Several military family reactions recently followed Vice President Kamala Harris's criticism of former President Donald Trump visiting Arlington National Cemetery. In a statement, Harris condemned Trump for allegedly politicizing a sacred space by filming a video at the memorial. This sparked intense debate among voters. Her statement, which painted Trump as disrespectful to Gold Star families, led to polarized reactions, with many taking sides based on their views of military honor and leadership.

As Vice President, I have had the privilege of visiting Arlington National Cemetery several times. It is a solemn place; a place where we come together to honor American heroes who have made the ultimate sacrifice in service of this nation.

It is not a place for politics.

And…

— Kamala Harris (@KamalaHarris) August 31, 2024

MIG Reports analysis of the controversy shows partisan divides and intense anger directed at Harris from military families.

Military Families Support Trump

Among those invested in the PR battle between Harris and Trump regarding Afghanistan Gold Star families, Trump has strong support. Those who lost loved ones in the Afghanistan withdrawal are particularly venomous against the Biden-Harris administration, whom they blame for their tragic losses.

Following Harris’s statement, Trump began tweeting video clips from Gold Star families thanking him for his attendance and criticizing Harris.

Mark Schmitz, Father of Lance Corporal Jared M. Schmitz… https://t.co/CHNRzcTa0J pic.twitter.com/pRLF9tS7Jn

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 1, 2024

Gold Star and other military families are quick to defend Trump’s Arlington visit, saying he was invited, while Kamala Harris has yet to mention any of the names of the fallen. Many of these families highlighted how Trump had been there for them since the tragic Kabul airport bombing, with one father calling Harris’s statements “heinous, vile, and disgusting.”

The deep emotional connection these families have with Trump contrasts sharply with their perception of Harris and the Biden administration. Many Gold Star families feel betrayed by how the Afghanistan withdrawal was handled. They view Trump’s actions as demonstrative of his respect and empathy.

Voters Talking About Abbey Gate Favor Trump

Among those discussing the Abbey Gate anniversary and Gold Star families, there are political divisions. Conversations focus on the role of leadership and respect for military service.

MIG Reports data shows:

• 62% of Americans discussing the controversy side with Trump, viewing his Arlington visit as a respectful gesture at the request of Gold Star families.
• 25% of voters echo Harris, questioning Trump’s sincerity, accusing him of using the cemetery visit for political gain.
• 13% of the conversation—mostly moderates—express mixed feelings, often criticizing both Trump and Harris.

Trump supporters accuse Harris of lacking empathy and politicizing an event meant to honor fallen soldiers. They use words like "heinous," "disgusting," and "shameful,” illustrating the intensity of their opposition to Harris.

Harris supporters accuse Trump as setting the stage for the chaotic Afghanistan withdrawal, suggesting he bears responsibility for the resulting deaths. These anti-Trump voters use terms like "surrender" and "political maneuvering" to describe his actions.

Moderates, while critical of both Trump and Harris, call for more transparency and accountability from both leaders. Their comments highlight the complexities of the military withdrawal, with some noting Harris’s statement may be warranted, but poorly timed or delivered.

Many Americans Don’t Care

While most discussions specifically focused on Trump’s visit to Arlington National Cemetery express support for his attendance, many Americans seem unaware of or uninvested in veterans’ causes.

The overall national sentiment toward Trump and Harris regarding Afghanistan favors Harris.

• On the day of Harris’s statement, she saw 47% approval on the military compared to Trump’s 44%.
• Regarding Afghanistan, Harris’s support on Aug. 31 was 48% to Trump’s 44%.

Despite this disparity in approval, MIG Reports analysis suggests Harris supporters focus more on defending her against Trump than supporting the Biden-Harris administration’s actions regarding Afghanistan.

• Around 60% of comments from Kamala Harris supporters reflect a defensive stance regarding her involvement in the Afghanistan withdrawal. They say the situation was inherited from the Trump administration, emphasizing the pre-negotiated terms with the Taliban as the root cause of the chaotic exit.
• Approximately 25% of Harris supporters react strongly against criticisms of Harris, using phrases like "blatant lie" or "sick lie." This suggests a significant effort to counter negative views of Harris's role. This group aims to protect her image as a competent leader in national security.
• Only 15% of express pride in the decisions made by Harris and Biden, viewing the withdrawal as a necessary step to refocus on domestic issues, despite the challenges involved.

The general sentiment among Harris supporters is predominantly characterized by a protective and reactive stance. They focus on shifting blame and defending her reputation. While there's a minority celebrating her leadership, the majority are engaged in defending against criticisms.

Potential Political Fallout

The fallout from the Abbey Gate memorial controversy underscores deep divisions among voters on military issues and leadership. For many, especially military families, Trump’s actions have cemented their loyalty. This group view Harris’s statement as tone-deaf and disrespectful.

Harris supporters meanwhile argue that concerns about politicizing military memorials are valid. They continue to criticize Trump’s supposed role in the Afghanistan withdrawal, which occurred during the Biden administration, while dismissing any claims of incompetence or disrespect from Harris or Biden.

This controversy highlights the ongoing importance of national security and military sacrifice in shaping voter preferences. For military veterans and their families, these issues may play a decisive role tipping support toward Trump. However, Americans writ large may not be as moved by controversies in which they do not feel personally invested.

Over Labor Day weekend, pro-Palestine protests made waves in New York City with police engaging protesters in the streets. MIG Reports analysis of social media commentary shows discussion trends, sentiment trends, and overall posture of the Democratic Party regarding Palestine.

💥 PICKET LINE MEANS: DON'T CROSS! 💥
JOIN THE PICKET LINE FOR PALESTINE — DON’T CROSS THE PICKET LINE. CALL OUT SICK. DO NOT ENTER CAMPUS. DO NOT GO TO CLASSES. DO NOT HOLD CLASS. pic.twitter.com/njL70ePrNm

— Within Our Lifetime (@WOLPalestine) September 3, 2024

Split Sentiment in the Democratic Party

The pro-Palestinian protests in NYC over Labor Day weekend spark contentious dialogue among Democratic voters. Discussions reveal growing dissatisfaction with the Biden-Harris administration's policies regarding Israel and Palestine, especially their stance on military aid to Israel.

Across multiple platforms, voters criticize prominent Democratic leaders, including Biden and Harris, for failing to take a decisive stance against Israeli military actions. Many see their policies as too supportive of Israel and ignoring Gaza.

This sentiment is expressed by more than half of Democrats in online conversations. They express frustration with the leadership’s perceived complicity in the violence.

Calls for Ceasefire and Accountability

Many pro-Palestine Democrats demand an immediate ceasefire. They voice an urgent desire for an end to the hostilities between Israel and Hamas. Many emphasize the need to stop the violence and prioritize humanitarian efforts, voicing empathy for those in Gaza.

This group uses terms like "genocide" and "massacre" often, with calls to reevaluate U.S. military aid to Israel. Some mention laws like the Leahy Law, which prohibits aid to foreign military units implicated in human rights abuses. The push for accountability is strong, as many demand that Democratic leaders like Kamala Harris reassess their foreign policies.

Polarization Over U.S. Foreign Policy

There has been sustained polarization in the Democratic Party since Oct. 7, 2023, particularly over foreign policy. Many voters criticize Biden and Harris, saying they enable the continuation of violence through military support for Israel. They argue the administration is morally obligated to reassess its position and advocate for Palestinian rights more aggressively.

An apparently shrinking yet vocal group of Democrats maintain a neutral or supportive stance toward Israel. They focus on Israel's right to defend itself against Hamas. This division suggests the Democratic Party faces internal struggles that could impact electoral strategies moving forward.

The Role of Progressive Voices

Progressive factions of Democrats—who often express anti-American sentiments—are increasingly pushing for a shift toward a more pro-Palestinian stance. These voters are frustrated with the Biden administration and other key Democratic figures. They often criticize leaders like Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, who they say is overly supportive of Israeli policies.

The younger, more progressive wing of the party appears particularly energized by the protests. They regularly advocate for and protest to influence foreign policy which prioritizes Palestinian causes.

The leftist or progressive faction is also pushing a narrative of intersectionality and social justice issues. They draw parallels between the Palestinian struggle and broader global movements for human rights and equity.

Implications for the Future of the Party

Ongoing tensions suggest the Democratic Party may be forced to reevaluate its stance on Israel and Palestine to maintain the loyalty of progressives. Traditional Democrats run the risk of alienating a significant portion of the voter base by continuing to challenge radical and antisemitic movements.

The growing divide between historically centrist leadership and the progressive faction could lead to broader electoral implications. With more than half of Democratic voters expressing dissatisfaction, the Party is walking a thin line trying to maintain unity.

Kamala Harris’s campaign particularly risks losing support from those like the “Uncommitted,” who feel their voices are being ignored in favor of maintaining the status quo. Democratic leadership will likely face increasing pressure to adopt a more radical and leftist foreign policy as the election draws closer and university students return to campus.

Rep. Tony Gonzalez (R-TX) recently posted a segment of his appearance on CBS Face the Nation with the caption, “Illegal Immigration = BAD, Legal Immigration = GOOD.” After Gonzalez, the Republican incumbent, was squarely ratioed, MIG Reports analysis shows public sentiment voices strong opposition to all immigration.

Illegal immigration = BAD
Legal immigration = GOOD

If 🇺🇸 is to win the Space Race, lower the deficit, and grow our economy we need LEGAL, vetted, non-voting, non-citizen, workers! pic.twitter.com/dUAZRsGLmF

— Rep. Tony Gonzales (@RepTonyGonzales) September 1, 2024

Opposition manifests in heated debates where legal immigration frequently intersects with concerns about illegal immigration, national security, and economic stability. Analyzing these discussions provides insight into the prevailing attitudes and anxieties that shape public opinion as the nation heads toward critical electoral decisions.

Opposition to Current Policies

A significant majority of Americans voice dissatisfaction with the Biden-Harris approach to immigration, including legal immigration. Approximately 75% of the conversation expresses disapproval of Biden-Harris policies. These negative sentiments are based on current policies failing to protect national borders and imposing undue economic burdens on American taxpayers.

Conversations often conflate legal and illegal immigration, suggesting a widespread belief that current policies are too lenient and encourage illegal entry into the country. This leniency fuels calls for stricter immigration controls, including reductions or even moratoriums on new legal immigrants entering the United States.

Focus on National Security and Economic Impact

National security and economic concerns dominate discourse on legal immigration. Voters discuss border security, economic burdens associated with immigration, illegal aliens, and job security. For many voters, these issues are connected and at the forefront of public concern. Approximately 70% advocate for reduced immigration levels—legal or illegal.

These sentiments are driven by the belief that ongoing immigration could strain public resources, increase crime rates, and threaten job opportunities for American citizens. Voters are consistently negative, with many arguing current immigration policies fail to prioritize the safety and economic stability of the nation.

• In conversations, “moratorium is often brought up, with 78% of discussion advocating for reduced immigration.
• “National security” is another significant topic with 80% expressing a desire to reduce immigration.

Comparison of Harris and Trump Policies

Public discourse often contrasts the immigration policies of Kamala Harris and Donald Trump, with Harris's policies receiving substantial criticism. Around 65% of the discussion links Harris to lenient immigration policies, which many believe exacerbates existing problems.

Discussions about Trump are more favorable, particularly among conservative voters who view his approach to border security as more effective. These comparisons reveal an electorate which supports a return to the stricter policies of the Trump era.

Immigration as a Political Tool

Many view immigration, particularly illegal immigration, as a political tool which Harris uses to influence demographic voting patterns. This belief surfaces in about 60% of the discussion, reflecting broader concerns about the socio-political impacts of immigration.

Americans frequently voice concerns that immigrants, especially those who enter illegally, as burdens on public resources. They also discuss immigration as a threat to societal norms. Many suspect that Democrats use immigration, manipulating voters and metrics for political gain at the expense of national security and social cohesion.

Emotional and Linguistic Patterns

The language used in these discussions is notably emotional and personal. Voters frequently use first-person narratives, such as "I believe" and "we need," to express their personal stakes in the immigration debate. This use of first-person language creates a sense of urgency and personal investment in the outcome of immigration policies.

In contrast, third-person language is often employed to discuss political figures, particularly in a critical or accusatory manner. This linguistic pattern reflects a collective disillusionment with current leadership and a deep concern for the future of the nation in the face of perceived immigration challenges.

Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg recently drew 7.7 million views on X boasting about the future of America's passenger rail system. The post promises funding for high-speed rail projects and expanding service across the country.

However, reactions are largely split along political lines as left-leaning voters express excitement, while right-leaning voters point out Buttigieg’s lack of results so far. MIG Reports analysis of conversation around Buttigieg’s post echo a broader debate about his performance as Secretary of Transportation.

We're working on the future of America's passenger rail system—funding high-speed rail projects in the West and expanding service for communities across the country. Get your ticket to ride! pic.twitter.com/6S1sKOhDII

— Secretary Pete Buttigieg (@SecretaryPete) August 30, 2024

Rail Proposal vs. EV Charging Station Failure

Buttigieg’s tweet about the passenger rail system generated mixed reactions among voters. Democrats largely support his push for modernizing transportation. They see the passenger rail proposal as a crucial step towards sustainability and improved infrastructure. This aligns with progressive values which tout environmental responsibility and innovation.

Republicans are overwhelmingly critical of the initiative—citing Buttigieg’s incompetence more often than disapproval of the concept. These voters focus on what they see as a misallocation of resources. They argue that while high-speed rail projects sound promising, they come at the expense of addressing more immediate needs. They mention things like repairing existing infrastructure and improving safety measures.

Criticism is particularly sharp when voters mention Buttigieg’s handling of the East Palestine, Ohio train derailment. Many on the right, and locals impacted by the crisis, view Buttigieg’s response as a significant leadership failure.

Independent voters are more divided. Some show cautious optimism, but many share Republican concerns about the practicality of aspirational endeavors and the ineffectiveness of current U.S. efforts to complete large-scale projects. They question whether the focus on long-term goals like high-speed rail detracts from solving current transportation challenges.

Critics point to the $7.5 billion government allocation for EV charging stations, which generated significant criticism of Buttigieg earlier this year. Despite a total of only eight charging stations being built, Democrats still view the initiative positively. However, Buttigieg's failure to follow through on this promise generates widespread frustration among voters across the political spectrum.

WATCH: CBS’s Margaret Brennan laughs in Pete Buttigieg’s face when he is unable to explain why only 7 or 8 electric vehicle charging stations have been built despite the Biden admin spending $7.5 BILLION to build chargers. pic.twitter.com/BmFK17Dk5O

— Steve Guest (@SteveGuest) May 26, 2024

Many express confusion and skepticism, questioning the gap between funding and tangible outcomes—particularly directing blame at Buttigieg.

Voter Sentiment Breakdown

Overall, Buttigieg’s tenure as Secretary of Transportation is viewed through a partisan lens:

• 60.45% of Democrats express positive sentiment
• 72.27% of Republicans disapprove of Buttigieg
• 50% of Independents show a mix of concern and caution with some optimism

Democrats appreciate Buttigieg’s focus on sustainability and infrastructure modernization. They see his leadership as forward-thinking, particularly in advancing green initiatives like EV charging stations and high-speed rail. Only around 7% express negativity toward Buttigieg.

Republicans criticize his crisis management and failure to complete projects while increasing tax spending. The East Palestine derailment is a focal point of their dissatisfaction, with many arguing Buttigieg is more concerned about ideological goals than practical solutions. Only around 5% acknowledge any of his accomplishments.

Some Independents admire Buttigieg’s vision for the future of transportation. But many others worry his focus on long-term projects overshadows the need for immediate improvements in safety and reliability. Only 25% express cautious optimism for practical solutions.

Economic Concerns Under Democratic Rule

Discussions around Buttigieg’s performance also reflect broader concerns about the Biden administration’s infrastructure spending in the current economy. Many voters, especially those critical of Buttigieg, argue Democrats’ focus on large-scale, future-oriented projects fails to address pressing needs. This sentiment is echoed in conversations about other Biden cabinet members, where fiscal responsibility and effectiveness are recurring themes.

The economy remains a high priority for voters who demand transparency and accountability in how taxpayer money is spent. The limited progress on EV charging stations, despite significant funding, has become emblematic of broader frustrations with government efficiency. Voters want tangible results from taxpayer investments, and many are growing disillusions about a Democratic administration’s ability to deliver.

Discussions are negative around Maryland Governor Wes Moore's recent lie about receiving a Bronze Star—a military medal awarded to those in the U.S. Armed Forces who distinguish themselves through heroic or meritorious service. Discussion is primarily centered on themes of accountability, sincerity, and political integrity.

Dismissing an Apology

One of the most frequent keywords in the discourse is "apology," with many Americans expressing mixed reactions to the Democratic governor's statement. In the acknowledgment, Moore describes his claim of receiving a Bronze Star as an "honest mistake."

Voters’ negativity in response reflects a broader concern about the implications of claims that might be considered “stolen valor.” This is an issues Democratic VP nominee Tim Walz has also recently faced. Americans generally support military service and praise public servants who are veterans, but recent discussions show they are sensitive to integrity around military service.

The sentiment around Moore’s "apology" is skeptical as many question the sincerity of Moore’s admission. They speculate about whether it adequately addresses public concerns.

Questions of Integrity

Another significant topic in the conversations is "integrity." Discussions are around public desire for transparency and ethical leadership in governance. Sentiments connected to integrity vary, with some demanding a higher standard, while others defend Moore's actions, arguing that everyone makes mistakes. Close to 30% of the total comments assessed relate to integrity, highlighting the importance of voters trusting their representatives.

The issue of "credibility" also emerges as a critical theme. Many challenge Moore's credibility, suggesting this incident may have long-term implications for his political career. About 25% of the total comments reflect this sentiment, indicating a substantial portion of voters are grappling with their trust in his leadership.

People also mention "politics," placing Moore's comments in a broader narrative of political accountability. Approximately 20% of comments address this topic, often using it to criticize the political landscape or defend the governor based on the broader issues facing Maryland.

A Few Supporters

While negative sentiment is overwhelming in the discussions, there is a portion of positive sentiment. This group focuses on Moore's previous accomplishments and potential for future leadership. About 15% express support for Moore, often countering critiques of his recent actions. This duality in sentiment indicates, while his apology raises valid concerns, it does not wholly overshadow the positive impressions he has cultivated in some voter segments.

As campaign season ramps up for the 2024 election, MIG Reports analysis shows voter reactions to political advertisements. Overall, Americans are skeptical, criticizing the authenticity and impact of various political ad messages. Voters discuss the effectiveness of political ads and the potential hypocrisy of candidates, especially in situations where past statements contradict current claims.

General sentiment towards political ads includes disdain or disbelief:

• 40% of are skeptical of the authenticity of political ads
• 35% view them as strategically manipulative
• 20% express support for certain ads based on emotional resonance
• 5% remain neutral or indifferent about the impact of campaign advertising

For a Lot of Money, Nobody Buys the Bull

Voters discuss perceptions of honesty, emotional appeal, and strategic manipulation. Many express a sense of distrust toward campaign ads, citing instances where candidates appear to utilize sensational tactics to sway voters.

The use of past footage, particularly when altered or decontextualized, generates substantial attention. For instance, a recent ad featuring video of President Trump's border wall raises questions about inconsistencies and the integrity of such advertising strategies.

• Despite consistently increasing campaign spending, Americans remain critical of advertising tactics.

Echo Chambers

Supporters of specific candidates in national and state races tend to rally ads for their preferred politician. They view campaign ads as necessary tools for public engagement and awareness. Nonetheless, even this group acknowledges a level of cynicism, recognizing the tactics employed in public relations as inherently designed to provoke reactions.

Widespread ambivalence illustrates a broader trend where voters, while passionate about their political preferences, also maintain a critical lens on the methods candidates use to communicate with the electorate.

America’s contentious political landscape creates an environment where ads become flashpoints for broader debates on honesty, strategy, and voter manipulation. Engaged discussion about ads shows voters not as merely passive viewers, but active participants in critiquing and analyzing campaign communications.

People discuss the potential efficacy and ethical implications of political messaging. As the political landscape evolves, so does scrutiny of how candidates craft their narratives through advertisements. This highlights a burgeoning demand for transparency and accountability in political communication.

Donald Trump's recent comments on abortion and reproductive rights, particularly his remarks on IVF and the viability of a six-week ban on abortion, are dividing voters. MIG Reports analysis reveals sharply polarized sentiment among voters—especially pro-life Republicans. This issue often serves as a barometer for Trump’s standing in both pro-choice and pro-life circles.

The overall sentiment reveals:

• 45% of voters express strong dissent toward Trump's stance on reproductive rights, feeling he has strayed from core pro-life principles.
• 30% appear to support Trump's approach, reflecting a pragmatic view that prioritizes political survival over absolutism in pro-life advocacy.
• 25% voice confusion or ambivalence toward Trump's remarks, asking for clearer communication about his plans.

A significant theme of discourse is the apparent recalibration of Trump’s position on abortion. Many voters say they are confused and frustrated over his evolving rhetoric—especially as he positions himself in favor of women’s reproductive rights, seeming to challenge the traditional pro-life stance of his base.

Sentiment fluctuates as many express disappointment in Trump for not adhering strictly to pro-life ideals. This group feels he is alienating a crucial segment of his voter base and setting himself up as opposition in this area.

Pro-life advocates often express a sense of betrayal, suggesting Trump’s stance on IVF and refusing a federal abortion ban compromises the integrity of their cause.

The Reality: Abortion is a Political Issue

Discussions of strategic voting feature prominently. Voters emphasize the complex relationship between personal beliefs about abortion and the political realities of the upcoming election.

Some convey a sense of urgency about unifying against perceived threats from opposing parties. They suggest that even if they disapprove of Trump’s recent comments, they feel obligated to support him as the lesser evil. However much they may dislike his rhetoric, aggressively pro-choice Democratic policies sound worse. This dynamic creates a discussion about pragmatism, where voters weigh moral principles against the prevailing political landscape.

MIG Reports analysis shows:

• 55% of the discussion expresses support for pro-abortion perspectives, emphasizing rights and autonomy.
• 30% are firmly rooted in anti-abortion sentiments, focusing on their moral imperative to protect unborn lives.
• 15% present moderate views, expressing desire for balanced solutions without strong adherence to extremes.

Those who hold moderate views, or are ambivalent about abortion, often lean towards a pro-choice sentiment. This group tends to frame the conversation in terms of personal experiences or reflections, suggesting they might prioritize pragmatic solutions. These moderates often want balanced approaches that respect individual rights while recognizing the complexities of reproductive health decisions.

Nobody is Happy

There are also concerns about the messaging and effectiveness of the Democratic Party on abortion rights. Voters comment on how the Democratic framing of abortion may not resonate with all demographics, particularly the working-class voters who prioritize economic issues over reproductive rights.

This presents a dual concern as moderates within each party are wary of extreme positions. It creates tension outside of traditional party lines, where pro-choice versus pro-life takes center stage.

Divisions also surface among pro-life factions themselves. Pro-life absolutists say the movement is failing to enact meaningful changes that will move the country toward ending all abortion. The implications of Trump’s positions on state-level bans and federal legislation fuel debates about the effectiveness of advocacy strategies over the long term.

MIG Reports analysis shows parents discussing school in swing states fear for their children’s education and safety. An unsettling theme emerges as voters grapple with the state of public education and social issues. Parents are actively engaging in debates about their children's education, with significant emphasis on school choice, curriculum content, and safety concerns.

School Choice and CRT

Approximately 40% of parents advocate for educational freedom and school choice, arguing it provides better opportunities for their children. This is a particular desire in underperforming districts. Parents are proactive in their desire to escape the growing inadequacies of the public school system. They largely favor alternatives like charter schools or school vouchers.

On a national scale, there are strong opinions on curriculum content—particularly when it comes to Critical Race Theory (CRT). Nationally, about 45% of parents support bans on CRT, fearing it creates division among students. Meanwhile, 35% oppose bans, arguing they would restrict essential discussions on race and social justice.

National sentiments align with concerns from swing state parents, where approximately 30% worry about the politicization of school curricula. In these states, the discussion is also focused on CRT and LGBTQ issues.

Achievement Gaps are a Paramount Concern

Safety concerns also feature prominently in these discussions. In swing states, about 60% of parents express anxiety over the adequacy of safety measures in schools. They especially discuss safety in the context of ongoing health concerns post-COVID.

Parental worries are not primarily around potential illnesses, but the educational and social impact of health policies on children. This worry is also present in national conversations, underscoring American families’ concern over physical safety and the emotional well-being of children.

A November 2020 report from Fairfax County Public Schools showed students were severely impacted by COVID measures. And more recent studies continue to show that the damage of COVID measures to students is not a short-term issue.

• Student performance has continued to struggle, still not recovering from 2020’s disastrous metrics now, four years later.
• Speech delays, academic achievement gaps, and other developmental impacts are still haunting school children in 2024.

Since the COVID pandemic, there's been an increase in the number of young children who have been slow to develop language skills, with pediatric speech delays more than doubling for children aged 12 and younger.@zschultzWPT reports. pic.twitter.com/CkJ2ZtNVNB

— PBS News (@NewsHour) January 7, 2024

The discourse in swing states, supported by national sentiments, shows parents are focused both on immediate educational choices and the broader implications of these choices on their children's future.

The active and passionate voices in these discussions underscore the determination of parents to influence educational policies that align with their values. Parents are determined to ensure safety and promote a balanced, effective curriculum.

MIG Reports analysis of discourse prior to Labor Day around "what it means to be American" reveals American perspectives in 2024. At the core of these discussions are deeply held beliefs about identity, values, and the role of government in shaping the American experience.

American Identity and Constitutional Principles

Conversation about American identity emphasize the importance of upholding the Constitution as the foundation of what it means to be American. Much of the discourse focuses the idea that the United States is a "constitutional republic" rather than a pure democracy, reflecting deep concerns about preserving traditional governance structures.

Sentiment is particularly strong in discussions on civil liberties, with free speech and the right to bear arms viewed as core components of American identity. The prevailing narrative reveals a widespread belief that constitutional rights are under threat. Voters call for a return to foundational principles and a defense against perceived government overreach.

• 30% of discussions about American identity focus on the preservation of constitutional principles.
• The emphasis on civil liberties, particularly the First and Second Amendments, underscores voters are committed to protecting what they see as essential to American freedom.

The American Dream

The concept of the American Dream remains central in national discourse, though it is increasingly impacted by disillusionment. People express concerns that the American Dream—once synonymous with the opportunity for prosperity through hard work—is now out of reach. This is a particular lament for younger generations.

Economic challenges such as rising housing costs and inflation are frequently cited as barriers eroding chances at the American dream. There is a strong sense of nostalgia for a time when the American Dream felt more attainable. This, coupled with frustration over current economic policies, are seen as exacerbating inequality.

• 25% of the overall discussion touches on the American Dream
• Conversation is dominated by a sense of loss and frustration, reflecting widespread concerns that upward mobility and economic stability is fading.
• Sentiment is particularly resonant among those who feel left behind by the current economic environment.

Nationalism and American Exceptionalism

Nationalism and the idea of American exceptionalism are also prominent themes. Voters want policies that prioritize American citizens over non-citizens. This includes a strong focus on securing borders and protecting American jobs.

Americans believe the United States should maintain a distinct national identity and stay aligned with traditional values. Sentiment is often one of protectionism, with a desire to safeguard the nation's interests in the face of perceived external threats.

• 20% discuss nationalism and American exceptionalism.
• The emphasis on protecting American jobs and securing borders is prominent.
• Voters express a desire to maintain the country's sovereignty and prioritize the well-being of U.S. citizens.

Cultural and Social Values

Discourse around cultural and social values contains tension between traditional and progressive ideologies. Some Americans advocate for a return to what they see as foundational American values, such as meritocracy and personal responsibility. This coincides with criticism of contemporary social movements, which some believe challenge the core identity of the nation.

Issues like gender identity, DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion), education, and social justice are particularly contentious. Traditionalists view these as threats to the cultural fabric of America, while more progressive voters advocate for “evolving” American values.

• 15% discuss cultural and social values as a significant but secondary concern to American identity.
• The polarization around social issues reflects broader societal divides, with strong opinions on both sides.

Patriotism and Civic Engagement

Patriotism is another theme, though it is less dominant compared to others. Many express a deep love for the country and a commitment to defending its values. There is a widespread call for civic engagement, particularly in the form of voting and political activism. Advocates view this as a means to protect and uphold the nation's ideals.

Sentiment is often tied to fears of authoritarianism and the erosion of civil liberties, with many expressing a sense of duty to resist perceived government overreach.

• 5% of the discussion is on patriotism and civic engagement.
• The emphasis on civic duty and protecting American values shows a desire to maintain the integrity of the nation's democratic processes.

Polarization and Divided Sentiments

Americans continue to be polarized on issues of national identity and ideology. This contributes to starkly contrasting views on what it means to be American.

On one side, there is a strong desire to preserve traditional values and resist changes that could erode the nation's historical identity. On the other, are assertions of the need for adaptation and progress. This tension between those who fear losing core American principles and those advocating for progressive change is fraught.

• 5% of the discussion focuses on ideological polarization.
• The significant divides within American society reflect broader tensions and conflicts over the country's future direction.
• Despite the lower discussion volume, this theme is a pervasive undercurrent in many seemingly unrelated conversations.