Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

2016 Postmortem

Showing Original Post only (View all)

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
Mon Nov 16, 2015, 02:41 PM Nov 2015

STUDY: More Tweets More Votes! Social Media as a Quantitative Indicator of Political Behavior! [View all]

For some people it is difficult to move away from the past even when progess and new technology demand it. Due to this phenomenon, people continue to place undue emphasis and trust in the old Political Polling Methodologies, despite pollsters themselves acknowledging that they have NOT kept up with new technology and its effects on their old Methodologies, which have been increasingly failing for a number of reasons.

It was inevitable therefore that studies would be forthcoming regarding the currently DISMISSED impact of online activity on various Social Media sites because not EVERYONE rejects NEW SCIENCE thankfully, when it comes along.

This is one study and I'm sure there will be more to determine what if any effect Social Media has on elections, among other things:

More Tweets More Votes! Social Media as a Quantitative Indicator of Political Behavior!

Joseph DiGrazia,1? Karissa McKelvey,2 Johan Bollen,2 Fabio Rojas 1
1Department of Sociology
2School of Informatics and Computing

Indiana University Bloomington, IN 47408, USA

?To whom correspondence should be addressed; E-mail: [email protected].


An increasingly important question is whether social media activity can be used to assess off-line political behavior. Online social networking environments present a tremendous scientific opportunity: they generate large scale data about the communication patterns and preferences of hundreds of millions of individuals

...........

Here we show a statistically significant relationship between tweets and electoral outcomesthat persists after accounting for these potentially confounding variables. We compiled two large-scale datasets. First, we collected 2010 election outcomes and sociodemographic variables from all 435 U.S. House districts (18). Second, we retrieved a random sample of 537,231,508 tweets posted from August 1 and November 1, 2010. Then, we extracted 113,985 tweets that contained the name of the Republican or Democratic candidate for Congress.



First, the data do not include any information about the meaning or context ofa name mention (e.g., “I love Nancy Pelosi” vs. “Nancy Pelosi should be impeached”). The relative share of attention compared to the opponent is all that is needed.

This is evidence for the conventional wisdom that “all publicity is good publicity.”

Second, the models show that social media matters even when controlling for traditional television media, such as CNN, which many scholars have argued is important because it shapes political reality via agenda setting (27, 28), but does not seem to have a significant effect in our models.

Finally, this study adds to the mounting evidence that online social networks are not ephemeral, spam-infested
sources of information. Rather, social media may very well provide a valid indicator of the American electorate.



Acknowledgements We would like to thank Emily Winters and Matt Stephens for data collection as well as Clem Brooks, Elizabeth Pisares, and the Politics, Economy, and Culture Workshop at Indiana University for helpful discussions and contributions.

We gratefully acknowledge support from the National Science Foundation (grants SBE 0914939, CCF 1101743), the
Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, and the McDonnell Foundation

References and Notes

1. W. Bainbridge, Science 317, 4726 (2007).

2. D. Lazer, et al., Science 323, 7213 (2009).

3. A. Vespignani, Science 325, 4258 (2009).

4. M. Naaman, J. Boase, C.-H. Lai, Proceedings of the 2010 ACM conference on Computer
supported cooperative work, CSCW ’10 (ACM, New York, NY, USA, 2010), pp. 189–192.

5. A. Java, X. Song, T. Finin, B. Tseng, Proceedings of the 9th WebKDD and 1st SNA-KDD
2007 workshop on Web mining and social network analysis (ACM, 2007), pp. 56–65.

6. A. Mislove, S. Lehmann, Y.-Y. Ahn, J.-P. Onnela, J. N. Rosenquist, ICWSM ’11: 5th International
AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media (Barcelona, Spain, 2011), pp.
554–557.

7. M. D. Conover, B. Gonc, A. Flammini, F. Menczer, EPJ Data Science 1, 1 (2012).

8. E. Hargittai, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 13, 276 (2007).

9. T. Correa, A. W. Hinsley, H. G. d. Ziga, Computers in Human Behavior 26 (2010).

10. S. Stephens-Davidowitz, Quarterly Journal of Economics (2011).

11. S. Asur, B. A. Huberman, Proceedings of the 2010 IEEE/WIC/ACM International Conference
on Web Intelligence and Intelligent Agent Technology - Volume 01, WI-IAT ’10 (IEEE
Computer Society, Washington, DC, USA, 2010), pp. 492–499.

12. J. Bollen, H. Mao, X. Zeng, Journal of Computational Science 2, 1 (2011).

13. S. Golder, M. Macy, Science 333, 187881 (2011).

14. P. Dodds, K. Harris, I. Kloumann, C. Bliss, C. Danforth, PloS one 6, e26752 (2010).

15. A. Tumasjan, T. O. Sprenger, P. G. Sandner, I. M. Welpe, Word Journal Of The International
Linguistic Association 280, 178 (2010).

16. B. OConnor, R. Balasubramanyan, B. R. Routledge, N. A. Smith, Proceedings of the International
AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media (AAAI Press, 2010), vol. 5, p.
122129.

17. D. Gayo-avello, Arxiv preprint arXiv12046441 pp. 1–13 (2012).

18. U. S. FEC, Federal Elections 2010: Election Results for the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House
of Representatives (2010), pp. 39–150.

19. C. Klarner, PS: Political Science & Politics 41, 723728 (2008).

20. A. I. Abramowitz, The Western Political Quarterly 28 (1975).

21. H. Brady, S. Verba, K. Schlozman, American Political Science Review pp. 271–294 (1995).

22. K. Schlozman, N. Burns, S. Verba, Journal of Politics 56, 963 (1994).

23. S. Verba, K. Schlozman, H. Brady, N. Nie, British Journal of Political Science 23, 453
(1993).

24. J. Boucher, C. E. Osgood, Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 8 (1969).

25. D. Garcia, A. Garas, F. Schweitzer, EPJ Data Science 1, 1 (2012).

26. P. Rozin, L. Berman, E. Royzman, Cognition & Emotion 24 (2010).

27. M. E. McCombs, D. L. Shaw, Public Opinion Quarterly 36, 176 (1972).

28. M. S. Roberts, Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly 69, 878 (1992)


Every time there is progress in human history, it is initially resisted by people who are more comfortable with the old ways. That is very natural because change can be scary.

Fortunately there are always, also, those who do not resist change but welcome it. And then there are those who want to know whether or not progress/change is good or bad for humanity.

Some things though simply cannot be denied, no matter how much resistance there may be.



106 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
OMG!!! OMG!!! OMG!!! zappaman Nov 2015 #1
Stalkers are creepy! sabrina 1 Nov 2015 #2
Sorry a member replied to your hilarious OP, but that's how it works. zappaman Nov 2015 #11
Like I said, Stalkers are Creepy. sabrina 1 Nov 2015 #15
Like I said, you post, people reply. zappaman Nov 2015 #52
If you are going to post a lot of OPs treestar Nov 2015 #59
Clearly those are not the people i am referring to. But thanks for weighing in anyhow ... sabrina 1 Nov 2015 #60
It would have been nice if you could have come up with your own unique term. Sheepshank Nov 2015 #17
Thanks for your support. Stalkers are creepy, my words, and documenting them is sabrina 1 Nov 2015 #43
plagarized...but I'm flattered. n/t Sheepshank Nov 2015 #70
You may flatter yourself if you wish. Nothing stopping you from doing so. Just don't mistake sabrina 1 Nov 2015 #72
Watch out! zappaman Nov 2015 #74
I think I'll write some notes too..... Sheepshank Nov 2015 #77
I dunno. zappaman Nov 2015 #78
Sounds like stalking... sheshe2 Nov 2015 #89
Hmmmm zappaman Nov 2015 #90
;) sheshe2 Nov 2015 #92
They are writing a list and checking it twice. sheshe2 Nov 2015 #95
Why is it that anytime someone responds to you with something you don't agree with... George II Nov 2015 #31
Why is it you make stuff up about other DUers even when it is obvious that sabrina 1 Nov 2015 #33
Okay, what am I "doing"? George II Nov 2015 #49
Apparently, if you respond to the OP, you are "stalking" zappaman Nov 2015 #53
why are you responding to your "Stalkers". Sheepshank Nov 2015 #69
That's hilarious. polly7 Nov 2015 #42
Lol, that was my reaction also! What can you do but laugh? sabrina 1 Nov 2015 #44
I know right? polly7 Nov 2015 #46
Love that graphic! Lol. sabrina 1 Nov 2015 #48
You were alerted for that Oilwellian Nov 2015 #81
You were alerted on Oilwellian Nov 2015 #84
It's always alerted on. Documenting stalkers is necessary, glad to see juries understand sabrina 1 Nov 2015 #86
#4 got it right! zappaman Nov 2015 #91
LMAO! MaggieD Nov 2015 #13
Nailed it right out of the box. NCTraveler Nov 2015 #18
Is that your OMG this is science face? TM99 Nov 2015 #19
I guess they don't like Science. I thought that's what they wanted, but I guess sabrina 1 Nov 2015 #35
It was never about the science. TM99 Nov 2015 #37
Yes, that has been obvious. But now all the cries for Science have been answered and we have sabrina 1 Nov 2015 #45
More memes from Down The Rabbit Hole, Alice's Adventures in Wonderland: freshwest Nov 2015 #63
You got that right! n/t sabrina 1 Nov 2015 #94
If that's the case, then...Donald Trump will be our next president. JaneyVee Nov 2015 #3
Actually no. Bernie beats Trump in online formats as well as traditional polls. sabrina 1 Nov 2015 #4
LOL! Segami Nov 2015 #6
It's always been my philosophy to never ask a question you don't know the answer to sabrina 1 Nov 2015 #23
Meh,... Segami Nov 2015 #28
The anger over the online polls is unprecedented for some reason. I'm thinking sabrina 1 Nov 2015 #38
This reads and feels more like anti vax science. Untested, wishful thinking. Sheepshank Nov 2015 #71
Well we have the 2008 election to go by. And now another study apparently. Resisting progress sabrina 1 Nov 2015 #73
Bernie ain't Obama sheshe2 Nov 2015 #97
Lol! I think we all know that! But hey, thanks for kicking my thread. sabrina 1 Nov 2015 #98
Trust me. sheshe2 Nov 2015 #99
Lol, yes, some truly excellent comments. I too am glad they are being read. sabrina 1 Nov 2015 #100
Kim Kardashian!!!!! JoePhilly Nov 2015 #5
You said it whatchamacallit Nov 2015 #7
Thanks for helping prove my point. JoePhilly Nov 2015 #8
I believe it's "trees" whatchamacallit Nov 2015 #10
I went smaller than trees, because that's what you guys are doing. JoePhilly Nov 2015 #14
They are but another source of data whatchamacallit Nov 2015 #22
Sometimes, you throw out a source of data because all it adds to ... JoePhilly Nov 2015 #25
Didn't read the study, did you? sabrina 1 Nov 2015 #47
I did, but then again, I actually understand how to read such studies. JoePhilly Nov 2015 #54
Well, we women are not capable of reading and understanding complex scientific studies of sabrina 1 Nov 2015 #56
"Well, we women are not capable of reading and understanding complex scientific studies" zappaman Nov 2015 #57
did someone say that in this thread? Sheepshank Nov 2015 #75
Your inability to understand the extent to which you can extrapolate ... JoePhilly Nov 2015 #80
LOL! Segami Nov 2015 #20
You fell through the same door he fell through. JoePhilly Nov 2015 #26
Ya,..sure... Segami Nov 2015 #29
Hey, keep thinking tweets predict votes. JoePhilly Nov 2015 #30
Oh now,..come on... Segami Nov 2015 #32
Ah, but see ... JoePhilly Nov 2015 #34
Didn't read the study, did you? Lol! sabrina 1 Nov 2015 #39
I don't think WYMCI missed anything! Beautiful response to another comment with sabrina 1 Nov 2015 #12
Lol, you ran right through that door that was opened wide, with perfect timing! sabrina 1 Nov 2015 #9
The door he ran through opened over a cliff. JoePhilly Nov 2015 #16
What do you have to say about the actual topic of this OP? You're in the thread, I assume you've sabrina 1 Nov 2015 #21
The idea that tweets predict votes in any meaningful way is nonsense. JoePhilly Nov 2015 #24
Well that's now what the study says. But hey, it's there for you to read or not. sabrina 1 Nov 2015 #40
The WIU Mock Election thread contained a link to other predictive models ... 1StrongBlackMan Nov 2015 #51
I did a more complete review of the full article down below. JoePhilly Nov 2015 #55
Will win in 2016! It's all over! I give up! n/t freshwest Nov 2015 #58
President Ron Paul will not be defeated in his reelection bid tishaLA Nov 2015 #27
Ron Paul talking point already used and dismissed. Go to Obama, 2008! sabrina 1 Nov 2015 #41
talking point? WTF makes it a talking point? tishaLA Nov 2015 #50
Or whoever gets a thousand clicks by ten people each... freshwest Nov 2015 #64
In that case, Corrupt the Record will be "winning" the next debate for Hillary. winter is coming Nov 2015 #36
“I love Nancy Pelosi” vs. “Nancy Pelosi should be impeached” - bad news for Bernie? ieoeja Nov 2015 #61
I don't tweet about Hillary unless it's during a debate or to forward a link someone has posted sabrina 1 Nov 2015 #65
K&R. JDPriestly Nov 2015 #62
When the votes actually start getting counted, how long will it take the Bernie crew to start scream tritsofme Nov 2015 #66
How about we follow the example of the 'Benrie crew' and just deal with FACTS. Your sabrina 1 Nov 2015 #67
There's going to be plenty of screaming no mattter which way the votes go Fumesucker Nov 2015 #68
so this backs up Sanders winning in all 50 states JI7 Nov 2015 #76
indubitably n/t Sheepshank Nov 2015 #79
No, it doesn't. Why do you ask, did you see something IN the study that prompted that question sabrina 1 Nov 2015 #82
do you disagree with the op that you posted ? JI7 Nov 2015 #83
You didn't answer my questions. But then i never really expect actual discussion of issues from sabrina 1 Nov 2015 #87
off topic ? how is it of topic ? both are about how a candidate JI7 Nov 2015 #88
If you want to join the non contributing factors here, that's your choice. The rest of us actually sabrina 1 Nov 2015 #96
this OP supports your earlier OP. why are you upset about that ? JI7 Nov 2015 #101
Thanks again for kicking the thread. I tend to be different form most DUers who use the ignore sabrina 1 Nov 2015 #102
what's the FP ? JI7 Nov 2015 #103
Thanks, I couldn't do it without my small fan club! sabrina 1 Nov 2015 #104
i guess it's a great accomplishment JI7 Nov 2015 #105
Take a bow. No matter how small, it is an accomplishment. Funny isn't it, how sometimes things sabrina 1 Nov 2015 #106
You were alerted on Oilwellian Nov 2015 #85
#4 for the win! zappaman Nov 2015 #93
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»STUDY: More Tweets More ...»Reply #0