An apparent surge in support, positivity, and engagement for the Kamala Harris presidential campaign is confusing many Americans. Despite media claims that the highly relatable, meme-friendly, and accomplished Vice President is gaining historic levels of support, many voters remain skeptical.

In addition to feeling much of the hype seems insincere, Americans are talking about suspicious media and Democrat efforts to modify public understanding of Harris’s political track record. The discourse reveals a potent blend of ideology, identity politics, and performance in public office fueling public opinion.

Critics debate Kamala Harris’s qualifications and achievements, often within the context of identity politics, questioning whether her gender and race unjustly shield her from criticism or amplify her credentials. Many also skewer the mainstream media for its increasingly obvious hypocrisy in reporting the VP’s accomplishments and embarrassments.

Protective Cover from the Media

Many Americans view Harris's policies and political endeavors as extremely liberal. This perception would likely damage her chances given the majority of Americans do not align with the far, progressive left.

There's also a perception that media outlets are systematically erasing or altering aspects of her record to present a moderated version of her stances. Examples of this include:

• Her position as “Border Czar”
• Her complicity in covering up Biden’s health and reasons for withdrawing
• Her renown as the “most liberal” Senator
• Her support for the Minnesota Freedom Fund
• Whether she was chosen for her accomplishments rather than her identity

Border Czar

The accusations against media outlets began when headlines claimed Kamala Harris was never named “Border Czar” for the Biden administration. Many people pointed out that, until now, everyone agreed and accepted the colloquial title given to her as the administration’s person in charge of the border.

Americans and right leaning journalists criticized the media for walking this back and even retroactively changing pervious reporting. Axios received significant backlash for modifying one of its own articles from 2021, which mention Harris as Border Czar.

CALLED IT. These pathetic Democrat hacks are the most predictably dishonest people on earth. https://t.co/hzft99D9Zg pic.twitter.com/iox1dlRgGR

— Sean Davis (@seanmdav) July 24, 2024

Some also criticized Wikipedia for apparently removing Kamala Harris from the list of historical Border Czars for the U.S.

Update: Wikipedia completely scrubbed Kamala from its executive branch czar page. The Axios article is no longer even listed in the citations. https://t.co/TBF6oHNrHx pic.twitter.com/oCn5Rp0I0h

— James Lynch (@jameslynch32) July 25, 2024

Criticism toward Democrats and the media grew overwhelming when a cue card was leaked which claimed to give the press talking point from the Harris campaign to deny and dismiss Border Czar claims.

Wow.

A Democrat lawmaker confirmed to FOX that Dems have received a piece of paper with talking points/lies about how to discuss Kamala Harris' role at the Southern border.

They are already using the exact lines.https://t.co/CITguKLWCD pic.twitter.com/Bo8pxla61M

— Bobby Burack (@burackbobby_) July 25, 2024

When asked about the cue card, White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre claimed to have no knowledge of it. This also generated criticism and backlash from voters who view the current administration as colluding with the media to promote Kamala Harris’s campaign.

JUST IN: Peter Doocy confronts KJP on the now-infamous "talking points" card that tells reporters to deny Kamala Harris was ever appointed "Border Czar."

Let the games begin. 🤣pic.twitter.com/QvfOWZy4a1

— Kyle Becker (@kylenabecker) July 25, 2024

Most Liberal Senator

GovTrack's also received sharp backlash for deleting its 2019 rating of Harris as the "most liberal senator." This deletion is seen as an attempt by the media to cover up or obscure her true political leanings to make her more palatable to moderate voters.

BREAKING: GovTrack just DELETED their 2019 page that ranked Kamala Harris as THE MOST LIBERAL of all 100 Senators

It would be a shame if we made it viral: pic.twitter.com/Pi6KvngOTh

— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) July 24, 2024

Harris critics often label her policies as “communist” and express concerns about her support for open borders, defunding the police, and providing benefits to illegal immigrants. This, people say, is the reason the establishment apparatus is being used to hide her legacy.

Commentary about Kamala’s support for programs such as the Green New Deal, socialized healthcare, and defunding law enforcement positions her even further left than other prominent Democrats, including Bernie Sanders. Most Americans think of these views as dangerously socialist or Marxist and in the minority.

BREAKING: Footage found of VP Kamala Harris supporting DEFUND THE POLICE:

"It's about upending the system"
"We need to look at police budgets"
"More safety with more cops is wrong" pic.twitter.com/0HxUQeov9x

— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) July 26, 2024

Minnesota Freedom Fund

There is also controversy around claims asserting or denying Kamala Harris donated or promoted the Minnesota Freedom Fund—which helps bail out protesters. News outlets published headlines denying Harris donated to the fund, also implying she never supported it. This drew an avalanche videos, articles, and posts being shared to debunk the claim.

Reports from the same outlets and reporters in the past said, “Kamala Harris urged people to donate to the fund while it was bailing out protestors. Since then, it’s been posting bail for other offenders, including one who Republicans say committed a murder in downtown St. Paul.”

This might be the most blatant lie I’ve ever seen.

Esme, the author of this article, was literally at our press conference in 2022 on the light rail platform where a man was murdered by a criminal the Minnesota Freedom Fund had bailed out a short time before.

She then aired… https://t.co/hGinFk7DK0 pic.twitter.com/WSHurmPGBy

— Nick Majerus (@njmajerus) July 26, 2024

The reasons for significant negative sentiment toward Harris and the media appear to stem largely from a broader distrust in institutions. There is a growing perception that there are concerted efforts to hide truths about Kamala’s record to help the Democratic Party. This distrust is further exacerbated by a polarized political climate where ideological purity and alignment are heavily scrutinized and often radicalized.

MIG Reports data shows recent online conversations surrounding the assassination attempt on Donald Trump expose skepticism and doubt. This sentiment is largely driven by media reporting about the event, fostering a notable divide in public opinion. The overarching narrative reveals skepticism about the assassination attempt did not originate spontaneously but was significantly influenced by critical media coverage.

Top Topics

People are talking about revelations about the reluctance of the U.S. Secret Service to utilize drones for security. These allegations came to light through sources like Sen. Josh Hawley's whistleblower revelations. Discussions often center around why the Secret Service neglected to employ available drone technology, even after offers from local law enforcement.

People conclude this massive error allowed the assailant to fly his own drone over the venue, several hours prior to the rally. This aspect has given rise to various theories questioning the competence and motives of the Secret Service, leading to accusations of a deliberate stand-down.

Another prominent theme is the political alignment and social media activity of the would-be assassin, Thomas Matthew Crooks. Public discourse fixates on contrasting the portrayal of Crooks’s alleged pro-Biden stance with media suggestions that he may have been a Trump supporter—or at least a Republican. Many people say media bias is skewing coverage, highlighting or downplaying these affiliations based on the narrative they prefer.

Trending Sentiment

There are some who firmly believe in a deeply entrenched conspiracy. This is fueled by consistent Democrat and media skepticism and speculations that the event may have been an inside job or an act of negligence. Those who believe this express a sense of betrayal and frustration with government and media, often citing broader political conspiracies and failures of governmental institutions.

Other groups of voters express outright disbelief, deeming the assassination attempt as exaggerated or fabricated entirely. This skepticism is amplified by the FBI's statements questioning whether Trump was actually struck by a bullet or by shrapnel. These allegations further muddy the waters and feed theories of false flags or setups.

Many accuse the media of perpetuating theories that Trump was not hit by a bullet. This insistence on questioning something that many Americans saw with their own eyes further erodes trust, especially when people point out that Corey Comperatore lost his life.

Prominent keywords in these discussions include "drone technology," "whistleblower," "Secret Service," "leftist," "Biden support," and "media bias." The sustained mention of these terms indicates a profound preoccupation with the operational failures, perceived political motivations, and the credibility of media reporting.

Public sentiment is colored by distrust towards both the media and the government agencies involved. Many believe there's a concerted effort to obscure the truth, whether through deliberate action or systemic incompetence.

The skepticism surrounding the assassination attempt on Donald Trump owes much of its intensity to how media coverage has shaped the narrative. By framing the event with questioning tones and highlighting inconsistencies and failures in security measures, the media has inadvertently or otherwise, sown seeds of doubt and fostered a climate ripe for conspiracy theories.

MIG Reports data shows American perceptions of Vice President Kamala Harris’s economy as like Joe Biden’s, especially on inflation. Public sentiment about Harris as a potential president is negative based on her association with the Inflation Reduction Act and the broader economic conditions under the Biden administration.

Inflation Reduction Act Revisionism

Kamala Harris was the tie-breaking vote in the Senate to help pass the Inflation Reduction Act in 2022. President Joe Biden, along with numerous economists, have since made it clear the Act didn’t address Inflation. More accurately, it was a government spending bill.

Several mainstream media articles even address this, including AP News. When people discuss Kamala Harris and inflation, they criticize the Inflation Reduction Act, decry record high prices and the cost of prescription drugs.

Public discourse frequently highlights Harris's efforts to build up the middle class. However, many attribute the 20.1%+ overall price hike and record high gas prices to her tenure as vice president. There is prevalent criticism that Harris has overseen the decimation of the American Dream.

Despite historical negativity and criticism for her economic record, Harris has enjoyed a sentiment boost in the last couple of days, likely due to coordinated fawning and revisionism by the media to rehabilitate her policy record.

False Support or Dismissal?

Conversations that increase Harris's sentiment often center on touted accomplishments alongside Biden like the Inflation Reduction Act. Despite evidence to the contrary, many supporters still praise them for decreasing costs for families, lowering prescription drug prices, and making historic investments in clean energy jobs and manufacturing.

Harris advocates say these measures demonstrate her efficacy in legislative processes and her capability in executive functions. They say this increases their confidence in her potential presidency. However, these discussions seem based on tribal loyalism as opposed to direct discussion of the Act.

Some on the right speculate that voter support is being astroturfed by biased media and Democratic leaders. They say establishment “machines,” which include the White House press team and mainstream media, are attempting to prop up Kamala Harris by lying about her track record.

Sentiment toward Harris decreases significantly when people consider the negative impacts of inflation directly. High prices, low savings rates, and a general sense of economic decline put many voters on edge. Criticism often revolves around the feeling that Harris, along with Biden, failed to adequately address or prevent these economic challenges, leading many to doubt her competency in managing the economy.

Critics closely associate Harris with unpopular aspects of Biden's administration, such as weak global leadership and failure to address critical domestic issues. Many voters believe Harris would be an extension of Biden’s flaws, citing her role as "Enabler in Chief" and highlighting her record during her time as District Attorney and Attorney General in California as indicative of her inadequacy in future leadership.

Fluff Over Substance

Discussion trends show the public is simply not having the same discussions across the aisle or compared to media discourse. Supporters are vague in their endorsements, leaving room frame Harris’s role in passing progressive legislation as a positive, regardless of specifics. They focus broadly on her stance on issues like reproductive rights, voting rights, and clean energy investments, seeing her as a champion for significant and needed reforms.

Detractors, however, cite specific examples of Harris’s failures and hypocrisies. They emphasize economic difficulties caused by the Biden-Harris administration, the border crisis, and her general alignment with the Biden administration’s less popular policies.

Views of Joe Biden in the wake of his withdrawal from the presidential race is complicated with a mix of relief, sympathy, and anger. Most Americans seem to believe Biden's decision to withdraw from the race is due to his declining health and perceived cognitive challenges, though opinions vary widely. Reactions to his Oval Office address, which did not clarify the issue, do not show a change in public opinion.

The Mask is Off About Biden’s Health

Online conversations about Biden mostly revolve around his health, with many people citing dementia, Parkinson’s, and COVID as concerns. These worries are aggravated by perceptions about how the Democratic establishment handled his withdrawal. Many feel Democrats are clearing Biden and other potential challengers out, manipulating the election process.

There is also a strong belief that circumstances just prior to Biden’s withdrawal, and some after, have been orchestrated to mask his condition. References to Biden's cognitive decline are rampant, with strong criticisms directed at Democratic leaders for not allowing his weaknesses to be questioned or observed much earlier.

Discontent About Kamala’s Nomination

The sudden and rapid replacement of Kamala Harris as the Democratic Party’s heroine and nominee apparent has also shocked many Americans. This reaction is not exclusive to Republicans, different factions within the Democratic Party also express grave concerns.

There is an odd sense of confusion over Democrats and media completely sidelining Biden in favor of Harris, despite his plan to finish his term in office. Voters express a mix of sympathy for Joe Biden as an aging old man and anger at his handlers and family. Others express anger at Biden himself for allowing himself to be put in such a position—however, most ire seems directed at Party leadership.

Kamala Harris is coming under scrutiny for being complicit in covering up Biden’s health. Sentiments about Harris taking over the presidential nomination carry a distinctly negative tone, accusing her of participating in a coup to oust Biden.

Unhelpful Oval Office Address

Biden's recent Oval Office address, meant to clarify his intentions and reassure the public, has only created more confusion and anger. Most observers feel the address offered no substantial answers and failed to address the root concerns about leadership, ideology, and the future direction of the Democratic Party.

The public perceives the address as offensively insufficient, leading to further frustration and a growing sense of distrust. There is a feeling of disrespect toward the American people, particularly concerning the president’s disregard for democratic processes.

Intra-party disagreement and disarray in the Democratic Party adds another layer to the public’s reaction. Even members of the voter base, notably from the Black Lives Matter movement, criticize the DNC for sidelining Biden through dubious means.

Accusations include the refusal to allow genuine appearances and interactions with Joe Biden in public, altering schedules without explanation, and ultimately forcing him out post-primary. Many voters on both sides view Democrat leaders as ushering in a new candidate without proper voter engagement.

Republicans Call it a Shadow Presidency

Most Republicans believe Biden has clear signs of cognitive decline, often sharing his public gaffes, mental lapses, and shuffling, elderly demeanor as evidence. People frequently use the term "unfit" about his capability to fulfill presidential duties. Many Republicans also argue that, if Biden is unable to campaign for a second term, he’s equally unable to serve the remainder of his term.

Voters on the right often suggest the 25th Amendment should be used against Biden, who they believe is clearly not in control of the county. These Americans express outrage that the White House and Democratic leaders are unwilling to admit Biden is not capable of executing his duties. There is also anger that leadership will not speak transparently about who is running the country.

Republicans suspect Biden is a figurehead, with decisions being made by a communist shadow government or the far-left wing of the Democratic Party. There are suggestions that Biden’s presidency is a continuation of Obama’s policies, calling it "Obama’s third term." People accuse high-profile Democratic figures like Jill Biden and former President Barack Obama of orchestrating Biden’s moves behind the scenes.

Democrats Still Praise Biden

Many Democrats still defend Joe Biden's presidency, believing he is actively fulfilling his role. They focus on his policy achievements such as making gender medical transition more accessible to minors and supporting Black Lives Matter (BLM) advocacy.

While there is recognition of Biden’s age, many Democrats view his experience as an asset, not a liability. Public conversations within the Democratic sphere often revolve around ideological alignment with Biden’s policies, underscoring a belief in progressive values.

Post-debate and following Biden’s withdrawal from the race, more Democrats are acknowledging the poor state of his health and mental capacity. However, they also say criticism of Biden's health is exaggerated and politically motivated.

However, even among Democrats, there is not unanimous support. The factions of Democratic voters who view Joe Biden as incapacitated by illness or old age also tend to be the ones who express anger at Party leadership for undemocratic practices.

Critical terms like “Party elites” and “billionaire donors” illustrate frustration over perceived undemocratic maneuvers within the party. This internal critique indicates a sentiment that progressive ideals are sometimes compromised by the party’s political strategies.

American views of DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas currently revolve around the recent assassination attempt on former President Donald Trump and the resignation of Secret Service Director Kimberly Cheatle. Online conversations reflect an intense scrutiny of the Secret Service's role in security failures and raise numerous concerns about potential cover-ups by federal agencies. Public sentiment strongly centers on accountability and transparency, primarily driven by a deeper distrust of government institutions.

There is a pervasive belief that Cheatle’s resignation is a move orchestrated to protect Mayorkas. Many voice skepticism and outrage over the perceived manipulation and mishandling of investigations related to the assassination attempt.

Trending Discussions

Voters demand more transparency and accountability from both the Secret Service, DHS, and the FBI. There is a significant emphasis on obtaining access to various forms of communications—radio, text, and emails—as well as forensic evidence. People want answers about shell casing locations and weapon descriptions. Witness statements, social media activity, and cell phone data from the shooter are also highly sought after by the public.

Many see Director Cheatle’s resignation as part of a larger "cover-up" to protect higher-ups, most notably Alejandro Mayorkas. Discussion frequently mentions deleted Secret Service text messages from January 6, which heightens suspicions of ulterior motives and hidden truths.

There is a persistent belief that Mayorkas or other leaders denied essential resources and support which could have prevented the assassination attempt, lending credence to conspiracy theories perpetuated by the public.

Sentiment Trends

Voter sentiment toward Alejandro Mayorkas is overwhelmingly negative, driven by accusations multi-agency conspiracies against Donald Trump. The public feels strongly that Mayorkas, Cheatle, and others should be held accountable. There are calls for their arrests and charges for accessories to attempted murder.

This intense scrutiny is exacerbated by fresh revelations in media reports, such as inconsistencies in statements from the Secret Service and Mayorkas’ office. These inconsistencies further fuels distrust toward investigators and leaders.

There are also claim from the founder of the social media platform Gab, that the shooter may have had a Gab account on which he posted support for Biden. This contradicts media and Democrat narratives denying that the shooter had a social media presence.

🚨Approximately 30 minutes ago, Gab learned that Thomas Crooks, the deranged Joe Biden supporter who attempted to assassinate President Donald Trump, may have had an account on our platform. We are unable to confirm that the account in question actually belonged to him.

The… pic.twitter.com/BcJrZJ4Yhk

— Andrew Torba (@BasedTorba) July 24, 2024

Sentiment trends indicate a profoundly polarized environment, with discussions frequently boiling over into demands for impeachment and broader political consequences. Furthermore, the public's reaction underscores a boiling distrust in government institutions and a belief that significant conspiracies are regularly hidden from view.

Impact on Voters

With these scandals and growing distrust, undecided voters in swing states and nationally may play a decisive role in the election. The way this situation unfolds and how it is handled could influence voter perceptions of the current administration's integrity and competence.

Critical voter groups will inevitably look to how the government addresses these accusations. A perceived cover-up or failure to transparently address the assassination attempt on Donald Trump could sway votes towards him. Especially if he continues to promise accountability and transparency.

Online discussions about Vice President Kamala Harris and her role as “Border Czar” under President Joe Biden is notably critical and with widespread disapproval. The public prominently questions her efficacy and commitment to addressing the complex issues at the southern border, often emphasizing her lack of communication with top Border Patrol officials like Jason Owens and Raul Ortiz. This perceived neglect fuels a narrative of incompetence and inaction.

What People Are Saying

Top topics in these conversations include illegal immigration, crime rates associated with migrant populations, and the economic or social impacts of border policies. Words and phrases such as "illegal immigrants," "cartels," "border crisis," and "fentanyl deaths" frequently surface, underscoring the public's focus on security threats and their repercussions on American communities.

The narrative also revisits Harris's past comments from 2019, where she dismissed the idea of a border crisis. This exacerbates the current sentiment that she is detached from the reality on the ground.

The Trump campaign’s efforts to spotlight Harris's border record drive many recent conversations. Trump’s calls with influencers like Border Patrol Union Presidents Brandon Judd and Paul Perez reinforce the critique of Harris as Border Czar. Recent Trump PAC advertisements Biden-Harris border failures, highlighting comments from Harris supporting decriminalizing illegal immigration and abolishing ICE.

Media Try to Change the Narrative

Many Americans, who are already disillusioned with the mainstream media, are pointing out rushed attempts to change Harris’s border narrative. Outlets are now claiming that Biden never appointed Harris as “Border Czar,” despite the very same outlets reporting on in at the time.

CALLED IT. These pathetic Democrat hacks are the most predictably dishonest people on earth. https://t.co/hzft99D9Zg pic.twitter.com/iox1dlRgGR

— Sean Davis (@seanmdav) July 24, 2024

Axios in particular is facing severe backlash for retroactively correcting its own reporting calling Harris Border Czar. People rip Axios and other mainstream outlets attempting to walk back their own reporting in efforts to improve Harris’s image. Voters, especially on the right, accuse mainstream media of shaping politicized narrative and lying to Americans.

Journalists were calling Kamala the border czar until like five minutes ago. Don't let the media gaslight you. pic.twitter.com/oveoFcBn4G

— Bill D'Agostino (@Banned_Bill) July 24, 2024

Sentiment Trends

Voters mostly feel Harris’s tenure as a failure. They attribute severe consequences like increased crime, profit gains for cartels, and widespread fentanyl deaths to her Border Czar policies. The criticism intensifies with claims of Harris's policies harming Special Education services due to resource strains caused by illegal immigration.

If the critical sentiment towards Harris solidifies among undecided voters, it is likely to hurt her presidential campaign given border security is a high-priority issue.

Reactions to President Biden's calls for unity following the attempt on Donald Trump’s life is serving to create more division. Aggressive political rhetoric on both sides exacerbates the contentious political landscape. Many are expressing a sense of hypocrisy as Biden’s own words one day prior to calling for unity call Trump a “danger to the country” and democracy.

Biden — days after an assassination attempt on President Trump — calls him "a real danger to the country" pic.twitter.com/PCnJrZempZ

— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) July 15, 2024

Conservative Takes

Biden's call for unity is met with skepticism or outright disbelief from both ends of the political spectrum. On one side, many conservatives and right-leaning individuals express hostility and doubt regarding Biden's intentions, interpreting his rhetoric as insincere or politically motivated.

They frequently cite examples of Biden’s own incendiary comments, along with other Democrats. They accuse Democrats and the media of fanning divisive flames against Trump and his supporters.

Many bring up a specific instance of Joe Biden saying it’s time to put Trump “in the bullseye,” which he later dismissed when questioned about it.

NBC: You called President Trump "an existential threat" and said it's time to put him "in the bullseye."

BIDEN: "I didn't say 'crosshairs.'" pic.twitter.com/RKeKVxULJ9

— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) July 15, 2024

Sentiment among conservatives is largely negative, with repeated calls for accountability among Democrats and leftist groups. They express frustration and anger, claiming Biden and liberals are the ones provoking violence with incendiary rhetoric that goes unchecked. This group tends to feel their perspectives and concerns are regularly undermined and demonized by mainstream media and political elites.

Many on the right also point to the fact that Morning Joe was pulled from MSNBC on the Monday following Trump’s shooting. The network allegedly sidelined the show to avoid inappropriate comments on live television that could be used against MSNBC. Conservatives took this as an admission that MSNBC and, specifically Morning Joe, are part of the problem when it comes to divisive rhetoric.

Pulling Morning Joe off the air is an admission.

— Bonchie (@bonchieredstate) July 15, 2024

Liberal Takes

On the other hand, discussions among liberals exhibit polarized emotions but focus primarily on the narrative of right-wing extremism and Trump's rhetoric. Here, sentiments veer towards portraying Trump and his supporters as the primary sources of division and violence. They accuse conservatives of inciting insurrection and civil unrest. Many also point out Trump’s shooter was registered as a Republican, placing the blame for political violence at the feet of Trump’s own side.

Liberals defend Biden's calls for unity as necessary and justifiable attempts to restore order and civility in American politics. They frequently highlight cases of violence attributed to right-wing extremists and decry the perceived hypocrisy of conservatives who fail to acknowledge their own side's contribution to the nation's divisive climate.

Demographic Patterns

Younger and left leaning voters often use social media to express their distrust and condemnation of Trump and his followers. They portray MAGA voters and Trump’s administration as threats to democracy. These sentiments are further amplified by older, staunch Democrats who recall past grievances and historical wrongs as justification for their current political stance.

Independent and undecided voters seem fractured in their reactions. Some feel alienated by the extreme partisanship and are disillusioned with both major parties. This group shows a mix of frustration and apathy, often expressing that the divisive rhetoric from both sides makes it hard to trust either.

However, violent incidents, such as the attempted assassination of Trump, have the potential to push independents to more firmly support one side over the other, depending largely on how the events and subsequent discussions are framed by the media they consume.

MIG Reports data shows online reactions to mainstream media coverage of the assassination attempt against former president Donald Trump are intense and polarized. There is significant variance in how different news outlets and social media platforms reported and reacted to the event.

The narrative and sentiment analysis across various media outlets and social media platforms reveal a complex landscape of reactions influenced by political allegiances, underlying distrust of law enforcement agencies, and concerns about political violence.

Discussion Trends

The assassination attempt is fueling discussions about the perceived weaponization of the DOJ and FBI against Trump and conservatives. Many pro-Trump voters express skepticism over the integrity of these agencies, often casting the FBI as complicit in broader conspiracies against Trump.

These narratives also suggest a belief that the attempt on Trump's life may have been orchestrated or at least enabled by anti-Trump forces within the government. This includes suggestions the suspect was linked to groups like Antifa. This sentiment underscores a deep-seated view of institutional betrayal among Trump supporters.

Sentiment Trends

In conservative circles, the attempted assassination is being met with anger and a call for accountability from opponents, including the media, Democrats, and various government agencies. Language depicting the DOJ and FBI as corrupt and untrustworthy is pervasive.

Sentiment often includes anger, distrust, and a call to action, with strong support for Trump’s resilience and leadership. There's a sentiment of martyrdom projected onto Trump, framing his survival as another instance of his invincibility against orchestrated attacks, thereby rallying his base even further.

In contrast, anti-Trump reactions are fewer and appear to be more subdued, but still critical. These voices often refocus on Trump's previous alleged transgressions, including accusations of incitement on January 6 and illegal handling of classified documents. Sentiment here ranges from skepticism to outright hostility, with some dismissing the incident’s severity or attributing nefarious motives to the Trump camp itself.

Sentiment patterns from these discussions indicate strong demographic divides. Trump’s base, typically older, rural, and less trusting of mainstream institutions, responds with heightened defensiveness and a propensity to view the incident through the lens of allegations or conspiracy theories. Alternatively, younger, urban, and college-educated groups, generally more critical of Trump, emphasize the legal and ethical ramifications of Trump’s past behavior over the assassination attempt's immediate implications.

Demographic Patterns

Younger Americans, particularly those under 30, are more likely to approach the event with irony or disbelief. They frequently invoke internet memes and nuanced discussion of events, suspicions, and theories related to the assassination attempt.

Older demographics, particularly those over 50, express more traditional outrage and call for immediate justice and systemic changes. The generational divide in sentiment illustrates an underlying disparity in media consumption and reaction to political violence.

Impact Analysis

The impact on Independent and undecided voters could be significant. The event might galvanize Trump supporters while sowing further distrust among centrists. It could push Independents who were wary of Trump’s previous actions further away. They may view the event as symptomatic of a broader culture of violence and extremism associated with his rhetoric.

This event may alternatively draw some in the middle to Trump if they become dissatisfied with how Democrats and the media handle the situation. Some may also feel inspired by the leadership and patriotism displayed by Trump and his base.

On July 13 in Butler, PA, former president Donald Trump held a campaign rally, during which, he was shot in the ear and took cover as follow-on shots continued between a would-be assassin and Secret Service counter-sniper agents.

President Trump was immediately removed from the scene, holding up a fist and chanting “fight” and “USA.” Americans and the world immediately took to social media to pour out reactions and feelings. MIG Reports analysis of these initial conversations reveals a complex and possibly disturbing trend:

• Deep political divisions and escalating tensions within American society.
• A mix of outrage, conspiracy theories, and heightened rhetoric from both supporters and detractors of Trump.

Trump  Supporters

Among Trump supporters, the sentiment is predominantly one of anger and determination. There is a strong sense of martyrdom surrounding Trump, with many asserting the assassination attempt is a direct result of the liberal media's rhetoric about the end of democracy and the Democratic establishment's aggressive stance against him.

This group tends to emphasize themes of divine protection and resilience, often invoking religious overtones and patriotic fervor. They argue the attack has only solidified their support for Trump and has awoken a "sleeping giant" of political activism within the conservative base.

Many conservatives and Trump supporters suggest a coordinated effort by the left, possibly involving figures within the Biden administration or intelligence agencies, to silence Trump. There is also increasing speculation of incompetence or even malice coming from within the Secret Service and DHS. Many point to recent inflammatory comments from prominent Democrats as evidence of incitement.

Anti-Trump Skeptics

Those opposed to Trump express skepticism about the motivations behind the attack and its implications. Some dismiss the seriousness of the attack, while others suggest it was staged by Trump or his allies to garner sympathy and galvanize his political base.

There are also claims that the shooter might not align with any clear political ideology, complicating the narrative further. This side is more likely to call for a measured and investigative approach, emphasizing the need to de-escalate political violence and rhetoric—despite some within the ranks openly lamenting the assassinations failure.

On the left, there is a counter-narrative that suggest Trump himself and allies are to blame for inciting violence. They suggest heightened animosity in America, leading to events like this attempted assassination, are the product of the toxic political environment Trump has fostered.

Independents and Undecided

Independent and undecided voters appear to be caught in the middle of these polarized viewpoints. The assassination attempt and subsequent reactions might push some undecided voters towards Trump out of sympathy or distrust towards the left's handling of political violence. Conversely, others may become disenchanted with the entire political process, viewing the escalating rhetoric and violence as evidence of a broken system.

The Pennsylvania Rally

Right-of-Center Responses

Trump supporters and right-wing voters mostly attribute the attack to liberal or leftist causes, linking the shooter to groups like Antifa. They claim Democratic leaders and anti-Trump rhetoric incited the attack and suggest the incident was either orchestrated or mishandled by government agencies, furthering distrust in federal institutions. This narrative is used to rally Trump’s base by highlighting systemic bias and targeted aggression against them.

Left-of-Center Responses

Left-leaning and liberal voices focus on gun control, noting the use of an AR-15 and the shooter's alleged Republican affiliations. They critique Trump’s history of incendiary language and emphasize broader issues of gun culture and political extremism in the U.S. This group is also skeptical about the details of the incident, separating the shooter’s actions from broader political groups.

Centrist Responses

The polarized conversations likely have a substantial impact on undecided and independent voters, who may find the vitriol and partisan accusations off-putting, leading to disillusionment with both major parties. High-profile violent incidents often push voters towards policy-oriented stances, potentially nudging them to support candidates advocating for gun control or criminal justice reforms.

Sentiment Trends

Sentiment trends align with ideological inclinations. Trump supporters feel outrage and victimization, while critics highlight the dangers of permissive gun laws and violent rhetoric. The discourse includes significant blame-shifting, with Trump backers accusing Democrats and "deep state" actors of foul play, while opponents called out perceived hypocrisies and the consequences of Trump’s polarizing language.

Assassination

Right-of-Center Responses

The predominant trend among Trump supporters is an outpouring of outrage and calls for accountability. Many posts focus on identifying and condemning perceived liberal incitement to violence, often citing past rhetoric from Democratic leaders and media outlets as catalysts.

There is a strong narrative that this attempt on Trump's life is a direct consequence of the "hate-filled" discourse promulgated by the left. Sentiment among Trump's base is highly charged, oscillating between anger, blame, and a renewed sense of fervor to support Trump against what they see as a corrupt and malevolent political system.

Left-of-Center Responses

Most on the left either downplay the severity of the attack or suggest it was staged, contributing to a narrative of skepticism and conspiracy. Criticism is aimed at security lapses and the potential political manipulation of the event. A fraction of posts reflect a chilling nonchalance or thinly veiled schadenfreude, which only serves to fuel the ire of Trump supporters further.

Neutral and Independent Responses

Neutral and independent voters are caught in the middle, attempting to call for calm and rational discourse in the aftermath. Sentiment analysis shows many undecided and independent voters are disheartened by the level of vitriol and divisive rhetoric coming from both sides. The assassination attempt and the subsequent reaction have left many in the center feeling alienated and distressed, worried about the implications for future political stability.

Impact on Centrist Voters

Undecided and Independent voters say extreme reactions only heighten their disenchantment with the current political climate. The discourse generates a perception of increased instability and the potential for wider societal divisions.

While the assassination attempt has undeniably rallied Trump's core supporters, solidifying their opposition to perceived left-wing extremism, independent voters may find themselves more wary of aligning with either extreme end of the political spectrum.

However, there are some in the middle who perceived Trump’s reaction and demeanor during the shooting as a sign of strong leadership and express heightened patriotism. Some even say it has swayed them to want to vote for him.

Broader Implications

Rhetoric on both sides, from charged accusations and language to actual threats and expressions of hope for further violence, exacerbates a deepening sense of mistrust and fear. Moderate voices calling for unity, calm, and rationality are crucial but easily drowned out by the cacophony of partisan anger.

The assassination attempt against Donald Trump has thus impacted the political landscape, potentially shifting the sentiments of undecided voters towards disengagement or a search for a candidate who promises a return to stability and decorum.