Reduced trolling on Russian holidays and daily US Presidential election odds.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Almond D
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8966999 | biostudies-literature | 2022
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Reduced trolling on Russian holidays and daily US Presidential election odds.
Almond Douglas D Du Xinming X Vogel Alana A
PloS one 20220330 3
Russian trolls generally supported the Trump campaign and were particularly active on Twitter 2015-2017. We find that trolling fell 35% on Russian holidays and to a lesser extent, when temperatures were cold in St. Petersburg. Exogenous variation in trolling by day allows us to consider indirectly-affected political behaviors in the US-outcomes that are less traceable via tweet sharing but potentially more important to policymakers than the direct dissemination previously studied. As a case in p ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:Donald Trump's 2016 win despite failing to carry the popular vote has raised concern that 2020 would also see a mismatch between the winner of the popular vote and the winner of the Electoral College. This paper shows how to forecast the electoral vote in 2020 taking into account the unknown popular vote and the configuration of state voting in 2016. We note that 2016 was a statistical outlier. The potential Electoral College bias was slimmer in the past and not always favoring the Republican candidate. We show that in past presidential elections, difference among states in their presidential voting is solely a function of the states' most recent presidential voting (plus new shocks); earlier history does not matter. Based on thousands of simulations, our research suggests that the bias in 2020 probably will favor Trump again but to a lesser degree than in 2016. The range of possible outcomes is sufficiently wide, however, to even include some possibility that Joseph Biden could win in the Electoral College while barely losing the popular vote.
| S-EPMC7668185 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe 2016 presidential election and the controversial policy agenda of its victor have raised concerns about how the election may have impacted mental health.ObjectiveAssess how mental health changed from before to after the November 2016 election and how trends differed in states that voted for Donald Trump versus Hillary Clinton.DesignPre- versus post-election study using monthly cross-sectional survey data.ParticipantsA total of 499,201 adults surveyed in the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System from May 2016 to May 2017.ExposureResidence in a state that voted for Trump versus state that voted for Clinton and the candidate's margin of victory in the state.Main measuresSelf-reported days of poor mental health in the last 30 days and depression rate.Key resultsCompared to October 2016, the mean days of poor mental health in the last 30 days per adult rose from 3.35 to 3.85 in December 2016 in Clinton states (0.50 days difference, p = 0.005) but remained statistically unchanged in Trump states, moving from 3.94 to 3.78 days (- 0.17 difference, p = 0.308). The rises in poor mental health days in Clinton states were driven by older adults, women, and white individuals. The depression rate in Clinton states began rising in January 2017. A 10-percentage point higher margin of victory for Clinton in a state predicted 0.41 more days of poor mental health per adult in December 2016 on average (p = 0.001).ConclusionsIn states that voted for Clinton, there were 54.6 million more days of poor mental health among adults in December 2016, the month following the election, compared to October 2016. Clinicians should consider that elections could cause at least transitory increases in poor mental health and tailor patient care accordingly, especially with the 2020 election upon us.
| S-EPMC7602772 | biostudies-literature
Project description:We use 19 billion likes on the posts of top 2000 U.S. fan pages on Facebook from 2015 to 2016 to measure the dynamic ideological positions for politicians, news outlets, and users at the national and state levels. We then use these measures to derive support rates for 2016 presidential candidates in all 50 states, to predict the election, and to compare them with state-level polls and actual vote shares. We find that: (1) Assuming that users vote for candidates closer to their own ideological positions, support rates calculated using Facebook predict that Trump will win the electoral college vote while Clinton will win the popular vote. (2) State-level Facebook support rates track state-level polling averages and pass the cointegration test, showing two time series share similar trends. (3) Compared with actual vote shares, polls generally have smaller margin of errors, but polls also often overestimate Clinton's support in right-leaning states. Overall, we provide a method to forecast elections at low cost, in real time, and based on passively revealed preference and little researcher discretion.
| S-EPMC8635376 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveResearch suggests that sociopolitical stressors connected with the 2016 presidential election were associated with increases in preterm birth among Latina women. This study determined whether periviable births (<26 weeks gestation), which exhibit extremely high rates of infant morbidity and mortality, among US Latina women increased above expected levels after the 2016 US presidential election.MethodsWe assigned singleton live births among Latina and non-Latina white women in the US to 96 monthly conception cohorts conceived from January 2009 through December 2016. We constructed risk ratios by dividing the rate of periviable birth among Latina women by the rate among non-Latina white women. We used time-series methods to determine if the risk ratio of periviable births in cohorts conceived by Latina women and exposed to the election of 2016 exceeded those expected from autocorrelation and calendar effects.ResultsWe found an outlying sequence of risk ratios among Latina women starting with the cohort conceived in April and ending with that conceived in November 2016. Increases in the ratios ranged from 0.07 above an expected of 1.61 for the cohort conceived in June, to 0.39 above an expected of 1.27 for the cohort conceived in April.ConclusionWe find that pregnancies in gestation at the time of the 2016 election among Latina women yielded more than expected periviable births. These findings support the argument that the prospect of anti-immigrant policies promised by the Trump campaign sufficiently stressed Latina women to affect the timing of birth.
| S-EPMC8128056 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Indonesia is one of the countries that is currently entering the political year for the election of President, Regional Heads, and Members of the Legislative in 2024. This has become a hot topic on social media, especially about the Presidential Election. Twitter is one of the platforms with the largest users in Indonesia. It is interesting to see the alignment of Twitter users towards presidential candidates who already have a carrying party, namely Ganjar Pranowo, Prabowo Subianto, and Anies Baswedan based on a sentiment analysis approach. User feedback data about Indonesian Presidential candidates are obtained from the Twitter platform using Twitter API with Python programming language. The data obtained was 30,000 data with each candidate as many as 10,000 data. Data is pulled in April 2023 with specific keywords. The time for data withdrawal is chosen based on the announcement of Presidential Candidates carried by political parties before the schedule for determining or campaigning for Presidential candidates. Current data can potentially be used again as a comparison of analysis of presidential candidates on campaign time spans and after campaigns or actual calculation results. The data that can be accessed is in CSV format and has gone through several stages such as labelling using Language experts, removing spam Tweets & empty cells and preprocessing.
| S-EPMC10788203 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionIn the 2016 U.S. Presidential election, voters in communities with recent stagnation or decline in life expectancy were more likely to vote for the Republican candidate than in prior Presidential elections. We aimed to assess the association between change in life expectancy and voting patterns in the 2020 Presidential election.MethodsWith data on county-level life expectancy from the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation and voting data from a GitHub repository of results scraped from news outlets, we used weighted multivariable linear regression to estimate the association between the change in life expectancy from 1980 to 2014 and the proportion of votes for the Republican candidate and change in the proportion of votes cast for the Republican candidate in the 2020 Presidential election.ResultsAmong 3110 U.S counties and Washington, D.C., change in life expectancy at the county level was negatively associated with Republican share of the vote in the 2020 Presidential election (parameter estimate -7.2, 95% confidence interval, -7.8 to -6.6). With the inclusion of state, sociodemographic, and economic variables in the model, the association was attenuated (parameter estimate -0.8; 95% CI, -1.5 to -0.2). County-level change in life expectancy was positively associated with change in Republican vote share 0.29 percentage points (95% CI, 0.23 to 0.36). The association was attenuated when state, sociodemographic, and economic variables were added (parameter estimate 0.24; 95% CI, 0.15 to 0.33).ConclusionCounties with a less positive trajectory in life expectancy were more likely to vote for the Republican candidate in the 2020 U.S. Presidential election, but the Republican candidate's share improved in some counties that experienced marked gains in life expectancy. Associations were moderated by demographic, social and economic factors.
| S-EPMC8209240 | biostudies-literature
Project description:People often favor members of their own group, while discriminating against members of other groups. Such in-group favoritism has been shown to play an important role in human cooperation. However, in the face of changing conflicts and shifting alliances, it is essential for group identities to be flexible. Using the dictator game from behavioral economics, we demonstrate the remodeling of group identities among supporters of Democratic presidential candidates Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. After Clinton's concession in June 2008, Democrats were more generous toward supporters of their own preferred candidate than to supporters of the other Democratic candidate. The bias observed in June persisted into August, and disappeared only in early September after the Democratic National Convention. We also observe a strong gender effect, with bias both appearing and subsiding among men only. This experimental study illustrates a dynamic change in bias, tracking the realignment of real world conflict lines and public efforts to reconstitute group identity. The change in salient group identity we describe here likely contributed to the victory of Barack Obama in the 2008 presidential election.
| S-EPMC2664153 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Two studies conducted during the 2016 presidential campaign examined the dynamics of the objectivity illusion, the belief that the views of "my side" are objective while the views of the opposing side are the product of bias. In the first, a three-stage longitudinal study spanning the presidential debates, supporters of the two candidates exhibited a large and generally symmetrical tendency to rate supporters of the candidate they personally favored as more influenced by appropriate (i.e., "normative") considerations, and less influenced by various sources of bias than supporters of the opposing candidate. This study broke new ground by demonstrating that the degree to which partisans displayed the objectivity illusion predicted subsequent bias in their perception of debate performance and polarization in their political attitudes over time, as well as closed-mindedness and antipathy toward political adversaries. These associations, furthermore, remained significant even after controlling for baseline levels of partisanship. A second study conducted 2 d before the election showed similar perceptions of objectivity versus bias in ratings of blog authors favoring the candidate participants personally supported or opposed. These ratings were again associated with polarization and, additionally, with the willingness to characterize supporters of the opposing candidate as evil and likely to commit acts of terrorism. At a time of particular political division and distrust in America, these findings point to the exacerbating role played by the illusion of objectivity.
| S-EPMC7474588 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The 2020 U.S. Presidential Election required voters to not only form opinions of leading candidates, Donald Trump and Joe Biden, but also to make judgments about the integrity of the election itself and what—if anything—to do about it. However, partisan motivated reasoning theory (Leeper and Slothuus, Political Psychology, 35(Suppl 1): 129–156; Lodge and Taber, The rationalizing voter, Cambridge University Press, 2013) suggests judgments are often strongly influenced toward affectively desirable conclusions. Before, during, and after election projections were announced, partisan supporters of Trump and Biden rated: judgments about voter fraud and foreign interference, their acceptance of the results, and their support for recourse against the outcome (e.g., legal challenges, legislative overhauls, violence). Before the election, partisans were mildly concerned about election integrity but willing to accept the outcome without recourse. However, during vote counting, and especially after Biden was projected to be the winner, partisans dramatically changed their judgments in opposite directions, consistent with the affectively desirable conclusions relevant to each group. Biden supporters affirmed the election’s integrity and accepted the results whereas Trump supporters disputed the integrity, rejected the results, and began to support recourse against the outcome. Data are consistent with partisan motivated reasoning. Discussion highlights the practical implications. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11031-022-09983-w.
| S-EPMC9513018 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The dynamics and influence of fake news on Twitter during the 2016 US presidential election remains to be clarified. Here, we use a dataset of 171 million tweets in the five months preceding the election day to identify 30 million tweets, from 2.2 million users, which contain a link to news outlets. Based on a classification of news outlets curated by www.opensources.co , we find that 25% of these tweets spread either fake or extremely biased news. We characterize the networks of information flow to find the most influential spreaders of fake and traditional news and use causal modeling to uncover how fake news influenced the presidential election. We find that, while top influencers spreading traditional center and left leaning news largely influence the activity of Clinton supporters, this causality is reversed for the fake news: the activity of Trump supporters influences the dynamics of the top fake news spreaders.
| S-EPMC6315042 | biostudies-literature