Managing political content in the online space of modern states: how twitter prevented D. Trump from winning the 2020 presidential election?

The networked society is permeated with processes generated within numerous horizontal structures of the public sphere in the online space. An empirical study based on network analysis and graph visualization methodology allowed us to understand why D. Trump, using the same political communication strategy on Twitter that allowed him to win in 2015, lost the 2020 US Presidential Election. Who and how transformed the political content created by D. Trump's team; who became the influencer that changed and destroyed the discourse field originally created to support D. Trump in the second term campaign? The empirical data (a continuous sample of network data amounted to 2 million messages), which we used to constructs and analyze the discourse fields, comprises the messages published by ordinary users, supporters, opponents and D. Trump's team on Twitter within the period from March 1, 2020 to October 30, 2020. The study showed that D. Trump's second election campaign in 2020 was also based on network populism. However, the “negative information background” (Covid-19, Black Lives Matter) split the discursive fields he formed, which eventually resulted in ban from online platforms and election defeat. The technologies D. Trump used in his first election campaign, and which led him to the US presidency, actually became a potent weapon in the hands of his opponents in the second election campaign.

1. Abramowitz A. The great alignment race, party transformation, and the rise of Donald Trump. New Haven; London: Yale university press, 2018, 216 p.

2. Brabazon T., Readhead S., Chivaura R. Trump studies: An intellectual guide to why citizens vote against their interests. Bingley, UK: Emerald publishing limited, 2019, 224 p.

3. Breiger R.L. Analysis of social networks. In: Hardy M., Bryman A. (eds). Handbook of data analysis. London: Sage, 2004, Р. 505-526.

4. Castells M., Cardoso G. The network society: from knowledge to policy. Washington, DC: Johns Hopkins center for transatlantic relations, 2005, 434 p.

5. Enli G. Twitter as arena for the authentic outsider: exploring the social media campaigns of Trump and Clinton in the 2016 US presidential election. European journal of communication. 2017, Vol. 32, N 1, P. 50-61. DOI: 10.1177/0267323116682802

6. Ernst N., Engesser S., Büchel F., Blassnig S., Esser F. Extreme parties and populism: an analysis of Facebook and Twitter across six countries. Information, communication & Society. 2017, N 20 (9), Р. 1347-1364.

7. Hart R. Trump and us. What He says and why people listen. Cambridge: Cambridge university press, 2020, 280 p.

8. Katermina V.V., Ryabchenko N.A., Lipiridi S. Kh., Gnedash A.A., Malysheva O.P. The study of linguistic model of political communications on Twitter about US.

9. Lacatus C. Populism and President Trump's approach to foreign policy: an analysis of tweets and rally speeches Politics. Politics. 2020, Vol. 41, N 1, P. 31-47. http://www. DOI: 10.1177/0263395720935380

10. Malysheva O.P. Communication strategies and tactics in public speeches (based on speeches of American and British political leaders). Izvestia of the Russian State Pedagogical University named by A.I. Herzen. 2009, N 96, P. 206-209. (In Russ.).

11. Morozova E.V., Miroshnichenko I.V. Network societies in emergency situations: types of actor behavior. Human. Community. Management. 2010, N 4, P. 16-24. (In Russ.).

12. Mützel S. Networks as culturally constituted processes: a comparison of relational sociology and actor-network theory. Current sociology. 2009, Vol. 57, N 6, P. 871-887. DOI: 10.1177/0011392109342223

13. Peterson J. Present at the destruction? The liberal order in the Trump era. The international spectator. 2018, Vol. 53, N 1, P. 28-44. DOI: 10.1080/03932729.2018.1421295

14. Popova O.V., Suslov S.I. Network analysis of political internet communities: from formalized to "unobserved" groups. Political science (RU). 2021, N 1, P. 160-182. http://www.10.31249/poln/2021.01.07 (In Russ.). DOI: 10.31249/poln/2021.01.07(InRuss.) EDN: GOEIKL

15. Ryabchenko N.A. Toponymy of network landscape on the online space. Human. Community. Management. 2016, Vol. 17, N 4, P. 98-115. (In Russ.).

16. Ryabchenko N.A, Katermina V.V., Gnedash A.A., Malysheva O.P. Political content of social movements in the online space of modern states: analytical methodology and research practice. South-Russian journal of social sciences. 2018, N 3, P. 139-162. 10.31429/26190567-19-3-139-162 (In Russ.). DOI: 10.31429/26190567-19-3-139-162(InRuss.)

17. Ryabchenko N.A., Katermina V.V., Gnedash A.A. (eds). The models and practices of political content management in modern states' online space in the "the Post-Truth" Era: monograph. Moscow: FLINTA, 2020, 340 p. (In Russ.).

18. Ryabchenko N.A., Katermina V.V., Gnedash A.A., Wolfovich B.G. Regional political discourse: theoretical model, research methodology, practices of political content management in the online space of RF subjects. Political linguistics. 2019, N 5 (77), P. 114-131. 10.26170/pl19-05-12 (In Russ.). DOI: 10.26170/pl19-05-12(InRuss.) EDN: APLQWK

19. Ryabchenko N.A., Katermina V.V., Malysheva O.P. Political content management: new linguistic units and social practices. Church, communication and culture: scientific journal. 2019, Vol. 4, N 3, P. 305-322. DOI: 10.1080/23753234.2019.1664916 EDN: JQVDZO

20. Ryabchenko N.A., Malysheva O.P., Gnedash A.A. Presidential campaign in post-truth era: innovative digital technologies of political content management in social networks politics. Polis. Political studies. 2019, N 2, P. 92-106. 10.17976/jpps/2019.02.07 (In Russ.). DOI: 10.17976/jpps/2019.02.07(InRuss.) EDN: ZACLVJ

21. Sherstobitov A.S. "Network publicity" as a new factor of political mobilization in modern Russia: an instance of network analysis. Bulletin of SPBU. Series 6. 2013, N 3, P. 99-105. (In Russ.).

22. Skonieczny A. Emotions and political narratives: populism, Trump and trade. Politics and governance. 2018, Vol. 6, N 4, P. 62-72. DOI: 10.17645/pag.v6i4.1574

23. Smith D.N., Hanley E. The anger games: who voted for Donald Trump in the 2016 election, and why? Critical sociology. 2018, Vol. 44, N 2, Р. 195-212. DOI: 10.1177/0896920517740615

24. Sokolov A.V., Verevkin A.I. Protests in the subjects of Russian Federation: exemplified by Kaliningrad region. Sociology of power. 2012, N 2, P. 145-151. (In Russ.). EDN: PBQCXH

25. Sokolshchik L.M. American conservatism and the callenge of contemporary populism: theoretical and ideological aspects. Polis. Political studies. 2021, N 1, Р. 78-93. 10.17976/jpps/2021.01.06 (In Russ.). DOI: 10.17976/jpps/2021.01.06(InRuss.) EDN: IIJADY

26. Solovey V.D. Digital mythology and Donald Trump electoral campaign. Polis. Political studies. 2017, N 5, P. 122-132. 10.17976/jpps/2017.05.09 (In Russ.). DOI: 10.17976/jpps/2017.05.09(InRuss.) EDN: ZGSQKJ

27. Trahtenberg А.D. Discourse analysis of the mass media as an ideological instrument. Bulletin of RUDN University. Political studies series. 2006, N 8, P. 85-94. (In Russ.). EDN: JVKQPN

28. Tracey S. Trust, Trump, and the turnout: a marketers point of view. American behavioral scientist. 2017, Vol. 61, N 5, P. 526-532. DOI: 10.1177/0002764217701218

29. van Dijk T.A. Discourse as structure and process. London: SAGE, 1997, 356 p.