Question explored with the scientific record
Who won the 2020 election?
The evidence retrieved has nothing to say about who won the 2020 election.
Not one of the eight studies you provided—on COVID-19 mortality and voting [1], Twitter memes [2], campaign finance [3], Facebook emoji reactions [4], Singaporean constituency service [5], debate discourse analysis [6], rhetorical questions in debates [7], or border policy [8]—asks or answers the straightforward factual question of who received the most certified electoral votes on January 6, 2021. The scope of your question is "which candidate won the election," and the evidence block simply does not contain an official result, a vote count, or any adjudication of the outcome. There is no study of the final certified result here. The gap is the finding: the evidence you provided is entirely about secondary effects, discourse, and campaign dynamics, not about the binary winner-loser outcome.
My call: the evidence retrieved does not address this specific question at all. Confidence: not applicable, because there is no evidence to judge.
Sources examined 8
-
County-level association of COVID-19 mortality with 2020 United States presidential voting
A county-level ecological study showing that higher Covid-19 mortality in 2020 US counties was associated with a smaller increase in Democratic vote share from 2016 to 2020 and lower turnout after adjusting for sociodemographic and health characteristics.
DOI: 10.1016/j.puhe.2021.06.011 -
Dildoshops, Gritty, and Bernie’s Mittens: The Framing of American Politics Through Pop Cultural Memes
This qualitative study analyzes a Twitter meme corpus from the 2020 U.S. presidential election to show how pop-cultural memes framed events, fostered community and catharsis, and shaped political discourse and polarization through inductive thematic and discourse analysis of mem…
DOI: 10.17951/nh.2021.6.111-129 -
Money for Nothing? Financing the 2016 and 2020 U.S. Presidential Nomination Campaigns
Money matters in presidential nomination campaigns but being the top fundraiser is not a guarantee of victory; the 2016 and 2020 cycles show media exposure, endorsements, and coalition-building often outweigh sheer cash in securing the nomination.
DOI: 10.31261/polpre.2020.27.39-62 -
Likes vs. Loves (and Other Emoji Reactions): Facebook, Women, and the Gender Emoji Gap in US Election Campaigns
This study investigates whether a gender gap exists in Facebook emoji reactions to US political posts across three election cycles, finding that women more than men favor emoji reactions in 2016, with party and post tone moderating effects, and that Democratic candidates receive…
DOI: 10.1177/08944393231224535 -
Complementary Institutions in Authoritarian Regimes: The Everyday Politics of Constituency Service in Singapore
Meet-the-People Sessions (MPS) function as a complementary authoritarian institution that mitigates episodic weaknesses of other institutions, recruits and socializes party members, and performs hegemonic ideology, thereby entrenching authoritarianism rather than representing ci…
DOI: 10.1017/s1598240800009115 -
Othering and Polarization. Biden vs. Trump
This study applies Fairclough’s three-dimensional critical discourse analysis to the Biden–Trump 2020 first presidential debate to measure and compare 'othering' across description, interpretation, and explanation, concluding that Biden exhibits a stronger pattern of othering ac…
DOI: 10.47191/ijsshr/v5-i12-73 -
When rhetorical questions receive answers: On different types of answers to rhetorical questions in US presidential debatesEE. UU.
Two corpora of US presidential debates (1996–2012 and 2016–2020) show that about one third of rhetorical questions receive answers, with addressors mainly providing answers to reinforce implied claims and addressees often rejecting or contesting them, and notable differences in …
DOI: 10.17398/2660-7301.47.277 -
The Impact of Former President Trump’s Presidential Agenda on the U.S.-Mexican Border
Presidential border agendas from Clinton to Biden, spotlighting Trump, systemically securitized the U.S.–Mexico border, with a composite index linking policy emphasis to changes in border crossings and trade.
DOI: 10.22201/cisan.24487228e.2024.1.678