party-politics Articles
-
In the final stretch of campaigning, Harris’s campaign trail footprint is heavily focused on urban areas and issues. Democratic voters say rural and suburban areas are feeling overlooked. This urban focus drives a sentiment of disillusionment and skepticism among non-urban Democrats, who frequently feel disconnected from Harris’s platform.
I love that Kamala Harris is doing an event in Mercer County, PA! This is deep red territory. Donald Trump won it by 25 points. It’s all about the margins. If she can bring it down to 20 points and keep her margins in Philadelphia, she wins PA, and thus the White House! pic.twitter.com/jdR9Zd23gV
— Russell Drew (@RussOnPolitics) September 5, 2024The Forgotten Democrat
MIG Reports data shows feelings of disenfranchisement, with up to 70% of Democratic comments in non-urban areas expressing negative sentiment toward Harris.
They use terms like "liar," "elite," and "out of touch" to describe her, saying she prioritizes the interests of urban elites over those of average Americans. Only about 10% of comments reflect positive sentiment. These highlight Harris’s potential for representation, though they’re greatly overshadowed by critiques.
Approximately 20% of comments contain a mix of approval and disappointment, indicating a nuanced struggle among some Democrats who appreciate her achievements but feel alienated by her focus on urban-centric issues.
- FEC data shows Democrats raised more than $1 billion, with the highest donations in coastal states with large urban populations.
- This is compared to Republicans raising $565 million in a wider scattering of geographical donations.
Nuanced Criticisms
Several anomalies add depth to these findings. Rural and suburban voters often critique Harris’s identity as a woman of color, associating her rise with elite endorsement rather than grassroots support, which they see as alienating. They reference her ascendence to the nomination with words like, "hand-picked" and "elite politics,” highlighting discomfort with her establishment involvement.
Language
Linguistic there is a prevalence of third-person language, even in supportive comments. This suggests a passive engagement that may indicate shallow connection to Harris’s campaign. Urban supporters often use first-person pronouns ("I" and "we") to voice optimism, reflecting personal identification with her campaign.
Conversely, rural and suburban critics lean toward third-person language ("they" and "them"), which reflects detachment and a sense of alienation. This split is pronounced, with around 60% of non-urban comments using third-person references, emphasizing the ostracization this group feels from the party.
The Economy
Non-urban Democratic voters often cite economic concerns such as inflation and taxation, criticizing Harris’s policies as insufficiently addressing their financial struggles. This economic critique is an anomaly, as Democratic support is generally strong for Harris on economic issues. Voters in middle America and rural and suburban communities say Harris’s policies do not address reality.
Messaging
The communication style of Harris’s campaign adds to these frustrations, with many non-urban Democrats finding her language divisive. They say it reinforces the urban-rural divide within the Democratic base.
Harris’s style has led to increased demands for unity and respectful dialogue. Ultimately, Harris’s urban-centric approach, combined with perceived elitism and divisive rhetoric, intensifies discontent among suburban and rural Democrats.
This sentiment presents a critical obstacle to broader Democratic support, suggesting Harris's ability may not be strong enough to unify the party’s diverse voter base.
05
Nov
-
The most recent topical conversations online about Trump and Harris continue to show top discussions around:
- Ideologies (culture issues)
- Economic Issues
- Housing
- Border Security
- Security Issues (national security)
While both candidates generate considerable engagement, Trump consistently garners a more favorable perception or, at the very least, a more engaged and vocal base across these topics.
Ideologies
In discussions about cultural issues, Trump has a definitive edge, resonating with voters who prioritize traditional American values. The tone of these conversations reflects a divide between conservative values and progressive policies.
Many view Trump as a defender of American cultural identity against radical changes by the progressive left. Harris supporters are frustrated with “extremism” in the MAGA movement, but this sentiment lacks the intensity seen in Trump’s base.
Trump supporters are energized, framing the ideological battle as one to “save America” from forces they deem un-American. This cultural intensity gives Trump an advantage, as his supporters rally. Harris’s support appears more tempered and defensive in tone.
Economic Issues
Many voters blame their financial struggles with Biden-Harris policies. They point to Trump’s previous term as a period of economic stability and growth. There's frustration with inflation, high gas prices, and a rising cost of living—all blamed on Biden and Harris.
The narrative frequently casts Trump as a solution to these economic woes. Supporters believe his leadership could restore financial stability. Harris defenders attempt to highlight economic improvements, but this narrative seems to lack resonance, especially in light of the recent jobs report.
Trump appears to be “winning” the economic argument. People view his policies as pro-growth and more aligned with middle-class concerns.
Housing
Millions of Americans are also frustrated over housing affordability and rising costs. In these discussions, Trump’s supporters emphasize that his leadership would prioritize Americans over migrants, whom they blame for driving up housing demand and costs.
There is a strong undercurrent of resentment in these conversations, with phrases like “putting Americans first” and “protecting the American dream” often surfacing in support of Trump.
Harris supporters say her proposals for affordable housing and assistance to first-time homebuyers are necessary steps. However, many point out that these programs would likely still benefit illegal immigrants over citizens.
Policy proposals from Harris generate skepticism. This underlying doubt among critics, combined with Trump’s appeal to prioritize Americans, tilts public sentiment toward Trump in the housing debate.
Border Security
Border security consistently shows criticism toward Harris. Americans attribute current immigration challenges to her “open borders” policies. The rhetoric in these discussions often includes references to safety concerns and economic impacts.
Many present Trump as a champion of a strong border and protecting American interests. Harris’s narrative, by contrast, struggles against negativity, with supporters defending her approach as more humane but failing to overcome fears and frustrations.
This intensity of criticism directed at Harris and the frequent calls for a return to Trump’s immigration policies indicate that Trump holds a commanding position on the topic of border security. This is particularly evident in Harris’s messaging, which increasingly echoes Trump’s.
Security Issues
National and foreign security issues are particularly contentious across party lines, with both candidates receiving mixed sentiment. However, Trump’s image as a strong, decisive leader gives him a perceived edge in the public eye. Trump supporters view his approach to foreign relations as promoting peace. People cite things like the Abraham Accords and his handling of adversarial countries as exemplifying his strength.
Harris supporters argue her stance on Ukraine and upholding alliances is necessary for maintaining global stability. However, there is also significant criticism that the Biden-Harris administration fosters global tensions.
Many typically progressive groups are divided on Harris—Particularly regarding Israel-Hamas conflicts. Trump endorsements from Arab Americans and Somali leaders signal some shifts in voter views of American foreign policy.
04
Nov
-
Many people are discussing the “gender gap” in this election with women largely leaning Harris and men leaning Trump. While many people understand that trends among men and women differ, it remains to be seen how these trends may sway the election results.
MIG Reports data confirms many trends driving male and female voters, their alignment with candidates, and generational trends influencing attitudes.
Male Support for Trump
Most men’s discussions of politics online are supportive of Trump. They say they’re drawn by his economic and national security policies. MIG Reports analysis reveals:
- 61.53% of male voters align with Trump, citing law and order and the economy. They view Trump as reinforcing traditional American values and ensuring stability.
- 38.47% of male voters support Harris, often citing dissatisfaction with Trump’s rhetoric rather than alignment with Harris’s policies.
Female Support for Harris
Female voters, especially those concerned with social equity and healthcare, favor Harris.
- 70.49% of female voters back Harris, praising abortion and gender equity. They see her as defending women’s autonomy and achieving social progress.
- 29.51% of female voters express support for Trump, often driven by economic concerns, which they feel outweigh social policies.
Men Dominate Online Discussions
Online data may not be completely representative as male voices dominate discussions.
- MIG Reports data shows 62.34% of online discussion is among men.
- This higher representation often skews discussions toward economic and national security themes, creating a narrative aligned with Trump’s platform.
- Only 37.66% of the discussions comes from women online.
- The gender disparity reflects broader trends where men dominate discourse on traditional political issues, while engaged women tend to be highly energetic.
Statistics show there are more women in American than men—168 million women versus 165.28 million men. This suggests the full spectrum of female viewpoints is likely not captured exclusively through online voter discussions.
Male Voter Priorities
In online discussions, men say they prioritize economic stability and national security.
Economic Stability
- Inflation, job creation, and taxes are top concerns.
- Many men align with Trump’s promise of fiscal conservatism and deregulation.
- They say Trump’s economic approach offers tangible stability, with sentiments focused on his track record of job creation and pro-business tax policies.
National Security and Immigration
- Male conversations voice anxiety about immigration policy and national security.
- Trump’s approach to border control resonates deeply, with men framing stricter immigration as essential to preserving American sovereignty.
Female Voter Priorities
Women mostly prioritize social equity, abortion, and healthcare.
Abortion and Healthcare
- Women discuss Harris’s pro-abortion platform with passion.
- Following the overturning of Roe v. Wade, many women say their support for Harris reflects a desire to safeguard personal freedoms.
- However, MIG Reports data also shows a growing number of women are willing to prioritize public health and MAHA over abortion.
Social Equity and Climate Change
- Many women are drawn to Harris’s positions on climate change and environmental policy, seeing these as critical to family and future welfare.
- Women focus less on economic strength compared to men, saying they prefer policies that will address systemic inequities.
Younger Voters (Under 30)
- Younger voters, especially women, lean towards progressive issues.
- This age group prioritizes social justice, climate change, and abortion, with strong support for Harris.
- Younger men are more likely to voice anti-establishment sentiment, with economic anxieties often eclipsing party loyalty.
- However, many younger men resonate with Trump’s focus on economic growth as an antidote to inflation.
Middle-Aged Voters (30-50)
- Middle-aged men say economic stability and national security are motivating them, leading many in this group to support Trump.
- These men associate Trump with financial and familial security.
- Middle-aged women see Harris’s healthcare and family welfare policies as preferable.
- They value stability but view it through a lens of economic impact through social policies and feeling reassured rather than economic theory.
Older Voters (50+)
- Older men mostly lean toward Trump, seeing his policies as preserving national strength and security.
- Older women, while concerned with national stability, place a higher emphasis on healthcare access and social welfare policies.
- Many voice preference for Harris’s opposition to Trump and advocacy for progressive social values.
Gender-Based Issues and Voter Engagement
Based on MIG Reports analysis of voter discussions, women likely to show higher turnout at the polls. This is fueled by anger over Roe v. Wade and abortion discussions among Democrats.
Many women see the election as a direct defense of their personal freedoms. Female urgency is evident in passionate discussions around Kamala Harris, whom they see as a champion for these rights.
Men are also engaged strongly in political discussions but indicate a mix of motivations to vote. Issues like gun rights and immigration also tend to feature prominently in male discussions, overshadowing the more interpersonal issues highlighted by women.
Energy levels suggest women are slightly more energized compared to men. Female commenters express a profound commitment to change, speaking out against Trump and calling to resist authoritarianism.
Men often express support in more practical and less emotional terms. The disparate energy level in discourse could suggest turnout differences. However, this remains to be seen if men choose to vote, while remaining at a lower baseline for emotional intensity.
04
Nov
-
Campaign fervor is cresting just days prior to the election and MIG Reports data shows non-Trump partisans—liberals and Democrats—are leaning into performative outrage. Using dramatic language, hyperbolic expressions, and a repeated emphasis on extreme descriptors, this group is expressing high emotion.
Some do articulate reasonable concerns over some of Trump’s policies and potential influence. A substantial portion of liberals also seem to genuinely believe the outrage, calling Trump a fascist. However, much of the discourse skews toward performative expressions, crafted to amplify emotional resonance and foster a unified group identity.
Ana Kasparian clashes with Cenk Uygur on Trump, arguing that he isn't a “fascist” and the Democrat Party misrepresents him.
— AF Post (@AFpost) November 1, 2024
Follow: @AFpost pic.twitter.com/RPvzniKygePerformative Elements in Language
The language deployed across these conversations frequently borders on theatrical.
- Terms such as “fascist,” “Hitler,” and “authoritarian” are common, imbuing Trump with a villainous aura that aligns with familiar tropes.
- Critics frame him as an antagonist in a moral and political struggle.
- Despite the existence of other authoritarian leaders like Pol Pot, Josef Stalin, Augusto Pinochet, Hitler is only parallel most use to depict Trump.
- The lexicon signals a collective identity that rallies around shared anxieties and moral judgments.
- Embellished phrases like “end of democracy” or “chaos in America,” tap into a performative mode designed less to analyze and more to evoke.
- The prevalence of these dramatized expressions suggests the intent is to stir reactions—likes, comments, and shares.
The tone of many online posts shows stylized indignation. Common keywords like “garbage,” “disgrace,” and “complete disaster” create an atmosphere that leans heavily on hyperbole to drive points home.
Much of the discourse can be categorized as “outrage posting,” where media and influencers exaggerate language to amplify emotional responses.
Outrage as a Mobilization Tool
The performative outrage often functions as a mobilization tool.
- Posts pushing extreme discontent or alarmist tones are among the most engaging, with metrics indicating hyperbolic statements significantly boost reactions.
- The performative nature serves as a rallying call, mobilizing users by constructing Trump as a political opponent and existential threat.
- Posts often use an urgent tone, calling for action or moral imperatives that encourage followers to align with the collective response.
- Recurring terms include, “protect democracy” or “save America,” tapping into a mythology of resistance and survival.
Heightened rhetoric on both sides shapes voter responses, promoting a sense of duty among followers. The performative outrage is often a coordinated effort to convert emotional reactions into tangible support for the broader progressive agenda.
🚨 Warning - heavy TDS: Before my flight, this woman put her middle finger up at me. I ignored it.
— Melissa Robey (@Robey2020) October 31, 2024
After the flight, she walked by me before I could record and screamed that I was a “facist”. Here is the rest of the interaction: #TDS #5days pic.twitter.com/ra5zAa2OCvGenuine Concern vs. Amplified Rhetoric
Certain topics, such as healthcare, education, and climate change, are discussed with less sensationalism and more emphasis on practical consequences. The language shifts subtly to discuss policies or potential impacts, emphasizing marginalized groups and vulnerable communities.
Moments of sincerity suggest that while performative outrage dominates, there is a genuine core that fuels these discussions, reflecting real fears and apprehensions among progressives.
However, the performative aspect tends to overshadow genuine concerns due to rage bait engagement. This dynamic suggests the structure of social media itself, with its emphasis on engagement metrics, incentivizes users to use a hyperbolic style.
Outrage as the New Norm
Progressive conversations about Donald Trump are contentious and emotional. The use of exaggerated language, dramatized fears, and repeated calls to action suggest the discourse operates primarily to elicit reactions, reinforce group identity, and galvanize support. Genuine concerns do exist, particularly on specific policy issues, yet they are often subsumed within the larger spectacle of outrage.
Language analysis suggests discourse is disproportionately hyperbolic compared to real, normal life. However, it’s also possible to conclude that many anti-Trump voters who exhibit what some call “TDS” (Trump Derangement Syndrome), are genuinely disturbed. There are also growing discussions about mental health, anxiety, depression, and anger tied to political fears.
03
Nov
-
Reactions to Kamala Harris’s closing pitch in Washington, D.C. were tepid. There are significant obstacles for her, with criticism and skepticism largely overshadowing positive responses.
I am in Kamala Harris’s Ellipse rally crowd in D.C., and her whole crowd is angry pro-Hamas voters chanting “Intifada Revolution.” A Kamala victory means all these “lovely” people standing behind me will be coming to “protest” in your town. President Trump is the only one with… pic.twitter.com/xNg3Jl6ilb
— Charles R Downs (@TheCharlesDowns) October 29, 2024Voter Sentiment
- Sentiment toward Harris’s closing pitch skews heavily negative, with approximately 70% of comments expressing critical perspectives on her message and policies.
- While some supportive voices resonate with her emphasis on democratic values, the dominant tone is critical.
- Primary criticisms focus on issues like immigration, corruption, and perceived leadership failings, and her lack of support for Palestine.
Independents
- Around 82-85% of Independents express skepticism or opposition to Harris’s messaging.
- Many Independents are frustrated with her approach to the border, seeing her policies as disconnected from their concerns.
- Americans perceive her as out of touch with citizen needs, viewing her focus on unity and democracy as insufficient to address immediate crises.
- Only 15-18% expressed support, typically referencing her work for marginalized communities, though this support was notably less intense than the criticisms.
Language Patterns
The language on social media is charged and polarized. Key negative phrases—such as “inept,” “failure,” and “delusional”—paint a picture of Harris as lacking the capacity to address critical issues.
Negative terms related to immigration and law enforcement, like “open borders” and “corrupt judges,” further intensify the critical narrative, as commenters often challenge her ability to lead on pressing national issues.
Supportive language, though less frequent, often contains “democracy,” “freedom,” and “hope,” portraying Harris as an advocate for marginalized groups. However, this positive language is overshadowed by the stronger negative critiques.
Independents
Language among Independents reflects heightened skepticism, often using vivid and direct critiques of Harris’s policies. Terms like “open borders” and “draining Social Security” capture the most common concerns.
The rhetoric suggests Independents view her priorities as misaligned, prioritizing illegal migrants over American citizens. Other terms like “defund the police” and “intifada” reveal an intense reaction to what they see as her radical policies. Many protesters, even in her own base, are furious about Harris’s support for Israel.
Just a few seconds in and Kamala's already getting drowned out by sirens. pic.twitter.com/Fype2ThqP2
— Trump War Room (@TrumpWarRoom) October 29, 2024Convincing Undecided Voters
Harris’s narrative, focused on unity and social justice, struggles to resonate with undecided voters. They voice distrust and anger in response to her closing message.
The dominant critique from undecided voters is the disconnect between her rhetoric and American priorities. They say her messaging lacks the substance needed to sway them. Keywords like “inefficiency” and “self-seeking” further emphasize a view of Harris as unable to address critical issues convincingly.
Critiques often emphasize Harris's lack of authenticity, with terms like “pandering” and “lip service” describing her message. Harris’s focus on unity falls flat in the wake of divisive rhetoric from Harris and, during her closing speech, from Joe Biden.
Shriveling Enthusiasm
Any enthusiasm generated by her closing pitch is modest and likely unable to counterbalance the significant opposition. Supporters rallying behind her message are literally drowned out by protests from angry Democratic voters and disillusioned Independents. Many Americans view her policies as radical and impractical.
Independents say her closing pitch leaves them feeling disconnected rather than energized. There is a sense of disenchantment rather than engagement. Harris’s efforts to invoke pride or urgency appear largely ineffective, particularly overshadowed by Joe Biden’s comments calling Trump supporters “garbage.
01
Nov
-
The online conversations of the past day continue charged discussions as the U.S. election approaches. There is significant engagement around cultural topics, the economy, border security, and recent campaign rallies. MIG Reports data shows Trump still leading the top discussion topics in both volume and sentiment.
The election is literally just people on the Diddy list vs people who want to be able to afford groceries.
— Elon Musk (Parody) (@ElonMuskAOC) October 26, 2024
Do you agree? https://t.co/tK8CU98EwcCulture, Ideology, and Alienation
Ideological divides are growing stark between the two sides. The most recent symbol of this chasm is President Biden's comment calling Trump supporters "garbage." This remark incited considerable backlash, particularly among MAGA supporters who see the comment as emblematic of a broader disdain from political elites.
- For many Trump supporters, Biden’s rhetoric confirms their belief in a hypocritical leftist agenda that uses one-sided cultural blame to demonize conservatives.
- Biden and Harris Democrats frequently emphasize MAGA voters as extremist, describing them as a threat to democratic values.
- These discussions heighten polarization, with voters expressing skepticism about the potential for national unity under the current leadership.
Still the Economy, Stupid
Economic issues remain central to the discourse, with inflation and rising living costs consistently vehicles to criticize the Biden-Harris administration.
- Voters recall lower inflation rate and better wages under Trump, contrasting this with current financial strain.
- While Harris claims to have big plans for middle-income economic relief, skeptics argue her policies are idealistic and lack practical or feasible implementation.
- Border security concerns intersect here as well, with many saying lenient immigration policies worsen economic strain.
- Many believe Trump’s economic strategies are more effective, hoping for a return to successfully managing inflation and stimulating job growth.
Border and Public Safety
Discussions around border security further sentiments that the current administration has failed, leading to increased crime and economic burdens.
- Trump supporters want a hardline approach, arguing strict immigration policies are necessary to maintain safety and economic stability of American citizens.
- The tone often reflects frustration with Harris’s inability to address the social and economic challenges caused by unchecked immigration.
- People want a law-and-order leader like Trump, whose proposed policies promise strict enforcement and deportations.
Rhetoric at Trump and Harris Rallies
Trump and Harris rallies are also a focal point, with commenters closely scrutinizing both candidates’ crowds, messaging, and optics.
- Harris’s recent rally at The Ellipse drew attention for its scale, despite being upstaged by Biden’s “garbage” comments.
- Trump’s events continue to face criticism from Democrats and the media over controversial humor and “American First” messaging.
- Biden’s comments about Trump supporters add to this charged environment, further polarizing voters who see these statements differently.
- Both sides receive criticism for their rhetoric, campaign priorities, and ideologies, underscoring the emotional weight of this election.
Housing Crisis Worries Americans
Skyrocketing housing costs continue to concern voters, particularly as many struggle with rent affordability or buying a home.
- Critics say Biden-Harris policies prioritize special interests over citizen needs, with some suggesting lax immigration exacerbates the housing shortage.
- The overlap of economic and housing issues indicates a public demand for urgent solutions that address affordability.
- Biden’s recent comments about Americans only intensifies frustrations among voters who see this election as elites versus average people.
01
Nov
-
Conversations about whether Americans view Donald Trump as a fascist are partisan. Trends in voter discussions provide insight into the impact views of Trump have on the race and following either election outcome.
Only around 35% the country voices genuine belief that Donald Trump is a fascist, based on comment data. The majority of those who believe this representation of Trump are strongly convinced.
However, most of the overall discourse expresses doubt about the sincerity of these accusations. Some say those calling Trump a fascist do so disingenuously.
Tim Walz: Calling Trump voters garbage Nazis doesn’t undercut our “unity” message pic.twitter.com/b1WbxA0vJY
— Tom Elliott (@tomselliott) October 30, 2024Accusations Cause Arguments
Only around 30% of those labeling Trump a fascist initiate discussion about it in an original post or comment. This suggests the overwhelming majority—70% of comments—are reactionary rhetoric.
Rather than framing Trump as a fascist based on independent assessments, critics often respond to events or others’ comments to pile on with accusations. Trump supporters often step in to defend him once the accusation is made. This creates a series of rebuttals and counter-rebuttals rather than a primarily accusatory dialogue.
Dictator, Fascist, Nazi
The style of these conversations ranges from intense and serious to emotionally charged. Voters are strongly invested in the potential consequences of Trump’s leadership. Those calling him a fascist attempt to intellectualize it, referencing historical examples and using terms like "dictator," "authoritarian," or "threat to democracy.”
The overwhelming majority use Hitler or Nazi comparisons, despite numerous other examples of fascism in history. About 55% of these discussions use a serious tone, framing the danger of Trump as high stakes. This group says preventing him from taking office is pivotal for the future of American governance.
Kamala — increasingly reeking of desperation — is closing her campaign NOT by talking about the issues that matter to Americans, but by calling President Trump "fascist."
— Trump War Room (@TrumpWarRoom) October 24, 2024
It's disrespectful to the intelligence of voters. If she had any self-respect, she'd be ashamed of herself. pic.twitter.com/aWXFb5L6EhTrump defenders instead take a defensive stance, often using mockery, memes, and humor. Some do question the validity of fascism accusations, calling them exaggerated or feigned rather than a substantive critique.
Among Democrats, 70% of comments are serious and alarmed. There is pronounced fear of potential democratic erosion under Trump’s leadership. The language Democrats use reflects a sincere conviction, with critiques often reinforcing each other and solidifying a collective stance against Trump as the ultimate adversary.
"Trump is my biggest obstacle in life, I think about him all day and all night" pic.twitter.com/aNfcOyhVXo
— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) October 29, 2024However, while a genuine belief that Trump is an authoritarian exists, some conversations on both sides suggest a bandwagon effect. Among critics, about 30% rely on hyperbolic language, using “fascist” as a rhetorical shorthand that lacks specific implications.
It’s Not Going Away
Trump critics frequently react to events and statements attributed to him, using these moments as springboards for arguments against his character or leadership style. Instead of presenting or asserting an alternate point of view, many conversations are driven by opposition to Trump—including the Harris campaign.
This reactive pattern elicits a strong defensive impulse from Trump supporters. They are quick to counter accusations they perceive as unjust or politically motivated. Defensive rebuttals against the fascist label reveal a cyclical and reactionary pattern between the two sides.
NY Mayor Adams obliterates the media:
— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) October 29, 2024
"Stop asking silly questions like about if Trump is a fascist or HitIer.. It gives you headlines and clicks, but it is not what Americans are dealing with." pic.twitter.com/DETh84rGesAmericans are polarized on Trump with 55% of his defenders viewing accusations as overblown and partisan. Meanwhile, 45% of critics view authoritarian traits as a real threat. The conversation remains serious, underscoring the scope of Trump’s influence on American society and political identity. It also reveals a cycle of accusation and rebuttal, suggesting arguing is unlikely to shift opinions and only reinforce existing divides.
01
Nov
-
Only a few days prior to Election Day, voter discussions are tense. The atmosphere around Trump and Harris is fraught with tension, worry, and anticipation. Daily top discussion topics include:
- Culture issues
- The economy
- Border security
- Housing
Trump continues to hold a major advantage in social media discussions and a smaller edge in sentiment.
Trump Dominates Discussion Volume
Across the four top topics, Trump significantly outpaces Harris in mention volume:
- Trump gains nearly 20,000 daily mentions compared to Harris's 8,520.
- Voters discuss him more, both positively and negatively.
- The disparity suggests Trump’s rhetoric and policies elicit a greater response.
- Support for Trump on border security and economic deregulation contrast starkly with the criticisms from his detractors.
In contrast, Harris’s comparatively limited public engagement may indicate lower enthusiasm:
- Lower levels of attention may demonstrate Harris’s challenge connecting with voters.
- Those who could perceive her policies as either overly cautious or insufficiently distinct from Biden’s may not feel the need to weigh in.
- Her lower engagement on core issues potentially suggests a voter base that is less energized or divided in their support.
Trump’s Slight Sentiment Advantage
Though Trump’s higher volume might imply broader reach, the sentiment attached to both candidates is tighter.
- Excluding rallies, Trump leads Harris by a slight margin, holding an average sentiment score of 44.25% compared to Harris's 43.5%.
- A minor advantage suggests, despite divisive rhetoric, Trump’s stance on core issues resonates more positively with voters
- Those seeking strong leadership on economic and border policies are particularly positive toward him.
Culture Issues
Ideologies and culture war issues are relatively evenly matched for both candidates at 44%.
Trump
- This parity highlights the sharp cultural divide among Americans, where each candidate represents a competing ideological vision.
- Trump supporters view his cultural stances as a defense against progressive overreach and Democratic “dehumanization” of conservative values.
- There’s intense backlash against comments made by Democratic leaders and media who call Trump voters “Nazis,” “fascists,” and “garbage.”
Harris
- Harris’s alignment with progressive causes receives a mixed reception.
- While some view her as a voice for inclusivity and social justice, detractors interpret her policies as leaning too far left, threatening American values.
- Harris faces difficulty in uniting a broad coalition under a progressive platform, particularly moderate or non-woke Democrats.
Economic Issues
Economic issues a top issue in the 2024 race, with Trump holding a slight sentiment advantage—44% versus Harris's 43%.
Trump
- Trump advocates emphasizing his commitment to deregulation and tax reductions, which they argue will spur economic growth and alleviate inflationary pressures.
- They say he represents a return to a more business-friendly, self-sustaining economy.
Harris
- Harris’s unclear economic policies receive mixed responses.
- Her tax proposals, particularly on unrealized capital gains, are portrayed by critics as burdensome on the middle class and small businesses.
- Her supporters argue these measures will reduce wealth inequality, but critics frame her policies as economically harmful.
- Voters struggle between seeking economic equality and fearing increased government control.
Border Security
Border security is another critical area where Trump has an edge—43% to Harris's 41%. Frustration is high regarding Biden-Harris immigration policies.
Trump
- Trump’s tough stance on immigration resonates with voters concerned about resource allocation and national security.
- There are repeated grievances about Democrats prioritizing illegal immigrants over veterans and struggling Americans.
- Sentiment is urgent and concerned, with many voicing fears that current policies undermine public safety and strain social services.
Harris
- Harris’s role as “border czar” draws substantial criticism, with opponents framing her as ineffective in controlling the border.
- People say she’s indifferent to the consequences open borders have on American communities.
- There is public anger over drug trafficking and crime, with Harris getting blame as unwilling or unable to address the issue.
- Her supporters counter by advocating for policies of inclusivity and support for migrant communities.
Housing
Housing sentiment is balanced at 46% for both candidates. There is shared public frustration over affordability and living costs which transcends partisan lines.
- Rising housing expenses, coupled with inflation, fuel widespread discontent.
- Trump supporters argue his approach to deregulation and reduced taxes fostered a more affordable housing market.
- Harris supporters emphasize her efforts toward housing reforms aimed at long-term affordability and protections for vulnerable groups.
- However, proposed initiatives are overshadowed by the immediate economic strain Americans feel.
31
Oct
-
Left-leaning Americans are angrily canceling their “Washington Post” subscriptions to the tune of 250,000—though apparently not their Amazon Prime accounts. Following a controversy in which WaPo and Amazon owner Jeff Bezos barred the newspaper from making a presidential endorsement.
UPDATE: The number of cancellations since Friday’s revelation now exceeds 250,000, NPR can report.
— David Folkenflik (@davidfolkenflik) October 29, 2024
That represents approximately 10 percent of all paid circulation. https://t.co/XrDDWR3Vt5The contradiction in liberal outcry against Bezos reveals the tension between stated ideals and real-life consumer choices. Americans are disillusioned with mainstream media and left leaning voters are showing their dissatisfaction by unsubscribing.
However, many on the right are pointing out various coping mechanisms and the selective outrage they see among liberals. They point out members of the media like Jennifer Rubin who criticized LA Times reporters who did not resign after the paper also made no endorsement. Rubin, who works for WaPo, has yet to resign.
Jennifer Rubin @JRubinBlogger cheered a reporter who quit in response to the LA times not endorsing either presidential canidate. She works for the Washington post which is also not endorsing this election let's reminder her that she is a hypocrite unless she resigns immediately pic.twitter.com/2mvpNBzS6N
— Steve (@Steve113875651) October 25, 2024Unsub from WaPo
Liberals often frame their decision to cancel their “Washington Post” as personal empowerment and ethical consumerism. They invoke, “taking a stand,” “voting with my wallet,” and “demanding truth.” Many are disillusioned with WaPo, using terms like “biased reporting” and “supporting ethical journalism” to validate their choice to unsubscribe.
Won’t Cancel Prime
However, there is deafening silence on the same activists canceling their Amazon Prime memberships. They justify this with practical language emphasizing convenience and necessity, such as “just too good to give up” and “I can’t live without my Prime.” This rationalization for keeping services that contradict their activism suggests a kind of opportunistic hypocrisy.
Language Analysis
Coping Mechanisms
Among those outraged about Jeff Bezos’s decision regarding WaPo endorsements, there is tendency toward self-justification. They use rationalizing phrases like “we deserve better,” portraying canceling subscriptions as a principled choice. This hints at cognitive dissonance, where values are flexible depending on convenience.
Hypocrisy Indicators
There’s a noticeable double standard where users critique WaPo for perceived corporate media bias yet justify Amazon Prime as essential, despite Amazon’s controversial practices.
Phrases like “corporate monsters are everywhere” reflect a resignation to the omnipresence of corporate influence, exposing a discrepancy between ideological intentions and consumer behavior. This focus suggests an emotional, issue-based hierarchy in which certain values can be sidelined based on the perceived relevance of the company involved.
An Amazon warehouse worker's 'thank you' bag for working Prime Big Deal Days earlier this month pic.twitter.com/PAEADIQvSs
— Michael Sainato (@msainat1) October 29, 2024Owning the Narrative
Many express a need for narratives that align with their personal values, reflecting a belief that media consumption should ideologically agree with readers. This causes a pattern of binary thinking where WaPo is labeled as becoming antagonistic to liberal values, while Amazon is a practical tool divorced from these political concerns.
Cognitive dissonance is a recurring theme as liberals openly struggle to reconcile their ideals with convenience. The discussions highlight how modern consumer habits complicate the pursuit of ideological purity, as practicality frequently overrides principles.
Performative Activism
Some describe their WaPo cancellation as part of “cancel culture” or an act of visibility rather than a purely ethical stance. This suggests it’s either performative or rhetorical. For some, canceling WaPo is less about values and more about participating in visible, symbolic acts.
In voter discussions around 75% of comments are negative toward WaPo, while Amazon Prime discussion is mostly neutral or slightly positive. This difference underscores a greater discontent with media credibility than corporate ethics, suggesting a prioritization of ideological alignment over ethical consistency.
31
Oct