Prior to Sean “P Diddy” Combs’s arrest, "Nice try, Diddy" began as a humorous meme used to mock him for his relentless self-promotion and involvement in multiple projects. People spammed the phrase in the comments of unrelated posts and ads as a way to sarcastically suggest he was behind everything.

However, after Diddy is facing serious allegations, including sex trafficking, the phrase took on a darker, more critical tone. It now reflects public skepticism and disdain, particularly toward his attempts to maintain a positive public image. Now, people use the phrase to imply a sarcastic disbelief in his sincerity.

MIG Reports analysis shows the phrase “Nice try Diddy” has evolved as a focal point in cultural and political commentary. It symbolizes the public’s sharpened skepticism toward high-profile figures for nefarious, behind-the-curtain acts.

This seemingly lighthearted meme conveys a barbed critique of Diddy’s alleged crimes, contradictions, or hypocrisy. The phrase signals shifting cultural patterns around authenticity, the complex role of celebrity activism, and polarized views among average Americans.

Omg. The woman who was standing by and watching Diddy blackmail and sexually assault men, women and children is now weeping begging you to vote for Kamala Harris. pic.twitter.com/FZYhpjOEJr

— Green Lives Matter (@Ultrafrog17) November 1, 2024

Cynicism and Skepticism

Posts using “Nice try Diddy” convey a powerful skepticism toward establishment and elite figures. It questions their intentions, especially when actions do not match their professed beliefs.

For instance, when celebrities who advocate for social change simultaneously flaunt luxurious lifestyles or engage in contentious politics, audiences often respond with this phrase as a callout of perceived hypocrisy.

This pattern speaks to a cultural climate in which authenticity is increasingly prized. After Diddy’s recent arrest, skepticism toward his actions and potential crimes transform the phrase into a more serious critique, conveying deep distrust and disgust.

Contradictions in Celebrity Activism

"Nice try, Diddy” also reveals the contradictions in celebrity activism, where persona and identity is synonymous with wealth and luxury. When public personalities delve into political or social commentary, especially on issues like inequality or social justice, “Nice try Diddy” becomes a pointed response to hypocrisy.

Diddy's arrest, combined with the ongoing historical lack of transparency on Jeffrey Epstein's client list, the dissonance resonates more deeply. Many Americans question the chances of justice for elites involved in heinous crimes as none seem to face proportional consequences.

Distrust of Political Elites

Discourse around “Nice try Diddy” extends beyond celebrity culture into political polarization, especially regarding figures like Kamala Harris. Supporters and detractors alike use similar expressions to bolster their narratives, framing opposing viewpoints as out-of-touch or disingenuous.

This polarization reinforces political identities, creating a landscape where opposing ideas often seem trivialized, further widening divides. The added layer of Diddy’s recent controversies amplifies the meme’s resonance in polarized circles. The phrase indicates skepticism is growing toward political and cultural elites.

Indicative Cultural and Political Forces

“Nice try Diddy” echoes cultural critiques around the role of celebrities in politics, amplifying widespread frustration with disingenuous narratives from establishment elites.

This discontent fuels a demand for authentic leadership, causing people to rally around candidates and influencers they see as more relatable or “real.” People call for congruence between rhetoric and action, amplified by high-profile figures facing legal and moral scrutiny.

This reinforces the anti-establishment sentiments sweeping through contemporary discourse, which is often manifested in memes and ironic online endeavors.

“Nice try, Diddy” echoes older memes like “Epstein didn’t kill himself,” resonating with public skepticism toward elites protecting themselves. While Diddy is certainly a cultural force, his association with the political class also erodes any significant grasp as a cultural influence.

Overall, “Nice try Diddy” reflects a growing political groundswell where authenticity is non-negotiable, and public accountability extends beyond elected officials to include influential cultural figures.

With his recent allegations casting a long shadow, this phrase underscores a societal shift toward decentralizing authority and demanding accountability and transparency from establishment elites.

Many people are discussing the “gender gap” in this election with women largely leaning Harris and men leaning Trump. While many people understand that trends among men and women differ, it remains to be seen how these trends may sway the election results.

MIG Reports data confirms many trends driving male and female voters, their alignment with candidates, and generational trends influencing attitudes.

Male Support for Trump

Most men’s discussions of politics online are supportive of Trump. They say they’re drawn by his economic and national security policies. MIG Reports analysis reveals:

• 61.53% of male voters align with Trump, citing law and order and the economy. They view Trump as reinforcing traditional American values and ensuring stability.
• 38.47% of male voters support Harris, often citing dissatisfaction with Trump’s rhetoric rather than alignment with Harris’s policies.

Female Support for Harris

Female voters, especially those concerned with social equity and healthcare, favor Harris.

• 70.49% of female voters back Harris, praising abortion and gender equity. They see her as defending women’s autonomy and achieving social progress.
• 29.51% of female voters express support for Trump, often driven by economic concerns, which they feel outweigh social policies.

Men Dominate Online Discussions

Online data may not be completely representative as male voices dominate discussions.

• MIG Reports data shows 62.34% of online discussion is among men.
• This higher representation often skews discussions toward economic and national security themes, creating a narrative aligned with Trump’s platform.
• Only 37.66% of the discussions comes from women online.
• The gender disparity reflects broader trends where men dominate discourse on traditional political issues, while engaged women tend to be highly energetic.

Statistics show there are more women in American than men—168 million women versus 165.28 million men. This suggests the full spectrum of female viewpoints is likely not captured exclusively through online voter discussions.

Male Voter Priorities

In online discussions, men say they prioritize economic stability and national security.

Economic Stability

• Inflation, job creation, and taxes are top concerns.
• Many men align with Trump’s promise of fiscal conservatism and deregulation.
• They say Trump’s economic approach offers tangible stability, with sentiments focused on his track record of job creation and pro-business tax policies.

National Security and Immigration

• Male conversations voice anxiety about immigration policy and national security.
• Trump’s approach to border control resonates deeply, with men framing stricter immigration as essential to preserving American sovereignty.

Female Voter Priorities

Women mostly prioritize social equity, abortion, and healthcare.

Abortion and Healthcare

• Women discuss Harris’s pro-abortion platform with passion.
• Following the overturning of Roe v. Wade, many women say their support for Harris reflects a desire to safeguard personal freedoms.
• However, MIG Reports data also shows a growing number of women are willing to prioritize public health and MAHA over abortion.

Social Equity and Climate Change

• Many women are drawn to Harris’s positions on climate change and environmental policy, seeing these as critical to family and future welfare.
• Women focus less on economic strength compared to men, saying they prefer policies that will address systemic inequities.

Younger Voters (Under 30)

• Younger voters, especially women, lean towards progressive issues.
• This age group prioritizes social justice, climate change, and abortion, with strong support for Harris.
• Younger men are more likely to voice anti-establishment sentiment, with economic anxieties often eclipsing party loyalty.
• However, many younger men resonate with Trump’s focus on economic growth as an antidote to inflation.

Middle-Aged Voters (30-50)

• Middle-aged men say economic stability and national security are motivating them, leading many in this group to support Trump.
• These men associate Trump with financial and familial security.
• Middle-aged women see Harris’s healthcare and family welfare policies as preferable.
• They value stability but view it through a lens of economic impact through social policies and feeling reassured rather than economic theory.

Older Voters (50+)

• Older men mostly lean toward Trump, seeing his policies as preserving national strength and security.
• Older women, while concerned with national stability, place a higher emphasis on healthcare access and social welfare policies.
• Many voice preference for Harris’s opposition to Trump and advocacy for progressive social values.

Gender-Based Issues and Voter Engagement

Based on MIG Reports analysis of voter discussions, women likely to show higher turnout at the polls. This is fueled by anger over Roe v. Wade and abortion discussions among Democrats.

Many women see the election as a direct defense of their personal freedoms. Female urgency is evident in passionate discussions around Kamala Harris, whom they see as a champion for these rights.

Men are also engaged strongly in political discussions but indicate a mix of motivations to vote. Issues like gun rights and immigration also tend to feature prominently in male discussions, overshadowing the more interpersonal issues highlighted by women.

Energy levels suggest women are slightly more energized compared to men. Female commenters express a profound commitment to change, speaking out against Trump and calling to resist authoritarianism.

Men often express support in more practical and less emotional terms. The disparate energy level in discourse could suggest turnout differences. However, this remains to be seen if men choose to vote, while remaining at a lower baseline for emotional intensity.

Campaign fervor is cresting just days prior to the election and MIG Reports data shows non-Trump partisans—liberals and Democrats—are leaning into performative outrage. Using dramatic language, hyperbolic expressions, and a repeated emphasis on extreme descriptors, this group is expressing high emotion.

Some do articulate reasonable concerns over some of Trump’s policies and potential influence. A substantial portion of liberals also seem to genuinely believe the outrage, calling Trump a fascist. However, much of the discourse skews toward performative expressions, crafted to amplify emotional resonance and foster a unified group identity.

Ana Kasparian clashes with Cenk Uygur on Trump, arguing that he isn't a “fascist” and the Democrat Party misrepresents him.

Follow: @AFpost pic.twitter.com/RPvzniKyge

— AF Post (@AFpost) November 1, 2024

Performative Elements in Language

The language deployed across these conversations frequently borders on theatrical.

• Terms such as “fascist,” “Hitler,” and “authoritarian” are common, imbuing Trump with a villainous aura that aligns with familiar tropes.
• Critics frame him as an antagonist in a moral and political struggle.
• Despite the existence of other authoritarian leaders like Pol Pot, Josef Stalin, Augusto Pinochet, Hitler is only parallel most use to depict Trump.
• The lexicon signals a collective identity that rallies around shared anxieties and moral judgments.
• Embellished phrases like “end of democracy” or “chaos in America,” tap into a performative mode designed less to analyze and more to evoke.
• The prevalence of these dramatized expressions suggests the intent is to stir reactions—likes, comments, and shares.

The tone of many online posts shows stylized indignation. Common keywords like “garbage,” “disgrace,” and “complete disaster” create an atmosphere that leans heavily on hyperbole to drive points home.

Much of the discourse can be categorized as “outrage posting,” where media and influencers exaggerate language to amplify emotional responses.

Outrage as a Mobilization Tool

The performative outrage often functions as a mobilization tool.

• Posts pushing extreme discontent or alarmist tones are among the most engaging, with metrics indicating hyperbolic statements significantly boost reactions.
• The performative nature serves as a rallying call, mobilizing users by constructing Trump as a political opponent and existential threat.
• Posts often use an urgent tone, calling for action or moral imperatives that encourage followers to align with the collective response.
• Recurring terms include, “protect democracy” or “save America,” tapping into a mythology of resistance and survival.

Heightened rhetoric on both sides shapes voter responses, promoting a sense of duty among followers. The performative outrage is often a coordinated effort to convert emotional reactions into tangible support for the broader progressive agenda.

🚨 Warning - heavy TDS: Before my flight, this woman put her middle finger up at me. I ignored it.

After the flight, she walked by me before I could record and screamed that I was a “facist”. Here is the rest of the interaction: #TDS #5days pic.twitter.com/ra5zAa2OCv

— Melissa Robey (@Robey2020) October 31, 2024

Genuine Concern vs. Amplified Rhetoric

Certain topics, such as healthcare, education, and climate change, are discussed with less sensationalism and more emphasis on practical consequences. The language shifts subtly to discuss policies or potential impacts, emphasizing marginalized groups and vulnerable communities.

Moments of sincerity suggest that while performative outrage dominates, there is a genuine core that fuels these discussions, reflecting real fears and apprehensions among progressives.

However, the performative aspect tends to overshadow genuine concerns due to rage bait engagement. This dynamic suggests the structure of social media itself, with its emphasis on engagement metrics, incentivizes users to use a hyperbolic style.

Outrage as the New Norm

Progressive conversations about Donald Trump are contentious and emotional. The use of exaggerated language, dramatized fears, and repeated calls to action suggest the discourse operates primarily to elicit reactions, reinforce group identity, and galvanize support. Genuine concerns do exist, particularly on specific policy issues, yet they are often subsumed within the larger spectacle of outrage.

Language analysis suggests discourse is disproportionately hyperbolic compared to real, normal life. However, it’s also possible to conclude that many anti-Trump voters who exhibit what some call “TDS” (Trump Derangement Syndrome), are genuinely disturbed. There are also growing discussions about mental health, anxiety, depression, and anger tied to political fears.

In the final week before Election Day, there is a growing wave of discontent and frustration directed at Kamala Harris and Joe Biden. Many Americans are angry, betrayed, and skeptical of the political establishments. Momentum changes emphasize the growing disconnect between voters and the ruling class.

Themes of economic struggle, political distrust, and desire for strong, decisive leadership dominate the discourse. Recent polling shows Trump leading significantly in battleground states among voters who have not previously voted. This suggests enthusiasm among Republicans is high, and perhaps not so much among Democrats.

#NEW BATTLEGROUND STATES poll

Voters who have voted in...
🔵 '22/'24 primaries: Harris+3
🟡 '22, not primaries: Tie
🔴 '20 general election only: Trump+12
🔴 No voting record: Trump+19

NYT/Siena | PA/MI/WI/AZ/GA/NC

— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) October 31, 2024

The Language of Anger

The language voters use is impassioned and confrontational, often with strong and colorful language, signaling more than passive dissatisfaction—but a call to action.

• People use phrases like “it’s time to wake up America” and “we’re being lied to,” going beyond mere disappointment.
• The tone suggests readiness, even a demand for mobilization, among those who believe a leadership change can restore the values and stability of America.

“Y’all need to go back to Ukraine & get my f***king money back”

Americans are getting angrier by the day as they continue to wake up. In fact it’s not just the US, but the entire Western World. pic.twitter.com/ZeGSrV7LA2

— Concerned Citizen (@BGatesIsaPyscho) October 11, 2024

Betrayal, Hypocrisy, and Urgency

Social media posts reveal a sense of betrayal and abandonment, as Americans feel deceived by political promises that remain unfulfilled.

• The language is direct, frequently harsh, and often laced with urgency—“it’s time to turn the page” or “we need change now.”
• Voters criticize Democrats for the failures of the last four years on the economy, border security, and social grievances.
• Words like “liars,” “garbage,” and “incompetent” permeate discussions, suggesting leaders are disconnected from everyday \working Americans.

Economic Disillusionment

Economic concerns are consistently a top priority.

• Discussions of inflation, wage stagnation, and rising living costs frustrate voters who feel neglected by policies they see as ineffective.
• Americans describe their struggles with affording bills, job stability, and housing—often blaming problems on failed leadership and out-of-touch policies.
• Sentiments such as “nothing has been fixed” and “the economy is in shambles” reveal a working-class who feel abandoned.

"Inflation has cooled, but people are still seething over prices," per WSJ.

"People find it unsettling that price tags don't look like they did before inflation took off during the pandemic, surging to the highest level in four decades."

— unusual_whales (@unusual_whales) October 31, 2024

Anti-Establishment Fervor

A clear preference for Donald Trump is largely driven by anti-establishment ire. Voters view him as a counter to the inadequacies and corruption in the political class.

• Trump is often depicted as the antidote to systemic incompetence and political stagnation.
• Supporters view him as capable of restoring stability, strength, and decisiveness.
• Americans want a leader who can break the cycle of unfulfilled promises and ineffective governance, hoping to reform entrenched and powerful institutions.
• For many, Trump represents a sense of hope that resonates deeply with those feeling left behind.

Fear about Election Integrity

Following from the 2020 election, there is now persistent skepticism about the integrity of electoral processes.

• Voters on social media voice concerns about disenfranchisement, fraud, and dishonesty.
• Many have doubts about whether elections are truly representative or if they are, in fact, manipulated to favor the establishment.
• This distrust bolsters the desire for new leadership, with voters clamoring for transparency and reform to secure a system they can trust.

Oops!!! ABC somehow has the final results of the election in Pennsylvania, but there isn’t any cheating, and the media isn’t biased or anything. pic.twitter.com/C56NACylUB

— James Woods (@RealJamesWoods) October 31, 2024

Conversations about whether Americans view Donald Trump as a fascist are partisan. Trends in voter discussions provide insight into the impact views of Trump have on the race and following either election outcome.

Only around 35% the country voices genuine belief that Donald Trump is a fascist, based on comment data. The majority of those who believe this representation of Trump are strongly convinced.

However, most of the overall discourse expresses doubt about the sincerity of these accusations. Some say those calling Trump a fascist do so disingenuously.

Tim Walz: Calling Trump voters garbage Nazis doesn’t undercut our “unity” message pic.twitter.com/b1WbxA0vJY

— Tom Elliott (@tomselliott) October 30, 2024

Accusations Cause Arguments

Only around 30% of those labeling Trump a fascist initiate discussion about it in an original post or comment. This suggests the overwhelming majority—70% of comments—are reactionary rhetoric.

Rather than framing Trump as a fascist based on independent assessments, critics often respond to events or others’ comments to pile on with accusations. Trump supporters often step in to defend him once the accusation is made. This creates a series of rebuttals and counter-rebuttals rather than a primarily accusatory dialogue.

Dictator, Fascist, Nazi

The style of these conversations ranges from intense and serious to emotionally charged. Voters are strongly invested in the potential consequences of Trump’s leadership. Those calling him a fascist attempt to intellectualize it, referencing historical examples and using terms like "dictator," "authoritarian," or "threat to democracy.”

The overwhelming majority use Hitler or Nazi comparisons, despite numerous other examples of fascism in history. About 55% of these discussions use a serious tone, framing the danger of Trump as high stakes. This group says preventing him from taking office is pivotal for the future of American governance.

Kamala — increasingly reeking of desperation — is closing her campaign NOT by talking about the issues that matter to Americans, but by calling President Trump "fascist."

It's disrespectful to the intelligence of voters. If she had any self-respect, she'd be ashamed of herself. pic.twitter.com/aWXFb5L6Eh

— Trump War Room (@TrumpWarRoom) October 24, 2024

Trump defenders instead take a defensive stance, often using mockery, memes, and humor. Some do question the validity of fascism accusations, calling them exaggerated or feigned rather than a substantive critique.

Among Democrats, 70% of comments are serious and alarmed. There is pronounced fear of potential democratic erosion under Trump’s leadership. The language Democrats use reflects a sincere conviction, with critiques often reinforcing each other and solidifying a collective stance against Trump as the ultimate adversary.

"Trump is my biggest obstacle in life, I think about him all day and all night" pic.twitter.com/aNfcOyhVXo

— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) October 29, 2024

However, while a genuine belief that Trump is an authoritarian exists, some conversations on both sides suggest a bandwagon effect. Among critics, about 30% rely on hyperbolic language, using “fascist” as a rhetorical shorthand that lacks specific implications.

It’s Not Going Away

Trump critics frequently react to events and statements attributed to him, using these moments as springboards for arguments against his character or leadership style. Instead of presenting or asserting an alternate point of view, many conversations are driven by opposition to Trump—including the Harris campaign.

This reactive pattern elicits a strong defensive impulse from Trump supporters. They are quick to counter accusations they perceive as unjust or politically motivated. Defensive rebuttals against the fascist label reveal a cyclical and reactionary pattern between the two sides.

NY Mayor Adams obliterates the media:

"Stop asking silly questions like about if Trump is a fascist or HitIer.. It gives you headlines and clicks, but it is not what Americans are dealing with." pic.twitter.com/DETh84rGes

— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) October 29, 2024

Americans are polarized on Trump with 55% of his defenders viewing accusations as overblown and partisan. Meanwhile, 45% of critics view authoritarian traits as a real threat. The conversation remains serious, underscoring the scope of Trump’s influence on American society and political identity. It also reveals a cycle of accusation and rebuttal, suggesting arguing is unlikely to shift opinions and only reinforce existing divides.

Joe Rogan's podcast allows public figures to connect directly with a vast and ideologically diverse audience—bypassing traditional media. And this election cycle, online content creators and podcasters have eclipsed the legacy media in audience reach, and potentially also influence.

Many voters believe, with internet generations joining the voting ranks, legacy media outlets—which are now facing a credibility crisis—could be obsolete before the 2028 cycle.

Donald Trump’s recent appearance on “The Joe Rogan Experience” had more than 40 million views on YouTube alone, just five days after its release. Rogan also posted the entire interview on X, implying YouTube may be throttling the video. Now, voters are discussing the impact of the three-hour-long interview, along with the pressure Kamala Harris is facing to sit with Rogan as well.

Since there's an issue with searching for this episode on YouTube here is the full podcast with Trump pic.twitter.com/sl2GTUaWdE

— Joe Rogan (@joerogan) October 29, 2024

Comparing the Risks and Rewards

The disparities in voter reactions show contrasting risks and rewards for both candidates. For Harris, the stakes are high, as her recent media appearances have not created an image of a proficient or confidence-inspiring leader. Democrats fear an unscripted interview would not make her more relatable but expose vulnerabilities in her policies.

For Trump, the Rogan interview played as on-brand for his persona. This is a double-edged sword as many voters cannot be swayed in his direction with more exposure. Others, however, feel the conversation’s comprehensive and casual tone made Trump more appealing to moderates.

Harris Stakes

• Vulnerabilities: High potential for a challenging, possibly damaging interview experience.
• Reward Potential: Could humanize her and bridge gaps with undecided voters.
• Base Voter Risks: Many Democratic voters see Rogan’s platform as hostile territory, losing enthusiasm if she were to appear.

Trump Stakes

• Strengths: Rogan’s unformatted style aligns well with Trump’s communication approach.
• Reward Potential: Further cements his position as a no-nonsense leader who has a depth of knowledge and willingness to speak openly.
• Moderate Risk: Potential to alienate some moderate Independents, though many in this group already have an immovable negative opinion.

Her Base is Scared She’ll Bomb

Democratic voters don’t want Harris to go on Rogan, voicing skepticism and concern. They voice their strong reluctance, centering caution around Rogan’s format, which often promotes freewheeling dialogue, challenging guests directly. They view this as a risk to Harris’s image, especially given the scrutiny she is facing over all her public appearances.

Democrat Reactions

• 70% of Democratic voters discourage Harris from appearing on Rogan, citing concerns his audience and style could expose her to intensified criticism.
• 10% say an appearance could sway undecideds toward her, a low figure exclusive to those who believe she’s a capable and competent leader.
• Key Concerns: Democrats fear an interview could backfire, as any missteps would be widely circulated and potentially weaken her already wavering campaign.

Rogan himself has commented, saying a Harris sit-down is not out of the question. However, his post can also be read as critical, saying the Harris team will not go to his studio and want to limit the interview to one hour.

Also, for the record the Harris campaign has not passed on doing the podcast. They offered a date for Tuesday, but I would have had to travel to her and they only wanted to do an hour. I strongly feel the best way to do it is in the studio in Austin. My sincere wish is to just…

— Joe Rogan (@joerogan) October 29, 2024

Independents Think She’ll Faceplant

Independent voters, typically more open to alternative media and diverse perspectives, advocate for Harris appearing on Rogan. They emphasize the importance of new media, but also express skepticism about the likelihood a Harris sit-down could change their votes.

Moderates and Independents responded mostly positively to Trump’s interview. They recognize Rogan’s platform could present Harris with an opportunity to connect authentically with voters, but many also believe she is not capable of doing so.

Independent Reactions

• 60% of Independents say Harris should go on Rogan, viewing it as a chance for her to address criticism and try to humanize her image.
• 30% say it could positively shift their view of her, only half of those urging her to accept the invitation.
• Key Concerns: Independents doubt Harris’s messaging and relatability will improve with longform content, raising further questions about her authenticity.

Rogan: "I'll give you 3 hours to say anything you want to America on the most popular show in the country."

Kamala: "No."

Leftoids: "So brave. Stunning."

— hoe_math (@ItIsHoeMath) October 27, 2024

Reactions to Trump’s Rogan Interview

Donald Trump’s appearance on “The Joe Rogan Experience” resonates strongly with his base. Conservative and right-leaning Independents widely celebrate the three-hour conversation, viewing it as an unfiltered display of his commitment to America and his breadth of knowledge.

Even among some undecided voters, Trump’s unapologetic style on Rogan’s platform resonates as authentic, further distinguishing him from traditional politicians.

Right Leaning Reactions

• Trump supporters view his Rogan appearance as reinforcing anti-establishment sentiments, particularly contrasting Harris’s controlled media performances.
• Independents are divided. Some found the candid conversation appealing, humanizing Trump. But others find his rhetoric polarizing.
• For many, Trump’s unfiltered approach is refreshing. Though his divisive image still alienates some moderate and undecided voters.

The Broader Political Implications

MIG Reports data suggests a Rogan appearance for Harris could be a high-risk, high-reward gamble. Her base appears unconvinced of the benefits, while Independents offer only tepid support.

Meanwhile, Trump supporters praise both Trump’s performance and Rogan as a pioneer in the new media space. Many who distrust mainstream media, calling it biased and in Democrats’ pocket, say presidential politics crossing into digital media is a positive shift.

Voters are also discussing recent news that GOP VP candidate J.D. Vance is also scheduled to appear on Rogan before election day. Increasing anti-establishment feelings and distrust in legacy media suggests traditional outlets may be facing death throes.

⁦@JDVance⁩ will sit down with Joe Rogan tomorrow - Live Updates - POLITICO https://t.co/7zK2uee79D

— Joe Rogan Podcast (@joeroganhq) October 29, 2024

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.

That represents approximately 10 percent of all paid circulation. https://t.co/XrDDWR3Vt5

— David Folkenflik (@davidfolkenflik) October 29, 2024

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

— Steve (@Steve113875651) October 25, 2024

Unsub from WaPo

Liberals often frame their decision to cancel their “Washington Post” as personal empowerment and ethical consumerism. They invoke, “taking a stand,” “voting with my wallet,” and “demanding truth.” Many are disillusioned with WaPo, using terms like “biased reporting” and “supporting ethical journalism” to validate their choice to unsubscribe.

Won’t Cancel Prime

However, there is deafening silence on the same activists canceling their Amazon Prime memberships. They justify this with practical language emphasizing convenience and necessity, such as “just too good to give up” and “I can’t live without my Prime.” This rationalization for keeping services that contradict their activism suggests a kind of opportunistic hypocrisy.

Language Analysis

Coping Mechanisms

Among those outraged about Jeff Bezos’s decision regarding WaPo endorsements, there is tendency toward self-justification. They use rationalizing phrases like “we deserve better,” portraying canceling subscriptions as a principled choice. This hints at cognitive dissonance, where values are flexible depending on convenience.

Hypocrisy Indicators

There’s a noticeable double standard where users critique WaPo for perceived corporate media bias yet justify Amazon Prime as essential, despite Amazon’s controversial practices.

Phrases like “corporate monsters are everywhere” reflect a resignation to the omnipresence of corporate influence, exposing a discrepancy between ideological intentions and consumer behavior. This focus suggests an emotional, issue-based hierarchy in which certain values can be sidelined based on the perceived relevance of the company involved.

An Amazon warehouse worker's 'thank you' bag for working Prime Big Deal Days earlier this month pic.twitter.com/PAEADIQvSs

— Michael Sainato (@msainat1) October 29, 2024

Owning the Narrative

Many express a need for narratives that align with their personal values, reflecting a belief that media consumption should ideologically agree with readers. This causes a pattern of binary thinking where WaPo is labeled as becoming antagonistic to liberal values, while Amazon is a practical tool divorced from these political concerns.

Cognitive dissonance is a recurring theme as liberals openly struggle to reconcile their ideals with convenience. The discussions highlight how modern consumer habits complicate the pursuit of ideological purity, as practicality frequently overrides principles.

Performative Activism

Some describe their WaPo cancellation as part of “cancel culture” or an act of visibility rather than a purely ethical stance. This suggests it’s either performative or rhetorical. For some, canceling WaPo is less about values and more about participating in visible, symbolic acts.

In voter discussions around 75% of comments are negative toward WaPo, while Amazon Prime discussion is mostly neutral or slightly positive. This difference underscores a greater discontent with media credibility than corporate ethics, suggesting a prioritization of ideological alignment over ethical consistency.

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.

https://t.co/xS8MABQxsT

— Cernovich (@Cernovich) October 26, 2024

The Paradox of Porn on the Ballot

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

— Saagar Enjeti (@esaagar) October 7, 2024

Provocative Engagement and Scandalized Reactions

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:

*checks notes*

Pornography. pic.twitter.com/oHlx9jBSAo

— Trump War Room (@TrumpWarRoom) October 29, 2024

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

— Unlimited L's (@unlimited_ls) October 26, 2024

Scream Heard Around the World

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.