Search results

This chapter demonstrates a parallel between the presidential campaigns of Jair Bolsonaro (Brazil, 2018) and Donald Trump (United States, 2016) regarding their use of social media. Specifically, tweets from the former candidates on the social network sites were analyzed during a one-month timeframe before their respective presidential elections. Tweets were selected for analysis based on the fact that Twitter was the main platform used by both former presidential candidates. The analysis of the data reveals considerable similarities between the communication strategies of the two candidates. This research enlists McCombs and Shaw (1972) agenda setting theory based on their study of media during North American presidential campaigns in 1968 and Lippmann’s (2008) concept of public opinion. The methodology employed is based on Bardin (2011).

Social media platforms are highly visible platforms, so politicians try to maximize their benefits from their use, especially during election campaigns. On the other side, people express their views and sentiments toward politicians and political issues on social media, thus enabling them to observe their online political behavior. Therefore, this study aims to investigate user reactions on social media during the 2016 US presidential campaign to decide which candidate invoked stronger emotions on social media.

For testing the proposed hypotheses regarding emotional reactions to social media content during the 2016 presidential campaign, regression analysis was used to analyze a data set that consists of Trump’s 996 posts and Clinton’s 1,253 posts on Facebook. The proposed regression models are based on viral (likes, shares, comments) and emotional Facebook reactions (Angry, Haha, Sad, Surprise, Wow) as well as Russell’s valence, arousal, dominance (VAD) circumplex model for valence, arousal and dominance.

The results of regression analysis indicate how Facebook users felt about both presidential candidates. For Clinton’s page, both positive and negative content are equally liked, while Trump’s followers prefer funny and positive emotions. For both candidates, positive and negative content influences the number of comments. Trump’s followers mostly share positive content and the content that makes them angry, while Clinton’s followers share any content that does not make them angry. Based on VAD analysis, less dominant content, with high arousal and more positive emotions, is more liked on Trump’s page, where valence is a significant predictor for commenting and sharing. More positive content is more liked on Clinton’s page, where both positive and negative emotions with low arousal are correlated to commenting and sharing of posts.

Building on an empirical data set from Facebook, this study shows how differently the presidential candidates communicated on social media during the 2016 election campaign. According to the findings, Trump used a hard campaign strategy, while Clinton used a soft strategy.

This chapter discusses the impacts of David Maines's scholarship in communication research. The utilities of Maines's scholarship in communication research were first identified in a 1997 session in the annual convention of National Communication Association (NCA) by many leading scholars. This chapter documents the applications of Maines's scholarship in communication research in recent years when communication researchers utilized concepts and arguments constructed by Maines to investigate narratives in relations to Donald Trump's presidential election as well as the COVID-19 pendemic.

Presidential candidate Donald Trump ran for office promising a ‘total and complete shutdown’ of Muslims entering the United States. This essay, based on policy research, data analysis and interviews, provides extensive details of what became of that promise from legal, social and humanistic perspectives. Issued during his first week in office as US President, the ‘Muslim Ban’ Executive Order immediately produced chaos at airports globally, as US visas and ‘green cards’ suddenly became invalid for entry to the United States for persons travelling on the passports of seven Muslim majority countries. Over time, the Trump administration amended the Muslim Ban through new executive orders and proclamations that removed unlawful components, changed the countries affected, or altered the policy's justification. Although all these iterations faced legal challenges, a majority of the US Supreme Court ultimately acquiesced to President Trump and ruled in favour of the ban's legality. Throughout this period, the US immigration process rattled on like a machine, encouraging would-be (but banned) migrants to continue pursuing their paperwork and paying their fees, even though entry visas would prove unavailable. Waivers for family reunification were overwhelmingly denied at the consular level, and tens of thousands of otherwise eligible migrants lost substantial amounts of money in pursuit of the elusive visa. Protests erupted at US airports when the ban was initially implemented, revealing a political solidarity with Muslims rarely seen before. These events ended when enforcement of the ban was moved to remote locations, to US consulates abroad.