-
Male voters are becoming a critical group to shore up in the presidential election, as Democrats make overtures and men react. Obama speaking out and a male-targeted Harris ad seem to do little to sway men, while J.D. Vance speaks directly to them about workforce reintegration and border security.
Vance’s Appeal to Working American Men
With male voters becoming a decisive demographic in 2024, J.D. Vance’s comments on immigration, workforce reintegration, and his deft confrontations with the media are appealing to his peers. Despite Democrats’ best efforts, the campaign’s actions suggest desperation at cratering support from American men.
Tampon Tim just can't figure out why male voters prefer President Trump and JD Vance over him and Kamala: "I refuse to admit that that's real."
— Trump War Room (@TrumpWarRoom) October 14, 2024
😂🤣 pic.twitter.com/8XKlDXaR3Z- 76% of male voters agree with Vance on border security, reacting positively to his media appearances.
- 57% voice skepticism toward Democratic outreach efforts.
- 22% view Democratic overtures positively.
In the last 30 days, J.D. Vance has improved his appeal with voters, performing well in the vice-presidential debate and reinforcing his image with prolific media appearances. A month ago, average sentiment toward Vance was 42%, while today it’s close to 50%. Meanwhile, Tim Walz faces a decline in sentiment, hovering around 46% a month ago but dropping to 44% today.
J.D. Vance Takes Down Left-Wing Media
Despite significant critical media coverage and hardball interviews, J.D. Vance is increasing his sentiment with American voters—especially men. His recent comments on immigration and economic nationalism during recent interviews resonate deeply with male voters, particularly those disillusioned by the American economy and job market.
During his interview with The New York Times, Vance explained his views on deporting illegal immigrants and reengaging American men in the workforce, particularly in construction and other blue-collar jobs. Many voters responded positively, appreciating his articulate counter-narrative to popular Democratic messaging of sympathy for immigrants.
NYT reporter Lulu Garcia-Navarro sits in silence as JD Vance educates her on the labor force participation rate relating to illegal immigration.
— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) October 12, 2024
Garcia-Navarro tried arguing that illegal immigrants can't be deported because America needs them for jobs.
She pointed to the… pic.twitter.com/SiNwyldSwRMale Voter Reactions:
- 64% of men support Vance’s policies on workforce reintegration and immigration.
- 28% express skepticism, viewing his policies as oversimplifications of complex labor dynamics.
Vance's tough stance, especially on construction jobs, earns him praise from blue-collar voters. His comments that American men could fill labor gaps if immigrants were deported plays positively with that group. Around 70% of male voters agree with Vance’s immigration approach, seeing it as a necessary step to reclaim job opportunities for native-born workers.
Only 25% raise questions around the feasibility of these plans. They suggest many American men are unwilling to take on lower-wage, physically demanding jobs, which are often filled by immigrants.
- Overall, Vance’s approval in the last week has remained steady, with a slight uptick on jobs, housing, and border security.
"Only a Handful” of Venezuelan Gangs
Vance’s discussion with Martha Raddatz on ABC News further elicited conversation around immigration and crime. Raddatz downplayed reports that Venezuelan gangs have taken over apartment complexes in Aurora, Colorado, sparking a firestorm of backlash from voters.
Raddatz: "The incidents were limited to a handful of apartment complexes... A handful!"@JDVance: "Do you hear yourself? Only a handful of apartment complexes were taken over by Venezuelan gangs and Donald Trump is the problem and not Kamala Harris' open border?"
— Trump War Room (@TrumpWarRoom) October 13, 2024
🔥 pic.twitter.com/VY4Ai35YJkThose who believe the media routinely downplays crime associated with illegal immigration are rallying behind Vance, who criticized the way Raddatz framed the issue. Critics, though fewer, accuse him of stoking xenophobic fears to gain political traction.
MIG Reports Analysis
- 76% of male voters agree with Vance’s position on border security, expressing concern that illegal immigration is exacerbating crime.
- 84% distrust mainstream media outlets, which they accuse of downplaying these issues to support Democratic policies.
- 57% of male voters remain skeptical of Democratic outreach efforts.
Raddatz attempted to dismiss Vance’s concerns saying only “a handful” of apartment complexes are plagued by migrant gangs. Male voters in particular express outrage, with many reiterating that any level of crime linked to illegal immigration is unacceptable. The sentiment of “Make America Safe Again” routinely appears in these discussions, further aligning Vance’s policies with a growing base who feel ignored by media and the left.
Democrats Panic About Male Voters
Democrats, meanwhile, show signs of panic over men drifting away from their platform. Recently, multiple efforts have been rolled out aimed at engaging this demographic. Unfortunately, the results have been underwhelming.
Obama’s Comments to Black Men
Former President Obama addressed black men directly, urging them to support the Democratic ticket, particularly Kamala Harris. But this message has largely fallen flat. More men are voicing their views that Democratic policies are out of touch with their economic and security concerns.
Black men seem to have taken to TikTok to slam Obama for his remarks last night. pic.twitter.com/zGtD0AMEcp
— Insurrection Barbie (@DefiyantlyFree) October 12, 2024Harris Campaign Ad
The Harris campaign also released an ad targeting men, attempting to redefine what it means to be “man enough.” Unfortunately, only 22% of male voters responded positively. Many reactions criticized the ad, claiming it failed in its attempt to resonate with male identity. Men cite a lack of authenticity in the messaging, perceiving it as a failure to understand their priorities.
I present to you the cringiest political ad ever created. pic.twitter.com/P0JMI1caNS
— Champagne Joshi (@JoshWalkos) October 11, 2024Tim Walz’s Hunting Photo Op
Next, the campaign trotted out VP candidate Tim Walz, attempting to court rural and working-class male voters. The staged hunting-themed photo op generated a tidal of memes about Walz, whose proficiency with a gun came across as lacking. Around 60% of voters describe the event as insincere and staged. The photo op drew comparisons to John Kerry’s infamous hunting stunt during the 2004 election, which also failed to resonate.
Tampon was REALLY struggling today pic.twitter.com/KG3zQfAKOJ
— Trump War Room (@TrumpWarRoom) October 12, 2024
Articles
Discussions responding to betting market odd of a Harris versus Trump presidential win, show Trump ahead. Social media discourse reveals both preferences for candidates and key concerns driving voter motivations.
Kamala Harris just agreed to a Fox News interview this week
— Kalshi (@Kalshi) October 14, 2024
Meanwhile Trump's lead on Kalshi continues to expand
🔴Donald Trump 53%
🔵Kamala Harris 47% pic.twitter.com/ecEECyS2Pz
Analysis of reactions to betting market predictions show strong support and enthusiasm for Trump, while Harris faces skepticism and criticism.
Summary of Findings
- There is strong negative sentiment toward Kamala Harris with accusations of incompetence and weak leadership.
- Positive sentiment and enthusiasm toward Donald Trump, especially regarding his past performance on the economy and security.
- Concerns about election integrity and fairness, particularly media bias and potential voter manipulation.
- Immigration and security concerns feature prominently, largely favoring Trump’s policies.
- Betting market forecasts predict Trump with a slight edge, though both candidates retain significant support.
Forecasting the Likelihood of a Winner
Social media discussions suggest Americans view Trump as having a slight edge—this is also revealed betting market odds. Predictions from MIG Reports data show Trump with 55-60% voter support, while Harris gains around 40-45%. This slight advantage for Trump is driven by the intensity of supporter loyalty and their confidence in his ability to win the election.
Negative Sentiment Toward Harris
Part of what drives Trump’s odd in the prediction markets is negativity toward Harris. At least 60% of negative sentiment is directed at Harris. This negativity stems from perceptions of her incompetence, dishonesty, and ineffective leadership.
Voters say she is unable to manage the economy, border security, and disaster response. Some also label her a "liar" or "narcissist." Much of this discourse positions Harris as failing to meet the expectations of voters who prioritize strong governance.
This negative sentiment is amplified by critiques of her economic policies, with many commenters asserting she has not adequately addressed economic policies and plans. Americans view her policy proposals as politically expedient rather than results-oriented, which creates a barrier to her appeal.
Critiques are not only directed at her professional abilities but also on voter distrust, painting Harris as disconnected from the needs of the electorate.
Positive Sentiment Toward Trump
Conversely, Trump has strong support in social media discussions, with up to 85% of positive sentiment focused on him. Supporters cite his past economic successes and highlight his assertive leadership style. They use nostalgic language, emphasizing his “America First” policies and framing him as protecting traditional values.
Trump’s base is energized, expressing confidence that he will win the election. Phrases like “freedom” and “MAGA” dominate the conversation, indicating the potency of his populist appeal. Voters see him as the candidate to correct policy missteps the Biden-Harris administration, but also as the candidate to restore economic and national stability.
Concerns About Election Integrity
Both sides express concerns about election integrity as 40% of the comments voice skepticism about the fairness of the election. Trump supporters fear voter fraud or manipulation and Harris supporters fear media bias and vote suppression. There is an overall sense that the election’s outcome could be contested or undermined, regardless of who wins.
Concerns about fairness seem to fuel the enthusiasm for Trump, as many of his supporters believe winning the election will require overcoming institutional bias and cheating. This narrative has the potential to increase voter turnout on both sides, as each camp feels the integrity of their political system is at stake.
Immigration and Security Concerns
Immigration and border security is a force tipping the scales for Trump. Many argue Harris’s policies enable uncontrolled immigration, which they associate with increased crime and economic instability.
Around 75% of comments contain concern about immigration. These discussions favor Trump’s tougher stance and frame Harris as unable to handle the issue. Trump supporters view his leadership on this issue as a central reason for their continued loyalty.
Economic Issues
Trump’s successful first term regarding economic stability and growth are a major driver of positive sentiment. Roughly 68% of discussions express support for Trump, framing him as the candidate for restoring prosperity and reversing inflationary trends. Harris’s economic platform receives 65% of critical comments, highlighting her inability to navigate the complexities of recovery.
These conversations focus on how Trump’s policies led to higher employment rates, tax cuts, and general economic optimism. Voters view Harris as reactive and tied to an administration that has struggled to contain economic challenges.
Affirmative Language and Enthusiasm
Kamala Harris
Discussion about Harris does not generate significant affirmative language or enthusiasm. Less than 25% of comments voice positive sentiment towards her, and less than 10% express strong enthusiasm. Much of her support is defensive, with advocates highlighting the need for unity and social progress. However, Harris voters lack the fervor of Trump’s base. Phrases like “we can do this” appear, but they often lack the energetic confidence seen in Trump’s camp.
Donald Trump
Trump’s base voices robust enthusiasm, with 75% of comments using positive or affirmative language. His base frequently uses phrases like “MAGA” and “vote for my freedoms,” depicting a sense of urgency and passion about his candidacy. Enthusiasm for Trump remains high, peaking near 80% of comments showing strong engagement. This suggests his supporters are not only vocal but motivated to turn out and vote.
15
Oct
On October 11, a cargo train robbery in Chicago sparked significant online discussion, with many concerns emerging, from public safety to economic stability and governance. The discussions intertwine layered responses that highlight growing anxiety, frustration, and polarization in American communities.
🚨#BREAKING: Dozens of people are actively looting and breaking into a cargo train ⁰⁰📌#Chicago | #illinois⁰⁰At this time, an estimated 50 to 150 people or more are actively looting and breaking into a cargo train on the west side of Chicago, Illinois. Police have been… pic.twitter.com/SwDIOnSE90
— R A W S A L E R T S (@rawsalerts) October 11, 2024
Cities Aren’t Safe
Public safety is a top discussion theme with 60-65% of reactions across different demographic groups reflecting negative sentiment.
Americans view the robbery as emblematic of rising crime in urban environments. This exacerbates fears about the breakdown of law and order. Many commenters link the event to overall urban violence and decline. There are heightened feelings of vulnerability, particularly among older populations and those living in urban areas. Americans insist on the need for increased vigilance in the wake of the robbery, with some saying they are altering their daily routines in response to the incident.
Political Problems
Political accountability is another dominant topic, with around 60% of comments expressing criticism of local and national leaders for failing to uphold community safety.
Voters blame politicians, particularly those aligned with liberal policies, accusing them of failing to address crime effectively. This sentiment is particularly pronounced among conservative voices and those advocating for law-and-order. Progressives focus on systemic factors, citing economic inequality and the need for community investment, rather than punitive measures following incidents like this.
Top Issues for Urban Americans
Economic Factors
Around 40-50% of comments express economic anxiety, with some linking crime to inequality and some fearing long-term repercussions for local economics.
The economic impact of the robbery is a significant concern, especially regarding how crime affects businesses and the local economy. Discussions about the robbery frequently mention the destabilizing effects of organized crime on small businesses, the logistics industry, and local commerce. Reform vs Reckoning
Some advocate for increased law enforcement and harsher penalties. Others call for systemic reforms to address poverty and inequality. This polarization is greater among urban residents who express more anxiety than their suburban counterparts.
We The People, Can’t
In addition to concerns about safety and governance, many point to growing distrust in government and law enforcement ability to handle crime effectively. Roughly 70% of commenters express frustration with ineffective policies. Many say these policies prioritize political agendas over community safety. This frustration feeds into disillusionment with institutions, spurring demands for systemic change.
Overall, Americans talk of a fractured society grappling with questions about security, governance, and justice. The robbery, while a singular event, has become a focal point exemplifying anxieties about the future of urban life in America. Voters want accountability, demanding politicians and law enforcement officials take decisive action to restore trust and security.
15
Oct
A viral post on X discussing the state of decay across many elements in American life received more than 46 million views. The commentary on American life, which some call a “competency crisis,” resonates with people across the country.
I'M SHOCKED.
— Nathan Lands — Lore.com (@NathanLands) October 11, 2024
After living in Japan for over two years, I recently visited the USA with my wife. It made me realize that the USA is dysfunctional in so many ways and has such a low-quality standard across the board.
Here are the things I noticed:
MIG Reports analysis shows Americans are grappling with perceptions of systemic dysfunction, institutional failure, and declining competence. Discussions reveal embedded anxieties about leadership, governance, and the future of the country.
Public sentiment on topics like efficiency, service degradation, and operational decline includes distrust, frustration, and a desire for more effective leadership.
Distrust in Government
Across multiple crises, the common thread of distrust in government dominates American discussions. There is perceived inefficiency in economic management and government failure to address key national concerns. Many Americans express profound skepticism toward leadership.
- In discussions about the "efficiency crisis," 34% of comments highlight a lack of faith in political leaders from both major parties. Many view government actions as ineffectual or disingenuous.
- In discussions about “institutional failure" 78% of Americans are frustrated with current leadership, particularly regarding rising living costs and the government's inability to manage public resources effectively.
- Distrust extends to concerns over “systemic dysfunction,” where 60% say governmental institutions are either corrupt or incompetent.
- The pervasive lack of confidence in leadership underlines a broader societal shift where citizens feel increasingly disconnected from their representatives.
Economic Hardship and Anxiety
Economic concerns feature prominently in discussions about institutional failure, service degradation, and operational decline. Many Americans directly attribute economic instability to government mismanagement, particularly regarding rising living costs and inadequate disaster responses.
- In discussions about "Institutional Failure," 70% of comments cite economic hardship as a direct result of government policies. Most people feel the government's reported economic successes, such as low unemployment, do not match reality.
- In discussions about “service degradation,” 22% emphasize economic anxiety as a key concern. People mention fears of a "1929-style depression."
- In discussions about "operational decline," 45% focus on the increasing cost of living, feeding resentment toward political elites.
Polarization and Disillusionment
Political polarization and disillusionment are central to the discourse on governance and systemic decline. Many Americans feel the country is more divided than ever, with the discourse about leadership featuring an "us versus them" mentality.
- In discussions of “systemic dysfunction,” 35% of comments reflect the growing political divide. Many view those with opposing political views as a threat to societal stability.
- In discussions about the "competency crisis," 40% express frustration with the two-party political system. People accuse Democrats and Republicans of failing to address the needs of ordinary Americans.
- “Distrust in institutions” is high, with 50% questioning the integrity of political leaders. Some discuss the belief that elections are rigged or manipulated.
- Disillusionment with the political process fosters a climate of cynicism, where many Americans feel neither party offers meaningful solutions to the country's problems.
Desire for Leadership and Accountability
Amidst the frustration and disillusionment, there is a clear desire for strong, effective leadership to address crises.
- 28% say they hope for progressive leadership, particularly from Kamala Harris, who they believe can advocate for marginalized communities.
- 75% want assertive leadership that can implement decisive and strong actions to resolve national crises.
- Among both groups, there is a consistent call for accountability in leadership.
- Around half of the discussion expresses urgency for political change, emphasizing the need for citizens to vote to prevent future failures.
Emotional and Social Impacts
Americans are not just concerned with governmental inefficiencies—they are emotionally affected by the perceived failures of their leaders.
- Discussions about “service degradation” show 32% are disappointed in leadership, particularly over inadequate responses to natural disasters like Hurricane Helene.
- Many feel the government's inability to meet their needs has led to widespread social division.
- People feel emotional strain, expressing fear about safety, financial stability, and the future of the country.
- This emotional toll is compounded by a sense of isolation, as people notice social divisions are deepening, with neighbors turning against each other based on political beliefs.
- Despite this, there is also an undercurrent of resilience, emphasizing the importance of community solidarity in overcoming institutional failures.
15
Oct
A recent video of assault on former New York Governor David Paterson and his stepson has ignited conversations about safety, crime, and political accountability. Discussions reveal societal concerns about urban violence, the vulnerability of public figures, and systemic issues tied to race and governance.
Video has been released showing former New York Gov. David Paterson, who is blind, being beaten with his stepson in Manhattan: pic.twitter.com/DKISbohRWg https://t.co/xHX7tx9sch
— Andy Ngo 🏳️🌈 (@MrAndyNgo) October 9, 2024
MIG Reports analysis shows Democratic and Republican reactions, while both focused on the event’s implications, diverge in their framing of the underlying causes and necessary responses.
Patterson Beaten
The assault on Paterson prompted voter discussions spanning concerns over public safety to critiques of political leadership.
- 70% of discussions express fear about rising urban violence.
- 55% advocate for accountability and systemic reform.
- Overall sentiment expresses urgency for change, but there is also skepticism about the efficacy of law enforcement.
There is a wide spectrum of emotional responses, with many framing the assault as part of a broader societal trend of instability and inequality.
Democrat Viewpoints
The Democratic narrative emphasizes racial justice and systemic reform. For many, the assault on Paterson—a prominent African American leader—is framed as part of ongoing struggles against racial violence and systemic inequalities.
- 75% of discussions among Democrats express outrage over the incident, calling for immediate legislative changes and reforms to address these systemic issues.
- Conversations highlight solidarity with marginalized communities, focusing on the disproportionate impact of urban violence on minorities.
- The language uses a tone of urgency, with frequent calls for justice and reform and a focus on systemic change.
Republican Viewpoints
Republicans focus more on crime rates and government accountability. They view the assault as part of larger concerns about the safety of public figures and the failure of local governments to address urban crime effectively.
- 62% of Republican conversations mention concerns about public safety and the lack of effective law enforcement.
- There is fear and frustration, but emphasis is on individual accountability and critiques of leadership.
- Around 9% of Republicans are indifferent, viewing the assault as an isolated incident rather than indicative of systemic issues.
Differences in Linguistic Patterns and Sentiment
There are also linguistic differences between political viewpoints. Democrats emphasize reform-oriented language, frequently using phrases like “enough is enough” and hashtags like #JusticeForPaterson. This language calls for systemic change and structural reforms to address both violence and inequality.
Republicans more often use language of fear and nostalgia. Older demographics in particular reminisce about safer times and express fear over current urban crime trends. The Republican focus on law enforcement and individual safety rather than larger societal critiques.
14
Oct
A viral video from Texas poll worker training reignited concerns about election integrity. In the clip, a trainer says the Texas Secretary of State is directing poll workers to allow non-citizen IDs to be used as valid identification at polling places. He explained this by saying poll workers are to “assume” non-citizens have become naturalized but simply failed to update their ID.
🚨BREAKING: Texas Secretary of State directs poll workers to accept NON CITIZEN driver’s licenses as ID to vote.
— Joseph Trimmer (@JosephTrimmer_) October 9, 2024
WATCH Denton County Elections Administrator Frank Phillips telling poll worker trainees SOS elections director
advised non citizen ID ok to vote.
See receipts🕵🏻 pic.twitter.com/MDIuRy2vPD
This video is sparking debate in Texas and across the country about ongoing election integrity concerns. For those already worried about election integrity, emerging reports imply calculated efforts by state and local officials to muddy the waters on voting transparency.
Republicans Most Concerned about Voter Fraud
- Conservatives: 75% believe allowing non-citizen IDs invites fraud and undermines election integrity.
- Moderates: 50% are concerned over illegal immigrants voting, though they emphasize they do not want legitimate votes suppressed.
- Liberals: 60% dismiss concerns of non-citizen voting, saying all measures in question are limited to ensuring access for legitimate voters.
Many on the right increasingly raise alarm about illegal immigrants potentially voting in the election. They say accepting non-citizen IDs is a direct assault on election integrity. Republicans are the most vocal about widespread fraud in the election, with some agreement from moderates.
Concerned voters feel betrayed by corrupt establishment powers willing to take drastic steps to secure the election for Democrats. Moderates, while less passionate, still echo caution about transparency after 2020 confusion and accusations.
Those on the left downplay concerns about illegal immigrants voting. They say illegitimate votes are either so minimal or nonexistent as to be unimportant. Instead, they focus on implementing inclusion measures, accusing conservatives of fearmongering and trying to suppress legitimate votes.
- In the last 14 days, sentiment regarding election integrity averaged 43.5% among Democrats and 39.7% among Republicans.
Election Integrity in Swing States
- 84% of voters fear fraud in critical swing states could sway election results.
- Fraud fears focus on cities like Atlanta, Philadelphia, and Detroit.
Election fraud in important swing states especially worries those who believe the election process is under threat. Many cite Arizona, Georgia, North Carolina, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Nevada as areas of high concern.
Battlegrounds where every vote is critical for securing a win put Americans are on high alert for fraud. A dramatic 84% of voters say they worry about improper voting practices, mentioning things like accepting non-citizen IDs or ballot harvesting.
Voters say they worry that even minimal fraud efforts in critical counties could sway state results and even the election. Cities like Atlanta, Philadelphia, and Detroit, where past allegations of fraud continue to sour trust, generate high levels of concern. Particularly on the right, many remain convinced that 2020 was rife with irregularities and attempts to exploit loopholes—both of which they say may happen again in 2024.
Disillusionment and Voter Turnout
- 45% of young voters (18-34) plan to vote in 2024.
- 62% of all voters believe media bias distorts election fraud realities.
- Many cite disillusionment with both major parties and the political system.
Many older voters are focused on election integrity, but younger voters say they feel disengaged and disillusioned. Less than half of the 18-34 demographic say they plan to vote in the 2024 election. Previous MIG Reports analysis also showed 45% of Christians say they do not plan to vote.
More than half of voters say mainstream media intentionally downplays legitimate concerns about voting irregularities. This fuels distrust in the press and voter confidence in government transparency. This distrust is strongest among Republicans who view the media as consistently running cover for Democrats.
Voter disillusionment is a growing issue for both parties, often stemming from distrust in institutions—including the election process. Young voters say Democrats and Republicans both fail to paint a compelling vision for the future. They often feel the entire political system is broken, voicing discouragement and apathy.
The risk for Trump is that growing disengagement could hurt turnout if voters do not believe the election process is secure. The GOP is making strides to implement election integrity measures, but whether that will assuage voter cynicism remains unclear.
Democrats Focus on Misinformation
- 78% of Democrats emphasize combating disinformation over voter fraud.
- Democrats worry about voter suppression and protecting access to voting.
- They dismiss worries about non-citizens voting, focusing instead on laws they see as restrictive—like voter ID laws.
Most Democrats dismiss concerns about election integrity, saying Republicans are stuck on 2020 narratives which have been proven untrue. This group is more worried about controlling disinformation on social media and right-leaning media outlets.
Combating voter suppression and preventing unfounded fraud allegations is a top priority for Democratic voters. They say election cheating narratives are politically motivated to suppress voter turnout, particularly in marginalized communities.
Republicans Tie Immigration to Election Fraud
- 72% of Republicans are skeptical about mail-in voting and illegals voting.
- 59% feel disillusioned about how GOP leadership is handling election integrity.
Skepticism and discouragement are high among Republicans. They say election integrity is critical, with 72% voicing worries about various voter fraud methods. Many Republicans believe Democrats plan to manipulate election results, with few precautions from GOP leaders.
A focal point of worry is on swing states, where control of the Senate and the White House could be at stake. Republicans often express feelings of betrayal by party leaders and say they lack confidence in a fair election.
14
Oct
Recently, Barack Obama appealed to black men, addressing them as "brothas," urging support for Kamala Harris. MIG Reports analysis shows wide-ranging and polarized reactions on social media.
NEW: Former President Barack Obama says the "brothas" aren't turning out for Kamala Harris like they did for him.
— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) October 10, 2024
The comments from Obama came during an event at the University of Pittsburgh where Obama sounded the alarm on black voters.
"We have not yet seen the same kinds of… pic.twitter.com/v77CHcOv2A
The response to Obama’s call brings up issues of identity, representation, and disillusionment within the black community—particularly black men. While there is support for and skepticism toward Obama's message, many raise questions about the larger implications of Democrats losing critical voter groups.
Reaction Trends
Skepticism and Criticism
Around 65-70% of reactions to Obama’s comments are skeptical or outright critical. Voters question Kamala Harris's authenticity as a representative of black Americans, citing concerns that her background and political record do not resonate with the struggles of black men.
Critics largely perceive Obama’s lecture as political manipulation, designed to rally votes without offering meaningful engagement with their concerns. The criticism extends to both Obama and Harris, with many expressing frustration that Democratic elites are disconnected from the economic and social struggles of the communities they claim to represent.
Support for Obama and Harris
Only 20-25% of voters react with support for Obama’s message. This group resonates with his call for racial solidarity. They view the appeal as a necessary rallying cry for empowering black leaders, emphasizing the importance of unity behind Harris.
Supporters believe voting for Harris represents a larger effort to secure political representation for marginalized voices, especially in a time of heightened political stakes. For these voters, Obama’s message carries the weight of moral and racial duty to uplift black leaders in positions of power.
Neutral or Indifferent Reactions
Another 10-15% make neutral or indifferent comments toward Obama’s appeal. They view his call as a standard political maneuver—lacking any significant personal relevance or emotional connection.
They perceive the plea as part of routine political rhetoric rather than a heartfelt call to action. For this group, the message does not resonate deeply enough to move their political allegiances or inspire any meaningful change in perspectives of Harris or the Democratic Party.
Identity and Representation
Across all discussions, the tension between identity politics and political authenticity is a recurring theme. Critical voters feel Obama used identity as leverage or as a political tool, with little regard for the true needs of black men.
Kamala Harris’s identity as a black woman is both a potential point of connection and a source of division. Many black voters feel her policies and political stances do not adequately address the challenges they face. A struggle between representation and authentic engagement is infused in skepticism about Obama's message.
Political Fatigue and Disillusionment
Voters also discuss political fatigue and disillusionment, especially among younger black voters. There is a feeling that Democratic leadership has failed to deliver on promises of change. People often mention economic instability, housing, and systemic inequality in their critical responses.
People are frustrated with empty rhetoric from political elites, with little tangible impact on their daily lives. This sense of betrayal and disillusionment has led to growing political apathy and a reluctance to engage in traditional political processes.
Fractured Political Loyalties
There is a fracture within the black electorate, with many black men feeling increasingly alienated from the Democratic Party. Skepticism toward Harris and the perceived disconnect between political leaders and the community leads to a shift in political loyalties.
This divide is particularly pronounced among younger voters, who are less likely to feel bound by traditional party lines. They are more inclined to question the authenticity and effectiveness of their political representatives.
Potential for Engagement
Despite overwhelming criticism and political fatigue, Obama's message still holds the potential to mobilize certain segments of the black electorate. For those who resonate with his call for unity, the appeal could serve as a rallying point for increased political activism.
However, high levels of skepticism and disillusionment may make it difficult for the Democratic Party to get engagement and voter turnout. Moving forward, the party will need to address these deeper concerns if it hopes to retain the support of black voters, particularly black men.
13
Oct
Analysis
-
A recent Nutter Butter campaign on TikTok is generating buzz across social media. People perceive it as a bold, unconventional approach to marketing, using AI-generated content and surreal humor. The quirky visuals and cryptic messaging have triggered widespread discussion, revealing cultural and generational shifts in how consumers engage with brands.
MIG Reports delves into the public reactions, unpacking the different sentiments expressed and what they reflect about broader trends in marketing, branding, and societal expectations.
1/5 Attention is everything.
— Martin O'Leary (@Martinoleary) October 8, 2024
Nutter Butter’s bizarre videos cut through the noise. Safe and boring?
That gets ignored.
Weird wins. 🔥 pic.twitter.com/NXAiSynMGwAmerican Reactions
Many are reacting to Nutter Butter’s campaign with amusement and appreciation for its creativity. Although there is skepticism and criticism over its perceived inauthenticity.
Positive reactions, driven largely by younger audiences, reflect a growing appetite for brands that embrace humor and relatability. Older demographics are more likely to question the effectiveness of such an unconventional approach.
Positive Reactions
- Around half of social media reactions express their enjoyment of the creative, AI-driven content.
- Younger audiences, the 18-25 demographic, resonate with the quirky, humorous visuals and playful engagement, which mirrors their digital lives.
- This group appreciates Nutter Butter’s departure from traditional advertising norms, celebrating its relatability and nostalgic elements of the campaign.
- For many, the campaign represents a refreshing break from polished, serious marketing, bringing the brand into a more personal and fun light.
Gen Z seems less concerned with brand prestige and more interested in how brands can fit seamlessly into their daily media consumption. As a result, Nutter Butter’s strategy successfully taps into the younger demographic’s desire for humor, innovation, and authenticity in brand interactions.
Neutral Reactions
- 20-30% of social media comments are neutral toward the campaign.
- There is curiosity or mild interest in the novelty of AI-generated content but lack a strong emotional connection to the brand.
- Some discuss the effectiveness of such a marketing strategy, wondering whether the trendy approach enhances or diminishes the brand’s identity.
The neutral tone suggests the campaign catches attention but may not deeply resonate with all consumers or drive sales.
Negative Reactions
- 15-30% of comments are skeptical or negative.
- Older demographics, the 30-45 demographic, express concerns about using AI in marketing.
- This group questions whether incongruent approaches damage brand value.
- Many critics feel that the campaign, while innovative, may alienate those who prefer traditional advertising that focuses on product quality and consumer trust.
- There is concern the campaign might be sacrificing brand seriousness and substance for the sake of humor and digital relevance.
Some voice concerns about the shallowness of the messaging, feeling the content’s cryptic nature and reliance on humor may overshadow Nutter Butter’s core product attributes. This exemplifies a broader cultural tension between embracing modern marketing techniques and maintaining the perceived quality and trustworthiness of established brands.
Cultural and Generational Reflections
The varied responses to Nutter Butter’s TikTok campaign underscore a significant cultural and generational shift in how brands interact with their audiences. Younger consumers, especially Gen Z and millennials, embrace risky and humorous branding that prioritizes entertainment and relatability over formality.
The campaign’s success among young people may signal consumer willingness to abandon traditional and legacy methods and mediums. Brands may increasingly be expected to break from traditional advertising conventions and connect with consumers in more human, approachable ways.
However, some argue edgy, unconventional communication tactics are universally appealing to younger generations. They say, what was avant-garde a generation ago is now tired, and the 18-25 demographic is predictable in its desire for “new” and “fresh” media. This interpretation leans away from signs of cultural shift, citing generational cycles as predictors of perceived shifts.
If there is a shift, it seems to confirm the growing power of social media on brand strategies. For Nutter Butter, the decision to lean into AI-generated creativity is a calculated move to stay relevant in a digital landscape.
AI’s Role in Modern Communication
Using AI technology to create surreal, distorted visuals also generates discussion. For some, AI represents a new frontier in marketing. The positive reaction from younger audiences shows their willingness to embrace technology-driven content. This aligns with their digital-first media consumption habits.
However, criticism voices concerns about the role of AI in shaping marketing, content, and news. Many older consumers worry that relying too heavily on AI-generated content will erode the human aspect of creative content as well as its quality and reliability.
Political Undercurrents
Younger generations, particularly Gen Z, prioritize authenticity, humor, and relatability in both advertising and political messaging. This shift coincides with a growing rejection of establishment traditions and methods. The forward-leaning use of AI in marketing, news, and politics, suggests traditional tactics may not appeal to younger audiences.
In a political context, Nutter Butter’s campaign validates growing pushback against established authority. Younger generations challenge political and institutional norms, embracing unconventional and disruptive communication tactics.
Older demographics, who often favor traditional, polished advertising, diverge in their strategies, often lacking connection with target audiences. This divide mirrors political polarization between generations. Meme-driven hype around the launch of Kamala Harris’s presidential campaign illustrates the generational divide on a political front.
12
Oct
-
Less than 30 days from the election, voter discussions focus on the economy, border security, disaster response. The ideological divides between Harris and Trump drive voter disagreements, but Trump looks stronger on sentiment and voter engagement.
What Voters are Saying
- 60-65% of voters voice positive opinions about Trump’s candidacy.
- The GOP base uses affirmative language of personal commitment and agency.
- 35-40% say they support Harris, with discussions driven by party loyalty and anti-Trump sentiment.
- Feelings toward Harris are mixed, with critiques of her leadership often dominating discussions.
Trump
Affirmative and Personal Support
Trump's supporters use strong, first-person language like "I believe" and "I will vote," reflecting personal investment and a sense of urgency to restore national stability.
Voters view him as competent with economic policy and national security. These issues, along with immigration, drive voter support. Many say they hope he will be a corrective force against Biden-Harris failures over the last four years.
Opposition to Democrats
Some of Trump’s support comes from voters frustrated with Biden and Harris. They disapprove of how Democrats have handled certain crises like immigration, the economy, and natural disasters. Trump's leadership offers hope for a return to order, with voters frequently invoking themes of national pride and urgency for change.
Harris
Opposition to Trump
Voter support for Harris is largely reactive. Most of her backing comes from voters who oppose Trump rather than enthusiastically endorsing her policies. First-person affirmations are less common, and the overall tone is defensive. This suggests party loyalty and anti-Trump sentiment buoy her voting base.
Progressives and Mixed Sentiment
Left leaning progressive support Harris’s stance on healthcare, education, and abortion. But much of the overall conversation is critical. Negative sentiment—even among Democrats—focuses on immigration, critiques of her leadership, and disappointment with foreign policy and the economy.
Economic Issues
- Economic dissatisfaction dominates voter conversations, mentioning inflation, high taxes, and rising costs of living.
- Many voters say Biden-Harris policies have exacerbated these issues, comparing 2024 conditions to memories of Trump’s presidency.
- Sentiment is negative, driven by frustration over stagnant wages and increased financial burdens.
Border Security
- Border security and immigration remain highly contentious, generating strong dissatisfaction.
- There is widespread anger at Biden and Harris for using FEMA funds in illegal immigrants instead of for federal disaster relief.
- Anger about FEMA funds exacerbates frustration about the ongoing influx of illegal immigrants under Biden and Harris.
- Demands for border security feeds into Trump’s "America First" messaging, reinforcing negative views of Democratic polices.
Disaster Response
- The aftermath of Hurricane Helene is driving voter ire toward Harris.
- Many voters feel the federal response has been nonexistent, with insufficient financial aid provided for Americans who lost everything.
- This issue contributes significantly to the negative sentiment, worsening negativity toward Harris in the last few weeks of campaigning.
Ideological Divide
- Americans continue to be polarized ideologically with strong national sentiments on the right, and globalist view on the left.
- Trump supporters view Democrats as advancing radical leftist policies, often calling Harris a far-left progressive, a socialist, or a communist.
- Divides are deep, with loyalty to worldview shaped as much by values as by policies.
Foreign Policy
- Many on both sides of the aisle are worried about foreign policy—particularly in Ukraine and Israel.
- Americans feel foreign conflicts divert attention and resources from domestic issues.
- Negative sentiment ties into broader anxieties about national security and government priorities, with many favoring a return to Trump's foreign policy.
- Segments of the Democratic base also object to Harris’s policy regarding Israel, accusing her of betraying progressive values by not calling for a ceasefire.
Housing
- Housing affordability is also a pressing concern.
- Voters criticize Democrats for prioritizing aid to immigrants over addressing rising costs for American families.
- There is a strong sentiment that economic and housing conditions have worsened under Biden
- People often say Trump’s presidency provided a more favorable quality of life for middle-class Americans.
11
Oct
-
Billionaire businessman Mark Cuban went viral for saying inflation was not caused by "price gouging," defying the Democratic platform, for which he is known to act as a surrogate. He said on CNBC that unprecedented levels of government spending on things like the Inflation Reduction Act, for which Kamala Harris was the tie-breaker vote, are the true cause.
OMG. Mark Cuban accidentally admits the truth, says inflation was not caused by "price gouging," but rather record spending (which Kamala was the tie-breaking vote on.)
— johnny maga (@_johnnymaga) September 26, 2024
Kamala's top surrogate just blew up her entire economic message. Incredible. pic.twitter.com/HcwBLgYo6xMIG Reports data shows Democratic views of inflation in two categories:
- The seriousness of inflation
- How talking about inflation impacts their candidate
Discussion among Democrats is carefully crafted to maintain voter confidence and achieve electoral success. Rather than a straightforward engagement with the economic realities Americans face, inflation becomes a rhetorical tool used to shift blame, deflect responsibility, and bolster the Democratic Party’s campaign narrative.
In recent interviews, Harris herself has deflected from answering questions about the economy, price gouging, inflation, and how she plans to help Americans.
What does this even mean…?
— Gunther Eagleman™ (@GuntherEagleman) September 25, 2024
Kamala Harris: "Well if you are... hard working... if you... have... uh... the dreams and the ambitions and the aspirations of what I believe you do, you're in my plan." pic.twitter.com/vgnZpe1EKuAmong Democrats:
- 40% blame Trump for the economy
- 25% acknowledge the negative state of inflation
- 19% express economic concerns
- 16% frame the economy as doing well
Glossing Over Inflation: A Strategic Approach
Democrats often acknowledge inflation, but the depth of that engagement varies. Many gloss over or reframed it as a problem inherited from the Trump administration. They frame the Biden-Harris administration as stabilizing the economy in the aftermath of Republican mismanagement.
By casting inflation as a residual effect of Trump’s policies, Democrats downplay the immediate economic concerns of Americans in favor of campaign messaging about aspirations and hope.
This approach is particularly evident in the way Democrats focus on government job reports, stock market gains, and a gradual decrease in gas prices. These elements distract from inflationary pressures, suggesting the current administration has things under control. However, Harris risks alienating voters who are directly impacted by rising costs of living, from groceries to housing.
Electoral Victory Over Economic Engagement
Many Democrats also prioritize winning the election over finding immediate economic solutions. Discussions show a focus on preventing a second Trump term rather than addressing the root causes of inflation for American voters.
Casting blame on Republicans reveals a defensive posture, with Democrats more concerned about economy narratives than offering actionable solutions. This allows them to use inflation as a talking point against Trump rather than as a policy issue in need of immediate attention.
The strategic deflection of blame reduces urgency and accountability to the American people. Instead, economic discussions are geared toward mobilizing voter sentiment, often simplifying complex financial realities into digestible, partisan soundbites. This reliance on political calculation places importance on a second Democratic administration over answering voter concerns.
Real Voter Concerns
While Democrats are clearly using inflation as a political tool, there are some expressing genuine concern about its impact on middle-class families. There is particular focus on housing and food costs for lower income Americans.
However, even these concerns are often accompanied by broader narratives of economic success under the Biden-Harris administration. By emphasizing solutions like tax credits or small business support, Democrats frame a positive electoral message rather than presenting them as pressing crises.
These trends create a dual narrative in Democratic discourse where some are forced to acknowledge the economic pain of voters, but quickly pivoting political messaging that downplays its severity. This tension between caring about economic realities and pursuing political success is a central feature of Democratic discussions on the economy.
Polarization and the Use of Blame
Partisan rhetoric drives Democratic conversations. By consistently blaming Trump, Democrats simplify the conversation, framing it as a political battle rather than a serious issue. This shifts voter attention away from current failures and pushes a narrative that a Harris administration would bring change.
This tactic, while effective in galvanizing the base, is also dismissive of the real economic challenges voters face. The risk here is that by leaning too heavily on partisan blame, Democrats may lose the opportunity to connect with voters.
30
Sep
-
The ongoing discourse about Ukrainian President Zelensky’s perceived campaign against Donald Trump exposes partisan divides in the United States. As conversations unfold among voters from all political affiliations, tensions cause strong reactions to Zelensky’s actions, viewed through ideological lenses.
Many are discussing the apparent fervent support for President Zelensky among Democrats, hinting at a stronger alliance between Ukraine and a potential Harris administration.
Worth noting that Zelenskyy was flown to Pennsylvania on an U.S. Air Force C-17.
— Dan Caldwell 🇺🇸 (@dandcaldwell) September 23, 2024
The Biden-Harris admin is using military assets to fly a foreign leader into a battleground state in order to undermine their political opponents. https://t.co/OSebVUuBEg pic.twitter.com/biMGTfAc1JRepublicans
Zelensky’s actions are widely seen as foreign interference, fueling anger and reinforcing support for Trump. More than 60% of Republicans indicate their intention to vote for Trump, viewing Zelensky’s involvement with politicians as an attack on U.S. sovereignty.
Democrats
Zelensky’s opposition to Trump aligns with their criticisms of Trump’s foreign policy—especially regarding Ukraine and Russia. While this validates their stance and energizes some, Democrats were already largely opposed to Trump, making the impact on turnout less significant compared to Republicans.
Independents
More divided, Independents have varied criticisms. Some support Zelensky’s critique of Trump, while others worry about foreign influence in U.S. elections. Moderate enthusiasm is lower, with about a third considering voting for a third-party. This suggests frustration with the polarized political landscape.
Pennsylvania stands with Ukraine as they defend their homeland and fight for freedom. https://t.co/IaCpOtR1Ao
— Governor Josh Shapiro (@GovernorShapiro) September 23, 2024Across all voter groups, there is a growing sense of polarization, with partisan lines remaining entrenched. Discussions often highlight fears of foreign interference, causing a surge of nationalism, particularly among Republicans. These dynamics may or may not impact on voter behavior, with Republicans and Democrats rallying around their respective candidates while Independents increasingly withdraw from the political process.
Voter Discussion Analysis
Beyond surface-level reactions to Zelensky’s opposition against Trump, discourse shows further sociopolitical undercurrents shaping voter behavior in the United States. There is both a reaction to a foreign leader's involvement in American politics and broader existential concerns among the electorate.
Republicans
Zelensky's actions have become a proxy for wider anxieties about national sovereignty, globalism, and the perceived erosion of American exceptionalism. More than 60% of Republicans say Ukraine relations make them likely to turn out for Trump. This reflects the image of Trump as both a candidate and a symbol of resistance against external forces, both foreign and domestic.
Democrats
Zelensky’s critique of Trump serves as confirmation of Democrats’ existing narrative which frames Trump as damaging America's standing on the global stage. They believe he has weakened democratic alliances and emboldened autocratic regimes.
While Democrats are already motivated to oppose Trump, Zelensky’s involvement adds righteous moral dimension to their cause. They claim to vote for the preservation of democratic values under siege from authoritarianism—both within and outside the U.S.
Independents
The reaction among Independent voters is complex. Their ambivalence reflects a broader societal fatigue with the binary, hyper-polarized nature of American politics. Many Independents are skeptical of both sides, recognizing Zelensky’s actions as problematic but also viewing Trump’s foreign policy as flawed.
Internal conflict among Independents reveals disillusionment with Trump and Harris, but with also political system overall. Their disengagement is a response to Zelensky’s actions and a reflection of dissatisfaction with both political parties.
There is a sense that neither party adequately addresses the nuanced realities of global politics or the multifaceted concerns of American voters. Independents who say they plan to abstain or vote third-party highlight the withdrawal of many who view politics overly simplistic and manipulated by underlying agendas.
Snapshot of the Trajectory
More abstractly, Zelensky’s involvement in this election serves as a demonstration of national politics which can no longer be disentangled from global events. Voter reactions to Zelensky are not merely about Ukraine or Trump but part of a larger narrative about globalization, foreign interference, and the decline of traditional nation-state autonomy.
Both Republican and Democratic voters struggle with this reality. Republicans through a lens of protectionism and anti-globalism, Democrats through a framework of moral internationalism. Independents are caught in the middle, divided between their desire for nuanced political discourse and a binary political system.
There is also a sense of the mediated nature of public discourse, where social media acts as an echo chamber, amplifying existing biases and simplifying complex geopolitical issues. Confirmation bias, biased media, emotionally charged rhetoric, and eroded trust in traditional institutions all contribute to a tribal public dialogue.
The Zelensky versus Trump narrative does more than mobilize voters—it exposes the conflicted nature of American political cohesion and deepening divides between voters and institutions. This raises questions about the future of governance, the role of foreign influence in national narratives, and whether the U.S. is capable of engaging in complex global realities without further fracture.
26
Sep
-
The stark division between partisan narratives and trust in the media has grown clearer in recent weeks. Previous MIG Reports analysis showed Democrats remain one of the few groups which consistently trust mainstream media.
With 64.8% of all voters expressing strong distrust toward mainstream media, the 24.9% who say they do have trust is largely composed of Democrats. This is consistent with 2023 Gallup data showing:
- 11% of Republicans trust media
- 29% of Independents trust media
- 58% of Democrats trust media
This divergence raises significant questions about how media narratives, especially those with a partisan slant, can shape voter opinion and electoral outcomes. Media narratives, which many Americans believe are biased toward Democratic viewpoints, disproportionately influence voters who still trust these outlets.
Whether Democrats continue to trust media narratives because of confirmation bias, or those who trust media lean Democratic because they are influenced by narratives is unclear. However, the correlation of Democrats trusting the media and media promoting Democratic narratives remains.
Through selective framing, coverage time, and emphasis, the media plays an active role in shaping political perspectives, often long after stories have been debunked or corrected. MIG Reports analysis shows three recent examples of media narratives shaping Democratic voter opinions on key political issues.
Hook Line and Sinker
Migrants Eating Pets in Ohio
Following the presidential debate, rumors of Haitian migrants eating pets in Springfield, Ohio, dominated media coverage. Mainstream media, including ABC debate moderators who fact-checked Trump, largely positioned the story as unfounded or even fabricated.
Despite copious local resident allegations, certain police reports documenting missing pets, and the Springfield city manager acknowledging claims of pets being eaten, many Democratic voters still align with media narratives critical of the story and Republicans.
Analysis of media coverage time according Grabien data shows media outlets spent:
- Nearly 53 hours covering the Springfield city manager’s denial in the three days following the debate.
- Only 9.5 hours covering allegations of migrants eating cats.
There is a slight increase in mentions of the Springfield city manager after footage emerged from March of 2024 in which he acknowledged resident claims. However, these media mentions only total six hours compared to 23 hours the day after David Muir’s fact check against Trump during the debate.
MIG Reports data shows, in the last day:
- 80-90% Democrats still say pet consumption is unproven.
- 10-20% Democrats admit pet consumption is legitimate or indicative of larger immigration issues.
- 10-20% Republicans still say pet consumption is unproven.
- 80-90% Republicans believe pet consumption is legitimate or indicative of larger immigration issues.
The way media outlets frame the story—blaming Trump for “unproven allegations”—illustrates how media impacts perceptions. Democrats largely still dismiss the story as rumor, aligning with media talking points. Republicans, who largely distrust mainstream media, instead view the story—regardless of whether the pet consumption allegations are true—as an indictment of the Biden-Harris administration’s immigration policy.
The Danger of Bomb Threats
Following the media frenzy over pets in Ohio, narratives turned to bomb threats in Springfield. The media framed multiple bomb threats as a result of “dangerous” and “xenophobic” rhetoric by Trump and Republicans.
A viral clip of CNN’s Dana Bash shows her directly blaming J.D. Vance for drawing violence to Ohio through his allegedly divisive comments.
Analysis of media coverage time according Grabien data shows media outlets spent:
- 175 hours covering bomb threats in the last five days.
- 17 hours clarifying threats as a hoax after DeWine’s announcement.
Following Ohio Governor Mike DeWine’s announcement that the bomb threats were a hoax committed by foreign actors, media coverage continued to mention bomb threats for more than 100 hours while only mentioning them as a hoax for 17.3 total hours and a mere 17 minutes two days after the revelation.
MIG Reports data shows, in the last day:
- 60% of Democrats are discussing the bomb threats as real.
- 20% of Democrats are discussing the bomb threats as a hoax.
- There is no quantifiable number of Republicans discussing the bomb threats as real, but 31% express concern about community safety.
- 70% of Republicans are discussing the bomb threats as a hoax.
Again, biased coverage by mainstream outlets highlights how crafted narratives push slanted perspectives on voters who trust legacy reporting. This phenomenon is exacerbated by outlets spending far less time correcting falsehoods.
Democrats, a majority of whom still trust the media, show a greater tendency to internalize the mainstream narrative without scrutiny. Republicans, who largely distrust the media, are more likely to dismiss narratives which are proven biased by independent reporting.
Golf Course Assassination Attempt on Donald Trump
The second assassination attempt on Donald Trump triggered another wave of intense media coverage. While many Democrats expressed concern about the attempt, they strongly focus on linking the event to Trump’s divisive rhetoric.
Narrative battles again erupted as Republicans claim Democrats and the media are “victim blaming” Trump by saying his own language caused the assassination attempts. Fox News reporter Peter Doocy’s confrontation with White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre about how Democrats choose to discuss these events—continuously calling Trump a “threat”—demonstrates the partisan messaging clash.
Analysis of media coverage time according Grabien data shows media outlets spent:
- 818.5 hours covering the assassination attempt on Donald Trump in the three days following.
- 328 hours covering Trump and mentioning his “rhetoric.”
- 671 hours covering Trump and mentioning him as a “threat.”
- 96 hours covering Trump and mentioning “threat to democracy.”
- 2.8 hours covering the assassination and mentioning “Democrat rhetoric.”
Combined hours of coverage mentioning Trump with “rhetoric,” “threat,” and “threat to democracy” total 1,095 hours compared to coverage of the assassination alone and mentions of “Democrat rhetoric” at just more than 820 hours.
MIG Reports data shows, in the last day:
- 24% of Democrats are mentioning the assassination attempt.
- 60% of Democrats are mentioning Trumps divisive rhetoric.
- 57% of Republicans are mentioning the assassination attempt.
- 21% of Republicans are mentioning Trumps divisive rhetoric.
Once again, Democratic reactions suggest legacy media has strong influence over voter views with focus on Trump’s rhetoric rather than the assassination attempt itself. For Democrats, media framing reinforces pre-existing beliefs that Trump’s language incites violence. For Republicans, it further deepens distrust of both the media and Democrat credibility.
Media in the Tank for Democrats
Multiple data sources suggest the mainstream media’s framing of high-profile stories has a profound impact on the electorate—particularly Democrats who continue to trust these outlets. The disproportionate airtime given to narratives that align with Democratic viewpoints continues to foster anger and distrust among non-Democratic voters.
People use terms like “gaslighting,” “media bias,” and “we’re being lied to,” in discussions about how legacy outlets report on American political and cultural issues.
Increasingly, voters say they believe mainstream outlets attempt to control which stories gain traction and how long they remain in the spotlight. They suggest bias in favor of Democrats is intended to influence voter opinions and, ultimately, election outcomes.
However, given that Democratic voters compose the dwindling segment of Americans who consistently believe mainstream media narratives, some conclude the media’s influence and credibility is declining.
This is demonstrated by:
- Democrats often voting in alignment with issues amplified by the media, such as abortion, social justice, and government spending programs.
- Republicans repeatedly expressing distrust in media, driving them to seek alternative sources of information on platforms like X.
19
Sep
-
Political discourse has intensified following the Trump versus Harris debate, with MIG Reports data showing Trump continuing to surge as Harris loses momentum. Stories like the infamous Springfield, Ohio incident, where rumors swirled about Haitian migrants allegedly consuming cats and dogs, served to further polarize partisan divides. Against a backdrop of ire toward the media and Democrats, a second assassination attempt on Donald Trump also ignites passions on both sides.
- National sentiment toward Trump remains strong, maintaining at least a 5-point lead over Harris since the debate.
- Republican support across the electoral college remains tight, with Democrats gaining slight ground since the debate.
Media Frenzy and Voter Anger
After the debate, headlines fixated on Springfield and the media’s demonization of Trump. The controversial Haitian migrant story brought the media and Democrats’ integrity to the forefront with Republicans hammering the underlying issue of forced migration. Democrats, meanwhile, focused on claims of misinformation from Trump and J.D. Vance, which the media said foments xenophobia and fear, leading to reported bomb threats in Springfield.
JUST IN: Ohio governor says all 33 bomb threats against Springfield, Ohio have been hoaxes that are coming from overseas.
— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) September 16, 2024
Just another media-fueled hoax.
Governor Mike DeWine said the threats are coming from "one particular country."
"33 separate bomb threats, each one of… pic.twitter.com/JHXQqBOAEeOhio governor Mike DeWine’s confirmation that all 33 bomb threats in Springfield were hoaxes by foreign actors continued to stir anger from Trump supporters against the media and Democrats.
Next, Americans grew furious with the media after the second assassination attempt on Trump. Many fair-minded Americans—including former CNN anchor Chris Cuomo—express displeasure with rhetoric from Democrats and the media, who blame Trump’s own tone and language for the assassination attempt.
Watching Chris Cuomo get redpilled is absolutely incredible pic.twitter.com/Ew1Dr0xj4W
— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) September 17, 2024Democrats, represented by White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre still refuse to change their language against Trump. Even when called out by reporters, Jean-Pierre doubled down on accusations against Republicans as dangerous.
KJP rages at Fox's @Pdoocy:
— Media Research Center (@theMRC) September 17, 2024
Doocy: "How many more assassination attempts on Donald Trump until the president, vice president, and you pick a different word other than threat?"
KJP: "I disagree with your question." pic.twitter.com/1YSMDwXqnSThe Big Picture: Kamala Craters
MIG Reports analysis of likely voter base turnout among Trump and Harris supporters paints a striking picture.
- 73.7% of Trump supporters express approval and intention to vote for him.
- 52.08% of Kamala Harris supports voice approval and intention to vote.
- This is compared to 72% likely turnout for Trump and 64% for Harris pre-debate.
This gap highlights the surging enthusiasm for Trump against a loss of enthusiasm for Harris. In addition, average sentiment in conversations about Trump and Harris shows 47% approval toward Trump versus 30% toward Harris.
Conversations Mentioning Trump
- 47% of voters nationally express approval toward Trump.
- 25.5% explicitly express opposition to Trump.
- 24.5% are undecided, though a portion of the group say they lean toward Trump.
Conversations Mentioning Harris
- 29.5% of voters nationally express approval toward Harris.
- 46% explicitly express opposition to Harris.
- 20.5% are undecided or unengaged.
These numbers illustrate why Trump, despite negative press, assassination attempts, and relentless Democratic criticism, continues to maintain a robust core of dedicated voters. By contrast, Harris struggles to consolidate even her own base, facing widespread skepticism and disengagement.
Swing States and the Battle for 2024
Swing states are critical to the outcome of the 2024 election, and data suggests Kamala Harris is losing ground in key battlegrounds. Despite a small sentiment bump in some MIG Reports data sets, voter conversations about Harris remain negative.
MIG Reports initiates analysis, weighing general sentiment embedded in conversations. Analysis incorporates negativity about the assassination attempt among MAGA voters in conversations mentioning Trump as well as negativity from Democrats about Trump's rhetoric. This suggests conversation analysis remains consistent with a picture of surging support for trump and falling support for Harris.
CBS News recently reported, in critical blue counties in Nevada, reporters were only about to find a single Harris supporter. These reports align with voter sentiment analysis online.
CBS IN NEVADA: “In every single restaurant, the people willing to talk to us, we could only find one Harris supporter in every restaurant and we left no stone unturned”
— Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) September 17, 2024
pic.twitter.com/RVA0PGOC7tSwing State Voter Sentiment
- Trump’s strong appeal to blue-collar and rural voters, particularly in states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Michigan, is driving much of his momentum.
- Harris struggles with perceptions of being "out of touch" with everyday Americans, an issue amplified by her progressive policies on immigration and the economy.
Why Voters Are Leaning Toward Trump or Harris
Kamala Harris
Support
- Social justice and equality: Supporters view Harris as a champion for marginalized groups, particularly on issues like healthcare and civil rights.
- Progressive policies: Voters value her commitment to addressing climate change and economic inequality.
- Leadership style: For some, Harris represents a strong, modern leader capable of navigating the complexities of global politics.
Opposition
- Economic concerns: Her policies on taxes and healthcare attract skepticism, especially from middle-class voters.
- Weak on immigration: Critics argue Harris has failed to secure the border, promoting open borders and forced migration.
- Character issues: There is a widespread belief that Harris lacks integrity, stemming from her policy flip-flops and public statements.
Donald Trump
Support
- Economic growth: Trump’s policies on taxes and deregulation appeal to a broad base who value economic stability.
- Border security: Voters express desire for Trump’s tough stance on immigration, securing the border, and deportation.
- Perception of strength: Despite controversial rhetoric, voters view Trump as someone who "gets things done" and stands up to political elites.
- Law enforcement: Americans like his strong emphasis on law and order.
Opposition
- Divisive rhetoric: Trump’s language on race, gender, and social issues alienates many undecided voters.
- Abortion: Many who oppose Trump cite his stance on abortion as a key factor.
- Concerns about temperament: Many raise questions about Trump's fitness for office, citing his demeanor as "unpresidential."
Where the Race Stands
Looking ahead, the data suggests Trump maintains a solid path to victory, with his core supporters holding strong and voicing enthusiasm for turning out. Harris faces the daunting task of both positioning herself against Trump but energizing a growing apathetic and divided Democratic base. Trump’s ability to rally voters—despite media opposition and political violence—will likely be pivotal in securing a win.
18
Sep
-
With less than two months until the presidential election, Donald Trump is gaining momentum against a Kamala Harris—who Democrats hoped would buoy the Party after Biden’s exit. MIG Reports data shows a tight race, with Trump’s base expressing high enthusiasm and Harris facing skepticism among her ostensible supporters. The first Trump versus Harris debate is tonight, which could shift sentiments further depending on how each candidate performs.
- Nationally, Trump is recovering from a brief Harris surge following the DNC.
- Prior to the debate on September 10, Trump shows 52% support to Harris’s 48%.
- Republican support across the electoral college is moving upward, with 49% today compared to 47% for Democrats.
The Big Picture
A MIG Reports weighted analysis of real-time voter conversations suggests voter base turnout for each candidate could be around:
- 64% turnout potential for Kamala Harris
- 72% turnout potential for Donald Trump
Currently, Trump appears to have stronger voter mobilization as enthusiasm for Harris wanes amid border and Israel-Palestine drama. This alone does not suggest who will win the election due to the complexity of the U.S. Electoral College system.
More importantly, swing states show Trump slightly ahead with a rising trend. These regions are crucial for a win and Trump's solid swing state support, along with the higher turnout potential, suggests he currently has a stronger path to victory.
Why Voters Are Leaning Toward Trump or Harris
Kamala Harris
Kamala Harris faces growing skepticism from her base over the economy, the border, and the U.S. position on Israel and Hamas. There are also some mentions of controversial endorsements from figures like Dick Cheney and Vladimir Putin.
JUST IN: Vladimir Putin says he supports Kamala Harris for president, says he finds her laugh “fascinating.”
— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) September 5, 2024
The comments come after the DOJ accused Russia of funding Tenet who then paid conservative influencers for videos.
At the moment, it’s unclear what exactly Russia’s goal… pic.twitter.com/ciXyZ4MCyUThese issues are exacerbating a rift, particularly among progressive Democrats, who see her alignment with Israel and establishment figures as problematic. Recent Party defections from public figures like RFK Jr., Tulsi Gabbard, and Alan Dershowitz also signal the growing discontent among Democrats.
In voter conversations about Harris:
- 64% of Democratic voters express a willingness to vote for her.
- 33% vocally oppose her candidacy.
- 15% express concerns about certain endorsements and alignments.
Harris's platform on social justice, healthcare reform, and climate change still resonates with her core supporters. However, she is struggling to mobilize undecided or moderate voters, who have been skeptical of her leadership and competence.
Donald Trump
Meanwhile, Trump enjoys fierce loyalty from his base, who remain energized despite ongoing legal and media controversies. Trump’s supporters cite his stance on law and order, his previous administration’s economic performance, the economy, and frustration with the Biden-Harris administration as reasons for their continued support.
In voter conversations about Trump:
- 72% of Trump’s voter base is excited to turn out.
- 75% of voters highlight endorsements from those like RFK Jr., Tulsi Gabbard, and law enforcement as motivators.
- 82% of positive sentiments use terms like "MAGA" and "support" when discussing Trump.
Our presidential endorsement process is thorough and inclusive, involving over 377,000 members across the nation. Today, it's a privilege to announce that the collective will of our members has led us to endorse Donald J. Trump for President. We're committed to supporting… pic.twitter.com/RGQbEzroX9
— National Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) (@GLFOP) September 6, 2024Trump’s endorsements from groups like the Fraternal Order of Police have been pivotal in reinforcing his image as a law-and-order candidate. This has helped solidify his base, making voter turnout for him more likely.
- Sentiment toward each candidate in the last seven days is similar, though Trump gains significantly more mentions at 94,118 to Harris’s 42,049.
- Harris’s highest sentiment is for endorsements at 48% and her lowest is for ideologies at 42%.
- Trump’s highest sentiment is endorsements at 47% and his lowest is for allegations at 39%.
Battlegrounds Will Decide the Election
MIG Reports analysis shows a steady rise in Trump’s support both nationally and in key battlegrounds, where Harris is losing ground. The debate tonight could prove pivotal for both candidates as they aim to secure these critical electoral votes.
- In swing states, Trump leads Harris in swing states, with a 30-day average of 49% support to Harris’s 46% average.
- Third party support dropped following RFK Jr. removing himself and endorsing Trump—though Jill Stein has gained 4% support in the last few days.
Key swing state metrics:
- Trump’s support in swing states increased following the DNC from 42% to a high of 54% on August 25.
- Since then, his swing state support has evened out, averaging 49% in the last seven days.
- Harris’s support in swing states dropped following the DNC from 54% on August 21 to 45% on August 25.
- Her support also evened out, averaging 47% in the last 7 days.
- Support for third-party candidates in swing states averaged 4% in the last seven days.
Swing states like Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin are critical for both candidates. Trump’s growing presence in these battleground areas puts Harris in a difficult position, as she will need to reverse this trend to secure enough electoral votes.
MIG Reports data also shows in swing states:
Donald Trump
- 70% support among white evangelicals
- 50% support from working-class voters
- 80% opposition from younger voters
- 75% opposition from urban voters
Kamala Harris
- 60-70% support among young progressive voters
- 75% opposition from older conservative voters
- 40% of comments support Harris
- 50% of comments criticize Harris
A National Base Support and Turnout
Voter turnout will be a decisive factor in the 2024 election, and Trump’s base shows higher levels of enthusiasm. Trump’s supporters are not only loyal but highly mobilized, while Harris struggles to generate the same level of enthusiasm—particularly among undecided and swing voters.
Trump’s base is solid, and his ability to maintain support from key voter groups, including working-class and rural voters, gives him an edge. Harris, meanwhile, must address the ambivalence within her base and secure a higher turnout from progressive and moderate voters.
Reasons for Voter Support
Each candidate’s voter base expresses various reasons for and against their party’s nominee. These issues will likely be important in the debate.
Kamala Harris
Reasons for supporting:
- Abortion: Democrats’ strong stance on women’s reproductive rights, especially positive among liberal and progressive voters.
- Diversity and equity: Her advocacy for an “equitable society” resonates with those who feel marginalized.
- Progressive policies: Harris endorses healthcare reform, climate action, and immigration reform.
- Representation and inclusivity: Many supporters highlight her historic role as a woman of color and her advocacy for social justice, particularly LGBTQ+ rights.
- Changing American values: Supporters see her policies as positively moving modern American values in a progressive direction.
Reasons for not supporting:
- Perceived incompetence and dishonesty: Critics label Harris as unqualified, ineffective, and politically dishonest, with concerns about her decision-making.
- Failed policies: Despite attempts to distance herself from the Biden administration, voters still associate her with failures in immigration, crime, and economic management.
- Out of touch: Many see her as part of the “liberal elite,” disconnected from ordinary concerns.
- Ideological opposition: Detractors criticize her for promoting a perceived socialist or communist agenda, which they view as a threat to American values.
Donald Trump
Reasons for supporting:
- Economic performance: Many attribute economic growth during his previous presidency to his leadership, expressing dissatisfaction with Harris’s economic policies.
- Immigration and national security: Trump’s strong stance on immigration control is seen as necessary for protecting American jobs and public safety.
- "America First" policies: Supporters admire his protectionist policies, particularly on tariffs and job preservation, viewing him as a defender of American sovereignty.
- Conservative values: Trump is often a symbol for conservative principles, especially among older and rural voters.
Reasons for not supporting:
- Moral concerns: Critics cite January 6th and his rhetoric as divisive and damaging to democratic norms.
- Perceived dishonesty: Many opponents believe Trump undermines public trust by perpetuating false narratives, especially around election integrity.
- Social issues: Younger voters and minority groups often oppose Trump over concerns about social justice, climate change, and abortion.
- Divisive leadership style: Many are concerned Trump’s approach fosters division rather than unity, especially his incendiary remarks.
10
Sep
-
Voter conversations regarding the upcoming presidential debate are turbulent. Trending topics, sentiments, and views of each candidate are all filtered through partisan lenses. MIG Reports analysis shows a calcifying electorate digging its heels into existing beliefs around:
- Economic stability
- Immigration control
- National security
Highest Volume Discussion Issues
The top issues consistently emerging in conversations among all voter groups are:
- Economic Issues: This is the most dominant topic within all groups including Republicans, Democrats, Independents, and general discussions. Inflation, taxes, and middle-class struggles are central themes.
- Security Issues: This includes concerns about national security and foreign policy, especially issues regarding Israel, Hamas, Russia, and terrorism.
- Housing Issues: Related to the economy, housing affordability is a major concern, particularly its impact on the middle class.
- Illegal Immigration: Strong concerns regarding border security, illegal immigration, and its economic impacts is pressing, especially among Republican voters. Immigration conversations often blend into economic and national security conversations.
- Ideological Divides: Americans are concerned about socialism/communism vs. freedom/liberty, especially between Republican and Democratic voters.
Sentiment in Top Discussions
- Economic Issues: Sentiment is negative with frustration over inflation, perceived government inaction, and concerns about taxation. There’s a longing for stronger economic leadership, especially a return to pre-inflationary stability.
- Security Issues: Highly polarized as Republicans express frustration with the weakness Biden and Harris, while Democrats remain divided on Israel. Despite polarized views, foreign threats from Russia and Hamas evoke negative sentiment in most conversations.
- Housing: Negative sentiment, particularly regarding affordability, with widespread frustration at the perceived lack of solutions from both parties.
- Immigration: Republicans express highly negative sentiments, associating immigration with economic strain and security concerns. Democrats focus on human rights and immigration reform, but many are still negative.
Sentiment by Party
Republican Voters
- Economy: Negative, focusing on rising inflation and taxes under Biden-Harris, with calls for returning to Trump-era policies.
- Security: Negative towards Biden-Harris, expressing a need for stronger action on terrorism, foreign policy, and immigration.
- Immigration: Highly negative, viewing illegal immigration as a national security risk and economic burden.
Democratic Voters
- Economy: Mixed, with some acknowledging struggles but maintaining faith in progressive economic solutions focused on tax equity and job creation.
- Security: More neutral on Biden-Harris policies generally with the exception of continued polarization around Israel and Hamas.
- Immigration: Largely positive, with calls for reform and protecting immigrants' rights.
Independent Voters
- Economy: Negative, centered on inflation and the economic impact of policies on the middle class.
- Security: Leaning negative, with concerns about foreign policy failures and national security.
- Immigration: Mixed, with some voicing concerns about immigration’s economic impact, while others are neutral.
Subjects Not Shared Between Voter Groups
- Housing and Immigration as Linked Concerns: Republicans and Independents view immigration as exacerbating the housing crisis, contributing to negative sentiments.
- Progressive Social Policies: Democratic voters focus on maintaining social safety nets like Medicare and Social Security, which does not feature prominently in Republican discussions.
- First Amendment Rights and Constitutional Concerns: GOP voters focus on protecting individual freedoms and constitutional rights, especially around gun control and free speech. Concern is less present among Democrats.
Candidate Support and Opposition
Donald Trump
- Republicans: Trump has strong support, especially around economic issues. A significant portion of Republican voters—about 65%— view him as the solution to economic problems, focusing on his legacy of low taxes and perceived economic stability under his administration.
- Independents: While not as unanimous as Republicans, many Independents also lean toward Trump, particularly when discussing national security and the economy. Many are dissatisfied with current economic conditions and associate them with Democratic leadership.
- Democrats: Trump is generally viewed negatively. There is a prevailing narrative that associates him with authoritarianism and economic inequality.
Kamala Harris
- Democrats: Harris has strong support in the base, especially for her stance on social justice issues and progressive policies. Democratic voters rally behind her for policies like tax reforms aimed at wealth distribution, protecting social safety nets, and addressing climate change. However, there are signs of skepticism about her ability to tackle more immediate issues like the economy and inflation.
- Independents: Harris is viewed with skepticism, especially on economic management. Many Independents criticize the Biden-Harris administration for inflation, which negatively impacts their support.
- Republicans: Harris is overwhelmingly opposed. She is often associated with "socialism" or "communism" and seen as a representative of policies that undermine individual freedoms.
Uncertainty About Candidates
Kamala Harris is the more questioned candidate across all voter groups. She faces scrutiny for:
- Economic Issues: Both Independents and Republicans express skepticism about her economic policies, with concerns over inflation, housing affordability, and taxation. Even some Democratic voters want more tangible plans for economic recovery, and some are openly opposed to her economic proposals.
- Foreign Policy and Security: There is widespread criticism toward Harris on national security—especially related to Russia and Hamas. Republicans view her foreign policy as weak, and Independents echo this sentiment. Progressive Democrats also regularly criticize her for failing to sufficiently support Palestine.
- Leadership Ability: Voters from multiple groups question her ability to lead effectively. There is a recurring theme that Harris may not be strong enough to counter foreign adversaries. Many express disappointment in her lack of decisive leadership.
- There is less uncertainty around Donald Trump since many feel they understand his leadership from his first term. Criticisms or questions are more ideologically driven:
- Democrats: Trump is criticized for his past policies, perceived authoritarian leanings, and for his social viewpoints. Democrats view his rhetoric and economic policies as favoring the wealthy at the expense of the middle and lower classes.
- Independents: Some Independents criticize his handling of the economy in his last term, linking some of today’s economic struggles to his policies. However, this criticism is less pronounced compared to Harris.
Voter Polarization
The electorate is highly polarized, with few overlapping issues between the voter groups. Each group is entrenched in its political ideology, making compromise or crossover support unlikely. This polarization reflects deep ideological divides, particularly around economic and social issues, suggesting a heated election cycle with little room for shifting opinions.
Issue Focus Over Candidate Popularity
Voters, especially Independents and moderate Republicans, seem more focused on issues rather than specific candidates. Economic struggles and security concerns dominate the discussion, with voters seeking clear, actionable solutions. This suggests the candidate who offers more concrete, practical plans may sway more undecided voters during a debate.
Emerging Topics for Debate
Security and Foreign Policy
Given the widespread focus on Russia, Hamas, and national security issues across all voter groups, voters will expect detailed foreign policy responses. Americans demand a clear stance on these issues, with a significant portion of discussions revolving around military strategy and international relationships.
Economic Stability
Voters are very unhappy and concerned over inflation, housing, and taxes. The economy will likely dominate discussions. Whichever candidate provides more tangible solutions that resonate with voters who are struggling with daily financial pressures will likely win in a debate.
Housing Crisis and Affordability
This is a cross-cutting issue among all voter groups, particularly Independents and younger voters. Housing affordability is likely to be a major talking point in the debates, especially given the clear dissatisfaction with current policies.
Potential Forecasts
Kamala Harris
Harris will likely face increasing pressure to offer clear solutions to economic issues. Economic dissatisfaction, especially around inflation and housing, may present a significant obstacle for her campaign.
Foreign policy debates will also be crucial, particularly addressing concerns over her perceived weakness in handling global adversaries and national security threats. Harris continues to face a difficult tightrope walk to avoid upsetting pro-Israel and pro-Palestine Democrats.
Donald Trump
Trump largely has support from voters who associate him with economic stability and security. However, he may need to address concerns about some 2020 policies and their long-term impacts. This is crucial for many Independents who are dissatisfied with both current and past administrations.
The MAGA base remains highly engaged and cohesive, particularly around issues of immigration and constitutional rights, which he will likely continue to leverage in debates.
Overall
Harris’s performance in addressing economic and foreign policy concerns will significantly impact her chances, especially among undecided voters. If she fails to provide concrete solutions in these areas, it could cost her support, particularly from Independents.
Trump’s message of returning to economic stability under his leadership may resonate with voters concerned about inflation and taxes. However, he may face pushback regarding his handling of past crises, particularly in foreign policy, if not addressed proactively.
09
Sep
-
MIG Reports analysis of conversations across social media assesses public support and acceptance for Tim Walz and J.D. Vance. An analysis of language and sentiment in these discussions shows distinct patterns in how supporters defend or affirm their preferred candidate. Detractors distance themselves through critical, often impersonal remarks.
Defensive language, first-person viewpoints, and emotionally charged rhetoric dominate the conversations. There is a dynamic of personal stakes and political identity throughout. This narrative analysis explores these dynamics in detail, breaking down the tendencies and language structures across a variety of subjects, from accusations of dishonesty to ideological alignment and economic concerns.
Weighted Analysis
- 60-75% of comments supporting Wals are defensive.
- 60-70% of discussion about Vance offers affirmative support.
The discourse around VP nominees Tim Walz and J.D. Vance shows patterns of defensive and affirmative language. Walz’s supporters primarily use defensive language to counter accusations about his military record and China ties. Walz critics often use third-person, detached language to accuse him of dishonesty.
Vance receives more affirmative support, particularly on economic policies and national security. However, his supporters also defend him on issues like abortion and his Trump ties. Critics frame him as disconnected from social issues using third-person language.
Tim Walz
Discourse supporting Tim Walz overwhelmingly uses defensive language. On multiple fronts, especially regarding his military service and alleged ties to China, Walz’s defenders work to counter accusations rather than promoting his accomplishments. These discussions often center around national security, where supporters emphasize his Congressional delegation to Afghanistan, attempting to clarify that he did not falsely present himself as a combat soldier.
The language here tends to use first-person pronouns, with individuals sharing their personal viewpoints and experiences in defense of Walz. This first-person usage highlights how closely voters identify with him, seeing attacks on Walz as attacks also on themselves. For example, phrases like "I believe in his service" or "My family supports Walz despite the lies" reveal emotional investment.
In contrast, the third-person language in critiques of Walz is impersonal and accusatory. His critics, particularly those aligned with J.D. Vance, refer to him through detached terms such as “Walz is a risk” or “His ties to China are alarming,” focusing on accusations of dishonesty and corruption without any emotional attachment to the discussion.
These accusations are most prominent in discussions about his alleged connection to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), where third-person critiques amplify concerns about national security and Walz’s potential vulnerabilities as a political figure.
J.D. Vance
Republican VP candidate J.D. Vance gains an affirmative form of support—particularly on economic policies and national security. Discussions about Vance often paint him as a staunch defender of conservative values, with supporters using affirmative language to highlight his positions on inflation, government spending, and housing affordability.
Vance’s supporters say his understanding of economic issues aligns with middle-class interests, with first-person language reinforcing a personal connection to his policies. Statements like "We need Vance to protect our economy" or "I believe his stance on taxes is right for families" are common. This reveals a collective rallying cry among his base. The first-person narrative underscores a deep sense of belonging and urgency within his supporters.
However, while affirmative comments dominate discussions about Vance, his supporters also employ defensive rhetoric. They respond to criticisms of his stance on abortion rights and his alignment with Donald Trump. In these discussions, supporters shield Vance from what they view as misrepresentations of his beliefs, using defensive terms like “misunderstood” or “defender of religious liberty.”
Defenses arise when critics accuse Vance of misogyny or frame him as out-of-touch on women’s rights. The language here oscillates between first-person, personal narratives that emphasize shared values, and third-person, detached critiques that highlight perceived shortcomings in his policies.
Emotional Attachment
A clear commonality between the discussions of both candidates is partisan divisiveness. Supporters of Walz and Vance often feel personally invested in defending their candidate. Whether discussing national security, economic issues, or personal integrity, voters express their opinions as though their own values and lives are at stake.
This deep emotional connection is particularly evident when discussing character attacks, with both Walz and Vance receiving strong support from their bases. The common tactic of defense and personal involvement permeates both sides, despite their opposing political ideologies.
Anomalies and Singular Subjects
China
Talk about China is a topic mostly isolated to Tim Walz. Unlike the other issues, where the conversation is a mix of defense and affirmation, the narrative about Walz’s ties to China is overwhelmingly defensive. Accusations of his supposed CCP connections dominate, and the defensive tone becomes more urgent and repetitive. Supporters try to combat what they perceive as a significant and persistent threat to his reputation. First-person language is especially pronounced here, as voters feel compelled to personally stand against accusations of foreign allegiance.
Abortion Rights
In contrast, while abortion rights feature heavily in the discussions about Vance, the responses here reflect a unique balance between defense and affirmation. Vance supporters often use affirmative language to celebrate his anti-abortion stance, describing him as a protector of religious and traditional values. However, when confronted with criticisms, they quickly shift to a defensive tone, using personal stories to justify conservative positions. This demonstrates a rare flexibility between the two types of language.
09
Sep