With the holiday shopping season approaching, consumers appear conflicted about risking their usual shopping plans amid rising crime rates nationwide.
What the Data Says
Media Intelligence Group reports that public discussions reveal an emerging apprehension and caution regarding shopping dangers.
Reports of increased theft and organized retail crime in many major cities have been generating headlines all year.
Various reports also revealed that retailers lost more than $112 billion in 2022 due to crime.
Major brands like Target, Walmart, Nordstrom, Macy's, and others have closed store locations because of increasing theft.
Now, the danger of in-store criminal activity has people expressing their hesitation to shop during what has traditionally been the heaviest shopping season of the year.
Some people argue that positive economic indicators like 2.0% and 2.1% GDP growth in Q1 and Q1 of 2023 point to a hospitable environment for spending.
However, concerns also persist about inflation's toll on families’ spending power, making purchases challenging.
What Americans are Saying
The MIG report suggests caution rather than fear is the prevailing mood among Americans.
Shoppers seem alert to potential dangers but not fully deterred.
Many do say they’ll think twice before venturing out or spend less time browsing in stores.
Meanwhile corporations seem quiet in the public forum but are likely keeping a close eye on shrinking revenues.
People are hesitant due to increased risks of theft and organized retail crime.
Some express fear about potential mass shootings in places like malls and shopping centers.
And most Americans feel uncertain about the overall economy affecting their spending power.
Media Denial
At the same time, many media outlets push back on the narrative that retail crime is significantly increasing nationwide based on available data.
Many headlines suggest that retailers may be overstating or sensationalizing the issue.
Some journalists express a desire for “more objective” data collection on retail crime trends before concluding there is a major national surge occurring.
Despite media pushback, these pressures may cause retailers to see decreased profits through the end of 2023.
Stay Informed
Share:
More Like This
Recent reports of polling on the 2026 California Governor’s race predict Kamala Harris as the frontrunner, should she enter the race. With a national profile and deep ties to the Democratic Party, she certainly has the greatest name ID. However, MIG Reports data paints a different picture of voter sentiment.
Voter Sentiment
Harris faces an electorate that is skeptical at best, outright hostile after her presidential train wreck. Her tenure as Vice President has left many unconvinced of her leadership skills, and her potential return to California politics meeting with resistance.
MIG reports data shows serious dissatisfaction among Californians as 60% express discontent with Harris’s record, highlighting economic concerns, crime, and immigration as key issues.
All Voters
55% of national voters hold a negative view of Harris
35% support her
10% remain neutral
Democratic Voters Nationally
40% of Democrats call for new leadership
50% express support
10% remain neutral
The Broader Voter Landscape
Harris’s viability as a Gubernatorial candidate is impacted by establishment backing and grassroots discontent. Nationally, she retains support among Democratic loyalists who see her as a necessary bulwark against Republican gains. However, Democratic sentiment is trending down overall as voters lose faith in party leaders. In California, the Democratic machine has come under scrutiny amid the recent wildfires and governance issues.
Among voters critical of her potential candidacy Harris is seen as ineffective. Her tenure as Vice President has been defined by failures on key issues like inflation, immigration, and public safety. Many Californians say she can only repeat party-line talking points, and her past struggle to connect with voters is a liability.
Democratic Division
While Harris maintains 50% support among partisan Democrats, nearly half of the party view her negatively, calling her too centrist or uninspiring. Her inability to energize the party’s far-left activist wing poses a serious risk in a state where progressive enthusiasm often translates into electoral strength.
Progressive critics cite her record as California’s Attorney General, arguing she was too punitive in criminal justice policies before shifting leftward in pursuit of national ambitions. Others believe her role in the Biden administration was an abject failure. Many want fresh leadership—candidates who can embody a grassroots-driven, issue-focused campaign.
Harris defenders see her as a nationally connected candidate who could maintain Democratic control in a state that is losing population. They say her positioning in the party apparatus, fundraising ability, and media profile make her the strongest candidate to follow Gavin Newsom. However, this support remains shallow rather than enthusiastic and both she and Newsom suffer from low support.
With media buzz and polling about her chances, Harris has seen a slight bump in sentiment compared to Newsom. However, Newsome has a 7-day low of 35% and Harris 41%.
California’s Growing Discontent
Harris is deeply unpopular in California, maintaining only name recognition which does not endear her to residents who have watched the state deteriorate under Democratic leadership.
Economic concerns are at the forefront. California faces some of the highest housing costs, energy prices, and tax burdens in the nation. Many blame Democratic policies for exacerbating these issues. They see Harris—who has long been involved in California politics—as a continuation of the status quo.
Immigration remains a flashpoint. Harris’s role as "Border Czar" in the Biden administration is widely viewed as a failure. Californians, facing overwhelmed social services and a growing illegal immigrant population, feel the brunt of national border policies. Voters critical of Harris say she has contributed to the border crisis.
Crime and public safety also weigh heavily. Rising crime rates in major California cities fuel dissatisfaction with Democratic governance. Harris’s record as Attorney General further damages her image among both progressive activists and pro-law-and-order voters.
A Captured Media
The growing disconnect between voter sentiment and media narratives also plays a part in negative sentiment. Many express frustration with what they see as a biased press propping up Harris. In the last year, legacy media coverage portrayed her as a strong leader and candidate, but voters see through this—particularly after the presidential election.
Critics argue that Harris’s public persona is overly polished yet politically empty. They see her media presence as scripted, rehearsed, and detached from real voter concerns. This has fueled resentment among voters who feel that the press is working to manufacture support for a candidate they do not trust.
Political Implications
If Harris enters the 2026 California gubernatorial race, she’ll have structural advantages, national name recognition, party backing, and a solid fundraising network. However, none of those things brought her across the finish line in 2024, and Californians are voicing strong desire for change.
Harris faces:
A disillusioned Democratic base that is divided over whether she is competent.
A California electorate that overwhelmingly disapproves of her record.
A growing sense that her leadership represents the failures of the Biden administration rather than a fresh start.
The debate over federal funding continues as voters discuss the prospect of defunding the Department of Education. Voters on the right view the agency as a bloated bureaucracy pushing progressive ideology at the expense of academic performance. Those on the left frame federal oversight as essential to maintaining educational equity.
Recent controversies around DOGE’s financial investigations into federal spending intensify scrutiny of the Department’s budget. The exposure of wasteful government allocations emboldens Republicans demanding education reform and defunding.
Maxine Waters (D) is currently accosting random federal employees outside the Department of Education pic.twitter.com/5L8RviQ9rH
64% of those discussing defunding the Department of Education oppose the idea
36% of voters nationally support it
Opposition is largely driven by concerns over education equity, access to resources, and the fear of widening disparities between wealthy and low-income school districts. Supporters want to dismantle the Department, which they see as part of the federal bureaucracy, exempt from accountability. This group believes states are better positioned to govern their own education systems.
Strong Republican Support
Among Republicans, 57% support defunding the Department. They see it as a failed institution that funnels taxpayer dollars into bureaucracy rather than classrooms. Many conservatives point to the decline in U.S. education rankings since the agency’s establishment in 1979 as evidence that federal involvement has done more harm than good.
Fiscal conservatives say eliminating the Department would allow states to redirect billions toward local education initiatives or even return funds to taxpayers. There is also a strong demand for spending audits, with increasing skepticism of where education dollars are going. The perception that DEI programs, ideological curriculum mandates, and wasteful foreign education aid drives Republican frustration.
The cultural war in education is another driving factor. Controversies over progressive curriculums, transgender policies, and race-based education initiatives causes conservatives to view federal control as a tool for leftist social engineering. Parent uproar against things like a kindergarten LGBTQ pride book in the Penfield Central School District amplify calls for dismantling the Department.
Democrats Cling to Their Power
Around 85% of Democrats discussing this issue oppose defunding or dismantling the Department. They say federal involvement is essential to ensuring equal access to education. They say states cannot be trusted to provide a consistent standard of quality, fearing inequalities between wealthy and poor school districts.
There is also a strong defense of federal funding for disadvantaged students, with many on the left saying minority and low-income students would suffer without it. Partisan Democrats frame education as a fundamental right, not a discretionary budget item. They warn cuts could undermine public schools in favor of privatization efforts.
However, some moderate Democrats express frustration with inefficiencies in the Department, particularly when it comes to spending allocation and administrative bloat. While they oppose defunding, they acknowledge that federal education spending needs reform, particularly in reducing unnecessary expenditures.
Institutional Resistance
The strongest opposition to defunding comes from teachers and education administrators, with 80% rejecting the proposal. This group says cutting federal funding would jeopardize key programs, particularly those supporting special education, rural schools, and low-income communities.
Teachers frequently cite underfunded schools, teacher shortages, and the growing challenges of classroom management as reasons why the federal government should be increasing, not decreasing, its role in education. There is also concern that without federal funding, state governments will be forced to make cuts that will harm students rather than improve efficiency.
Fiscal Priorities and Political Realities
The debate over defunding or dismantling the Department of Education is part of a larger battle over federal spending priorities. DOGE’s recent revelations about government waste have amplified fiscal conservative calls for significant budget cuts and reducing federal bureaucracy.
Some Republicans argue funds should be redirected to domestic infrastructure, law enforcement, or national security rather than federal education programs they see as ideologically driven and grossly mismanaged. Others argue cutting education funding at a time of rising inflation and economic uncertainty is politically untenable, calling instead for reform.
The battle between the Trump administration and liberals—including judges—over federal funding is heating up. Media narratives and Democratic talking points frame the issue as an authority or constitutionality question. The Trump administration and its supporters frame the issue as Washington bureaucrats desperately clawing to maintain their seat on a federal gravy train—at the taxpayer’s expense.
The Trump team, led by Elon Musk and DOGE, is pursuing aggressive cuts to bloated and mismanaged federal agencies like USAID. These efforts are drawing legal challenges, with courts stepping in to block funding freezes and redirections, particularly in areas related to foreign aid, border security, and social programs.
Judicial interventions fuel the ongoing debate over the scope of executive authority. While past administrations exercised discretion over federal spending without comparable legal pushback, Trump’s efforts to audit and reshape government expenditures have been met with swift injunctions and protests and hysterics from Democrats.
I can't stop laughing at this.
Chuck Schumer and Maxine Waters holding hands and chanting "We Will Win" after losing everything just 90 days ago.
The Democratic Party and media outlets are framing Trump’s swift and decisive actions on the budget as part of a broader threat to constitutional governance. They claim Trump is defying court rulings, accusing him of authoritarianism. They often compare him to historical strongmen, calling his actions a “constitutional crisis.”
This argument, however, does not stand up to scrutiny. Public sentiment does not support the idea that Trump is dismantling constitutional norms.
MIG Reports data shows:
68% of voters disagree that Trump’s actions are creating a constitutional crisis
32% accept the premise
Most Americans see these legal battles as political maneuvers rather than genuine threats to democracy. They say, if there is an actual crisis, it is Democratic resistance to auditing federal agencies. People view the vociferous pushback against executive oversight of agencies as the bureaucratic class fighting to maintain control.
Sentiment in discussions about USAID is low, dropping to 35% in the last week.
DOGE discussions are also negative but recovering to 38% on Feb. 11.
Voters Distrust in Government Spending
Much of the opposition to Trump’s budget cuts stems from what his supporters see as an entrenched system of fiscal waste in a “deep state” which has been unaccountable for decades. Reports of a staggering $3 trillion in government waste since 2004 fuel calls for reform, with voters increasingly angry about how their taxpayer dollars are spent.
The USAID controversy exemplifies this concern.
60% of voters believe USAID has surreptitiously funded Hamas, after reports alleging the agency funneled hundreds of millions of dollars into organizations later linked to terrorism.
55% believe USAID funding contributed to the COVID-19 pandemic, citing financial ties to gain-of-function research in Wuhan.
65% believe the Biden administration enabled waste, fraud, and abuse, prioritizing globalist policies over American interests
Further fueling skepticism is FEMA’s reported $59 million expenditure on luxury hotel accommodations for illegal immigrants. These revelations reinforce anger that government priorities are misaligned with the needs of American taxpayers.
Judicial Obstruction or Necessary Oversight?
Trump’s efforts to cut federal funding have been met with an aggressive judicial response, sparking debates over the proper role of the courts. Democratic voters largely see judicial interventions as necessary safeguards against executive overreach.
Republican voters view the courts as a political weapon used to obstruct much-needed reforms. They say similar or worse violations happened during the Biden administration and Democrats made no objections and no legal actions.
The broader issue is selective judicial activism. While Trump’s budgetary decisions face immediate legal challenges, many believe Democrats freely exercised funding discretion in the past.
Obama’s executive actions on immigration, for example, went largely unchallenged by the courts, despite sidestepping congressional approval. Biden draws similar criticisms for his actions on differed rent and student loan debt. The disparity in legal scrutiny suggests politicized judges are not acting as impartial arbiters.
Elon Musk, DOGE, and the Push for Accountability
Perceptions of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) complicate the debate over fiscal accountability. Elon Musk and his team of young tech whiz analysts are drawing attention and criticism. Their role in exposing financial mismanagement across federal agencies is fueling accusations of misused power, unelected influence, and questions of security clearance.
While critics warn of an unelected billionaire influencing government decisions, supporters see Musk’s involvement as a necessary counterweight to entrenched bureaucratic inefficiency.
DOGE’s findings lend credibility to conservative calls for reform. Reports that $50 billion per year is funneled to individuals with no verified Social Security numbers raise alarms over entitlement fraud. This, coupled with revelations that Ukraine war refugees have been placed on American welfare rolls, has further galvanized public opinion against unchecked government spending.
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)