Quantifying the Uniqueness and Divisiveness of Presidential Discourse

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2401.01405v2
• Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2025 23:44:10 GMT
• Title: Quantifying the Uniqueness and Divisiveness of Presidential Discourse
• Authors: Karen Zhou, Alexander A. Meitus, Milo Chase, Grace Wang, Anne Mykland, William Howell, Chenhao Tan,
• Abstract summary: This paper introduces a novel metric of uniqueness based on large language models.<n>We find evidence that Donald Trump's speech patterns diverge from those of all major party nominees for the presidency in recent history.
• Score: 49.88461213232482
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Do American presidents speak discernibly different from each other? If so, in what ways? And are these differences confined to any single medium of communication? To investigate these questions, this paper introduces a novel metric of uniqueness based on large language models, develops a new lexicon for divisive speech, and presents a framework for assessing the distinctive ways in which presidents speak about their political opponents. Applying these tools to a variety of corpora of presidential speeches, we find considerable evidence that Donald Trump's speech patterns diverge from those of all major party nominees for the presidency in recent history. Trump is significantly more distinctive than his fellow Republicans, whose uniqueness values appear closer to those of the Democrats. Contributing to these differences is Trump's employment of divisive and antagonistic language, particularly when targeting his political opponents. These differences hold across a variety of measurement strategies, arise on both the campaign trail and in official presidential addresses, and do not appear to be an artifact of secular changes in presidential communications.

Related papers

• Analyzing Biases in Political Dialogue: Tagging U.S. Presidential Debates with an Extended DAMSL Framework [6.200058263544999]
  We present a critical discourse analysis of the 2024 U.S. presidential debates, examining Donald Trump's rhetorical strategies.<n>We introduce a novel annotation framework, BEADS, which captures bias driven and adversarial discourse features in political communication.<n>Our analysis shows that Trump consistently dominated in key categories: Challenge and Adversarial Exchanges, Selective Emphasis, Appeal to Fear, Political Bias, and Perceived Dismissiveness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-26T04:58:08Z)
• Red and blue language: Word choices in the Trump & Harris 2024 presidential debate [5.2617184697694475]
  We analyse how the language of Trump and Harris differs in relation to the following semantic and pragmatic features. Harris often framing issues around recovery and empowerment, Trump often focused on crisis and decline. No significant difference in the specificity of candidates' responses.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-17T15:19:03Z)
• Classifying populist language in American presidential and governor speeches using automatic text analysis [0.0]
  We develop a pipeline to train and validate an automated classification model to estimate the use of populist language. We find that these models classify most speeches correctly, including 84% of governor speeches and 89% of presidential speeches.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-27T17:19:57Z)
• Understanding Divergent Framing of the Supreme Court Controversies: Social Media vs. News Outlets [56.67097829383139]
  We focus on the nuanced distinctions in framing of social media and traditional media outlets concerning a series of U.S. Supreme Court rulings. We observe significant polarization in the news media's treatment of affirmative action and abortion rights, whereas the topic of student loans tends to exhibit a greater degree of consensus.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-18T06:40:21Z)
• Comparing Biases and the Impact of Multilingual Training across Multiple Languages [70.84047257764405]
  We present a bias analysis across Italian, Chinese, English, Hebrew, and Spanish on the downstream sentiment analysis task. We adapt existing sentiment bias templates in English to Italian, Chinese, Hebrew, and Spanish for four attributes: race, religion, nationality, and gender. Our results reveal similarities in bias expression such as favoritism of groups that are dominant in each language's culture.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-18T18:15:07Z)
• The Face of Populism: Examining Differences in Facial Emotional Expressions of Political Leaders Using Machine Learning [50.24983453990065]
  We use a deep-learning approach to process a sample of 220 YouTube videos of political leaders from 15 different countries. We observe statistically significant differences in the average score of negative emotions between groups of leaders with varying degrees of populist rhetoric.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-19T18:32:49Z)
• Cross-Linguistic Syntactic Difference in Multilingual BERT: How Good is It and How Does It Affect Transfer? [50.48082721476612]
  Multilingual BERT (mBERT) has demonstrated considerable cross-lingual syntactic ability. We investigate the distributions of grammatical relations induced from mBERT in the context of 24 typologically different languages.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-12-21T09:44:08Z)
• Sentiment is all you need to win US Presidential elections [0.0]
  We study the speeches and sentiments of the Republican candidate, Donald Trump, and Democratic candidate, Joe Biden, fighting for the 2020 US Presidential election. Comparing the racial dichotomy of the United States, we analyze what led to the victory and defeat of the different candidates. We believe this work will inform the election campaigning strategy and provide a basis for communicating to diverse crowds.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-09-27T16:06:53Z)
• United States Politicians' Tone Became More Negative with 2016 Primary Campaigns [11.712441267029092]
  We apply psycholinguistic tools to a novel, comprehensive corpus of 24 million quotes from online news attributed to 18,627 US politicians. We show that, whereas the frequency of negative emotion words had decreased continuously during Obama's tenure, it suddenly and lastingly increased with the 2016 primary campaigns. This work provides the first large-scale data-driven evidence of a drastic shift toward a more negative political tone following Trump's campaign start as a catalyst.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-07-17T08:41:14Z)
• Language statistics at different spatial, temporal, and grammatical scales [48.7576911714538]
  We use data from Twitter to explore the rank diversity at different scales. The greatest changes come from variations in the grammatical scale. As the grammatical scale grows, the rank diversity curves vary more depending on the temporal and spatial scales.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-07-02T01:38:48Z)
• Reaching the bubble may not be enough: news media role in online political polarization [58.720142291102135]
  A way of reducing polarization would be by distributing cross-partisan news among individuals with distinct political orientations. This study investigates whether this holds in the context of nationwide elections in Brazil and Canada.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-09-18T11:34:04Z)
• Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur: Visual Communication of Uncertainty in Election Polls [56.8172499765118]
  We discuss potential sources of bias in nowcasting and forecasting. Concepts are presented to attenuate the issue of falsely perceived accuracy. One key idea is the use of Probabilities of Events instead of party shares.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-04-28T07:02:24Z)
• Hate Towards the Political Opponent: A Twitter Corpus Study of the 2020 US Elections on the Basis of Offensive Speech and Stance Detection [11.335643770130238]
  We investigate online communication of the supporters of the candidates Biden and Trump, by uttering hateful and offensive communication. We formulate an annotation task, in which we join the tasks of hateful/offensive speech detection and stance detection. We analyze if supporters of Joe Biden and the Democratic Party communicate differently than supporters of Donald Trump and the Republican Party.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-03-02T11:59:54Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.