The document analyzes Twitter activity from various political actors to test theories of issue ownership and agenda setting. It finds that politicians emphasize issues they are believed to be competent in handling. During election years, parties prioritize consensus issues to support or attack the incumbent. Peaks in Twitter activity also correlate with current legislation, disasters, and the president highlighting an issue in a speech. The analysis reveals politicians focus consensus issues to promote their own agendas and specialties.

1. Page | 1
Issue Ownership, Salience, Agendas & Public Policy on
Twitter
(Status: Submitted) George Mendez-04/29/2015-PSC 394
Abstract:
Following the theories of Issue Ownership, Issue Salience and literature on
agenda-setting among others, I used Twitter as a primary data resource to measure to what extent
Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, other Senators, the President and the party organizations mention
certain issues, when they raise them and reasons for which they might have raised them. I looked
at correlations and draw conclusions from their behavior on Twitter. I used the internal search
engine provided by Twitter to count the number of Tweets containing a certain keyword for each
of the owned issues and compiled them into an Excel sheet and compared the data through line
graphs. My observations are that Senators evidently choose a select few consensus issues that are
relatable to personal agendas and limit the scope of issues discussed to a small area of focus in
the issue and redirect some of these consensus issues towards doing so. What this means is that
these actors could mention a consensus issue in a Tweet but only focus on a small area to suit
their agendas and specialties. Health care and Medicare directed towards the Affordable Care
Act and the economy and jobs directed towards the Keystone Pipeline are examples of this.
Democrats and Republicans as party organizations each also have priorities and they direct their
owned consensus issues towards supporting or attacking the President, creating common peaks
of activity on Twitter. Politicians also engage in agenda-setting behavior to help steer brief
periods of change in policy direction. When we look at Twitter activity, there are correlations
between heightened peaks of activity and current legislation. Major disasters and related events
also have a noticeable effect.
Introduction:
Social media is a new and mostly unexplored source of data since the creation of the

2. Page | 2
Internet as we know it today, and everyone involved in the field of politics has taken to it to as a
means of quickly and directly connecting with their constituents. This is a new, inexpensive and
rapid method of communication for both parties to utilize. As politicians increasingly look to
Twitter to voice their policy stances and priorities and reach out to the general public, valuable
analysis is waiting to happen to help political scientists understand theories and hypotheses in the
modern age.
However what exactly goes into the platforms of future candidates and when the issues
will be brought up is still unknown. The theories of Issue Ownership and Issue Salience can help
us hypothesize to a certain extent. In addition to this, key pieces of legislation and politicians’
specializations on certain consensus issues that are on their respective agendas heighten activity
and create bursts of activity. Present literature also supports the idea of natural disasters and
terrorist attacks affecting future public policy changes and there is evidence to support
heightened Twitter activity as a result of such events.
Thus, I have chosen to explore evidence of these theories on Twitter on several Senator’s
accounts, the President and both parties. I chose specific keywords relative to consensus issues
and counted these Tweets for 16 of these issues. I used the data gained through Twitter to
analyze correlations and differences in these. My findings show in the case of Senator Kirsten
Gillibrand, she specializes in mentioning women in the military, protection for crimes against
women and combating sexual assault in higher education. I found that several of these issues are
focused in order to promote other, more specialized interests each actor is more advantaged at
debating and raising the salience of the issue in the public eye. Examples include Senator
Gillibrand and equality for women, or the GOP attacking the Affordable Care Act in as many
ways as possible across several consensus issues.
Theories of Issue Ownership and Issue Salience are useful for understanding the
sorts of issues debated in election versus non-election years and which ones are consistently

3. Page | 3
discussed over time. This allows us to understand tendencies each party has and the direction of
future public policy. If we look at the variation of issues between election and non-election
years, we can understand changes to a certain extent.
Literature Review:
John Petrocik introduced the idea of issue ownership in his 1996 article Issue Ownership
in Presidential Elections, with a 1980 Case Study. The theory of Issue Ownership entails
candidates focusing on issues which they are expected to have an advantage emphasizing. This
implies that voters support candidates with party and performance reputations of competence in
handling issues the voter is concerned about. The term “Handling” is used here, referring to
candidate’s abilities to resolve problem concerns of voters through policy and program interests,
produced by a history of attention and initiative on their part. What Petrocik found is that
candidates have patterns of emphasizing concerns of voters and that election outcomes follow
from this. He states the main difference among elections and their issue focuses are the problem
concerns and not the policy attitudes of the voters. Petrocik believes ownership is conferred by
the incumbent’s record and party constituency. He identifies it as a long term process and is
subject to change. He also believes the linkage between the party’s issue priorities and
constituent’s focuses are strong. The foundations are more generalized and colloquial in nature
as he goes on to name different social bases (religion, unionized, educated, geographical
location) and links it to the inherent ideological divisions of the two-party system.
However Patrick J. Egan has a different take on issue ownership in his 2013 book,
Partisan Priorities: How Issue Ownership Drives and Distorts American Politics. In the interest
of brevity, I shall summarize: Egan’s findings show issue ownership is most clearly defined as:
“the long-term positive associations between political parties and particular consensus issues in
the public’s mind- association created and reinforced by the parties’ commitments to prioritizing

4. Page | 4
these issues with government spending and lawmaking.” He argues that each party does not
show superior performance or deliver popular policies on issues they “own.” Rather, he
believes they simply prioritize these issues when they are in power. Politicians actually tend to
ignore voter’s preferences and often take measures to keep elected officials in line with the
party’s agenda, as in the case of Democratic Reps. Holden and Altmire of Pennsylvania
following opposition to the Affordable Care Act. This modern day purge could lead to evidence
of Egan’s hypothesis of the distortion of American politics due to this tendency.
Egan introduces the idea of consensus issues with two vignettes about the adaptation of
lowering income taxes into the Republican party’s platform in the 1970s and the culmination of
Democratic efforts towards universal health care beginning with Truman and ending with the
implementation of the ACA in 2010. Consensus issues in their simplest form are issues
that all Americans want to see addressed as a goal, the only debate is over how we eventually
achieve that goal. All else being equal, all Americans want to see improved health care and
lowered taxes and only disagree about the policies enacted, performance and prioritization of
these issues. This extends out to the sixteen issues mentioned in Egan’s tables and that I have
acquired and complied data on for the purposes of this paper. One example of a non-consensus
issue would be abortion, as the country is fiercely divided on the end goal of legislation related to
abortion, which would either be the allowance or denial of in all or some cases.
Thus consensus issues researched here are not debated on an end-goal basis but rather the
prioritization of which goals, the performance in pursuit of those goals and policies best suited to
carrying out these goals. In addition, the scopes of these hypotheses are limited to consensus
goals only and not to other goals like universal gay rights or addressing income inequality itself.
Thus if either party prioritizes a certain issue during an election year, we should evidence of
increased activity during that time. If the Issue Ownership theory holds true, I should expect to
see a stark contrast on the variation of when certain issues are mentioned and to what amount.

5. Page | 5
In Frank R. Baumgartner and Bryan D. Jones’s Agendas and Instability in American
Politics, the claim is made that public policy is not gradual and incremental, but disjoint and
episodic. Long and stable periods experience bursts of frenetic policy activity. They believe
policymaking is determined by specialists, in federal agencies, interested parties and groups
and so on. “As government leaders shift their attention from one problem to the next, policy
entrepreneurs responsible for administering programs argue that their program represents the
best solution to the new problem, even though originally it may have had no relationship to that
problem.” “When an issue receives sufficient attention, it often can no longer be confined to
subsystems. Then parties may be drawn to it because it has the potential of conveying electoral
advantage.” In reference to a quote by Giandomenico Majone on the evolution of how
Americans viewed poverty over time, Baumgartner and Jones said “As the image of the issue
changed from that of a private misfortune to a public problem amenable to government solutions,
the issue rose high on the government agenda.”These sixteen issues have all risen in the public
eye as being issues that the federal government in some way has a part in dealing with.
They bring up the idea of policy monopolies, “structural arrangements that are supported
by powerful ideas.”
“Policy entrepreneurs take advantage of favorable public attention and quickly move to
ensure a quick assignment by government officials to an encouraging institutional venue.
In the absence of opposition to new policy ideas, policy entrepreneurs can move swiftly
to manipulate elite and mass opinions towards a surge of enthusiasm for the new policy.
The desired outcome is of course, a policy monopoly; the political weapons are concerted
promotional campaigns.”
“When issues reach the public agenda on a wave of popular enthusiasm, conditions are at their
best for the construction of a new policy subsystem.” They also discuss their decay and why
some monopolies do not form. Rather than be in continuous conflict, they believe these groups
involved retreat into areas where their influence is uncontested. This is appealing because
then they can make the claim “outsiders” are not qualified and these questions to be decided have

6. Page | 6
“social impacts that are neutral or unavoidable.”
Sometimes these stability-breaking actions can evoke positive feedback from the rest of
the government and interested outsider groups like interest groups or organizations. “Political
ideas become popular quickly and diffuse throughout large areas of the political system until
they have replaced many old ones. Political bandwagons build power, as politicians and interest
group leaders become active in a new cause as it gains popularity.” I will look for evidence in
increased activity of these issues and the state of current policy monopolies that exist and
bandwagons that may form resulting from this.
In Thomas Birkland’s Lessons of Disaster, he utilizes “focusing events” from John
Kingdon’s book, Agenda, Alternatives and Public Policies which can occur after natural
accidents, disasters or terrorists attacks. In Birkland’s previous work he has found that
these events do raise salience and attention to an issue and subsequent agendas, but also that
it leads in some cases to event-related policy change. I will look to see if any major events that
have affected the country raises activity on Twitter.
Thus, three hypotheses are now presented. Issue Ownership may raise salience of issues
During election years due to shifts in prioritization. Current policy monopolies and related
legislation deliberated on the floor of Congress and bandwagoning may explain peaks in activity
in off election years. Focusing events may increase activity and steer public policy in response to
these events.
Data and Methods:
Twitter was created in March 2006 with the emergence of social networking websites around
that time. Currently it is one of the most visited websites on the internet, and many politicians
and government organizations have created accounts and tweet frequently. But their behavior in
what issues they talk about or how frequently they tweet might allow us to make valuable
inferences in this new form of data collection, as opposed to traditional surveys and the like. As I

7. Page | 7
have previously stated, all 16 of these issues have become associated with government to a
certain extend on a national level (Medicare, job growth, taxes, economy, education, the deficit,
environment, alternative energy, immigration, health care, the military, poverty, terrorism, trade,
social security and crime). I chose to analyze the time period of November 2011 to February
2015, when I began the research collection. The reasoning was to see any significant effects that
the 2012 election cycle may have on the salience of certain issues. I used Twitter’s built in
advanced search engine and counted the Tweets by hand. I used simple line graphs and other
related models to measure the spikes in activity on the Twitter accounts. I looked at Senator
Gillibrand as a starting point because I interned with her. I explored whether or not her agenda
was independent of the party’s agenda. I looked at her fellow elected official Senator Schumer to
see the comparison between in-state Senators and any correlations or support they may give each
other. To get a national view, I included both parties’ Twitter accounts, the President and
Republican Senator Rand Paul who has often worked with Senator Gillibrand on certain issues.
In search of the tweets I used certain keywords listed in Appendix A, noticing especially in the
case of health care, each party has a personal preference in moniker in regards to addressing the
issue (e.g #Obamacare, health insurance). This may due in part to the GOP’s overall aggressive
behavior on Twitter and reliance on easily identifiable caricatures of complex issues in order to
evoke responses and support online.
 Medicare
Medicare is one of the strongest examples for arguing for the validity of the Issue Ownership
theory. The DNC and RNC are the only significant accounts active on this issue, and there is
a strong correlation between them with a large amount of activity during the 2012 election cycle.
The origin of the tweets appear to be either a Democratic response and a Republican defense to
the announcement of the Romney-Ryan “voucher” during the election. However beyond the
2012 election, none of the accounts has significant activity on Twitter regarding Medicare.

8. Page | 8
 Jobs
Across Gillibrand’s, Schumer’s, the Democrats and GOP’s accounts, there is a considerable
trend of activity in mentioning jobs leading up to the 2012 election. However analyzing the large
amount of activity from the Republican party in mid-2013 does not show any singular effect in
origin, but the tweets are consistently attacking the President, supporting the Keystone pipeline
or more importantly, making an muddied connection between the repeal of the Affordable Care
Act and job growth.
 Deficit
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Nov-11
Feb-12
May-12
Aug-12
Nov-12
Feb-13
May-13
Aug-13
Nov-13
Feb-14
May-14
Aug-14
Nov-14
Feb-15
DNC's Tweets on Medicare
RNC's Tweets on Medicare
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Nov-11
Feb-12
May-12
Aug-12
Nov-12
Feb-13
May-13
Aug-13
Nov-13
Feb-14
May-14
Aug-14
Nov-14
Feb-15
Gillibrand's Tweets on Jobs
Schumer's Tweets on Jobs
DNC's Tweets on Jobs
RNC's Tweets on Jobs

9. Page | 9
Reducing the deficit is one issue the Republican party attacked Obama on during the 2012
election. However there is one large peak of activity during February 2013, the State of the
Union address. Evidently President Obama had decided to highlight this issue during a far
reaching press event on television and Twitter activity peaked in response to it. The graph
shows evidence of another strong correlation between the Democratic party and the incumbent
Democratic president.
 Taxes
The graph here shows increased activity during election years. Once again, the Republican party
consistently focuses on linking taxes stemming from the Affordable Care Act. However,
beginning in March 2013, the IRS was found to be deliberately targeting conservative political
groups. The Republican party made reference to the IRS’s actions with tweets including
#DemandAnswers and capitalized on this national level scandal. Senator Gillibrand peaks her
activity in mid-2012 as a result of the Bring Jobs Home Act S. 2569 and bandwagoning on
President Obama’s push for the extension of middle class tax cuts. In addition she also pushed
for childcare tax credits in March 2014 on the floor of the Senate, creating a peak in activity.
Senator Rand Paul has a peak in activity in response to Tim Cook’s testimony in the Senate
during May 2013. Senator Schumer peaks in activity during April 2014, evidently due in part to
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
Nov-11
Feb-12
May-12
Aug-12
Nov-12
Feb-13
May-13
Aug-13
Nov-13
Feb-14
May-14
Aug-14
Nov-14
Feb-15
DNC's Tweets on the Deficit
RNC's Tweets on the Deficit
President's Tweets on the
Deficit

10. Page | 10
his specialization in matters of finance and his position on the Senate Finance Committee.
Looking at Medicare, taxes, job growth and the deficit, there is considerable activity on the
accounts to suggest the shifting of prioritization for these issues, particularly on the national level
among both parties and the President during elections years. However there are other peaks
which shows there are exceptions to be made and these assumptions to be taken holistically.
 Economy
Around January 2014, Senator Kirsten Gillibrand peaked in activity on the economy, focusing in
on two specific matters; she focused on unemployment benefits and her uniquely drafted
“Opportunity Plan.” The Republican party throughout this time directly attacked Obama and the
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Nov-11
Feb-12
May-12
Aug-12
Nov-12
Feb-13
May-13
Aug-13
Nov-13
Feb-14
May-14
Aug-14
Nov-14
Feb-15
DNC's Tweets on Taxes
RNC's Tweets on Taxes
President's Tweets on Taxes
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
Nov-11
Feb-12
May-12
Aug-12
Nov-12
Feb-13
May-13
Aug-13
Nov-13
Feb-14
May-14
Aug-14
Nov-14
Feb-15
Gillibrand's Tweets on Taxes
Schumer's Tweets on Taxes
Rand's Tweets on Taxes

11. Page | 11
Affordable Care Act, peaking during election years and following a July 2013 jobs report.
There is a noticeable link between jobs and the economy in regards to the Democratic party as
seen below and President Obama also strongly associates jobs with the economy.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Nov-11
Feb-12
May-12
Aug-12
Nov-12
Feb-13
May-13
Aug-13
Nov-13
Feb-14
May-14
Aug-14
Nov-14
Feb-15
DNC's Tweets on Economy
RNC's Tweets on Economy
President's Tweets on Economy
0
5
10
15
20
25
Nov-11
Feb-12
May-12
Aug-12
Nov-12
Feb-13
May-13
Aug-13
Nov-13
Feb-14
May-14
Aug-14
Nov-14
Feb-15
Gillibrand's Tweets on Economy
Schumer's Tweets on Economy
Rand's Tweets on Economy
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Nov-11
Feb-12
May-12
Aug-12
Nov-12
Feb-13
May-13
Aug-13
Nov-13
Feb-14
May-14
Aug-14
Nov-14
Feb-15
DNC's Tweets on Jobs
DNC's Tweets on Economy

12. Page | 12
 Education
Around May 2014, Senate Democrats unveiled an initiative called FairShot, and as a part of
this initiative, reducing the effects of student debt was a particular focus. Across the other three
accounts however, it seems to be a consistent consensus issue in the public eye even when
comparing election to non-election years.
 Environment
Senator Gillibrand increased activity in March 2014 in response to the #Up4Climate 15-hour
event in which 30 Senators discussed the growing problem of climate change all throughout the
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Nov-11
Feb-12
May-12
Aug-12
Nov-12
Feb-13
May-13
Aug-13
Nov-13
Feb-14
May-14
Aug-14
Nov-14
Feb-15
Gillibrand's Tweets on
Education
Schumer's Tweets on Education
Rand Paul Tweets on Education
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Nov-11
Feb-12
May-12
Aug-12
Nov-12
Feb-13
May-13
Aug-13
Nov-13
Feb-14
May-14
Aug-14
Nov-14
Feb-15
Gillibrand's Tweets on
Education
Schumer's Tweets on Education
DNC Tweets on Education
RNC Tweets on Education
Rand Paul Tweets on Education

13. Page | 13
night. On June 25th 2013, President Obama announced a Climate Action Plan, which evoked a
large amount of activity from the Republican party. In addition, they also mentioned Keystone
and tried to redirect the discussion towards jobs.
 Alternative Energy
Alternative energy was one issue the Republican party heavily attacked Obama on,
especially around the time of March 2012. This trend steadily decreased, seeing a substantial
dip during November of that year. However Senator Gillibrand does try to raise support in
January 2013 for the Weatherization Assistance Program & State Energy program, more than
any other period on her discussion of energy.
 Immigration
In regards to Immigration, across all 6 Twitter accounts there exists a considerable spike in the
0
5
10
15
Nov-11
Mar-12
Jul-12
Nov-12
Mar-13
Jul-13
Nov-13
Mar-14
Jul-14
Nov-14
Gillibrand's
Tweets on Env.
DNC's Tweets on
Env.
President's
Tweets on Env.
0
5
10
15
Nov-11
Sep-12
Jul-13
May-14
RNC's
Tweets
on Env.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Nov-11
Jun-12
Jan-13
Aug-13
Mar-14
Oct-14
RNC's
Tweets on
Alternative
Energy
President's
Tweets on
Alternative
Energy
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
Nov-11
Jun-12
Jan-13
Aug-13
Mar-14
Oct-14
Gillibrand'
s Tweets
on
Alternativ
e Energy

14. Page | 14
salience of addressing illegal immigration around mid-2013 and the end of 2014 for the
Republican Party, Democratic Party and the President. Looking at the individual tweets, the
accounts are responding to the immigration bill S. 744 which was introduced around mid-2013,
so it appears immigration is a consensus issue which raises salience in response to key legislation
currently on floor and has been prioritized by lawmaking. In regards to the peak of activity at the
end of 2014, it has been evidently caused by the Presidential agenda and executive actions taken
and each of the party’s accounts are rebuffing this action. This created a direct link between the
three, but evoking no considerable reaction from either of the three Senators. This evidence
further supports the claim that important legislation raises salience on Twitter and the bursts
characterized by Jones and Baumgartner.
 Health Care
The Affordable Care Act has raised the largest amount of activity from the Republican party than
any other issue across these selected consensus issues. Not including other consensus issues,
Republicans spoke about only health care 47% of all total GOP tweets recorded here or 1586
tweets during this time period. The large burst of activity supports Baumgartner’s and Jones’s
claims for policy monopolies in regards to the negative criticism aspect of them.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Nov-11
Feb-12
May-12
Aug-12
Nov-12
Feb-13
May-13
Aug-13
Nov-13
Feb-14
May-14
Aug-14
Nov-14
Feb-15
Gillibrand's Tweets on Immi.
Schumer's Tweets on
Immigration
DNC Tweets on Immigration
RNC Tweets on Immigration
White House Tweets on
Immigration
Rand Paul's Tweets on
Immigration

15. Page | 15
 Military
Senator Gillibrand clearly has a considerable presence on Twitter in regards to discussion and
raising salience of the military compared to the other five accounts. However she focuses the
majority of these tweets towards her active efforts as a champion for reforming the handling of
sexual assault cases in the military. The trend of data seems to show the buildup of support for
the March 6th, 2014 vote on the Military Justice Improvement Act of 2013, introduced in
November of that year, and Rand Paul seems to be following the sponsor, Senator Gillibrand
through a small spike of activity on that month. In accordance with the nature of policy
monopolies, we see activity here that is “high in volume”. As the monopoly has been established
and decisions are routinized, the issue has “faded from the public agenda.”
 Poverty
President Obama highlighted during his January 2014 State of the Union the issue of raising the
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Nov-11
May-12
Nov-12
May-13
Nov-13
May-14
Nov-14
DNC's
Tweets on
HC
Rand's
Tweets on
HC
President's
Tweets on
HC
0
50
100
150
200
250
Nov-11
May-12
Nov-12
May-13
Nov-13
May-14
Nov-14
RNC's Tweets on HC
RNC's
Tweets on
HC
0
20
40
60
80
100
Nov-11
Feb-12
May-12
Aug-12
Nov-12
Feb-13
May-13
Aug-13
Nov-13
Feb-14
May-14
Aug-14
Nov-14
Feb-15
Gillibrand's Tweets on the
Military
Rand's Tweets on the Military

16. Page | 16
minimum wage and frequently associates alleviating poverty by doing so. Senator Gillibrand has
also placed this issue on her agenda, and evidence of bandwagoning can be seen in this
correlation. The Republican party responded and linked Keystone to alleviating poverty by
creating more jobs.
 Terrorism
Terrorism only appeared in three peaks of the White House’s account. The first peak was in
regards to the Boston Bombings of 2013, which once again brought terrorism into the public eye
around the country. The second peak was in regards to addressing the growing strength of the
Islamic State in the Middle East. The final peak was in response to the Countering Violent
Extremism summit held in February 2015. No other accounts had registered significant activity.
Thus we can see here Birkland’s claims to an extent and a good place for further analysis would
be the policy changes that has occurred from these two events related to terrorism.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Nov-11
Feb-12
May-12
Aug-12
Nov-12
Feb-13
May-13
Aug-13
Nov-13
Feb-14
May-14
Aug-14
Nov-14
Feb-15
Gillibrand's Tweets on Poverty
RNC's Tweets on Poverty
President's Tweets on Poverty

17. Page | 17
 Trade, Social Security and Crime1
Conclusion:
My findings show important legislation in Congress can have an effect across accounts
depending on the extent the Senators and party are involved with the bill in question. We see this
to especially be the case with regard to Sen. Gillibrand and the Military Justice Improvement
Act. Several of these actors on Twitter seem to limit the scope of these consensus issues to suit
an agenda, either in consideration of the party’s aims or a “policy monopoly” and subsequent
bandwagoning as Baumgartner and Jones
put it or because the actor in question has
a specialization e.g. Sen. Schumer and
Finance. Senator Gillibrand and Schumer
evidently have differing agendas and raise
the salience of different issues, but still
mention each other infrequently. Another
1
These three issues have seemed to not raise any salience or prioritized by either of the parties.
However it may prove more useful to analyze some of these issues in the future on a local or
state level, where they may be a larger part of a candidate’s agenda or platform to prioritize.
Senator Rand Paul for example when found speaking on crime, does not even utilize crime in the
actual sense of the word but rather as a figure of speech in criticizing the government’s actions.
0
5
10
15
Nov-11
Feb-12
May-12
Aug-12
Nov-12
Feb-13
May-13
Aug-13
Nov-13
Feb-14
May-14
Aug-14
Nov-14
Feb-15
President'sTweets on Terrorism
President's Tweets on
Terrorism

18. Page | 18
observation is that Issue Ownership could apply to an extent for presidential campaigns and
both parties, but not across all issues. Some of these issues did not even register a considerable
amount of activity and perhaps suggests Twitter cannot serve as a universally adaptable platform
for reaching voters, not bearing in mind the technological limitations of the website and 140
character limit.
Another finding was that the salience of an issue could be raised in response to a
catastrophic event or a pressing foreign policy concern. However, whether effective policy
change follows from this trend has yet to be analyzed. There still exists a large amount of data
on Twitter that have not been analyzed, and some that could be valuable. If possible, comparing
the proportions of Tweets over time about certain issues to the total number of Tweets could
show how priorities shift over time beyond just the frequency of the consensus issue Tweets.
Data from the upcoming 2016 election could prove to be useful if it shows fairly similar peaks in
activity in comparison to the tweets from the 2012 election cycle. To go a step further, if all of
the accounts could have their tweets divided into categories by issues on a month to month basis,
we could see important shifts in prioritization over time. Finally, if there could be a rough
measure of what the average user on Twitter mentions in regards to politics, we could see if
politicians and their activity has any effect on overall salience of issues on Twitter.

19. Page | 19
Bibliography:
Baumgartner, F., & Jones, B. (2009). Agendas and instability in American politics. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Birkland, T. (2006). Lessons of disaster policy change after catastrophic events. Washington,
D.C.: Georgetown University Press.
Egan, P. (2013). Partisan priorities: How issue ownership drives and distorts american politics.
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Petrocik, J. (n.d.). Issue Ownership in Presidential Elections, with a 1980 Case Study. American
Journal of Political Science, 825-825.
Twitter. Retrieved April 22, 2015, from https://twitter.com/

20. Page | 20
Appendix A: Excel Tables for
all Sixteen Consensus Issues
and Graphs