On Election Day, polls are all over the place and electoral vote predictions are murkier than ever. According to MIG Reports data driven by AI and online voter discussion, Trump is leading in the most critical battleground states.

• Overall, data suggests Trump has 53% support nationally to Harris’s 45% support.
• In battleground states, Trump leads everywhere except Virginia and Minnesota, with his largest lead in Arizona at +9 and Nevada at +8.

Trump’s Base is Energized

Donald Trump’s supporters are resolute and mobilized to vote. The core of Trump’s appeal lies in his promises of economic recovery, traditional values, and an assertive national defense policy.

GOP messaging consistently underscores Biden-Harris's economic failings, especially inflation, which feel as eroding American family budgets. In daily discussions, Trump leads Harris in both volume and sentiment.

Top Voter Topics

• Economy: Voters want Trump’s economic policies, citing poor financial situations in the last four years.
• Traditional Values: Americans want a resurgence of traditional cultural values, particularly rejecting progressive values like identity politics and woke ideology.
• Border: Trump’s firm stance on border security continues to energize voters who want to prioritize Americans over illegal immigrants.
• National Security: Many express greater confidence in Trump’s ability to handle foreign nations and prevent world conflict in places like the Middle East and Russia.

Harris Struggling to Mobilize Beyond Her Base

Kamala Harris enters Election Day facing significant hurdles. While she has managed to secure strong support within progressive circles, her campaign faces resistance from moderate and undecided voters.

Critical Discussions

• Economic Concerns: Many voters say the Biden-Harris administration drastically worsened the economy. They feel rising costs of living particularly hurt Democratic appeal among working-class voters.
• Leadership: Harris critics cite her lack of achievements, inability to articulate a clear vision, and her failure to deftly handle tough questions as indicative of insufficient leadership qualities.
• Government Overreach: Harris’s stance on social justice and progressive policies, particularly regarding lawfare and proposed price controls, alienates moderates who worry about governmental overreach.

Gender Dynamics

Gender divisions play a critical role in this election. Women appear notably energized, primarily driven by abortion and healthcare access. Early reports suggest women are expected to outnumber men at the polls—though how many will vote Harris versus Trump remains to be seen.

Men are focused on economic stability and traditional values, expressing concern about rising inflation and a deterioration of trust in American institutions.

Voter Turnout Trends

• Women: Around 75% of online discussions among women focus on social justice, abortion, and healthcare.
• Men: Around 65% of discussions among men are motivated by economic conservatism and national security.

Donald Trump’s appearance at a Pittsburgh Steelers game, with support from former players Le'Veon Bell and Antonio Brown, sparked intense discussions across social media. The intersection of sports and politics, combined with Trump's polarizing presence, generated fervent support and harsh criticism.

Something truly beautiful is happening in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania right now. Former Steelers Legends Antonio Brown and Le’Veon Bell are registering hundreds of new Trump voters

The culture is with Trump all the way this time.
pic.twitter.com/U4BoCgTM1n

— George (@BehizyTweets) October 20, 2024

However, reaction may also point to a hidden or silent vote, quietly aligning with Trump’s values and leadership without engaging in the volatile public discourse.

President @realDonaldTrump arrives at Acrisure Stadium to chants of U-S-A! 🇺🇸 pic.twitter.com/TaVUjTDuT9

— Margo Martin (@margommartin) October 21, 2024

Polarization in Public Discourse

Voter conversations online are polarized about Trump’s connection with the Steelers. Sentiment trends demonstrate a split between those who view Trump as a symbol of traditional American values and those who see his involvement in sports as problematic.

Some also point out that television coverage of Trump at the Steelers game was extremely limited, showing only a few seconds of him on the Sunday Night Football broadcast. However, viral social media videos show the crowd loudly and enthusiastically cheering, “USA, USA, USA,” as Trump waved down from his box seats.

Actual footage of the Steelers game tonight NBC won’t show you. pic.twitter.com/iK35jYAiDc

— Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11) October 21, 2024

The implication may be that—while online conversations are highly polarized, real-life voters are charged for Trump’s patriotic message. Thousands of fans cheering in a football stadium may capture sentiments which are absent online as not all voters engage in political discourse on social media.

Positive Sentiment

Around 45% of comments across various platforms express support for Trump, emphasizing his alignment with American values, patriotism, and leadership. Many fans appreciate his connection to blue-collar workers and traditional values, especially among older demographics, who see him as a “real American” representing their interests.

Negative Sentiment

Around 35-40% are critical of Trump’s appearance at the game, often voicing concerns about politicizing sports. These sentiments are especially pronounced among younger fans, who tend to view Trump’s involvement as divisive and distracting from the Steelers' legacy.

Former Pittsburgh Steelers are split on the Presidential election. One side has Mean Joe Greene, Jerome Bettis, and the family of Franco Harris supported her..

and the other has Leveon Bell & Antonio Brown.

Different class of folks for sure.

— Ryan Clark (@Realrclark25) October 20, 2024

Neutral Sentiment

Roughly 20% are neutral, focusing on the spectacle of Trump’s appearance without delving deeply into political allegiances. This group reflects the broader discomfort with the merging of sports and politics, without taking a strong stance.

A Hidden or Ignored Vote?

Though polarization dominates public discourse, there are signs of hidden support for Trump among those who choose not to voice their opinions openly.

Rising Focus on American Values

The volume and sentiment around American Values discussions have both increased, with up to 1,600 comments per day, reflecting growing resonance, particularly among older, conservative voters. Many in this group may avoid engaging in public debates but align strongly with Trump's ideals, contributing to the silent support.

Decreasing Engagement with Racial Issues

Discussions around Racial Issues have seen both a decline in volume and a decrease in sentiment. This suggests that while the issue remains relevant for some, it is becoming less central in broader discussions. The shift away from this topic may be another indicator that voters are gravitating more to Trump over the identity-driven Democratic platform.

Generational and Regional Dynamics

• Younger voters (18-35) remain more critical, with racial and socio-political issues often dominating their critiques.
• Older voters (36+) show strong support for Trump, with 70% of their comments expressing positive sentiment.

This suggests older voters may avoid confrontational debates but \quietly support Trump. National-level enthusiasm for Trump contrasts with the mixed reactions from local Pittsburgh residents, further indicating potential hidden support in offline conversations.

Neutral Sentiment as Silent Support

The presence of 15-25% neutral sentiment, particularly in the context of rising engagement with American Values, could signal silent support for Trump. In an environment where dissatisfaction is often vocalized online, a large neutral perspective points to those who prefer not to engage publicly but may lean toward Trump privately.

Linguistic Cues: Identity and Patriotism

The language used in pro-Trump discussions like “freedom,” “real American,” and “working-class hero," evokes traditional American ideals. Critics, on the other hand, focus on terms like “politicizing” and “distraction.” This contrast may suggest Trump’s supporters remain quiet but deeply aligned with his values.

The Intersection of Sports and Politics

Trump’s association with the Steelers taps into cultural themes of working-class pride and American identity. For many older voters, this connection solidifies their support, but they may remain silent in polarized public forums while intending to vote for Trump.

The growing influence of Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) movement may have a significant impact on election results. Many people previously considered health a niche focus. But growing opposition to GMOs and skepticism of pharmaceutical companies has emerged as an important issue for critical voter groups.

MIG Reports data shows MAHA has strong support and discussion among Republicans and Independents. There is also significant discussion among women, though with moderated enthusiasm due to Kennedy aligning with Trump. Democrats discuss MAHA less, but with some disaffected segments cautiously engaging.

Independents Want Health not Partisanship

One of the most important groups influenced by the MAHA movement is Independent voters. While traditionally difficult to predict, the 2024 election seems to be shifting some previously ambivalent voters toward Trump through RFK Jr.’s health platform.

Among this group, RFK Jr.'s outsider status and his emphasis on personal liberties is key—they are not swayed by partisan arguments but may be drawn to vote for health issues they prioritize.

Their engagement with the MAHA may be nuanced as some are excited by potential health reforms, while others are hesitant about aligning with Trump.

Independent Voters

• 40-50% of Independents are actively engaging with the MAHA platform.
• 35-40% express enthusiasm for health policies, overcoming their distaste for both major political parties.
• 20-30% resonate with MAHA while remaining wary of association with Trump.

Independents are known for valuing substance over party loyalty, and health reform could be the issue that moves this key voter bloc.

Women Want Health, Despite Trump

Female voters are another key group Trump stands to gain through the MAHA coalition. This offers a unique opportunity for the GOP, which traditionally struggles to attract women.

MIG Reports data previously showed women increasing prioritize health issues. Many say they are willing to look past their concerns about Trump in favor of MAHA’s health platform. They would rather reform health policy than avoid Trump, suggesting their primary focus is on achieving tangible public health outcomes.

Female Voters

• 40% of women are discussing health and healthcare policy issues over other political topics.
• 25% say they prioritize health issues over partisanship, willing to embrace Trump.

Many women are frustrated with the current healthcare system, particularly regarding access to affordable services and nutrition in low-income areas. They see health reforms as essential to their families' well-being.

The MAHA platform’s focus on reforming healthcare, reducing chronic disease, and improving food safety has created a pragmatic voter bloc willing to support health improvements, even if it means aligning temporarily with Trump.

This group, despite strong tendencies toward pro-choice and Democratic health policies may opt to align with Republicans if it means achieving the health reforms MAHA proposes.

Disillusioned Democrats Like MAHA

In general, Democrats who support health remain wary of MAHA due to party loyalty. Many Democratic voters disapprove of RFK Jr.’s alignment with Trump, even if they were previously drawn to Kennedy’s health policies. For many Democrats, anti-Trump and partisan motivations supersede other priorities.

However, there is some engagement from disaffected former Democrats—which aligns with partisan shifts among leaders like Kennedy and Tulsi Gabbard. These voters are both drawn by health autonomy but also expressing feelings of betrayal by their party. Many feel the Democratic Party, once the champion of the working class and progressive causes, has become too intertwined with corporate interests and government mandates in healthcare.

Many are also discontented about the lack of a Democratic primary, where Kamala Harris was ushered in by establishment elites. They dislike the most radical wings of the Party seeming to control policies and messaging in the current administration.

The disdain for current Democratic leadership is strong, with voters expressing feelings of betrayal from a party they once supported. One comment encapsulates this sentiment saying, "I used to be a diehard liberal, but this is no longer the party I once loved."

Democratic Voters

• 15-25% of Democrats are discussing RFK Jr. and MAHA-related topics.
• 20-30% express some interest in MAHA, though hesitant to abandon party loyalty.

For disaffected Democrats, the MAHA movement encourages taking the leap away from a Democratic establishment which clearly dismisses their health concerns. RFK Jr.’s aggressive stance against corporate power—especially his legal battles against Monsanto—resonates with those on the left who used to view Democrats as fighting against cronyism. While these Democrats may not fully align with the GOP, the MAHA movement could peel off voters who see sharp hypocrisy in Democratic messaging.

The Growing Appeal MAHA in the GOP

Another important shift is the enthusiastic embrace of RFK Jr.'s health-centric policies among Republicans. Traditionally focused on fiscal conservatism and national security, many Republicans now view personal health autonomy as imperative—especially after COVID.

The “crunchy” or health fanatic view many Republicans may previously have associated with RFK Jr.’s policies has softened. Now, many Americans view health as non-partisan, embracing any administration that will actively prioritize personal health freedoms.

Republican Voters

• 30-40% of Republicans are discussing RFK Jr. and MAHA.
• 50-70% of view MAHA positively.
• 40-50% embrace the MAHA agenda as a priority in their political considerations.

The GOP’s base has long distrusted government overreach, particularly in areas of personal liberty. This aligns MAHA's stance on health mandates, distrust of the CDC and FDA, and the fight against Big Pharma.

Kennedy’s position on vaccine mandates resonates with the anti-establishment MAGA base, which has long prioritized individual autonomy. This presents a real opportunity for the GOP to incorporate health policies which could solidify support from previously disparate voter groups.

The Hybridization of Republican Ideals

MAHA has the potential to marry traditional Republican values with a health approach that appeals to progressives. While some conservatives are wary of Trump’s moderate and progressive-leaning stances, there is an overlap in health which seems palatable across ideological lines.

Republican and Independent Enthusiasm

• MIG Reports data suggests 50-70% of Republicans and Independents overlap in their views and engagement toward MAHA.

Voters who are looking for common-sense policies that transcend partisan divides can come together under a health umbrella. For the GOP, this hybrid platform seems to be attracting new voters which are otherwise difficult to move.

Vice President Kamala Harris’s released an "Opportunity Agenda for Black Men,” drawing a swift ratio from X users reacting with incredulity. Less than 24 hours after posting the proposal, it had 23 million views, 35,000 replies, and only 28,000 likes.

Black men deserve a president who cares about making their lives better. pic.twitter.com/cUCdsvvYZ6

— Kamala Harris (@KamalaHarris) October 15, 2024

In the proposal, Harris promises to:

• Give black men “fully forgivable” $20k loans.
• Provide “pathways to become teachers.”
• Protect the cryptocurrency investments of black men.
• Create a “national health initiative.”
• Legalize marijuana.

Most voters react to the proposal as racial pandering and empty promises, further damaging Harris’s image with the very group she’s attempting to court.

• 67% of voters distrust Harris's motives, calling the agenda empty pandering.
• 38% specifically criticize race-based crypto protections.
• 60% of non-black voters say Harris should focus on fixing her immigration policies before pandering to black men.
• 15% are cautiously optimistic but demanding more transparency.

Following Harris debuting the Opportunity Agenda, voter sentiment toward her dropped noticeably.

• Harris’s overall sentiment in the last seven days averaged 43%, dropping to 42% today.
• Specifically, sentiment on the economy dropped from 43% a week ago to 41% today and racial issues dropped from a high of 45% in the last week to a drastic 34% today.

Disingenuous Racial Politics

During the 2024 campaign season, Harris has been known for either remaining vague on her policy positions, piggybacking on Trump-Vance proposals like “No Tax on Tips” and child tax credits, or pandering with grandiose promises.

Harris’s Opportunity Agenda fits into this pattern, promising forgivable loans to black entrepreneurs and cryptocurrency protections specifically for black men. These, many say, are both incredible racial pandering and potentially illegal.

Around 67% of voters reacting are skeptical about Harris’s motivations with the proposal—this is supported by the glaring ratio on her rollout post. People point to her record as California's Attorney General, where she failed to deliver on promises related to criminal justice reform and economic empowerment. Many black voters echo sentiments like, "You are only 'supporting' Black men because you need votes."

The proposal also gained a slew of memes, mocking what many view as disingenuous and infantilizing promises to black voters.

😭😭 pic.twitter.com/SSKFTIftxC

— AtBrightone 📈 🐢 (@Atbrightone) October 15, 2024

Harris Finally Gets Specific on Policy, Too Specific

The proposal to forgive loans for black entrepreneurs and regulate cryptocurrency markets are particular points of ire for many online. Nearly 40% of those discussing the proposal specifically mention their criticism for race-specific provisions in cryptocurrency. And even more are reacting to race-restricted forgivable loans.

pic.twitter.com/B8H3xa7G8g

— The Right To Bear Memes (@grandoldmemes) October 15, 2024

Many voters view this proposal as part of a broader trend in the Democratic Party of focusing on specific groups rather than addressing the needs of nation holistically. Critics view these promises as merely symbolic, with little bearing on the real economic struggles black men, and all Americans, face.

Conservatives also argue Harris’s focus on niche financial reforms—like protections for black men in cryptocurrency —swings too far in the opposite direction from her typical evasion when asked about policy specifics.

People say things like, "Why is crypto suddenly a priority for black men when inflation is through the roof?" Voters express frustration that Biden-Harris policies have created the economic situation and skyrocketing inflation that Americans find themselves in. They view meager promises like “protecting crypto” as completely meaningless amid looming economic strain.

Legal Concerns and Unconstitutionality

The loudest outcry against the Opportunity Agenda is against forgivable loans for black entrepreneurs, which raises legal concerns about discrimination and the Constitution. Thousands of voters push back, suggesting racial policies like these probably violate anti-discrimination laws or violate the Constitution.

Also unconstitutional https://t.co/O7q6irT2UT

— Megyn Kelly (@megynkelly) October 15, 2024

While Harris and her supporters argue targeted programs are necessary to correct racial injustice, most Americans, including some black voters, say Harris wants to undermine equality under the law. Many point out that implementing such a racial policy would likely open up a Harris-Walz administration to lawsuits and harsh public backlash.

Immigration Overshadows Opportunity

In response to the Opportunity Agenda, many people bring up Harris’s broader track record—particularly on immigration. As the Biden administration’s "border czar," Harris faces fierce criticism for allowing an unchecked stream of illegal immigrants, including gangs, murderers, and rapists into the country.

Around 60% of non-black voters are angry about Harris’s lack of urgency over the border. They say the influx of illegal immigrants which strains American communities like Aurora, CO and Springfield, MI are more damaging to black communities than the problems which the Opportunity Agenda would attempt to solve.

Voters are frustrated that Harris is focusing on race-specific economic initiatives while neglecting critical national concerns like border security. They say her failures undermine any credibility she may have in addressing the economic challenges facing black men.

"Mass immigration does not contribute to the dreams and aspirations of Black Americans," one comment states, condemning Harris for making future promises while failing to solve current problems within her control as the sitting Vice President.

The Hollow Promises of the Democratic Party

Voters view Harris’s Opportunity Agenda as just the latest disposable promise made by Democrats to the black community—most of which go unfulfilled. A dramatic 67% of voters doubt Harris’s ability to deliver, questioning her sincerity. Black voters particularly are weary of politicians making grand promises during election cycles but reneging once in office.

This growing disillusionment among black voters is consistent with recent MIG Reports analysis showing Trump gaining with minorities. These voters are beginning to view Harris’s policies as token gestures rather than meaningful reforms.

In the first day after debuting the plan, Harris’s Opportunity Agenda has decisively been shot down by voters who question her authenticity and competence. Legal concerns about discrimination, continued disapproval about identity politics, and her administration’s failures on economic and immigration issues all suggest Harris is failing to make inroads with any American men.

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.

Nutter Butter’s bizarre videos cut through the noise. Safe and boring?

That gets ignored.

Weird wins. 🔥 pic.twitter.com/NXAiSynMGw

— Martin O'Leary (@Martinoleary) October 8, 2024

American 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.

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.

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.)

Kamala's top surrogate just blew up her entire economic message. Incredible. pic.twitter.com/HcwBLgYo6x

— johnny maga (@_johnnymaga) September 26, 2024

MIG 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…?

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/vgnZpe1EKu

— Gunther Eagleman™ (@GuntherEagleman) September 25, 2024

Among 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.

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.

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/biMGTfAc1J

— Dan Caldwell 🇺🇸 (@dandcaldwell) September 23, 2024

Republicans

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, 2024

Across 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.

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.