The ongoing discourse about Ukrainian President Zelensky’s perceived campaign against Donald Trump exposes partisan divides in the United States. As conversations unfold among voters from all political affiliations, tensions cause strong reactions to Zelensky’s actions, viewed through ideological lenses.

Many are discussing the apparent fervent support for President Zelensky among Democrats, hinting at a stronger alliance between Ukraine and a potential Harris administration.

Worth noting that Zelenskyy was flown to Pennsylvania on an U.S. Air Force C-17.

The Biden-Harris admin is using military assets to fly a foreign leader into a battleground state in order to undermine their political opponents. https://t.co/OSebVUuBEg pic.twitter.com/biMGTfAc1J

— Dan Caldwell 🇺🇸 (@dandcaldwell) September 23, 2024

Republicans

Zelensky’s actions are widely seen as foreign interference, fueling anger and reinforcing support for Trump. More than 60% of Republicans indicate their intention to vote for Trump, viewing Zelensky’s involvement with politicians as an attack on U.S. sovereignty.

Democrats

Zelensky’s opposition to Trump aligns with their criticisms of Trump’s foreign policy—especially regarding Ukraine and Russia. While this validates their stance and energizes some, Democrats were already largely opposed to Trump, making the impact on turnout less significant compared to Republicans.

Independents

More divided, Independents have varied criticisms. Some support Zelensky’s critique of Trump, while others worry about foreign influence in U.S. elections. Moderate enthusiasm is lower, with about a third considering voting for a third-party. This suggests frustration with the polarized political landscape.

Pennsylvania stands with Ukraine as they defend their homeland and fight for freedom. https://t.co/IaCpOtR1Ao

— Governor Josh Shapiro (@GovernorShapiro) September 23, 2024

Across all voter groups, there is a growing sense of polarization, with partisan lines remaining entrenched. Discussions often highlight fears of foreign interference, causing a surge of nationalism, particularly among Republicans. These dynamics may or may not impact on voter behavior, with Republicans and Democrats rallying around their respective candidates while Independents increasingly withdraw from the political process.

Voter Discussion Analysis

Beyond surface-level reactions to Zelensky’s opposition against Trump, discourse shows further sociopolitical undercurrents shaping voter behavior in the United States. There is both a reaction to a foreign leader's involvement in American politics and broader existential concerns among the electorate.

Republicans

Zelensky's actions have become a proxy for wider anxieties about national sovereignty, globalism, and the perceived erosion of American exceptionalism. More than 60% of Republicans say Ukraine relations make them likely to turn out for Trump. This reflects the image of Trump as both a candidate and a symbol of resistance against external forces, both foreign and domestic.

Democrats

Zelensky’s critique of Trump serves as confirmation of Democrats’ existing narrative which frames Trump as damaging America's standing on the global stage. They believe he has weakened democratic alliances and emboldened autocratic regimes.

While Democrats are already motivated to oppose Trump, Zelensky’s involvement adds righteous moral dimension to their cause. They claim to vote for the preservation of democratic values under siege from authoritarianism—both within and outside the U.S.

Independents

The reaction among Independent voters is complex. Their ambivalence reflects a broader societal fatigue with the binary, hyper-polarized nature of American politics. Many Independents are skeptical of both sides, recognizing Zelensky’s actions as problematic but also viewing Trump’s foreign policy as flawed.

Internal conflict among Independents reveals disillusionment with Trump and Harris, but with also political system overall. Their disengagement is a response to Zelensky’s actions and a reflection of dissatisfaction with both political parties.

There is a sense that neither party adequately addresses the nuanced realities of global politics or the multifaceted concerns of American voters. Independents who say they plan to abstain or vote third-party highlight the withdrawal of many who view politics overly simplistic and manipulated by underlying agendas.

Snapshot of the Trajectory

More abstractly, Zelensky’s involvement in this election serves as a demonstration of national politics which can no longer be disentangled from global events. Voter reactions to Zelensky are not merely about Ukraine or Trump but part of a larger narrative about globalization, foreign interference, and the decline of traditional nation-state autonomy.

Both Republican and Democratic voters struggle with this reality. Republicans through a lens of protectionism and anti-globalism, Democrats through a framework of moral internationalism. Independents are caught in the middle, divided between their desire for nuanced political discourse and a binary political system.

There is also a sense of the mediated nature of public discourse, where social media acts as an echo chamber, amplifying existing biases and simplifying complex geopolitical issues. Confirmation bias, biased media, emotionally charged rhetoric, and eroded trust in traditional institutions all contribute to a tribal public dialogue.

The Zelensky versus Trump narrative does more than mobilize voters—it exposes the conflicted nature of American political cohesion and deepening divides between voters and institutions. This raises questions about the future of governance, the role of foreign influence in national narratives, and whether the U.S. is capable of engaging in complex global realities without further fracture.

In the last several weeks, presidential endorsements have been playing a role in shaping voter sentiment and indicating the overall political mood. Both Donald Trump and Kamala Harris are facing the political repercussions—positive and negative—of high-profile endorsements or lack of endorsements.

National sentiment toward Trump continues to widen the gap between candidates with 56% support for Trump—a stunning 13% lead over Harris—compared to only a 5% advantage two weeks ago.

Trump Endorsements

Donald Trump has secured endorsements highlighting his conservative and populist support, increasing the contrast between him and establishment Republicans.

• Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s endorsement of Trump surprised some but shows Trump's appeal to populist and anti-establishment voters.
• Fraternal Order of Police endorsing Trump carries significant weight with law-and-order conservatives and strengthens his position as a rule of law candidate.
• Elon Musk endorsing Trump adds a layer of tech and pop culture credibility, furthering his anti-establishment image.

Harris Endorsements

Kamala Harris has had a rocky road with endorsements, particularly when it comes to working-class Americans versus celebrities and elites.

• The Teamsters Union refusing to endorse Harris is perhaps one the most notable instances. Historically, Teamsters always support Democratic candidates, but this year have refused to officially support Harris.
• Celebrities like Taylor Swift, Oprah, and Billie Eilish endorsing Harris draws excitement in her base but criticism from anti-establishment and anti-elite voters.
• The IRS Union also endorsed Harris, drawing sharp criticism from conservatives and middle-income Americans who are frustrated with the economy and taxes.
• Other establishment entities like National Security Leaders for America and those considered RINOs like Dick Cheney and 200 former GOP aides draws criticism from anti-establishment voters.

In the last two weeks, Harris has averaged higher sentiment in voter conversations about political endorsements with 48% to Trump’s 47%. But in the last three days, Trump has overtaken Harris by up to three points.

Trouble for Democrats

Unions

Recent Teamsters polling showed 58.5% of their members support Trump, with only 32.5% backing Harris. This is a significant advantage for Trump who trailed Biden by 8% just a few months ago. These cultural and political shifts signal working-class ire against Harris, raising questions about her ability to connect with traditionally Democratic blue-collar voters.

TEAMSTERS RELEASE PRESIDENTIAL ENDORSEMENT POLLING DATA

“For the past year, the Teamsters Union has pledged to conduct the most inclusive, democratic, and transparent Presidential endorsement process in the history of our 121-year-old organization—and today we are delivering on… pic.twitter.com/CnFNN9uosx

— Teamsters (@Teamsters) September 18, 2024

Many union workers enthusiastically express their support for Trump, which so far seems to be playing out in early voting and swing state support. This includes nearly 60% of Teamsters, 70% of Steamfitters Local 638, and 65-70% of UAW members.

YESTERDAY: Nearly 60% of @Teamsters are voting for President Trump.

TODAY: 70% of Steamfitters Local 638 are voting for President Trump.

ALSO TODAY: It’s estimated 65-70% of UAW members are voting for President Trump.

Hardworking Americans know President Trump HAS THEIR BACK. pic.twitter.com/fFOrRs9aXd

— Byron Donalds (@ByronDonalds) September 19, 2024

Some are interpreting the Teamsters’ decision not to endorse as a sign of low confidence in Harris's willingness to support working-class Americans. Others says it’s a result of Harris refusing to let the union's president speak at the DNC.

The IRS

Harris’s IRS endorsement may also hurt more than help her with the economy remaining a top issue for voters across the country. During a recent campaign rally, Trump mocked Harris, saying he’d “rather not have that endorsement.”

Donald Trump on Kamala Harris getting the endorsement of IRS agents:

“I would rather not have that endorsement.”🤣

pic.twitter.com/NK5eLdkeKB

— Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) September 24, 2024

Voters express outrage and concern about the potential implications of the IRS endorsement. Critics say it is a clear example of the government's overreach and politicized federal agencies. They say Harris's support for the Inflation Reduction Act, which provided the IRS with an additional $80 billion and 87,000 new agents, is a threat to individual liberties.

Law Enforcement

Some are also saying Harris’s backing from Police Leaders for Community Safety does nothing since the organization was only founded in March of 2024. This sudden emergence of alleged law enforcement support is dubious to many who point out the vague and nonspecific nature of endorsement announcements on the official Harris campaign X account.

There is particular criticism from those who decry crime rates and the rule of law under the Biden-Harris administration. This group often suggests attempts to manufacture law enforcement support is a cynical ploy by the Harris campaign to appeal to moderates and conservatives.

The single most astroturfed Presidential campaign in modern U.S. history.

The stunning endorsement that “normally backs Trump?”

They are referring to the Police Leaders for Community Safety, which was founded in March of THIS YEAR.

It’s a fake group. pic.twitter.com/g3vZfpKFAR

— Dustin Grage (@GrageDustin) September 24, 2024

Are There Votes Up for Grabs?

The impact of endorsements on voter groups remains opaque, though likely concentrating support among those who already lean to one side or the other. The critical question for many is whether certain endorsements can sway critical battleground and moderate voters. MIG Reports data from voter conversations suggests:

• 20% of Democratic voters are likely swayed positively by Harris endorsements, especially from celebrities like Oprah and Taylor Swift.
• 30% of Republican voters respond positively to Trump’s endorsements, especially from RFK Jr. and the Fraternal Order of Police.
• Around 10-15% of undecided voters may move toward Harris and potentially 5-10% to Trump—although these percentages are projections with low certainty.

The Whole Picture of Endorsements

Endorsements serve as a barometer for campaign momentum—and Trump currently seems have a stronger position. His endorsements from law enforcement, tech moguls, and even former Democrats like RFK Jr. highlight his ability to appeal to a broad range of voter groups. Furthermore, his ability to draw working-class support away from traditional Democratic strongholds like the Teamsters is particularly telling.

Harris, meanwhile, is struggling to maintain enthusiasm among key demographics. While celebrity endorsements may energize certain liberal and youth segments, the lack of union support and the controversial IRS endorsement suggest her campaign faces challenges among working-class and middle-income voters. Despite Joe Biden’s low favorability prior to dropping out of the race, enthusiasm for Harris seems to be largely driven by the media, elites, and political establishment figures rather than critical moderate voting groups in swing states, which she would require to win.

The presidential race picture is unclear post-debate and amid early voting as both sides claim to have the edge in a tight race. MIG Reports analysis showed Trump surging after the first Trump-Harris debate on ABC, which coincides with Times/Siena swing state polling. Both MIG Reports data and polls show Trump gaining momentum in key battleground states and expanding his lead over Harris. With early voting underway and Harris’s numbers questionable, Democrats want a second debate.

"Kamala Harris dominated the debate" pic.twitter.com/0aXGDGsmY0

— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) September 23, 2024

Harris announced that she has accepted an invitation from CNN for a second debate, causing a stir on social media when she called Trump the “Former Vice President.” Meanwhile, Trump remains dismissive, saying it's too late for another debate and Harris is likely losing.

Kamala: “I’d like another debate. I hope the former Vice President would agree to that.”

Which Vice President is she talking about here?
pic.twitter.com/H8JhwYICNc

— Greg Price (@greg_price11) September 22, 2024

JUST IN: Donald Trump says he will *not* be doing another debate in October on CNN, says Kamala Harris is "losing badly."

"The problem with another debate is that it's just too late voting has already started."

"She's had her chance to do it with Fox... but now she wants to do… pic.twitter.com/LeNTo38wVA

— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) September 21, 2024

Voter Sentiment Breakdown

Voters from both parties are divided on whether a second debate would be productive, but Democrats largely support a second debate and Republicans do not.

• 42% of Republicans support a second debate, while 58% oppose it.
• 62% of Democrats favor another debate, with 38% opposed.

• Since the debate, national sentiment toward Trump has remained strong, surging from 52% the day following the debate to 55% today.
• Harris’s national sentiment has dipped from 47% the day following the debate to 45% today.

• In swing states, Trump has surged from an even 49% support for both candidates on the day of the debate to 50% for Trump today compared to 47% for Harris.

• Electoral college support also looks good for Trump with Republicans at 49% compared to Democrats at 47%.

Why Democrats Want a Second Debate

Among Democrats, the desire for a second debate stems from three key motivations:

• Hold Trump accountable: The top reason is an opportunity for Harris to challenge Trump and "call him out” for his dangerous and objectionable policies and rhetoric.
• Showcase Harris’s policies: Many also view a second debate as a chance for Harris to more clearly present her policies.
• Clarify issues for voters: Some Democrats believe another debate would help undecided voters gain clarity on important topics like healthcare and immigration.

Democrats who oppose a second debate cite:

• Skepticism about Trump’s participation: Some doubt Trump will engage seriously or fairly. They say he will refuse or use it to spread “misinformation.”
• Unproductive focus on personality: Some say another debate will devolve into personal attacks, giving Trump the spotlight over substantive issues.
• Harris’s ability to perform: Critics within the party worry Harris might struggle to effectively counter Trump’s aggressive tactics and off-the-cuff remarks.

Why Republicans Don’t Want Another Debate

Republicans largely dismiss or oppose the idea of another debate:

• Concerns about Trump’s performance: There’s unease about Trump’s ability to stay focused during debates. Some worry another debate would not help him.
• Debate bias concerns: Many are also critical of media outlets like CNN they view as biased in favor of Harris and actively attacking and fact-checking Trump.
• Nothing useful in a debate: Some say voters know who Trump is and will not find out anything informative from Harris, therefor another debate won't sway votes.

Those who support a second debate say:

• Redemption for Trump: Some Republicans think Trump deserves another chance to perform better, hoping in a second debate he would clearly defeat Harris.
• Show Harris’s true policies: Some say another chance to challenge Harris more directly on policy issues can still sway some undecided voters.
• Biased media: Those who say the ABC debate was unfair hope a second one will either be fair or more strongly point out bias if CNN moderators reveal bias.

What Happens if the Debate Takes Place?

Should Trump decide to accept the invitation, the potential outcomes are uncertain. For Harris, a second debate is a critical opportunity to make up lost ground. As Trump’s numbers grow, she needs a high-profile event to shift momentum back in her favor.

However, for a public sentiment comeback to be successful, Harris would need an extremely strong showing. Harris needs to resonate with swing voters on issues that matter most like the economy and the border. But she faces a challenge from progressive voters who prioritize social justice and anti-Israel issues, which alienate moderates.

For Trump, the stakes of another debate are high. While his base remains enthusiastic, another chaotic appearance could be a double-edged sword. While MAGA voters will likely continue with strong support, moderates on the fence may not like another spectacle like the viral Springfield cats and dogs issue.

MIG Reports data from American conversations about the first weekend of early voting shows Trump positivity. Weighted analysis suggests the likely direction of mid-Friday through mid-Saturday early voting, as well as general discussion and sentiment trends.

According to voter discussions, Donald Trump has roughly even odds of leading in initial early voting. This assessment is made with moderate confidence, based on multiple MIG Reports data sets which—though they are not polls—often produce similar results to trusted polling.

Voter Reaction Analysis

• Trump: 66.80%
• Harris: 32.29%

Data suggests Donald Trump may lead up to 66.8% of early voting with his strongest positions on immigration, border security, and the economy. There is some concern regarding international conflict due to Trump’s polarizing leadership style—particularly regarding Israel and Ukraine).

Meanwhile, Harris does not hold a stronger position on the national security front. Harris’s support is found in discussions about healthcare, climate policy, and abortion. Harris gains ground with voters focusing on women’s rights and economic reform, although criticisms of her perceived ineffectiveness and lack of clear policy positions is pervasive.

Border Security

Border security is a dominant issue in early voter discussions, particularly for Trump supporters. Voters cite Trump's strong stance on securing the border, his push for stricter immigration policies, and his commitment to reducing illegal immigration as major reasons for their support.

Critics of Harris point to her leniency on immigration and "open borders" policies. They frame her approach as a security risk. Across voter conversations, including in early voting states, border security consistently ranks as a high priority issue. This leads to Trump gaining overwhelming support with voters who want border security urgently.

Preference for Trump also dominates about immigration policy, which many discuss with border security. His proposed wall and efforts to deport illegal immigrants resonates with voters worried about national security. Harris get criticism for her immigration policies, though some appreciate her focus on human rights and a path to citizenship for immigrants.

Economy

The economy is the other most frequently discussed issue for both candidates, though the tone varies significantly. Trump supporters praise his tax cuts, job creation, and efforts to stimulate economic growth—especially in sectors like manufacturing and small business.

Harris supporters focus on her plans to reduce inequality, provide healthcare for all, and tackle the rising cost of living. While Harris gains voters concerned about middle-class economics, Trump is the dominant choice for those focused on economic stability and conservative financial policies.

Social Justice

For Harris, social justice is a key issue among progressive voters. Discussions about her policies on racial equality, police reform, and civil rights play a central role in her appeal.

Among progressives, Trump is viewed as unsympathetic to social justice concerns as they accuse him of exacerbating racial tensions. The polarized nature of this debate shows division between Democrats and Republicans, with Democrats overwhelmingly preferring Harris on social issues.

Healthcare

Healthcare is also important for Harris’s supporters. Voters are drawn to her positions on expanding access to healthcare, supporting Medicare for All, and lowering prescription drug prices.

Criticisms of Trump’s healthcare policies, particularly his efforts to dismantle Obamacare are rampant among those who prioritize healthcare access. Trump supporters are more likely to praise his administration’s deregulation efforts in the healthcare industry, focusing on lowering costs and expanding options for consumers. Many also appreciate his alignment with RFK Jr.’s health platform.

Abortion

Abortion is a particularly important issue for Harris supporters, especially among women and progressives. Harris’s pro-choice stance and her vocal support for protecting abortion rights is a pillar of her platform, gaining a large share of her voters.

Trump’s supporters, particularly those with conservative values, are strongly opposed to abortion and prefer his efforts to restrict abortion access and appoint pro-life judges to the Supreme Court. The debate over abortion is a clear line of division between the two candidates, with highly emotional and polarized discourse.

The Mood for 2024

There is a noticeable anti-establishment tone throughout voter discussions, particularly among Trump supporters. They frequently voice distrust of the current political and media systems. These voters frame their support for Trump as a rebellion against entrenched elites, corrupt governance, and bureaucratic overreach. They particularly highlight border security, economic regulation, and perceived threats to national sovereignty.

For Harris supporters, while less overtly anti-establishment, there is still some frustration with the status quo. The is a point of contention regarding social justice, healthcare, and economic inequality. Progressive voters express a desire reform, but their stance is more about transforming the current system from within, rather than overthrowing it.

Overall, the anti-establishment sentiment is stronger and more explicitly expressed on the conservative side, whereas progressive voters are more focused on reforming the existing structures rather than rejecting them entirely.

Recent layoffs and discussions about low hiring in the U.S. job market dominates voter conversations, according to MIG Reports data. Americans indicate their personal experiences with the economy shape their reactions to job reports. There continues to be significant division between those who perceive the job market as improving and those who believe it is deteriorating.

Data suggests public sentiment based on the language voters use to communicate their experiences. MIG Reports analysis coincides with a recent study from the Challenger Report showing 193% more job cuts from July to August 2024.

BREAKING: Hiring in 2024 is at a historic low, per CNBC + Challenger.

— unusual_whales (@unusual_whales) September 20, 2024

Overall Sentiment Breakdown

The job market in 2024 elicits polarized reactions:

• 55-62% of Americans express negative views, largely shaped by their personal financial struggles and the impact of inflation.
• 31-45% hold an optimistic outlook, focusing on macroeconomic indicators such as job creation, wage growth, and a strong stock market.

Despite some optimism, doubt and discouragement dominates voter discussions, particularly among those who distrust economic data or feel the government is not addressing the real economic issues Americans face.

Worker Perception of the Job Market

Most Americans in 2024 view the job market negatively. Many cite inflation, economic instability, and poor job quality as key concerns. Workers feel disconnected from the administration’s reports of macroeconomic success, pointing instead to personal struggles with rising living costs and job instability.

For struggling Americans, the realities of layoffs and stalled hiring directly affects their day-to-day lives. Personal accounts of job loss are also permeated by mentions of paycheck-to-paycheck living and eroded purchasing power.

Some do hold a positive view of the job market, however. They highlight media reporting and government figures of low unemployment, job creation, and economic growth as reasons for optimism. This group focuses on broader economic indicators like wage growth and a strong stock market, rather than their personal experiences.

Typically, in higher economic classes or politically left leaning, this group attributes economic successes to government policies. They particularly mention Biden-Harris measures, viewing the economy as successfully recovering from COVID.

Reasons for Reactions

People who believe the job market is bad typically base their views on personal experiences. They talk about their struggles with inflation, job instability, and rising living costs. These voters frequently blame government policies for failing to address the economic challenges middle class Americans face. For them, the negative impacts of inflation and unstable jobs outweigh any broader economic successes.

Those who perceive the job market positively rely on the Biden-Harris administration to support their views. They point to low unemployment, job creation in industries like manufacturing, and wage increases. This group tends to trust official economic reports and see selective macroeconomic trends as evidence of a stable and improving economy. They attribute economic progress to policies that they believe are fostering growth and recovery.

How Americans Talk About Jobs

The language people use in these discussions reflects their perspectives on the job market. Those who view the job market negatively often use first-person pronouns like "I" and "me" to emphasize their personal struggles. They talk about their individual experiences with statements like "I'm struggling to make ends meet" or "I lost my job because of inflation." This use of first-person language underscores the personal impact the economy has on their lives.

Voters who see the job market as strong tend to use third-person pronouns, such as "they" and "them." They describe the economy from a more detached perspective, with phrases like, “They’re creating jobs" or "The economy is growing." This language suggests a broader view, focusing less on personal hardship and more on the general direction of the economy.

Additionally, those with a positive outlook often adopt a factual and confident tone, while those with negative views express frustration, skepticism, and distrust. Skeptics frequently challenge the accuracy of official economic data, using sarcastic or confrontational language to question the narrative of economic recovery.

Abortion continues to be a central issue for the Harris campaign and voters are reacting. Following the KamalaHQ X account posting commentary on the tragic death of Amber Thurman, a Georgia woman who died after complications from an abortion pill, Americans are divided.

The Harris campaign used this incident to reinforce her stance on reproductive rights, positioning herself as a defender of women's healthcare. However, this has sparked fierce debate across party lines, with Republicans challenging the accuracy and sincerity of her message.

Statement from Vice President Harris on new report of a 28-year-old Georgia woman dying after not receiving urgent care needed for an infection under Georgia’s extreme abortion ban https://t.co/sf1yJp3foG pic.twitter.com/kM0pq3qG3K

— Kamala HQ (@KamalaHQ) September 17, 2024

In the statement Harris said:

“Abortion bans have fatal consequences. Amber Thurman should still be alive today. This is not just about Roe. This is about women’s lives.”

This frames the abortion debate as deserving sympathy in the wake of a tragic loss of life, blaming abortion restrictions for Thurman's death. But Republicans are pushing back hard, challenging Harris on the facts of the story.

Republicans Fact Check the Amber Thurman Case

As many on the right point out, the tragic death of Amber Thurman has been used to highlight the dangers of restrictive abortion laws, particularly by the Harris campaign. However, the facts tell a more complicated story. Amber Thurman died after a botched medical procedure following complications from an abortion pill. The problem wasn't an abortion ban—it was the abortion pill itself, combined with medical malpractice.

.@michaeljknowles weighs in on this massive lie. https://t.co/lSjWm2tVYk pic.twitter.com/ZK2rBAdfyl

— The Michael Knowles Show (@MKnowlesShow) September 19, 2024

Georgia’s abortion laws, while stringent, still allow medical procedures like D&Cs (dilation and curettage)—a procedure for surgically removing sections of the lining of the uterus. This includes procedures following abortions or miscarriages. No state, Georgia included, prevents doctors from performing life-saving procedures to protect a woman’s health, a point conveniently omitted from Harris’s narrative.

For Republicans, this case exemplifies the broader issue: Democrats like Harris are using selective facts to maintain support on one of the top issues for their voter base. Meanwhile, they ignore the reckless prescription practices and FDA oversight failures which contributed to Thurman's death.

Kamala Harris is a LIAR!

Amber Nicole Thurman didn’t die because of lack of an abortion.

The abortion is what killed her! Abortion pills lead to her death.

Even Newsweek is reporting the truth: https://t.co/F8EjAFOgiQ https://t.co/CmCMFoVaHc pic.twitter.com/hMlIseuSmK

— Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene🇺🇸 (@RepMTG) September 19, 2024

MIG Reports data shows:

• Harris, who typically leads Trump in voter sentiment regarding abortion, dipped to 41% approval, below Trump’s 43% on the day she released the misleading statement.
• In the last few days, both Trump and Harris have surged in sentiment for their respective abortion platforms.

How Americans View this Issue

American voter reactions to this incident and Harris’s campaign framing have been deeply polarized. According to MIG Reports data samples:

Democrats

• 72% believe Harris’s commentary on the abortion pill incident was accurate and support her position.
• 62% are more likely to vote for Harris because of her abortion views.

Republicans

• 62% view Harris's remarks as misleading, saying her campaign politicized the tragedy for electoral gain.
• 45% of Republicans say they are less likely to support Harris because of her abortion platform.

The partisan divide on this issue is not surprising. For Democrats, reproductive rights are a non-negotiable issue and many express intentions to vote with abortion as the main driver. They see Harris as a strong advocate for women’s health and view abortion bans as dangerous.

Pro-life Republicans see Harris’s approach as exploitative and misinformed. They shift focus to the ethical concerns around abortion pills and late-term abortions. Many within the party believe abortion should be restricted, and 25% even argue the abortion pill itself is too dangerous for unrestricted access—using the Thurman case as an example.

Abortion is Likely Crucial for Harris’s Election

Abortion has always been a divisive issue, but in the 2024 election, it has become a flashpoint. Especially in battleground states where voter sentiments can tip the balance of electoral votes. In states like Georgia, where Amber Thurman perished, local laws play a significant role in shaping voter views. Laws like Georgia’s Heartbeat Bill, which restrict abortions after six weeks, are a major point of contention.

MIG Reports data shows how abortion may influence voters this cycle:

• 62% of overall voters express anger or outrage over abortion bans, with many calling for restrictive laws to be repealed.
• 31% defend abortion bans, viewing them as necessary to protect the unborn.
• 7% favor the state-specific approach to abortion laws, part of Donald Trump’s platform.

Demographic trends also highlight the influence of abortion on voter behavior:

• 71% of women oppose abortion bans, particularly women under 30, with 65% of this demographic opposing these restrictions.
• 45% of men support abortion bans, showing a more divided perspective along gender lines.

The broader implications for the election are significant. In swing states, where independent voters often determine the outcome, abortion could be a deciding factor. Independents are split, with 45% believing the issue is being politicized and 31% advocating for greater access to reproductive healthcare. These voters are likely the ones Harris needs to sway if she hopes to secure victory in key battlegrounds.

The Importance of Abortion for Democrats

For Kamala Harris, abortion is not just an issue—it’s central to her 2024 platform. Her emphasis on reproductive rights resonates strongly with her base, especially women and younger voters. By focusing on the dangers of abortion restrictions, Harris is attempting to galvanize support from pro-choice advocates and position herself as a protector of women’s health.

However, the risks for Harris are clear. By overplaying the tragedy of Amber Thurman and misrepresenting the facts, she risks alienating moderate voters who might view her rhetoric as too extreme or politically motivated. The focus on reproductive rights could also backfire in swing states, where voters are more likely to support moderate or state-specific approaches to abortion laws.

Recently, the Teamsters Union released the results of internal straw poll, electronic poll, and telephone poll shows significant favor toward Donald Trump over Kamala Harris. This is a shift from polling showing a Democratic lead prior to Biden dropping from the presidential race.

MIG Reports analysis of discourse shows union sentiment moving against Harris and why union workers are gravitating toward Trump.

TEAMSTERS RELEASE PRESIDENTIAL ENDORSEMENT POLLING DATA

“For the past year, the Teamsters Union has pledged to conduct the most inclusive, democratic, and transparent Presidential endorsement process in the history of our 121-year-old organization—and today we are delivering on… pic.twitter.com/CnFNN9uosx

— Teamsters (@Teamsters) September 18, 2024

Trump's Lead Among Union Workers

Donald Trump has a significant lead among union workers, a critical working and voting group of Americans. Between 58% and 60% support Trump according to recent Teamsters polling. MIG Reports data reflects similar sentiments in voter discussions. Union workers, particularly those in industries like manufacturing and construction, are shifting toward Trump. They say his policies align better with their economic interests and job security.

• MIG Reports data shows enthusiasm for Trump among 65.2% of union workers compared to 34.8% for Harris.

Enthusiasm for Trump

The enthusiasm for Trump among union workers is notable and strong, potentially signaling a significant voting bloc shift. Many union members admire Trump’s populist approach and his willingness to challenge the establishment. His "America First" policies, particularly on trade and immigration, resonate deeply with workers who feel threatened by outsourcing and illegal immigration.

Trump’s tough stance on these issues has created a sense of loyalty among union workers. They believe he is the only candidate willing to fight for their jobs and livelihoods. This enthusiasm is reflected in online discussions, where workers express admiration for Trump’s leadership and economic policies.

Reasons for Support

The top issues union workers cite with their support are Trump’s stances on:

• Trade
• Immigration
• Job creation

His trade policies, which focus on protecting American industries and reducing outsourcing, appeal directly to workers who fear losing jobs to foreign competition. His tough rhetoric on immigration, which many view as a threat to job security and wage growth, further solidifies his support.

Meanwhile, Kamala Harris faces significant challenges with gaining union worker support. While she has attempted to court their support through endorsements from labor unions and promises of progressive policies, her association with the Democratic establishment and perceived focus on social justice issues over economic concerns alienates many. Union members skeptical of her record on trade and labor rights often see Harris as out of touch with their immediate needs, particularly regarding job security and economic growth.

Harris's Struggles

While Harris’s platform includes policies aimed at workers’ rights, raising the minimum wage, and addressing income inequality, these issues do not seem to resonate as strongly as Trump’s focus on job security and trade protection. Harris is perceived as more aligned with corporate interests and global trade practices, which many view as harmful to their industries. This disconnect has led to a lack of enthusiasm for her candidacy, as many union members remain unconvinced, she can effectively represent their interests.

The stark division between partisan narratives and trust in the media has grown clearer in recent weeks. Previous MIG Reports analysis showed Democrats remain one of the few groups which consistently trust mainstream media.

With 64.8% of all voters expressing strong distrust toward mainstream media, the 24.9% who say they do have trust is largely composed of Democrats. This is consistent with 2023 Gallup data showing:

• 11% of Republicans trust media
• 29% of Independents trust media
• 58% of Democrats trust media

This divergence raises significant questions about how media narratives, especially those with a partisan slant, can shape voter opinion and electoral outcomes. Media narratives, which many Americans believe are biased toward Democratic viewpoints, disproportionately influence voters who still trust these outlets.

Whether Democrats continue to trust media narratives because of confirmation bias, or those who trust media lean Democratic because they are influenced by narratives is unclear. However, the correlation of Democrats trusting the media and media promoting Democratic narratives remains.

Through selective framing, coverage time, and emphasis, the media plays an active role in shaping political perspectives, often long after stories have been debunked or corrected. MIG Reports analysis shows three recent examples of media narratives shaping Democratic voter opinions on key political issues.

Hook Line and Sinker

Migrants Eating Pets in Ohio

Following the presidential debate, rumors of Haitian migrants eating pets in Springfield, Ohio, dominated media coverage. Mainstream media, including ABC debate moderators who fact-checked Trump, largely positioned the story as unfounded or even fabricated.

Despite copious local resident allegations, certain police reports documenting missing pets, and the Springfield city manager acknowledging claims of pets being eaten, many Democratic voters still align with media narratives critical of the story and Republicans.

Analysis of media coverage time according Grabien data shows media outlets spent:

• Nearly 53 hours covering the Springfield city manager’s denial in the three days following the debate.
• Only 9.5 hours covering allegations of migrants eating cats.

There is a slight increase in mentions of the Springfield city manager after footage emerged from March of 2024 in which he acknowledged resident claims. However, these media mentions only total six hours compared to 23 hours the day after David Muir’s fact check against Trump during the debate.

MIG Reports data shows, in the last day:

• 80-90% Democrats still say pet consumption is unproven.
• 10-20% Democrats admit pet consumption is legitimate or indicative of larger immigration issues.
• 10-20% Republicans still say pet consumption is unproven.
• 80-90% Republicans believe pet consumption is legitimate or indicative of larger immigration issues.

The way media outlets frame the story—blaming Trump for “unproven allegations”—illustrates how media impacts perceptions. Democrats largely still dismiss the story as rumor, aligning with media talking points. Republicans, who largely distrust mainstream media, instead view the story—regardless of whether the pet consumption allegations are true—as an indictment of the Biden-Harris administration’s immigration policy.

The Danger of Bomb Threats

Following the media frenzy over pets in Ohio, narratives turned to bomb threats in Springfield. The media framed multiple bomb threats as a result of “dangerous” and “xenophobic” rhetoric by Trump and Republicans.

A viral clip of CNN’s Dana Bash shows her directly blaming J.D. Vance for drawing violence to Ohio through his allegedly divisive comments.

Analysis of media coverage time according Grabien data shows media outlets spent:

• 175 hours covering bomb threats in the last five days.
• 17 hours clarifying threats as a hoax after DeWine’s announcement.

Following Ohio Governor Mike DeWine’s announcement that the bomb threats were a hoax committed by foreign actors, media coverage continued to mention bomb threats for more than 100 hours while only mentioning them as a hoax for 17.3 total hours and a mere 17 minutes two days after the revelation.

MIG Reports data shows, in the last day:

• 60% of Democrats are discussing the bomb threats as real.
• 20% of Democrats are discussing the bomb threats as a hoax.
• There is no quantifiable number of Republicans discussing the bomb threats as real, but 31% express concern about community safety.
• 70% of Republicans are discussing the bomb threats as a hoax.

Again, biased coverage by mainstream outlets highlights how crafted narratives push slanted perspectives on voters who trust legacy reporting. This phenomenon is exacerbated by outlets spending far less time correcting falsehoods.

Democrats, a majority of whom still trust the media, show a greater tendency to internalize the mainstream narrative without scrutiny. Republicans, who largely distrust the media, are more likely to dismiss narratives which are proven biased by independent reporting.

Golf Course Assassination Attempt on Donald Trump

The second assassination attempt on Donald Trump triggered another wave of intense media coverage. While many Democrats expressed concern about the attempt, they strongly focus on linking the event to Trump’s divisive rhetoric.

Narrative battles again erupted as Republicans claim Democrats and the media are “victim blaming” Trump by saying his own language caused the assassination attempts. Fox News reporter Peter Doocy’s confrontation with White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre about how Democrats choose to discuss these events—continuously calling Trump a “threat”—demonstrates the partisan messaging clash.

Analysis of media coverage time according Grabien data shows media outlets spent:

• 818.5 hours covering the assassination attempt on Donald Trump in the three days following.
• 328 hours covering Trump and mentioning his “rhetoric.”
• 671 hours covering Trump and mentioning him as a “threat.”
• 96 hours covering Trump and mentioning “threat to democracy.”
• 2.8 hours covering the assassination and mentioning “Democrat rhetoric.”

Combined hours of coverage mentioning Trump with “rhetoric,” “threat,” and “threat to democracy” total 1,095 hours compared to coverage of the assassination alone and mentions of “Democrat rhetoric” at just more than 820 hours.

MIG Reports data shows, in the last day:

• 24% of Democrats are mentioning the assassination attempt.
• 60% of Democrats are mentioning Trumps divisive rhetoric.
• 57% of Republicans are mentioning the assassination attempt.
• 21% of Republicans are mentioning Trumps divisive rhetoric.

Once again, Democratic reactions suggest legacy media has strong influence over voter views with focus on Trump’s rhetoric rather than the assassination attempt itself. For Democrats, media framing reinforces pre-existing beliefs that Trump’s language incites violence. For Republicans, it further deepens distrust of both the media and Democrat credibility.

Media in the Tank for Democrats

Multiple data sources suggest the mainstream media’s framing of high-profile stories has a profound impact on the electorate—particularly Democrats who continue to trust these outlets. The disproportionate airtime given to narratives that align with Democratic viewpoints continues to foster anger and distrust among non-Democratic voters.

People use terms like “gaslighting,” “media bias,” and “we’re being lied to,” in discussions about how legacy outlets report on American political and cultural issues.

Increasingly, voters say they believe mainstream outlets attempt to control which stories gain traction and how long they remain in the spotlight. They suggest bias in favor of Democrats is intended to influence voter opinions and, ultimately, election outcomes.

However, given that Democratic voters compose the dwindling segment of Americans who consistently believe mainstream media narratives, some conclude the media’s influence and credibility is declining.

This is demonstrated by:

• Democrats often voting in alignment with issues amplified by the media, such as abortion, social justice, and government spending programs.
• Republicans repeatedly expressing distrust in media, driving them to seek alternative sources of information on platforms like X.

An ABC whistleblower affidavit alleging the Harris campaign colluded with ABC to cheat in the presidential debate is generating controversy. MIG Reports analysis shows deep mistrust of the media and government institutions, with voters reacting to the polarized political environment.

Yesterday, ABC made a statement regarding the whistleblower affidavit. The only thing ABC said was that they did not give the questions or the topics to the Harris campaign. Well, nobody accused ABC of doing that. ABC has been accused of the following:

1.) Giving the Harris…

— Black Insurrectionist--I FOLLOW BACK TRUE PATRIOTS (@DocNetyoutube) September 17, 2024

There is strong sense of skepticism and disillusionment, particularly among Trump supporters. They often express beliefs that the establishment is working against him. Conversations also highlight a growing narrative of "waking up" to the realization that systemic bias and corruption permeate media coverage and political processes.

Endorsements from prominent anti-establishment figures like Elon Musk and certain rappers and businessmen also generate enthusiasm from voters who do not necessarily view themselves as conservative but align with Trump’s anti-establishment image.

What Voters are Saying

• 35% of discussions express distrust toward the media and establishment politics, highlighting widespread skepticism of institutional credibility.
• 25% mention polarization and tribalism, illustrating sharp divisions among factions.
• 20% discuss the concept of "waking up" to establishment bias, saying they now see through media manipulation for the first time.
• 10% voice distrust of political parties and the rise of conspiracy theories.

Negative sentiment related to the “whistleblower” keyword is not directed toward the individual, but the information revealed in the affidavit which, if true, strongly condemns ABC and Disney.

Media and Establishment Loses Credibility

35% of discussions express distrust toward the media and establishment.

Distrust of mainstream media and the political establishment underpins most voter conversations about the ABC whistleblower. Many believe the media, particularly outlets like ABC, actively work to manipulate public opinion against Trump.

People use words like "bias," "fake news," and "deep state." This exemplifies concerns that legacy institutions are not untrustworthy and involved in a coordinated effort to undermine Trump's candidacy. Negative sentiment extends both to media bias and a rejection of establishment politics as voters feel disconnected and disillusioned.

Polarization and Tribalism

25% mention polarization and tribalism.

Both pro-Trump and anti-Trump factions engage in deeply tribal behavior. Conversations are emotionally charged, with voters using inflammatory language to attack the opposing side. Rather than fostering nuanced debate, these interactions often devolve into accusations of "communism," "racism," “threats to democracy,” and "fascism."

Party loyalty often overshadows good faith conversations, reinforcing an "us vs. them" mentality. Entrenched divisions in the American electorate show each side increasingly views the other as an existential threat to the country’s future.

"Waking Up" Narrative

20% discuss the concept of "waking up" to establishment bias.

Many voters say they are "waking up" to institutional and establishment corruption. They believe the media, political elites, and other institutional forces are aligned in opposition to Trump’s re-election.

This group often says they have only recently become aware of this anti-Trump coordination. New and longstanding Trump supporters see themselves as having pierced through the veil of establishment propaganda. They see themselves as champions of truth and defenders against an oppressive establishment.

Distrust Toward Political Parties

10% voice distrust of political parties and the rise of conspiracy theories.

There is noticeable frustration with political parties—especially the Republican Party for not defending Trump. Some conversations reveal dissatisfaction with the GOP, where voters express disappointment that establishment Republicans do not push back against liberal media and political forces.

This internal criticism highlights a fragmentation in partisan politics, which aligns with previous reports of political realignment away from parties and in favor of ideology. Republican Party leaders—especially RINOs—are seen as either complicit or ineffectual in protecting conservative values.

Conspiracy theories and misinformation often generate discussion along with partisan disillusionment. Many share and discuss speculations about the deep state working with the media to rig elections, spread disinformation, or otherwise undermine Trump.

These theories often tie into broader fears about globalism, socialism, or corporate influence over politics. This element of the conversation suggests a growing distrust of official narratives to explain current events.

This sentiment is evident in reactions to Governor Ron DeSantis announcing an independent state investigation of the most recent Trump assassination attempt, citing distrust in the same federal agencies which many believe are targeting Trump.

BREAKING: Governor DeSantis Moves Trump Assassination Case Under State Jurisdiction

This means that Ryan Routh can be prosecuted for attempted m*rder, not just federal charges.

The Governor explained his rationale, saying, "In my judgment, it's not in the best interest of our… pic.twitter.com/TjvhX3aLWR

— The Vigilant Fox 🦊 (@VigilantFox) September 17, 2024