Mass Media and Electoral Preferences During the 2016 US Presidential Race

  • Christopher Wlezien
  • Stuart SorokaEmail author
Original Paper


This paper uses analyses of commercial polls alongside content-analytic measures of sentiment in the content of nine newspapers to explore the relationship between voter preferences and the tone of news coverage in the 2016 presidential election campaign. Both media coverage and voter preferences reflected the effects of certain campaign events—the conventions and the initial Comey intrusion—and there also is evidence of a relationship between the two. Indeed, it appears that the media both led and followed public preferences throughout much of the campaign, though evidence of followership actually is more robust; and the final weeks of the campaign show little to no media effects at all. Results speak to the importance of considering media not just as a driver, but also a follower of public sentiment.


Electoral preferences Campaign effects Mass media 


  1. AAPOR. (2017). An evaluation of 2016 election polls in the United States. A report by the American Association for Public Opinion Research Ad Hoc Committee on 2016 election polling.Google Scholar
  2. Alvarez, R. M. (1997). Information and elections. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  3. Ansolabehere, S., & Iyengar, S. (1997). Going negative: How political advertisements shrink and polarize the electorate. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bartels, L. M. (1993). Messages received: The political impact of media exposure. American Political Science Review, 87(2), 267–285.Google Scholar
  5. Belanger, E., & Soroka, S. (2012). Campaigns and the prediction of election outcomes: Can historical and campaign-period prediction models be combined? Electoral Studies, 31, 702–714.Google Scholar
  6. Brady, H., & Johnston, R. (Eds.). (2006). Capturing campaign effects. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  7. Campbell, J. E. (2000). The American campaign: US presidential campaigns and the national vote. College Station, TX: Texas A&M University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Campbell, J. E. (2017). A recap of the 2016 election forecasts. PS: Political Science and Politics, 50(2), 331–332.Google Scholar
  9. Cohen, J. E. (2009). The presidency and the mass media. Oxford Handbooks Online. Retrieved June 28, 2017, from Accessed Dec 2016.
  10. Converse, P. E., & Traugott, M. W. (1986). Assessing the accuracy of polls and surveys. Science, 234, 1094–1098.Google Scholar
  11. Crespi, I. (1988). Pre-election polling: Sources of accuracy and error. New York: Russell Sage.Google Scholar
  12. Daku, M., Soroka, S., & Young, L. (2015). Lexicoder, version 3.0. Accessed Dec 2016.
  13. de Vreese, C. H., & Semetko, H. A. (2004). News matters: influences on the vote in the Danish 2000 Euro referendum campaign. European Journal of Political Research, 43, 699–722.Google Scholar
  14. Druckman, J. N. (2004). Priming the vote: Campaign effects in a U.S. Senate election. Political Psychology, 25, 577–594.Google Scholar
  15. Druckman, J. N. (2005). Media matter: How newspapers and television news cover campaigns and influence voters. Political Communication, 22(4), 463–481.Google Scholar
  16. Enns, P. K., Lagodny, J., & Schuldt, J. P. (2017). Understanding the 2016 US presidential polls: The importance of hidden trump supporters. Statistics, Politics and Policy, 8(1), 41–63.Google Scholar
  17. Erikson, R. S., & Sigelman, L. (1995). Poll-based forecasts of midterm congressional elections: Do the pollsters get it right? Public Opinion Quarterly, 59, 589–605.Google Scholar
  18. Erikson, R. S., & Sigelman, L. (1996). Poll-based forecasts of the house vote in presidential election years. American Politics Quarterly, 24, 52–531.Google Scholar
  19. Erikson, R. S., & Wlezien, C. (1999). Presidential polls as a time series: The case of 1996. Public Opinion Quarterly, 63, 163–177.Google Scholar
  20. Erikson, R. S., & Wlezien, C. (2012). The timeline of presidential elections. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  21. Eveland, W. P., Shah, D. V., & Kwak, N. (2003). Assessing causality in the cognitive mediation model. Communication Research, 30(4), 359–386.Google Scholar
  22. Fan, D. P. (1988). Predictions of public opinion from the mass media: Computer content analysis and mathematical modeling. New York: Greenwood.Google Scholar
  23. Gelman, A., & King, G. (1993). Why are American presidential election polls so variable when votes are so predictable? British Journal of Political Science, 23, 409–519.Google Scholar
  24. Gentzkow, M., & Shapiro, J. M. (2010). What drives media slant? Evidence from US daily newspapers. Econometrica, 78(1), 35–71.Google Scholar
  25. Gilens, M., Vavreck, L., & Cohen, M. (2007). The mass media and the public’s assessments of presidential candidates, 1952–2000. Journal of Politics, 69(4), 1160–1175.Google Scholar
  26. Graber, D. A., & Dunaway, J. (2017). Mass media and american politics (10th ed.). Washington, DC: CQ Press.Google Scholar
  27. Groves, R. M. (1989). Survey errors and survey costs. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  28. Hamilton, J. (2004). All the news that’s fit to sell: How the market transforms information into news. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Hansen, K. M., & Pedersen, R. T. (2014). Campaigns matter: How voters become knowledgeable and efficacious during election campaigns. Political Communication, 31(2), 303–324.Google Scholar
  30. Hardy, B. W., & Scheufele, D. A. (2009). Presidential campaign dynamics and the Ebb and flow of talk as a moderator: Media exposure, knowledge, and political discussion. Communication Theory, 19(1), 89–101.Google Scholar
  31. Haselmayer, M., & Jenny, M. (2017). Sentiment analysis of political communication: Combining a dictionary approach with crowdcoding. Quality & Quantity, 51(6), 2623–2646.Google Scholar
  32. Heise, D. R. (1969). Separating reliability and stability in test-retest correlations. American Sociological Review, 34, 93–101.Google Scholar
  33. Hillygus, D. Sunshine. (2005). Campaign effects and the dynamics of turnout intention in election 2000. Journal of Politics, 67(1), 50–68.Google Scholar
  34. Hillygus, D. Sunshine., & Jackman, S. (2003). Voter decision making in election 2000: Campaign effects, partisan activation, and the clinton legacy. American Journal of Political Science, 47(4), 583–596.Google Scholar
  35. Holbrook, T. (1996). Do campaigns matter?. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  36. Hopmann, D. N., Vliegenthart, R., de Vreese, C., & Albaek, E. (2010). Effects of election news coverage: How visibility and tone influence party choice. Political Communication, 27, 389–405.Google Scholar
  37. Iyengar, S., Norpoth, H., & Hahn, K. S. (2004). Consumer demand for election news: The horserace sells. Journal of Politics, 66(1), 157–175.Google Scholar
  38. Jamieson, K. H. (1996). Packaging the presidency: A history and criticism of presidential campaign advertising (3rd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Jennings, W., & Wlezien, C. (2016). The timeline of elections: A comparative perspective. American Journal of Political Science, 60(1), 219–233.Google Scholar
  40. Johnston, R., Blais, A., Brady, H. E., & Crete, J. (1992). Letting the people decide: Dynamics of a Canadian election. Kingston, Canada: McGill-Queen’s Press.Google Scholar
  41. Johnston, R., Hagen, M. G., & Jamieson, K. H. (2004). The 2000 presidential election and the foundations of party politics. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Just, M. R., Crigler, A. N., Alger, D. E., Cook, T. E., Kern, M., & West, D. M. (1996). Crosstalk: Citizens, candidates, and the media in a presidential campaign. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  43. Kennedy, C., Blumenthal, M., Clement, S., Clinton, J. D., Durand, C., Franklin, C., et al. (2018). An evaluation of the 2016 polls in the United States. Public Opinion Quarterly, 82(1), 1–33.Google Scholar
  44. Lau, R. (1994). An analysis of the accuracy of ‘trial heat’ polls during the 1992 presidential election. Public Opinion Quarterly, 58, 2–20.Google Scholar
  45. Lewis-Beck, M. (1988). Economics and elections: The major western democracies. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  46. Lowe, W., Benoit, K., Mikhaylov, S., & Laver, M. (2011). Scaling policy preferences from coded political texts. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 36(1), 123–155.Google Scholar
  47. Mendelsohn, M., & Nadeau, R. (1999). The rise and fall of candidates in Canadian election campaigns. International Journal of Press/Politics, 4, 63–76.Google Scholar
  48. Nadeau, R., & Lewis-Beck, M. (2012). Does a presidential candidate’s campaign affect the election outcome? Foresight, 24, 15–18.Google Scholar
  49. Nadeau, R., Nevitte, N., Gidengil, E., & Blais, A. (2008). Election campaigns as information campaigns: Who learns what and does it matter? Political Communication, 25, 229–248.Google Scholar
  50. Norris, P., Curtice, J., Sanders, D., Scammell, M., & Semetko, H. A. (1999). On message: Communicating the campaign. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  51. Plasser, F., & Plasser, G. (2002). Global political campaigning: A worldwide analysis of campaign professionals and their practices. Westport, CT: Greenwood.Google Scholar
  52. Proksch, S.-O., Lowe, W., & Soroka, S. (2016). Multilingual sentiment analysis: A new approach to measuring conflict in parliamentary speeches. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Philadelphia PA.Google Scholar
  53. Reuning, K., & Dietrich, N. (2016). Media coverage, public interest, and support in primary elections. Working paper, SSRN. or Accessed Dec 2016.
  54. Ridout, T. N., & Smith, G. R. (2008). Free advertising: How the media amplify campaign messages. Political Research Quarterly, 61(4), 598–608.Google Scholar
  55. Schudson, M. (1989). The sociology of news production. Media, Culture and Society, 11, 263–282.Google Scholar
  56. Shaw, D. R. (1999a). A study of presidential campaign event effects from 1952 to 1992. Journal of Politics, 61, 387–422.Google Scholar
  57. Shaw, D. R. (1999b). The effect of TV ads and candidate appearances on statewide presidential votes, 1988-96. The American Political Science Review, 93(2), 345–361.Google Scholar
  58. Shaw, D. R. (1999c). The impact of news media favorability and candidate events in presidential campaigns. Political Communication, 16(2), 183–202.Google Scholar
  59. Sides, J., & Vavreck, L. (2014). The gamble: Choice and chance in the 2012 presidential election. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  60. Soroka, S. (2014). Negativity in democratic politics: Causes and consequences. Cambridge Studies in Public Opinion and Political Psychology, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  61. Soroka, S., Bodet, M. A., Young, L., & Andrew, B. (2009). Campaign news and vote intentions. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties, 19(4), 359–376.Google Scholar
  62. Soroka, S. N., Stecula, D. A., & Wlezien, C. (2015). It’s (change in) the (future) economy, stupid: Economic indicators, the media, and public opinion. American Journal of Political Science, 59, 457–474.Google Scholar
  63. Sumpter, R. S. (2000). Daily newspaper editors’ audience construction routines: A case study. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 17(3), 334–346.Google Scholar
  64. Trussler, M., & Soroka, S. (2014). Consumer demand for cynical and negative news frames. International Journal of Press and Politics, 19(3), 360–379.Google Scholar
  65. van Atteveldt, W., Kleinnijenhuis, J., Ruigrok, N., & Schlobach, S. (2008). Good news or bad news? Conducting sentiment analysis on Dutch text to distinguish between positive and negative relations. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 5(1), 73–94.Google Scholar
  66. van der Meer, T. W. G., Walter, A., & Van Aelst, P. (2016). The contingency of voter learning: How election debates influenced voters’ ability and accuracy to position parties in the 2010 dutch election campaign. Political Communication, 33(1), 136–157.Google Scholar
  67. Vavreck, L. (2009). The message matters. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  68. Weaver, D. H. (1996). What voters learn from media. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 546, 34–47.Google Scholar
  69. West, D. M., Kern, M., Alger, D., & Goggin, J. M. (1995). Ad buys in presidential campaigns: The strategies of electoral appeal. Political Communication, 12(3), 275–290.Google Scholar
  70. Wlezien, C. (2000). An essay on ‘combined’ time series processes. Electoral Studies, 19(1), 77–93.Google Scholar
  71. Wlezien, C. (2003). Presidential election polls in 2000: A study in dynamics. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 33(1), 172–186.Google Scholar
  72. Wlezien, C., & Erikson, R. S. (2001). Campaign effects in theory and practice. American Politics Research, 29, 419–437.Google Scholar
  73. Wlezien, C., & Erikson, R. S. (2002). The timeline of presidential election campaigns. Journal of Politics, 64(4), 969–993.Google Scholar
  74. Wlezien, C., Jennings, W., Fisher, S., Ford, R., & Pickup, M. (2013). Polls and the vote in Britain. Political Studies, 61(1), 66–91.Google Scholar
  75. Wlezien, C., & Morris, G. E. (2017). Dynamics of (national) electoral during the 2016 US presidential race. In A. Cavari, R. Powell, & K. Mayer (Eds.), The 2016 presidential election: The causes and consequences of an electoral earthquake. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  76. Wolfe, M., Jones, B. D., & Baumgartner, F. R. (2013). A failure to communicate: agenda setting in media and policy studies. Political Communication, 30, 175–192.Google Scholar
  77. Young, L., & Soroka, S. (2012). Affective news: The automated coding of sentiment in political texts. Political Communication, 29, 205–231.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of GovernmentThe University of Texas at AustinAustinUSA
  2. 2.Department of Communication StudiesUniversity of MichiganAnn ArborUSA

Personalised recommendations