MIG Reports shows voters are comparing crime rates during the Trump and Biden-Harris administrations. As people engage with the topic of crime, themes of political bias, media manipulation, and immigration policies surface as focal points. These discussions highlight overarching concerns about how crime is managed, reported, and perceived in the current political climate.
Views of Crime Under Democrats
Data shows public sentiment leaning heavily toward skepticism about Biden-Harris policies for handling of crime.
62% of the MIG Reports data sample express distrust in crime statistics reported by the Biden-Harris administration.
45% believe crime has increased in discussions mentioning “crime under Trump.”
The disparity between the views of each administration focuses on immigration, political agendas, and media bias.
What Voters are Saying
When comparing crime under Trump versus Biden-Harris, many view Trump’s administration as maintaining stronger law enforcement policies. They mention border security and stricter immigration controls.
In contrast, Americans perceive Biden-Harris policies as too lenient, particularly regarding immigration and sanctuary cities. Around 62% of commenters blame Democrats for increasing crime. People link rising crime to border policies, citing specific instances of migrant crime. They say current policies embolden criminals and endanger public safety.
Discussions also emphasize widespread distrust of media and official crime statistics—like rampant distrust in job numbers. Many Americans feel the media is downplaying or manipulating crime data to protect the Biden-Harris administration, including David Muir in the recent debate.
These perceptions about incorrect data further generate discontent. 45% suggest that media bias plays a significant role in shaping public opinion about the administration’s effectiveness.
Conversations don’t contain any noticeable defense that media is not shaping public opinion. Many also question the accuracy of reported crime stats, citing the number of large metropolitan areas which don’t report crime statistics to the FBI.
There are examples, like one from 2022. Among 19 of the largest law enforcement agencies—all of which are responsible for more than 1 million people—seven were missing from the FBI's crime data.
Voters are also concerned about politicization of law enforcement. Many believe the justice system under Biden-Harris is biased, with certain groups receiving preferential treatment. This idea of unequal justice adds to the frustration and deepens the divide between supporters of the two administrations.
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.
The ongoing war between Ukraine and Russia, particularly Ukraine’s request for more U.S. weapons to strike deeper into Russian territory, triggers complex and divided discussions among Americans. Voters express support, opposition, and fears over U.S. involvement and the potential escalation to global conflict or World War III.
MIG Reports analysis of discussions about Ukraine, Russia, and U.S. national security concerns show some shifts in American sentiment based on framing and context.
Support for Ukraine
The level of support for Ukraine varies significantly depending on how the discussion is framed. When conversations directly focus on Ukraine’s situation, there is a notably higher level of support compared to discussions that center around broader national security concerns or Russia’s position.
In Ukraine-focused discussions, 60-70% of comments express solidarity with Ukraine, emphasizing the nation’s right to defend itself and criticizing Russia’s actions. This elevated support can be partially attributed to social pressure and selective bias—people may feel compelled to express solidarity due to the emotional framing of Ukraine as a victim of aggression.
In discussions centered on national security and Russia, support for Ukraine drops to 42%. These conversations introduce more critical perspectives, reflecting concerns about U.S. involvement and the potential unintended consequences of escalating military aid. Americans tend to be more cautious and pragmatic when the issue is framed around security or the complexities of geopolitical tensions.
Opposition to U.S. Involvement
Across all discussions, 31% of Americans express opposition to further U.S. involvement in the conflict, particularly when discussions focus on national security and Russia. Voters worry about the risks of escalation. They question why the U.S. should deepen its involvement in a conflict many view as not directly related to national interests.
In Ukraine-focused conversations, 15-20% express opposition. Some are reluctant to involve the U.S. further, but overall criticism is less pronounced. This, again, could be linked to selective bias where only conversations explicitly focused on Ukraine draw a sympathetic audience.
Neutral or Undecided
Around 25-27% of Americans remain neutral or undecided about the conflict. This group often expresses confusion or uncertainty about the situation’s complexity, calling for more information. These neutral opinions appear consistent regardless of the discussion's framing. This suggests many Americans remains unsure of how the U.S. should proceed.
Voter Discussion Themes
Discussions About Ukraine Support Ukraine
Voters who focus their discussion on Ukraine tend to present an emotional framing that portrays Ukraine as a victim of Russian aggression. This emphasis on moral responsibility, humanitarian concerns, and geopolitical justice includes stronger sentiments of support for Ukraine.
This pattern suggests selective bias and social pressure play a role. Voters may feel compelled to express pro-Ukraine views or avoid criticism in emotionally charged conversations. It’s also possible those who ardently support Ukraine are the main group discussing this subject. The focus on Ukraine itself seems to amplify positive sentiment compared to broader geopolitical discussions.
Concerns Over U.S. Involvement and Escalation
In discussions about national security or broader geopolitical implications, public opinion is more cautious. The potential risk of escalating conflict, especially drawing the U.S. into a deeper military engagement, emerges as a major concern.
People worry about the unintended consequences of providing Ukraine more advanced weapons, especially long-range systems that could directly target Russian territory. This theme draws more pragmatic and risk-averse perspectives into the discussion.
Fears of World War III
The fear of a larger global conflict is a recurring concern across all discussions. Around 50% of Americans express concerns about the potential for WW3. This sentiment is consistent whether the conversation is about Ukraine’s need for U.S. weapons, broader security concerns, or Russia’s actions.
This highlights American anxiety about the potential for escalated conflict beyond the region, potentially drawing in NATO and other global powers. Even when some downplay the risks, fears of a broader war remain a significant narrative driver.
A viral video of Don Lemon mocking and diminishing Melania Trump’s reaction to the assassination attempt on Donald Trump sparked outrage. MIG Reports data shows Americans are having intense discussions about the future of the nation amid political divisiveness.
Don Lemon mocks Melania Trump describing her distress over the attempted ass*ss*nation of her husband. Sick. pic.twitter.com/4LGbBeKomN
These conversations reveal fears about the country’s trajectory, coupled with a hopeful yet divided outlook on how to navigate challenges. Analyzing the themes across conversations provides a clearer understanding of public sentiment.
Sentiment Analysis
A 65-73% majority express fear about the country’s breakdown, reflecting widespread concern about the erosion of institutions, democracy, and individual rights. Despite this, 14-20% remain optimistic, believing the country can overcome its current challenges.
A notable portion of the discussion, around 30-40%, focuses on the need for collective action and a return to core American values to stabilize the nation. These figures provide the foundation for understanding the larger narratives at play in these discussions.
Fear of America’s Collapse
One of the dominant themes is a pervasive fear that America is on the brink of collapse. Between 65% and 73% of the conversations revolve around this existential threat, with voters pointing to the erosion of democratic norms, rising authoritarianism, and the growing division within society.
Many describe the situation as dire, using language like “the end of the country as we know it” or “the destruction of our constitutional republic.” These concerns are not abstract but tied to perceptions of increased crime rates, economic instability, and the influence of special interest groups over the government. Many Americans fear the country’s foundation is under attack, and they are unsure if it can recover.
Disillusionment with Leadership and Politics
There is also widespread disillusionment with political leadership and the current state of American politics. Around 40-42% criticize the Biden-Harris administration, accusing it of being out of touch with ordinary Americans. They say Democrats are mishandling immigration, taxation, the economy, and law enforcement.
Voters voice frustration with what they perceive as a push towards socialism or communism, further fueling concerns about the country’s future. Around 21% support the current administration, defending efforts to address inequality and stand up for marginalized communities. However, even among these supporters, there is an undercurrent of concern that the political divide may be too wide to bridge.
Optimism and Hope for Recovery
Amid an overwhelming sense of fear and disillusionment, there remains a significant group of people who maintain hope. Between 14% and 20% express optimism about the future. They point to the resilience of the American people and the country’s institutions.
Optimists believe, while the challenges are significant, the U.S. has faced similar crises before and emerged stronger. They argue through collective effort and adherence to core American principles—such as freedom, democracy, and individual rights—the country can overcome its current obstacles.
Call for Action and Return to Core Values
About 30-40% emphasize the importance of collective action in addressing America’s challenges. Many advocate for increased civic engagement, including voting, activism, and defending the Constitution. This group sees the solution not in radical change, but in a return to traditional American values—freedom of speech, individual liberties, and the rule of law.
Traditionalists argue these principles have always been the backbone of the country’s success and will be key to its recovery. This narrative suggests by reinforcing these values, the nation can navigate through its current divisions and restore a sense of unity and purpose.
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
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:
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.
Recently, White House National Security Communications Advisor John Kirby accidentally sent a “reply all” to an inquiry from four members of the House of Representatives regarding the Afghanistan withdrawal with. In it, he said there is “no use” responding to a “handful of vets on botched Afghan withdrawal,” calling them “all of one stripe.”
“NSC Spokesman (Ret Rear Admiral) Kirby said it was ‘no use in responding' to a 'handful of vets' on botched Afghan withdrawal” who are “all of one stripe”
MIG Reports data indicates Americans often view government using them to serve as tax subjects, rather than serving the people. Kirby’s comments infame conversations about government elites dismissing American concerns to pursue their own ends.
Democratic voters are split between those who feel represented by their government and those who express disillusionment. Their primary concerns revolve around systemic economic issues, gun control, and government transparency. Many maintain hope for meaningful reforms, though a significant portion views the government as prioritizing elite interests over public welfare.
Republican voters often feel disconnected from the government, particularly under Democratic leadership. Their dominant sentiment reflects a sense of disenfranchisement, particularly concerning issues like taxation and government inefficiency. While some maintain faith in specific Republican leaders, many Republicans express strong distrust in the broader political establishment.
Democrat Sentiments
General Representation
Democratic voters are divided. About 45% feel the Democratic Party's progressive initiatives—such as efforts to address gun violence and immigration reform—reflect their voices in governance.
However, an almost equal 40% feel alienated, perceiving the government as elitist and unresponsive. Anti-establishment Democrats believe they are treated more like tax subjects, disconnected from decision-making processes. The remaining 15% hold mixed or neutral views, acknowledging both positive efforts and shortcomings.
Economic Issues
Economic concerns dominate much of the discourse among Democrats.
40% express optimism, believing the government can address systemic issues like healthcare and inflation with the right reforms.
35% express frustration with political corruption and mismanagement, accusing elected officials of failing to prioritize middle-class concerns.
25% of Democrats have mixed feelings, reflecting both hope for change and skepticism toward entrenched political interests.
Gun Control
Gun control is a particularly contentious issue for Democratic voters.
30% express a sense of hope and representation, believing in the potential for meaningful reform.
55% feel disenfranchised. This group views the government as capitulating to the gun lobby and failing to enact necessary legislation to curb gun violence.
15% express resignation, believing their political engagement will not have an impact.
Security Issues
Foreign policy and national security also divide Democratic voters.
65% feel disconnected from the government. They argue the government prioritizes political maneuvering over national security.
25% are hopeful, believing Democratic leaders are pushing for necessary reforms.
10% convey mixed or uncertain sentiments, questioning whether the government truly represents their interests.
Border Security
The border is mostly negative for Democrats.
38% feel proud of government policies on immigration and border issues, emphasizing the need for humane and equitable policies.
47% are frustrated by what they perceive as the government’s failure to manage the border effectively, feeling their concerns are not prioritized.
15% express indifference.
Republican Sentiments
General Representation
Republican voters overwhelmingly feel alienated from their government.
40% express a sense of being treated as tax subjects, lamenting high taxes and inefficient government programs.
35% feel represented by their elected officials, primarily in areas like immigration and national security.
25% voice outright distrust in the government, particularly Democratic leadership, accusing them of undermining American values and integrity.
Economic Issues
Economic concerns shape much of the Republican discourse.
62% are dissatisfied, viewing themselves as tax subjects in a system that mismanages public funds. They are particularly critical of wasteful or fraudulent government programs.
28% feel represented, particularly by policies that promote tax reduction and economic growth.
10% have mixed feelings, recognizing both positive steps and inefficiencies in how economic issues are handled.
Gun Control
Republicans are strongly against gun control measures, feeling frustrated with government pushes for more regulations.
65% feel underrepresented on gun rights, viewing the government’s actions as hypocritical and ineffective. They call for stronger representation of their Second Amendment rights.
25% defend their gun rights even more fervently, viewing any form of gun control as government overreach.
10% express neutral or supportive sentiments toward government-led gun control initiatives.
Security Issues
Security concerns also elicit frustration among many Republican voters.
45% feel the government fails to prioritize national security, viewing citizens as marginalized by an establishment that does not protect their interests.
30% feel their concerns are lost in partisan politics among government elites.
25% feel empowered by leadership, believing strong national security policies align with their values and protect American sovereignty.
Border Security
Border security is a top issue for Republican voters who are extremely frustrated with current government policies.
60% feel unrepresented by the government, saying lax border policies fail to protect American citizens and prioritize illegal immigrants over citizens.
25% are satisfied with their party’s approach to border security, viewing it as a necessary measure to safeguard national interests.
15% remain indifferent or uncertain, reflecting divisions within the party on how to handle this issue.
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
_.png)
_.png)
_.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
_1.png)
_2.png)
_1.png)
_1.png)