MIG Reports data has been revealing a growing sense that crypto voters are becoming important for the 2024 election. Ongoing public sentiment toward the Biden administration and Democratic stance on cryptocurrency has largely been negative. There is sharp skepticism and a sense of caution about Democrat approaches to regulation and crypto policy.

Many voters express concern about overregulation by Democrat-led initiatives, blaming figures like Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren, and SEC chair Gary Gensler. Crypto voters also fear Democrats will stifle innovation and drive cryptocurrency ventures out of the United States. People say the Biden administration's regulatory impulses are the same as those which led to increased inflation and financial instability.

With a crypto-friendly politician like J.D. Vance stepping into the spotlight as Donald Trump’s VP pick, crypto voters are coming back to the fore. Recent developments on the Democratic ticket have also opened an opportunity for Democrats to change their tune.

After Trump’s recent overtures to the crypto community, rumors began to swirl that Democratic nominee Kamala Harris may try to change Democratic positioning. However, her decision not to speak alongside Trump at the 2024 Bitcoin conference and allegations that she said Bitcoin is “money for criminals” do not seem to support this hypothesis.

JUST IN: Kamala Harris decided NOT to speak at #Bitcoin 2024 Conference in Nashville, CEO David Bailey confirms. pic.twitter.com/FSMVemzEGM

— Bitcoin Magazine (@BitcoinMagazine) July 24, 2024

Crypto Voters in Swing States

In swing states like Ohio, cryptocurrency discourse is growing. This group promotes the advantages of cryptocurrency and blockchain, suggesting these technologies should be embraced to create more accessible and inclusive financial systems. They view market volatility as an opportunity rather than a threat.

While still somewhat a niche group, their presence in swing states indicates a growing interest in non-traditional economic policies, particularly resonating with those disillusioned by traditional financial institutions.

Voters in critical states express varying degrees of enthusiasm and concern over the growth of cryptocurrency. There is increased buzz with political positioning from high-profile figures like Donald Trump and J.D. Vance.

Sentiment toward cryptocurrency in these regions appears predominantly positive, marked by optimism about technological innovation. However, there is also an undercurrent of skepticism and concern regarding regulatory actions and the stability of digital currencies.

Concerns About Crypto Regulation

Concerns about regulatory overreach, particularly from the SEC, are prevalent. This is notable with social media speculation that Kamala Harris may mention Elizabeth Warren or Gary Gensler as potential Treasury Secretary under a Harris administration.

Hearing from Democrat insiders that Kamala Harris will name-check Elizabeth Warren or Gary Gensler for Treasury, Bernie Sanders for HHS, and get this - in order to motivate the liberal base - AOC for Defense! 🤯

— Jason Miller (@JasonMillerinDC) July 23, 2024

The SEC's stringent regulatory approach is seen as stifling innovation and driving businesses and investors away. Gary Gensler, the current SEC chair, is frequently mentioned negatively, reflecting dissatisfaction with his handling of crypto regulations.

Sentiment towards Kamala Harris and other Democrat leaders indicates an expectation for clear stances on crypto. Harris's emerging candidacy raises questions about her position on digital assets, given her lack of public comments on cryptocurrency.

Republicans Court Crypto Voters

J.D. Vance's selection as a potential VP candidate generates excitement within the crypto community due to his crypto-friendly stance. This includes his criticisms of the SEC and calls for more relaxed and clear crypto regulations. His substantial Bitcoin investments and advocacy for the industry are seen as a promising sign for future policies.

The influence of Silicon Valley and tech entrepreneurs plays a significant role in the narrative. Some approve of a potential alliance between the tech sector and conservative politics, motivated by shared interests in minimizing regulatory burdens and fostering innovation.

The Importance of Crypto Voters

A growing audience views crypto as a pivotal issue in upcoming elections, both in swing states and nationally. However, there seems to be a generational divide where younger, tech-savvy voters gravitate towards crypto-friendly candidates and older voters may not.

The anticipation of regulatory clarity and favorable policies from a Trump-Vance administration contrasts sharply with fears of continued regulatory crackdowns under a similar Democratic regime. This divide may well be a critical factor in determining the sway of crypto voters in the next election cycle.

Overall, the importance of crypto voters is projected to be substantial in both swing states and the national election.

American views of DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas currently revolve around the recent assassination attempt on former President Donald Trump and the resignation of Secret Service Director Kimberly Cheatle. Online conversations reflect an intense scrutiny of the Secret Service's role in security failures and raise numerous concerns about potential cover-ups by federal agencies. Public sentiment strongly centers on accountability and transparency, primarily driven by a deeper distrust of government institutions.

There is a pervasive belief that Cheatle’s resignation is a move orchestrated to protect Mayorkas. Many voice skepticism and outrage over the perceived manipulation and mishandling of investigations related to the assassination attempt.

Trending Discussions

Voters demand more transparency and accountability from both the Secret Service, DHS, and the FBI. There is a significant emphasis on obtaining access to various forms of communications—radio, text, and emails—as well as forensic evidence. People want answers about shell casing locations and weapon descriptions. Witness statements, social media activity, and cell phone data from the shooter are also highly sought after by the public.

Many see Director Cheatle’s resignation as part of a larger "cover-up" to protect higher-ups, most notably Alejandro Mayorkas. Discussion frequently mentions deleted Secret Service text messages from January 6, which heightens suspicions of ulterior motives and hidden truths.

There is a persistent belief that Mayorkas or other leaders denied essential resources and support which could have prevented the assassination attempt, lending credence to conspiracy theories perpetuated by the public.

Sentiment Trends

Voter sentiment toward Alejandro Mayorkas is overwhelmingly negative, driven by accusations multi-agency conspiracies against Donald Trump. The public feels strongly that Mayorkas, Cheatle, and others should be held accountable. There are calls for their arrests and charges for accessories to attempted murder.

This intense scrutiny is exacerbated by fresh revelations in media reports, such as inconsistencies in statements from the Secret Service and Mayorkas’ office. These inconsistencies further fuels distrust toward investigators and leaders.

There are also claim from the founder of the social media platform Gab, that the shooter may have had a Gab account on which he posted support for Biden. This contradicts media and Democrat narratives denying that the shooter had a social media presence.

🚨Approximately 30 minutes ago, Gab learned that Thomas Crooks, the deranged Joe Biden supporter who attempted to assassinate President Donald Trump, may have had an account on our platform. We are unable to confirm that the account in question actually belonged to him.

The… pic.twitter.com/BcJrZJ4Yhk

— Andrew Torba (@BasedTorba) July 24, 2024

Sentiment trends indicate a profoundly polarized environment, with discussions frequently boiling over into demands for impeachment and broader political consequences. Furthermore, the public's reaction underscores a boiling distrust in government institutions and a belief that significant conspiracies are regularly hidden from view.

Impact on Voters

With these scandals and growing distrust, undecided voters in swing states and nationally may play a decisive role in the election. The way this situation unfolds and how it is handled could influence voter perceptions of the current administration's integrity and competence.

Critical voter groups will inevitably look to how the government addresses these accusations. A perceived cover-up or failure to transparently address the assassination attempt on Donald Trump could sway votes towards him. Especially if he continues to promise accountability and transparency.

Online discussions about Vice President Kamala Harris and her role as “Border Czar” under President Joe Biden is notably critical and with widespread disapproval. The public prominently questions her efficacy and commitment to addressing the complex issues at the southern border, often emphasizing her lack of communication with top Border Patrol officials like Jason Owens and Raul Ortiz. This perceived neglect fuels a narrative of incompetence and inaction.

What People Are Saying

Top topics in these conversations include illegal immigration, crime rates associated with migrant populations, and the economic or social impacts of border policies. Words and phrases such as "illegal immigrants," "cartels," "border crisis," and "fentanyl deaths" frequently surface, underscoring the public's focus on security threats and their repercussions on American communities.

The narrative also revisits Harris's past comments from 2019, where she dismissed the idea of a border crisis. This exacerbates the current sentiment that she is detached from the reality on the ground.

The Trump campaign’s efforts to spotlight Harris's border record drive many recent conversations. Trump’s calls with influencers like Border Patrol Union Presidents Brandon Judd and Paul Perez reinforce the critique of Harris as Border Czar. Recent Trump PAC advertisements Biden-Harris border failures, highlighting comments from Harris supporting decriminalizing illegal immigration and abolishing ICE.

Media Try to Change the Narrative

Many Americans, who are already disillusioned with the mainstream media, are pointing out rushed attempts to change Harris’s border narrative. Outlets are now claiming that Biden never appointed Harris as “Border Czar,” despite the very same outlets reporting on in at the time.

CALLED IT. These pathetic Democrat hacks are the most predictably dishonest people on earth. https://t.co/hzft99D9Zg pic.twitter.com/iox1dlRgGR

— Sean Davis (@seanmdav) July 24, 2024

Axios in particular is facing severe backlash for retroactively correcting its own reporting calling Harris Border Czar. People rip Axios and other mainstream outlets attempting to walk back their own reporting in efforts to improve Harris’s image. Voters, especially on the right, accuse mainstream media of shaping politicized narrative and lying to Americans.

Journalists were calling Kamala the border czar until like five minutes ago. Don't let the media gaslight you. pic.twitter.com/oveoFcBn4G

— Bill D'Agostino (@Banned_Bill) July 24, 2024

Sentiment Trends

Voters mostly feel Harris’s tenure as a failure. They attribute severe consequences like increased crime, profit gains for cartels, and widespread fentanyl deaths to her Border Czar policies. The criticism intensifies with claims of Harris's policies harming Special Education services due to resource strains caused by illegal immigration.

If the critical sentiment towards Harris solidifies among undecided voters, it is likely to hurt her presidential campaign given border security is a high-priority issue.

Voter opinions of J.D. Vance's vice-presidential candidacy show hesitant hope, some skepticism, and direct criticism. Supporters laud his life story as emblematic of the American Dream. His rise from disadvantaged beginnings to the national political stage is seen as a testament to meritocracy.

Vance’s supporters are especially keen on highlighting his service in the Marines and his Ivy League education as accomplishments earned through hard work and determination. This narrative of individual effort resonates strongly with traditional American values of self-reliance and perseverance, giving cautious hope to those unfamiliar with Vance.

There are some who argue Vance's life story as a powerful counterpoint to criticisms of elitism within the political establishment. His rise from his socio-economic background situates him as an inspiring figure for many Americans dissatisfied with career politicians. This sentiment is compounded by comparisons to Kamala Harris, who many view as a DEI token.

However, many people also have concerns and sharp criticisms—especially when it comes to Vance’s tech ties.

• In the last 7 days, overall approval for J.D. Vance has hovered at or just below 50%.
• His approval on the economy fluctuates slightly but averaged 49% in the last week.
• Sentiment toward Vance on crypto has the highest high at 52%, but also the lowest low at 45%, likely due to lower discussion volume.

General Reaction to Vance’s Tech History

Public reactions to J.D. Vance's connections to Silicon Valley and the tech sector are mixed. There are supporters who are enthusiastic about the potential benefits of his connections. They say Vance's ties to Silicon Valley could drive innovation and economic growth. They also believe his relationships with tech giants may bring much-needed investment and expertise to various sectors, including education, infrastructure, and job creation.

Sentiment trends reveal deep concerns about economic and political power dynamics. The public repeatedly underscores that the middle class should not bear the burden of policies and systems that disproportionately benefit the wealthy elite. This discontent is amplified in the context of unions, with many feeling true advocacy for working-class interests is incompatible with benefiting from Silicon Valley's corporate wealth.

In contrast, there are individuals who view Vance’s background in the tech sector as potentially advantageous. There is cautious excitement about the possibility of having a candidate who understands the complexities and potential of technological innovation and its impact on the economy. They see Vance as a figure who can perhaps bring fresh, tech-driven perspectives to policymaking. This they hope will foster growth which can solve modern economic challenges with innovative solutions.

Public sentiment towards Vance is complicated by his perceived contradictions. Some voters applaud his narrative of rising from humble beginnings and attaining success, viewing it as a testament to the American Dream. However, this narrative is simultaneously criticized, with detractors accusing Vance of romanticizing his past while contradicting it through his political stances and elite connections.

Arguments Defending Vance

Americans seem generally disapproving of any perception of undue influence by wealthy individuals on politics. They also regularly express concerns over economic equity and fairness. Vance’s connections to Silicon Valley and his critiques of current economic policies elicit mixed reactions, ranging from support for his tech-oriented insights to strong disapproval of his financial backers and political rhetoric.

Despite general disapproval for wealth influencing politics, some Americans appreciate Vance for his rejection of traditional establishment politics within the Republican Party. They resonate with his "pro-union anti-corporate" rhetoric.

Hopefuls value what they see as his commitment to fighting corporate excesses and believe in his potential to rejuvenate the GOP with a blend of economic populism and cultural conservatism. These supporters tend to downplay or dismiss the negative characterizations, viewing them as media exaggerations meant to discredit a rising political figure who might disrupt the status quo.

Many supporters, tech enthusiasts, and crypto voters largely support Vance's commitment to clear cryptocurrency regulations. They appreciate his efforts to navigate the regulatory landscape, which they view as fraught with restrictive measures under current administration policies.

This group likes Vance's critique of the SEC's hardline enforcement tactics, which they believe stifle innovation. His legislative proposals aiming to overhaul how the SEC and CFTC regulate crypto are seen as steps towards an environment more conducive to technological growth and investment.

Vance's personal involvement in the crypto sphere, evidenced by his Bitcoin holdings and public comments, amplifies his credibility among crypto voters—who are increasingly seen as an important voting group. His actions such as voting to repeal controversial accounting rules and opposing stringent tax reporting requirements demonstrate a deep understanding of the challenges faced by the industry.

Supporters like Vance’s comments on the utility of cryptocurrencies in circumventing government overreach. This is highlighted by his stance on the Canadian trucker protests and gaining traction with voters who value financial autonomy and limited government interference.

Negativity Toward Vance as VP

Vance's controversial stances and his connections with influential figures like Peter Thiel can also drum up disapproval. Critics believe there’s reason for concern and Vance may pose a significant threat to democratic norms.

This position has been emphasized heavily in public discussions, particularly following Liz Cheney’s sharp critique. Cheney's assertions that Vance would "overturn an election and illegally seize power" and "capitulate to Russia" resonate strongly with liberals and anti-Trump Republicans.

Vance also faces criticism from some Republicans and the media for his perceived hypocrisy and controversial positions. Some praise his alignment with former President Trump, but others use his past criticism of Trump as evidence of hypocrisy or a disingenuous power play.

The influence of Peter Thiel and other billionaires financing Vance’s campaigns generates contentious debate about the role of money in politics. Critics argue his backing fuels fears of oligarchic control over democratic processes. This sentiment suggests a widening economic and representational gap, intensifying the debate over campaign finance reform.

Concerns arise regarding the potential for a monopolistic tech landscape bolstered by politicians like Vance. Critics argue Vance’s tech ties and support from high-profile tech investors could perpetuate a monopolistic ecosystem where large corporations dominate, leaving little room for grassroots innovation.

On Monday, Kamala Harris made her first public appearance as the presumptive Democratic nominee for president after securing the delegates needed. It was also reported that she raised $81 million dollars within the first 24 hours of her campaign. However, some voice skepticism that reported “grassroots” enthusiasm is not being propped up by Democratic leaders and the media. MIG Reports data shows a sharp divide in public sentiment and reveals several key topics and trends.

The Establishment’s Candidate

Discussions focus on how rapidly Harris secured endorsements and delegates, emphasizing the notion of party machinery consolidating around her. Many discussions touch on swift leadership maneuvering to unite behind her campaign after President Biden's sudden exit.

People often bring up the fact that state Democratic Party delegations, such as those from California, New York, and Ohio, have unanimously endorsed her, propelling her closer to securing the nomination. Keywords like "Harris," "delegates," "endorsement," and "Democratic nomination" permeate discussion.

Some voters express frustration with the Democratic Party's internal dynamics. They accuse Party elites of unilaterally deciding the nominee and usurping the primary process. Views of "no primary votes necessary, just greed, corruption, and brute force," exacerbate the perception of a Democratic Party takeover by elites. Keywords like "elites," "donor money," "undemocratic," and "corrupt" highlight this unease with how the nomination is being orchestrated.

The lack of endorsement from former President Barack Obama and explicit support from other significant Democrats like Rep. Rashida Tlaib, who calls for an “open nominating convention,” inject complexities into the discourse. This suggests internal party contention and feeds speculation on Harris’s viability.

Sentiment Trends

There is excitement and enthusiasm among many Democrats who had begun to feel demoralized by Joe Biden’s prospect. Harris supporters interpret her fundraising success as a sign of strong voter enthusiasm. They highlight her historical candidacy, celebrating her potential to be the first biracial woman to lead a major-party ticket.

Endorsements from influential Democratic figures, such as Nancy Pelosi, and the swift backing by Democratic delegates, further boost positive sentiment.

On the other hand, there is significant skepticism and criticism. Detractors question her ability to win a general election against a formidable opponent like Donald Trump. Criticisms often focus on her past performance in the 2020 primaries, where she dropped out early, polling at just 3.4%. The backlash also stems from Harris's perceived alignment with the "establishment," causing some to feel disenfranchised by what they see as an undemocratic coronation process.

Vice President Kamala Harris's nomination as the presumptive Democratic candidate has stirred widespread and polarized discussions among undecided and Independent American voters. Online reflections show insights into what issues are resonating most strongly with the public and how their sentiments are moved by these political shifts.

Key Topics

Discussions regarding Harris's nomination include her qualifications, past political record, endorsements, her stance on international affairs concerning Israel, and her unserious public image. The former California Attorney General and current Vice President brings a complex political history that motivates both criticism and support.

The topics of her past prosecutorial record, her performance and dropping out of the 2020 Democratic primary, and her relationship with influential political figures like Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, stir significant conversation.

Trending Topics

1. Trust and Credibility: Public discussions reveal a chronic struggle with trust in Harris's candidacy, driven by her past actions and perceived opportunistic alliances.
2. Democratic Process Integrity: Many conversations highlight a belief that the delegate-driven nomination process lacks true democratic spirit, raising fears about elitist overreach.
3. Foreign Policy and Ideological Stance: Harris’s international politics, particularly concerning Israel, exacerbates ideological divides within her own Party.

Sentiments diverge significantly based on these topics. For instance, Harris's prosecutorial record surfaces frequently, with some viewing her as experienced in law enforcement and others criticizing her for disproportionate incarceration rates among Black Americans. This discrepancy impacts voter sentiment broadly, influencing trust and support levels.

Anti-Israel and Pro-Palestine

One of the most contentious topics in the last few days has been Harris's refusal to meet with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu. This brings accusations of a "pro-Hamas" and "pro-terrorist" position from the potential new president.

The public split on this subject profoundly impacts sentiment. Supporters defend her stance as a sign of a balanced, critical perspective on Middle Eastern politics. Critics use it as evidence of anti-Israel bias, shaking the confidence of pro-Israel voters and sparking fears about perceived Democratic Party radicalism.

Professional Politician

The Harris campaign's swift move to secure endorsements and delegates after Biden's withdrawal injects both hope and cynicism into the public dialogue. Supporters see this maneuver as a necessary consolidation to maintain Party unity and enhance election efficacy, thus lifting sentiment. Critics, however, perceive it as undemocratic and manipulative, undermining faith in the electoral process, thus decreasing sentiment. Pelosi's subsequent endorsement of Harris, however, served to fan growing flames of enthusiasm among Democratic voters.

Another pivotal topic concerns her failure to secure primary delegates in past races. This argument surfaces frequently among detractors, framing her as an untested candidate lacking broad voter support, which dampens her acceptance among undecided voters. Many also argue he ascent to the candidacy is an affront to every Democrat voter who cast votes for Joe Biden.

Establishment’s Pick

Notably, the initial lack of endorsement from figures like Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi created an air of uncertainty in the immediate aftermath of Biden’s withdrawal. This image of Party disarray impacts voter sentiment variably. While some interpret it as a strategic move to prevent premature influence, others read it as a lack of full confidence, stirring unease. With

Financial backing and the role of influential figures like George Soros also come under scrutiny. Harris's significant war chest generates enthusiasm about her capacity to mount a robust campaign but also fuels skepticism about undue influence by wealthy donors and political elites, dampening trust among voters wary of corporate sway in politics.

Sentiment Trends

Increasing Sentiment

Expressions of Party unity, endorsements from key leaders like Pelosi and Obama affirming her leadership, and narratives highlighting her policy acumen and experience tend to increase sentiment. Positive engagement stems from the portrayal of Harris as a candidate capable of evolving and addressing deep-seated issues within the party and nationwide.

Decreasing Sentiment

Dialogues stressing undemocratic practices, her past prosecutorial record, perceived leftist radicalism, and negative comparisons with other potential candidates push sentiment down. These criticisms suggest reversing negative sentiment will require Harris addressing concerns about fairness, transparency, and her political record comprehensively.

On July 19, a worldwide outage of Microsoft devices relying on CrowdStrike products for cybersecurity experienced a major failure. This disastrous outage impacted industries from airlines to hospitals to offices. CrowdStrike is also the same firm which essentially initiated the Russiagate claim.

Americans took to social media with skepticism, frustration, and political blame games. MIG Reports data shows several dominant themes and sentiments from these conversations, reflecting the public’s varied concerns and theories about the event and its broader implications.

Top Topics and Keywords

The main narrative centers on cybersecurity issues, political intrigue, and widespread speculation. Keywords such as “deep state,” "Blackrock," "CrowdStrike," "Russiagate," "FISA warrant," "quasi-quo," "Biden administration," and "Microsoft outage" frequently appear. They are often wrapped in complex and sometimes conspiratorial storytelling.

Recurring topics include the link between historical political events such as Hillary Clinton's alleged mishandling of a private email server and the Benghazi attack. These are weaved into a broader narrative of political corruption and conspiracy involving corrupt corporations.

Another frequently discussed topic is the Microsoft outage, considered by many as a deliberate act with significant political undertones. Many say it was potentially intended to manipulate public perception or influence political outcomes. Some speculate the convenience of the outage for anyone attempting to bury evidence related to the Trump assassination attempt.

There is also significant discourse surrounding large corporations like Blackrock and their involvement in these events. This underscores a prevalent concern among the public about the influence of major financial and investment firms in political and national security matters.

Discussion Trends

The discussions trend towards a broader context of distrust in governmental and institutional transparency. There is a notable mix of factual recounting of past events and highly speculative theories about connections and motives behind the CrowdStrike incident.

Many discuss the present situation within their views of systemic fraud, manipulation, and political subversion. Individuals are vocal about their perceptions of collusion between the FBI, CrowdStrike, and powerful political figures to protect certain interests at the expense of transparency and justice.

Sentiment Trends

Sentiments largely skew negative, with a considerable amount of anger and distrust directed towards the Biden-Harris administration. A significant portion of the public views the administration as complicit or at least negligent in addressing cybersecurity threats and safeguarding public and private infrastructure.

There is also a thread of resignation and some despair as people discuss what they see as the futility of expecting accountability within current political systems. However, this sentiment is often coupled with a fervent call to action, stressing the importance of vigilance and political change to counter the perceived entwined interests of political, corporate and deep state entities.

Political Blame

Many fault the Biden-Harris administration. Labels of incompetence, weakness in protecting national security, and direct accusations of enabling larger conspiratorial networks are recurrent themes. The aftermath of the security breach elicits calls to hold the administration accountable, sometimes employing highly charged language that underscores a deep sense of betrayal and urgency.

Conversations often draw on recent, related failures or perceived inadequacies within the current administration. Many believe there is a pattern of negligence or deliberately corrupt oversight. People discuss “Biden Migrant Crime Wave,” inflation issues, and the Ukraine and Israel conflicts as interconnected failures, amplifying backlash against the administration.

Takeaway Analysis

American conversations about the CrowdStrike outage echoes broader concerns about deeply systemic corporate and government corruption. People view this event as a political maneuvering and national security failures intertwined with corporate failure.

Repeated mentions and constructed narratives around "deep state" orchestrations, billionaire-backed manipulations, and spy tactics illustrate a public highly conspiratorial. They are engaged but also profoundly troubled by the state of political affairs and cybersecurity.

These narratives and sentiments point to a collective sense of disillusionment and a clamor for more rigorous protective measures and accountability from those in power. The convergence of historical political events with contemporary security woes in public discourse also highlights an underlying continuity of mistrust and suspicion towards governmental and corporate actions within the realm of national security.

With an apparent swell of support rising for the fledgling Kamala Harris presidential campaign, Americans may not be taking politics seriously. Following the first presidential debate, which was disastrous for Joe Biden, speculation grew about the possibility of Kamala Harris taking his place.

Kamala is a Political Meme

Previous MIG Reports analysis showed Harris surpassing Biden’s approval on several important issues, despite both battling negative sentiment. A wave of nakedly ironic support from Democratic voters embraced the Vice President’s meme potential, referencing coconut pills and the “khive.”

Now that Joe Biden has released an announcement of his plans to withdraw from the race, Democratic support for VP Harris seems to be surging. The ensuing dramatic and immediate shift in voter support and sentiment raises questions about how voters assign loyalty and make voting decisions.

The Kamala memes now include supporters, whether genuine or ironic, saying “Kamala is Brat,” referring to a meme where “brat” means not caring what haters say and having a relaxed demeanor. This appears to be an effort to rehabilitate Kamala's image as an awkward and cringeworthy public speaker. A viral meme video promoting “Brat Kamala" kicked off the enthusiasm.

why did I stay up till 3am making a von dutch brat coconut tree edit featuring kamala harris and why can’t I stop watching it on repeat pic.twitter.com/hqcmerD1Pb

— ryan (@ryanlong03) July 3, 2024

This was followed by gay supporters on Fire Island sporting brat Kamala midriff tops, CNN discussing brat Kamala, and even the official Kamala HQ X profile using brat font and colors as the header image.

BRAT Kamala shirts already on Fire Island. The gays move SO FAST pic.twitter.com/Zq3e9yctzv

— Michael Del Moro (@MikeDelMoro) July 21, 2024

CNN talks about Kamala Harris’ ‘brat’ themed campaign.

pic.twitter.com/lBjbVEtZNf

— Pop Base (@PopBase) July 22, 2024

Public interest appears more fixated on political drama, conspiracy theories, and memes rather than concrete policy positions or administrative decisions. Could the heightened and dramatic sequence of events, largely playing out on X, be driving a caricatured and meme-driven attitude toward American politics?

Democrats Turn on a Dime

Democrats who support Harris tend to emphasize unity and strategic continuity, endorsing Harris as a capable leader who can pick up where Biden leaves off. This, however, contradicts previous rampant ironic support many Democratic voters expressed toward VP Harris just weeks ago.

Overall American sentiment reveals an underlying tension within both parties. Across partisan lines, Americans largely view Harris as an extension of Joe Biden's leftwing policy record. However, there is an emphasis on her being "more liberal" and "less competent."

Those expressing enthusiastic support for her candidacy may view the progressive agenda as more important than candidate specifics. They laud her long political career, ignoring its past controversies like her track record as a tough-on-crime prosecutor.

Many also tout Hariss’s historic potential as the first female, AAPI, and black president of the United States. This support emphasis suggests the VP’s voter base places high priority identity politics as a critical driving factor in voting decisions.

• In the last two days, online mentions of both Joe Biden and Kamala Harris exploded, surpassing 40,000 for each one. Discussion volume for Kamala Harris also outpaced mentions of Joe Biden.
• Both Biden and Harris enjoyed a slight bump in sentiment, however neither crossed 50%.

Accusations Against Republicans

Democratic voters voice frustration, particularly toward Republican critiques of the Democratic nomination process. Commenters prepare for anticipated claims of unfairness from Republicans about Biden's endorsement and the highly irregular method of making Harris the Democratic candidate.

Progressives say previous Republican behaviors undercut their current arguments. They say things like, "Get ready for Republicans to all tell Democrats how unfair it is that our elected nominee isn't our elected nominee." This suggests a feeling of preemptive defense and a voter willingness to accept Democratic leadership decisions, despite previous contradictions.

Additionally, the anticipation of intensified challenges Harris will face due to "racism" and "misogyny" are taking center stage. Predicted to face unprecedented levels of racial and gender-based hostility, Democratic sentiment here shows willingness to prioritize identity politics over consistency. This anticipation of bias against Harris also ties into anxieties about how her leadership will be accepted across different societal strata.

A conspicuous trend is the polarized nature of the comments, absent of middle-ground perspectives. This polarization hints at an electorate either firmly in support of or staunchly against Kamala Harris, with few expressing nuanced or mixed views. The passionate language used in both supportive and critical comments suggests voters are highly engaged but also deeply divided.

Will Underlying Skepticism Bubble Up?

American voters' knowledge ranges considerably when it comes to policy specifics that Kamala Harris may promote. Conversation substance suggests many are likely uninformed about the granular details. Public discourse reveals a significant focus on high-profile, emotionally charged issues rather than on comprehensive policy analysis.

When Kamala Harris is mentioned, it often centers around her reactions to contentious topics like the bombing of Gaza and the associated humanitarian crises. Public discussions also frequently critique her past support for certain causes, such as fundraising efforts criticized for allegedly aiding violent groups. These conversations suggest progressives, despite vocal unity, may not truly support the policies of a potential Harris administration.

Conversely, critics voice concerns about Harris's capability to secure a victory in the presidential race, many drawing parallels to Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign. Doubts about her leadership on issues like immigration are prevalent, with comments noting her lack of communication with key figures like the Border Patrol Chief. Criticism also touches on her perceived inability to garner wider appeal, with suggestions that she might struggle against entrenched societal biases and the strength of her Republican opponents.

Democratic Voters Fall in Line

The narrative of Biden being "pushed out" by his party or the “deep state” adds another layer of complexity. While some express sadness and nostalgia for Biden's tenure, the swift rallying behind Harris suggests the Democratic camp is willing to move according to leadership direction.

The conversation about voter engagement and mobilization is prevalent, with many emphasizing the need for unity and increased voter turnout to secure a victory for Harris. This sentiment is reinforced by calls to action from various factions within the Democratic Party and allied movements, showcasing a concerted effort to maintain momentum.

The discussions about Biden possibly being ousted by his Party seems to alarm a segment of Democrats. However, many who very recently expressed disgust at potential political maneuvers seem to be changing their tune. This includes Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez who livestreamed her criticisms of Party leaders for pressuring Joe Biden to withdraw—only to delete the video and tweet her support for Harris.

Kamala Harris will be the next President of the United States. I pledge my full support to ensure her victory in November.

Now more than ever, it is crucial that our party and country swiftly unite to defeat Donald Trump and the threat to American democracy.

Let’s get to work.

— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) July 22, 2024

Americans are reacting to Joe Biden’s tweet announcing his decision to drop out of the presidential election with strong emotions. There is an unusually chaotic and less patterned conversation landscape. MIG Reports data reveals two distinct patterns:

• United support among Democrats for the change in candidates.
• Frenetic and disjointed criticism of Harris’s candidacy, with diverging viewpoints and a visible lack of cohesive narrative.

Chaos

The complexity of public responses reveals disjointed and confused political strategies. Voters frequently discuss the Democratic Party's decisions, with terms like "identity politics,” “donor class,” and “disarray.” There is a sentiment among these voices that Biden's exit and Harris's candidacy are results of broader political maneuvering within the party. This view often comes with a mix of skepticism and resentment. This critical perspective underscores a belief in factionalism and party politics influencing key decisions, rather than a purely meritocratic consideration of Harris’s capabilities or votes cast by Americans.

Public sentiment towards Kamala Harris's candidacy is divided. While her Democratic voter base seems unified around her, critics remain vocal about their concerns. Supporters bring up her political history, lauding her as accomplished. However, they do not attach her previous unpopularity or the poor approval toward Joe Biden’s presidency to her current candidacy.

Online conversations have fewer clear themes and exhibit a heightened sense of chaos and urgency compared to more traditional discourses. This suggests a notable shift in the voter beliefs about the causes and implications of Joe Biden withdrawing.

This new, chaotic dynamic reveals a turbulent and uncertain political climate. This is only exacerbated by Biden's abrupt announcement of his withdrawal and the ensuing scramble for alignment and support within the Democratic Party.

Joe Biden

The top keywords emerging from these discussions center on "Biden," "Kamala," "Trump," "Hunter," "legacy," and "economy." Public sentiment around Joe Biden seems to polarize sharply into highly positive and highly negative views.

Positive sentiments highlight Biden's progressive accomplishments, his legacy as a pro-working-class president, and a belief in his deep empathy and character. People express profound gratitude for his efforts in establishing gun reform, boosting the economy, tackling climate change, and supporting unions.

Many echo Hunter Biden’s statement about his father’s unconditional love and commitment to public service. They underscore an emotional and personal connection to Biden's tenure. Supporters praise Biden for his significant achievements and transformative policies, stating their readiness to back Kamala Harris, who they believe will continue his progressive legacy.

Negative sentiments are often vehement, with accusations of incompetence, weakened borders, and economic mismanagement. Critics accuse Biden of being manipulated by his Party leaders and stress Kamala Harris’s perceived inadequacies. They voice frustrations over his legacy, including the immigration crisis and multiple foreign policy crises. Detractors emphasize a narrative of decline under Biden’s administration and project even more pessimism at the prospect of Harris taking the helm.

The reasons for sentiment trends are mostly rooted in partisan divisions. Supporters focus on Biden’s alleged policy successes and personal virtues, while critics latch onto recurring failures and controversies. The chaotic nature of these conversations indicates deep-seated political divides and a struggle for narrative control as voters grapple with the implications of Biden’s withdrawal and Harris’s ascent.

Kamala Harris

In the wake of President Biden's unexpected withdrawal announcement, online conversation among Americans is frenetic and impassioned. Discussion about Harris, like Biden, is less structured and more chaotic than usual.

Vote Blue No Matter Who

A predominant keyword emerging from the conversations is "KamalaHarris2024," often accompanied by hashtags like #VoteBlue, #HarrisForPresident, and #MadamePresident. Supporters express enthusiasm about her candidacy, citing her qualifications and historical significance as a leading advocate for marginalized groups, including the LGBTQ community.

Democrats use words like "champion," "equality," "proud," and "excited" with their endorsements. Sentiment among her supporters is optimistic and expresses a readiness to mobilize. This is supported by significant fundraising numbers following Biden's announcement. Despite receiving no votes in the Democratic primary during her previous run for president and her dismally low historical approval, Democratic voters seem to be rallying around Harris. This suggests a willingness to “vote blue no matter who.”

Detractors seem to be mostly on the right, focusing on her past controversies and perceived shortcomings. Top keywords in these opposing viewpoints include "Antifa," "BLM," "Willie Brown," and "criminal justice." These critics often allege her political career has been marked by opportunism and inconsistency.

People point to her tenure as California’s Attorney General where she faced criticism for her handling of wrongful convictions and her relationship with the former San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown. Words like “disappointed,” “backlash,” “controversy,” and “unprepared” are frequently used by those skeptical of her presidential ambitions. The sentiment here tends to emphasize distrust and discontent, driven by historical grievances and perceived failures in her political tenure.