An ongoing public debate between Elon Musk and Gavin Newsom, fueled by social media exchanges, reveals American backlash against the CA Governor. In reaction to a parody ad for Kamala Harris using AI to simulate her voice, Newsom proposed legislation to prosecute those sharing “misleading” or “deceptive” content—including memes.

Kamala Harris Campaign Ad PARODY pic.twitter.com/5lBxvyTZ3o

— Mr Reagan 🇺🇸 (@MrReaganUSA) July 26, 2024

Musk argues this bill infringes on free speech—a view most Americans share. MIG Reports analysis shows discussion themes around free speech, government overreach, misinformation, and public trust.

I checked with renowned world authority, Professor Suggon Deeznutz, and he said parody is legal in America 🤷‍♂️ https://t.co/OCBewC3XYD

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 29, 2024

Free Speech vs. Censorship

The issue of free speech dominates the conversation, with 76.67% of the public siding with Elon Musk. The overwhelming support for Musk stems from a strong belief that Newsom’s proposed law threatens the First Amendment. Many express concerns that government involvement in regulating parody or memes sets a dangerous precedent for future censorship.

Phrases like "tyrant," "communist," and "totalitarian" are frequently directed at Newsom, highlighting the hardline stance on this issue. For most Americans, free speech is an essential American value that must be protected at all costs—regardless of the risks posed by allegations of misinformation.

Government Overreach and Political Polarization

This debate between Musk and Newsom over memes has become a flashpoint for broader concerns about government overreach. Voters frame Newsom’s bill as an unconstitutional attempt to silence critics, positioning him as an authoritarian figure seeking to impose his will on the public.

Conservatives and Independents are particularly strong in their disapproval. Only 15.5% of the MIG Reports sample express support for Newsom. This group says the bill is a necessary tool to protect elections and prevent false information from corrupting democratic processes. However, even within this group, some express unease over the potential for government abuse.

The Role of Misinformation

The minority position emphasizes curbing “misinformation” to protect public trust in elections. Supporters say, though parody and memes are included in free expression, they can also undermine democratic integrity by pedaling deceptive narratives. This group believes the bill strikes a balance between free speech and public safety. They acknowledge that unchecked falsehoods have the potential to cause real harm. Despite this perspective, they struggle to gain traction in a conversation dominated by opposition to government censorship.

Public Distrust in Government

The conversation surfaces recurring American feelings of distrust toward government institutions. Musk’s framing of the debate—portraying Newsom as attacking free speech—resonates with those already skeptical of governmental power.

Many see the bill as part of a broader pattern of government interference in individual rights. They say censorship laws places public discourse in the hands of those in power, allowing them to determine what is considered “misinformation” or “deceptive.” This perception of government power grabs strengthens Musk's position as a defender of the people’s rights against an overbearing state.

Especially on X, voters view Musk as a champion of free speech. Their distrust fuels the debate and amplifies feelings of anger against government censorship and speech crackdowns akin to those seen in Europe.

Neutral and Undecided Voices

While the conversation is highly polarized, around 9.5% remain neutral or nuanced. This group either expresses uncertainty about the implications of Newsom's bill or attempt to frame the debate in more measured terms.

Some believe that while the bill has flaws, its intention may have merit. These voices suggest there is still room for debate and constructive discourse, though they are largely overshadowed by the more extreme rhetoric from both sides.

Mark Zuckerberg’s recent acknowledgment of Facebook censoring information under pressure from the Biden-Harris administration is sparking fiery debate about media influence and election integrity. As more Americans get their news online, the revelations lead many to question whether censorship could have swayed the outcome of the 2020 election.

Zuckerberg’s statement acknowledged Meta received and complied with pressure from the Biden-Harris administration to censor certain content. He highlighted two specific topics Facebook censored—COVID-19 information and the Hunter Biden laptop story. Zuckerberg admitted this censorship, demanded by the government, might have infringed on users' First Amendment rights. He expressed regret and made promises not to interfere with U.S. elections in the future.

JUST IN - Zuckerberg regrets working with the Biden-Harris administration to censor Covid era information online. pic.twitter.com/vD4Ug5ebqh

— Disclose.tv (@disclosetv) August 26, 2024

MIG Reports analysis of voter reactions to Zuckerberg's statement highlight growing skepticism towards government, social media, and information suppression:

• 60% of Americans discussing election integrity express negative sentiment toward institutions like the media and government.
• 20% express positive sentiments, typically focusing on hopes for reform and increased transparency in electoral processes.
• 70% of conservatives discuss allegations of election manipulation, suggesting a strong belief in corrupted elections.
• 15% of liberals focus on allegations of fraud, with the majority preferring to discuss trust in the system.

Voters View Censorship as a Game-Changer

Voter conversations reacting to Zuckerberg’s statement reveal concerns that social media censorship may have altered the 2020 election outcome—in which Trump lost to Biden.

MIG Reports data suggest 34% of Americans are discussing a belief that information suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop story likely tipped the scales in favor of Joe Biden.

Further bolstering this belief, Rep. Lauren Boebert reported that 71% of Americans think honest reporting on the Hunter Biden laptop story would have changed the election results.

71% of Americans believe accurate reporting of Hunter Biden’s laptop would have changed the 2020 election outcome.

This isn’t some nothing story.

This coverup altered the history of our nation forever.

— Lauren Boebert (@laurenboebert) February 9, 2023

Rep. Elise Stefanik also points out that 53% of Americans would have changed their vote, including 61% of Democrats, had they known the full extent of Hunter laptop story. These themes suggest a broad consensus that censorship, especially when it involves politically sensitive topics, can significantly impact voter behavior.

"Of the people that were made aware of the Hunter Biden laptop story, 53% would have changed their vote, including 61% of Democrats...this is the definition of election meddling...it's collusion, it's corruption, and it's unconstitutional." -@EliseStefanikpic.twitter.com/zpm3yLISwe

— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) February 9, 2023

Social Media Shaping Political Narratives

The discussion of media suppression dovetails into a broader conversation about where Americans get their news. According to Pew Research, 18% of U.S. adults in 2020 primarily turned to social media for political and election news. This figure is higher than the 16% who relied on cable television for their news at the time.

Since 2020, that number has grown, with 2024 Pew Research showing:

• 65% of X users go there primarily for news
• 37% of Facebook users go to Facebook for news

Meanwhile, among users who do not use social media primarily for news:

• 92% on X still see news-related content
• 91% on Facebook still see news-related content

MIG Reports analysis previously confirmed the trend, showing 65% of Americans distrust legacy news outlets, turning instead to platforms like X for information. These reports underscore the influence of social platforms in shaping public opinion, making Zuckerberg’s admission more consequential.

The fact that Americans increasingly get news from social media platforms, combined with evidence of government-influenced censorship, raises critical questions about the fairness and transparency of election outcomes. As more voters become aware of the extent of censorship during the 2020 election, negativity rises.

Censorship and Election Integrity

Americans were already concerned about election integrity prior to Zuckerberg’s statement, which has only served to deepen fears. Many voters, particularly conservatives, equate censorship with voter suppression.

Many say the government’s involvement in content moderation undermines the democratic process. The notion of a "deep state" manipulating information to favor certain political outcomes is a recurring theme, fueling beliefs that the 2020 election was compromised as well as fears about the upcoming 2024 election.

Progressive voters, however, tend to argue "content moderation” and “combating misinformation” is necessary, downplaying the concept of censorship. They view Zuckerberg’s admission as a call for stricter oversight of social media platforms. This group continues to advocate for preventing false information from proliferating.

The dichotomy between views of free speech and the need for accurate information reflects broader tensions in the current political landscape.

Speculation About Zuckerberg’s Motives

Voters present various theories about Zuckerberg's motivations for making a statement. Some speculate the timing aligns strategically with ongoing scrutiny of social media's role in shaping public opinion, particularly as elections approach.

Some suggest Zuckerberg may seek to deflect blame for censorship onto the government. People see this as an attempt to reposition Meta as responding to external political dynamics rather than making autonomous decisions about content moderation. This interpretation implies a calculated move to preserve the platform’s credibility and mitigate backlash.

Others posit Zuckerberg's remarks are a genuine response to pushes for transparency from tech giants amid mounting demands for reform. Ongoing discussions of free speech, censorship, and tech monopolies may be driving Zuckerberg’s motivations. This interpretation presents him as aligning Meta’s interests with those advocating for clearer guidelines, hinting at a willingness to cooperate with regulatory frameworks.

Polarized Voters and the Future of Free Speech

Zuckerberg’s statement is fostering critical debate about the role of social media in elections and the potential consequences of government-influenced censorship. While Americans see this as evidence of election manipulation, others believe oversight is necessary to protect the integrity of democratic processes.

Overall, voters are increasingly wary of the power social media platforms hold over public discourse. There is a growing demand for transparency and accountability. As the country grapples with 2024 election integrity, the lessons learned from 2020 will undoubtedly shape voter views and motivations.

The arrest of Pavel Durov, the CEO of the encrypted messaging app Telegram, in France has ignited widespread discussions online. Reactions show strong concerns about free speech, government authority, and the role of digital platforms in modern society.

American discourse around Durov’s arrest reveals sharp ideological divisions and varying interpretations of the event's implications. MIG Reports analysis shows wide societal tensions and an evolving debate over the balance between freedom and security in the digital age.

Arrest of Pavel Durov is a disturbing attack on free speech and a threat not just to Telegram but to any online platform.

Governments should not engage in censorship. This is a blatant and deeply troubling overreach of power.

— Lex Fridman (@lexfridman) August 25, 2024

The Clash of Ideologies

A prominent theme emerging from the discussions is the ideological battle between the defense of democratic ideals and encroachment of authoritarianism. People view Durov’s arrest as a troubling indication of state overreach and censorship, with approximately 65% of Americans expressing concern over the implications for civil liberties and free speech. This group views Durov as a champion of freedom, particularly in the Western context, where many fear his arrest signals a decline in the values that underpin democratic societies.

Within these discussions, roughly 30% express outright anger towards the French government’s actions, underscoring a belief Durov was targeted for dissent against autocratic tendencies. This sentiment aligns with a broader narrative that links the arrest to a global struggle between freedom and oppression, with participants frequently invoking historical parallels to past authoritarian regimes.

Conversely, a smaller but notable segment of the discussion, about 15%, focuses on the potential risks associated with unmoderated platforms like Telegram. This group raises concerns about the spread of misinformation and the platform's role in exacerbating political conflicts. They argue for a more balanced approach that considers both the need for free expression and the responsibility to prevent harmful narratives from proliferating.

Concerns Over Security and Regulation

The discourse also reflects significant anxiety about the intersection of digital communication and national security. Approximately 65% of the discussion surrounding security issues voices concern over the implications of Durov's arrest for free speech. Americans fear it marks a slippery slope towards increasing global government control of digital platforms.

Those who support the arrest argue accountability is necessary for those leading platforms that potentially propagate misinformation. This perspective emphasizes the need for regulatory frameworks to mitigate security threats, particularly in politically sensitive regions. These commenters stress a balance between protecting civil liberties and ensuring digital platforms do not become conduits for harmful or extremist content.

Public Distrust and the Role of Tech Platforms

Across the discussions, there is a pervasive sense of distrust towards government authority. There are also concerns about the role of tech platforms in modern society. Approximately 60% of the commentary reflects fears about governmental overreach and the implications for freedom of expression. Aroun 40% of the discussion shifts focus to Durov’s business practices and the broader impact on the tech industry.

The conversations frequently touch on the theme of digital privacy, with many expressing alarm at what they perceive as a growing trend of state intervention in the digital sphere. This distrust fuels calls for mobilization against perceived injustices, with some advocating for Durov’s release and others urging for greater scrutiny of how tech companies operate. The language used in these discussions often suggests a rising urgency to protect personal and societal freedoms, particularly as the digital landscape becomes increasingly regulated.

MIG Reports analysis confirms Americans continue to be deeply skepticism about the integrity and reliability of mainstream media sources. People often use terms like propaganda, lies, and gaslighting in reference to news reports from legacy outlets.

Public frustration centers around the perceived inability, and perhaps unwillingness, of media outlets to impartially report on issues such as immigration, government accountability, and political leadership. Many Americans often perceive modern journalism as essentially the communications arm of the government.

The Media Carries Water for Politicians

Central to this conversation is the idea of truth,” which appears frequently as individuals scrutinize the motivations behind political and news cycle narratives. Americans express dissatisfaction with how government officials communicate about contentious topics like immigration and the economy.

For instance, phrases like "fighting to fix our broken immigration system" are met with skepticism, as the public questions genuine intentions versus politically expedient placating. Voters feel the media plays a large role in obscuring the truth, especially when it comes to reporting on government actions.

Many feel the truth about and implications of government policies on citizens' daily lives is obfuscated by news reports following the Biden administration’s talking points. This sentiment is recurring in previous analyses in which Americans feel starved for transparency and substance in political dialogue.

Questions of media bias and accountability also emerge, with many Americans advocating for greater scrutiny on political narratives. People believe media outlets are complicit in propagating political agendas rather than holding politicians accountable. They say journalism often prioritizes sensationalism over factual reporting. Calls for a return to media ethics and transparency in political dealings abound.

Voters Want Transparency and Accountability

There’s a sense of urgency for accountability and honesty within media and government discourse. Many on the right also lament apparent censorship of opposing viewpoints by mainstream media and big tech.

Many fear the consequences of poor policy decisions, especially on immigration and economic hardships. They believe that, because the media refuses to report honestly, Americans struggle to find accurate information, remaining ill-informed. The level of public trust in legacy media is dismally low.

Public sentiment is negative toward government, with the Biden-Harris administration as focal points for criticism. Voters highlight specific policies, such as the open border and the Inflation Reduction Act as examples of Democratic failures to prioritize the welfare of American citizens. For many, there is a disconnect between governmental promises and actual outcomes.

Social media reactions to Joe Biden's statement to the press, "My policies are working. Start writing that way, OK?" are overwhelmingly critical. Americans express significant frustration and cynicism about Biden’s meaning. Many perceive this remark as an attempt to dictate media narratives rather than addressing substantive issues affecting the economy—especially inflation on Biden’s watch.

Reporter asks about inflation.

President Biden: "I told you you're going to have a soft landing...my policies are working. Start writing that way, okay?" pic.twitter.com/sHebANBv06

— CSPAN (@cspan) August 14, 2024

More Than a Feeling

Critics accuse Biden of trying to direct the mainstream media to spin the narrative in his administration’s favor. Phrases like propaganda, media manipulation, and censorship frequently appear in conversations. People express outrage at what they see as a blatant attempt to control the media's reporting on Biden's policies.

American feel that, rather than focusing on fixing the economy, Biden is more concerned with how he is perceived. This appears disingenuous to voters, revealing how far out of touch Biden is with the struggles of ordinary Americans.

The Emperor's New Clothes Narrative

A dominant theme in the criticism is America’s consistently escalating inflation issues. Voters highlight the disconnect between Biden's claim that his policies are working and the economic realities they face. Many point to rising prices and stagnant wages as evidence his policies are not working at all.

Terms like inflation crisis, out of touch, and government failure encapsulate the prevailing negative sentiment. Reactions suggest widespread frustration with the administration's lack of effort to fix the economy, particularly the perception that Biden is attempting to shift blame rather than take responsibility.

Voters feel betrayed by Biden's focus on media narratives, while ignoring the real economic pain people feel in day-to-day life. There is anger that, instead of addressing these concerns head-on, the president is trying to influence how his policies are reported. Criticism is harsh as people call Biden tone-deaf and say he's only interested in appearances and maintaining popularity.

The Myth of an Independent Media

Americans also harbor deep suspicions toward the media. They engage vigorously in conversations about the growing subservience of the media to partisan narratives. Many believe the media has lost any appearance of an independent stance. This is demonstrated in Stephen Colbert’s studio audience laughing when he sincerely said CNN is “objective” and “reports the news as it is.”

Stephen Colbert trying to say CNN is objective only to have his own crowd laugh at him is objectively funny. pic.twitter.com/kQ8yCPdg16

— Dave Portnoy (@stoolpresidente) August 13, 2024

Online conversations often mention certain keywords together like:

• Media
• Government
• Obedience
• Bias
• Corruption

People express sentiments of distrust towards the media, suggesting it aligns too closely with Democratic talking points. Many view the media as liberal, biased, and consistently lying to them. They vocalize a belief that media entities are complicit in supporting Biden’s agenda rather than providing objective reporting.

Public sentiment is heavily skeptical regarding the media’s integrity and independence from Democratic influence.

Recently, police commissioner of London Sir Mark Rowley declared that social media users outside the United Kingdom may be extradited for terrorism-related charges. This announcement came in reaction to Americans observing English protests over forced mass immigration and intervening to overburden police resources.

England Police say they will extradite and imprison Americans over social media posts pic.twitter.com/VB6sIyWWnE

— Paul A. Szypula 🇺🇸 (@Bubblebathgirl) August 9, 2024

Americans perceived injustice on the part of the British government toward U.K. citizens who are demonized and arrested for protesting mass immigration. Reports of British citizens being arrested for their online speech was particularly offensive to Americans who value free speech. This caused Americans to troll police departments by spamming fake crime reports on police chat systems.

Americans on /pol/ discover that you can speak live to police officers in the UK to report crime pic.twitter.com/4q8nYbS2Oz

— Surfer (@surfmaxing) August 7, 2024

Online responses to the potential repercussions for American social media users are mixed.

Americans Fear Losing Free Speech

Sentiment trends among Americans are noticeably negative, reflecting deep concerns and frustrations. The tone of the conversations is defensive, as people assert their rights against government threats. This defensiveness sometimes adds a mixture of confusion and fear about what the future may hold if America loses its right to free speech.

Public sentiment largely views foreign governments pursuing Americans over speech as an overextension of legal authority and a threat to the constitutional freedoms American citizens hold dear.

Concerns are growing that situations like the one in Britain reflect global trends toward government control and authoritarian crackdowns. Some also worry about freedom at home, referring to the events and prosecutions following January 6.

Americans engaging in these discussions are fearful their social media postings could subject them to severe legal repercussions. They draw unsettling parallels between U.K. citizens being arrested for speech and January 6 protesters who faced severe legal consequences.

Sentiment about resisting increased threats to free expression reveals disillusionment. Many people feel powerless at the hands of governments that are rapidly encroaching on constitutional liberties. This sense of unease is heightened by concerns about increased surveillance, censorship, and punitive measures for political dissent.

The top conversations around freedom of expression include:

• Law Enforcement Overreach: Many are in disbelief and angry that U.K. police would try to extradite and imprison Americans over online speech. They view it as unacceptable and an overreach of British legal power.
• Free Speech Rights: Americans see the potential for extraditions as a direct threat to constitutional liberties. There is extensive debate about the need to retain these rights against authoritarian regimes.
• Comparisons to January 6: Discussions frequently draw comparisons between U.K. immigration protests and crackdowns following January 6. Many view these events as politicized government action against dissenters.
• Surveillance Concerns: There are worries about surveillance and governments gathering social media. People are anxious that governments are continuously monitoring citizens more closely and doling out punishments.
• International Jurisdiction: Americans question the legal justifications and sovereignty issues involved in international jurisdiction over speech. People are unsure about the legitimacy and enforceability of such actions.

Recently, the online and print publication The Economist, went viral for its controversial coverage of protests in the U.K. A controversial article titled, "How to respond to the riots in Britain," called to “punish the thugs” and “stand up for immigration.”

This, to many in America and the U.K., is emblematic of typical mainstream media responses to national protests against unchecked immigration. Recent U.K. protests over the murder of three English girls roiled citizens about immigration in the U.K., eliciting these headlines from The Economist.

Along with placing blame on U.K. nationals, there are rumors of The Economist allegedly removing the Palestinian flag from a photo in one of their stories to downplay pro-Palestine involvement in riots. This fuels discourse criticizing the media, especially drawing backlash from Americans. People express mounting concerns over fake news, media bias, and free speech issues.

The Economist seems to have a problem with the Palestinian flag being displayed on its cover. pic.twitter.com/GWi0O0i955

— Khurram Husain (@KhurramHusain) August 9, 2024

Online conversations show public discontent and extreme distrust of media outlets. Americans, who are sensitive about free speech, accuse the U.K. government of silencing and punishing its citizens for speaking up about immigration. They view leaders as protecting antagonistic immigrants over native citizens. Incidents like this amplify existing anxieties about the integrity and objectivity of press coverage.

In the Total State the native population is criminal, the immigrant is sacred, and the narrative of the managerial elite is truth https://t.co/mC186MiScO

— Auron MacIntyre (@AuronMacintyre) August 8, 2024

Key discussion topics and keywords online include:

• Media manipulation: "photoshopping," "Palestinian flag"
• Censorship: "deleted," "cover up"
• Distrust in media: "fake news," "biased reporting"
• Media accountability: "apologize," "retraction," "credibility"
• Potential editorial bias: "anti-Palestinian," "pro-government"

Americans Sympathize with the English

Online sentiment toward The Economist and the media is predominantly negative. People voice frustration and skepticism at media outlets they view as actively obscuring the truth or manipulating public perception.

This distrust is not confined to any single demographic but spans various groups. Moderates and undecided voters in America, who consume various media sources, are particularly affected. They express discomfort over the evident lack of transparency and the potential influence of media bias on public opinion and policy.

Skepticism toward the media connects with broader themes of political disenfranchisement and systemic corruption. People draw parallels between what they view as The Economist's disingenuous immigration coverage and wider distrust of government and institutional transparency.

There is heightened sensitivity toward perceived double standards and selective news coverage. Americans view both the U.S. government and the U.K. government as "two-tiered justice systems," aided by the mainstream media in playing political favoritism.

Anti-establishment feelings are widespread, fostering a climate of resistance to media narratives and opinions forced on the public by institutions. The skepticism extends to broader concerns, such as electoral integrity and the credibility of news about prominent political figures, further polarizing public opinion.

In the current American political landscape, discussions about gun control are intense. Divisions are often along partisan lines when it comes to gun regulations, carry laws, and firearm availability. However, there is a related issue of credit card companies monitoring purchases which impacts wider groups of Americans, illustrated vividly by gun owners.

2A Advocates are Livid with Increased Gun Measures

Conservative and pro-2A (Second Amendment) Americans are increasingly worried about credit card company involvement in gun-related policies. Analysis of online conversations reveals sentiment towards credit card companies like Visa and Mastercard is deeply influenced by their policies related to gun purchases and tracking.

Gun owners view any action by financial institutions to monitor or restrict firearm transactions as a direct infringement on their freedoms. Any possibility of having purchases of financial access restricted by credit card companies causes severe protest. While this issues is particularly objectionable for gun owners, they also argue it is relevant for all Americans who fear their behavior could be tracked and acted upon by corporations.

Americans frequently express concerns over executives or policies perceived to infringe upon the First and Second Amendments, citing fears of mandatory buyback programs, bans on certain weapons, and free speech violations. These concerns are heightened by policy proposals from politicians like Kamala Harris.

She didn't say it once, twice or even three times. Kamala practically campaigned on gun confiscation.

Here is a clip of her clearly stating that the "buyback" will be compulsory. https://t.co/VShzBugAmj pic.twitter.com/gmu84g37dd

— National Association for Gun Rights (@NatlGunRights) August 2, 2024

There is strong negativity toward any company voters view as willing to participate in or support such gun control or censorship actions. People vehemently assert that increasing gun restrictions violates fundamental and constitutional rights.

Statements about “gun confiscation” and “mandatory buybacks” are central keywords to these conversations. Confiscation within a specific timeframe, such as the "first 100 days" appears with mentions of Kamala Harris, eliciting strong reactions among gun rights advocates. They fear the slippery slope of eroding freedoms. This includes a growing worry about financial tracking by credit card companies and government overreach.

Progressives Cheer Censorship and Gun Restrictions

Conversely, the term “gun violence” appears frequently in discourse on the left—unless it pertains to illegal immigrants. Democrats and progressives are more likely to talk about credit card companies as potentially playing a role in reducing violence.

Many on the left support companies if they implement policies leftists believe could reduce gun violence. They cheer for things like tracking suspicious purchases of firearms and ammunition. These advocates argue it's a form of “corporate responsibility” and is essential for public safety.

Liberals say purchase monitoring is a necessary measure to combat an "epidemic" of gun violence, especially in light of high-profile mass shootings. They appreciate efforts to impose gun restrictions and call for increased regulations to prevent firearms from getting into the wrong hands.

Any action by credit card companies to curb gun purchases is often lauded as a step forward among progressive. They connect mass shootings with the ease of access to firearms, saying it creates an environment where financial institutions are obligated to step in.

"Background checks" also dominate the conversation, with mixed sentiments. Some argue comprehensive background checks should be facilitated by credit card transaction reviews. They claim this could enhance public safety and prevent tragic outcomes, praising Visa and Mastercard for proactive measures.

With several outlets publishing opinion polls on the presidential matchup of Donald Trump vs Kamala Harris, MIG Reports data shows American are skeptical. This skepticism is especially sharp toward traditional, or establishment, news and media outlets.

While perceptions of political polling's reliability vary greatly, a substantial portion of the public appears to distrust these polls. This skepticism stems from previous experiences where polls have failed to predict actual election outcomes accurately.

Currently, Kamala’s support base, while diverse, shows nuanced characteristics revealing both genuine admiration and reactive support spurred by political attacks. The overarching sentiment among Harris supporters online is a rallying around her in opposition to Trump. This "us versus them" mentality often fuels an online reactionary defense, rather than positive support or a nuanced understanding of policy issues.

Analysis of real-time conversations about Harris’s position on important voter issues betrays an underlying negativity that does not seem consistent with polling.

Border Security

Voter view of Vice President Kamala Harris and her failure at the U.S. border are negative, focusing on harsh criticisms for her policies. The primary sentiment is driven by frustration over her failure to manage immigration issues. People accuse her of being a key figure in allowing an extreme border crisis.

Discussion Highlights

• Increased Illegal Immigration: Critics cite Harris's role in allowing unchecked illegal immigration, alleging 10 million or more illegal entries. They lament the strain on social services and infrastructure.
• Border Wall and Security: There is significant discourse about Harris halting border wall construction and reversing previous policies, with anger over ending agreements like "Remain in Mexico.”
• Impact on Safety and Crime: Many believe increased illegal immigration has led to a rise in crime, including drug trafficking and violence, posing threats to community safety and national security.
• Economic Concerns: Critics accuse Harris policies of causing higher living costs, burdening taxpayers who feel they are supporting illegal immigrants through social services.
• Policy Stance: People view Harris as supporting radical policies, such as abolishing ICE and offering free healthcare to undocumented immigrants, which are massively unpopular.

While support for Harris on border issues is limited, her supporters claim her efforts have been limited to addressing migration's root causes and advocating for comprehensive immigration reform. They view her approach as balancing security with compassion and aligning with American humanitarian values.

Sentiment Trends

• Lack of Leadership: Many express dissatisfaction with Biden-Harris inaction, noting infrequent visits to the border and lack of communication with Border Patrol leaders.
• Legislative Failures: Critics claim her policies have not led to substantive border security reforms and have resulted in bureaucratic inefficiencies and legislative gridlock.

Border Czar Failures

Harris's role as "Border Czar" also garners widespread criticism, along with broader views of border security. Voters express dissatisfaction, accusing her of failing in her leadership position, allowing record illegal crossings and compromising national security. Critics directly link her oversight to increased crime, drug trafficking, and threats to public safety.

This negativity suggests a lack of confidence in her ability to solve critical problems or speak meaningfully to Americans about things they view as important. With border security consistently among the top three critical issues to voters, and Harris’s Border Czar role providing direct oversight, border security serves as a gauge of Kamala’s administrative competence—or lack thereof.

Discussion Highlights

• Negative Sentiment: People view Harris as exacerbating the border situation. They say she has allowed millions of illegal immigrants into the country, citing statistics to support claims of increased crossings and security risks.
• Policy Criticisms: Discussions use phrases like "decriminalized crossing," "funding for ICE," and "border patrol agents," and indicate disapproval for her lack of action.
• Lack of Positive Outcomes: Voters point out a lack of concrete, positive outcomes from Kamala's leadership. Critics often question her qualifications and effectiveness in managing important issues.

International Unrest

A huge focus also places heavy negativity on international security dynamics. Voters on both sides disapprove of Harris’s stance on Israel and Palestine, and her broader foreign policy. The most frequently discussed issues involve her support for Israel, approaches to the ongoing conflict in Gaza, and her strategies for managing threats posed by Iran and its proxies like Hezbollah and Hamas.

Discussion Highlights

• Us vs. Them: Supporters rally around Harris as the savior from a potential second Trump term, touting her resilience and ability to tackle complex policy issues.
• Support for Israel: Harris’s strong Israel support gains approval, especially with those who see Israel as a critical ally. However, pro-Palestine Democrats express dissatisfaction.
• Bipartisan Unhappiness: Harris's advocacy for increased humanitarian aid to Gaza does not go far enough for pro-Palestine voters, while her support for Israel does not go far enough for pro-Israel voters.
• Diplomatic Strategy: Harris’s theoretical focus on diplomatic solutions over military interventions, particularly regarding Iran, may appeal to a war-weary electorate. However, lack of action or public statements also concerns voters.
• Reactive Support: Much of Harris’s support is reactionary, defending her against Republican criticisms and highlighting her management of issues like the Ukraine conflict and border security.

Sentiment Trends

Support for Harris is strong among those who appreciate her foreign policy positions. However, it is also possible that Democrats and anti-Trump voters project their own foreign desires on a candidate who has outlined very few concrete stances. Harris’s base is energized more by opposition attacks than by affirmative policy positions.