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

The presidential election is two weeks out and social media discussions are heating up. This analysis examines the linguistic patterns and themes among Trump and Harris supporters. There are marked differences in tone, strategy, and overall engagement between the two political groups.

Trump Supporters

Confidence and Assertion

• GOP voters are expressing confidence, feeling momentum on Trump’s side.
• 70-75% use declarative, assertive statements, projecting certainty in his victory.
• Phrases such as “We’re taking back America” and “Trump has the majority, just watch” demonstrate their belief in a preordained victory.
• Language reflects a sense of control, citing facts like polling numbers or endorsements to back voter assertions.
• Republicans tend to see themselves as part of an unstoppable movement.

Affirmative Language

• Trump supporters predominantly adopt an affirmative stance.
• 70-80% use positive declarations of Trump’s accomplishments and potential.
• Statements like “Make America Great Again” and “We’re winning this for sure” illustrate a proactive approach to political engagement.
• Rather than addressing the opposition directly, these supporters focus on reinforcing their own narrative of strength and inevitability.
• They often sidestep negative commentary on Harris, choosing instead to concentrate on celebrating Trump’s achievements.

Collective and Detached

• There is a preference for third-person usage among Trump supporters.
• 60-75% of their language focuses on external validation of Trump’s achievements or references to larger groups, such as unions or law enforcement backing.
• For instance, phrases like “The National Border Patrol Council supports Trump” or “Look at the economy under Trump” emphasize collective achievements.
• This language serves to distance the conversation from personal sentiment, creating a sense of communal effort and shared purpose among supporters.

High Excitement

• 75-85% of Trump voters express exuberance and energy.
• Their language is filled with exclamations, capitalizations, and enthusiastic hashtags such as “#Trump2024” and “We’re winning!”
• There is enthusiasm and emotional investment in the campaign’s success.
• Their discussions often mention the excitement of attending rallies or participating in political action, further reinforcing a shared sense of purpose.

Harris Supporters

Defensive and Cautious

• Harris supporters express a more defensive and cautious tone.
• Language reflects frustration with both the opposition and their own camp, as they counter criticisms while praising Harris’s competence.
• 30-35% speak with confidence, but the majority oscillate between defensive and speculative statements.
• Phrases like “Harris will win if people see her vision” or “She’s the only one who can fix this” suggest a need to convince others rather than proclaim victory.
• This reactive posture creates an undercurrent of uncertainty and frustration.

Defensive Language

• 60-65% of Harris supporters tend to react defensively.
• Their comments often defend against criticism and deflect blame to Trump.
• People say things like “She’s done more for healthcare than Trump ever did” and “Trump supporters are just blind to the facts.”
• While there is engagement, confidence is lower, as much of the discourse is reactionary rather than assertive.
• These supporters seem focused on fending off attacks rather than crafting a clear affirmative case for Harris.

Personal and Emotional

• Harris supporters tend to use first-person language more frequently.
• 65-80% of their comments focused on personal experiences or emotional connections.
• Phrases like “I believe Harris is fighting for us” or “We need someone who understands our struggles” are emotionally charged and defensive.
• Personal engagement underscores the emotional investment in the campaign.
• Voters anchor their arguments in personal beliefs rather than collective narratives.

Moderated Enthusiasm

• 40-50% of Democratic voters express high enthusiasm.
• While there is urgency in their language, it often centers on warnings or calls to action against Trump.
• They say things like, “We need to stop Trump” or “Make your voting plan now.”
• The cautious, urgent tone, sounds driven by fear of Trump’s return to power rather than excitement for Harris’s platform.
• The enthusiasm among Harris’s base is subdued, reflecting both concern and the pressing need for political action rather than celebration.

Silent Majority and Subtle Dismissals

Trump Supporters

• One of the defining characteristics of Republican voter language is the quiet, almost dismissive way they address opposing arguments.
• They often ignore or subtly dismiss Harris supporter critiques without engaging in direct confrontation.
• Statements like “Everyone knows the truth” or “People will see through the lies” demonstrate a quiet confidence among Trump supporters.
• This dismissiveness conveys that they believe victory is assured, and engaging directly with opposition claims is unnecessary.

Harris Supporters

• Democratic voters engage more directly with Trump’s base but often do so with a cautious tone.
• While they push back against Trump’s rhetoric, their responses often lack the same level of confidence.
• Their subtle dismissals are frequently tinged with anxiety, as reflected in statements like “Trump is all talk” or “His supporters won’t listen to reason.”
• These comments demonstrate a desire to counter opposition arguments, but with a level of timidity, fear of confrontation, or doubt in their own position.

The FBI quietly revised its crime statistics, revealing a 4.5% increase in violent crime under the Biden administration. This directly contradicts a widely reported 2.1% decrease touted by the media and Democrats for weeks.

There it is: FBI "revised" violent crime data, now reporting that instead of a 2.1% drop in violent crime in 2022, it was actually a 4.5% increase. https://t.co/Bvbg0wKy1A pic.twitter.com/h6nfjRRlUb

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) October 16, 2024

Americans are outraged, confirming their beliefs that crime is on the rise, supported by their own observations in the face of media narratives. Analysis identifies why Americans perceive the FBI's revision as politically motivated and their anxieties about governance and law enforcement in the United States.

What Americans are Saying

Voters are extremely frustrated an angry with the Biden-Harris administration, particularly directing their ire at VP Harris. Dissatisfaction stems from perceptions that the government is failing to manage crime, immigration, and economic issues.

Many express a sense of betrayal, arguing promises made by the administration have not been fulfilled. There are also many critiques of the government's approach to public safety and economic recovery, with some tying rising crime rates to policy failures.

Anger about crime statistics dovetails with growing distrust in institutions. Skepticism toward the FBI, mainstream media, and other government entities is rampant. Voters are doubtful about the integrity of official statistics and narratives.

People believe traditional sources of authority are no longer reliable, especially when it comes to reporting on politically charged issues like crime. Discussions also show stark partisan division, with Trump supporters contrasting his presidency with Biden’s, emphasizing the perception of greater safety and stability under Trump's leadership.

Perceptions of the FBI Revision

Voters believe the FBI's revision of crime statistics serves a political purpose. Many speculate the incorrect initial numbers were not mistaken, but politically calculated to protect the Biden administration from scrutiny.

Many view disparate reports not as honest corrections but attempts to manipulate public perception. They say reports attempt to paint a more favorable image of crime under Biden's leadership.

The notion that the FBI is involved in political maneuvering connects with wider themes of distrust in government institutions. Increasingly, voters view various federal agencies as operating in service of political elites rather than in the public interest.

People use terms like "gaslighting," saying they feel the government is trying to deceive them about the reality of rising crime. Those on the right also point out media bias—particularly David Muir fact checking Trump during the presidential debate, saying the FBI reports show crime is down.

Reasons Americans Think Crime is Up

Many voters say government policy—specifically immigration—contributes to increased violent crime. They say lenient immigration policies allow criminals into the United States, increasing violent crime. This belief reflects broader concerns about border security and the failure of the Biden administration to maintain law and order.

People also mention economic instability, saying inflation, unemployment, and stagnating wages lead to desperation and more criminal behavior. There is a sense that economic hardship under Biden’s administration has created conditions conducive to crime, further exacerbating public safety concerns.

Voters are also disillusioned with law enforcement. Some argue Democrats demoralize police forces, weakening their ability to effectively prevent and respond to crime. People say law enforcement has been neutered under Democrat rule allowing criminals to proceed without fear of serious consequences.

Deeper Underlying Sentiments

Voters voice specific grievances about crime and policy as well as more thematic anxieties about the state of the country. People fear rising crime is a symptom of more serious societal decline.

Americans are concerned about the future, suggesting the country is headed toward chaos and instability. These fears are often linked to nostalgia for stronger leadership, particularly under Donald Trump. Many view his presidency as a period of greater safety and prosperity.

In general, there is little middle ground in these discussions. Voters typically fervently support Trump or Democrats—though a sense of doom if the opposition gains political power crosses into both camps. The stark divide reflects partisan tension in American society, where crime and public safety have become deeply politicized issues.

The Biden-Harris administration’s border is a focal point of the election. Between Oct. 10-17, thousands of voters voiced their strong opinions on the impact of Democratic policies. They link immigration to crime, economic hardship, and political manipulation.

General Sentiment on Immigration

A frequent criticism of the administration is that Biden and Harris allow “open border” policies. Voters particularly point out rising criminal activity and increased human trafficking. They are angry about rising violent crime rates, directly blaming Harris.

Some also scorched Harris’s comments on Fox News, in which she failed to take responsibility for immigration failures during her administration. Those on the right share and discuss a response from the mother of Jocelyn Nungaray—a victim of illegal immigrant crime. She criticized Harris saying, “She is completely full of it. She is not a sincere woman at all. She has no sympathy, no empathy to her."

JUST IN: The mother of 12-year-old Jocelyn Nungaray unleashes on Kamala Harris, blames Harris for her daughter's r*pe and de*th.

Alexis Nungaray got emotional as she ripped Harris for her half-apology during the Bret Baier interview.

"[Kamala] is completely full of it. She is… pic.twitter.com/RJ61ww0pLy

— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) October 18, 2024

Voter conversations often focus on high-profile incidents, such as gang violence perpetrated by criminal groups like the Venezuelan Tren de Aragua gang. These and other violent crimes are frequently mentioned as examples of the dangers of Harris’s policies.

Beyond the outrage over criminal violence, discussions reveal a growing fear that unchecked immigration is overwhelming social services. Americans fear towns and cities in places like Indiana and Pennsylvania are becoming strained by immigration, just as border states have been for many years.

Major Discussion Themes

Illegal Immigration

Illegal immigration dominates the discussions with frustration and fear over its consequences. Americans say illegal immigrants are breaking U.S. laws, taking jobs, resources, and opportunities from citizens.

Voters blame the Biden-Harris administration for prioritizing illegal immigrants over Americans. There are also calls for more aggressive enforcement measures, including stricter deportations and policies like E-Verify to curb illegal hiring practices.

Border Security

Americans want a secure border. They view the failures of the current administration as directly responsible for violent crime, drug trafficking, cartel activity, and economic instability. For many, the election is a critical opportunity to correct these failures by ousting Harris, preventing her from further devastating the country with a border crisis.

Cartels and Criminal Activity

People also believe the administration turns a blind eye to cartels which exploit the porous border. They say Democrats tacitly approve of the influx of drugs and dangerous individuals by their inaction. Discussions focus on the human costs of these policies like rising drug-related deaths and violence by gangs in places like Aurora.

Economic and Social Strain

There are concerns that illegal immigration puts undue pressure on local resources, particularly in areas already struggling economically. Schools, healthcare systems, and social services are often overburdened by the influx of migrants. There are more and more communities struggling to maintain public safety and provide for their residents.

Political Manipulation and Distrust in Leadership

Many say Democrats use immigration as a tool to shift the electoral balance by allowing illegal immigrants to vote—either illegally or by with amnesty. Those on the right are especially suspicious that Democrats are undermining national security for political gain. This sentiment fuels much of the criticism directed at both Biden and Harris. This narrative positions immigration a broader ideological and electoral battleground.