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.

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