Twitter publics: how online political communities signaled electoral outcomes in the 2010 US house election

References

• Beauchamp, N. (2013). Predicting and interpolating state-level polling using twitter textual data. Meeting on automated text analysis, London School of Economics, London.
   Google Scholar
• Beaumont, C. (2010, February 23). Twitter users send 50 million tweets per day. The Telegraph. Retrieved from January 2014. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/twitter/7297541/Twitter-users-send-50-million-tweets-per-day.html
   Google Scholar
• Boninger, D. S., Krosnick, J. A., & Berent, M. K. (1995). Origins of attitude importance: Self-interest, social identification, and value relevance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68(1), 61–80. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.68.1.61
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bucy, E. P. (2000). Social access to the internet. The Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 5(1), 50–61. doi:10.1177/1081180X00005001005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Census. (2011). American community survey (2011 1-year estimates). Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/acs/www/data_documentation/2011_release/
   Google Scholar
• Chen, L., Wang, W., & Sheth, A. P. (2012). Are twitter users equal in predicting elections? A study of user groups in predicting 2012 US Republican presidential primaries. In K. Aberer, (Ed.), Social informatics (pp. 379–392). Heidelberg: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-35386-428
   Google Scholar
• Conover, M. D., Ratkiewicz, J., Francisco, M., Gonçalves, B., Flammini, A., & Menczer, F. (2011). Political polarization on twitter. Proceedings of the fifth international conference on weblogs and social media, Barelona, Spain.
   Google Scholar
• DiGrazia, J., McKelvey, K., Bollen, J., & Rojas, F. (2013, 11). More tweets, more votes: Social media as a quantitative indicator of political behavior. PLoS ONE, 8(11), e79449. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0079449
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• FEC, US (2010). United States house of representatives. In Federal elections 2010: Election results for the U.S. senate and the U.S. house of representatives (pp. 39–150). Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from February 25, 2014. http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2010/federalelections2010.shtml
   Google Scholar
• Hale, S., Gaffney, D., & Graham, M. (2012). Where in the world are you? Geolocation and language identification in twitter. Retrieved from February 25, 2014 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2224233
   Google Scholar
• Hanna, A., & Harris, K. (2013). The signal and the noise in middle east elections. Journal of Foreign Policy. Retrieved from February 25, 2014 http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/12/13/the_signal_and_the_noise_in_middle_east_elections
   Google Scholar
• Hanna, A., Sayre, B., Bode, L., Yang, J., & Shah, D. (2011). Mapping the political twitterverse: Candidates and their followers in the midterms. Proceedings of the fifth international association for the advancement of artificial intelligence (AIII) conference on weblogs and social media, Barcelona, Spain.
   Google Scholar
• Hargittai, E. (2002). Second-level digital divide. First Monday, 7(4–1). Retrieved from http://firstmonday.org/article/view/942/864
   Google Scholar
• Hargittai, E. (2007). Whose space? Differences among users and non-users of social network sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), 276–297. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00396.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hargittai, E., & Hsieh, Y.-l. P. (2010). Predictors and consequences of differentiated practices on social network sites. Information, Communication & Society, 13(4), 515–536. doi:10.1080/13691181003639866
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hargittai, E., & Litt, E. (2012). Becoming a tweep: How prior online experiences influence twitter use. Information, Communication & Society, 15(5), 680–702. doi:10.1080/1369118X.2012.666256
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hargittai, E., & Shafer, S. (2006). Differences in actual and perceived online skills: The role of gender*. Social Science Quarterly, 87(2), 432–448. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6237.2006.00389.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoffman, D. L., & Novak, T. P. (1998). Bridging the racial divide on the internet. Science, 280(5362), 390–391. doi:10.1126/science.280.5362.390
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Howard, P. E., Rainie, L., & Jones, S. (2001). Days and nights on the internet the impact of a diffusing technology. American Behavioral Scientist, 45(3), 383–404. doi:10.1177/0002764201045003003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huberty, M. (2013). Voting with your tweet: Forecasting congressional elections with social media data. Midwest political science association conference, Chicago, Illinois.
   Google Scholar
• Krippendorff, K. (2012). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Krosnick, J., & Telhami, S. (1995). U.S. public attitudes toward Israel: A study of the attentive and issue publics. International Studies Quarterly, 39, 535–554. doi:10.1080/13537129608719396
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krosnick, J. A. (1990). Government policy and citizen passion: A study of issue publics in contemporary America. Political Behavior, 12(1), 59–92. doi:10.1007/BF00992332
   Google Scholar
• Krosnick, J. A., & Milburn, M. A. (1990). Psychological determinants of political opinionation. Social Cognition, 8(1), 49–72. doi:10.1177/1065912909346742
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kwon, T. H., & Zmud, R. W. (1987). Unifying the fragmented models of information systems implementation. In R. J. Boland, & R. Hirschheim (Eds.), Critical issues in information systems research (pp. 227–251). New York: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Lacy, S., & Riffe, D. (1996). Sampling error and selecting intercoder reliability samples for nominal content categories. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 73(4), 963–973. doi:10.1177/107769909607300414
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lenhart, A., Purcell, K., Smith, A., & Zickuhr, K. (2010). Social media & mobile internet use among teens and young adults. Pew internet & American life project in Washington, DC.
   Google Scholar
• Lin, Y.-R., Keegan, B., Margolin, D., & Lazer, D. (2013). Rising tides or rising stars?: Dynamics of shared attention on twitter during media events. arXiv preprint arXiv:1307.2785. Retrieved from February 25, 2014 http://arxiv.org/abs/1307.2785
   Google Scholar
• Lippmann, W. (1927). The phantom public. New Jersey: Transaction.
   Google Scholar
• Livne, A., Simmons, M. P., Adar, E., & Adamic, L. A. (2011). The party is over here: Structure and content in the 2010 election. Proceedings of the fifth international AAAI conference on weblogs and social media, Barcelona, Spain.
   Google Scholar
• Maynard, D., & Funk, A. (2012). Automatic detection of political opinions in tweets. In R. Garcia-Castro, D. Fensel, & G. Antoniou (Eds.), The semantic web: ESWC 2011 workshops (pp. 88–99). Springer-Verlag: New York.
   Google Scholar
• Metaxas, P. T., Mustafaraj, E., & Gayo-Avello, D. (2011). How (not) to predict elections. In Privacy, security, risk and trust (PASSAT), 2011 IEEE third international conference on and 2011 IEEE third international conference on social computing (socialcom) (pp. 165–171), Boston.
   Google Scholar
• Neuendorf, K. A. (2002). The content analysis guidebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Norris, P. (2003). Digital divide: Civic engagement, information poverty, and the internet worldwide (Vol. 40). Barcelona, Spain: Taylor & Francis.
   Google Scholar
• O'Connor, B., Balasubramanyan, R., Routledge, B. R., & Smith, N. A. (2010). From tweets to polls: Linking text sentiment to public opinion time series. In Proceedings of the international aaai conference on weblogs and social media (Vol. 5, pp. 122–129). Thousand Oaks, CA: AAAI Press.
   Google Scholar
• Price, V. E. (1992). Public opinion. Seattle, WA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Sarcevic, A., Palen, L., White, J., Starbird, K., Bagdouri, M., & Anderson, K. (2012). Beacons of hope in decentralized coordination: Learning from on-the-ground medical twitterers during the 2010 Haiti earthquake. In Proceedings of the ACM 2012 conference on computer supported cooperative work (pp. 47–56), New York.
   Google Scholar
• Schattschneider, E. E. (1975). The semi-sovereign people: A realist’s view of democracy in America. Barcelona: Wadsworth.
   Google Scholar
• Sides, J., & Karch, A. (2008). Messages that mobilize? Issue publics and the content of campaign advertising. Journal of Politics, 70(2), 466–476. doi:0.1017/S0022381608080432
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Skoric, M., Poor, N., Achananuparp, P., Lim, E.-P., & Jiang, J. (2012). Tweets and votes: A study of the 2011 Singapore general election. In G. Wailea, & H. Maui (Eds.), System science (HICSS), 2012 45th Hawaii international conference on system sciences, Shidler College of Buisness University of Hawai'i at Manoa (pp. 2583–2591). New York: Springer Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Smith, A., & Brenner, J. (2012). Twitter use 2012. Pew Internet & American Life Project.
   Google Scholar
• Tumasjan, A., Sprenger, T. O., Sandner, P. G., & Welpe, I. M. (2010). Predicting elections with twitter: What 140 characters reveal about political sentiment. In Proceedings of the fourth international AAAI conference on weblogs and social media (pp. 178–185), Hong Kong, China.
   Google Scholar
• Van Deursen, A. J., & Van Dijk, J. A. (2009). Using the internet: Skill related problems in users online behavior. Interacting with Computers, 21(5), 393–402. doi:10.1016/j.intcom.2009.06.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Welch, M. J., Schonfeld, U., He, D., & Cho, J. (2011). Topical semantics of twitter links. In Proceedings of the fourth ACM international conference on web search and data mining (pp. 327–336), Hong Kong, China.
   Google Scholar