Over the weekend, a viral story spread on social media pointing out “Trump assassination” and other variants were being removed from web searches on Google. The public's reaction shows a sharp disdain towards tech companies for this presumed act of censorship. Top keywords include:

• Trump assassination attempt
• Censorship
• Leftist media
• Google
• Secret Service
• Deep state
• Investigation

Sentiment about this revelation is predominantly negative, with most people expressing outrage and suspicion.

Hi Google @Google! Why are you censoring the ass*ss*nat*on attempt of DJT??

They’re trying to memory hole it. pic.twitter.com/NtvD9pNovn

— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) July 28, 2024

Big Tech Censorship is Alive and Well

Analysis shows public sentiment and recurring themes focus on free speech and censorship.

• Freed Speech: Voters debate the integrity of free speech, expressing concerns that removing organic search suggestions is an attempt at election interference.
• Censorship: There are strong accusations of censorship, connecting broader concerns about the control and manipulation of information by Big Tech.
• Political Bias: Accusations against Google and Facebook for political manipulation and protecting Harris while censoring Trump are rampant.
• American Values: Many say liberty, freedom, and democracy are at stake, reflecting worry that these foundational values are being undermined.

Many voters, especially on the right, accuse both Google and Facebook of acting as the communications arm of the Democratic Party. Even after admissions of “accidental” censorship, many Americans still take umbrage. Facebook’s claim that blocking a photo of Trump during the assassination attempt was accidental, draws claims the algorithmic “accidents” always benefit Democrats.

Freedom Versus Safety

Voter sentiment around Google suppressing searches about Trump and assassination can be divided into a few clear trends.

• Defenders of Free Speech: Many voters say, to preserve free speech, even controversial topics should not be hidden from search results. They believe removing or hiding search results related to political figures is a direct attack on American voters.
• Concerns about Misinformation: People on the left are concerned about the potential spread of harmful misinformation. They argue removing search “harmful” suggestions is necessary to prevent increased violence and to ensure responsible dissemination of information.
• Accusations of Political Bias: There are strong accusations that Google and Facebook display bias towards Democrats. Conservatives feel targeted and express resentment towards Big Tech companies they believe are suppressing their viewpoints.
• Calls for Regulation: In response to perceived biases and censorship, some advocate for greater regulation of tech giants to ensure a balanced and fair platform for all users.

Voter Impact

Undecided and Independent voters are likely influenced by these discussions. Their perception of political neutrality or bias in search engines can significantly sway their views on broader political issues.

• Trust in Media and Tech: Those who are already skeptical of media and Big Tech might find their beliefs reaffirmed, pushing them towards candidates who promise to regulate these industries.
• Political Disillusionment: Some Independents, witnessing these debates, may experience a heightened sense of political disillusionment, feeling neither side offers a solution to the pervasive issue of biased information control.
• Swing Votes Based on Free Speech: Candidates like Trump who strongly advocate for free speech and oppose censorship might attract voters who prioritize these values as central to their decision-making process.

Debates about American values, such as free speech, reveal deep ideological divides in the electorate. The public reveres core principles of liberty, freedom, and democracy, often contrasting them with perceptions of oppression and censorship. Many argue for the inalienable right to express opinions without fear of censorship, celebrating historical champions of these values.

People defend democracy through the lens of a free press, which they deem as essential for a healthy society. These discussions increase scrutiny of political figures and tech companies which may be influencing elections. Voters call for reforms to better align with American values, emphasizing freedom, liberty, and democratic participation amidst contemporary challenges.

Discourse about Kamala Harris and her stance on illegal immigration provides a history for Americans to navigate when forming opinions about her campaign platform. Many often reference Harris's tenure as San Francisco District Attorney, where she implemented the "Back on Track" program to help non-violent offenders, including illegal immigrants, avoid severe legal consequences.

This history, as well as her track record as “Border Czar” has been revisited extensively. Critics highlight Harris's efforts to clear the records of undocumented immigrants with drug offenses to protect them from deportation. This aspect of her history has ignited strong reactions from different voter bases.

A Breakdown in Kamala’s Prosecutor Image

More voters online are asserting that Kamala Harris let illegal immigrant drug offenders clear their records to protect them from deportation. This issue evokes strong negative sentiment, revealing a leniency on crime that betrays her tough prosecutor image. It is especially damaging when it involves illegal immigrants who have committed offenses. Negativity worsens with frequent assertions that Harris wants illegal immigrants who committed crimes to stay in the United States.

Harris promoted the "Back on Track" program, despite the case of Alexander Izaguirre, an illegal Honduran migrant in the program. Izaguirre allegedly assaulted a young woman, causing a skull fracture and long-term trauma. Harris later described the incident as, "A huge kind of pimple on the face of this program."

Another prominent topic is the border security bill negotiation that Harris supported and touted as bipartisan. This proposal aimed to invest $20 billion in border security, empower the President to close the border, and reduce asylum processing times from ten years to weeks. Public discourse emphasizes that Harris backed this comprehensive bill, despite its unpopularity for budget reasons and accusations of Democrat hypocrisy.

Experts Disavow Harris on the Border

Comments from public figures, such as the National Border Patrol Council President, Brandon Judd, also fuel discussions. Statements accusing Harris of refusing to implement existing policies and labeling her as indifferent to border security are widespread.

These statements intensely enhance negative sentiments towards Harris, portraying her as ineffective and uninterested in border protection. These augments also create positive sentiment towards Trump, who many view as proactive on border security, contrasting Harris's inaction.

Many on the right argue the Vice President’s disastrous legacy on the border could be a death blow to her campaign if Americans understand the truth. They argue this is the reason Democrats and the media are working so actively to reframe and even erase her border track record.

America Does Not Seem Fooled

The themes of border security and crime intertwine frequently, with passionate rhetoric framing Harris negatively as a "Border Czar" who failed in her duties. She is characterized as part of an "undemocratic communist regime" allowing a "terrorist invasion." This starkly illustrates the highly charged and negative language used to describe her role.

Positive sentiment toward Harris on the border is sparse, largely coming from her Party and media outlets. These entities often mention the bipartisan border security bill which Harris supported, while Republicans did not. However, the generally positive outlook on this aspect is overshadowed by broad negative sentiments.

Republicans also counter arguments that Democrats, including Harris, support border security with the proposed bill. They argue the administration already has the tools and laws it needs to control the border, but Democrats refuse. They specifically blame Biden and Harris for attempting to gain more funding with the bill, while ignoring existing border legislation.

Vice President Kamala Harris has recently made false claims about Project 2025 and Donald Trump. Her campaign and the media have spread claims that:

• Project 2025 will cut social security
• Project 2025 is Trump’s platform

Vice President Harris: Trump and his extreme Project 2025 agenda... Can you believe they put that thing in writing? Read it. It’s 900 pages. When you read it, you will see Donald Trump intends to cut Social Security and Medicare, give tax breaks to billionaires, end the… pic.twitter.com/msliYcmLuh

— Kamala HQ (@KamalaHQ) July 23, 2024

Harris’s comments about Donald Trump and Project 2025 during a campaign event have stirred significant public discourse. Many on the left and in the media defend Harris’s comments while those on the right are largely angry about alleged lies from Democrats.

Project 2025 is Trump’s plan for a second term.

Google it.

— The Democrats (@TheDemocrats) July 10, 2024

Project 2025 as Democrat Cannon Fodder

Harris’s comments on Project 2025, which she criticizes as regressive and harmful to the middle class, dominate discussions. Public understanding of the project varies, with some viewing it as a radical conservative agenda, and others seeming unaware or dismissive of it.

The claim that Project 2025 rolls back social programs like Medicare and Social Security generates anxiety among voters. Harris’s support from groups like "March for Our Lives" also plays a crucial role in shaping her public image.

Many on the left use Project 2025 as an attack against Trump and conservatives, claiming its radical agenda will destroy the country. Meanwhile, on the right, many debunk false claims Democrats or making. Others simply meme about Project 2025, using hyperbolic examples of “what Project 2025 will do,” poking fun as Democrat fearmongering.

Project 2025 will put Zyn dispensers in all mens bathrooms pic.twitter.com/dcCHZJKRh7

— 🏛 Aristophanes 🏛 (@Aristos_Revenge) July 18, 2024

Project 2025 will put one of these bad boys back in every refrigerator in America. pic.twitter.com/0c8GRXOTUq

— Sean Davis (@seanmdav) July 12, 2024

Trending discussions highlight Harris’s vocal opposition to Project 2025 and its framing as a threat to democratic values and social safety nets. This opposition resonates strongly with her base and some centrists, enhancing her image as a defender of social welfare.

Conversely, Trump’s disavowal of Project 2025 introduces complexity, as it partially neutralizes Harris's critique while still leaving room for debate about his broader policy agenda. However, Trump’s post on Truth Social distancing himself from Project 2025 is often glossed over by many in the media and voters discussing it online.

Project 2025 May Not Overcome Kamala Negativity

Online sentiment trends reveal a deeply divided public. Positive sentiment for Harris stems from her stance against Project 2025 and her endorsements, which boost her appeal among progressives and youth. Her claims of legislative achievement, such as the Inflation Reduction Act, are seen as evidence of her capability. However, previous MIG Reports analysis reveals these claims are mostly campaign strategy.

Negative sentiment arises from criticisms of her economic policies, causing inflation and high gas prices. There is also skepticism about her intentions within her own Party and negativity about the border.

For Trump, positive sentiment is driven by American admiration for his leadership and strategic moves, including his disavowal of Project 2025. His supporters view him as a resilient figure ready to tackle national issues. Negative sentiment towards Trump centers on fears of authoritarianism and concerns about his impact on democratic institutions, with Project 2025 seen as part of this troubling agenda.

Voter opinions of J.D. Vance's vice-presidential candidacy show hesitant hope, some skepticism, and direct criticism. Supporters laud his life story as emblematic of the American Dream. His rise from disadvantaged beginnings to the national political stage is seen as a testament to meritocracy.

Vance’s supporters are especially keen on highlighting his service in the Marines and his Ivy League education as accomplishments earned through hard work and determination. This narrative of individual effort resonates strongly with traditional American values of self-reliance and perseverance, giving cautious hope to those unfamiliar with Vance.

There are some who argue Vance's life story as a powerful counterpoint to criticisms of elitism within the political establishment. His rise from his socio-economic background situates him as an inspiring figure for many Americans dissatisfied with career politicians. This sentiment is compounded by comparisons to Kamala Harris, who many view as a DEI token.

However, many people also have concerns and sharp criticisms—especially when it comes to Vance’s tech ties.

• In the last 7 days, overall approval for J.D. Vance has hovered at or just below 50%.
• His approval on the economy fluctuates slightly but averaged 49% in the last week.
• Sentiment toward Vance on crypto has the highest high at 52%, but also the lowest low at 45%, likely due to lower discussion volume.

General Reaction to Vance’s Tech History

Public reactions to J.D. Vance's connections to Silicon Valley and the tech sector are mixed. There are supporters who are enthusiastic about the potential benefits of his connections. They say Vance's ties to Silicon Valley could drive innovation and economic growth. They also believe his relationships with tech giants may bring much-needed investment and expertise to various sectors, including education, infrastructure, and job creation.

Sentiment trends reveal deep concerns about economic and political power dynamics. The public repeatedly underscores that the middle class should not bear the burden of policies and systems that disproportionately benefit the wealthy elite. This discontent is amplified in the context of unions, with many feeling true advocacy for working-class interests is incompatible with benefiting from Silicon Valley's corporate wealth.

In contrast, there are individuals who view Vance’s background in the tech sector as potentially advantageous. There is cautious excitement about the possibility of having a candidate who understands the complexities and potential of technological innovation and its impact on the economy. They see Vance as a figure who can perhaps bring fresh, tech-driven perspectives to policymaking. This they hope will foster growth which can solve modern economic challenges with innovative solutions.

Public sentiment towards Vance is complicated by his perceived contradictions. Some voters applaud his narrative of rising from humble beginnings and attaining success, viewing it as a testament to the American Dream. However, this narrative is simultaneously criticized, with detractors accusing Vance of romanticizing his past while contradicting it through his political stances and elite connections.

Arguments Defending Vance

Americans seem generally disapproving of any perception of undue influence by wealthy individuals on politics. They also regularly express concerns over economic equity and fairness. Vance’s connections to Silicon Valley and his critiques of current economic policies elicit mixed reactions, ranging from support for his tech-oriented insights to strong disapproval of his financial backers and political rhetoric.

Despite general disapproval for wealth influencing politics, some Americans appreciate Vance for his rejection of traditional establishment politics within the Republican Party. They resonate with his "pro-union anti-corporate" rhetoric.

Hopefuls value what they see as his commitment to fighting corporate excesses and believe in his potential to rejuvenate the GOP with a blend of economic populism and cultural conservatism. These supporters tend to downplay or dismiss the negative characterizations, viewing them as media exaggerations meant to discredit a rising political figure who might disrupt the status quo.

Many supporters, tech enthusiasts, and crypto voters largely support Vance's commitment to clear cryptocurrency regulations. They appreciate his efforts to navigate the regulatory landscape, which they view as fraught with restrictive measures under current administration policies.

This group likes Vance's critique of the SEC's hardline enforcement tactics, which they believe stifle innovation. His legislative proposals aiming to overhaul how the SEC and CFTC regulate crypto are seen as steps towards an environment more conducive to technological growth and investment.

Vance's personal involvement in the crypto sphere, evidenced by his Bitcoin holdings and public comments, amplifies his credibility among crypto voters—who are increasingly seen as an important voting group. His actions such as voting to repeal controversial accounting rules and opposing stringent tax reporting requirements demonstrate a deep understanding of the challenges faced by the industry.

Supporters like Vance’s comments on the utility of cryptocurrencies in circumventing government overreach. This is highlighted by his stance on the Canadian trucker protests and gaining traction with voters who value financial autonomy and limited government interference.

Negativity Toward Vance as VP

Vance's controversial stances and his connections with influential figures like Peter Thiel can also drum up disapproval. Critics believe there’s reason for concern and Vance may pose a significant threat to democratic norms.

This position has been emphasized heavily in public discussions, particularly following Liz Cheney’s sharp critique. Cheney's assertions that Vance would "overturn an election and illegally seize power" and "capitulate to Russia" resonate strongly with liberals and anti-Trump Republicans.

Vance also faces criticism from some Republicans and the media for his perceived hypocrisy and controversial positions. Some praise his alignment with former President Trump, but others use his past criticism of Trump as evidence of hypocrisy or a disingenuous power play.

The influence of Peter Thiel and other billionaires financing Vance’s campaigns generates contentious debate about the role of money in politics. Critics argue his backing fuels fears of oligarchic control over democratic processes. This sentiment suggests a widening economic and representational gap, intensifying the debate over campaign finance reform.

Concerns arise regarding the potential for a monopolistic tech landscape bolstered by politicians like Vance. Critics argue Vance’s tech ties and support from high-profile tech investors could perpetuate a monopolistic ecosystem where large corporations dominate, leaving little room for grassroots innovation.

On Monday, Kamala Harris made her first public appearance as the presumptive Democratic nominee for president after securing the delegates needed. It was also reported that she raised $81 million dollars within the first 24 hours of her campaign. However, some voice skepticism that reported “grassroots” enthusiasm is not being propped up by Democratic leaders and the media. MIG Reports data shows a sharp divide in public sentiment and reveals several key topics and trends.

The Establishment’s Candidate

Discussions focus on how rapidly Harris secured endorsements and delegates, emphasizing the notion of party machinery consolidating around her. Many discussions touch on swift leadership maneuvering to unite behind her campaign after President Biden's sudden exit.

People often bring up the fact that state Democratic Party delegations, such as those from California, New York, and Ohio, have unanimously endorsed her, propelling her closer to securing the nomination. Keywords like "Harris," "delegates," "endorsement," and "Democratic nomination" permeate discussion.

Some voters express frustration with the Democratic Party's internal dynamics. They accuse Party elites of unilaterally deciding the nominee and usurping the primary process. Views of "no primary votes necessary, just greed, corruption, and brute force," exacerbate the perception of a Democratic Party takeover by elites. Keywords like "elites," "donor money," "undemocratic," and "corrupt" highlight this unease with how the nomination is being orchestrated.

The lack of endorsement from former President Barack Obama and explicit support from other significant Democrats like Rep. Rashida Tlaib, who calls for an “open nominating convention,” inject complexities into the discourse. This suggests internal party contention and feeds speculation on Harris’s viability.

Sentiment Trends

There is excitement and enthusiasm among many Democrats who had begun to feel demoralized by Joe Biden’s prospect. Harris supporters interpret her fundraising success as a sign of strong voter enthusiasm. They highlight her historical candidacy, celebrating her potential to be the first biracial woman to lead a major-party ticket.

Endorsements from influential Democratic figures, such as Nancy Pelosi, and the swift backing by Democratic delegates, further boost positive sentiment.

On the other hand, there is significant skepticism and criticism. Detractors question her ability to win a general election against a formidable opponent like Donald Trump. Criticisms often focus on her past performance in the 2020 primaries, where she dropped out early, polling at just 3.4%. The backlash also stems from Harris's perceived alignment with the "establishment," causing some to feel disenfranchised by what they see as an undemocratic coronation process.

Vice President Kamala Harris's nomination as the presumptive Democratic candidate has stirred widespread and polarized discussions among undecided and Independent American voters. Online reflections show insights into what issues are resonating most strongly with the public and how their sentiments are moved by these political shifts.

Key Topics

Discussions regarding Harris's nomination include her qualifications, past political record, endorsements, her stance on international affairs concerning Israel, and her unserious public image. The former California Attorney General and current Vice President brings a complex political history that motivates both criticism and support.

The topics of her past prosecutorial record, her performance and dropping out of the 2020 Democratic primary, and her relationship with influential political figures like Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, stir significant conversation.

Trending Topics

1. Trust and Credibility: Public discussions reveal a chronic struggle with trust in Harris's candidacy, driven by her past actions and perceived opportunistic alliances.
2. Democratic Process Integrity: Many conversations highlight a belief that the delegate-driven nomination process lacks true democratic spirit, raising fears about elitist overreach.
3. Foreign Policy and Ideological Stance: Harris’s international politics, particularly concerning Israel, exacerbates ideological divides within her own Party.

Sentiments diverge significantly based on these topics. For instance, Harris's prosecutorial record surfaces frequently, with some viewing her as experienced in law enforcement and others criticizing her for disproportionate incarceration rates among Black Americans. This discrepancy impacts voter sentiment broadly, influencing trust and support levels.

Anti-Israel and Pro-Palestine

One of the most contentious topics in the last few days has been Harris's refusal to meet with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu. This brings accusations of a "pro-Hamas" and "pro-terrorist" position from the potential new president.

The public split on this subject profoundly impacts sentiment. Supporters defend her stance as a sign of a balanced, critical perspective on Middle Eastern politics. Critics use it as evidence of anti-Israel bias, shaking the confidence of pro-Israel voters and sparking fears about perceived Democratic Party radicalism.

Professional Politician

The Harris campaign's swift move to secure endorsements and delegates after Biden's withdrawal injects both hope and cynicism into the public dialogue. Supporters see this maneuver as a necessary consolidation to maintain Party unity and enhance election efficacy, thus lifting sentiment. Critics, however, perceive it as undemocratic and manipulative, undermining faith in the electoral process, thus decreasing sentiment. Pelosi's subsequent endorsement of Harris, however, served to fan growing flames of enthusiasm among Democratic voters.

Another pivotal topic concerns her failure to secure primary delegates in past races. This argument surfaces frequently among detractors, framing her as an untested candidate lacking broad voter support, which dampens her acceptance among undecided voters. Many also argue he ascent to the candidacy is an affront to every Democrat voter who cast votes for Joe Biden.

Establishment’s Pick

Notably, the initial lack of endorsement from figures like Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi created an air of uncertainty in the immediate aftermath of Biden’s withdrawal. This image of Party disarray impacts voter sentiment variably. While some interpret it as a strategic move to prevent premature influence, others read it as a lack of full confidence, stirring unease. With

Financial backing and the role of influential figures like George Soros also come under scrutiny. Harris's significant war chest generates enthusiasm about her capacity to mount a robust campaign but also fuels skepticism about undue influence by wealthy donors and political elites, dampening trust among voters wary of corporate sway in politics.

Sentiment Trends

Increasing Sentiment

Expressions of Party unity, endorsements from key leaders like Pelosi and Obama affirming her leadership, and narratives highlighting her policy acumen and experience tend to increase sentiment. Positive engagement stems from the portrayal of Harris as a candidate capable of evolving and addressing deep-seated issues within the party and nationwide.

Decreasing Sentiment

Dialogues stressing undemocratic practices, her past prosecutorial record, perceived leftist radicalism, and negative comparisons with other potential candidates push sentiment down. These criticisms suggest reversing negative sentiment will require Harris addressing concerns about fairness, transparency, and her political record comprehensively.

With an apparent swell of support rising for the fledgling Kamala Harris presidential campaign, Americans may not be taking politics seriously. Following the first presidential debate, which was disastrous for Joe Biden, speculation grew about the possibility of Kamala Harris taking his place.

Kamala is a Political Meme

Previous MIG Reports analysis showed Harris surpassing Biden’s approval on several important issues, despite both battling negative sentiment. A wave of nakedly ironic support from Democratic voters embraced the Vice President’s meme potential, referencing coconut pills and the “khive.”

Now that Joe Biden has released an announcement of his plans to withdraw from the race, Democratic support for VP Harris seems to be surging. The ensuing dramatic and immediate shift in voter support and sentiment raises questions about how voters assign loyalty and make voting decisions.

The Kamala memes now include supporters, whether genuine or ironic, saying “Kamala is Brat,” referring to a meme where “brat” means not caring what haters say and having a relaxed demeanor. This appears to be an effort to rehabilitate Kamala's image as an awkward and cringeworthy public speaker. A viral meme video promoting “Brat Kamala" kicked off the enthusiasm.

why did I stay up till 3am making a von dutch brat coconut tree edit featuring kamala harris and why can’t I stop watching it on repeat pic.twitter.com/hqcmerD1Pb

— ryan (@ryanlong03) July 3, 2024

This was followed by gay supporters on Fire Island sporting brat Kamala midriff tops, CNN discussing brat Kamala, and even the official Kamala HQ X profile using brat font and colors as the header image.

BRAT Kamala shirts already on Fire Island. The gays move SO FAST pic.twitter.com/Zq3e9yctzv

— Michael Del Moro (@MikeDelMoro) July 21, 2024

CNN talks about Kamala Harris’ ‘brat’ themed campaign.

pic.twitter.com/lBjbVEtZNf

— Pop Base (@PopBase) July 22, 2024

Public interest appears more fixated on political drama, conspiracy theories, and memes rather than concrete policy positions or administrative decisions. Could the heightened and dramatic sequence of events, largely playing out on X, be driving a caricatured and meme-driven attitude toward American politics?

Democrats Turn on a Dime

Democrats who support Harris tend to emphasize unity and strategic continuity, endorsing Harris as a capable leader who can pick up where Biden leaves off. This, however, contradicts previous rampant ironic support many Democratic voters expressed toward VP Harris just weeks ago.

Overall American sentiment reveals an underlying tension within both parties. Across partisan lines, Americans largely view Harris as an extension of Joe Biden's leftwing policy record. However, there is an emphasis on her being "more liberal" and "less competent."

Those expressing enthusiastic support for her candidacy may view the progressive agenda as more important than candidate specifics. They laud her long political career, ignoring its past controversies like her track record as a tough-on-crime prosecutor.

Many also tout Hariss’s historic potential as the first female, AAPI, and black president of the United States. This support emphasis suggests the VP’s voter base places high priority identity politics as a critical driving factor in voting decisions.

• In the last two days, online mentions of both Joe Biden and Kamala Harris exploded, surpassing 40,000 for each one. Discussion volume for Kamala Harris also outpaced mentions of Joe Biden.
• Both Biden and Harris enjoyed a slight bump in sentiment, however neither crossed 50%.

Accusations Against Republicans

Democratic voters voice frustration, particularly toward Republican critiques of the Democratic nomination process. Commenters prepare for anticipated claims of unfairness from Republicans about Biden's endorsement and the highly irregular method of making Harris the Democratic candidate.

Progressives say previous Republican behaviors undercut their current arguments. They say things like, "Get ready for Republicans to all tell Democrats how unfair it is that our elected nominee isn't our elected nominee." This suggests a feeling of preemptive defense and a voter willingness to accept Democratic leadership decisions, despite previous contradictions.

Additionally, the anticipation of intensified challenges Harris will face due to "racism" and "misogyny" are taking center stage. Predicted to face unprecedented levels of racial and gender-based hostility, Democratic sentiment here shows willingness to prioritize identity politics over consistency. This anticipation of bias against Harris also ties into anxieties about how her leadership will be accepted across different societal strata.

A conspicuous trend is the polarized nature of the comments, absent of middle-ground perspectives. This polarization hints at an electorate either firmly in support of or staunchly against Kamala Harris, with few expressing nuanced or mixed views. The passionate language used in both supportive and critical comments suggests voters are highly engaged but also deeply divided.

Will Underlying Skepticism Bubble Up?

American voters' knowledge ranges considerably when it comes to policy specifics that Kamala Harris may promote. Conversation substance suggests many are likely uninformed about the granular details. Public discourse reveals a significant focus on high-profile, emotionally charged issues rather than on comprehensive policy analysis.

When Kamala Harris is mentioned, it often centers around her reactions to contentious topics like the bombing of Gaza and the associated humanitarian crises. Public discussions also frequently critique her past support for certain causes, such as fundraising efforts criticized for allegedly aiding violent groups. These conversations suggest progressives, despite vocal unity, may not truly support the policies of a potential Harris administration.

Conversely, critics voice concerns about Harris's capability to secure a victory in the presidential race, many drawing parallels to Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign. Doubts about her leadership on issues like immigration are prevalent, with comments noting her lack of communication with key figures like the Border Patrol Chief. Criticism also touches on her perceived inability to garner wider appeal, with suggestions that she might struggle against entrenched societal biases and the strength of her Republican opponents.

Democratic Voters Fall in Line

The narrative of Biden being "pushed out" by his party or the “deep state” adds another layer of complexity. While some express sadness and nostalgia for Biden's tenure, the swift rallying behind Harris suggests the Democratic camp is willing to move according to leadership direction.

The conversation about voter engagement and mobilization is prevalent, with many emphasizing the need for unity and increased voter turnout to secure a victory for Harris. This sentiment is reinforced by calls to action from various factions within the Democratic Party and allied movements, showcasing a concerted effort to maintain momentum.

The discussions about Biden possibly being ousted by his Party seems to alarm a segment of Democrats. However, many who very recently expressed disgust at potential political maneuvers seem to be changing their tune. This includes Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez who livestreamed her criticisms of Party leaders for pressuring Joe Biden to withdraw—only to delete the video and tweet her support for Harris.

Kamala Harris will be the next President of the United States. I pledge my full support to ensure her victory in November.

Now more than ever, it is crucial that our party and country swiftly unite to defeat Donald Trump and the threat to American democracy.

Let’s get to work.

— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) July 22, 2024

Americans are reacting to Joe Biden’s tweet announcing his decision to drop out of the presidential election with strong emotions. There is an unusually chaotic and less patterned conversation landscape. MIG Reports data reveals two distinct patterns:

• United support among Democrats for the change in candidates.
• Frenetic and disjointed criticism of Harris’s candidacy, with diverging viewpoints and a visible lack of cohesive narrative.

Chaos

The complexity of public responses reveals disjointed and confused political strategies. Voters frequently discuss the Democratic Party's decisions, with terms like "identity politics,” “donor class,” and “disarray.” There is a sentiment among these voices that Biden's exit and Harris's candidacy are results of broader political maneuvering within the party. This view often comes with a mix of skepticism and resentment. This critical perspective underscores a belief in factionalism and party politics influencing key decisions, rather than a purely meritocratic consideration of Harris’s capabilities or votes cast by Americans.

Public sentiment towards Kamala Harris's candidacy is divided. While her Democratic voter base seems unified around her, critics remain vocal about their concerns. Supporters bring up her political history, lauding her as accomplished. However, they do not attach her previous unpopularity or the poor approval toward Joe Biden’s presidency to her current candidacy.

Online conversations have fewer clear themes and exhibit a heightened sense of chaos and urgency compared to more traditional discourses. This suggests a notable shift in the voter beliefs about the causes and implications of Joe Biden withdrawing.

This new, chaotic dynamic reveals a turbulent and uncertain political climate. This is only exacerbated by Biden's abrupt announcement of his withdrawal and the ensuing scramble for alignment and support within the Democratic Party.

Joe Biden

The top keywords emerging from these discussions center on "Biden," "Kamala," "Trump," "Hunter," "legacy," and "economy." Public sentiment around Joe Biden seems to polarize sharply into highly positive and highly negative views.

Positive sentiments highlight Biden's progressive accomplishments, his legacy as a pro-working-class president, and a belief in his deep empathy and character. People express profound gratitude for his efforts in establishing gun reform, boosting the economy, tackling climate change, and supporting unions.

Many echo Hunter Biden’s statement about his father’s unconditional love and commitment to public service. They underscore an emotional and personal connection to Biden's tenure. Supporters praise Biden for his significant achievements and transformative policies, stating their readiness to back Kamala Harris, who they believe will continue his progressive legacy.

Negative sentiments are often vehement, with accusations of incompetence, weakened borders, and economic mismanagement. Critics accuse Biden of being manipulated by his Party leaders and stress Kamala Harris’s perceived inadequacies. They voice frustrations over his legacy, including the immigration crisis and multiple foreign policy crises. Detractors emphasize a narrative of decline under Biden’s administration and project even more pessimism at the prospect of Harris taking the helm.

The reasons for sentiment trends are mostly rooted in partisan divisions. Supporters focus on Biden’s alleged policy successes and personal virtues, while critics latch onto recurring failures and controversies. The chaotic nature of these conversations indicates deep-seated political divides and a struggle for narrative control as voters grapple with the implications of Biden’s withdrawal and Harris’s ascent.

Kamala Harris

In the wake of President Biden's unexpected withdrawal announcement, online conversation among Americans is frenetic and impassioned. Discussion about Harris, like Biden, is less structured and more chaotic than usual.

Vote Blue No Matter Who

A predominant keyword emerging from the conversations is "KamalaHarris2024," often accompanied by hashtags like #VoteBlue, #HarrisForPresident, and #MadamePresident. Supporters express enthusiasm about her candidacy, citing her qualifications and historical significance as a leading advocate for marginalized groups, including the LGBTQ community.

Democrats use words like "champion," "equality," "proud," and "excited" with their endorsements. Sentiment among her supporters is optimistic and expresses a readiness to mobilize. This is supported by significant fundraising numbers following Biden's announcement. Despite receiving no votes in the Democratic primary during her previous run for president and her dismally low historical approval, Democratic voters seem to be rallying around Harris. This suggests a willingness to “vote blue no matter who.”

Detractors seem to be mostly on the right, focusing on her past controversies and perceived shortcomings. Top keywords in these opposing viewpoints include "Antifa," "BLM," "Willie Brown," and "criminal justice." These critics often allege her political career has been marked by opportunism and inconsistency.

People point to her tenure as California’s Attorney General where she faced criticism for her handling of wrongful convictions and her relationship with the former San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown. Words like “disappointed,” “backlash,” “controversy,” and “unprepared” are frequently used by those skeptical of her presidential ambitions. The sentiment here tends to emphasize distrust and discontent, driven by historical grievances and perceived failures in her political tenure.

MIG Reports data shows reactions to Republican National Committee (RNC) speeches are shaping the landscape for the 2024 election. They are resonating significantly with the American people in several key areas like unity, the economy, and immigration.

However, there is also selective perception from both parties. Republicans and conservatives emphasize the policy points they agree with while Democrats and liberals nitpick issues like abortion. Regardless of the RNC platform and content, discussions are often driven by issues voters personally care about.

Many of the speeches given during the RNC highlight themes which are important for the potential trajectory of Donald Trump’s 2024 campaign. The central topics are immigration policies, economic strategies, national security, and cultural issues. Discussions on these topics will likely continue shaping the conversation until November.

Trump Speech Breakdown

A statistical breakdown of Trump’s speech highlights the topical themes he touched on by volume. The provides an understanding of what Americans heard and where Trump himself is placing platform emphasis.

Trump’s speech covered the following topics:

Election Campaign & Unity

• The campaign
• American unity
• Vision for the future

Personal Story & Assassination Attempt

• Trump’s personal narrative of the assassination attempt and its implications

Economic Policies

• Inflation
• Jobs
• Energy policies
• Economic relief

Immigration Policies

• Border security
• Immigration

International Policies

• International relations
• Wars
• Global stability

Social Policies

• Law and order
• Healthcare
• Education
• Social justice

An analytical breakdown of topic emphasis according to word count shows:

1. Election Campaign & Unity: 24.3%
2. Personal Story & Assassination Attempt: 23.0%
3. Economic Policies: 20.3%
4. Immigration Policies: 14.9%
5. International Policies: 9.5%
6. Social Policies: 8.1%

In contrast, a breakdown of Trump’s 2016 acceptance speech emphasized:

1. Introduction and Acceptance: 5%
2. Domestic Crisis and Safety: 20%
3. Immigration Policies: 17.5%
4. Economic Policies: 15%
5. International Policies: 15%
6. Social Policies and Justice: 12.5%
7. Anti-Corruption and Reform: 10%
8. Conclusion and Call to Action: 5%

The following breakdown depicts American discussion in response to the RNC throughout the week.

Immigration

American voter conversations indicate the Trump campaign’s talking points resonate heavily on promises of mass deportations. While many voters express hope for this, there was little explicit mention of deportation in RNC speeches. This suggests there is an organic campaign wish from the people.

The importance of a secure border is resonating powerfully with a certain segment of the electorate who are dissatisfied with the current state of immigration policy under the Biden administration. Discussions include policies like ending birthright citizenship and implementing a massive deportation operation. These align with concerns about national security and prevalent economic anxieties. These issues are not mentioned in reference to a specific RNC speaker but remain a high-volume discussion from Americans.

Discussions reveal a split in public opinion on immigration. Many Trump supporters praise his proposed measures as necessary for restoring law and order. Opponents criticize them as xenophobic and inhumane.

Economic Issues

Americans are saying Trump's platform suggests a continuation and amplification of his previous term’s policies. They highlight tax cuts, reducing regulation, and focusing on energy independence with an emphasis on fossil fuels over renewable sources.

While some praise these measures as advantageous for economic growth and beneficial for businesses, critics say they could increase income inequality and harm environmental progress. The call to restrict outsourcing and turn the United States into a manufacturing superpower is echoed in sentiments aiming to bring more jobs back domestically.

National Security

National security remains a significant aspect of RNC messaging and the Trump campaign’s strategy for 2024. The rhetoric around withdrawing from NATO, bolstering military capabilities, and ending foreign conflicts such as those in Ukraine aligns with Trump's America First ideology.

This strikes a strong chord with voters who are wary of prolonged overseas engagements. However, some voices warn that isolating the United States from global alliances and commitments could weaken international relations and security.

Cultural Issues

Cultural issues also featured in RNC speeches, generating commentary among American voters. The strong stances on hot-button topics like abortion, education, and LGBTQ rights are divisive across party lines.

Trump’s platform promises to ban critical race theory (CRT) from schools, return abortion laws to the states, and respect biological sex—especially in sports. These more conservative social stances resonate with a substantial conservative and Christian base.

However, opposition groups and many liberals consider these policies regressive and harmful to civil liberties and social inclusivity. This may be another example of selective perception among liberals. Many Democrats and leftists are focusing on issues like abortion and LGBTQ issues, despite a notable and purposeful absence from the 2024 RNC Platform.

Trending Sentiment

Sentiment on social media and in public discourse continues to be deeply polarized. Proponents of Trump’s policies express enthusiasm and hope for a return to what they view as stronger world leadership, a return to traditional values, and a secure nation.

Detractors express fear and concern about the potential for increasing division, loss of rights, and international isolation under another Trump administration. Discussions about economic promises, high stakes immigration reform, and broad cultural policy shifts highlight a nation deeply engaged and divided over its future path.