Donald Trump’s recent proposal to “staple a green card to every diploma” for graduates caused discussion within his base. The policy, which aims to retain skilled international graduates in the U.S. workforce, clashes with ongoing debates about immigration, the economy, and job competition.

Sentiment trends, potential voter impact, and deeper implications of this policy vary across Trump’s core base, Independents, and crossover voters. Analysis of voter discussions reveals the potential impact of this proposal on the election.

Summary of Findings

• 65-80% of Trump’s base endorses the policy for its economic benefits.
• 40-58% of Independents express cautious support but remain skeptical about job competition.
• At least half of crossover voters criticize the policy as politically motivated and say they would be less likely to vote.
• 10-15% of the base say this policy would increase their likelihood to vote
• 5-15% of Independents say it could increase their likelihood to vote.

Trump’s Core Base

The MAGA base is largely enthusiastic about the green card proposal. The policy resonates with those who see it as an economically sound solution to fill gaps in the American workforce. They appreciate that the policy focuses on retaining skilled talent, particularly in tech and innovation sectors, aligning with the economic nationalism that Trump has emphasized throughout his campaigns.

Comments from Trump’s base reveal a clear endorsement of the policy as beneficial to American economic growth. Voters feel Trump is prioritizing the U.S. workforce and addressing real labor shortages. However, around 20-30% are concerned about potential job competition, worrying the policy could lead to higher competition for American workers—particularly in lower-skilled sectors.

Independents

Independents are divided, with around half cautiously supporting it. These voters appreciate the focus on retaining high-skilled graduates, seeing it as a practical move to bolster economic growth and innovation in the U.S. However, many independents remain wary of Trump’s broader immigration policies and question the long-term impact of such a proposal on job competition.

The skepticism of this group stems from concerns about how the policy may affect the job market for American workers. Some view the proposal as a necessary economic measure, while others express doubt about its implementation and potential unintended consequences.

Crossover Voters

Crossover voters, or moderates, are overwhelmingly negative about the green card proposal. This group, which traditionally leans Democratic, views the policy as politically motivated.

For many, the proposal feels like an electoral ploy rather than a genuine attempt at reform, leading them to further distrust Trump’s intentions. However, there is a possibility this dialogue stems from anti-Trump voters who are reacting to these discussions merely to oppose any Trump policy as they normally would.

The dominant concern among this demographic is that the proposal will exacerbate existing immigration issues without addressing deeper systemic problems. Many see it as another example of Trump’s divisive approach to politics, which alienates them further. This opposition is likely to drive turnout against Trump, with crossover voters potentially mobilizing to vote for an alternative candidate.

Turnout Implications

The overall voter turnout trends suggest Trump’s green card proposal may energize his base. Supporters feel empowered by the economic and nationalist rhetoric with all his economic policies and are likely to engage more deeply in local campaigns.

However, for Independents, the policy yields mixed results, potentially driving modest gains in turnout among those who prioritize economic growth but failing to inspire more skeptical individuals. Crossover voters, on the other hand, show strong opposition.

Vice President Kamala Harris visited the southern border, reigniting a long-standing debate about her role as "border czar" and Biden-Harris immigration policies. Arriving just weeks before the 2024 election, Harris's appearance in Arizona drew widespread criticism. Many reactions included some version of the sentiment too little, too late.

MOLLIE HEMINGWAY: “This border trip today happened at the WORST possible time for [Kamala], given the other news that came out — that her administration allowed nearly half a MILLION criminals, MANY of them violent criminals — to just be in the country and roaming FREELY.” pic.twitter.com/6Q8QIRcxuy

— Proud Elephant 🇺🇸🦅 (@ProudElephantUS) September 27, 2024

Photo Op at the Border

MIG Reports data shows:

• 76% of voters perceive her visit as politically motivated and a "last-ditch effort" to appeal to voters who are increasingly angry.

Harris's border visit just weeks before the election raises red flags for many. After spending nearly four years avoiding the border as “border czar,” many view the untimely visit as empty and politically motivated.

Most Americans view the trip to Douglas, AZ, as clearly designed to pander for votes over an issue the Harris campaign is losing on. The timing makes the visit appear even more performative as a photo op than a sincere attempt to fix an issue which Harris has failed to address for years.

Kamala Harris was on the border for less than 20 minutes yesterday.

It wasn’t a border visit, it was a poorly ran photo opportunity. pic.twitter.com/rGVVkucswq

— Gunther Eagleman™ (@GuntherEagleman) September 28, 2024

For many, Harris’s visit is both suspiciously timed and a slap in the face to millions of Americans who have been outraged about the Biden-Harris administration’s refusal to address citizen concerns and protect the country.

• Following her border visit, national sentiment toward Harris regarding the border moved very little, increasing from 39% the day before to 42% the day after.
• However, in Arizona, Harris’s sentiment was more significantly impacted, dropping from 49% a week ago to 33% today.
• Harris’s overall sentiment in Arizona dropped from 44% a week ago to 42% today.

A Record of Neglect and Failure

MIG Reports data shows:

• 67% of voters distrust Harris’s motivations and approach to border security.

Disbelief about the sincerity of Harris’s overtures at the border springs from outrage at her track record—or lack thereof—on border security. Since taking office in 2021, Harris has been truant in her task of managing immigration and the border. Illegal crossings have been at all-time highs in the last several years.

Recent reports from ICE reveal the Biden-Harris administration has overseen 13,099 murderers and 15,811 rapists within a larger 425,431 convicted criminals entering the U.S. illegally.

🚨🚨BREAKING: According to a new report from the Deputy Director of ICE, Joe Biden and Border Czar Kamala Harris allowed a SHOCKING number of criminals into America, including:

- 13,099 Murderers
- 15,811 Rapists
- 425,431 Convicted Criminals

Treason. Disqualifying. Evil. pic.twitter.com/XG1oClyDNe

— Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11) September 27, 2024

One of the most recurring accusations voters make against the Biden-Harris administration is the rollback of "Remain in Mexico" and other stringent Trump-era immigration policies. Among border communities, conservatives, moderates, and some Democrats is the belief that Harris intentionally left the border wide open, allowing dangerous criminals to enter. Voters see Harris’s policies as fostering lawlessness, further eroding confidence in the Democratic Party’s ability to manage immigration.

Cartel Trafficking, Rising Crime, and Safety

Voters often mention the tangible impacts Harris’s policies have had on crime rates, both along the border and within American communities. People criticize sharp increases in migrant crime and the fentanyl and larger drug crisis perpetuated by Mexican cartels under the Biden-Harris administration.

• 67% of voters link rising crime rates directly to Harris’s border policies.
• 77% favor stricter border policies and support reinstating Trump-era policies.
• 60% express preference for Donald Trump’s leadership on immigration.

In areas hardest hit by illegal immigration, voters are increasingly vocal about the lack of accountability and action from Washington. Many feel abandoned, left to deal with the fallout from policies that seem more focused on humanitarian optics than protecting American citizens.

Media Complicity in Border Gaslighting

Negativity about the Biden-Harris border is compounded by voter frustration toward media coverage. Many voters believe mainstream media willfully refuses to report the severity of the border crisis—particularly when it comes to crime statistics and cartel activity.

• 68% of voters accuse the media of underreporting or downplaying the immigration crisis.

Americans view the media as complicit in shaping a narrative favorable to the administration. Many voters choose alternative news sources for information on platforms like X, knowing the media will not report the reality of the situation.

What Does This Mean for the 2024 Election?

Sentiment about border security and the number of illegal immigrants flooding American communities is likely to play a pivotal role in the presidential election. Harris’s track record on the border is both a black mark on her vice-presidential record and a major liability for the Democratic Party.

If voters continue to feel highly motivated by border issues, it will likely play a role in deciding votes in November. Trump’s focus on law and order and his track record of reducing illegal crossings will likely resonate with voters who feel betrayed by Harris and her lax policies. Harris’s border visit rings insincere to many, coming too late to reverse the tide of public opinion.

Billionaire businessman Mark Cuban went viral for saying inflation was not caused by "price gouging," defying the Democratic platform, for which he is known to act as a surrogate. He said on CNBC that unprecedented levels of government spending on things like the Inflation Reduction Act, for which Kamala Harris was the tie-breaker vote, are the true cause.

OMG. Mark Cuban accidentally admits the truth, says inflation was not caused by "price gouging," but rather record spending (which Kamala was the tie-breaking vote on.)

Kamala's top surrogate just blew up her entire economic message. Incredible. pic.twitter.com/HcwBLgYo6x

— johnny maga (@_johnnymaga) September 26, 2024

MIG Reports data shows Democratic views of inflation in two categories:

• The seriousness of inflation
• How talking about inflation impacts their candidate

Discussion among Democrats is carefully crafted to maintain voter confidence and achieve electoral success. Rather than a straightforward engagement with the economic realities Americans face, inflation becomes a rhetorical tool used to shift blame, deflect responsibility, and bolster the Democratic Party’s campaign narrative.

In recent interviews, Harris herself has deflected from answering questions about the economy, price gouging, inflation, and how she plans to help Americans.

What does this even mean…?

Kamala Harris: "Well if you are... hard working... if you... have... uh... the dreams and the ambitions and the aspirations of what I believe you do, you're in my plan." pic.twitter.com/vgnZpe1EKu

— Gunther Eagleman™ (@GuntherEagleman) September 25, 2024

Among Democrats:

• 40% blame Trump for the economy
• 25% acknowledge the negative state of inflation
• 19% express economic concerns
• 16% frame the economy as doing well

Glossing Over Inflation: A Strategic Approach

Democrats often acknowledge inflation, but the depth of that engagement varies. Many gloss over or reframed it as a problem inherited from the Trump administration. They frame the Biden-Harris administration as stabilizing the economy in the aftermath of Republican mismanagement.

By casting inflation as a residual effect of Trump’s policies, Democrats downplay the immediate economic concerns of Americans in favor of campaign messaging about aspirations and hope.

This approach is particularly evident in the way Democrats focus on government job reports, stock market gains, and a gradual decrease in gas prices. These elements distract from inflationary pressures, suggesting the current administration has things under control. However, Harris risks alienating voters who are directly impacted by rising costs of living, from groceries to housing.

Electoral Victory Over Economic Engagement

Many Democrats also prioritize winning the election over finding immediate economic solutions. Discussions show a focus on preventing a second Trump term rather than addressing the root causes of inflation for American voters.

Casting blame on Republicans reveals a defensive posture, with Democrats more concerned about economy narratives than offering actionable solutions. This allows them to use inflation as a talking point against Trump rather than as a policy issue in need of immediate attention.

The strategic deflection of blame reduces urgency and accountability to the American people. Instead, economic discussions are geared toward mobilizing voter sentiment, often simplifying complex financial realities into digestible, partisan soundbites. This reliance on political calculation places importance on a second Democratic administration over answering voter concerns.

Real Voter Concerns

While Democrats are clearly using inflation as a political tool, there are some expressing genuine concern about its impact on middle-class families. There is particular focus on housing and food costs for lower income Americans.

However, even these concerns are often accompanied by broader narratives of economic success under the Biden-Harris administration. By emphasizing solutions like tax credits or small business support, Democrats frame a positive electoral message rather than presenting them as pressing crises.

These trends create a dual narrative in Democratic discourse where some are forced to acknowledge the economic pain of voters, but quickly pivoting political messaging that downplays its severity. This tension between caring about economic realities and pursuing political success is a central feature of Democratic discussions on the economy.

Polarization and the Use of Blame

Partisan rhetoric drives Democratic conversations. By consistently blaming Trump, Democrats simplify the conversation, framing it as a political battle rather than a serious issue. This shifts voter attention away from current failures and pushes a narrative that a Harris administration would bring change.

This tactic, while effective in galvanizing the base, is also dismissive of the real economic challenges voters face. The risk here is that by leaning too heavily on partisan blame, Democrats may lose the opportunity to connect with voters.

Donald Trump canceled a campaign rally in Wisconsin due to Secret Service concerns about insufficient security resources. The Secret Service’s inability to secure the event fuels American anxieties and anger about fairness and competence in the agency. Across political lines, voters interpret the cancellation through a partisan lens. 

CBS News - Former President Trump's campaign scrapped plans for an upcoming outdoor rally in Wisconsin after the Secret Service said it did not have the personnel needed to secure the site.
https://t.co/CzvvtYIr79

— Steve Herman (@W7VOA) September 26, 2024

Times Are Tense 

Republicans are outraged, feeling targeted by injustice and bias. For many Trump supporters, the cancellation serves as further proof that the establishment is working against him.  

This sentiment drives fierce blame toward government institutions, including the Secret Service, for failing to protect a major presidential candidate. Independents express similar distrust, echoing concerns over the government's role in handling security threats. However, this group is more divided, with some viewing the rally's cancellation as a legitimate response to ongoing threats against Trump. 

Democrats largely channel their frustrations towards Trump himself, criticizing his handling of security concerns and placing blame on his campaign. Yet, even within this group, there is an undercurrent of anxiety about the larger implications of political violence and leadership safety. 

Political Realities 

This event highlights the dramatic fracture between partisan groups in America. The rally’s cancellation is not merely a logistical decision—it reflects increasing divisions about authority, safety, and justice. This incident underscores pervasive distrust shaping voter behavior, with each side retreating into narratives of blame, fear, and defiance against perceived establishment forces.  

Unlike many disheartening political events, this particular event is likely to increase voter turnout among anti-establishment voters rather than disenfranchise them. Voters feel increasingly motivated to defend their positions and respond to perceived injustices or threats. 

For Trump supporters, the sense of bias and distrust in government energizes them to rally behind him—this sentiment is also growing with Independents. Democrats may feel motivated by their frustration with Trump's actions and handling of the situation—however, they have nothing to point to as a mirrored injustice toward Democratic candidates. 

The Haitian Bridge Alliance, a nonprofit organization in Springfield, Ohio, has filed criminal charges against Donald Trump and J.D. Vance for allegedly spreading false claims about Haitian immigrants. This development is fanning ongoing debates online about the immigration situation in places like Ohio.

Predictably, there is stark division in public opinion, with strong emotions on both sides. While some view the charges as a necessary step toward accountability, others see them as politically motivated and damaging to political processes.

Haitian Bridge Alliance has brought criminal charges against Donald Trump & JD Vance for spreading false claims about Haitian immigrants in Springfield, OH. The nonprofit is demanding accountability for unsubstantiated statements. https://t.co/KdsoPuUAO2

— Ben Crump (@AttorneyCrump) September 25, 2024

Voter Reactions

MIG Reports analysis of voter reactions shows:

• Support for Charges — 22%
• Opposition to Charges — 44%
• Neutral or Irrelevant — 12%
• Concern About the Implications — 22%

Opposition to Charges

The largest group opposes bringing criminal charges. They view these legal actions against Republicans as politically motivated, framing them as part of a broader attempt to silence political opposition. Critics say the charges are an attempt to abuse legal power by criminalizing free speech.

Many express concern that continued lawfare against political opposition undermines democracy. They say both Trump and Vance are being unfairly targeted for their political positions. Many Americans discuss their belief in a "weaponized" legal system aimed at suppressing conservative views.

Support for Charges

Those who support charges against Trump and Vance view legal actions as essential for upholding justice and preventing dangerous rhetoric. This group says public figures should be held accountable for spreading misinformation that fuels hatred and violence. They believe the charges reflect a broader need for protecting vulnerable communities, such as Haitian immigrants, from defamatory statements by political leaders.

Neutral or Irrelevant Reactions

Some voices are neutral or say this issue is irrelevant to the broader political landscape. This group expresses apathy or indifference toward the charges, often viewing the situation as a distraction from more pressing issues like the economy or border security. Rather than focusing on the legal battle, these voters emphasize the need for productive political dialogue centered on policy rather than personal conflicts.

Concern About the Implications

The remaining group voices concern about the broader implications of the charges. These voters do not take a stance on the guilt or innocence of Trump and Vance. Rather, they worry about the potential consequences for public discourse and the legal system.

Some fear legal charges will further polarize an already divided electorate and set a dangerous precedent where legal action becomes a tool in political battles. These voices stress the importance of preserving free speech and caution against the potential for politicizing the justice system, which will likely further erode trust in legal institutions.

Both Trump and Harris are battling to secure votes from traditionally Democratic voters like minority groups and working-class Americans. These groups have reliably leaned left in the past, but recent trends suggest a growing disillusionment with Democratic leadership. This opens the door for Donald Trump to potentially make gains among voters who are typically out of reach for Republicans.

🚨Holy sht!

Even CNN is being forced to tell the American people how BAD Kamala’s polling is.

The polls have NEVER been this bad for a Democrat running against Trump.
She’s even hemorrhaging minorities.

Americans see the truth, 4 years under Kamala would WRECK our country…! pic.twitter.com/7YpSGeBVqr

— Gunther Eagleman™ (@GuntherEagleman) September 24, 2024

Support

MIG Reports data suggests Trump has an approximate:

• 10-20% support among black voters.
• 20-30% support among Hispanic voters.
• 10-20% support among Asian-American voters.

While these numbers are not overwhelming, they suggest a potential increase compared to previous Republican candidates. Trump's economic message resonates with those who feel the pinch of rising inflation and stagnant wages.

#New General election poll - Hispanic voters

🔴 Trump 52% (+8)
🔵 Harris 44%

Quinnipiac #B - LV - 9/22

— Political Polls (@PpollingNumbers) September 25, 2024

Minority Voters Focus on Domestic Issues

MIG Reports data from voter conversations shows minority groups are overwhelmingly focused on domestic issues. Analysis suggests the economy, healthcare, and immigration dominate minority voter concerns. This focus is particularly sharp given rising costs of living, housing shortages, and ongoing healthcare debates.

Top Concerns for Minority Voters

• Economic Concerns: Rising grocery and housing prices are central issues, with many blaming Democratic policies. Minority voters often disproportionately feel economic strain and want solutions that directly impact their lives.
• Immigration and Border Security: Immigration is both practical and symbolic for minority groups. Hispanic voters often support Trump's tough immigration stance—particularly legal immigrants whose jobs are threatened by an open border.
• Healthcare and Reproductive Rights: Healthcare is a focus, especially abortion. Some minority groups are split between supporting Trump's pro-life platform and fearing his policies threaten women’s healthcare.
• Distrust of Government: Among minorities, there is deep skepticism toward government institutions and their competence. There is frustration with political leaders and agencies, which are often viewed as biased or manipulated.

Like all voters, minority groups prioritize issues they believe affect them immediately and directly. However, they often don’t focus on foreign conflicts or geopolitical strategy, instead preferring tangible solutions to domestic problems.

Contrast with Overall Voter Priorities

There is a notable difference in the top issues among minority voters compared with high priorities among all voters. National security and foreign conflicts like Ukraine and Israel are top concerns for the broader electorate, but these issues do not crack the top five among minorities.

Comparison of Top Issues

Minority Views of Trump

Historically, minority voters have been a difficult demographic for Republican candidates to attract. However, Donald Trump may have an opportunity to capture some degree of support within these communities.

Notions that Trump "helped all Americans" economically before COVID resonates with segments of black and Hispanic voters. Trump's stance on job creation and tax cuts, while controversial, appeals to those who see his policies as protecting American jobs. This is particularly true in lower-income communities.

Voters Don't Trust the Polls

Another dimension across all voter groups is skepticism of polls and the political establishment. Many believe polls cited by the media are biased or manipulated to fit a certain narrative. This distrust further complicates voter outreach efforts as many point to previous election cycles where Trump outperformed his poll numbers.

In the context of minority voters, skepticism extends to both parties but particularly harms Democrats who are seen as part of the political establishment.

Sentiment Toward Polls Among Minority Voters

• 42% express skepticism toward poll numbers.
• 21% believe polls are manipulated or biased.
• 55% show negative sentiment toward polls.

This disillusionment erodes the credibility of pollsters but also influences how voters view politicians. The Democratic Party, as the current party in power, bears the brunt of this skepticism. Trump, often viewed as a political outsider, tends to benefit from positioning himself as fighting against establishment mechanisms.

Potential to Capitalize on Anti-Establishment Sentiments

If Trump continues to make inroads with minority voters, especially in key battleground states, he could wrest important voters from Kamala Harris. While minority support for Trump remains relatively modest compared to the overall electorate, even a slight increase in black, Hispanic, or Asian-American support could prove decisive.

Analysis suggests by gaining just 5% more of the Hispanic vote in states like Florida, Nevada, or Arizona, Trump could tilt the balance in his favor. Similarly, a 3-5% increase in black voter turnout for Trump in states like Michigan or Pennsylvania could be enough to counter Democratic margins in urban areas.

However, extreme partisan divides and distrust in polling also causes some to suggest Republicans consistently remain too hopeful for gaining minority votes. This group holds that GOP ceilings for these important voters continue, even in 2024.

Every single election cycle, Republicans confidently predict that a wave of minority support for the GOP is right around the corner.

But it never seems to materialize.

Based on the past 50 years, the GOP's ceiling with minority voters seems to be:

Blacks: 15%
Hispanics: 40% https://t.co/k3Puj7NKZr pic.twitter.com/vJQqxd32Fs

— Nate Hochman (@njhochman) March 5, 2024

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.