Monitoring of the Last US Presidential Elections

This paper presents the results of a new monitoring project of the US presidential elections with the aim of establishing computer-based tools to track in real time the popularity or awareness of candidates. The designed and developed innovative methods allow us to extract the frequency of queries sent to numerous search engines by US Internet users. Based on these data, this paper demonstrates that Trump was more frequently searched than the Democratic candidates, either Hillary Clinton in 2016 or Joe Biden in 2020. When analyzing the topics, it is observed that in 2020 the US users had shown a remarkable interest in two subjects, namely, Coronavirus and Jobs (unemployment). Interest for other topics such as Education or Healthcare were less pronounced while issues such as Immigration were given even less attention by users. Finally, some “flame” topics such as Black Lives Matter (2020) and Gun Control (2016) appear to be very popular for a few weeks before returning to a low level of interest. When analyzing tweets sent by candidates during the 2020 campaign, one can observe that Trump was focused mainly on Jobs and on Riots, announcing what would happen if Democrats took power. To these negative ads, Biden answered by putting forward moral values (e.g., love, honesty) and political symbols (e.g., democracy, rights) and by underlying the failure of the current administration in resolving the pandemic situation.

Negative TV Advertising in the 2016 US Presidential Campaign

Presented research describes the character of message and techniques used in TV political advertising during the 2016 US presidential campaign. The results unambiguously indicate a steady increase in the use of negative ads during political campaign. Television commercials of Hilary Clinton and Donald Trump focused mostly on discrediting their political opponent. In addition, the content of negative ads more frequently referred to image characteristics than to issues.

Identifying psychological responses of stigmatized groups to referendums

Public votes and referendums on the rights of marginalized communities are utilized in 27 states and occur with some regularity. However, research has only recently begun to examine the psychological consequences of these voter referendums for members of stigmatized groups, and a number of important questions remain regarding the internal validity and generalizability of the existing evidence. The current study advances this literature by combining survey data from a large probability-based sample conducted in 2012 [lesbian, gay, bisexual, and/or transgender (LGBT) n = 939; non-LGBT n = 31,067] with media market ad-buy data in states where marriage equality was on the ballot. Television media markets cross state boundaries, ensuring that there was an unintended group of people in 12 states who were exposed to the same-sex marriage discourse but who did not live in states with the voter referendum (“media market spillovers”). We take advantage of this unique data structure by comparing LGBT people in the media market spillovers to those residing in the same state but in nonspillover markets with no ad exposure. LGBT people are emotionally affected by these campaigns, and non-LGBT people are unaffected. LGBT people in markets with a cumulative total of 400 ads have a 34.0% greater probability of reporting stress than LGBT people not exposed to ads. Additionally, while the negative ads evoked sadness, positive ads evoked enjoyment and happiness. Thus, public votes on minority rights represent both a source of minority stress and resilience.

“Dark Money” and “Dirty Politics”: Are anonymous ads more negative?

Many scholars have studied the use of negative advertising in campaigns and what motivates candidates and groups to run negative ads. Recent elections, however, have seen a dramatic increase in advertising by outside groups, particularly by so-called “dark-money” organizations, which do not disclose their donor information. This study questions whether dark-money groups are more likely to engage in negative advertising. By examining the more than 13,000 outside-group expenditures from the 2010 through the 2014 congressional elections, it finds that outside groups are, indeed, more likely to use negative ads when they conceal their donor information. Additionally, while liberal and conservative groups are roughly equally likely to use negative ads, conservative groups are most likely to use anonymously funded negative advertisements. This could be, at least in part, due to the support conservative groups receive from organized businesses, which generally seek to conceal their political activities from public scrutiny.

Do Campaigns “Go Negative” on Twitter?

The use of negative ads in traditional election campaigns has been well-documented, but we know little about the use of Twitter to “go negative.” We content analyze candidate tweets from four different gubernatorial elections in 2011 to understand how candidates are using Twitter. We coded 849 tweets to explain the determinants of “going negative” on Twitter. Our results show that while tweets are overwhelmingly positive, candidates go negative by tweeting about policy. We believe this supports the innovation hypothesis and argue that Twitter is a conducive social media forum for policy-based messages due to its highly partisan nature. However, other determinants of negative campaigning such as competitiveness of the race and campaign funding were consistent with the normalization hypothesis. Our mixed results are consistent with other studies on social media and suggest there is still much to be learned from this tool.

The Content and Effect of Political Advertising in U.S. Campaigns

Political advertising, especially negative advertising, is a prominent feature of contemporary political campaigns in the United States. Campaigns use advertising strategically to persuade citizens their candidate is preferable to the alternatives; to mobilize like-minded supporters to get out to the polls to cast a ballot for their candidate; and to acquire citizen-personal information, so they can more effectively target individuals with appropriate persuasive or mobilizing messages. Online advertising is growing, but television advertising volume has largely been on the rise, too, with 2014 being a plateau. Evidence about trends in advertising content and effects of advertising on citizens come from television advertising in particular. Over the past decade, candidates have consistently sponsored a majority of advertising on the airwaves although their share does appear to be declining in legislative races. Interest group sponsorship of political advertising has grown, especially in Senate and presidential races, taking advantage of recent legal changes in the campaign finance landscape. Negativity is the dominant form of television advertising, constituting more than 65% and as much as 75% of all congressional general election ads (and as much as 87% of presidential ads) on air since 2006. Parties and interest group sponsors are more likely to air negative advertising by candidates, but candidates do not refrain from going negative. In fact, candidate negativity comprises roughly half of all negative ads on air. Negative ads are more likely to cite specific sources and therefore are generally considered more substantive. TV advertising is unlikely to contain partisan or ideological cues, in part, because it is targeted at swing voters. Early studies of advertising cast doubt on their effectiveness, but more recent work suggests that advertising effects are small (mattering at the margin in the most competitive contests) and often conditional. That is, advertising effects often vary in relation to characteristics of the messages being aired, the individuals who view them, and contextual factors relating to the campaign more generally. Scholarship suggests that advertising has persuasive but short-lived influence on citizens and that advertising volume and negativity may aid mobilization efforts (although the influence of negativity may be conditioned upon ad characteristics and timing). Technological advances in the way TV advertising is deployed is increasing campaigns ability to target citizens in a fashion similar to online advertising, which has implications for how well researchers can continue to study it. Scholars have made considerable progress in studying 21st-century advertising effects, but a number of logistical hurdles and unanswered research questions remain.

Gender Differences in Reactions to Fact Checking of Negative Commercials

One of most negative campaigns in history may have taken place during the 2014 Senate election cycle. Nearly 75% of senate ads aired during a two-week period in early fall of 2014 showed a candidate in a negative light, according to the Wesleyan Media Project. A postelection analysis by the Center for Public Integrity showed that 46% of the more than one million ads aired during the 2014 senate campaigns were negative. And, in the most competitive states, the proportion of negative ads was even higher (e.g., 67% in North Carolina, 58% in Kansas). Negative advertisements sponsored by candidates, interest groups, and political parties are being launched on the airways, in newspapers, on radio, and via the Internet at an unprecedented pace. These advertisements, however, are now routinely subjected to fact checking.The Washington Post, along with many other fact-checking organizations, such as PolitiFact, The AP Factcheck, and Factcheck.org, examine thousands of statements and political advertisements during campaigns to determine the accuracy of the claims. For instance, during the 2012 election cycle, PolitiFact had 36 reporters and editors working in 11 states producing more than 800 fact checks on the presidential campaign and hundreds more for candidates running for the U.S. House and U.S. Senate.

Tweeting Negative

The use of negative ads in traditional election campaigns has been well-documented, but the authors know little about the use of Twitter to “go negative.” They content analyze candidate tweets from four different gubernatorial elections in 2011 to understand how candidates are using Twitter. They coded 849 tweets to explain the determinants of “going negative” on Twitter. The results show that while tweets are overwhelmingly positive, candidates go negative by tweeting about policy. They believe this supports the innovation hypothesis, with Twitter being a more conducive forum for policy-based messages. Other determinants of negative campaigning such as competitiveness of the race and campaign funding were consistent with the normalization hypothesis.