Helping populism win? Social media use, filter bubbles, and support for populist presidential candidates in the 2016 US election campaign

ABSTRACT Undoubtedly, populist political candidates from the right and the left, including Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders, changed the tenor and direction of the 2016 presidential contest in the US. Much like Barack Obama’s electoral successes that were credited at least in part to his savvy social media campaigning in 2008 and 2012, since Trump’s victory, the notion that social media ‘helped him win’ has been revitalized, even by Trump himself [McCormick, R. (2016a). Donald Trump says Facebook and Twitter ‘helped him win’. The Verge. Retrieved from http://www.theverge.com/2016/11/13/13619148/trump-facebook-twitter-helped-win]. This study therefore explores citizen support for populist and establishment candidates across the ideological spectrum in the US to specifically examine if using social media was related to an increased likelihood of supporting populist presidential political candidates, including Trump. Differing forms of active, passive, and uncivil social media were taken into account and the findings suggest active social media use for politics was actually related to less support for Republican populists, such as Trump, but that forms of both passive or uncivil social media use were linked to an increase in the likelihood of support to a level roughly equivalent to that of the traditional television viewing. These patterns are almost the inverse of support for Democratic populists, in this case namely Sanders.

[1]  John M. McAdams,et al.  Elections in America , 1988, American Political Science Review.

[2]  N. Nevitte,et al.  Explaining The Gender Gap in Support for the New Right , 2005 .

[3]  H. Dubiel.  The Populist Moment , 2005 .

[4]  Wouter van der Brug,et al.  Charisma, Leader Effects and Support for Right-Wing Populist Parties , 2007 .

[5]  Stefaan Walgrave,et al.  Populism as political communication style An empirical study of political parties' discourse in Belgium , 2007 .

[6]  Manuel Castells,et al.  Communication Power and Counter-power in the Network Society , 2007 .

[7]  Jasper Muis,et al.  The rise of right-wing populist Pim Fortuyn in the Netherlands: a discursive opportunity approach , 2009 .

[8]  Shelley Boulianne.  Does Internet Use Affect Engagement? A Meta-Analysis of Research , 2009 .

[9]  Jon A. Krosnick,et al.  Research Synthesis AAPOR Report on Online Panels , 2010 .

[10]  Charles F. Hofacker,et al.  The Influence of Personality on Active and Passive Use of Social Networking Sites , 2011 .

[11]  Claes H. de Vreese,et al.  Good News for the Future? Young People, Internet Use, and Political Participation , 2011, Commun. Res..

[12]  Eli Pariser,et al.  The Filter Bubble: What the Internet Is Hiding from You , 2011 .

[13]  Kim Strandberg,et al.  A social media revolution or just a case of history repeating itself? The use of social media in the 2011 Finnish parliamentary elections , 2013, New Media Soc..

[14]  Daniela V. Dimitrova,et al.  A Cross-Section of Political Involvement, Partisanship and Online Media in Middle America During the 2008 Presidential Campaign , 2013 .

[15]  Jennifer Gibbs,et al.  Social media as a catalyst for online deliberation? Exploring the affordances of Facebook and YouTube for political expression , 2013, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[16]  Justin M. Rao,et al.  Ideological Segregation and the Effects of Social Media on News Consumption , 2013 .

[17]  Jacob Groshek,et al.  Double differentiation in a cross-national comparison of populist political movements and online media uses in the United States and the Netherlands , 2013, New Media Soc..

[18]  Daniela V. Dimitrova,et al.  The Effects of Digital Media on Political Knowledge and Participation in Election Campaigns , 2014, Commun. Res..

[19]  Alfred Hermida,et al.  Tell Everyone: Why We Share and Why It Matters , 2014 .

[20]  Matthijs Rooduijn.  The Mesmerising Message: The Diffusion of Populism in Public Debates in Western European Media , 2014 .

[21]  S. Tormey,et al.  Rethinking Populism: Politics, Mediatisation and Political Style , 2014 .

[22]  Michael A. Xenos,et al.  The great equalizer? Patterns of social media use and youth political engagement in three advanced democracies , 2014 .

[23]  Sanne Kruikemeier,et al.  Unraveling the effects of active and passive forms of political Internet use: Does it affect citizens’ political involvement? , 2014, New Media Soc..

[24]  Bruce Bimber,et al.  Digital Media in the Obama Campaigns of 2008 and 2012: Adaptation to the Personalized Political Communication Environment , 2014 .

[25]  Vincent Cicchirillo,et al.  Living in an age of online incivility: examining the conditional indirect effects of online discussion on political flaming , 2014 .

[26]  A. Arvidsson,et al.  Echo Chamber or Public Sphere? Predicting Political Orientation and Measuring Political Homophily in Twitter Using Big Data , 2014 .

[27]  Bryan C. Semaan,et al.  Hybrid media consumption: how tweeting during a televised political debate influences the vote decision , 2014, CSCW.

[28]  Hanspeter Kriesi,et al.  The Populist Challenge , 2014 .

[29]  A. Akkerman,et al.  How Populist Are the People? Measuring Populist Attitudes in Voters , 2014 .

[30]  Andrea Miconi,et al.  Italy’s “Five Stars” movement and the role of a leader: Or, how charismatic power can resurface through the web , 2015, New Media Soc..

[31]  Shelley Boulianne.  Social media use and participation: a meta-analysis of current research , 2015 .

[32]  Zeynep Tufekci.  Facebook Said Its Algorithms Do Help Form Echo Chambers, and the Tech Press Missed It , 2015 .

[33]  Jakob Svensson,et al.  The emergence of network media logic in political communication: A theoretical approach , 2015, New Media Soc..

[34]  Lada A. Adamic,et al.  Exposure to ideologically diverse news and opinion on Facebook , 2015, Science.

[35]  H. G. D. Zúñiga,et al.  What Is Second Screening? Exploring Motivations of Second Screen Use and Its Effect on Online Political Participation , 2015 .

[36]  C. Reinemann,et al.  Germany: Is the Populism Laggard Catching up? , 2016 .

[37]  Filip Van Droogenbroeck,et al.  Who Supports Populism and What Attracts People to It? , 2016 .

[38]  Andrea Ceron,et al.  E-campaigning on Twitter: The effectiveness of distributive promises and negative campaign in the 2013 Italian election , 2016, New Media Soc..

[39]  Zhuang Fengqing,et al.  Patients’ Responsibilities in Medical Ethics , 2016 .

[40]  Moreno Mancosu,et al.  Diffusion Processes and Discussion Networks: An Analysis of the Propensity to Vote for the 5 Star Movement in the 2013 Italian Election , 2016 .

[41]  Ov Cristian Norocel.  Finland: From agrarian to right-wing populism , 2016 .

[42]  Debbie Goh,et al.  Social media and citizen engagement: A meta-analytic review , 2016, New Media Soc..

[43]  Lynn Vavreck,et al.  The Electoral Landscape of 2016 , 2016 .

[44]  Jan-Werner Müller,et al.  What is populism? , 2016, Contemporary Political Theory.

[45]  J. Groshek,et al.  Meaner on Mobile: Incivility and Impoliteness in Communicating Contentious Politics on Sociotechnical Networks , 2016 .

[46]  Wouter van der Brug,et al.  The nature and origins of Euroscepticism among left-wing and right-wing citizens1 , 2017 .

[47]  Natalie Fenton.  The internet of me (and my ‘friends’) , 2016 .

[48]  Matthijs Rooduijn,et al.  The psychological roots of populist voting: Evidence from the United States, the Netherlands and Germany , 2016 .

[49]  W. Rahn,et al.  Rise of the Trumpenvolk , 2016 .

[50]  Frank Esser,et al.  Populism and the media: cross-national findings and perspectives , 2017 .

[51]  The affordance effect: Gatekeeping and (non)reciprocal journalism on Twitter , 2017, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[52]  Sven Engesser,et al.  Populism and social media: how politicians spread a fragmented ideology , 2017 .

[53]  C. Reinemann,et al.  Switzerland: Favourable conditions for growing populism , 2017 .