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.

MIG Reports analysis of online conversations about rising bankruptcy filings coincides with wider economic worries. Bankruptcies have surged by 16% over the 12-month period ending March 31, 2024. This indicates American conversations about economic, social, and political concerns are more than worries. Voters express economic distress, financial instability, and fear the impact of government policies on their livelihoods.

The recent 16% increase in bankruptcy is similar to rates seen at the end of 2023. In the prior four years, bankruptcies were at their highest during COVID lockdowns. Despite coming down for the next three years, bankruptcy filings are now increasing again. Many attribute this to economic mismanagement by the Biden-Harris administration.

• U.S. Courts data shows there were 467,774 new bankruptcy cases filed during the cited 12-month period, compared to 403,273 in the previous year.
• Business bankruptcies saw a significant jump of more than 40%, rising from 14,467 cases in 2023 to 20,316 in 2024.
• Non-business bankruptcies, which involve individuals, also increased by about 15%, from 388,806 cases to 447,458.

Families and Businesses are Struggling

Americans continue to grow more concerned about financial instability, including due to rising bankruptcy rates. Conversations mention the challenges families and small business owners face along with economic stress, financial insecurity, and debt relief.

The plight of small businesses, often cited as especially vulnerable to economic fluctuations, underscores broader concerns about market volatility and consumer behavior shifts.

Voters discuss the role of government policies, with many skeptical of the effectiveness of stimulus packages and economic recovery plans. Phrases like "too little, too late" and "lack of support" indicate a sense of frustration about the government’s meager responses to economic challenges.

Political accountability also emerges as a significant theme. Americans link the increase in bankruptcies to perceived failures in government leadership and economic management. Voters criticize “Bidenomics” and the Biden-Harris administration for its policies causing inflation, using terms like "government failure," and "poor leadership." This dissatisfaction leads to a broader call for reform and changed leadership.

The Mood is Sour on the Economy

The national emotional tone is one of anxiety, frustration, and skepticism. People feel overwhelmed and worried about their financial futures. They wonder how they will afford basic living costs, completely giving up on saving for the future or retirement. There is a sense of betrayal by the political establishment and those who continue to grow wealthier.

Anger and distrust coexist with smaller pockets of hope and resilience. Some conversations highlight a commitment to community support. Despite the larger economic struggle, Americans still talk about "supporting local businesses" and "community strength" reflecting a proactive attitude despite the challenging economic climate.

California is widely regarded as one of the most liberal states in the U.S., especially concerning its criminal justice policies. This perception has sparked significant debate among voters, exemplifying the ideological divides splitting Americans.

Progressives see California's governance as taking steps in the right direction toward equity. However, many worry its approach to crime and justice results in higher crime rates. They say California is paving the way for the nation, under a potential Harris presidency, to descend into rampant and increasing violent crime. 

California: A National Model

Many Americans talk of California as the flagship state for rising crime, particularly violent crime. They attribute this increase to policies enacted by Democratic leaders in the state—whom many refer to as “California” or “San Francisco liberals.” Residents of lower-crime states view California’s policies as too lenient and prioritizing the rights of offenders over public safety.

Conversations often cite Proposition 47 as a key example of California’s approach to crime. Passed in 2014, Prop 47 reclassified certain nonviolent offenses, such as drug possession and petty theft, from felonies to misdemeanors. While the measure was intended to reduce the state’s prison population and redirect resources to crime prevention programs, many argue it has had the opposite effect.

Critics say Prop 47 has contributed to a rise in property crimes, such as shoplifting and burglary, by reducing the penalties for these offenses. They argue it emboldens criminals, leading to more frequent and brazen thefts by those who know they will face no consequences.

Some also point to the strain Prop 47 has placed on local law enforcement. By shifting the burden of dealing with offenders from state prisons to local jails, they argue, the law has overwhelmed local resources, leading to overcrowded jails. As a result, law enforcement is less likely to make arrests for downgraded crimes, further eroding public trust in the justice system.

Beyond Prop 47, California's SB 94 has also generated controversy. The bill, which allows some violent criminals, including murderers, to seek parole after serving 25 years, receives strong opposition. Critics say releasing violent offenders, especially murderers, is an egregious allowance that undermines the purpose of the justice system.

"They will be eligible as long as they have only kiIIed up to two people"

SB 94 early release bill, California: pic.twitter.com/wg1e77lcHC

— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) August 14, 2024

Kamala’s Terrible Record on Crime

The role of prominent California politicians, particularly Vice President Kamala Harris, in shaping the state’s criminal justice landscape is another area of intense scrutiny. Harris, who served as California's Attorney General before becoming a U.S. Senator and later Vice President, has a complex legacy in this regard. While some view her as a committed reformer, others criticize her for what they see as a history of inconsistent and opportunistic decision-making.

Critics often point to Harris’s tenure as Attorney General, arguing her policies contributed to the decline of public safety in urban areas like San Francisco. They cite her support for measures they believe have exacerbated homelessness and crime, and they accuse her of failing to protect law-abiding citizens. This narrative portrays Harris as a progressive whose rhetoric claims to advocate for the people, but who is out of touch with safety threats to everyday Americans.

Harris’s involvement in the "defund the police" movement also draws significant backlash. Many voters see this movement as intentionally weakening law enforcement and endangering public safety.

Harris-Walz Makes California Crime National

The concerns about California’s criminal justice policies extend beyond the state’s borders. Many Americans fear California’s approach to many issues tends to be a model for national policies down the road. This feeling is heightened by California liberals like Harris rising to prominence on the national stage.

Many Americans in red states and non-coastal purple or blue states, which have more moderate cultures, view California’s policies as dangerously liberal. They believe, if implemented nationwide, lenient crime policies will continue to skyrocket violence and crime across the country.

Many voters are particularly concerned that, should Kamala Harris and Tim Walz take office, their policies will hasten America’s demise. Walz has gained significant criticism for his governance in Minnesota during the 2020 George Floyd riots. Harris continues to face criticism for her calls to defund the police and her contradictory record as both soft on crime and a tough prosecutor.

• After Walz’s announcement as Democratic VP pick, mentions of crime spiked and sentiment dropped to 35%.
• In the last week, sentiment has fluctuated in the low 40% range and sits at 41% today.
• Kamala Harris also has poor approval on crime, hovering in the high 30% to low 40% range.

Some liberals view California as a progressive beacon, praising its emphasis on diversity, equity, and social justice. They argue the state’s proactive approach to issues like climate change, healthcare, and education represents the future of American governance. For these voters, California’s policies are not only necessary but morally just, offering a counterbalance to what they see as regressive policies in other parts of the country.

However, even among liberals, there is a growing recognition that California’s approach to crime and justice is not without its flaws. The discourse reveals significant doubts about whether the state’s progressive governance style truly aligns with the interests of its residents, especially when it comes to matters of public safety.

Emerging pro-Palestinian protests at the Democratic National Convention (DNC) in Chicago this week indicate complicated political dissent within the Party. These protests primarily target and criticize the Biden-Harris administration’s support for Israel.

Organized by various activist groups, including socialists and Antifa, these protests seek to draw attention to what the protesters describe as U.S. complicity in the "genocide" in Gaza.

Unfolding events at the DNC reveal intense emotions, strategic disruption, and a focus on pushing for systemic change in U.S. foreign policy. A glaring lack of protester criticism aimed at U.S. foreign policy in any other foreign conflict complicates the matter.

Protester silence is deafening on conflicts including but not limited to:

• Russia-Ukraine War
• Syrian Civil War
• Yemeni Civil War
• Insurgencies in Somalia and Iraq

Those who criticize pro-Palestine protesters suggest this lack of outrage over all human rights issues reveals the targeted nature of Palestine protests, specifically against the U.S. and Israel. This, critics say, reveals the anti-American and antisemitic nature of far-left progressive activism in the Democratic party supersedes its stated advocacy for humanitarianism.

Internal Conflict Among Democrats

Protests kicking off at the DNC center around criticizing Democratic leaders, with a particular focus on President Biden and Vice President Harris. Demonstrators are vocal in their accusations, claiming the U.S. government is funding Israeli actions against Palestinians.

Chants and shouts often include the phrase "Free Palestine,” underscoring the movement's stated objective. However, public discourse reveals a deeper complexity, as some question why the protests focus predominantly on the Democratic Party.

Critics argue Republicans, who have historically supported Israel, should also be targets of these protests. Discussions touch on the broader implications of these protests, with some voices expressing concern that the focus on Palestinian issues might come at the expense of other marginalized communities, such as black Americans.

Misaligned Priorities

Pro-Palestine protesters express urgency, anger, and frustration at Democratic leaders. They view the protests as a necessary and immediate response to what they perceive as grave injustices against Palestinians. They demand accountability from Democratic leaders like Biden and Harris.

However, there is also criticism of the protests, with some Democrats labeling the actions as misguided or overly focused on a single issue. This group is concerned about neglecting other important social justice causes.

Some criticize the protesters’ lack of concern for other wars, despite their stated grievance being human rights. The emotionally charged language used by both supporters and critics—featuring terms like "genocide," "shut down," and "Free Palestine"—reflects the divisions among Democrats.

Hidden in the Discourse: Intersectionality

Discourse around pro-Palestinian protests at the DNC reveals a growing awareness of intersectionality among younger voters and members of diverse ethnic backgrounds. These participants express a desire to align the Palestinian cause with broader social justice movements. They emphasize the importance of connecting the struggles of various marginalized groups.

This intersectional approach claims to build a more unified and inclusive activist front, where advocating for Palestinian rights does not overshadow but rather complements the efforts to address other systemic injustices. These injustices often include racial inequality and economic disparity. The emphasis on intersectionality highlights a shift in political activism, where the focus is not solely on a single issue but on a broader coalition that addresses multiple layers of oppression simultaneously.

A recent Gallup poll of American approval regarding immigration levels from 1965 through the present determined:

• 55% of Americans today want immigration reduced
• 25% want immigration levels to stay the same
• 16% want an increase in immigration numbers.

MIG Reports analysis of voter conversations online not only confirm polling data but reveal why Americans hold their current perspectives on immigration

Weighted Analysis

MIG Reports analysis weighs total discussion volume and approval percentages of immigration preferences by calculating the influence of each group's preference—decreased, maintained, or increased immigration—across multiple data sets.

By considering both the percentage of preferences within each data set and the total discussion volume of each set, the analysis determined the overall weighted preference.

MIG Reports analysis shows:

• 56.50% of voters nationally favor decreased immigration
• 26.22% favor maintaining current levels
• 17.29% favor increased immigration
• Additionally, in swing states, around 70% of conversations favor reducing immigration.
• In national conversations about the presidential election, 60% favor reducing immigration.
  

Why a Majority Wants Reduced Immigration

The predominant preference in voters discussions favors decreased immigration. This is driven by a variety of concerns revolving around national security, economic stability, and public safety.

Many Americans voice deep apprehension about illegal immigration as a major threat to the country’s security and economic well-being. Voters talk about reducing or stopping illegal immigration because they believe:

• Illegal immigrants contribute to rising crime rates: Discussions mention gang activity and violent crimes linked to immigrant groups, particularly in urban areas.
• An open order exacerbates economic challenges: People discuss job scarcity and inflation, arguing the influx of illegal migrants strains public resources like social services, healthcare, and housing.

There is widespread frustration and distrust toward Biden-Harris immigration policies, which voters view as too lenient. People direct their anger toward Democrats who they believe have failed to secure the border. Discussions emphasize a sense of urgency and alarm, with many advocating for stricter controls and even mass deportation policies.

Reasons for Maintaining Immigration Levels

Around 25% of voters in MIG Reports data advocate for maintaining current levels of immigration. They emphasize the need for a balanced and structured approach to the border. These voters typically argue that, while reforms may be necessary, a drastic reduction in immigration is not the solution.

Immigration advocates point out the importance of legal immigration pathways, highlighting the contributions of immigrants to the economy and society. They focus on the value of diversity and the critical role immigrant workers play in the economy. Here, they mention industries that rely heavily on labor from immigrant populations.

There is also a strong humanitarian element in these discussions. Voters want asylum seekers to have human rights protections. They argue a well-regulated immigration system can benefit the country by bringing in individuals who contribute positively to communities and the economy. Sentiments in this group are generally more optimistic and focused on the potential for policy reforms that balance security concerns with the need for inclusivity and economic growth.

A Minority Want Increased Immigration

The smallest segment of Americans supports increasing immigration levels. This view is driven primarily by humanitarian concerns and the belief in the positive impact of diversity. Often progressives and libertarians, this group focuses on America's moral and ethical responsibility to provide refuge to those fleeing persecution and violence.

Increased immigration proponents say the United States, as a nation built on immigration, has a duty to welcome those seeking better lives and to support their integration into society. They also emphasize the economic benefits of immigration, particularly the need for a growing workforce to sustain economic growth and address labor shortages in certain industries.

Advocates point out immigrants bring a wealth of skills, perspectives, and cultural richness which contributes to the vitality of the nation. Discussions include calls for comprehensive immigration reform that expands opportunities for legal immigration and strengthens support systems for newcomers. The tone in this group is often one of compassion and a belief in the long-term benefits of a more open and inclusive immigration policy.

Americans are feeling the pressure of drastically rising car insurance rates, particularly in addition to broader economic struggles. MIG Reports analysis shows online conversations predominantly focus on inflation, taxation policies, and the failures of Biden-Harris polices, including illegal immigration.

Auto insurance rates in the US have increased by 42% over the past 2 years.

That's the biggest 2-year spike since 1977, per Charlie Bilello.

— unusual_whales (@unusual_whales) June 17, 2024

Inflation Concerns

The top keywords in car insurance discussions include inflation, taxes, premium, cost of living, and affordability. Americans voice concern about sharply increasing costs of living, which directly influence their ability to afford essential services like car insurance. Many people vent frustrations about how rising consumer prices affect their overall financial situation. There is widespread sentiment of anxiety about economic stability.

Voters connect their personal finances to broader political themes, citing government spending and tax policies as roots of inflation. This is a constant topic of conversation online, as people express deep frustrations. They discuss the financial strain on families, emphasizing the current trajectory of the economy is untenable for working-class Americans.

Voters Blame Democrats

Americans take critical tone toward government policies, particularly targeting the Biden administration and Democratic policies. People talk about policies like the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) and other decisions that contribute to economic distress and debt, rather than easing it.

Voters are calling for accountability in government spending, angry about wasted tax dollars. Phrases like "kill us without killing us" signify the desperation many feel and the emotional weight of economic hardship. Inflation “kills” financial stability and livelihoods, impacts mental health and quality of life, and even causes direct physical harm in the worst of situations.

Criticism of the IRA links government actions to adverse economic consequences, framing policies as harmful to middle-class Americans. Distrust of leadership extends to discussions about tax burdens as people fear increased taxation on working individuals from Democrats who criticized Trump’s tax cuts.

Illegal immigration also receives blame as a secondary cause of inflation. People decry tax dollars being spent on unhelpful border programs, illegal immigrant welfare, and increased job competition. These wider pressures all contribute to higher costs for things like car insurance.

Immigration Concerns

Voters also discuss the impact of illegal immigration on national security and community safety, with some linking these issues to rising car insurance rates. They suggest illegal immigrants contribute to escalating crime rates and other societal challenges. This generates knock-on economic consequences such as rising car insurance rates.

Numerous states do not allow illegal immigrants to obtain driver’s licenses, which may also be a cause of increased insurance rates.

• Alabama
• Arizona
• Arkansas
• Florida
• Georgia
• Indiana
• Iowa
• Kansas
• Kentucky
• Louisiana
• Maine
• Michigan
• Mississippi
• Missouri
• Montana
• Nebraska
• North Carolina
• North Dakota
• Ohio
• Oklahoma
• Pennsylvania
• South Carolina
• South Dakota
• Tennessee
• Texas
• West Virginia
• Wisconsin
• Wyoming

Many believe an increased number of uninsured drivers distributes the cost of covering uninsured accidents to those who do have insurance. With rising crimes among illegal immigrants who are in a new country and culture, language and education barriers can create greater risks on the road. For many voters, this remains a plausible contributor to their ballooning insurance costs.

Discussion trends indicate fears about immigration frequently intersect with anxieties about economic stability. While some participants do not directly link illegal immigration to the rising costs of car insurance, there is an implied connection in the broader context of economic worries.

People do associate economic stress with illegal immigration and strained public services. The sentiment suggests a belief that increased illegal immigration burdens local communities and safety resources. This contributes to a heightened risk environment which causes things like increased insurance premiums.