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

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

Male Support for Trump

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

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

Female Support for Harris

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

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

Men Dominate Online Discussions

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

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

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

Male Voter Priorities

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

Economic Stability

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

National Security and Immigration

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

Female Voter Priorities

Women mostly prioritize social equity, abortion, and healthcare.

Abortion and Healthcare

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

Social Equity and Climate Change

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

Younger Voters (Under 30)

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

Middle-Aged Voters (30-50)

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

Older Voters (50+)

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

Gender-Based Issues and Voter Engagement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Follow: @AFpost pic.twitter.com/RPvzniKyge

— AF Post (@AFpost) November 1, 2024

Performative Elements in Language

The language deployed across these conversations frequently borders on theatrical.

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

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

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

Outrage as a Mobilization Tool

The performative outrage often functions as a mobilization tool.

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

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

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

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

— Melissa Robey (@Robey2020) October 31, 2024

Genuine Concern vs. Amplified Rhetoric

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

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

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

Outrage as the New Norm

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

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

Reactions to Kamala Harris’s closing pitch in Washington, D.C. were tepid. There are significant obstacles for her, with criticism and skepticism largely overshadowing positive responses.

I am in Kamala Harris’s Ellipse rally crowd in D.C., and her whole crowd is angry pro-Hamas voters chanting “Intifada Revolution.” A Kamala victory means all these “lovely” people standing behind me will be coming to “protest” in your town. President Trump is the only one with… pic.twitter.com/xNg3Jl6ilb

— Charles R Downs (@TheCharlesDowns) October 29, 2024

Voter Sentiment

• Sentiment toward Harris’s closing pitch skews heavily negative, with approximately 70% of comments expressing critical perspectives on her message and policies.
• While some supportive voices resonate with her emphasis on democratic values, the dominant tone is critical.
• Primary criticisms focus on issues like immigration, corruption, and perceived leadership failings, and her lack of support for Palestine.

Independents

• Around 82-85% of Independents express skepticism or opposition to Harris’s messaging.
• Many Independents are frustrated with her approach to the border, seeing her policies as disconnected from their concerns.
• Americans perceive her as out of touch with citizen needs, viewing her focus on unity and democracy as insufficient to address immediate crises.
• Only 15-18% expressed support, typically referencing her work for marginalized communities, though this support was notably less intense than the criticisms.

Language Patterns

The language on social media is charged and polarized. Key negative phrases—such as “inept,” “failure,” and “delusional”—paint a picture of Harris as lacking the capacity to address critical issues.

Negative terms related to immigration and law enforcement, like “open borders” and “corrupt judges,” further intensify the critical narrative, as commenters often challenge her ability to lead on pressing national issues.

Supportive language, though less frequent, often contains “democracy,” “freedom,” and “hope,” portraying Harris as an advocate for marginalized groups. However, this positive language is overshadowed by the stronger negative critiques.

Independents

Language among Independents reflects heightened skepticism, often using vivid and direct critiques of Harris’s policies. Terms like “open borders” and “draining Social Security” capture the most common concerns.

The rhetoric suggests Independents view her priorities as misaligned, prioritizing illegal migrants over American citizens. Other terms like “defund the police” and “intifada” reveal an intense reaction to what they see as her radical policies. Many protesters, even in her own base, are furious about Harris’s support for Israel.

Just a few seconds in and Kamala's already getting drowned out by sirens. pic.twitter.com/Fype2ThqP2

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

Convincing Undecided Voters

Harris’s narrative, focused on unity and social justice, struggles to resonate with undecided voters. They voice distrust and anger in response to her closing message.

The dominant critique from undecided voters is the disconnect between her rhetoric and American priorities. They say her messaging lacks the substance needed to sway them. Keywords like “inefficiency” and “self-seeking” further emphasize a view of Harris as unable to address critical issues convincingly.

Critiques often emphasize Harris's lack of authenticity, with terms like “pandering” and “lip service” describing her message. Harris’s focus on unity falls flat in the wake of divisive rhetoric from Harris and, during her closing speech, from Joe Biden.

Shriveling Enthusiasm

Any enthusiasm generated by her closing pitch is modest and likely unable to counterbalance the significant opposition. Supporters rallying behind her message are literally drowned out by protests from angry Democratic voters and disillusioned Independents. Many Americans view her policies as radical and impractical.

Independents say her closing pitch leaves them feeling disconnected rather than energized. There is a sense of disenchantment rather than engagement. Harris’s efforts to invoke pride or urgency appear largely ineffective, particularly overshadowed by Joe Biden’s comments calling Trump supporters “garbage.

The online conversations of the past day continue charged discussions as the U.S. election approaches. There is significant engagement around cultural topics, the economy, border security, and recent campaign rallies. MIG Reports data shows Trump still leading the top discussion topics in both volume and sentiment.

The election is literally just people on the Diddy list vs people who want to be able to afford groceries.

Do you agree? https://t.co/tK8CU98Ewc

— Elon Musk (Parody) (@ElonMuskAOC) October 26, 2024

Culture, Ideology, and Alienation

Ideological divides are growing stark between the two sides. The most recent symbol of this chasm is President Biden's comment calling Trump supporters "garbage." This remark incited considerable backlash, particularly among MAGA supporters who see the comment as emblematic of a broader disdain from political elites.

• For many Trump supporters, Biden’s rhetoric confirms their belief in a hypocritical leftist agenda that uses one-sided cultural blame to demonize conservatives.
• Biden and Harris Democrats frequently emphasize MAGA voters as extremist, describing them as a threat to democratic values.
• These discussions heighten polarization, with voters expressing skepticism about the potential for national unity under the current leadership.

Still the Economy, Stupid

Economic issues remain central to the discourse, with inflation and rising living costs consistently vehicles to criticize the Biden-Harris administration.

• Voters recall lower inflation rate and better wages under Trump, contrasting this with current financial strain.
• While Harris claims to have big plans for middle-income economic relief, skeptics argue her policies are idealistic and lack practical or feasible implementation.
• Border security concerns intersect here as well, with many saying lenient immigration policies worsen economic strain.
• Many believe Trump’s economic strategies are more effective, hoping for a return to successfully managing inflation and stimulating job growth.

Border and Public Safety

Discussions around border security further sentiments that the current administration has failed, leading to increased crime and economic burdens.

• Trump supporters want a hardline approach, arguing strict immigration policies are necessary to maintain safety and economic stability of American citizens.
• The tone often reflects frustration with Harris’s inability to address the social and economic challenges caused by unchecked immigration.
• People want a law-and-order leader like Trump, whose proposed policies promise strict enforcement and deportations.

Rhetoric at Trump and Harris Rallies

Trump and Harris rallies are also a focal point, with commenters closely scrutinizing both candidates’ crowds, messaging, and optics.

• Harris’s recent rally at The Ellipse drew attention for its scale, despite being upstaged by Biden’s “garbage” comments.
• Trump’s events continue to face criticism from Democrats and the media over controversial humor and “American First” messaging.
• Biden’s comments about Trump supporters add to this charged environment, further polarizing voters who see these statements differently.
• Both sides receive criticism for their rhetoric, campaign priorities, and ideologies, underscoring the emotional weight of this election.

Housing Crisis Worries Americans

Skyrocketing housing costs continue to concern voters, particularly as many struggle with rent affordability or buying a home.

• Critics say Biden-Harris policies prioritize special interests over citizen needs, with some suggesting lax immigration exacerbates the housing shortage.
• The overlap of economic and housing issues indicates a public demand for urgent solutions that address affordability.
• Biden’s recent comments about Americans only intensifies frustrations among voters who see this election as elites versus average people.

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

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

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

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

— Tom Elliott (@tomselliott) October 30, 2024

Accusations Cause Arguments

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

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

Dictator, Fascist, Nazi

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) October 29, 2024

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

It’s Not Going Away

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

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

NY Mayor Adams obliterates the media:

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

— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) October 29, 2024

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

Only a few days prior to Election Day, voter discussions are tense. The atmosphere around Trump and Harris is fraught with tension, worry, and anticipation. Daily top discussion topics include:

• Culture issues
• The economy
• Border security
• Housing

Trump continues to hold a major advantage in social media discussions and a smaller edge in sentiment.

Trump Dominates Discussion Volume

Across the four top topics, Trump significantly outpaces Harris in mention volume:

• Trump gains nearly 20,000 daily mentions compared to Harris's 8,520.
• Voters discuss him more, both positively and negatively.
• The disparity suggests Trump’s rhetoric and policies elicit a greater response.
• Support for Trump on border security and economic deregulation contrast starkly with the criticisms from his detractors.

In contrast, Harris’s comparatively limited public engagement may indicate lower enthusiasm:

• Lower levels of attention may demonstrate Harris’s challenge connecting with voters.
• Those who could perceive her policies as either overly cautious or insufficiently distinct from Biden’s may not feel the need to weigh in.
• Her lower engagement on core issues potentially suggests a voter base that is less energized or divided in their support.

Trump’s Slight Sentiment Advantage

Though Trump’s higher volume might imply broader reach, the sentiment attached to both candidates is tighter.

• Excluding rallies, Trump leads Harris by a slight margin, holding an average sentiment score of 44.25% compared to Harris's 43.5%.
• A minor advantage suggests, despite divisive rhetoric, Trump’s stance on core issues resonates more positively with voters
• Those seeking strong leadership on economic and border policies are particularly positive toward him.

Culture Issues

Ideologies and culture war issues are relatively evenly matched for both candidates at 44%.

Trump

• This parity highlights the sharp cultural divide among Americans, where each candidate represents a competing ideological vision.
• Trump supporters view his cultural stances as a defense against progressive overreach and Democratic “dehumanization” of conservative values.
• There’s intense backlash against comments made by Democratic leaders and media who call Trump voters “Nazis,” “fascists,” and “garbage.”

Harris

• Harris’s alignment with progressive causes receives a mixed reception.
• While some view her as a voice for inclusivity and social justice, detractors interpret her policies as leaning too far left, threatening American values.
• Harris faces difficulty in uniting a broad coalition under a progressive platform, particularly moderate or non-woke Democrats.

Economic Issues

Economic issues a top issue in the 2024 race, with Trump holding a slight sentiment advantage—44% versus Harris's 43%.

Trump

• Trump advocates emphasizing his commitment to deregulation and tax reductions, which they argue will spur economic growth and alleviate inflationary pressures.
• They say he represents a return to a more business-friendly, self-sustaining economy.

Harris

• Harris’s unclear economic policies receive mixed responses.
• Her tax proposals, particularly on unrealized capital gains, are portrayed by critics as burdensome on the middle class and small businesses.
• Her supporters argue these measures will reduce wealth inequality, but critics frame her policies as economically harmful.
• Voters struggle between seeking economic equality and fearing increased government control.

Border Security

Border security is another critical area where Trump has an edge—43% to Harris's 41%. Frustration is high regarding Biden-Harris immigration policies.

Trump

• Trump’s tough stance on immigration resonates with voters concerned about resource allocation and national security.
• There are repeated grievances about Democrats prioritizing illegal immigrants over veterans and struggling Americans.
• Sentiment is urgent and concerned, with many voicing fears that current policies undermine public safety and strain social services.

Harris

• Harris’s role as “border czar” draws substantial criticism, with opponents framing her as ineffective in controlling the border.
• People say she’s indifferent to the consequences open borders have on American communities.
• There is public anger over drug trafficking and crime, with Harris getting blame as unwilling or unable to address the issue.
• Her supporters counter by advocating for policies of inclusivity and support for migrant communities.

Housing

Housing sentiment is balanced at 46% for both candidates. There is shared public frustration over affordability and living costs which transcends partisan lines.

• Rising housing expenses, coupled with inflation, fuel widespread discontent.
• Trump supporters argue his approach to deregulation and reduced taxes fostered a more affordable housing market.
• Harris supporters emphasize her efforts toward housing reforms aimed at long-term affordability and protections for vulnerable groups.
• However, proposed initiatives are overshadowed by the immediate economic strain Americans feel.

Left-leaning Americans are angrily canceling their “Washington Post” subscriptions to the tune of 250,000—though apparently not their Amazon Prime accounts. Following a controversy in which WaPo and Amazon owner Jeff Bezos barred the newspaper from making a presidential endorsement.

UPDATE: The number of cancellations since Friday’s revelation now exceeds 250,000, NPR can report.

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

— David Folkenflik (@davidfolkenflik) October 29, 2024

The contradiction in liberal outcry against Bezos reveals the tension between stated ideals and real-life consumer choices. Americans are disillusioned with mainstream media and left leaning voters are showing their dissatisfaction by unsubscribing.

However, many on the right are pointing out various coping mechanisms and the selective outrage they see among liberals. They point out members of the media like Jennifer Rubin who criticized LA Times reporters who did not resign after the paper also made no endorsement. Rubin, who works for WaPo, has yet to resign.

Jennifer Rubin @JRubinBlogger cheered a reporter who quit in response to the LA times not endorsing either presidential canidate. She works for the Washington post which is also not endorsing this election let's reminder her that she is a hypocrite unless she resigns immediately pic.twitter.com/2mvpNBzS6N

— Steve (@Steve113875651) October 25, 2024

Unsub from WaPo

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

Won’t Cancel Prime

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

Language Analysis

Coping Mechanisms

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

Hypocrisy Indicators

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

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

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

— Michael Sainato (@msainat1) October 29, 2024

Owning the Narrative

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

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

Performative Activism

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

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

A recent Virginia battle over removing 1,600 noncitizens from the voter rolls is causing partisan controversy. There are accusations that removing them will impact both voter turnout and civic mobilization. A federal judge subsequently ordered the 1,600 voters to be added back, causing Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin and 26 attorneys general to urge the Supreme Court to halt the ruling.

The decision has heightened political engagement, with both sides mobilizing to protect their version of democratic ideals. Some also point out that, for such only 1,600 votes, the high-octane battle reveals how tight the Virginia race is.

• Republicans generally view removing noncitizens as essential for safeguarding election integrity, rallying around themes of legality and security.
• Democrats often view the removal as an exclusionary tactic that risks disenfranchising communities and undermining democracy.

I'm just saying, the DOJ is not going to have an election-home-stretch PR disaster, in the form of trying to put noncitizens back on our voter rolls, over a mere 1500 registrations, because Harris is set to win by 5-7 points.

They know what I see: Virginia is a dead heat.

— Virginia Project (@ProjectVirginia) October 27, 2024

Turnout Concerns

Those who oppose removing noncitizens worry about a potential decline in turnout due to perceived disenfranchisement. Approximately 65-70% of those commenting on the situation indicate fear that removal could discourage voter participation. They especially emphasize low enthusiasm in diverse communities, framing this decision as adjacent to voter suppression.

Election Integrity Stakes

There is also robust support for preventing noncitizens from voting. This group discusses legality, national identity, and patriotism. They believe in maintaining a verified citizenry on the voter rolls. This group says purging noncitizens from the rolls is both legal and highly important to ensure election integrity. They argue objectors can only have one reason for keeping noncitizens on the rolls—election cheating.

Linguistic and Symbolic Impacts

The language used in discussions around this topic is divided. Opponents of removing voters use metaphors of battle and conflict, describing the situation as a “fight for democracy.” Have voice a sense of urgency and heightened stakes.

Those who want noncitizens barred from voting use phrases like “patriotic duty” and “integrity of the ballot.” They frame their position as a moral and national imperative, essential for safeguarding the democratic process.

The division in language contrasts “democracy” versus “national sovereignty,” both of which are pillars of partisan rhetoric.

The provocative nature of a recent Democratic supporting progressive ad, which showed a young man masturbating while watching porn, caused a firestorm of criticism. Many Americans find the notion of “porn on the ballot” as a surreal and disturbing issue to highlight.

For many who view porn as damaging to society, the ad raises questions about how Democrats frame personal freedom stakes. Some voters find irony in Democrats making abortion and porn their cornerstone liberty issues.

White Men for Harris are running this ad. (It’s not satire, it’s sincerely from them.)

They want people to share it, because it’ll help Kamala Harris win, or so they say?

Vulgar, I apologize for posting such filth, but it’s who they are. Understand it.

https://t.co/xS8MABQxsT

— Cernovich (@Cernovich) October 26, 2024

The Paradox of Porn on the Ballot

In an election dominated by economic, border, and national security concerns, highlighting pornography as a campaign issue is both unconventional and controversial. Most Americans view personal freedom as essential, yet the portrayal of porn as emblematic of key freedoms seems a curious choice.

The ad underscores the complexity of modern political campaigns, which often rely on shock tactics to capture fleeting attention spans. While the ad successfully provokes engagement, it also risks trivializing a significant conversation on civil liberties, distracting from the larger stakes in the upcoming election.

This controversy comes on the heels of numerous anti-porn movements. Viral memes stretch back to 2021, rising anti-porn sentiments, and sexually conservative generations coming to voting age complicate Democratic messaging.

Additionally, a growing list of states is requiring age of consent laws for online porn. Some suggest this political push is funded by the porn industry to fight age protection laws.

The porn industry is now spending 100k on ads to convince young men to vote for Kamala to prevent more age verification laws going into effect pic.twitter.com/kjbKL1YYJm

— Saagar Enjeti (@esaagar) October 7, 2024

Provocative Engagement and Scandalized Reactions

The ad’s shock value is undeniable. It has sparked significant engagement, particularly among progressive audiences who interpret it as a bold statement on personal autonomy. By contrasting intimate freedoms with the risk of conservative censorship, the ad appeals to those who see freedom in private viewing habits as a top priority.

For moderates and traditionalists, the ad’s explicit content feels too coarse for a political campaign. The topic of pornography as a voter mobilization issue is, for many, an uncomfortable injection of degeneracy into political discourse. They see it as an intrusion, criticizing the oversimplification of complex regulation questions.

Reactions to the ad deepen ideological divides, with supporters lauding its unfiltered message on freedom and detractors criticizing it as vulgar. Supporters resonate with the ad’s message on autonomy, challenging authoritarian threats. Critics worry shock tactics cheapen the democratic process and lamenting the acceptance of porn in polite society.

Backlash and Desensitization

Depicting graphic content created both intrigue and backlash. Some argue the ad’s extremity risks desensitizing viewers, turning legitimate discussions about civil liberties into social media fodder rather than meaningful political discourse.

By veering into taboo, the ad might alienate more conservative or moderate voters but also risks trivializing freedom of expression and government overreach.

While the ad aims to mobilize progressive voters, it inadvertently energizes Trump’s base. Those who view the content as indicative of progressive excess use it as evidence of a moral divide, reaffirming their stance against societal degradation imposed by liberal ideologies.

This reaction heightens an us-versus-them mentality, deepening political and cultural animosity. The ad’s raunchy portrayal may end up galvanizing conservative opposition, energizing them under the banner of traditional values and perceived threats to decency.

The issue that Tampon Tim has decided to focus on in the final week of the election:

*checks notes*

Pornography. pic.twitter.com/oHlx9jBSAo

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