Kamala Harris, once heralded by many as progressive and resilient, is now facing intense scrutiny from supporters and external political figures. Allegations of plagiarism, compounded by her tenuous hold on certain voter demographics, stir skepticism even among Democrats.
MIG Reports analysis of social media discussions shows a fracture among her supporters, oscillating between ardent loyalty and disillusionment. Her alignment—or lack thereof—with other Democratic leaders also continues to raise questions.
EXCLUSIVE: In 2007, Kamala Harris plagiarized pages of Congressional testimony from a Republican colleague.
And in 2012, she plagiarized a fictionalized story about sex trafficking—but presented it as a real case.
I'm usually pretty skeptical about plagiarism claims, but the case made here about Kamala's 2009 book on criminal justice is very strong. Major sections just copied wholesale with no attribution: https://t.co/kNFx8LoTkF
Harris supporters have mixed emotions in response to the plagiarism allegations. Some simply dismiss them, while others express serious doubt.
35-48% remain supportive, brushing off the accusations as politically charged attacks meant to damage her influence and reputation.
25-34 are disappointed, struggling to reconcile the allegations with their previously held perceptions of Harris’s integrity.
Critical voices hint at an underlying fragility in her base, where loyalty wavers under the weight of unrelenting controversies.
14-20% are indifferent and, while supporters, they see the allegations as part of the “usual” political spectacle.
Indifference may also suggest a pragmatic acceptance of flaws in a similar way to Trump supporters remaining unmoved by recent allegations.
Major publications like the L.A. Times and Washington Post have also broken tradition by withholding endorsement. This hints at a growing establishment belief that Harris cannot win. Her exclusion from high-profile endorsements and the swing-state campaign discourse heightens this sense of resignation.
NEWS: The Washington Post will not be making an endorsement in this year's presidential race, the editor of the editorial pages has told colleagues at a tense meeting this morning
Scoop: The LA Times will not endorse a candidate for president this year, a decision that was made by the paper's owner Patrick Soon-Shiong. The LA Times has endorsed Democratic presidential candidates each cycle since 2008 https://t.co/uS3hETkLQV
Some Democrats frame the plagiarism accusations as a manufactured controversy orchestrated by partisan actors. The persistent refrain of “political hit job” or “treacherous media” underscores a belief that Harris is being unjustly targeted.
The narrative that suggests media and rivals are weaponizing these allegations against Harris is often a coping mechanism, fostering a sense of solidarity against perceived injustice.
As sentiment toward Harris plummets, down-ballot Democratic candidates in swing states are beginning to promote their alignment with certain Trump-like positions. Harris’s presence is conspicuously absent from their campaigns, corroborating fracture withing the party. A defensive framing of Harris’s campaign suggests recognition that her influence within the party is waning.
Every Dem Senator featuring Trump in their ads should be asked if they agree with this. https://t.co/iNRxDtvyI9
Around 30% of the discussion attempts to redirect the conversation toward her middle-class advocacy and other progressive achievements. By emphasizing her policy work over the plagiarism allegations, supporters attempt to gloss over the controversy. The media is also noticeably absent in discussions and reporting on plagiarism allegations.
Resilience or Denial?
Harris defenders use language of defiance and resilience, with terms like “manipulative narrative” and “smear tactics” in her defense.
They focus on her advocacy as a “fight for justice” and use inclusive language like “together we can” to create a collective identity. This rhetoric reveals reluctance to confront the implications of the plagiarism allegations head-on.
People use emotionally charged language—often bitter and at times hostile—suggesting frustration about Harris’s electability and leadership. Expressions of indignation, combined with sentiments of abandonment reveal the sense of doom many Harris supporters seem to be adopting.
A CNN town hall with Kamala Harris, hosted by Anderson Cooper, foments skepticism and disillusionment toward her candidacy. Across the board, responses indicate her performance failed to sway voters who are already critical of her. Many vocally express their preferences for Trump or suggest they will abstain from voting.
😂 David Axelrod on Kamala's Town Hall: "When she doesn’t want to answer, she goes to 'WORD SALAD CITY.'"
Anderson asked about Israel—“Would she be stronger than Trump?” After seven minutes, we were still lost in the salad and never got to the dressing! #CNNTownHallpic.twitter.com/vyDl3C5y6r
MIG Reports data shows a strong inclination away from support for Kamala Harris. Only about 20% of online discussions express any intent to vote for her. Even these comments often mixed support with a sense of reluctance or criticism.
Between 50-69% voice a preference other than Harris—mainly Trump. About 25% say they are completely indifferent to voting at all, citing feelings of disillusionment with the entire political landscape. These individuals are frustrated with both major parties and feeling alienated by the current state of U.S. politics.
Kamala Harris: "I may not have the answer as soon as you ask it about a specific policy sometimes because I'm gonna want to research it...I'm kind of a nerd sometimes ha ha ha ha ha! I confess!" pic.twitter.com/Rsa7zRQJvn
Most voters responding to Harris’s town halls have already formed strong opinions. They say her performance only solidifies these existing views. Her answers during the broadcast entrench long-held frustrations, particularly around her credibility and leadership.
Many also say her media appearances only confirm their intention to vote for Trump or another candidate. Issues like immigration, economic management, and her consistent evasiveness during when questioned only further cement negative views.
Those who have changed their minds say their perspectives have shifted from neutrality or mild curiosity to one of firm opposition. For these voters, Harris’s responses—particularly on issues like the border and economic policies—lack depth and authenticity, leading them to reject her candidacy altogether.
First-Person vs. Third-Person
An analysis of first-person versus third-person language usage sheds light on the emotional investment and detachment voters feel toward Harris.
First-person comments are highly personal, voicing frustration or disillusionment with things like, “I will vote for Trump,” “I vehemently disagree with Harris.” These comments frame reactions within the voter’s own experiences and personal stakes. This suggests people view the election as having direct consequences for their lives.
Most of the discussion is presented using third-person language, using a more detached and analytical tone. Voters critique Harris’s candidacy from a distance, frequently referring to her in broad terms like, “Harris is incompetent,” “Her campaign is a disaster.” This shift puts distance between their personal experience and Harris as a symbol of the political establishment.
Voters use words like “liar,” “fraud,” and “disaster” to describe Harris, painting her as an ineffective politician and failed leader. They say they feel betrayal and that Harris and the Democratic Party are out of touch or elitist.
Comments focusing on specific policy critiques—such as Harris’s stance on border security—often contain fear-based rhetoric, invoking terms like “drug cartels” and “terrorists” to amplify a sense of urgency and failure. Meanwhile, more reflective comments question Harris’s integrity and authenticity, with some calling for greater accountability and transparency from political leaders in general.
jesus -- Dana Bash says she's hearing from people that Harris failed "to close the deal." These folks are gonna bothsides us straight into fascism. pic.twitter.com/XwGpxWKj8q
Recent news of Bill Gates being called to stand trial in the Netherlands over COVID-19 vaccine injuries shocked Americans. MIG Reports shows low discussion volume on this topic, likely connected to scant news reports and online search results.
Among those discussing it, responses express opposition to the civil trial, driven by skepticism of the legal process. Many see the trial as politically motivated, portraying Gates as a scapegoat for broader global issues.
One of the few people shining a spotlight on this story is RFK Jr., who announced the story during a rally to loud applause.
RFK Jr: “Bill Gates has just been indicted—”
Crowd cheers
RFK: “He’s been indicted in the Netherlands for lying to the public about the Covid vaccine.”
Google search trends suggest this story has not yet gained significant traction online in the U.S. MIG Reports data parallels this pattern, with low discussion volume and little conversation about Gates and vaccines.
Opposition to Civil Lawsuit
Americans who are talking about it voice skepticism about the lawsuit’s legitimacy, viewing it as a political stunt or an attempt to divert attention from larger issues. Many believe targeting Gates is part of a broader conspiracy aimed at manipulating public opinion. Some cite his wealth and influence as symbols of global corruption.
Skeptical comments include:
"This is just a political move, nothing more."
"Gates knows too much—they're coming for him to silence him."
Some discussions also pain Gates as involved in shadowy global schemes, linking his role in the pandemic to a larger, surreptitious globalist agenda. This sentiment is especially strong among young people and conservatives who distrust establishment elites.
Support for Targeting Bill Gates
Around 30% of commenters express support for the lawsuit. They say Gates, due to his role in promoting COVID vaccines, should be held accountable for the alleged harm they caused.
This group, often composed of older users and those critical of the vaccine rollout, sees the indictment as a long-awaited form of justice and validation of their concerns.
Supportive comments include:
"Finally, someone is paying for the damage they've caused!"
"This is just the beginning of exposing the truth about vaccines."
For critics, Gates is more than a public figure. They view him as representing the unchecked power elites wielded during the pandemic response. Many see the trial as a crucial step toward transparency and accountability in public health.
More voters are saying the Democratic campaign is in a panic, scrambling to find any avenue to reach the dwindling number of voters still up for grabs. Voters, pundits, and analysts are all discussing the unexpected trend showing Donald Trump gaining significant traction with surprising new groups.
Moderates, Independents, and disillusioned Democrats are increasingly saying they intend to vote for Trump. This shift leaves the Harris campaign scrambling to adjust.
Voter Shift Analysis
MIG Reports data of all political conversations online suggests a possible likelihood of:
30% of voters who did not vote for either Trump or Biden in 2020 saying they’re now leaning toward Trump.
15% of the same group of non-supporters say they're considering Harris.
These projections foreshadow serious concerns for the Harris campaign and among Democratic voters. Those were previously disillusioned with both Trump and Biden may be feeling motivated to turn out—and early voting numbers seem to confirm the growing energy and enthusiasm in this election. MIG Reports data shows around 45% of those who sat out in 2020 are breaking 2:1 for Trump.
Democrats are Horrified at Increasing Trump Support
As some moderates, Independents, never-Trump Republicans, and disillusioned Democrats shift their support, Democrats express disbelief and concern. MIG Reports analysis shows the top reactions among Democrats include:
Frustrationat Voter Priorities
New Trump voters expressing their fledgling support for him draws incredulity from Democrats. Those on the left emphasize issues like abortion and “preserving democracy” as priorities all voters should rally behind.
Disbeliefand Anger
Some Democrats are outraged at how former critics of Trump are now turning favorably toward his message. They vehemently assert that defecting Republicans claiming to vote for Harris are wiser than disillusioned swing voters opting to vote Trump.
AlarmOver Economic Messaging
Even among Party loyalists, there is concern about focusing on social issues over a clear economic plan. They say perceptions that Biden and Harris have failed on inflation and job security is pushing voters toward Trump.
Disillusionmentwith Harris’s Leadership
Many Democrats are questioning Kamala Harris’s leadership, particularly on border security and economic reform. There’s a growing sense that Harris’s style isn’t resonating with the base or potential swing voters.
Economic Concerns Fuel Voter Migration
The most significant driver behind Trump’s new support is dissatisfaction with the economy under the Biden-Harris administration. Voters across party lines say they’re unhappy with:
Rising inflation
Higher cost of living
A lack of economic leadership
For many, Trump’s record on the economy—especially pre-COVID—is a time of great nostalgia. They recall lower inflation, tax cuts, and job growth under his administration. Despite Harris’s emphasis on social issues, voters are prioritizing immediate economic stability. Democrats, especially moderates, acknowledge the economy will be a deciding factor in 2024.
Harris’s Leadership Under Fire
Kamala Harris’s lack of leadership also draws sharp criticism, even from within her own party. Key concerns include:
Unsatisfactory national security and foreign policy measures
Inaction on economic challenges
Disillusioned moderates and Independents are shifting to Trump because they feel Harris lacks the vigor needed to lead decisively and with authority. Many view her as disconnected from the concerns of working-class and middle-class Americans, essential voter groups in battleground states.
Religious and Cultural Disconnect
Harris has also faced backlash for her recent comments on religious and cultural issues. One notable incident occurred during a rally where, in response to a crowd member shouting “Jesus is Lord,” she said, “You’re at the wrong rally.”
Voters who prioritize their faith, especially Christians, say this kind of response pushes them toward Trump. They view him as making religious freedom a core issue. Many religious voters say:
Trump aligns more closely with their values.
The Democratic Party is increasingly hostile to people of faith.
This disconnect further solidifies Trump’s appeal to religious and culturally conservative voters.
Cross-Party Support for Trump Worries Democrats
What alarms Democrats most is Trump’s growing appeal across party lines. Moderates and Independents who previously rejected Trump are reconsidering him because:
They see him as a stabilizing force, particularly on national security and immigration.
Harris’s campaign has failed to offer a compelling alternative.
Strong anti-establishment sentiments are opposing the Democratic establishment.
New GOP promises of reform in areas like immigration, taxes, and health.
For many voters, the choice is less about supporting Trump enthusiastically and more about rejecting Harris. This presents a structural problem for Democrats, who are losing critical segments of the electorate to a candidate they once believed was capped by a “ceiling” of support.
The Fabled Trump Ceiling May be Cracking
For years, analysts have operated under the assumption that Trump has a ceiling of support. That assumption is now under threat.
With new voters flocking to Trump, particularly from groups which have historically leaned Democratic, the former president’s support could exceed expectations. If Democrats don’t adjust their strategy quickly—especially by addressing economic and cultural concerns—they may find themselves losing not just swing voters, but key parts of their base as well.
New votes leaning toward Trump isn’t about enthusiasm for his personality, but largely dissatisfaction with Democratic leadership. This election hinges on who can better connect with voters’ economic and cultural anxieties—and right now, Trump has the edge.
Yesterday, the Telegraph published a story alleging former model Stacey Williams was introduced to Donald Trump through Jeffery Epstein in 1993. She claims she was groped by Trump and the timing of her allegations have nothing to do with the impending election.
The latest Trump accuser Stacey Williams says she "can't control" that this is coming out 2 weeks before the election, and that it's all "coincidental."
CNN then says she made her support for Kamala "very clear" in their interview.
Within hours, many dismissed the story, attributing it to a politically motivated smear campaign by the mainstream media. Many pointed out that Jeffery Epstein didn’t live in the Upper East Side of New York until 1996.
The liar in this story claims that she went on a walk with Epstein in 1993 by his Upper East Side home when he took her to see Trump.
The believability of this story is predictably divided, revealing strong partisan and demographic patterns in public sentiment.
40% of comments say they believe the story.
Among these, many frame it within broader concerns about misogyny, women’s rights, and accountability.
The believe narratives about Trump's alleged poor treatment of women in the past.
This group is mostly younger audiences, women, and left leaning Democrats.
Skepticism and dismissal dominate the rest of the discourse, particularly among Trump supporters and older demographics.
Around 45-50% of view the story as a politically motivated attack, dismissing it as predictable in the relentless media-driven smears against Trump.
This group says the allegation is part and parcel of ongoing efforts to undermine Trump's political career with false accusations.
They use terms like "witch hunt" and "fake news" to express their skepticism—especially among male commenters.
There is clear cynicism about the impact of such stories in an already polarized political environment. Many also believe bombshells like this are “baked into the cake” in the sense that most voters are used to similar allegations against Trump.
15% of comments are ambivalent or neutral, suggesting the allegations are commonplace in politics and don't sway their opinions.
This group, often politically disillusioned or disengaged, emphasizes the need for substantiation before making judgments.
There is also less fervor and emotion in their responses, unlike the supporters and critics.
MIG Reports data shows, following the revelation, Trump increased in overall sentiment. At the same time, sentiment toward Harris marginally dropped. This suggests, with high confidence, that voters are not significantly swayed by the story, and Trump voter will likely maintain support, even if they’re not vocal about it.
Overall, belief in the story aligns with societal divisions, where pre-existing political views and social dynamics shape the narrative. While those aligned against Trump are more likely to believe and express outrage, supporters overwhelmingly view the allegation as another unfounded political attack, reinforcing existing polarization.
Recent assertions by “The Atlantic” claim Donald Trump expressed admiration for Hitler’s generals, igniting a firestorm discussion. Reactions span from outright condemning Trump to fierce defense.
The article also starts by recalling the murder of a U.S. soldier, Vanessa Guillén, whose funeral Trump allegedly promised to pay for, only to renege when he discovered it cost $60,000. Guillén’s surviving sister spoke out against “The Atlantic’s” characterization of how Trump treated her family, also adding that she voted for him.
Wow. I don’t appreciate how you are exploiting my sister’s death for politics- hurtful & disrespectful to the important changes she made for service members. President Donald Trump did nothing but show respect to my family & Vanessa. In fact, I voted for President Trump today. https://t.co/o8cDrKOKBV
Further expanding on this story, Kamala Harris made public statements condemning Trump for his alleged affinity for Hitler. Her entire remarks focusing on portraying Trumps as a threat to the country stirred more controversy online.
Vice President Harris: "It is deeply troubling and incredibly dangerous that Donald Trump would invoke Adolf Hitler...this is a window into who Donald Trump really is from the people who know him best." pic.twitter.com/WKu4xFXRl8
These incidents also come just days after former President Barack Obama said, "I don't understand how we got so toxic and just so divided and so bitter." Many view Obama’s confusion as disingenuous since he has been known as a divisive figure himself.
Barack Obama: "I don't understand how we got so toxic and just so divided and so bitter." pic.twitter.com/OWj3uicQ1o
In voter discussions, those who believe Trump made the alleged comments is between 30-40%. Supporters largely reject the claim, viewing it as fabricated or exaggerated by the media to tarnish Trump’s image. Skepticism toward mainstream media is a recurring theme, with phrases like “fake news” often used to describe coverage of the story.
Critics find the claim believable, aligning it with their pre-existing perceptions of Trump’s leadership style. This group say the report fits a pattern they observe in his past rhetoric, making the story plausible in their eyes.
Predictable Patterns
Young voters under 35 are more likely to express outrage and concern. They frame Trump’s comments as demonstrating the danger of populism. This demographic often seeks historical parallels, like Hitler, to make their points about Trump.
Older voters over 50 tend to defend Trump or dismiss the claim as media exaggeration. They view Trump’s comments through the lens of traditional conservative values and are generally less concerned with historical comparisons to authoritarian regimes.
Urban voters voice alarm at Trump’s alleged comments, often citing exposure to diverse viewpoints as potentially dangerous and worrying about rising authoritarianism.
Rural votersare more likely to see the claims as part of a liberal agenda to discredit Trump, reinforcing their support for him as a counterbalance to perceived urban elitism.
Linguistic Analysis
Trump supporters use phrases like, “GOD BLESS AMERICA,” “fake news,” and “deep state.” They have a sense of nationalistic pride and a belief that Trump shares the values they hold dear. Many often outright dismiss accusations of authoritarianism or references to Hitler from the left and the media, citing them as tired and overused.
Critics use language of moral and ethical concern, casting doubt on Trump’s character. Words like “fascist,” “tyranny,” and “authoritarianism” frequently appear in their comments. They believe Trump’s rhetoric is dangerous and symptomatic to his authoritarian leanings. Critical language seeks to link Trump’s behavior to past instances of dictatorship, like Hitler.
Both sides use religious overtones in their discourse. Words like “evil” and “moral decay” suggest the political divide is framed not just in terms of governance but as part of a larger moral struggle. This adds emotional weight to the conversation and further entrenches the tribalism seen in political dialogue.
Online voter sentiment toward Kamala Harris and Donald Trump is often negativity, particularly for Harris. Her digital strategy and media appearances especially turn off voters who doubt the authenticity of her campaign messaging.
Disproportionate Negativity for Harris
Across social media, 67% of discussions mentioning Harris are negative. Sentiment toward Trump is more positive, with 60-65% of discussions expressing admiration for his leadership, primarily on economic issues and national identity.
Support for Harris drops as low as 20% in several instances, but never surpasses 50% positive sentiment. This is even true among younger, diverse, and progressive demographics, her opposition is both vocal and persistent.
This opposition criticizes her as a political insider entrenched in establishment politics. much of the commentary focuses on her failure to inspire confidence and the inauthenticity of her campaign.
Even left-leaning media outlets like CNN are critical of Harris’s online presence, calling out the KamalaHQ campaign account for deceiving voters.
Meanwhile, Trump's opposition, around 33% of the discussion, often involves accusations that he incites division and actively undermines democratic values.
Trump Has Stronger Engagement on Social Media
A significant disparity in social media engagement numbers and follower counts draws contrast between Trump and Harris. Data from Social Blade shows the differences in reach and interaction, which plays a critical role in shaping overall sentiment online.
TikTok
Trump has 12.2 million followers compared to Harris’s 6.1 million.
Engagement for Trump is also higher, with 74.5 million likes to Harris’s 63.6 million.
Despite Harris maintaining steady follower growth, Trump’s rapid increase in likes and followers shows his dominance.
Key issues like immigration and nationalism drive Trump’s engagement and support.
Twitter (X)
Trump boasts 91.8 million X followers, far outpacing Harris’s 21.2 million.
This significant difference in reach means Trump’s X posts can garner more immediate attention and interaction.
Increased reach allows Trump to effectively mobilize supporters who respond to anti-establishment messages.
Harris’s smaller following and lower engagement hinder her ability to generate the same level of excitement and loyalty.
YouTube
Trump earned 140K subscribers and 20.1 million views on YouTube in the last 30 days, his totals are 3.5 million subscribers and over 891 million views.
Harris gained 94K subscribers and 21.5 million views, raising her totals to 639K subscribers and 71.8 million views.
While Trump maintains a broader reach, Harris’s recent growth in views slightly outpaced Trump's, showing a growing engagement with her content.
Identity Politics Doesn’t Trump the Economy
Harris’s campaign leans heavily on identity politics to gain support from black, Latino, and young progressive voters. The messaging strategy emphasizes Harris as a representative of diversity and inclusivity, framing her as the black female candidate voters need.
However, even within these groups there's skepticism. Black men particularly express doubt about her ability to address systemic racism. They are split, with some commenting on the Democratic Party's failure to bring about meaningful change and economic relief.
Though not heavily emphasizing identity politics, Trump support is strong with white, conservative, and rural demographics. His anti-establishment rhetoric resonates strongly in these groups. Trump voters view him as a leader fighting against a corrupt political system, emphasizing traditional values and national pride.
The GOP base expresses loyalty to Trump’s “America First” policies over identity, particularly on issues like immigration and economic recovery. Even his critics acknowledge his ability to capture the narrative and maintain a strong presence.
Demographics and Anti-Establishment Sentiment
Demographic support and opposition are complex. Black and Latino voters, who are traditionally Democratic voters, show signs of division in their social media discussion.
While many support Harris for her progressive stance, there is disillusionment with the Democratic establishment, indicating a growing anti-elite and anti-establishment sentiment that crosses racial lines. Americans are frustrated systemic neglect, and some black voters gravitate toward Trump as a defiant outsider.
Among white voters, many express unwavering support for Trump. They describe their loyalty as a cultural and political pushback against “elites” and “liberal politics.” This group views Harris as embodying the establishment, criticizing her failures to address issues like crime and border security.
Linguistic Analysis
The language used in social media commentary about both candidates is revealing, not just of surface-level opinions, but of deeper social and psychological patterns.
Kamala Harris faces an onslaught of derogatory language, particularly centered around her competence and identity as a woman of color.
Phrases like "incompetent" and gendered slurs are employed to undermine her authority.
Her critics use rhetorical questions and sarcasm to frame her as ineffective, casting doubt on her ability to lead.
Trump supporters often deploy hyperbolic language, framing him as a hero standing against powerful enemies.
Terms like "patriot," "savior," and "best president ever" are common, reinforcing a narrative of Trump as a fighter for the American people.
Even in negative commentary, the language about Trump focuses on moral accusations—such as threats to democracy—rather than questioning his leadership ability.
The linguistic patterns also reveal a striking difference in how each candidate's supporters and detractors position themselves. Trump's base uses simple, declarative statements that assert loyalty. Harris's supporters often couch their praise in defensive language, reflecting a less consolidated base.
Energy prices continue to rise, and American families are struggling to afford basics like air conditioning and washing machines. In California, many are giving personal testimonies of monthly electric bills over $1,800. This, many voters say, is unsustainable and cripplingly expensive. Some share stories of turning off appliances to make ends meet.
— Jenny, Girl from 4th 🌍, 鄰白廢物 🧠 🪱 (@JennyChachan) October 22, 2024
Voters are frustrated with government failures and misguided energy policies. They say it’s time for a leader who prioritizes economic reality over environmental idealism. The Biden-Harris administration, and specifically VP Harris, are central to the debate. Voters in California and across the country blame her governance strategies for the cost of energy and overall living expenses.
PG&E and Sky-High Utility Costs
A major part of the discussion about energy costs is directed at Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) and other utility companies. Voters across the political spectrum are dissatisfied with PG&E’s rate hikes, accusing the company of greed and poor management.
Voter Reactions
65% of the discussion is among middle-income voters who say rising utility prices directly impact their household budgets.
25% of the discussion is among lower-income voters who cannot afford energy bills and other necessities. Some say they must choose between food and power.
Higher-income voters, while more tolerant of short-term price increases, also criticize the strain. They often defend renewable energy alternatives but still call for immediate economic intervention.
Americans urgently want regulatory reforms and corporate accountability. There's a very loud contingent demanding deregulation in the energy industry. Republican voters particularly argue that government intervention is exacerbating the situation, stifling competition, and allowing monopolies like PG&E to thrive without checks.
Political Ramifications from Energy
Voters are saying they will align themselves with candidates who promise economic relief and energy independence. The first Trump administration is often nostalgically cited as a time of lower energy prices and economic prosperity. Voters are frustrated by the lack of clear, actionable plans from Harris, saying they don’t trust her to “turn the page” on policy.
Voter Alignment
Democratic Voters: 70% advocate for government intervention in energy pricing but express frustration at the inefficacy of current efforts.
Republican Voters: 60% believe deregulation and free-market competition will lower energy prices, viewing Democratic policies as economically harmful.
Independent Voters: 65% are anxious about rising energy costs and want pragmatic political solutions, regardless of party affiliation.
Environmental Idealism vs. Economic Realism
Criticism toward the Biden-Harris administration's energy policies often focuses on renewable energy. People criticize policies that prioritize environmentalism at the expense of practical economic concerns.
Voters say political leaders and those in urban areas are disconnected from the realities facing rural and middle-class Americans who depend on affordable energy.
Voter Sentiments
Rural voters are angry at the focus on environmental idealism, which ignores the economic struggle of working families.
Around 50% of voters discussing energy are skeptical of renewable energy transitions, particularly in states like California, where prices have skyrocketed.
Critics use terms like “death cult” to describe the administration's environmentalist push for renewable energy.
Drill Baby, Drill
Within energy discussions, some voters criticize Harris’s flip-flopping stance on fracking. The lack of clarity around her advocacy or opposition generates skepticism and critique. Voters in areas with high energy costs are not convinced of her commitment to maintaining jobs in the fossil fuel industry.
For regions dependent on oil and gas, such as Pennsylvania, voters are keenly aware of the risks posed by restrictive policies. As some voters put it, “You will lose your jobs,” if fracking is banned. Others stress rising energy prices will worsen economic strain.
Voter Reactions
65% of comments from middle-income voters are concerned about the strain of utility bills on household finances.
Voters view Harris’s inconsistent stance on fracking as a threat to jobs in oil and gas-rich regions, as well as the cost of energy overall.
In oil-dependent regions, voters connect fracking bans with immediate economic hardships.
The economic implications of banning or restricting fracking are clear to voters who see fossil fuels as a bridge to energy independence. For them, Harris’s ambiguity on the issue is a slap in the face to their livelihoods and economic stability.
Online discourse from Democratic and left-leaning voters about Harris shows a deepening sense of disillusionment. There was cautious optimism when Harris entered the race, which gradually transformed into frustration and despair. Now, many Democrats are wondering whether Harris can manage a win.
The Joy Is Gone
The primary sentiment among Democrats is frustration. Over time, more voters are voicing dissatisfaction with Harris’s inability to articulate plans for major issues like economic policy, immigration, and healthcare.
Phrases like “she’s done nothing” and “flip-flop Harris” exemplify a sense of betrayal. Many feel promises made during the current administration have gone unfulfilled, leading to a breakdown of trust.
This frustration is often compounded by a sense of nostalgia, with some voters looking back on Biden and even Trump’s leadership. Many want a leader who shows decisiveness and strength. Many voters feel let down by Harris’s lack of assertive leadership.
Both MIG Reports data and betting markets show a decline in voter confidence toward Harris since she entered the race.
MIG Reports data shows Trump gaining 53% support nationally to Harris’s 44%, increasing the gap in the last week.
On Polymarket, Trumps has the advantages at greater than 60% odds compared to Harris with less than 40%.
Personal Stakes in Language
Voters who express personal disappointment often use first-person pronouns such as “I” and “we,” emphasizing their emotional investment in the election and its outcome.
Comments like “I feel betrayed” or “I trusted her” showcase the personal stakes causing some to turn on Harris.
Third-person language reflects a more detached, analytical critique. Phrases like “Harris is failing us” or “her policies are destroying the economy” indicate a shift towards more generalized criticisms.
Faking The Funk
Demographic patterns in the discourse reveal a generational and identity-based divide. Younger critics are particularly vocal against Harris, using humor and sarcasm to voice their frustrations. They say her failure to engage with progressive issues such as climate change and economic justice are unsupportable.
Minority voters, especially black Americans, express dissatisfaction over what they see as unfulfilled promises aimed at their communities. They say identity politics, which once energized Harris’s base, now feels like a hollow strategy, disconnected from meaningful action.
Most moderate or conservative Democrats, particularly religious individuals, express disappointment with Harris’s stance on issues like transgender inclusion and Israel.
Sarcasm and humor frequently appear as coping mechanisms, helping voters express their disappointment. Terms like “pandering” and rhetorical questions such as “why should anyone trust her?” show skepticism toward Harris’s authenticity and ability to lead. Some even invoke moral and religious language, suggesting their critiques extend beyond policy failures to a broader sense of moral disappointment.
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)