Discourse and polling among young men reveals a burgeoning inclination to support Donald Trump over the Democratic ticket in 2024. This trend is capturing national attention, notably influencing public debates and media narratives. Analysts are examining whether this phenomenon signifies a larger shift among younger demographics or reflects a specific partisan appeal.

Trending Topics

A significant focus lies on economic grievances, particularly those affecting young voters. Commentary often highlights the high cost of living, with housing affordability as a primary concern. Young voters frequently express frustrations over soaring rent prices and the challenges of homeownership in current economic conditions. Phrases such as "can't afford to buy a house" and "housing prices are unbelievable" often surface, capturing their financial stress and dissatisfaction with the status quo.

A recent Truth Social post by Donald Trump speaks directly to this concern. Many young voters appreciate messaging like this, which contrasts with Democratic promises of future change, despite holding current office.

Sentiment Trends

Voter sentiment on the economy, and specifically housing, is overwhelmingly negative. There is disillusionment and anger toward current economic policies from Joe Biden and Kamala Harris.

Young voters associate their economic hardships with Democratic leadership, expressing a preference for policies they believe would alleviate their financial burdens. Comparisons to the economic environment under Trump are prevalent, with many arguing during his administration, they experienced more financial security and housing affordability. This underlying sentiment indicates a belief that the previous administration's policies better supported their economic aspirations.

Many view the Biden-Harris administration's efforts in areas like student debt relief and housing reforms as insufficient or out of touch with their realities. While some acknowledge measures like student debt forgiveness, these efforts are seen as inadequate compared to the broader economic pressures they face daily, particularly in housing.

However, despite being the current vice president, it is possible the public doesn’t completely equate Harris with current housing problems caused by the Biden administration. This suggests Republican messaging should continue to highlight links between the existing administration and more of the same if Democrats win.

Urgent Timing

The intersection of these economic themes with broader political narratives further fuels the discourse. Comments indicate a perception that Democratic leaders are more preoccupied with social issues and political maneuvers than addressing immediate economic concerns. This disconnect exacerbates the frustration and propels the appeal of Trump if he promises economic revival and stability.

In this context, young men’s increasing support for Trump is framed as a pragmatic choice rooted in economic self-interest. They articulate a desire for a return to what they perceive as a more robust economic period in their lifetime. This sentiment is bolstered by shared experiences of financial strain under both Biden and Obama during the Great Financial Crisis. This fosters a belief that conservative economic policies might offer more tangible relief.

The Trump Economy

Public discussions also reflect nostalgia for the perceived economic benefits of Trump's tenure. Phrases expressing longing for past conditions, such as "Trump years were much better" and "affordable housing under Trump," encapsulate this sentiment. These expressions are not merely backward-looking but reveal a substantive critique of current economic policies and a hope for future improvement under a similar leadership style.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren's recent statement that Kamala Harris, if elected president, plans to grant mass citizenship to 11 million illegal immigrants bombs. American reactions are sharply negative, with vehement opposition and a sense of urgency to prevent that from happening.

Illegal Immigration vs. Legal Immigration

Conversations heavily focus on distinguishing between illegal and legal immigration. There is a strong negative sentiment towards illegal immigration, with many expressing that legal pathways should be followed. Critics argue granting citizenship to illegal immigrants undermines those who have followed legal procedures. They say its a slap in the face to legal immigrants who have waited patiently.

Pathway to Citizenship

The term "pathway to citizenship" incites a mix of emotions but significant opposition when linked to illegal immigrants. The prevailing sentiment is one of frustration, as many feel providing a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants rewards unlawful behavior and incentivizes more illegal crossings. This is seen as unfair to all Americans who are forced to carry the economic and social burden.

Open Borders

The idea of open borders carries a strong negative connotation. Most Americans feel Elizabeth Warren’s plan would lead to chaos, increased crime rates, and a drain on public resources. The discussion links current open borders to a lack of national security and the dilution of American societal values, further stoking fears about the nation's ability to manage.

Economic and Social Concerns

Concerns about the economic burden of a large influx of citizens dominate the conversation. Many express fears that granting citizenship to millions of illegal immigrants would strain healthcare, social security, and other welfare systems. They conclude it would result in increased taxes and reduced benefits for lawful citizens. The sentiment here is overwhelmingly negative, with worries about long-term sustainability.

Voter Impact and Political Motives

There is a strong belief that efforts to provide citizenship to illegal immigrants are politically motivated, aiming to create new voters to support Democrats. This view is coupled with distrust and allegations of election manipulation and societal engineering. Sentiment is decidedly negative, with accusations of anti-American motives and disregard for current democratic norms and the protection of citizens.

National Identity and Security

The debate also touches on broader cultural and identity issues. Many comments reflect fears of losing the cultural cohesiveness of the nation due to rapid demographic changes. The sentiment towards maintaining national identity and ensuring newcomers assimilate into American society is strong. The negativity focuses on the erosion of these values, should Warren’s plan be implemented.

Undecided and Independent Voters

The intense debate around these topics may significantly influence undecided and Independent voters. Acting as a microcosm of broader national sentiments, these conversations likely polarize opinion even further. For Independents concerned about economic stability, national security, and cultural identity, the negative implications from Democrats like Warren may push them towards Trump.

Conversely, those emphasizing ethical approaches to immigration and humane treatment may solidify their support for comprehensive immigration reforms but could also be swayed by the economic arguments of the opposition.

Over the weekend, a viral story spread on social media pointing out “Trump assassination” and other variants were being removed from web searches on Google. The public's reaction shows a sharp disdain towards tech companies for this presumed act of censorship. Top keywords include:

• Trump assassination attempt
• Censorship
• Leftist media
• Google
• Secret Service
• Deep state
• Investigation

Sentiment about this revelation is predominantly negative, with most people expressing outrage and suspicion.

Hi Google @Google! Why are you censoring the ass*ss*nat*on attempt of DJT??

They’re trying to memory hole it. pic.twitter.com/NtvD9pNovn

— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) July 28, 2024

Big Tech Censorship is Alive and Well

Analysis shows public sentiment and recurring themes focus on free speech and censorship.

• Freed Speech: Voters debate the integrity of free speech, expressing concerns that removing organic search suggestions is an attempt at election interference.
• Censorship: There are strong accusations of censorship, connecting broader concerns about the control and manipulation of information by Big Tech.
• Political Bias: Accusations against Google and Facebook for political manipulation and protecting Harris while censoring Trump are rampant.
• American Values: Many say liberty, freedom, and democracy are at stake, reflecting worry that these foundational values are being undermined.

Many voters, especially on the right, accuse both Google and Facebook of acting as the communications arm of the Democratic Party. Even after admissions of “accidental” censorship, many Americans still take umbrage. Facebook’s claim that blocking a photo of Trump during the assassination attempt was accidental, draws claims the algorithmic “accidents” always benefit Democrats.

Freedom Versus Safety

Voter sentiment around Google suppressing searches about Trump and assassination can be divided into a few clear trends.

• Defenders of Free Speech: Many voters say, to preserve free speech, even controversial topics should not be hidden from search results. They believe removing or hiding search results related to political figures is a direct attack on American voters.
• Concerns about Misinformation: People on the left are concerned about the potential spread of harmful misinformation. They argue removing search “harmful” suggestions is necessary to prevent increased violence and to ensure responsible dissemination of information.
• Accusations of Political Bias: There are strong accusations that Google and Facebook display bias towards Democrats. Conservatives feel targeted and express resentment towards Big Tech companies they believe are suppressing their viewpoints.
• Calls for Regulation: In response to perceived biases and censorship, some advocate for greater regulation of tech giants to ensure a balanced and fair platform for all users.

Voter Impact

Undecided and Independent voters are likely influenced by these discussions. Their perception of political neutrality or bias in search engines can significantly sway their views on broader political issues.

• Trust in Media and Tech: Those who are already skeptical of media and Big Tech might find their beliefs reaffirmed, pushing them towards candidates who promise to regulate these industries.
• Political Disillusionment: Some Independents, witnessing these debates, may experience a heightened sense of political disillusionment, feeling neither side offers a solution to the pervasive issue of biased information control.
• Swing Votes Based on Free Speech: Candidates like Trump who strongly advocate for free speech and oppose censorship might attract voters who prioritize these values as central to their decision-making process.

Debates about American values, such as free speech, reveal deep ideological divides in the electorate. The public reveres core principles of liberty, freedom, and democracy, often contrasting them with perceptions of oppression and censorship. Many argue for the inalienable right to express opinions without fear of censorship, celebrating historical champions of these values.

People defend democracy through the lens of a free press, which they deem as essential for a healthy society. These discussions increase scrutiny of political figures and tech companies which may be influencing elections. Voters call for reforms to better align with American values, emphasizing freedom, liberty, and democratic participation amidst contemporary challenges.

Discourse about Kamala Harris and her stance on illegal immigration provides a history for Americans to navigate when forming opinions about her campaign platform. Many often reference Harris's tenure as San Francisco District Attorney, where she implemented the "Back on Track" program to help non-violent offenders, including illegal immigrants, avoid severe legal consequences.

This history, as well as her track record as “Border Czar” has been revisited extensively. Critics highlight Harris's efforts to clear the records of undocumented immigrants with drug offenses to protect them from deportation. This aspect of her history has ignited strong reactions from different voter bases.

A Breakdown in Kamala’s Prosecutor Image

More voters online are asserting that Kamala Harris let illegal immigrant drug offenders clear their records to protect them from deportation. This issue evokes strong negative sentiment, revealing a leniency on crime that betrays her tough prosecutor image. It is especially damaging when it involves illegal immigrants who have committed offenses. Negativity worsens with frequent assertions that Harris wants illegal immigrants who committed crimes to stay in the United States.

Harris promoted the "Back on Track" program, despite the case of Alexander Izaguirre, an illegal Honduran migrant in the program. Izaguirre allegedly assaulted a young woman, causing a skull fracture and long-term trauma. Harris later described the incident as, "A huge kind of pimple on the face of this program."

Another prominent topic is the border security bill negotiation that Harris supported and touted as bipartisan. This proposal aimed to invest $20 billion in border security, empower the President to close the border, and reduce asylum processing times from ten years to weeks. Public discourse emphasizes that Harris backed this comprehensive bill, despite its unpopularity for budget reasons and accusations of Democrat hypocrisy.

Experts Disavow Harris on the Border

Comments from public figures, such as the National Border Patrol Council President, Brandon Judd, also fuel discussions. Statements accusing Harris of refusing to implement existing policies and labeling her as indifferent to border security are widespread.

These statements intensely enhance negative sentiments towards Harris, portraying her as ineffective and uninterested in border protection. These augments also create positive sentiment towards Trump, who many view as proactive on border security, contrasting Harris's inaction.

Many on the right argue the Vice President’s disastrous legacy on the border could be a death blow to her campaign if Americans understand the truth. They argue this is the reason Democrats and the media are working so actively to reframe and even erase her border track record.

America Does Not Seem Fooled

The themes of border security and crime intertwine frequently, with passionate rhetoric framing Harris negatively as a "Border Czar" who failed in her duties. She is characterized as part of an "undemocratic communist regime" allowing a "terrorist invasion." This starkly illustrates the highly charged and negative language used to describe her role.

Positive sentiment toward Harris on the border is sparse, largely coming from her Party and media outlets. These entities often mention the bipartisan border security bill which Harris supported, while Republicans did not. However, the generally positive outlook on this aspect is overshadowed by broad negative sentiments.

Republicans also counter arguments that Democrats, including Harris, support border security with the proposed bill. They argue the administration already has the tools and laws it needs to control the border, but Democrats refuse. They specifically blame Biden and Harris for attempting to gain more funding with the bill, while ignoring existing border legislation.

Vice President Kamala Harris has recently made false claims about Project 2025 and Donald Trump. Her campaign and the media have spread claims that:

• Project 2025 will cut social security
• Project 2025 is Trump’s platform

Vice President Harris: Trump and his extreme Project 2025 agenda... Can you believe they put that thing in writing? Read it. It’s 900 pages. When you read it, you will see Donald Trump intends to cut Social Security and Medicare, give tax breaks to billionaires, end the… pic.twitter.com/msliYcmLuh

— Kamala HQ (@KamalaHQ) July 23, 2024

Harris’s comments about Donald Trump and Project 2025 during a campaign event have stirred significant public discourse. Many on the left and in the media defend Harris’s comments while those on the right are largely angry about alleged lies from Democrats.

Project 2025 is Trump’s plan for a second term.

Google it.

— The Democrats (@TheDemocrats) July 10, 2024

Project 2025 as Democrat Cannon Fodder

Harris’s comments on Project 2025, which she criticizes as regressive and harmful to the middle class, dominate discussions. Public understanding of the project varies, with some viewing it as a radical conservative agenda, and others seeming unaware or dismissive of it.

The claim that Project 2025 rolls back social programs like Medicare and Social Security generates anxiety among voters. Harris’s support from groups like "March for Our Lives" also plays a crucial role in shaping her public image.

Many on the left use Project 2025 as an attack against Trump and conservatives, claiming its radical agenda will destroy the country. Meanwhile, on the right, many debunk false claims Democrats or making. Others simply meme about Project 2025, using hyperbolic examples of “what Project 2025 will do,” poking fun as Democrat fearmongering.

Project 2025 will put Zyn dispensers in all mens bathrooms pic.twitter.com/dcCHZJKRh7

— 🏛 Aristophanes 🏛 (@Aristos_Revenge) July 18, 2024

Project 2025 will put one of these bad boys back in every refrigerator in America. pic.twitter.com/0c8GRXOTUq

— Sean Davis (@seanmdav) July 12, 2024

Trending discussions highlight Harris’s vocal opposition to Project 2025 and its framing as a threat to democratic values and social safety nets. This opposition resonates strongly with her base and some centrists, enhancing her image as a defender of social welfare.

Conversely, Trump’s disavowal of Project 2025 introduces complexity, as it partially neutralizes Harris's critique while still leaving room for debate about his broader policy agenda. However, Trump’s post on Truth Social distancing himself from Project 2025 is often glossed over by many in the media and voters discussing it online.

Project 2025 May Not Overcome Kamala Negativity

Online sentiment trends reveal a deeply divided public. Positive sentiment for Harris stems from her stance against Project 2025 and her endorsements, which boost her appeal among progressives and youth. Her claims of legislative achievement, such as the Inflation Reduction Act, are seen as evidence of her capability. However, previous MIG Reports analysis reveals these claims are mostly campaign strategy.

Negative sentiment arises from criticisms of her economic policies, causing inflation and high gas prices. There is also skepticism about her intentions within her own Party and negativity about the border.

For Trump, positive sentiment is driven by American admiration for his leadership and strategic moves, including his disavowal of Project 2025. His supporters view him as a resilient figure ready to tackle national issues. Negative sentiment towards Trump centers on fears of authoritarianism and concerns about his impact on democratic institutions, with Project 2025 seen as part of this troubling agenda.

Voter opinions of J.D. Vance's vice-presidential candidacy show hesitant hope, some skepticism, and direct criticism. Supporters laud his life story as emblematic of the American Dream. His rise from disadvantaged beginnings to the national political stage is seen as a testament to meritocracy.

Vance’s supporters are especially keen on highlighting his service in the Marines and his Ivy League education as accomplishments earned through hard work and determination. This narrative of individual effort resonates strongly with traditional American values of self-reliance and perseverance, giving cautious hope to those unfamiliar with Vance.

There are some who argue Vance's life story as a powerful counterpoint to criticisms of elitism within the political establishment. His rise from his socio-economic background situates him as an inspiring figure for many Americans dissatisfied with career politicians. This sentiment is compounded by comparisons to Kamala Harris, who many view as a DEI token.

However, many people also have concerns and sharp criticisms—especially when it comes to Vance’s tech ties.

• In the last 7 days, overall approval for J.D. Vance has hovered at or just below 50%.
• His approval on the economy fluctuates slightly but averaged 49% in the last week.
• Sentiment toward Vance on crypto has the highest high at 52%, but also the lowest low at 45%, likely due to lower discussion volume.

General Reaction to Vance’s Tech History

Public reactions to J.D. Vance's connections to Silicon Valley and the tech sector are mixed. There are supporters who are enthusiastic about the potential benefits of his connections. They say Vance's ties to Silicon Valley could drive innovation and economic growth. They also believe his relationships with tech giants may bring much-needed investment and expertise to various sectors, including education, infrastructure, and job creation.

Sentiment trends reveal deep concerns about economic and political power dynamics. The public repeatedly underscores that the middle class should not bear the burden of policies and systems that disproportionately benefit the wealthy elite. This discontent is amplified in the context of unions, with many feeling true advocacy for working-class interests is incompatible with benefiting from Silicon Valley's corporate wealth.

In contrast, there are individuals who view Vance’s background in the tech sector as potentially advantageous. There is cautious excitement about the possibility of having a candidate who understands the complexities and potential of technological innovation and its impact on the economy. They see Vance as a figure who can perhaps bring fresh, tech-driven perspectives to policymaking. This they hope will foster growth which can solve modern economic challenges with innovative solutions.

Public sentiment towards Vance is complicated by his perceived contradictions. Some voters applaud his narrative of rising from humble beginnings and attaining success, viewing it as a testament to the American Dream. However, this narrative is simultaneously criticized, with detractors accusing Vance of romanticizing his past while contradicting it through his political stances and elite connections.

Arguments Defending Vance

Americans seem generally disapproving of any perception of undue influence by wealthy individuals on politics. They also regularly express concerns over economic equity and fairness. Vance’s connections to Silicon Valley and his critiques of current economic policies elicit mixed reactions, ranging from support for his tech-oriented insights to strong disapproval of his financial backers and political rhetoric.

Despite general disapproval for wealth influencing politics, some Americans appreciate Vance for his rejection of traditional establishment politics within the Republican Party. They resonate with his "pro-union anti-corporate" rhetoric.

Hopefuls value what they see as his commitment to fighting corporate excesses and believe in his potential to rejuvenate the GOP with a blend of economic populism and cultural conservatism. These supporters tend to downplay or dismiss the negative characterizations, viewing them as media exaggerations meant to discredit a rising political figure who might disrupt the status quo.

Many supporters, tech enthusiasts, and crypto voters largely support Vance's commitment to clear cryptocurrency regulations. They appreciate his efforts to navigate the regulatory landscape, which they view as fraught with restrictive measures under current administration policies.

This group likes Vance's critique of the SEC's hardline enforcement tactics, which they believe stifle innovation. His legislative proposals aiming to overhaul how the SEC and CFTC regulate crypto are seen as steps towards an environment more conducive to technological growth and investment.

Vance's personal involvement in the crypto sphere, evidenced by his Bitcoin holdings and public comments, amplifies his credibility among crypto voters—who are increasingly seen as an important voting group. His actions such as voting to repeal controversial accounting rules and opposing stringent tax reporting requirements demonstrate a deep understanding of the challenges faced by the industry.

Supporters like Vance’s comments on the utility of cryptocurrencies in circumventing government overreach. This is highlighted by his stance on the Canadian trucker protests and gaining traction with voters who value financial autonomy and limited government interference.

Negativity Toward Vance as VP

Vance's controversial stances and his connections with influential figures like Peter Thiel can also drum up disapproval. Critics believe there’s reason for concern and Vance may pose a significant threat to democratic norms.

This position has been emphasized heavily in public discussions, particularly following Liz Cheney’s sharp critique. Cheney's assertions that Vance would "overturn an election and illegally seize power" and "capitulate to Russia" resonate strongly with liberals and anti-Trump Republicans.

Vance also faces criticism from some Republicans and the media for his perceived hypocrisy and controversial positions. Some praise his alignment with former President Trump, but others use his past criticism of Trump as evidence of hypocrisy or a disingenuous power play.

The influence of Peter Thiel and other billionaires financing Vance’s campaigns generates contentious debate about the role of money in politics. Critics argue his backing fuels fears of oligarchic control over democratic processes. This sentiment suggests a widening economic and representational gap, intensifying the debate over campaign finance reform.

Concerns arise regarding the potential for a monopolistic tech landscape bolstered by politicians like Vance. Critics argue Vance’s tech ties and support from high-profile tech investors could perpetuate a monopolistic ecosystem where large corporations dominate, leaving little room for grassroots innovation.

On Monday, Kamala Harris made her first public appearance as the presumptive Democratic nominee for president after securing the delegates needed. It was also reported that she raised $81 million dollars within the first 24 hours of her campaign. However, some voice skepticism that reported “grassroots” enthusiasm is not being propped up by Democratic leaders and the media. MIG Reports data shows a sharp divide in public sentiment and reveals several key topics and trends.

The Establishment’s Candidate

Discussions focus on how rapidly Harris secured endorsements and delegates, emphasizing the notion of party machinery consolidating around her. Many discussions touch on swift leadership maneuvering to unite behind her campaign after President Biden's sudden exit.

People often bring up the fact that state Democratic Party delegations, such as those from California, New York, and Ohio, have unanimously endorsed her, propelling her closer to securing the nomination. Keywords like "Harris," "delegates," "endorsement," and "Democratic nomination" permeate discussion.

Some voters express frustration with the Democratic Party's internal dynamics. They accuse Party elites of unilaterally deciding the nominee and usurping the primary process. Views of "no primary votes necessary, just greed, corruption, and brute force," exacerbate the perception of a Democratic Party takeover by elites. Keywords like "elites," "donor money," "undemocratic," and "corrupt" highlight this unease with how the nomination is being orchestrated.

The lack of endorsement from former President Barack Obama and explicit support from other significant Democrats like Rep. Rashida Tlaib, who calls for an “open nominating convention,” inject complexities into the discourse. This suggests internal party contention and feeds speculation on Harris’s viability.

Sentiment Trends

There is excitement and enthusiasm among many Democrats who had begun to feel demoralized by Joe Biden’s prospect. Harris supporters interpret her fundraising success as a sign of strong voter enthusiasm. They highlight her historical candidacy, celebrating her potential to be the first biracial woman to lead a major-party ticket.

Endorsements from influential Democratic figures, such as Nancy Pelosi, and the swift backing by Democratic delegates, further boost positive sentiment.

On the other hand, there is significant skepticism and criticism. Detractors question her ability to win a general election against a formidable opponent like Donald Trump. Criticisms often focus on her past performance in the 2020 primaries, where she dropped out early, polling at just 3.4%. The backlash also stems from Harris's perceived alignment with the "establishment," causing some to feel disenfranchised by what they see as an undemocratic coronation process.

Vice President Kamala Harris's nomination as the presumptive Democratic candidate has stirred widespread and polarized discussions among undecided and Independent American voters. Online reflections show insights into what issues are resonating most strongly with the public and how their sentiments are moved by these political shifts.

Key Topics

Discussions regarding Harris's nomination include her qualifications, past political record, endorsements, her stance on international affairs concerning Israel, and her unserious public image. The former California Attorney General and current Vice President brings a complex political history that motivates both criticism and support.

The topics of her past prosecutorial record, her performance and dropping out of the 2020 Democratic primary, and her relationship with influential political figures like Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, stir significant conversation.

Trending Topics

1. Trust and Credibility: Public discussions reveal a chronic struggle with trust in Harris's candidacy, driven by her past actions and perceived opportunistic alliances.
2. Democratic Process Integrity: Many conversations highlight a belief that the delegate-driven nomination process lacks true democratic spirit, raising fears about elitist overreach.
3. Foreign Policy and Ideological Stance: Harris’s international politics, particularly concerning Israel, exacerbates ideological divides within her own Party.

Sentiments diverge significantly based on these topics. For instance, Harris's prosecutorial record surfaces frequently, with some viewing her as experienced in law enforcement and others criticizing her for disproportionate incarceration rates among Black Americans. This discrepancy impacts voter sentiment broadly, influencing trust and support levels.

Anti-Israel and Pro-Palestine

One of the most contentious topics in the last few days has been Harris's refusal to meet with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu. This brings accusations of a "pro-Hamas" and "pro-terrorist" position from the potential new president.

The public split on this subject profoundly impacts sentiment. Supporters defend her stance as a sign of a balanced, critical perspective on Middle Eastern politics. Critics use it as evidence of anti-Israel bias, shaking the confidence of pro-Israel voters and sparking fears about perceived Democratic Party radicalism.

Professional Politician

The Harris campaign's swift move to secure endorsements and delegates after Biden's withdrawal injects both hope and cynicism into the public dialogue. Supporters see this maneuver as a necessary consolidation to maintain Party unity and enhance election efficacy, thus lifting sentiment. Critics, however, perceive it as undemocratic and manipulative, undermining faith in the electoral process, thus decreasing sentiment. Pelosi's subsequent endorsement of Harris, however, served to fan growing flames of enthusiasm among Democratic voters.

Another pivotal topic concerns her failure to secure primary delegates in past races. This argument surfaces frequently among detractors, framing her as an untested candidate lacking broad voter support, which dampens her acceptance among undecided voters. Many also argue he ascent to the candidacy is an affront to every Democrat voter who cast votes for Joe Biden.

Establishment’s Pick

Notably, the initial lack of endorsement from figures like Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi created an air of uncertainty in the immediate aftermath of Biden’s withdrawal. This image of Party disarray impacts voter sentiment variably. While some interpret it as a strategic move to prevent premature influence, others read it as a lack of full confidence, stirring unease. With

Financial backing and the role of influential figures like George Soros also come under scrutiny. Harris's significant war chest generates enthusiasm about her capacity to mount a robust campaign but also fuels skepticism about undue influence by wealthy donors and political elites, dampening trust among voters wary of corporate sway in politics.

Sentiment Trends

Increasing Sentiment

Expressions of Party unity, endorsements from key leaders like Pelosi and Obama affirming her leadership, and narratives highlighting her policy acumen and experience tend to increase sentiment. Positive engagement stems from the portrayal of Harris as a candidate capable of evolving and addressing deep-seated issues within the party and nationwide.

Decreasing Sentiment

Dialogues stressing undemocratic practices, her past prosecutorial record, perceived leftist radicalism, and negative comparisons with other potential candidates push sentiment down. These criticisms suggest reversing negative sentiment will require Harris addressing concerns about fairness, transparency, and her political record comprehensively.

With an apparent swell of support rising for the fledgling Kamala Harris presidential campaign, Americans may not be taking politics seriously. Following the first presidential debate, which was disastrous for Joe Biden, speculation grew about the possibility of Kamala Harris taking his place.

Kamala is a Political Meme

Previous MIG Reports analysis showed Harris surpassing Biden’s approval on several important issues, despite both battling negative sentiment. A wave of nakedly ironic support from Democratic voters embraced the Vice President’s meme potential, referencing coconut pills and the “khive.”

Now that Joe Biden has released an announcement of his plans to withdraw from the race, Democratic support for VP Harris seems to be surging. The ensuing dramatic and immediate shift in voter support and sentiment raises questions about how voters assign loyalty and make voting decisions.

The Kamala memes now include supporters, whether genuine or ironic, saying “Kamala is Brat,” referring to a meme where “brat” means not caring what haters say and having a relaxed demeanor. This appears to be an effort to rehabilitate Kamala's image as an awkward and cringeworthy public speaker. A viral meme video promoting “Brat Kamala" kicked off the enthusiasm.

why did I stay up till 3am making a von dutch brat coconut tree edit featuring kamala harris and why can’t I stop watching it on repeat pic.twitter.com/hqcmerD1Pb

— ryan (@ryanlong03) July 3, 2024

This was followed by gay supporters on Fire Island sporting brat Kamala midriff tops, CNN discussing brat Kamala, and even the official Kamala HQ X profile using brat font and colors as the header image.

BRAT Kamala shirts already on Fire Island. The gays move SO FAST pic.twitter.com/Zq3e9yctzv

— Michael Del Moro (@MikeDelMoro) July 21, 2024

CNN talks about Kamala Harris’ ‘brat’ themed campaign.

pic.twitter.com/lBjbVEtZNf

— Pop Base (@PopBase) July 22, 2024

Public interest appears more fixated on political drama, conspiracy theories, and memes rather than concrete policy positions or administrative decisions. Could the heightened and dramatic sequence of events, largely playing out on X, be driving a caricatured and meme-driven attitude toward American politics?

Democrats Turn on a Dime

Democrats who support Harris tend to emphasize unity and strategic continuity, endorsing Harris as a capable leader who can pick up where Biden leaves off. This, however, contradicts previous rampant ironic support many Democratic voters expressed toward VP Harris just weeks ago.

Overall American sentiment reveals an underlying tension within both parties. Across partisan lines, Americans largely view Harris as an extension of Joe Biden's leftwing policy record. However, there is an emphasis on her being "more liberal" and "less competent."

Those expressing enthusiastic support for her candidacy may view the progressive agenda as more important than candidate specifics. They laud her long political career, ignoring its past controversies like her track record as a tough-on-crime prosecutor.

Many also tout Hariss’s historic potential as the first female, AAPI, and black president of the United States. This support emphasis suggests the VP’s voter base places high priority identity politics as a critical driving factor in voting decisions.

• In the last two days, online mentions of both Joe Biden and Kamala Harris exploded, surpassing 40,000 for each one. Discussion volume for Kamala Harris also outpaced mentions of Joe Biden.
• Both Biden and Harris enjoyed a slight bump in sentiment, however neither crossed 50%.

Accusations Against Republicans

Democratic voters voice frustration, particularly toward Republican critiques of the Democratic nomination process. Commenters prepare for anticipated claims of unfairness from Republicans about Biden's endorsement and the highly irregular method of making Harris the Democratic candidate.

Progressives say previous Republican behaviors undercut their current arguments. They say things like, "Get ready for Republicans to all tell Democrats how unfair it is that our elected nominee isn't our elected nominee." This suggests a feeling of preemptive defense and a voter willingness to accept Democratic leadership decisions, despite previous contradictions.

Additionally, the anticipation of intensified challenges Harris will face due to "racism" and "misogyny" are taking center stage. Predicted to face unprecedented levels of racial and gender-based hostility, Democratic sentiment here shows willingness to prioritize identity politics over consistency. This anticipation of bias against Harris also ties into anxieties about how her leadership will be accepted across different societal strata.

A conspicuous trend is the polarized nature of the comments, absent of middle-ground perspectives. This polarization hints at an electorate either firmly in support of or staunchly against Kamala Harris, with few expressing nuanced or mixed views. The passionate language used in both supportive and critical comments suggests voters are highly engaged but also deeply divided.

Will Underlying Skepticism Bubble Up?

American voters' knowledge ranges considerably when it comes to policy specifics that Kamala Harris may promote. Conversation substance suggests many are likely uninformed about the granular details. Public discourse reveals a significant focus on high-profile, emotionally charged issues rather than on comprehensive policy analysis.

When Kamala Harris is mentioned, it often centers around her reactions to contentious topics like the bombing of Gaza and the associated humanitarian crises. Public discussions also frequently critique her past support for certain causes, such as fundraising efforts criticized for allegedly aiding violent groups. These conversations suggest progressives, despite vocal unity, may not truly support the policies of a potential Harris administration.

Conversely, critics voice concerns about Harris's capability to secure a victory in the presidential race, many drawing parallels to Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign. Doubts about her leadership on issues like immigration are prevalent, with comments noting her lack of communication with key figures like the Border Patrol Chief. Criticism also touches on her perceived inability to garner wider appeal, with suggestions that she might struggle against entrenched societal biases and the strength of her Republican opponents.

Democratic Voters Fall in Line

The narrative of Biden being "pushed out" by his party or the “deep state” adds another layer of complexity. While some express sadness and nostalgia for Biden's tenure, the swift rallying behind Harris suggests the Democratic camp is willing to move according to leadership direction.

The conversation about voter engagement and mobilization is prevalent, with many emphasizing the need for unity and increased voter turnout to secure a victory for Harris. This sentiment is reinforced by calls to action from various factions within the Democratic Party and allied movements, showcasing a concerted effort to maintain momentum.

The discussions about Biden possibly being ousted by his Party seems to alarm a segment of Democrats. However, many who very recently expressed disgust at potential political maneuvers seem to be changing their tune. This includes Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez who livestreamed her criticisms of Party leaders for pressuring Joe Biden to withdraw—only to delete the video and tweet her support for Harris.

Kamala Harris will be the next President of the United States. I pledge my full support to ensure her victory in November.

Now more than ever, it is crucial that our party and country swiftly unite to defeat Donald Trump and the threat to American democracy.

Let’s get to work.

— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) July 22, 2024