Cybertools of Political Competition and the 2016 American Presidential Campaign

Author: Marek Górka
Institution: Koszalin University of Technology
Year of publication: 2018
Source: Show
Pages: 628-641
DOI Address:
PDF: ppsy/47-4/ppsy2018403.pdf

In the last decade, one can notice the huge interest of researchers in the field of cyberpolicy, which is primarily due to the widespread use of the Internet in the public space. This fact is also an impulse for conducting interdisciplinary research that combines knowledge from social sciences on the one hand, and uses content from technical sciences on the other. Compared to the form of conducting election campaigns in the 20th century in the U.S., during the 2016 election campaign there were significant changes in the conduct of political struggle. These changes consist above all in the use of cybernetic tools, which to a large extent, however difficult to determine, shaped electoral behavior. The contemporary political competition is more and more dependent on technology, which becomes the main element of the professionalization of election campaigns. Investigating the impact of cyberspace on electoral results is a big challenge, considering the fact that the area of cybertechnology is extremely complex. Cyberspace has now become a field for many political phenomena that are constantly evolving and in most cases their importance is immense for the functioning of the political system. The article is intended to deal with selected phenomena related to cybertechnology that were compared with other events from the U.S. election campaign in 2016. The article aims to investigate selected events resulting from the use of cybertechnology, which had an impact on electoral behavior.


  • Allcott, H., & Gentzkow M. (2017). “Social Media and Fake News in the 2016 Election”, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 31(2), pp. 211 – 236.
  • Banks, W. (2017). “State Responsibility and Attribution of Cyber Intrusions After Tallinn 2.0”, Texas Law Review, 95(7), pp. 1487 – 1513.
  • Barber, L. (2017). “Fake news in the post-factual age”, com, 16 September.
  • Burke, J. P. (2017). “The Contemporary Presidency: The Trump Transition, Early Presidency, and National Security Organization”, Presidential Studies Quarterly, 47(3), pp. 574 – 596.
  • “Computational propaganda”. (2017, April 30). Retrieved from: Digital politics after Trump
  • Dale, D. (2017). “Putin ordered operation to discredit Clinton, help Trump win, say U.S. intelligence agencies”, The Star, 6 January.
  • George, V.K. (2017). “Putin directed campaign to discredit Clinton, aid Trump”, The Hindu, 8 January.
  • Elder, E., & Phillips, J. B. (2017). “Appeals to the Hispanic Demographic: Targeting through Facebook Autoplay Videos by the Clinton Campaign during the 2015/2016 Presidential Primaries”, Journal of Political Marketing, 16(3 – 4), pp. 319 – 342.
  • Hansen, K. M., & Kosiara-Pedersen K. (2014). “Cyber-Campaigning in Denmark: Application and Effects of Candidate Campaigning”, Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 11, pp.206 – 219.
  • Hennessey, S. (2017). “Deterring Cyberattacks: How to Reduce Vulnerability”, Foreign Affairs, 96(6), pp. 39 – 46.
  • Karpf, D. (2017). “Digital politics after Trump”, Annals of the International Communication Association, 41(2), pp. 198 – 207.
  • McGrane, V. (2016). “Clinton campaign escalates effort to discredit FBI probe”, Boston Globe, 31 October, p.A.1.
  • Miller, G. (2017). “Putin ordered election hack, Trump told; Cybercampaign’s mandate was to discredit Clinton”, Edmonton Journal, 7 January, p.4.
  • Murray Brown, J. (2017). “A timeline of Donald Trump’s Russia problem”, Financial Times, 2 March.
  • Parkinson, H. J. (2016). “Click and Elect: How Fake News Helped Donald Trump Win a Real Election”, The Guardian, 14 November.
  • Persily, N. (2017). “Can democracy survive the internet?”, Journal of Democracy, 28(2), pp. 63 – 76.
  • Read, M. (2016). “Donald Trump Won because of Facebook”, New York Magazine, 9 November.
  • Rutland, P. (2017). “Trump, Putin, and the Future of US-Russian Relations”, Slavic Review, 76, pp. 41 – 56.
  • Savoy, J. (2017). “Trump’s and Clinton’s Style and Rhetoric during the 2016 Presidential Election”, Journal of Quantitative Linguistics, pp. 1 – 22.
  • Sava, A.V. (2017). “Political Identity, Decision-Making and Communication in the Age of Digital Media: A Case Study on the 2016 US Elections”, Journal of Media Research, 10(2), pp. 68 – 81.
  • Schake, K. (2016). “Republican Foreign Policy After Trump”, Global Politics and Strategy, 58(5), pp. 33 – 52.
  • Schultz, R. (2016). “When the news is fake,: the policies can be fatal”, South Florida Sun – Sentinel, 28 December, p. A.9.
  • Serfaty, S., & Bradner E. (2016). “Michelle Obama: When they go low, we go high”, CNN Wire Service, 25 July.
  • Silverman, C. (2016). “This Analysis Shows how Fake Election News Stories Outperformed Real News on Facebook”, BuzzFeed News, 16 November.
  • “The Trump Russia connection”, Strategic Comments, 2017, 23/3, pp. VI–VIII.
  • Thomas T. (2014). “Creating Cyber Strategists: Escaping the ‘DIME’ Mnemonic”, Defence Studies, 14(4), pp. 370 – 393.
  • Todd, Ch., & Williams, P. (2016). “Interview with Mike Pence; Clinton Campaign Responds to FBI Announcement”, Meet the Press, 30 October.
  • Vasile, A. A. (2017). Positive and/or Negative Meaning as Style Traits and Strategy Throughout the 2016 American Presidential Campaign – Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, Journal of Media Research, 10(1), pp. 23 – 31.

elections social media digital politics hybrid media manipulation disinformation

Wiadomość do:



© 2017 Adam Marszałek Publishing House. All rights reserved.

Projekt i wykonanie Pollyart