A viral video from conservative influencer Robby Starbuck condemning Toyota’s support of the “woke trans agenda” sparked discussions of a Toyota boycott. The clip describes Toyota’s involvement in promoting and funding organizations and events that put children in sexualized situations and advocate for child gender transition.

It’s time to expose Toyota.@Toyota has been one of the most trusted brands in America but they’ve gone totally woke.

Here’s some of what we found:

• Toyota sponsored a drag queen program at a summer camp for kids identifying as LGBTQ+.

• Toyota opposes laws that ban sex… pic.twitter.com/bmcWPftjT4

— Robby Starbuck (@robbystarbuck) September 26, 2024

The incident taps into a broader wave of frustration over widespread corporate policies which push programs directly opposed to most Americans’ religious and cultural values. Much like the backlash against Bud Light and Target in 2023, Toyota is now the latest lightning rod in the cultural fight over Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) and transgender issues.

DEI and Child Sexualization

The seemingly unstoppable and nonconsensual cultural shift toward normalizing gender ideology in public spaces—including schools—angers many Americans. For many conservatives, especially those with strong religious convictions, this shift feels like an aggressive overreach.

According to MIG Reports data, around 54% of Americans voice outright opposition to gender ideology and the sexualization of children. Of these, around 40% cite their faith as a key reason for rejecting these ideologies, viewing them as a direct affront to traditional values and parental rights.

The recent rise in DEI initiatives, many argue, is corporate America’s way of forcing a cultural agenda that marginalizes conservative or religious views. Toyota, a brand with deep roots in American households, is now receiving backlash, raising questions about the company's understanding of its own customer base.

Americans largely oppose sexual content being pushed on children or promoting transgender issues to kids. Large corporations which participate in promoting and funding projects that push gender ideology often do so without acknowledging it to their customers.

The Toyota Boycott

The outrage surrounding Toyota isn't happening in a vacuum. Americans are becoming more vocal against agendas they view as damaging to society and dangerous for their children.

When Bud Light partnered with transgender influencer Dylan Mulvaney in 2023, it sparked a national boycott. Similarly, Target's pride-themed displays led to a sharp consumer backlash. In both cases, conservative Americans signaled their limits for tolerating corporations taking a woke stance in the cultural war.

Can the same thing happen with Toyota? MIG Reports data shows Americans mostly support the boycott.

Voter Reactions

• 43% approve of boycotting Toyota over DEI and transgender policies.
• 37% strongly oppose a boycott, supporting Toyota's stance on DEI and transgender inclusion.
• 15% view the boycott as unimportant or ineffective.
• 5% express apathy or ignore the boycott.

These reactions mirror the ideological divides that surfaced during the Bud Light and Target controversies, where many consumers voiced their frustration over corporate wokeness.

Woke Corporations in 2024

Conservative and moderate ire toward woke is growing. Transgender ideology, once a fringe issue, is now consistently a major flashpoint as more corporations and organizations put resources into promoting it.

But the American public is deeply divided on the subject. MIG Reports analysis suggests 43% of voters are frustrated with corporations promoting leftist political agendas that clash with their values. This “woke capitalism,” as it's often called, seems to be increasingly pushing conservative consumers away from household brands.

But there is also significant support for these initiatives among more progressive voters. Around 37% support DEI and transgender rights, promoting transgender inclusion and corporate involvement. These voices say inclusivity is not just good business, but a moral imperative in a rapidly changing world.

Another 15-20% dismiss boycotts, arguing they are not effective or do not work. This group either downplays the issues as overwrought among conservatives or expresses skepticism that boycotts effectively move the cultural needle.

Recent reports of Nancy Pelosi selling nearly $1 million worth of Visa stock, followed by the Department of Justice’s lawsuit against Visa, are sparking widespread public outrage. This incident stirs discussions about political ethics and accountability, with voters reacting across the internet. MIG Reports data shows predominantly negative sentiment towards Pelosi, driven perceptions of corruption and elitism within the political class.

Nancy Pelosi sold nearly $1 million of Visa, $V on July 1.

The US Department of Justice has sued Visa today, accusing one of the world’s largest payment networks of antitrust violations that affect “the price of nearly everything”, nearly three months later. pic.twitter.com/PoFHbtNgIp

— unusual_whales (@unusual_whales) September 24, 2024

Anger at Elites

Voter sentiment is dominated by anger and frustration, with many people viewing Pelosi’s actions as an abuse of power. Her ability to make large financial transactions while still serving in a high-ranking political role evokes feelings of injustice, especially considering the financial struggles faced by ordinary citizens.

Outrage is amplified by accusations of hypocrisy, with critics pointing to her public stances which often seem at odds with her private financial dealings. Many discussing the subject are demanding transparency and accountability from Pelosi.

Disillusionment with the Political Establishment

Betrayal and distrust toward the political elite also permeate discussions about Pelosi's financial decisions. Many feel her actions embody the self-serving nature of politicians, further deepening public skepticism of the government. Some accuse her of insider trading, with critics pointing to the uncanny timing of her stock sale.

A smaller group expresses disillusionment and disappointment. These Americans view Pelosi’s suspicious financial trades as both a character failure and a reflection of broader systemic issues. For this group, Pelosi’s actions symbolize the growing divide between the political elite and average Americans. Many desire meaningful reform and stricter regulations to prevent corrupt financial dealings among the political class.

A Sense of Futility

Some express feelings of helplessness and hopelessness as powerful elites and rich politicians seem untouchable compared to normal citizens. There is a sense of resignation, doubting any meaningful consequences will follow for questionable or corrupt behavior.

Americans see the lack of accountability for powerful politicians as an inevitable and frustrating reality. While they call for systemic changes, they also emphasize little optimism any change will occur.

Pelosi Defenders

Finally, around 5% of the discussion expresses support for Pelosi. This group either defends her actions or attributes criticism to partisan bias. This group highlights the lack of concrete evidence for insider trading allegations, calling for caution before passing judgment. They argue Pelosi is being unfairly targeted by political opponents, further polarizing the conversation.

Boeing, a titan in the aerospace industry, finds itself in ongoing PR and legal battles. The recent departure of its defense chief and the new CEO shaking up the company’s top ranks come at a time when Boeing is already under immense pressure. Years of safety concerns, labor disputes, and questions about leadership have eroded public trust.

Leadership Instability and Strategic Direction

Boeing’s defense chief stepped down—a significant moment for the company. Leading one of Boeing’s most critical divisions, the defense chief was responsible for overseeing projects that are essential to both U.S. military capabilities and space exploration. The departure forces a reposition of the defense unit, which faces its own operational delays and controversies.

The new CEO Robert “Kelly” Ortberg’s decision to overhaul top leadership further signals Boeing’s internal dynamics in turmoil. While these changes could provide an opportunity for renewed focus, they also raise concerns about stability and continuity in a period where consistency is vital.

Investors and stakeholders are closely watching these moves, but there is skepticism about whether leadership changes alone can address deeper structural problems.

Boeing’s reputation has been marred by high-profile crises including:

• Multiple airplane failures and safety events
• The Starliner experiencing failures, leaving astronauts stuck in space
• Court battles and multiple dead whistleblowers
• Speculations about corporate corruption
• Damaging DEI initiatives which compromise safety and quality
• Layoffs and a perception that Boeing does not value its workforce

Now, any minute misstep by the new CEO could worsen the company’s precarious standing.

Safety and Profitability

A long-standing criticism of Boeing has been its perceived focus on profits over safety, a narrative which has intensified in recent years. The leadership changes, rather than reassuring the public, have only heightened fears that Boeing will continue down a profit-driven path at the expense of safety.

High-profile safety issues—such as those related to the 737 MAX aircraft—remain fresh in the public’s memory. Americans are increasingly vocal about Boeing’s need to overhaul its safety protocols, especially in contrast to competitors like SpaceX, which is often praised for its attention to safety.

Boeing’s relationship with the FAA has also caused scrutiny. Many perceive the FAA as lenient toward Boeing, particularly in contrast to perceived hostility toward SpaceX, fueling public frustration. Critics argue Boeing has not faced sufficient accountability for its safety lapses, and many fear that unless the new CEO addresses this issue head-on, Boeing risks safety, alienating regulators, and destroying the quality of air travel.

Labor Relations and Workforce Morale

Boeing also struggles with labor relations as layoffs, a hiring freeze, and 30,000 worker strike generates negativity. Many say the company’s actions, which leadership frame as necessary to safeguard its financial health, simply undermine workers—especially union employees.

Top executives continuing to receive substantial compensation also angers workers and the public. An infamous $45 million “golden parachute” awarded to a recently departed CEO symbolized the disconnect between Boeing’s leadership and employees.

Public and Investor Sentiment

The observing public’s sentiment toward Boeing is overwhelmingly negative. People express frustration about leadership decisions, safety hazards, and labor relations. Voter discussions reflect widespread skepticism about any prospect of meaningful change. There is a growing sense that Boeing’s issues are deep and systemic with few signs of change.

From an investor perspective, Boeing’s instability is a major concern. The company’s ability to innovate and compete—particularly against rising competitors in commercial aviation and defense—are tied to how effectively it manages this period of transition. If Boeing fails to improve its operational performance and address ongoing labor and safety issues, investor confidence could falter, leading to further financial strain.

Recent reports that the Biden Administration spent $42 billion on a “broadband expansion” project which has failed to connect anyone to the internet in three years went viral. Clips of FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr testifying in Congress enraged Americans. Carr explained that, after 1,039 days and billions of taxpayer dollars appropriated, not a single person has been connected to the internet.

FCC Commissioner: Kamala's $42 billion broadband initiative hasn't connected anything in 3 years!

"It's been 1,039 days, and no one has been connected... no homes, no businesses, not even a shovel in the ground."

WHERE'D ALL THE MONEY GO???pic.twitter.com/M87gLy7LrB

— Tim Young (@TimRunsHisMouth) September 19, 2024

MIG Reports data shows an overwhelming majority of Americans share Carr’s frustration and resentment. A bipartisan sentiment that government projects are failing, wasting taxpayer money, and private-sector solutions are being blocked, permeates voter discussion. Americans raise serious questions about the role of government in solving the rural broadband crisis.

$42 Billion for Nothing

Carr testified that, the past three years, the Biden-Harris administration allocated $42 billion for a broadband expansion initiative aimed at providing internet access to underserved rural areas. However, not a single household has been connected.

Americans agree with Carr’s critique, accusing the administration of gross mismanagement and calling this a clear example of government failure. For many, it exemplifies a pattern of bureaucratic incompetence, where billions are thrown at problems with no results.

In addition, Americans are angry that private sector solutions could solve the problem but are being blocked by crony capitalist corporations and government legal action.

1️⃣,0️⃣3️⃣7️⃣ days.

Vice President Harris has been leading the Administration’s signature, $42 billion plan to extend Internet to millions of Americans for 1️⃣,0️⃣3️⃣7️⃣ days now.

The result?

0️⃣ people have been connected to the Internet. Not one home. Not one business. None. pic.twitter.com/n1HLYkUZwD

— Brendan Carr (@BrendanCarrFCC) September 17, 2024

The Outrage is Bipartisan

Voters across the political spectrum are not just disappointed—they're outraged. MIG Reports data shows, among all voters:

• 68% disapprove of the broadband initiative spending and failure
• 22% decry the program as typical and wasteful government mismanagement
• 7% defend the project as important for rural Americans without internet

When it comes to voter groups:

• 80% of conservatives view the initiative as an abject failure, seeing it as a clear example of wasteful spending.
• 40% of liberals defend the initiative as necessary but poorly executed, while another 30% outright criticize the project.
• 50% of Independents are skeptical of the program’s effectiveness and relevance.
• 60% of swing state voters are frustrated, viewing the initiative as yet another fake promise with no real impact.

These reactions reveal dissatisfaction and outrage across political lines. Americans are furious with this program as an egregious waste of tax dollars.

Elon’s Starlink Getting Stuffed

Elon Musk claims Starlink could solve the rural internet problem quickly and for much cheaper, delivering high-speed internet to all rural areas across the U.S. He suggests, unlike the government’s failed and expensive project, Starlink is already operational and scalable. Most Americans agree with Elon that anti-competitive corporations and government regulators are actively blocking a real solution.

NEWS: Partisan politics is why FCC revoked Starlink's rural internet award, says FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr

Perhaps @SpaceX should also file a lawsuit against the FCC for improper, politically-motivated behavior – Just like the FAA.https://t.co/bO4TsoXdjJ

— ALEX (@ajtourville) September 18, 2024

Using a combination of legal battles over spectrum rights and regulatory hurdles imposed by the FCC, corporations like Dish Network have lobbied against Starlink. Worsening the situation, Carr says the Biden-Harris administration has politicized the FCC to prevent Musk and Starlink from stepping in—and Americans agree.

Voter reactions to these tactics are similarly negative:

• 71% of Americans express opposition to the FCC’s actions against Starlink.
• 15% support the FCC’s efforts.
• 14% unsure or neutral.

Bidenomics at Work

What’s striking about this issue is the bipartisan nature of the dissatisfaction. Conservatives, liberals, and swing voters are all united in their frustration over government inefficiency and failure to solve real-world problems. This isn’t limited to broadband either.

MIG Reports data among all voters shows:

• 81% say they do not trust corporate motivations.
• 58% express concerns about the impact of stifling innovation on local economies.
• 71% are frustrated with elected officials.
• 85% oppose using tax dollars to support corporations

There is a strong sense of frustration across the aisle, with many feeling their voices are not being heard. This is demonstrated by comments like, "It's just another example of how our elected officials are more interested in serving the interests of corporations than the people who elected them." Around 61% of Democrats and 56% of Republicans express a sense of disillusionment with the current state of politics.

Many voters cite examples like this broadband initiative and Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg's much-criticized electric vehicle (EV) charging station plan—which appropriated $7.5 billion in tax dollars and has only completed eight charging stations. Americans view both projects as emblematic of the Biden-Harris administration’s failed promises.

Recent reports say Allstate Insurance plans to significantly increase rates in California, sparking intense public discourse. With rate hikes of 34%—and for some policy holders, up to 650%—residents are rightfully worried about affordability, corporate accountability, and government regulation.

Conversations show Californians feel frustration and anger, coupled with demands for transparency and reform. MIG Reports analysis reveals key themes and sentiments emerging from voter discussions, offering a nuanced understanding of how Californians are reacting to these developments.

BREAKING: Allstate is set to increase home insurance rates in California by an average of 34.1%, per Bloomberg

— unusual_whales (@unusual_whales) August 29, 2024

Overview of Public Sentiment

The response to Allstate's rate hikes is overwhelmingly negative, with many Californians expressing disbelief or anger. The reaction is not just about the immediate financial impact, but broader anxieties about economic security. Many also question the trustworthiness of both corporate and regulatory entities.

Frustration with Affordability

• Economic Strain: Californians lament unaffordable insurance, which will only worsen with drastic rate increases. Families and individuals already struggle with rising living costs and view the hikes as an unbearable additional burden. Concern is acute for middle-class households who feel squeezed by inflation.
• Impact on Vulnerable Populations: Discussions often highlight the disproportionate impact on low- to middle-income families. People fear this group may not be able to maintain the necessary insurance coverage. There is fear additional rate hikes will exacerbate economic inequalities.

Distrust in Corporate and Government Entities

• Perception of Corporate Greed: Many believe Allstate and other large companies prioritize profit over the welfare of their customers. They see rate hikes as an example of corporate exploitation, particularly in a time of economic uncertainty.
• Demand for Accountability: There is also a desire for greater accountability from both the insurance industry and government regulators. Many Californians express disappointment in the government's failure to protect consumers. The sentiment is one of betrayal as blue state residents feel vulnerable to the whims of corporate decisions.

Calls for Regulatory Reform

• Need for Government Intervention: Some emphasize the necessity for more robust government intervention to curb what they view as excessive and unjustified insurance rate increases. People mention legislative reforms which could better regulate the insurance industry and prevent similar situations in the future.
• Transparency and Consumer Protection: Californians also demand transparency in how insurance rates are determined. They want clearer explanations and justification from Allstate for rate changes, and fair practices across the insurance market.

Ideological Divides

Discussions about Allstate's rate hikes also reveal distinct ideological divides concerning the role of government, corporate ethics, and economic systems.

Debate over Government Regulation

• Support for Regulation: Some people advocate for stronger regulatory oversight, believing companies like Allstate will continue to exploit consumers. These voices often criticize the current regulatory framework as too lenient.
• Libertarian Views: Others argue against overregulation, fearing it would stifle competition and innovation in the insurance industry. This group often aligns with more libertarian views, suggesting insurance rate hikes are the result of other market forces like more accidents, uninsured drivers, and expensive cars. They downplay corporate greed, saying government interference will only worsen the situation.

Critique of Economic Systems

• Disillusionment with Capitalism: There is a broader disillusionment with capitalism, particularly in how it relates to corporate behavior. This group views Allstate’s rate hikes as symptomatic of economic inequality, where the wealthy benefit at the expense of the average consumer.
• Economic Justice and Corporate Ethics: People call for a reevaluation of corporate ethics, arguing companies should be held to higher standards of responsibility. This reflects a growing concern about economic justice and the need for systemic changes. These advocates say a widening gap between corporate profits and consumer welfare is unsustainable.

Mark Zuckerberg’s recent acknowledgment of Facebook censoring information under pressure from the Biden-Harris administration is sparking fiery debate about media influence and election integrity. As more Americans get their news online, the revelations lead many to question whether censorship could have swayed the outcome of the 2020 election.

Zuckerberg’s statement acknowledged Meta received and complied with pressure from the Biden-Harris administration to censor certain content. He highlighted two specific topics Facebook censored—COVID-19 information and the Hunter Biden laptop story. Zuckerberg admitted this censorship, demanded by the government, might have infringed on users' First Amendment rights. He expressed regret and made promises not to interfere with U.S. elections in the future.

JUST IN - Zuckerberg regrets working with the Biden-Harris administration to censor Covid era information online. pic.twitter.com/vD4Ug5ebqh

— Disclose.tv (@disclosetv) August 26, 2024

MIG Reports analysis of voter reactions to Zuckerberg's statement highlight growing skepticism towards government, social media, and information suppression:

• 60% of Americans discussing election integrity express negative sentiment toward institutions like the media and government.
• 20% express positive sentiments, typically focusing on hopes for reform and increased transparency in electoral processes.
• 70% of conservatives discuss allegations of election manipulation, suggesting a strong belief in corrupted elections.
• 15% of liberals focus on allegations of fraud, with the majority preferring to discuss trust in the system.

Voters View Censorship as a Game-Changer

Voter conversations reacting to Zuckerberg’s statement reveal concerns that social media censorship may have altered the 2020 election outcome—in which Trump lost to Biden.

MIG Reports data suggest 34% of Americans are discussing a belief that information suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop story likely tipped the scales in favor of Joe Biden.

Further bolstering this belief, Rep. Lauren Boebert reported that 71% of Americans think honest reporting on the Hunter Biden laptop story would have changed the election results.

71% of Americans believe accurate reporting of Hunter Biden’s laptop would have changed the 2020 election outcome.

This isn’t some nothing story.

This coverup altered the history of our nation forever.

— Lauren Boebert (@laurenboebert) February 9, 2023

Rep. Elise Stefanik also points out that 53% of Americans would have changed their vote, including 61% of Democrats, had they known the full extent of Hunter laptop story. These themes suggest a broad consensus that censorship, especially when it involves politically sensitive topics, can significantly impact voter behavior.

"Of the people that were made aware of the Hunter Biden laptop story, 53% would have changed their vote, including 61% of Democrats...this is the definition of election meddling...it's collusion, it's corruption, and it's unconstitutional." -@EliseStefanikpic.twitter.com/zpm3yLISwe

— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) February 9, 2023

Social Media Shaping Political Narratives

The discussion of media suppression dovetails into a broader conversation about where Americans get their news. According to Pew Research, 18% of U.S. adults in 2020 primarily turned to social media for political and election news. This figure is higher than the 16% who relied on cable television for their news at the time.

Since 2020, that number has grown, with 2024 Pew Research showing:

• 65% of X users go there primarily for news
• 37% of Facebook users go to Facebook for news

Meanwhile, among users who do not use social media primarily for news:

• 92% on X still see news-related content
• 91% on Facebook still see news-related content

MIG Reports analysis previously confirmed the trend, showing 65% of Americans distrust legacy news outlets, turning instead to platforms like X for information. These reports underscore the influence of social platforms in shaping public opinion, making Zuckerberg’s admission more consequential.

The fact that Americans increasingly get news from social media platforms, combined with evidence of government-influenced censorship, raises critical questions about the fairness and transparency of election outcomes. As more voters become aware of the extent of censorship during the 2020 election, negativity rises.

Censorship and Election Integrity

Americans were already concerned about election integrity prior to Zuckerberg’s statement, which has only served to deepen fears. Many voters, particularly conservatives, equate censorship with voter suppression.

Many say the government’s involvement in content moderation undermines the democratic process. The notion of a "deep state" manipulating information to favor certain political outcomes is a recurring theme, fueling beliefs that the 2020 election was compromised as well as fears about the upcoming 2024 election.

Progressive voters, however, tend to argue "content moderation” and “combating misinformation” is necessary, downplaying the concept of censorship. They view Zuckerberg’s admission as a call for stricter oversight of social media platforms. This group continues to advocate for preventing false information from proliferating.

The dichotomy between views of free speech and the need for accurate information reflects broader tensions in the current political landscape.

Speculation About Zuckerberg’s Motives

Voters present various theories about Zuckerberg's motivations for making a statement. Some speculate the timing aligns strategically with ongoing scrutiny of social media's role in shaping public opinion, particularly as elections approach.

Some suggest Zuckerberg may seek to deflect blame for censorship onto the government. People see this as an attempt to reposition Meta as responding to external political dynamics rather than making autonomous decisions about content moderation. This interpretation implies a calculated move to preserve the platform’s credibility and mitigate backlash.

Others posit Zuckerberg's remarks are a genuine response to pushes for transparency from tech giants amid mounting demands for reform. Ongoing discussions of free speech, censorship, and tech monopolies may be driving Zuckerberg’s motivations. This interpretation presents him as aligning Meta’s interests with those advocating for clearer guidelines, hinting at a willingness to cooperate with regulatory frameworks.

Polarized Voters and the Future of Free Speech

Zuckerberg’s statement is fostering critical debate about the role of social media in elections and the potential consequences of government-influenced censorship. While Americans see this as evidence of election manipulation, others believe oversight is necessary to protect the integrity of democratic processes.

Overall, voters are increasingly wary of the power social media platforms hold over public discourse. There is a growing demand for transparency and accountability. As the country grapples with 2024 election integrity, the lessons learned from 2020 will undoubtedly shape voter views and motivations.

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.

Axios recently reported the Kamala Harris campaign was using Google ads to appear as credible news stories. This paid advertising tactic is frowned upon in politics because it suggests allegedly objective news outlets support one candidate over another.

Harris’s ads framed her as the superior candidate while attacking her opponent, Donald Trump. MIG Reports analysis of conversations about this story shows voters treat this generally as unethical and shady.

The Kamala Harris campaign has been running google ads that link to mainstream media articles, but with headlines rewritten by her campaign to appear more supportive

This makes it look to people using Google that the news outlets are saying what her campaign wrote, even though… pic.twitter.com/x4chVdPS7T

— Whole Mars Catalog (@WholeMarsBlog) August 14, 2024

Sausage-Making on Full Display

The theme of authenticity and integrity permeates discussions, with frequent use of terms like fraud, lie, trust, and fake. Conversations questioning Harris's authenticity often accuse her of adopting policies for political gain rather than genuine conviction—her recent proposal for “no taxes on tips” is a recent example.

Voter skepticism extends to Harris’s communication style, with criticism that she avoids unscripted interactions and press questions. The sentiment here is distrustful, portraying Harris as a political figure lacking in genuine leadership qualities and transparent communication.

Many voters are disillusioned with political tactics and thus unsurprised by the Harris campaign’s advertising tactics. Still, with reporting on the abnormality of the ads, people voice their displeasure at mixing political campaigning with purportedly objective news publications.

Negativity also increased when the Axios reporter who wrote the story posted on X walking back criticisms of the campaign's tactics. This exacerbated distaste among voters who already view mainstream media as biased in favor of Democrats. Some also consider it an ironic implication that Democratic narratives are pushed by media outlets without ad dollars.

Harris camp doing nothing wrong and Google, which is pretty strict about banning spammy ads, doesn’t see it as a consumer harm. News outlets just collateral damage in this weird ads tactic https://t.co/xEAiW3JWNC

— Sara Fischer (@sarafischer) August 13, 2024

Show Me Your Friends, I’ll Show You Your Future

Discussions around Harris's policies often intersect with evaluations of her running mate, Tim Walz. Walz has remained in the news cycle for reported “stolen valor” through lies about his military service, combat action, and his rank. Many view this as consistent behavior among politicians.

They conclude questionable Harris campaign tactics foreshadow the deceptive strategies of a potential Harris presidency. This intersection indicates that public perception of Harris is partly influenced by her associations, leading to compounding negative sentiment from shared controversies.

• Discussions of Kamala Harris’s ideologies represent 10.5% of overall conversations about her and show lower approval.

Democrats Don’t Care

Conversations also reflect partisan sentiments, with distinct divides between Harris’s support and opposition. For instance, the hashtags and statements from Democratic voters mostly criticize the Republican Party, emphasizing a clash of ideologies. Harris supporters prioritize voting down Republican candidates, framing her as pivotal in defending rights and democracy.

This position is further demonstrated by Harris’s voter base showing no interest in policy, as the campaign continues to operate without a platform and no challenges from traditional, establishment media. Despite this, positive sentiment from Harris’s advocates is outnumbered by the more frequent and vociferous criticisms from her detractors, highlighting a polarized perception.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fees and Costs Passed to Americans

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

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

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

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

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

The Role of Regulation

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

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

Politics Influences Opinions

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

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

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

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