Election fallout continues as Democrats, liberals, progressives, and left-leaning Americans dissect Harris’s loss and assign blame. MIG Reports suggests most blame goes to party leadership, strategic failures, and a growing disconnect Democratic priorities and voter needs. These issues can be summed up as:

• Out of touch with everyday voters' lives
• Too much focus on social issues and identity politics
• Disagreement on core policy issues

Kamala Harris Versus Joe Biden

Much of the Democratic discontent centers on Kamala Harris and Joe Biden accountable for the loss.

• Harris is often perceived as disconnected and ineffective, with many saying she failed to appeal to critical demographics such as progressives and minority groups.
• Biden faces criticism for not stepping aside sooner to allow a potentially more viable candidate to emerge.

Sentiment is especially strong among those who believe the Democratic Party’s existing leadership has become too entrenched in the establishment. There is also a generational divide, with younger progressives openly frustrated by the party's attempt at a centrist approach—one leftists feels is out of touch with pressing voter concerns.

This is not Kamala's fault. At all. And I won't entertain people who think it is. She's the most qualified candidate in history, and y'all still voted for a fascist promising dictatorship. https://t.co/8gxEGh0k68

— Small Screen Girl (@KiraJW) November 6, 2024

Fractured Identity Groups

While most conversations focus on domestic issues, some unique perspectives emerge.

• Certain Arab-Americans express dissatisfaction with Harris's stance on foreign issues like Palestine, seeing this as alienating key voter groups.
• The defection of Somali-Americans who endorsed Trump also causes consternation as Democrats discuss hemorrhaging base voters.
• Many also blame Trump’s gain in minorities and female votes, going as far as accusing Latino voters of misogyny.

The View says Latinos are misogynistic and blames them for Kamala’s election loss

Everyone and everything is to blame except Kamala…. 🤔 pic.twitter.com/y5XJVyLBzb

— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) November 7, 2024

Amid voter disillusionment, a notable subset of progressives expresses resilience, urging continued focus on social justice, climate change, and core Democratic values. This group advocates for a renewed ideological commitment rather than the moderation that many see as an impediment to meaningful change.

Strategy Versus Voter Priorities

Economic concerns dominate discussions about where the party went wrong.

• Many feel Democrats focused too heavily on social issues at the expense of more pressing economic problems.
• Inflation, job security, and cost-of-living repeatedly emerge as voter priorities, highlighting the party’s failure to address middle- and working-class voters.

Criticism of identity politics is a strong theme, with many arguing an overemphasis at the expense of practical issues alienates potential voters. Middle- and working-class voters often adopt this critique, voicing frustration with a strategy that feels decadent.

Information Echo Chambers

Democrats also discuss the role of news and social media in shaping the party’s messaging.

• Many feel social media echo chambers reinforce insular party messaging, deepening polarization rather than broadening appeal.
• Traditional media outlets also face accusations of failing to adequately support the Democratic message.

Some comments claim media coverage was biased toward Trump or neglected the issues that resonate with progressive voters. This frustration with the media indicates the Democratic Party and its voters are experiencing a breakdown in communication.

Generation and Gender Dynamics

There is also a demographic divide when it comes to placing blame.

• Younger Democrats are especially critical of the party’s centrist campaign strategy. They want a progressive approach that distinguishes Democrats from conservatives.
• Many younger voters are disillusioned, viewing Democratic leadership as unwilling to pursue transformative policies that could address systemic inequalities.
• Women, particularly those concerned with abortion rights, highlight the implications of a Trump victory for women.
• They say gender-based messaging failed to emphasize the stakes of a setback for gender equality under Trump.

Generational and gender divides reveal competing priorities and expectations in the Democratic coalition. Disagreements, regardless of cause, highlight the Harris campaign’s failure to unite an increasingly diverse voter base under a cohesive message.

Third-Party Candidates

There is also resentment toward Democratic voters who opted for third-party candidates, blaming "spoilers" who fractured the left-leaning vote.

• Frustration with the lack of unity on the left is exacerbated by lingering disillusionment with the electoral process.
• Allegations of voter fraud or electoral manipulation surface in many discussions, often alongside calls for greater accountability and transparency.

Disaffected Democrats receive blame from the core base, while those disaffected blame the party for straying too far left.

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau drew criticism over the weekend with video of him dancing at a Taylor Swift concert while Canada faced violent and destructive pro-Palestine protests. The juxtaposition of leadership dancing while citizens face turmoil also sparks reactions among American observers who view it as a familiar image.

Terrorism on our streets and Trudeau doesn't care.

Pro-Hamas riots are taking place in Montreal, meanwhile Trudeau is at a Taylor Swift concert displaying his cringe dance moves. pic.twitter.com/0wpXUgRNFa

— Canada Proud (@WeAreCanProud) November 23, 2024

Americans React

45% Criticize Leadership

• Many view Trudeau’s actions as inconsiderate and poor leadership, with comments like “while you were dancing, Montreal was burning.”
• Some compare Trudeau to American leaders making similar blunders. A few mention figures like Ted Cruz who flew to Cancun during a historic ice storm in Texas or Tim Walz who let BLM riot in Minnesota after George Floyd’s death.
• Voters in the U.S. and some in Canada want leaders who engage and lead with strength during moments of national distress.

30% Defend Trudeau

• Supporters say leaders deserve personal moments, framing the backlash as a “right-wing tears” moment, which they find entertaining.
• Some suggest Trudeau’s love for Taylor Swift humanizes him and boosts morale among his constituents.

15% Criticize the Protest

• Some frame the protesters as extremists driven by radical anti-Isreal agendas.
• While they focus less on Trudeau and more on pro-Palestine rioters, they mention the lack of a decisive government response.
• Critics say Trudeau's actions are hypocritical and enable disruptive protests.

10% are Neutral

• A minority prefers to focus on broader political grievances, dismissing talk of Trudeau’s behavior and redirecting to the unrest itself.

Performative Politics Leaves a Void

Critics say Trudeau neglecting the riots illustrates a larger trend of performative leadership, where public figures prioritize image over engagement or solutions. This frustration mirrors American critiques of leaders like Gavin Newsom who emphasize public relations optics while neglecting urgent governance.

Trudeau’s progressive governance using identity politics and “woke” policies further inflame criticism. For many Americans, these policies foster division and exacerbate societal unrest. Many claim that silence on issues like anti-Israel protests tacitly condones such sentiments—though Trudeau tweeted a condemnation the next day.

What we saw on the streets of Montreal last night was appalling. Acts of antisemitism, intimidation, and violence must be condemned wherever we see them.

The RCMP are in communication with local police. There must be consequences, and rioters held accountable.

— Justin Trudeau (@JustinTrudeau) November 23, 2024

Many see Trudeau’s actions as a validation of the cultural upheaval America is experiencing following Trump’s reelection. They say the results of weak political leadership, cultural coercion, and tyrannical government in Canada are the very outcomes Americans voted to reject by reelecting Trump.

There are also criticisms of Canadian law enforcement for arresting Rebel News CEO Ezra Lavant, a Jewish man who attempted to question pro-Palestine protesters. Some Americans say antisemitism is ingrained in progressive ideology and manifest in Canadian government.

CANADA HAS FALLEN

Watch and share how my boss Ezra Levant was arrested in Toronto today for being Jewish while practising journalism

Help him fight back at https://t.co/y0N5bzmSdJ

pic.twitter.com/bFeHQwPLVm

— Avi Yemini (@OzraeliAvi) November 24, 2024

Shared Frustrations Across Borders

Trudeau’s PR debacle draws the attention of U.S. voters grappling with their own discontent toward leaders. The frustrations Canadians face mirror similar ones in the U.S.

• Economic Concerns: Inflation and economic instability continue to dominate both Canadian and American political discourse. Voters see leadership as disengaged from the realities of middle-class struggles.
• Social Unrest: Rising protests, antisemitism, and cultural divisions reflect a shared narrative of dissatisfaction with progressive leadership.

U.S. Conservative Perspectives

For conservative or pro-Israel Americans, Trudeau’s actions are another example of “woke” leadership and elitist mindsets. They point out the chasm between political elites and everyday citizens, as leaders indulge in lavish lifestyles while their citizens face political upheaval and economic strain.

This sentiment strengthens a broader cultural critique of progressive and establishment governance. The populist resurgence in America has a very distinct anti-establishment and anti-elite flavor. This causes an extreme reaction of disgust and condemnation for leaders like Trudeau who seem to indulge in fading norms where elites are protected by their political power and legacy media coverups.

As more American voters begin to think about the presidential election this fall, they are beginning to express concerns about political turmoil. MIG Reports analysis shows online discussion about increased turmoil in the form of violent, economic, and political contentions. While Democrats and Republicans typically emphasize different dangers, both sides seem to fear election interference and political violence.

The extent and nature of any pre-election turmoil could significantly impact voter sentiment and turnout, potentially affecting the election's outcome.

Mutual Worries Among Liberals and Conservatives

Most voters are concerned about corruption and unethical behavior within the government. They believe politicians are not acting in the best interest of the public and are instead focused on power and political agendas.

Election Interference

One of the most prominent concerns among all voters, regardless of party, is the possibility of election interference. For Democratic voters, fears seem to center more around potential foreign interference. Republican voters more frequently express skepticism about domestic interference from the Democrat party.

Political Violence and Riots

Memories of January 6 still loom large in the minds of many Democrats. This causes anxiety about the potential for increased “far-right violence,” whether Trump or Biden is reelected. Republicans worry more about politicized violence from leftist activists like Black Lives Matter or anti-Israel protesters. Both sides seem to fear political riots are highly likely no matter who wins the election.

October Surprises

The tradition of October surprises—major news stories breaking shortly before the election—also contributes to worries about election turmoil. Voters fear that such events could sway the election outcome, though there are many speculations as to what an October Suprise might be.

• National sentiment toward the economy, COVID, election integrity and protests have been decreasing in the last two weeks.
• Republicans voice concerns about a potential resurgence of COVID lockdowns and Democrats often worry about election interference.

Black Swan Events Could Bring Upheaval

Black swan events are unpredictable events which have potentially severe consequences. Given their nature, it's challenging to forecast what these could be – but many voters think of recent black swan events like COVID-19.

Some of the black swan events voter mention include:

• Significant escalation in international conflicts
• A global economic crisis
• Environmental or natural disasters
• Another public health or pandemic event

Any major black swan event could dramatically reshape the political landscape and voter sentiment.

Conservatives and right leaning voters are more likely to suggest black swan events like another public health crisis, causing renewed government lockdowns. They are also more likely to mention global economic situations which could severely impact American commerce and quality of life.

Liberal and left leaning voters are more likely to mention wars and conflicts breaking out internationally. They may also be more concerned about potential natural disasters or climate chaos due to climate change.

Republican Fears About Election Turmoil

Republican voters often speak out about potential changes to election laws which they believe could lead to fraud. They cite things like expanded mail-in voting or removal of voter ID laws as election dangers.

These voters also worry about violent protests or riots related to racial or social justice issues. There are also growing concerns about violent anti-Israel protests which could destabilize communities and potentially sway voter sentiment.

While Democrats talk more about misinformation online, some right leaning voters also worry about social media censorship or bias against conservative viewpoints. Many of this group believe that important information was suppressed during the 2020 election which, if voters had known, may have shifted opinions.

Overall, many voters express a lack of trust in the electoral process and legal system. Many Republicans feel the system is corrupt and untrustworthy, expressing disillusionment with the voting process in general. There is a growing sense that voting is becoming futile because of bureaucratic and power-grabbing tactics by corrupt politicians and institutions.

Democratic Fears in 2024

Democrats often voice concern about voter suppression, particularly impacting minority communities. They tend to place this as an important issue which could impede a fair election.

Liberals are also more vocal about the spread of misinformation and disinformation, particularly on social media platforms. This is a shared concern among many voters, but Democrats tend to express more concern about how misinformation may influence voter sentiment and election integrity.

There are some Democratic voters who worry about President Biden's mental fitness, particularly given his age. While this is a worry that many don’t express publicly, those that do fear it could deter Democrats from supporting him in 2024.

Many Democrats also fear the party is not doing enough to address pressing issues like racial and social justice. They fear Biden’s unwillingness to support Palestine or failing to engage with social issues could impact Democratic voter sentiment.

Democratic voters also have deep concerns about the potential impact of a Trump win on the nation's standing in the world. They fear if Trump returns to power, the U.S. may align more with Putin's Russia, which could have consequences for international relations and national security. There is also a strong sentiment among Democratic voters that a potential Trump win could lead to authoritarian rule.

A second assassination attempt on former President Donald Trump is generating strong reactions across the political spectrum. As details of the attempt unfold, voters express a range of emotions, from shock and outrage to skepticism and fear.

Ryan Wesley Routh, an individual who reportedly claimed ties to the Ukrainian International Legion, is the suspect in Sunday's attempt to assassinate former President Trump. Many are discussing Routh’s history of anti-Trump rhetoric, and online posts expressing disdain for his presidency. This, combined with apparent support for Biden and Harris is causing wide speculation about his motives. The attempt reignites tensions between Democrats and the media against American voters, causing debates about the state of American democracy.

The top emerging themes of discussion include:

• The alleged assassin's political affiliations and motivations.
• The role of Democrats and the media in inciting hatred and violence against Trump.
• Connections between Routh and Ukraine, the CIA, and other international actors.
• Demands for accountability and repercussions for inciting or engaging in violent behavior.
• The deepening divisions and partisan polarization within American society.

Voter Reactions

Voter reactions are largely splintered along partisan lines, revealing not only anger and fear but stark differences in how various groups interpret the event.

Republicans: Outrage and Betrayal

Among Republicans, the attempt on Trump’s life was met with overwhelming outrage. Many are furious about threats to Trump's safety after recurring calls for greater security and warnings of more attempts following the Butler, PA, attempt.

There are accusations against Democrats and mainstream media, who many view as inciting violence through inflammatory rhetoric and hostile coverage of Trump. Many on the right view the media as especially hypocritical. They say news outlets have exposed their double standards in blaming J.D. Vance for bomb threats in Springfield, Ohio, while also blaming Trump for the attempts on his own life.

Many Republicans express fears and concerns over the potential of assassination attempts being part of a coordinated effort from adverse motivations within the deep state. Allegations about Routh’s connections to the CIA and Ukraine fuel these theories. Speculations emerge that international actors or corrupt U.S. agency officials are connected to a plot to remove Trump from political life.

Democrats: Hesitation and Skepticism

Democratic voters are promoting what they call a measured response. While some voice relief that Trump is unharmed and condemn the violence in general terms, many also take a dismissive attitude. They focus on civility, “toning down rhetoric,” and discuss Trump’s gun views.

There was also a noticeable level of skepticism among certain Democrats, with some questioning suggestions that this was a serious assassination attempt. A minority even speculate that Trump may have staged one or both attacks as part of a political ploy.

Among Democrats, there more citing Trump’s own rhetoric as a cause of the attempted violence. Some in the media and voters online lament the possibility of the attempted assassination generating sympathy or votes for Trump in November.

Democratic skepticism is driven by a perception that Trump has manipulated media narratives in the past to gain sympathy and political advantage. Many call for a closer examination of the suspect’s motivations and affiliations before making any concrete judgments about the incident’s significance.

Independents: Frustration and Calls for Nuance

Independents voice frustration with the extreme partisanship on both sides. Many express a desire for more nuanced discussions about the assassination attempt, avoiding knee-jerk reactions they say come from partisans.

These voters want deeper investigations into Routh’s background and motives. They also question how this may reflect a broader issue of external influence or political extremism in American society. Some also highlight the media’s role in exacerbating political tensions, suggesting both sides contribute to a toxic atmosphere.

Emerging Themes

As discussions about the assassination attempt unfold, several key themes became evident across voter groups:

Questions About Deep State Involvement

Among Trump supporters, the alleged connections between Routh, the CIA, and Ukraine are at the forefront of discussions. Many believe the assassination attempt was part of a larger plan to silence Trump and prevent his political resurgence.

Partisan Polarization and Accusations

Both sides demonstrate the growing division in American politics. Trump supporters blame Democrats and the media for inciting violence, while some Democrats downplay the incident or redirect attention toward Trump’s own rhetoric. Accusations of hypocrisy run rampant, with both sides questioning the other’s commitment to condemning political violence.

Media Criticism

The role of the media in covering the assassination attempt is a significant focus of voter frustration, particularly among Republicans. Media outlets such as CBS, MSNBC, and The New York Times receive anger for their portrayals of Trump as a "threat to democracy." Many say the media is to blame for raising the rhetorical temperature, despite its own accusations against Trump.

Calls for Accountability

Across the political spectrum, voters want greater accountability—either for those inciting violence or those downplaying it. Many voters express the need for repercussions for both media figures and political leaders who contributed to the current climate of hostility.

Many on the right also want repercussions for Secret Service and DHS officials who have allowed these two attempts to take place. They suggest there is either incompetence deserving of firings, or corruption which ought to be cleaned out.

Governor Kathy Hochul's handling of the NYC subway system, including a possible face mask ban, is upsetting voters in New York. Online reactions reveal strong opposition, frustration, and concern about her decisions. Conversations seem to suggest a vote of no confidence from many New Yorkers. Many people call for more consistent, health-conscious, and forward-thinking leadership to guide the city's future.

Recent headlines suggest Gov. Hochul may soon impose a face mask ban on the subway, which is receiving blowback from both liberals and conservatives. Left leaning voters view a ban as a disgraceful move, especially in the context of New York’s substantial suffering during COVID-19. These critics argue masks are essential for public safety, not just from COVD, but many diseases and pollution.

Right leaning voters are more likely to criticize Hochul for hypocrisy. They say mask mandates during COVID, which normalized masks in public, have now led to surges in crime four years later. They say masks are not and were never needed and Hochul and other leaders are now facing the consequences of reckless mandates over COVID fears.

• Gov. Hochul’s approval hovers in the low to mid 40% range with some spikes in discussion volume, which tend to correlate with a drop in sentiment.

Discussions Around a Mask Ban

Many New Yorkers are vehemently opposed to the proposed mask ban, perceiving it as a threat to public health. They say they are especially worried for the aging and immunocompromised who depend on the subway system. This sentiment is particularly acute among those who still view COVID as an ongoing pandemic. They suggest attempting to lower crime rates with a mask ban is an egregious disregard for their safety.

Others, however, feel banning masks is necessary to curb criminal activities where perpetrators use masks to conceal their identities. This group supports a potential ban and believes it could deter crime on the subway system and create a more secure environment for all passengers.

Pausing NYC Congestion Pricing

Many New Yorkers express dissatisfaction with her governance decisions, arguing they reveal a poor understanding of public needs. The ire directed at Gov. Hochul often touches on congestion pricing, which was intended to reduce traffic congestion in lower Manhattan and finance public transit improvements. Many criticize her decision to pause or scrap the congestion pricing plan, viewing it as a capitulation to special interests and suburban voters at the expense of city residents.

Some contrast Hochul's choice to paus congestion pricing with examples from other cities, like London, where congestion pricing has been highly successful in improving traffic conditions and public transit. The halt has led to feelings of betrayal among those who believe congestion pricing is crucial for reducing pollution, easing traffic, and funding essential transit improvements.

Critics believe with the governor backing away from congestion pricing, the financial stability of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) is at risk. They say this could potentially lead to a downgrade in its credit rating and deferred improvements to the subway system. The general sentiment is one of exasperation with the short-sightedness and lack of commitment to long-term urban planning.

Other Issues Impacting Sentiment

Among Hochul's vocal critics, there is fierce and often derogatory language, reflecting broader dissatisfaction with her policies and liberal governance style. People accuse her of authoritarianism and failed leadership, calling her a "lying destructive tyrant" and drawing parallels to repressive regimes.

Not Protecting the Working Class

New Yorkers call her out for a perceived inconsistency in policy making. They argue her claims of protecting working-class New Yorkers, increased payroll taxes in place of congestion pricing will be equally, if not more, harmful.

People complain about taxes on large businesses, which would bear the brunt of higher taxes and trickle down to employees and consumers. This, people argue, would hurt the same demographics the governor says she wants to shield.

Increasing Crime in New York

Further complicating Hochul’s public image is her stance on crime and gun violence statistics. Her administration faces backlash for leniency on crime and law enforcement policies. Critics argue her policies on bail reform and parole contribute to higher crime rates.

Voters blame increased lawlessness on her administration. Calls for stricter law enforcement and reforms to reverse these policies have been loud and consistent, with demands for her to intervene more decisively in criminal justice issues.

Deprioritizing Suburban New Yorkers

Some upstate New Yorkers feel disproportionally burdened by policies seen as biased towards urban interests. They voice resentment towards the continuous flow of resources from upstate to downstate projects, including MTA improvements, without proportional benefits.

Identity Politics

Racial and identity politics also animate much of the discussion. Accusations of condescension and racism have surfaced, particularly in relation to her comments and policies that some view as patronizing towards minority groups. These sentiments create a complicated portrait of her as a leader struggling to balance progressive values with practical governance.

Donald Trump's comments last week promising to eliminate taxes on tips got voters talking, showing mixed support across the political spectrum. Overall, the idea of exempting tips from income tax is generally well-received. This is especially true for those directly affected—restaurant and hospitality workers—who stand to keep more of their hard-earned money.

Trump’s promise to reduce working-class tax burdens is getting enthusiastic support within this voter group. They feel this tax relief would directly benefit their day-to-day lives. However, detractors argue the plan could reduce federal revenues and contribute to budget deficits unless offset by other measures.

Online discussions about economic and tax policies reflect broader concerns about the economy, with many people comparing conditions under Trump and Biden. Some argue the economy was better under Trump's administration, citing lower inflation rates, lower energy and food prices, and a more robust job market. They believe Trump's tax cuts had a positive impact on economic growth and hope similar policies will revive the economy again.

• Trump’s approval on taxes remained relatively steady before and after his comments on eliminating tip taxes.
• However, his approval regarding “low income” jumped from 47% to 49% after his comments.

Demographic Reactions

Tip Workers

Service industry workers, who are the primary beneficiaries of this proposal, respond positively across the political spectrum. For many servers, bartenders, and other tipped employees, eliminating taxes on tips translates into a direct increase in take-home pay. This demographic appreciates the tangible impact on their daily lives, which could mean a more stable financial situation and less stress regarding tax filings.

Income Groups

Among the lower economic classes, Trump's proposal is largely welcomed. Despite political affiliations, individuals in these classes tend to focus on the increased disposable income, which would help cover living expenses and potentially mitigate financial instability.

Middle-class voters also express cautious optimism. Some see it as a necessary relief amid current economic challenges, such as inflation and high living costs. However, others worry about the broader economic ramifications which might lead to higher prices for essential goods.

Wealthier individuals, who may not be directly affected by the change, may still support it to boost consumer spending and morale within the service industry. Although some criticize it as a short-term political maneuver with uncertain long-term fiscal implications.

Age Groups

Demographic factors such as age and race also influence opinions. Younger voters, especially those working through college or in entry-level service positions, invite immediate personal benefits. Nevertheless, many still generally align with a broader generational stance that favors progressive taxation and public welfare.

Minorities

Minority communities, who are overrepresented in lower-wage service jobs, appreciate the direct financial relief. But they also remain cautious about the long-term impacts and hope for comprehensive wage reforms which align with Democratic tax platforms.

Trump Supporters Support No Tip Taxes

Republicans and Trump Supporters largely view his proposal to eliminate taxes on tips as a positive step. They believe it would benefit the working class, especially those in the hospitality and service industries who rely heavily on tips. These supporters say it would provide immediate financial relief, thus increasing disposable income for millions of Americans.

Usually Republicans, this group highlights the overall economic environment during Trump's previous term with lower inflation, energy independence, and lower taxes. They view past results as indicative of the future potential success of similar policies.

There is also a related conversation around Trump’s proposal to replace all income tax with increased tariffs. This plan to compensate lost tax revenues get support from those who believe it would strengthen domestic industries and ultimately benefit American workers.

Democrats Don’t Want to Lose Tax Revenue

Most Democrats commenting on Trump’s proposal express significant concern over the long-term economic impacts of eliminating taxes on tips. They also fear replacing all income tax with tariffs could spark inflation, decrease consumption, and potentially lead to a recession.

Critics feel lower taxes would exacerbate income inequality and create adverse effects on social security and Medicare funding, which are typically supported by tax revenues.

Some progressive Democrats and service industry workers, who are typically loyal to the Democratic Party, acknowledge that eliminating taxes on tips could offer genuine financial benefits to low-income workers. But these voters often couch their approval in broader critiques of Trump’s overall economic policies. They hedge by saying such isolated tax cuts fail to address systemic financial inequalities.

More mainstream and centrist Democrats were generally skeptical, viewing the proposal as a populist measure designed to garner quick support. They don’t believe Trump has real plans for a thorough solution to larger economic issues facing workers.

Anti-Trump voters say, while beneficial on its face, this tax change might not compensate for his other policies they view as detrimental to low-income and middle-class Americans. They cite programs like social services and healthcare, which they believe Trump wants to defund.

Several military family reactions recently followed Vice President Kamala Harris's criticism of former President Donald Trump visiting Arlington National Cemetery. In a statement, Harris condemned Trump for allegedly politicizing a sacred space by filming a video at the memorial. This sparked intense debate among voters. Her statement, which painted Trump as disrespectful to Gold Star families, led to polarized reactions, with many taking sides based on their views of military honor and leadership.

As Vice President, I have had the privilege of visiting Arlington National Cemetery several times. It is a solemn place; a place where we come together to honor American heroes who have made the ultimate sacrifice in service of this nation.

It is not a place for politics.

And…

— Kamala Harris (@KamalaHarris) August 31, 2024

MIG Reports analysis of the controversy shows partisan divides and intense anger directed at Harris from military families.

Military Families Support Trump

Among those invested in the PR battle between Harris and Trump regarding Afghanistan Gold Star families, Trump has strong support. Those who lost loved ones in the Afghanistan withdrawal are particularly venomous against the Biden-Harris administration, whom they blame for their tragic losses.

Following Harris’s statement, Trump began tweeting video clips from Gold Star families thanking him for his attendance and criticizing Harris.

Mark Schmitz, Father of Lance Corporal Jared M. Schmitz… https://t.co/CHNRzcTa0J pic.twitter.com/pRLF9tS7Jn

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 1, 2024

Gold Star and other military families are quick to defend Trump’s Arlington visit, saying he was invited, while Kamala Harris has yet to mention any of the names of the fallen. Many of these families highlighted how Trump had been there for them since the tragic Kabul airport bombing, with one father calling Harris’s statements “heinous, vile, and disgusting.”

The deep emotional connection these families have with Trump contrasts sharply with their perception of Harris and the Biden administration. Many Gold Star families feel betrayed by how the Afghanistan withdrawal was handled. They view Trump’s actions as demonstrative of his respect and empathy.

Voters Talking About Abbey Gate Favor Trump

Among those discussing the Abbey Gate anniversary and Gold Star families, there are political divisions. Conversations focus on the role of leadership and respect for military service.

MIG Reports data shows:

• 62% of Americans discussing the controversy side with Trump, viewing his Arlington visit as a respectful gesture at the request of Gold Star families.
• 25% of voters echo Harris, questioning Trump’s sincerity, accusing him of using the cemetery visit for political gain.
• 13% of the conversation—mostly moderates—express mixed feelings, often criticizing both Trump and Harris.

Trump supporters accuse Harris of lacking empathy and politicizing an event meant to honor fallen soldiers. They use words like "heinous," "disgusting," and "shameful,” illustrating the intensity of their opposition to Harris.

Harris supporters accuse Trump as setting the stage for the chaotic Afghanistan withdrawal, suggesting he bears responsibility for the resulting deaths. These anti-Trump voters use terms like "surrender" and "political maneuvering" to describe his actions.

Moderates, while critical of both Trump and Harris, call for more transparency and accountability from both leaders. Their comments highlight the complexities of the military withdrawal, with some noting Harris’s statement may be warranted, but poorly timed or delivered.

Many Americans Don’t Care

While most discussions specifically focused on Trump’s visit to Arlington National Cemetery express support for his attendance, many Americans seem unaware of or uninvested in veterans’ causes.

The overall national sentiment toward Trump and Harris regarding Afghanistan favors Harris.

• On the day of Harris’s statement, she saw 47% approval on the military compared to Trump’s 44%.
• Regarding Afghanistan, Harris’s support on Aug. 31 was 48% to Trump’s 44%.

Despite this disparity in approval, MIG Reports analysis suggests Harris supporters focus more on defending her against Trump than supporting the Biden-Harris administration’s actions regarding Afghanistan.

• Around 60% of comments from Kamala Harris supporters reflect a defensive stance regarding her involvement in the Afghanistan withdrawal. They say the situation was inherited from the Trump administration, emphasizing the pre-negotiated terms with the Taliban as the root cause of the chaotic exit.
• Approximately 25% of Harris supporters react strongly against criticisms of Harris, using phrases like "blatant lie" or "sick lie." This suggests a significant effort to counter negative views of Harris's role. This group aims to protect her image as a competent leader in national security.
• Only 15% of express pride in the decisions made by Harris and Biden, viewing the withdrawal as a necessary step to refocus on domestic issues, despite the challenges involved.

The general sentiment among Harris supporters is predominantly characterized by a protective and reactive stance. They focus on shifting blame and defending her reputation. While there's a minority celebrating her leadership, the majority are engaged in defending against criticisms.

Potential Political Fallout

The fallout from the Abbey Gate memorial controversy underscores deep divisions among voters on military issues and leadership. For many, especially military families, Trump’s actions have cemented their loyalty. This group view Harris’s statement as tone-deaf and disrespectful.

Harris supporters meanwhile argue that concerns about politicizing military memorials are valid. They continue to criticize Trump’s supposed role in the Afghanistan withdrawal, which occurred during the Biden administration, while dismissing any claims of incompetence or disrespect from Harris or Biden.

This controversy highlights the ongoing importance of national security and military sacrifice in shaping voter preferences. For military veterans and their families, these issues may play a decisive role tipping support toward Trump. However, Americans writ large may not be as moved by controversies in which they do not feel personally invested.

The American public continues to languish in negativity about inflation, a sustained cause for attention and concern. The reality of economic hardship for average citizens causes talk of high prices, financial insecurity, and uncertain futures.

MIG Reports data shows voters are unhappy and fear the country's economic trajectory. While sentiment is polarized, significant blame is directed at the Biden-Harris administration for worsening inflation and mismanaging the economy.

Mortgage applications are down, and loan delinquencies are up, causing many voters to express a sense of despair.

Mortgage applications dropped another 4%, despite rates being at their lowest level since February 2024. pic.twitter.com/jADX1k00u1

— TheStreet (@TheStreet) July 24, 2024

A Dollar Only Goes So Far

Conversations regularly turn to the noticeable increase in cost of living. Voters mention record high grocery prices, high gas prices, housing costs, and recent market crashes. They blame their financial struggles on runaway inflation and the resulting erosion of purchasing power. This, combined with wage stagnation, degrades quality of life.

The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) is a specific point of contention. Many view it as misleading, criticizing it for exacerbating inflation rather than alleviating it. Those associating the IRA with "reparation-style payments for minority farmers" further fuels debate, as some use it as an example of misallocated resources.

Kamala Harris and Joe Biden receive much of the negativity and blame. Terms like "Kamala’s economy" and "Bidenomics" are used with "economic shambles" and "market downturn." People feel the Biden-Harris administration is causing their current economic woes.

Voters discuss Kamala Harris’s role as VP and often being the deciding vote in passing key legislation like the American Rescue Plan and the Inflation Reduction Act. They view her as a primary cause of the economic challenges they face.

Americans are Demoralized

Voter sentiment is predominantly critical and pessimistic. The use words like "failure," "crisis," "disaster," to describe the Biden-Harris economy. A prevailing sense of displeasure and frustration crosses party lines as Republicans and Democrats both feel the economic hardship. There is a sense of urgency and demand for change with calls to vote for Trump and save America.

The predominant sentiment is that current economic policies are failing. Voters deny Biden’s claims of fixing the economy, calling it an inflation crisis and expressing disillusionment. Most households are concerned about the future, with many comments forecasting continued financial difficulties and a looming recession.

Despite media and Democrats attempting to blame the economy on Trump-era tax cuts, voter call for more cuts. They also say things like, "drill baby drill," suggesting the U.S. tap into domestic oil. Many also say the economic situation could be improved by closing the border.

There are some defending the administration, emphasizing benefits like "capping insulin prices" and "creating good-paying union jobs." However, these voices are fewer and often drowned out by the overwhelming criticism.

Drowning in Debt

Federal Reserve data illustrates the extent of economic hardship Americans are facing. Since 2021, loan delinquency rates have increased across real estate, consumer, and credit card loans. This mirrors complaints average Americans have of rising costs of living and stagnant wages.

Voters blame the Biden-Harris administration for high interest rates and skyrocketing prices. The confluence of economic pressures including poor job prospects and reduced purchasing power makes it difficult for Americans to meet their financial obligations.

As charge-off rates, which is a percentage of defaulted credit, climb, banks are writing off more debts as uncollectible. This is a sign of financial distress that is echoed in public sentiment. The upward trends in the graph parallels voter criticisms, depicting the tangible effects of inflation on people’s finances.

The bleak economic outlook is supported by federal data, validating people’s fears of recession or even depression. 

Implications Going Forward

Rising delinquency and charge-off rates, especially in consumer sectors, suggest potential economic mismanagement. Inflationary pressures caused by monetary policy and reduced purchasing power cause many to demand new leadership. This situation is aggravated by high interest rates, making borrowing more expensive for individuals and businesses.

Increasing reliance on credit and the rise in delinquencies does not inspire confidence among voters. Their high living costs and potential employment challenges could increase loan defaults. This may also lead to a cyclical problem of decreased consumer confidence and economic slowdown.

With mortgage applications down, mortgage loan delinquency increasing, and sustained high real estate prices, American families will not easily afford a home. Business investments may also decrease, and a real estate market crash could spell disaster.

Americans believe worsening financial conditions for both consumers and businesses are critically urgent. Some say rising debt delinquency could be mitigated with better policy interventions. They call for a renewed focus on reducing inflation, stabilizing interest rates, cutting taxes, and improving the job market. Voters want a president who can address these concerns promptly and effectively.

Fear and rumors about the potential of overturning of Obergefell v. Hodges in the wake of Roe v. Wade being overturned causes concern among many Americans. The landmark 2015 Supreme Court decision that legalized same-sex marriage in the United States has the potential to become a contentious partisan issue as Trump takes his second term with a conservative majority Supreme Court.

Concerns about the future of same-sex marriage are emerging, creating debates about civil rights, states’ rights, and judicial overreach. While many are firmly opposed to reversing Obergefell, there is not an overwhelming majority and there may be significant opportunities to influence voter sentiment.

Sentiment on Overturning Obergefell

MIG Reports data shows partisan division on overturning Obergefell, shifting the conversation around same-sex marriage from a question of legal rights to debates about the role of the judiciary, individual liberties, and federalism.

37% Oppose Overturning Obergefell

A slight majority of online discussion voices strong opposition to any move by SCOTUS to reverse Obergefell. They focus on equal rights and say overturning it would be a severe setback for civil liberties and societal progress.

Concerns about broader attacks on LGBTQ rights and protections are prevalent among critics. Many argue reversing gay marriage would facilitate eroding individual rights, as they say Roe v. Wade has done.

25% Support Overturning Obergefell

A strong minority voice support for the idea of overturning Obergefell. They argue a reversal aligns with states’ rights and preserving religious freedoms. They say marriage should be defined by individual states, reflecting local values and beliefs rather than a federal mandate—which many say is unconstitutional.

There is frustration with perceived judicial overreach in legalizing same-sex marriage, saying the issue should be returned to the states. There are some who argue gay marriage should not be legal at all. However, there is significant debate about federalism versus morality among conservatives.

20% Religious and Anti-State Views

A significant group calls for a complete restructuring of marriage laws. These views are more anti-state. They don’t just want to repeal Obergefell but also challenge the very concept of marriage as a legal institution.

This group frames their arguments within societal norms, often advocating for a return to traditional, religiously rooted family structures. Many here express moral objections to same-sex marriage. When combined with those who focus only on the legal battle, potential support for repealing Obergefell could be as high as 45%.

33% are Ambivalent or Uncertain

The neutral or uncertain stance on the issue is significant in discussions. This group has mixed views about the implications of overturning Obergefell. While they may not be entirely against or in favor, many are concerned about the societal and personal implications it would create—particularly for gay couples already married.

Uncertainty is driven by a desire for further dialogue and a deeper understanding of how a reversal might impact both marriage equality and LGBTQ rights overall. This portion of the electorate maybe be a persuadable group, open to messaging that presents the issue in a balanced but legally grounded context.

Targeting Persuadable Voters

Understanding which voter segments are open to persuasion is crucial for shaping effective messaging.

Moderates and Independents

• These voters are typically not committed to either side but are generally receptive to arguments grounded in judicial neutrality and local control.
• They value pragmatic solutions, and a message emphasizing states’ rights and judicial restraint could resonate with them.
• Many are not ideologically tied to either progressive or conservative values, making them more open to arguments about personal freedom and federalism.

Disenchanted Conservatives

• Many in the conservative base feel alienated by the mainstream political establishment, particularly when it comes to imposed values.
• These voters, while perhaps not outright hostile to same-sex marriage, are more likely to view the issue as judicial overreach by the left.
• Messages advocating for a return to the Constitution’s original intent, focusing on local governance and cultural influence, may appeal to this group.
• Wary of federal mandates, they may support returning decisions to the states to preserve geographical pockets with traditional conservative values.

Rhetorical Drivers for Reversing Obergefell

Supporters of reversing Obergefell use a reactionary rhetorical framework, using historical references, emotional appeals, and highlighting disillusionment with the judiciary.

• Historical Framing: Supporters draw parallels to past judicial decisions, like Roe v. Wade, positioning Obergefell as similarly unconstitutional and ideologically driven.
• Emotional Appeals: Terms like "traitor" and "betrayal" are used to describe justices perceived as betraying traditional values.
• Disillusionment: Skepticism of the Court's role in safeguarding civil liberties drives discussion. Many say the courts, including SCOTUS, can become a political tool.
• Reactionary Sentiment: Critics say prioritizing LGBTQ initiatives in governance, such as public appointments based on DEI, detracts from more important issues.

National Messaging Approach

The issue of same-sex marriage and overturning Obergefell can be framed as part of a social and legal reckoning following pushback against progressive and woke policies.

• Judicial Fairness: Advocate for a judiciary that upholds the rule of law and ensures decisions are based on legal principles, not political agendas. A message that positions overturning Obergefell as a return to constitutional norms will resonate with conservative and independent voters.
• Legal and Social Stability: Connect the consistency of legal decisions to social and legal fabric of society, maintaining both individual freedom and rule of law. Argue that Obergefell was a judicial overreach, regardless of personal views on gay marriage.
• Voter Trust: Focus on the importance of depoliticized SCOTUS rulings. Emphasize that Obergefell was decided by a politically motivated court rather than by legislative consensus. It is essential to communicate that returning marriage decisions to the states is in line with constitutional principles.