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.

MIG Reports analysis of reactions to Kamala Harris's first media interview shows skepticism, criticism, and some support. There is division among voters between those with concerns about Harris's statements and policy shifts and her supporters. Many also note the conspicuous perception of CNN and Dana Bash preparing the interview to protect Harris from scrutiny.

People criticize the fact that the pre-taped interview was composed of soft-ball questions and was truncated to less than 20 minutes. They also question whether Harris could have fielded interview questions without her running mate, Tim Walz.

Trump’s last four interviews:

-57 minutes (Dr. Phil)
-57 minutes (Theo Von)
-2 hours and 3 minutes (Elon Musk)
-1 hour and 11 minutes (Shawn Ryan)

Kamala’s first interview in 40 days as the Democrat nominee:

18 minutes, edited, no transcript, and with a chaperone.

— Bad Hombre (@joma_gc) August 29, 2024

MIG Reports data shows:

• 65% of those discussing the interview express doubts about Harris’s reliability and consistency on policy.
• 58% voice frustration about her economic policies and lack of support for military families.
• 27% convey cautious optimism about her vision for the middle class.
• 70% call for accountability and transparency regarding her positions on key issues.

Flip-Flopper in Chief

Many Americans complain about Harris’s inconsistency or noncommittal posture on critical policy positions. This is a particular frustration regarding border security and immigration.

Voters express disbelief over her recent flip-flop on a border wall, calling it hypocritical given her historical stance. Americans feel betrayed, suggesting Harris's frequent shifts reveal her political opportunism, where her policies follow public sentiment rather than stand on principle.

Some also criticize her as a “copycat” saying she is adopting Trump’s populist policies like “no tax on tips” and a border wall because her own views are unpopular. People use words like "flip-flopper," "untrustworthy," and "gaslighting" to describe Harris. And 65% express doubts about her reliability on policy.

It’s the Border and Immigration, Stupid

MIG Reports analysis of election and swing state discussions confirm immigration and border issues are a strong source of public dissatisfaction toward Harris.

• In swing states, 75% of discussions on border security and 70% on immigration is negative as people voice frustration with Harris’s role as "Border Czar."
• In election discussions, 60% criticize her border security stance, and 82% disapprove of her immigration policies, focusing on leadership and ideological concerns.
• Overall, negative sentiment averages between 71-73%, highlighting significant challenges for Harris on these issues.

Other Issues

Military

Voters also disapprove of Harris's response to economic issues and the military. They criticize her, mentioning military support amidst economic hardship. Americans feel she neglects U.S. troops while simultaneously advocating for financial support for overseas actions.

There is frustration over promises of economic assistance. People say Harris’s platitudes come off as inadequate or superficial. Sentiments trend negative, with 58% expressing anger and disappointment towards Harris on economic matters and support for military families.

Middle Class

There is some cautious optimism regarding Harris’s vision for the middle class and supporting American aspirations. Some express appreciation for her hopeful messages in response to questions about her first actions as president.

This is a smaller group, however, with only 27% mentioning the interview positively. Supporters resonate with themes of hope and a desire for a new direction, even amid concerns regarding her current track record and decision-making

Accountability

An overall theme of skepticism about accountability and transparency overshadows much of the discussion. Voters raise pointed questions about her policy decisions and the implications of her previous statements.

Many view her as inauthentic and disengaged from real Americans. This consistent call for transparency highlights an overarching mistrust, as 70% demand clearer communication regarding her positions on critical issues.

Mark Zuckerberg’s recent acknowledgment of Facebook censoring information under pressure from the Biden-Harris administration is sparking fiery debate about media influence and election integrity. As more Americans get their news online, the revelations lead many to question whether censorship could have swayed the outcome of the 2020 election.

Zuckerberg’s statement acknowledged Meta received and complied with pressure from the Biden-Harris administration to censor certain content. He highlighted two specific topics Facebook censored—COVID-19 information and the Hunter Biden laptop story. Zuckerberg admitted this censorship, demanded by the government, might have infringed on users' First Amendment rights. He expressed regret and made promises not to interfere with U.S. elections in the future.

JUST IN - Zuckerberg regrets working with the Biden-Harris administration to censor Covid era information online. pic.twitter.com/vD4Ug5ebqh

— Disclose.tv (@disclosetv) August 26, 2024

MIG Reports analysis of voter reactions to Zuckerberg's statement highlight growing skepticism towards government, social media, and information suppression:

• 60% of Americans discussing election integrity express negative sentiment toward institutions like the media and government.
• 20% express positive sentiments, typically focusing on hopes for reform and increased transparency in electoral processes.
• 70% of conservatives discuss allegations of election manipulation, suggesting a strong belief in corrupted elections.
• 15% of liberals focus on allegations of fraud, with the majority preferring to discuss trust in the system.

Voters View Censorship as a Game-Changer

Voter conversations reacting to Zuckerberg’s statement reveal concerns that social media censorship may have altered the 2020 election outcome—in which Trump lost to Biden.

MIG Reports data suggest 34% of Americans are discussing a belief that information suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop story likely tipped the scales in favor of Joe Biden.

Further bolstering this belief, Rep. Lauren Boebert reported that 71% of Americans think honest reporting on the Hunter Biden laptop story would have changed the election results.

71% of Americans believe accurate reporting of Hunter Biden’s laptop would have changed the 2020 election outcome.

This isn’t some nothing story.

This coverup altered the history of our nation forever.

— Lauren Boebert (@laurenboebert) February 9, 2023

Rep. Elise Stefanik also points out that 53% of Americans would have changed their vote, including 61% of Democrats, had they known the full extent of Hunter laptop story. These themes suggest a broad consensus that censorship, especially when it involves politically sensitive topics, can significantly impact voter behavior.

"Of the people that were made aware of the Hunter Biden laptop story, 53% would have changed their vote, including 61% of Democrats...this is the definition of election meddling...it's collusion, it's corruption, and it's unconstitutional." -@EliseStefanikpic.twitter.com/zpm3yLISwe

— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) February 9, 2023

Social Media Shaping Political Narratives

The discussion of media suppression dovetails into a broader conversation about where Americans get their news. According to Pew Research, 18% of U.S. adults in 2020 primarily turned to social media for political and election news. This figure is higher than the 16% who relied on cable television for their news at the time.

Since 2020, that number has grown, with 2024 Pew Research showing:

• 65% of X users go there primarily for news
• 37% of Facebook users go to Facebook for news

Meanwhile, among users who do not use social media primarily for news:

• 92% on X still see news-related content
• 91% on Facebook still see news-related content

MIG Reports analysis previously confirmed the trend, showing 65% of Americans distrust legacy news outlets, turning instead to platforms like X for information. These reports underscore the influence of social platforms in shaping public opinion, making Zuckerberg’s admission more consequential.

The fact that Americans increasingly get news from social media platforms, combined with evidence of government-influenced censorship, raises critical questions about the fairness and transparency of election outcomes. As more voters become aware of the extent of censorship during the 2020 election, negativity rises.

Censorship and Election Integrity

Americans were already concerned about election integrity prior to Zuckerberg’s statement, which has only served to deepen fears. Many voters, particularly conservatives, equate censorship with voter suppression.

Many say the government’s involvement in content moderation undermines the democratic process. The notion of a "deep state" manipulating information to favor certain political outcomes is a recurring theme, fueling beliefs that the 2020 election was compromised as well as fears about the upcoming 2024 election.

Progressive voters, however, tend to argue "content moderation” and “combating misinformation” is necessary, downplaying the concept of censorship. They view Zuckerberg’s admission as a call for stricter oversight of social media platforms. This group continues to advocate for preventing false information from proliferating.

The dichotomy between views of free speech and the need for accurate information reflects broader tensions in the current political landscape.

Speculation About Zuckerberg’s Motives

Voters present various theories about Zuckerberg's motivations for making a statement. Some speculate the timing aligns strategically with ongoing scrutiny of social media's role in shaping public opinion, particularly as elections approach.

Some suggest Zuckerberg may seek to deflect blame for censorship onto the government. People see this as an attempt to reposition Meta as responding to external political dynamics rather than making autonomous decisions about content moderation. This interpretation implies a calculated move to preserve the platform’s credibility and mitigate backlash.

Others posit Zuckerberg's remarks are a genuine response to pushes for transparency from tech giants amid mounting demands for reform. Ongoing discussions of free speech, censorship, and tech monopolies may be driving Zuckerberg’s motivations. This interpretation presents him as aligning Meta’s interests with those advocating for clearer guidelines, hinting at a willingness to cooperate with regulatory frameworks.

Polarized Voters and the Future of Free Speech

Zuckerberg’s statement is fostering critical debate about the role of social media in elections and the potential consequences of government-influenced censorship. While Americans see this as evidence of election manipulation, others believe oversight is necessary to protect the integrity of democratic processes.

Overall, voters are increasingly wary of the power social media platforms hold over public discourse. There is a growing demand for transparency and accountability. As the country grapples with 2024 election integrity, the lessons learned from 2020 will undoubtedly shape voter views and motivations.

Campaign promises are a central element of political discourse, shaping voter perceptions and influencing electoral outcomes. However, the effectiveness and authenticity of these promises often come under scrutiny. MIG Reports analysis explores how voters perceive and react to campaign promises, particularly in the context of housing, economic issues, and ideological alignment.

Voter discussions show a consistent theme of skepticism towards political promises, highlighting how impact on voter behavior is often temporary and contingent on immediate concerns.

The analysis suggests that much of the motivation to vote stems from a combination of:

• Supporting candidates who align with voter group identity
• Opposing candidates or policies voters perceive as harmful

2024 Presidential Election Discussions

Housing

Kamala Harris’s housing policy proposals are gaining significant skepticism from Americans. Voters debate whether financial assistance programs, such as the $25,000 down-payment aid for first-time homebuyers, will genuinely help or inadvertently worsen the housing market.

The recurring use of phrases like "empty promises" and "virtue signaling" underscores a broader disillusionment with political rhetoric. Voters seem to believe these promises are not only ineffective but would exacerbate the very problems they aim to solve.

Sentiment aligns with the notion that, while Harris's promises might temporarily attract support, they do not lead to long-term loyalty or trust.

Economic Issues

Discussion of economic issues further amplifies skepticism toward Harris. Voters critically examine her promised tax policies, expressing a profound sense of betrayal as she is the current VP. Voters often equate her promises with economic instability, particularly highlighting concerns about rising inflation and increased tax burdens on the middle class.

The language used in these discussions reflects a personal stake in the economic debate, with voters frequently sharing their struggles and fears. This personal connection to the issue reinforces the idea that campaign promises, though initially persuasive, fail to sustain voter alignment.

Ideologies

Proposed ideological alignment by candidates is often temporary, with voters remaining vigilant against perceived deviations from their values. The analysis shows that campaign promises, while initially persuasive, fail to create long-lasting loyalty. This is especially true when voters perceive a disconnect between the promises and the candidates’ actions.

Swing States Discussions

Housing

Discussions in swing states reveal widespread distrust in housing-related campaign promises. Voters are particularly concerned that initiatives like Harris’s down-payment assistance will drive up housing prices rather than make homeownership more accessible.

Skepticism is not just about the specific policy but also reflects a broader distrust in governmental intervention. Voters express anxiety about economic stability, fearing promises might do more harm than good. Sentiment shows a belief that promises are unlikely to deliver the intended results.

Economic Issues

Economic discussions in swing states show a deep engagement with the promises made by political candidates, especially concerning inflation and taxation. Voters express strong opinions about the current economic climate, often attributing rising costs and financial instability to the Biden-Harris administration.

The language in these discussions indicates a significant level of skepticism towards the promises of economic relief. Voters frequently question the sincerity and feasibility of campaign promises, particularly those involving tax increases.

What Does It All Mean?

As trust erodes due to unfulfilled promises, voters show growing disillusionment, particularly regarding housing and economic issues. This frustration leads many to view campaign rhetoric as more performative than genuine. While much of the discussion focuses on Kamala Harris, this concept seems to apply across politicians and political parties.

Despite this, voters seem acutely aware of their role in the political "game," understanding their vote is less about trusting promises and more about strategic decision-making. They approach elections pragmatically, recognizing the limitations of campaign rhetoric but still seeing participation as crucial for influencing outcomes. Many express their intention of voting to prevent what they perceive as worse alternatives.

One of Donald Trump’s significant electoral challenges is attracting moderate voters and women, particularly those who support the Democratic pro-choice platform, despite Trump’s neutral stance on abortion at the federal level. These voter groups, which traditionally lean Democratic, have proven elusive for Trump’s campaign.

However, recent shifts in voter priorities and emerging alliances could alter the political landscape. Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s (RFK) recent Trump endorsement has shifted focus for many moderates and women who prioritize health freedom and child welfare. This alliance may offer a new avenue for Republicans to appeal to these voters.

According to MIG Reports analysis of real-time voter sentiment:

• 42.37% of Independents approve of RFK Jr.'s policies, particularly related to health.
• 41.89% of women support his health freedom and holistic approaches.
• 27.03% of moderate women prioritize health freedom and child health over abortion rights.
• 23.12% of moderate female voters might vote for a Trump-RFK Jr. coalition over Kamala Harris’s Democratic platform.

Since RFK Jr.’s Trump endorsement on Aug. 23, Democratic support dropped from 49% to 45% and Republican support rose from 51% to 54%.

RFK Jr.’s Trump Endorsement

In his speech endorsing Donald Trump, RFK Jr. championed a health platform centered on individual health freedoms. He emphasized the right to make personal health decisions and choose whether to receive vaccines. He also advocated for increased transparency from pharmaceutical companies and the government, supporting holistic and preventative health approaches.

He criticized the mainstream political and medical establishments, particularly calling out Democrats for systematically preventing voters from supporting their preferred candidates. Overall, RFK Jr. framed his platform as a challenge to current health policies and practices, aligning strongly with Trump's anti-establishment stance.

MIG Reports Analysis

Recent data from MIG Reports provides insight into how Trump and RFK Jr.'s platform might impact Independents and women.

The aggregate sentiment toward RFK Jr.'s health policies across data samples shows 42% of Independents approve. This suggests a significant base of support that could be leveraged toward Trump.

Women support RFK Jr.’s proposed health freedom and holistic approaches at around 42% within the sample. This also suggests RFK Jr.’s alignment with Trump could significantly soften women toward the Republican ticket.

To support this assertion, MIG Reports data shows approximately 27% of moderate female voters prioritize health freedom and child health over the traditional Democratic pro-abortion platform. This shift is also confirmed by sentiments indicating a new Trump-RFK Jr. coalition may attract around 23% of moderate female voters who might otherwise be hesitant.

Independents Moving to Trump

Independents say they’re drawn to Trump's camp largely due to their alignment with RFK Jr.'s health policies. This group values autonomy in health decisions and has shown significant support for vaccine choice and holistic health practices.

The shared anti-establishment sentiment between RFK Jr. and Trump also resonates with Independents who feel disillusioned with the establishment political figures. This group uses words like "vaccines," "freedom," "natural remedies," and "rights." They compare Kennedy's views with Trump’s, emphasizing overlapping rhetoric that appeals to anti-establishment sentiments.

Themes such as "government control" and "personal autonomy" dominate, revealing a desire for a shift towards more individual-driven health policies. Sentiment analysis indicates a desire for change, with discussions about wellness and the integrity of health system. There is a mix of hope and skepticism, revealing a complex interplay of cultural, emotional, and ideological factors.

Women and Abortion

For female voters, the appeal of a Trump-RFK Jr. alliance lies in their emphasis on health freedom and family welfare. Many women, particularly moderates, are increasingly prioritizing these issues over traditional Democratic stances on reproductive rights.

I’ve been saying for over a year and a half that health and wellness issues are a TOP interest of conservative female voters. Many ignored me, didn’t take it seriously or thought I simply had no idea what I was talking about because my following is niche and not the largest…

— Alex Clark (@yoalexrapz) August 27, 2024

Data suggests more than a quarter of moderate female voters are more concerned with health autonomy and child health. This cuts into the strong historical Democratic hold on pro-choice voters. The shift is driven by a desire for greater control over personal health decisions and skepticism towards current health systems and incentives.

Comments frequently cite the importance of protecting children from health risks associated with medical interventions. Many express willingness to embrace both Trump and Kennedy to prevent what they perceive as detrimental policies from the Democrats. This holds true for this bloc, even if it means sacrificing some aspects of on-demand abortion access or even full-term abortion.

• In the last week, sentiment toward abortion dropped from 45% prior to Kennedy’s alignment with Trump, to 43% today.
• Sentiment around individual freedoms fluctuated but increased from 44% prior to Kennedy’s alignment with Trump to 47% today.

A Key Demographic for Trump

Gaining support from moderates and women could significantly impact Trump’s chances in the 2024 election. By aligning with RFK Jr. and focusing on health freedom and reform, Trump could potentially tap into a critical voter base that is increasingly dissatisfied with traditional party platforms.

If Trump can effectively address the concerns of Independents and moderate women without continuing to alienate them, he may strengthen his electoral position. This will be especially true if more voters continue to grow skeptical of Kamala Harris’s authenticity and dwindling trust in the media. Discussions of a Trump-Kennedy alliance often mention bipartisan unity, hinting that conventional expectations in the upcoming election potentially tilt to Trump.

American discussions Democratic VP candidate Tim Walz and Montana Senate candidate Tim Sheehy offer a window into public views of military service among political figures.

While Americans generally express respect for military service, the particulars of a political candidate’s history inform the conversation. In the case of Walz, his military record raises questions about honesty and integrity. For Sheehy, military service implies patriotism and courage.

Discussions about each man reflect the complexities of how military service is valued and scrutinized in the political arena, particularly in the context of their respective campaigns. MIG Reports analysis shows a nuanced understanding among voters, highlighting key trends, sentiment analysis, and the resulting perceptions of Walz and Sheehy.

Military Service Implies Values

Analysis of voter discussions surrounding Tim Walz and Tim Sheehy reveals how their military backgrounds are perceived. The discussions present various sentiment trends, linguistic patterns, and recurring themes, depicting overall public opinion.

Discussions of military service focus on themes such as valor, leadership, and the implications of military experience on political aspirations. Americans regularly express positive sentiments toward military service, including for political figures. However, skepticism also plays a substantial role, particularly regarding Walz.

• 60% of voter discussions about Walz express negative sentiments.
• Negativity is driven by accusations of "stolen valor" and criticisms of his leadership during crises in Minnesota.

The analysis of linguistic patterns highlights the use of both first-person and third-person references, with a noticeable preference for third-person language in critical comments. This trend suggests a broader societal perspective where Americans critically evaluate the military service of political figures. First-person language, however, often appears in positive comments, emphasizing personal connections to military service or expressing personal stories and individual pride in service.

Voters Grapple with Walz’s Military Record

The discussions about Tim Walz's military service are notably polarized. More than half of discussions criticize Walz for perceived inconsistencies in his military narrative, with "stolen valor" as a recurrent theme. While critics don’t typically attack Walz for his long career in the military, they express deep dissatisfaction with the image and presentation of his accomplishments.

Criticism is often framed within broader political narratives, where Walz's military service is intertwined with his actions as governor. Supporters, around 30% of commenters, emphasize his lengthy service in the National Guard. They defend his record and leadership as being rooted in genuine commitment and experience.

• Prior to Walz’s selection as Democratic VP nominee, discussion volume mentioning his name was low and sentiment fluctuated.
• After his nomination, national discussion significantly increased, and sentiment evened out with a baseline in the low 40% range.

Tim Sheehy Gains Praise

In contrast, Tim Sheehy's military service is generally viewed positively. More than half of discussions about Sheehy express admiration for his dedication and courage. The narrative around Sheehy centers on his military background as a strong foundation for his political aspirations, with many commenters viewing his service as a testament to his character.

There is a lesser tenor of skepticism, particularly concerning his positions on public lands and transparency. Only 10-15% of discussions express direct criticism of Sheehy's military service. Negativity often centers on questions about his political integrity and concerns about his alignment with Republican values and transparency.

• Like Walz prior to his national spotlight, discussion of Sheehy is largely limited to state voters, though sentiment is relatively steady in the mid to high 40% range.

MIG Reports analysis of voter opinions on the economy and who they trust more shows significant trust in Donald Trump compared to Kamala Harris. Despite positive media coverage and selective polling showing a Harris surge, MIG Reports data reveals a consistent skepticism toward Harris's economic policies. These sentiments are largely shaped by perceptions of inflation, government spending, and unhappiness with her economic management.

Vice President Kamala Harris is catching up to former President Donald Trump on the number of voters who trust her handling of the economy, according to a new Financial Times/Michigan Ross poll. https://t.co/v4P9A0zZWO

— NBC4 Washington (@nbcwashington) August 12, 2024

Axios reported on recent polling showing Harris leads Trump by 1% in voter trust on the economy. However, the limited poll of 1,000 voters over a selected period also has a margin of error greater than Harris’s supposed lead—± 3.1 percentage points. This not only brings the poll’s results into question but emphasizes the stark contrast of MIG Reports data and analysis.

• MIG Reports analysis shows Harris with mostly very negative sentiment regarding voter trust. Donald Trump shows mostly very positive and positive sentiment regarding voter trust.
• About 70% expresses negative sentiment towards Harris. Voters focus on inflation and government intervention.
• Approximately 60% of discussions favor Trump’s economic policies, viewing them as more effective in managing inflation and stimulating growth.

All Discussions similarly reflect widespread distrust in Harris's economic strategies. Around 70% voice concerns about her strategies for handling inflation. Many attribute rising inflation to government overspending and policy failures like the Inflation Reduction Act.

About 30% express support for her efforts, particularly in reducing prescription drug prices. However, overall sentiment remains heavily negative. Approximately 60% of discussions suggest a preference for Trump’s economic leadership, citing lower inflation rates and more favorable economic conditions.

In swing states, sentiment again prefers Trump. Around 72% of voters express skepticism about Harris’s ability to address inflation effectively, criticizing her economic policies as misguided or overly reliant on government intervention. About 55% suggest trust in Trump’s economic management, particularly his tax cuts and deregulation efforts. Swing state voters view them as stimulating growth and keeping inflation low.

In national discussions, approximately 68% are critical of Harris, with many linking her policies directly to rising inflation and economic instability. Only 12% of the comments express support for her economic strategies, substantiating the theme of failure to gain public trust. About 70% of national conversations express a belief that Trump’s economic policies were more favorable.

The aggregated analysis from these sources highlights a strong public preference for Trump’s economic policies over Harris's. Overall, 60-70% of discussions favor Trump's approach to economic management over Harris’s. This preference is driven by widespread distrust in Harris’s ability to manage inflation and economic stability. Voters view her policies as exacerbating economic challenges rather than alleviating them.

Why are Voters Skeptical?

Inflation and Price Controls

One of the most recurrent themes in voter discussions is inflation. Harris’s role in the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) is a major point of criticism. Americans place "inflation" in quotes to emphasize the perceived failure of the IRA to achieve its intended effects.

Harris's policies are also compared to communism, specifically referencing price controls, which people fear to lead to shortages, market chaos, or inflationary pressures. Many predict similar results to those in countries like Venezuela and Cuba. These terms are often used in a derogatory context to undermine Harris's credibility. People suggest her policies are out of touch with economic realities and historical lessons.

Corporate Greed and Government Control

Voters also discuss corporate greed and government control in discussions criticizing Harris's economic policy. Many decry Harris’s claim that rising prices are due to corporate greed and “price gouging.” They cite slim margins for large food retailers like Walmart—and many criticize Harris surrogates like Senator Elizabeth Warren who defend the “corporate greed” narrative.

Holy crap!

NBC had enough of Elizabeth Warren 🤣 pic.twitter.com/kDPEjyQD9H

— Brandon Tatum (@TheOfficerTatum) August 23, 2024

There is a strong belief that Harris’s policies, such as price controls and housing subsidies, could lead to more significant issues like market distortions, crashes, and black markets. These fears are bolstered by comparisons to failures in other nations which implemented similar strategies.

Tax Cuts and Job Creation

Discussions about Trump’s economic policies often invoke terms like "tax cuts" and "job creation." These terms highlight voter confidence in the successes of his administration in fostering economic growth. The comparison between Harris and Trump is stark, with many comments suggesting Trump's policies were more beneficial for the middle class.

Americans believe Trump’s policies kept inflation low and the job market strong. This comparison is often framed in a way that paints Trump’s economic record as more favorable. Many people underscore his achievements to contrast Harris’s perceived failures.

Inflation Reduction Act

The IRA is frequently mentioned, often with a tone of skepticism. Voters criticize Harris for her involvement in the Act, with the phrase placed in quotes to question its effectiveness. Critics argue that instead of reducing inflation, the Act has contributed to its rise, thereby undermining the very purpose of the legislation. This term is often juxtaposed with discussions of other economic issues, such as prescription drug prices and environmental initiatives, further highlighting the divide between the policy’s intentions and its perceived outcomes.

Prior to Robert F. Kennedy Jr. dropping out and endorsing Donald Trump for president, MIG Reports data showed voter inclination to switch loyalties. Through a weighted analysis of online discussions and sentiment, data suggests up to 50% of potential RFK Jr. voters would crossover to vote for Trump and another 30% likely to sit out.

As I predicted yesterday, RFK Junior will drop out of the race on Friday and endorse President Trump in a national address streamed to all major platforms. This is fantastic news for America and the entire world. We can stop World War III together. pic.twitter.com/jRYpid0ofG

— Alex Jones (@RealAlexJones) August 22, 2024

Sentiment and Support Dynamics

Across datasets and prior to RFK Jr.’s Friday announcement, there was significant discussion about the possibility he would suspend his campaign and endorse Trump. Weighing the data, it becomes clear that around 50% of RFK Jr.'s supporters are likely to shift their votes to Trump with an endorsement.

This shift is driven primarily by shared concerns about the current direction of the Democratic Party, particularly under the leadership of Kamala Harris. Supporters express a strong desire for unity against what they perceive as a leftward shift, and they see Trump as a vehicle for achieving this unity.

Despite this strong inclination toward supporting Trump, there is also a notable divide within RFK Jr.'s base. Approximately 30% of his supporters may choose to abstain from voting altogether rather than align with Trump. This group is driven by ideological differences and concerns that an endorsement would betray the more progressive or independent values that RFK Jr. has represented. This internal conflict highlights tension among his supporters, who are torn between pragmatic political alignment and maintaining their core principles.

Key Issues for RFK Jr. Voters

Economy

Economic concerns, particularly inflation and job security, are highly influential for this group. Many of RFK Jr.'s supporters view Trump's economic policies as more favorable compared to Biden-Harris polices. This economic focus drives a significant portion of the sentiment in favor of Trump, as supporters fear the impact of ineffective or damaging Democratic policies.

Vaccines

Vaccine mandates and health-related issues also emerge as critical points of discussion. RFK Jr. has been a vocal critic of vaccine mandates, and this stance resonates strongly with his supporters. The potential for him to influence health policy in a Trump administration, possibly through a cabinet position, is a major factor in the discussions. Supporters who prioritize these issues are more likely to favor a shift to Trump, seeing it as a way to advance their agenda.

Concerns of Authoritarianism

However, identity politics and broader ideological concerns create a counterbalance to RFK Jr. voters shifting support to Trump. Many in Kennedy’s base remain skeptical of aligning with Trump due to concerns about the potential erosion of civil liberties and the integrity of democratic principles. These discussions often involve fears about authoritarianism and a loss of individual freedoms, which are core to the values of many of his supporters.

The Bottom Line

The analysis reveals a complex and divided landscape among RFK Jr.'s supporters. While around 50% are likely to shift their votes to Trump with an RFK Jr. endorsement, about 30% are hesitant to support Trump and may abstain from voting. This divide underscores the challenges RFK Jr. faces in leaving the Democratic party and realigning his political identity. Discussions reflect a broader struggle within his base, where the tension between pragmatism and principle continues to shape their political choices.

This chart demonstrates the frequency with which specific keywords—such as "Endorse Trump," "Cabinet Position," "Unite," "Save America," and "Communism"—are mentioned across three different discussion datasets: All Discussions, National Discussions, and Election Discussions.

• "Endorse Trump" is prominent theme, particularly in the Election Discussions category, indicating strong interest in RFK Jr.'s potential alignment with Trump.
• "Cabinet Position" is also frequently discussed, especially in the All Discussions category, reflecting speculation about RFK Jr.'s possible role in a Trump administration.
• "Unite" and "Save America" highlight broader aspirations for unity and preservation of perceived traditional values, though these are less dominant.
• "Communism" emerges as a concern primarily in National Discussions, signaling fears about perceived leftward shifts in the Democratic Party.

The absence of several prominent Democrats from the Democratic National Convention (DNC) in Chicago is raising questions about the Party's unity. Many attribute absences to political strategy for Democrats in key down-ballot races. However, it also underscores the growing division in a typically unified Party.

A few prominent Democratic Senators are skipping the DNC including:

• Sherrod Brown
• Jon Tester
• Jacky Rosen
• Martin Heinrich
• John Fetterman

Voters are discussing the implications for upcoming elections—particularly in swing states where incumbents face tough re-election battles. Though Fetterman is not up for reelection, many point out his recurring clashes with the left over the border and Israel.

Other Democratic representatives not in attendance include Yadira Caraveo, Val Hoyle, Jared Golden, Mary Sattler Peltola, and Marie Gluesenkamp Perez.

Tough Races in Swing States

Democratic Senators Sherrod Brown of Ohio, Jon Tester of Montana, and Jacky Rosen of Nevada are all engaged in challenging re-election campaigns in states that have trended Republican in recent years. Many assume their decisions to forego the DNC, where Vice President Kamala Harris is being coronated to the nomination, is strategic.

Voters conclude these Democrats in important races hope to distance themselves from the national Party’s increasingly progressive platform. However, most of these candidates have endorsed the Harris-Walz ticket—with the exception of Tester in Montana.

MIG Reports data shows currently:

• Republican Bernie Moreno is leading Sherrod Brown in Ohio 52% to 48%.
• Republican Tim Sheehy is leading John Tester in Montana 52% to 48%.
• Jacky Rosen is leading Republican Sam Brown in Nevada 52% to 48%
• Martin Heinrich is leading Republican Nella Domenici in New Mexico 54% to 46%.

Voters in swing states like Ohio and Nevada likely view their Senators’ absence as an attempt to appeal to a broader electorate. Those wary of Harris’s progressive stances may be won over by the implicit rejection of Senators staying home. However, Democrats also face the difficulty of energizing the progressive base without alienating moderate or conservative voters who could determine the outcome of their races.

For candidates like Sherrod Brown, whose reputation is advocating for working-class issues, voters express disappointment. They say his absence is a missed opportunity to reinforce party solidarity. Similarly, Jon Tester and Jacky Rosen receive scrutiny from Democrats who suggest their participation is crucial in demonstrating alignment with leadership and the Democratic platform. This is a point of emphasis for those concerned about the challenging landscape Democrats face in retaining Senate control in various states.

John Fetterman, though not up for reelection, faces questions about his visibility at national events. Supporters worry his absence at the convention may signal a break with power centers in the Party, jeopardizing his standing among Democrats.

Division and Disarray Among Democrats

This strategic optics game is also indicative of deeper divisions within the party—particularly between traditional Democrats, progressives, and leftists. As more of her economic policies and historical positions surface, voters perceive Harris as deeply sympathetic toward the radical left. This perception is beginning to alienate Independent voters and some Democrats.

Despite leadership attempts to show unity within the Party, voters are keenly aware of growing fractures between far-left progressives and traditional Democrats—particularly when it comes to Israel. Sentiment is growing that the Party's shift towards progressive policies is pushing the country away from core values like meritocracy and free market capitalism. This division will likely have significant implications for Democratic success in critical down-ballot races, and potentially in the presidential race.

Voters are increasingly discussing Harris as supporting open borders and pushing communist economic policies. These two issues are the most important to voters, exacerbating the danger for Democrats in the election.

Voter Sentiment and Potential Backlash

Approximately 65% of discussions around the DNC hint at a potential backlash against the Democratic Party if it continues leftward. This suggests senators in critical races may be justified in attempting to distance themselves from national leadership. Voters, especially in swing states, express doubts about the effectiveness of the DNC and the broader Party strategy.

There is a prevailing sentiment that absence signals a lack of confidence in Harris's leadership. But critics say by not participating in the DNC, candidates may be missing an opportunity to demonstrate unity and solidarity. They say it could potentially weaken their campaigns or the national ticket among those who prioritize party cohesion. Some say it’s especially important when the spotlight is focused on Kamala Harris and Tim Walz.

The Impact of Harris's Leadership

Kamala Harris’s leadership and policy positions, especially on issues like the economy and immigration, are central concerns. Her proposals, which critics label as overly radical, likely will not resonate with moderate voters Senate candidates need to win. This sentiment suggests while some voters support Democratic ideals, they remain wary about the current direction of the Party.

Moderates accuse the DNC and its headliner candidates, particularly Harris, of radicalism and communism. They characterize Harris’s proposals as signs of a sharp leftward shift that aims to diminish traditional Democratic values. This exemplifies the tension, where voters in state races likely wish for a return to more centrist American values.

Symbols and rhetoric also play crucial roles in this discourse. Some X users highlight visuals and language around the DNC to showcase discontent. They emphasize various optics which they say capture a larger anti-Harris sentiment even among some DNC attendees like Chris Cuomo.

Dang… the left lost Cuomo 🤣😂😂

pic.twitter.com/5gRPlhM1NI

— MJTruthUltra (@MJTruthUltra) August 22, 2024

Most embarrassing moments at the DNC so far

These are unbelievable

🧵 A THREAD

12. Guy caught in 4K yelling "NOOOO" to choosing Kamala Harris pic.twitter.com/fEVvCH7kob

— TaraBull (@TaraBull808) August 21, 2024

Discussions also point to Kamala Harris’s nomination as people question its legitimacy due to the absence of primary votes. This narrative surfaces consistently, with voters expressing frustrations about the perceived "coronation" of Harris at the DNC—a decision they believe overrides the democratic process.