Over Labor Day weekend, pro-Palestine protests made waves in New York City with police engaging protesters in the streets. MIG Reports analysis of social media commentary shows discussion trends, sentiment trends, and overall posture of the Democratic Party regarding Palestine.

💥 PICKET LINE MEANS: DON'T CROSS! 💥
JOIN THE PICKET LINE FOR PALESTINE — DON’T CROSS THE PICKET LINE. CALL OUT SICK. DO NOT ENTER CAMPUS. DO NOT GO TO CLASSES. DO NOT HOLD CLASS. pic.twitter.com/njL70ePrNm

— Within Our Lifetime (@WOLPalestine) September 3, 2024

Split Sentiment in the Democratic Party

The pro-Palestinian protests in NYC over Labor Day weekend spark contentious dialogue among Democratic voters. Discussions reveal growing dissatisfaction with the Biden-Harris administration's policies regarding Israel and Palestine, especially their stance on military aid to Israel.

Across multiple platforms, voters criticize prominent Democratic leaders, including Biden and Harris, for failing to take a decisive stance against Israeli military actions. Many see their policies as too supportive of Israel and ignoring Gaza.

This sentiment is expressed by more than half of Democrats in online conversations. They express frustration with the leadership’s perceived complicity in the violence.

Calls for Ceasefire and Accountability

Many pro-Palestine Democrats demand an immediate ceasefire. They voice an urgent desire for an end to the hostilities between Israel and Hamas. Many emphasize the need to stop the violence and prioritize humanitarian efforts, voicing empathy for those in Gaza.

This group uses terms like "genocide" and "massacre" often, with calls to reevaluate U.S. military aid to Israel. Some mention laws like the Leahy Law, which prohibits aid to foreign military units implicated in human rights abuses. The push for accountability is strong, as many demand that Democratic leaders like Kamala Harris reassess their foreign policies.

Polarization Over U.S. Foreign Policy

There has been sustained polarization in the Democratic Party since Oct. 7, 2023, particularly over foreign policy. Many voters criticize Biden and Harris, saying they enable the continuation of violence through military support for Israel. They argue the administration is morally obligated to reassess its position and advocate for Palestinian rights more aggressively.

An apparently shrinking yet vocal group of Democrats maintain a neutral or supportive stance toward Israel. They focus on Israel's right to defend itself against Hamas. This division suggests the Democratic Party faces internal struggles that could impact electoral strategies moving forward.

The Role of Progressive Voices

Progressive factions of Democrats—who often express anti-American sentiments—are increasingly pushing for a shift toward a more pro-Palestinian stance. These voters are frustrated with the Biden administration and other key Democratic figures. They often criticize leaders like Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, who they say is overly supportive of Israeli policies.

The younger, more progressive wing of the party appears particularly energized by the protests. They regularly advocate for and protest to influence foreign policy which prioritizes Palestinian causes.

The leftist or progressive faction is also pushing a narrative of intersectionality and social justice issues. They draw parallels between the Palestinian struggle and broader global movements for human rights and equity.

Implications for the Future of the Party

Ongoing tensions suggest the Democratic Party may be forced to reevaluate its stance on Israel and Palestine to maintain the loyalty of progressives. Traditional Democrats run the risk of alienating a significant portion of the voter base by continuing to challenge radical and antisemitic movements.

The growing divide between historically centrist leadership and the progressive faction could lead to broader electoral implications. With more than half of Democratic voters expressing dissatisfaction, the Party is walking a thin line trying to maintain unity.

Kamala Harris’s campaign particularly risks losing support from those like the “Uncommitted,” who feel their voices are being ignored in favor of maintaining the status quo. Democratic leadership will likely face increasing pressure to adopt a more radical and leftist foreign policy as the election draws closer and university students return to campus.

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.

Rep. Tony Gonzalez (R-TX) recently posted a segment of his appearance on CBS Face the Nation with the caption, “Illegal Immigration = BAD, Legal Immigration = GOOD.” After Gonzalez, the Republican incumbent, was squarely ratioed, MIG Reports analysis shows public sentiment voices strong opposition to all immigration.

Illegal immigration = BAD
Legal immigration = GOOD

If 🇺🇸 is to win the Space Race, lower the deficit, and grow our economy we need LEGAL, vetted, non-voting, non-citizen, workers! pic.twitter.com/dUAZRsGLmF

— Rep. Tony Gonzales (@RepTonyGonzales) September 1, 2024

Opposition manifests in heated debates where legal immigration frequently intersects with concerns about illegal immigration, national security, and economic stability. Analyzing these discussions provides insight into the prevailing attitudes and anxieties that shape public opinion as the nation heads toward critical electoral decisions.

Opposition to Current Policies

A significant majority of Americans voice dissatisfaction with the Biden-Harris approach to immigration, including legal immigration. Approximately 75% of the conversation expresses disapproval of Biden-Harris policies. These negative sentiments are based on current policies failing to protect national borders and imposing undue economic burdens on American taxpayers.

Conversations often conflate legal and illegal immigration, suggesting a widespread belief that current policies are too lenient and encourage illegal entry into the country. This leniency fuels calls for stricter immigration controls, including reductions or even moratoriums on new legal immigrants entering the United States.

Focus on National Security and Economic Impact

National security and economic concerns dominate discourse on legal immigration. Voters discuss border security, economic burdens associated with immigration, illegal aliens, and job security. For many voters, these issues are connected and at the forefront of public concern. Approximately 70% advocate for reduced immigration levels—legal or illegal.

These sentiments are driven by the belief that ongoing immigration could strain public resources, increase crime rates, and threaten job opportunities for American citizens. Voters are consistently negative, with many arguing current immigration policies fail to prioritize the safety and economic stability of the nation.

• In conversations, “moratorium is often brought up, with 78% of discussion advocating for reduced immigration.
• “National security” is another significant topic with 80% expressing a desire to reduce immigration.

Comparison of Harris and Trump Policies

Public discourse often contrasts the immigration policies of Kamala Harris and Donald Trump, with Harris's policies receiving substantial criticism. Around 65% of the discussion links Harris to lenient immigration policies, which many believe exacerbates existing problems.

Discussions about Trump are more favorable, particularly among conservative voters who view his approach to border security as more effective. These comparisons reveal an electorate which supports a return to the stricter policies of the Trump era.

Immigration as a Political Tool

Many view immigration, particularly illegal immigration, as a political tool which Harris uses to influence demographic voting patterns. This belief surfaces in about 60% of the discussion, reflecting broader concerns about the socio-political impacts of immigration.

Americans frequently voice concerns that immigrants, especially those who enter illegally, as burdens on public resources. They also discuss immigration as a threat to societal norms. Many suspect that Democrats use immigration, manipulating voters and metrics for political gain at the expense of national security and social cohesion.

Emotional and Linguistic Patterns

The language used in these discussions is notably emotional and personal. Voters frequently use first-person narratives, such as "I believe" and "we need," to express their personal stakes in the immigration debate. This use of first-person language creates a sense of urgency and personal investment in the outcome of immigration policies.

In contrast, third-person language is often employed to discuss political figures, particularly in a critical or accusatory manner. This linguistic pattern reflects a collective disillusionment with current leadership and a deep concern for the future of the nation in the face of perceived immigration challenges.

Discussions are negative around Maryland Governor Wes Moore's recent lie about receiving a Bronze Star—a military medal awarded to those in the U.S. Armed Forces who distinguish themselves through heroic or meritorious service. Discussion is primarily centered on themes of accountability, sincerity, and political integrity.

Dismissing an Apology

One of the most frequent keywords in the discourse is "apology," with many Americans expressing mixed reactions to the Democratic governor's statement. In the acknowledgment, Moore describes his claim of receiving a Bronze Star as an "honest mistake."

Voters’ negativity in response reflects a broader concern about the implications of claims that might be considered “stolen valor.” This is an issues Democratic VP nominee Tim Walz has also recently faced. Americans generally support military service and praise public servants who are veterans, but recent discussions show they are sensitive to integrity around military service.

The sentiment around Moore’s "apology" is skeptical as many question the sincerity of Moore’s admission. They speculate about whether it adequately addresses public concerns.

Questions of Integrity

Another significant topic in the conversations is "integrity." Discussions are around public desire for transparency and ethical leadership in governance. Sentiments connected to integrity vary, with some demanding a higher standard, while others defend Moore's actions, arguing that everyone makes mistakes. Close to 30% of the total comments assessed relate to integrity, highlighting the importance of voters trusting their representatives.

The issue of "credibility" also emerges as a critical theme. Many challenge Moore's credibility, suggesting this incident may have long-term implications for his political career. About 25% of the total comments reflect this sentiment, indicating a substantial portion of voters are grappling with their trust in his leadership.

People also mention "politics," placing Moore's comments in a broader narrative of political accountability. Approximately 20% of comments address this topic, often using it to criticize the political landscape or defend the governor based on the broader issues facing Maryland.

A Few Supporters

While negative sentiment is overwhelming in the discussions, there is a portion of positive sentiment. This group focuses on Moore's previous accomplishments and potential for future leadership. About 15% express support for Moore, often countering critiques of his recent actions. This duality in sentiment indicates, while his apology raises valid concerns, it does not wholly overshadow the positive impressions he has cultivated in some voter segments.

MIG Reports analysis of discourse prior to Labor Day around "what it means to be American" reveals American perspectives in 2024. At the core of these discussions are deeply held beliefs about identity, values, and the role of government in shaping the American experience.

American Identity and Constitutional Principles

Conversation about American identity emphasize the importance of upholding the Constitution as the foundation of what it means to be American. Much of the discourse focuses the idea that the United States is a "constitutional republic" rather than a pure democracy, reflecting deep concerns about preserving traditional governance structures.

Sentiment is particularly strong in discussions on civil liberties, with free speech and the right to bear arms viewed as core components of American identity. The prevailing narrative reveals a widespread belief that constitutional rights are under threat. Voters call for a return to foundational principles and a defense against perceived government overreach.

• 30% of discussions about American identity focus on the preservation of constitutional principles.
• The emphasis on civil liberties, particularly the First and Second Amendments, underscores voters are committed to protecting what they see as essential to American freedom.

The American Dream

The concept of the American Dream remains central in national discourse, though it is increasingly impacted by disillusionment. People express concerns that the American Dream—once synonymous with the opportunity for prosperity through hard work—is now out of reach. This is a particular lament for younger generations.

Economic challenges such as rising housing costs and inflation are frequently cited as barriers eroding chances at the American dream. There is a strong sense of nostalgia for a time when the American Dream felt more attainable. This, coupled with frustration over current economic policies, are seen as exacerbating inequality.

• 25% of the overall discussion touches on the American Dream
• Conversation is dominated by a sense of loss and frustration, reflecting widespread concerns that upward mobility and economic stability is fading.
• Sentiment is particularly resonant among those who feel left behind by the current economic environment.

Nationalism and American Exceptionalism

Nationalism and the idea of American exceptionalism are also prominent themes. Voters want policies that prioritize American citizens over non-citizens. This includes a strong focus on securing borders and protecting American jobs.

Americans believe the United States should maintain a distinct national identity and stay aligned with traditional values. Sentiment is often one of protectionism, with a desire to safeguard the nation's interests in the face of perceived external threats.

• 20% discuss nationalism and American exceptionalism.
• The emphasis on protecting American jobs and securing borders is prominent.
• Voters express a desire to maintain the country's sovereignty and prioritize the well-being of U.S. citizens.

Cultural and Social Values

Discourse around cultural and social values contains tension between traditional and progressive ideologies. Some Americans advocate for a return to what they see as foundational American values, such as meritocracy and personal responsibility. This coincides with criticism of contemporary social movements, which some believe challenge the core identity of the nation.

Issues like gender identity, DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion), education, and social justice are particularly contentious. Traditionalists view these as threats to the cultural fabric of America, while more progressive voters advocate for “evolving” American values.

• 15% discuss cultural and social values as a significant but secondary concern to American identity.
• The polarization around social issues reflects broader societal divides, with strong opinions on both sides.

Patriotism and Civic Engagement

Patriotism is another theme, though it is less dominant compared to others. Many express a deep love for the country and a commitment to defending its values. There is a widespread call for civic engagement, particularly in the form of voting and political activism. Advocates view this as a means to protect and uphold the nation's ideals.

Sentiment is often tied to fears of authoritarianism and the erosion of civil liberties, with many expressing a sense of duty to resist perceived government overreach.

• 5% of the discussion is on patriotism and civic engagement.
• The emphasis on civic duty and protecting American values shows a desire to maintain the integrity of the nation's democratic processes.

Polarization and Divided Sentiments

Americans continue to be polarized on issues of national identity and ideology. This contributes to starkly contrasting views on what it means to be American.

On one side, there is a strong desire to preserve traditional values and resist changes that could erode the nation's historical identity. On the other, are assertions of the need for adaptation and progress. This tension between those who fear losing core American principles and those advocating for progressive change is fraught.

• 5% of the discussion focuses on ideological polarization.
• The significant divides within American society reflect broader tensions and conflicts over the country's future direction.
• Despite the lower discussion volume, this theme is a pervasive undercurrent in many seemingly unrelated conversations.

Former Democratic congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard recently endorsed Donald Trump for president, sparking significant discussion among voters. This came as a surprise to many but built on the notable shift in mood days after Robert F. Kennedy Jr. also endorsed Trump.

Gabbard, a former congresswoman from Hawaii and 2020 presidential Democratic candidate, triggered a wave of reactions. In her speech, she touched on her shift away from the Democratic Party. She emphasized Trump's approach to foreign policy, particularly his stance on avoiding new wars, contrasting it with Biden-Harris tendencies towards conflict.

She also associated Trump with values of prosperity and freedom, suggesting his policies foster economic growth and protect individual liberties. She criticized Kamala Harris and the Democratic Party, echoing Kennedy’s statement that the Democratic Party has lost its way, moving toward tyranny and authoritarianism.

I was a Democrat for over 20 years. Today, I endorsed Donald Trump for President. WATCH to hear why: pic.twitter.com/lwA8FYFx8h

— Tulsi Gabbard 🌺 (@TulsiGabbard) August 26, 2024

The endorsement was also a call to action for all Americans, regardless of party affiliation, to support Trump if they value peace, prosperity, and freedom. This, and her subsequent appointment to Trump's transition team, signifies a strategic move to unite diverse political factions against the Democratic Party's interventionist policies and economic tyranny.

MIG Reports analysis of voter segment reactions shows:

• 59% of MAGA voters approve of Gabbard’s endorsement
• 27% of establishment Republicans are concerned or skeptical
• 55% of progressive Democrats feel negatively
• 35% of moderate Democrats are confused or concerned

Independents are split:

• 38% positive or supportive
• 40% negative or opposed
• 20% ambivalent or curious

Independents are Divided

The Independent voter group presents the most varied responses to Gabbard’s endorsement. With 37.5% of Independents showing support and 40% expressing opposition, this group is notably split. Still another group is ambivalent, indicating a blend of curiosity and skepticism.

For Independents, Gabbard’s endorsement may symbolize an opportunity to break free from strict party loyalties. However, it also raises questions about the implications of a cross-party alliance. Recent criticisms toward Democrats from figures like Kennedy and Gabbard may speak to this group who acknowledge the major parties’ weaknesses.

Moderate Democrats are Cautious

While most moderate Democrats still disapprove of a Trump coalition, some show a nuanced reaction. With 35% expressing confusion or concern, this group appears to be grappling with the implications of Gabbard’s shift. Unlike their progressive counterparts, moderate Democrats are more focused on the potential electoral impact.

This group may be more sensitive to recent party defections like RFK Jr., Senator Joe Manchin, and Gabbard herself. Their reactions reflect the internal struggle within the Democratic Party as it seeks to hold onto centrist figures while facing increasingly radical factions within.

MAGA Gives a Warm Welcome

Among MAGA supporters, Gabbard’s endorsement is met with enthusiasm. This group views her shift as a reinforcement of Trump’s broader appeal and a rejection of the traditional political establishment.

MIG Reports data shows around 59% of MAGA discussions express positive sentiment toward Gabbard’s endorsement. For these voters, Gabbard’s willingness to reach across the aisle is a unifying force that strengthens all "America First" voters who oppose establishment politics.

Pushing back against radical leftism resonates strongly with many groups of disaffected Republicans, Democrats, and Independents. MAGA voters view the Trump tent as large enough to accommodate any reasonable American who wants to avoid radical leftism. Broadening the base with those who share disdain for the establishment is seen as a win.

Establishment GOP is Skeptical

Establishment Republicans are reacting with more caution. For this faction, Gabbard’s endorsement raises concerns about the potential shift away from party lines and conservative values. Around 27% of the discussion among establishment Republicans reflect skepticism or concern regarding this new alliance.

These voters worry aligning with a former Democrat might alienate neocons and further fracture the party. Their cautious stance highlights the ongoing tension within the GOP as it grapples with the balance between populist momentum and maintaining the traditional ideological status quo.

Progressives Strongly Disapprove

Progressive Democrats are reacting with strong disapproval. Many view her decision as a betrayal of core Democratic values, particularly given their view of Trump’s policies as divisive. On the left, 55% of the discussion expresses negative sentiments toward Gabbard.

This negativity underscores the deep divide within American politics and even among Democrats. Cross-party endorsements are often seen as capitulations rather than strategic moves. For progressives, Gabbard’s alignment with Trump symbolizes a dangerous shift toward far-right extremism, further polarizing the country.

Trump’s New Unity Coalition

The new coalition forming around Trump with support from politicians like Gabbard and RFK Jr. could have significant ramifications. For MAGA supporters, this alliance promises to energize the base and attract disaffected voters.

However, the skepticism among establishment Republicans and the outright hostility from progressive Democrats indicate this coalition may also aggravate deep partisans and the political establishment.

Some frame the political chasm in 2024 not as between parties, but between the American people and the political ruling class. There are also some expressing the emerging division as pro-America and middle-class versus pro-war and elite power.

Independents, particularly in swing states, will be crucial in determining the outcome of the election. Their divided response suggests this new alliance could appeal to anti-establishment voters or alienate those wary of extreme political shifts. Ultimately, the success of this coalition will depend on its ability to resonate with key voter groups.

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.

American discussions Democratic VP candidate Tim Walz and Montana Senate candidate Tim Sheehy offer a window into public views of military service among political figures.

While Americans generally express respect for military service, the particulars of a political candidate’s history inform the conversation. In the case of Walz, his military record raises questions about honesty and integrity. For Sheehy, military service implies patriotism and courage.

Discussions about each man reflect the complexities of how military service is valued and scrutinized in the political arena, particularly in the context of their respective campaigns. MIG Reports analysis shows a nuanced understanding among voters, highlighting key trends, sentiment analysis, and the resulting perceptions of Walz and Sheehy.

Military Service Implies Values

Analysis of voter discussions surrounding Tim Walz and Tim Sheehy reveals how their military backgrounds are perceived. The discussions present various sentiment trends, linguistic patterns, and recurring themes, depicting overall public opinion.

Discussions of military service focus on themes such as valor, leadership, and the implications of military experience on political aspirations. Americans regularly express positive sentiments toward military service, including for political figures. However, skepticism also plays a substantial role, particularly regarding Walz.

• 60% of voter discussions about Walz express negative sentiments.
• Negativity is driven by accusations of "stolen valor" and criticisms of his leadership during crises in Minnesota.

The analysis of linguistic patterns highlights the use of both first-person and third-person references, with a noticeable preference for third-person language in critical comments. This trend suggests a broader societal perspective where Americans critically evaluate the military service of political figures. First-person language, however, often appears in positive comments, emphasizing personal connections to military service or expressing personal stories and individual pride in service.

Voters Grapple with Walz’s Military Record

The discussions about Tim Walz's military service are notably polarized. More than half of discussions criticize Walz for perceived inconsistencies in his military narrative, with "stolen valor" as a recurrent theme. While critics don’t typically attack Walz for his long career in the military, they express deep dissatisfaction with the image and presentation of his accomplishments.

Criticism is often framed within broader political narratives, where Walz's military service is intertwined with his actions as governor. Supporters, around 30% of commenters, emphasize his lengthy service in the National Guard. They defend his record and leadership as being rooted in genuine commitment and experience.

• Prior to Walz’s selection as Democratic VP nominee, discussion volume mentioning his name was low and sentiment fluctuated.
• After his nomination, national discussion significantly increased, and sentiment evened out with a baseline in the low 40% range.

Tim Sheehy Gains Praise

In contrast, Tim Sheehy's military service is generally viewed positively. More than half of discussions about Sheehy express admiration for his dedication and courage. The narrative around Sheehy centers on his military background as a strong foundation for his political aspirations, with many commenters viewing his service as a testament to his character.

There is a lesser tenor of skepticism, particularly concerning his positions on public lands and transparency. Only 10-15% of discussions express direct criticism of Sheehy's military service. Negativity often centers on questions about his political integrity and concerns about his alignment with Republican values and transparency.

• Like Walz prior to his national spotlight, discussion of Sheehy is largely limited to state voters, though sentiment is relatively steady in the mid to high 40% range.