After a second assassination attempt on Donald Trump, public discourse turns to the media’s role in covering such violent political events. Across multiple platforms, voters are voicing concerns about the media’s culpability in raising the national temperature and whether they adequately address the gravity of the situation. Many criticize biased coverage which tends to blame Trump’s own rhetoric for the attempt on his life.

What Voters Are Saying

MIG Reports analysis shows:

• 63.72% of voters say the media contributes to violent events by using inflammatory rhetoric and demonizing political opponents.
• 42.96% of voters expect the media to ignore or downplay this assassination attempt against Trump.

Voter frustration stems from a perceived media bias, particularly regarding how the press covers threats or violence directed at Trump compared to other political figures. Many point out examples like Dana Bash accusing J.D. Vance of causing bomb threats in Springfield, OH, while also denying the media’s role in heated political rhetoric that may have urged violence from assassins.

I can’t stop watching this. Dana Bash jerking her head around like a bird because her target didn’t accept her Narrative’s premise. Vance rejects the premises. Then he attacks the premises. Just beautiful. pic.twitter.com/gsNOV4hiwJ

— Oilfield Rando (@Oilfield_Rando) September 15, 2024

Some also point to clips of Democrats, celebrities, and media figures promoting inflammatory rhetoric against Trump and Republicans, while blaming them for causing violent reactions among extremists.

2.5 minutes of Democrats explicitly calling for using political vioIence.

They own this. pic.twitter.com/vMpVbmJYmc

— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) September 16, 2024

Many voters express concern over the portrayal of Trump as a "threat to democracy," which they argue creates an environment of hostility and encourages violent acts. Right leaning Americans feel the media carries water for Democrats while blaming Trump and Republicans.

Ryan Wesley Routh, suspect in Trump assassination attempt, embraced Biden attack lines, called the former president a threat to democracyhttps://t.co/6gTBI8liOe pic.twitter.com/mVRpnlIN6z

— The Washington Times (@WashTimes) September 15, 2024

People attribute the media’s reluctance to thoroughly report on these events to political alignment against Trump. They accuse mainstream outlets of downplaying threats against Trump while amplifying narratives that politically benefit the Democratic Party.

There are recurring discussions of the media “memory holing” events that make Trump look sympathetic, while hysterically and irresponsibly covering stories that present voters and Republicans as villains.

Erosion of Trust in Media

The public’s skepticism about the media's ability to report on sensitive issues without bias is growing. In overall conversations MIG Reports data shows 75% of voters believe the media contributes to violent events through inflammatory language and divisive rhetoric.

This perception is not just about Trump but reflects broader mistrust in how news outlets frame stories, with voters arguing media narratives are politically skewed and antagonistic to average Americans. This theme continues from previous stories of media prejudice like biased debate moderators, media running cover for Joe Biden, and plummeting trust in media.

One particularly notable sentiment is that the media allegedly “memory holes” events—a reference to George Orwell’s 1984. Many believe media outlets ignore stories that do not align with their preferred political narrative. There is outrage at this selective coverage as voters feel ignored, invalidated, and demeaned.

Implications for American Politics

Voter perceptions of bias in coverage reinforce pre-existing political divides, making bipartisan dialogue increasingly difficult. For many, the media’s reporting on Trump’s assassination attempts is emblematic of the growing divide between how average citizens view the world and how the political and elite classes portray it.

As voters lose confidence in institutions, they are turning to alternative platforms like X for news and reporting. Many discuss the importance of independent media to ensure facts and important stories come to the fore, despite mainstream media’s refusal to cover them.

They point to examples of independent reporters gathering facts and evidence more thoroughly than large media corporations. Many are also discussing instances of independent journalists like Nick Sortor confronting mainstream figures about their alleged lies.

🚨 NEW: I PERSONALLY confronted the MSNBC “reporter” here in Springfield, Ohio who is now on TV with Lester Holt blaming President Trump for his own ass*ss*nation attempt

And she tried to have me ARRESTED.

I attempted to ask @Maggie_Vespa why she is pushing VIOLENT, DIVISIVE… https://t.co/EoJ06Of9B8 pic.twitter.com/wXulsn1oAa

— Nick Sortor (@nicksortor) September 16, 2024

Last week, a USA Today reporter called my video on the Venezuelan gang activity in Aurora ‘largely disproven.’ This week, 8 gang members have been arrested, and a city statement describes the damage, but the reporter and her editors have doubled down, refusing to acknowledge the… pic.twitter.com/UqnKCHIhDs

— Matt Christiansen (@MLChristiansen) September 14, 2024

As media credibility continues to erode, it is likely that the public’s reaction to major political events remains polarized.

A second assassination attempt on former President Donald Trump is generating strong reactions across the political spectrum. As details of the attempt unfold, voters express a range of emotions, from shock and outrage to skepticism and fear.

Ryan Wesley Routh, an individual who reportedly claimed ties to the Ukrainian International Legion, is the suspect in Sunday's attempt to assassinate former President Trump. Many are discussing Routh’s history of anti-Trump rhetoric, and online posts expressing disdain for his presidency. This, combined with apparent support for Biden and Harris is causing wide speculation about his motives. The attempt reignites tensions between Democrats and the media against American voters, causing debates about the state of American democracy.

The top emerging themes of discussion include:

• The alleged assassin's political affiliations and motivations.
• The role of Democrats and the media in inciting hatred and violence against Trump.
• Connections between Routh and Ukraine, the CIA, and other international actors.
• Demands for accountability and repercussions for inciting or engaging in violent behavior.
• The deepening divisions and partisan polarization within American society.

Voter Reactions

Voter reactions are largely splintered along partisan lines, revealing not only anger and fear but stark differences in how various groups interpret the event.

Republicans: Outrage and Betrayal

Among Republicans, the attempt on Trump’s life was met with overwhelming outrage. Many are furious about threats to Trump's safety after recurring calls for greater security and warnings of more attempts following the Butler, PA, attempt.

There are accusations against Democrats and mainstream media, who many view as inciting violence through inflammatory rhetoric and hostile coverage of Trump. Many on the right view the media as especially hypocritical. They say news outlets have exposed their double standards in blaming J.D. Vance for bomb threats in Springfield, Ohio, while also blaming Trump for the attempts on his own life.

Many Republicans express fears and concerns over the potential of assassination attempts being part of a coordinated effort from adverse motivations within the deep state. Allegations about Routh’s connections to the CIA and Ukraine fuel these theories. Speculations emerge that international actors or corrupt U.S. agency officials are connected to a plot to remove Trump from political life.

Democrats: Hesitation and Skepticism

Democratic voters are promoting what they call a measured response. While some voice relief that Trump is unharmed and condemn the violence in general terms, many also take a dismissive attitude. They focus on civility, “toning down rhetoric,” and discuss Trump’s gun views.

There was also a noticeable level of skepticism among certain Democrats, with some questioning suggestions that this was a serious assassination attempt. A minority even speculate that Trump may have staged one or both attacks as part of a political ploy.

Among Democrats, there more citing Trump’s own rhetoric as a cause of the attempted violence. Some in the media and voters online lament the possibility of the attempted assassination generating sympathy or votes for Trump in November.

Democratic skepticism is driven by a perception that Trump has manipulated media narratives in the past to gain sympathy and political advantage. Many call for a closer examination of the suspect’s motivations and affiliations before making any concrete judgments about the incident’s significance.

Independents: Frustration and Calls for Nuance

Independents voice frustration with the extreme partisanship on both sides. Many express a desire for more nuanced discussions about the assassination attempt, avoiding knee-jerk reactions they say come from partisans.

These voters want deeper investigations into Routh’s background and motives. They also question how this may reflect a broader issue of external influence or political extremism in American society. Some also highlight the media’s role in exacerbating political tensions, suggesting both sides contribute to a toxic atmosphere.

Emerging Themes

As discussions about the assassination attempt unfold, several key themes became evident across voter groups:

Questions About Deep State Involvement

Among Trump supporters, the alleged connections between Routh, the CIA, and Ukraine are at the forefront of discussions. Many believe the assassination attempt was part of a larger plan to silence Trump and prevent his political resurgence.

Partisan Polarization and Accusations

Both sides demonstrate the growing division in American politics. Trump supporters blame Democrats and the media for inciting violence, while some Democrats downplay the incident or redirect attention toward Trump’s own rhetoric. Accusations of hypocrisy run rampant, with both sides questioning the other’s commitment to condemning political violence.

Media Criticism

The role of the media in covering the assassination attempt is a significant focus of voter frustration, particularly among Republicans. Media outlets such as CBS, MSNBC, and The New York Times receive anger for their portrayals of Trump as a "threat to democracy." Many say the media is to blame for raising the rhetorical temperature, despite its own accusations against Trump.

Calls for Accountability

Across the political spectrum, voters want greater accountability—either for those inciting violence or those downplaying it. Many voters express the need for repercussions for both media figures and political leaders who contributed to the current climate of hostility.

Many on the right also want repercussions for Secret Service and DHS officials who have allowed these two attempts to take place. They suggest there is either incompetence deserving of firings, or corruption which ought to be cleaned out.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s decision to exit the 2024 presidential race and endorse Donald Trump sparked intense debate two weeks ago. But conversations continue as legal battles play out around removing his name from certain state ballots. Some states agreed to remove RFK Jr., but others resisted. Voter reactions to this development have been divided, particularly in the states where the issue is contested.

RFK Jr.'s Exit and Ballot Controversies

RFK Jr., previously running as a third-party candidate, dropped out of the race and threw his support behind Trump. In doing so, he requested to be removed from the ballots in 10 critical states to prevent siphoning votes from Trump.

States like North Carolina and Michigan generated controversy over this issue, with state officials and courts debating the legality of his removal. While some states like North Carolina have complied, others still remain unclear about leaving his name on the ballot.

Voter Sentiments

American responses to RFK Jr.'s request and some states fighting back are divided.

Pro-Trump Voters

For many Trump supporters, RFK Jr.'s removal from the ballot is seen as a non-issue. They view his candidacy as largely irrelevant but believe his Trump endorsement, along with Tulsi Gabbard’s, solidifies a larger MAGA base. However, there are concerns about whether keeping RFK Jr. on the ballot in some states might lead to confusion among voters, especially if some Trump-leaning voters mistakenly support RFK Jr.

RFK Jr. Supporters

Some who backed RFK Jr. during his run see his removal as a form of voter suppression. Many view him as a voice against the political establishment, and his forced removal from ballots is seen as undermining democratic choice. However, there are also many RFK Jr. Supporters who have moved, with Kennedy, to support Trump, expressing a willingness to vote for him if Kennedy is removed from ballots.

Democratic Voters

For Democrats, Kennedy’s presence on ballots is potentially damaging. Many fear he could split the vote, especially in swing states, aiding Trump in securing critical electoral victories. These voters generally support removing him from ballots, expressing relief when states comply.

Swing States and Legal Battles

The reactions in swing states have been particularly intense, with significant legal and public debate over RFK Jr.’s name remaining on ballots.

North Carolina's decision to delay absentee ballots due to the removal of RFK Jr.'s name has frustrated voters across the spectrum. Pro-Trump voters are concerned that military and overseas voters, many of whom rely on absentee ballots, could be disenfranchised. The delay, while seen as necessary by some, is viewed by others as a threat to the integrity of the election process.

In Michigan and Wisconsin, RFK Jr. remains on the ballot, sparking concerns that his presence could siphon votes from Trump. Republican strategists express apprehension about the potential for confusion among voters. There is also a growing push for early voting efforts to ensure a solid base turnout.

In Ohio and Pennsylvania, the debate has become increasingly heated, with both sides accusing the other of attempting to manipulate the electoral process. The outcome of these debates could have significant implications for the 2024 presidential election. Both sides express concern about RFK Jr. Upsetting their candidate’s winning potential.

All voter conversations about RFK Jr.’s removal are marked by accusations of voter suppression, manipulation, and conspiracy theories. Trump supporters accuse states who refuse to remove him as evidence of politicization. They say many states fought Kennedy about getting on the ballot when he was in the race and are now fighting him about being removed. Meanwhile, Democrats tend to view removing Kennedy as a necessary step to avoid confusion and prevent vote-splitting.

What This Means for the 2024 Election

While the impact of RFK Jr.’s ballot presence or absence is not fully resolved, there are potential implications:

• Swing State Dynamics: In key swing states like North Carolina, Arizona, and Wisconsin, RFK Jr.'s presence could be a wildcard. His name could attract disaffected Independent voters, potentially pulling votes from either major party candidates. However, if his removal proceeds smoothly in more states, the focus will likely shift back to the primary candidates, diminishing his influence.
• Voter Turnout and Engagement: The delay in absentee ballots in states like North Carolina could impact voter turnout, particularly among military voters and those living abroad. Early voting drives, especially among Republicans, will be crucial to offset any confusion or disenfranchisement resulting from the ballot controversy.
• Polarization and Mistrust: The debate over RFK Jr.’s ballot presence is likely to deepen partisan divisions. As both sides accuse the other of manipulating the system, trust in the electoral process may erode further. This could fuel higher turnout among those motivated by a perceived threat to election integrity, but it could also lead to greater apathy among disillusioned voters.

Recent discussions about trust in the voting system are stirring American fears—particularly around illegal immigrants voting. This issue sparks concerns over election integrity, immigration policy, and national identity. Discussions about the potential for various kinds of election interference permeate mainstream political discourse and online debates. Most American voters express anxiety about what they see as a potential erosion of democracy.

Why Do People Fear Illegal Immigrant Voting?

Since 2020, fears of election interference and cheating have weighed on voters across the political spectrum. Many believe lax border policies and a lack of stringent voter ID laws could allow non-citizens to vote. This, they believe, would undermine the legitimacy of election outcomes.

The perception is heightened by claims that allowing illegal immigrants to vote certainly skew the results in favor of candidates lenient on immigration policy—often, but not exclusively, Democrats. Many on the right also assert this is an intentional but unspoken strategy by Democrats to gain votes.

The passionate tone of conversations is palpable. Many voters see illegal immigrants voting as not just a policy issue, but a direct threat to the integrity of the voting process. Words like "betrayal," "treasonous," and "national security" frequently surface in these exchanges, illustrating the intensity of public sentiment.

The Fear is Growing

MIG Reports analysis of online conversations shows:

Nationally

• 52% of express a belief that illegal immigrants will vote.
• 75%, regardless of whether they believe illegal immigrants will vote, express concern about the issue.
• 59% vocally disapprove of the idea of illegal immigrants voting.
• 16% express approval or are neutral about the issue of illegals voting.

Swing states

Belief in the threat of illegal immigrants voting:

• 45% believe illegal immigrants will vote in the election.
• 31% dismiss the idea as a false narrative or conspiracy theory.
• 24% are neutral or unsure.

Sentiment about illegal immigrant voting:

• 51% disapprove of the idea of illegal immigrants voting in the election.
• 21% express approval or support for allowing illegal immigrants to vote.
• 28% of comments are neutral or unsure.

Though a majority nationally disapprove and express concern, swing state voters are more divided. Voters in critical states still express concern more often than indifference or support, but not as strongly as in national samples.

Reasons Voters Are Concerned

Voter fears are driven by election integrity, national sovereignty, and the perceived manipulation of democratic processes. Many fear allowing illegal immigrants to vote is unfair and threatens national interests. They say giving undue voting rights to groups who often do not pay taxes and are not part of the national social contract, weakens the voice of citizens. They say it erodes the sanctity of the voting process.

Many Americans are also express broader frustrations about immigration policy. They consider unchecked migration as a larger threat to national identity, the economy, and safety as well as election integrity.

Progressives and Democrats are more likely to be proponents of allowing illegal immigrants to vote. This minority argues migrants contribute to the U.S. economy and deserve representation in the democratic process. They claim the number of illegal immigrants voting is minuscule, dismissing fears of meaningful impact on the election.

The SAVE Act

Central to the debate is the SAVE Act, a bill proposed to tighten voter eligibility rules and ensure that only U.S. citizens can cast ballots in federal elections. The legislation would require states to verify the citizenship of voters and impose stricter penalties for voter fraud.

Supporters of the SAVE Act argue the bill is a necessary safeguard to prevent illegal immigrants from voting and protect election integrity. Many of those concerned about illegal voting cite the SAVE Act as the only effective way to address this perceived vulnerability in the system. For them, this legislation represents a proactive solution to what they see as a looming threat to democratic legitimacy.

Critics, however, argue the SAVE Act is a thinly veiled attempt to suppress minority votes, saying it would make it more difficult for naturalized citizens and lower-income communities to vote. They claim widespread voter fraud, including voting by illegal immigrants, is largely a myth and only happens “rarely.”

How Could This Impact the 2024 Election?

If illegal immigrants are allowed to vote, or if perceptions persist that they are voting illegally, the impact on the 2024 election could be profound. Based on current voter sentiment, likely outcomes include:

Erosion of Trust

Beliefs that illegal immigrants are voting—especially if proven true—deepen distrust in election results. Already, more than half of voters are concerned about this issue, and these concerns could further polarize the electorate. Lingering disagreements about the 2020 election and various voter fraud allegations will likely heighten the emotional response if voters believe illegal immigrants are voting in great numbers.

Boost to the SAVE Act and Similar Legislation

If concerns about illegal immigrant voting persist, we may see a surge in support for the SAVE Act or similar bills aimed at requiring voter ID and other integrity measures. Politicians who align themselves with this movement could gain momentum, particularly in conservative-leaning districts.

Political Ramifications

Should illegal immigrants vote in noticeable numbers—whether allowed by legal loopholes or through fraud—most believe the results would favor the Harris-Walz ticket. Any suspicion or evidence of illegal voting could lead to a backlash, causing continued disagreements about election results.

Legal Challenges and Protests

An uptick in allegations of illegal voting could result in a wave of legal challenges, further delaying election results and heightening tensions. Protests from both sides of the issue could erupt, making the post-election environment volatile and unpredictable.

MIG Reports analysis of reactions to the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) forecasting delays in operations during 2024 election generates suspicion. The report, which stemmed from a letter of 33 state and local election officials, cited “ongoing concerns about the United States Postal Service’s (USPS) performance.” Analysis of discussion and sentiment shows public opinion leans heavily towards skepticism and a significant level of worry about the health of governance and the electoral system.

NEW: 33 state, local election officials warn of "ongoing concerns about the United States Postal Service’s (USPS) performance" ahead of #Election2024

In letter to @USPS, they note "serious questions about processing facility operations, lost or delayed
election mail" pic.twitter.com/OOqfOuf3Ud

— Jeff Seldin (@jseldin) September 11, 2024

Will USPS Delays Will Impact the Election?

Around 66.7% of Americans express concern that USPS delays will disrupt the 2024 election. The most prominent theme emerging from MIG Reports data is fear that delayed mail-in ballots could affect voter turnout and potentially alter election outcomes. This concern cuts across all datasets, with the highest level of anxiety at 72% believing delays could cause significant problems.

The narrative consistently reflects a distrust in the USPS’s ability to handle election logistics. Voters question the mail system, saying things like, “If the USPS can't deliver mail on time, how can we trust them to deliver our ballots?” This sentiment captures the widespread apprehension about whether the correct votes will be counted.

What Happens if USPS Delays the Election?

Beyond general concerns, 53.4% of Americans believe USPS delays will lead to significant consequences, particularly voter suppression and election tampering. This sentiment spans across data sets, with Americans fearing disenfranchised. They also say issues will likely disproportionately impact marginalized communities, allowing manipulated election outcomes. Many speculate delayed ballots could sway the election results, fueling narratives of intentional election interference.

Other potential outcomes Americans discuss include civil unrest or even violence. This narrative is reinforced by fears of a “constitutional crisis” or riots in the streets. Voters express growing frustration with what they perceive as a fragile electoral process.

Thematic and Sentiment Overview

The thematic analysis reveals clear patterns of concern centered around:

• Voter disenfranchisement
• Election tampering
• Loss of trust in the electoral system

Synonymous language such as "suppression," "manipulation," and "chaos" recurs throughout discussions, emphasizing how delays could jeopardize the fairness of the election. Americans frequently mention their fear of being disenfranchised.

A smaller number of voters assert confidence, suggesting election officials will resolve any logistical challenges. Terms like "minor setback" or "USPS will figure it out" reflect a more optimistic view that the postal system will eventually deliver. These voters promote in-person alternatives for those concerned about mail-in ballots. However, even in this group, there are lingering concerns about delays could introduce some degree of uncertainty into the process.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Secret Service designated the 2025 Electoral Vote Count as a national security event, sparking widespread and intense debate. This move, unprecedented in U.S. electoral history, has triggered a variety of responses from different segments of the American public.

Voters are grappling with concerns over democracy, transparency, and security. Reactions and sentiments around domestic policy, voting issues, and election integrity vary. Analysis of these differences provides insight into how Americans are processing this complex issue.

Sentiment Analysis

MIG Reports analysis shows a marked division in public opinion. The reactions can be grouped into four broad categories:

• Skepticism and concern (37%)
• Support for the decision (32%)
• Uncertainty (17%)
• Outrage or frustration (13%)

Each perspective offers its own unique breakdown of public sentiment, revealing the various underlying motivations, concerns, and narratives that shape these discussions.

Domestic Policy

Designating the vote count as a national security event has spurred conversations about government overreach and power. Analysis of discussions show 42% of Americans are skeptical, expressing concern that this move is an unnecessary overreach of executive power. Many fear the designation could set a precedent for future manipulation of the electoral process under the guise of national security.

Meanwhile, 27% support the decision, believing increased security is necessary to protect the electoral process from potential threats. However, even within this group, there is a sense of caution regarding the broader implications.

Another 21% of the conversation calls for greater transparency and accountability from the government, demanding more information about why this designation was made and how it will impact the voting process. The remaining 10% expresses outrage, viewing the designation as an affront to democracy and an attempt to suppress dissent.

Voting Issues

Discussions about voting issues show similar sentiments of deep skepticism and division. Around 42% express outrage and indignation, often using strong language to condemn the government’s decision. Many in this group view the move as an attempt to undermine the democratic process, with concerns about voter suppression and the militarization of the election. This group is largely composed of liberal and progressive voters who feel the integrity of the election is under threat.

The 27% who support the designation believe it is a necessary measure to secure the election from potential threats. This group, predominantly made up of conservative and Republican voters who view the measure as safeguard against fraud and external interference.

Additionally, 15% express confusion and uncertainty, seeking more clarity about what this designation entails. Another 16% demonstrate cynicism and apathy, questioning the effectiveness of any governmental action in securing elections and feeling disillusioned with the electoral process overall.

Election Integrity

Conversation about election integrity shifts slightly, with 42% supporting the move as a necessary step to protect the integrity of the vote and prevent potential voter fraud. This group feels safeguarding the electoral process is paramount. They view the designation as an appropriate and necessary measure.

Conversely, 27% believe the measure is an overreach of power, echoing concerns about executive authority and its potential abuse. Another 15% express uncertainty, reflecting the need for more information before forming a definitive opinion on the matter. Finally, 12% see this move as a partisan attempt to undermine the electoral process and discredit the outcome, with 4% specifically concerned about the potential for foreign interference.

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.

MIG Reports data shows voter sentiment shifts following the first debate between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris. Views of bias from the debate moderators and broader political divides reveal anti-establishment sentiments.

The debate on ABC, moderated by David Muir and Linsey Davis, sparks a discussion about media bias, political alliances, and the establishment's role in shaping the election narrative. Voters are having contentious discussions centering on the notion that Trump is running against Harris as well as the broader political and media establishment. As these reactions unfold, they provide insight into the electorate's evolving perspective on Trump's anti-establishment image in the 2024 race.

Former Democrats backing Trump reveals the same point as Dick Cheney backing Kamala Harris. It’s not really about Republicans vs Democrats. It’s about the managerial class vs the citizen. pic.twitter.com/shjcQTar9x

— Vivek Ramaswamy (@VivekGRamaswamy) September 11, 2024

Voters Sense Media Bias

Analysis of reactions from both sides reveals more than half of voters perceive the debate moderators and the media as biased against Trump. MIG Reports data shows 59.5% expressing dissatisfaction with the debate moderators, accusing them of favoring Harris.

Perceptions of bias feed into the broader narrative that Trump is the target of an organized hinderance effort by establishment figures. Additionally, 51.5% of voters believe Trump is actively facing opposition from establishment forces in the media and political elites in both parties. These findings illustrate the growing belief among Trump supporters that his campaign represents a challenge to entrenched powers. Voters view the election as representing more than just policy—they believe it’s a battle against a rigged system.

Trump Versus the Machine

Media Machine

Voter reactions Muir and Davis underscore perceptions of the establishment media seeking to crush Trump. This bolsters ideas that the media, a key pillar of the establishment, is unfairly targeting him.

Many believe Trump faced disproportionate scrutiny, with fact-checking and interruptions exclusively targeting him. They also assert that Kamala Harris was allowed to speak freely. Trump supporters interpret this as a clear attempt by ABC to undermine his candidacy.

• 65% criticize them for displaying bias against Trump and helping Harris.
• 72% feel the debate moderators intentionally aimed to damage Trump’s credibility.

Dissatisfaction directly fuels beliefs that the debate was not just a clash between candidates but a three-against-one demonstration of how the establishment manipulates the narrative against Trump.

Political Machine

The political establishment’s opposition to Trump also surfaces in voter conversations. More than half of discussions acknowledge that Trump's campaign faces formidable resistance from a coalition of establishment figures.

• 50% recognize establishment GOP figures like Dick Cheney and George W. Bush, appear to align with Democrats.
• 47% say the debate itself reflected political bias, with moderators pushing Democratic viewpoints to delegitimize Trump.

Voters express beliefs that Trump’s candidacy is a continuation of his fight against the "swamp," a term they use to describe career politicians and media figures who they believe undermine the interests of the American people.

Unwavering Loyalty

Views that Trump is running against the establishment further solidify supporter among anti-establishment voters. The debate reinforced their conviction that Trump stands as an outsider who challenges both parties and the media’s control. For them, the debate moderators, the format, and the overall media portrayal of Trump indicate his opposition is more than just political—it's systemic.

Despite this unfair targeting, Trump’s base remains resilient, with 60% of his supporters declaring him the winner of the debate. This emphasizes his capacity to confront establishment forces head-on.

MIG Reports analysis of voter discussions and reactions to the election debate between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump suggest voters believe Trump won.

Data shows distinct reactions from:

• Democrats
• Republicans
• Independents and undecided voters
• All voters combined

Weighted analysis of data from voter conversations on four key topics—security issues, border security, economic issues, and ideologies—shows a clearer understanding of voter sentiment and the perceived "winner." This analysis synthesizes opinions across different voter groups to provide a comprehensive overview of public reaction.

MIG Reports data shows across topics, Trump outperformed Kamala Harris among his base and all voters combined. However, Harris’s sentiment on the economy and ideologies may have an increased margin for error—and may potentially be artificially inflated—due to troll-posting from Trump supporters ironically praising her.

Security Issues

Security issues play a pivotal role in shaping perceptions of the candidates' debate performances. Across all voter groups, Donald Trump has a slight lead, gaining 45.46% of overall support compared Harris’s 41.98%.

• Among Democrats, Harris is seen as the more capable leader, with 65% of Democratic voters praising her confidence and preparedness.
• Republican voters show strong allegiance to Trump, with 65% believing he dominated the discussion on security.
• Independents also lean toward Trump, with 60% of their comments supporting his stance, although 25% acknowledge Harris's performance.
• 12.56% of overall voter reactions are neutral.

Border Security

Trump handily wins the immigration and border discussion across all groups, with 56.12% of total sentiments in his favor.

• Democrats largely rally behind Harris, with 65% approving her border comments, focusing on her humane approach to immigration.
• Republicans overwhelmingly back Trump, with 82% crediting him for his firm stance on border control and framing Harris as ineffective.
• Independents also lean heavily toward Trump, with 60% supporting his approach to border security, while 25% align with Harris.
• The overall voter reaction remains consistent, showing 62% support for Trump.

Economic Issues

On the economy, Trump also holds an overall advantage, with 49.29% of voters favoring him compared to 42.16% for Harris.

• Harris has 68% support among Democrats. They say she won the economic debate, citing her middle-class policies and critiques of Trump's tax cuts as effective.
• 75% of Republican voters stand firmly behind Trump, highlighting his economic record and ability to keep inflation low during his presidency.
• Independents also favor Trump on economic matters, with 65% backing his approach and 30% saying Harris performed well.
• Across all voters, the economic narrative skews toward Trump, who emerges as the more trusted candidate on this issue.

Ideologies

The ideological debate reveals a more nuanced picture, with Trump holding a lead overall at 47.79%, while Harris trails at 36.46%.

• Among Democrats, 70% say Harris won the ideological argument, viewing her progressive policies and composure as strengths.
• Republicans are loyal to Trump, with 84% supporting his stance and framing Harris’s ideas as too left leaning.
• Independents are more divided on ideological issues, with 45% favoring Trump and 33% backing Harris.
• The general electorate reflects a similar divide, with 45% for Trump and 33% for Harris. While Trump leads in overall sentiment, the ideological debate remains contested, with Harris holding significant support among certain groups.