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.
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.
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.
The 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
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
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.
The top trending topics related to the election less than a week away double down on consistent voter priorities. Americans continue to focus on the economy, border security, national security, and identity politics.
📊ATLAS POLLS - SWING STATES
The latest Atlas polls in the swing states show significant leads for Trump in Pennsylvania, Georgia, and Arizona. Nevada, Wisconsin, and North Carolina show differences of less than 1 percentage point between the candidates. pic.twitter.com/84bMO8VzRZ
Economic dissatisfaction is a consistent top voter issue. Widespread criticism of the Biden-Harris administration’s approach to inflation, taxation, and spending gives Trump the advantage.
Voters see rising living costs as a direct consequence of government spending, which they believe exacerbates economic instability. The see Trump-era policies as beneficial for growth and job creation, serving as a model for stability that many supporters wish to see reinstated.
Border Security: Trump Advantage
Frustration about the border remains a highly contentious topic. Harris critics highlight her failure to protect the border, connecting lax immigration policies to rising crime. Those who accuse Harris of prioritizing illegal immigrants over citizens cultivate fears of demographic changes that Democrats hope will favor them.
Trump’s promises of strict immigration reform and mass deportations attract supporters concerned with security and economic stability. His base is strongly in favor of his leadership on the border, calling for immediate change.
Global Tensions: Trump Advantage
High anxiety over national and global security also spotlights concerns about Harris’s ability to handle foreign policy. Voters particularly worry about Ukraine, Russia, and the Middle East.
Trump supporters say he is stabilizing figure who can prevent further conflicts, whereas Harris would provoke international tensions. This apprehension, heightened by recent escalation in the Middle East, positions the election as crucial to America's future security and global standing.
Ideological Divide and Identity Politics
In the ideological battle, conservatives say a Harris presidency threatens individual freedoms, often associating her policies with authoritarianism. Meanwhile, Harris supporters say Trump embodies extremism and intolerance—often calling him fascist or a Nazi.
The Trump rally in Madison Square Garden drew significant divisive rhetoric, intensifying tensions. The cultural and ideological divide leads both sides to believe the other is an existential threat to the country or damaging democracy.
The recent exposure of a fraudulent voter registration scheme in Lancaster, PA, has cast suspicion and draws scrutiny to election integrity. MIG Reports data shows Republicans suspect Democrats and Democrats suspect Republicans.
BREAKING: Lancaster, Pennsylvania officials have BUSTED a large-scale fraudulent voter registration scheme that includes thousands of applications with the same handwriting, fake signatures, false addresses, etc
Data shows reactions to the exposed fraud include:
Conservatives feel justified in election fraud concerns, viewing the scheme as proof of manipulation by Democrats.
Distrust in electoral integrity remains high among Trump supporters, likely boosting conservative turnout.
Progressives see the claims as exaggerated, voicing suspicion against Republicans who have claimed to gain ground in PA.
They are concerned perceptions of disenfranchisement may reduce enthusiasm for left-leaning voters.
Community and Social Implications
Division is exacerbated, with conservative and liberal factions becoming more isolated.
Heightened tensions deepen fears of disenfranchisement on both sides.
Fraud scandals may lead to stricter voting laws, which Republicans view as a positive and Democrats view as voter suppression.
Linguistic Polarization
Conservatives use terms like "fraud," "deep state," and "patriotic duty," casting themselves as defenders of election integrity.
Progressives focus on "oppression" and "voter rights," framing the incident as another threat to disenfranchised voters.
Language reinforces a strong “us vs. them” mentality, reflecting deep ideological divides.
Lancaster Versus National Conversation
Nationwide discourse compared to discussion around Lancaster, Pennsylvania shows nuances separating topic emphasis. The fraud operation which was identified in Lancaster, PA often substantiates fears nationwide.
Narrative Focus and Voter Turnout
Lancaster
The fraudulent voter registration scheme reinforces conservative narratives around election manipulation by Democrats. This story validates Trump voter fears and mobilizes conservatives who view it as undermining trust in election results.
Progressives tend to see it as overblown, concerned more with voter suppression implications, which could dampen their turnout.
National
National discussions focus on early voting and the overarching integrity of vote counting, with early voting spurring intense emotions. Republicans view usually high early voting turnout as a positive indicator against alleged fraud.
Democrats emphasize the moral duty of voter participation. Both sides are mobilized, but national discussions emphasize distrust and potential suppression fatigue over isolated incidents dampening turnout.
Community and Social Implications
Lancaster
The scandal deepens community divides and damages already wavering trust, creating a potential for unrest over election results. Conservative and liberal factions are isolated within their own narratives, each feeling the other is compromising democracy.
National
Distrust is widespread across the country, compromising views of the voting process overall. There’s a pervasive sentiment that “the system is rigged,” driving community efforts to combat suppression or disenfranchisement. The ideological battleground where trust in electoral processes is nearly lost, fosters a climate ripe for divisive post-election responses.
Linguistic Polarization and Emotional Tone
Lancaster
Language is reactive and highly ideological, with conservative voices describing themselves as defenders of democracy. Progressive rhetoric portrays the scandal as another blow to their voting power. This “us vs. them” rhetoric highlights how each side perceives the other as a moral threat.
National
Emotional language nationally is focused on early voting’s existential stakes, with terms like “betrayal” and “Hitler” showing heightened alarm. Both sides use charged rhetoric, but there’s a strong emphasis on personal narratives of “being played” or “controlled.” There is a siege mentality, where voters describe electoral participation as a form of resistance.
A recent Virginia battle over removing 1,600 noncitizens from the voter rolls is causing partisan controversy. There are accusations that removing them will impact both voter turnout and civic mobilization. A federal judge subsequently ordered the 1,600 voters to be added back, causing Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin and 26 attorneys general to urge the Supreme Court to halt the ruling.
The decision has heightened political engagement, with both sides mobilizing to protect their version of democratic ideals. Some also point out that, for such only 1,600 votes, the high-octane battle reveals how tight the Virginia race is.
Republicans generally view removing noncitizens as essential for safeguarding election integrity, rallying around themes of legality and security.
Democrats often view the removal as an exclusionary tactic that risks disenfranchising communities and undermining democracy.
I'm just saying, the DOJ is not going to have an election-home-stretch PR disaster, in the form of trying to put noncitizens back on our voter rolls, over a mere 1500 registrations, because Harris is set to win by 5-7 points.
Those who oppose removing noncitizens worry about a potential decline in turnout due to perceived disenfranchisement. Approximately 65-70% of those commenting on the situation indicate fear that removal could discourage voter participation. They especially emphasize low enthusiasm in diverse communities, framing this decision as adjacent to voter suppression.
Election Integrity Stakes
There is also robust support for preventing noncitizens from voting. This group discusses legality, national identity, and patriotism. They believe in maintaining a verified citizenry on the voter rolls. This group says purging noncitizens from the rolls is both legal and highly important to ensure election integrity. They argue objectors can only have one reason for keeping noncitizens on the rolls—election cheating.
Linguistic and Symbolic Impacts
The language used in discussions around this topic is divided. Opponents of removing voters use metaphors of battle and conflict, describing the situation as a “fight for democracy.” Have voice a sense of urgency and heightened stakes.
Those who want noncitizens barred from voting use phrases like “patriotic duty” and “integrity of the ballot.” They frame their position as a moral and national imperative, essential for safeguarding the democratic process.
The division in language contrasts “democracy” versus “national sovereignty,” both of which are pillars of partisan rhetoric.
The provocative nature of a recent Democratic supporting progressive ad, which showed a young man masturbating while watching porn, caused a firestorm of criticism. Many Americans find the notion of “porn on the ballot” as a surreal and disturbing issue to highlight.
For many who view porn as damaging to society, the ad raises questions about how Democrats frame personal freedom stakes. Some voters find irony in Democrats making abortion and porn their cornerstone liberty issues.
White Men for Harris are running this ad. (It’s not satire, it’s sincerely from them.)
They want people to share it, because it’ll help Kamala Harris win, or so they say?
Vulgar, I apologize for posting such filth, but it’s who they are. Understand it.
In an election dominated by economic, border, and national security concerns, highlighting pornography as a campaign issue is both unconventional and controversial. Most Americans view personal freedom as essential, yet the portrayal of porn as emblematic of key freedoms seems a curious choice.
The ad underscores the complexity of modern political campaigns, which often rely on shock tactics to capture fleeting attention spans. While the ad successfully provokes engagement, it also risks trivializing a significant conversation on civil liberties, distracting from the larger stakes in the upcoming election.
This controversy comes on the heels of numerous anti-porn movements. Viral memes stretch back to 2021, rising anti-porn sentiments, and sexually conservative generations coming to voting age complicate Democratic messaging.
Additionally, a growing list of states is requiring age of consent laws for online porn. Some suggest this political push is funded by the porn industry to fight age protection laws.
The porn industry is now spending 100k on ads to convince young men to vote for Kamala to prevent more age verification laws going into effect pic.twitter.com/kjbKL1YYJm
The ad’s shock value is undeniable. It has sparked significant engagement, particularly among progressive audiences who interpret it as a bold statement on personal autonomy. By contrasting intimate freedoms with the risk of conservative censorship, the ad appeals to those who see freedom in private viewing habits as a top priority.
For moderates and traditionalists, the ad’s explicit content feels too coarse for a political campaign. The topic of pornography as a voter mobilization issue is, for many, an uncomfortable injection of degeneracy into political discourse. They see it as an intrusion, criticizing the oversimplification of complex regulation questions.
Reactions to the ad deepen ideological divides, with supporters lauding its unfiltered message on freedom and detractors criticizing it as vulgar. Supporters resonate with the ad’s message on autonomy, challenging authoritarian threats. Critics worry shock tactics cheapen the democratic process and lamenting the acceptance of porn in polite society.
Backlash and Desensitization
Depicting graphic content created both intrigue and backlash. Some argue the ad’s extremity risks desensitizing viewers, turning legitimate discussions about civil liberties into social media fodder rather than meaningful political discourse.
By veering into taboo, the ad might alienate more conservative or moderate voters but also risks trivializing freedom of expression and government overreach.
While the ad aims to mobilize progressive voters, it inadvertently energizes Trump’s base. Those who view the content as indicative of progressive excess use it as evidence of a moral divide, reaffirming their stance against societal degradation imposed by liberal ideologies.
This reaction heightens an us-versus-them mentality, deepening political and cultural animosity. The ad’s raunchy portrayal may end up galvanizing conservative opposition, energizing them under the banner of traditional values and perceived threats to decency.
The issue that Tampon Tim has decided to focus on in the final week of the election:
On Oct. 26, outside a Harris rally in Houston, TX, a woman was caught on camera screaming into a child's face. Predictably, reactions to the clip were overwhelmingly negative. MIG Reports analysis shows outrage toward the woman’s conduct, sparking wider conversations of party support.
Kamala Harris supporter is going viral for screaming at a child in a stroller pic.twitter.com/RSE4bEi7x8
The viral clip of a woman screaming at the child cuts through typical political rhetoric. Americans express visceral reactions, with many viewing the incident as a sign of moral decay and loss of decorum in public spaces.
Reactions are sharply negative as most view the behavior as a lapse in appropriate conduct. However, while some denounce the incident, they take the opportunity to emphasize support for Harris’s platform and commitment to women’s rights. Responses highlight ideological divides and how unacceptable public behavior impacts the broader perception of political movements.
Competing Interpretations
The incident also shifts focus from policy or campaign discussions to the charged environment in politics. Opponents use this event as a tool to portray Harris's supporters as emblematic of intolerance or extremism. They paint Harris rallies as chaotic rather than structured and under control.
This group points out multiple instances of hecklers disrupting Harris’s speeches, unruly crowds booing and drowning her out, and swaths of disgruntled attendees who objected to unfulfilled promises of a free Beyonce performance.
Harris supporters attempt to reclaim the narrative by framing the incident in a context of passion and advocacy for women’s rights. This narrative clash suggests emotions, particularly when they appear extreme or uncontrolled, risk solidifying an "us vs. them" framework that perpetuates division rather than fostering discourse.
Emotional Expression in Politics
Social media discussions show voter frustration with the overall political climate. Words like “chaos,” “unacceptable,” and “childish” express laments about a loss of civility and respectful discourse. Yet, these terms also expose the irony of simultaneously intensifying polarization.
Reactions allow for public displays of emotion—including negative ones—to be seen as integral parts of the political experience. Supporters align themselves with a “voice of reason,” while critics paint the opposing side in a radical light, using the incident as both a symbol and justification for their stances.
Passion Mobilizes Voters
For both sides, the incident has the potential to catalyze voter mobilization. Harris's supporters may feel a renewed sense of solidarity, driven to participate and defend against any mischaracterizations or attacks on their values.
GOP voters see the incident as validating their criticisms. They rally around the need to counter moral and social degradation. Moderate or undecided voters say the incident is discouraging. They say extreme emotional expression at political events may indicate an erosion of civility and effective political governance.
Language Insights
The language around the incident is symbolic. People talk about the image of an adult screaming in a child’s face as a powerful metaphor. It taps into anxieties about the safety of children in a divided society, making the incident a microcosm for larger fears about social and political disintegration.
People use phrases like "respect for children" and "moral decay." There is collective processing of the broader implications of public outbursts, portraying the interaction as emblematic of the contentious spirit in contemporary politics.
Trump's Madison Square Garden (MSG) rally is spurring wild and fervent discussion just a week ahead of Election Day. The rally’s impact, intensified by strong media framing, shows sharp divides among Republicans, Democrats, and Independents. But MIG Reports data shows the mainstream media’s plan to demonize Trump voters may be backfiring.
The top discussion topics related to the rally are:
A comedian who goes by the state name “Kill Tony” joked about Puerto Rico being a “floating island of garbage.”
The media’s reaction comparing the rally to a 1939 pro-Nazi rally at MSG.
Trump campaigning in blue states like New York, suggesting he wants to win them.
High energy and triumph for the MAGA movement around the size of the rally.
At Trump’s Madison Square Garden rally, podcast host and comedian Kill Tony referred to Puerto Rico as a “floating island of garbage,” during his set.
Notably, four percent of Pennsylvanians are Puerto Rican.
Mainstream media outlets presented Trump’s rally through a highly critical lens. Many compared it to a 1939 pro-Nazi rally at MSG, calling Trump’s event an echo of the same.
This framing doubles down on the Harris campaign’s recent messaging of Trump as a fascist and a Nazi sympathizer. However, the media’s portrayal drew different reactions across groups—either as a rallying cry or confirmation of a disingenuous media.
Independent are Split: Independents and undecideds are divided, with 65% viewing the media’s portrayal as excessive, while 35% feel it’s justified.
Republicans Dismiss Hysteria: Republicans overwhelmingly dismiss Nazi comparisons as unfair attacks. Many say the strategy is backfiring since dramatic and hysterical rhetoric sounds unserious to reasonable people.
Democrats Love Nazi Comparisons: Most Democratic voters say the Nazi comparison is accurate and necessary. They see it as an obvious conclusion in light of their beliefs about Trump as a fascist.
Among persuadable voters and those who are not deeply partisan Democrats, most voters view the media’s rhetoric as over the top. However, because the Harris campaign and mainstream media are leaning so hard into the Nazi comparisons, more voters are taking to social media to express their criticism.
New York a Swing State?
At the rally, Vivek Ramaswamy stirred discussion with his assertion that “New York could become a swing state.” This remark, intended to convey optimism about Republican growth in traditionally Democratic areas, receives mixed reactions.
Republicans mostly embrace Ramaswamy’s comments, seeing his assertion as a bold and energizing signal of shifting political tides. The idea of New York as a potential battleground boosts morale among Republicans.
Democrats dismiss Ramaswamy’s statement as unrealistic, perceiving it as wishful thinking. Many Democratic commenters say New York’s demographics and liberal base will not be competitive any time soon.
Independents are divided. Some appreciate the ambitious tone, viewing it as optimistic for political realignments. However, many also question the practicality of Republicans winning over a heavily liberal electorate.
AOC Feigns Outrage
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was holding an online gaming rally with VP candidate Tim Walz during the MSG rally. Reacting to Tony Hinchcliffe’s Puerto Rico joke, AOC tweeted her offense, saying “4,000+ Puerto Ricans died” under Trump.
She framed the joke as representative of the MAGA movement’s disregard for marginalized communities, calling for Latino voters to share the offense with their families. However, AOC subsequently tweeted admitting she was not offended by the joke, but solely for Hinchcliffe’s willingness to go on stage for Trump.
And before people try to act like this is some PC overly sensitive nonsense, I’ve been to Kill Tony shows. I’m from the Bronx. I don’t give a shit about crude humor.
But don’t pretend that your support for Trump is a joke. Own it. You doing a set to support him. That’s a choice.
Democrats support AOC’s criticisms, voicing urgency for opposing Trump.
Republicans mock and dismiss, AOC as politically motivated and disingenuous.
Independents are split between being offended by the joke and viewing AOC’s reaction as trivial and dramatic.
Independents Mostly Distrust the Media
For Independents and undecideds, the MSG rally only became a point of interest following media characterizations. This led many to compare Trump’s populist messaging with the media’s critical framing.
Nazi Rally: Around 65% of Independents dismiss the Nazi rally comparisons as media hyperbole. Only 35% accept it as a legitimate warning of rising extremism.
Puerto Rico Joke: About 30% of discussions among Independents condemned the Puerto Rico joke, perceiving it as offensive to Latino voters.
Potential Sway: 15% say they sense desperation among Democrats and that pushes them toward Trump.
Election Impact from Undecideds
The media’s framing generally mobilizes Democrats, reinforces Republican loyalty, and divides Independents. An already polarized electorate mostly responds with heightened partisanship. However, moderates and undecideds who are already skeptical of Democrats say the dramatic rhetoric turns them off.
Trump Support: 55% of undecided voters say the media’s portrayal and Nazi comparisons makes them more likely to vote for Trump.
Extremism Concern: 45% of undecideds lament inflammatory comments made during the event, suggesting it repulsed them from supporting Trump.
While many agree there are very few votes available to be swayed, MIG Reports data consistently shows undecideds likely leaning toward Trump.
Republicans are Unfazed
Unsurprisingly, Republicans are energized. They view turnout in a Democratic stronghold as a point of pride. They say the rally is a celebration of American solidarity and patriotism, framing criticisms as further proof of media bias against conservatives.
Turnout Pride: Around 75% of Republicans are celebrating the success of the rally, seeing it as an affirmation of Trump’s draw and a sign of enduring support.
Media Criticism: Roughly 65% believe the “Nazi rally” label is a biased attack, reinforcing views of Trump as a political outsider fighting establishment elites.
Puerto Rico Joke: Only about 20% find the joke about Puerto Rico inappropriate, most dismiss the backlash as feigned outrage by Democrats like AOC.
Unity: Many Republicans mention endorsements from minority groups, including Puerto Ricans, saying this refutes media portrayals of the rally as exclusionary.
Democrats Worked into a Froth
A whopping 80% of Democrats view the rally as a gathering of extremism. They call the rhetoric exclusionary and inflammatory, using the Puerto Rico joke as a prime example. They almost wholly embrace the media’s framing, presenting an urgent call to the ideological battle against Trump and his base.
Hate Speech: 80% of Democrats see the rally as promoting hate speech, viewing the “Nazi rally” comparison as an accurate description.
Focus on Mobilization: 70% call for strong voter turnout, using the rally as a call to reject Trump and get people to the ballot box.
A Thread of Hope: Roughly 65% of Democrats say the rally’s tone could alienate undecided voters. They hope undecided voters will side with them, ignoring those who feel alienated by the media’s rhetoric.
Many Americans feel cynical about election races for the House of Representatives and the influence of presidential candidates on down-ballot races. MIG Reports data shows the electorate is divided on races but unified in their discontent with incumbents. Many Americans distrust Congress and feel torn about the presidential candidates and ideological allegiances down-ballot.
Trump’s influence is both a rallying force and a potential liability for GOP candidates.
Harris struggles to unite Democrats amid growing internal divisions.
Many talking about the existential stakes of the election, positioning their choices as critical to preserving America’s future.
Voters want political change and voice intense emotional and ideological investment, even in state races for House seats.
Presidential Impact Down-Ticket
Trump and Harris’s influence on down-ticket voting is distinct, often polarizing views even among their own parties.
Republicans
Trump remains a galvanizing force in the GOP, with 35% of voters saying he boosts enthusiasm for supporting local Republican candidates.
However, 50% say they worry that his polarizing presence may deter moderate or undecided voters.
Democrats
Harris inspires mixed reactions. Only 20% of Democrats see her as a motivator for voter turnout among progressives.
Around 35% worry her platform deters down-ticket support, reflecting internal divisions in the Democratic Party.
Independents
Among Independents, Trump garners 25% positive engagement for encouraging down-ballot votes
Only 15% support Harris-endorsed candidates, suggesting Trump’s populist messaging may resonate more strongly outside partisan lines.
Refusal to Vote for Incumbents
Across the political spectrum, voters are ready for new leadership. Many express substantial reluctance to support incumbents in House and Senate races. Nearly 60% of Independents, Democrats, and Republics want incumbents voted out.
Independents cite ineffective governance and economic stagnation as key motivations for new Representatives.
Republicans are dissatisfied with incumbents who are not strong MAGA conservatives, pushing for more ideologically aligned candidates.
Democrats voice frustration with current party leaders across the board, pointing to failures on the economy and party priorities.
This widespread discontent reflects a growing appetite for fresh representation that more closely mirrors the electorate’s evolving values.
Trust and Belief in Congress
Trust in Congressional Representatives is tenuous, with skepticism defining sentiment.
70% of Independents distrust Congress, often associating it with corruption and failure to address pressing issues in ways that represent their interests.
70% of Republicans express similar distrust and link their dissatisfaction to frustrations with the current power dynamics and legislative priorities.
50% of Democrats openly doubt Congress’s ability to represent the public effectively.
Notably, only a small segment of each group—no more than 30%—expresses support for Congress. This support focuses on individual achievements rather than systemic success. This trend of disillusionment underlines a crisis of confidence in legislative institutions across the political spectrum.
Linguistic Analysis
Language patterns in voter discussions show emotional investment, and existential urgency.
Language among Independents suggests a shift from traditional party alignment to populist ideals. They prefer leaders who champion national interests over partisan politics.
Republicans discuss fear and anger toward the government, using phrases like “radical” and “betrayed.” They fear cultural and political threats to American values.
Democrats are disillusioned, using terms like “betrayed” and “abandoned.” They feel excluded from the party’s platform, particularly on the economy and social justice.
Across all groups, hyperbolic statements and apocalyptic language—such as "our last chance"—highlight an elevated sense of the stakes, portraying the election as a critical juncture for the country’s future.
.png)
.png)
.png)
_.png)
_.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)