The Michigan Senate race between Republican Mike Rogers and Democrat Elissa Slotkin prioritizes important national issues. Important down-ballot races, especially in swing states, are increasingly important as November approaches. These areas can paint an informative picture about how voters are feeling and where important votes may fall—both at the state level and nationally.

MIG Reports analysis of online discussion in swing states and among Michigan voters reveals critical topics include political ideologies, the economy, candidate nomination, and national security issues. These topics capture the predominant concerns and sentiments of the electorate as they engage with the ongoing political developments.

Political Ideologies

Conversations emphasize the ideological divide between the conservative and liberal political perspectives. These discussions in Michigan specifically refer to Rogers and Slotkin and their respective viewpoints.

MIG Reports analysis shows around 40% of the ideological discussion centers on the GOP’s perceived shift toward a more populist, Trump-aligned platform. Voters describe this as MAGA ideology and some voice concerns about the GOP moving away from traditional values and bipartisanship.

About 25-30% of the conversations discuss Slotkin and the Democratic Party being aligned with socialism or communism. There are significant fears that their policies could lead to financial burdens, shortages, and worsening economic decline. Voters say this would be the result of government control over sectors like healthcare and social security.

Ideological polarization shows strong negative sentiments, with around 55% of discussions involving criticism and fear linked to the Democratic Party's direction for the state and the country.

The Economy

Economic concerns are also prevalent in Michigan political discourse, with discussions on various subtopics.

Housing

Housing affordability gets attention, comprising 20-25% of the overall economic discussion. Voters express deep concerns over housing affordability, with fears that government interventions. They mention Harris's proposed $25,000 grant for first-time homebuyers, saying it could inflate housing prices further and exacerbate the crisis rather than alleviate it. This sentiment is particularly strong in Michigan, where many view these policies as ineffective or even counterproductive.

Economic Issues

Broader economic issues like inflation, taxes, and government spending comprise 30-35% of the conversation. Inflation is routinely a concern, with voters attributing rising costs of living directly to current government policies. There is widespread dissatisfaction with how inflation is managed as many blame the Biden administration.

Voters are imminently concerned about the impact of inflation on their daily lives. They mention rising prices for groceries, energy, and housing. The sentiment towards inflation is overwhelmingly negative, with around 60% of comments reflecting frustration and skepticism towards the government's ability to control inflation.

Fiscal Policy

Discussions about government spending comprise around 30% of discussions. Negativity is pervasive as voters criticize “reckless financial management” by government officials. Michiganders voice concerns about long-term debt and the sustainability of fiscal strategies, questioning the efficacy of current government initiatives.

National Security Issues

National and international security concerns focus on U.S. support for Ukraine and Israel. Voters are deeply divided on these issues, largely along partisan lines. About 20% of the conversation focuses on the perceived alignment of Democratic politicians with pro-Hamas progressives. Sentiment towards Democratic candidates on security issues is predominantly negative. Voters are frustrated and fear the implications of these security concerns on national and personal safety if leadership caves to far-leftists who side with terrorists.

Candidate Nominations

Voters have significant concerns about the legitimacy and fairness of the nomination process. About 35% of conversations highlight issues related to party loyalty, candidate viability, and the accessibility of primaries.

There is anxiety about the effectiveness of the candidates' electoral strategies, particularly regarding Slotkin's financial advantages and her ability to appeal to centrist voters. This topic also reflects broader discontent with the candidate offerings, with around 60% of the conversation maintaining a critical tone towards the candidates.

Other Discussions

• About 25% of conversations focus on the credibility of the candidates, particularly Slotkin. There is skepticism about her ties to the agricultural community and concerns about her background and connections to wealth.
• Abortion conversations also feature prominently, comprising about 20% of the dialogue. Sentiment is largely supportive toward Democratic and pro-choice policies.
• Comparison of the two political parties comprises roughly 20% of the conversation. There is frustration with the perceived extremism in both the Republican and Democratic parties.

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

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

Voters Consistently Lack Confidence in the Economy

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

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

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

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

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

Bidenomics is Decreasing Confidence

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

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

Some Say Hope is not Lost

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

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

A Few Believe the Talking Points

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

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

Emerging pro-Palestinian protests at the Democratic National Convention (DNC) in Chicago this week indicate complicated political dissent within the Party. These protests primarily target and criticize the Biden-Harris administration’s support for Israel.

Organized by various activist groups, including socialists and Antifa, these protests seek to draw attention to what the protesters describe as U.S. complicity in the "genocide" in Gaza.

Unfolding events at the DNC reveal intense emotions, strategic disruption, and a focus on pushing for systemic change in U.S. foreign policy. A glaring lack of protester criticism aimed at U.S. foreign policy in any other foreign conflict complicates the matter.

Protester silence is deafening on conflicts including but not limited to:

• Russia-Ukraine War
• Syrian Civil War
• Yemeni Civil War
• Insurgencies in Somalia and Iraq

Those who criticize pro-Palestine protesters suggest this lack of outrage over all human rights issues reveals the targeted nature of Palestine protests, specifically against the U.S. and Israel. This, critics say, reveals the anti-American and antisemitic nature of far-left progressive activism in the Democratic party supersedes its stated advocacy for humanitarianism.

Internal Conflict Among Democrats

Protests kicking off at the DNC center around criticizing Democratic leaders, with a particular focus on President Biden and Vice President Harris. Demonstrators are vocal in their accusations, claiming the U.S. government is funding Israeli actions against Palestinians.

Chants and shouts often include the phrase "Free Palestine,” underscoring the movement's stated objective. However, public discourse reveals a deeper complexity, as some question why the protests focus predominantly on the Democratic Party.

Critics argue Republicans, who have historically supported Israel, should also be targets of these protests. Discussions touch on the broader implications of these protests, with some voices expressing concern that the focus on Palestinian issues might come at the expense of other marginalized communities, such as black Americans.

Misaligned Priorities

Pro-Palestine protesters express urgency, anger, and frustration at Democratic leaders. They view the protests as a necessary and immediate response to what they perceive as grave injustices against Palestinians. They demand accountability from Democratic leaders like Biden and Harris.

However, there is also criticism of the protests, with some Democrats labeling the actions as misguided or overly focused on a single issue. This group is concerned about neglecting other important social justice causes.

Some criticize the protesters’ lack of concern for other wars, despite their stated grievance being human rights. The emotionally charged language used by both supporters and critics—featuring terms like "genocide," "shut down," and "Free Palestine"—reflects the divisions among Democrats.

Hidden in the Discourse: Intersectionality

Discourse around pro-Palestinian protests at the DNC reveals a growing awareness of intersectionality among younger voters and members of diverse ethnic backgrounds. These participants express a desire to align the Palestinian cause with broader social justice movements. They emphasize the importance of connecting the struggles of various marginalized groups.

This intersectional approach claims to build a more unified and inclusive activist front, where advocating for Palestinian rights does not overshadow but rather complements the efforts to address other systemic injustices. These injustices often include racial inequality and economic disparity. The emphasis on intersectionality highlights a shift in political activism, where the focus is not solely on a single issue but on a broader coalition that addresses multiple layers of oppression simultaneously.

MIG Reports analysis shows interesting trends in perceptions of Kamala Harris—specifically of her rise in popularity since taking over the Democratic presidential nomination. Online conversations reveal various sentiments among American voters with questions and critiques about her political standing and the dynamics of her approval ratings.

Independents

Discussion Trends

Independent voters often not the sudden shift in approval for Kamala Harris, with many questioning the reasons and timing of this change. They scrutinize her sudden approval swing spearheaded by the media and Democratic Party pundits, asking: why now?

This group speculates about the factors influencing Harris’s sudden increase in support. Many express skepticism, suggesting the soaring approval reported by Democrats and some polls may stem from manipulated narratives or strategic political maneuvers rather than genuine grassroots support.

Many in this voter group are concerned about Harris’s economic understanding and leadership capabilities. Words like "delusional," "basic economy," and "make America worse" communicate a strong disapproval of her leadership. People express a lack of faith in Harris’s ability to address critical issues like inflation.

Other recurring themes suggest she was “installed," in the nomination since she did not receive a single primary vote. Some call this idea "disgusting," indicating a belief that her rise violates norms of the democratic process. These suspicions further fuel cynicism about the sudden sea-change in Harris’s public approval.

Sentiment Trends

Independent voters are doubtful, expressing some hostility and anger, with very few supportive comments. The general tone is frustration with Harris’s lack of competence and the media and Democrats’ unwillingness to acknowledge her shortcomings. Many in this group fear drastically negative consequences if Harris is elected. People speculate about the "end of America," expressing the intensity of their concerns.

Many Independents point out the fact that Harris was deeply unpopular—even in her own party—just months ago. They cite the fact that her presidential campaign for the 2020 Democratic nomination ended in 2019 because of her unpopularity. Harris’s approval ratings have also been abysmal, along with Joe Biden’s, throughout their administration.

Someone just sent this to me. It's from 2021. I never saw it before. Jimmy Dore is awesome.

I remember posting this video, it got millions of views and even liberals were bashing Kamala in the comments. Susan Sarandon even commented that Kamala is a fraud.😂

Kamala is so fake. pic.twitter.com/b88ZccEjug

— MAZE (@mazemoore) August 15, 2024

Some recognize the political elite's influence in Harris’s rise to the top of the Democratic ticket. Others prefer to move forward and focus on criticizing the effectiveness of her policies. Both attack avenues reveal widespread unease in segments of the electorate regarding Democratic leadership, direction, and policy proposals.

Harris as a polarizing figure. While there are discussions of a perceived popularity surge, skepticism prevails. There are many Independents who are so archly opposed to Trump that criticism of Harris may fall by the wayside. But skepticism about how Democratic leaders use power and the extremism of Harris’s policies does not go unnoticed. 

Democrats

Democrat voters have a diverse and evolving sentiment toward Kamala Harris, particularly as they reflect on leadership’s claims of her popularity within the party. Current conversations highlight a noticeable approval swing, prompting many to question its origins and the timing of this shift. Voter sentiment oscillates between admiration for her campaign capabilities and concerns regarding her performance in various vice-presidential responsibilities.

Pro-Kamala Means: She Isn’t Biden or Trump

Much of the positive sentiment toward Harris hinges on her opposition to Donald Trump. When contrasted with their perception of Trump, many Democrats express belief in her ability to articulate a coherent and positive message. They view this as stark contrast to what they describe as Trump’s "verbal diarrhea" and racist ravings.

Democrats talk about Harris’s "message," "narrative," and "crowds,” praising her chances to defeat Trump a second time. Supporters emphasize Harris’s large audiences at campaign rallies compared to accusations of thing crowds at Trump’s events. This pattern indicates a strategic narrative casting Harris as a dynamic, engaging candidate capable of rallying support, which seems crucial in recalibrating public approval.

Just six months ago, anti-establishment figure and comedian Jimmy Dore gained 2 million views on commentary videos mocking Vice President Harris. This criticism of her image and inconsistencies was a common trend, even among Democrats, since the 2020 Democratic primaries.

However, since Joe Biden’s withdrawal, Democratic voters have received an infusion of energy and enthusiasm. Following the first presidential debate between Biden and Trump, the Democratic Party was in despair at Biden’s plummeting odds. Replacing Biden with Harris has served to reenergize the base and incentivize those who criticized her in the past to find new admiration for their nominee.

Calcifying Racial Classes

Recent endorsements, such as from the Culinary Union in Nevada, further enhance Harris’s standing among Party loyalists. These endorsements serve as validation points that resonate with the demographic diversity of the voter base, including Latino, Black, AAPI, and immigrant communities. Harris's backing from significant organizations plays a role in enhancing her credibility and appeal among partisans.

Discourse also focuses on the claimed policy successes of the Biden-Harris administration. Supporters highlight improvements in agricultural commerce, which they claim stem from Democratic policies. The base touts Biden-Harris achievements as an antidote to perceived failures of Trump’s administration.

Sentiment Trends

Democratic sentiment trends reflect both enthusiasm and a sense of urgency as the election approaches. Supporters express a commitment to voter mobilization, with calls to action like "get off the couch and vote." The phrase "voting" alongside emotive language about unity among underrepresented groups reinforces an atmosphere of collective urgency.

Despite the positivity across many factions of the Democratic base, some skepticism and critique remain. This manifests in discussions questioning Harris’s presence on certain media platforms, with adversarial commentary about how she presents herself to different audiences.

There are some pockets of Democrats who say they cannot support Harris, including some politicians in red or purple districts. This group seems reluctant to forget why she was deeply unpopular until just a few weeks ago. They also highlight the fact that, as America learns more about her economic proposals, moderates and free market capitalists will remain opposed.

Sheehy’s Growing Momentum Among Montana Voters

Tim Sheehy, a political newcomer and decorated Navy SEAL, has gained traction in his Montana Senate race against the three-term incumbent Jon Tester. MIG Reports data shows Sheehy leads Tester in both approval and support. His lead is corroborated by a recent NonStop Local poll.

Tester has represented Montana for nearly two decades. This shift in voter sentiment reveals a growing dissatisfaction with Tester's performance, along with national disapproval of Democrats, on issues like inflation, taxes, and border security.

Voter conversations in Montana show increasing frustrations at Tester's alignment with leftist policies—despite his refusal to endorse Kamala Harris and his decision to skip the DNC. People use phrases like “Tester is a communist” and accuse him of “furthering socialist policies,” MIG Reports data shows.

This sentiment is pushing voters toward Sheehy, who they view as “America First” and upholding traditional values. Supporters describe Sheehy as a leader who embodies “freedom” and “patriotism,” contrasting him with their view of Tester as detached from Montana’s heritage.

• In the last 15 days, approval for Tester and Sheehy has fluctuated. In the past three days, Sheehy regained a lead of 51% to 49%. The shift comes on the heels of Sheehy’s rally with Donald Trump in Bozeman last Friday.
• Overall positive sentiment toward Sheehy in the last month has averaged 48% compared to Tester’s 46%.

The National Significance of Sheehy’s Senate Bid

The outcome of the Montana Senate race carries national implications. Sheehy is leading according to MIG Reports data and some polls. Tester's plan to skip the Democratic National Convention is also raising eyebrows. This draws attention to tight down-ballot races as the Harris-Walz campaign continues to get battered on economic issues and the border, and given Democrats’ slim Senate majority.

The incoming administration will need Congressional support, and economic struggles and the unpopularity of the Biden-Harris administration’s open border are putting incumbent down-ballot democrats like Tester in jeopardy. A Sheehy victory would not only flip a crucial Senate seat but signal a shift in voter sentiment by unseating an incumbent who has been in office since 2006.

For Republicans, winning Montana could be a key step in regaining control of the Senate. Sheehy’s success in connecting with voters on issues like the economy, border security, and housing highlights the broader dissatisfaction with Democratic governance, particularly in rural states.

As one voter put it, “We need someone who understands Montana values, not Washington politics.”

Important Voter Issues

Economic Concerns Drive Support for Sheehy

Americans across the country are deeply worried about inflation and taxes — and Montana voters are not exempt. Many blame Tester for contributing to the inflation crisis, complaining about rising prices, and increased property taxes. Tester's association with the Biden administration further fuels this narrative as voters place their financial struggles at Joe Biden and Kamala Harris’s feet.

Tim Sheehy has capitalized on these concerns by positioning himself as the candidate who will bring economic relief. His background as a successful businessman lends credibility to his promises to lower taxes and stimulate economic growth. Voters who are disillusioned with Tester's handling of the economy see Sheehy as someone who can steer Montana back to prosperity.

Some critics call Sheehy “self-serving” or acting out of personal interest rather than genuine concern for Montana. But the overarching sentiment is dissatisfaction with Tester and willingness to give Sheehy a chance to prove himself. Donald Trump’s recent press conference on the economy and Kamala Harris’s scandalous plans for price controls are also helping push Republican momentum nationwide.

Housing

Housing affordability is another pressing issue in Montana, where rising costs are impacting residents statewide. Voters express anger over what they see as Tester's failure to address the housing crisis. Sheehy counters as a catalyst for change—though some critics are skeptical of his ability to tackle these issues with a struggling national economy.

Voters in Montana and nationwide blame Biden-Harris policies for sustained high housing costs. People talk about skyrocketing rents, increased property taxes, and poor solutions from politicians. Specific phrases like "housing costs doubled" and "property taxes rose 22%" underscore the dire situation many Montanans feel they are facing.

Border Security

Border security is another critical issue in the Montana Senate race, echoing national concerns about illegal immigration. Many Montanans accuse Tester of supporting “open borders,” which contributes to economic strain and public safety risks. Broadly, voters are angry at Tester and Democrats’ lax stance on immigration. They believe partisan policies endanger their communities and waste taxpayer dollars.

Sheehy has made border security a central theme of his campaign, promising to uphold “Montana values” by enforcing stricter immigration controls. His supporters believe he will prioritize secure borders and take a hard stance against illegal immigration.

This issue is particularly resonant in Montana, where voters are increasingly concerned about illegal immigrants flying in from border and sanctuary states. The country’s northern border, which is also a vector for illegal immigration and drug and human trafficking, is an under-discussed factor Montanans feel acutely.

Sheehy’s tough talk on immigration appeals to voters fed up with Democratic failures. However, like with other issues, there is a smaller group who question whether Sheehy’s rhetoric will translate into effective action.

Cultural Issues

Cultural issues are growing contentious, and many believe Tester has drifted too far from Montana's traditional values. People say Tester is aligned with “leftist policies” and “socialist ideas,” with some voters even labeling him a “communist.” More conservative voters in rural states also express strong objections to LGBTQ issues like gender ideology and child sex changes. Democrats like Tester aligning with liberal social issues makes voters view them as more attuned to the priorities of Washington, D.C. and far-left progressives.

In contrast, voters view Tim Sheehy as a defender of Montana’s conservative values. His supporters praise him for standing up for freedom and families. They appreciate his military background and commitment to the principles they believe define Montana. Sheehy’s focus on protecting individual liberties, including parents’ rights, and MIG Reports data shows promoting traditional family values resonates with Montanans.

Social media reactions to Joe Biden's statement to the press, "My policies are working. Start writing that way, OK?" are overwhelmingly critical. Americans express significant frustration and cynicism about Biden’s meaning. Many perceive this remark as an attempt to dictate media narratives rather than addressing substantive issues affecting the economy—especially inflation on Biden’s watch.

Reporter asks about inflation.

President Biden: "I told you you're going to have a soft landing...my policies are working. Start writing that way, okay?" pic.twitter.com/sHebANBv06

— CSPAN (@cspan) August 14, 2024

More Than a Feeling

Critics accuse Biden of trying to direct the mainstream media to spin the narrative in his administration’s favor. Phrases like propaganda, media manipulation, and censorship frequently appear in conversations. People express outrage at what they see as a blatant attempt to control the media's reporting on Biden's policies.

American feel that, rather than focusing on fixing the economy, Biden is more concerned with how he is perceived. This appears disingenuous to voters, revealing how far out of touch Biden is with the struggles of ordinary Americans.

The Emperor's New Clothes Narrative

A dominant theme in the criticism is America’s consistently escalating inflation issues. Voters highlight the disconnect between Biden's claim that his policies are working and the economic realities they face. Many point to rising prices and stagnant wages as evidence his policies are not working at all.

Terms like inflation crisis, out of touch, and government failure encapsulate the prevailing negative sentiment. Reactions suggest widespread frustration with the administration's lack of effort to fix the economy, particularly the perception that Biden is attempting to shift blame rather than take responsibility.

Voters feel betrayed by Biden's focus on media narratives, while ignoring the real economic pain people feel in day-to-day life. There is anger that, instead of addressing these concerns head-on, the president is trying to influence how his policies are reported. Criticism is harsh as people call Biden tone-deaf and say he's only interested in appearances and maintaining popularity.

The Myth of an Independent Media

Americans also harbor deep suspicions toward the media. They engage vigorously in conversations about the growing subservience of the media to partisan narratives. Many believe the media has lost any appearance of an independent stance. This is demonstrated in Stephen Colbert’s studio audience laughing when he sincerely said CNN is “objective” and “reports the news as it is.”

Stephen Colbert trying to say CNN is objective only to have his own crowd laugh at him is objectively funny. pic.twitter.com/kQ8yCPdg16

— Dave Portnoy (@stoolpresidente) August 13, 2024

Online conversations often mention certain keywords together like:

• Media
• Government
• Obedience
• Bias
• Corruption

People express sentiments of distrust towards the media, suggesting it aligns too closely with Democratic talking points. Many view the media as liberal, biased, and consistently lying to them. They vocalize a belief that media entities are complicit in supporting Biden’s agenda rather than providing objective reporting.

Public sentiment is heavily skeptical regarding the media’s integrity and independence from Democratic influence.

Kamala Harris faces a complex fracture within the Democratic Party between more traditional, pro-Israel Democrats and progressive, pro-Palestine activists. These tensions in her voter base are generating conversations about whether antisemitism is an ingrained part of progressivism.

Two recent situations have inflamed these discussions. One is speculation that Harris passed over Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro as her VP pick because he is Jewish. The other contentious incident is Harris’s response to rally attendees who interrupted her campaign speech with pro-Palestine rhetoric.

These events, combined with ongoing intra-party disagreements about the Isarel-Hamas conflict, cause many to ask if the Democratic Party has a problem with antisemitism. Liberal political analyst Van Jones surprised people by saying on CNN that antisemitism has become “marbled into” the Party.

Van Jones admits that Kamala picking Walz was her "caving in to some of these darker parts in the party" in terms of appeasing "anti-Jewish bigots" that have "gotten marbled into this party." pic.twitter.com/UTspmYkFfF

— Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) August 6, 2024

Kamala Shushes Hamas Protesters

Conflict exacerbated the controversy when pro-Palestine demonstrators interrupted Kamala Harris during a campaign speech, decrying her stance on Israel. Her response—which some viewed as her true colors—caused a flurry of reactions.

Harris said, “You know what, if you want Donald Trump to win then say that. Otherwise, I’m speaking,” then continuing to glare at protestors for nearly 30 seconds. Some pro-Israel Democrats applaud her for maintaining composure and control. Progressives criticize her for treating the protesters dismissively.

🚨 Kamala Harris SNAPS on Pro-Palestine protesters accusing her of supporting Genocide in Gaza: “You know what, if you want Donald Trump to win then say that. Otherwise, I’m speaking”

pic.twitter.com/bFcSKbbzDL

— Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) August 8, 2024

Sentiment trends among Democrats show a mix of disappointment, anger, and criticism. Anti-Israel activists feel Harris is not doing enough to resolve the crisis in Gaza and is too closely aligned with Israel. This group accuses her being complicit in war crimes or supportive of genocide against Palestinians.

Harris’s recent statements about the need for a ceasefire draw accusations of hypocrisy while she continues to support Israel’s right to self-defense. Progressives view her as aligned with Israeli interests. They cite her unwillingness to impose an arms embargo and her dismissal of pro-Palestinian activists.

However, Harris also faces accusations from pro-Israel voters of being aligned with anti-Israel extremists in her base. They claim she is compliant with the progressive wing of the Democratic Party, which is moving further left. This group tends to allege Harris bypassed Josh Shapiro as her running mate due to his pro-Israel stance. They say antisemites on the far left would have created too much havoc and she caved to their threats.

Pro-Israel Democrats are not convinced that Harris’s response to protesters was due to disagreement. They point out that she did not reprimand them by saying they are wrong, but rather, if they say it, Trump will win. Some infer Harris has deeper sympathies with far-left progressives but is attempting to tamp down their rhetoric because she needs moderate votes.

Does Antisemitism Define Modern Democrats?

Many overserves on both sides of the political aisle express suspicions that Harris chose Tim Walz over Josh Shapiro to avoid conflict within her Party. There are frequent speculations that progressive backlash overs Shapiro’s Jewish background would have negated any political advantage he offered.

The decision to sideline Shapiro, critics claim, highlights the growing influence of anti-Israel sentiments on Party leaders. Many even suggest the issue is deeper than political or humanitarian opposition to Israel. They suggest the growing strain of anti-Israel rhetoric is driven by a more sinister ideological and religious bigotry—antisemitism.

They also express distrust in Harris's judgment, suggesting her choice of Walz confirms a preference for far-left socialism over moderation. This is particularly alarming to those wary of the Democratic Socialists of America gaining influence. Moderate Democrats cite fears Harris and Walz would enact extreme progressive policies. They fear continued open borders, defunding the police, and Green New Deal-like economic upheavals.

Many view the ideological struggle over Israel versus Palestine as a microcosm of a larger battle for the soul of the Democratic Party. There are feelings that a clash between pragmatic governance and aspirational, ideal-driven policies divide the Party.

This intra-party divide suggests that Harris's candidacy, despite base support, faces intense scrutiny. The balancing act she must perform between retaining progressive support and appealing to a broader electorate is crucial as the election approaches. The sensitive issues of Israel and Palestine will likely be a significant factor in attracting or losing votes.

MIG Reports analysis shows recent online discussion about Democratic VP nominee Tim Walz’s liberal political record is corroborated by:

• Speeches given by Governor Tim Walz's between 2019-2024
• His recent first speech as vice-presidential nominee
• Pattern analysis of his record as a Congress member from 2007-2019

Online discourse and an analysis of previous speeches, determining Walz’s historical rhetoric and policy focus, confirms voter perceptions of his left-leaning platform. The analysis shows a clear shift toward more liberal and progressive positions during Walz’s political career.

In early speeches and actions, Walz took a more centrist, bipartisan approach, particularly in his early years as governor and his time in Congress. He emphasized working across the aisle on issues like veterans' affairs, agriculture, and rural economic development—areas traditionally seen as more moderate or centrist. Throughout his tenure, however, there is a noticeable leftward shift, particularly in his stance on social issues, economic policy, environmental concerns, and public safety.

How Voters View Walz

Current voter understanding of Tim Walz is shaped by significant online criticism of his “extremely liberal” politics. People discuss allegations of "stolen valor" for exaggerating his military rank and combat experience. This leads to widespread negative sentiment.

Discussions about how he handled civil unrest in Minnesota and COVID lockdowns also draw ire. Voters accuse Walz of cowardice and authoritarianism for allowing riots to continue unchecked and imposing harsh lockdowns in 2020.

His association with controversial figures like Imam Asad Zaman further fuels negative perceptions, raising questions about his judgment. Criticism extends to his stance on gun control, where detractors argue he lies about his military background to advocate for stricter gun laws.

Allegations of fraud in child welfare programs under his oversight have also damaged his reputation, generating significant distrust in his leadership. Overall, discussions place Walz under intense public scrutiny. Voters discuss him mentioning dishonesty, poor leadership, and questionable associations.

Voters also recognize that Walz has increasingly championed progressive causes, particularly in areas like LGBTQ rights, racial justice, and abortion rights. His strong support for protecting access to sex change surgeries for minors, codifying abortion rights, and banning conversion therapy aligns him closely with the progressive base.

Economically, Walz advocates for larger, tax-funded investments in public education, affordable housing, and paid family and medical leave—hallmark issues for progressives. He also backs required free school meals and a child tax credit aimed at reducing child poverty, further signaling his alignment with progressive economic policies.

More Money Doesn’t Improve Education

MIG Reports analysis shows discussions regarding educational policies, such as the free school breakfast and lunch programs, are politically divided. Some praise Walz's efforts as necessary support systems for children. But more conservative voters denounce the program, which mandates free meals regardless of family income, as a socialist overreach and an unnecessary use of tax dollars. This division reflects the broader ideological battle playing out in the narrative surrounding Walz’s governance.

In speeches, Walz consistently emphasizes Education and Families as central to his agenda. He advocates creating opportunities for children and supporting family structures. However, his discussions lack a detailed education strategy, with little specificity on how proposed investments will be managed or how they will correlate with long-term economic growth.

The absence of a cohesive educational and economic strategy raises concerns about the effectiveness and sustainability of his policies. The Casey Foundation ranked Minnesota education #7 in 2021, #9 in 2022, and #18 in 2023 despite increases in public funding. AP News also reported in December of 2023 that Walz’s free school meal program was costing more than expected and, as a result, was unsustainable for the state budget.

2020 Riots Still Anger Americans

Voter discussions on Public Safety are rife with allegations that Walz allowed and even encouraged chaos during the George Floyd protests in 2020. People accuse him of failing to deploy the National Guard to control the riots. They say he instead directed police efforts toward enforcing stringent lockdown rules.

Americans view Walz as a leader who prioritized extreme lockdown enforcement over public safety amid civil unrest. There is significant criticism of his COVID response, with accusations of unjust and overly restrictive measures. The most discussed topics revolve around his enforcement methods—like a snitch line—during lockdowns. Sentiment across these discussions is negative, with frequent comparisons to authoritarian practices and criticisms of his broader political ideology and governance style.

In public speeches, Walz’s approach to Public Safety focuses on gun control measures like red flag laws and universal background checks. These positions align him progressive views on gun limitations.

Foreign Policy and Security Issues

In discussions about Walz’s Foreign Policy, people mention his historical affiliations and travel to China. Voters highlight his extensive travel history to the country, accusing him of having ties to the Chinese Communist Party. These accusations are often linked to a broader distrust of Walz’s foreign policy positions and potential influences on his domestic policy decisions. Sentiment around these allegations is largely negative, often intensifying calls against his candidacy.

Top keywords mentioned with Tim Walz regarding Security Issues include:

• Hamas
• Muslim cleric
• Military service
• Stolen valor
• Antisemitic
• Hitler

The overall sentiment is negative, as people question his honesty, associations, and ability to handle security-related issues effectively.

Walz’s Rhetoric is Increasingly Leftist

Current public discussion of Walz's various policy positions is limited. However, MIG Reports analysis of his speech content confirms general voter perceptions of Walz’s increasingly left-leaning positions.

Healthcare

Walz’s speeches frequently mention Healthcare, initially focusing on access and affordability. Later in his political career, his advocacy expands to emphasize mental health and abortion rights. Despite this, Walz's speeches lack in-depth proposals for healthcare reforms. This gap in his healthcare strategy suggests a reluctance to tackle politically divisive issues, which could be attributed to his tendency to cater to the far left.

Bipartisanship

Over time, Walz's rhetoric shifts, with Bipartisanship giving way to a more direct, occasionally confrontational tone, particularly toward Republican policies. This shift indicates a stronger alignment with progressive stances, especially on issues like climate change, gun control, and social equity.

However, his speeches often omit issues critical to voters such as Immigration Policy, an increasingly significant topic in national discourse. By neglecting immigration reform and border security, Walz aligns himself with the political left who are often accused of advocating open borders.

Environmental Issues

On Environmental Issues, Walz sets ambitious goals, such as achieving 100% clean energy in Minnesota by 2040. This aligns with broader progressive goals focused on combating climate change and promoting sustainable energy.

His focus on Environmental Justice—how these policies impact marginalized communities—is historically limited. With growing importance in progressive circles, any emerging rhetoric from Walz on environmental justice would indicate continued movement to the left.

Rural Issues

Online conversations about Tim Walz characterize him an an increasingly left-leaning, authoritarian figure. When addressing Rural Issues, Walz tends to focus more on agriculture, with less attention on broader challenges such as rural healthcare access, broadband connectivity, and educational disparities. This narrow focus may suggest a limited understanding of the diverse needs of rural communities, which could hinder his ability to effectively serve these constituencies.

Summary

Voter discussions about Walz feature suspicions of dishonesty, poor leadership during crises, and questionable political associations. Public sentiment trends negatively across these themes, presenting Walz as much more progressive than Democrats claim. Many Democratic voters and political analysts seek to position Walz as a Midwesterner with moderate appeal. However, voter discussions and his own history of political advocacy confirms his strongly progressive allegiances.

Glaring gaps in addressing critical issues like immigration, comprehensive healthcare reform, and rural challenges damage Walz’s image among critical voter groups. People seem to understand that Walz’s track record reveals misalignment with important voter issues in favor of catering to the progressive wing of the Democratic base. As a governor, his impact is often seen as limited, with his successes overshadowed by significant failures.

Public sentiment toward Kamala Harris's presidential campaign has become sharply polarized over allegations of using AI-generated images to fake crowd sizes. Conversations reveal distrust and skepticism, across multiple demographic axes, regarding the authenticity of her campaign strategies and her political stances.

Critics say the Harris campaign relies heavily on media manipulation and social media influence, suggesting her support maybe be more manufactured than genuine. TikTok influencers have claimed they were paid to promote the campaign. Other evidence emerged suggesting rally attendees were paid.

About those Harris crowds.... pic.twitter.com/7O8jL46Uoz

— Matt Braynard (@MattBraynard) August 12, 2024

There are allegations the mainstream media shelters her from scrutiny by not demanding press conferences or in-depth interviews. This critique extends to her running mate, Tim Walz, who people accuse of using deceptive narratives to obfuscate his true political intentions.

• Harris’s approval regarding campaign rallies and fundraising has declined in the last week, slipping from 54% and 53% respectively, to 48% and 46% today.

Campaigns Exchange Accusations

Posts from conservative outlets and individuals are more likely to highlight concerns about astroturfed support and fake images. They use these allegations to demonstrate their belief that the Harris campaign is fundamentally dishonest. Social media accelerates the spread of these views, as even Donald Trump posted about it on Truth Social.

This caused back-and-forth allegations between campaigns as the KamalaHQ X account rebutted Trump’s accusations. The Harris campaign also claimed Trump’s rallies are less packed than Harris’s, causing arguments about the pettiness of these political strategies.

1) This is an actual photo of a 15,000-person crowd for Harris-Walz in Michigan

2) Trump has still not campaigned in a swing state in over a week... Low energy? pic.twitter.com/VgTfoMAcuk

— Kamala HQ (@KamalaHQ) August 11, 2024

Meanwhile at @realdonaldtrump’s rally... https://t.co/uZ73w1de7D pic.twitter.com/lhCZvG4KxF

— Kamala HQ (@KamalaHQ) August 10, 2024

There is still some question about whether it is proven the Harris campaign used doctored images. But as with many issues in partisan politics, many choose the narrative and perspective they prefer, without legitimizing any of the opposition’s claims to evidence. While there is significant ire directed at the Harris campaign for being “fake” and “phony,” some on the right still argue it’s an unproductive controversy.

It damages Trump's campaign to claim something is AI when it clearly isn’t. Call me a sellout if you want, but I don't want Trump to lose over this trivial narrative about crowd sizes. He’s surrounded by bad advisors who are pushing this nonsense. We should be focusing on…

— Vivek Ganapathy Ramaswamy (parody) (@VivekRammaswamy) August 11, 2024

General Disbelief in Harris’s Authenticity

Claims about inauthenticity from Harris campaign communications extends to how Americans view her as a politician. Many criticize her communication style and public visibility, saying she relies heavily on scripts and canned remarks to mask her lack of knowledge. People accuse her of being disingenuous and phony, further cementing perceptions that she is not a competent politician.

Harris supporters downplay allegations of faked images and inauthenticity. They instead focus on the "joy" and “vibes” of the campaign, praising her as a refreshing alternative to Trump. They claim to support her policies, though many cannot articulate what those policies are. These voters often frame criticisms as partisan attacks, saying opposing Trump takes precedence over accusations about campaign tactics.

“Why are ya’ll voting for Kamala Harris?”

“I want to keep access to my bank accounts. I would like to keep making money, I don’t want to be some man’s object I really don’t. The whole thing with Project 2025 is terrifying.” pic.twitter.com/Lkb6XJLHp9

— TENET Media (@watchTENETnow) August 10, 2024

Supporters insist the enthusiasm and turnout for Harris are genuine. These proponents highlight the presence of witnesses, journalists, and photographers at her events as evidence. They call accusations a desperate tactic by opponents to undermine Harris’s rising popularity, claiming fear and defensiveness from Republicans.

Demographic Reactions

The demographic breakdown further complicates Harris’s image. Older voters tend to be more critical of her, emphasizing fears about her socialist tendencies and lack of transparency. They invoke instances of Harris “flip-flopping” on issues, saying she merely seeks to garner favor. For these voters, use of AI-altered images is indicative of a broader pattern of manipulation and dishonesty.

Younger voters are more split. Some prefer to praise Harris’s progressive policies but are also wary of the integrity issues these allegations present. Many younger voters raise questions about digital ethics and authenticity. These topics resonate strongly with a generation attuned to digital literacy, media manipulation, and the implications of technology on politics.

Gender also plays a role in shaping perceptions. Female voters, especially those identifying as feminists, often support Harris for her symbolic significance as a potential female president. Yet, they are not immune to concerns about the campaign's authenticity. Many female voters express a desire for a transparent and honest campaign, fearing any proven deceit undermines broader efforts for gender equality in leadership.