Stance Detection of Political Tweets with
Transformer Architectures
Pranav Gunhal Aditya Bashyam
Homestead High School Irvington High School Brooklyn Technical High School Eleanor Roosevelt High School
Cupertino, CA Fremont, CA New York, NY
pranav.gunhal@gmail.com adityabashyam05@gmail.com kellyzhang338@gmail.com
Julianne Huang Neha Haresh
Staten Island Technical High School The Lyceum School Bellarmine College Prep
New York, NY Karachi, Sindh San Jose, CA
juliannehuang17@gmail.com nehaharesh17@gmail.com rudransh.singh18@gmail.com michaeljlutz@berkeley.edu
Abstract—The online actions and words of a person can reveal
their political sentiments and how they may vote at the polls. For
decades, the dominant strategy of determining voter sentiment on
policies relied on slow and often inaccurate polling. The creation
and subsequent popularity of numerous social media sites,
namely Twitter, has presented an opportunity for researchers to
apply machine learning models to identify voter stances towards
relevant political issues. Stance detection is a sub-task of natural
language processing that involves algorithmically determining the
stance that a text contains towards a given topic. With recent
developments in NLP models and architectures, prior researchers
have successfully trained stance detection models to predict
the winning candidates in national-level elections. However, the
viability of stance detection towards specific policies in city-level
and state-level elections is relatively unexplored. In this paper,
we train a novel transformer neural network architecture that
accurately classifies Twitter users’ stances towards Proposition
16 of California’s 2020 election. To that end, we created a
novel annotated data set of all Tweets regarding Proposition
16. Because not all tweets were opinionated, we also trained a
model to filter out irrelevant and neutral tweets. Ultimately, we
achieved 82% overall accuracy. Moreover, our model accurately
predicted the result of the Prop 16 election. Our results show that
a stance detection model can provide a unique perspective to help
politicians make decisions that represent their constituents.
Index Terms—policy-based elections, sentiment analysis, trans-
former learning, stance detection, neural network, RoBERTa-
base
I. I NTRODUCTION
For decades, politicians have used polls to determine a pop-
ulation’s views and feelings on their platform and campaigns,
yet their polls are often ineffective and inefficient [13], [18].
The 2020 United States presidential election polls predicted a
close race between Joe Biden and Donald Trump, even though
the former ultimately won by a large margin [17]. However,
almost $600 million was spent on Strategy and Research,
which includes polls [19]. With the surge of social media use
in recent years, politicians have attempted to utilize data from
social sites, namely Twitter, to gather information to base their
campaign strategies. With over 425 million [14] current users,
the micro blogging site contains substantial data regarding po-
Kelly Zhang Alexandra Koster
New York, NY
alexkosternyc@gmail.com
Rudransh Singh Michael Lutz
UC Berkeley
Berkeley, CA
litical issues in a concise manner. As [15] notes, the exposure
to political sentiments online impacts the political behaviors of
a person. Previous works have revolutionized polling by using
Twitter and numerous Natural Language Processing models to
predict election outcomes. However, these models primarily
focus exclusively on national level elections, such as the pres-
idential election, leaving out smaller policy-based elections
with considerable impact. These elections can often impact a
political campaign in the long run, as they allow politicians to
understand their constituency better. Controversial policies on
local level elections commonly receive substantial real-time
attention on Twitter, and data sets with strong support for
either side with neutral opinions on an issue can be utilized to
create models that predict accurate results shown in the final
elections.
Previous works, including a prior study conducted by Dar-
wish et. al [3], have presented quantitative and qualitative
analysis of the top retweeted tweets, essentially those that went
viral, pertaining to the 2016 US presidential elections between
a 3 month period leading up to the election. Analyzing the
most viral tweets pertaining to the election typically expresses
the topics that garnered the most attention on Twitter. Shi et
al. [4] analyzed millions of tweets to predict public opinion
towards the Republican presidential primaries during the 2012
US Presidential elections, training a linear regression model
to produce results rivaling those of the polls. Budiharto et. al
[15] employed a similar approach, analyzing a large dataset
of tweets to accurately predict the outcome of the 2019
Indonesian Presidential election. Other works improved the
efficiency of such models using novel architectures, such as
[2], [16], the former using Recursive Neural Networks in
political literature and the latter using Temporal Convolutional
Networks as a replacement for Long Short Term Memory
models in the detection of fake news. A vast majority of such
studies, catering almost solely to candidate-based elections,
overlook more localized policy-based elections that would take
into account Twitter data from a more specific demographic
group. For instance, studies such as [12] highlight that local
elections attract a higher amount of participation and interest
from homeowners, the wealthy, and the elderly. It is important
to note that such an audience would have a more prominent
social media presence and would, thus, produce useful Twitter
data in large volumes.
Over the past few years, transformer architectures [6]
have become the dominant architecture for stance detec-
tion tasks. [7] [2] applied Temporal Convolutional Networks
and transformer-based models, BERT [5] and XLNet, for
NLP tasks. The BERT embeddings had better performance
than XLNet, a model based on Transformer-XL. The study
concluded that TCN outperformed RNN networks and the
BERT Independent models provided better training accuracy,
although it presented slight anomalous results and began to
overfit. Some studies have deduced, through comparing the
performances of their prediction models that they create, that
traditional approaches, like SVM and logistic regression, may
perform the most optimal stance detection [7] for election
outcome predictions. On the contrary, other studies conclude
that traditional approaches may only outperform initial deep
learning trials because of the convenience of feature-based
methods. [8] Research with successful stance detection models
use deep learning architectures, such as neural networks, and
train the models diligently. [9]–[11] More current studies
have supported that deep learning approaches, such as neu-
ral networks, and ensembling are effective and outperform
traditional models. [25] reviews deep ensemble learning and
asserts that, while deep learning models may have issues due to
computational costs and degradation problems, deep learning
architectures have still demonstrated better performance as
opposed to shallow or traditional models.
Similar to the work done in [4] regarding how social media
was used to gauge public opinion, our work aims to use
neural network architectures to determine dominant stances
on specific localized policies so that pollers can develop
adequate campaigning strategies. More specifically, we seek to
determine whether a tweet is relevant and biased regarding a
political issue. In the context of an election, we aim to classify
tweets are unrelated, related but neutral, related and negative,
or related and positive.
The structure of this work is as follows. In Section II,
we present details about our data set and model, including
the process through which they are implemented and their
respective results. We then present our experimental results in
Section III. To conclude, in Section IV, we provide a detailed
analysis of the results obtained from the former and examine
the future applications of our work.
II. M ETHODOLOGY
A. Data Collection:
We used the Twitter API to gather a data set of 5,000 tweets
relating to California’s 2020 Prop 16 election, wherein we used
the following Twitter attributes: text, place, created at, user,
retweet count, favorite count, and entities. Then we com-
pleted data annotations manually to determine the relevance
and stance of 3,500 tweets, each of which were annotated by
TABLE I
E XAMPLE OF DATA ANNOTATIONS
Label Tweet
Yes “California Voters: PLEASE remember to vote
YES on Prop 16, which would ban touching
chinas!”
No “Replying to @asiansforaa If UC will continue
to use 14 admissions. Why 16? Prop 16 makes
more privilege. I don’t believe your smoke
bomb. 1 5”
Unrelated “NBA BUBBLE PLAY DALLS MAVS
PLAYER PROP DONCIC OVER 16.5
RBS/AST - 120 BOL LETS GET
THAT MONEY! #nba #NBABubble
#NBAISBACK #nbatwitter #makingyiumoney
@Makingyoumoney1 1”
Comment “Replying to @MattBoxer94 What is prop 16?
You can tell me to google it if you don’t want
to explain. I am just making dinner for my kids
so curious. 1 1”
domain experts. Each tweet was labeled either ‘No’, ‘Yes’,
‘Unrelated’, or ‘Comment’. Tweets were labeled ‘Yes’ if
they expressed support or appreciation for Prop 16, whether
that be with the use of hashtags, simple stance assertion, or
sharing supporting media or links. Tweets were labeled ‘No’
if they expressed disapproval or hostility towards Prop 16,
again whether that be with the use of hashtags, simple stance
assertion, or sharing supporting media or links. Tweets were
labeled ‘Comment’ if they included material that was relevant
to Prop 16 but was neutral or simply a comment without
any position or stance assertion. Lastly, tweets were labeled
‘Unrelated’ if they contained material completely irrelevant
to California’s Prop 16. Table 1 shows a few sample labeled
tweets.
The annotators were equipped with sufficient knowledge
regarding California elections, and made sure to check the
content of each tweet carefully, including any hashtags, im-
ages, videos, or external links to ensure data was annotated
accurately. More complex tweets made about the proposition,
such as satirical comments, were analyzed thoroughly to
determine their true stance. Each of the authors annotated
a random sample of 50 tweets from the data set that were
not previously annotated by themselves, and compared their
annotations to those made by another author on the same data
set to verify the accuracy of the annotation using Cohen’s
Kappa calculation.
Overall, all seven annotators fully agreed on 91% of the
tweets and disagreed on the remaining 9%. The inter-rater
reliability, measured using Cohen’s Kappa, is 0.85, which
signifies near perfect agreement. The ability to achieve a high
score demonstrates both a good data set using the Twitter API
and a lack of bias amongst annotators.
In addition, we augmented the data using Google Translate
to further increase the accuracy of the model. This method D. Relevancy Classifier
is highly effective in providing slightly changed versions of
The sentiment analysis of the tweets was performed in two
a data set, allowing for more training data [21]. A portion of
stages, one being the classification of the tweets on the basis
the tweets was randomly chosen and passed into the trans-
of relevancy. Because the data was collected using general
lator, which translated it to one of the following languages:
search terms from a large database, not all tweets collected
Arabic, Bulgarian, French, German, Greek, Hindi, Russian,
were relevant to the topics discussed. Unrelated tweets often
Simplified Chinese, Spanish, Swahili, Thai, Turkish, Urdu,
contained the words “Prop” or “16” in different contexts, or
and Vietnamese. The altered text was then translated back to
were found to be the result of spam bots. Meanwhile, related
English, providing a different, albeit similar, version of the
tweets consisted of positive, negative, and neutral sentiments
tweet.
about Prop 16 and were often paired with corresponding
hashtags. The model was trained on the data for 10 epochs
B. Pre-processing
with the AdamW optimizer and a training and test batch size
The tweets were pre-processed using a tokenizer before of 16.
being passed into the model. The tokenizer for the base model
we utilized was a byte-level BPE. Its representation of text E. Modular Stance Detection:
allows for complete retainment of a text in a compact manner,
while also not requiring out-of-vocabulary tokens. The related tweets were then used to train a stance detection
model to predict the user’s stance towards Prop 16. There
C. Models were three stances the tweets on Prop 16 could take, “Yes”
(supporting the proposition), “No” (against the proposition),
We used multiple pre-trained transformer learning models
and “Comment” (neutral on the proposition). Since the model
as the base model for this classifier. BERT was used as the pri-
detects the stance towards Prop 16, we dropped any data
mary baseline. Its revolutionary bidirectional capabilities allow
annotated as “Unrelated” to increase the accuracy of the model
for it to be pre-trained on Masked Language Modeling and
and avoid using data that would not discuss Prop 16. After
Next Sentence Prediction.This predicted a random selection
filtering through the data, we had approximately 2270 tweets
of inputs that had been replaced with a masked word, concur-
to train on.
rently learning higher-order distributional statistics, therefore
making it more useful for future finetuning [24]. Preliminary training revealed heavy biases in the training
data. About 65% of all tweets were labeled as negative, while
We then experimented with Roberta-base, which utilizes
20% was positive and 15% was neutral. Thus, training on this
dynamic masking in lieu of BERT’s static masking. Its
unbalanced data set lead to biased results, and a low F1 score.
vast training data consisted of BookCorpus, which contained
When the negative tweets were under sampled to balance the
11,038 books, English Wikipedia, over 124 million tweets,
data, the loss in quantity decreased the accuracy of the model,
and tens of millions of articles on CC-News [21]. RoBERTa
although the F1 score increased slightly. We thus found it
is optimized to include larger batches of data and removes
favorable to utilize the data augmentation methods mentioned
the need for Next Sentence Processing, which reduces the
previously to over sample both the comment and positive
performance of bases like BERT [20].
tweets, leading to a roughly equal ratio of all categories. This
XL-NET was also used in the finetuning of the model.
resulted in the model having both a high accuracy and a high
The model was trained using BookCorpus, English Wikipedia,
F1 score, due to the quality and quantity of the training data.
Giga5, ClueWeb, and Common Crawl, resulting in a combined
158 gigabytes of training data. Its algorithm rivals that of We first created two binary classification models, one to
BERT by a comparable margin [22], allowing for the data detect whether a tweet was neutral or not, and one to detect
to be trained using novel architecture. whether it was in favor of Prop 16 or not. If a tweet was
predicted to be not neutral (not a comment), it was passed
DistilBERT is trained on the same data as BERT, while also
in to the stance detection classifier. The neutrality detection
implementing an algorithm that runs 60% faster than the latter,
model did not perform as well as the stance detection model
with 95% of its accuracy. Its efficiency allows for a faster,
more robust training process; consequently, it was utilized in
the training of the model.
TABLE II
Trained on English Wikipedia, BookCorpus, OPENWEB- R ELEVANCY C LASSIFIER M ODEL
TEXT, content from Reddit, and a subset of Common-
Crawl (STORIES), DeBERTA improves on both BERT and Model Accuracy F1 score
RoBERTA through the implementation of two novel tech- BERT 0.982 0.990
niques – a disentangled attention mechanism and an enhanced RoBERTA 0.974 0.974
XLNET 0.947 0.949
mask decoder. The former encodes words and computes their Distilbert 0.965 0.966
attention weights using two vectors in relation to content and Deberta 0.956 0.956
relative position, and the latter makes use of absolute positions Baseline 0.917 0.751
in the decoding layer to assist in pre-training [23].
performed on average, partially due to the subtlety of neutrality TABLE III
in language. This led to low accuracy for the combined model. T HE ACCURACIES OF TRAINING DIFFERENT MODELS ON THE TRAIN DATA .
Another architecture we implemented was a ternary classi-
Model Accuracya Training lossa Joint accuracy
fication model, which predicted neutrality and stance simulta-
neously. The model required more training data than the two Relevancy and ternary classification
binary models, and was achieved using data augmentation. The ROBERTA 0.8408 0.0032 0.7880
XLNET 0.8372 0.0093 0.7848
ternary model performed significantly better with a balanced DISTILBERT 0.8121 0.0021 0.7627
train data set, and outperformed the two binary classification BERT 0.7979 0.0002 0.7500
models. DEBERTA 0.7496 0.7339 0.7072
The models mentioned above were all trained for 10 epochs Four way classification
on the train data set, with a weight decay value of 0.01, and ROBERTA 0.8212 0.0091 0.8212
a batch size of 8. XLNET 0.7990 0.0992 0.7990
BERT 0.7737 0.0990 0.7737
F. Quaternary Classifier DISTILBERT 0.7722 0.0961 0.7722
DEBERTA 0.7547 0.099 0.7547
In addition to creating numerous separate models for rele- Existing methods (no data augmentation)
vancy, neutrality, and stance detection, we also experimented
Baseline — — 0.5759
with the creation of one quaternary classification model. In
a
its essence, the model would function the same as the ternary Accuracy and final training loss for the independent model
classification model mentioned above, but would also attempt
to predict the relevancy of a tweet. When preliminary training
was executed, the accuracy and F1 scores were consistently The quaternary classification model had the highest accu-
low because of the imbalanced nature of the data set. When racy of all the architectures, however, with a final accuracy of
data augmentation was used to over sample unrelated, neutral, 0.8212. The model also utilizes ROBERTA-BASE. We found
and positive tweets to match the quantity of the negative that the model predicted outputs with a reasonable amount
tweets, the accuracy increased greatly, producing comparable of error according to the distribution of the test data set. The
accuracies to the modular, multi-model approach. All models quantity of predictions for each label roughly corresponds with
described above were trained on the augmented data set for the actual quantity, which shows the lack of noticeable bias in
varying epochs. the model.
ROBERTA may have outperformed the other models in both
III. R ESULTS model pipelines because of its unique training data set, which
We created numerous joint and separate models in this work, included over 124 million tweets. This likely contributed to the
and trained them on differing sets of data. model classifying the validation tweets better than the other
models.
A. Relevancy Detection
C. Election Prediction
We passed the data set through multiple models, of which
BERT outperformed the other models by a slight margin on the Upon examining the results from our best-performing
test data, which were not visible to the model during training. model, we were able to determine that Prop 16 would have
The maximum accuracy achieved was 0.982, by the BERT- failed in 2020. The vast majority of the predictions were
base model, which also had the highest F1 score of 0.990, against the proposition, and the remaining predictions were
as shown by Table 2. All models achieved higher accuracies split between unrelated, neutral, and positive tweets. Accord-
than the baseline, 0.917, and required relatively little training, ing to our model, the percentage of negative sentiment is
averaging 10 epochs for maximum performance. projected to be about 66%; this is only slightly higher than
the actual percentage of 57%. While this difference is not very
B. Stance Detection significant, it does imply a stronger algorithm bias towards
All stance detection models trained were able to exceed the negative tweets in this specific context.
baseline accuracy of 0.5759.
The ternary stance detection models greatly outperformed IV. C ONCLUSION AND FUTURE WORK
the combined binary comment and stance detection models. In this work, we aimed to use NLP techniques and trans-
Of these, ROBERTA-BASE had the highest accuracy, 0.8408, former architectures to apply to local election predictions
as illustrated by Table 3 After the ternary classification models to potentially be an adequate alternative to traditional polls.
were tested on the output of the relevancy classification model, Traditional polling has been proven to be costly, and often,
the former still had the highest joint accuracy of 0.7880. This ineffective and inaccurate. To achieve our goals, we made two
is slightly higher than the final accuracy of XLNET, which types of models and received suitable accuracy scores. The
has an accuracy of 0.7848. Due to the randomization of the relevancy classifier proved to be able to classify if a tweet is
train data set for all of the models, this minor difference in relevant to Prop 16 while the stance detection models could
accuracy can be disregarded. determine the opinions of Twitter users based on their tweets
regarding Prop 16. Our determination from the models that
Prop 16 would have failed was correct, as the proposition did
not pass with roughly 7.2 million votes for Yes and 9.7 million
votes for No (57% against), a margin similar to our model
predictions (66% against). Further research may be done as to
how exactly the under-representation of less privileged groups,
such as non-English language speakers and the less wealthy,
affect prediction performance.
Social media is a powerful tool used to investigate how
people interact with each other, but sentiment analysis is not
always accurate due to the intricacies of human language. In
the future, as technology develops to identify such nuances
including sarcasm, emotion, and irony with greater accuracy,
opinion mining, or sentiment analysis, will expand into larger
societal applications. In this paper, we dove specifically into
how NLP can be used in the political world to determine
the dominant stances on certain localized policies. However,
opinion mining can be applied in numerous other industries,
such as healthcare, technology, sports, and marketing. For
instance, in the healthcare industry, Knowledge Discovery
and Data Mining is already taking on a prominent role of
being able to identify fraud and abuse by identifying unusual
medical claims outside of the set norms. Their findings may
have broader implications towards different fields outside of
healthcare, as detecting fraud and abuse is a common issue.
Further research can be done on more use of NLP on common
field-specific issues.
Because we were able to predict the outcome of the 2020
Prop 16 election, should legislation seeking to replace the
proposition be discussed in the future, our model will prove
effective in providing legislators with crucial information
regarding public opinion of the former. It is a possibility that
this may occur during the 2022 California elections as well.
Our findings reveal that we can use NLP to determine the
sentiment and relevancy of tweets. Furthermore, our research
reveals that Twitter can be a useful tool in predicting lo-
calized elections with suitable accuracy. Sentiment analysis
through social media holds potential to be implemented more
frequently and can compete with traditional polling methods.
However, as stated previous, there is inherent bias in social
media, especially in Twitter users, because it is mostly priv-
ileged groups that use Twitter and so they are likely to be
over represented in the Twitter data sets. In future works
we could look for ways to offset the user bias to make
predictions that are more representative of the population
as a whole. Another potential change that may improve the
results of our research is in the data annotations; we had
seven authors each independently annotating 500 rows of
data and then crosschecking 50 rows each. Ideally multiple
authors would review each tweet to ensure that each tweet
was being evaluated the same way. In the future, we could
also apply our models to current political issues in order to
gather voter sentiment through social media without traditional
polling methods and use the results to predict the outcome
of controversial policies. Further research can be done as to
whether models on Twitter data sets are a reliable replacement
for traditional polling methods and if active social media users
are more representative of one general viewpoint or another.
Since our model was able to reasonably predict the outcome
of the Prop 16 2020 election, we anticipate that it can be
applied to other policy-based elections. Local elections are
held more often than and frequently receive less attention than
national elections, and therefore applications of this research
and the extension of the models created in other similar
contexts could greatly impact policy makers and campaigns.
R EFERENCES
[1] E. Hargittai, “Potential biases in big data: Omitted voices on
Social Media,” Sagejournals, 30-Jul-2018. [Online]. Available:
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0894439318788322.
[Accessed: 17-Jul-2022].
[2] K. Jain, F. Doshi, and L. Kurup, “Stance detection
using transformer architectures and temporal convolutional
networks,” SpringerLink, 28-Oct-2020. [Online]. Available:
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-981-15-4409-
540#chapter-info. [Accessed: 17-Jul-2022]
[3] K. Darwish, W. Magdy, and T. Zanouda, “Trump vs.
Hillary: What went viral during the 2016 US presidential
election,” SpringerLink, 03-Sep-2017. [Online]. Available:
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-67217-510.
[Accessed: 17-Jul-2022].
[4] L. Shi, A. Agrawal, N. Agarwal, R. Garg, and J. Spoelstra, “Predicting
us primary elections with Twitter - Stanford University.” [Online]. Avail-
able: https://snap.stanford.edu/social2012/papers/shi.pdf. [Accessed: 18-
Jul-2022].
[5] J. Devlin, M.-W. Chang, K. Lee, and K. Toutanova, “[PDF]
Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional Transformers for language
understanding: Semantic scholar,” Semantic Scholar, 24-May-2019.
[Online]. Available: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/BERT%3A-
Pre-training-of-Deep-Bidirectional-for-Devlin-
Chang/df2b0e26d0599ce3e70df8a9da02e51594e0e992. [Accessed:
29-Jul-2022].
[6] A. Vaswani, N. Shazeer, N. Parmar, J. Uszkoreit, L. Jones,
A. N. Gomez, Ł. Kaiser, and I. Polosukhin, “Attention
Is All You Need,” NeurIPS Proceedings, 2017. [Online].
Available: https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper/2017/hash/3f5ee2435
47dee91fbd053c1c4a845aa-Abstract.html. [Accessed: 17-Jul-2022].
[7] T. Wolf et al., “Transformers: State-of-the-art natural language
processing,” ACL Anthology, 2020. [Online]. Available:
https://aclanthology.org/2020.emnlp-demos.6/. [Accessed: 29-Jul-2022].
[8] D. Küçük and F. Can, “Stance detection: A survey,”
ACM Digital Library, 06-Feb-2020. [Online]. Available:
https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/3369026. [Accessed: 17-Jul-2022].
[9] W. Wei, X. Zhang, X. Liu, W. Chen, and T. Wang, “A specific
convolutional neural network system for effective stance detection,”
ACL Anthology, 2016. [Online]. Available: https://aclanthology.org/S16-
1062/. [Accessed: 29-Jul-2022].
[10] Y. Zhou, A. I. Cristea, and L. Shi, “Connecting targets to
tweets: Semantic attention-based model for target-specific stance
detection,” SpringerLink, 04-Oct-2017. [Online]. Available:
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-68783-4-2.
[Accessed: 17-Jul-2022].
[11] M. Umer, Z. Imtiaz, S. Ullah, A. Mehmood, G. S. Choi and B.
-W. On, “Fake news stance detection using Deep Learning Ar-
chitecture (CNN-LSTM),” IEEE Xplore, 2020. [Online]. Available:
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/9178321. [Accessed: 17-
Jul-2022].
[12] C. M. Burnett and V. Kogan, “The politics of potholes: Service quality
and retrospective voting in local elections: The Journal of Politics: Vol
79, no 1,” The Journal of Politics, 01-Jan-2017. [Online]. Available:
https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/688736. [Accessed: 29-
Jul-2022].
[13] E. J. Dionne and T. E. Mann, “Polling public opinion:
The good, the bad, and the ugly,” Brookings, 01-Jun-2003.
[Online]. Available: https://www.brookings.edu/articles/polling-public-
opinion-he-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly/. [Accessed: 29-Jul-2022].
[14] J. Degenhard, “Twitter users in the World 2017-
2025,” Statista, 20-Jul-2021. [Online]. Available:
https://www.statista.com/forecasts/1146722/twitter-users-in-the-world.
[Accessed: 10-Aug-2022].
[15] W. Budiharto and M. Meiliana, “Prediction and analysis of Indonesia
presidential election from Twitter using sentiment analysis - Jour-
nal of Big Data,” SpringerLink, 19-Dec-2018. [Online]. Available:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s40537-018-0164-1. [Accessed:
29-Jul-2022].
[16] M. Iyyer, P. Enns, J. Boyd-Graber, and P. Resnik, “Political ideology
detection using recursive neural networks,” ACL Anthology, 2014.
[Online]. Available: https://aclanthology.org/P14-1105.pdf. [Accessed:
10-Aug-2022].
[17] S. Keeter, N. Hatley, A. Lau, and C. Kennedy, “What 2020’s
election poll errors tell us about the accuracy of issue polling,”
Pew Research Center Methods, 02-Mar-2021. [Online]. Available:
https://www.pewresearch.org/methods/2021/03/02/what-2020s-election-
poll-errors-tell-us-about-the-accuracy-of-issue-polling/. [Accessed:
29-Jul-2022].
[18] D. S. Hillygus, “The Evolution of Election Polling in the
United States ,” OUP Academic, 01-Dec-2011. [Online]. Available:
https://academic.oup.com/poq/article/75/5/962/1830219. [Accessed: 29-
Jul-2022].
[19] “Campaign Expenditures,” OpenSecrets. [Online]. Available:
https://www.opensecrets.org/campaign-expenditures. [Accessed: 29-Jul-
2022].
[20] Y. Liu, “Roberta: A robustly optimized Bert pretrain-
ing approach,” arXiv, 26-Jul-2019. [Online]. Available:
https://arxiv.org/abs/1907.11692. [Accessed: 29-Jul-2022].
[21] D. Šeputis, “Investigation of text data augmentation for trans-
former training via translation technique,” Vilnius University Open
Series, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://www.journals.vu.lt/open-
series/article/view/24036/23341. [Accessed: 07-Aug-2022].
[22] Z. Yang, Z. Dai, Y. Yang, J. Carbonell, R. Salakhutdinov,
and Q. Le, “XLNet: Generalized autoregressive pre training for
Language Understanding,” arXiv, 02-Jan-2020. [Online]. Available:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1906.08237.pdf%EF%BC%89. [Accessed: 07-Aug-
2022].
[23] P. He, X. Liu, J. Gao, and W. Chen, “DEBERTA: DECODING-
ENHANCED BERT WITH DISENTANGLED ATTENTION,” arXiv,
06-Oct-2021. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2006.03654.pdf.
[Accessed: 07-Aug-2022].
[24] K. Sinha, R. Jia, D. Hupkes, J. Pineau, A. Williams, and D.
Kiela, “Masked Language Modeling and the Distributional
Hypothesis,” arXiv, 09-Sep-2021. [Online]. Available:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2104.06644v2.pdf. [Accessed: 07-Aug-2022].
[25] M.A. Ganaie, Minghui Hu, A.K. Malik, M. Tanveer, and P.N. Suganthan,
“Ensemble deep learning: A review,” arXiv, 06-Apr-2021. [Online].
Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2104.02395. [Accessed: 11-Aug-2022].