On Aug. 6, Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris announced Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz as her running mate. Many voters speculate Harris’s strategy was aimed at solidifying support with voters in the Midwest. Democrats are emphasizing both progressive and moderate credentials to appeal across the party’s spectrum.

MIG Reports data shows headwinds for Harris in the three days following Walz’s announcement as the Democratic VP pick:

• Harris continues to lose ground nationally against Donald Trump
• Walz’s individual support dropped from leading J.D. Vance by 3%, to trailing him by 1%.

Negativity Toward Gov. Tim Walz

On the ideological left, there is a limited amount of support for Harris-Walz. Leftists among these groups dissect Harris's campaign decisions for their shaky alignment with progressive values. Progressives express skepticism about her commitment to systemic change, often pointing to her past as a prosecutor and her perceived establishment ties.

Democrats and progressives who approve of Walz express hope that he can strengthen Harris’s appeal to rural and Midwestern voters while reinforcing progressive policies. However, this hope seems largely negated by voter sentiment in Midwest states like Wisconsin.

• Despite an initial boost on Aug. 6, Kamala Harris’s approval in Wisconsin has since dropped to net -1% relative to her support prior to adding Walz to the ticket.
• In Ohio, Harris saw a 4% bump with her VP announcement, which dropped back down to 46% in the following days.
• Similarly in Michigan Harris has not held her VP bump, dropping back down from 49% on Aug. 6 to 47% today.

Moderates and centrists are a challenge for Harris, creating a need to prevent herself from being perceived as far-left. Critical issues like the economy, border, and national security draw sharp negativity from important voter groups.

Despite the Harris campaign attempting to frame Walz as a moderate who appeals to both progressives and centrists, MIG Reports data shows online sentiment is predominantly negative. The campaign’s framing effort is often met with skepticism and outright rejection. Dissatisfied voters are quick to highlight Walz’s record as extremely far left.

Many Midwestern voters also highlight geographic and cultural rifts. They claim coastal democrats have misunderstood Midwestern moderates. They view Walz’s policies as reshaping Minnesota into a facsimile of California's liberal agenda. This comparison highlights growing divides on the left between far left progressives and moderate and blue-collar Democrats.

Top issues causing negativity toward Walz include:

• Walz role in allowing and possibly abetting BLM riots in Minneapolis in 2020
• His position on transgender issues and child sex-change surgeries
• Concerning ties Walz has with China and travel there as a teacher
• Widespread allegations of stolen valor
• His extremely progressive immigration policies
• Walz’s poor fiscal record of government over-spending in Minnesota
• His stringent enforcement of 2020 COVID lockdowns

National approval for Walz has been volatile in the last month. In mid-July, Walz saw approval highs of 48% and a low of 37%.

• Since being chosen as the Democratic VP candidate, Walz's approval has dropped from 49% to 46%.
• A month ago, online mentions of Tim Walz only averaged 38 per day. With his announcement as Harris’ running mate, mentions spiked to 23,936, dropping back to around 10,000 in the following days.

Voter Group Reactions

Democrats

Among Democrats, many highlight Tim Walz's legislative achievements and progressive credentials. Proponents celebrate his moves to provide universal free school meals, legalize cannabis, enact carbon-free electricity mandates, and establish paid family leave policies.

Walz's supporters argue his executive experience and progressive policies align with Kamala Harris's vision for America. They spotlight his efforts in sectors like education, climate change, and healthcare.

National Democratic figures like Nancy Pelosi and David Axelrod have defended Walz, indicating his acceptance among influential party members. However, these support pillars do not translate to more moderate Democratic voters.

Moderate Democrats express concern about Walz’s progressive track record. They worry about the backlash against his handling of BLM protests and his controversial COVID "snitch line." Walz's advocacy for defunding police and support for youth gender surgeries also alienates centrist Democrats in swing states who view these policies as too radical.

Republicans

Predictably, Republican and conservative voters are sharply critical of Walz. They decry his role during BLM protests in Minnesota, accusing him of allowing riots and chaos. Conservatives view Walz as overly radical, emphasizing his ties to socialist policies and his progressive stance on LGBTQ issues.

Republicans suggest Walz solidifies a leftward shift on the Democratic ticket. This, they argue, is contrary to the values of mainstream America.

Much of the discourse among Republicans—with growing media acknowledgement—outlines allegations of repeated stolen valor by Walz. Evidence has emerged that Wal retired from the National Guard to avoid deployment and misrepresented his rank and service record. This scandal elicits strong negativity from veterans, voters who value support for the U.S. military, and moderate demographics who emphasize valor and honor in service.

Independents and moderates

Some Independents appreciate Walz's tangible policy achievements and his Midwestern roots. They hope this can help the Democratic ticket gain traction in critical swing states. However, support among those who would have appreciated Walz's military background wavers with more information about his alleged stolen valor.

Many are also concerned about how he managed 2020 protests and view his policies as too extreme. His COVID lockdown policies also generate disapproval—especially in discussion about creating a "snitch line" to report anyone violating lockdown orders. These are major sticking points for moderates and Independents, could jeopardize support.

Geographic Voter Groups

Geographically, the reaction to Walz varies. In Minnesota and neighboring Midwestern states, his candidacy elicits strong responses, both positive and negative. These regions have witnessed his governorship firsthand, causing many to express dissatisfaction.

In contrast, coastal states inclined towards more progressive policies seem to respond more favorably to Walz. They align with progressive values but believe Walz could shore up moderate appeal.

In traditionally conservative regions, especially the South and parts of the Midwest, criticism reigns. These regions frame Walz’s policies as emblematic of excessive government intervention and radicalism.

• In swing states, Walz does not meaningfully boost Kamala Harris’s support.
• Since Walz’s announcement as VP pick, Kamala Harris has lost ground against Donald Trump in swing states, going from a 50%-46% Trump lead to 52%-44%.

MIG Reports data shows Kamala Harris faces a major challenge in solidifying her political identity. The task becomes even more complex after choosing Tim Walz, who represents a leftward shift, as her running mate. Opinions vary widely as Harris navigates her campaign's ideological positioning. This brings into question whether she can successfully appeal to a far-left base without alienating moderate Democrats and Independent voters. 

Polarizing issues which are important to critical voter groups create a chasm Harris and Walz must bridge to avoid seeming extreme to moderate and independent voters. Support weakens if swing state voters believe the Democratic stance includes: 

• Open borders 
• Increased crime and decreased policing 
• Socialist policies 
• Greater economic instability 
• Fracking bans 
• Gun confiscation 
• Healthcare for illegal immigrants 

Many voters are eager for the Harris campaign to clarify her positions on these issues, often expressing frustration at the lack of detailed platform thus far. 

Walz Pushes Harris Left 

Discussions also delve into the political implications of Harris's VP pick, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz. Many in swing states view the Harris-Walz ticket as intentionally doubling down on progressive values to galvanize the liberal base. Critics see it as a potential misstep that alienates moderate voters.  

The debate over their ideological stance often refers to broader issues such as family values, economic policies, national security, and systemic social changes. This polarization is further fueled by contrasting opinions on the impact of progressive policies on America's safety, economy, and overall direction. 

Supporters seem to unify against the perceived threat of Donald Trump rather than enthusiasm about a Harris-Walz administration. Advocates assert their eagerness to "save democracy" from Donald Trump, who has been characterized in media as an autocratic strongman. They emphasize the stakes and urgency felt by many Democratic voters. 

It seems Harris has a difficult tightrope to walk in appealing to different voter groups with conflicting values. Opposing groups include: 

• Leftist progressives versus moderates 
• Pro-Israel versus pro-Hamas Democrats 
• Rule of law versus “Defund the police” voters 
• Identity politics versus advocates of meritocratic policies 

Swing State and Moderate Voters 

Many moderates and Independents have difficulty pinning down Harris's policy platform. There is a sense of frustration with the perception that she often speaks in generalities rather than clarifying detailed policy proposals. This sentiment is echoed in comments asking Harris to list her specific positions and proposed actions on major issues. 

Gun control and abortion are two topics that polarize swing state voters. Harris's stance on gun confiscation scares moderates who support the Second Amendment. However, abortion tends to gain more approval in swing states. 

In general, the Harris-Walz ticket gains greater support nationally than in critical swing states. This suggests, as of August, Kamala Harris has not yet shored up support needed for critical electoral votes. 

• On six polarizing issues including the border, the economy, national security, crime, abortion, and protests, Harris averages 3.5% lower approval in swings states. 
• The largest approval disparities are on the border and the economy, averaging -4.9% and -4.8% in swing states compared to nationally. 

Historical Contradictions Unsettle Voters 

Harris's history of policy shifts also lead to perception among moderates and Independents that she is politically opportunistic or adaptable, depending on her audience.  

Specific issues like her previous support for the Green New Deal versus aligning with broader climate and energy policies under the Biden administration illustrate the malleable nature of her positions. Many view this as a sign of inconsistency or lack of core principles.  

Kamala’s flip-flops on issues like illegal immigration, prosecuting crime, and gun control drive significant debate. On immigration, discussions often refer to her shift from supporting a 2008 policy in San Francisco that reported undocumented juveniles to ICE. This contradicts her current stance on decriminalizing border crossings and advocating for taxpayer-funded healthcare for undocumented immigrants, which Walz implemented in Minnesota. Other similar policy inconsistencies cause swing state voters to question her consistency and authenticity. 

With Kamala Harris and Tim Walz now established as the top of the Democratic ticket, immigration conversations are heating up. The primary focus of discussions among voters are Harris-Walz border policies and actions related to illegal immigration. This is a top issue for voters in 2024 and Harris’s track record as Border Czar during the Biden administration does not bode well for her campaign.

What Americans are Saying

Top conversations revolve around:

• Illegal immigrant crossings
• Driver’s licenses for illegals
• Sanctuary state issues
• Open borders under Kamala
• The halted border wall

Many voters highlight that both Harris and Walz support lenient policies on illegal immigration. Walz in particular is catching heat for granting driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants. People despise this policy, saying it undermines border security, encourages illegal entry, and threatens election integrity. Voters regularly accuse Harris of condoning open borders, suggesting she intentionally inhibits border restrictions and controls.

The narrative around sanctuary states is particularly contentious, with many arguing they prioritize illegal immigrants over the safety and interests of American citizens. Voters also associate these policies with higher crime rates and stress on state resources. Additional critiques target Harris policies for eroding safety and security. Voters allege increased crimes committed by illegal immigrants compound negative effects on American communities.

Voters Dread a Harris-Walz Border

Americans express strong negative feelings toward Harris and Walz, associating them with extreme leftist border policies. Harris receives significant criticism for how she handled the border as Vice President.

Walz is also facing backlash for his actions and rhetoric about immigration. People accuse him of replacing the Minnesota flag with a Somali flag. Walz’s statements about investing in ladder factories to help illegal immigrants climb the border wall also draw intense criticism and accusations that he wants to increase illegal immigration.

3 months ago, Minnesota Gov Tim Walz replaced their state flag with a new flag resembling a Somali regional flag.

This is Kamala's VP pick. pic.twitter.com/t7PfqPTl5j

— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) August 6, 2024

Radical Tim Walz wants a “ladder factory” to help illegals get easy access into America..

As if enough Americans have not suffered enough.
pic.twitter.com/iG9E6J6i3I

— Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) August 6, 2024

Voter Impact

Harris and Walz aim to attract Independents and undecided voters away from Trump. They argue inclusive policies, such as issuing driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants, contribute to public safety and inclusion. However, data suggests there is mounting resistance from Americans who demand leaders secure the nation's borders.

Many voters on both sides of the political aisle view Harris and Walz's immigration stances as fundamentally opposed to American interests. The moderate voter they seek to draw in often have strong loyalty to U.S. interests—particularly border security.

The juxtaposition of security versus inclusivity likely poses a problem for Democrats among multiple voter groups. Voters continue to affirm that border security is a top issue they expect to influence their voting in 2024.

Bad Leaders Make Bad Decisions

Many people criticize Kamala Harris's track record as "Border Czar," viewing her as a complete failure. Critics accuse her of supporting open borders, being lenient on crime, and wasting public resources. They cite personal anecdotes and news stories to illustrate their concerns about crime and drug trafficking, which Kamala has done nothing about.

Harris supporters praise her intentions to provide a pathway to citizenship for Dreamers and other illegals. They say her efforts facilitate the contributions immigrants make to the economy and labor force.

Criticism toward Walz focuses on his poor executive track record in Minnesota—namely his ties to China and actions during the 2020 George Floyd protests. His comments about illegal immigrants lead people to view him as pandering to non-citizen groups who are fundamentally at odds with American interests.

Accusations that Walz made Minnesota a sanctuary state, offering healthcare, driver's licenses, and free college tuition to illegal immigrants infuriates Americans. They say he prioritizes illegal immigrants over American citizens.

Voters are increasingly concerned about Kamala Harris's lack of clarity on policy positions. Multiple sources comment on the absence of explicit policy goals on her campaign website, suggesting an underlying apprehension about her and Walz’s ability to address pressing national issues. Many say she has a phantom platform which emphasizes vibes over policy. They say it is an effort to redirect voters away from far-left policies they would not support.

These critiques often dovetail with broader accusations of the Democratic Party's manipulation and control over political processes. Many Americans believe Democrats impose undue influence from party elites and operatives.

A dominant thread in these conversations is the portrayal of both Harris and Walz as adherents to radical leftist ideologies. Phrases such as "socialism," "communism," and "far-left" continually emerge, reflecting public concern over their progressive stances.

Critics argue Harris and Walz embody a dangerous liberal agenda which must be obfuscated as it dismantles traditional American values.

Problematic Histories for Harris-Walz

Many voters point out both Harris and Walz having track records checkered with extreme leftwing positions. They criticize past statements and actions from both candidates advocating for radically progressive policies.

However, this sense of historically radical viewpoints becomes less clear to many voters who are unable to ascertain current Democratic platform positions. The candidates’ silence about what they are running on feels, to many, like a refusal to acknowledge their own leftist histories.

Republican VP candidate J.D. Vance pointed out the fact that Kamala Harris has made very few unscripted appearances and taken no questions from the press. This garnered attention online from Americans who find the lack of substance from Harris-Walz concerning.

I thought the reporters traveling with Kamala might be a little lonely given that she never answers questions from them, so I figured I’d come say hello and check out my new plane while I was at it. https://t.co/OPEh0UKBDc

— JD Vance (@JDVance) August 7, 2024

Many also point out allegations against Walz of stolen valor—a question he ignored from reporters in a recent public appearance.

REPORTER: Your response to allegation of stolen valor?

WALZ: *ignores*

REPORTER: Your response to allegation of stolen valor!?

WALZ: *runs away* pic.twitter.com/el3sPGDYuM

— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) August 7, 2024

Another prominent complaint voters lodge against the Democratic candidates is the issue of George Floyd protests in 2020. Critics claim Walz intentionally mismanaged Minneapolis protests, allowing and even condoning chaos and destruction. They also assert that Kamala Harris fundraised to bail protesters out of jail.

Voter ire also extends to Harris-Walz's opaque positions on:

• Immigration
• Law enforcement
• Gender policies
• Energy reform
• Foreign policy

Detractors say Harris and Walz both sympathize with extreme positions which are socially and economically destabilizing. These claims are paired with the current uncertainty as to what the Harris-Walz platform actually does advocate for.

Leftists Pencil in Their Own Views

Meanwhile, Democratic supporters celebrate the lack of clarity on Harris-Walz policy positions. They seem willing to fill in uncertainty with their own progressive viewpoints, hopeful of ushering in an era of leftist reforms and DEI initiatives.

Here, terms like "progressive," "equity," and "solutions" echo a counter-narrative that Kamala Harris and Tim Walz provide a necessary counterbalance to conservative agendas. Proponents underscore Walz's practical appeal, saying he’s relatable in his Midwestern resilience, complementing Harris's national political stature.

Progressives say Harris relies on charm and relatability without needing to explicitly outline substantive policy discourse. They praise her trendy appeal, especially among young people who either hold far-left views or lack their own conviction.

Vibes and Crowd Size

With recent campaign rallies, Harris supporters draw attention to crowd sizes compared to Trump's rally turnouts. This comparison tends to be used as a measure of support and enthusiasm among attendees. People use phrases like "electric energy" and "packed arena" reflecting positive engagement at events.

Supporters also emphasize impeccable vibes and tone over policies. They focus on the joyful and enthusiastic atmosphere at Harris’s rallies, marked by chants of "USA, USA, USA." This they compare to allegedly more personality-driven chants of "Trump, Trump, Trump" at MAGA rallies. This distinction attempts to position Harris as one that, ostensibly, aligns with national unity over individual glorification.

Critics paint the campaign as "meme-driven," accusing Harris of falling back on pop culture figures and influencer clout to compensate for lack of political support. This group accuses Harris of astroturfing social media influence, drawing crowds with performers like Megan Thee Stallion, and receiving assists from the media to inflate perceptions of support.

Skeptics say the Harris-Walz campaign utilizes emotion over substance to fill the gaps left by a lack of transparency in policy. Discussions involve terms like "radical left regime," and skepticism about her ability to manage the country effectively. People question her competence in light of an overly caricatured profile currently being promoted by Democrats and the media.

Vice President Kamala Harris’s opaque messaging on policy positions is becoming a point of concern for moderates and Independents. Voter groups like Democrats, Independents, and undecideds will be critical in the 2024 election. How they perceive Kamala Harris’s platform between now and the election will inform their view of her as potential president.

Liberals see her as a progressive leader who will push the country further left, generally supporting the Party candidate no matter what. Moderates are cautious about her policies, worrying the left is correct and wondering about the implications for traditional values and national stability.

• Sentiment toward Harris compared to Trump varies by topic. In the last day, the highest volume discussion topics show Harris low on inflation and border security. 
• Both Trump and Harris have strong approval regarding campaign rallies, presumably from each of their support bases.
• The current economy and border security have not been emphasized in conversations about Trump in the last day, however he sees negativity regarding allegations against him by Democrats.

Ideologies

Liberals see Kamala Harris as a champion of progressive ideals, often highlighting her support for workers' rights, social justice, and climate action. They praise her advocacy for labor unions and perceive her as representing average citizens against elites like Donald Trump. However, some liberals criticize her for not pushing far enough on certain progressive issues like economic equality and healthcare reform.

Moderates often view Harris as leaning too far left, associating her with socialist policies and expressing concern about her potential impact on traditional American values. They are wary of her support for universal healthcare and progressive reforms, fearing these might lead to increased government control.

Discussions about her Jamaican and Indian heritage also play a role. Some question her authenticity while others acknowledge her diverse background as a potential strength.

Security Issues

Liberals generally support Harris's diplomatic approach to security issues, appreciating her efforts to address systemic causes of migration and reduce global tensions. They praise her for securing prisoner releases and engaging in international diplomacy but may criticize her for not going far enough in reforming law enforcement.

Moderates express significant concern about Harris's ability to handle national security issues. They perceive her foreign policy, especially in the Middle East, as inconsistent, leading to distrust. They also associate her with the "defund the police" movement and fear increased crime under her administration.

Economic Issues

Liberals support Harris's economic policies, particularly her focus on climate action, job creation, and reducing inequality. They view her role in passing legislation like the Inflation Reduction Act as a positive step toward economic reform. However, they may want her to be more aggressive in challenging corporate influence and wealth inequality.

Moderates are critical of Harris's economic approach, often blaming her for contributing to inflation and economic instability. They express concern about fiscal irresponsibility and the potential burden on the middle class, fearing higher taxes and government spending under her policies.

Border Security

Liberals view Harris's border security policies as a humane approach to immigration reform. They support her efforts to address the root causes of migration and dismantle Trump-era policies. They praise compassion for illegal immigrants, emphasizing their right to migrate. However, some may criticize her for not being more proactive in pushing for comprehensive reform.

Moderates are furious with Harris's border security legacy, frequently criticizing her role as "Border Czar." They blame her for unchecked illegal immigration and massive security risks. They view her policies as both lenient and enabling to criminals looking to enter the country. Many also have harsh words for the apparent disregard for cartel activity and drug and child trafficking.

Worries about border failures are exacerbated by candidate Harris and her recent VP pick Tim Walz seeming to completely ignore child trafficking issues in favor of diversity, equity, and inclusion.

Immigration Issues

Liberals generally support Harris's immigration policies, praising her focus on humane treatment and systemic reform. They appreciate her advocacy for migrant rights but may call for more decisive action against restrictive immigration policies.

Moderates criticize Harris's immigration stance as overly lenient, associating her with increased illegal immigration and national security concerns. They express frustration over her halting deportations and call for stricter controls and decisive actions to curb illegal immigration.

Very soon after news of a plea deal for 9/11 terrorist Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM), Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin revoked Brig. Gen. Susan Escallier's authority, reneging on the deal. This sudden reversal deepens already heightened concern among Americans over broader national security issues and the lack of clear leadership in the federal government.

Online discussions about this complete turnaround are heavily intertwined with worry about international conflicts, particularly in the Middle East. Americans are extremely worried about political and military leadership, viewing this situation as evidence that no clear direction or mission is driving decision making.

Partisan Disagreements Worsen Amid Chaos

Voters were generally angry about the plea deal to begin with and, while many are thankful it was negated, the complete disarray among leaders does not inspire confidence. There are national security concerns, evaporating governmental trust, questions about justice, and anger about the broader context of the War on Terror.

There is a stark divide among the public, with some arguing the government's reversal is a necessary stance to ensure that KSM faces the full weight of the law. These voices often advocate for the death penalty, reflecting a belief that the ultimate punishment is essential for crimes of such magnitude. Others viewed the plea deal as a pragmatic approach to preventing prolonged and potentially fruitless legal battles.

The most common keyword in these conversations is "trust," reflecting the erosion of public confidence in U.S. leadership. Voters express a shared sentiment that poor decision making contributes to an already growing distrust in political institutions and legal processes. There is also a belief that government selectively enforces the law based on political convenience.

The term "betrayal" surfaces frequently, encapsulating a sense of disappointment and disillusionment. There is a prevailing sentiment that reneging on the plea deal undermines the credibility of the U.S. justice system and anyone who allowed it to be made in the first place. The plea deal was divisive from the beginning, but the perception of bureaucratic infighting worsens optics.

Who is Running the Country

There is noticeable frustration about the glaring lack of leadership and governance from President Biden. As global conflicts intensify and various U.S. leaders seem to be in conflict with each other, these conversations grow increasingly critical and polarized. Americans worry infighting between various people with decision-making power shows their priorities are on their own agendas rather than America’s safety and security.

Mentions of Kamala Harris are often accompanied by sentiments of disapproval and censure. Many question whether she is the person running the country and, if so, whether complete administrative chaos is what a Harris administration would bring. There is also a wealth of rhetoric associating Harris’s leadership with ongoing crises such as the market crash, the border crisis, and extreme uncertainty about war.

Blaming Joe Biden and Kamala Harris

People discuss the role of Vice President Kamala Harris in the Biden administration and how she is perceived in various political and policy contexts. There is widespread concern about her ability to handle critical issues unfolding across international politics, the economy, and national security. Voters are divided on her performance, but many point out her failures, blaming her and Biden for the current confusion and disarray in U.S. governance.

Public sentiment toward Biden-Harris often leans negative, particularly when discussing issues under Harris’s influence. General perceptions of policy reversals, with terms like "flip-flopping" and "opportunist," lambast the inconsistency in her political stances, further fueling negative sentiment. This perception of inconsistency at the highest levels of leadership only domino down to the seeming confusion with events like this KSM plea deal and the Defense Secretary’s subsequent reversal.

The issue of terrorism and foreign policy also generates significant discussion. References to topics like "Middle East conflict" and explicit mentions of militant groups like "Hamas" intertwine Harris’s name with broader themes of national and international security. With many fearing the world is on the brink of war, failures in critical decisions like plea deals with terrorists terrifies Americans.

With several outlets publishing opinion polls on the presidential matchup of Donald Trump vs Kamala Harris, MIG Reports data shows American are skeptical. This skepticism is especially sharp toward traditional, or establishment, news and media outlets.

While perceptions of political polling's reliability vary greatly, a substantial portion of the public appears to distrust these polls. This skepticism stems from previous experiences where polls have failed to predict actual election outcomes accurately.

Currently, Kamala’s support base, while diverse, shows nuanced characteristics revealing both genuine admiration and reactive support spurred by political attacks. The overarching sentiment among Harris supporters online is a rallying around her in opposition to Trump. This "us versus them" mentality often fuels an online reactionary defense, rather than positive support or a nuanced understanding of policy issues.

Analysis of real-time conversations about Harris’s position on important voter issues betrays an underlying negativity that does not seem consistent with polling.

Border Security

Voter view of Vice President Kamala Harris and her failure at the U.S. border are negative, focusing on harsh criticisms for her policies. The primary sentiment is driven by frustration over her failure to manage immigration issues. People accuse her of being a key figure in allowing an extreme border crisis.

Discussion Highlights

• Increased Illegal Immigration: Critics cite Harris's role in allowing unchecked illegal immigration, alleging 10 million or more illegal entries. They lament the strain on social services and infrastructure.
• Border Wall and Security: There is significant discourse about Harris halting border wall construction and reversing previous policies, with anger over ending agreements like "Remain in Mexico.”
• Impact on Safety and Crime: Many believe increased illegal immigration has led to a rise in crime, including drug trafficking and violence, posing threats to community safety and national security.
• Economic Concerns: Critics accuse Harris policies of causing higher living costs, burdening taxpayers who feel they are supporting illegal immigrants through social services.
• Policy Stance: People view Harris as supporting radical policies, such as abolishing ICE and offering free healthcare to undocumented immigrants, which are massively unpopular.

While support for Harris on border issues is limited, her supporters claim her efforts have been limited to addressing migration's root causes and advocating for comprehensive immigration reform. They view her approach as balancing security with compassion and aligning with American humanitarian values.

Sentiment Trends

• Lack of Leadership: Many express dissatisfaction with Biden-Harris inaction, noting infrequent visits to the border and lack of communication with Border Patrol leaders.
• Legislative Failures: Critics claim her policies have not led to substantive border security reforms and have resulted in bureaucratic inefficiencies and legislative gridlock.

Border Czar Failures

Harris's role as "Border Czar" also garners widespread criticism, along with broader views of border security. Voters express dissatisfaction, accusing her of failing in her leadership position, allowing record illegal crossings and compromising national security. Critics directly link her oversight to increased crime, drug trafficking, and threats to public safety.

This negativity suggests a lack of confidence in her ability to solve critical problems or speak meaningfully to Americans about things they view as important. With border security consistently among the top three critical issues to voters, and Harris’s Border Czar role providing direct oversight, border security serves as a gauge of Kamala’s administrative competence—or lack thereof.

Discussion Highlights

• Negative Sentiment: People view Harris as exacerbating the border situation. They say she has allowed millions of illegal immigrants into the country, citing statistics to support claims of increased crossings and security risks.
• Policy Criticisms: Discussions use phrases like "decriminalized crossing," "funding for ICE," and "border patrol agents," and indicate disapproval for her lack of action.
• Lack of Positive Outcomes: Voters point out a lack of concrete, positive outcomes from Kamala's leadership. Critics often question her qualifications and effectiveness in managing important issues.

International Unrest

A huge focus also places heavy negativity on international security dynamics. Voters on both sides disapprove of Harris’s stance on Israel and Palestine, and her broader foreign policy. The most frequently discussed issues involve her support for Israel, approaches to the ongoing conflict in Gaza, and her strategies for managing threats posed by Iran and its proxies like Hezbollah and Hamas.

Discussion Highlights

• Us vs. Them: Supporters rally around Harris as the savior from a potential second Trump term, touting her resilience and ability to tackle complex policy issues.
• Support for Israel: Harris’s strong Israel support gains approval, especially with those who see Israel as a critical ally. However, pro-Palestine Democrats express dissatisfaction.
• Bipartisan Unhappiness: Harris's advocacy for increased humanitarian aid to Gaza does not go far enough for pro-Palestine voters, while her support for Israel does not go far enough for pro-Israel voters.
• Diplomatic Strategy: Harris’s theoretical focus on diplomatic solutions over military interventions, particularly regarding Iran, may appeal to a war-weary electorate. However, lack of action or public statements also concerns voters.
• Reactive Support: Much of Harris’s support is reactionary, defending her against Republican criticisms and highlighting her management of issues like the Ukraine conflict and border security.

Sentiment Trends

Support for Harris is strong among those who appreciate her foreign policy positions. However, it is also possible that Democrats and anti-Trump voters project their own foreign desires on a candidate who has outlined very few concrete stances. Harris’s base is energized more by opposition attacks than by affirmative policy positions.

MIG Reports data analysis of Democratic voter opinions about Joe Biden shows top priorities are partisan. Mentions of "cognitive decline" and "cognitive issues" are notably absent from the discourse, suggesting a lack of concern or acknowledgment among Democrats. Instead, the prevailing discussions focus on Joe Biden's achievements, actions, and leadership qualities, reflecting a strong support base as the President rapidly recedes from public awareness.

A Love-Hate Relationship with Biden

Democratic sentiment toward Joe Biden appears highly favorable as many pronounce commendations of his policy successes and overall governance. This is disorienting for some who highlight Democrat and media hypocrisy in the last several weeks.

In a matter of days, Democrats seemed to do a 180-degree spin from fawning praise to vehement criticism before and after the first presidential debate. The confusion is deepened by Democratic voices again turning on a dime back to glowing praise following Biden’s withdrawal from the presidential race—completing a 360-degree head spin.

Now, many Democrats extol Biden's competence in economic management, using phrases like "economic growth" and "master class in economic management.” These discussions emphasize a belief in the Biden-Harris administration's effectiveness at driving economic progress. These supporters actively promote further investment in the administration's vision.

Another prevalent theme in Democratic conversations is Biden’s perceived efficacy in international affairs and high-profile negotiations. The release of U.S. hostages from Russia provides a recent example for supporters to showcase Biden's adept diplomatic skills. They say things like, "Thank you, President Biden and VP Kamala Harris!" to underscore their appreciation.

The same group, however, fall silent during incidents like a seemingly confused President Biden boarding the plane which just delivered hostages Messrs. Gershkovich and Whelan. They also fail to comment on incoherent and confusing statements from both Biden and Harris.

Joe Biden climbed back up the stairs of an airplane that had just arrived and he wasn’t flying on, as Kamala watched in amazement

I mean, he legitimately has no idea where he is or what he’s doing
pic.twitter.com/g5dBZ0CqXo

— Ian Miller (@ianmSC) August 2, 2024

Circling the Wagons

Criticism of Biden within Democratic circles is sporadic and tends to involve attacks from opposing political figures rather than internal dissent. Some use words like "backstabbing," presumably referencing rumors that Biden was pushed out by party leadership.

Those questioning Biden's legitimacy as the sitting president are framed as Republican sympathizers rather than Democratic voters with legitimate concerns. The overarching tone is defensive and protective of Biden against perceived partisan attacks.

Finally, the collaboration and mutual support within the Democratic political landscape are highlighted. There are swells of endorsements for Biden's administration, with Harris as the successor.

Voters discuss "gun reforms," "Biden-Harris saved lives," and accolades from "economics professors" in a collective effort to bolster the administration's accomplishments and rally continued support. This is despite numerous and consistent hits on Joe Biden’s approval throughout the past week of several key topics.

As conversations of the increasing likelihood of global conflict dominate social media, many worry about America's role in global conflicts and other national security concerns. With a firehose of global and political news in the last month, many right leaning Americans wish for Donald Trump to return to X. They say his vocal presence might bolster his political influence, particularly among young, undecided, and Independent voters.

After being banned prior to Elon Musk buying Twitter and rebranding it as X, Donald Trump’s only post on the platform since Musk subsequently reinstated his account was his famous mug shot in 2023. Many MAGA voters say increased visibility and opportunities for direct interaction could amplify Trump's rhetoric and potentially sway voters in his favor.

Supporters argue limiting his posts to Truth Social sacrifices engagement opportunities, especially amid heightened interest in security-related topics. There are also reports about the Kamala Harris campaign account “Kamala HQ” generates significantly more engagement than the “Trump War Room” account.

REPORT: 'Kamala HQ' is crushing the Trump campaign on X, reaching almost 10x as many people as Trump War Room.

'Kamala HQ's' messaging is dominating on X as they are going all in on attacking Vance with their "edgy Gen Z" approach.

Here is how many impressions Kamala HQ… pic.twitter.com/PaC4SYYnWF

— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) August 1, 2024

International Dangers Call for Strong Leadership

Online conversations greatly revolve around U.S. foreign policy, military engagements, and national security strategies. With growing concerns about the U.S. presidency—or lack thereof, Americans want a strong presence from strong leaders.

Many mention fears regarding Israel, Hezbollah, Iran, Hamas, and Middle East conflict. Trump's policy positions on these issues, especially his assertive stance on Israel's security and his criticisms of the Biden-Harris administration, resonate deeply with his core supporters. This leads them to call for his voice on X.

Discussion trends indicate Trump’s potential return to X might intensify these divides. Tweets and conversations often highlight major events such as the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict, retaliatory actions by Hezbollah, and U.S. military presence in hotspots like Syria and Afghanistan. People often compare Trump and Biden-era foreign policies, reinforcing either support or opposition to Trump's potential political reinvolvement.

MAGA Misses Trump’s Voice on Global Issues

Sentiment trends reveal a fluctuating landscape. Many voice nostalgia for Trump's “peace through strength” doctrine, juxtaposing it with Democratic strategies. This sentiment is particularly strong with those who believe strongman tactics are necessary to counteract global threats and safeguard American interests.

MAGA voters want a return to Trump's hardline policies, viewing his approach as essential for maintaining America's global standing and ensuring national security. They say Trump's strong alliances with Israel, his firm measures against Iran, and his decisive military strategies were effective in keeping threats at bay.

Those calling for Trump to return to X typically blame recent escalations in global conflict zones on the ineffective leadership of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris.

There are some advocating for restraint in America's military engagements. They press for international cooperation and humanitarian considerations, preferring diplomatic solutions over military interventions. However, this group rarely acknowledges the lack of active conflict under Trump’s administration.

Possible Impact

The analysis of these conversations suggests Trump returning to X could significantly impact political dynamics. The heightened visibility and discourse on security issues might reinforce his appeal to those who prioritize a more assertive national security strategy and potential new supporters. However, it also risks deepening the existing chasms in public opinion, highlighting the complexities of navigating foreign policy in the modern geopolitical landscape.