A recent Virginia battle over removing 1,600 noncitizens from the voter rolls is causing partisan controversy. There are accusations that removing them will impact both voter turnout and civic mobilization. A federal judge subsequently ordered the 1,600 voters to be added back, causing Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin and 26 attorneys general to urge the Supreme Court to halt the ruling.
The decision has heightened political engagement, with both sides mobilizing to protect their version of democratic ideals. Some also point out that, for such only 1,600 votes, the high-octane battle reveals how tight the Virginia race is.
Republicans generally view removing noncitizens as essential for safeguarding election integrity, rallying around themes of legality and security.
Democrats often view the removal as an exclusionary tactic that risks disenfranchising communities and undermining democracy.
I'm just saying, the DOJ is not going to have an election-home-stretch PR disaster, in the form of trying to put noncitizens back on our voter rolls, over a mere 1500 registrations, because Harris is set to win by 5-7 points.
Those who oppose removing noncitizens worry about a potential decline in turnout due to perceived disenfranchisement. Approximately 65-70% of those commenting on the situation indicate fear that removal could discourage voter participation. They especially emphasize low enthusiasm in diverse communities, framing this decision as adjacent to voter suppression.
Election Integrity Stakes
There is also robust support for preventing noncitizens from voting. This group discusses legality, national identity, and patriotism. They believe in maintaining a verified citizenry on the voter rolls. This group says purging noncitizens from the rolls is both legal and highly important to ensure election integrity. They argue objectors can only have one reason for keeping noncitizens on the rolls—election cheating.
Linguistic and Symbolic Impacts
The language used in discussions around this topic is divided. Opponents of removing voters use metaphors of battle and conflict, describing the situation as a “fight for democracy.” Have voice a sense of urgency and heightened stakes.
Those who want noncitizens barred from voting use phrases like “patriotic duty” and “integrity of the ballot.” They frame their position as a moral and national imperative, essential for safeguarding the democratic process.
The division in language contrasts “democracy” versus “national sovereignty,” both of which are pillars of partisan rhetoric.
The provocative nature of a recent Democratic supporting progressive ad, which showed a young man masturbating while watching porn, caused a firestorm of criticism. Many Americans find the notion of “porn on the ballot” as a surreal and disturbing issue to highlight.
For many who view porn as damaging to society, the ad raises questions about how Democrats frame personal freedom stakes. Some voters find irony in Democrats making abortion and porn their cornerstone liberty issues.
White Men for Harris are running this ad. (It’s not satire, it’s sincerely from them.)
They want people to share it, because it’ll help Kamala Harris win, or so they say?
Vulgar, I apologize for posting such filth, but it’s who they are. Understand it.
In an election dominated by economic, border, and national security concerns, highlighting pornography as a campaign issue is both unconventional and controversial. Most Americans view personal freedom as essential, yet the portrayal of porn as emblematic of key freedoms seems a curious choice.
The ad underscores the complexity of modern political campaigns, which often rely on shock tactics to capture fleeting attention spans. While the ad successfully provokes engagement, it also risks trivializing a significant conversation on civil liberties, distracting from the larger stakes in the upcoming election.
This controversy comes on the heels of numerous anti-porn movements. Viral memes stretch back to 2021, rising anti-porn sentiments, and sexually conservative generations coming to voting age complicate Democratic messaging.
Additionally, a growing list of states is requiring age of consent laws for online porn. Some suggest this political push is funded by the porn industry to fight age protection laws.
The porn industry is now spending 100k on ads to convince young men to vote for Kamala to prevent more age verification laws going into effect pic.twitter.com/kjbKL1YYJm
The ad’s shock value is undeniable. It has sparked significant engagement, particularly among progressive audiences who interpret it as a bold statement on personal autonomy. By contrasting intimate freedoms with the risk of conservative censorship, the ad appeals to those who see freedom in private viewing habits as a top priority.
For moderates and traditionalists, the ad’s explicit content feels too coarse for a political campaign. The topic of pornography as a voter mobilization issue is, for many, an uncomfortable injection of degeneracy into political discourse. They see it as an intrusion, criticizing the oversimplification of complex regulation questions.
Reactions to the ad deepen ideological divides, with supporters lauding its unfiltered message on freedom and detractors criticizing it as vulgar. Supporters resonate with the ad’s message on autonomy, challenging authoritarian threats. Critics worry shock tactics cheapen the democratic process and lamenting the acceptance of porn in polite society.
Backlash and Desensitization
Depicting graphic content created both intrigue and backlash. Some argue the ad’s extremity risks desensitizing viewers, turning legitimate discussions about civil liberties into social media fodder rather than meaningful political discourse.
By veering into taboo, the ad might alienate more conservative or moderate voters but also risks trivializing freedom of expression and government overreach.
While the ad aims to mobilize progressive voters, it inadvertently energizes Trump’s base. Those who view the content as indicative of progressive excess use it as evidence of a moral divide, reaffirming their stance against societal degradation imposed by liberal ideologies.
This reaction heightens an us-versus-them mentality, deepening political and cultural animosity. The ad’s raunchy portrayal may end up galvanizing conservative opposition, energizing them under the banner of traditional values and perceived threats to decency.
The issue that Tampon Tim has decided to focus on in the final week of the election:
On Oct. 26, outside a Harris rally in Houston, TX, a woman was caught on camera screaming into a child's face. Predictably, reactions to the clip were overwhelmingly negative. MIG Reports analysis shows outrage toward the woman’s conduct, sparking wider conversations of party support.
Kamala Harris supporter is going viral for screaming at a child in a stroller pic.twitter.com/RSE4bEi7x8
The viral clip of a woman screaming at the child cuts through typical political rhetoric. Americans express visceral reactions, with many viewing the incident as a sign of moral decay and loss of decorum in public spaces.
Reactions are sharply negative as most view the behavior as a lapse in appropriate conduct. However, while some denounce the incident, they take the opportunity to emphasize support for Harris’s platform and commitment to women’s rights. Responses highlight ideological divides and how unacceptable public behavior impacts the broader perception of political movements.
Competing Interpretations
The incident also shifts focus from policy or campaign discussions to the charged environment in politics. Opponents use this event as a tool to portray Harris's supporters as emblematic of intolerance or extremism. They paint Harris rallies as chaotic rather than structured and under control.
This group points out multiple instances of hecklers disrupting Harris’s speeches, unruly crowds booing and drowning her out, and swaths of disgruntled attendees who objected to unfulfilled promises of a free Beyonce performance.
Harris supporters attempt to reclaim the narrative by framing the incident in a context of passion and advocacy for women’s rights. This narrative clash suggests emotions, particularly when they appear extreme or uncontrolled, risk solidifying an "us vs. them" framework that perpetuates division rather than fostering discourse.
Emotional Expression in Politics
Social media discussions show voter frustration with the overall political climate. Words like “chaos,” “unacceptable,” and “childish” express laments about a loss of civility and respectful discourse. Yet, these terms also expose the irony of simultaneously intensifying polarization.
Reactions allow for public displays of emotion—including negative ones—to be seen as integral parts of the political experience. Supporters align themselves with a “voice of reason,” while critics paint the opposing side in a radical light, using the incident as both a symbol and justification for their stances.
Passion Mobilizes Voters
For both sides, the incident has the potential to catalyze voter mobilization. Harris's supporters may feel a renewed sense of solidarity, driven to participate and defend against any mischaracterizations or attacks on their values.
GOP voters see the incident as validating their criticisms. They rally around the need to counter moral and social degradation. Moderate or undecided voters say the incident is discouraging. They say extreme emotional expression at political events may indicate an erosion of civility and effective political governance.
Language Insights
The language around the incident is symbolic. People talk about the image of an adult screaming in a child’s face as a powerful metaphor. It taps into anxieties about the safety of children in a divided society, making the incident a microcosm for larger fears about social and political disintegration.
People use phrases like "respect for children" and "moral decay." There is collective processing of the broader implications of public outbursts, portraying the interaction as emblematic of the contentious spirit in contemporary politics.
Trump's Madison Square Garden (MSG) rally is spurring wild and fervent discussion just a week ahead of Election Day. The rally’s impact, intensified by strong media framing, shows sharp divides among Republicans, Democrats, and Independents. But MIG Reports data shows the mainstream media’s plan to demonize Trump voters may be backfiring.
The top discussion topics related to the rally are:
A comedian who goes by the state name “Kill Tony” joked about Puerto Rico being a “floating island of garbage.”
The media’s reaction comparing the rally to a 1939 pro-Nazi rally at MSG.
Trump campaigning in blue states like New York, suggesting he wants to win them.
High energy and triumph for the MAGA movement around the size of the rally.
At Trump’s Madison Square Garden rally, podcast host and comedian Kill Tony referred to Puerto Rico as a “floating island of garbage,” during his set.
Notably, four percent of Pennsylvanians are Puerto Rican.
Mainstream media outlets presented Trump’s rally through a highly critical lens. Many compared it to a 1939 pro-Nazi rally at MSG, calling Trump’s event an echo of the same.
This framing doubles down on the Harris campaign’s recent messaging of Trump as a fascist and a Nazi sympathizer. However, the media’s portrayal drew different reactions across groups—either as a rallying cry or confirmation of a disingenuous media.
Independent are Split: Independents and undecideds are divided, with 65% viewing the media’s portrayal as excessive, while 35% feel it’s justified.
Republicans Dismiss Hysteria: Republicans overwhelmingly dismiss Nazi comparisons as unfair attacks. Many say the strategy is backfiring since dramatic and hysterical rhetoric sounds unserious to reasonable people.
Democrats Love Nazi Comparisons: Most Democratic voters say the Nazi comparison is accurate and necessary. They see it as an obvious conclusion in light of their beliefs about Trump as a fascist.
Among persuadable voters and those who are not deeply partisan Democrats, most voters view the media’s rhetoric as over the top. However, because the Harris campaign and mainstream media are leaning so hard into the Nazi comparisons, more voters are taking to social media to express their criticism.
New York a Swing State?
At the rally, Vivek Ramaswamy stirred discussion with his assertion that “New York could become a swing state.” This remark, intended to convey optimism about Republican growth in traditionally Democratic areas, receives mixed reactions.
Republicans mostly embrace Ramaswamy’s comments, seeing his assertion as a bold and energizing signal of shifting political tides. The idea of New York as a potential battleground boosts morale among Republicans.
Democrats dismiss Ramaswamy’s statement as unrealistic, perceiving it as wishful thinking. Many Democratic commenters say New York’s demographics and liberal base will not be competitive any time soon.
Independents are divided. Some appreciate the ambitious tone, viewing it as optimistic for political realignments. However, many also question the practicality of Republicans winning over a heavily liberal electorate.
AOC Feigns Outrage
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was holding an online gaming rally with VP candidate Tim Walz during the MSG rally. Reacting to Tony Hinchcliffe’s Puerto Rico joke, AOC tweeted her offense, saying “4,000+ Puerto Ricans died” under Trump.
She framed the joke as representative of the MAGA movement’s disregard for marginalized communities, calling for Latino voters to share the offense with their families. However, AOC subsequently tweeted admitting she was not offended by the joke, but solely for Hinchcliffe’s willingness to go on stage for Trump.
And before people try to act like this is some PC overly sensitive nonsense, I’ve been to Kill Tony shows. I’m from the Bronx. I don’t give a shit about crude humor.
But don’t pretend that your support for Trump is a joke. Own it. You doing a set to support him. That’s a choice.
Democrats support AOC’s criticisms, voicing urgency for opposing Trump.
Republicans mock and dismiss, AOC as politically motivated and disingenuous.
Independents are split between being offended by the joke and viewing AOC’s reaction as trivial and dramatic.
Independents Mostly Distrust the Media
For Independents and undecideds, the MSG rally only became a point of interest following media characterizations. This led many to compare Trump’s populist messaging with the media’s critical framing.
Nazi Rally: Around 65% of Independents dismiss the Nazi rally comparisons as media hyperbole. Only 35% accept it as a legitimate warning of rising extremism.
Puerto Rico Joke: About 30% of discussions among Independents condemned the Puerto Rico joke, perceiving it as offensive to Latino voters.
Potential Sway: 15% say they sense desperation among Democrats and that pushes them toward Trump.
Election Impact from Undecideds
The media’s framing generally mobilizes Democrats, reinforces Republican loyalty, and divides Independents. An already polarized electorate mostly responds with heightened partisanship. However, moderates and undecideds who are already skeptical of Democrats say the dramatic rhetoric turns them off.
Trump Support: 55% of undecided voters say the media’s portrayal and Nazi comparisons makes them more likely to vote for Trump.
Extremism Concern: 45% of undecideds lament inflammatory comments made during the event, suggesting it repulsed them from supporting Trump.
While many agree there are very few votes available to be swayed, MIG Reports data consistently shows undecideds likely leaning toward Trump.
Republicans are Unfazed
Unsurprisingly, Republicans are energized. They view turnout in a Democratic stronghold as a point of pride. They say the rally is a celebration of American solidarity and patriotism, framing criticisms as further proof of media bias against conservatives.
Turnout Pride: Around 75% of Republicans are celebrating the success of the rally, seeing it as an affirmation of Trump’s draw and a sign of enduring support.
Media Criticism: Roughly 65% believe the “Nazi rally” label is a biased attack, reinforcing views of Trump as a political outsider fighting establishment elites.
Puerto Rico Joke: Only about 20% find the joke about Puerto Rico inappropriate, most dismiss the backlash as feigned outrage by Democrats like AOC.
Unity: Many Republicans mention endorsements from minority groups, including Puerto Ricans, saying this refutes media portrayals of the rally as exclusionary.
Democrats Worked into a Froth
A whopping 80% of Democrats view the rally as a gathering of extremism. They call the rhetoric exclusionary and inflammatory, using the Puerto Rico joke as a prime example. They almost wholly embrace the media’s framing, presenting an urgent call to the ideological battle against Trump and his base.
Hate Speech: 80% of Democrats see the rally as promoting hate speech, viewing the “Nazi rally” comparison as an accurate description.
Focus on Mobilization: 70% call for strong voter turnout, using the rally as a call to reject Trump and get people to the ballot box.
A Thread of Hope: Roughly 65% of Democrats say the rally’s tone could alienate undecided voters. They hope undecided voters will side with them, ignoring those who feel alienated by the media’s rhetoric.
Many Americans feel cynical about election races for the House of Representatives and the influence of presidential candidates on down-ballot races. MIG Reports data shows the electorate is divided on races but unified in their discontent with incumbents. Many Americans distrust Congress and feel torn about the presidential candidates and ideological allegiances down-ballot.
Trump’s influence is both a rallying force and a potential liability for GOP candidates.
Harris struggles to unite Democrats amid growing internal divisions.
Many talking about the existential stakes of the election, positioning their choices as critical to preserving America’s future.
Voters want political change and voice intense emotional and ideological investment, even in state races for House seats.
Presidential Impact Down-Ticket
Trump and Harris’s influence on down-ticket voting is distinct, often polarizing views even among their own parties.
Republicans
Trump remains a galvanizing force in the GOP, with 35% of voters saying he boosts enthusiasm for supporting local Republican candidates.
However, 50% say they worry that his polarizing presence may deter moderate or undecided voters.
Democrats
Harris inspires mixed reactions. Only 20% of Democrats see her as a motivator for voter turnout among progressives.
Around 35% worry her platform deters down-ticket support, reflecting internal divisions in the Democratic Party.
Independents
Among Independents, Trump garners 25% positive engagement for encouraging down-ballot votes
Only 15% support Harris-endorsed candidates, suggesting Trump’s populist messaging may resonate more strongly outside partisan lines.
Refusal to Vote for Incumbents
Across the political spectrum, voters are ready for new leadership. Many express substantial reluctance to support incumbents in House and Senate races. Nearly 60% of Independents, Democrats, and Republics want incumbents voted out.
Independents cite ineffective governance and economic stagnation as key motivations for new Representatives.
Republicans are dissatisfied with incumbents who are not strong MAGA conservatives, pushing for more ideologically aligned candidates.
Democrats voice frustration with current party leaders across the board, pointing to failures on the economy and party priorities.
This widespread discontent reflects a growing appetite for fresh representation that more closely mirrors the electorate’s evolving values.
Trust and Belief in Congress
Trust in Congressional Representatives is tenuous, with skepticism defining sentiment.
70% of Independents distrust Congress, often associating it with corruption and failure to address pressing issues in ways that represent their interests.
70% of Republicans express similar distrust and link their dissatisfaction to frustrations with the current power dynamics and legislative priorities.
50% of Democrats openly doubt Congress’s ability to represent the public effectively.
Notably, only a small segment of each group—no more than 30%—expresses support for Congress. This support focuses on individual achievements rather than systemic success. This trend of disillusionment underlines a crisis of confidence in legislative institutions across the political spectrum.
Linguistic Analysis
Language patterns in voter discussions show emotional investment, and existential urgency.
Language among Independents suggests a shift from traditional party alignment to populist ideals. They prefer leaders who champion national interests over partisan politics.
Republicans discuss fear and anger toward the government, using phrases like “radical” and “betrayed.” They fear cultural and political threats to American values.
Democrats are disillusioned, using terms like “betrayed” and “abandoned.” They feel excluded from the party’s platform, particularly on the economy and social justice.
Across all groups, hyperbolic statements and apocalyptic language—such as "our last chance"—highlight an elevated sense of the stakes, portraying the election as a critical juncture for the country’s future.
Social media discussion around Donald Trump’s potential to win the popular vote, regardless of who takes the electoral win, focuses on turnout, identity, and emotional appeals.
While Trump’s candidacy motivates increased engagement among supporters, the discussion themes hint broader societal rifts and a collective urgency to decide the country’s trajectory.
CNN says Trump may win the popular vote too. Democrat panic is fully setting in: pic.twitter.com/6HpBnly06R
MAGA voters are increasingly vocal about the importance of voting, urging a sense of duty to preserve traditional American values and law and order. They use phrases like “MUST win” and “we are not going to allow that,” creating a rallying call to participate in the electoral process.
This sense of urgency signals a tactical shift toward proactive participation, where Democrats have previously had strong get-out-the-vote efforts. Republicans are also embracing voting early as a countermeasure to Democratic influence on the election process. For supporters, voting has taken on the weight of defending core values against a creeping progressive agenda.
However, the mobilization isn’t exclusive to Trump supporters as Democrats also show up to vote early. However, while Democrats are committed to opposing Trump, some voice disillusionment, feeling their votes may be nullified in red strongholds.
Some Democrats perceive voting as an exercise in futility, indicating negative Harris sentiment might dampen turnout. At this point in the race, Republicans appear more galvanized, with Democrats battling pockets of disengagement.
Loyalty and Distrust
Trump voters want law and order, saying progressive policies undermine community safety. Trump’s image as a protector of American values resonates with those who feel societal order is at risk.
There is a sense of loyalty, strengthened by ideological allegiances. For many, supporting Trump is a commitment to American tradition over radical progressivism. They frame the election as a choice between core values and political elitism. They view Trump as the “lesser of two evils” in the battle to maintain American values.
Many profoundly distrust election integrity in many critical states. Persistent narratives around “stolen elections” and system rigging tell a story of corruption. MAGA voters hope for a renewed defense against institutional dishonesty. This belief mobilizes Trump’s base and reinforces anti-establishment views, where voting is a stand against corruption and for truth.
What Voters are Saying
Voters discuss this election as a “battle,” “fight,” or against “traitors.” There is emotional weight, emphasizing conflict in viewpoints. Many present the election as a struggle against existential threats and voting as imperative in a clash of ideologies. Trump supporters often see themselves as defenders of American principles.
Emotional rhetoric also feeds into anti-establishment sentiments. Derogatory phrases such as “legacy media” and “deep state” frame traditional institutions as antagonists working against the people. This framing makes Trump a champion of truth in the face of institutional oppression.
Democratic Disillusionment and Early Voting
Some Democrats voice concerns about the effectiveness of their votes. This sentiment diverges from typical mobilization patterns, suggesting apathy or despair may curb Democratic turnout in certain areas.
Meanwhile, GOP voters are embracing early voting, which is another unusual shift. Typically a Democratic strategy, early voting is being championed by Trump supporters who view it critical in this election. This shift reveals a tactical adjustment and signals enthusiasm among Republicans to engage in new voting behaviors as part of a strategic effort to win.
With just a few more days until the election, MIG Reports data shows Donald Trump leading Kamala Harris 52% to 45% and growing stronger. Recent polls suggest Trump’s message of economic recovery is resonating among an increasingly dissatisfied electorate, while the Harris campaign shows all signs of collapse and panic.
Economy Tops the Charts
Voter frustrations with inflation and the rising cost-of-living continue to dominate conversations. Americans feel the Biden-Harris administration has failed to remedy the economic situation. They also express doubt and confusion about Harris’s campaign proposals for the next four years.
Inflation and Everyday Expenses: Soaring prices for groceries and gas are straining American families. Many recall the lower cost of living under Trump’s administration, leading them to voice support for his return to office.
Independent Swing: Independents are leaning toward Trump 2-to-1, showing decisive momentum shift in the last few months. These voters prioritize economic stability over party loyalty and view Trump as the best solution.
Clarity and Vision Versus Confusion
Trump’s message of “law and order” and promises to “Make America Great Again” once more resonate strongly with voters who seek decisive, pro-America leadership.
Restoring National Pride: Trump is a rallying figure around strong national pride, low taxation, and economic recovery. Harris’s focus on social issues is not resonating with voters who cannot afford their bills.
Election Integrity Worries: Trump’s emphasis on election security is energizing his base. Meanwhile, Harris faces challenges overcoming accusations of elitism and failing to clearly make her presidential pitch to Americans.
Swing State Dynamics
In critical swing states, the economic landscape is tilting the scales in Trump’s favor. Swing states such as Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Ohio show Independents breaking for Trump, often revolving around the economy.
Economic Concerns: Voters in swing states want a Trump economy. They see his tax policy and trade-focused strategies as essential to addressing inflation.
Discontent with Democratic Messaging: Harris’s focus on abortion and social justice is not a high enough priority for undecided voters in these states. They demand clear answers on concrete economic plans.
Turnout and Enthusiasm Gaps: Trump’s rallies in these regions attract large, motivated crowds, suggesting high voter turnout potential. Harris’s campaign events show lower energy, particularly among young and minority voters.
Down-Ballot Implications
This momentum isn’t limited to the presidential election—down-ballot races are also reflecting similar sentiments, with an evident lean toward Republican candidates.
House and Senate: Republican candidates, particularly in districts hard-hit by inflation, are benefiting from Trump’s economic message, showing potential for flipping critical seats in November.
Conservative Resurgence: MAGA down-ballot candidates are leveraging his momentum, fueling voter mobilization in suburban and rural areas. Even some Democratic candidates are beginning to use friendly messaging toward Trump.
Split-Ticket Voting: Some voters also express a willingness to split their tickets to balance local needs with national considerations.
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
.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)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)