New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

Tweets Reveal Politics of COVID-19 

Political scientists analyzed congressional tweets and observed how Republicans and Democrats responded differently to the virus. Christopher Intagliata reports. 

Illustration of a Bohr atom model spinning around the words Science Quickly with various science and medicine related icons around the text

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

The night of September 11th, President George W. Bush addressed the nation.

[CLIP: “Terrorist attacks can shake the foundations of our biggest buildings, but they cannot touch the foundation of America.”]

The next day, Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, a Democrat, said Congress stood united behind the president in condemning the attacks.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


[CLIP: “The world should know the members of both parties, in both houses, stand united in this.”]

“There was a lot of interparty unity. The messages the public was receiving were not politicized. There was a moment in which that could have happened around COVID. And to my surprise, it didn’t.”

Skyler Cranmer is a political scientist at the Ohio State University. His team analyzed tens of thousands of tweets sent out by members of Congress. The idea was to determine how and when COVID-19 became a politically divided issue. 

Cranmer says the split happened quickly. From mid-January to the end of March, Democrats sent nearly twice as many tweets about COVID-19 as did Republicans. And the two parties spoke about the virus differently. Democrats frequently used the words “health,” “testing” and “leave,” as in sick leave. Republicans tended to favor words like “together,” “China” and “business.” 

The findings are in the journal Science Advances. [Jon Green et al., Elusive consensus: Polarization in elite communication on the COVID-19 pandemic]

Cranmer says this division among political elites has serious consequences: it fractures the response of everyday Americans to the threat. If instead both parties had been united, he says ...

“The cues that would be sent to individuals would have led to more consistent behavior changes among the public—and probably slow the spread of disease and probably save lives.”

As Anthony Fauci said on a June 25 Facebook Live event with the Sacramento Press Club and CapRadio ...

[CLIP: “It should not be a political issue. It is purely a public health issue. Forget the politics. Look at the data.”]

—Christopher Intagliata

[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe