Tweeting in defeat: How candidates concede and claim victory in 140 characters

New Media and Society

Volumn 17, Issue 3, 2015, Pages 453-469

  Mirer, Michael L ^a   Bode, Leticia ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MADISON   (United States)

^b GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Concession speeches; online politics; political rituals; political self presentation; social media; Twitter

Indexed keywords

EID: 84922887618     PISSN: 14614448     EISSN: 14617315     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1461444813505364     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Bimber B,Davis RCampaigning Online: The Internet in U.S. Elections. New York: Oxford University Press; 2003:
2. Boutet A,Kim H,Yoneki E.What’s in Twitter, I know what parties are popular and who you are supporting now!.Social Network Analysis and Mining. 2013;:
3. ChiFYangN (2010a) Twitter adoption in Congress. Social Science Research Network (SSRN) working paper series. Available at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1620401 (accessed 27 February 2011).
4. ChiFYangN (2010b) Twitter in Congress: outreach vs. transparency. Social Science Research Network (SSRN) working paper series. Available at: http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/24060/ (accessed 27 February 2011).
5. Corcoran PE.Presidential concession speeches: the rhetoric of defeat.Political Communication. 1994;11:109-131
6. Corcoran PE.The rhetoric of triumph and defeat: Australian Federal Elections 1940–1993.Australian Journal of Communication. 1998;25 (1): 69-86
7. DavyS (2010) How technology changed American politics in the Internet age. PBS, 6April. Available at: www.pbs.org/mediashift/2010/04/how-technology-changed-american-politics-in-the-internet-age096.html (accessed 27 February 2011).
8. Devlin LP.An analysis of Kennedy’s communication in the 1980 campaign.Quarterly Journal of Speech. 1982;68:397-417
9. Golbeck J,Hansen D.Computing political preference among Twitter followers.Conference on human factors in computing systems; 2011Vancouver, BC, Canada; 2011. 1105.
10. GulatiGJWilliamsCB (2010) Communicating with constituents in 140 characters or less: Twitter and the diffusion of technology innovation in the United States Congress. Social Science Research Network working paper series. Available at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1628247 (accessed 27 February 2011).
11. Gulati GJ,Just MR,Crigler ANHandbook of Political Communication Research. Kaid LL, ed. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc; 2004:237-256.
12. Howell BW.Change and continuity in concession and victory speeches: race, gender, and age in the closing statements of the 2008 presidential campaign.American Behavioral Scientist. 2011;55 (6): 765-783
13. Kellner DMedia Events in a Global Age. Couldry N, ed. New York: Routledge, pp; 2009:76-91.
14. Knickerbocker B.Congressmen, voters object to early projection of winners.The Christian Science Monitor. 1992;:7
15. Lakoff RT.The rhetoric of the extraordinary moment: the concession and acceptance speeches of Al Gore and George W. Bush in 2000 presidential election.Pragmatics. 2001;11 (3): 309-327
16. Lassen DS,Brown AR.Twitter: the electoral connection?.Social Science Computer Review. 2010;29 (4): 419-536
17. Murphy C.The evolution of the modern rhetorical presidency: a critical response.Presidential Studies Quarterly. 2008;38 (2): 300-307
18. Ritter K,Howell BW.Ending the 2000 presidential election: Gore’s concession speech and Bush’s victory speech.American Behavioral Scientist. 2001;44:2314-2330
19. RoveK (2011) Political campaigns go viral: the impact of the Internet on elections has only begun to be felt. The Wall Street Journal, 10March. Available at: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704132204576190472697049288.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEFTTopOpinion (accessed 27 February 2011).
20. SmithARainieL (2010) 8% of online Americans use Twitter. Report Pew Internet and American Life Project, 9December. Washington, DC: Pew Foundation. Available at: http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2010/Twitter-update-2010.aspx (accessed 27 February 2011).
21. Tweetcongress.org (n.d.) http://tweetcongress.org (accessed 5 December 2010).
22. Van De Mieroop D.Making transportable identities relevant as a persuasive device: the case of Hillary Clinton’s 2008 concession speech.Hermes – Journal of Language and Communication Studies. 2010;44:229-239
23. Wallsten K.Microblogging and the news: Twitter and intermedia agenda setting.Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association; 2011Seattle, WA; 2011.
24. Warren KFEncyclopedia of U.S. Campaigns, Elections, and Electoral Behavior. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE; 2008:
25. Weaver RA.Acknowledgment of victory and defeat: the reciprocal ritual.Central States Speech Journal. 1982;33 (3): 480-489
26. Welch RL.The rhetoric of victory and defeat: victory and concession addresses of presidential candidates.The Communication Annual. 1999;13:85-101
27. WilliamsCBGulatiGJ (2010) Communicating with constituents in 140 characters or less: Twitter and the diffusion of technology innovation in the United States Congress. Working papers. Paper 43. Available at: http://opensiuc.lib.siu.edu/pn_wp/43 (accessed 27 February 2011).
28. Willyard J,Ritter K.Election 2004 concession and victory speeches: the influence of genre, context, and speaker on addresses by presidential and vice presidential candidates.American Behavioral Scientist. 2005;49:488-509