuading an undecided voter is harder than reminding a supporter, and a one-way blast rarely moves an opinion. Where texting helps with persuasion is peer-to-peer, a real conversation with a real person, which can shift attitudes at the margin and, just as valuably, identify who's persuadable. The lesson is to match the claim to the format: broadcast mobilizes, P2P persuades and identifies, and neither is a substitute for the other.
How should you read texting claims?
Skeptically, and by mechanism. Be wary of any tool that claims to swing huge margins by text alone; the credible effects are marginal lifts that matter in close races, not landslides. The right way to read a texting result is to ask what it's measuring, turnout among an already-opted-in list, replies to a persuasion script, ballot cures saved, and whether the effect is plausibly causal. Texting's value is real and it's cumulative: consistent, well-targeted contact that reminds, identifies, and mobilizes. See the benchmarks for the numbers behind it.
Frequently asked questions
Do political texts actually work?
Yes, especially for mobilization and reminders, where texting's high open rate makes it cost-effective at nudging supporters to act. It's more modest at persuasion, where P2P conversations help more than blasts.
Is texting better for turnout or persuasion?
Turnout. Reminding already-supportive voters to follow through is where texting shines. Persuasion is harder and works best through P2P conversation, not broadcast.
How big is texting's effect?
Marginal but meaningful, the kind of lift that decides close races, not landslides. Be skeptical of any claim that texting alone swings large margins.
Keep reading: political texting benchmarks and text vs email vs calls. For carrier registration, see The Campaign Registry.