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.

In last night’s Michigan primaries, Donald Trump and Joe Biden each triumphed within their respective primary contests, but several key factors spell trouble for Biden’s re-election odds in the crucial swing state.

Trump garnered 138,000 more votes in the Republican contest than Biden's final tally in the Democratic primary. Worse for the 81-year-old President, pro-Palestinian efforts to lodge a protest vote under "Uncommitted" received more than 100,000 votes. While many in the mainstream media have scrambled to either downplay or outright deny a red light flashing moment for Biden, the uncommitted vote came just 54,000 away from Joe Biden’s margin of victory in Michigan in 2020.

Media Intelligence Group’s analysis of online discourse surrounding Trump and Biden in the Great Lakes State finds that Biden is indeed in serious trouble, with Trump poised to make perhaps one of the greatest comebacks in U.S. political history.

Dark Cloud Follows Biden Online

MIG’s analysis of online discourse directed at Biden by Michiganders finds a theme of doubt about Biden’s ability to serve as commander in chief and the Democratic nominee headed into November:

• Before uncommitted’s strong showing, MIG found, “users believe Biden could lose the primary due to dissatisfaction among certain voter groups.” And many users referring to him as "Genocide Joe.”
  
• Others highlight Biden’s age and acuity, a subject under increased scrutiny since the damning Hurr report dropped in early February. “There are discussions about Biden's ability to deliver the State of the Union address, with some questioning his mental fitness.” Some “suggest that Biden's lifespan could be a concern, questioning the wisdom of voting for him.”
  
• MIG found he still has ardent supporters, despite the chaos following Biden. “Some feel Biden and Kamala Harris will fight for them and plan to vote for them” in 2024.

Boiling Anger

Analysis of online discourse from Trump supporters in Michigan finds a theme of anger over both the past and the present that could motivate them to push Trump over the finish line in 2024.

• MIG’s analysis picks up discourse centering on the 2020 election results including, “allegations of election fraud,” and “users suggesting that the 2020 election was stolen from Trump.”

Others are enraged at the current state of America under Biden, demanding immediate action before November.

• Frequently, Republicans lean into removing Biden now, with online comments “demanding the impeachment of Biden.”
  
• Biden’s weakest point and highest policy priority among a plurality of Americans, immigration, generates anger tooMIG found, “frustration with Biden's immigration policy, and accusations of him allowing an influx of undocumented immigrants into the country.”
  
• Others focus on increasingly tragic human stories of Biden’s immigration policy. “There are multiple references to an incident involving the slaughter of Laken Riley, with users accusing Biden of complicity.”
  
• Despite Biden defenders in mainstream media portending the economy is in great shape, Michiganders remain unconvinced of Bidenomics success and, “express dissatisfaction with his economic policies.”

While anger is a serious theme found in discourse by Trump supporters in Michigan, hope drives support for Trump’s re-election as well.

• Pro-Trump Michigan discourse finds many viewing his return as a solution to global chaos, voicing that, "If Trump had won a second term, he would have taken stronger action against China.” And their desire for him, “to be elected in 2024 and end wars.”
  
• Democrats remain critical of the former President, with some suggesting that, “Trump is pro-Russia and anti-Ukraine.”
  

By the Numbers

With just nine months until election day, MIG’s analysis of head-to-head support online between Joe Biden and Donald Trump spells a tight final vote count in November.

• Today, Trump leads Biden 47% to 44% in Michigan, with RFK Jr. taking 9% of support.

Michigan Head-to-Head Support Analysis - February 28

• Over the last 14 days, Biden’s lead in support versus Trump has crumbled, falling from an average of 50% to Trump’s 43% between February 15 and 21,to Trump capturing an average of 46% support to Biden’s 44% between February 22 and 29.

Michigan Head-to-Head Support Analysis - last 14 days

• MIG’s analysisduring this period finds that Trump does not necessarily dominate Biden by garnering more positive indications of support. In fact, in individual candidate analysis, each held 45% approval between Febraury 15 and 21, when Biden’s support began to give way to Trump.
  
• What makes the difference is disparity in the volume of negativity directed at each candidate. Biden earned more negative than positive comments on Frebruary 17 and 18, and his support fell by7% against Trump.
  
• During this time frame, Biden’s ratio of positive comments to negative comments found the incumbent at -149, with Trump lower at -139. This implies a conclusion that Biden’s ultimate weakness in Michigan isn’t voters liking Trump more, but their anger towards Biden is stronger than dislike for Trump.

Looking Ahead

What is unfolding in Michigan spells potential disaster in a must-win state for Biden. Despite being thousands of miles from the border, MIG’s data shows that all states are increasingly focusing on immigration, coming to grips with the reality that every state is a border state in Joe Biden’s America.

It is nearly impossible for the Biden campaign to celebrate winning Michigan with so many cracks being revealed in the President’s 2020 winning strategy. Crucial minority groups essential to winning Democrat coalitions are fraying, evidenced by the substantial "Uncommitted" protest turnout. Democrats almost always beat Republicans in non-general election turnout, yet Trump’s turnout was more than Biden’s by 135,000.

Growing doubts on Biden’s electability, coupled with ever heightening scrutiny of Biden's policies and fitness for office contrasts sharply with the fervent support Trump enjoysAll this is fueled by a blend of anger and hope. As election day looms, the dynamics in Michigan come into focus, where dissatisfaction with the incumbent and a growing appetite for change sets the stage for what could be the most historic political comeback since Nixon’s return to the White House in 1969.

The Democratic Party is facing a crisis of confidence. Discontent in the voter base is deepening, and key demographics—young voters, working-class voters, and minorities—are expressing rising dissatisfaction. Economic mismanagement, a loss of cultural relevance, and a failure to connect with everyday concerns exacerbate fractures.

Meanwhile, Republicans are capitalizing on this moment. The post-2024 landscape has set the stage for a political and cultural realignment, with GOP messaging resonating on issues such as inflation, immigration, and education. The shift is not just among traditional conservatives—Republicans are making inroads with Independents and disillusioned Democrats who feel abandoned by a party focused on ideology over practical governance.

Democratic Sentiment Shows a Party in Crisis

MIG Reports data shows Democratic base sentiment is trending negative with 65-70% of Democratic voters expressing dissatisfaction with leadership. This is driven by frustration over governance failures, economic hardship, and culture war issues.

• Young voters expected progressive reforms but see a party moderating on issues like climate action and student debt. Many are turning toward alternative political movements or disengaging entirely.
• Minority voters feel taken for granted. The party’s rhetoric on racial justice has not translated into substantive policy change, and economic hardships are sharp.
• Working-class voters increasingly feel alienated by Democratic policies on taxes, trade, and energy. Many see the party catering to the professional class and elites.

The party’s internal fractures are becoming more pronounced, with establishment Democrats struggling to placate both moderates and progressives. This infighting is contributing to an image of dysfunction, further eroding voter confidence.

Key Issues of Dissatisfaction

Democratic policy failures fuel top grievances.

• Economic mismanagement: Inflation remains a dominant concern. While some metrics show cooling price increases, voters feel the real impact of rising costs in housing, food, and energy. Many blame Democratic fiscal policies.
• Border security: The Democratic Party’s hand in the border crisis is a liability. Frustration over immigration policies is one of the top voter concerns, particularly for working-class Americans who feel in direct competition with illegal immigrants.
• Cultural cringe: Democrats are perceived advocating for elite interests, detached from the values of mainstream America. The fervent adherence to identity politics draws criticism that the party is increasingly out of touch with cultural trends.

Republicans Seizing the Culture

Meanwhile, Republicans are filling the void left by Democratic failures. The GOP’s post-election positioning is strong, with Donald Trump’s administration enacting rapid executive actions on immigration enforcement, tax relief, and foreign aid reductions.

There is also a growing perception that youth-driven cachet and aspirational pop culture are now on the political right.

For our latest cover story, @BrockColyar reported on the young, gleeful, confident, and casually cruel Trumpers who, after conquering Washington, have their sights set on the rest of America: https://t.co/S8QuhS3VPp pic.twitter.com/zKptkMhn7T

— New York Magazine (@NYMag) January 27, 2025

Republican messaging is resonating across multiple demographics:

• Blue-collar workers disillusioned with Democratic economic policies are embracing the GOP’s emphasis on energy independence, deregulation, and domestic manufacturing.
• Suburban voters frustrated with progressive overreach in education are shifting rightward, particularly on school choice and parental rights.
• Frustrated voters in blue states like California are turning on their progressive leaders for mismanaging things like the Pacific Palisades fires and immigration.
• Hispanic voters are increasingly moving toward the Republican Party, drawn by economic concerns and opposition to left-wing social policies.

Cultural Realignment in Favor of Conservatives

The backlash against progressive activism is fueling Republican momentum. Many voters perceive Democratic leadership as prioritizing diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives over practical governance. This dynamic is most visible in education, where conservative parents are mobilizing against progressive curricula.

The GOP is winning the broader culture war by positioning itself as the defender of free speech, traditional values, and national sovereignty. Social issues that once favored Democrats—such as abortion rights and LGBTQ policies—are losing power within their coalition.

Republican Economic Messaging Resonates

Democrats are struggling to counter the Republican economic narrative. The GOP’s messaging emphasizes:

• Tax relief: Trump’s proposed elimination of federal taxes on tips and income tax has gained traction with financially overburdened voters.
• Fiscal responsibility: Republicans are contrasting their policies with Democratic spending, pointing to rising national debt and inefficiency through DOGE.
• Inflation response: While Biden struggled to frame inflation as a global issue, Trump and congressional Republicans have effectively placed blame on Democratic policies, particularly in energy and manufacturing regulations.

The Democratic Party’s Existential Dilemma

The Democratic coalition is fracturing. Major events have generated negativity in the party including:

• The major presidential loss with a disastrous performance by Kamala Harris and party disarray around ousting Joe Biden.
• Losing cultural capital as young people shift to the right, viewing Republicans as the “cool” party, led by Trump.
• The Democrats’ abject failure on border security and protecting American sovereignty.
• Over-the-top and dramatic performances by Democratic members of Congress during confirmation hearings for Trump nominees.

Many also criticize the lack of leadership change after a decisive presidential loss in 2024. Chuck Schumer, Dick Durbin, Amy Klobuchar, and Cory Booker were all reelected to leadership positions in December of 2024, despite significant negativity in the party.

If Democrats fail to recover from these losses, they risk a further erosion of support heading into 2026 elections.

Public Awareness on the Border

Recent MIG data shows online discussions about border security is significantly increasing, implying rise in awareness and concern among Americans. The general sentiment among Republicans, Democrats, and Independents appears to be that of concern and frustration, albeit for differing reasons.

• In the last 90 days, conversation online about the border has dramatically increased from an average of 2,951 mentions per day in November to 11,088 mentions per day in January.
• In the past week, online discussion about the border has averaged 15,462 mentions per day with February 4 reaching a high of 25,228.

• American sentiment about the border has decreased in the last 90 days. Public sentiment dropped from a consistent 50% in November to 43% today.
• Sentiment on border security has remained below 50% for 84 straight days.

Reactions to the Proposed Border Bill

Discussions about the Lankford border bill appear to be highly polarized and emotionally charged. In general, the discussions also reveal a perceived link between immigration and crime. This suggests that a significant portion of the online discussion on immigration is driven by concerns over safety and rule of law.

Republicans

Sentiment among Republicans seems to be predominantly negative with strong criticism towards the border bill.

• Republicans perceive it as an open borders bill that would allow unchecked immigration and jeopardize national security.
• There are numerous calls for strict immigration control, including the deportation of illegal immigrants and the closure of the border.
• Many accuse the Biden administration of facilitating illegal immigration, which they believe has led to an increase in crime, particularly referencing recent events in New York.
• Republicans also express support for actions against certain Democratic representatives, particularly Ilhan Omar.
• Many advocate for the completion of the southern border wall initiated under Trump's administration.
• Some have even suggested extreme measures like crocodiles in rivers, electrified fences, and drones with bombs.

Democrats

• Democrat voices are less prominent in these border discussions. But there is some criticism of Republicans for spreading what they see as racist and hateful rhetoric.
• Those on the left challenge the narrative of open borders and argue that encounters at the border do not equate to an increase in the U.S. population
• Sentiment suggests they believe Republicans are spreading misinformation about the bill and using the immigration issue to stoke fear and gain political advantage.
• There are accusations of Republicans fear-mongering, particularly toward Trump and Governor Abbott.
• There is also criticism towards the spending on the wall, with some Democrats arguing that the funds could be better used for other domestic issues.
• Democrats continue to be largely critical of the border wall, but are less engaged in discussion about the current crescendo of concern around safety and rule of law.

Independents

• Sentiment among independents is harder to pin down due to the diversity of views within this group.
• There is a noticeable contingent who suggest unorthodox solutions to the border issue, like building a wall on the northern border with Canada.
• Independents are not as vocal as Republicans, but it can be inferred that they are generally concerned about border security and immigration policies.
• They seem to have more nuanced views, but tend to see the need for both border security and humane treatment of immigrants.

Reactions to James Lankford

The online sentiment regarding Senator James Lankford's actions on border security is overwhelmingly negative. Many express dissatisfaction with his border security bill, viewing it as detrimental to the United States.

Approval for Lankford has fluctuated in the last 14 days with a high of 54% and a low of 38%.

Disapproval

• Many argue Lankford’s bill will lead to an influx of 2-3 million illegals per year or 20-30 million in a decade, effectively ending USA borders altogether.
• There’s also dissatisfaction with the bill’s distribution of funding. Many express indignation over possible allocation of more funding to Ukraine and Israel over border security.
• A few voices accuse Lankford of being swayed by bribes or outside interests rather than prioritizing the needs of American citizens.
• Some voters in Oklahoma, Lankford's home state, voice their disappointment, stating that they are closely watching his actions.
• There is a sentiment of betrayal among some Oklahomans who accuse Lankford of siding with Democrats and "selling out" Oklahoma.
• There are numerous calls for him to step down from his position, with some referring to him as a "RINO."
• There's a sentiment of betrayal and a threat of political repercussions with some users threatening to primary him in upcoming elections.
• Across party lines, there seems to be a perceived lack of focus on domestic issues.
• Overall, sentiments reflect a demand for markedly tighter border security measures, as well as a broad disapproval of the bill's provisions.

Approval

• Despite the overall negative sentiment, there are a few voices that view aid to Ukraine as beneficial to the US economy and thus support Lankford's bill.
• Arguments that the Russian invasion of Ukraine has led to unprecedented demand for US arms sales, providing a significant boost to the American economy.
• There are a few voices of support for Lankford, arguing that he is focused on results rather than political posturing.
• However, these voices appear to be in the minority.

Reactions to Alejandro Mayorkas

Online sentiments toward Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas appear to be largely negative, with a strong focus on his alleged failure to handle the issues at the border effectively.

• Many commenters accuse Mayorkas of lying about his efforts to address what they perceive as an "invasion" at the border.
• People believe he has not taken action to curb the surge of illegal border crossings. Some even suggest that he's aiding and abetting the situation.
• This sentiment is mostly held by those who believe that Mayorkas and President Biden's border policies have exacerbated the crisis at the southern border.

Approval for Mayorkas has fluctuated in the last 14 days with a high of 48% and a low of 44%.

Division on a Mayorkas Impeachment

While talk about the border situation is generally negative, there seems to be more division about a possible Mayorkas impeachment.

Approval

• There is a strong call from many for his impeachment, with some arguing that his handling of the US-Mexico border crisis is a breach of public trust.
• Many accuse him of lying to the American people and Congress and failing to enforce border security laws.
• There is a belief that Mayorkas has not protected the homeland effectively and should be held accountable for his actions.
• Many say Mayorkas and Biden are ignoring laws they should be enforcing and do have power to act on this issue.
• Supporters insist that it is the duty of Congress members to vote in favor of his impeachment. They also accuse him of being a "Constitution hater."

Disapproval

• On the other hand, there are many who view the potential impeachment as a partisan ploy by House Republicans.
• Arguments that the impeachment is not about Mayorkas's job performance but an attempt to make the border issue a political talking point against the Biden administration.
• Dissenters argue that the impeachment is a political stunt, a "hit job," and an abuse of the process.
• There are some voices who say the impeachment will not pass the House vote and question the timing of the impeachment.
• Some argue that Mayorkas does not have the authority to set the US immigration agenda and that this responsibility lies with Congress.

The "White Dudes for Harris" online Zoom event has evoked disbelief and harsh criticism from the American public regarding race and abortion. Many who consider themselves “non-woke” deride the event as embodying the racism progressive wokeism claims to abhor. This group also strongly criticizes Vice President Kamala Harris, Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg, and white male progressives who attended the event—including multiple celebrities.

One significant trend in voter reactions questions Harris's qualifications and capabilities. People express deep concerns about her competence and potential impact on the country's future. Those voicing negative sentiments often express fear of worsening economic and border conditions and potential escalations of war should Harris assume the presidency.

White Dudes for Abortion

The topic of abortion remains a contentious issue. There are strong reactions on the left to the idea that Democrats have failed to protect women’s rights despite holding power. Many left leaning voters voice displeasure at Roe v. Wade being overturned and speak frequently about and alleged "Trump abortion ban."

Among progressives there is appreciation for the coalition-building efforts promoting Buttigieg during the "White Dudes for Kamala" initiative. Some express hope at his potential pick as Kamala’s VP. This “white dude” coalition is touted on the left as a strategic advantage that could potentially mobilize significant male voter turnout in the upcoming election.

However, comments made by Pete Buttigieg during the Zoom fundraiser have caused severe backlash. His statement that, “Men are more free when women have access to abortion,” has incited anger across many groups.

Pete Buttigieg says that men are freer when abortion is legal because men can have consequence free sex and simply kill their unborn babies instead of taking responsibility for them.

But J.D. Vance is weird or something.
pic.twitter.com/4Mj24p3USK

— Greg Price (@greg_price11) July 30, 2024

Moderate and right leaning voters express shock and disgust at Pete Buttigieg's remarks. They suggest he’s promoting the idea of men killing their unwanted children as a societal positive.

• National sentiment toward abortion and abortion rights has largely stayed below 50% in the last week with abortion topics briefly reaching 53% on July 28.

Mayor Pete Silencing Women

Following Buttigieg’s comments, social media blazed with anger. People highlight their moral and ideological objections to the notion that abortions contribute to men's freedom.

Americans characterize Buttigieg’s comments as antithetical to life and freedom, questioning the moral and social horror of Buttigieg’s views. Criticisms also touch on his personal life, suggesting a gay man, by his own progressive identity politics standards, should not be speaking on abortion rights. They say issues which deeply impact women should not be a talking point for politicians like Buttigieg.

There is outright frustration and anger, not just toward Buttigieg but also broader Democratic policies. Voters describe Buttigieg’s comments as vile, suggesting they promote misogyny by advocating for male support in promoting abortion.

Critics argue many abortions result from male pressure and emotional blackmail, negating the notion that abortion promotes freedom for anyone, male or female. The use of emotionally charged language such as "disturbing," "misogyny," and "emotional blackmail" underscores the deep-seated opposition to Buttigieg's stance.

Further sentiment indicates many view his comments as bizarre and tone-deaf. Comments like, "WTF does this actually mean? You want abortions so men don't have to take care of the children?" and "How misogynistic is that? Abortion was never intended to be a form of birth control," reflect confusion and indignation.

• In the last day, general support for Buttigieg remains steady, even increasing to 53%. Meanwhile, sentiment toward him on abortion topics sharply dropped to 42%.

Liberals Praise Buttigieg, Ignoring His Comments

A minority of comments align with Buttigieg's view, emphasizing that legal access to abortion is a matter of personal choice and bodily autonomy. They say this contributes to overall societal freedom. However, these supportive voices are drowned out by the vast number of detractors.

Progressives highlight Buttigieg as articulate with good communication skills and a strong progressive stance. They appreciate his ability to frame arguments about freedom and rights in ways that resonate with progressive values. They focus on phrases like, "Pete is so beloved," "would be an amazing Veep," and "an incredible communicator" instead of addressing the abortion comment directly. These voters also emphasize his effectiveness in debates and public appearances, praising his capability to challenge Republican narratives.

The conversation also reveals dynamics within the Democratic Party, including debates on the most suitable candidates for the 2024 election. Buttigieg's potential role as Vice President with Kamala Harris garners mixed reactions. Some Democratic voters say he would be a great choice, while others point to his lackluster performance as Transportation Secretary.

The Abortion Debate in America

While abortion tends to be a more popular issue for Democrats than Republicans, many vocal groups online strongly criticize Buttigieg’s comment. They say it endorses irresponsibility among men, suggesting normalized abortion allows men to avoid the responsibilities of fatherhood.

This perception frames men who make abortion an important issue as expressing thinly veiled misogyny rather than equality. People argue that, despite claiming to be the pro-women Party, Democrats are placing undue pressure on women to have abortions and encouraging men to pressure women as well.

Public sentiment also frequently references the moral dimensions of abortion. While conservative arguments typically do not resonate with pro-choice voters on the sanctity of life, spotlighting the hypocrisy of claiming to protect women while pressuring them into unwanted abortions may be a more convincing strategy.

Supporters of Pete Buttigieg who advocate for abortion rights frequently emphasize "freedom," underscoring women's autonomy to make decisions about their bodies. This group interprets Buttigieg's remarks about abortion providing more freedom for men as an extension of broader social liberties. However, counter arguments point out that “white men” gathering to discuss women’s health is contradictory to women making their own decisions.

A viral clip between Sarah Stock and Sam Seder regarding what it means to be American is sparking discussion on national identity. Americans are caught in a dialectic which is difficult to resolve.

• Wanting to reclaim sovereignty yet flinching at the realities of power
• Lionizing European origins but diluting national identity into an abstraction
• Raging at government overreach while demanding its iron fist come down in service of nationalist restoration

The reactions to the exchange between Stock and Seder split between restoration and managerial inertia. This is the reality of American discourse: equal parts insurgent energy and incoherent retreat.

There is a rhetorical battle between those who still believe in civil power and those who demand it be stripped away. At stake is the very concept of what America is, who wields authority, and whether its trajectory will be that of civilizational reclamation or a final descent into technocratic deracination.

WATCH: “What’s the problem with xenophobic nationalism?”@SamSeder faced off with 20 young Republicans thanks to @jubileemedia — some jaw-dropping moments ensued. pic.twitter.com/Hh108T4Gtt

— The Tennessee Holler (@TheTNHoller) March 9, 2025

European Heritage and a Haunting Present

America cannot decide whether it is a Western nation. The analyses show an overwhelming pull toward European heritage—60% affirm it outright, but the numbers begin to fragment upon closer inspection.

Some reference European heritage nostalgically, others use it to signal political defiance, and a significant minority bristle at the classification, preferring a multicultural identity. The remaining number hedge, ignore, or frame the issue through economic pragmatism.

There doesn’t seem to be a middle ground in this war of worldviews. Those insisting on a European legacy present it as a demand for a future. America is either the inheritor of Western civilization or it is an administrative zone to be managed, curated, and even discarded. The approximately 18% who explicitly reject the European identity do so with the zeal of ideological cleansing, invoking either progressivism or globalist abstraction.

Government as a Blunt Instrument

A major contradiction at the core of American right-wing discourse is denouncing the state as an enemy, yet with a desire for its domination.

• 55-65% of discussions demand government be wielded aggressively—for tariffs, cultural defense, executive orders, or punitive action against perceived internal enemies.
• 20-35% are cautions against the same tactics when they appear too centralized, too overt, or too reminiscent of the state apparatus they despise.

Americans feel betrayed by institutions, yet most are unwilling to burn them down completely. They see the tools of power—regulatory bodies, fiscal policy, military-industrial complexes—as both weapons and threats. The only consistent principle is will-to-power. Voters say government must be strong when it serves their vision, but weak when it resists.

Sam Seder is offended by her definition of America’s identity but he has no alternative definition. This is how the Left plays the game. They condemn your definition but offer no coherent alternative. Their definition of everything is just “not that.”

pic.twitter.com/UG8JcsSKpn

— Matt Walsh (@MattWalshBlog) March 10, 2025

Nationalism vs. Managed Decline

Beneath every policy debate is the question of who America belongs to.

• 50-65% of discussion is charged with a revitalization narrative, where national rebirth is tied to economic protectionism, moral restoration, and an iron-fisted break from globalist decay.
• 30-35% are resentful toward elites, media, or globalist puppet masters—expressing a sense of betrayal rather than clear solutions.
• 10-15% exist in a rationalist limbo, trying to use data and policy to navigate a world that is increasingly ruled ideology.

There is no neutral ground. But a subset of those discussing immigration and national identity still think in terms of governance rather than conflict. They consider institutional integrity as salvageable in a world that no longer respects it.

Tone and Linguistic Brutality

The language in these discussions is not diplomatic. It is charged, profane, and uncompromising—abandoning persuasion in favor of declaration and mockery.

• 65-70% of posts are openly aggressive, laced with profanity and polemics.
• 20% use sarcasm, irony, or dark humor as weapons of dismissal.
• 10-15% attempt a neutral or fact-based tone, largely ignored by the rest.

There seems to be little space for detached intellectualism, only ad hominem, ideological agendas, and attempts to overwhelm opponents through sheer linguistic force.

Populist Myth vs. Managerial Realism

American discourse is populist, adversarial, and Manichean:

• 60% frame reality as "us vs. them"—whether it be against elites, immigrants, globalists, or media apparatchiks.
• 30% rely on historical anecdotes, using Western civilization, past wars, or economic collapses as rhetorical weapons.
• 10-15% engage in formal, policy-driven arguments, attempting to apply technocratic analysis to an increasingly irrational political world.

Those who appeal to reason find themselves drowned out by those who invoke war, struggle, and existential threats. This is the landscape of modern American discourse—not a forum for ideas, but a battlefield of narratives.

I watched that Sam Seder Jubilee episode and if young latino men are this indoctrinated into Christian Nationalism we are in big trouble. I am disgusted! pic.twitter.com/WUhqoDolIY

— Candidly Tiff (@tify330) March 10, 2025

Sovereignty or Irrelevance?

The responses to the viral immigration exchange likely hints at the trajectory of the issues in public discourse. The American right is at an impasse, caught between its instinct for dominance and its fear of centralization. Many are stuck yearning for a mythic past but needing to govern a chaotic present.

The left more often operates with managerial efficiency, controlling institutions, setting cultural parameters, and tightening its grip. The discourse is often more about how to use power rather than whether it should be used.

Voters seem to be grappling between assertion versus dissolution, identity and erasure, power and irrelevance. A worldwide map of recorded Black Lives Matter protests shows Western Europe events reach the highest volume and ratio of American-centric events. This may suggest Western Europeans and Americans share direction and identity.

An apparent surge in support, positivity, and engagement for the Kamala Harris presidential campaign is confusing many Americans. Despite media claims that the highly relatable, meme-friendly, and accomplished Vice President is gaining historic levels of support, many voters remain skeptical.

In addition to feeling much of the hype seems insincere, Americans are talking about suspicious media and Democrat efforts to modify public understanding of Harris’s political track record. The discourse reveals a potent blend of ideology, identity politics, and performance in public office fueling public opinion.

Critics debate Kamala Harris’s qualifications and achievements, often within the context of identity politics, questioning whether her gender and race unjustly shield her from criticism or amplify her credentials. Many also skewer the mainstream media for its increasingly obvious hypocrisy in reporting the VP’s accomplishments and embarrassments.

Protective Cover from the Media

Many Americans view Harris's policies and political endeavors as extremely liberal. This perception would likely damage her chances given the majority of Americans do not align with the far, progressive left.

There's also a perception that media outlets are systematically erasing or altering aspects of her record to present a moderated version of her stances. Examples of this include:

• Her position as “Border Czar”
• Her complicity in covering up Biden’s health and reasons for withdrawing
• Her renown as the “most liberal” Senator
• Her support for the Minnesota Freedom Fund
• Whether she was chosen for her accomplishments rather than her identity

Border Czar

The accusations against media outlets began when headlines claimed Kamala Harris was never named “Border Czar” for the Biden administration. Many people pointed out that, until now, everyone agreed and accepted the colloquial title given to her as the administration’s person in charge of the border.

Americans and right leaning journalists criticized the media for walking this back and even retroactively changing pervious reporting. Axios received significant backlash for modifying one of its own articles from 2021, which mention Harris as Border Czar.

CALLED IT. These pathetic Democrat hacks are the most predictably dishonest people on earth. https://t.co/hzft99D9Zg pic.twitter.com/iox1dlRgGR

— Sean Davis (@seanmdav) July 24, 2024

Some also criticized Wikipedia for apparently removing Kamala Harris from the list of historical Border Czars for the U.S.

Update: Wikipedia completely scrubbed Kamala from its executive branch czar page. The Axios article is no longer even listed in the citations. https://t.co/TBF6oHNrHx pic.twitter.com/oCn5Rp0I0h

— James Lynch (@jameslynch32) July 25, 2024

Criticism toward Democrats and the media grew overwhelming when a cue card was leaked which claimed to give the press talking point from the Harris campaign to deny and dismiss Border Czar claims.

Wow.

A Democrat lawmaker confirmed to FOX that Dems have received a piece of paper with talking points/lies about how to discuss Kamala Harris' role at the Southern border.

They are already using the exact lines.https://t.co/CITguKLWCD pic.twitter.com/Bo8pxla61M

— Bobby Burack (@burackbobby_) July 25, 2024

When asked about the cue card, White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre claimed to have no knowledge of it. This also generated criticism and backlash from voters who view the current administration as colluding with the media to promote Kamala Harris’s campaign.

JUST IN: Peter Doocy confronts KJP on the now-infamous "talking points" card that tells reporters to deny Kamala Harris was ever appointed "Border Czar."

Let the games begin. 🤣pic.twitter.com/QvfOWZy4a1

— Kyle Becker (@kylenabecker) July 25, 2024

Most Liberal Senator

GovTrack's also received sharp backlash for deleting its 2019 rating of Harris as the "most liberal senator." This deletion is seen as an attempt by the media to cover up or obscure her true political leanings to make her more palatable to moderate voters.

BREAKING: GovTrack just DELETED their 2019 page that ranked Kamala Harris as THE MOST LIBERAL of all 100 Senators

It would be a shame if we made it viral: pic.twitter.com/Pi6KvngOTh

— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) July 24, 2024

Harris critics often label her policies as “communist” and express concerns about her support for open borders, defunding the police, and providing benefits to illegal immigrants. This, people say, is the reason the establishment apparatus is being used to hide her legacy.

Commentary about Kamala’s support for programs such as the Green New Deal, socialized healthcare, and defunding law enforcement positions her even further left than other prominent Democrats, including Bernie Sanders. Most Americans think of these views as dangerously socialist or Marxist and in the minority.

BREAKING: Footage found of VP Kamala Harris supporting DEFUND THE POLICE:

"It's about upending the system"
"We need to look at police budgets"
"More safety with more cops is wrong" pic.twitter.com/0HxUQeov9x

— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) July 26, 2024

Minnesota Freedom Fund

There is also controversy around claims asserting or denying Kamala Harris donated or promoted the Minnesota Freedom Fund—which helps bail out protesters. News outlets published headlines denying Harris donated to the fund, also implying she never supported it. This drew an avalanche videos, articles, and posts being shared to debunk the claim.

Reports from the same outlets and reporters in the past said, “Kamala Harris urged people to donate to the fund while it was bailing out protestors. Since then, it’s been posting bail for other offenders, including one who Republicans say committed a murder in downtown St. Paul.”

This might be the most blatant lie I’ve ever seen.

Esme, the author of this article, was literally at our press conference in 2022 on the light rail platform where a man was murdered by a criminal the Minnesota Freedom Fund had bailed out a short time before.

She then aired… https://t.co/hGinFk7DK0 pic.twitter.com/WSHurmPGBy

— Nick Majerus (@njmajerus) July 26, 2024

The reasons for significant negative sentiment toward Harris and the media appear to stem largely from a broader distrust in institutions. There is a growing perception that there are concerted efforts to hide truths about Kamala’s record to help the Democratic Party. This distrust is further exacerbated by a polarized political climate where ideological purity and alignment are heavily scrutinized and often radicalized.

Trump's Madison Square Garden (MSG) rally is spurring wild and fervent discussion just a week ahead of Election Day. The rally’s impact, intensified by strong media framing, shows sharp divides among Republicans, Democrats, and Independents. But MIG Reports data shows the mainstream media’s plan to demonize Trump voters may be backfiring.

The top discussion topics related to the rally are:

• A comedian who goes by the state name “Kill Tony” joked about Puerto Rico being a “floating island of garbage.”
• The media’s reaction comparing the rally to a 1939 pro-Nazi rally at MSG.
• Trump campaigning in blue states like New York, suggesting he wants to win them.
• High energy and triumph for the MAGA movement around the size of the rally.

At Trump’s Madison Square Garden rally, podcast host and comedian Kill Tony referred to Puerto Rico as a “floating island of garbage,” during his set.

Notably, four percent of Pennsylvanians are Puerto Rican.

Around 500,000 people. pic.twitter.com/txE3UD0QVE

— Yashar Ali 🐘 (@yashar) October 27, 2024

The Media’s Streisand Effect?

Mainstream media outlets presented Trump’s rally through a highly critical lens. Many compared it to a 1939 pro-Nazi rally at MSG, calling Trump’s event an echo of the same.

This framing doubles down on the Harris campaign’s recent messaging of Trump as a fascist and a Nazi sympathizer. However, the media’s portrayal drew different reactions across groups—either as a rallying cry or confirmation of a disingenuous media.

• Independent are Split: Independents and undecideds are divided, with 65% viewing the media’s portrayal as excessive, while 35% feel it’s justified.
• Republicans Dismiss Hysteria: Republicans overwhelmingly dismiss Nazi comparisons as unfair attacks. Many say the strategy is backfiring since dramatic and hysterical rhetoric sounds unserious to reasonable people.
• Democrats Love Nazi Comparisons: Most Democratic voters say the Nazi comparison is accurate and necessary. They see it as an obvious conclusion in light of their beliefs about Trump as a fascist.

Among persuadable voters and those who are not deeply partisan Democrats, most voters view the media’s rhetoric as over the top. However, because the Harris campaign and mainstream media are leaning so hard into the Nazi comparisons, more voters are taking to social media to express their criticism.

New York a Swing State?

At the rally, Vivek Ramaswamy stirred discussion with his assertion that “New York could become a swing state.” This remark, intended to convey optimism about Republican growth in traditionally Democratic areas, receives mixed reactions.

VIVEK: “Welcome to 2024. New York is a swing state.” 🔥 pic.twitter.com/Uqv4ScJ3bj

— Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) October 27, 2024

• Republicans mostly embrace Ramaswamy’s comments, seeing his assertion as a bold and energizing signal of shifting political tides. The idea of New York as a potential battleground boosts morale among Republicans.
• Democrats dismiss Ramaswamy’s statement as unrealistic, perceiving it as wishful thinking. Many Democratic commenters say New York’s demographics and liberal base will not be competitive any time soon.
• Independents are divided. Some appreciate the ambitious tone, viewing it as optimistic for political realignments. However, many also question the practicality of Republicans winning over a heavily liberal electorate.

AOC Feigns Outrage

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was holding an online gaming rally with VP candidate Tim Walz during the MSG rally. Reacting to Tony Hinchcliffe’s Puerto Rico joke, AOC tweeted her offense, saying “4,000+ Puerto Ricans died” under Trump.

She framed the joke as representative of the MAGA movement’s disregard for marginalized communities, calling for Latino voters to share the offense with their families. However, AOC subsequently tweeted admitting she was not offended by the joke, but solely for Hinchcliffe’s willingness to go on stage for Trump.

And before people try to act like this is some PC overly sensitive nonsense, I’ve been to Kill Tony shows. I’m from the Bronx. I don’t give a shit about crude humor.

But don’t pretend that your support for Trump is a joke. Own it. You doing a set to support him. That’s a choice.

— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) October 27, 2024

• Democrats support AOC’s criticisms, voicing urgency for opposing Trump.
• Republicans mock and dismiss, AOC as politically motivated and disingenuous.
• Independents are split between being offended by the joke and viewing AOC’s reaction as trivial and dramatic.

Independents Mostly Distrust the Media

For Independents and undecideds, the MSG rally only became a point of interest following media characterizations. This led many to compare Trump’s populist messaging with the media’s critical framing.

• Nazi Rally: Around 65% of Independents dismiss the Nazi rally comparisons as media hyperbole. Only 35% accept it as a legitimate warning of rising extremism.
• Puerto Rico Joke: About 30% of discussions among Independents condemned the Puerto Rico joke, perceiving it as offensive to Latino voters.
• Potential Sway: 15% say they sense desperation among Democrats and that pushes them toward Trump.

Election Impact from Undecideds

The media’s framing generally mobilizes Democrats, reinforces Republican loyalty, and divides Independents. An already polarized electorate mostly responds with heightened partisanship. However, moderates and undecideds who are already skeptical of Democrats say the dramatic rhetoric turns them off.

• Trump Support: 55% of undecided voters say the media’s portrayal and Nazi comparisons makes them more likely to vote for Trump.
• Extremism Concern: 45% of undecideds lament inflammatory comments made during the event, suggesting it repulsed them from supporting Trump.

While many agree there are very few votes available to be swayed, MIG Reports data consistently shows undecideds likely leaning toward Trump.

Republicans are Unfazed

Unsurprisingly, Republicans are energized. They view turnout in a Democratic stronghold as a point of pride. They say the rally is a celebration of American solidarity and patriotism, framing criticisms as further proof of media bias against conservatives.

• Turnout Pride: Around 75% of Republicans are celebrating the success of the rally, seeing it as an affirmation of Trump’s draw and a sign of enduring support.
• Media Criticism: Roughly 65% believe the “Nazi rally” label is a biased attack, reinforcing views of Trump as a political outsider fighting establishment elites.
• Puerto Rico Joke: Only about 20% find the joke about Puerto Rico inappropriate, most dismiss the backlash as feigned outrage by Democrats like AOC.
• Unity: Many Republicans mention endorsements from minority groups, including Puerto Ricans, saying this refutes media portrayals of the rally as exclusionary.

Democrats Worked into a Froth

A whopping 80% of Democrats view the rally as a gathering of extremism. They call the rhetoric exclusionary and inflammatory, using the Puerto Rico joke as a prime example. They almost wholly embrace the media’s framing, presenting an urgent call to the ideological battle against Trump and his base.

• Hate Speech: 80% of Democrats see the rally as promoting hate speech, viewing the “Nazi rally” comparison as an accurate description.
• Focus on Mobilization: 70% call for strong voter turnout, using the rally as a call to reject Trump and get people to the ballot box.
• A Thread of Hope: Roughly 65% of Democrats say the rally’s tone could alienate undecided voters. They hope undecided voters will side with them, ignoring those who feel alienated by the media’s rhetoric.