The War on Drugs, a global campaign led by the U.S. federal government with the aim of reducing the illegal drug trade, has long been a point of political and social contention. Views on this issue tend to vary depending on political affiliation, racial and economic background, age, and geography.

Partisan Views of the War on Drugs

Democrats generally advocate for a more health-centered approach to the issue. They emphasize prevention, treatment, harm reduction strategies, and decriminalization of marijuana. They often argue the War on Drugs has disproportionately targeted minority communities, leading to systemic racial disparities in drug-related arrests and incarcerations.

Decriminalization or legalization of marijuana efforts emphasize potential economic benefits and reducing the number of nonviolent drug offenders in prisons. They often argue the War on Drugs has disproportionately impacted communities of color and lower-income individuals. This, they say, leads to systemic injustices. The Democratic Party has increasingly endorsed medical marijuana and decriminalization of possession.

Republicans typically support strong law enforcement measures to combat drug trade. They argue for increased border security and stringent punishment for drug offenders. They often attribute the drug problem to lax immigration policies and assert that stronger border controls could help prevent drugs like fentanyl from entering the country. This group prioritizes maintaining public safety however, this viewpoint is evolving.

Some Republicans, such as Georgia's Governor Brian Kemp, have shown support for marijuana legalization, causing confusion among conservative constituents.

Independents generally lean towards more moderate strategies that balance law enforcement with prevention and treatment. Their views are varied, but they often align more closely with the Democratic viewpoint, favoring decriminalization or legalization. 

Other Demographic Groups on the Drug War

Age also plays a significant role in shaping views on the War on Drugs. Younger generations, who have grown up in an era of changing attitudes towards certain drugs like cannabis, are more likely to support reformative approaches like decriminalization and treatment. Older generations tend to maintain more conservative views, favoring law enforcement and punitive measures.

Geography is another factor, as urban and rural communities experience different aspects of the drug crisis. Rural areas, for instance, have been hit particularly hard by the opioid epidemic. And urban areas often struggle with issues related to drug trafficking and violence.

Racial and economic backgrounds also influence perceptions of the War on Drugs. Minority communities, particularly African American and Latino populations, have been disproportionately affected by drug-related arrests and incarcerations. Economically disadvantaged communities often bear the brunt of the drug crisis, suffering higher rates of substance abuse and related health issues.

It's likely that the War on Drugs will remain a politically divisive issue. As the country continues to grapple with the fallout from the opioid epidemic, debates will likely center around the balance between law enforcement and treatment strategies. Furthermore, concerns about racial justice and the societal impacts of drug criminalization will continue to shape public discourse on this issue.

As newer generations become more politically active, it’s possible there will be a shift towards more progressive policies. However, strong law enforcement measures will likely remain a key component of the country's overall strategy to combat drug abuse.

Online discussion analysis by MIG Reports finds widespread frustration and blame towards Democrats and specific politicians, such as Speaker Johnson, for the opioid crisis and fentanyl deaths. It appears much of the spirited discussion is among those who align with right-leaning ideologies.

Many voters link illegal immigration to crime, including violent crimes and especially drug-related offenses. There is a prevalent belief among this group that cartels and illegal immigrants pose a significant threat to American safety and security.

Overall, Americans link the opioid crisis to border control policies. Some suggest Republicans are responsible for not funding border control adequately, thereby enabling the smuggling of fentanyl and other opioids into the country. There's also criticism of the Democrats for the perception that they’re allowing and even encouraging illegal criminals and opioids to enter the country.

• Border security continues to be one of the top issues for most Americans, regardless of political leanings.
• Sentiment mostly remains below 50% with severe negativity directed towards the Biden administration
• Opioid discussion is lower than general border topics but is consistently linked to border security.

Most Blame Falls on Politicians and the Cartels

Most voters tend to blame politicians on the other side of the aisle – Democrats accusing Republicans and vice versa. Both political parties receive criticism for not taking enough action to curb the crisis, although the Biden administration gets most of the current criticism.

There's also significant blame placed on the cartels and illegal immigrants themselves. Many voters focus on the role of Mexico and China in contributing to the opioid crisis. They believe the Mexican government, especially President Andrés Manuel López Obrador, isn't doing enough to combat drug cartels that smuggle fentanyl into the U.S. China is also accused of being a source of fentanyl that gets moved across the U.S. border.

Multiple users link the opioid epidemic to human trafficking, implying the same cartels responsible for drug trafficking are likely involved in human trafficking. There are also allegations that NGOs at the southern border are facilitating illegal immigration, indirectly aiding drug trafficking.

Overall, most concerned voters argue the Biden administration's border policies enable drug cartels to have free reign.

Conservatives Are Highly Critical of the Border and Opioids

Right leaning voters often blame the Obama’s open borders policy and the perceived continuation of this policy under Biden. They attribute the opioid crisis and especially fentanyl deaths to uncontrolled cartel access. Many among this group believe if Donald Trump doesn't win in 2024, this will perpetuate and worsen the situation.

Conservatives and some moderates express anger over what they view as wasteful government spending, particularly on policies supporting immigrants. They blame the Democrats for prioritizing funding towards illegal immigrants over addressing the opioid crisis.

This group also blames open borders for many drug-related and, in their view, preventable deaths. They hold Democrats responsible for pushing open borders, and they demand stronger border control measures.

Certain voters blame Republican politicians like Speaker Johnson and Republicans in Congress for not taking decisive action against on the border and failing to support more immigration legislation and crackdowns. This, they believe, contributes to the influx of drugs into the country. There also appears to be a sentiment that the issue is being used as a “talking point” for political gain.

Liberal Voters Call for Funding and Healthcare Solutions

Some vocal liberals challenge the prevailing narrative that stricter border control is the primary solution to the opioid crisis. They argue most fentanyl enters the country through legal ports of entry and is brought in by American citizens. Some also criticize Republicans for blocking funding that could increase border staff and improve drug detection technology.

There is a sentiment that the healthcare system and doctors are contributing to the opioid crisis by refusing to prescribe opioids. There are criticisms of the healthcare system blaming it for penalizing doctors for prescribing painkillers and making opioids difficult to access for those in genuine need.

Some support new laws to curb the opioid crisis, and sometimes legalization of drugs, indicating a belief in legislative solutions to public health problems. There is also a call for bipartisan cooperation to address the crisis, framing it as a moral issue rather than a political one.

Online commentary concerning opioids is a large, varied topic which produces a lower sentiment than conversations pertaining to drug enforcement. 

Some of the common discussion include:

Fentanyl

There's a widespread concern about the proliferation of fentanyl in the illegal drug supply — a highly potent synthetic opioid. Many Americans express fear and confusion about reasons for its presence, given the drug's high lethality. They see fentanyl as counterproductive for drug dealers or the cartels. Some people believe the introduction of fentanyl is a deliberate act to harm or kill users, and there are theories that it is part of a broader conspiracy. Many also acknowledge the extreme danger posed by fentanyl, with some likening its use to playing Russian roulette. Others connect the presence of fentanyl in drugs to the need for changes in border policy.

Opioid Crisis

The opioid crisis is a significant point of discussion, with criticism aimed at politicians and pharmaceutical companies for their roles in the epidemic. Many feel these entities are profiting from the crisis and doing nothing to stop it. There's also a sense of frustration and anger over the perceived lack of action and accountability in addressing the issue, along with related border and crime issues.

Personal Responsibility

Some users emphasize the importance of personal responsibility in drug use, arguing that individuals must make the choice not to consume drugs. However, this viewpoint is not universally shared. Some point to external factors like the availability and potency of drugs and the difficulty of getting clean.

Drug Legislation

There's skepticism about the effectiveness of drug legislation in curbing the drug problem, with some viewing proposed initiatives like the END FENTANYL ACT with cynicism. There's a sense that previous legislation has only made the situation worse, and there's little faith that future legislation will be any different.

Drug Prohibition

Some users see drug prohibition as a significant factor in drug-related deaths, arguing that it forces people to use unregulated drugs and contributes to the prevalence of dangerous substances like fentanyl. There are calls for drugs to be regulated and sold in the same way as alcohol.

The Effect on Families and Communities

The impact of drug use and addiction on families and communities is a recurring theme. Users share personal stories of loss and devastation caused by drug addiction, particularly from fentanyl poisoning. There's also a sense that certain communities, like those with high opioid use, are stigmatized and overlooked.

Recent news of a Haitian migrant being charged with raping a 15-year-old girl has American voters outraged. The offender, a parolee from Haiti, came to the U.S. through President Biden’s “Humanitarian Parole Program.” According to Fox News, the controversial program allows 30,000 migrants a month to fly directly into the country.

Many say this unforgivable immigration plan both contributes to Biden’s “open borders” problem and gives credence to Trump’s claims that Democrats are bringing criminals into this country through unchecked immigration.

Stories like this and the recent murder of Laken Riley have many American citizens outraged and demanding action. MIG Reports analysis reveals that sentiment toward Biden's Humanitarian Parole Program is largely negative. The main concerns appear to center around border control, safety, and the rule of law.

Voters Believe Biden Supports Open Borders

Many voters express frustration with what they see as a Biden administration open borders policy. People are calling for the southern border to be sealed and for mass deportations – something Trump has promised to do.

Overall, right leaning and moderate voters believe the parole program is a conduit for illegal immigration and are demanding stricter border control.

American Communities in Danger

Fear about safety is a prominent source of objection to continued illegal immigration. There's a common perception in discussions that the parole program is enabling criminal activities. Many point out that flying convicted prisoners into the U.S. will obviously lead to an influx of active criminals, increasing violence in American streets.

Demands to Uphold the Rule of Law

Many Americans also indicate a strong belief that those entering the country illegally are committing a federal crime and should be treated as criminals, not as newcomers. This, they say, is especially true for those who are already convicted criminals in their own countries. There's a sense of outrage over perceived protection and rights given to these illegal immigrants.

Impact on Citizens with Biden to Blame

There's a strong sentiment that Biden’s policies are negatively affecting American citizens' lives. Especially those who fall victim to violent crimes – often young people and children. Users voice concerns about the potential impact on jobs, taxpayer money, and social service. They also express concern about the potential cultural and demographic changes that could result from large-scale immigration.

Many are vocal about the border crisis being the fault of the Democrat Party and Biden's policy. They laud figures like Donald Trump and Governor Abbott for their stances on immigration.

Biden Policy Supporters

Some Democrats and more progressive voters support Biden’s border policies, including the parole program. Typically leaning to the left, this group frames their arguments in terms of human rights, compassion, and global responsibility.

They argue that the U.S. has a moral and ethical obligation to help those in need, particularly those fleeing violence or persecution in their home countries. They also argue that the U.S, as a wealthy and powerful nation, has the capacity to absorb and integrate new immigrants.

These supporters often criticize the anyone who objects to such policies, accusing them of fearmongering, racism, and xenophobia. They argue that these critics are overstating the potential risks of the policy and are motivated by prejudice or intolerance.

Overall, this topic of the border continues to be a divisive and increasingly negative subject for President Biden. While his progressive voters continue to support him, border security is shaping up to be one of the most important issues in the 2024 presidential election.

On March 8, U.S. District Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman declared a federal statute barring undocumented immigrants possessing firearms to be unconstitutional. She contended that the law contravened the Supreme Court's decision in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, which emphasized the necessity for gun control measures to align with historical precedent. This court ruling allows illegal immigrants in America to take advantage of Second Amendment rights by purchasing firearms and ammunition. This policy has shocked many American citizens, generating concern and incredulity.

The legal dispute arose when Heriberto Carbajal-Flores, an illegal alien, faced charges for unlawful firearm possession. However, Judge Coleman contended that because Carbajal-Flores' criminal history lacks instances of weapon misuse or violence during his apprehension, he doesn't present a threat to public safety. Consequently, she argued that he should not be stripped of his Second Amendment entitlement to bear arms for self-defense.

MIG Reports analysis reveals a diverse range of opinions on the recent ruling, stirring emotional debate. The primary discussion revolves around the interpretation of the Second Amendment, the consequences of allowing non-citizens to own firearms, and the potential implications on gun violence.

Supporters of the ruling, who appear to be from various political affiliations, argue that the Constitution, including the Second Amendment, applies to everyone within the United States. They believe the right to bear arms should not be infringed, regardless of citizenship status.

Some even argue that gun violence has been on a downward trend and that expanding constitutional carry will lead to a further decrease.

• Gun control sentiment has increased slightly in the last several days, suggesting Americans are concerned about this issue.

Critics of the ruling, also from various political backgrounds, express concern that this decision could exacerbate gun violence. They worry about the potential inability of illegal aliens to undergo thorough background checks or mental health assessments. Many voters argue the Second Amendment was intended only for U.S. citizens. They say extending it to illegal aliens could have severe consequences. Some critics also see this ruling as a strategy to increase gun violence, which could then be used as a justification for stricter gun control measures.

Many are expressing frustration with what they perceive as lax border control policies and the implications for national security and public safety. These gun allowances for increasing numbers of illegal immigrants, many believe, threatens an increase in crime and danger for citizens.

Some concerns highlight the potential implications on the feasibility of thorough background and mental health checks. These concerns do not appear to be strictly partisan but are shared by voters across political affiliations.

Critics of the ruling point out that illegal immigrants have already violated immigration laws. They also worry about mental health patterns, citing studies that indicate 14% of undocumented immigrants meeting the criteria for depression, and 7% for anxiety. Substance abuse among illegal immigrants is at a similar level as among the citizen population.

Overall, the ruling has become another contentious issue in the ongoing national debate about gun violence and gun rights, and now possibly incorporating citizenship, public safety, and illegal immigration.

Reactions to Judge McAfee’s ruling not to disqualify Fani Willis from prosecuting Trump are generally negative online. Although, there are polarized sentiments that fall along political lines. Much of the vocal discussion seems to be from conservative, particularly pro-Trump, individuals or outlets, with a noticeable amount of negative commentary directed towards Willis.

Many voters both nationally and in Fulton County, Georgia express outrage at Willis and her team, accusing them of being corrupt and unfit for office. There are repeated calls for investigations into Willis' use of federal and county funds, with allegations that she misused these resources.

While much of the discussion is partisan, those who support Willis most often voice relief over her ability to continue prosecuting Trump – rather than defending her against corruption allegations. This suggests Democrats feel more passionate about successfully convicting Trump than correcting any perception of corruption in Georgia courts.

Judge McAfee is being largely criticized for his rulings, with some users accusing him of being corrupt or untrustworthy. Many voters believe he should have removed Willis and Wade from the Trump case, and some believe McAfee is acting to ensure his election.

Some say Willis' actions are highly suspicious and potentially illegal, calling for her to be investigated under federal RICO charges, herself.

Partisan Democrats Want to “Get Trump”

Liberal-leaning voters mostly see the decision to keep Willis on the Trump case as a win for their side. They seem to view the situation as a chance for justice to be served against Trump, and express anticipation at the prospect of Willis continuing to prosecute the case.

Instead of defending Willis and Wade as ethical and unjustly maligned, these commenters are more likely to emphasize the importance of justice against Trump. However, these positive sentiments appear to be less common than the negative ones.

Supporters of Willis at the national level celebrate the judge's decision and express hope that she will be able to successfully prosecute Trump. They often frame this as a victory against Trump and his supporters.

Some Georgia voters see Willis as a powerful figure who is unafraid to challenge the status quo. They see her as a potential role model for other women and appreciate her determination in pursuing the case against Donald Trump. These voters also believe that personal scandals are being used as distractions from the real issues at hand.

Many among this group believe the case can proceed fairly without Wade's involvement. Nathan Wade's resignation is viewed by some as a necessary step for the case to move forward, while others see it as an indication of corruption and bias.

• Overall, Fani Willis support has remained strong in the high 40% range, despite severe negativity.
• It’s not totally clear whether support is directed at Fani Willis herself or, rather, her prosecution against Trump.

Georgia Voters Fear for the Integrity of Fulton County Courts

Georgia voters, while also showing a division in opinion, seem to be more focused on the potential impact of Willis's actions on the state's political landscape. Many in Fulton County express frustration over what they see as a lack of justice in the case proceedings.

Local reactions often include more specific references to Georgia politics. Critics accuse corruption and call for investigations into Willis's use of federal and county funds. They also respond to McAfee’s ruling with calls for Governor Brian Kemp to act against the perceived state corruption.

Some Georgia voters feel the corruption in Fulton County is some of the worst in the nation. They have called on the Georgia Ethics board to investigate both Willis and Nathan Wade. Georgians disapprove of allegations that Willis overpaid Wade using taxpayer money. Some voters are calling for the resignation or recusal of Willis from the Trump election case.

Many Georgia voters view Willis as a corrupt figure who has abused her power for personal gain. They accuse her of taking advantage of her position to live a luxurious lifestyle while her constituents live in poverty. This criticism seems to be based on perceptions of Willis's character rather than her professional conduct.

Sentiment in Fulton County seems to indicate a general frustration with political corruption, ineffective government, and inadequate action against perceived injustices.

• Donald Trump’s overall approval in Georgia is moderately strong in the mid 40% range.
• Trump’s approval, specifically on legal allegations in Georgia, has risen above his overall approval, suggesting Georgians are sympathetic to his defense.

During the State of the Union, President Biden referred to the perpetrator of Laken Riley's murder as an "illegal immigrant." Numerous liberals promptly voiced their disapproval of Biden's choice of the term "illegal," contending that it is dehumanizing and reinforces detrimental stereotypes about immigrants.

This led the administration to initiate efforts to retract the use of the term, but it appears to have caused more harm than good.

The decision to backtrack on using the term "illegal" when referring to illegal immigrants has ignited a passionate and divided public response. The reactions on social media platforms showcase a polarization deeply rooted in political beliefs, with many expressing a sense of betrayal and disappointment. This has significantly contributed the the border security conversation over the last few days.

The conversation erupted after Biden's State of the Union on March 7th.

In response to Biden's backtracking, many Americans have expressed concerns.

Most dominantly, users accuse Biden of prioritizing the feelings of undocumented immigrants over the rights and safety of American citizens. The refusal to use the term "illegal alien" is viewed by this group as a form of disrespect towards victims of crimes committed by unauthorized immigrants.

A significant portion of social media users criticize Biden for not using the term "illegal aliens," emphasizing its legal and factual accuracy. This group contends that individuals who have violated U.S. immigration laws should be referred to as such, framing the issue as a matter of adherence to the rule of law.

Critics connect Biden's language choice to broader immigration policies, arguing that the administration's approach has led to increased unauthorized border crossings and crime. The use of softer language is seen by some as an attempt to divert attention from the challenges associated with immigration.

Many respondents express genuine concerns about safety, particularly regarding crimes committed by unauthorized immigrants. Specific cases, such as the tragic murder of Laken Riley, are cited as evidence of the dangers associated with illegal immigration, further fueling the negative sentiment.

A prevailing belief among critics is that Biden's language change is politically motivated, with accusations of the Democratic Party pandering to unauthorized immigrants for political gain. The decision to include unauthorized immigrants in the U.S. Census is cited as an example, adding to the perception of political maneuvering.

Another common thread in the responses is the criticism of what users perceive as an open border policy under the Biden administration. Critics argue that this policy contributes to an alleged increase in crime and other issues related to immigration.

The overwhelming sentiment on social media is one of frustration and disappointment. Biden’s misstep seems to have upset voters across the board with left-leaning voices decrying his use of “illegal” to begin with and right-leaning voters angered by his retraction. The negative backlash reflects a deep division on issues of immigration policy and national identity, with many demanding stronger borders and a more assertive approach from Biden to address the problems associated with illegal immigration.

Online discussions have roiled American voters after allegations that President Biden is secretly flying immigrants into the U.S. This controversy appears to have originated from a report by Ben Bergquam which suggests the U.S. is funding processing centers in South America and transporting immigrants to America before they reach the border.

Reactions to the accusation that President Biden has flown more than 300,000 illegal immigrants directly into American airports reveals intense anger. Most of the discussion is among those who despise Biden's immigration policies and view such actions as a direct threat to the safety and welfare of American citizens.

Many Americans express a deep sense of frustration and anger, accusing Biden of prioritizing the needs of illegal immigrants over the safety and welfare of American citizens.

This news comes right before Biden’s 2024 State of the Union address, and as dissatisfaction remains high on immigration and the economy, which are the top two issues in voters’ minds.

Americans Feel Betrayed by the Biden Administration

Many voters involved in the discussion call for Biden's impeachment, with some alleging that he has committed acts of treason. These critics argue that Biden has betrayed the American people by secretly smuggling hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants into the country. They say this project was hidden from the public because the administration knows Americans would be enraged if they knew about it. Some critics even go as far as claiming that Biden "cheated" his way into office and has "sold America out."

A lot of people also voice concerns over potential security risks, claiming that such actions enable criminals to enter the country. There are some who still defend Biden and criticize impeachment attempts as political stunts. While support for the administration is largely partisan, there is more and more bipartisan anger over the border.

There is also a lot of discussion and frustration over a case involving a Guatemalan man named Juan Jose-Sebastian, who was arrested in Florida but is wanted in Oregon for multiple counts of rape and sexual abuse. Many people are upset that, despite his charges, Oregon won't extradite him, and ICE won't pick him up, leading to his release. People are also offended when the mainstream media dismisses their concerns, refusing to cover what voters view as important immigration news.

Calls for Impeachment

The comments calling for President Joe Biden's impeachment and accusing him of treason stem from a variety of issues. The number one reason is border security and, specifically in the last day, the scandal over flying in illegal immigrants. There are some other issues voters cite as reasons to impeach the president.

Border Security

Voters accuse Biden of compromising national security and destroying the economy with illegal immigration. Many accuse him of funding processing centers in South America.

Foreign Policy

A segment of progressive Democrat voters want Biden impeached for failing to impose a ceasefire in Gaza and funding conflicts abroad.

Bribery and Corruption Allegations

Many point to Biden family corruption, with allegations centered on his brother James Biden. They claim James confirmed during an impeachment inquiry testimony that a $40,000 check made out to Joe Biden in 2017 used funds he received from a Chinese government-linked company.

Treason

Some critics accuse Biden of treason for aiding the country's enemies or betraying the nation. The reasons vary, with some tying it to allegations of corruption, foreign policy, or border security.

A recent viral story about a retiring couple who are buried in a legal dispute with a squatter who took possession of their recently purchased dream retirement home in New York has sparked discussion about housing policies in blue cities. Many people are shocked and horrified at the extent of squatter's rights in New York and other Democrat-run cities.

On social media, New Yorkers express their concerns about squatters in their city, arguing they exploit loopholes in housing laws and exacerbate housing shortages. Many find it unfair and unsustainable that hardworking, taxpaying citizens must shoulder the burden of supporting individuals who, they argue, are not contributing to society in a meaningful way.

Many people have moved away or are threatening to move away from blue cities, citing frustration with policies that cater to squatters and illegal immigrants at the expense of law-abiding citizens.

Most Americans agree that there is a shortage of affordable housing across the country. But they tend to disagree on the causes and solutions.

In large, urban cities, where Democrats are often in power, there is a strong emphasis on tenants’ rights and protecting vulnerable populations. These places often have robust tenants' rights laws and policies aimed at preventing homelessness. However, these policies often face criticism from property owners who argue they unfairly infringe upon their rights and prohibit business, investments, and even the ability to occupy one’s own home.

Homeowners Frustrated with Squatter’s Rights

Many people – especially homeowners and landlords – see squatters as taking advantage of the system and property owners. They argue that property rights should be respected and that it's unfair for property owners to bear the burden of housing people without compensation. They often call for stricter laws and enforcement to protect the rights of property owners.

Those who can afford to own real estate express concerns about rent control policies, eviction moratoriums, and other tenant protections they see as too strict or lenient, leading to preferential treatment in favor of tenants.

Many property owners in places like New York argue that tenant-focused policies infringe the rights of landlords and homeowners. They believe they should have the right to control their own properties, including setting their own rental prices and choosing their own tenants.

Economic conservatives and property owners express frustration with overbearing regulations that make owning or renting property in blue cities nearly impossible.

Property Owners Vote with Their Feet

In many blue states and cities, there is a sentiment that tenant rights need to be protected. Mostly Democrats, voters and policymakers say landlords and homeowners should bear certain responsibilities. This includes maintaining safe and habitable living conditions, not discriminating against tenants, and not exploiting tenants with excessively high rents.

However, despite voting for politicians who enact tenant-focused policies, homeowners and landlords have been leaving blue cities in droves. Since COVID, many people have commented on the number of people moving from states like California and New York to places like Texas and Florida.

Many of the top reasons people say they left blue cities are economic. They mention high cost of living, food, real estate, and healthcare as reasons for leaving. A lot of inter-state migrants say they moved to avoid high taxes, progressive policies, or high crime rates.

Squatter and Tenant Defenders

There are advocates who argue tenant protections are necessary to prevent exploitation and displacement, particularly in cities with high living costs. They often point to instances of landlords using loopholes and aggressive tactics to evict long-term tenants and raise rents.

Some express concerns that affordable housing and systemic issues are one of the main issues facing middle- and lower-class Americans. They argue that squatters are often people who have fallen through the cracks of the system and are forced to resort to occupying vacant properties just to survive. They see the issue as a symptom of larger social and economic problems that need to be addressed.

Fewer Americans Can Afford to Own Real Estate

While the debate over housing policies in blue cities is often driven by partisan divides, Americans do seem to agree that housing is becoming too expensive across the country. Most people feel it’s prohibitively expensive for Americans to afford to own real estate. More are beginning to feel that, even if they could afford to own property, it may not be worth it.

For some, particularly younger generations, the importance of homeownership is decreasing. The flexibility of renting, coupled with an increasing emphasis on experiences over possessions, is challenging traditional notions of homeownership as a benchmark of success. However, this shift is not universal, and many Americans still aspire to own their own homes.

• Voters consistently say the economy, including the difficulties of housing, is one of their top issues of concern.
• Discussion about the economy is consistently high online, implying it remains on people’s minds.