Doug Emhoff, the husband of Vice President Kamala Harris, is embroiled in controversy after accusations surfaced that he previously assaulted a former girlfriend. Typically, this type of story would grab headlines and dominate election discussions. Especially after recent media coverage of Emhoff praising him for “redefining masculinity.”

NEW: Second Gentleman Doug Emhoff accused of physically assaulting his ex-girlfriend, days after MSNBC host Jen Psaki said Emhoff was “reshaping masculinity.”

According to the Daily Mail, Emhoff hit a woman so hard that she physically spun around.

New details also reveal that… pic.twitter.com/dBPc8rcBL5

— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) October 2, 2024

However, instead of major political scandal, voter awareness and media coverage of Emhoff’s alleged behavior has been muted. MIG Reports data shows many voters are not discussing this story, many news outlets are not covering it, and of those who are, a majority dismiss it.

Voter Awareness Seems Low

Amid many other major political and world events, discussions of recent Emhoff allegations are low. One possible explanation for the low discussion volume regarding Emhoff could be the major news story saturation. But MIG Reports analysis shows a similar, seemingly trivial story, regarding voter reactions to J.D. Vance's physical appearance following the VP debate is high, especially his beard as a physical representation of his identity in politics. This suggests low discussion of Emhoff may be more related to lack of media coverage.

Data gathered over a two-day period shows that online conversations mentioning Doug Emhoff’s alleged behavior generated between 200 and 300 comments. In contrast, discussions about border security during that same period reached nearly 10,000 mentions.

• Discussion of Doug Emhoff allegations: 200-300 over two days
• Discussion of border security: nearly 10,000 over two days

Of those mentioning Emhoff broadly, 57% indicate awareness of the allegations. This stands in sharp contrast to the sustained national focus on topics like Haitian migrants or Trump’s recent comments about removing their protected migrant status.

NEW - In an exclusive interview with @NewsNation @AliBradleyTV

Trump says he would revoke the temporary protective status of Haitian migrants in Springfield, Ohio.

Bradley: So you would revoke the temporary protected status?

Trump: Absolutely. I'd revoke it, and I'd bring… pic.twitter.com/kqxlmNU67A

— Libbey Dean (@LibbeyDean_) October 3, 2024

The Media’s Strategic Silence

Americans increasingly do not trust the media in how it reports stories or which stories it chooses to report. Around 62% of voters criticize the media for selectively focusing on personal scandals like this while ignoring “substantive issues” that impact the nation. This perspective is largely held among left leaning voters.

Republicans, however, are also critical of the media. They say mainstream outlets are not giving the Emhoff story the same level of attention they would if a Republican figure were involved. Conservatives say, if this had been a Republican's spouse, media outlets would be running continuous coverage. And 65% of this group sees the media’s lack of coverage as an example of partisan favoritism and selective reporting.

Democrats Versus Republicans

Reactions to the Emhoff story are partisan. Among conservatives, 75% voice distrust in Emhoff’s character, viewing these allegations as believable and evidence of hypocrisy within the Democratic Party. They link this incident to a larger narrative of Democratic moral failures, especially when juxtaposed with the Party’s vocal stance on gender rights and advocacy for women.

It's absolutely hilarious how Doug Emhoff is basically sent around on the campaign trail to call Trump a "misogynist" and a woman hater.

Today, it was revealed that he "forcefully" slapped around his ex-girlfriend.

(In addition to cheating on his ex-wife with their nanny.) pic.twitter.com/GttaqYop5a

— johnny maga (@_johnnymaga) October 2, 2024

Many point out Democratic moral movements like #MeToo, saying if the allegations are true, Emhoff and Harris by extension are disingenuous at best. Some also point out that Kamala Harris herself only required allegations before condemning Justice Brett Kavanaugh at his SCOTUS confirmation in 2019.

The Kavanaugh hearings last year opened old wounds for many survivors of sexual assault. Allegations must always be taken seriously. pic.twitter.com/zNhw5skC6I

— Kamala Harris (@KamalaHarris) September 17, 2019

Democratic voters are far less engaged with this story. Around 60% of left-leaning commenters actively downplay the allegations or defend Emhoff. They frame the accusations as a smear campaign designed to undermine Harris’s political standing. For them, the story is seen as a distraction from more critical issues, such as policy and governance. They either suggest the allegations or false or dismiss them as inconsequential—further drawing conservative accusations of hypocrisy.

Reactions within Small Pockets of Awareness

Among the limited group discussing the allegations, reactions vary.

• 29% are outraged, noting the limited scrutiny Emhoff receives compared to Republican figures.
• 21% of voters show indifference, arguing a politician’s personal life, including the behavior of their spouse, should not define their ability to govern.
• 70% of 18-34 voters blame the media for sensationalizing personal scandals, viewing such coverage as an unnecessary invasion of privacy.
• 58% of older voters want more personal accountability from public figures, particularly those close to the vice president.

Likely Minimal Impact on the Election

MIG Reports analysis suggests the Emhoff allegations are unlikely to play a significant role in shaping voter behavior or altering the trajectory of Harris’s candidacy. The issue simply hasn’t gained enough traction to make a substantial impact.

Given that 57% of voters who were aware of the story are already dismissing it as politically motivated, and with such a small volume of commentary overall, this story is not likely to sway Independent voters or motivate a shift in voter sentiment. The fact that more significant issues, such as border security and inflation, are dominating voter attention makes it unlikely that Emhoff’s personal life will become a deciding factor in the election.

The vice-presidential debate on CBS between J.D. Vance and Tim Walz sparked partisan discussion, memes, and potentially moved certain voter sentiments. Even many Democrats and mainstream media outlets are declaring Vance the decisive victor.

One of the most discussed moments of the debate was Tim Walz’s inability to clearly explain his misrepresentation about being in China on the day of the Tiananmen Square massacre in 1989.

Worst moment of the night for Walz: stumbling through an explanation of why he lied about being in China during the Tiananmen Square massacre.

One of the most awkward debate moments of my lifetime. pic.twitter.com/L6NBRAIl3F

— Matt Whitlock (@mattdizwhitlock) October 2, 2024

Vance’s Decisive Victory

Most voters and media figures agree that J.D. Vance outperformed Tim Walz during the debate. This includes Washington Post polling confirming swing state voters consider Vance the winner—14 to 8. Mainstream media figures like Geraldo Rivera, Jake Tapper, and Chris Cuomo all conceded Vance’s victory.

Media reactions after the JD Vance vs. Tim Walz debate.

Geraldo Rivera: JD Vance won the debate.

NBC: Does Tim Walz have a problem with the truth?

Chris Cuomo: JD Vance fact-checked the moderators and he was right.

CNN's John King: Vance carried the important issues.

CNN's… pic.twitter.com/5rICMSivUC

— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) October 2, 2024

Vance's assertiveness and command over key issues like immigration, law and order, and the economy helped him establish a dominant presence on stage. His assertiveness without becoming combative or insulting appeals particularly to voters in swing states and conservatives who cringe at Trump’s bombastic style.

Post-Debate Sentiment

MIG Reports data shows:

• Vance’s support increased to 52% (+2)
• Walz’s support decreased to 48% (-2)

This uptick in Vance's favor post-debate indicates his performance not only solidified his base but may help sway some undecided and Independent voters. While Walz remained steady among his core supporters, the drop in his overall numbers shows a lack of confidence in his performance.

• National approval for Vance moved from 44% on Friday to 49% post-debate.
• Walz’s approval moved from 47% on Friday to 46% post-debate.
• Both candidates generated significant discussion volume jumping from less than 10,000 mentions on Friday to 78,122 of Walz post-debate and 91,624 of Vance.

Voter Sentiment Breakdown

Republican Base

Vance’s explicit loyalty to Donald Trump and his framing of issues like immigration played well with the GOP base. His confidence and casual but precise take-down of Walz and moderator questions created a surge of praise and memes. MAGA voters see Vance as a strong voice that will carry forward Trump-era policies.

Some conservatives, however, expressed displeasure with Vance’s abortion comments, voicing frustrations that he is too moderate on pro-life issues. Others, however, say Vance had Walz on his back foot regarding abortion—an issue Democrats tend to win.

Democratic Base

Walz’s focus on reproductive rights and healthcare continues to please the Democratic base. They appreciated his defense of progressive values and insistence on being pro-woman.

However, many Democrats understood that his demeanor was less confident, overwhelmed, and less impressive than Vance’s. Many pivoted away from Walz’s performance to suggest that VP debates and VP performance in general is less important than presidential conduct.

Independent Voters

As usual, Independents are divided. Some appreciated Vance’s confident and composed demeanor, but others were skeptical of his evasive responses. They particularly disliked his responses to questions about Trump and healthcare.

Still, Vance’s unflappable presence led to focus group, polling, and sentiment data showing most Americans conclude Vance won. Vance’s performance may also appeal to certain Independents looking for stability and leadership in uncertain times.

Key Issues During the Debate

Among the issues discussed at the debate, immigration and abortion stand out.

MIG Reports analysis shows:

• Sentiment toward Vance in the 24 hours post-debate reached 44% while Walz stood at 43%.
• Immigration sentiment was 43% for Vance and 44% for Walz.
• China sentiment was 48% for Vance and 43% for Walz.
• Sentiment on the economy was 46% for both candidates.

Immigration

Vance's portrayal of the current immigration system as chaotic and harmful to the American economy resonates deeply with voters concerned about border security. This issue is particularly salient in swing states like Arizona and Florida, where border policy is a top voter concern. However, many critics took issue with Vance firing back at moderators who attempted to fact check his statements about Haitian migrants in Ohio.

JD Vance refuses to accept the fake fact check and calls out the moderators on it so they shut his mic. Incredible pic.twitter.com/yuQ0QRfYsz

— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) October 2, 2024

Election Integrity

Vance’s response on the legitimacy of the 2020 election results divided voters along partisan lines. While it cemented his standing with Trump’s base, most other voters disliked his discussion of the 2020 election and January 6. It raised concerns among swing voters and Independents about his commitment to democratic processes.

Abortion

Although abortion is a strong issue for Democrats, it was likely one of the most divisive topics during the debate. Vance appealed to some moderates with his softer language on abortion compared to strict pro-life advocates, angering some conservatives.

However, Vance also cornered Walz on the issue of late-term abortion when Walz failed to answer a direct question about the law he signed in Minnesota. This rare maneuver by a Republican led some to feel Walz lost ground for Democrats on their top issue.

FACT: Tim Walz signed a law that allowed babies to be left to die if they survive an abortion.

Babies who are BORN ALIVE. pic.twitter.com/brmlbohKtK

— Students for Life of America | Pro-Life Gen (@StudentsforLife) October 2, 2024

Climate Change

Democrats responded positively to Walz’s position on climate change but many on the right criticized the moderators for making a question about the devastation of Hurricane Helene about climate change.

While climate change was the topic of the second question in the debate, for voters, this issue remains secondary to economic and immigration concerns.

Election Impact

J.D. Vance's victory in the vice-presidential debate strengthens his position in the Republican party as a strong leader and effective communicator. His ability to maintain support from the GOP base while reaching out to Independents and undecideds may be important in swing states.

Meanwhile, Walz and Harris at the top of the Democratic ticket face the challenge of coming across as relatable and confident to voters. Many on both sides of the aisle agree that Vance won but couch their observation in uncertainty about how much the victory can impact the election amid many other major events like potential war in the Middle East, Hurricane Helene aftermath, the dock worker strike, and critical border issues.

The aftermath of Hurricane Helene continues to devastate the Southeast, with hundreds dead and missing and thousands losing property and possessions. The scale of the damage has left communities reeling as many face the daunting task of what to do next.

In particular, North Carolina, Georgia, and Tennessee face a long road to recovery, with floodwaters still high, homes destroyed, and infrastructure in ruins. Rescue efforts are a topic of discussion across America as relief is still painfully slow, even five days later. For rural Appalachia, already struggling with poverty and limited resources, the storm has intensified a sense of abandonment. People are left wondering when—or if—meaningful help will arrive.

Many Americans are furious with the federal government, who they say is leaving them in the lurch and not showing up to help. Viral clips of Joe Biden saying there are no more federal resources to be given infuriates families still in the midst of life-altering destruction.

Biden on Hurricane Helene:

Reporter: "Do you have any words to the victims of the hurricane?"

Biden: "We've given everything that we have."

Reporter "Are there any more resources the federal government could be giving them?"

Biden: "No."

pic.twitter.com/ZavQQFd2xq

— I Meme Therefore I Am 🇺🇸 (@ImMeme0) September 30, 2024

Victims Still in Critical Need

For thousands impacted by Helene, there is a sustained sense of desperation. Whole towns and communities have been wiped out and many people are still trapped or missing, making the lack of timely federal aid feel like a slap in the face. Roads are destroyed, water and electricity infrastructure are inoperable, damage to homes and cars make escaping or sheltering difficult, and many are asking where FEMA and government rescue efforts are.

This woman has family trapped in Spruce Pine, North Carolina for 4 days… She just called out Biden and Harris live on NBC: pic.twitter.com/FFT11nuOPM

— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) October 1, 2024

MIG Reports data shows:

• 60% of voters express frustration over the federal government’s disaster response, particularly FEMA delays and perceived inefficiencies.
• 55% mention the Biden-Harris administration’s focus on immigration exacerbating FEMA’s slow response, with resources allegedly being diverted away from flood victims.

There’s a prevailing theme in voter discussions of political opportunism from political leaders, with the right accusing Biden and Harris and the left accusing Trump and DeSantis.

Democrats mostly argue the federal response is sufficient but complex, while Republicans point to the slow rollout of aid as evidence of the Biden administration's broader failures. Meanwhile, the people on the ground are left to sift through the wreckage.

Federal Response Failure

A small portion of discussions recognize FEMA working to mobilize resources and working to coordinate with state agencies. More also commend robust state responses by governors in Georgia and Florida, but these moments of efficiency are overshadowed by larger failures.

• 65% express frustration with federal and state officials, blaming the federal government for delays and local leadership for slow emergency declarations.
• 75% are angry about the apparent lack of aid and attention for hurricane victims compared to massive aid packages to Israel and Ukraine.
• And 90% of those discussing aid highlight $17.263 billion allocated to foreign military support, contrasted with Biden’s lackluster aid for American citizens at home.

Many Americans note the stark disparity in funding, emphasizing that while billions are sent abroad or spend on aid for illegal immigrants, the American people are left nearly without a thought.

Criticism toward the Biden-Harris administration dominates the discourse. People accuse the government of prioritizing political photo ops and foreign sympathy over Americans in crisis. The delayed involvement of military assets is also a source of anger. The XVIII Airborne Corps stationed just a few hundred miles away could have deployed critical resources to help with flooding relief, but instead, communities are left waiting for help.

The Political Fallout and Impact on 2024

Given the scale of Hurricane Helene's devastation, it is inevitable that the federal government's response will impact the upcoming 2024 election. With disillusionment and anger rising, the perception of a sluggish, inefficient response to the hurricane will likely fuel ire among voters.

According to MIG Reports analysis:

• 70% of voters say the government’s disaster response will influence their voting decisions in upcoming elections.
• 55% stress how hurricane aftermath and the dock worker strike will increase inflation costs and hamper recovery efforts.
• 70% say mainstream media fails to adequately cover significant events such as the port strike and hurricane aftermath.

Republicans both take the opportunity to get involved in recovery efforts and use this moment to highlight the administration's failures and rally voters. Meanwhile, Kamala Harris and Joe Biden receive significant criticism for their lack of action and involvement—with Harris attending a fundraiser and Biden away from Washington.

REPORTER: "On the hurricane, why weren't you and VP Harris here in Washington commanding this this weekend?"

BIDEN: "I was commanding!"

(He was at his beach house and Kamala was fundraising in San Francisco) pic.twitter.com/3LmFI0KiRN

— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) September 30, 2024

MIG Reports analysis reveals several topics about which some on the right are asking, "why is nobody talking about this?" There is a sense of urgency in these conversations, indicating feelings of disillusionment among voters with accusations of media dismissal.

Topics vary by volume, discussion intensity, and the demographic focus of those expressing concern. The largest discussions are around border security, the economy, national security, media bias, and the most recent assassination attempt.

Summary of Findings

• 40% of conversation is focused on border security and its impact on communities.
• 30% of discussions are focused on the economy, with widespread frustration over inflation, taxation, and government spending.
• 15% of discussions are on Ukraine and Russia, reflecting fears about national security and foreign policy.
• 10% focuses on media bias, driven by frustrations over censorship and selective reporting.
• 5% of the conversation is on the assassination attempt, highlighting concerns about political violence and media silence.

Border Security

Border security is the highest volume discussion, capturing 40% of conversations. Americans are frustrated about the lack of government action and media scrutiny on the border. These critiques often accompany talk of the consequences of illegal immigration on citizen communities. The debate intensifies around specific cases, like the situation in Springfield, Ohio, where an influx of 20,000 Haitian migrants significantly increases the town's population.

Voters are concerned about the strain on local resources, with 63% of likely voters blaming Kamala Harris for the surge in illegal immigration. This sentiment spreads broadly among conservative and Republican-leaning voters who view the government's response as inadequate.

Discourse frequently highlights the economic burden of illegal immigration and the increased threats to national security. The prominence of this topic reflects its great importance to voters in 2024.

The Economy

The second most prominent topic, composing 30% in the conversation, is the economy. Voters are frustrated over rising inflation, taxation, and government spending. They often compare current economic policies to those under the Trump administration.

In one data set, 75% of conversations mention economic topics, while 60% specifically address inflation. The rising cost of living—like a 40% increase in food prices—amplifies concerns among middle-class individuals.

Discussions also extend to taxes, with debates over how government spending and national debt impact future generations. This focus on economic issues shows American anxiety about financial stability and a belief that Kamala Harris is not addressing these matters effectively.

Ukraine-Russia Conflict

Global security concerns, particularly related to the Ukraine-Russia conflict, account for 15% of discussions. There is great alarm over the potential for escalating tensions and the risk of a wider conflict. Around 75% of voters voicing concerns are conservatives who criticize the Biden-Harris administration's foreign policy. They fear Democratic policies increase the risk of global conflict and nuclear war.

There is a growing sense of urgency that the dangers of war are not adequately addressed in political discourse or media coverage. Fears of global conflict and anxiety about national security cause many to point out a lack of media attention to Biden-Harris policies.

Media Bias

Around 10% of the conversation is focused on media bias. Discussions reveal frustrations with perceived media censorship, selective reporting, and the marginalization of conservative voices. For instance, one data set indicates 71% of voters are upset by mainstream media bias. They often specifically mention bias against Donald Trump and other conservative figures.

Discussions frequently touch on concerns about the media shaping public opinion and suppressing critical viewpoints. Many feel this bias leads to the lack of discourse on key issues like border security and the economy. The relatively lower weight of this topic compared to others suggests that while media bias is a significant concern, it often acts as a framing device for broader discussions rather than being the central focus itself.

Assassination Attempts on Trump

Already a smaller discussion topic compared to other issues, the assassination attempts on Trump carry significant emotional weight among conservative and Republican voters. Around 65% of conservatives are expressing grace concern about these attempts, highlighting the double standard in media coverage. They often compare lack of media coverage for the assassination attempts to similar events involving Democratic politicians.

Voters express anxiety over political violence and a belief that the issue is being downplayed or ignored, contributing to a broader narrative of media bias. While it garners focused attention, the narrower scope of this topic limits its overall prominence in the discourse.

The stark division between partisan narratives and trust in the media has grown clearer in recent weeks. Previous MIG Reports analysis showed Democrats remain one of the few groups which consistently trust mainstream media.

With 64.8% of all voters expressing strong distrust toward mainstream media, the 24.9% who say they do have trust is largely composed of Democrats. This is consistent with 2023 Gallup data showing:

• 11% of Republicans trust media
• 29% of Independents trust media
• 58% of Democrats trust media

This divergence raises significant questions about how media narratives, especially those with a partisan slant, can shape voter opinion and electoral outcomes. Media narratives, which many Americans believe are biased toward Democratic viewpoints, disproportionately influence voters who still trust these outlets.

Whether Democrats continue to trust media narratives because of confirmation bias, or those who trust media lean Democratic because they are influenced by narratives is unclear. However, the correlation of Democrats trusting the media and media promoting Democratic narratives remains.

Through selective framing, coverage time, and emphasis, the media plays an active role in shaping political perspectives, often long after stories have been debunked or corrected. MIG Reports analysis shows three recent examples of media narratives shaping Democratic voter opinions on key political issues.

Hook Line and Sinker

Migrants Eating Pets in Ohio

Following the presidential debate, rumors of Haitian migrants eating pets in Springfield, Ohio, dominated media coverage. Mainstream media, including ABC debate moderators who fact-checked Trump, largely positioned the story as unfounded or even fabricated.

Despite copious local resident allegations, certain police reports documenting missing pets, and the Springfield city manager acknowledging claims of pets being eaten, many Democratic voters still align with media narratives critical of the story and Republicans.

Analysis of media coverage time according Grabien data shows media outlets spent:

• Nearly 53 hours covering the Springfield city manager’s denial in the three days following the debate.
• Only 9.5 hours covering allegations of migrants eating cats.

There is a slight increase in mentions of the Springfield city manager after footage emerged from March of 2024 in which he acknowledged resident claims. However, these media mentions only total six hours compared to 23 hours the day after David Muir’s fact check against Trump during the debate.

MIG Reports data shows, in the last day:

• 80-90% Democrats still say pet consumption is unproven.
• 10-20% Democrats admit pet consumption is legitimate or indicative of larger immigration issues.
• 10-20% Republicans still say pet consumption is unproven.
• 80-90% Republicans believe pet consumption is legitimate or indicative of larger immigration issues.

The way media outlets frame the story—blaming Trump for “unproven allegations”—illustrates how media impacts perceptions. Democrats largely still dismiss the story as rumor, aligning with media talking points. Republicans, who largely distrust mainstream media, instead view the story—regardless of whether the pet consumption allegations are true—as an indictment of the Biden-Harris administration’s immigration policy.

The Danger of Bomb Threats

Following the media frenzy over pets in Ohio, narratives turned to bomb threats in Springfield. The media framed multiple bomb threats as a result of “dangerous” and “xenophobic” rhetoric by Trump and Republicans.

A viral clip of CNN’s Dana Bash shows her directly blaming J.D. Vance for drawing violence to Ohio through his allegedly divisive comments.

Analysis of media coverage time according Grabien data shows media outlets spent:

• 175 hours covering bomb threats in the last five days.
• 17 hours clarifying threats as a hoax after DeWine’s announcement.

Following Ohio Governor Mike DeWine’s announcement that the bomb threats were a hoax committed by foreign actors, media coverage continued to mention bomb threats for more than 100 hours while only mentioning them as a hoax for 17.3 total hours and a mere 17 minutes two days after the revelation.

MIG Reports data shows, in the last day:

• 60% of Democrats are discussing the bomb threats as real.
• 20% of Democrats are discussing the bomb threats as a hoax.
• There is no quantifiable number of Republicans discussing the bomb threats as real, but 31% express concern about community safety.
• 70% of Republicans are discussing the bomb threats as a hoax.

Again, biased coverage by mainstream outlets highlights how crafted narratives push slanted perspectives on voters who trust legacy reporting. This phenomenon is exacerbated by outlets spending far less time correcting falsehoods.

Democrats, a majority of whom still trust the media, show a greater tendency to internalize the mainstream narrative without scrutiny. Republicans, who largely distrust the media, are more likely to dismiss narratives which are proven biased by independent reporting.

Golf Course Assassination Attempt on Donald Trump

The second assassination attempt on Donald Trump triggered another wave of intense media coverage. While many Democrats expressed concern about the attempt, they strongly focus on linking the event to Trump’s divisive rhetoric.

Narrative battles again erupted as Republicans claim Democrats and the media are “victim blaming” Trump by saying his own language caused the assassination attempts. Fox News reporter Peter Doocy’s confrontation with White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre about how Democrats choose to discuss these events—continuously calling Trump a “threat”—demonstrates the partisan messaging clash.

Analysis of media coverage time according Grabien data shows media outlets spent:

• 818.5 hours covering the assassination attempt on Donald Trump in the three days following.
• 328 hours covering Trump and mentioning his “rhetoric.”
• 671 hours covering Trump and mentioning him as a “threat.”
• 96 hours covering Trump and mentioning “threat to democracy.”
• 2.8 hours covering the assassination and mentioning “Democrat rhetoric.”

Combined hours of coverage mentioning Trump with “rhetoric,” “threat,” and “threat to democracy” total 1,095 hours compared to coverage of the assassination alone and mentions of “Democrat rhetoric” at just more than 820 hours.

MIG Reports data shows, in the last day:

• 24% of Democrats are mentioning the assassination attempt.
• 60% of Democrats are mentioning Trumps divisive rhetoric.
• 57% of Republicans are mentioning the assassination attempt.
• 21% of Republicans are mentioning Trumps divisive rhetoric.

Once again, Democratic reactions suggest legacy media has strong influence over voter views with focus on Trump’s rhetoric rather than the assassination attempt itself. For Democrats, media framing reinforces pre-existing beliefs that Trump’s language incites violence. For Republicans, it further deepens distrust of both the media and Democrat credibility.

Media in the Tank for Democrats

Multiple data sources suggest the mainstream media’s framing of high-profile stories has a profound impact on the electorate—particularly Democrats who continue to trust these outlets. The disproportionate airtime given to narratives that align with Democratic viewpoints continues to foster anger and distrust among non-Democratic voters.

People use terms like “gaslighting,” “media bias,” and “we’re being lied to,” in discussions about how legacy outlets report on American political and cultural issues.

Increasingly, voters say they believe mainstream outlets attempt to control which stories gain traction and how long they remain in the spotlight. They suggest bias in favor of Democrats is intended to influence voter opinions and, ultimately, election outcomes.

However, given that Democratic voters compose the dwindling segment of Americans who consistently believe mainstream media narratives, some conclude the media’s influence and credibility is declining.

This is demonstrated by:

• Democrats often voting in alignment with issues amplified by the media, such as abortion, social justice, and government spending programs.
• Republicans repeatedly expressing distrust in media, driving them to seek alternative sources of information on platforms like X.

Political discourse has intensified following the Trump versus Harris debate, with MIG Reports data showing Trump continuing to surge as Harris loses momentum. Stories like the infamous Springfield, Ohio incident, where rumors swirled about Haitian migrants allegedly consuming cats and dogs, served to further polarize partisan divides. Against a backdrop of ire toward the media and Democrats, a second assassination attempt on Donald Trump also ignites passions on both sides.

• National sentiment toward Trump remains strong, maintaining at least a 5-point lead over Harris since the debate.
• Republican support across the electoral college remains tight, with Democrats gaining slight ground since the debate.

Media Frenzy and Voter Anger

After the debate, headlines fixated on Springfield and the media’s demonization of Trump. The controversial Haitian migrant story brought the media and Democrats’ integrity to the forefront with Republicans hammering the underlying issue of forced migration. Democrats, meanwhile, focused on claims of misinformation from Trump and J.D. Vance, which the media said foments xenophobia and fear, leading to reported bomb threats in Springfield.

JUST IN: Ohio governor says all 33 bomb threats against Springfield, Ohio have been hoaxes that are coming from overseas.

Just another media-fueled hoax.

Governor Mike DeWine said the threats are coming from "one particular country."

"33 separate bomb threats, each one of… pic.twitter.com/JHXQqBOAEe

— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) September 16, 2024

Ohio governor Mike DeWine’s confirmation that all 33 bomb threats in Springfield were hoaxes by foreign actors continued to stir anger from Trump supporters against the media and Democrats.

Next, Americans grew furious with the media after the second assassination attempt on Trump. Many fair-minded Americans—including former CNN anchor Chris Cuomo—express displeasure with rhetoric from Democrats and the media, who blame Trump’s own tone and language for the assassination attempt.

Watching Chris Cuomo get redpilled is absolutely incredible pic.twitter.com/Ew1Dr0xj4W

— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) September 17, 2024

Democrats, represented by White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre still refuse to change their language against Trump. Even when called out by reporters, Jean-Pierre doubled down on accusations against Republicans as dangerous.

KJP rages at Fox's @Pdoocy:

Doocy: "How many more assassination attempts on Donald Trump until the president, vice president, and you pick a different word other than threat?"

KJP: "I disagree with your question." pic.twitter.com/1YSMDwXqnS

— Media Research Center (@theMRC) September 17, 2024

The Big Picture: Kamala Craters

MIG Reports analysis of likely voter base turnout among Trump and Harris supporters paints a striking picture.

• 73.7% of Trump supporters express approval and intention to vote for him.
• 52.08% of Kamala Harris supports voice approval and intention to vote.
• This is compared to 72% likely turnout for Trump and 64% for Harris pre-debate.

This gap highlights the surging enthusiasm for Trump against a loss of enthusiasm for Harris. In addition, average sentiment in conversations about Trump and Harris shows 47% approval toward Trump versus 30% toward Harris.

Conversations Mentioning Trump

• 47% of voters nationally express approval toward Trump.
• 25.5% explicitly express opposition to Trump.
• 24.5% are undecided, though a portion of the group say they lean toward Trump.

Conversations Mentioning Harris

• 29.5% of voters nationally express approval toward Harris.
• 46% explicitly express opposition to Harris.
• 20.5% are undecided or unengaged.

These numbers illustrate why Trump, despite negative press, assassination attempts, and relentless Democratic criticism, continues to maintain a robust core of dedicated voters. By contrast, Harris struggles to consolidate even her own base, facing widespread skepticism and disengagement.

Swing States and the Battle for 2024

Swing states are critical to the outcome of the 2024 election, and data suggests Kamala Harris is losing ground in key battlegrounds. Despite a small sentiment bump in some MIG Reports data sets, voter conversations about Harris remain negative.

MIG Reports initiates analysis, weighing general sentiment embedded in conversations. Analysis incorporates negativity about the assassination attempt among MAGA voters in conversations mentioning Trump as well as negativity from Democrats about Trump's rhetoric. This suggests conversation analysis remains consistent with a picture of surging support for trump and falling support for Harris.

CBS News recently reported, in critical blue counties in Nevada, reporters were only about to find a single Harris supporter. These reports align with voter sentiment analysis online.

CBS IN NEVADA: “In every single restaurant, the people willing to talk to us, we could only find one Harris supporter in every restaurant and we left no stone unturned”

pic.twitter.com/RVA0PGOC7t

— Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) September 17, 2024

Swing State Voter Sentiment

• Trump’s strong appeal to blue-collar and rural voters, particularly in states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Michigan, is driving much of his momentum.
• Harris struggles with perceptions of being "out of touch" with everyday Americans, an issue amplified by her progressive policies on immigration and the economy.

Why Voters Are Leaning Toward Trump or Harris

Kamala Harris

Support

• Social justice and equality: Supporters view Harris as a champion for marginalized groups, particularly on issues like healthcare and civil rights.
• Progressive policies: Voters value her commitment to addressing climate change and economic inequality.
• Leadership style: For some, Harris represents a strong, modern leader capable of navigating the complexities of global politics.

Opposition

• Economic concerns: Her policies on taxes and healthcare attract skepticism, especially from middle-class voters.
• Weak on immigration: Critics argue Harris has failed to secure the border, promoting open borders and forced migration.
• Character issues: There is a widespread belief that Harris lacks integrity, stemming from her policy flip-flops and public statements.

Donald Trump

Support

• Economic growth: Trump’s policies on taxes and deregulation appeal to a broad base who value economic stability.
• Border security: Voters express desire for Trump’s tough stance on immigration, securing the border, and deportation.
• Perception of strength: Despite controversial rhetoric, voters view Trump as someone who "gets things done" and stands up to political elites.
• Law enforcement: Americans like his strong emphasis on law and order.

Opposition

• Divisive rhetoric: Trump’s language on race, gender, and social issues alienates many undecided voters.
• Abortion: Many who oppose Trump cite his stance on abortion as a key factor.
• Concerns about temperament: Many raise questions about Trump's fitness for office, citing his demeanor as "unpresidential."

Where the Race Stands

Looking ahead, the data suggests Trump maintains a solid path to victory, with his core supporters holding strong and voicing enthusiasm for turning out. Harris faces the daunting task of both positioning herself against Trump but energizing a growing apathetic and divided Democratic base. Trump’s ability to rally voters—despite media opposition and political violence—will likely be pivotal in securing a win.

An ABC whistleblower affidavit alleging the Harris campaign colluded with ABC to cheat in the presidential debate is generating controversy. MIG Reports analysis shows deep mistrust of the media and government institutions, with voters reacting to the polarized political environment.

Yesterday, ABC made a statement regarding the whistleblower affidavit. The only thing ABC said was that they did not give the questions or the topics to the Harris campaign. Well, nobody accused ABC of doing that. ABC has been accused of the following:

1.) Giving the Harris…

— Black Insurrectionist--I FOLLOW BACK TRUE PATRIOTS (@DocNetyoutube) September 17, 2024

There is strong sense of skepticism and disillusionment, particularly among Trump supporters. They often express beliefs that the establishment is working against him. Conversations also highlight a growing narrative of "waking up" to the realization that systemic bias and corruption permeate media coverage and political processes.

Endorsements from prominent anti-establishment figures like Elon Musk and certain rappers and businessmen also generate enthusiasm from voters who do not necessarily view themselves as conservative but align with Trump’s anti-establishment image.

What Voters are Saying

• 35% of discussions express distrust toward the media and establishment politics, highlighting widespread skepticism of institutional credibility.
• 25% mention polarization and tribalism, illustrating sharp divisions among factions.
• 20% discuss the concept of "waking up" to establishment bias, saying they now see through media manipulation for the first time.
• 10% voice distrust of political parties and the rise of conspiracy theories.

Negative sentiment related to the “whistleblower” keyword is not directed toward the individual, but the information revealed in the affidavit which, if true, strongly condemns ABC and Disney.

Media and Establishment Loses Credibility

35% of discussions express distrust toward the media and establishment.

Distrust of mainstream media and the political establishment underpins most voter conversations about the ABC whistleblower. Many believe the media, particularly outlets like ABC, actively work to manipulate public opinion against Trump.

People use words like "bias," "fake news," and "deep state." This exemplifies concerns that legacy institutions are not untrustworthy and involved in a coordinated effort to undermine Trump's candidacy. Negative sentiment extends both to media bias and a rejection of establishment politics as voters feel disconnected and disillusioned.

Polarization and Tribalism

25% mention polarization and tribalism.

Both pro-Trump and anti-Trump factions engage in deeply tribal behavior. Conversations are emotionally charged, with voters using inflammatory language to attack the opposing side. Rather than fostering nuanced debate, these interactions often devolve into accusations of "communism," "racism," “threats to democracy,” and "fascism."

Party loyalty often overshadows good faith conversations, reinforcing an "us vs. them" mentality. Entrenched divisions in the American electorate show each side increasingly views the other as an existential threat to the country’s future.

"Waking Up" Narrative

20% discuss the concept of "waking up" to establishment bias.

Many voters say they are "waking up" to institutional and establishment corruption. They believe the media, political elites, and other institutional forces are aligned in opposition to Trump’s re-election.

This group often says they have only recently become aware of this anti-Trump coordination. New and longstanding Trump supporters see themselves as having pierced through the veil of establishment propaganda. They see themselves as champions of truth and defenders against an oppressive establishment.

Distrust Toward Political Parties

10% voice distrust of political parties and the rise of conspiracy theories.

There is noticeable frustration with political parties—especially the Republican Party for not defending Trump. Some conversations reveal dissatisfaction with the GOP, where voters express disappointment that establishment Republicans do not push back against liberal media and political forces.

This internal criticism highlights a fragmentation in partisan politics, which aligns with previous reports of political realignment away from parties and in favor of ideology. Republican Party leaders—especially RINOs—are seen as either complicit or ineffectual in protecting conservative values.

Conspiracy theories and misinformation often generate discussion along with partisan disillusionment. Many share and discuss speculations about the deep state working with the media to rig elections, spread disinformation, or otherwise undermine Trump.

These theories often tie into broader fears about globalism, socialism, or corporate influence over politics. This element of the conversation suggests a growing distrust of official narratives to explain current events.

This sentiment is evident in reactions to Governor Ron DeSantis announcing an independent state investigation of the most recent Trump assassination attempt, citing distrust in the same federal agencies which many believe are targeting Trump.

BREAKING: Governor DeSantis Moves Trump Assassination Case Under State Jurisdiction

This means that Ryan Routh can be prosecuted for attempted m*rder, not just federal charges.

The Governor explained his rationale, saying, "In my judgment, it's not in the best interest of our… pic.twitter.com/TjvhX3aLWR

— The Vigilant Fox 🦊 (@VigilantFox) September 17, 2024

After a second assassination attempt on Donald Trump, public discourse turns to the media’s role in covering such violent political events. Across multiple platforms, voters are voicing concerns about the media’s culpability in raising the national temperature and whether they adequately address the gravity of the situation. Many criticize biased coverage which tends to blame Trump’s own rhetoric for the attempt on his life.

What Voters Are Saying

MIG Reports analysis shows:

• 63.72% of voters say the media contributes to violent events by using inflammatory rhetoric and demonizing political opponents.
• 42.96% of voters expect the media to ignore or downplay this assassination attempt against Trump.

Voter frustration stems from a perceived media bias, particularly regarding how the press covers threats or violence directed at Trump compared to other political figures. Many point out examples like Dana Bash accusing J.D. Vance of causing bomb threats in Springfield, OH, while also denying the media’s role in heated political rhetoric that may have urged violence from assassins.

I can’t stop watching this. Dana Bash jerking her head around like a bird because her target didn’t accept her Narrative’s premise. Vance rejects the premises. Then he attacks the premises. Just beautiful. pic.twitter.com/gsNOV4hiwJ

— Oilfield Rando (@Oilfield_Rando) September 15, 2024

Some also point to clips of Democrats, celebrities, and media figures promoting inflammatory rhetoric against Trump and Republicans, while blaming them for causing violent reactions among extremists.

2.5 minutes of Democrats explicitly calling for using political vioIence.

They own this. pic.twitter.com/vMpVbmJYmc

— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) September 16, 2024

Many voters express concern over the portrayal of Trump as a "threat to democracy," which they argue creates an environment of hostility and encourages violent acts. Right leaning Americans feel the media carries water for Democrats while blaming Trump and Republicans.

Ryan Wesley Routh, suspect in Trump assassination attempt, embraced Biden attack lines, called the former president a threat to democracyhttps://t.co/6gTBI8liOe pic.twitter.com/mVRpnlIN6z

— The Washington Times (@WashTimes) September 15, 2024

People attribute the media’s reluctance to thoroughly report on these events to political alignment against Trump. They accuse mainstream outlets of downplaying threats against Trump while amplifying narratives that politically benefit the Democratic Party.

There are recurring discussions of the media “memory holing” events that make Trump look sympathetic, while hysterically and irresponsibly covering stories that present voters and Republicans as villains.

Erosion of Trust in Media

The public’s skepticism about the media's ability to report on sensitive issues without bias is growing. In overall conversations MIG Reports data shows 75% of voters believe the media contributes to violent events through inflammatory language and divisive rhetoric.

This perception is not just about Trump but reflects broader mistrust in how news outlets frame stories, with voters arguing media narratives are politically skewed and antagonistic to average Americans. This theme continues from previous stories of media prejudice like biased debate moderators, media running cover for Joe Biden, and plummeting trust in media.

One particularly notable sentiment is that the media allegedly “memory holes” events—a reference to George Orwell’s 1984. Many believe media outlets ignore stories that do not align with their preferred political narrative. There is outrage at this selective coverage as voters feel ignored, invalidated, and demeaned.

Implications for American Politics

Voter perceptions of bias in coverage reinforce pre-existing political divides, making bipartisan dialogue increasingly difficult. For many, the media’s reporting on Trump’s assassination attempts is emblematic of the growing divide between how average citizens view the world and how the political and elite classes portray it.

As voters lose confidence in institutions, they are turning to alternative platforms like X for news and reporting. Many discuss the importance of independent media to ensure facts and important stories come to the fore, despite mainstream media’s refusal to cover them.

They point to examples of independent reporters gathering facts and evidence more thoroughly than large media corporations. Many are also discussing instances of independent journalists like Nick Sortor confronting mainstream figures about their alleged lies.

🚨 NEW: I PERSONALLY confronted the MSNBC “reporter” here in Springfield, Ohio who is now on TV with Lester Holt blaming President Trump for his own ass*ss*nation attempt

And she tried to have me ARRESTED.

I attempted to ask @Maggie_Vespa why she is pushing VIOLENT, DIVISIVE… https://t.co/EoJ06Of9B8 pic.twitter.com/wXulsn1oAa

— Nick Sortor (@nicksortor) September 16, 2024

Last week, a USA Today reporter called my video on the Venezuelan gang activity in Aurora ‘largely disproven.’ This week, 8 gang members have been arrested, and a city statement describes the damage, but the reporter and her editors have doubled down, refusing to acknowledge the… pic.twitter.com/UqnKCHIhDs

— Matt Christiansen (@MLChristiansen) September 14, 2024

As media credibility continues to erode, it is likely that the public’s reaction to major political events remains polarized.

A viral video of Don Lemon mocking and diminishing Melania Trump’s reaction to the assassination attempt on Donald Trump sparked outrage. MIG Reports data shows Americans are having intense discussions about the future of the nation amid political divisiveness.

Don Lemon mocks Melania Trump describing her distress over the attempted ass*ss*nation of her husband. Sick. pic.twitter.com/4LGbBeKomN

— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) September 11, 2024

These conversations reveal fears about the country’s trajectory, coupled with a hopeful yet divided outlook on how to navigate challenges. Analyzing the themes across conversations provides a clearer understanding of public sentiment.

Sentiment Analysis

A 65-73% majority express fear about the country’s breakdown, reflecting widespread concern about the erosion of institutions, democracy, and individual rights. Despite this, 14-20% remain optimistic, believing the country can overcome its current challenges.

A notable portion of the discussion, around 30-40%, focuses on the need for collective action and a return to core American values to stabilize the nation. These figures provide the foundation for understanding the larger narratives at play in these discussions.

Fear of America’s Collapse

One of the dominant themes is a pervasive fear that America is on the brink of collapse. Between 65% and 73% of the conversations revolve around this existential threat, with voters pointing to the erosion of democratic norms, rising authoritarianism, and the growing division within society.

Many describe the situation as dire, using language like “the end of the country as we know it” or “the destruction of our constitutional republic.” These concerns are not abstract but tied to perceptions of increased crime rates, economic instability, and the influence of special interest groups over the government. Many Americans fear the country’s foundation is under attack, and they are unsure if it can recover.

Disillusionment with Leadership and Politics

There is also widespread disillusionment with political leadership and the current state of American politics. Around 40-42% criticize the Biden-Harris administration, accusing it of being out of touch with ordinary Americans. They say Democrats are mishandling immigration, taxation, the economy, and law enforcement.

Voters voice frustration with what they perceive as a push towards socialism or communism, further fueling concerns about the country’s future. Around 21% support the current administration, defending efforts to address inequality and stand up for marginalized communities. However, even among these supporters, there is an undercurrent of concern that the political divide may be too wide to bridge.

Optimism and Hope for Recovery

Amid an overwhelming sense of fear and disillusionment, there remains a significant group of people who maintain hope. Between 14% and 20% express optimism about the future. They point to the resilience of the American people and the country’s institutions.

Optimists believe, while the challenges are significant, the U.S. has faced similar crises before and emerged stronger. They argue through collective effort and adherence to core American principles—such as freedom, democracy, and individual rights—the country can overcome its current obstacles.

Call for Action and Return to Core Values

About 30-40% emphasize the importance of collective action in addressing America’s challenges. Many advocate for increased civic engagement, including voting, activism, and defending the Constitution. This group sees the solution not in radical change, but in a return to traditional American values—freedom of speech, individual liberties, and the rule of law.

Traditionalists argue these principles have always been the backbone of the country’s success and will be key to its recovery. This narrative suggests by reinforcing these values, the nation can navigate through its current divisions and restore a sense of unity and purpose.