MIG Reports analysis of conversations across social media assesses public support and acceptance for Tim Walz and J.D. Vance. An analysis of language and sentiment in these discussions shows distinct patterns in how supporters defend or affirm their preferred candidate. Detractors distance themselves through critical, often impersonal remarks.

Defensive language, first-person viewpoints, and emotionally charged rhetoric dominate the conversations. There is a dynamic of personal stakes and political identity throughout. This narrative analysis explores these dynamics in detail, breaking down the tendencies and language structures across a variety of subjects, from accusations of dishonesty to ideological alignment and economic concerns.

Weighted Analysis

• 60-75% of comments supporting Wals are defensive.
• 60-70% of discussion about Vance offers affirmative support.

The discourse around VP nominees Tim Walz and J.D. Vance shows patterns of defensive and affirmative language. Walz’s supporters primarily use defensive language to counter accusations about his military record and China ties. Walz critics often use third-person, detached language to accuse him of dishonesty.

Vance receives more affirmative support, particularly on economic policies and national security. However, his supporters also defend him on issues like abortion and his Trump ties. Critics frame him as disconnected from social issues using third-person language.

Tim Walz

Discourse supporting Tim Walz overwhelmingly uses defensive language. On multiple fronts, especially regarding his military service and alleged ties to China, Walz’s defenders work to counter accusations rather than promoting his accomplishments. These discussions often center around national security, where supporters emphasize his Congressional delegation to Afghanistan, attempting to clarify that he did not falsely present himself as a combat soldier.

The language here tends to use first-person pronouns, with individuals sharing their personal viewpoints and experiences in defense of Walz. This first-person usage highlights how closely voters identify with him, seeing attacks on Walz as attacks also on themselves. For example, phrases like "I believe in his service" or "My family supports Walz despite the lies" reveal emotional investment.

In contrast, the third-person language in critiques of Walz is impersonal and accusatory. His critics, particularly those aligned with J.D. Vance, refer to him through detached terms such as “Walz is a risk” or “His ties to China are alarming,” focusing on accusations of dishonesty and corruption without any emotional attachment to the discussion.

These accusations are most prominent in discussions about his alleged connection to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), where third-person critiques amplify concerns about national security and Walz’s potential vulnerabilities as a political figure.

J.D. Vance

Republican VP candidate J.D. Vance gains an affirmative form of support—particularly on economic policies and national security. Discussions about Vance often paint him as a staunch defender of conservative values, with supporters using affirmative language to highlight his positions on inflation, government spending, and housing affordability.

Vance’s supporters say his understanding of economic issues aligns with middle-class interests, with first-person language reinforcing a personal connection to his policies. Statements like "We need Vance to protect our economy" or "I believe his stance on taxes is right for families" are common. This reveals a collective rallying cry among his base. The first-person narrative underscores a deep sense of belonging and urgency within his supporters.

However, while affirmative comments dominate discussions about Vance, his supporters also employ defensive rhetoric. They respond to criticisms of his stance on abortion rights and his alignment with Donald Trump. In these discussions, supporters shield Vance from what they view as misrepresentations of his beliefs, using defensive terms like “misunderstood” or “defender of religious liberty.”

Defenses arise when critics accuse Vance of misogyny or frame him as out-of-touch on women’s rights. The language here oscillates between first-person, personal narratives that emphasize shared values, and third-person, detached critiques that highlight perceived shortcomings in his policies.

Emotional Attachment

A clear commonality between the discussions of both candidates is partisan divisiveness. Supporters of Walz and Vance often feel personally invested in defending their candidate. Whether discussing national security, economic issues, or personal integrity, voters express their opinions as though their own values and lives are at stake.

This deep emotional connection is particularly evident when discussing character attacks, with both Walz and Vance receiving strong support from their bases. The common tactic of defense and personal involvement permeates both sides, despite their opposing political ideologies.

Anomalies and Singular Subjects

China

Talk about China is a topic mostly isolated to Tim Walz. Unlike the other issues, where the conversation is a mix of defense and affirmation, the narrative about Walz’s ties to China is overwhelmingly defensive. Accusations of his supposed CCP connections dominate, and the defensive tone becomes more urgent and repetitive. Supporters try to combat what they perceive as a significant and persistent threat to his reputation. First-person language is especially pronounced here, as voters feel compelled to personally stand against accusations of foreign allegiance.

Abortion Rights

In contrast, while abortion rights feature heavily in the discussions about Vance, the responses here reflect a unique balance between defense and affirmation. Vance supporters often use affirmative language to celebrate his anti-abortion stance, describing him as a protector of religious and traditional values. However, when confronted with criticisms, they quickly shift to a defensive tone, using personal stories to justify conservative positions. This demonstrates a rare flexibility between the two types of language.

MIG Reports analysis of voter sentiment on jobs, the jobs market, and unemployment shows the likely impact on the upcoming general election in November. Online discussions around jobs are prominently influenced by political figures and policies.

Regaining Jobs Lost During COVID

Discussions about job creation dominate the conversation, highlighting contrasting viewpoints on the effectiveness of recent administrations. Voters talk about job creation, unemployment, Biden, and Trump. Many point out claims from both political parties regarding job growth and recovery, referencing statistics claiming millions of jobs were added post-COVID under the Biden administration.

Some voters believe these increases merely reflect a return to pre-pandemic employment levels. They attribute job losses to COVID measures, which were later regained. Suggestions about gaining back lost jobs account for 35% of the discussion, showing a sustained focus on the interpretation of employment trends. This sentiment is also supported by previous MIG Reports analysis on overall skepticism toward government job reports.

Sentiment Trends

Voter sentiment around job creation appears mixed. Many express optimism about reported job growth under the Biden administration. Others voice skepticism, often characterizing the reported figures as misleading or exaggerated.

• 57% express concern, criticism, or dissatisfaction regarding job numbers
• 43% indicate a belief in positive economic trends

People also discuss economic policies and their perceived effects on the job market. This includes discussions on corporate taxes, government spending, and their implications for employment. Discussions refer to "tax hikes," "corporate flight," "stimulus," and "inflation," suggesting discontent around Biden-Harris polices and proposals. This topic occupies about 28% of comments, with significant public engagement around Harris’s economic platform.

Sentiment around economic policy is negative:

• 62% express frustration or opposition to proposed tax increases or regulatory changes.
• 38% support Harris’s policies for long-term economic stability and job security.

Unemployment, particularly concerning historical rates and ongoing economic challenges, emerges as a prevalent discussion point.

Unemployment comprises 22% of discussion, with:

• 30% expressing optimism based on current lower unemployment rates
• 70% expressing anxiety over job security and the potential for recession

The Emotions of Politics

Emotion plays a huge role in how people engage with political and economic discussions. While economic conditions are critical in shaping opinions, voters do not always react in a rational or direct manner. Many times, people view the economy through a personal and emotional lens, filtering facts through personal experience and bias.

A prominent trend, however, is skepticism about data. Voters express suspicion about reported job numbers and inflation rates—this points to a growing distrust in institutions and leadership. American often turn to alternative narratives or confirmation biases that align with their pre-existing views.

General skepticism is part of a wider cultural trend where trust in traditional authorities like governments, media, and even data is declining. This causes people to become disillusioned or cynical. In this sense, emotion and skepticism feed into each other—people may feel betrayed by institutions, amplifying their skepticism.

Beyond emotions and economics, many are swayed by their political identity or broader social groupings. Discussions about Trump and Biden-Harris not focused solely on jobs—they reflect political identities. Many voters defend or attack economic policies based on whether they align with perceived values or party affiliations.

Holistic Understanding

MIG Reports analysis suggests many voters are often more moved by emotion and identity than pure economic circumstances. Economic impacts matter, but they are frequently filtered through personal feelings and ideological lenses. Someone struggling economically might still express support for policies or leaders they feel resonate with their values.

Recent state-level elections in Germany suggest a rise and momentum for nativist political parties—which some describe as “far right.” Some reports indicate Gen Z helped these political gains.

MIG Reports analysis shows Gen Z discussion patterns and language usage may reveal a traditional divide between how men and women engage with political and social issues. This distinction not only highlights differing communication styles but also underscores various ways younger men and women process and articulate their political views.

Bottom Line Up Front

Political sentiment among Gen Z voters in the U.S. is predominantly negative, with frustration and dissatisfaction in economic and security-related discussions. This may support a hypothesis that younger voters are more traditional and anti-establishment.

• Women’s language, though critical, often carries hope for change, contrasting with the more aggressive tone of men’s discussions.
• Women tend to use first-person language, reflecting a personal connection and blending personal experience with societal concerns, while men favor third-person language, focusing on broader societal critiques.

Potential Outcomes of Intergenerational Discord

Gen Z’s growing disillusionment with the political and economic establishment may drive them toward reactionary perspectives. Some talk of radical change rather than moderate conservatism. This shift could be fueled by a desire for strong, decisive action on issues like national sovereignty and immigration, reflecting a rejection of both progressive and centrist ideologies.

If the media and political elites fail to recognize this trend due to normalcy bias, they may misinterpret Gen Z’s anti-establishment sentiment as purely progressive. This would discount the rise of right-wing populism within the generation.

Severe misunderstanding could lead to significant political realignment, with Gen Z challenging traditional party structures and turning to alternative media sources that better align with their views. As a result, the establishment might face unexpected outcomes in elections and social movements—as demonstrated by some recent European elections.

Gender Trends

Women often use first-person language in discussion, with phrases like "I believe" and "I want." This personal engagement reflects their emotional investment in political outcomes, particularly in debates over socialism, free speech, and identity politics. Women often frame their arguments around personal beliefs and experiences, creating a narrative that emphasizes the individual’s role in the broader political landscape.

Men frequently use third-person language to discuss political ideologies. Their discussions often center on group identity and collective ideologies. Men use terms like "they believe" and "the party should" illustrating a focus on the broader societal implications of political choices. This language pattern reveals a tendency to engage with political ideologies from a more observational standpoint, critiquing the collective rather than emphasizing personal stakes.

Economic Issues

Women discussing the border express both their personal stakes in economic challenges and their broader concerns about societal impacts. They use phrases like "I’m struggling with rising costs" with discussions about the broader economy, inflation, and tax policies. They often connect personal experiences with broader economic trends, creating a narrative that resonates on both an individual and societal level.

Men show a stronger inclination towards first-person language in economic discussions, particularly when expressing frustration with current policies. Phrases like "I can’t afford this" and "Bidenomics is failing us" indicate a personal connection to the economic issues at hand.

Male discussions often reflect a deep skepticism toward government interventions, with a predominant focus on the failures of current economic policies. This personal engagement contrasts with their typical third-person narrative in other areas, revealing how economic pressures uniquely affect their political discourse.

Housing

Women express strong personal connection to the issue. They use first-person pronouns like "I" and "we," tying their personal experiences with housing affordability in society. Their discussions use empathy and concern for family and community to emphasize the seriousness of housing costs.

Men discuss housing with a more collective focus, using third-person language to critique government actions and policies. Their language reflects a broader societal concern, with discussions centering on the economic implications of housing policies and the perceived failures of political figures like Kamala Harris. This language pattern shows a more detached, critical viewpoint.

Border Security

Women use first-person language to express their personal experiences and emotional responses to immigration policies. Their discussions often center on the personal and familial impacts of border security, with phrases like "I fear for my family’s safety."

Men continue to favor third-person language, critiquing policies and focusing on societal implications. Discussions highlight the failures of the Biden-Harris administration, with an emphasis on stricter border controls and accountability. Men maintain a detached approach, framing their arguments around national security rather than personal impact.

Security Issues

Women use first-person language to connect their personal or familial experiences to broader security concerns, often discussing the human cost of war and the moral implications of U.S. foreign policy. Their language reflects personal investment, with themes of loss, accountability, and emotional engagement.

Men critique the political context, focusing on accountability at the leadership level. They assign blame for perceived security failures, emphasizing the roles of Biden and Harris. They focus on the external political landscape.

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.

One of Donald Trump’s significant electoral challenges is attracting moderate voters and women, particularly those who support the Democratic pro-choice platform, despite Trump’s neutral stance on abortion at the federal level. These voter groups, which traditionally lean Democratic, have proven elusive for Trump’s campaign.

However, recent shifts in voter priorities and emerging alliances could alter the political landscape. Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s (RFK) recent Trump endorsement has shifted focus for many moderates and women who prioritize health freedom and child welfare. This alliance may offer a new avenue for Republicans to appeal to these voters.

According to MIG Reports analysis of real-time voter sentiment:

• 42.37% of Independents approve of RFK Jr.'s policies, particularly related to health.
• 41.89% of women support his health freedom and holistic approaches.
• 27.03% of moderate women prioritize health freedom and child health over abortion rights.
• 23.12% of moderate female voters might vote for a Trump-RFK Jr. coalition over Kamala Harris’s Democratic platform.

Since RFK Jr.’s Trump endorsement on Aug. 23, Democratic support dropped from 49% to 45% and Republican support rose from 51% to 54%.

RFK Jr.’s Trump Endorsement

In his speech endorsing Donald Trump, RFK Jr. championed a health platform centered on individual health freedoms. He emphasized the right to make personal health decisions and choose whether to receive vaccines. He also advocated for increased transparency from pharmaceutical companies and the government, supporting holistic and preventative health approaches.

He criticized the mainstream political and medical establishments, particularly calling out Democrats for systematically preventing voters from supporting their preferred candidates. Overall, RFK Jr. framed his platform as a challenge to current health policies and practices, aligning strongly with Trump's anti-establishment stance.

MIG Reports Analysis

Recent data from MIG Reports provides insight into how Trump and RFK Jr.'s platform might impact Independents and women.

The aggregate sentiment toward RFK Jr.'s health policies across data samples shows 42% of Independents approve. This suggests a significant base of support that could be leveraged toward Trump.

Women support RFK Jr.’s proposed health freedom and holistic approaches at around 42% within the sample. This also suggests RFK Jr.’s alignment with Trump could significantly soften women toward the Republican ticket.

To support this assertion, MIG Reports data shows approximately 27% of moderate female voters prioritize health freedom and child health over the traditional Democratic pro-abortion platform. This shift is also confirmed by sentiments indicating a new Trump-RFK Jr. coalition may attract around 23% of moderate female voters who might otherwise be hesitant.

Independents Moving to Trump

Independents say they’re drawn to Trump's camp largely due to their alignment with RFK Jr.'s health policies. This group values autonomy in health decisions and has shown significant support for vaccine choice and holistic health practices.

The shared anti-establishment sentiment between RFK Jr. and Trump also resonates with Independents who feel disillusioned with the establishment political figures. This group uses words like "vaccines," "freedom," "natural remedies," and "rights." They compare Kennedy's views with Trump’s, emphasizing overlapping rhetoric that appeals to anti-establishment sentiments.

Themes such as "government control" and "personal autonomy" dominate, revealing a desire for a shift towards more individual-driven health policies. Sentiment analysis indicates a desire for change, with discussions about wellness and the integrity of health system. There is a mix of hope and skepticism, revealing a complex interplay of cultural, emotional, and ideological factors.

Women and Abortion

For female voters, the appeal of a Trump-RFK Jr. alliance lies in their emphasis on health freedom and family welfare. Many women, particularly moderates, are increasingly prioritizing these issues over traditional Democratic stances on reproductive rights.

I’ve been saying for over a year and a half that health and wellness issues are a TOP interest of conservative female voters. Many ignored me, didn’t take it seriously or thought I simply had no idea what I was talking about because my following is niche and not the largest…

— Alex Clark (@yoalexrapz) August 27, 2024

Data suggests more than a quarter of moderate female voters are more concerned with health autonomy and child health. This cuts into the strong historical Democratic hold on pro-choice voters. The shift is driven by a desire for greater control over personal health decisions and skepticism towards current health systems and incentives.

Comments frequently cite the importance of protecting children from health risks associated with medical interventions. Many express willingness to embrace both Trump and Kennedy to prevent what they perceive as detrimental policies from the Democrats. This holds true for this bloc, even if it means sacrificing some aspects of on-demand abortion access or even full-term abortion.

• In the last week, sentiment toward abortion dropped from 45% prior to Kennedy’s alignment with Trump, to 43% today.
• Sentiment around individual freedoms fluctuated but increased from 44% prior to Kennedy’s alignment with Trump to 47% today.

A Key Demographic for Trump

Gaining support from moderates and women could significantly impact Trump’s chances in the 2024 election. By aligning with RFK Jr. and focusing on health freedom and reform, Trump could potentially tap into a critical voter base that is increasingly dissatisfied with traditional party platforms.

If Trump can effectively address the concerns of Independents and moderate women without continuing to alienate them, he may strengthen his electoral position. This will be especially true if more voters continue to grow skeptical of Kamala Harris’s authenticity and dwindling trust in the media. Discussions of a Trump-Kennedy alliance often mention bipartisan unity, hinting that conventional expectations in the upcoming election potentially tilt to Trump.

A viral post from venture capitalist David Sacks on X cited a 2020 Gallup poll about American trust in mainstream media. This ignited discussion about the stark divide in how Americans view news and media and whether trust is correlated with political affiliation. MIG Reports analysis of this conversation, alongside Gallup polling and X’s own Grok analysis reveals American sentiments across party affiliation. In this way, public sentiment extends Gallup’s sample size, confirming the strong correlation.

Party affiliation is now entirely correlated with trust in MSM. Republicans realize it’s propaganda. Independents are on the path. Democrats are the people still plugged into the Matrix. pic.twitter.com/1KSPt8wkX4

— David Sacks (@DavidSacks) August 25, 2024

According to Gallup data in 2020:

• 73% of Democrats trusted media
• 36% of Independents trusted media
• 10% of Republicans trusted media

These numbers illustrate Sacks’s suggestion that political affiliations are now less about policy agreement and more about whether a person trusts narratives from the media and politicians.

Growing polarization in the country seems exacerbated by this fraught relationship between voters, the media, and political parties. While the viral poll is from 2020, more recent Gallup data from 2022 and 2023 show similar trends.

In addition, last year’s polling shows Democratic trust in media was on a downward trajectory similar to Republican trust until 2016. A period of high confidence in the media followed through Trump’s administration and has since dropped down to 58% at the tail end of Biden’s term. This trend corresponds with Republican beliefs that media outlets push Democratic and anti-Trump or anti-Republican narratives. Meanwhile, Democrats seem to buy into media narratives particularly about the danger of Donald Trump as a Republican figurehead.

A comparison of these findings with an independent MIG Reports analysis, based on real-time voter conversations and AI-driven data analysis, explores whether Americans believe trust in media truly correlates with political affiliation in 2024.

Distrust in Mainstream Media

MIG Reports data shows:

• 64.8% of all voters in the discussion indicate a strong distrust in mainstream media.
• This sentiment is predominantly expressed by Republicans, suggesting their isolated percentage is likely higher, aligning with Gallup’s findings.

Most conversations about distrust cite the perception of bias and dishonesty from mainstream media outlets. Republican-leaning voters often express a belief that media outlets are skewed to favor liberal viewpoints. This causes skepticism about the accuracy and fairness of reporting.

Voters use phrases like "fake news" and "liberal bias," signaling frustration over their belief in a deliberate distortion of facts to support Democratic narratives. This sentiment is particularly strong when media coverage is perceived to misrepresent or unfairly criticize conservative figures and policies.

This group feels their viewpoints and values are systematically overlooked, criticized, distorted, or misrepresented by mainstream media.

Trust in Mainstream Media

MIG Reports data shows:

• 24.9% of all voters express trust in mainstream media—mostly coming from Democrats.
• This is lower than Gallup’s 2023 finding that 32% of Americans trust the media “a great deal” or “a fair amount.”

Those who express trust in mainstream media often emphasize the importance of “credible journalism” and its role in political accountability in a democracy. Comments from Democratic-leaning individuals highlight their belief that media outlets serve as essential checks on political power and provide necessary transparency.

This group uses words like, "responsible reporting" and "factual news." They say the media plays a crucial role in informing the public and holding leaders accountable. Democratic trust is often linked to the perception that media organizations are committed to objective reporting and that there is no widespread institutional corruption.

For these Democrats, media coverage that aligns with their values or supports their political perspectives is positive and trustworthy.

Correlation of Trust with Democratic Support

MIG Reports data shows:

• 14.6% of discussions about trust in media directly mention a correlation with support for the Democratic Party.
• This percentage indicates conversations about a potential correlation—it does not directly project the correlation itself.
• However, it does support a conclusion that Democrats largely comprise the dwindling segment of voters giving credence to mainstream media reporting.

The analysis suggests a correlation between political affiliation and perceptions of media trustworthiness. Republicans predominantly express distrust towards mainstream media, citing bias and misrepresentation. This distrust is frequently linked to coverage that is seen as hostile and antagonistic toward conservative viewpoints.

Democrats are more likely to view mainstream media positively, aligning their trust with media coverage that supports their political beliefs and values. This divide suggests trust in media is not only influenced by the content and quality of reporting but is also deeply intertwined with one's political identity and alignment.

If there is a correlation between trust in the media and Democratic affiliation, the analysis does not clearly suggest why that might be. Two possibilities may be that Democrats trust media sources which confirm their biases, or that those adopting a skeptical attitude toward media are also likely to lose allegiance to the Democratic Party.

X’s Grok Analysis Confirms Findings

Analysis using a similar methodology to MIG Reports reveals the X (formerly Twitter) AI platform Grok reaches similar findings. In parallel Grok analysis:

• 60-70% of Americans distrust media versus MIG Reports showing 64.8% distrust.
• 30-40% of Americans trust media compared to MIG Reports showing 24.9% trust.
• 70-80% of Democrats agree with or do not distrust media narratives, versus only 10-20% of Republicans.

Quantifying the Correlation

With an estimated correlation coefficient (r) based on these sentiments:

• Democrats show a positive trust correlation coefficient around r = 0.6 to 0.8.
• Republicans have inverse relationship where trust is a negative correlation coefficient around r = -0.6 to -0.8.
• Independents show a weaker but still negative trust correlation around r = -0.2 to -0.4.

This quantification suggests political affiliation, particularly towards the Democratic Party, is a strong predictor of media trust. Democrats are more likely to trust media sources which might be seen as aligning with or at least not actively opposing their political views.

However, broader distrust across the population, including Independents, highlights a general skepticism towards media, but this sentiment is notably amplified among Republicans.

This Grok analysis suggests the link between political affiliation and media perception may be more pronounced than MIG Reports data currently demonstrates. While this difference in analysis is worth noting, the overall narrative remains consistent—political affiliation plays a significant role in shaping how Americans perceive the media.

Corrupt Media Fosters Anti-Establishment Views

With so few Americans trusting the media, many voters express a sentiment of crisis threatening the American political and social landscape. When journalism is perceived as politicized, it loses credibility and fails to serve its essential role as the "fourth estate"—a watchdog that holds power to account.

The growing distrust in media, politicians, and institutions raises concerns about the public's ability to find truth and make informed decisions. This is a deep concern for many voters leading up to the 2024 election. Many view this presidential election as extremely high-stakes and a pivotal moment for the trajectory of America.

As the media is seen as biased or untrustworthy, voters increasingly turn to alternative sources of information, further fragmenting public discourse. This fragmentation could lead to an electorate that is even more polarized, making it harder for candidates to reach across the aisle or build consensus on critical issues. The erosion of trust in journalism could also lead to increased skepticism toward election results, particularly if the media plays a central role in reporting on election outcomes. This suspicion of election integrity is also corroborated by MIG Reports data showing sentiment on the topic dropping down to 35% in the last week.

MIG Reports analysis of voter opinions on the economy and who they trust more shows significant trust in Donald Trump compared to Kamala Harris. Despite positive media coverage and selective polling showing a Harris surge, MIG Reports data reveals a consistent skepticism toward Harris's economic policies. These sentiments are largely shaped by perceptions of inflation, government spending, and unhappiness with her economic management.

Vice President Kamala Harris is catching up to former President Donald Trump on the number of voters who trust her handling of the economy, according to a new Financial Times/Michigan Ross poll. https://t.co/v4P9A0zZWO

— NBC4 Washington (@nbcwashington) August 12, 2024

Axios reported on recent polling showing Harris leads Trump by 1% in voter trust on the economy. However, the limited poll of 1,000 voters over a selected period also has a margin of error greater than Harris’s supposed lead—± 3.1 percentage points. This not only brings the poll’s results into question but emphasizes the stark contrast of MIG Reports data and analysis.

• MIG Reports analysis shows Harris with mostly very negative sentiment regarding voter trust. Donald Trump shows mostly very positive and positive sentiment regarding voter trust.
• About 70% expresses negative sentiment towards Harris. Voters focus on inflation and government intervention.
• Approximately 60% of discussions favor Trump’s economic policies, viewing them as more effective in managing inflation and stimulating growth.

All Discussions similarly reflect widespread distrust in Harris's economic strategies. Around 70% voice concerns about her strategies for handling inflation. Many attribute rising inflation to government overspending and policy failures like the Inflation Reduction Act.

About 30% express support for her efforts, particularly in reducing prescription drug prices. However, overall sentiment remains heavily negative. Approximately 60% of discussions suggest a preference for Trump’s economic leadership, citing lower inflation rates and more favorable economic conditions.

In swing states, sentiment again prefers Trump. Around 72% of voters express skepticism about Harris’s ability to address inflation effectively, criticizing her economic policies as misguided or overly reliant on government intervention. About 55% suggest trust in Trump’s economic management, particularly his tax cuts and deregulation efforts. Swing state voters view them as stimulating growth and keeping inflation low.

In national discussions, approximately 68% are critical of Harris, with many linking her policies directly to rising inflation and economic instability. Only 12% of the comments express support for her economic strategies, substantiating the theme of failure to gain public trust. About 70% of national conversations express a belief that Trump’s economic policies were more favorable.

The aggregated analysis from these sources highlights a strong public preference for Trump’s economic policies over Harris's. Overall, 60-70% of discussions favor Trump's approach to economic management over Harris’s. This preference is driven by widespread distrust in Harris’s ability to manage inflation and economic stability. Voters view her policies as exacerbating economic challenges rather than alleviating them.

Why are Voters Skeptical?

Inflation and Price Controls

One of the most recurrent themes in voter discussions is inflation. Harris’s role in the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) is a major point of criticism. Americans place "inflation" in quotes to emphasize the perceived failure of the IRA to achieve its intended effects.

Harris's policies are also compared to communism, specifically referencing price controls, which people fear to lead to shortages, market chaos, or inflationary pressures. Many predict similar results to those in countries like Venezuela and Cuba. These terms are often used in a derogatory context to undermine Harris's credibility. People suggest her policies are out of touch with economic realities and historical lessons.

Corporate Greed and Government Control

Voters also discuss corporate greed and government control in discussions criticizing Harris's economic policy. Many decry Harris’s claim that rising prices are due to corporate greed and “price gouging.” They cite slim margins for large food retailers like Walmart—and many criticize Harris surrogates like Senator Elizabeth Warren who defend the “corporate greed” narrative.

Holy crap!

NBC had enough of Elizabeth Warren 🤣 pic.twitter.com/kDPEjyQD9H

— Brandon Tatum (@TheOfficerTatum) August 23, 2024

There is a strong belief that Harris’s policies, such as price controls and housing subsidies, could lead to more significant issues like market distortions, crashes, and black markets. These fears are bolstered by comparisons to failures in other nations which implemented similar strategies.

Tax Cuts and Job Creation

Discussions about Trump’s economic policies often invoke terms like "tax cuts" and "job creation." These terms highlight voter confidence in the successes of his administration in fostering economic growth. The comparison between Harris and Trump is stark, with many comments suggesting Trump's policies were more beneficial for the middle class.

Americans believe Trump’s policies kept inflation low and the job market strong. This comparison is often framed in a way that paints Trump’s economic record as more favorable. Many people underscore his achievements to contrast Harris’s perceived failures.

Inflation Reduction Act

The IRA is frequently mentioned, often with a tone of skepticism. Voters criticize Harris for her involvement in the Act, with the phrase placed in quotes to question its effectiveness. Critics argue that instead of reducing inflation, the Act has contributed to its rise, thereby undermining the very purpose of the legislation. This term is often juxtaposed with discussions of other economic issues, such as prescription drug prices and environmental initiatives, further highlighting the divide between the policy’s intentions and its perceived outcomes.

Prior to Robert F. Kennedy Jr. dropping out and endorsing Donald Trump for president, MIG Reports data showed voter inclination to switch loyalties. Through a weighted analysis of online discussions and sentiment, data suggests up to 50% of potential RFK Jr. voters would crossover to vote for Trump and another 30% likely to sit out.

As I predicted yesterday, RFK Junior will drop out of the race on Friday and endorse President Trump in a national address streamed to all major platforms. This is fantastic news for America and the entire world. We can stop World War III together. pic.twitter.com/jRYpid0ofG

— Alex Jones (@RealAlexJones) August 22, 2024

Sentiment and Support Dynamics

Across datasets and prior to RFK Jr.’s Friday announcement, there was significant discussion about the possibility he would suspend his campaign and endorse Trump. Weighing the data, it becomes clear that around 50% of RFK Jr.'s supporters are likely to shift their votes to Trump with an endorsement.

This shift is driven primarily by shared concerns about the current direction of the Democratic Party, particularly under the leadership of Kamala Harris. Supporters express a strong desire for unity against what they perceive as a leftward shift, and they see Trump as a vehicle for achieving this unity.

Despite this strong inclination toward supporting Trump, there is also a notable divide within RFK Jr.'s base. Approximately 30% of his supporters may choose to abstain from voting altogether rather than align with Trump. This group is driven by ideological differences and concerns that an endorsement would betray the more progressive or independent values that RFK Jr. has represented. This internal conflict highlights tension among his supporters, who are torn between pragmatic political alignment and maintaining their core principles.

Key Issues for RFK Jr. Voters

Economy

Economic concerns, particularly inflation and job security, are highly influential for this group. Many of RFK Jr.'s supporters view Trump's economic policies as more favorable compared to Biden-Harris polices. This economic focus drives a significant portion of the sentiment in favor of Trump, as supporters fear the impact of ineffective or damaging Democratic policies.

Vaccines

Vaccine mandates and health-related issues also emerge as critical points of discussion. RFK Jr. has been a vocal critic of vaccine mandates, and this stance resonates strongly with his supporters. The potential for him to influence health policy in a Trump administration, possibly through a cabinet position, is a major factor in the discussions. Supporters who prioritize these issues are more likely to favor a shift to Trump, seeing it as a way to advance their agenda.

Concerns of Authoritarianism

However, identity politics and broader ideological concerns create a counterbalance to RFK Jr. voters shifting support to Trump. Many in Kennedy’s base remain skeptical of aligning with Trump due to concerns about the potential erosion of civil liberties and the integrity of democratic principles. These discussions often involve fears about authoritarianism and a loss of individual freedoms, which are core to the values of many of his supporters.

The Bottom Line

The analysis reveals a complex and divided landscape among RFK Jr.'s supporters. While around 50% are likely to shift their votes to Trump with an RFK Jr. endorsement, about 30% are hesitant to support Trump and may abstain from voting. This divide underscores the challenges RFK Jr. faces in leaving the Democratic party and realigning his political identity. Discussions reflect a broader struggle within his base, where the tension between pragmatism and principle continues to shape their political choices.

This chart demonstrates the frequency with which specific keywords—such as "Endorse Trump," "Cabinet Position," "Unite," "Save America," and "Communism"—are mentioned across three different discussion datasets: All Discussions, National Discussions, and Election Discussions.

• "Endorse Trump" is prominent theme, particularly in the Election Discussions category, indicating strong interest in RFK Jr.'s potential alignment with Trump.
• "Cabinet Position" is also frequently discussed, especially in the All Discussions category, reflecting speculation about RFK Jr.'s possible role in a Trump administration.
• "Unite" and "Save America" highlight broader aspirations for unity and preservation of perceived traditional values, though these are less dominant.
• "Communism" emerges as a concern primarily in National Discussions, signaling fears about perceived leftward shifts in the Democratic Party.

May Gallup reporting shows approximately 65% of Americans think U.S. economic conditions have worsened since 2020, and a similar amount have a negative perspective toward the future. MIG Reports analysis based on online conversations shows a similar 64.64% of Americans have reduced confidence in the U.S. economy.

• The -35 index rating in Gallup’s report means, on a scale of +100 to -100, sentiment leans negative.
• On a 1-100 scale, it translates to 65% reduced confidence—mirroring MIG Reports weighted analysis within 1%.

Voters Consistently Lack Confidence in the Economy

MIG Reports analysis uses online voter conversation volume regarding the U.S. economy along with sentiment tracking. In this weighted analysis, the aggregate confidence levels show:

• 64.64% of conversations express decreased confidence in economic prosperity
• 23.05% reflect a neutral stance
• 12.31% convey increased confidence

These figures highlight the prevailing skepticism and concern Americans feel about the U.S. economic trajectory. Only a minority of voters maintain confidence or have an optimistic view of the government's current economic management.

MIG Reports data also shows voter views are largely influence by the actions of the Biden-Harris administration—particularly the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). Discussions that focus on confidence in economic prosperity are largely among Democratic establishment supporters.

The narrative emerging from these online conversations is one of serious concern about the economy. Most Americans are losing confidence in the economy, the government, and their own futures. While some still hold a neutral or positive outlook, most have become skeptical of the administration, calling for more effective economic governance.

Bidenomics is Decreasing Confidence

American doomerism on the economy stems primarily from rising inflation, increasing costs of living, and a belief in government mismanagement. Many voters believe the IRA has failed to alleviate the economic pressures they face. Instead, they say it has exacerbated inflation through increased government spending.

Conversations focus on "inflation," "rising costs," "spending," and "prices." People also direct frustration and anger at policies they view as disconnected from the public's interests. Sentiments such as "killing us without killing us" encapsulate the dire emotional mood around inflation’s impact on low-income households. This negativity further fuels widespread economic pessimism.

Some Say Hope is not Lost

The 23.05% of conversations which remain neutral on the economy express realism. These Americans acknowledge the challenges posed by inflation but recognize the potential benefits of government intervention.

One potential measure people mention is capping insulin prices and allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices. However, many remain uncertain about the long-term effectiveness of such policies. This leads to a mixed feeling of hope and skepticism. This group focuses on "jobs," "investment," "energy," and "climate." They acknowledge the IRA's goals but have reservations about its implementation.

A Few Believe the Talking Points

The smallest percentage of Americans—12.31%—voices support for of the IRA and other government initiatives. They tout Biden-Harris success reports like job creation in the clean energy sector, lower healthcare costs, and efforts to rein in corporate power.

These conversations often use keywords like "success," "jobs," "lower costs," and "investment" to emphasize the positive impacts of the Biden administration's policies. Supporters argue these measures are instrumental in building a more resilient economy and improving the lives of middle-class families.