With the rise of neoliberalism and promotional capitalism, workers are expected to become “entrepreneurs of the self” who must promote their behaviors, relationships, bodies, and selves in order to advance their own interests against their competitors. Social media networks, such as Instagram, allow users to present and produce an online persona. For politicians, the intention of self-branding on Instagram is purely rhetorical; its goal is to produce an image that voters will “buy.” It could be said that 2016 is the year of the “Instagram election” since each politician’s online persona plays a huge role in “likability” and perhaps even electability. Here I argue that Hillary Clinton uses Instagram to self-brand as a means to have voters “buy” her product or message. A few months ago, Hillary posted a very moving photo of herself surrounded by mothers in Chicago who had lost their children to gun violence. Posts of these nature are essential for Hillary’s brand, as she is known to be a champion of the African American community. Instagram posts of racialized violence extract certain feelings from a targeted population. Their everyday reality is packaged, branded, and then sold back to themselves as a symbol for Hillary’s campaign. Not surprisingly then, these feelings mobilize voters to support Clinton, while she utilizes the societal problems this population faces into her carefully crafted appearance and brand name. But what exactly are the implications of a politician as a brand? What does this mean in terms of democracy? In the world of social media sites, profiles are curated and filtered to address a specific audience, but when this is utilized as a means to get votes, is the public responding as a consumer or an informed citizen?