The influence of social media on

Donald Trump’s win in the 2016

presidential elections

Boca Ana-Maria

IRES2
Contents
Introduction.................................................................................................................................2

Research question.......................................................................................................................6

Literature review.........................................................................................................................7

Hypothesis.................................................................................................................................10

Methodology.............................................................................................................................10

Results.......................................................................................................................................11

Conclusion................................................................................................................................13

Bibliography.............................................................................................................................15

Appendix...................................................................................................................................17

1
 For this research paper, I will explain how certain actors used social media to
influence particular categories of the electorate to vote for Donald Trump in the United States
presidential elections of 2016 that ultimately led to his victory. The hypothesis I propose is
the following: “If certain actors used social media to address particular messages to focused
groups in order to influence them, then this contributed to Donald Trump's win in the 2016
presidential elections.”

The hypothesis I propose is an original one and my research approach will be based on
my own analysis. In order to develop my argument I also consulted the works of several
authors that I cited in my paper.

Introduction
The 2016 presidential elections ended with Donald Trump as the 45 th president of the
United States. In the electoral campaign, he frequently used social media, especially Twitter,
to broadcast his messages. Even though the information he provided was controversial and
often inaccurate, sometimes even contradictory to his previous messages, he managed to gain
the support of many white male voters and of the working class.

In the last decades, the way American parties and their candidates appeal to the voters
has changed: they depend more on paid advertisements on the television, they use polls to
assess whether their strategies are working on the voters, and frequently use the “micro-
targeting” technique in order to identify possible supporters and influence their opinion. 1 In
this sense, political communications tools have passed through many stages in order to reach
the level of development they have now. The apparition of the Internet has brought significant
changes due to the fact that it favored the development of social media: those platforms create
a high degree of engagement of citizens and allow for a more in-depth political participation
of the voters. Social media has become extremely popular among people, especially in the last
decade, and the public carries out its daily activities more and more on social networks. With
such a high rise in users, it has already surpassed the traditional media. In this context, social
networks like Facebook and Twitter have become the main channels where politicians
distribute their message and they play as well an important part in constructing an electoral
strategy.

1
G. Bingham Powell, Jr., Russell J. Dalton, Kaare W. Strom, Comparative Politics Today: A World View, 11th
edition (England: Pearson Education Limited, 2015), 730.

2
 In order to better understand the topic presented in this research paper, I will begin
with a brief history of the Republican Party of the United States and I will also offer a short
analysis of this party.

History of the party

The Republican Party, also known as Grand Old Party (GOP), was born out of the
need of having a party that would address the issues that were dividing the American nation
and so, in 1854, members of the Whigs, Free-Soilers and Democrats founded the new
Republican Party, which reflected the views of the North on the government and represented
their interests. The party’s philosophy soon became clear and its main opposition was to the
Kansas-Nebraska Act that would allow the spread of slavery in the two territories. Antislavery
and conservative economic programs became priorities on the Republican agenda, and their
goal focused on preventing the expansion of slavery to the West, as they believed that
slaveholding interests would interfere in national politics. The 1860 elections were won by
Abraham Lincoln, the Republican candidate. However, once he was inaugurated president,
seven Southern states separate from the Union, which ultimately led to the beginning of the
Civil War.2

The end of the war brought the Republican majority in Congress to initiate the
Amendment that would abolish slavery. During the Reconstruction era (which represented the
post-war recovery), radical Republicans in the Congress believed that full social and voting
rights should be given to African Americans, and these kinds of policies increased the
Southerners’ trust in the Democratic Party. It was during this era that the Republican Party
began to be associated with wealthy businessmen, and financial interests became a priority in
the industrialized North. This period also marked the views towards which the Party would
turn to: the Republicans were those who had a more conservative approach towards the
economy and who maintained their support for the businesses and industry. 3 A Progressive
era followed that brought the United States involvement in world politics and with Theodore
Roosevelt administration, the Republican Party was transformed on the basis of economic,
political and social reforms, shifting from a conservative position to a more progressive one.4

2
Heather Lehr Wagner, The History of the Republican Party (New York: Chelsea House, 2007), 12-18.
3
Idem, 35-50.
4
Heather Cox Richardson, To Make Men Free: A History of the Republican Party (New York: Basic Books,
2014), chap. 6, EPUB.

3
 With the shortcomings of the Great Depression, the Republicans were blamed for the
crisis and the Americans’ dissatisfaction allowed the Democratic Party, with Franklin D.
Roosevelt in the lead, to defeat the Republicans in 1932. His popularity and his New Deal
program gained the citizens’ support and the following period was one of defeat for the
Republican Party, because the Democrats were perceived as the ones who brought the
nation’s prosperity and its success in World War II. After the end of the war, a major political
change occurred: Southerners shifted to the GOP, while African American voters turned their
support to the Democratic Party.

The Republican victory came again in 1953 with Dwight D. Eisenhower who set to
build a new format of the party: he stood against discrimination based on race and religion
and civil rights became an essential concern. However, a more conservative approach
appeared with the nomination of Barry Goldwater as president in 1964, even though he did
not win. The next elections lead to Richard Nixon to gain office, followed by Gerald Ford. In
the 1980, the conservative ideals were portrayed through Ronald Reagan: he focused on
economic growth, on restoring the country’s military strength and at the level of foreign
policy he came victorious in the Cold War with the Soviet Union. 5 In the 2000’s, the
Republican agenda was transformed by George W. Bush who concentrated on the economy
and domestic issues. Nowadays, the Republican Party is again in power, as Donald Trump
defeated Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential elections.

Analysis of the party

Democratic states, such as the United States of America, can be classified according to
the number of parties that operate in that specific system: they are either a two-party system
or a multiparty one. Duverger and Neumann agree that democratic stability is related to the
number of parties, the former going as far as stating that a two-party system “seems to
correspond to the nature of things”, because it reflects the duality of the public opinion and is
more stable.6 In the American two-party system, the two major parties, the Republican and
Democratic Party, compete for electoral support and alternate in power.

The Republican Party situates itself on the center-right of the American political
spectrum. It can be characterized by features like: it favors a smaller government, it promotes
conservative social values such as traditional family values, opposition to abortion and gun
5
Heather Lehr Wagner, The History of the Republican Party (New York: Chelsea House, 2007), 75-90.
6
Arend Lijphart, Democracy in Plural Societies. A Comparative Exploration (New Haven and London: Yale
University Press, 1997), 12.

4
control policies, and among its voters the party appeals to those with higher incomes,
Christians, and white men. Even though Republicans have struggled to win the vote of ethnic
minorities, in the last two decades the party has made efforts to gain support among the
Hispanics, a strategy that was successful for President Bush in the 2004 presidential
elections.7

Regarding the analysis of the party, first of all the Republican Party is a political party
in the sense that it meets the four conditions developed by Joseph LaPalombara and Myron
Weiner: “(1) continuity in organization—that is, an organization whose expected life span is
not dependent on the life span of current leaders; (2) manifest and presumably permanent
organization at the local level, with regularized communications and other relationships
between local and national units; (3) self-conscious determination of leaders at both national
and local levels to capture and to hold decision-making power alone or in coalition with
others, not simply to influence the exercise of power; and (4) a concern on the part of the
organization for seeking followers at the polls or in some manner striving for popular
support.” 8

In relation to the first condition, the Republican Party of the United States has
continued to play an important role in American politics since its creation in 1854. Regardless
of the fact that its leaders have changed frequently, the Republican Party remained influential
and it did not end its activities after the leaders died. Secondly, the party is organized at
national (Republican National Committee) and state level (such as state conventions), as well
as local (city committees, party activists and volunteers). Thirdly, the Republican leaders want
to be in the position of decision-making and want to keep that position as long as they can.
The party has succeeded to gain the presidency 19 times, which is the most from any other
political party in U.S. Lastly, the Republican Party wants to gain popular support through
elections, rallies, activists and gets this support by having a programme and proposing
solutions to issues that the American society is dealing with.

As far as party typology goes, the fact that the Republican Party is decentralized
means that it is quite hard to assign it just one certain typology. From a functionalist point of
view, this party can be identified as a “party of social integration” according to Sigmund

7
D.J. Sagar (editor), Political Parties of the World, 7th edition (London: John Harper Publishing, 2009), 632-
633.
8
Joseph LaPalombara and Myron Weiner, Political Parties and Political Development (New Jersey: Princeton
University Press, 1966), 6.

5
Neumann’s classification. This means that the Republican Party provides its members with a
wide variety of services and that those members are actively engaged in its activities.

Another classification is organizational, and in this sense the Republican Party, when
it first appeared, fell under the “cadre parties” description of Maurice Duverger: a type of
party that was led by individuals with a high socioeconomic status. 9 However, nowadays the
Republican Party can also be considered a “mass-party” in the sense that it is very active and
advances its programme and beliefs into spheres of social life. More than that, this kind of
party establishes networks at national and local level, and relies on supportive organizations
in order to mobilize the electorate. 10 In this regard, the Republican Party advances its
conservative views and promotes the traditional family values, and it relies on multiple other
organizations to promote its agenda, such as the Republican Study Committee, the Republican
Leadership Council and the Republican Main Street Partnership, as well as interest groups
that help the party in elections and policy development.

Under the electoralist type of parties, the Republican Party is a programmatic party.
This type has “much more of a distinct, consistent, and coherent programmatic or ideological
agenda (…) and it clearly incorporates those ideological or programmatic appeals in its
electoral campaigns and its legislative and government agenda (…) second, it seeks to win
control of government, or at least a place in it”.11 The Republican Party promotes a
conservative agenda, it favors a smaller role of the federal government and lower taxes, it is
opposed to abortion and gun control and its electorate is composed of primarily white men
with higher incomes. Since 1968, the Republicans have won most of the presidential
elections.

Research question
The main research question is: How did certain actors use social media in order to
influence parts of the electorate to vote for Donald Trump in the 2016 presidential elections?

In order to answer the main research question, in this paper I will answer as well
several sub-research questions to give a better understanding of the topic. First of all, I will
determine whether social media can make an influence on elections in the first place, and I

9
Larry Diamond and Richard Gunther, Political Parties and Democracy (Baltimore and London: The John
Hopkins University Press, 2001), 5.
10
Idem, p. 16.
11
Idem, p. 27.

6
will also determine who the actors that influenced the electorate were and what groups were
micro-targeted in order to influence them to vote in a certain way.

Literature review
In this part of the paper I will analyze several publications (books and journal articles)
that relate to my research question, in order to identify relevant theories and methods and to
get a clear knowledge on the subject.

First of all, it is necessary to understand the impact that social media has upon politics
and elections in particular. The rise of the internet, and implicitly the development of social
media networks, has greatly impacted how governments and citizens communicate. With so
many sources of information that people can access, political parties need to rethink their
strategy in order to reach more voters (for example, through personalized emails or
advertisements).12 Politicians may engage with voters via social media through opening
dialogue with followers by asking questions and opinions on relevant topics. This interactive
element of political communication on social media can be seen as fully developed only if the
politicians also participate in the discussions, usually in the comments sections. Politicians
may also aim to attach multimedia content to their social media posts, since data from social
networks shows that posts with multimedia content significantly increases user engagement.13

However, while some politicians use online social media tools to interact with citizens,
most politicians use social networks as a dissemination tool rather than as a way to engage
with voters. In addition, it seems that social media is often used as a campaigning tool and
then quickly abandoned after the elections. Scholars have also argued that the online
campaigning should be used mainly for mobilizing the supporters, but the problem is that
nowadays people are confronted with politicians abusing the force of social media. Political
audiences use social media overwhelmingly for political debates, to scrutinize the relationship
between state and citizens.14

12
Rod Hague, Martin Harrop and John McCormick, Political Science. A Comparative Introduction, 8th edition
(New York and London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2016), 236-241.
13
Dubravka Sinčić Ćorić, Ružica Brečić and Maja Šimunjak “Reaching, Engaging and Bonding with Voters on
Social Media: The Case of 2014/2015 Croatian Presidential Elections”, Medijske Studije 8, no. 16 (January
2018): 61-77, retrieved May 21, 2020, from https://hrcak.srce.hr/ojs/index.php/medijske-
studije/article/view/6452
14
Sebastian Stier, Arnim Bleier, Haiko Lietz and Markus Strohmaier “Election Campaigning on Social Media:
Politicians, Audiences, and the Mediation of Political Communication on Facebook and Twitter”, Political
Communication 35, no. 1 (January 2018): 50-74, retrieved May 21, 2020, from
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10584609.2017.1334728

7
 A study conducted on understanding how effective online methods of voter contact are
in comparison to offline methods across different national contexts has shown that although
direct online contact from parties and candidates typically reaches a smaller audience than
offline methods, the gap is much smaller in the U.S. than in the U.K., for example. U.S.
campaigners are reaching a more diverse audience with their online messages that is quite
similar to those receiving more traditional forms of contact. This suggests that online voter
communication is becoming much more popular, at least in some national contexts. The
online version was particularly important in mobilizing younger voters to get involved in the
campaign.15

The 2008 U.S. presidential campaign, often regarded as the first Facebook election, is
a great example to illustrate the influence of the social network in the election. It provided the
voters with a chance to become a part of and feel important in the events of the campaign.
Facebook, for example, cosponsored with ABC News a presidential debate on January 5,
2008, and provided users the ability to become actively involved before, during, and after the
debate. Users were able to give live feed-back, take part in debate groups, and see behind-the-
scenes postings from ABC News reporters at the debate, add support for their favorite
candidate, and even register to vote. Moreover, another example for using social media as
leverage is that when President Obama used social media to his advantage, posting on
Facebook, tweeting, and creating YouTube videos that disseminated his message much faster
than any traditional marketing medium.16 The successful use of Facebook throughout Obama's
2008 campaign convinced many politicians to take Facebook more seriously as a campaign
tool.

Regarding the case of the 2016 presidential elections, studies have shown the negative
influence that social media brings on politics. Social media platforms such as Facebook and
Twitter were used to misinform the public, to spread fake news and to influence the voting for
a certain candidate. In this particular case, those platforms allowed for foreign actors to
interfere in the electoral campaigns. Multiple studies investigated how Russian nationals
interfered in the electoral process by promoting Donald Trump and denigrating his counter-
candidate, Hillary Clinton. Social networks like Facebook, Twitter and Google were

15
John H Aldrich, Gibson, Rachel K Gibson, Marta Cantijoch and Tobias Konitzer, “Getting out the vote in the
social media era: Are digital tools changing the extent, nature and impact of party contacting in elections?”,
Party Politics 22, no. 2 (September 2015): 165–178.
16
Juliet E. Carlisle and Robert C. Patton, “Is Social Media Changing How We Understand Political
Engagement? An Analysis of Facebook and the 2008 Presidential Election”, Political Research Quarterly 66,
no. 4 (May 2013): 883–895, retrieved May 22, 2020, from www.jstor.org/stable/23612065

8
manipulated by Russian groups to permit them to show certain advertisements and articles
that separated the voters over sensitive American issues related to race, immigration and
others. Those “bad actors” implemented hundreds of ads targeted to specific audiences that
succeeded to undermine the image of Hillary Clinton and in turn raising support for Donald
Trump.17 In this way, social media provides a very unique strategy that allows advertisers to
micro-target messages to different audiences, thus helping politicians to test whether and how
their message impacts a particular group, and to optimize their tactics so that they can make a
harder influence.

The Mueller Report is another important document that outlines the efforts of Russians
to interfere in the 2016 presidential elections of the United States. Former Special Counsel
Robert Mueller established that Russia interfered in the elections in two ways: firstly, it
implemented a social media campaign that discredited Hillary Clinton and favored Donald
Trump, and secondly Russian organizations conducted computer hacking operations so they
could disseminate false information regarding Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party.
Russian operations were carried out through the acquisition of political advertisements that
were published in the name of U.S. entities and persons on social media networks. These
operations attempted to influence public opinion by creating social media accounts and
groups claiming that they were affiliated with U.S. organizations. However, even if the report
gave clear evidence of the link between the Russian government and Donald Trump’s
campaign, “the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign
conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”18

In the 2018 Facebook-Cambridge Analytica data scandal, the personal data of the
social platform’s users was used without consent for political advertising and Cambridge
Analytica wanted to sell the data of American voters in order to help the campaign of Donald
Trump. In this case, a strategy of micro-targeting was used in order to identify possible voters
to convince them to vote in a certain way, and also to disseminate political advertisements to
people based on their age, sex and education, as well as their interests and opinions. Donald
Trump’s campaign team used this strategy to advertise personalized messages to different
U.S. voters on multiple social media platforms. The ads displayed to Trump supporters

17
Andy Lee Roth, and Mickey Huff, “Censored 2020” (New York: Seven Stories Press, 2019), chap. 4.
18
Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III, “Report On The Investigation Into Russian Interference In The 2016
Election Vol. I” (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 2019), 2, retrieved May 23, 2020, from
https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf

9
showed him in a triumphant way and offered information about the voters’ nearest polling
station, while the ads displayed to swing voters showed a negative image of Hillary Clinton.19

Hypothesis
My hypothesis is the following: “If certain actors used social media to address
particular messages to focused groups in order to influence them, then this contributed to
Donald Trump's win in the 2016 presidential elections.”

More specifically, I want to explain that Donald Trump’s victory in the 2016
presidential elections (the dependent variable) was influenced by certain actors that used
social media platforms to disseminate messages to very particular categories of the electorate
in order to persuade them to support him (the independent variable).

In this particular case, the “certain actors” I am referring to are the Russian
organizations that intervened in the electoral campaign, the “particular messages” are the
advertisements disseminated by them on social media platforms and the “focused groups” are
the categories of voters targeted by Russian groups, which will be determined by analyzing
those ads. In the end, in order to test the hypothesis, I will compare the profile of Donald
Trump’s voters in the 2016 elections to the profiles of the electorate categories identified in
the advertisements.

Methodology
To test the proposed hypothesis, the research method approached was a qualitative
one. I conducted content analysis of the advertisements that the Russian groups disseminated
on various social media platforms. This method was used in order to analyze what specific
categories of the electorate were targeted by the Russian disinformation campaign and see
whether the voters were influenced by those advertisements to support Donald Trump.
Additionally, the content analysis method was used in order to identify the message of the
advertisement and to determine what kind of American values were promoted or what kind of
issues were presented.

In order to examine what categories of the electorate were targeted by the

advertisements, I sampled 20 of those that were published by the United States House

19
Paul Lewis and Paul Hilder “Leaked: Cambridge Analytica's blueprint for Trump victory”, The Guardian,
March 23, 2018, retrieved May 23, 2020 from https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/mar/23/leaked-
cambridge-analyticas-blueprint-for-trump-victory

10
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.20 The ads selected were posted during the
electoral campaign of Donald Trump which began on June 16, 2015. The non-probability
convenience sample method was used, as the ads were selected from those made available by
the House Intelligence Committee.

In the end, the categories of electorate that were identified in the advertisements were
compared to those who voted for Trump to see whether the Russian disinformation campaign
influenced them to support the Republican candidate.

Results
Analysis results demonstrated that the Russian groups that intervened in the elections
targeted groups with a specific background based especially on race, religious and political
beliefs. The political advertisements sought to divide the citizens on racial differences, gun
control, immigration and religion by denouncing the Democrat candidate Hillary Clinton and
implicitly raising support for the Republican candidate Donald Trump.

The most targeted group was African-Americans, as the advertisements were meant to
undermine Hillary Clinton’s support among black voters. As stated in the Advertisement 3 of
the appendix, the content shows how a campaign among black voters tried to disgrace the
candidate. The Black Matters Facebook page encouraged political activism among African-
Americans by making references to black Americans killed by police officers. Other
advertisements raised support for the black pride, all with the purpose to create racial tensions
among the American citizens and divide the voters. The anti-Clinton messages intensified as
the day of the election approached.

Another part of the advertisements targeted conservative Americans. This type of

targeting focused on raising nationalist support by promoting an anti-Clinton campaign and
focusing on gun rights, immigration and religion. Conservative Christians were the main
target, as it can be seen in Advertisement 6. The “Army of Jesus” page urged religious
Americans to choose a president “with godly moral principles”, supporting Donald Trump
and going as far as associating Hillary Clinton with Satan. Other accounts promoted very
patriotic beliefs by showing the American flag, promoting state pride and opposing
immigrants. One account supporting Donald Trump encouraged American citizens to join an
“American Flag March” and other various advertisements claimed that Texas would secede if
20
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, “Social Media Advertisements”, n.d., retrieved May 24, 2020,
from https://intelligence.house.gov/social-media-content/social-media-advertisements.htm

11
Hillary Clinton was elected, others called for “secured borders” and not allowing immigrants,
especially Muslims, in America. More than that, certain ads were addressed directly at
veterans, suggesting that Clinton does not support them.

The majority of the advertisements targeted Hillary Clinton directly, denigrating her.
Some of them did not target a specific category of voters, but were portraying Clinton as a
traitor, a fraud and evil. Accounts associated with Donald Trump called for her
disqualification from the electoral race and urged the Americans to sign petitions, join rallies
and events that supported the Republican candidate.

Even though the advertisements were specifically aimed at particular social groups and
were meant to divide the society based on race, religion and political beliefs, the analysis did
not conclude that they targeted people based on age or sex. The social media content was
addressed to both males and females from the age of 18 to 65+ that were eligible to vote.

In order to assess whether the Russian disinformation campaign succeeded to

influence particular voters to support Donald Trump and thus contributing to his win in the
presidential elections, the categories of voters identified in the advertisements were compared
to those who voted for this candidate in 2016. The profile of the voters used for the
comparison was obtained from the exit polls provided by CNN.21 In this sense, while the
majority of the advertisements targeted Afro-Americans to oppose Hillary Clinton, 89% of the
votes went to her and just 8% to Donald Trump. However, among the Christian voters, Trump
gained the majority of votes. The same goes for the veterans, as 60% of the votes went to the
Republican candidate.

The analysis concluded that the evidence of the Russian disinformation campaign is
not enough to assess whether it succeeded to change the number of votes for Donald Trump.
However, even though the Russian campaign was not decisive for the victory of this candidate
in the 2016 presidential elections, it certainly influenced some categories of the electorate to
vote for the Republican candidate (such as Christians and veterans). Still, not all categories
targeted by the advertisements voted for Trump in the elections. For example, despite the fact
that Afro-Americans were the most targeted group, almost all of them decided to support
Hillary Clinton.

21
CNN, “2016 election results: Exit polls”, n.d., retrieved May 26, 2020, from
https://edition.cnn.com/election/2016/results/exit-polls

12
Conclusion
The American two-party system allows for the two major parties, Republican and
Democratic, to compete with each other in order to gain electoral support. The Republican
Party is very complex and it is difficult to attribute it to just one certain typology of parties.
This is why it can be classified as a “party of social integration” (Sigmund Neumann), a
“cadre-party” and “mass-party” (Maurice Duverger), as well as a programmatic party. It has
been part of the American political system since the 1850s and it has played a significant role
in shaping the American values that the society enjoys today. Generally, this party appeals to
white people, it has greater support among men than women, among religious individuals and
among those with higher income. In short, the Republican Party is mostly associated with
conservative beliefs. This party, since its creation, has won most of the presidential elections,
and the current president, Donald Trump, is also a Republican.

Donald Trump’s victory in the 2016 presidential elections has been subject of interest
especially because of the allegations that Russian groups interfered in the campaign, thus
helping him gain support and implicitly win the elections. Former Special Counsel Robert
Mueller investigated this issue, concluding that Russian groups disseminated, during the
presidential campaign, messages and advertisements on social media that denigrated the
Democrat candidate Hillary Clinton and supported Donald Trump. In my research I worked to
discover what were the specific groups targeted by Russians and whether the disinformation
campaign contributed to Donald Trump’s win in the elections. The research method used was
qualitative content analysis of some of the Russian-distributed advertisements, and the non-
probability convenience sample method used was based on the ads that were made available
by the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

My own analysis based on 20 of those advertisements that were distributed on social

media platforms such as Facebook and Instagram concluded that the most targeted categories
of the electorate were Afro-Americans, Christians and veterans. However, part of the
advertisements did not target a specific group and were just vilifying Hillary Clinton. In order
to test my proposed hypothesis I compared the identified groups with those who voted in the
2016 presidential elections for Donald Trump. My evaluation assessed that the Russian
disinformation campaign did not succeed to influence all the targeted groups to vote for the
Republican candidate, because even if the Afro-Americans were the most targeted, the great
part of their votes went to the Democrat candidate. Nevertheless, Russian groups still may
have influenced some Christians and veterans to support Donald Trump, but there is no

13
certainty that the Russian campaign succeeded to make a relevant change in the number of
votes and thus helping the election of Donald Trump. This is the reason why my hypothesis is
only partially valid: the Russian campaign may have influenced some specific groups, but
there is no positive assurance that it made a significant difference on Donald Trump’s win.

It seems more likely that Russians focused more on issues that were dividing the
American society (race, immigration, gun control). Their strategy was to disseminate false
and controversial information and to polarize the country ideologically and racially, with the
purpose to undermine the trust in the American democratic process.

14
Bibliography
Aldrich, John H, Rachel K Gibson, Marta Cantijoch, and Tobias Konitzer. "Getting out the
vote in the social media era: Are digital tools changing the extent, nature and impact
of party contacting in elections?" Party Politics 22, no. 2 (September 2015): 165-178.

Carlisle, Juliet E., and Robert C. Patton. "Is Social Media Changing How We Understand
Political Engagement? An Analysis of Facebook and the 2008 Presidential Election."
Political Research Quarterly 66, no. 4 (May 2013): 883–895.
www.jstor.org/stable/23612065 (accessed May 22, 2020)

CNN. 2016 election results: Exit polls. n.d. https://edition.cnn.com/election/2016/results/exit-

polls (accessed May 26, 2020).

Ćorić, Dubravka Sinčić, Ružica Brečić, and Maja Šimunjak. "Reaching, Engaging and
Bonding with Voters on Social Media: The Case of 2014/2015 Croatian Presidential
Elections." Medijske Studije 8, no. 16 (January 2018): 61-77.
https://hrcak.srce.hr/ojs/index.php/medijske-studije/article/view/6452 (accessed May
21, 2020)

Diamond, Larry, and Richard Gunther. Political Parties and Democracy. Baltimore and
London: The John Hopkins University Press, 2001.

Hague, Rod, Martin Harrop, and John McCormick. Political Science. A Comparative
Introduction, 8th edition. New York and London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2016.

Intelligence, Permanent Select Committee on. Social Media Advertisements. n.d.

https://intelligence.house.gov/social-media-content/social-media-advertisements.htm
(accessed May 24, 2020).

LaPalombara, Joseph, and Myron Weiner. "Political Parties and Political Development." 6.
New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1966.

Lewis, Paul, and Paul Hilder. "Leaked: Cambridge Analytica's blueprint for Trump victory."
The Guardian. March 23, 2018. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-
news/2018/mar/23/leaked-cambridge-analyticas-blueprint-for-trump-victory (accessed
May 23, 2020).

15
Lijphart, Arend. Democracy in Plural Societies. A Comparative Exploration. New Haven and
London: Yale University Press, 1997.

Mueller, Special Counsel Robert S. Report On The Investigation Into Russian Interference In
The 2016 Election Vol. I. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, 2019, 2.
https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf (accessed May 23, 2020)

Powell, G. Bingham, Russell J. Dalton, and Kaare W. Strom. Comparative Politics Today: A
World View, 11th edition. England: Pearson Education Limited, 2015.

Richardson, Heather Cox. To Make Men Free: A History of the Republican Party. New York:
Basic Books, 2014.

Sagar, D.J. (editor). Political Parties of the World, 7th edition. London: John Harper
Publishing, 2009.

Stier, Sebastian, Arnim Bleier, Haiko Lietz, and Markus Strohmaier. "Election Campaigning
on Social Media: Politicians, Audiences, and the Mediation of Political
Communication on Facebook and Twitter." Political Communication 35, no. 1
(January 2018): 50-74.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10584609.2017.1334728 (accessed
May 21, 2020)

Wagner, Heather Lehr. The History of the Republican Party. New York: Chelsea House,
2007.

16
Appendix
1. 11.

2. 12.

3. 13.

17
4. 14.

5. 15.

6. 16.

18
7. 17.

8. 18.

9. 19.

19
10. 20.

20