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.

The intersection of religion and politics remains divisive in American discourse, particularly when public figures make statements that evoke strong religious, and areligious, sentiments. Two recent events sparked discussions about Christianity in the Republican and Democratic parties.

• At a Kamala Harris rally, two attendees loudly proclaimed, “Jesus is Lord.” She responded saying, “you’re at the wrong rally.”
• During a Republican rally, J.D. Vance replied, “That’s right, Jesus is King,” to audience members who shouted similar sentiments.

Unbelievable!!

As Kamala is on stage fear mongering about abortion, someone shouts “Jesus is Lord!” To which she replies:

“Oh, I think you guys are at the wrong rally.”

Christians are not welcome in Kamala’s Democrat Party. Vote accordingly. pic.twitter.com/aoJiRqnERK

— Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11) October 18, 2024

WOW.

Someone just yelled “JESUS IS KING!” at a JD Vance rally

His response?

“That’s right. Jesus is King.” ✝️

48 hours ago, Kamala had a young boy dragged out of her rally for yelling the same thing, telling him he was “at the wrong rally”

pic.twitter.com/LJ1GgXCs00

— Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) October 20, 2024

These two events sparked fervent reactions on social media among secular and religious audiences. MIG Reports data shows:

• Overall reactions to Harris are mostly negative but positive toward Vance.
• Liberals and younger voters reacted most positively to Harris.
• Conservative Christians and young voters responded most positively to Vance.

Harris: "You’re at the Wrong Rally"

65% Negative Sentiment

• Harris’s dismissal of Christians received widespread criticism.
• Many Americans view it as disrespectful and indicative of the Democratic Party’s broader disconnect from faith-based voters.
• Many comments accuse Harris of being anti-Christian, expressing distrust of her stance on religion.

15% Positive Sentiment

• Harris supporters defended her decision to prioritize political discourse over religious declarations.
• They praise her for maintaining the separation of church and state.
• Progressives and secular voters are the most vocal supporters of Harris’s comments.

15-20% Neutral Sentiment

• Some are indifferent, focusing on the political strategy behind Harris’s response.
• They avoid engaging emotionally with the religious component, taking a hands-off approach.

Vance: "Jesus is King"

45% Positive Sentiment

• Vance’s affirmation of faith resonates strongly with religious conservatives.
• Supporters se his statement as a bold and necessary alignment of moral and political values.
• They praise him for integrating Christianity into his political platform.

35% Negative Sentiment

• Secular liberals and some moderates criticize Vance’s statement, arguing it blurs the lines between church and state.
• Detractors question the sincerity of his religious rhetoric, accusing him of using faith for political gain.

20% Neutral Sentiment

• Some responses are indifferent, focusing instead on broader political issues and downplaying the significance of Vance’s religious affirmation.

Demographic Patterns

Both incidents drew sharp demographic divides. These patterns reveal cultural fault lines between different political and religious groups in the U.S.

Kamala Harris

• Religious Voters: There is overwhelming disapproval from religious conservatives, particularly Christians who feel alienated by Harris’s disregard for faith. About 80% of comments from these groups express strong negative reactions.
• Political Groups: Liberal and progressive voters are more likely to defend Harris, with up to 70% of comments either positive or neutral toward her stance.
• Age Demographics: Younger voters, particularly those under 35, are more inclined to support Harris’s secular approach. 55+ voters are critical, often citing traditional religious values as being under threat by her rhetoric.

J.D. Vance

• Religious Conservatives: Evangelical Christians and conservative Republicans are the largest supporters. They view faith as a necessary affirmation of America’s Christian identity and moral framework.
• Secular and Progressive Voters: Criticism of Vance comes largely from secular progressives. They see his statement as an inappropriate merger of faith and governance. They emphasize keeping religion out of political rhetoric.
• Independents and Moderates: Independent voters have mixed reactions, with some willing to engage with religious messaging while others are skeptical about its relevance to governance.

Linguistic and Rhetorical Themes

The language used in reactions provides additional insight into the role of religion in public life.

Kamala Harris

• Dismissive Rhetoric: Many view Harris’s remark, "You’re at the wrong rally," as dismissive. They say it furthers perceptions of Democrats as disconnected from voters of faith. Religious conservatives feel excluded by her response.
• Religious Imagery: Critics of Harris use religious imagery, with phrases like "Kamala Hates Jesus." These responses frame her as antagonistic to Christian values, highlighting the divide between secular and religious voters.

J.D. Vance

• Religious Affirmation: The phrase "Jesus is King" resonates with those who see it as an affirmation of faith in public life. The use of religious language is a rallying cry for conservative Christians.
• Polarizing Rhetoric: Critics use terms like "manipulating faith" and "political opportunism" to express their disapproval of religion and politics. Secular voters are skeptical about the sincerity and appropriateness of religious rhetoric.

Deeper Meaning and Cultural Implications

Kamala Harris

Harris’s interaction underscores the challenge progressive politicians face in navigating secular progressivism with religion and politics. Many Americans view her dismissiveness as emblematic of an anti-religious agenda that alienates voters of faith, particularly those from more conservative Christian backgrounds.

J.D. Vance

Vance’s embrace of religious rhetoric represents the Republican Party’s broader alignment with Christian conservatism. His affirmation of faith is celebrated by supporters as a necessary expression of moral governance. However, critics object to religion as a political tool or a violation of separating church and state.

Donald Trump’s recent stop at a McDonald’s is hotly discussed online and in the media. Those on the left view it as a trivial campaign stunt, but for many voters, it’s a gesture of good-humored solidarity with working Americans.

pic.twitter.com/YkLtEaC3OI

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 21, 2024

Voter discussions about this event are split along partisan lines. Democrats and liberals are mostly critical, calling the campaign stop “staged,” “pretend,” and “disrespectful.” Trump supporters, meanwhile, reacted positively, embracing Trump’s tongue-in-cheek but authentic retail politics as indicative of his relatable love for America and Americans.

Reactions to the McDonald’s visit serve as a microcosm of Trump’s broader campaign strategy, underscoring his unique ability to tap into working-class nostalgia, populism, and defiance against elitism.

Why McDonald’s Matters

From a simple fast-food stop, a narrative emerges that reflects the broader divide in the American electorate. MIG Reports data shows:

Support from Trump’s Base

• 60% of Trump supporters express strong positive sentiments toward the McDonald’s visit.
• Many view it as a testament to Trump’s connection with everyday Americans, a leader who eschews elitism and embraces the working class.
• Comments from this group suggest Trump’s authenticity continues to bolster his populist appeal.
• This gesture reinforces beliefs that Trump is “one of us,” a sentiment key to his ongoing political success.

Humor Among Supporters

• 30% of supporters admit it's performative, but say a lighthearted moment being twisted by the media is as unserious as Trump working at McDonald’s.
• While they still support the visit, they focus on countering liberal narratives with things like, "It's just fries and a burger."
• They emphasize the hypocrisy of incredulous media reactions over any meaningful political impact the event may have.

Breathless Indignation from the Left

Despite widespread jocularity among Republicans, the media and Democrats flail against the campaign stunt.

Walz on The View: Trump going to work at a McDonald's was disrespectful to McDonald's workers. pic.twitter.com/2ZMB9MrNNI

— Washington Free Beacon (@FreeBeacon) October 21, 2024

Out-of-Touch Criticism

• 70% of liberal reactions to the McDonald’s visit were negative, often mocking it as a low point in presidential decorum.
• Many on the left seize upon the chance to frame Trump as out of touch with the responsibilities of leadership, saying he made a mockery of the working class.
• Liberals also say Trump’s McDonald’s appearance clearly shows his unhinged or declining mental state.

Moderates and Traditional Republicans

• 20% of liberals react with deep seriousness, framing the visit as indicative of a troubling populist trend within the Republican Party.
• They call it a facile attempt to curry favor with everyday Americans while he fails to adequately address more substantive issues.
• Some say theatrics detract from pressing social and economic issues, insisting Trump is engaging in frivolous behavior.

Meme Culture and the Power of Symbolism

One of the most fascinating aspects of Trump’s McDonald’s visit is how powerfully it is amplified through memes and social media. Supporters and critics alike have used images and symbols to create narratives that align with their perspectives.

Supportive Memes

• Trump voters quickly turned the McDonald’s stop into a meme, celebrating his authenticity.
• Homage memes frame Trump as relatable, using his friendly and personable image to contrast him with political and cultural elites who they see as hostile and disingenuous.
• Many memes mock the over-serious reactions from Democrats and the media which claim the stunt is deceptive and staged.

Critical Memes

• Critics of the McDonald’s visit attempt to portray Trump as unserious or unfit for leadership, making light of his penchant for fast food and claiming he is “not well.”
• Many in the media feign confusion, calling the event “bizarre” or “not logical,” generating more memes among those who disbelieve the media’s sincerity.

Trump at McDonald’s being shown how French fries are made pic.twitter.com/neD4qa74MB

— Acyn (@Acyn) October 20, 2024

The Iconography of Trump’s Campaign

Trump’s ability to harness powerful images to reinforce his message isn’t limited to McDonald’s. His campaign phot ops have been unparalleled in this election, with many pointing to iconic images filled with emotion, patriotism, and memetic power.

The most iconic campaign of all time pic.twitter.com/Tw2TLFg0eu

— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) October 20, 2024

Voters compare memorable imagery from Trump’s campaign, including:

• Trump’s mugshot in 2023, which became a symbol of his "politics of defiance." Supporters view this image as representing the fight against a corrupt system.
• Likely the most powerful image from the campaign, many people mention Trump’s defiant pose after the failed assassination attempt.
• Many also point to images of Trump and RFK Jr., representing the unifying and cross-party enthusiasm for the populist MAGA platform.
• Some also point to images of Trump sipping cola at the Al Smith dinner as a sign of his collectedness in a hostile environment.

Momentum Building for the Trump Camp

The McDonald’s stop may seem trivial at first glance, but voter discussions around the event reveal much about the race and American feelings around average citizens versus elites and power brokers.

• Populism Over Performance: Trump supporters view him as relatable and capable of connecting with American working-class values. They voice their admiration for a leader who "gets them."
• Liberal Elitism: The left’s continued attacks elicit accusations of establishment figures demeaning and alienating voters. Their unwillingness to see the power in Trump’s endearing gestures is glaring weakness in their own political strategy.
• A Visual Campaign: From mugshots to fast-food stops, Trump’s campaign thrives on powerful, patriotic imagery. These symbols of defiance and authenticity resonate deeply with voters who feel overlooked by the political establishment.

MIG Reports data shows Trump voters use patriotic and policy-focused language. Democrats tend to use complex references to various ideological viewpoints like diversity, equity, and inclusion. Both sides use emotional appeals, viewing this election as high-stakes and important for the future of the country.

Language in Trump Discussions

Commanding and Emotive Language

The most effective language Trump supporters use is mobilizing and emotionally charged. About 60% of comments from Trump supporters include assertive, commanding language like "Save America," which serves as a rallying cry for collective action.

Emotional rhetoric is present in 70% of these comments, often evoking pride, anger, or fear to galvanize like-minded individuals. Terms such as “third-world communistic” serve as fuel for rallying opposition to perceived threats to American values.

Narrative Framing

A large portion of Trump’s base frames him as a figure fighting systemic corruption, positioning themselves as "We the People" battling against political elites. This framing shapes a shared identity among supporters.

Comparisons and Patriotic Phrases

Trump’s base compares him to revered historical figures, like George Washington. They use phrases like "America First" and "support the troops" in 62% of the discussions. The narrative elevates Trump as a protector of traditional American values.

Language in Harris Discussions

Positive Affirmations and Emotional Connections

Harris supporters use positive affirmations and personal emotional connections. In 20% of comments, phrases like “I just voted for you!” reflect enthusiasm and personal involvement. Emotional appeals, such as “We love you & your family!” personalize political support and foster a sense of loyalty.

Policy Focus and Empathy

Policy discussions compose 12% of the discussion, engaging Harris’s politically interested supporters. Topics like marijuana legalization and social justice rally support. Many also mention abortion, galvanizing the progressive base.

Ineffective Language for Trump

Name-Calling and Overgeneralizations

While insults and name-calling are prevalent, they are often ineffective. About 30% of Trump supporter comments use terms like, “witch” or vague generalizations like, “the left doesn’t care,” These don’t engage moderates or persuade undecided voters.

Conspiratorial Language

Discussion around conspiracies is also less effective in persuasion. While it appeals to a segment of the base, around 25% focus on theories of election cheating, which alienates moderates. It also allows Democrats to frame Trump supporters as paranoid or irrational.

Ineffective Language for Harris

Insults and Surface-Level Criticisms

Harris voters often resort to personal attacks and vague insults, which prove ineffective. Comments like “you’re a clown” or “Trump is Hitler” lack substance, turning away undecided voters and detracting from constructive discourse.

Overgeneralizations

Lack of detail and confusion are also an issue for Harris supporters. Lack of clarity around race or gender stereotypes are ineffective, alienating potential supporters from diverse backgrounds.

Fuel for Opposition

Donald Trump

Some Trump supporters engage in extremist language, which fuels the opposition. Around 15% of these comments suggest violence or use exclusionary language. This language allows opponents to frame Trump supporters as extreme or dangerous.

Kamala Harris

Some use identity-based attacks, reflecting underlying racial and gender biases. Comments that rely on these stereotypes likely do not appeal to voters who resist voting for candidates based on identity.

Demographic Patterns

Younger Voters

Voters from 18-35 use distinct language patterns toward both candidates. Young Trump voter lean heavily on humor and memes to engage with political discourse, often using platforms like TikTok or Instagram. Younger Harris supporters often use positive, uplifting language, focusing on community-building and social justice.

Older Voters

Older Trump voters invoke historical references and traditional values, framing Trump as a stabilizing force in changing political dynamics. Older Harris supporters focus on policy specifics and the broader implications of social justice.

Gender Dynamics

Male Supporters for Trump

Men predominantly support Trump, using assertive, masculine language that emphasizes strength and decisiveness. About 65% of male Trump supporters engage in this style of discourse, reinforcing traditional gender norms.

Female Supporters for Harris

Women more often support Harris, emphasizing community and solidarity. They use language of empathy and inclusivity. This aligns with broader discussions about gender dynamics in political spaces.

Linguistic Analysis for Deeper Meaning

Trump supporters consistently frame him as a misunderstood hero battling an entrenched, corrupt system, while Harris’s supporters focus on narratives of progress and inclusivity.

Militaristic and Urgent Appeals

Trump supporters use militaristic metaphors and emotionally charged terms like “invasion” or “battlefield.” These words create a sense of urgency and determination, posing the election as a decisive moment in preserving American values.

Progressive and Inclusive Language

Harris supporters focus on progressive language, emphasizing equity, justice, and social progress. This language appeals to those prioritizing systemic change and a move away from traditional structures of power.

Racial and Gender Tensions

The language used in these discussions frequently highlights deep-rooted societal biases. Trump supporters often reference racial and cultural identity, invoking nationalistic ideals, while Harris’s supporters focus on gender equity and racial justice.

he recent controversy over CBS suspiciously editing Kamala Harris’s “60 Minutes” interview has escalated. This incident has grown larger than one interview or one candidate—it brings into question the role mainstream media in politics.

CBS released a statement framing the incident as Trump making accusations of “deceitful editing.” It went on to admit edits were made, but ultimately placed blame at Trump’s feet, saying, “Remember, Mr. Trump pulled out of his interview with 60 Minutes and the vice president participated.”

The statement drew heavy criticism from many people on social media, including lawyers, journalists, former CBS employees like Cathrine Herridge, and Trump himself.

🚨BREAKING: Trump announces he will likely sue CBS/60 Minutes for the editing of Kamala’s answer!

“It’s the worst scandal… I think I’m going to sue.”

They should lose their license for LYING to the American people! pic.twitter.com/9aVw67NHSz

— Gunther Eagleman™ (@GuntherEagleman) October 18, 2024

The outcries accuse CBS of:

• Breaking journalistic integrity by refusing to release the full transcript.
• Lying about the extent of their deceptive edits.
• Revealing political partisanship by attacking Trump.

Exposing Media Bias

The edited interview omitted certain remarks and altered the context of Harris’s responses. When X users pointed out the discrepancies in various cuts of the question, many raised serious questions about transparency.

Harris’s critics say CBS is actively protecting her from scrutiny, particularly around sensitive topics like immigration and foreign policy. This is not an isolated incident, and many say it’s part of a larger pattern of editorial choices designed to shape public perceptions of Democratic candidates.

Key Examples of Bias

• Selective Editing: CBS edited portions of Harris’s “60 Minutes” interview, raising concerns about presenting an incomplete narrative.
• Lack of Transparency: CBS’s refusal to release the full transcript further fuels distrust, denying the public from judging based on the unedited content.
• Historical Context: This is not the first time CBS or other major networks have been accused of bias. Similar patterns emerged in coverage during the 2016 and 2020 elections, with a notable tilt by legacy outlets toward Democratic candidates.

Consequences for Public Trust

Public trust in the media has been declining for years, and incidents like this only exacerbate the problem. According to MIG Reports data, 60% of overall reactions express skepticism about CBS’s motives. Most Americans suggest the network’s editorial decisions reveal bias against Trump. This growing distrust is not limited to conservative voters—moderates and some Independents often question mainstream media bias.

Voter Group Reactions

• Conservatives: 75% distrust CBS, viewing it as part of a broader media agenda to protect Democrats and harm Trump.
• Moderates: 55% express skepticism but recognize the challenges of modern political journalism.
• Independents: 60% of Independents are ambivalent. They believe the media is biased but they are more concerned about Harris’s policy positions.
• Liberals: 65% of liberal voters defended CBS, saying there is heightened scrutiny on media outlets in a hyper-partisan election.

Impact on the 2024 Election

The implications of media manipulation are increasingly apparent with the rise of alternate platforms like X, where mainstream narratives are regularly challenged. Voters say when networks like CBS push partisan narratives, they influence the election in ways Democrats and media are fond of accusing conservatives of doing.

For the dwindling number of voters who rely on these outlets, distorted stories and depictions of political figures dangerously alter the public’s ability to make informed judgements. This is particularly serious when outlets fail to offer transparency when they are called out.

Voters believe Kamala Harris interviews should have been a straightforward opportunity for voters to understand her positions. Instead, they say CBS’s editing framed her responses in a way that sanitizes controversy, making it harder for voters to assess her leadership capabilities.

Projected Election Impact

• Perception Shaping: Selective editing reshapes public perceptions among undecided voters who may not view unbiased or counter-narrative content.
• Voter Disillusionment: The more voters sense media manipulation, the more disengaged they become, leading to potential lower voter turnout.
• Independent Voters: Important voter groups are becoming disengaged and critical of mainstream media, making gaining their votes more difficult.

Media Credibility Crisis and Trump Hate

CBS’s refusal to provide transparency reflects a broader crisis of credibility in the media. Americans increasingly distrust legacy outlets for news reports and analysis. This crisis exacerbates beliefs that the media is no longer reporting news, but actively trying to shape it.

The problem extends beyond CBS. The selective editing of political figures is part of a larger pattern where media outlets prioritize creating narratives over offering balanced, transparent reporting.

Many voters believe CBS and other outlets harbor a systemic bias against conservatives, but especially Donald Trump. They say partisan bias among executives and journalists pushes the network to present Trump unfavorably at any cost. Many voters feel trapped in a media landscape that cynically frames and twists information while smearing all dissenters as the ones pedaling “misinformation.”

A Nail in CBS’s Coffin

Distrust in the media has been growing for many years. However, this election cycle is further entrenching American views of media bias and free information.

Overall, sentiments indicate voters are angry and concerned that CBS is violating ethical norms. They say manipulating content and failing to provide transparency could be a death blow to the network.

Viewers question both the integrity of individual media outlets and the larger implications of their editorial practices. More Americans are saying legacy media is crumbling and may be obsolete sometime soon.

Both average Americans and celebrities are discussing this, demonstrated by a viral clip of Hollywood actor Zachary Levi calling out the ladies of “The View” for political bias in showbusiness. His assertions that Hollywood is a dying industry gained supportive reactions—especially from users on alternative platforms like X.

Zachary Levi went live on IG to talk about his support for Donald Trump- and towards the end, he sent a message to the women on The View- saying there is very much an imbalance in Hollywood in regards to Conservative and Liberal actors. He also sent a message to his fellow… pic.twitter.com/THXn6DjCJJ

— Steph Anie (@mynerdyhome) October 21, 2024