scholarly journals Social Media for Political Campaigns: An Examination of Trump’s and Clinton’s Frame Building and Its Effect on Audience Engagement

2019 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 205630511985514 ◽  
Author(s):  
Abdulsamad Sahly ◽  
Chun Shao ◽  
K. Hazel Kwon
Keyword(s):  
Social Media ◽  
Presidential Election ◽  
Political Ideology ◽  
Political Campaigns ◽  
Hillary Clinton ◽  
Donald Trump ◽  
Audience Engagement ◽  
Frame Effect ◽  
Frame Building ◽  
Cross Platform

This study investigates cross-platform differences in social media by analyzing the contending candidates who represent different political ideology during the 2016 presidential election. Borrowing the frame-building and frame-effect perspectives, it examines the ways in which the two contending candidates (Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton) built their message frames in two different social platforms—Twitter ( N = 3,805) and Facebook ( N = 655)—and how the frame differences affected audience engagement in each platform. The results showed that Trump’s messages presented more variety in frame selection than Clinton’s, focusing on conflict and negative emotional frames on Twitter while displaying frequent positive emotional frames on Facebook. Clinton’s strategy relied heavily on conflict and positive emotional frames on both Twitter and Facebook. The results also suggested that for both Trump and Clinton followers on Twitter, conflict and morality frames consistently attracted retweeting behaviors and emotional frames attracted favoriting behaviors. However, Facebook engagement behaviors did not show a consistent pattern between the followers of the two candidates.

scholarly journals Don’t Republicans Tweet Too? Using Twitter to Assess the Consequences of Political Endorsements by Celebrities

2019 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 144-160
Author(s):  
Jan Zilinsky ◽  
Cristian Vaccari ◽  
Jonathan Nagler ◽  
Joshua A. Tucker
Keyword(s):  
Social Media ◽  
Presidential Election ◽  
Presidential Candidate ◽  
Hillary Clinton ◽  
Donald Trump ◽  
Presidential Candidates ◽  
Political Preferences ◽  
The Social ◽  
Decision To Stay ◽  
Presidential Election Campaign

Michael Jordan supposedly justified his decision to stay out of politics by noting that Republicans buy sneakers too. In the social media era, the name of the game for celebrities is engagement with fans. So why then do celebrities risk talking about politics on social media, which is likely to antagonize a portion of their fan base? With this question in mind, we analyze approximately 220,000 tweets from 83 celebrities who chose to endorse a presidential candidate in the 2016 U.S. presidential election campaign to assess whether there is a cost—defined in terms of engagement on Twitter—for celebrities who discuss presidential candidates. We also examine whether celebrities behave similarly to other campaign surrogates in being more likely to take on the “attack dog” role by going negative more often than going positive. More specifically, we document how often celebrities of distinct political preferences tweet about Donald Trump, Bernie Sanders, and Hillary Clinton, and we show that followers of opinionated celebrities do not withhold engagement when entertainers become politically mobilized and do indeed often go negative. Interestingly, in some cases political content from celebrities actually turns out to be more popular than typical lifestyle tweets.

scholarly journals Morally Reframed Arguments Can Affect Support for Political Candidates

2017 ◽  
Vol 9 (8) ◽  
pp. 917-924 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jan G. Voelkel ◽  
Matthew Feinberg
Keyword(s):  
Presidential Election ◽  
Moral Values ◽  
Political Campaigns ◽  
Hillary Clinton ◽  
Donald Trump ◽  
Political Candidates ◽  
Political Candidate ◽  
Persuasive Arguments

Moral reframing involves crafting persuasive arguments that appeal to the targets’ moral values but argue in favor of something they would typically oppose. Applying this technique to one of the most politically polarizing events—political campaigns—we hypothesized that messages criticizing one’s preferred political candidate that also appeal to that person’s moral values can decrease support for the candidate. We tested this claim in the context of the 2016 American presidential election. In Study 1, conservatives reading a message opposing Donald Trump grounded in a more conservative value (loyalty) supported him less than conservatives reading a message grounded in more liberal concerns (fairness). In Study 2, liberals reading a message opposing Hillary Clinton appealing to fairness values were less supportive of Clinton than liberals in a loyalty-argument condition. These results highlight how moral reframing can be used to overcome the rigid stances partisans often hold and help develop political acceptance.

Engendering support: Hostile sexism predicts voting for Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton in the 2016 U.S. presidential election

2017 ◽  
Vol 22 (4) ◽  
pp. 578-593 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kate A. Ratliff ◽  
Liz Redford ◽  
John Conway ◽  
Colin Tucker Smith
Keyword(s):  
Presidential Election ◽  
Political Ideology ◽  
Voting Behavior ◽  
Minority Group ◽  
The United States ◽  
Benevolent Sexism ◽  
Hostile Sexism ◽  
Hillary Clinton ◽  
Donald Trump ◽  
Positive Attitudes

This research investigated the role of gender attitudes in the United States 2016 presidential election between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. The results of three studies (combined N = 2,816) showed that, as expected, Trump voters were higher in hostile and benevolent sexism than were Clinton voters. Even after controlling for political ideology and gender (Studies 1, 2, and 3) and minority group attitudes (Study 3), greater hostile sexism predicted more positive attitudes toward Trump, less positive attitudes toward Clinton, and retrospective reports of having voted for Trump over Clinton (Studies 2 and 3). Benevolent sexism did not predict additional variation in voting behavior beyond political ideology and hostile sexism. These results suggest that political behavior is based on more than political ideology; even among those with otherwise progressive views, overtly antagonistic views of women could be a liability to women—and an asset to men—running for office.

Does Social Media Engagement Translate to Civic Engagement Offline?

2021 ◽  
pp. 089976402199944
Author(s):  
Jaclyn Piatak ◽  
Ian Mikkelsen
Keyword(s):  
Social Media ◽  
Civic Engagement ◽  
Presidential Election ◽  
Civic Participation ◽  
Political Engagement ◽  
Political Campaigns ◽  
The Internet ◽  
Online Engagement ◽  
Informal Volunteering ◽  
Using Data

People increasingly engage in politics on social media, but does online engagement translate to offline engagement? Research is mixed with some suggesting how one uses the internet maters. We examine how political engagement on social media corresponds to offline engagement. Using data following the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election, we find the more politically engaged people are on social media, the more likely they are to engage offline across measures of engagement—formal and informal volunteering, attending local meetings, donating to and working for political campaigns, and voting. Findings offer important nuances across types of civic engagement and generations. Although online engagement corresponds to greater engagement offline in the community and may help narrow generational gaps, this should not be the only means to promote civic participation to ensure all have a voice and an opportunity to help, mobilize, and engage.

scholarly journals Fascism-lite in America (or The Social Ideal of Donald Trump)

2018 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 291-315 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ewan McGaughey
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Media Coverage ◽  
Political Ideology ◽  
State Intervention ◽  
The United States ◽  
Political Campaigns ◽  
Donald Trump ◽  
Citizens United ◽  
The Social ◽  
The Supreme Court

Abstract What explains the election of the 45th President of the United States? Many commentators have said that Trump is a fascist. This builds on grave concerns, since Citizens United, that democracy is being corrupted. This article suggests the long term cause, and the shape of ideology is more complex. In 1971, an extraordinary memorandum of Lewis Powell for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce urged that ‘[b]usiness interests’ should ‘press vigorously in all political arenas for support’. Richard Nixon appointed Powell to the Supreme Court, and a few years later, despite powerful dissent, a majority in Buckley v. Valeo held that candidates may spend unlimited funds on their own political campaigns, a decision of which Donald Trump, and others, have taken full advantage. Citizens United compounded the problems, but Buckley v. Valeo was the ‘Trump for President’ case. This provided a platform from which Trump could propel himself into extensive media coverage. The 2016 election was inseparable from the social ideal pursued by a majority of the Supreme Court since 1976. No modern judiciary had engaged in a more sustained assault on democracy and human rights. Properly understood, ‘fascism’ is a contrasting, hybrid political ideology. It mixes liberalism’s dislike of state intervention, social conservatism’s embrace of welfare provision for insiders (not ‘outsiders’), and collectivism’s view that associations are key actors in a class conflict. Although out of control, Trump is closely linked to neo-conservative politics. It is too hostile to insider welfare to be called ‘fascist’. Its political ideology is weaker. If we had to give it a name, the social ideal of Donald Trump is ‘fascism-lite’.

Visual Presentation Style 2: Influences on Perceptions of Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton Based on Visual Presentation Style During the Third 2016 Presidential Debate

2017 ◽  
Vol 61 (5) ◽  
pp. 545-557 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patrick A. Stewart ◽  
Austin D. Eubanks ◽  
Reagan G. Dye ◽  
Scott Eidelman ◽  
Robert H. Wicks
Keyword(s):  
Field Experiment ◽  
Political Ideology ◽  
Visual Presentation ◽  
Hillary Clinton ◽  
Donald Trump ◽  
Presentation Style ◽  
The Third ◽  
Presidential Debate ◽  
Trait Ratings

A field experiment was conducted to analyze the third and final 2016 presidential debate. Randomly assigned participants watched the debate in the format of mainly solo camera shots that alternate between the candidates (i.e., switched feed), or with both candidates framed side-by-side on screen (i.e., split screen feed). Though viewer feelings of positivity toward the candidates did not differ, visual presentation style had a significant effect on trait judgments for Donald Trump overall. Participants watching Trump on the switched camera feed perceived him as significantly more Sophisticated, Honest, Attractive, Sincere, Strong, Active, Intelligent, Trustworthy, and Generous. There was not an effect for Hillary Clinton’s trait ratings overall, though she was perceived as significantly more Strong, Competent, and Intelligent by those watching the switched feed. This suggests that visual presentation style significantly influenced viewer perceptions. Political ideology was a significant predictor of all but one of the traits for each candidate.

Losing (to) Misogynists

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kate Manne
Keyword(s):  
Social Psychology ◽  
Presidential Election ◽  
Male Counterpart ◽  
Left Wing ◽  
Hillary Clinton ◽  
Leadership Positions ◽  
Donald Trump ◽  
Protective Mechanisms ◽  
The Right

This final chapter applies the analysis of misogyny to the 2016 presidential election, in which Hillary Clinton was defeated by Donald Trump, despite the latter being vastly underqualified and temperamentally and morally unsuited to the position. There was also a great deal of misogyny directed toward Clinton not only by Trump and others on the right but also from left-wing sources. It is argued that much of this misogyny and even the outcome were to some extent predictable, on the basis of evidence of misogynistic biases against women who compete for male-dominated leadership positions. Research in social psychology shows that, when a woman cannot be judged less competent than her male counterpart in such contexts, many people will hold that, although they are equally competent, she is less likable than he is. Women are just as likely as men to reject high-achieving women in this manner, due to ego-protective mechanisms.

Why Did Khizr Khan’s Speech at the 2016 Democratic National Convention Go Viral? Personifying Collective Values in an Epideictic Speech

2017 ◽  
Vol 61 (6) ◽  
pp. 611-623
Author(s):  
Kathleen E. Kendall
Keyword(s):  
Social Media ◽  
Media Coverage ◽  
Visual Presentation ◽  
Flash Point ◽  
The Internet ◽  
Hillary Clinton ◽  
Donald Trump ◽  
American Muslim ◽  
National Convention

On July 28, 2016, Mr. Khizr Khan, an American Muslim immigrant, gave a short speech at the Democratic National Convention. Khan’s speech eulogized his soldier son, attacked the Republican presidential nominee, Donald Trump, and endorsed the Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton. The speech went “viral” within minutes, circulating rapidly on the Internet, evoking an immediate response on social media. Barely 2 days later, Trump attacked the Khan speech, the Khans responded, and the event dominated the news for days. The event and its aftermath “emerged as an unexpected and potentially pivotal flash point in the general election” (Burns, Haberman, & Parket, 2016). Why did this speech have such an effect? Using principles from Aristotle’s concept of the epideictic speech, this study examines (1) the role of surprise in the structure and visual presentation of Khan’s speech, as well as (2) the way in which Khan expressed personal and collective anger. Trump’s postconvention responses magnified the speech effect through heavy media coverage.

scholarly journals The electoral photograph reloaded: a social semiotic approach

Letras ◽  
2016 ◽  
pp. 73 ◽  
Author(s):  
Francisco Osvanilson Dourado Veloso
Keyword(s):  
Social Media ◽  
Presidential Election ◽  
Digital Transformation ◽  
Political Campaigns ◽  
Semiotic Approach

While studies on the role of social media in political campaigns are growing, we still need to understand how well established communicative resources such as political photographs have been adapted in face of the digital transformation. Departing from Barthes (1972) discussion on electoral photographs, this paper discusses the production of Interactive meanings in photographs uploaded by the three main contenders in the Presidential Election 2014 in Brazil. The results show an expansion both in the functions and semiotic strategies adopted to establish a relationship with viewers through electoral photographs.

scholarly journals Donald Trump as a cultural revolt against perceived communication restriction: Priming political correctness norms causes more Trump support

2017 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 244-259 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lucian Gideon Conway ◽  
Meredith A. Repke ◽  
Shannon C. Houck
Keyword(s):  
Political Ideology ◽  
Political Correctness ◽  
General Election ◽  
Hillary Clinton ◽  
Donald Trump ◽  
Short Term ◽  
Positive Communication ◽  
Negative Communication

Donald Trump has consistently performed better politically than his negative polling indicators suggested he would. Although there is a tendency to think of Trump support as reflecting ideological conservatism, we argue that part of his support during the election came from a non-ideological source: The preponderant salience of norms restricting communication (Political Correctness – or PC – norms). This perspective suggests that these norms, while successfully reducing the amount of negative communication in the short term, may produce more support for negative communication in the long term. In this framework, support for Donald Trump was in part the result of over-exposure to PC norms. Consistent with this, on a sample of largely politically moderate Americans taken during the General Election in the Fall of 2016, we show that temporarily priming PC norms significantly increased support for Donald Trump (but not Hillary Clinton). We further show that chronic emotional reactance towards restrictive communication norms positively predicted support for Trump (but not Clinton), and that this effect remains significant even when controlling for political ideology. In total, this work provides evidence that norms that are designed to increase the overall amount of positive communication can actually backfire by increasing support for a politician who uses extremely negative language that explicitly violates the norm.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document