Predicting the Political Alignment of Twitter Users
Abstract
The widespread adoption of social media for political communication creates unprecedented opportunities to monitor the opinions of large numbers of politically active individuals in real time. However, without a way to distinguish between users of opposing political alignments, conflicting signals at the individual level may, in the aggregate, obscure partisan differences in opinion that are important to political strategy. In this article we describe several methods for predicting the political alignment of Twitter users based on the content and structure of their political communication in the run-up to the 2010 U.S. midterm elections. Using a data set of 1,000 manually-annotated individuals, we find that a support vector machine (SVM) trained on hash tag metadata outperforms an SVM trained on the full text of users' tweets, yielding predictions of political affiliations with 91% accuracy. Applying latent semantic analysis to the content of users' tweets we identify hidden structure in the data strongly associated with political affiliation, but do not find that topic detection improves prediction performance. All of these content-based methods are outperformed by a classifier based on the segregated community structure of political information diffusion networks (95% accuracy). We conclude with a practical application of this machinery to web-based political advertising, and outline several approaches to public opinion monitoring based on the techniques developed herein.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Retransmission (retweet) is the most adequate interaction for detecting political polarization of users.
“Sin embargo, la retransmisión (retuit) genera un mensaje nuevo que se puede capturar con una consulta y que tiene generalmente un significado positivo por lo que es el más adecuado para detectar la polarización política de los usuarios (Conover et al., 2011).”
From Polarización en Twitter/X: análisis del debate generado por los medios de comunicación durante las elecciones locales y autonómicas del 28-M 2023 en España (2026) · cites this paper as Conover et al., 2011
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 44 · Cited by 588
- Authors
- Conover, M. D., Goncalves, B., Ratkiewicz, J., Flammini, A., & Menczer, F.
- Affiliations
- Indiana University Bloomington (US)
- Venue
- 2011 IEEE Third Int'l Conference on Privacy, Security, Risk and Trust and 2011 IEEE Third Int'l Conference on Social Computing
- Publisher
- IEEE
- Published
- 2011-10
- Pages
- 192-199
- OpenAlex
- W2538660910
- Cited by
- 588
- References
- 44
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 25 · 2022: 31 · 2021: 58 · 2020: 45 · 2019: 45 · 2018: 56 · 2017: 69 · 2016: 63 · 2015: 42 · 2014: 58 · 2013: 37 · 2012: 15
- FWCI
- 70.34
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- International Conference on Social Computing (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Communication › Social Media and Politics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Sentiment Analysis and Opinion Mining
- Social Sciences › General Social Sciences › Computational and Text Analysis Methods
- Keywords
- Twitter users, political affiliation, social media political communication, support vector machine, latent semantic analysis, topic extraction, community structure, political advertising, public opinion monitoring
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review