Trump’s nomination of Florida Rep. Matt Gaetz for Attorney General has not ceased to generate firestorms since he announced it more than a week ago. The decision is causing rumbles along ideological and partisan fault lines, as well as within the Republican Party.

Ongoing allegations and ethics investigations against Gaetz create pandemonium on both sides as voters and the media grapple with the prospect of Attorney General Gaetz.

The corrupt media is hiding the fact that this is a smear campaign tied to a $25 MILLION extortion scheme against @mattgaetz and his father—don't believe them. President Trump knows better than anyone that by appointing him as AG, the Deep State will be dismantled. pic.twitter.com/bRJsMLah8N

— Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (@RepLuna) November 19, 2024

The Case for and Against Gaetz

Reactions

• 80% of Democrats oppose Gaetz.
• 60% of Independents oppose his nomination, though 20% view Gaetz as a victim of entrenched power dynamics.
• Nearly 40% of Republicans defend Gaetz, while 25% object to his nomination.

Support

• Populist Alignment: Gaetz’s supporters appreciate his history as a disruptor, committed to challenging the corrupt establishment and defending Trump.
• Smear Campaign: 35-40% of Republican commentary suspects allegations of sexual misconduct are politically motivated smear tactics. They point to the lack of formal charges as a firewall against accusations.
• Strategic Support: Backers emphasize Gaetz’s loyalty to Trump and his willingness to take on the swamp, portraying him as a fighter and firebrand. They say his brash style is necessary to tackle systemic corruption.

This is the reason why some Republicans despise Matt Gaetz.pic.twitter.com/j4eyMOcZMG

— I Meme Therefore I Am 🇺🇸 (@ImMeme0) November 17, 2024

Criticism

• Ethical Concerns: 65% of general online discussion describes Gaetz as unfit for office due to allegations of sexual misconduct, drug use, and lack of qualifications.
• Lack of Experience: Critics say Gaetz has never served as a prosecutor, judge, or government attorney, questioning his readiness for such a high-profile role.
• Republican Distrust: Around 25% of Republicans express concern that his controversies risk tarnishing the party’s image. They view him as a liability, especially in suburban districts.

Media’s Role in Smear Tactics

Polarized Coverage

Hysteria against Gaetz continues to amplify media polarization and legacy outlets torching their credibility with American viewers. Most focus heavily on allegations against Gaetz, framing his nomination to Trump’s cabinet as symbolic of Republican moral decline.

The few conservative media platforms defending Gaetz point out the credibility of witnesses, such as Joel Greenberg, a former Seminole County tax collector and key figure in allegations against Matt Gaetz. Greenberg has been convicted of multiple crimes, including sex trafficking of a minor, identity theft, and fraud.

Mainstream media outlets have failed to cover Greenburg’s involvement and allegations of extortion against Gaetz and his father. Critics point out the double standard in how media figures handle allegations against Democratic figures like Doug Emhoff.

Conservatives emphasize the absence of charges and argue media outlets like “The Washington Post” amplify unverified claims to discredit Trump-aligned figures. They say attacks on Gaetz reveal broader efforts to undermine populist candidates.

Sunny Hostin's Legal Hostage Video

“The View” host Sunny Hostin sharply criticized Gaetz on the view discussing the sex and trafficking allegations in an incendiary way. Shortly after, Hostin recited a legal disclaimer clarifying that Gaetz denies the allegations and has not been charged.

Reactions to Hostin’s defiant demeanor frame her as representative of leftist media bias. Viewers mock her for looking like “a hostage reading into the camera” during a disclaimer which was fair and justified.

NEW: The View host Sunny Hostin fumes as she is forced to read a legal note just minutes after presenting the Matt Gaetz allegations as a “fact.”

Hostin: They discussed the fact that once [Gaetz] finds out that she's 17, he stops having s*x with her.

Hostin 3 min later: Matt… pic.twitter.com/USvYjnWqKZ

— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) November 20, 2024

Partisan Reactions

Democratic Opposition

• Democrats overwhelmingly oppose Gaetz, with 80% citing ethical and legal disqualifications.
• Many see him as representing declining standards in governance.
• There are calls for the release of the House Ethics Committee’s report.

Republican Divide

• More Republicans defend Gaetz, often linking their support to Trump loyalty and institutional distrust.
• Supporters argue Gaetz’s appointment would ensure a robust response to abuses of power by the Biden DoJ.
• Around 25% in the GOP express opposition, citing risks of alienating moderate voters and tarnishing the GOP’s image. They want a more traditionally qualified nominee who won't defy norms.

Independent Views

• 60% of Independents echo Democratic concerns about Gaetz’s suitability, focusing on his alleged misconduct.
• 20% voice support, resonating with anti-establishment rhetoric and seeing Gaetz as a symbolic challenge to entrenched power.

RINO vs. MAGA

The GOP divide over Gaetz reflects fractures in the Republican Party:

• Trump’s Influence: Gaetz is evidence of Trump’s sway in the party and his preference for loyalty over traditional qualifications. Many see Gaetz’s nomination as a continuation of Trump’s populist approach to governance.
• Long-Term Risks: Critics warn that embracing polarizing figures like Gaetz could alienate insiders and jeopardize establishment power. Moderate suburban voters, RINOs argue, will disapprove of figures like Gaetz gaining power.
• Balancing Act: The tension between establishment Republicans seeking to maintain institutional credibility and Trump-aligned populists demanding disruption remains unresolved.

Online discourse about the Ukraine conflict and U.S. foreign policy is taking an increasingly critical tone. President Joe Biden authorized Ukraine to use long-range missile against Russia, lightning passionate discourse among Americans.

Biden’s decision is widely viewed as a pivotal moment ushering in troubling U.S. entanglement in the war and escalating tensions with Russia. Conversations reveal a growing unease, with many questioning the wisdom of a strategy that could lead the United States into a potential direct conflict.

By authorizing long range missiles to strike inside Russia, Biden is committing an unconstitutional Act of War that endangers the lives of all U.S. citizens. This is an impeachable offense, but the reality is he’s an emasculated puppet of a deep state.
https://t.co/5XDi0E16q1

— Thomas Massie (@RepThomasMassie) November 18, 2024

A Bad, Bad Move

Critics frame Biden’s decision to approve long-range missiles as a dangerous escalation, suggesting it signals desperation rather than a calculated effort to stabilize the conflict. It amplifies fears that the U.S. is treading on precarious ground, particularly with warnings from Russian officials. Online discussions paint the Biden administration as underestimating the geopolitical consequences of its actions and risking retaliation. Many on the right also speculate that Biden hope to leave Trump with an uphill battle in foreign policy.

War is a Racket

Many Americans say establishment foreign policy decisions are financially motived. They allege the Ukraine conflict is lucrative for defense contractors and the political class. This perspective aligns with a recurring skepticism about U.S. military engagements, which many see as prioritizing profit over human life and national security. People point to the prolonged nature of past conflicts like Afghanistan, saying the war in Ukraine is similarly perpetuated for financial gain rather than swift resolution.

Seeking Peace

Voter discussions are polarized over the role of the U.S. in global conflicts. While some see continued support for Ukraine as a moral imperative, many Americans take a cynical view of political motivations—especially when issues at home go unresolved.

Some contrast Biden’s policies with Trump’s, hoping a second Trump presidency might prioritize de-escalation and limit U.S. involvement in Ukraine. This anticipation for Trump’s “America First” foreign policy demonstrates shifting public sentiment toward establishment political norms.

Warhawk Fatigue

Overall, Americans express a sense of anxiety about the trajectory of U.S. foreign policy under Biden’s leadership. Conversations reveal apprehension over escalating military engagement and a critical view of Democratic motives. Increasing anti-establishment skepticism suggests Americans will not respond kindly to unnecessary conflict forced on the country by elites with conflicting incentives.

In fear of Trump’s second administration, Democrats are discussing creating a shadow cabinet to counter Trump’s divisive picks. Advocates view it as a strategic safeguard against perceived threats to democracy, while critics warn of the potential to exacerbate political divides and alienate voters.

NEW: Democrat on the House floor melts down over Trump's Cabinet picks, suggest Democrats create their own "shadow" Cabinet

"If Trump attempts to weaponize the justice system against his political opponents with Matt Gaetz at the helm - we can see incoming Senator Adam Schiff as… pic.twitter.com/XzzCJAjF0I

— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) November 15, 2024

Support for the Shadow Cabinet

A significant amount of Democratic discourse champions creating a shadow cabinet as a necessary measure to counter perceived threats of authoritarianism from Trump.

• Supporters, all of which are Democratic voters, constitute 45% of the discussion, arguing for a proactive defense of their ideals.
• Many view the shadow cabinet as a symbol of empowerment, providing an alternative vision of leadership and energizing grassroots activism.
• This group believes diligent oversight and resistance are essential to maintaining democratic norms in an increasingly polarized environment.
• For advocates, a shadow cabinet is more just opposition—it is a rallying cry for progressive governance and voter mobilization.

Criticism and Skepticism

Critics view the idea of a shadow cabinet as politically motivated obstructionism which has no benefits but exacerbates divisions in an already polarized political climate.

• Around 35% of the commentary contains skepticism and criticism.
• Many voicing skepticism are also disillusioned with Democratic leadership.
• Some say a shadow cabinet would alienate moderate and Independent voters who may interpret it as partisan infighting rather than principled opposition.
• For critics, talk of a shadow cabinet is indicative of the Democratic Party’s inability to engage effectively with the electorate.

Indifference and Opposition

A smaller but notable portion of the discourse reflects indifference or outright opposition to the concept.

• Around 20% of reactions view the shadow cabinet as political theatrics, dismissing it as lacking meaningful impact.
• Another 10%—predominantly Trump supporters—frame the proposal as an attack on democratic norms, arguing it undermines the will of voters.
• They say shadow cabinet would embody partisan overreach, reinforcing their alignment with Trump’s policies and governance.

Polarization

The debate about a shadow cabinet highlights ideological divides in American politics. Republicans largely oppose the concept, while Democrats are split between enthusiastic support and pointed criticism. This division mirrors broader societal fractures that have intensified in recent years.

Fear of Authoritarianism

Proponents view a shadow cabinet as a bulwark against what they perceive as the erosion of democratic norms under Trump. This anxiety about authoritarianism drives support for aggressive opposition strategies, even at the risk of further polarization or becoming the authoritarians they fear.

Nuanced Discussions

The proposal has also sparked a broader debate about the balance between strategic resistance and effective governance. Historical comparisons frame the shadow cabinet as part of a longer tradition of contentious power struggles in American politics. However, critics warn that while it may energize partisan bases, it risks entrenching political divides.

Calls for addressing core issues like economic inequality and healthcare highlight dissatisfaction with a Democratic strategy seen as overly reactive. For many, the shadow cabinet is a symbol of a party struggling to define its role in a rapidly shifting political landscape.

Trump's victory is causing a cultural and rhetorical shift, even among Democrats who have long called him a “threat to democracy” and likened him to Hitler. The most recent example of this hypocrisy went viral after MSNBC hosts Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski met with Trump at Mar-a Lago. After frequently comparing Trump to Adolf Hitler, the hosts of Morning Joe are generating controversy with their newfound willingness to dialogue.

Morning Joe then: Donald Trump is comparable to Adolf Hitler.

Morning Joe now: We met with Trump at Mar-a-Lago to settle our differences. pic.twitter.com/UkfMt9ScuP

— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) November 18, 2024

A Shift in Rhetoric or Strategic Necessity?

Scarborough and Brzezinski were among the most vocal critics of Trump during his presidency and since. Their rhetoric was often viewed by conservatives as hyperbolic, divisive, and disingenuous. Now they’re drawing accusations of hypocrisy as people on both sides accuse them of either caving to “authoritarianism” or revealing their insincerity.

Some frame the Mar-a-Lago meeting as a strategic necessity. They say the media is being forced to capitulate to Trump after his decisive win. However, many MSNBC viewers perceive Scarborough and Brzezinski’s willingness to speak with Trump as a betrayal.

Democratic Reactions

MIG Reports data shows:

• 75% of Democrats are outraged, calling Scarborough and Brzezinski’s meeting a betrayal of moral consistency. Common sentiments include accusations of hypocrisy and concerns about normalizing Trump’s leadership.
• 20% defend the meeting, citing the importance of dialogue in a polarized nation.
• 5% are indifferent, viewing the issue as secondary to more pressing concerns.

Many progressive voices within the Democratic base argue this move undermines important efforts to hold Trump accountable. They say the meeting diminishes the seriousness of Trump’s threat to the country.

Democrats fear:

• Trump's return to power will have negative implications for American democracy.
• Authoritarianism from a Trump administration that dismantles democratic institutions and practices.
• Impending decline in American as in historical totalitarian regimes.
• The erosion of civil rights, freedom of speech, and the integrity of government institutions.

Republican Reactions

Republicans see the media and Democrats as hypocritical:

• 68% of Republicans criticize Morning Joe for previous comparisons of Trump to Hitler, saying the rhetoric is overheated and hyperbolic.
• 25% say the meeting is an acknowledgment of Trump’s legitimacy and a step toward bipartisanship.
• 7% are skepticism about the media’s motives, viewing their actions as opportunistic rather than principled.

For Republicans, this meeting symbolizes the failure of Democrats and media figures to maintain consistent or principled stances. Many see it as vindication of Trump, saying Democrats are admitting they never believed their own claims about Trump as an authoritarian or a dictator.

Republicans fear:

• Democratic leadership and media rhetoric has led to widespread political dissatisfaction and a divisive atmosphere.
• There may be no true accountability or reform either in government or for negligent or malicious media practices.
• Democratic voters will continue to double down on unrealistic fears about Trump and Republicans without allowing truth to impact their hatred.

Independent Reactions

Independents and moderates are disillusioned:

• They largely express cynicism, criticizing both sides for partisan rhetoric over solutions.
• Many say they’re fatigued with political theater, calling for policy actions rather than media and rhetorical fights.

Those in the middle represent a growing public distrust of both political and media institutions. They are wary of hyperbole on either side and want to focus on the economy, national security, and healthcare.

Plummeting Media Credibility

Scarborough and Brzezinski’s meeting with Trump is indicative of new leaves being turned in the media. As public trust in legacy media continues to erode, media figures are being forced to change their tactics.

The Democratic base says this shift is a failure to uphold the moral imperative. For Republicans, it reinforces perceptions that partisan media narratives are only as strong as the viewership and funding that props them up. They say with dramatically falling ratings, media outlets are facing the reality that they’re out of step with American voters.

anyway heres morning joe only getting 28,000 viewers pic.twitter.com/KmCNxfmtSi

— Tim Pool (@Timcast) November 18, 2024

• 65% of all voters are concerned about the lack of trust in media as a cause of divisiveness.
• Democrats fear the normalization of Trump’s leadership, while Republicans view it as evidence of Democratic hypocrisy.

In the wake of the 2024 election, Americans are considering what happened and what it means for the future. A continuing discourse has been a critique of the left writ large, and particularly whether leftism has gone too far. MIG Reports data shows the ideological divide among Democrats is widening.

That long left tail gets you — act more normal, everyone! pic.twitter.com/6q7z6ofnK9

— Matthew Yglesias (@mattyglesias) November 15, 2024

Republicans

• 75% of Republicans perceive the Democratic Party as moving further left.
• This belief is driven by perceptions of "radical" or "woke" policies, particularly concerning identity politics, immigration, and public safety.
• Republicans view this shift as alienating to moderates and attribute it partly to media narratives amplifying progressive ideologies.
• They are discontent with what they see as the excessive progressivism of modern Democrats.

Independents

• 62% of Independents believe Democrats are moving further to the left.
• They voice dissatisfaction with "woke" policies and cultural extremes, calling for a return to centrist policies.
• Emotional responses often highlight frustration and skepticism towards progressive solutions, which they perceive as divisive and impractical.
• While some Independents acknowledge the importance of social justice issues, they reject the methods Democrats employ to address them.

Democrats

• Only 30% of Democratic voters see themselves as moving leftward or shifting the party.
• Comments often focus on alienation from far-left policies and a fear of losing moderate support.
• However, the discussion within the Democratic camp is divided, as many criticize centrists as out of touch.
• Those on the far left want more authentic representations of their progressive values in the party.
• The leftward movement is also perceived by some as a reaction to Republican policies, creating a polarizing dynamic within the party.

The Democratic Party finds itself in a pivotal moment, grappling with the aftermath of their dramatic presidential loss. Discussions within the party show divergent views on the results of a campaign "autopsy." Determining the cause of failure, reassessing strategies, and potentially redefine the party’s identity all cause intra-party conflict.

Seeking Change or Doubling Down

Calls for Change

Most Democratic voices want introspection and reform, with approximately 45-60% emphasizing the need to reassess electoral strategies. These voices argue for focusing on economic issues, working-class concerns, and grassroots priorities.

Many point to a failure to connect with disaffected voters, particularly those who have shifted toward Republican messaging. Leadership figures like Bernie Sanders and other progressives call for bold reforms, prioritizing issues like wage equity and economic justice over current elitist strategies.

Defending the Status Quo

Around 30-40% of Democrats resist calls for reform, defending the party's existing strategies. They attribute Harris’s loss to external factors like misinformation, voter suppression, racism and misogyny, or media bias. They argue Democratic values remain fundamentally sound and view 2024 as an anomaly rather than an indicator of issues in the party.

Ambivalence and Compromise

Approximately 25% of the discourse reflects ambivalence, advocating for measured adjustments rather than a comprehensive overhaul. This group points to historical successes as a basis for continuity, suggesting a tempered approach that integrates innovation with traditional Democratic values.

Discussion Patterns

Frustration with Leadership

• 55% of comments voice frustration with Democratic leadership.
• Figures like Nancy Pelosi and Kamala Harris are criticized for being out of touch with grassroots concerns, particularly on issues affecting the working class.
• Many argue the party needs leaders who resonate with younger voters and marginalized communities, reflecting the priorities of an evolving base.

Identity Misalignment

• 45% of discussions highlight a disconnect between the party's values and voter priorities.
• Critics suggest an overemphasis on social justice, without a strong economic message, risks alienating voters struggling to make ends meet.

Unity vs. Division

• 50% of Democrats emphasize the need for party unity.
• They say the tension between progressive and moderate factions creates significant obstacles.
• They say an inability to reconcile internal divisions weakens the party's appeal.

Rise of Progressive Voices

• Progressive leaders and activists are increasingly vocal, championing bold reforms and economic equity as central to the party's platform.
• Figures like Bernie Sanders advocate for this shift, drawing attention to the inadequacies of traditional Democratic strategies in addressing voter concerns.

Fear of Losing Core Support

• A recurring concern is the potential to lose working-class voters, historically a key Democratic demographic.
• Many within the party warn that failing to address these voters' needs could result in long-term political consequences, emphasizing the urgency for genuine reform.

The Democratic Party’s Identity Crisis

Progressive vs. Moderate Tensions

The most prominent theme is the ideological battle between progressive and moderate Democrats. This divide leaves voters questioning what the party stands for, creating confusion and weakening its electoral message. Progressives advocate for transformational change, while moderates prioritize incremental adjustments and risk aversion.

Inclusivity and Messaging

The party's commitment to diversity and inclusivity remains a defining feature. However, inconsistencies in delivering tangible results dilute the effectiveness of this message. Critics argue the party needs to draw back from DEI to focus on substantive policies that address voter priorities.

A Crisis of Vision

Approximately 60-70% of Democrats say there’s an identity crisis in the party. The failure to reach a cohesive vision undermines the party's ability to inspire and mobilize its base. Without clarity of purpose, the party risks alienating key constituencies and losing ground to more unified opposition forces.

Democratic voters are reacting to Kamala Harris's presidential defeat and discussions about her relationship with Joe Biden. Online, there are growing divides within the party regarding who is to blame, leadership decisions, and strategic missteps.

Much of the discourse centers on President Joe Biden and his short remaining time in office. Many are speculating about the health of his relationships behind the scenes and implications for party unity.

SHE'S GONNA MISS PETER!!!😂😂😂 pic.twitter.com/J0uQtkyvdp

— il Donaldo Trumpo (@PapiTrumpo) November 13, 2024

Biden Blocks Kamala’s Path

Some Democrats attribute Harris's loss to Biden’s lack of effective leadership and failure to fully support her candidacy. They repeatedly express disappointment, describing Biden as lacking the proactive support to secure a win.

Refusing to place blame on Harris herself, they say things like "he could have done more" or "he didn’t take the lead." These discussions attempt to frame the loss as due to Biden’s missed campaign opportunities or not stepping down soon enough.

For the record this was meant to be The Art of Losing: Kamala Harris, but I wavered on it and eventually decided to leave her out of the headline. Whatever her flaws may be, Biden put her in an unprecedentedly difficult situation. https://t.co/EB1TJbXmbB

— ettingermentum (@ettingermentum) November 2, 2024

Harris is Ineffective

Though many blame Biden, others include Harris as a focal point of criticism, though in smaller numbers. MIG Reports analysis shows nearly half of discussions blame Biden, while around 25% include Harris in the blame.

Those who blame her say Harris "didn’t connect with the base" and was "not the right choice," for a party coronation. Creating continuity with her failed 2020 presidential bid, voters question her electability and effectiveness. Harris’s public perception emphasizes the disconnect between party leadership and the perspectives of the voter base.

The remaining 25% of the discourse critiques the Democratic Party's overall strategy, with calls for a complete overhaul of its approach. Comments such as "we need to rethink our approach" reveal frustration with the party's failed vision. Some contrast this with a more cohesive strategy they attribute to Republicans.

Living in the Past

While blame dominates much of the conversation, a smaller segment of Democrats defends Biden. They emphasize his stabilizing influence and achievements in a challenging environment

Supporters say things like, "Biden has done the best he can under the circumstances," framing him as a steady leader. However, even within these defenses, there is an implicit acknowledgment of unmet expectations. Voters grapple with their support for Biden’s legacy against the reality of the party’s recent loss.

...Maybe It’s Us?

Broader systemic concerns surface as well, pointing to issues like gerrymandering and voter disenfranchisement. These conversations present election failures as caused by structural problems rather than individual shortcomings.

There are calls advocating for comprehensive reform to address these systemic challenges in the party. Discussions use emotional language and personal pronouns, as individuals express feelings of betrayal, disappointment, and personal responsibility.

The GOP has managed to maintain control of the House, energizing the voter base as they call for a strong "America First" agenda. Many view this control, combined with regaining the Senate majority, as a crucial opportunity to make Trump’s second term highly impactful.

Republicans emphasize loyalty to conservative ideals and a tangible alignment with figures like Rick Scott, who they see as fighting the establishment. With control of both the executive and legislative branches, voters expect concrete results in the first two years.

The Republicans have secured the trifecta, with Trump set to begin his interrupted second presidential term alongside GOP control of both the House and Senate. Unlike in 2016, Trump will start with a more unified Republican leadership—one less inclined to work with Democrats to…

— Quantus Insights (@QuantusInsights) November 11, 2024

Party Accountability

MAGA voters want accountability and transparency in GOP leadership. They are particularly vocal about the need for leaders who are openly committed to their cause. Some also demand transparent voting processes and ending secret ballots in leadership decisions.

This demand for visibility speaks to a sense of vigilance among voters. Republicans wish to ensure their representatives are held accountable and act in alignment with the principles that secured them the House.

There is also vocal frustration with establishment “RINOs” (Republicans in name only). Many express dissatisfaction with figures who don’t uphold MAGA’s America First agenda. Voters want strong advocates who do not cave to Democratic pressure, and many say they plan to primary anyone who fails to meet expectations.

Looking for Strength

Among Republicans, there’s a sense of social and political alienation. Some are apprehensive about displaying their support for GOP causes, fearing backlash from opposing factions.

This caution in the electorate spurs voters’ resolve to support leaders who will boldly counter societal pressures and “woke” influences. They want greater transparency, advocacy for a clear conservative agenda, and unity of action among GOP representatives.

MAGA’s Moment

Trump voters are motivated by both aspiration and urgency. Many see the GOP’s House control as an essential leverage point, allowing them to influence a broader conservative agenda and safeguard their values within the political landscape.

Following huge election victories, GOP voters are politically engaged but also intent on shaping the party's path. They are committed to solidifying conservative principles and advancing a vision for the country that resonates with traditional values.

Democratic voter discourse around Kamala Harris’s $1 billion campaign spending spree is fraught. Conversation about the staggering expenditure reflects disillusionment in the party. Democrats are frustrated by what they perceive as a misalignment between party leadership and the working-class electorate it claims to represent.

After Harris spent $1 billion dollars only to perform worse than Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden voters say:

• Campaign spending is symbolic of current party flaws
• Leaders refuse to embrace the base
• They expect no fix anytime soon

Many also wonder how they managed to spend $1 billion in just a few months.

we are so fucked pic.twitter.com/sHyYfObmST

— Corinne Green (@gaynarcan) September 8, 2024

The Hits Keep Coming

The calls for accountability in response to Harris’s campaign spending demand party leaders own up to their mismanagement. Voters view Democratic leaders as unwilling or unable to address the concerns of the base around issues that matter to working Americans.

Voters want accountability and meaningful change, saying the party risks further alienating an already disillusioned base. The sentiment resonates with recent critiques of the Democratic National Committee’s campaign strategies and its perceived corporate alignment. Many believe the party has dismissed voters and sacrificed grassroots connections in favor of top-down establishment protections.

Broke Beats Woke

Democratic voters hope for reforms that prioritize everyday issues like healthcare, housing, and economic stability. Many highlight the disconnect between party priorities and the economic struggles of the middle and lower classes, demonstrated by the spending mentality in the Harris campaign.

Americans are concerned about rising living costs, housing affordability, and Democrats’ failure to address inflation concerns. Some Democrats feel the party’s focus on identity politics has worsened division, detracting from core issues that resonate with a broader swath of voters. Voters want to return to unifying messaging that bridges ideological divides rather than emphasizes them.

🇺🇸 Kamala Harris's team reportedly spent the following:

• Oprah: $1m
• Concerts: $20m
• Influencers: $4m
• Call Her Daddy set: $100k

The campaign ended $20 million in debt, after raising over $1 billion. pic.twitter.com/ZhlCpO4wnG

— Remarks (@remarks) November 9, 2024

Left Behind

Some Democrats are questioning their loyalty to the Democratic Party in the wake of Harris’s disastrous campaign. Explicit statements from voters expressing their intent to leave the party capture the severity of disillusionment.

Voters say things like, “I’m done with the Democratic Party” to emphasize their disengagement. Many describe feeling “betrayed” and “disappointed,” over the party abandoning its prior unifying values of supporting the working class.

Disillusionment comes with nostalgia for a time when Democratic policies more directly aligned with the needs of average Americans instead of catering to elites and protecting establishment enclaves.