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:

Frustration at 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.

Disbelief and 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.

Alarm Over 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.

Disillusionment with 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:

• Her failure to address border security
• 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.

It's all a farce. pic.twitter.com/x1SKRIGrOE

— johnny maga (@_johnnymaga) October 24, 2024

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.

There’s only one problem which is that Epstein didn’t move there until 1996. https://t.co/UmT6NtfGrK pic.twitter.com/tjkFGBGsiS

— Greg Price (@greg_price11) October 24, 2024

Who’s Buying It?

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

— Mayra Guillen (@mguilen_) October 22, 2024

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

— CSPAN (@cspan) October 23, 2024

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

— Townhall.com (@townhallcom) October 22, 2024

Belief in Sensational Claims

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 voters are 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.

CNN just nuked @KamalaHQ for their constant lies about Trump and Vance.https://t.co/1UWGpK8fPt pic.twitter.com/lhdeHpLWCt

— Greg Price (@greg_price11) September 14, 2024

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.

this is my friend's bill in san francisco

this is what happens when you vote democrat https://t.co/nrRR24GOU2 pic.twitter.com/f3kqrJoxTK

— 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.

One nation under a groove
Gettin' down just for the funk of itpic.twitter.com/C2kZrCaphy

— Kamala Harris (@KamalaHarris) January 15, 2019

Cope > Hope

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.

Kamala Harris’s recent town hall event was roundly criticized for its lack of audience questions. During the event, one of the hosts, Maria Shriver, informed the audience they would not be allowed to ask questions. This raises questions about Harris’s leadership style and political approach.

LOL…Kamala’s “town hall” off to a great start.

Audience member: “Will we be asking questions?”

Moderator: “You’re not, unfortunately, have some predetermined questions, uh, hopefully I’ll be able to ask some questions that might be in your head.”pic.twitter.com/x1d5plAPwV

— Bonchie (@bonchieredstate) October 21, 2024

Voter Reactions

Around 60% of conversations about the town hall show dissatisfaction toward Harris. Critiques focus on her evasiveness and lack of transparency. People say things like, “never answers questions” and “chaos and confusion.” This perpetuates the perception that Harris avoids direct accountability, which has long been a concern of critics.

Conversely, 25% are neutral or mixed sentiments. Voters share observations or factual reports about polling data and the general state of the election without overt criticism or praise. This group speaks indifferently to the format of the town hall, focusing more on the broader context of the campaign.

Over Harris support is only in 15% of the commentary, primarily from Democratic loyalists who frame her in a positive light. This group says Harris fosters unity as a leader capable of handling bipartisan engagement. However, the small volume of support highlights the challenging landscape for Harris as she struggles in the polls.

Frustration and Anti-Establishment Sentiment

Many voters express frustration with the town hall’s structure. They feel the absence of public questioning symbolizes a recurring issue of control and censorship within Harris’s campaign.

Critics describe her as avoiding real engagement, saying she has “fear of questions” and is “hiding from accountability.” They present Harris as a leader unwilling to confront the concerns of ordinary citizens. Some also point to previous town hall events which, in the context of P Diddy’s recent arrest, is drawing newfound scrutiny.

Thank you, @Diddy, for hosting this town hall last night. There's a lot at stake for our communities right now and it's critical we bring to the forefront how coronavirus is perpetuating racial inequality and health disparities.https://t.co/mPFYcIhsFD

— Kamala Harris (@KamalaHarris) April 10, 2020

There is a strong current of anti-establishment sentiment in voter discussions—especially among younger and right leaning voters. They criticize Harris as part of an entrenched political elite, disconnected from the daily struggles of average Americans.

Refusing to take audience questions only deepens the perception that Harris represents an inaccessible political class. Many anti-establishment voices accuse her of being a mere “placeholder” for elite interests. They say her candidacy serves the interests of the political establishment and contrast it with Trump’s everyman appeal.

Racial and Generational Divides

Black male voters are increasingly disillusioned, saying they're dissatisfied with the direction of the country. There is frustration that Harris ignores issues important to them like the economy and social equity. This erodes support with black men as many say they prefer Trump, pointing to his past achievements as beneficial to their interests.

Older black women still support Harris, reflecting a generational divide in the electorate. This loyalty is largely cited as Party loyalty and a belief in her capacity to protect the interests of marginalized communities. However, this support is widespread as marginalized groups feel increasingly neglected by the Democratic establishment.

In many clips and images of Harris events, there is a noticeable lack of black men in attendance. This pattern may also be confirmed by Harris’s renewed efforts to appeal to black men with the help of former President Obama and her “Opportunity Agenda.”

Linguistic Analysis

Voter discussions often describe Harris as someone who avoids genuine interaction with the public, saying things like, “she banned questions” and is “avoiding engagement.” People view her leadership as disconnected and strategically controlled to minimize accountability. This furthers perceptions of her as an establishment figure lacking transparency.

Many also use hyperbolic and polarizing language, with critics resorting to terms like “traitor,” “incompetent,” and “evasive” to describe Harris. Supporters use humor and sarcasm to defend her, often pivoting to criticizing Trump. Defensive tactics suggest a sense of insecurity within Harris’s support base, reflecting concerns about her ability to compete with Trump’s populist appeal.

Americans say they want authenticity in political discourse, with many lamenting the lack of direct engagement. This desire for transparency and authenticity resonates with anti-establishment and younger voters. They increasingly view Harris’s controlled political appearances as disingenuous and farcical. The restricted format of the town hall thus serves to exacerbate perceptions of Harris as part of the political elite, further distancing her from the support she needs to energize her campaign.

Democratic Senate candidate for Missouri, Lucas Kunce, hosted a shooting range photo op, which included former Congressman Adam Kinzinger. During the event, Kunce hit a reporter with shrapnel ricochet from metal targets just a few yards away. The injury required non-life threatening first aid.

Great day at the range today with my friend @AdamKinzinger. We got to hang out with some union workers while exercising our freedom. Always have your first aid kit handy. Shrapnel can always fly when you hit a target like today, and you’ve got to be ready to go. We had four first… pic.twitter.com/Qu4YxfrtrU

— Lucas Kunce (@LucasKunceMO) October 23, 2024

With approximately 10 million views overnight, this incident ignited dramatic reaction from the left and the right. It also highlights the contentious nature of gun culture and American politics.

In attempting to connect with traditional American pastimes and gun enthusiasts, Kunce instead drew severe criticism and derision from many on the right—especially gun owners. The incident’s impact on Kunce’s campaign in Missouri against Senator Josh Hawley is yet to be fully revealed, but many are harshly criticizing the safety failure.

I know the Kunce campaign needed a shot in the arm, but this is taking it a little far …

— Josh Hawley (@HawleyMO) October 23, 2024

Soft Defense Beaten by Aggressive Mockery

Kunce’s base mostly views the incident positively. They emphasize themes of freedom, camaraderie, and a hands-on approach to connecting with voters. For supporters, Kunce’s participation in a traditional American activity like target shooting strengthens his image as a relatable, down-to-earth candidate. They believe he understands and respects the culture of his constituents.

However, negative sentiment dominates the broader national conversation. Many call the incident reckless, particularly withing the national discourse around gun violence. Critics, including moderates and politically neutral observers, focus on the safety failures of the event. People use words like “irresponsible” and “negligent” to describe Kunce’s actions.

The accidental injury from shrapnel only exacerbates these concerns, leading many to question Kunce’s judgment and leadership abilities. Many, including gun owners, view the event as tone-deaf and incompetent, especially given the blatant violation of gun safety practices.

Many online are using memes to mock and ridicule all parties involved. Kunce, Kinzinger, and others promoting what many view as an embarrassing and failed photo op, only further amplified the ridicule.

https://t.co/KfMXIghBZf pic.twitter.com/IUHIuhdAkR

— The Right To Bear Memes (@grandoldmemes) October 23, 2024

Holy fuck, did they use a tourniquet to hold a piece of gauze on this lesbian's flesh wound? https://t.co/jDxr8TMb3D pic.twitter.com/Qgorz9Vcs4

— Feni𝕏 Ammunition (@FenixAmmunition) October 23, 2024

Impact on Kunce’s Campaign

Support

The target shooting incident could have far-reaching implications for Kunce’s Senate race. Among his core supporters, the event reinforces his image as a man of the people, potentially energizing rural and pro-gun Democrats who see him as aligned with their values.

For supporters, Kunce’s connection with union workers improves sentiment, positioning him as someone who understands working-class struggles and traditions. In Missouri, where gun ownership is often seen as a marker of individual freedom and cultural identity, making a gesture toward gun support may increase Kunce’s appeal.

Damage

However, the negative reaction from moderates and swing voters nationwide could hurt Kunce’s chances. The safety concerns raised by the incident, especially by injuring a reporter, likely alienate voters who understand gun safety and personal responsibility.

Critics and those already on the fence could be swayed toward Hawley, who claims more real-world understanding of gun ownership and stronger leadership. The incident gives Kunce’s opponents an opening to criticize his judgment, potentially shifting the race’s dynamics as the event continues to dominate public discourse.

The perception of safety, drugs, and trafficking, related to the border, has become a central point of discourse—even in Midwestern states like Michigan and Wisconsin.

Four years of open borders and sanctuary policies have brought criminal drug networks, human trafficking, and an epidemic of sexual assault. https://t.co/WVbcGK3LKh via Steven Malanga

— City Journal (@CityJournal) October 21, 2024

Immigration is a divisive issue, and views are often influenced by political beliefs, age, and socioeconomic status. Fear and distrust are common threads throughout conversations. MIG Reports analysis shows, even in non-border states like Michigan and Wisconsin, attitudes mirror national perspectives which are largely critical of the border situation.

Sentiment Trends

National

Across the country, there is a stark divide about safety, drugs, and immigration.

• 65% of comments are negative, framing immigration as directly contributing to crime and cartel trafficking.
• Anger is connected to dissatisfaction with border policies, which many see as exacerbating public safety concerns.
• 20% assert a conciliatory perspective, advocating for compassion and humanitarian treatment for asylum seekers.
• 15% are ambivalent, expressing concerns about the economic implications of immigration while avoiding political leanings.

Wisconsin

Discourse in Wisconsin echoes the negative national tone.

• 70% of commenters worry about crime and drug trafficking.
• There is a particular emphasis on opioid and methamphetamine addiction and the impact these drugs have on community safety.
• Wisconsinites fear for public safety, with many linking the drug crisis to trafficking operations facilitated by weak border policies.
• 20% are solution-oriented, advocating for rehabilitation and policy reform to address the drug crisis.
• Only 10% express optimistic or positive sentiment about the effectiveness of current interventions.

Michigan

In Michigan, discussions are similarly dominated by fear and frustration.

• 70% are concerned about the safety risks posed by illegal immigration.
• Many voters draw direct connections between migrants and the spread of drugs, particularly fentanyl.
• They say human trafficking, especially of women and children, has risen due to lax immigration policies.
• 20% support legal immigration while still expressing fears about uncontrolled illegal immigration.
• 10% express compassion for asylum seekers, emphasizing the humanitarian aspect of the crisis.

Linguistic Analysis

Fear and Dehumanization

Fear is the most prominent emotional driver in the language about the border. Terms like “murderers,” “drug traffickers,” and “rapists” evoke a sense of urgency and danger. These discussions emphasize the threat to public safety in unsecured borders. Some feel this rhetoric strips migrants of their humanity as “criminal aliens” or “illegals.”

Distrust and Political Blame

Nationally, there is strong disapproval of political and media institutions. In Michigan, voters sometimes accuse media outlets and politicians of hiding the truth about illegal immigration and trafficking. They liken the media to cartels in their control of information, reflecting a belief that systemic corruption is to blame for the crisis.

Many also blame political figures, particularly those who support lenient immigration policies. Voters nationwide point to specific policies, saying open borders and failed enforcement are directly responsible for the crime and drug crises.

Calls for Community Solutions

Despite the overwhelming negativity, there are glimpses of hope in some community-oriented discussions. In Wisconsin, a small but vocal group emphasizes the importance of local interventions. They suggest drug rehabilitation programs and community outreach efforts. These comments use progressive and inclusive language, suggesting the solution to the crisis lies not just in government action but in grassroots initiatives.