IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/anname/v659y2015i1p149-165.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Candidate Networks, Citizen Clusters, and Political Expression

Author

Listed:
  • Leticia Bode
  • Alexander Hanna
  • Junghwan Yang
  • Dhavan V. Shah

Abstract

Twitter provides a direct method for political actors to connect with citizens, and for those citizens to organize into online clusters through their use of hashtags (i.e., a word or phrase marked with # to identify an idea or topic and facilitate a search for it). We examine the political alignments and networking of Twitter users, analyzing 9 million tweets produced by more than 23,000 randomly selected followers of candidates for the U.S. House and Senate and governorships in 2010. We find that Twitter users in that election cycle did not align in a simple Right-Left division; rather, five unique clusters emerged within Twitter networks, three of them representing different conservative groupings. Going beyond discourses of fragmentation and polarization, certain clusters engaged in strategic expression such as “retweeting†(i.e., sharing someone else’s tweet with one’s followers) and “hashjacking†(i.e., co-opting the hashtags preferred by political adversaries). We find the Twitter alignments in the political Right were more nuanced than those on the political Left and discuss implications of this behavior in relation to the rise of the Tea Party during the 2010 elections.

Suggested Citation

  • Leticia Bode & Alexander Hanna & Junghwan Yang & Dhavan V. Shah, 2015. "Candidate Networks, Citizen Clusters, and Political Expression," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 659(1), pages 149-165, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:anname:v:659:y:2015:i:1:p:149-165
    DOI: 10.1177/0002716214563923
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0002716214563923
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0002716214563923?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Chi, Feng & Yang, Nathan, 2010. "Twitter in Congress: Outreach vs Transparency," MPRA Paper 23597, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 22 Jun 2010.
    2. Chi Feng & Yang Nathan, 2011. "Twitter Adoption in Congress," Review of Network Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 10(1), pages 1-46, March.
    3. Henry Farrell & Daniel Drezner, 2008. "The power and politics of blogs," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 134(1), pages 15-30, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Merve Genç, 2023. "#NotDying4Wallstreet: A Discourse Analysis on Health vs. Economy during COVID-19," Societies, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-24, January.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ferihan Polat & Özlem Özdeşim Subay, 2016. "The Use of Twitter by Politicians During June 2015 and November 2015 General Elections the Case of PDP," European Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies Articles, Revistia Research and Publishing, vol. 1, January -.
    2. Gaudeul, Alexia & Mathieu, Laurence & Peroni, Chiara, 2008. "Blogs and the Economics of Reciprocal Attention," MPRA Paper 11298, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. Chi Feng & Yang Nathan, 2011. "Twitter Adoption in Congress," Review of Network Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 10(1), pages 1-46, March.
    4. G. Lappas & A. Triantafillidou & P. Yannas, 2019. "Members of European Parliament (MEPs) on Social Media: Understanding the Underlying Mechanisms of Social Media Adoption and Popularity," The Review of Socionetwork Strategies, Springer, vol. 13(1), pages 55-77, June.
    5. Kostas Zafiropoulos & Vasiliki Vrana & Dimitrios Vagianos, 2012. "Bloggers’ Community Characteristics and Influence within Greek Political Blogosphere," Future Internet, MDPI, vol. 4(2), pages 1-17, April.
    6. John Bryden & Eric Silverman, 2019. "Underlying socio-political processes behind the 2016 US election," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(4), pages 1-11, April.
    7. McKenzie, David & Özler, Berk, 2011. "The Impact of Economics Blogs," CEPR Discussion Papers 8558, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    8. Leighton Vaughan Williams & James Reade, 2014. "Prediction Markets, Twitter and Bigotgate," Economics Discussion Papers em-dp2014-09, Department of Economics, University of Reading.
    9. Olessia Y. Koltsova & Sergei N. Koltcov & Sergey I. Nikolenko, 2013. "Comment-based discussion communities In the Russian livejournal and their topical coherence," HSE Working papers WP BRP 33/SOC/2013, National Research University Higher School of Economics.
    10. Mohamed Sami Ben Ali, 2022. "Digitalization and Banking Crisis: A Nonlinear Relationship?," Journal of Quantitative Economics, Springer;The Indian Econometric Society (TIES), vol. 20(2), pages 421-435, June.
    11. Rohit Aggarwal & Ram Gopal & Ramesh Sankaranarayanan & Param Vir Singh, 2012. "Blog, Blogger, and the Firm: Can Negative Employee Posts Lead to Positive Outcomes?," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 23(2), pages 306-322, June.
    12. Gary E. Hollibaugh Jr. & Adam J. Ramey & Jonathan D. Klingler, 2018. "Welcome to the Machine: A Model of Legislator Personality and Communications Technology Adoption," SAGE Open, , vol. 8(3), pages 21582440188, September.
    13. Kostas Zafiropoulos, 2012. "Connectivity Practices and Activity of Greek Political Blogs," Future Internet, MDPI, vol. 4(3), pages 1-18, August.
    14. Nathan Yang, 2011. "An Empirical Model of Industry Dynamics with Common Uncertainty and Learning from the Actions of Competitors," Working Papers 11-16, NET Institute.
    15. Luis Pérez-González, 2020. "‘Is climate science taking over the science?’: A corpus-based study of competing stances on bias, dogma and expertise in the blogosphere," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 7(1), pages 1-16, December.
    16. Fabio Giudice & Rocco Caferra & Piergiuseppe Morone, 2020. "COVID-19, the Food System and the Circular Economy: Challenges and Opportunities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(19), pages 1-15, September.
    17. Jimmy Chan & Daniel Stone, 2013. "Media proliferation and partisan selective exposure," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 156(3), pages 467-490, September.
    18. Hollibaugh, Gary E. & Klingler, Jonathan & Ramey, Adam, 2015. "Tentative Decisions," IAST Working Papers 15-29, Institute for Advanced Study in Toulouse (IAST).
    19. Lin Hu & Anqi Li & Xu Tan, 2021. "A Rational Inattention Theory of Echo Chamber," Papers 2104.10657, arXiv.org, revised Nov 2023.
    20. Lefika, Pheladi T. & Mearns, Martie A., 2015. "Adding knowledge cafés to the repertoire of knowledge sharing techniques," International Journal of Information Management, Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 26-32.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:anname:v:659:y:2015:i:1:p:149-165. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.