Vol. 9 No. 4 (2021): Business & Management Studies: An International Journal

Election result forecast based on social media data with the deep machine learning method

İbrahim Sabuncu
Assist. Prof. Dr., Yalova University, Yalova, Türkiye
Eda Şen
Student, Yalova University, Yalova, Türkiye

Published 2021-12-25

How to Cite

Sabuncu, İbrahim, & Şen, E. (2021). Election result forecast based on social media data with the deep machine learning method. Business & Management Studies: An International Journal, 9(4), 1582-1598. https://doi.org/10.15295/bmij.v9i4.1957


This study aims to research the predictability of the daily variation of the vote rates of politicians and the election result by using social media data. For this purpose, 20,746,834 tweets shared between 01.07.2020 - 03.11.2020 about the candidates participating in the U.S.A. election on November 3 2020, were collected from the Twitter platform using the RapidMiner program. Sentiment analyzes were made on the data collected from Twitter by the Vader algorithm. Tweets are grouped into positive, negative, N.P.S. (positive-negative), and neutral sentiment categories. Six different machine learning-based forecast models were created to predict the daily vote rates and the election result using the number of tweets divided into sentiment categories. In forecast models, the independent variables are daily Twitter data about candidates grouped by sentiment categories. The dependent variables are the daily vote rate estimates of the candidates based on surveys and economic indicators. Forecast models are trained with 109 days of data. Using the Deep Machine Learning algorithm, the forecast model that gave the most accurate result, the election result could be predicted with a margin of error of 1.7%. This study shows that despite the wide variety of manipulations on Twitter, Twitter can still be a data source that can be used to monitor political trends and predict election results through machine learning.


Download data is not yet available.


  1. Bansal, B. ve Srivastava, S. (2018). On predicting elections with hybrid topic based sentiment analysis of tweets. Procedia Computer Science, 135, 346–353. doi:10.1016/j.procs.2018.08.183
  2. Burnap, P., Gibson, R., Sloan, L., Southern, R. ve Williams, M. (2016). 140 characters to victory?: Using Twitter to predict the UK 2015 General Election. Electoral Studies, 41, 230–233. doi:10.1016/j.electstud.2015.11.017
  3. Canipe, C., Levine, A. J. ve Hart, S. (2020). U.S. election results. 18 Şubat 2021 tarihinde https://graphics.reuters.com/USA-ELECTION/RESULTS-LIVE-US/jbyprxelqpe/ adresinden erişildi.
  4. Castro, R., Kuffó, L. ve Vaca, C. (2017). Back to #6D: Predicting Venezuelan states political election results through Twitter. 2017 4th International Conference on eDemocracy and eGovernment, ICEDEG 2017, 148–153. doi:10.1109/ICEDEG.2017.7962525
  5. Cerf, V. G. (2017). Information and misinformation on the Internet. Commun. ACM(CACM), 60(1), 9. doi:10.1145/3018809
  6. Ceron Guzman, J. A. (2016). A Sentiment Analysis Model of Spanish Tweets.
  7. Chatfield, A., Reddick, C. ve Choi, K. (2017). Online Media Use of False News to Frame the 2016 Trump Presidential Campaign. doi:10.1145/3085228.3085295
  8. Conway, B. A., Kenski, K. ve Wang, D. (2015). The rise of Twitter in the political campaign: searching for intermedia agenda-setting effects in the presidential primary. J. Comput. Mediat. Commun., 20(4), 363–380.
  9. Economist, T. (2020). Forecasting the US elections. 12 Aralık 2020 tarihinde https://projects.economist.com/us-2020-forecast/president adresinden erişildi.
  10. Golbeck, J., Grimes, J. M. ve Rogers, A. (2010). Twitter use by the U.S. Congress. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol., 61(8), 1612–1621.
  11. Golovchenko, Y., Buntain, C., Eady, G., Brown, M. A. ve Tucker, J. A. (2020). Cross-platform state propaganda: Russian trolls on Twitter and YouTube during the 2016 US presidential election. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 25(3), 357–389.
  12. Graham, T., Jackson, D. ve Broersma, M. (2016). New platform, old habits? Candidates use of Twitter during the 2010 British and Dutch general election campaigns. Sage Journals, 18(5), 765–783.
  13. Grover, P., Kar, A. K., Dwivedi, Y. K. ve Janssen, M. (2019). Polarization and acculturation in US Election 2016 outcomes – Can twitter analytics predict changes in voting preferences. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 145(September), 438–460. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2018.09.009
  14. Jamieson, K. H. (2020). Cyberwar: how Russian hackers and trolls helped elect a president: what we don’t, can’t, and do know. Oxford University Press.
  15. Karami, A., Lundy, M., Webb, F., Turner-McGrievy, G., McKeever, B. W. ve McKeever, R. (2021). Identifying and analyzing health-related themes in disinformation shared by conservative and liberal Russian trolls on twitter. International journal of environmental research and public health, 18(4), 2159.
  16. Kelly Garrett, R. ve Weeks, B. E. (2013). The promise and peril of real-time corrections to political misperceptions. Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, CSCW, (February 2013), 1047–1057. doi:10.1145/2441776.2441895
  17. Kim, A. J. ve Ko, E. (2010). Impacts of luxury fashion brand’s social media marketing on customer relationship and purchase intention. J. Glob. Fash.Mark., 1(3), 164–171.
  18. Kušen, E. ve Strembeck, M. (2018). Politics, sentiments, and misinformation: An analysis of the Twitter discussion on the 2016 Austrian Presidential Elections. Online Social Networks and Media, 5, 37–50. doi:10.1016/j.osnem.2017.12.002
  19. Makazhanov, A., Rafiei, D. ve Waqar, M. (2014). Predicting political preference of Twitter users. Social Network Analysis and Mining, 4(1), 1–15. doi:10.1007/s13278-014-0193-5
  20. RapidMiner. (2020a). Generalized Linear Model. 6 Kasım 2020 tarihinde https://docs.rapidminer.com/latest/studio/operators/modeling/predictive/functions/generalized_linear_model.html adresinden erişildi.
  21. RapidMiner. (2020b). Deep Learning. 6 Kasım 2020 tarihinde https://docs.rapidminer.com/latest/studio/operators/modeling/predictive/neural_nets/deep_learning.html adresinden erişildi.
  22. RapidMiner. (2020c). Decision Tree. 6 Kasım 2020 tarihinde https://docs.rapidminer.com/latest/studio/operators/modeling/predictive/trees/parallel_decision_tree.html adresinden erişildi.
  23. RapidMiner. (2020d). Random Forest. 6 Kasım 2020 tarihinde https://docs.rapidminer.com/latest/studio/operators/modeling/predictive/trees/parallel_random_forest.html adresinden erişildi.
  24. RapidMiner. (2020e). Gradient Boosted Trees. 6 Kasım 2020 tarihinde https://docs.rapidminer.com/latest/studio/operators/modeling/predictive/trees/gradient_boosted_trees.html adresinden erişildi.
  25. RapidMiner. (2020f). Support Vector Machine. 6 Kasım 2020 tarihinde https://docs.rapidminer.com/latest/studio/operators/modeling/predictive/support_vector_machines/support_vector_machine.html adresinden erişildi.
  26. Sabuncu, İ. (2020). USA Nov.2020 Election 20 Mil. Tweets (With Sentiment And Party Name Labels) Dataset. 20 Kasım 2020 tarihinde https://ieee-dataport.org/open-access/usa-nov2020-election-20-mil-tweets-sentiment-and-party-name-labels-dataset adresinden erişildi.
  27. Toker, H., Erdem, S. ve Özşarlak, P. (2017). 2015 Haziran Ve Kasım Seçimlerinde Siyasal Eğilim: Yeni Bir Kamuoyu Ölçümleme Aracı Olarak Twitter. Erciyes İletişim Dergisi, 5(1), 221–234.
  28. Tumasjan, A., Sprenger, T. O., Sandner, P. G. ve Welpe, I. M. (2010). Predicting elections with twitter: What 140 characters reveal about political sentiment. Fourth international AAAI conference on weblogs and social media içinde (C. 37, ss. 455–479). Citeseer. doi:10.15581/
  29. Ulusoy, N. (2012). Sözlüklerdeki Sinema Sevgisi: New York’ta Beş Minare ve Çoğunluğun İnternet Sözlüklerine Yansıması. Beta Yayıncılık, İstanbul, 195–211.
  30. Wicaksono, A. J., Suyoto ve Pranowo. (2017). A proposed method for predicting US presidential election by analyzing sentiment in social media. Proceeding - 2016 2nd International Conference on Science in Information Technology, ICSITech 2016: Information Science for Green Society and Environment, 276–280. doi:10.1109/ICSITech.2016.7852647