Fluent Essays

I will attach the methods, literature review and results section. I want you to compile them and make the flow. then check the sections to be changed according to the professors commentsI will send you the Literature Review, Data and Methods, Assignment 9, Annotated Bibliography for this Research Paper. This assignment needs to have the following. A title page including a title and your name.Starting on a new page, place your introduction. The introduction should provide an interesting context relevant to the research (like an anecdote drawn from current events), basic background information on the question/problem, a clear and concise thesis, and an overview of the paper. Note the importance of the thesis. Papers without a thesis, and therefore without a central argument, will automatically receive an F.After your introduction, you will place your literature review. This section of the paper should include the heading Literature Review in bold type. Section headings should either be centered or left justified. The literature review should be revised consistent with the feedback you received.The next section is labeled Data and Methods. In this section, you will place the revised version of your data and methods section.The next section is labeled Results. This is where you will place the revised version of that section from Assignment 9.The next section is labeled Discussion. This is where you will place the revised version of that section from Assignment 9.Next, you will write the conclusion of your paper. Label the section Conclusion and follow the recommendations from Baglione. Note that your conclusion should address the following:Restate your thesis and assess your thesis based on your findings.Specifically address the question of how well traditional explanations of voting work for the 2016 election.If the traditional explanations work well, what made 2016, which felt so different, fairly normal?If non-traditional explanations matter more, what made 2016 so extraordinary?How well do you think your findings from 2016 will apply to the 2020 presidential election, and why?Lastly, please include a properly formatted reference section, labeled References, starting on a separate page. The reference section must include all of the sources you cite in your paper.In addition to the content described above, your grade will be affected by style and format. Please make sure of the following:Pages must be numberedCitations and references must be properly and consistently formattedAll citations must have a reference and all references must be cited in the paperThere is a separate title pageSections have appropriate headings (no heading for the introduction; every other section has a heading)The introduction starts on a new page and the paper continues without break until the end of the conclusionAvoid hanging headings and split tablesYour paper is well-written and free from spelling and grammatical errors data__hypotheses_docx__1_.pdf pol_409__assignment_9.docx annotated_bibliography_2016_presidential_campaign__1_.docx literature_review_pol_409docx.pdf Unformatted Attachment Preview DATA AND HYPOTHESES 1 Data and Hypotheses DATA AND HYPOTHESES 2 Data and Hypotheses Dependent Variable The dependent variable is vote choice, which is measured as a categorical variable. The respondents were asked the presidential candidates that they voted for in 2016 and were given four choices to choose from. The choices include Clinton, Trump, others, and not applicable. The aim of the study is to determine how different factors affect vote choice of the respondents. Independent Variables The first independent variable is the party identification of the respondent, which is measured as a categorical variable. The respondents were given several choices to choose from, and their choices were meant to determine the strength of the respondent’s party affiliation. The choices to choose from include strong democrat, weak democrat, independent democrat, independent, independent republican, weak republican, and strong republican. From the results, most respondents are strong democrats followed by strong republicans, while the least respondents are not affiliated to any party. The second independent variable was the health insurance plan, which was measured as a categorical variable. The variable represents the preference of the respondents in terms of insurance plans, whether to have government health plans and private health plans and the variabilities on the implementation level. The responses were on a seven-point scale with 1 being a government insurance plan, which would cover all medical, hospital, and related expenses for everyone and 7 being medical expenses should be paid by individuals through private insurance plans. From the results, it is evident that most respondents prefer a government insurance plan which would cover all medical, hospital, and related expenses for everyone. DATA AND HYPOTHESES 3 The third independent variable is the marital status of the respondents, which was measured as a categorical variable. The choices in which the respondents should choose from include married, domestic partner, widowed, divorced/separated, and not applicable. The results show that many of the respondents are married, followed by those who have never been married. The ones who form the smallest junk of the respondents in matters of marital status are those who are widowed. The fourth independent variable is respondent’s racial self-identification, which identifies the respondents with their races. The variable is a categorical variable, with respondents having to choose from white, black, Hispanic, other, and not applicable. From the results, most respondents were white, followed by black and Hispanic, while others had the least number. Hypotheses Hypothesis 1​: Party affiliation of the respondent has an impact on the vote choice. Hypothesis 2​: The preference in the health insurance plan of the respondent has an impact on the vote choice. Hypothesis 3​: The marital status of the respondent has an impact on the vote choice. Hypothesis 4​: The racial self-identification of the respondent has an impact on the vote choice. Methodology The data will be analyzed, and the hypothesis tested using cross-tabulation. Cross tabulation is an important analytical tool that is mainly used to analyze data that is measured on a categorical scale (​Michael, 2001​). Since the data in question is categorical data, cross-tabulation is the best analytical tool that can be used to test the hypotheses of this study. Cross tabulation records the frequency of the respondents that have the specific characteristics described in the DATA AND HYPOTHESES 4 cells of the table. Further, it also provides a wealth of information about the relationship between the variables in question. As such, the cross-tabulation will provide the voting choices of the respondents across all the elements of the independent variables. For instance, the respondents who voted for Trump will be shown in the cross-tabulation table by their party affiliation. The chi-square statistic will be used to test whether the cross-tabulation table is significant. The chi-square statistics will determine whether or not the dependent variable and each of the dependent variables has no relationship (​Michael, 2001​). If the dependent variable and any of the independent variables have no relationship, then the results of the statistical test will be non-significant, which implies that we will fail to reject the hypothesis, which implies that there shall be no relationship between the variables (​Michael, 2001​). If there is a relationship between the variables, then the results shall be statistically significant, and we will reject the null hypothesis and conclude that there is some relationship between the variables. A sample of 6000 respondents was randomly chosen in the US and asked to fill the online questionnaire. The respondents were informed that it was for research purposes, and as such, they filled the questionnaires at their own will. The questionnaires were administered to the respondents through an online platform. A sample of 6000 was appropriate for the study since it is a large sample and fulfills the central limit theorem for normality. Further, such a large sample implies that the study can be generalized to the whole population. DATA AND HYPOTHESES 5 References Michael, R. S. (2001). Crosstabulation & chi square. ​Indiana University, Bloomington, IN. URL http://www. indiana. edu/~ educy520/sec5982/we ek_12/chi_sq_summary011020. pdf (Visited 2010, June 15).​ POL 409 Tables for Assignment 9 Results & Discussion The end of this document includes all of the Figures you need for the Results section of your paper. Remember that I am asking you for the following analyses: 1. What is the relationship between party identification and vote choice? 2. What is the relationship between trade attitudes and vote choice? 3. What is the relationship between income and vote choice: o How did high/middle/low income whites vote? o How did high/middle/low income blacks vote? o How did high/middle/low income Latinx people vote? o How did high/middle/low income Asians vote? 4. What is the relationship between sexist attitudes and vote choice? o Does/how does this relationship change if the respondent thinks undocumented immigrants should stay in the US? o Does/how does this relationship change if the respondent thinks undocumented immigrants should be deported? o Which variable (sexism or immigration attitudes) do you think matters more: sexism or opinions on undocumented immigrants? In Assignment 8, you should have come up with an argument or hypothesis to answer each question. The Results section is where you will use the figures to see if the argument you made is right. The figures come from cross-tabulations of the dependent variable (vote choice) by each of the independent variables. The first two figures come directly from the analysis program in SETUPS. Ignore the color choices. They are determined automatically, which unfortunately made Clinton red and Trump blue. The second two figures, which are more complex and include more information, were made in Excel. I combined all of the information into a single figure for each question so that you do not have to interpret four figures per question. The Results part of the assignment should follow the format of figure then explanation for each of the questions above. Your explanation should address all of the results that are presented in the figure and, above all, answer the questions. Given that you have already provided answers/hypotheses, you should state whether your suspected answer is correct. I provide an example of how your Results section should look using the last question below. After your Results section, you will write the Discussion section of your paper. As a reminder, here is what your Discussion section should include: • • • • • Reiterate the research question and state the major findings from your analyses. Explain the meaning of your findings and in particular answer the question of what explains the results you observed. This is especially important if any of your findings are surprising, unexpected, or conflict with the existing literature. Address why your findings are important. Answer the question of why your classmates, society, and I should care about what you found. How do your findings help us understand the world, current politics, an important problem, etc.? Address how your findings relate to findings in the literature you cited. What are the similarities? What are the differences? Do your findings address any gaps or inconsistencies in the literature and, if so, how? Address alternative explanations for your findings. Your findings and discussion throughout your paper likely point to a particular explanation at this point. This explanation is going to become your thesis. You should, however, also pay attention to other potential explanations for your findings—other reasons why you found what you did. These will likely come from the literature and you may have to go back and reread a few sources to find them. Results Example Vote by Sexism by Immigration Attitudes Overall, increasing sexism decreases the likelihood of voting for Clinton. Increasing leniency for undocumented immigrants increases voting for Clinton. Each of the lines above represents a group of people with particular views on undocumented immigrants. Each line slopes down, more or less. This means that for each group of people, the more sexist their views are, the less likely they were to vote for Secretary Clinton. That relationship (more sexist, fewer people voting for Clinton) seems to generally exist for all groups, except for people who think the undocumented should remain in the U.S. without penalties. Sexism had little influence over the way these people voted. In comparison to views on undocumented immigration, sexism seems to have had less of an influence on how people voted. Looking at all four lines, the change in the percentage of people voting for Clinton moving from low sexism to high sexism ranges between 20 and 40 points. For example, consider people who think it should be a felony to enter the country illegally and that individuals who have entered illegally should be deported. At the lowest level of sexism, about 40\% of these individuals voted for Clinton. At the highest level of sexism, almost 20\% voted for Clinton, a difference of just over 20 points. For one of the more moderate groups, those who think the undocumented should remain in the U.S., but with penalties or requirements, 80\% of those at the lowest level of sexism voted for Clinton. At the highest level of sexism, 40\% voted for Clinton, a difference of 40 points. Attitudes on undocumented immigration seem to have a much larger effect on voting behavior. At its smallest (for people with the lowest level of sexism), the difference between those who think undocumented immigrants should be deported and those who think undocumented immigrants should remain without penalties is over 50 points. At its largest, this gap is over 80 points. Figures to Use in Your Paper Analysis for Question 1 Analysis for Question 2 Analysis for Question 3 Vote by Income by Race 100 90 Percent Vote for Clinton 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 < $20K $20-$35K White $35-$55K $55-$80K Income Level Black Latinx Analysis for Question 4 Vote by Sexism by Immigration Attitudes $80-$125K Asian > $125K 1 Carlos A. Salinas Cruz Professor: Sherman Lee POL 225 05/13/2020 An Annotated Bibliography: 2016 Presidential Campaign Bakir, Vian, and Andrew McStay. Fake news and the economy of emotions: Problems, causes, solutions. Digital Journalism 6.2 (2018): 154-175. In this article, the authors examined the 2016 US presidential elections campaign aiming at identifying hitches with origins of or resolutions to the current fake newscast phenomenon. In ensuring that they offered credible information, the authors employed textual feedback and analysis from engagement, panels, or meetings with technologists, non-profits, media, academics, public relations, and analytics firms. Bakir et al. note that bogus news might have prejudiced the 2016 presidential election results. The authors indicate that journalists drew a significant quantity of counterfeit news surge on Facebook throughout the 2016 presidential voting campaign to computer science scholars and youngsters in Macedonia who created multiple United States policy websites. The source is relevant to my research since the authors indicate that regardless of if the bogus news influenced the election, prevalent recirculating of untruths posturing as news cannot portend well for realistic foundations where citizens form ideas and states consequential democratic health. 2 Conley, Brian. Thinking What He Says: Market Research and the Making of Donald Trump’s 2016 Presidential Campaign. Political Marketing in the 2016 US Presidential Election. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham, 2018. 29-48. In this article, the author assesses the degree to which Trumps campaign depended on a market study in determining who was targeted by the movement and how Trump was positioned with precise voter segments. According to Conley, a lot has been done concerning the eccentric nature of Trumps 2016 campaign. The author notes that Trumps will to indulge in offense and individual attack politics to his almost total dependence on massive rallies and made media made him defy what a presidential contender is anticipated to act. However, Conley notes that Trump did one thing which must benefit USA presidential candidates. The author notes that Trump established his main communication and strategy, placing on thorough research considerate of how some voters besieged by his ideologies behaved or thought diplomatically. The source is relevant for my research because it reviews the exclusive role which market study plays in marketpositioned politics. Consequently, the author evaluates how vital research-established voter separation and target occurred in Trumps general policy alignment. Darwish, Kareem, Walid Magdy, and Tahar Zanouda. Trump vs. Hillary: What went viral during the 2016 US presidential election. International conference on social informatics. Springer, Cham, 2017. This article highlights what transpired throughout the 2016 US presidential voting. Darwish et al. presented a qualitative or quantitative analysis concerning the topmost tweets about the US elections from 1st September 2016 to 8th November 2016, which was the voting date. In making their study credible, the authors marked the top fifty most retweeted opinions as attacking or supporting either candidate. From the results, the authors highlighted some differences amidst 3 social media approaches for both contenders, message diffusion, and the possible effect of bouts. The source is relevant since the authors showed that Trumps campaigns appeared more effective compared to that of Clinton. The movements were effective in promoting campaign actions in swing regions. Enli, Gunn. Twitter as an arena for the authentic outsider: exploring the social media campaigns of Trump and Clinton in the 2016 US presidential election. European journal of communication 32.1 (2017): 50-61. In this article, the authors explore twitter as an arena through which campaigns of Clinton and Trump in the 2016 presidential vote occurred. The author notes that during the 2016 US elections crusade, social media channels were gradually utilized as an unswerving news source where it bypassed editorial media. According to Enli, Twitter is nowadays a podium for mass communiqué and the contenders main online info channel, considering candidates have millions of followers. Also, the author notes that social media has offered a channel for critiquing and debating the conventional media through networks and campaigns. The source is relevant for my research since it discusses the twitter strategies applied by Clinton and Trump throughout the US 2016 premier election campaigns. Enli notes that whereas the Clinton campaign strategy confirmed theories regarding election professionalism campaigns, the Trump campaigns appeared more unprofessional. Yet, reliable elegance in social media pointed toward de-professionalism as a counter-drift in political communication. 4 Guess, Andrew, Brendan Nyhan, and Jason Reifler. Selective exposure to misinformation: Evidence from the consumption of fake news during the 2016 US presidential campaign. European Research Council 9 (2018): 1-49. This article discusses selective acquaintance to misinformation by deriving evidence from consuming fake newscasts in the 2016 presidential campaigning. The author notes that despite warnings concerning online echo chambers, being hyperbolic propensities towards selective acquaintance to diplomatically amiable content is probably leading to misrepresentation and being aggravated via social media channels. In making their research credible, the authors tested the prediction utilizing data on accurately dubious articles termed as fake news. From the data estimation, the authors established that around 1 in 4 Americans checked a counterfeit news site from October 7-November 14, 2016. Guess et al., indicated that Trump followers are the one who saw most bogus news sites which were devastatingly pro-Trump. The source is relevant for my research since the authors noted that counterfeit news consumption augmented substantially as the 2016 voting approached. Therefore, the article shall offer broad knowledge concerning the issue of fake news during the 2016 presidential campaign. Hart, Roderick P. The people’s voice during the 2016 presidential campaign. American Behavioral Scientist 61.6 (2017): 566-583. In this article, the authors examined the 2016 presidential movement by comparing peoples voice with that of political establishment and press. In making their source credible, the authors collected some five thousand texts during the crusade and compared them with 1200 letters to the editor scripted in twelve minor American metropolises. According to Hart, the 2016 presidential campaign appeared to have sharper relief after comparing the sample texts with similar ones gathered from 1948 through 2012. Hart notes that the 2016 presidential campaign is an exciting 5 site for study. The author indicates that Trump and Clinton performed various unorthodox things during the campaign, where they combined traditional and social media campaigns with considerable serendipity amounts. According to Hart, the press also established new customs through blanketing the crusade with Web-based exposure 24/7 running an unparalleled number of civic opinion polls and offering Trump with approximately $2 billion value of free broadcasting coverage. The source is relevant for my research since the author established that all trio voices, including politicians, people, and the press were more philosophical and stringent in 2016 compared to prior years. Howard, Philip N., Samuel Woolley, and Ryan Calo. Algorithms, bots, and political communication in the US 2016 election: The challenge of automated political communication for election law and administration. Journal of information technology & politics 15.2 (2018): 81-93. This article discusses algorithms, bots as well as political communication in the 2016 election. Howard et al., notes that political communiqué is a process of placing information, technology together with media in power provision. The authors illustrated how political bots are used in manipulating public view and explaining how systems are the critical new realm of investigation for political communication scholars. According to Howard et al., in the US 2016 elections, highly automatic accounts were utilized in spreading politically inspired rumors, sharing junk newscasts, and providing U ... Purchase answer to see full attachment