Recently, the Teamsters Union released the results of internal straw poll, electronic poll, and telephone poll shows significant favor toward Donald Trump over Kamala Harris. This is a shift from polling showing a Democratic lead prior to Biden dropping from the presidential race.

MIG Reports analysis of discourse shows union sentiment moving against Harris and why union workers are gravitating toward Trump.

TEAMSTERS RELEASE PRESIDENTIAL ENDORSEMENT POLLING DATA

“For the past year, the Teamsters Union has pledged to conduct the most inclusive, democratic, and transparent Presidential endorsement process in the history of our 121-year-old organization—and today we are delivering on… pic.twitter.com/CnFNN9uosx

— Teamsters (@Teamsters) September 18, 2024

Trump's Lead Among Union Workers

Donald Trump has a significant lead among union workers, a critical working and voting group of Americans. Between 58% and 60% support Trump according to recent Teamsters polling. MIG Reports data reflects similar sentiments in voter discussions. Union workers, particularly those in industries like manufacturing and construction, are shifting toward Trump. They say his policies align better with their economic interests and job security.

• MIG Reports data shows enthusiasm for Trump among 65.2% of union workers compared to 34.8% for Harris.

Enthusiasm for Trump

The enthusiasm for Trump among union workers is notable and strong, potentially signaling a significant voting bloc shift. Many union members admire Trump’s populist approach and his willingness to challenge the establishment. His "America First" policies, particularly on trade and immigration, resonate deeply with workers who feel threatened by outsourcing and illegal immigration.

Trump’s tough stance on these issues has created a sense of loyalty among union workers. They believe he is the only candidate willing to fight for their jobs and livelihoods. This enthusiasm is reflected in online discussions, where workers express admiration for Trump’s leadership and economic policies.

Reasons for Support

The top issues union workers cite with their support are Trump’s stances on:

• Trade
• Immigration
• Job creation

His trade policies, which focus on protecting American industries and reducing outsourcing, appeal directly to workers who fear losing jobs to foreign competition. His tough rhetoric on immigration, which many view as a threat to job security and wage growth, further solidifies his support.

Meanwhile, Kamala Harris faces significant challenges with gaining union worker support. While she has attempted to court their support through endorsements from labor unions and promises of progressive policies, her association with the Democratic establishment and perceived focus on social justice issues over economic concerns alienates many. Union members skeptical of her record on trade and labor rights often see Harris as out of touch with their immediate needs, particularly regarding job security and economic growth.

Harris's Struggles

While Harris’s platform includes policies aimed at workers’ rights, raising the minimum wage, and addressing income inequality, these issues do not seem to resonate as strongly as Trump’s focus on job security and trade protection. Harris is perceived as more aligned with corporate interests and global trade practices, which many view as harmful to their industries. This disconnect has led to a lack of enthusiasm for her candidacy, as many union members remain unconvinced, she can effectively represent their interests.

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.

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

MIG Reports analysis of sentiment and support for Kamala Harris among Democratic voters reveals an enthusiasm gap. While some express strong support for her policies and leadership, most are not driven by Harris’s personal or candidate appeal. Instead, much of the enthusiasm stems from dislike for Donald Trump and his MAGA agenda.

Harris, who was deeply unpopular among Democrats during her 2020 presidential bid and in her tenure as Biden’s VP, seems to still be struggling with positive voter perceptions. This analysis explores key patterns behind voter support for Kamala Harris, highlighting how anti-Trump sentiment shape Democratic voter behavior.

Can Harris Pull Out a Win on Trump Hatred?

In the 2024 election, Kamala Harris faces similar challenges to those in 2016 and 2004, where negative sentiment against the opposition wasn’t enough to drive turnout. In both elections, opposition to Trump and Bush was strong, but lack of enthusiasm for Clinton and Kerry respectively resulted in lower Democratic turnout.

Google search trends indicate, in the previous two election cycles, the highest spikes in user searches for “register to vote” happened in mid to late September.

This year, mail-in ballot requests in critical states like Pennsylvania are down for Democrats, both compared to Republicans and compared to Democrats in 2020.

📢 PENNSYLVANIA DATA DROP ‼️

Mail-in ballot requests R vs D

2020 (50 days out)
GOP: 376,956
Dem: 1,101,962

2024 (50 days out)
GOP: 321,077
Dem: 798,946

KAMALA IS DOWN 303,016 requests compared to 2020.

Dems are shaking in their crocs!!!

— Cliff Maloney (@Maloney) September 17, 2024

Harris's policies on immigration and Palestine are controversial within her own party, with many Democrats either finding her too liberal or disagreeing with her foreign policy. If her campaign relies solely on Trump hatred without generating positive enthusiasm for her candidacy, voter turnout may fall short. This may result in a repeat of the 2016 and 2004 elections, where Democrats were surprised to find opposition wasn’t enough to secure victory.

Enthusiasm is Actually Anti-Trump Fervor

Conditional Support for Kamala Harris

Kamala Harris has a base of support among Democratic voters, according to MIG Reports analysis of online discussions. Many voters praise her performance in the debate, her background as a prosecutor, and her stance on issues like social justice and healthcare.

Discussions of Kamala Harris which do not focus on the election show 43.6% express direct support for her. However, this support is not as stark with deeper analysis. In conversations mentioning Harris's policies or leadership positively, reactions also focus on the political climate over her accomplishments.

Criticism of Trump as a Driving Force

Much of the conversation among Democrats which mention Kamala Harris are not about her but rather about Donald Trump. In election-specific discussions, 25% of conversations focus solely on criticizing Trump. They label him as representing "terror" and "lies.” Harris supporters largely incorporate this sentiment in all their supportive mentions of Harris.

Voters frame Harris as a necessary opponent to Trump, positioning her as a vehicle for resisting Trump’s influence rather than rallying around her personal achievements or vision. This pattern suggests, for many Democrats, Harris represents the best hope for defeating Trump, rather than an inspiring candidate on her own.

Voter Behavior Motivated by Opposition

In conversations mentioning Trump and Harris in a head-to-head race, there is a mix of positive and negative sentiments about Harris. While 42% of the conversation was positive, much of that positivity is focused on her role as a foil to Trump. Voters view her as a champion against his policies.

Broader trends in Democratic voter enthusiasm show an urgency to reject Trump outweighing affirmative support for Harris.

Kamala as a Symbol of Opposition

In many cases, Kamala Harris's support appears to be symbolic, with voters rallying behind her as a replacement for Biden and a figurehead of the Party. While some say they appreciate her leadership and policies, 23.5% primarily criticize Trump and his allies. In addition to her role as a political opponent to Trump, Harris’s identity as a woman of color adds to the symbolic nature of her candidacy.

For many Democrats, her race and gender are celebrated as markers of progress, positioning her as a trailblazer in American politics. However, her identity also draws skepticism for others, with some feeling her symbolism outweighs her qualifications. This divide underscores the conditional nature of her support, where enthusiasm hinges on what she represents rather than her achievements.

MIG Reports shows voters are comparing crime rates during the Trump and Biden-Harris administrations. As people engage with the topic of crime, themes of political bias, media manipulation, and immigration policies surface as focal points. These discussions highlight overarching concerns about how crime is managed, reported, and perceived in the current political climate.

Views of Crime Under Democrats

Data shows public sentiment leaning heavily toward skepticism about Biden-Harris policies for handling of crime.

• 62% of the MIG Reports data sample express distrust in crime statistics reported by the Biden-Harris administration.
• 45% believe crime has increased in discussions mentioning “crime under Trump.”
• The disparity between the views of each administration focuses on immigration, political agendas, and media bias.

What Voters are Saying

When comparing crime under Trump versus Biden-Harris, many view Trump’s administration as maintaining stronger law enforcement policies. They mention border security and stricter immigration controls.

In contrast, Americans perceive Biden-Harris policies as too lenient, particularly regarding immigration and sanctuary cities. Around 62% of commenters blame Democrats for increasing crime. People link rising crime to border policies, citing specific instances of migrant crime. They say current policies embolden criminals and endanger public safety.

Discussions also emphasize widespread distrust of media and official crime statistics—like rampant distrust in job numbers. Many Americans feel the media is downplaying or manipulating crime data to protect the Biden-Harris administration, including David Muir in the recent debate.

These perceptions about incorrect data further generate discontent. 45% suggest that media bias plays a significant role in shaping public opinion about the administration’s effectiveness.

Conversations don’t contain any noticeable defense that media is not shaping public opinion. Many also question the accuracy of reported crime stats, citing the number of large metropolitan areas which don’t report crime statistics to the FBI.

There are examples, like one from 2022. Among 19 of the largest law enforcement agencies—all of which are responsible for more than 1 million people—seven were missing from the FBI's crime data.

Voters are also concerned about politicization of law enforcement. Many believe the justice system under Biden-Harris is biased, with certain groups receiving preferential treatment. This idea of unequal justice adds to the frustration and deepens the divide between supporters of the two administrations.

Recently, White House National Security Communications Advisor John Kirby accidentally sent a “reply all” to an inquiry from four members of the House of Representatives regarding the Afghanistan withdrawal with. In it, he said there is “no use” responding to a “handful of vets on botched Afghan withdrawal,” calling them “all of one stripe.”

“NSC Spokesman (Ret Rear Admiral) Kirby said it was ‘no use in responding' to a 'handful of vets' on botched Afghan withdrawal” who are “all of one stripe”

I met him once at the Pentagon. This is very on brand.https://t.co/af7gzS4tDg

— Alex Plitsas 🇺🇸 (@alexplitsas) September 12, 2024

MIG Reports data indicates Americans often view government using them to serve as tax subjects, rather than serving the people. Kirby’s comments infame conversations about government elites dismissing American concerns to pursue their own ends.

Democratic voters are split between those who feel represented by their government and those who express disillusionment. Their primary concerns revolve around systemic economic issues, gun control, and government transparency. Many maintain hope for meaningful reforms, though a significant portion views the government as prioritizing elite interests over public welfare.

Republican voters often feel disconnected from the government, particularly under Democratic leadership. Their dominant sentiment reflects a sense of disenfranchisement, particularly concerning issues like taxation and government inefficiency. While some maintain faith in specific Republican leaders, many Republicans express strong distrust in the broader political establishment.

Democrat Sentiments

General Representation

Democratic voters are divided. About 45% feel the Democratic Party's progressive initiatives—such as efforts to address gun violence and immigration reform—reflect their voices in governance.

However, an almost equal 40% feel alienated, perceiving the government as elitist and unresponsive. Anti-establishment Democrats believe they are treated more like tax subjects, disconnected from decision-making processes. The remaining 15% hold mixed or neutral views, acknowledging both positive efforts and shortcomings.

Economic Issues

Economic concerns dominate much of the discourse among Democrats.

• 40% express optimism, believing the government can address systemic issues like healthcare and inflation with the right reforms.
• 35% express frustration with political corruption and mismanagement, accusing elected officials of failing to prioritize middle-class concerns.
• 25% of Democrats have mixed feelings, reflecting both hope for change and skepticism toward entrenched political interests.

Gun Control

Gun control is a particularly contentious issue for Democratic voters.

• 30% express a sense of hope and representation, believing in the potential for meaningful reform.
• 55% feel disenfranchised. This group views the government as capitulating to the gun lobby and failing to enact necessary legislation to curb gun violence.
• 15% express resignation, believing their political engagement will not have an impact.

Security Issues

Foreign policy and national security also divide Democratic voters.

• 65% feel disconnected from the government. They argue the government prioritizes political maneuvering over national security.
• 25% are hopeful, believing Democratic leaders are pushing for necessary reforms.
• 10% convey mixed or uncertain sentiments, questioning whether the government truly represents their interests.

Border Security

The border is mostly negative for Democrats.

• 38% feel proud of government policies on immigration and border issues, emphasizing the need for humane and equitable policies.
• 47% are frustrated by what they perceive as the government’s failure to manage the border effectively, feeling their concerns are not prioritized.
• 15% express indifference.

Republican Sentiments

General Representation

Republican voters overwhelmingly feel alienated from their government.

• 40% express a sense of being treated as tax subjects, lamenting high taxes and inefficient government programs.
• 35% feel represented by their elected officials, primarily in areas like immigration and national security.
• 25% voice outright distrust in the government, particularly Democratic leadership, accusing them of undermining American values and integrity.

Economic Issues

Economic concerns shape much of the Republican discourse.

• 62% are dissatisfied, viewing themselves as tax subjects in a system that mismanages public funds. They are particularly critical of wasteful or fraudulent government programs.
• 28% feel represented, particularly by policies that promote tax reduction and economic growth.
• 10% have mixed feelings, recognizing both positive steps and inefficiencies in how economic issues are handled.

Gun Control

Republicans are strongly against gun control measures, feeling frustrated with government pushes for more regulations.

• 65% feel underrepresented on gun rights, viewing the government’s actions as hypocritical and ineffective. They call for stronger representation of their Second Amendment rights.
• 25% defend their gun rights even more fervently, viewing any form of gun control as government overreach.
• 10% express neutral or supportive sentiments toward government-led gun control initiatives.

Security Issues

Security concerns also elicit frustration among many Republican voters.

• 45% feel the government fails to prioritize national security, viewing citizens as marginalized by an establishment that does not protect their interests.
• 30% feel their concerns are lost in partisan politics among government elites.
• 25% feel empowered by leadership, believing strong national security policies align with their values and protect American sovereignty.

Border Security

Border security is a top issue for Republican voters who are extremely frustrated with current government policies.

• 60% feel unrepresented by the government, saying lax border policies fail to protect American citizens and prioritize illegal immigrants over citizens.
• 25% are satisfied with their party’s approach to border security, viewing it as a necessary measure to safeguard national interests.
• 15% remain indifferent or uncertain, reflecting divisions within the party on how to handle this issue.

Surprising photos and video of President Joe Biden went viral when he put on red Trump hat at a recent 9/11 commemoration with firefighters in Pennsylvania. The unexpected gesture has led to confusion, amusement, disbelief, and disapproval on both sides of the political aisle.

This is real. pic.twitter.com/5w6Yf383xc

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

Voters speculate about whether Biden did this as a gesture of unity, because he’s resentful toward Democrats for pushing him out, or because he’s old and senile.

NEW: Full exchange of the incident leading up to Joe Biden putting on a Trump 2024 hat.

Biden: "Sure, I'll autograph [a hat]."

Man: "You remember your name?"

Biden: "I don't remember my name... I'm slow."

Man: "You're an old fart."

Biden: "Yeah, I'm an old guy... You would… pic.twitter.com/yQcCXmtzIZ

— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) September 12, 2024

Voter Reactions

MIG Reports data shows conversations about Biden are divided. Democrats are largely negative about this inopportune photo op. Trump supporters are more positive, expressing amusement but also a significant amount of skepticism. Independents are the most positive, seeming to embrace any moves from partisans that foster unity.

Biden Supporters

• 60% negative reactions, with 30% expressing confusion and disappointment.
• 40% positive or neutral.

Trump Supporters

• 40% positive
• 30% skeptical or negative
• 30% neutral

Swing Voters

• 50% positive
• 30% negative
• 20% neutral

Others

• Young Progressives: 15% outright rejection
• Moderate Democrats and Seniors: 10% approve, viewing it as symbolic unity

Confusion or Bold Move?

For Biden’s core supporters, the tableau struck a discordant note. Around 60% expressed outright disappointment. The hat—which represents Trump’s most recognizable campaign merchandise—confused many loyalists. They view Biden as the figurehead of opposition and a last bastion against their fears of a Trump dictatorship.

Democrats who view Trump as an ultimate “threat to democracy” are outraged. One representative comment said, "This undermines everything we’ve been fighting for." This reaction shows a strain on Biden’s already tenuous relationship with progressives.

Meanwhile, 40% of Biden supporters were either neutral or positive about the gesture, signaling that, for some, this could be interpreted as a potential act of unity. The 10% of older moderate Democrats who saw it as an effort to soften partisan divides, are among these positive reactions.

While the Democratic base views it as bad optics, there’s potential for attracting Independents and moderates who are fatigued by political division. Though, whether that unity serves Trump or Democrats is up for debate considering Biden is not in the presidential race.

Endearing or Dementia?

Trump supporters were not uniformly thrilled by Biden’s photo op—40% reacted positively. Some interpret it as a grudging acknowledgment of Trump’s influence with comments like, "Biden’s wearing our hat—he knows who runs the country." Others speculate that Biden is passive-aggressively expressing his anger with Democratic leaders for pushing him out of the race.

But skepticism also permeates Trump’s camp with 30% calling the move a superficial stunt. For this group, Biden’s gesture is a disingenuous attempt to feign unity after a long history of calling Trump a dictator, a threat to democracy, or even Hitler. Many also speculate that Biden’s declining cognitive health allowed him to wear the hat when, in a robust state of health, he would have refused.

Repercussions for Harris

Though not directly involved in this incident, Vice President Kamala Harris’s position as Biden’s replacement in the 2024 election places her in a strange position. The 60% negative response among Democrats raises questions about how his base could view Harris.

Many Democrats who have been relieved and excited for Biden to step out of the race will likely dismiss the event as indicative of why he was an insufficient candidate. However, Biden is still the president, and Harris is closely aligned with him as part of his administration. Some Democrats may view this as a blow to Harris as well as Biden.

For Harris, this incident offers both risk and opportunity. The challenge is in maintaining her alignment with the Democratic establishment, while simultaneously attempting to distance herself from Biden and appeal to swing voters without looking fake. This complicates her already difficult challenge of unifying a fractured Democratic Party.

Famed lawyer and long-time Democrat Alan Dershowitz recently announced he is leaving the Democratic Party. He explained the move is largely due to dissatisfaction with the Biden-Harris administration's stance on Israel. Dershowitz’s decision speaks to a broader trend of high-profile figures abandoning their traditional party allegiances, contributing to a growing narrative that the 2024 election is beyond party lines.

🚨 Lifelong Democrat Alan Dershowitz: “I am no longer a Democrat”

pic.twitter.com/aH1wFouxR0

— Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) September 6, 2024

Reactions to Dershowitz’s Defection

Alan Dershowitz’s announcement surprised many but also reflects a sentiment brewing within certain Democratic circles. His dissatisfaction with the Biden-Harris administration, particularly on their handling of the Israel-Hamas conflict, was a tipping point. Dershowitz, known for his staunch defense of Israel, feels progressive policies are a departure from essential values. Israel continues to be a thorn in Kamala Harris’s side as more traditional, pro-Israel Democrats and progressive pro-Palestine Democrats are both unhappy with leadership actions.

Voters, especially Democrats, express a mix of surprise, disappointment, and reflection. Many see his exit as symptomatic of deeper fractures within the Party. Some feel alienated by what they perceive as the Party’s drift toward more progressive or socialist policies. These ideological shifts are causing divisions not only among politicians but within the electorate.

Reactions from the Democratic Party Base

Among Democratic voters, Dershowitz's exit underscores a sense of internal discord that is dramatically worsened by the Israel-Hamas conflict. Conversations online reflect fractured reactions:

• Surprise and Disappointment: Many are dismayed by Dershowitz leaving, interpreting it as a rejection of the core values they associate with the Party. But some of these voters do express concern over the Party's evolving platform, often describing it as a move towards socialism or Marxism.
• Validation and Support: Those frustrated with Biden and Harris’s leadership, view Dershowitz's departure as a logical step. For them, his decision is a critique of the Party’s evolution, which they view as moral decline.

The reactions highlight the increasing division within the Democratic base, where traditional values around liberty and individual rights clash with far-left progressive ideologies.

A Broader Trend of Crossing Party Lines

Dershowitz is not alone in his decision to leave his party. His departure is part of a larger trend that sees key figures from both sides of the aisle breaking with their traditional affiliations, reflecting a more profound ideological realignment within American politics.

• RFK Jr. and Tulsi Gabbard have both endorsed Donald Trump, marking significant defections from Democratic ranks. Both former Democrats, their endorsements symbolize a broader alignment with populist movements.
• Mitt Romney and Dick Cheney, traditionally stalwart Republicans, have publicly supported Kamala Harris, further muddling the lines of partisanship. These endorsements suggest establishment Republicans continue to hold very anti-Trump viewpoints.

The establishment divide is also widened by more than 200 former Republican staffers endorsing Harris. This cross-aisle movement highlights a fundamental reality of the 2024 election—voters and political figures are no longer constrained by party identity.

How Voters View the New Divides

As voters react to these high-profile defections, a new pattern is emerging—one where the political divide of 2024 is seen less as Democrat versus Republican and more as a struggle between broader ideological and socio-political binaries:

• Elitism vs. Populism: Many Americans frame the election as a battle between an entrenched political elite and the populist movements they perceive as fighting for the "common man." Both Democrats and Republicans are increasingly seen as catering to corporate interests, with voters expressing frustration over what they view as a lack of authentic representation.
• Establishment vs. Anti-Establishment: Similar to elites, the political establishment is seen as part of a machine bent on protecting institutional power. Many voters, particularly Independents, view the establishment as a corrupt force prioritizing its own interests of Americans. Anti-establishment sentiments appeal to those who want to return power to the people.
• Nationalism vs. Progressivism: Another binary pits advocates for strong national borders, economic independence, and military strength against those who push for progressive social programs, environmental initiatives, and globalism. Voters are grappling with how these competing ideologies align with their own identities and long-term visions for the country.

MIG Reports data further illuminates these shifts with analysis of voter comments online regarding ideologies and political topics.

• 55% of sampled voters acknowledge a shift in political identity regarding which party supports working-class interests.
• 62% criticize Kamala Harris's economic strategies.
• 40% of comments suggest skepticism over Donald Trump’s populist claims.
• 47% of believe issues rather than party affiliation should guide political choices.
• 54% identify as Independent, representing the shift away from traditional party loyalties.
• 68% of voters express approval of public figures crossing party lines when it is seen as genuine or principled.
• 55% convey a sense of frustration or betrayal in response to leaders perceived as compromising traditional values.
• 47% celebrate the emergence of alternative voices within elections, indicating enthusiasm for third-party or cross-aisle endorsements.

The ongoing partisan chaos unfolding in 2024 suggests ideological divides are driving views about the future of American politics. Traditional party structures may be less relevant in shaping voter behavior, with populist, nationalist, and progressive ideologies driving a new political alignment.

MIG Reports analysis of conversations across social media assesses public support and acceptance for Tim Walz and J.D. Vance. An analysis of language and sentiment in these discussions shows distinct patterns in how supporters defend or affirm their preferred candidate. Detractors distance themselves through critical, often impersonal remarks.

Defensive language, first-person viewpoints, and emotionally charged rhetoric dominate the conversations. There is a dynamic of personal stakes and political identity throughout. This narrative analysis explores these dynamics in detail, breaking down the tendencies and language structures across a variety of subjects, from accusations of dishonesty to ideological alignment and economic concerns.

Weighted Analysis

• 60-75% of comments supporting Wals are defensive.
• 60-70% of discussion about Vance offers affirmative support.

The discourse around VP nominees Tim Walz and J.D. Vance shows patterns of defensive and affirmative language. Walz’s supporters primarily use defensive language to counter accusations about his military record and China ties. Walz critics often use third-person, detached language to accuse him of dishonesty.

Vance receives more affirmative support, particularly on economic policies and national security. However, his supporters also defend him on issues like abortion and his Trump ties. Critics frame him as disconnected from social issues using third-person language.

Tim Walz

Discourse supporting Tim Walz overwhelmingly uses defensive language. On multiple fronts, especially regarding his military service and alleged ties to China, Walz’s defenders work to counter accusations rather than promoting his accomplishments. These discussions often center around national security, where supporters emphasize his Congressional delegation to Afghanistan, attempting to clarify that he did not falsely present himself as a combat soldier.

The language here tends to use first-person pronouns, with individuals sharing their personal viewpoints and experiences in defense of Walz. This first-person usage highlights how closely voters identify with him, seeing attacks on Walz as attacks also on themselves. For example, phrases like "I believe in his service" or "My family supports Walz despite the lies" reveal emotional investment.

In contrast, the third-person language in critiques of Walz is impersonal and accusatory. His critics, particularly those aligned with J.D. Vance, refer to him through detached terms such as “Walz is a risk” or “His ties to China are alarming,” focusing on accusations of dishonesty and corruption without any emotional attachment to the discussion.

These accusations are most prominent in discussions about his alleged connection to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), where third-person critiques amplify concerns about national security and Walz’s potential vulnerabilities as a political figure.

J.D. Vance

Republican VP candidate J.D. Vance gains an affirmative form of support—particularly on economic policies and national security. Discussions about Vance often paint him as a staunch defender of conservative values, with supporters using affirmative language to highlight his positions on inflation, government spending, and housing affordability.

Vance’s supporters say his understanding of economic issues aligns with middle-class interests, with first-person language reinforcing a personal connection to his policies. Statements like "We need Vance to protect our economy" or "I believe his stance on taxes is right for families" are common. This reveals a collective rallying cry among his base. The first-person narrative underscores a deep sense of belonging and urgency within his supporters.

However, while affirmative comments dominate discussions about Vance, his supporters also employ defensive rhetoric. They respond to criticisms of his stance on abortion rights and his alignment with Donald Trump. In these discussions, supporters shield Vance from what they view as misrepresentations of his beliefs, using defensive terms like “misunderstood” or “defender of religious liberty.”

Defenses arise when critics accuse Vance of misogyny or frame him as out-of-touch on women’s rights. The language here oscillates between first-person, personal narratives that emphasize shared values, and third-person, detached critiques that highlight perceived shortcomings in his policies.

Emotional Attachment

A clear commonality between the discussions of both candidates is partisan divisiveness. Supporters of Walz and Vance often feel personally invested in defending their candidate. Whether discussing national security, economic issues, or personal integrity, voters express their opinions as though their own values and lives are at stake.

This deep emotional connection is particularly evident when discussing character attacks, with both Walz and Vance receiving strong support from their bases. The common tactic of defense and personal involvement permeates both sides, despite their opposing political ideologies.

Anomalies and Singular Subjects

China

Talk about China is a topic mostly isolated to Tim Walz. Unlike the other issues, where the conversation is a mix of defense and affirmation, the narrative about Walz’s ties to China is overwhelmingly defensive. Accusations of his supposed CCP connections dominate, and the defensive tone becomes more urgent and repetitive. Supporters try to combat what they perceive as a significant and persistent threat to his reputation. First-person language is especially pronounced here, as voters feel compelled to personally stand against accusations of foreign allegiance.

Abortion Rights

In contrast, while abortion rights feature heavily in the discussions about Vance, the responses here reflect a unique balance between defense and affirmation. Vance supporters often use affirmative language to celebrate his anti-abortion stance, describing him as a protector of religious and traditional values. However, when confronted with criticisms, they quickly shift to a defensive tone, using personal stories to justify conservative positions. This demonstrates a rare flexibility between the two types of language.