Americans are increasingly feeling frustration and economic apprehension. With volatile markets, high costs for goods and services, and potential wars looming, average families are feeling their wallets pinched. Gas prices are a particular pain point for households across the country that require transportation for work, school, and daily life.

There is an overt longing for a return to economic stability and lower energy costs, often tied to memories of past administrations. People often view Trump as more favorable to domestic energy production, lower consumer prices, and better job prospects.

Against the current economic backdrop, there's growing apprehension about the affordability of gas prices. Americans frequently cite high fuel costs as a major burden on household budgets, further exacerbated by inflation.

A recurring sentiment suggests that Biden administration fiscal policies have majorly contributed to unbearable price hikes. Public discourse often places the blame on increased government spending and policy decisions, claiming they have led to inflationary pressures that spike gas prices. The inflation reduction measures, particularly those tied to major spending bills like the American Rescue Plan, are notably cast in a negative light. Voters say Biden’s policies have not effectively curbed rising living costs but rather fueled them.

There are several factors concerning Americans about gas prices in the near future:

• Inflation continuing to drive prices up across the board.
• Fees from credit card companies being passed on to consumers.
• OPEC setting centralized and ever-increasing prices.
• The potential for war depleting the U.S. oil supply.

Fees and Costs Passed to Americans

Conversations around credit card fees are interwoven with broader economic grievances. Many express despair and anger about surging interest rates and fees charged by financial institutions. They tie this to the broader economic situation and interest rates set by the Federal Reserve.

The sentiment about credit card fees oscillates between anger towards excessive charges and an understanding of corporate responses to regulatory and fiscal changes. Consumers feel squeezed both by high borrowing costs and the increasing cost of everyday goods like gas, creating a compounded stress factor on their financial management.

Sentiment toward companies like Visa and Mastercard seem polarized. There is a begrudging acceptance of corporate roles in the broader economic system—people view them as essential yet increasingly burdensome players.

However, when government policies are viewed as ineffective or detrimental to economic relief, consumers direct anger at these companies. For instance, high credit card fees are cited as a tangible manifestation of financial strain exacerbated by broader economic mismanagement.

Some call for credit card companies to absorb more of the economic stress to alleviate consumer burden. This sentiment stems from a belief that these companies have the capacity to offer more leniency given their massive profits.

The Role of Regulation

Another significant aspect of the energy debate is the role of regulatory policies. Many voters harbor disdain for what they perceive as overregulation, which they say stifles the energy sector and contributes to rising costs. There's a recurring narrative that deregulation, coupled with increased domestic oil production, would mitigate high energy prices and reinvigorate the economy.

Many lament the escalation in gas prices under the Biden administration. They believe Biden’s policies limit domestic oil production in a fruitless effort to shift towards renewable energy sources. The public frequently contrasts these current trends with the lower gas prices under Trump. They call for a return to "energy independence." This term itself serves as a nostalgic touchstone for many Americans, evoking sentiments of stability and lower living costs.

Politics Influences Opinions

Public sentiment about gas prices is also colored by political allegiances. High fuel costs combined with potential war heightens anxiety, feeding into the broader theme of national economic insecurity.

Republicans and conservatives want Trump back in office, viewing his energy policies as favoring traditional fossil fuels over green energy. Democrats and liberals are more likely to argue for a reduced dependency on gas in favor of electric vehicles.

Sentiments also reflect geopolitical dynamics, particularly the influence of oil-producing nations like Saudi Arabia and geopolitical rivals like Iran. Conversations frequently invoke the dependency on foreign oil, especially when discussing the potential for conflict or the strategic maneuvers of international actors.

The dialogue indicates a bipartisan concern over how external pressures and internal policies collectively shape gas prices and, by extension, the broader economic landscape.

In the current American political landscape, discussions about gun control are intense. Divisions are often along partisan lines when it comes to gun regulations, carry laws, and firearm availability. However, there is a related issue of credit card companies monitoring purchases which impacts wider groups of Americans, illustrated vividly by gun owners.

2A Advocates are Livid with Increased Gun Measures

Conservative and pro-2A (Second Amendment) Americans are increasingly worried about credit card company involvement in gun-related policies. Analysis of online conversations reveals sentiment towards credit card companies like Visa and Mastercard is deeply influenced by their policies related to gun purchases and tracking.

Gun owners view any action by financial institutions to monitor or restrict firearm transactions as a direct infringement on their freedoms. Any possibility of having purchases of financial access restricted by credit card companies causes severe protest. While this issues is particularly objectionable for gun owners, they also argue it is relevant for all Americans who fear their behavior could be tracked and acted upon by corporations.

Americans frequently express concerns over executives or policies perceived to infringe upon the First and Second Amendments, citing fears of mandatory buyback programs, bans on certain weapons, and free speech violations. These concerns are heightened by policy proposals from politicians like Kamala Harris.

She didn't say it once, twice or even three times. Kamala practically campaigned on gun confiscation.

Here is a clip of her clearly stating that the "buyback" will be compulsory. https://t.co/VShzBugAmj pic.twitter.com/gmu84g37dd

— National Association for Gun Rights (@NatlGunRights) August 2, 2024

There is strong negativity toward any company voters view as willing to participate in or support such gun control or censorship actions. People vehemently assert that increasing gun restrictions violates fundamental and constitutional rights.

Statements about “gun confiscation” and “mandatory buybacks” are central keywords to these conversations. Confiscation within a specific timeframe, such as the "first 100 days" appears with mentions of Kamala Harris, eliciting strong reactions among gun rights advocates. They fear the slippery slope of eroding freedoms. This includes a growing worry about financial tracking by credit card companies and government overreach.

Progressives Cheer Censorship and Gun Restrictions

Conversely, the term “gun violence” appears frequently in discourse on the left—unless it pertains to illegal immigrants. Democrats and progressives are more likely to talk about credit card companies as potentially playing a role in reducing violence.

Many on the left support companies if they implement policies leftists believe could reduce gun violence. They cheer for things like tracking suspicious purchases of firearms and ammunition. These advocates argue it's a form of “corporate responsibility” and is essential for public safety.

Liberals say purchase monitoring is a necessary measure to combat an "epidemic" of gun violence, especially in light of high-profile mass shootings. They appreciate efforts to impose gun restrictions and call for increased regulations to prevent firearms from getting into the wrong hands.

Any action by credit card companies to curb gun purchases is often lauded as a step forward among progressive. They connect mass shootings with the ease of access to firearms, saying it creates an environment where financial institutions are obligated to step in.

"Background checks" also dominate the conversation, with mixed sentiments. Some argue comprehensive background checks should be facilitated by credit card transaction reviews. They claim this could enhance public safety and prevent tragic outcomes, praising Visa and Mastercard for proactive measures.

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.

Americans are rapidly growing fearful of recession, expressing anxiety and frustration about the economy. There are many online discussions focused on economic issues, fiscal policy, and monetary policy.

Rising inflation, government spending, and the Federal Reserve's interest rate decisions are at the forefront of these conversations. People voice concerns about economic stability and leadership as the economy becomes increasingly chaotic.

Voters trying to navigate these complex topics express a mixture of skepticism, blame, and a desire for effective solutions to stabilize the economy and ensure a prosperous future.

Goldman Sachs economists increased the probability of a US recession in the next year to 25% from 10%, but said there are several reasons not to fear a slump even after unemployment jumped https://t.co/H9GhymtaKZ via @economics @simonjkennedy pic.twitter.com/CfeXl6XF2Y

— Steve Matthews (@SteveMatthews12) August 5, 2024

Economic Issues

Discussion Trends

Many Americans are vocal about the significant rise in consumer prices for necessities like food, gas, and housing. They blame these increases on ineffective government policies from the Biden administration.

The "Inflation Reduction Act" is frequently mentioned as a failed attempt to control inflation, leading to widespread skepticism about the administration's ability to manage a complex economy.

Unemployment is another hot topic, with discussions highlighting recent data showing the highest unemployment rates in three years. There’s a pervasive notion that Americans are working multiple jobs, signaling economic distress. They share stories of the struggles many face to make ends meet. Additionally, housing costs are a significant concern, with frustrations over high mortgage rates and the lack of affordable housing options.

Sentiment Trends

Feelings about the economy are overwhelmingly negative. Many blame the Biden-Harris administration their economic difficulties. They use terms like "KamalaCrash" to express discontent with how Kamala Harris is handling recent turmoil.

Nostalgia for Trump’s economy is prevalent, as some believe he provided more favorable economic conditions. The discussions reflect a deep sense of disappointment, fear, and frustration, underscoring a longing for economic stability and effective solutions to address inflation and job market challenges.

Half of the U.S. is already in recession, the housing market is beginning to roll over, and everyone in the low and middle-income households who did not feel the pressure of high prices in the past due to the fiscal stimulus are now starting to feel the pinch. I recently…

— David Rosenberg (@EconguyRosie) June 28, 2024

Fiscal Policy

Discussion Trends

Fiscal policy is a major point of contention. There are heated debates over government spending, inflation, and economic management. The American Rescue Plan and Inflation Reduction Act are frequently cited as examples of excessive government spending contributing to the current economic woes.

Critics argue these policies have funneled money into initiatives that have done little to control inflation, instead exacerbating it. This perception is reinforced by claims that these acts have funded inappropriate or ineffective projects, contributing to public discontent.

Dramatic stock market plunges are another area of concern. The term "stock market crash" appears repeatedly, fueling fears of a broader economic recession. Employment trends and the job market are central to these discussions, with skepticism about the quality of jobs being created.

Sentiment Trends

The sentiment about fiscal policy is heavily critical, reflecting deep distrust in government actions and failures. There is a strong sense of betrayal and anger, with many feeling taxpayer money is being wasted on ineffective initiatives.

There is widespread criticism of political figures, particularly Vice President Kamala Harris. People accuse her of helping pass significant spending bills, causing economic deterioration.

People frequently mention "KamalaKrash,” painting recent events as caused by the Biden-Harris administration. Although there are mentions of positive steps, such as capping out-of-pocket prescription drug costs, these are generally overshadowed by negative sentiments. The threat of a broader economic downturn looms large, with many arguing current fiscal policies are setting the stage for an economic collapse.

Monetary Policy

Discussion Trends

There is widespread frustration directed at the Federal Reserve's leadership, particularly Jerome Powell. Many blame Powell for mismanaging the economy, calling for his replacement.

There is a sense of urgency for the Federal Reserve to adopt more transparent and proactive measures to address economic challenges. The discourse reflects a deep skepticism towards the Federal Reserve's actions, with accusations of collusion between government fiscal policies and monetary strategies exacerbating public distrust.

Some voters express concerns about international monetary policies, pointing out potential risks for the U.S. economy. They say events similar to those faced by other global economies like Japan could be heading for the U.S.

Sentiment Trends

People are largely critical of monetary policy, with widespread frustration directed at Jerome Powell. Voters are harsh and skeptical toward the Federal Reserve in general, accusing leadership of completely failing.

Many people show anger at the idea of collusion between government fiscal policies and monetary strategies, exacerbating public distrust. Voters want drastic changes to stop the economic bleeding as their purchasing power rapidly decreases.

Impact on Voting

The discussions around economic issues, fiscal policy, and monetary policy have significant implications for voting behavior. Dissatisfaction with the current administration and its handling of the economy may influence voter sentiment, potentially leading to a shift in political dynamics in upcoming elections. The public's longing for economic stability and effective leadership could drive support towards candidates who prioritize economic reform and fiscal responsibility.

Geopolitical Concerns

Geopolitical tensions, particularly in the Middle East and Eastern Europe, compound the economic concerns discussed online. The potential for international conflicts affecting domestic markets and further destabilizing the economy is a recurring theme. These concerns highlight the interconnectedness of global events and their impact on the U.S. economic landscape, adding another layer of complexity to public sentiment.

A sense of impending doom in the Middle East and threats of escalating conflicts strike Americans with anxiety and dread. The potential for World War III and tensions between Israel, Iran, Hamas, and the U.S. roils concerns about global stability and geopolitical dynamics. Conversations are not just about distant wars but expose American dread about security at home, America’s power on the world stage, and leadership in the White House.

Geopolitical Concerns

One of the dominant trends in these discussions is fear of all-out war in the Middle East, involving multiple countries. Israel's military actions and the responses from Iran and its allies are taking center stage.

Recent assassinations of key figures such as Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh and Hezbollah commander Fuad Shukr has intensified these debates, with many users expressing concern over the potential for a broader regional war

U.S. Involvement

The role of the United States is a focal point of these conversations, with many questioning America's involvement and support for Israel. There is significant debate over whether Biden's policies are exacerbating tensions.

The discourse often shifts to criticism of U.S. foreign policy. People criticize inadequacies of diplomatic efforts and the potential consequences of military involvement in the Middle East. Both sides of the political aisle express dissatisfaction with current events.

Fear of Global Conflict

The fear of a potential World War III looms large in American minds. People frequently refer to WW3, Iranian retaliation, and global security, showing anxiety about larger-scale conflict.

Concerns are focused on Iran's potential retaliatory strikes against Israel and the involvement of other regional powers like Hezbollah. The narrative suggests current conflict dynamics are a "runaway train," indicating a loss of control that could have devastating global repercussions.

Sentiment Trends

There are strong emotions driving public discourse on international conflict. Progressives condemn Israeli military tactics, with terms like "genocidal" and "war crimes," reflecting outrage over the situation in Gaza. Pro-Israel voice advocate self-defense against existential threats by Hamas and Hezbollah.

This polarization is accompanied by widespread fear over the increasing possibility of war and the perceived inadequacy of international responses.

Many Americans also criticize the Biden-Harris administration, disapproving of how they are handling the crisis. People view the administration as demonstrating a lack of strength and effectiveness in dealing with adversaries like Iran and its proxies. People question who is really in charge of the country, if anyone.

Despite the polarization, there is a shared hope of avoiding conflict. Voters are frustrated with ongoing violence and the financial costs to America, calling to de-escalate tensions. The sentiment trends indicate a mixture of dread, urgency, and a desire for effective solutions to navigate the complex geopolitical landscape.

Impact on Voters

The ongoing conflict and perceived mishandling by the current administration have eroded public confidence in U.S. leadership. This will likely impact voter sentiment, particularly among those who prioritize national security and foreign policy in their electoral decisions. The criticism directed at the Biden-Harris administration also leads to calls for a change in leadership or policy direction.

Fears of escalating conflicts and the potential for World War III will likely influence voter priorities. Especially if things remain heightened or even worsen in the next few months. A possible shift toward Trump may come with emphasis on strong defense measures and effective international relations. Foreign conflicts are shaping the debate on U.S. foreign policy, as public sentiment is increasingly critical of perceived alliances and interventions that may not align with national interests.

Recent online discussions about the American job market show widespread concerns and fear about the nation's economic health. As unemployment rates reach their highest since October 2021, public discourse has become dominated by anxiety over a recession, despair a stock market crashes, dissatisfaction with the Biden administration, and debates over labor market dynamics.

This analysis discusses the intricacies of how Americans are grappling with the current economic landscape, the perceived impacts of political decisions, and the implications for future voter behavior.

Why Americans are Worried

There is heightened anxiety across all groups surrounding the unemployment rate, which has surged to 4.3%—its highest since October 2021. This statistic has catalyzed debates about economic mismanagement and Biden-Harris policy failures.

Widespread references to the Sahm Rule underscore public apprehension about an impending recession. Terms like "unemployment rate," "recession," and "Bidenomics" flood discussions. There is a profound skepticism toward the economic strategies currently in place.

Another pain point for Americans is the trend of job growth being almost exclusively among foreign-born workers versus native-born Americans. This further fuels concerns about economic equity, labor market competitiveness, and even border security.

Emotional or Economic Depression

The national mood on the economy and jobs is overwhelmingly negative. People fear economic and global instability and are disillusioned with unrelenting claims from the Biden-Harris administration that they have succeeded on the economy.

"I cured the economy."

— Joe Biden (six days ago)pic.twitter.com/SMsXKVfljw

— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) August 5, 2024

The terms "Bidenomics" and “Kamalanomics”are thrown disparagingly at the administration, highlighting the extreme displeasure of voters. People are frustrated with wage stagnation, job losses, and rising national debt.

Nostalgia for Trump’s administration and better economic success for average Americans amplifies the negativity. People compare Trump’s economy, low unemployment rates, and robust job creation to a current feeling of hanging over the edge of a cliff. This sentiment extends to dissatisfaction with monetary policy decisions, such as the Federal Reserve's handling of interest rates, which many believe exacerbates economic woes.

Voter Impact

Negative feelings about the economy have significant implications for voter decisions and behavior. With elections on the horizon, the public's discontent about economic policies could influence political dynamics, potentially swaying voter preferences.

Discussions often speculate on the potential outcomes of a Harris administration. People use terms like "Kamala economic crash," discussing recent market turmoil and economic instability. There are clear anxieties about what the economy would look like under Harris's governance.

Voters will likely consider current economic indicators and their impact on everyday life as they make electoral decisions. The dialogue reveals people are deeply concerned about their futures and eager for leadership that prioritizes job security and effective economic management.

Broader Economic Concerns

Beyond employment, discussions touch on worries about broader economic issues such as rising inflation, stock market crashes, escalating national debt, the cost of potential wars. The increased unemployment rate has led to significant downturns in major stock indices like the NASDAQ and S&P 500, adding to financial anxieties.

Americans connect these concerns to global geopolitical tensions and fiscal policies, reflecting a complex web of factors contributing to economic distress. The public's call for policy change is accompanied by a demand for transparency and accountability in economic reporting, as evidenced by skepticism surrounding job report revisions.

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.