Inferring Follower Preferences in the 2016 U.S. Presidential Primaries with Sparse Learning
In this paper, we propose a framework to infer Twitter follower preferences for the 2016 U.S. presidential primaries. Using Twitter data collected from Sept. 2015 to Mar. 2016, we first uncover the tweeting tactics of the candidates and then exploit the variations in the number of ‘likes’ to infer followers’ preference. With sparse learning, we are able to reveal neutral topics as well as positive and negative ones.
Methodologically, we are able to achieve a higher predictive power with sparse learning. Substantively, we show that for Hillary Clinton the (only) positive issue area is women’s rights. We demonstrate that Hillary Clinton’s tactic of linking herself to President Obama resonates well with her supporters but the same is not true for Bernie Sanders. In addition, we show that Donald Trump is a major topic for all the other candidates, and that the women’s rights issue is equally emphasized in Sanders’ campaign as in Clinton’s.
Lessons from the primaries can help inform the general election and beyond. We suggest two ways that politicians can use the feedback mechanism in social media to improve their campaign: (1) use feedback from social media to improve campaign tactics within social media; (2) formulate policies and test the public response from the social media.
KeywordsPresidential primaries Republicans Democrats Preference Twitter Sparse learning
- 4.Gayo-Avello, D., Metaxas, P.T., Mustafaraj, E.: Limits of electoral predictions using twitter. In: Proceedings of the Fifth International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media (2011)Google Scholar
- 7.Iyengar, S., Kinder, D., Matter, N.T.: Television and American Opinion. University of Chicago Press, Chicago (1987)Google Scholar
- 10.MacWilliams, M.C.: Forecasting congressional elections using facebook data. PS: Polit. Sci. Politics 48(04), October 2015Google Scholar
- 11.Mahmud, J., Chen, J., Nichols, J.: When will you answer this? estimating response time in twitter. In: Proceedings of the Seventh International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media (2013)Google Scholar
- 12.Riker, W.H.: The Art of Political Manipulation. Yale University Press, USA (1986)Google Scholar
- 13.Sanders, B., Revolution, O.: A Future to Believe In. Thomas Dunne Books (2016)Google Scholar
- 14.Shalev-Shwartz, S., Tewari, A.: Stochastic methods for L1-regularized loss minimization. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 12, 1865–1892 (2011)Google Scholar
- 15.Stata.com. Negative binomial regressionGoogle Scholar
- 17.Tumasjan, A., Sprenger, T.O., Sandner, P.G., Welpe, I.M.: Predicting elections with twitter: what 140 characters reveal about political sentiment. In: Proceedings of the Fourth International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media (2010)Google Scholar
- 18.Wang, Y., Li, Y., Luo, J.: Deciphering the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign in the twitter sphere: a comparison of the trumpists and clintonists. In: The 10th International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media (ICWSM-16), Cologne, Germany, May 2016Google Scholar
- 19.Wang, Y., Li, Y., Luo, J.: To follow or not to follow: analyzing the growth patterns of the Trumpists on Twitter. In: News and Pulic Opinion Workshop at the 10th International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media (ICWSM-16), Cologne, Germany, May 2016Google Scholar
- 20.Wang, Y., Luo, J., Li, Y., Hu, T.: Catching fire via ‘Likes’: inferring topic preferences of trump followers on twitter. In: The 10th International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media (ICWSM 2016), Cologne, Germany, May 2016Google Scholar
- 21.Williams, C.B., Gulati, G.J.: The political impact of Facebook: evidence from the 2006 midterm elections and 2008 nomination contest. Politics Technol. Rev. 1, 11–21 (2008)Google Scholar