On Aug. 19, DHS OIG published a management alert regarding the inability of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to effectively monitor unaccompanied migrant children (UCs) released from the custody of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The report raises significant concerns about children's safety and the risk of trafficking for the 290,000 missing children.

MIG Reports analysis shows significant public concern in reaction to the report. Discussion particularly focuses on issues of human trafficking, border security, and immigration policies.

Key insights from American voter conversations include:

• Trafficking Concerns: The highest level of concern comes from discussions directly linking the Biden administration to the trafficking crisis. 75% of voters blame the current leadership and 75% express a strong desire for new leadership.
• Border Security Issues: Across multiple subtopics, about 70% of discussions express frustration with current border security policies, blaming them for exacerbating trafficking issues and missing children. This sentiment is consistent across different demographics, with a strong call for stricter immigration policies.
• Swing States and Political Impact: In swing states, 65% of discussions link trafficking with missing children, and 55% express a preference for a leadership shift. This suggests concerns may significantly influence electoral outcomes, with clear advocacy for returning to Trump-era immigration policies.

290,000 children are missing due to the open border policies of Biden, Harris & Gallego.

My heart breaks for these poor babies. https://t.co/SPzsvAZywn

— Kari Lake (@KariLake) August 21, 2024

Strong Discontent with Current Leadership

About 75% of people discussing trafficking issues directly blame the Biden-Harris administration for exacerbating the crisis. They refer to human trafficking, missing children, and cartel activity in conversations.

Dissatisfaction is not confined to one area; it spans across various aspects of border policy, with 70% of discussions in border-related topics also reflecting anger and frustration towards the administration. Around 70% are calling for stricter border controls and a change in leadership.

Many also criticize VP Harris for calling out Trump’s DHS for losing track of 545 children when, on her watch, nearly 300,000 have gone missing.

UPDATED: In 2020, Kamala Harris said DHS not being able to find the parents of 545 children was "outrageous and a stain on our national character."

Now under Border Czar Kamala Harris's leadership, DHS has lost nearly 300,000 illegal migrant children.

That's a 54,945.9%… pic.twitter.com/Q84WeB9hSc

— Steve Guest (@SteveGuest) August 20, 2024

Calls for Political Change and Stricter Policies

In addition to the general discontent, there is a strong push for political change. Roughly 65% of voters advocate for a return to Trump-era immigration policies, including measures like "Remain in Mexico" and increased deportations.

Around 60% link the missing children directly to human trafficking. This trend continues in broader conversations about border security, where 70% hold the administration responsible for the ongoing crisis and express a desire for a political shift.

Swing States and Electoral Impact

The sentiment in swing states mirrors national discussion, with a significant focus on the connection between missing children and trafficking. About 65% of voters in swing states link these issues and 55% want new political leadership.

While there is some skepticism—around 30% attributing the problem to broader social or economic factors rather than directly linking it to trafficking—the majority sentiment is one of urgency and a desire for accountability.

When considering the electoral impact, approximately 70% of believe the current administration's policies have failed to secure the border, which they see as contributing to the trafficking crisis. About 65% of discussions support Trump as the candidate best suited to restore order and security.

The overall mood is overwhelmingly negative, with 80% of conversations expressing anger and frustration.

Urgent Policy & Personnel Change Required

The overarching theme is deep dissatisfaction with the current administration's handling of border security and immigration. MIG Reports weighted analysis reveals approximately 66.9% of voters desire political change. Many advocate for a return to stricter border controls. There is a clear demand for leadership that prioritizes the safety and security of vulnerable populations, particularly children, who are seen as being at the greatest risk.

The chart shows that when more people are unhappy or frustrated with how things are being handled—especially regarding issues like trafficking and border security—they are more likely to want new leaders or changes in policies. Each point on the plot represents a different topic, and the closer a point is to the top right corner, the stronger the link between dissatisfaction (negative sentiment) and the push for political change.

The scatter plot's points, representing high levels of negative sentiment and advocacy for change, are closely tied to discussions involving these keywords. The frequent appearance of terms like "human trafficking," "missing children," "open borders," and criticism of Kamala Harris in connection with these issues indicates the more these topics are discussed, the stronger the call for political change becomes. This trend is consistently reflected across the topics analyzed.

The absence of several prominent Democrats from the Democratic National Convention (DNC) in Chicago is raising questions about the Party's unity. Many attribute absences to political strategy for Democrats in key down-ballot races. However, it also underscores the growing division in a typically unified Party.

A few prominent Democratic Senators are skipping the DNC including:

• Sherrod Brown
• Jon Tester
• Jacky Rosen
• Martin Heinrich
• John Fetterman

Voters are discussing the implications for upcoming elections—particularly in swing states where incumbents face tough re-election battles. Though Fetterman is not up for reelection, many point out his recurring clashes with the left over the border and Israel.

Other Democratic representatives not in attendance include Yadira Caraveo, Val Hoyle, Jared Golden, Mary Sattler Peltola, and Marie Gluesenkamp Perez.

Tough Races in Swing States

Democratic Senators Sherrod Brown of Ohio, Jon Tester of Montana, and Jacky Rosen of Nevada are all engaged in challenging re-election campaigns in states that have trended Republican in recent years. Many assume their decisions to forego the DNC, where Vice President Kamala Harris is being coronated to the nomination, is strategic.

Voters conclude these Democrats in important races hope to distance themselves from the national Party’s increasingly progressive platform. However, most of these candidates have endorsed the Harris-Walz ticket—with the exception of Tester in Montana.

MIG Reports data shows currently:

• Republican Bernie Moreno is leading Sherrod Brown in Ohio 52% to 48%.
• Republican Tim Sheehy is leading John Tester in Montana 52% to 48%.
• Jacky Rosen is leading Republican Sam Brown in Nevada 52% to 48%
• Martin Heinrich is leading Republican Nella Domenici in New Mexico 54% to 46%.

Voters in swing states like Ohio and Nevada likely view their Senators’ absence as an attempt to appeal to a broader electorate. Those wary of Harris’s progressive stances may be won over by the implicit rejection of Senators staying home. However, Democrats also face the difficulty of energizing the progressive base without alienating moderate or conservative voters who could determine the outcome of their races.

For candidates like Sherrod Brown, whose reputation is advocating for working-class issues, voters express disappointment. They say his absence is a missed opportunity to reinforce party solidarity. Similarly, Jon Tester and Jacky Rosen receive scrutiny from Democrats who suggest their participation is crucial in demonstrating alignment with leadership and the Democratic platform. This is a point of emphasis for those concerned about the challenging landscape Democrats face in retaining Senate control in various states.

John Fetterman, though not up for reelection, faces questions about his visibility at national events. Supporters worry his absence at the convention may signal a break with power centers in the Party, jeopardizing his standing among Democrats.

Division and Disarray Among Democrats

This strategic optics game is also indicative of deeper divisions within the party—particularly between traditional Democrats, progressives, and leftists. As more of her economic policies and historical positions surface, voters perceive Harris as deeply sympathetic toward the radical left. This perception is beginning to alienate Independent voters and some Democrats.

Despite leadership attempts to show unity within the Party, voters are keenly aware of growing fractures between far-left progressives and traditional Democrats—particularly when it comes to Israel. Sentiment is growing that the Party's shift towards progressive policies is pushing the country away from core values like meritocracy and free market capitalism. This division will likely have significant implications for Democratic success in critical down-ballot races, and potentially in the presidential race.

Voters are increasingly discussing Harris as supporting open borders and pushing communist economic policies. These two issues are the most important to voters, exacerbating the danger for Democrats in the election.

Voter Sentiment and Potential Backlash

Approximately 65% of discussions around the DNC hint at a potential backlash against the Democratic Party if it continues leftward. This suggests senators in critical races may be justified in attempting to distance themselves from national leadership. Voters, especially in swing states, express doubts about the effectiveness of the DNC and the broader Party strategy.

There is a prevailing sentiment that absence signals a lack of confidence in Harris's leadership. But critics say by not participating in the DNC, candidates may be missing an opportunity to demonstrate unity and solidarity. They say it could potentially weaken their campaigns or the national ticket among those who prioritize party cohesion. Some say it’s especially important when the spotlight is focused on Kamala Harris and Tim Walz.

The Impact of Harris's Leadership

Kamala Harris’s leadership and policy positions, especially on issues like the economy and immigration, are central concerns. Her proposals, which critics label as overly radical, likely will not resonate with moderate voters Senate candidates need to win. This sentiment suggests while some voters support Democratic ideals, they remain wary about the current direction of the Party.

Moderates accuse the DNC and its headliner candidates, particularly Harris, of radicalism and communism. They characterize Harris’s proposals as signs of a sharp leftward shift that aims to diminish traditional Democratic values. This exemplifies the tension, where voters in state races likely wish for a return to more centrist American values.

Symbols and rhetoric also play crucial roles in this discourse. Some X users highlight visuals and language around the DNC to showcase discontent. They emphasize various optics which they say capture a larger anti-Harris sentiment even among some DNC attendees like Chris Cuomo.

Dang… the left lost Cuomo 🤣😂😂

pic.twitter.com/5gRPlhM1NI

— MJTruthUltra (@MJTruthUltra) August 22, 2024

Most embarrassing moments at the DNC so far

These are unbelievable

🧵 A THREAD

12. Guy caught in 4K yelling "NOOOO" to choosing Kamala Harris pic.twitter.com/fEVvCH7kob

— TaraBull (@TaraBull808) August 21, 2024

Discussions also point to Kamala Harris’s nomination as people question its legitimacy due to the absence of primary votes. This narrative surfaces consistently, with voters expressing frustrations about the perceived "coronation" of Harris at the DNC—a decision they believe overrides the democratic process.

MIG Reports analysis shows the political landscape in Nevada emphasizes economic stability, housing affordability, and immigration policies. As the state grapples with rising inflation and the increasing cost of living, residents express dissatisfaction with the Biden-Harris administration. Discussions reveal a strong focus on the impact of government policies on everyday life. Voters seek leadership at the national and state level that can address their concerns and provide tangible solutions to pressing problems.

Border Security

The border is a high priority and highly charged conversation in Nevada. Approximately 70% of the discussion is negative toward the state of illegal immigration under Biden-Harris. The predominant concern is that "open borders" are increasing crime rates, economic strain, and a diversion of resources away from American citizens to support illegal immigrants.

Around 60% of Nevadans in the conversation express frustration with misallocation of taxpayer dollars. They believe tax funds should prioritize veterans and the homeless over illegal immigrants. Additionally, 65% of the conversations explicitly link illegal immigration to rising crime rates, further fueling the demand for stricter border controls.

Political Ideologies

Around 75% of comments show negative sentiment toward Democratic policies, often labeling them as socialist or communist. These discussions emphasize a fear that the Democratic Party has strayed too far from traditional American values. Roughly 65% of the discourse focuses on the idea that supporting Democratic candidates equates to endorsing socialism or communism.

On the other hand, Republican ideals, particularly those associated with Trump, receive a more favorable reception in Nevada. About 60% of the discussion supports Trump, expressing appreciation for his policies and the desire to return to traditional conservative values.

Economy

Housing

Housing is a critical issue in Nevada, with about 55% of the conversations expressing frustration over the lack of affordable housing. Rising costs, stagnant wages, and inflation are frequently mentioned, with 30% of discussions focusing on affordability concerns. Around 25% in Nevada are critical of current government policies, particularly those under Democratic leadership, which are seen as ineffective in addressing the housing crisis.

Economic Issues

The economic discourse in Nevada is dominated by concerns over inflation and government spending. Approximately 75% convey frustration with the Biden administration's economic policies. Nevadans blame Democrats for rising costs and wage stagnation. Inflation is the most frequently mentioned issue, appearing in about 40% of the discussion. Many participants criticize the Inflation Reduction Act, arguing it has worsened, rather than improved inflation.

Fiscal Policy

The sentiment toward fiscal policy is predominantly negative, with 72% expressing dissatisfaction with government spending and its impact on inflation. The perception that Democratic policies, particularly those under the Biden-Harris administration, have led to economic hardship is a recurring theme. Many participants advocate for a shift in leadership, with 10% of the comments emphasizing a desire to return to Trump-era policies that are perceived to have been more economically beneficial.

Inflation

Inflation is a major concern for Nevada voters, with 60% of the discussions linking rising prices directly to the policies of the Biden administration. There is a strong sense of discontent, with 45% of the conversations focusing specifically on food inflation, associating it with broader economic mismanagement. Proposed solutions, such as price controls suggested by Harris, receive substantial criticism, with 40% of the discourse arguing these measures would exacerbate the problem rather than solve it.

Nomination

Kamala Harris’s nomination also generates controversy in Nevada, with criticism of the Democratic Party's handling of primaries. About 62% of the comments express displeasure with how Kamala Harris secured the nomination. Voters say the lack of a primary undermines democratic principles.

Negative sentiment is also present regarding the Democratic National Convention, where 55% of the comments criticize the process as undemocratic and disconnected from voter interests. In contrast, around 40% of the commentary in Nevada expresses positive sentiment toward Republican candidates, framing them as more aligned with voter engagement and traditional political values.

All Entities

Across the board, discussions involving key political figures like Kamala Harris and Donald Trump are highly polarized. Housing and economic challenges are the most frequently mentioned issues, with approximately 30% of the conversations focusing on inflation and the cost of living. Election integrity is also a significant concern, with 20% of the discourse centered on skepticism about the legitimacy of past and future elections. The overall sentiment towards Democratic figures, particularly Harris, is predominantly negative, with 15% of the discussions highlighting perceived failures in leadership.

MIG Reports analysis of online conversations about the Democratic National Convention (DNC) reveals trends in two categories:

• How all Americans are reacting to the DNC
• How Democrats are reacting to the DNC

This analysis reveals both shared and divergent perspectives on key issues. By comparing voter sentiment, critical areas and focuses emerge in both groups. Immigration and border security are top ten issues for all Americans, but the lack of conversation from Democrats is the reason they are not included in this analysis.

Shared Topics Among All Voters

Economic Issues

Economic concerns dominate discussions among all voters and the Democratic voter subset. However, the tone and focus vary significantly. Americans generally express deep anxiety over the Harris campaign’s proposed capital gains tax. They fear it could devastate the middle class and undermine the American Dream.

Discussions across voter groups frequently highlight terms like "destruction," "economic harm," and "inflation," signaling widespread dissatisfaction with current economic policies.

Democrats focus more on pride in job creation—talking less of recent revisions—and frustration over legislative inaction. They express concern about economic justice and fiscal responsibility. Their conversations touch on unemployment statistics and the potential impact of tax policies on workers.

While both groups share economic anxieties, Democratic voters are more likely to defend the administration's achievements while simultaneously advocating for more progressive reforms.

Foreign Policy and Security Issues

Foreign policy, particularly the Israel-Palestine conflict, emerges as a significant topic in both groups. Americans are concerned about U.S. involvement in the conflict, with many accusing Biden and Harris of complicity in violence. More progressive voters express a strong desire for accountability and change. Discussions reveal a critical view of both Democratic leadership and former President Trump's influence on foreign policy.

Democrats express deep dissatisfaction with the administration's approach to the Israel-Palestine conflict. They criticize President Biden's perceived bias toward Israel and the lack of empathy toward Palestinian civilians. However, there are nuanced debates about the role of the U.S. in fostering peace and the moral responsibilities of its leaders.

Both groups highlight security issues, but Democratic voters display a broader spectrum of emotions, from anger to cautious optimism about potential policy shifts.

Ideological Conflicts

Both groups engage in discussions about ideological conflicts within the Democratic Party, though the intensity and framing differ. Americans are generally skeptical of Party's perceived shift toward socialist or leftist policies. They criticize Kamala Harris's economic agenda as a departure from traditional American values. These discussions use terms like "communism," "socialism," and "price controls," reflecting a fear of moving too far left.

Democrats focus on internal ideological purity and the need for the Party to present a unified front against rising far-right ideologies. They express concern about the Party's direction and the potential alienation of moderate voters, emphasizing the need to combat fascism while advocating for social safety nets.

While both groups discuss ideological conflicts, Democratic voters frame their concerns as a struggle against far-right extremism.

Unique Topics and Correlations

Crime and Public Safety – All Americans

Crime, particularly rising violent crime rates, features prominently in overall voter discussions. People express frustration with Biden-Harris policies, which they believe contribute to lawlessness and insecurity.

This topic, while not as central to the discussions among Democratic voters, correlates with broader concerns about the administration's effectiveness and public safety, reinforcing the overall narrative of discontent with Biden and Harris.

Legislative Effectiveness – Democratic Voters

Democratic voters focus significantly on legislative effectiveness, particularly in relation to social security, Medicare, and other social safety nets. They are frustrated with the perceived stagnation in Congress and the lack of progress on critical legislation.

This topic connects to broader concerns about governance and the effectiveness of current policies in addressing public needs. It also underscores the internal dissatisfaction within the Party regarding its ability to deliver on promises.

The discussion around border security and immigration remains deeply polarized among American voters. Conversations about the border, particularly focusing on presidential candidates Kamala Harris and Donald Trump, dominate overall public discourse, indicating it’s a top concern. MIG Reports analysis highlights significant differences in public perception and sentiment towards the Republican and Democratic nominees.

An analysis of public sentiment reveals stark differences in support for Kamala Harris and Donald Trump on border security:

• Voter sentiment against open borders is strong, averaging 66%.
• Harris's support averages around 34%, with only 20% support in broader discussions and up to 67% among Democrats.
• Trump enjoys consistent support, averaging 69% across various groups.
• He has particularly strong backing from his base—85% support him on border security.
  

Kamala Harris

Kamala Harris faces a complex and often critical landscape as voters react to her stance on border security. MIG Reports analysis indicates that across national conversations, a large portion of Americans criticize Harris's approach to immigration. Only a minority of supports express agreement or positivity.

Voter sentiment is consistent across broader analyses from Democrat-leaning conversations. This group prioritizes compassion and humane treatment for immigrants, leading to approval for her open border policies.

However, many conversations among Democrats suggest dissatisfaction with the outcomes of her policies, particularly in managing border programs effectively. There is a divide within the Democratic base, where support for Harris’s lenient approach to immigration is mixed. Many feel her policies do not adequately address the complexities of border security.

Most Americans want effective immigration management with accountability and tangible results. Harris's role as a leader and as "border czar" positions her as a figure of both hope and frustration within her party. Responding to criticisms of her administration on border security will likely pose a hurdle for her campaign.

Many Republicans criticize Harris and Democrats’ hypocrisy, pointing out the DNC has strong security and even physical walls. They say Democrats want anyone to enter the country without limitation but protect themselves behind walls and fences.

Watch as Steve tries to help illegal migrant enter the DNC convention, you can image how it went. pic.twitter.com/RdrI0jIZvW

— @amuse (@amuse) August 21, 2024

Donald Trump

Donald Trump remains a dominant figure in border security conversations, particularly among Republicans. MIG Reports analysis shows overwhelming support for Trump’s hardline stance against open borders and his advocacy for stringent immigration controls.

Trump’s policies, such as the "Remain in Mexico" program, receive strong approval from his base. They view strong measures as essential to protecting national security and upholding the integrity of the immigration system.

Republican voters are strongly aligned with Trump's approach of prioritizing enforcement and deterrence. Theu believe strong border security is synonymous with protecting American jobs and maintaining public safety.

Within party, Trump has overwhelming support. This contrasts with waning support among Democrats for their own leadership. Analysis suggests some Independents and disaffected Democrats are bolstering Trump’s broader support. His consistent message of strict border control and opposition to open borders resonates deeply with Americans who want safety and sovereignty.

This support is not only a reflection of Trump’s influence but an indication of voter priorities as border security remains a top concern. These discussions illustrate the extent to which Trump’s stance on immigration continues to shape and mobilize his base, making him a central figure in the ongoing national debate on border security.

Higher education discussions online revolve around student loans, government spending, and diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in educational environments. MIG Reports analysis of sentiment trends in these discussions indicates a growing concern about the influence of leftist ideologies in academia. A particular focus is on the operations and ideologies promoted by higher education professors.

A survey from American Association of University Professors reveals a structured integration of DEI in tenure practices across universities. Today, many institutions have adopted DEI criteria to allegedly combat bias.

Increasingly, professors must demonstrate a strong commitment to DEI in order to receive tenure.

A 2022 survey by the American Association of University Professors found 46% of large universities have DEI criteria included in tenure standards (along w/ teaching & research). pic.twitter.com/6w5tKuHogF

— The Missing Data Depot (@data_depot) August 18, 2024

Taxpayers Funding Loans

Voters are angry about Democratic proposals to give tax-funded financial assistance to those who don’t qualify as citizens or taxpayers. Americans are against what they view as "liberal" financial strategies like student loan forgiveness and financial assistance schemes for homebuyers.

The federal government has significantly increased its role in managing and alleviating the financial burden of student loans for some students. Biden-Harris initiatives claim to protect borrowers from escalating debt and ensuring financial relief.

Voter backlash is identifiable in conversations about student loans and government spending. People are frustrated at government policies that assist specific demographic groups—like the college educated upper-middle-class and illegal immigrants—at the expense of taxpayers.

DEI in Universities

Discussions about DEI are also in conversations about higher education. Many say DEI initiatives serve as a mechanism for left-leaning ideologies to permeate higher education systems.

The phrase "driving the direction of higher education" frequently arises, emphasizing the belief that DEI principles significantly influence curricula and the behaviors of educators. Critics say DEI steers conversations and practices away from traditional academic rigor into ideologically driven social justice.

Many people call DEI a form of ideological indoctrination. They say it destroys merit-based assessments and fosters a discriminatory environment against certain races and viewpoints.

Voter Reactions

Public sentiment towards DEI and government subsidies for loans skews negative. Approximately 65% of conversations reflect a belief that DEI and leftism are influential forces negatively shaping higher education. People believe DEI is contributing to division based on ideological beliefs.

Conversations reveal parallels between the broader political climate and higher education issues. Greater economic anxiety and frustration at governmental overreach overlaps with disapproval of financial assistance and DEI policies in colleges and universities.

Comments suggest taxpayers feel they are being compelled to subsidize systems that disproportionately favor certain groups. They resent tax dollars going to wealthy college graduates and those who have not contributed to the tax base. They blame this on Biden’s student loan forgiveness program and Harris’s proposed housing initiatives for illegal immigrants.

Overall, conversations about financial assistance programs in the current economy are dominated by concerns about fiscal responsibility. There is also resentment toward ideological indoctrination and the perceived failures of DEI initiatives. While some advocate for these progressive programs, much of the public dialogue is critical.

The general sentiment among Americans is best encapsulated by the consensus—65%—viewing DEI and leftism as reshaping higher education and influencing fiscal policy.

The Michigan Senate race between Republican Mike Rogers and Democrat Elissa Slotkin prioritizes important national issues. Important down-ballot races, especially in swing states, are increasingly important as November approaches. These areas can paint an informative picture about how voters are feeling and where important votes may fall—both at the state level and nationally.

MIG Reports analysis of online discussion in swing states and among Michigan voters reveals critical topics include political ideologies, the economy, candidate nomination, and national security issues. These topics capture the predominant concerns and sentiments of the electorate as they engage with the ongoing political developments.

Political Ideologies

Conversations emphasize the ideological divide between the conservative and liberal political perspectives. These discussions in Michigan specifically refer to Rogers and Slotkin and their respective viewpoints.

MIG Reports analysis shows around 40% of the ideological discussion centers on the GOP’s perceived shift toward a more populist, Trump-aligned platform. Voters describe this as MAGA ideology and some voice concerns about the GOP moving away from traditional values and bipartisanship.

About 25-30% of the conversations discuss Slotkin and the Democratic Party being aligned with socialism or communism. There are significant fears that their policies could lead to financial burdens, shortages, and worsening economic decline. Voters say this would be the result of government control over sectors like healthcare and social security.

Ideological polarization shows strong negative sentiments, with around 55% of discussions involving criticism and fear linked to the Democratic Party's direction for the state and the country.

The Economy

Economic concerns are also prevalent in Michigan political discourse, with discussions on various subtopics.

Housing

Housing affordability gets attention, comprising 20-25% of the overall economic discussion. Voters express deep concerns over housing affordability, with fears that government interventions. They mention Harris's proposed $25,000 grant for first-time homebuyers, saying it could inflate housing prices further and exacerbate the crisis rather than alleviate it. This sentiment is particularly strong in Michigan, where many view these policies as ineffective or even counterproductive.

Economic Issues

Broader economic issues like inflation, taxes, and government spending comprise 30-35% of the conversation. Inflation is routinely a concern, with voters attributing rising costs of living directly to current government policies. There is widespread dissatisfaction with how inflation is managed as many blame the Biden administration.

Voters are imminently concerned about the impact of inflation on their daily lives. They mention rising prices for groceries, energy, and housing. The sentiment towards inflation is overwhelmingly negative, with around 60% of comments reflecting frustration and skepticism towards the government's ability to control inflation.

Fiscal Policy

Discussions about government spending comprise around 30% of discussions. Negativity is pervasive as voters criticize “reckless financial management” by government officials. Michiganders voice concerns about long-term debt and the sustainability of fiscal strategies, questioning the efficacy of current government initiatives.

National Security Issues

National and international security concerns focus on U.S. support for Ukraine and Israel. Voters are deeply divided on these issues, largely along partisan lines. About 20% of the conversation focuses on the perceived alignment of Democratic politicians with pro-Hamas progressives. Sentiment towards Democratic candidates on security issues is predominantly negative. Voters are frustrated and fear the implications of these security concerns on national and personal safety if leadership caves to far-leftists who side with terrorists.

Candidate Nominations

Voters have significant concerns about the legitimacy and fairness of the nomination process. About 35% of conversations highlight issues related to party loyalty, candidate viability, and the accessibility of primaries.

There is anxiety about the effectiveness of the candidates' electoral strategies, particularly regarding Slotkin's financial advantages and her ability to appeal to centrist voters. This topic also reflects broader discontent with the candidate offerings, with around 60% of the conversation maintaining a critical tone towards the candidates.

Other Discussions

• About 25% of conversations focus on the credibility of the candidates, particularly Slotkin. There is skepticism about her ties to the agricultural community and concerns about her background and connections to wealth.
• Abortion conversations also feature prominently, comprising about 20% of the dialogue. Sentiment is largely supportive toward Democratic and pro-choice policies.
• Comparison of the two political parties comprises roughly 20% of the conversation. There is frustration with the perceived extremism in both the Republican and Democratic parties.

Voters are voicing their strong aversion to Kamala Harris’s economic policy proposals, particularly recent reports of her plans to implement retail food price controls. Many see historical alignment with price controls and their effects in communist and socialist countries

• Around 70% of conversations around Harris’s economic strategies express skepticism or strong opposition.
• More than 50% of discussions associate Harris’s policies with communist policies.
• On August 15, when Harris first floated price controls, public sentiment regarding ideologies dropped to a 14-day low of 40%.
• The top three keywords mentioned in the ideologies category are MAGA, communist, and socialism.

Remarkably, the widespread negativity toward Harris’s proposed economic policies suggests Democrats also oppose them. Online discourse is typically divided by political alignment, with supporters being almost exclusively Democratic voters. For Harris on the economy, however, sentiment remains predominantly negative.

Many voters feel any proposed intervention to control prices will likely exacerbate inflation rather than alleviate it, MIG Reports data shows. They worry about creating shortages and further complicating supply chains already strained by inflation. People cite the fact that grocery stores already operate on staggeringly thin profit margins, raising the potential for putting retailers out of business.

Last year, Walmart made $15.51 billion on sales of $648.13 billion. That's a profit margin of 2.4%. I'm not sure that's price gouging.

— Eddy Elfenbein (@EddyElfenbein) August 16, 2024

Accusations of communism come from those citing countries like Venezuela and the former Soviet Union. They explain how "price fixing" is a fundamental tenet of communism and has strained food producers, leading to shortages. This increases an already pervasive fear of governmental overreach into the economy.

Negativity on All of Harris’s Economic Policies

Many voters also mention Harris’s proposal for $25,000 grants for first-time homebuyers. They say the plan would exacerbate economic inequality rather than alleviate it. Critics assert these measures underpin a broader social agenda that will eventually lead to increased taxes and a strain on the middle class.

Overall, voters perceive that Harris’s policies are all but nonexistent—except for her unrestrained and heavy-handed economic interventions. They criticize her proposed price controls, housing subsidies, and more recent reports of corporate, capital gains, and unrealized gains tax hikes.

Kamala's policies so far

Price Controls
28% corporate tax
44.6% capital gains tax
25% tax on unrealized gains

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) August 20, 2024

Only a small share of voices express optimism about the potential impact of Harris’s economic agenda. Democratic supporters frame Harris’s plans as necessary regulatory measures aimed at alleviating economic burdens on consumers. However, this group often makes arguments for Harris out of passion for social justice, opposition to Trump, and admiration for the Vice President, rather than specifically favoring her economic policy proposals.

Historical Examples

There is a loud and pervasive sentiment linking Harris’s proposed price controls to historical economic failures. Many voters draw parallels between Harris's platform and past attempts at price controls which resulted in shortages and systemic issues.

People discuss the results of communism in Venezuela and reference other historical instances of failed economic policies. While the Harris campaign frames her policies as holding greedy corporations accountable, most voters view them as "price controls." Those citing historical examples like Venezuela say price controls lead to choked food supply and market instability.

In 2013 Maduro became president and implemented price controls to combat Venezuelan corporate greed.

Guess what happened to inflation? pic.twitter.com/CU00rRC5HO

— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) August 15, 2024

Even CNN and the Washington Post referred to Harris’s proposed polices as leaning communist.

🚨🚨🚨 MUST WATCH 🚨🚨🚨

CNN just DESTROYED Kamala Harris' economic agenda.

"We‘ve seen this kind of thing tried in lots of other countries before. Venezuela, Argentina, the Soviet Union...it leads to shortages" and would "cause a lot of harm." pic.twitter.com/pFEMYDjpN0

— House Republicans (@HouseGOP) August 16, 2024

Washington Post just DESTROYED Kamala pic.twitter.com/XuoshbAU2m

— aka (@akafacehots) August 15, 2024

Voters express a strong belief that government spending exacerbates inflation. This sentiment is woven with a sense of betrayal, with users framing Harris and Democrats as out of touch with or actively antagonistic to the plight of citizens struggling under rising costs.

Discussions regularly link Harris to wider fears of governmental control and loss of market freedom. The historical comparisons include references to the Soviet Union, Cuba, and 1970s America with Nixon’s price controls which led to notable economic distortion.

People increasingly attribute economic strife to Harris personally—despite her campaign’s attempts to distance Harris from the current Biden administration. There are references to her deciding vote on the Inflation Reduction Act, with assertions that her policies directly correlate with the current economic challenges.

Views of Harris

Americans are very skeptical about whether Harris's policies will address the underlying issues driving inflation. There is a prevailing view that her intent is to mask the problem rather than tackle its root causes. They say systemic spending is intended to increase inflation and strain supply chains to increase government control.

People share personal anecdotes about the economic strains they face, particularly relating to high food and fuel prices. Statistics about rising living costs generate additional outrage, as people grapple with their financial realities, for which they blame Harris.

There are accusations that Harris is attempting to shift blame for ongoing inflation onto corporations rather than accepting accountability. People also attack her for shifting blame onto Biden and distancing herself from the administration—despite being the current vice president.

Accusations of her policies aligning with socialist tendencies further energize criticism, framing the discussion in a broader binary of capitalism versus socialism. This feeds into the overall narrative of Harris being a far-left left progressive who indulges in vices and is both incompetent and unfit.

On Aug. 15, Kamala Harris proposed providing up to $25,000 as a down payment for first-time homebuyers, creating significant online controversy. Voter conversations are polarized with support, skepticism, and outright criticism. Disagreements about addressing housing affordability and the current economic climate largely depend on political views.

Reactions to Subsidizing Down Payments

Support

Harris’s proposal for financial assistance for first-time homebuyers generates support within her base. They view the initiative as an essential and compassionate measure to address increased financial barriers to homeownership.

Mostly Democrats, this group argues assistance could alleviate significant upfront costs and increase access to housing for aspiring homeowners. Yet, the underlying sentiment also acknowledges persistent housing affordability issues under the Biden administration.

Optimistic Democrats praise Harris's vision to stimulate housing production. They talk about affordability, down payments, the housing crisis, inflation, taxes, financial burdens on Americans, and current economic policies.

Opposition

Critics of Harris's proposal say providing such financial aid would inevitably increase housing prices. This, they say, negates any supposed benefits of subsidizing down payments. This group discusses inflation, government intervention, and market distortion.

Some also criticize the specifics of the policy, saying it does not discriminate based on citizenship. This, many conclude, would mean illegal immigrants would be eligible for the home downpayment subsidy.

Kamala Harris wants to give $25,000 to illegal aliens to buy American homes. This will only further exacerbate the housing shortage in our country. It's a disgrace.

We should be making it easier and more affordable for American citizens to buy homes.

— JD Vance (@JDVance) August 16, 2024

Skeptics say an influx of funds for buyers increases demand pressure but does not increase supply. As a result, sellers would likely increase asking prices, proportionate to the government subsidy.

Doubts about the efficacy of providing taxpayer funds to first-time homebuyers compounds fear of inflation and the country’s broader economic situation. Critics say this excessively interventionist proposal would exacerbate existing financial burdens for everyone, rather than alleviating pressures for first-time buyers.

It’s Been Done Before

Many Americans doubt the feasibility of Harris's claims, with some calling it a "campaign lie." People ask questions like, "where is the money coming from?" and "government can't solve this" regarding housing affordability.

People worry that finding funding for very large $25,000 grants will increase taxes and worsen national debt. If this happens, low-income and working-class Americans would end up with a heavier burden, despite Harris’s assertions that her policies aim to assist them.

Much of the conversation discusses historical precedents and similar failed government interventions. Voters draw parallels between Harris's progressive proposals and past economic crises like the 2008 Great Financial Crisis. They caution against repeating previous mistakes of government intervention in the housing market.

Those who embrace free market economics say "artificially boosting purchasing power" leads to economic bubbles. They say the result would be long-term affordability issues rather than short-term solutions.

Stimulus Drives Inflation

Critics point to historical examples of government spending spurring increased inflation. Research from MIT shows government spending was a major cause of 2022 inflation spikes. The U.S. government's large-scale fiscal interventions during COVID are linked to heightened inflationary trends as they injected funds into the economy when demand was already recovering.

Many also worry about fraud which could end up exploiting the renter class. The fraud rate in government programs varies, but the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) experienced notable fraud issues. Estimates suggest between 1% to 15% of PPP funds may have been fraudulently obtained. The speed at which the program was implemented and challenges in oversight during disbursement allowed for increased fraud.

In general, emergency and rapidly deployed funds are more susceptible to fraudulent claims. The exact fraud rate can depend on the specific program and preventative measures. However, fraud rates often rise to 10% in government programs.

Harris’s Economic Record with the IRA

Discussions about the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) also highlight skepticism about its effectiveness. People say the IRA is largely responsible for recent inflation surges. Voters believe it exacerbated inflation. rather than reducing it. They say it was misleading in its goal and point out that Harris was the deciding vote to pass it.

A recurring theme in conversations is that excessive government spending drives inflation. Americans understand higher prices and financial strain on working families often comes from the government printing and spending money. There is also a growing cynicism toward establishment and government actions.

Many special view Harris’s policies as more about societal control than economic well-being. This housing subsidy proposal and Harris’s recent retail price control proposal often elicit accusations of communism.

However, despite rampant criticism, some still view the IRA as lowering prescription drug prices. This group tends to view it as positive, though acknowledging skepticism regarding the overall impact of the legislation.