The Party Is Over Here: Structure and Content in the 2010 Election

In this work, we study the use of Twitter by House, Senate and gubernatorial candidates during the midterm (2010) elections in the U.S. Our data includes almost 700 candidates and over 690k documents that they produced and cited in the 3.5 years leading to the elections. We utilize graph and text mining techniques to analyze differences between Democrats, Republicans and Tea Party candidates, and suggest a novel use of language modeling for estimating content cohesiveness. Our findings show significant differences in the usage patterns of social media, and suggest conservative candidates used this medium more effectively, conveying a coherent message and maintaining a dense graph of connections. Despite the lack of party leadership, we find Tea Party members display both structural and language-based cohesiveness. Finally, we investigate the relation between network structure, content and election results by creating a proof-of-concept model that predicts candidate victory with an accuracy of 88.0%.

[1]  David Konopnicki,et al.  Extracting user profiles from large scale data , 2010, MDAC '10.

[2]  Andrew Gelman,et al.  Predicting and Dissecting the Seats-Votes Curve in the 2006 U.S. House Election , 2008, PS: Political Science & Politics.

[3]  Lada A. Adamic,et al.  The political blogosphere and the 2004 U.S. election: divided they blog , 2005, LinkKDD '05.

[4]  Jennifer Golbeck,et al.  Twitter use by the U.S. Congress , 2010, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[5]  Daniel M. Romero,et al.  Influence and passivity in social media , 2010, ECML/PKDD.

[6]  Bernard J. Jansen,et al.  Twitter power: Tweets as electronic word of mouth , 2009, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[7]  Qiang Yang,et al.  User language model for collaborative personalized search , 2009, TOIS.

[8]  David A. Shamma,et al.  Characterizing debate performance via aggregated twitter sentiment , 2010, CHI.

[9]  Frederick Jelinek,et al.  Statistical methods for speech recognition , 1997 .

[10]  Sergei Nirenburg,et al.  A Statistical Approach to Machine Translation , 2003 .

[11]  Rajeev Motwani,et al.  The PageRank Citation Ranking : Bringing Order to the Web , 1999, WWW 1999.

[12]  Yi Zhang,et al.  Efficient bayesian hierarchical user modeling for recommendation system , 2007, SIGIR.

[13]  Michael I. Jordan,et al.  Latent Dirichlet Allocation , 2001, J. Mach. Learn. Res..

[14]  Susan C. Herring,et al.  Beyond Microblogging: Conversation and Collaboration via Twitter , 2009, 2009 42nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

[15]  W. Bruce Croft,et al.  A general language model for information retrieval , 1999, CIKM '99.

[16]  Masatoshi Yoshikawa,et al.  Adaptive web search based on user profile constructed without any effort from users , 2004, WWW '04.

[17]  Timothy W. Finin,et al.  Why we twitter: understanding microblogging usage and communities , 2007, WebKDD/SNA-KDD '07.

[18]  Jacob R. Straus,et al.  Social Networking and Constituent Communications: Member Use of Twitter During a Two-Month Period in the 111th Congress , 2010 .

[19]  Sharon L. Milgram,et al.  The Small World Problem , 1967 .

[20]  W. Bruce Croft,et al.  Formal multiple-bernoulli models for language modeling , 2004, SIGIR '04.

[21]  L. Freeman.  Centrality in social networks conceptual clarification , 1978 .

[22]  W. Bruce Croft,et al.  A language modeling approach to information retrieval , 1998, SIGIR '98.

[23]  John Cocke,et al.  A Statistical Approach to Machine Translation , 1990, CL.

[24]  J. Golbeck,et al.  Twitter use by the U.S. Congress , 2010 .

[25]  Isabell M. Welpe,et al.  Predicting Elections with Twitter: What 140 Characters Reveal about Political Sentiment , 2010, ICWSM.

[26]  Christine B. Williams,et al.  What is a Social Network Worth? Facebook and Vote Share in the 2008 Presidential Primaries , 2008 .