Claiming “Literal Hitler Raped Me In 1993” Doesn’t Sway Voters
October 26, 2024Key Takeaways
- New allegations that Trump groped former model Stacey Williams in 1993 are not having the impact the media intended.
- The believability of the story is divided along partisan and demographic lines, with anti-Trump voters expressing belief and supporters dismissing the story.
- A neutral audience also downplays the story, presumably because most Americans are familiar with many other similar allegations in the past.
Our Methodology
Demographics
All Voters
Sample Size
67,000
Geographical Breakdown
National
Time Period
1 Day
MIG Reports leverages EyesOver technology, employing Advanced AI for precise analysis. This ensures unparalleled precision, setting a new standard. Find out more about the unique data pull for this article.
Yesterday, the Telegraph published a story alleging former model Stacey Williams was introduced to Donald Trump through Jeffery Epstein in 1993. She claims she was groped by Trump and the timing of her allegations have nothing to do with the impending election.
The latest Trump accuser Stacey Williams says she "can't control" that this is coming out 2 weeks before the election, and that it's all "coincidental."
— johnny maga (@_johnnymaga) October 24, 2024
CNN then says she made her support for Kamala "very clear" in their interview.
It's all a farce. pic.twitter.com/x1SKRIGrOE
Within hours, many dismissed the story, attributing it to a politically motivated smear campaign by the mainstream media. Many pointed out that Jeffery Epstein didn’t live in the Upper East Side of New York until 1996.
The liar in this story claims that she went on a walk with Epstein in 1993 by his Upper East Side home when he took her to see Trump.
— Greg Price (@greg_price11) October 24, 2024
There’s only one problem which is that Epstein didn’t move there until 1996. https://t.co/UmT6NtfGrK pic.twitter.com/tjkFGBGsiS
Who’s Buying It?
The believability of this story is predictably divided, revealing strong partisan and demographic patterns in public sentiment.
- 40% of comments say they believe the story.
- Among these, many frame it within broader concerns about misogyny, women’s rights, and accountability.
- The believe narratives about Trump's alleged poor treatment of women in the past.
- This group is mostly younger audiences, women, and left leaning Democrats.
Skepticism and dismissal dominate the rest of the discourse, particularly among Trump supporters and older demographics.
- Around 45-50% of view the story as a politically motivated attack, dismissing it as predictable in the relentless media-driven smears against Trump.
- This group says the allegation is part and parcel of ongoing efforts to undermine Trump's political career with false accusations.
- They use terms like "witch hunt" and "fake news" to express their skepticism—especially among male commenters.
There is clear cynicism about the impact of such stories in an already polarized political environment. Many also believe bombshells like this are “baked into the cake” in the sense that most voters are used to similar allegations against Trump.
- 15% of comments are ambivalent or neutral, suggesting the allegations are commonplace in politics and don't sway their opinions.
- This group, often politically disillusioned or disengaged, emphasizes the need for substantiation before making judgments.
- There is also less fervor and emotion in their responses, unlike the supporters and critics.
MIG Reports data shows, following the revelation, Trump increased in overall sentiment. At the same time, sentiment toward Harris marginally dropped. This suggests, with high confidence, that voters are not significantly swayed by the story, and Trump voter will likely maintain support, even if they’re not vocal about it.
Overall, belief in the story aligns with societal divisions, where pre-existing political views and social dynamics shape the narrative. While those aligned against Trump are more likely to believe and express outrage, supporters overwhelmingly view the allegation as another unfounded political attack, reinforcing existing polarization.