MIG Reports analysis of sentiment and support for Kamala Harris among Democratic voters reveals an enthusiasm gap. While some express strong support for her policies and leadership, most are not driven by Harris’s personal or candidate appeal. Instead, much of the enthusiasm stems from dislike for Donald Trump and his MAGA agenda.

Harris, who was deeply unpopular among Democrats during her 2020 presidential bid and in her tenure as Biden’s VP, seems to still be struggling with positive voter perceptions. This analysis explores key patterns behind voter support for Kamala Harris, highlighting how anti-Trump sentiment shape Democratic voter behavior.

Can Harris Pull Out a Win on Trump Hatred?

In the 2024 election, Kamala Harris faces similar challenges to those in 2016 and 2004, where negative sentiment against the opposition wasn’t enough to drive turnout. In both elections, opposition to Trump and Bush was strong, but lack of enthusiasm for Clinton and Kerry respectively resulted in lower Democratic turnout.

Google search trends indicate, in the previous two election cycles, the highest spikes in user searches for “register to vote” happened in mid to late September.

This year, mail-in ballot requests in critical states like Pennsylvania are down for Democrats, both compared to Republicans and compared to Democrats in 2020.

📢 PENNSYLVANIA DATA DROP ‼️

Mail-in ballot requests R vs D

2020 (50 days out)
GOP: 376,956
Dem: 1,101,962

2024 (50 days out)
GOP: 321,077
Dem: 798,946

KAMALA IS DOWN 303,016 requests compared to 2020.

Dems are shaking in their crocs!!!

— Cliff Maloney (@Maloney) September 17, 2024

Harris's policies on immigration and Palestine are controversial within her own party, with many Democrats either finding her too liberal or disagreeing with her foreign policy. If her campaign relies solely on Trump hatred without generating positive enthusiasm for her candidacy, voter turnout may fall short. This may result in a repeat of the 2016 and 2004 elections, where Democrats were surprised to find opposition wasn’t enough to secure victory.

Enthusiasm is Actually Anti-Trump Fervor

Conditional Support for Kamala Harris

Kamala Harris has a base of support among Democratic voters, according to MIG Reports analysis of online discussions. Many voters praise her performance in the debate, her background as a prosecutor, and her stance on issues like social justice and healthcare.

Discussions of Kamala Harris which do not focus on the election show 43.6% express direct support for her. However, this support is not as stark with deeper analysis. In conversations mentioning Harris's policies or leadership positively, reactions also focus on the political climate over her accomplishments.

Criticism of Trump as a Driving Force

Much of the conversation among Democrats which mention Kamala Harris are not about her but rather about Donald Trump. In election-specific discussions, 25% of conversations focus solely on criticizing Trump. They label him as representing "terror" and "lies.” Harris supporters largely incorporate this sentiment in all their supportive mentions of Harris.

Voters frame Harris as a necessary opponent to Trump, positioning her as a vehicle for resisting Trump’s influence rather than rallying around her personal achievements or vision. This pattern suggests, for many Democrats, Harris represents the best hope for defeating Trump, rather than an inspiring candidate on her own.

Voter Behavior Motivated by Opposition

In conversations mentioning Trump and Harris in a head-to-head race, there is a mix of positive and negative sentiments about Harris. While 42% of the conversation was positive, much of that positivity is focused on her role as a foil to Trump. Voters view her as a champion against his policies.

Broader trends in Democratic voter enthusiasm show an urgency to reject Trump outweighing affirmative support for Harris.

Kamala as a Symbol of Opposition

In many cases, Kamala Harris's support appears to be symbolic, with voters rallying behind her as a replacement for Biden and a figurehead of the Party. While some say they appreciate her leadership and policies, 23.5% primarily criticize Trump and his allies. In addition to her role as a political opponent to Trump, Harris’s identity as a woman of color adds to the symbolic nature of her candidacy.

For many Democrats, her race and gender are celebrated as markers of progress, positioning her as a trailblazer in American politics. However, her identity also draws skepticism for others, with some feeling her symbolism outweighs her qualifications. This divide underscores the conditional nature of her support, where enthusiasm hinges on what she represents rather than her achievements.

MIG Reports shows voters are comparing crime rates during the Trump and Biden-Harris administrations. As people engage with the topic of crime, themes of political bias, media manipulation, and immigration policies surface as focal points. These discussions highlight overarching concerns about how crime is managed, reported, and perceived in the current political climate.

Views of Crime Under Democrats

Data shows public sentiment leaning heavily toward skepticism about Biden-Harris policies for handling of crime.

• 62% of the MIG Reports data sample express distrust in crime statistics reported by the Biden-Harris administration.
• 45% believe crime has increased in discussions mentioning “crime under Trump.”
• The disparity between the views of each administration focuses on immigration, political agendas, and media bias.

What Voters are Saying

When comparing crime under Trump versus Biden-Harris, many view Trump’s administration as maintaining stronger law enforcement policies. They mention border security and stricter immigration controls.

In contrast, Americans perceive Biden-Harris policies as too lenient, particularly regarding immigration and sanctuary cities. Around 62% of commenters blame Democrats for increasing crime. People link rising crime to border policies, citing specific instances of migrant crime. They say current policies embolden criminals and endanger public safety.

Discussions also emphasize widespread distrust of media and official crime statistics—like rampant distrust in job numbers. Many Americans feel the media is downplaying or manipulating crime data to protect the Biden-Harris administration, including David Muir in the recent debate.

These perceptions about incorrect data further generate discontent. 45% suggest that media bias plays a significant role in shaping public opinion about the administration’s effectiveness.

Conversations don’t contain any noticeable defense that media is not shaping public opinion. Many also question the accuracy of reported crime stats, citing the number of large metropolitan areas which don’t report crime statistics to the FBI.

There are examples, like one from 2022. Among 19 of the largest law enforcement agencies—all of which are responsible for more than 1 million people—seven were missing from the FBI's crime data.

Voters are also concerned about politicization of law enforcement. Many believe the justice system under Biden-Harris is biased, with certain groups receiving preferential treatment. This idea of unequal justice adds to the frustration and deepens the divide between supporters of the two administrations.

Recently, White House National Security Communications Advisor John Kirby accidentally sent a “reply all” to an inquiry from four members of the House of Representatives regarding the Afghanistan withdrawal with. In it, he said there is “no use” responding to a “handful of vets on botched Afghan withdrawal,” calling them “all of one stripe.”

“NSC Spokesman (Ret Rear Admiral) Kirby said it was ‘no use in responding' to a 'handful of vets' on botched Afghan withdrawal” who are “all of one stripe”

I met him once at the Pentagon. This is very on brand.https://t.co/af7gzS4tDg

— Alex Plitsas 🇺🇸 (@alexplitsas) September 12, 2024

MIG Reports data indicates Americans often view government using them to serve as tax subjects, rather than serving the people. Kirby’s comments infame conversations about government elites dismissing American concerns to pursue their own ends.

Democratic voters are split between those who feel represented by their government and those who express disillusionment. Their primary concerns revolve around systemic economic issues, gun control, and government transparency. Many maintain hope for meaningful reforms, though a significant portion views the government as prioritizing elite interests over public welfare.

Republican voters often feel disconnected from the government, particularly under Democratic leadership. Their dominant sentiment reflects a sense of disenfranchisement, particularly concerning issues like taxation and government inefficiency. While some maintain faith in specific Republican leaders, many Republicans express strong distrust in the broader political establishment.

Democrat Sentiments

General Representation

Democratic voters are divided. About 45% feel the Democratic Party's progressive initiatives—such as efforts to address gun violence and immigration reform—reflect their voices in governance.

However, an almost equal 40% feel alienated, perceiving the government as elitist and unresponsive. Anti-establishment Democrats believe they are treated more like tax subjects, disconnected from decision-making processes. The remaining 15% hold mixed or neutral views, acknowledging both positive efforts and shortcomings.

Economic Issues

Economic concerns dominate much of the discourse among Democrats.

• 40% express optimism, believing the government can address systemic issues like healthcare and inflation with the right reforms.
• 35% express frustration with political corruption and mismanagement, accusing elected officials of failing to prioritize middle-class concerns.
• 25% of Democrats have mixed feelings, reflecting both hope for change and skepticism toward entrenched political interests.

Gun Control

Gun control is a particularly contentious issue for Democratic voters.

• 30% express a sense of hope and representation, believing in the potential for meaningful reform.
• 55% feel disenfranchised. This group views the government as capitulating to the gun lobby and failing to enact necessary legislation to curb gun violence.
• 15% express resignation, believing their political engagement will not have an impact.

Security Issues

Foreign policy and national security also divide Democratic voters.

• 65% feel disconnected from the government. They argue the government prioritizes political maneuvering over national security.
• 25% are hopeful, believing Democratic leaders are pushing for necessary reforms.
• 10% convey mixed or uncertain sentiments, questioning whether the government truly represents their interests.

Border Security

The border is mostly negative for Democrats.

• 38% feel proud of government policies on immigration and border issues, emphasizing the need for humane and equitable policies.
• 47% are frustrated by what they perceive as the government’s failure to manage the border effectively, feeling their concerns are not prioritized.
• 15% express indifference.

Republican Sentiments

General Representation

Republican voters overwhelmingly feel alienated from their government.

• 40% express a sense of being treated as tax subjects, lamenting high taxes and inefficient government programs.
• 35% feel represented by their elected officials, primarily in areas like immigration and national security.
• 25% voice outright distrust in the government, particularly Democratic leadership, accusing them of undermining American values and integrity.

Economic Issues

Economic concerns shape much of the Republican discourse.

• 62% are dissatisfied, viewing themselves as tax subjects in a system that mismanages public funds. They are particularly critical of wasteful or fraudulent government programs.
• 28% feel represented, particularly by policies that promote tax reduction and economic growth.
• 10% have mixed feelings, recognizing both positive steps and inefficiencies in how economic issues are handled.

Gun Control

Republicans are strongly against gun control measures, feeling frustrated with government pushes for more regulations.

• 65% feel underrepresented on gun rights, viewing the government’s actions as hypocritical and ineffective. They call for stronger representation of their Second Amendment rights.
• 25% defend their gun rights even more fervently, viewing any form of gun control as government overreach.
• 10% express neutral or supportive sentiments toward government-led gun control initiatives.

Security Issues

Security concerns also elicit frustration among many Republican voters.

• 45% feel the government fails to prioritize national security, viewing citizens as marginalized by an establishment that does not protect their interests.
• 30% feel their concerns are lost in partisan politics among government elites.
• 25% feel empowered by leadership, believing strong national security policies align with their values and protect American sovereignty.

Border Security

Border security is a top issue for Republican voters who are extremely frustrated with current government policies.

• 60% feel unrepresented by the government, saying lax border policies fail to protect American citizens and prioritize illegal immigrants over citizens.
• 25% are satisfied with their party’s approach to border security, viewing it as a necessary measure to safeguard national interests.
• 15% remain indifferent or uncertain, reflecting divisions within the party on how to handle this issue.

Surprising photos and video of President Joe Biden went viral when he put on red Trump hat at a recent 9/11 commemoration with firefighters in Pennsylvania. The unexpected gesture has led to confusion, amusement, disbelief, and disapproval on both sides of the political aisle.

This is real. pic.twitter.com/5w6Yf383xc

— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) September 11, 2024

Voters speculate about whether Biden did this as a gesture of unity, because he’s resentful toward Democrats for pushing him out, or because he’s old and senile.

NEW: Full exchange of the incident leading up to Joe Biden putting on a Trump 2024 hat.

Biden: "Sure, I'll autograph [a hat]."

Man: "You remember your name?"

Biden: "I don't remember my name... I'm slow."

Man: "You're an old fart."

Biden: "Yeah, I'm an old guy... You would… pic.twitter.com/yQcCXmtzIZ

— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) September 12, 2024

Voter Reactions

MIG Reports data shows conversations about Biden are divided. Democrats are largely negative about this inopportune photo op. Trump supporters are more positive, expressing amusement but also a significant amount of skepticism. Independents are the most positive, seeming to embrace any moves from partisans that foster unity.

Biden Supporters

• 60% negative reactions, with 30% expressing confusion and disappointment.
• 40% positive or neutral.

Trump Supporters

• 40% positive
• 30% skeptical or negative
• 30% neutral

Swing Voters

• 50% positive
• 30% negative
• 20% neutral

Others

• Young Progressives: 15% outright rejection
• Moderate Democrats and Seniors: 10% approve, viewing it as symbolic unity

Confusion or Bold Move?

For Biden’s core supporters, the tableau struck a discordant note. Around 60% expressed outright disappointment. The hat—which represents Trump’s most recognizable campaign merchandise—confused many loyalists. They view Biden as the figurehead of opposition and a last bastion against their fears of a Trump dictatorship.

Democrats who view Trump as an ultimate “threat to democracy” are outraged. One representative comment said, "This undermines everything we’ve been fighting for." This reaction shows a strain on Biden’s already tenuous relationship with progressives.

Meanwhile, 40% of Biden supporters were either neutral or positive about the gesture, signaling that, for some, this could be interpreted as a potential act of unity. The 10% of older moderate Democrats who saw it as an effort to soften partisan divides, are among these positive reactions.

While the Democratic base views it as bad optics, there’s potential for attracting Independents and moderates who are fatigued by political division. Though, whether that unity serves Trump or Democrats is up for debate considering Biden is not in the presidential race.

Endearing or Dementia?

Trump supporters were not uniformly thrilled by Biden’s photo op—40% reacted positively. Some interpret it as a grudging acknowledgment of Trump’s influence with comments like, "Biden’s wearing our hat—he knows who runs the country." Others speculate that Biden is passive-aggressively expressing his anger with Democratic leaders for pushing him out of the race.

But skepticism also permeates Trump’s camp with 30% calling the move a superficial stunt. For this group, Biden’s gesture is a disingenuous attempt to feign unity after a long history of calling Trump a dictator, a threat to democracy, or even Hitler. Many also speculate that Biden’s declining cognitive health allowed him to wear the hat when, in a robust state of health, he would have refused.

Repercussions for Harris

Though not directly involved in this incident, Vice President Kamala Harris’s position as Biden’s replacement in the 2024 election places her in a strange position. The 60% negative response among Democrats raises questions about how his base could view Harris.

Many Democrats who have been relieved and excited for Biden to step out of the race will likely dismiss the event as indicative of why he was an insufficient candidate. However, Biden is still the president, and Harris is closely aligned with him as part of his administration. Some Democrats may view this as a blow to Harris as well as Biden.

For Harris, this incident offers both risk and opportunity. The challenge is in maintaining her alignment with the Democratic establishment, while simultaneously attempting to distance herself from Biden and appeal to swing voters without looking fake. This complicates her already difficult challenge of unifying a fractured Democratic Party.

Famed lawyer and long-time Democrat Alan Dershowitz recently announced he is leaving the Democratic Party. He explained the move is largely due to dissatisfaction with the Biden-Harris administration's stance on Israel. Dershowitz’s decision speaks to a broader trend of high-profile figures abandoning their traditional party allegiances, contributing to a growing narrative that the 2024 election is beyond party lines.

🚨 Lifelong Democrat Alan Dershowitz: “I am no longer a Democrat”

pic.twitter.com/aH1wFouxR0

— Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) September 6, 2024

Reactions to Dershowitz’s Defection

Alan Dershowitz’s announcement surprised many but also reflects a sentiment brewing within certain Democratic circles. His dissatisfaction with the Biden-Harris administration, particularly on their handling of the Israel-Hamas conflict, was a tipping point. Dershowitz, known for his staunch defense of Israel, feels progressive policies are a departure from essential values. Israel continues to be a thorn in Kamala Harris’s side as more traditional, pro-Israel Democrats and progressive pro-Palestine Democrats are both unhappy with leadership actions.

Voters, especially Democrats, express a mix of surprise, disappointment, and reflection. Many see his exit as symptomatic of deeper fractures within the Party. Some feel alienated by what they perceive as the Party’s drift toward more progressive or socialist policies. These ideological shifts are causing divisions not only among politicians but within the electorate.

Reactions from the Democratic Party Base

Among Democratic voters, Dershowitz's exit underscores a sense of internal discord that is dramatically worsened by the Israel-Hamas conflict. Conversations online reflect fractured reactions:

• Surprise and Disappointment: Many are dismayed by Dershowitz leaving, interpreting it as a rejection of the core values they associate with the Party. But some of these voters do express concern over the Party's evolving platform, often describing it as a move towards socialism or Marxism.
• Validation and Support: Those frustrated with Biden and Harris’s leadership, view Dershowitz's departure as a logical step. For them, his decision is a critique of the Party’s evolution, which they view as moral decline.

The reactions highlight the increasing division within the Democratic base, where traditional values around liberty and individual rights clash with far-left progressive ideologies.

A Broader Trend of Crossing Party Lines

Dershowitz is not alone in his decision to leave his party. His departure is part of a larger trend that sees key figures from both sides of the aisle breaking with their traditional affiliations, reflecting a more profound ideological realignment within American politics.

• RFK Jr. and Tulsi Gabbard have both endorsed Donald Trump, marking significant defections from Democratic ranks. Both former Democrats, their endorsements symbolize a broader alignment with populist movements.
• Mitt Romney and Dick Cheney, traditionally stalwart Republicans, have publicly supported Kamala Harris, further muddling the lines of partisanship. These endorsements suggest establishment Republicans continue to hold very anti-Trump viewpoints.

The establishment divide is also widened by more than 200 former Republican staffers endorsing Harris. This cross-aisle movement highlights a fundamental reality of the 2024 election—voters and political figures are no longer constrained by party identity.

How Voters View the New Divides

As voters react to these high-profile defections, a new pattern is emerging—one where the political divide of 2024 is seen less as Democrat versus Republican and more as a struggle between broader ideological and socio-political binaries:

• Elitism vs. Populism: Many Americans frame the election as a battle between an entrenched political elite and the populist movements they perceive as fighting for the "common man." Both Democrats and Republicans are increasingly seen as catering to corporate interests, with voters expressing frustration over what they view as a lack of authentic representation.
• Establishment vs. Anti-Establishment: Similar to elites, the political establishment is seen as part of a machine bent on protecting institutional power. Many voters, particularly Independents, view the establishment as a corrupt force prioritizing its own interests of Americans. Anti-establishment sentiments appeal to those who want to return power to the people.
• Nationalism vs. Progressivism: Another binary pits advocates for strong national borders, economic independence, and military strength against those who push for progressive social programs, environmental initiatives, and globalism. Voters are grappling with how these competing ideologies align with their own identities and long-term visions for the country.

MIG Reports data further illuminates these shifts with analysis of voter comments online regarding ideologies and political topics.

• 55% of sampled voters acknowledge a shift in political identity regarding which party supports working-class interests.
• 62% criticize Kamala Harris's economic strategies.
• 40% of comments suggest skepticism over Donald Trump’s populist claims.
• 47% of believe issues rather than party affiliation should guide political choices.
• 54% identify as Independent, representing the shift away from traditional party loyalties.
• 68% of voters express approval of public figures crossing party lines when it is seen as genuine or principled.
• 55% convey a sense of frustration or betrayal in response to leaders perceived as compromising traditional values.
• 47% celebrate the emergence of alternative voices within elections, indicating enthusiasm for third-party or cross-aisle endorsements.

The ongoing partisan chaos unfolding in 2024 suggests ideological divides are driving views about the future of American politics. Traditional party structures may be less relevant in shaping voter behavior, with populist, nationalist, and progressive ideologies driving a new political alignment.

MIG Reports analysis of conversations across social media assesses public support and acceptance for Tim Walz and J.D. Vance. An analysis of language and sentiment in these discussions shows distinct patterns in how supporters defend or affirm their preferred candidate. Detractors distance themselves through critical, often impersonal remarks.

Defensive language, first-person viewpoints, and emotionally charged rhetoric dominate the conversations. There is a dynamic of personal stakes and political identity throughout. This narrative analysis explores these dynamics in detail, breaking down the tendencies and language structures across a variety of subjects, from accusations of dishonesty to ideological alignment and economic concerns.

Weighted Analysis

• 60-75% of comments supporting Wals are defensive.
• 60-70% of discussion about Vance offers affirmative support.

The discourse around VP nominees Tim Walz and J.D. Vance shows patterns of defensive and affirmative language. Walz’s supporters primarily use defensive language to counter accusations about his military record and China ties. Walz critics often use third-person, detached language to accuse him of dishonesty.

Vance receives more affirmative support, particularly on economic policies and national security. However, his supporters also defend him on issues like abortion and his Trump ties. Critics frame him as disconnected from social issues using third-person language.

Tim Walz

Discourse supporting Tim Walz overwhelmingly uses defensive language. On multiple fronts, especially regarding his military service and alleged ties to China, Walz’s defenders work to counter accusations rather than promoting his accomplishments. These discussions often center around national security, where supporters emphasize his Congressional delegation to Afghanistan, attempting to clarify that he did not falsely present himself as a combat soldier.

The language here tends to use first-person pronouns, with individuals sharing their personal viewpoints and experiences in defense of Walz. This first-person usage highlights how closely voters identify with him, seeing attacks on Walz as attacks also on themselves. For example, phrases like "I believe in his service" or "My family supports Walz despite the lies" reveal emotional investment.

In contrast, the third-person language in critiques of Walz is impersonal and accusatory. His critics, particularly those aligned with J.D. Vance, refer to him through detached terms such as “Walz is a risk” or “His ties to China are alarming,” focusing on accusations of dishonesty and corruption without any emotional attachment to the discussion.

These accusations are most prominent in discussions about his alleged connection to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), where third-person critiques amplify concerns about national security and Walz’s potential vulnerabilities as a political figure.

J.D. Vance

Republican VP candidate J.D. Vance gains an affirmative form of support—particularly on economic policies and national security. Discussions about Vance often paint him as a staunch defender of conservative values, with supporters using affirmative language to highlight his positions on inflation, government spending, and housing affordability.

Vance’s supporters say his understanding of economic issues aligns with middle-class interests, with first-person language reinforcing a personal connection to his policies. Statements like "We need Vance to protect our economy" or "I believe his stance on taxes is right for families" are common. This reveals a collective rallying cry among his base. The first-person narrative underscores a deep sense of belonging and urgency within his supporters.

However, while affirmative comments dominate discussions about Vance, his supporters also employ defensive rhetoric. They respond to criticisms of his stance on abortion rights and his alignment with Donald Trump. In these discussions, supporters shield Vance from what they view as misrepresentations of his beliefs, using defensive terms like “misunderstood” or “defender of religious liberty.”

Defenses arise when critics accuse Vance of misogyny or frame him as out-of-touch on women’s rights. The language here oscillates between first-person, personal narratives that emphasize shared values, and third-person, detached critiques that highlight perceived shortcomings in his policies.

Emotional Attachment

A clear commonality between the discussions of both candidates is partisan divisiveness. Supporters of Walz and Vance often feel personally invested in defending their candidate. Whether discussing national security, economic issues, or personal integrity, voters express their opinions as though their own values and lives are at stake.

This deep emotional connection is particularly evident when discussing character attacks, with both Walz and Vance receiving strong support from their bases. The common tactic of defense and personal involvement permeates both sides, despite their opposing political ideologies.

Anomalies and Singular Subjects

China

Talk about China is a topic mostly isolated to Tim Walz. Unlike the other issues, where the conversation is a mix of defense and affirmation, the narrative about Walz’s ties to China is overwhelmingly defensive. Accusations of his supposed CCP connections dominate, and the defensive tone becomes more urgent and repetitive. Supporters try to combat what they perceive as a significant and persistent threat to his reputation. First-person language is especially pronounced here, as voters feel compelled to personally stand against accusations of foreign allegiance.

Abortion Rights

In contrast, while abortion rights feature heavily in the discussions about Vance, the responses here reflect a unique balance between defense and affirmation. Vance supporters often use affirmative language to celebrate his anti-abortion stance, describing him as a protector of religious and traditional values. However, when confronted with criticisms, they quickly shift to a defensive tone, using personal stories to justify conservative positions. This demonstrates a rare flexibility between the two types of language.

In recent weeks, Vice President Kamala Harris has generated online controversy and in political circles over accusations that her rally attendees are being "bussed in." These allegations raise questions about whether she is drawing genuine, grassroots voter support.

CBS News along with local eyewitnesses have confirmed Kamala Harris's New Hampshire visit was primarily attended by Massachusetts activists who were bussed into the event.

This, along with her previous events being riddled with fake rumors of Taylor Swift and Beyonce… pic.twitter.com/D6KWYU924Q

— New Hampshire Beacon (@NewHampBeacon) September 5, 2024

Videos and eyewitness accounts from her rallies, including her recent visit to New Hampshire, suggest many attendees were transported from other states. This fuels doubt that Harris’s popularity might be artificially inflated.

Previous MIG Reports analysis showed earlier skepticism about the authenticity of Harris’s campaign amid rumors of AI-generated crowd images. These questions of fabricated and artificially boosted support have become a focal point in discussions about her viability as a candidate.

Skepticism About Grassroots Appeal

The ongoing discussion among voters is a perception that Harris is orchestrating her crowds rather than organically attracting them. The phrase "bussed in" has been a lightning rod for criticism, with a majority expressing skepticism over Harris’s draw.

Many interpret the use of chartered transportation as evidence attendees are not genuine, local, grassroots supporters. This notion is supported by allegations that the people being transported by bus are often from out-of-state, rather than local, to the rally. Many conservatives and swing voters focus on the idea that Harris is manipulating the optics of her rallies to project a stronger campaign position than she actually has.

Key phrases in these discussions include:

• "Bussed in"
• "Manufactured crowd"
• "Fake support"
• "Gaslighting"

Discussions connect the alleged artificial crowd support to broader concerns about Harris’s authenticity as a politician. Criticisms often overlap with negative perceptions of her policy record, particularly on economic and border issues.

• 65% of online comments are skeptical about Harris’s rally attendees.
• 75% of those criticizing Harris's rallies compare them unfavorably with Trump’s.
• 40% of critical comments link their dissatisfaction to a broader distrust of the Democratic Party.

Amid the skepticism regarding Harris's rally attendance, rumors also circulate about other attempts to artificially bolster engagement. Some suggested during the Democratic National Convention (DNC) that rumors of Beyoncé appearing were deliberately circulated by the Harris campaign to keep the audience engaged and interested.

When Beyoncé never appeared, many concluded the campaign may have intentionally used speculations to build excitement around Harris’s nomination speech. These claims, though unproven, feed into a broader narrative that Harris relies manufactured enthusiasm, which further raises questions about her grassroots appeal.

Moderate and Swing Voters

For moderate and swing voters, the issue of authenticity is crucial. These voters tend to favor candidates who connect on a personal level and whose support base feels legitimate. Many in this group who are already skeptical of Harris view Trump as having more genuine support. These voters say things like, "Kamala Harris bussed people in from up to four hours away," reflecting distrust in the image her campaign presents.

Harris’s authenticity is a key issue for the 2024 election because moderate and swing voters often determine presidential elections. If voters in the center perceive Harris's support as orchestrated rather than authentic, it could damage her chances of securing their votes. Many who doubt the authenticity of her rallies link their dissatisfaction to a broader distrust of the Democratic Party's direction. This skepticism among moderates could push them toward candidates they see as more relatable and genuinely supported by the public.

Potential Impact on Harris’s Campaign

The perception that the Harris campaign is inflating support through artificial means presents a risk for her campaign. Public sentiment analysis shows:

• 80% of comments about Harris reflect negative views of her leadership.
• 5% express positive sentiments.

This lack of enthusiasm among her potential voters might indicate a deeper problem in her campaign strategy. If the allegations of "bussed-in" supporters persist, they could exacerbate concerns that she lacks authenticity, or the momentum needed to win.

While Harris does have defenders—approximately 20% of overall discussion speaks positively of her rallies—this is a smaller segment of the discourse. Supporters argue organizing transportation for rally attendees is not unusual and is a normal part of campaign logistics. However, this defense may not resonate as strongly with voters who prioritize authenticity in their political leaders.

The Question of Authenticity

At the heart of this controversy is a larger question about Kamala Harris’s authenticity as a political figure. Voter conversations reveal deep distrust toward Harris, with words like "liar," "woke," and "radical" describing her policies and leadership. Her perceived failure to connect with the middle class and working Americans contributes to this growing distrust.

Many also point out that Harris was deeply unpopular, even among Democrats, prior to securing the nomination. This complete reversal of her image contributes to a collective feeling that Harris and her campaign are being propped up by Democrats and the media.

The issue of authenticity is likely to continue playing a significant role as the 2024 election approaches. Skepticism about Harris’s leadership and authenticity could have major implications for her campaign, particularly among swing state and moderate voters who prioritize transparency.

Several military family reactions recently followed Vice President Kamala Harris's criticism of former President Donald Trump visiting Arlington National Cemetery. In a statement, Harris condemned Trump for allegedly politicizing a sacred space by filming a video at the memorial. This sparked intense debate among voters. Her statement, which painted Trump as disrespectful to Gold Star families, led to polarized reactions, with many taking sides based on their views of military honor and leadership.

As Vice President, I have had the privilege of visiting Arlington National Cemetery several times. It is a solemn place; a place where we come together to honor American heroes who have made the ultimate sacrifice in service of this nation.

It is not a place for politics.

And…

— Kamala Harris (@KamalaHarris) August 31, 2024

MIG Reports analysis of the controversy shows partisan divides and intense anger directed at Harris from military families.

Military Families Support Trump

Among those invested in the PR battle between Harris and Trump regarding Afghanistan Gold Star families, Trump has strong support. Those who lost loved ones in the Afghanistan withdrawal are particularly venomous against the Biden-Harris administration, whom they blame for their tragic losses.

Following Harris’s statement, Trump began tweeting video clips from Gold Star families thanking him for his attendance and criticizing Harris.

Mark Schmitz, Father of Lance Corporal Jared M. Schmitz… https://t.co/CHNRzcTa0J pic.twitter.com/pRLF9tS7Jn

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 1, 2024

Gold Star and other military families are quick to defend Trump’s Arlington visit, saying he was invited, while Kamala Harris has yet to mention any of the names of the fallen. Many of these families highlighted how Trump had been there for them since the tragic Kabul airport bombing, with one father calling Harris’s statements “heinous, vile, and disgusting.”

The deep emotional connection these families have with Trump contrasts sharply with their perception of Harris and the Biden administration. Many Gold Star families feel betrayed by how the Afghanistan withdrawal was handled. They view Trump’s actions as demonstrative of his respect and empathy.

Voters Talking About Abbey Gate Favor Trump

Among those discussing the Abbey Gate anniversary and Gold Star families, there are political divisions. Conversations focus on the role of leadership and respect for military service.

MIG Reports data shows:

• 62% of Americans discussing the controversy side with Trump, viewing his Arlington visit as a respectful gesture at the request of Gold Star families.
• 25% of voters echo Harris, questioning Trump’s sincerity, accusing him of using the cemetery visit for political gain.
• 13% of the conversation—mostly moderates—express mixed feelings, often criticizing both Trump and Harris.

Trump supporters accuse Harris of lacking empathy and politicizing an event meant to honor fallen soldiers. They use words like "heinous," "disgusting," and "shameful,” illustrating the intensity of their opposition to Harris.

Harris supporters accuse Trump as setting the stage for the chaotic Afghanistan withdrawal, suggesting he bears responsibility for the resulting deaths. These anti-Trump voters use terms like "surrender" and "political maneuvering" to describe his actions.

Moderates, while critical of both Trump and Harris, call for more transparency and accountability from both leaders. Their comments highlight the complexities of the military withdrawal, with some noting Harris’s statement may be warranted, but poorly timed or delivered.

Many Americans Don’t Care

While most discussions specifically focused on Trump’s visit to Arlington National Cemetery express support for his attendance, many Americans seem unaware of or uninvested in veterans’ causes.

The overall national sentiment toward Trump and Harris regarding Afghanistan favors Harris.

• On the day of Harris’s statement, she saw 47% approval on the military compared to Trump’s 44%.
• Regarding Afghanistan, Harris’s support on Aug. 31 was 48% to Trump’s 44%.

Despite this disparity in approval, MIG Reports analysis suggests Harris supporters focus more on defending her against Trump than supporting the Biden-Harris administration’s actions regarding Afghanistan.

• Around 60% of comments from Kamala Harris supporters reflect a defensive stance regarding her involvement in the Afghanistan withdrawal. They say the situation was inherited from the Trump administration, emphasizing the pre-negotiated terms with the Taliban as the root cause of the chaotic exit.
• Approximately 25% of Harris supporters react strongly against criticisms of Harris, using phrases like "blatant lie" or "sick lie." This suggests a significant effort to counter negative views of Harris's role. This group aims to protect her image as a competent leader in national security.
• Only 15% of express pride in the decisions made by Harris and Biden, viewing the withdrawal as a necessary step to refocus on domestic issues, despite the challenges involved.

The general sentiment among Harris supporters is predominantly characterized by a protective and reactive stance. They focus on shifting blame and defending her reputation. While there's a minority celebrating her leadership, the majority are engaged in defending against criticisms.

Potential Political Fallout

The fallout from the Abbey Gate memorial controversy underscores deep divisions among voters on military issues and leadership. For many, especially military families, Trump’s actions have cemented their loyalty. This group view Harris’s statement as tone-deaf and disrespectful.

Harris supporters meanwhile argue that concerns about politicizing military memorials are valid. They continue to criticize Trump’s supposed role in the Afghanistan withdrawal, which occurred during the Biden administration, while dismissing any claims of incompetence or disrespect from Harris or Biden.

This controversy highlights the ongoing importance of national security and military sacrifice in shaping voter preferences. For military veterans and their families, these issues may play a decisive role tipping support toward Trump. However, Americans writ large may not be as moved by controversies in which they do not feel personally invested.

Over Labor Day weekend, pro-Palestine protests made waves in New York City with police engaging protesters in the streets. MIG Reports analysis of social media commentary shows discussion trends, sentiment trends, and overall posture of the Democratic Party regarding Palestine.

💥 PICKET LINE MEANS: DON'T CROSS! 💥
JOIN THE PICKET LINE FOR PALESTINE — DON’T CROSS THE PICKET LINE. CALL OUT SICK. DO NOT ENTER CAMPUS. DO NOT GO TO CLASSES. DO NOT HOLD CLASS. pic.twitter.com/njL70ePrNm

— Within Our Lifetime (@WOLPalestine) September 3, 2024

Split Sentiment in the Democratic Party

The pro-Palestinian protests in NYC over Labor Day weekend spark contentious dialogue among Democratic voters. Discussions reveal growing dissatisfaction with the Biden-Harris administration's policies regarding Israel and Palestine, especially their stance on military aid to Israel.

Across multiple platforms, voters criticize prominent Democratic leaders, including Biden and Harris, for failing to take a decisive stance against Israeli military actions. Many see their policies as too supportive of Israel and ignoring Gaza.

This sentiment is expressed by more than half of Democrats in online conversations. They express frustration with the leadership’s perceived complicity in the violence.

Calls for Ceasefire and Accountability

Many pro-Palestine Democrats demand an immediate ceasefire. They voice an urgent desire for an end to the hostilities between Israel and Hamas. Many emphasize the need to stop the violence and prioritize humanitarian efforts, voicing empathy for those in Gaza.

This group uses terms like "genocide" and "massacre" often, with calls to reevaluate U.S. military aid to Israel. Some mention laws like the Leahy Law, which prohibits aid to foreign military units implicated in human rights abuses. The push for accountability is strong, as many demand that Democratic leaders like Kamala Harris reassess their foreign policies.

Polarization Over U.S. Foreign Policy

There has been sustained polarization in the Democratic Party since Oct. 7, 2023, particularly over foreign policy. Many voters criticize Biden and Harris, saying they enable the continuation of violence through military support for Israel. They argue the administration is morally obligated to reassess its position and advocate for Palestinian rights more aggressively.

An apparently shrinking yet vocal group of Democrats maintain a neutral or supportive stance toward Israel. They focus on Israel's right to defend itself against Hamas. This division suggests the Democratic Party faces internal struggles that could impact electoral strategies moving forward.

The Role of Progressive Voices

Progressive factions of Democrats—who often express anti-American sentiments—are increasingly pushing for a shift toward a more pro-Palestinian stance. These voters are frustrated with the Biden administration and other key Democratic figures. They often criticize leaders like Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, who they say is overly supportive of Israeli policies.

The younger, more progressive wing of the party appears particularly energized by the protests. They regularly advocate for and protest to influence foreign policy which prioritizes Palestinian causes.

The leftist or progressive faction is also pushing a narrative of intersectionality and social justice issues. They draw parallels between the Palestinian struggle and broader global movements for human rights and equity.

Implications for the Future of the Party

Ongoing tensions suggest the Democratic Party may be forced to reevaluate its stance on Israel and Palestine to maintain the loyalty of progressives. Traditional Democrats run the risk of alienating a significant portion of the voter base by continuing to challenge radical and antisemitic movements.

The growing divide between historically centrist leadership and the progressive faction could lead to broader electoral implications. With more than half of Democratic voters expressing dissatisfaction, the Party is walking a thin line trying to maintain unity.

Kamala Harris’s campaign particularly risks losing support from those like the “Uncommitted,” who feel their voices are being ignored in favor of maintaining the status quo. Democratic leadership will likely face increasing pressure to adopt a more radical and leftist foreign policy as the election draws closer and university students return to campus.