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

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

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

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

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

https://t.co/xS8MABQxsT

— Cernovich (@Cernovich) October 26, 2024

The Paradox of Porn on the Ballot

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

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

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

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

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

— Saagar Enjeti (@esaagar) October 7, 2024

Provocative Engagement and Scandalized Reactions

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

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

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

Backlash and Desensitization

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

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

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

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

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

*checks notes*

Pornography. pic.twitter.com/oHlx9jBSAo

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

On Oct. 26, outside a Harris rally in Houston, TX, a woman was caught on camera screaming into a child's face. Predictably, reactions to the clip were overwhelmingly negative. MIG Reports analysis shows outrage toward the woman’s conduct, sparking wider conversations of party support.

Kamala Harris supporter is going viral for screaming at a child in a stroller pic.twitter.com/RSE4bEi7x8

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

Scream Heard Around the World

The viral clip of a woman screaming at the child cuts through typical political rhetoric. Americans express visceral reactions, with many viewing the incident as a sign of moral decay and loss of decorum in public spaces.

Reactions are sharply negative as most view the behavior as a lapse in appropriate conduct. However, while some denounce the incident, they take the opportunity to emphasize support for Harris’s platform and commitment to women’s rights. Responses highlight ideological divides and how unacceptable public behavior impacts the broader perception of political movements.

Competing Interpretations

The incident also shifts focus from policy or campaign discussions to the charged environment in politics. Opponents use this event as a tool to portray Harris's supporters as emblematic of intolerance or extremism. They paint Harris rallies as chaotic rather than structured and under control.

This group points out multiple instances of hecklers disrupting Harris’s speeches, unruly crowds booing and drowning her out, and swaths of disgruntled attendees who objected to unfulfilled promises of a free Beyonce performance.

Harris supporters attempt to reclaim the narrative by framing the incident in a context of passion and advocacy for women’s rights. This narrative clash suggests emotions, particularly when they appear extreme or uncontrolled, risk solidifying an "us vs. them" framework that perpetuates division rather than fostering discourse.

Emotional Expression in Politics

Social media discussions show voter frustration with the overall political climate. Words like “chaos,” “unacceptable,” and “childish” express laments about a loss of civility and respectful discourse. Yet, these terms also expose the irony of simultaneously intensifying polarization.

Reactions allow for public displays of emotion—including negative ones—to be seen as integral parts of the political experience. Supporters align themselves with a “voice of reason,” while critics paint the opposing side in a radical light, using the incident as both a symbol and justification for their stances.

Passion Mobilizes Voters

For both sides, the incident has the potential to catalyze voter mobilization. Harris's supporters may feel a renewed sense of solidarity, driven to participate and defend against any mischaracterizations or attacks on their values.

GOP voters see the incident as validating their criticisms. They rally around the need to counter moral and social degradation. Moderate or undecided voters say the incident is discouraging. They say extreme emotional expression at political events may indicate an erosion of civility and effective political governance.

Language Insights

The language around the incident is symbolic. People talk about the image of an adult screaming in a child’s face as a powerful metaphor. It taps into anxieties about the safety of children in a divided society, making the incident a microcosm for larger fears about social and political disintegration.

People use phrases like "respect for children" and "moral decay." There is collective processing of the broader implications of public outbursts, portraying the interaction as emblematic of the contentious spirit in contemporary politics.

Many Americans feel cynical about election races for the House of Representatives and the influence of presidential candidates on down-ballot races. MIG Reports data shows the electorate is divided on races but unified in their discontent with incumbents. Many Americans distrust Congress and feel torn about the presidential candidates and ideological allegiances down-ballot.

• Trump’s influence is both a rallying force and a potential liability for GOP candidates.
• Harris struggles to unite Democrats amid growing internal divisions.
• Many talking about the existential stakes of the election, positioning their choices as critical to preserving America’s future.
• Voters want political change and voice intense emotional and ideological investment, even in state races for House seats.

Presidential Impact Down-Ticket

Trump and Harris’s influence on down-ticket voting is distinct, often polarizing views even among their own parties.

Republicans

• Trump remains a galvanizing force in the GOP, with 35% of voters saying he boosts enthusiasm for supporting local Republican candidates.
• However, 50% say they worry that his polarizing presence may deter moderate or undecided voters.

Democrats

• Harris inspires mixed reactions. Only 20% of Democrats see her as a motivator for voter turnout among progressives.
• Around 35% worry her platform deters down-ticket support, reflecting internal divisions in the Democratic Party.

Independents

• Among Independents, Trump garners 25% positive engagement for encouraging down-ballot votes
• Only 15% support Harris-endorsed candidates, suggesting Trump’s populist messaging may resonate more strongly outside partisan lines.

Refusal to Vote for Incumbents

Across the political spectrum, voters are ready for new leadership. Many express substantial reluctance to support incumbents in House and Senate races. Nearly 60% of Independents, Democrats, and Republics want incumbents voted out.

• Independents cite ineffective governance and economic stagnation as key motivations for new Representatives.
• Republicans are dissatisfied with incumbents who are not strong MAGA conservatives, pushing for more ideologically aligned candidates.
• Democrats voice frustration with current party leaders across the board, pointing to failures on the economy and party priorities.

This widespread discontent reflects a growing appetite for fresh representation that more closely mirrors the electorate’s evolving values.

Trust and Belief in Congress

Trust in Congressional Representatives is tenuous, with skepticism defining sentiment.

• 70% of Independents distrust Congress, often associating it with corruption and failure to address pressing issues in ways that represent their interests.
• 70% of Republicans express similar distrust and link their dissatisfaction to frustrations with the current power dynamics and legislative priorities.
• 50% of Democrats openly doubt Congress’s ability to represent the public effectively.

Notably, only a small segment of each group—no more than 30%—expresses support for Congress. This support focuses on individual achievements rather than systemic success. This trend of disillusionment underlines a crisis of confidence in legislative institutions across the political spectrum.

Linguistic Analysis

Language patterns in voter discussions show emotional investment, and existential urgency.

• Language among Independents suggests a shift from traditional party alignment to populist ideals. They prefer leaders who champion national interests over partisan politics.
• Republicans discuss fear and anger toward the government, using phrases like “radical” and “betrayed.” They fear cultural and political threats to American values.
• Democrats are disillusioned, using terms like “betrayed” and “abandoned.” They feel excluded from the party’s platform, particularly on the economy and social justice.

Across all groups, hyperbolic statements and apocalyptic language—such as "our last chance"—highlight an elevated sense of the stakes, portraying the election as a critical juncture for the country’s future.

Recent assertions by “The Atlantic” claim Donald Trump expressed admiration for Hitler’s generals, igniting a firestorm discussion. Reactions span from outright condemning Trump to fierce defense.

The article also starts by recalling the murder of a U.S. soldier, Vanessa Guillén, whose funeral Trump allegedly promised to pay for, only to renege when he discovered it cost $60,000. Guillén’s surviving sister spoke out against “The Atlantic’s” characterization of how Trump treated her family, also adding that she voted for him.

Wow.
I don’t appreciate how you are exploiting my sister’s death for politics- hurtful & disrespectful to the important changes she made for service members. President Donald Trump did nothing but show respect to my family & Vanessa. In fact, I voted for President Trump today. https://t.co/o8cDrKOKBV

— Mayra Guillen (@mguilen_) October 22, 2024

Further expanding on this story, Kamala Harris made public statements condemning Trump for his alleged affinity for Hitler. Her entire remarks focusing on portraying Trumps as a threat to the country stirred more controversy online.

Vice President Harris: "It is deeply troubling and incredibly dangerous that Donald Trump would invoke Adolf Hitler...this is a window into who Donald Trump really is from the people who know him best." pic.twitter.com/WKu4xFXRl8

— CSPAN (@cspan) October 23, 2024

These incidents also come just days after former President Barack Obama said, "I don't understand how we got so toxic and just so divided and so bitter." Many view Obama’s confusion as disingenuous since he has been known as a divisive figure himself.

Barack Obama: "I don't understand how we got so toxic and just so divided and so bitter." pic.twitter.com/OWj3uicQ1o

— Townhall.com (@townhallcom) October 22, 2024

Belief in Sensational Claims

In voter discussions, those who believe Trump made the alleged comments is between 30-40%. Supporters largely reject the claim, viewing it as fabricated or exaggerated by the media to tarnish Trump’s image. Skepticism toward mainstream media is a recurring theme, with phrases like “fake news” often used to describe coverage of the story.

Critics find the claim believable, aligning it with their pre-existing perceptions of Trump’s leadership style. This group say the report fits a pattern they observe in his past rhetoric, making the story plausible in their eyes.

Predictable Patterns

Young voters under 35 are more likely to express outrage and concern. They frame Trump’s comments as demonstrating the danger of populism. This demographic often seeks historical parallels, like Hitler, to make their points about Trump.

Older voters over 50 tend to defend Trump or dismiss the claim as media exaggeration. They view Trump’s comments through the lens of traditional conservative values and are generally less concerned with historical comparisons to authoritarian regimes.

Urban voters voice alarm at Trump’s alleged comments, often citing exposure to diverse viewpoints as potentially dangerous and worrying about rising authoritarianism.

Rural voters are more likely to see the claims as part of a liberal agenda to discredit Trump, reinforcing their support for him as a counterbalance to perceived urban elitism.

Linguistic Analysis

Trump supporters use phrases like, “GOD BLESS AMERICA,” “fake news,” and “deep state.” They have a sense of nationalistic pride and a belief that Trump shares the values they hold dear. Many often outright dismiss accusations of authoritarianism or references to Hitler from the left and the media, citing them as tired and overused.

Critics use language of moral and ethical concern, casting doubt on Trump’s character. Words like “fascist,” “tyranny,” and “authoritarianism” frequently appear in their comments. They believe Trump’s rhetoric is dangerous and symptomatic to his authoritarian leanings. Critical language seeks to link Trump’s behavior to past instances of dictatorship, like Hitler.

Both sides use religious overtones in their discourse. Words like “evil” and “moral decay” suggest the political divide is framed not just in terms of governance but as part of a larger moral struggle. This adds emotional weight to the conversation and further entrenches the tribalism seen in political dialogue.

Online discourse from Democratic and left-leaning voters about Harris shows a deepening sense of disillusionment. There was cautious optimism when Harris entered the race, which gradually transformed into frustration and despair. Now, many Democrats are wondering whether Harris can manage a win.

The Joy Is Gone

The primary sentiment among Democrats is frustration. Over time, more voters are voicing dissatisfaction with Harris’s inability to articulate plans for major issues like economic policy, immigration, and healthcare.

Phrases like “she’s done nothing” and “flip-flop Harris” exemplify a sense of betrayal. Many feel promises made during the current administration have gone unfulfilled, leading to a breakdown of trust.

This frustration is often compounded by a sense of nostalgia, with some voters looking back on Biden and even Trump’s leadership. Many want a leader who shows decisiveness and strength. Many voters feel let down by Harris’s lack of assertive leadership.

• Both MIG Reports data and betting markets show a decline in voter confidence toward Harris since she entered the race.
• MIG Reports data shows Trump gaining 53% support nationally to Harris’s 44%, increasing the gap in the last week.
• On Polymarket, Trumps has the advantages at greater than 60% odds compared to Harris with less than 40%.

Personal Stakes in Language

• Voters who express personal disappointment often use first-person pronouns such as “I” and “we,” emphasizing their emotional investment in the election and its outcome.
• Comments like “I feel betrayed” or “I trusted her” showcase the personal stakes causing some to turn on Harris.
• Third-person language reflects a more detached, analytical critique. Phrases like “Harris is failing us” or “her policies are destroying the economy” indicate a shift towards more generalized criticisms.

Faking The Funk

Demographic patterns in the discourse reveal a generational and identity-based divide. Younger critics are particularly vocal against Harris, using humor and sarcasm to voice their frustrations. They say her failure to engage with progressive issues such as climate change and economic justice are unsupportable.

Minority voters, especially black Americans, express dissatisfaction over what they see as unfulfilled promises aimed at their communities. They say identity politics, which once energized Harris’s base, now feels like a hollow strategy, disconnected from meaningful action.

Most moderate or conservative Democrats, particularly religious individuals, express disappointment with Harris’s stance on issues like transgender inclusion and Israel.

One nation under a groove
Gettin' down just for the funk of itpic.twitter.com/C2kZrCaphy

— Kamala Harris (@KamalaHarris) January 15, 2019

Cope > Hope

Sarcasm and humor frequently appear as coping mechanisms, helping voters express their disappointment. Terms like “pandering” and rhetorical questions such as “why should anyone trust her?” show skepticism toward Harris’s authenticity and ability to lead. Some even invoke moral and religious language, suggesting their critiques extend beyond policy failures to a broader sense of moral disappointment.

Democratic Senate candidate for Missouri, Lucas Kunce, hosted a shooting range photo op, which included former Congressman Adam Kinzinger. During the event, Kunce hit a reporter with shrapnel ricochet from metal targets just a few yards away. The injury required non-life threatening first aid.

Great day at the range today with my friend @AdamKinzinger. We got to hang out with some union workers while exercising our freedom. Always have your first aid kit handy. Shrapnel can always fly when you hit a target like today, and you’ve got to be ready to go. We had four first… pic.twitter.com/Qu4YxfrtrU

— Lucas Kunce (@LucasKunceMO) October 23, 2024

With approximately 10 million views overnight, this incident ignited dramatic reaction from the left and the right. It also highlights the contentious nature of gun culture and American politics.

In attempting to connect with traditional American pastimes and gun enthusiasts, Kunce instead drew severe criticism and derision from many on the right—especially gun owners. The incident’s impact on Kunce’s campaign in Missouri against Senator Josh Hawley is yet to be fully revealed, but many are harshly criticizing the safety failure.

I know the Kunce campaign needed a shot in the arm, but this is taking it a little far …

— Josh Hawley (@HawleyMO) October 23, 2024

Soft Defense Beaten by Aggressive Mockery

Kunce’s base mostly views the incident positively. They emphasize themes of freedom, camaraderie, and a hands-on approach to connecting with voters. For supporters, Kunce’s participation in a traditional American activity like target shooting strengthens his image as a relatable, down-to-earth candidate. They believe he understands and respects the culture of his constituents.

However, negative sentiment dominates the broader national conversation. Many call the incident reckless, particularly withing the national discourse around gun violence. Critics, including moderates and politically neutral observers, focus on the safety failures of the event. People use words like “irresponsible” and “negligent” to describe Kunce’s actions.

The accidental injury from shrapnel only exacerbates these concerns, leading many to question Kunce’s judgment and leadership abilities. Many, including gun owners, view the event as tone-deaf and incompetent, especially given the blatant violation of gun safety practices.

Many online are using memes to mock and ridicule all parties involved. Kunce, Kinzinger, and others promoting what many view as an embarrassing and failed photo op, only further amplified the ridicule.

https://t.co/KfMXIghBZf pic.twitter.com/IUHIuhdAkR

— The Right To Bear Memes (@grandoldmemes) October 23, 2024

Holy fuck, did they use a tourniquet to hold a piece of gauze on this lesbian's flesh wound? https://t.co/jDxr8TMb3D pic.twitter.com/Qgorz9Vcs4

— Feni𝕏 Ammunition (@FenixAmmunition) October 23, 2024

Impact on Kunce’s Campaign

Support

The target shooting incident could have far-reaching implications for Kunce’s Senate race. Among his core supporters, the event reinforces his image as a man of the people, potentially energizing rural and pro-gun Democrats who see him as aligned with their values.

For supporters, Kunce’s connection with union workers improves sentiment, positioning him as someone who understands working-class struggles and traditions. In Missouri, where gun ownership is often seen as a marker of individual freedom and cultural identity, making a gesture toward gun support may increase Kunce’s appeal.

Damage

However, the negative reaction from moderates and swing voters nationwide could hurt Kunce’s chances. The safety concerns raised by the incident, especially by injuring a reporter, likely alienate voters who understand gun safety and personal responsibility.

Critics and those already on the fence could be swayed toward Hawley, who claims more real-world understanding of gun ownership and stronger leadership. The incident gives Kunce’s opponents an opening to criticize his judgment, potentially shifting the race’s dynamics as the event continues to dominate public discourse.

MIG Reports data shows Trump voters use patriotic and policy-focused language. Democrats tend to use complex references to various ideological viewpoints like diversity, equity, and inclusion. Both sides use emotional appeals, viewing this election as high-stakes and important for the future of the country.

Language in Trump Discussions

Commanding and Emotive Language

The most effective language Trump supporters use is mobilizing and emotionally charged. About 60% of comments from Trump supporters include assertive, commanding language like "Save America," which serves as a rallying cry for collective action.

Emotional rhetoric is present in 70% of these comments, often evoking pride, anger, or fear to galvanize like-minded individuals. Terms such as “third-world communistic” serve as fuel for rallying opposition to perceived threats to American values.

Narrative Framing

A large portion of Trump’s base frames him as a figure fighting systemic corruption, positioning themselves as "We the People" battling against political elites. This framing shapes a shared identity among supporters.

Comparisons and Patriotic Phrases

Trump’s base compares him to revered historical figures, like George Washington. They use phrases like "America First" and "support the troops" in 62% of the discussions. The narrative elevates Trump as a protector of traditional American values.

Language in Harris Discussions

Positive Affirmations and Emotional Connections

Harris supporters use positive affirmations and personal emotional connections. In 20% of comments, phrases like “I just voted for you!” reflect enthusiasm and personal involvement. Emotional appeals, such as “We love you & your family!” personalize political support and foster a sense of loyalty.

Policy Focus and Empathy

Policy discussions compose 12% of the discussion, engaging Harris’s politically interested supporters. Topics like marijuana legalization and social justice rally support. Many also mention abortion, galvanizing the progressive base.

Ineffective Language for Trump

Name-Calling and Overgeneralizations

While insults and name-calling are prevalent, they are often ineffective. About 30% of Trump supporter comments use terms like, “witch” or vague generalizations like, “the left doesn’t care,” These don’t engage moderates or persuade undecided voters.

Conspiratorial Language

Discussion around conspiracies is also less effective in persuasion. While it appeals to a segment of the base, around 25% focus on theories of election cheating, which alienates moderates. It also allows Democrats to frame Trump supporters as paranoid or irrational.

Ineffective Language for Harris

Insults and Surface-Level Criticisms

Harris voters often resort to personal attacks and vague insults, which prove ineffective. Comments like “you’re a clown” or “Trump is Hitler” lack substance, turning away undecided voters and detracting from constructive discourse.

Overgeneralizations

Lack of detail and confusion are also an issue for Harris supporters. Lack of clarity around race or gender stereotypes are ineffective, alienating potential supporters from diverse backgrounds.

Fuel for Opposition

Donald Trump

Some Trump supporters engage in extremist language, which fuels the opposition. Around 15% of these comments suggest violence or use exclusionary language. This language allows opponents to frame Trump supporters as extreme or dangerous.

Kamala Harris

Some use identity-based attacks, reflecting underlying racial and gender biases. Comments that rely on these stereotypes likely do not appeal to voters who resist voting for candidates based on identity.

Demographic Patterns

Younger Voters

Voters from 18-35 use distinct language patterns toward both candidates. Young Trump voter lean heavily on humor and memes to engage with political discourse, often using platforms like TikTok or Instagram. Younger Harris supporters often use positive, uplifting language, focusing on community-building and social justice.

Older Voters

Older Trump voters invoke historical references and traditional values, framing Trump as a stabilizing force in changing political dynamics. Older Harris supporters focus on policy specifics and the broader implications of social justice.

Gender Dynamics

Male Supporters for Trump

Men predominantly support Trump, using assertive, masculine language that emphasizes strength and decisiveness. About 65% of male Trump supporters engage in this style of discourse, reinforcing traditional gender norms.

Female Supporters for Harris

Women more often support Harris, emphasizing community and solidarity. They use language of empathy and inclusivity. This aligns with broader discussions about gender dynamics in political spaces.

Linguistic Analysis for Deeper Meaning

Trump supporters consistently frame him as a misunderstood hero battling an entrenched, corrupt system, while Harris’s supporters focus on narratives of progress and inclusivity.

Militaristic and Urgent Appeals

Trump supporters use militaristic metaphors and emotionally charged terms like “invasion” or “battlefield.” These words create a sense of urgency and determination, posing the election as a decisive moment in preserving American values.

Progressive and Inclusive Language

Harris supporters focus on progressive language, emphasizing equity, justice, and social progress. This language appeals to those prioritizing systemic change and a move away from traditional structures of power.

Racial and Gender Tensions

The language used in these discussions frequently highlights deep-rooted societal biases. Trump supporters often reference racial and cultural identity, invoking nationalistic ideals, while Harris’s supporters focus on gender equity and racial justice.

The presidential election is two weeks out and social media discussions are heating up. This analysis examines the linguistic patterns and themes among Trump and Harris supporters. There are marked differences in tone, strategy, and overall engagement between the two political groups.

Trump Supporters

Confidence and Assertion

• GOP voters are expressing confidence, feeling momentum on Trump’s side.
• 70-75% use declarative, assertive statements, projecting certainty in his victory.
• Phrases such as “We’re taking back America” and “Trump has the majority, just watch” demonstrate their belief in a preordained victory.
• Language reflects a sense of control, citing facts like polling numbers or endorsements to back voter assertions.
• Republicans tend to see themselves as part of an unstoppable movement.

Affirmative Language

• Trump supporters predominantly adopt an affirmative stance.
• 70-80% use positive declarations of Trump’s accomplishments and potential.
• Statements like “Make America Great Again” and “We’re winning this for sure” illustrate a proactive approach to political engagement.
• Rather than addressing the opposition directly, these supporters focus on reinforcing their own narrative of strength and inevitability.
• They often sidestep negative commentary on Harris, choosing instead to concentrate on celebrating Trump’s achievements.

Collective and Detached

• There is a preference for third-person usage among Trump supporters.
• 60-75% of their language focuses on external validation of Trump’s achievements or references to larger groups, such as unions or law enforcement backing.
• For instance, phrases like “The National Border Patrol Council supports Trump” or “Look at the economy under Trump” emphasize collective achievements.
• This language serves to distance the conversation from personal sentiment, creating a sense of communal effort and shared purpose among supporters.

High Excitement

• 75-85% of Trump voters express exuberance and energy.
• Their language is filled with exclamations, capitalizations, and enthusiastic hashtags such as “#Trump2024” and “We’re winning!”
• There is enthusiasm and emotional investment in the campaign’s success.
• Their discussions often mention the excitement of attending rallies or participating in political action, further reinforcing a shared sense of purpose.

Harris Supporters

Defensive and Cautious

• Harris supporters express a more defensive and cautious tone.
• Language reflects frustration with both the opposition and their own camp, as they counter criticisms while praising Harris’s competence.
• 30-35% speak with confidence, but the majority oscillate between defensive and speculative statements.
• Phrases like “Harris will win if people see her vision” or “She’s the only one who can fix this” suggest a need to convince others rather than proclaim victory.
• This reactive posture creates an undercurrent of uncertainty and frustration.

Defensive Language

• 60-65% of Harris supporters tend to react defensively.
• Their comments often defend against criticism and deflect blame to Trump.
• People say things like “She’s done more for healthcare than Trump ever did” and “Trump supporters are just blind to the facts.”
• While there is engagement, confidence is lower, as much of the discourse is reactionary rather than assertive.
• These supporters seem focused on fending off attacks rather than crafting a clear affirmative case for Harris.

Personal and Emotional

• Harris supporters tend to use first-person language more frequently.
• 65-80% of their comments focused on personal experiences or emotional connections.
• Phrases like “I believe Harris is fighting for us” or “We need someone who understands our struggles” are emotionally charged and defensive.
• Personal engagement underscores the emotional investment in the campaign.
• Voters anchor their arguments in personal beliefs rather than collective narratives.

Moderated Enthusiasm

• 40-50% of Democratic voters express high enthusiasm.
• While there is urgency in their language, it often centers on warnings or calls to action against Trump.
• They say things like, “We need to stop Trump” or “Make your voting plan now.”
• The cautious, urgent tone, sounds driven by fear of Trump’s return to power rather than excitement for Harris’s platform.
• The enthusiasm among Harris’s base is subdued, reflecting both concern and the pressing need for political action rather than celebration.

Silent Majority and Subtle Dismissals

Trump Supporters

• One of the defining characteristics of Republican voter language is the quiet, almost dismissive way they address opposing arguments.
• They often ignore or subtly dismiss Harris supporter critiques without engaging in direct confrontation.
• Statements like “Everyone knows the truth” or “People will see through the lies” demonstrate a quiet confidence among Trump supporters.
• This dismissiveness conveys that they believe victory is assured, and engaging directly with opposition claims is unnecessary.

Harris Supporters

• Democratic voters engage more directly with Trump’s base but often do so with a cautious tone.
• While they push back against Trump’s rhetoric, their responses often lack the same level of confidence.
• Their subtle dismissals are frequently tinged with anxiety, as reflected in statements like “Trump is all talk” or “His supporters won’t listen to reason.”
• These comments demonstrate a desire to counter opposition arguments, but with a level of timidity, fear of confrontation, or doubt in their own position.

The growing influence of Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) movement may have a significant impact on election results. Many people previously considered health a niche focus. But growing opposition to GMOs and skepticism of pharmaceutical companies has emerged as an important issue for critical voter groups.

MIG Reports data shows MAHA has strong support and discussion among Republicans and Independents. There is also significant discussion among women, though with moderated enthusiasm due to Kennedy aligning with Trump. Democrats discuss MAHA less, but with some disaffected segments cautiously engaging.

Independents Want Health not Partisanship

One of the most important groups influenced by the MAHA movement is Independent voters. While traditionally difficult to predict, the 2024 election seems to be shifting some previously ambivalent voters toward Trump through RFK Jr.’s health platform.

Among this group, RFK Jr.'s outsider status and his emphasis on personal liberties is key—they are not swayed by partisan arguments but may be drawn to vote for health issues they prioritize.

Their engagement with the MAHA may be nuanced as some are excited by potential health reforms, while others are hesitant about aligning with Trump.

Independent Voters

• 40-50% of Independents are actively engaging with the MAHA platform.
• 35-40% express enthusiasm for health policies, overcoming their distaste for both major political parties.
• 20-30% resonate with MAHA while remaining wary of association with Trump.

Independents are known for valuing substance over party loyalty, and health reform could be the issue that moves this key voter bloc.

Women Want Health, Despite Trump

Female voters are another key group Trump stands to gain through the MAHA coalition. This offers a unique opportunity for the GOP, which traditionally struggles to attract women.

MIG Reports data previously showed women increasing prioritize health issues. Many say they are willing to look past their concerns about Trump in favor of MAHA’s health platform. They would rather reform health policy than avoid Trump, suggesting their primary focus is on achieving tangible public health outcomes.

Female Voters

• 40% of women are discussing health and healthcare policy issues over other political topics.
• 25% say they prioritize health issues over partisanship, willing to embrace Trump.

Many women are frustrated with the current healthcare system, particularly regarding access to affordable services and nutrition in low-income areas. They see health reforms as essential to their families' well-being.

The MAHA platform’s focus on reforming healthcare, reducing chronic disease, and improving food safety has created a pragmatic voter bloc willing to support health improvements, even if it means aligning temporarily with Trump.

This group, despite strong tendencies toward pro-choice and Democratic health policies may opt to align with Republicans if it means achieving the health reforms MAHA proposes.

Disillusioned Democrats Like MAHA

In general, Democrats who support health remain wary of MAHA due to party loyalty. Many Democratic voters disapprove of RFK Jr.’s alignment with Trump, even if they were previously drawn to Kennedy’s health policies. For many Democrats, anti-Trump and partisan motivations supersede other priorities.

However, there is some engagement from disaffected former Democrats—which aligns with partisan shifts among leaders like Kennedy and Tulsi Gabbard. These voters are both drawn by health autonomy but also expressing feelings of betrayal by their party. Many feel the Democratic Party, once the champion of the working class and progressive causes, has become too intertwined with corporate interests and government mandates in healthcare.

Many are also discontented about the lack of a Democratic primary, where Kamala Harris was ushered in by establishment elites. They dislike the most radical wings of the Party seeming to control policies and messaging in the current administration.

The disdain for current Democratic leadership is strong, with voters expressing feelings of betrayal from a party they once supported. One comment encapsulates this sentiment saying, "I used to be a diehard liberal, but this is no longer the party I once loved."

Democratic Voters

• 15-25% of Democrats are discussing RFK Jr. and MAHA-related topics.
• 20-30% express some interest in MAHA, though hesitant to abandon party loyalty.

For disaffected Democrats, the MAHA movement encourages taking the leap away from a Democratic establishment which clearly dismisses their health concerns. RFK Jr.’s aggressive stance against corporate power—especially his legal battles against Monsanto—resonates with those on the left who used to view Democrats as fighting against cronyism. While these Democrats may not fully align with the GOP, the MAHA movement could peel off voters who see sharp hypocrisy in Democratic messaging.

The Growing Appeal MAHA in the GOP

Another important shift is the enthusiastic embrace of RFK Jr.'s health-centric policies among Republicans. Traditionally focused on fiscal conservatism and national security, many Republicans now view personal health autonomy as imperative—especially after COVID.

The “crunchy” or health fanatic view many Republicans may previously have associated with RFK Jr.’s policies has softened. Now, many Americans view health as non-partisan, embracing any administration that will actively prioritize personal health freedoms.

Republican Voters

• 30-40% of Republicans are discussing RFK Jr. and MAHA.
• 50-70% of view MAHA positively.
• 40-50% embrace the MAHA agenda as a priority in their political considerations.

The GOP’s base has long distrusted government overreach, particularly in areas of personal liberty. This aligns MAHA's stance on health mandates, distrust of the CDC and FDA, and the fight against Big Pharma.

Kennedy’s position on vaccine mandates resonates with the anti-establishment MAGA base, which has long prioritized individual autonomy. This presents a real opportunity for the GOP to incorporate health policies which could solidify support from previously disparate voter groups.

The Hybridization of Republican Ideals

MAHA has the potential to marry traditional Republican values with a health approach that appeals to progressives. While some conservatives are wary of Trump’s moderate and progressive-leaning stances, there is an overlap in health which seems palatable across ideological lines.

Republican and Independent Enthusiasm

• MIG Reports data suggests 50-70% of Republicans and Independents overlap in their views and engagement toward MAHA.

Voters who are looking for common-sense policies that transcend partisan divides can come together under a health umbrella. For the GOP, this hybrid platform seems to be attracting new voters which are otherwise difficult to move.