Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg recently drew 7.7 million views on X boasting about the future of America's passenger rail system. The post promises funding for high-speed rail projects and expanding service across the country.

However, reactions are largely split along political lines as left-leaning voters express excitement, while right-leaning voters point out Buttigieg’s lack of results so far. MIG Reports analysis of conversation around Buttigieg’s post echo a broader debate about his performance as Secretary of Transportation.

We're working on the future of America's passenger rail system—funding high-speed rail projects in the West and expanding service for communities across the country. Get your ticket to ride! pic.twitter.com/6S1sKOhDII

— Secretary Pete Buttigieg (@SecretaryPete) August 30, 2024

Rail Proposal vs. EV Charging Station Failure

Buttigieg’s tweet about the passenger rail system generated mixed reactions among voters. Democrats largely support his push for modernizing transportation. They see the passenger rail proposal as a crucial step towards sustainability and improved infrastructure. This aligns with progressive values which tout environmental responsibility and innovation.

Republicans are overwhelmingly critical of the initiative—citing Buttigieg’s incompetence more often than disapproval of the concept. These voters focus on what they see as a misallocation of resources. They argue that while high-speed rail projects sound promising, they come at the expense of addressing more immediate needs. They mention things like repairing existing infrastructure and improving safety measures.

Criticism is particularly sharp when voters mention Buttigieg’s handling of the East Palestine, Ohio train derailment. Many on the right, and locals impacted by the crisis, view Buttigieg’s response as a significant leadership failure.

Independent voters are more divided. Some show cautious optimism, but many share Republican concerns about the practicality of aspirational endeavors and the ineffectiveness of current U.S. efforts to complete large-scale projects. They question whether the focus on long-term goals like high-speed rail detracts from solving current transportation challenges.

Critics point to the $7.5 billion government allocation for EV charging stations, which generated significant criticism of Buttigieg earlier this year. Despite a total of only eight charging stations being built, Democrats still view the initiative positively. However, Buttigieg's failure to follow through on this promise generates widespread frustration among voters across the political spectrum.

WATCH: CBS’s Margaret Brennan laughs in Pete Buttigieg’s face when he is unable to explain why only 7 or 8 electric vehicle charging stations have been built despite the Biden admin spending $7.5 BILLION to build chargers. pic.twitter.com/BmFK17Dk5O

— Steve Guest (@SteveGuest) May 26, 2024

Many express confusion and skepticism, questioning the gap between funding and tangible outcomes—particularly directing blame at Buttigieg.

Voter Sentiment Breakdown

Overall, Buttigieg’s tenure as Secretary of Transportation is viewed through a partisan lens:

• 60.45% of Democrats express positive sentiment
• 72.27% of Republicans disapprove of Buttigieg
• 50% of Independents show a mix of concern and caution with some optimism

Democrats appreciate Buttigieg’s focus on sustainability and infrastructure modernization. They see his leadership as forward-thinking, particularly in advancing green initiatives like EV charging stations and high-speed rail. Only around 7% express negativity toward Buttigieg.

Republicans criticize his crisis management and failure to complete projects while increasing tax spending. The East Palestine derailment is a focal point of their dissatisfaction, with many arguing Buttigieg is more concerned about ideological goals than practical solutions. Only around 5% acknowledge any of his accomplishments.

Some Independents admire Buttigieg’s vision for the future of transportation. But many others worry his focus on long-term projects overshadows the need for immediate improvements in safety and reliability. Only 25% express cautious optimism for practical solutions.

Economic Concerns Under Democratic Rule

Discussions around Buttigieg’s performance also reflect broader concerns about the Biden administration’s infrastructure spending in the current economy. Many voters, especially those critical of Buttigieg, argue Democrats’ focus on large-scale, future-oriented projects fails to address pressing needs. This sentiment is echoed in conversations about other Biden cabinet members, where fiscal responsibility and effectiveness are recurring themes.

The economy remains a high priority for voters who demand transparency and accountability in how taxpayer money is spent. The limited progress on EV charging stations, despite significant funding, has become emblematic of broader frustrations with government efficiency. Voters want tangible results from taxpayer investments, and many are growing disillusions about a Democratic administration’s ability to deliver.

Utility bills are rising, and the cost of energy is hitting Americans where it hurts. Discussions among voters show an emotional electorate, frustrated, dissatisfied, and calling for accountability.

Broader concerns with economic policies, political integrity, and the future of energy production in the United States feed into feelings of despair. As American families watch their utility bills climb, the intensity of public debate increases. Voters share their personal experiences and concerns about the broader implications of these rising costs.

External Factors Influencing Rising Energy Prices

Energy prices in the U.S. have been increasing beyond the rate of inflation largely due to:

• The impact of the Ukraine war
• Ongoing supply chain issues

The war in Ukraine has significantly disrupted global energy markets. The U.S. has ramped up its energy exports, particularly liquefied natural gas (LNG) to Europe, as European countries seek alternatives to Russian energy.

This increase in demand from Europe has put upward pressure on U.S. energy prices. As more of the domestic supply is diverted to exports, there is energy available for the U.S. market. Additionally, sanctions on Russian energy have reduced the global supply of oil and natural gas, contributing to higher prices globally, including in the U.S.

The war in Ukraine has also exacerbated residual supply chain issues continuing from COVID lockdowns. These supply chain disruptions have impacted various sectors, including energy, leading to inefficiencies and higher costs. For instance, labor shortages and logistical challenges impact energy transportation, further driving up prices.

Reduced supply from Russia and these ongoing logistical issues are creating a perfect storm for rising energy costs. These factors, combined with inflationary pressures, have led to the current situation where energy prices are rising faster than the general rate of inflation, straining consumers and businesses in the U.S.

Americans Feel Squeezed

MIG Reports analysis shows Americans are overwhelmingly negative when they discuss the cost of energy. Conversations often tie this issue to larger economic struggles, about which voters are also extremely negative.

• 70% of voter discussions around energy production express dissatisfaction.
• 75% are negative when discussing economic issues related to utility bills.

These numbers highlight a widespread frustration with the current state of energy policy and its economic impact on everyday citizens. The sentiment is personal and palpable—60-65% of discussions use first-person language. This suggests energy and economic issues are not abstract concerns but directly impacting Americans’ daily lives.

People use third-person language to criticize political figures and policies. This suggests a collective frustration directed at external actors, who Americans blame for the worsening energy market.

Economic Burden and Political Disillusionment

Voters talk about their economic burdens and growing political disillusionment. The rising cost of utility bills is often cited as evidence of both. People feel financial strain, particularly middle-class and small business owners.

There is a pervasive belief that political figures are too closely aligned with corporate interests in the energy sector. Terms like "oil and gas barons" and references to political donations from energy companies highlight a narrative of corruption and collusion, further fueling public distrust.

Americans also talk about the environmental implications of current energy production methods. Discussions about "clean energy" and "fracking" reveal a public divided on how to balance economic needs with environmental sustainability.

Some advocate for a transition to more sustainable energy sources, emphasizing the importance of not "destroying the planet." Others express skepticism about the feasibility and cost of such a transition, advocating for utilizing existing sources of fuel to bring prices down.

Utility Bills Surge Anti-Establishment Sentiment

Americans are growing extremely dissatisfaction with the political and economic status quo. People are concerned about the rising costs of utility bills but also about a lack of political accountability and insufficient energy policies. Painfully high energy costs are just one thistle in a bouquet or thorny economic conditions injuring Americans.

People want change, both in how energy is produced and managed and in the political landscape that governs policy. There is a clear desire for leadership who will prioritize the welfare of citizens over corporate interests. Voters want politicians who will take meaningful action to address the financial and environmental challenges they face.

External factors such as the Ukraine war and supply chain disruptions simply add to the frustrations Americans already feel about the economy. These issues deepen a desire for leadership who can improve the domestic economy and broader global dynamics impacting the U.S.

MIG Reports analysis of California and Oregon, two very blue areas, potentially granting home loans to illegal immigrants shows voter reactions. Conversations reveal tensions around progressive housing policy, immigration, and broader societal implications. Americans talk about fairness, the impact on local citizens, and the underlying values of national identity.

Outrage

A predominant theme often centers around unfairness. Many Americans express outrage at the possibility of providing financial benefits, such as home loans, to illegal aliens. They assert giving tax dollars to non-citizens undermines the sacrifices made by lawful citizens and would exacerbate existing housing crises.

Most comments call this proposed policy detrimental, highlighting concerns that it would contribute to rising real estate prices and lead to increased taxation burdens on American homeowners. This sentiment includes fears about economic survival and stability for established residents who already feel stretched by high living costs.

Inclusion Versus Replacement Theory

More progressive Americans frame the discussion around compassion and inclusivity. They argue the changing demographic landscape necessitates a re-evaluation of who deserves access to resources.

Advocates say illegal immigrants contribute to the economy and society and deserve opportunities for home ownership—a key piece of the American dream. This group says inclusive housing policies foster community cohesion and economic growth, especially amid labor shortages in crucial sectors.

There is also contrast in national versus local identity, with many discussions touching on the broader ramifications of such policies. Critics worry aiding illegal immigrants could attract more foreign nationals seeking similar benefits, straining local resources.

But supporters contend neighbors who support immigrants inherently enrich local culture and community bonds. This clash between a nationalistic viewpoint and a cosmopolitan approach reveals deeper societal debates about America’s values. This brings into question ideas of opportunity, assimilation, and fairness.

Without Representation

Fear and anger emerge as strong emotional responses, with many Americans saying home loans for illegal migrants would be a legal and moral failure.

The emotions hint at a broader anxiety about political representation and government neglect of American citizens. Comments often voice frustration at government actions that Americans feel compromise their rights and economic welfare.

MIG Reports analysis shows:

• 40% express concern over unfairness and economic burden
• 30% advocate for compassion and inclusivity in policy
• 20% voice anxieties about national identity and local resources
• 10% articulate mixed feelings, revealing a desire for balanced discussion

Voter views of home loans for illegal immigrants are deeply entwined with larger partisan debates about immigration reform, societal values, and economic impacts. Each side of the discussion grapples with fundamental principles of justice and opportunity.

MIG Reports analysis of voter discussions shows two consistently pressing and connected topics for Americans in the 2024 election—the economy, and immigration.

Their interrelation often focuses on:

• How immigration impacts economic discussions
• How the economy impacts immigration discussions

The intent of this study is to determine trending themes, parallels, or anomalies from conversations and how they impact each other based on framing. Some key findings include:

• Sentiment is generally negative on the economy and the border.
• The total volume of discussions is greater regarding the economy than immigration.
• Discussions are often intertwined but the economy features more frequently in immigration discussions.
• Positive views of immigration are only present in conversations exclusively focused on the border.

Disparity in Volume and Focus

Analysis of two data sets includes conversations about the economy which mention immigration and conversations about immigration which mention the economy. Generally, economic concerns are discussed in larger volume than immigration issues. While there is similarity across swing state and national conversations, the economy is more often discussed within immigration conversations than immigration is discussed within economic conversations.

When discussion is focused on the economy, immigration is sometimes brought up as a negative pressure on economic problems—exacerbating inflation and taxation. When general discussion is on immigration, voters again emphasize negative economic impacts. But they often mention things like job competition, strain on social services, and crime. The discussions have less breadth and depth, however, compared to economic-centric discussions.

Consistency in Themes but Different Emphases

The same themes of inflation, job competition, taxation, and government spending recur in both sets of analyses. This suggests consistent voter concern about the economic implications of immigration. However, the emphasis differs in each type of discussion.

In the economic-centric discussions, these themes are explored in greater detail and connected to broader economic policy critiques. In immigration-centric discussions themes concentrate on how immigration exacerbates these economic issues. There is often a focus on the immediate and tangible impacts of unchecked immigration like job availability and social service burdens.

Within immigration-focused discussions there is a stronger narrative around security and crime. This is especially pronounced in data sets from swing states and presidential election conversations. Crime and safety, while present in economic discussions, is pronounced when immigration is the primary topic. This suggests deeper public anxieties about safety that Americans directly associate with increased immigration.

Mostly Negative Sentiment, Some Positive Support

Across both sets of analyses, sentiment remains largely negative toward current economic and immigration policies. However, there is relatively more support or positive framing in the immigration-centric discussions compared to the economic-centric ones.

While the immigration-focused discussions still emphasize concerns about job competition, strain on social services, and crime, there is a noticeable viewpoint which recognizes potential economic benefits of immigration.

Immigration supporters argue immigrants fill labor gaps, contribute to economic growth, and increase tax revenues. While these supportive views are sometimes expressed in immigration-centric discussions, they are still overshadowed by the dominant negative sentiment.

In economy-centric conversations, views of immigration are uniformly critical, with almost no mention of positive impacts. Here, immigration is more frequently viewed as a significant contributing factor to economic problems.

Polarization and Political Divide

Political polarization present in economic discussions is also evident in immigration discussions, though with sharper contrasts. When immigration is the focal point, the divide between supporters of stricter immigration policies and advocates for reform is more pronounced.

This contentious dialogue emerges regarding immigration, while the economy is less divisive—though still mostly negative. In the data set comprised of election-related topics, immigration discussions are often framed within a broader political narrative. These conversations emphasize past and present immigration policies, directly comparing Donald Trump and Kamala Harris.

Economy Nested Within Immigration

The immigration-focused analysis shows voter conversations narrow down on specific economic impacts like job competition and welfare costs. They delve less frequently into broader economic trends such as long-term fiscal responsibility or overall economic growth. This indicates the economy is such an overarching concern for Americans that it often figures into their discussions about immigration.

MIG Reports analysis of voter opinions on the economy and who they trust more shows significant trust in Donald Trump compared to Kamala Harris. Despite positive media coverage and selective polling showing a Harris surge, MIG Reports data reveals a consistent skepticism toward Harris's economic policies. These sentiments are largely shaped by perceptions of inflation, government spending, and unhappiness with her economic management.

Vice President Kamala Harris is catching up to former President Donald Trump on the number of voters who trust her handling of the economy, according to a new Financial Times/Michigan Ross poll. https://t.co/v4P9A0zZWO

— NBC4 Washington (@nbcwashington) August 12, 2024

Axios reported on recent polling showing Harris leads Trump by 1% in voter trust on the economy. However, the limited poll of 1,000 voters over a selected period also has a margin of error greater than Harris’s supposed lead—± 3.1 percentage points. This not only brings the poll’s results into question but emphasizes the stark contrast of MIG Reports data and analysis.

• MIG Reports analysis shows Harris with mostly very negative sentiment regarding voter trust. Donald Trump shows mostly very positive and positive sentiment regarding voter trust.
• About 70% expresses negative sentiment towards Harris. Voters focus on inflation and government intervention.
• Approximately 60% of discussions favor Trump’s economic policies, viewing them as more effective in managing inflation and stimulating growth.

All Discussions similarly reflect widespread distrust in Harris's economic strategies. Around 70% voice concerns about her strategies for handling inflation. Many attribute rising inflation to government overspending and policy failures like the Inflation Reduction Act.

About 30% express support for her efforts, particularly in reducing prescription drug prices. However, overall sentiment remains heavily negative. Approximately 60% of discussions suggest a preference for Trump’s economic leadership, citing lower inflation rates and more favorable economic conditions.

In swing states, sentiment again prefers Trump. Around 72% of voters express skepticism about Harris’s ability to address inflation effectively, criticizing her economic policies as misguided or overly reliant on government intervention. About 55% suggest trust in Trump’s economic management, particularly his tax cuts and deregulation efforts. Swing state voters view them as stimulating growth and keeping inflation low.

In national discussions, approximately 68% are critical of Harris, with many linking her policies directly to rising inflation and economic instability. Only 12% of the comments express support for her economic strategies, substantiating the theme of failure to gain public trust. About 70% of national conversations express a belief that Trump’s economic policies were more favorable.

The aggregated analysis from these sources highlights a strong public preference for Trump’s economic policies over Harris's. Overall, 60-70% of discussions favor Trump's approach to economic management over Harris’s. This preference is driven by widespread distrust in Harris’s ability to manage inflation and economic stability. Voters view her policies as exacerbating economic challenges rather than alleviating them.

Why are Voters Skeptical?

Inflation and Price Controls

One of the most recurrent themes in voter discussions is inflation. Harris’s role in the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) is a major point of criticism. Americans place "inflation" in quotes to emphasize the perceived failure of the IRA to achieve its intended effects.

Harris's policies are also compared to communism, specifically referencing price controls, which people fear to lead to shortages, market chaos, or inflationary pressures. Many predict similar results to those in countries like Venezuela and Cuba. These terms are often used in a derogatory context to undermine Harris's credibility. People suggest her policies are out of touch with economic realities and historical lessons.

Corporate Greed and Government Control

Voters also discuss corporate greed and government control in discussions criticizing Harris's economic policy. Many decry Harris’s claim that rising prices are due to corporate greed and “price gouging.” They cite slim margins for large food retailers like Walmart—and many criticize Harris surrogates like Senator Elizabeth Warren who defend the “corporate greed” narrative.

Holy crap!

NBC had enough of Elizabeth Warren 🤣 pic.twitter.com/kDPEjyQD9H

— Brandon Tatum (@TheOfficerTatum) August 23, 2024

There is a strong belief that Harris’s policies, such as price controls and housing subsidies, could lead to more significant issues like market distortions, crashes, and black markets. These fears are bolstered by comparisons to failures in other nations which implemented similar strategies.

Tax Cuts and Job Creation

Discussions about Trump’s economic policies often invoke terms like "tax cuts" and "job creation." These terms highlight voter confidence in the successes of his administration in fostering economic growth. The comparison between Harris and Trump is stark, with many comments suggesting Trump's policies were more beneficial for the middle class.

Americans believe Trump’s policies kept inflation low and the job market strong. This comparison is often framed in a way that paints Trump’s economic record as more favorable. Many people underscore his achievements to contrast Harris’s perceived failures.

Inflation Reduction Act

The IRA is frequently mentioned, often with a tone of skepticism. Voters criticize Harris for her involvement in the Act, with the phrase placed in quotes to question its effectiveness. Critics argue that instead of reducing inflation, the Act has contributed to its rise, thereby undermining the very purpose of the legislation. This term is often juxtaposed with discussions of other economic issues, such as prescription drug prices and environmental initiatives, further highlighting the divide between the policy’s intentions and its perceived outcomes.

On Aug. 21, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) released a staggering downward revision of nearly one million added jobs from its previously reported figures. This adjustment, spanning from April 2023 through March 2024, revised job growth down by 818,000, a significant 30% reduction from earlier estimates. The adjustment represents the largest revision since 2009 and has sent ripples through economic and political circles, drawing sharp reactions from voters and pundits.

BREAKING: The federal government announces that there were 818,000 fewer jobs created through March 2024 than previously reported

It’s the largest downward revision in 15 years.

This is the “record job growth” Kamala always talks about
pic.twitter.com/vR1afMbEfr

— Greg Price (@greg_price11) August 21, 2024

This is the biggest negative revision to payrolls since the global financial crisis.

Crucially, it took place in an election year and was meant to pad the numbers, making the economy appear much stronger than it was https://t.co/WtjpNSaytR pic.twitter.com/EIHW5Ynjev

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) August 21, 2024

Voter Reactions

Following the latest BLS report, voter sentiment on jobs dropped to 40% both nationally and in swing states. This is down from a 7-day high of 48% nationally and 46% in swing states.

The public’s response to reports of the revision is a mix of skepticism and suspicion. Many voters view the revision as evidence of intentional overestimation by the government, which many call "cooking the books."

This sentiment grows from the perception that the Biden administration manipulated job figures to present a more favorable economic picture than reality. Most voter conversations reflect this distrust, with phrases like "inflated job reports" and "massive scandal" dominating the discourse.

MIG Reports analysis shows 64.5% of conversations about the revised job report express suspicion towards the government's reporting. Most conversations frame the unprecedented revision as evidence of deliberate misinformation.

This high level of skepticism underscores a broader narrative of frustration and disillusionment with the Biden-Harris administration’s transparency. Americans are unhappy with the status quo and 25% of discussions specifically about jobs mention a desire for new leadership.

Many voters also deride Harris-Biden Commerce Sec. Gina Raimondo for saying on ABC News that she has no knowledge of any job revision numbers. She went on the blame Trump for lying about everything, reiterating that she is unaware of the official BLS report.

Reporter: Nearly a million jobs "created" since Kamala took office do not exist.

Raimondo: “I don’t believe it because I’ve never heard Trump say anything truthful.”

Reporter: "It is from the Bureau of Labor."

Raimondo: "I'm not familiar with that."pic.twitter.com/UFKJiwWuPZ

— Greg Price (@greg_price11) August 21, 2024

Anger at the Biden-Harris Administration

Some Americans have been talking all year about repeated job report revisions that always trend downward. There are also concerns about the number of jobs created being government positions or jobs filled by foreign-born workers. This paints a dire picture for native-born Americans searching for fulltime employment in the private sector.

Skepticism about government reports on jobs coincide with wider distrust of the overall economy narrative the Biden-Harris administration has been pushing. It also overlaps with discontent about border security as foreign nationals continue to stream across the border, taking low-wage jobs from American citizens.

Many voters believe the Biden administration's claims of economic recovery are misleading, indicative of chronic dishonesty. Discussions frequently connect Biden-Harris lies to broader critiques of the administration's leadership. As Americans continue struggling to make ends meet in a contracting economy with layoffs and rising prices, resentment against leadership is growing. These job revisions highlight ongoing issues of trust and credibility.

• Kamala Harris has seen a drop in approval on jobs to 42% nationally to 40% in swing states.
• Donald Trump holds strong at 44% approval on jobs nationally and 45% in swing states.

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

Border Security

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

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

Political Ideologies

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

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

Economy

Housing

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

Economic Issues

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

Fiscal Policy

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

Inflation

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

Nomination

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

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

All Entities

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

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

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

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

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

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

— Eddy Elfenbein (@EddyElfenbein) August 16, 2024

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

Negativity on All of Harris’s Economic Policies

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

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

Kamala's policies so far

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

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) August 20, 2024

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

Historical Examples

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

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

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

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

— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) August 15, 2024

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

🚨🚨🚨 MUST WATCH 🚨🚨🚨

CNN just DESTROYED Kamala Harris' economic agenda.

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

— House Republicans (@HouseGOP) August 16, 2024

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

— aka (@akafacehots) August 15, 2024

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

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

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

Views of Harris

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

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

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

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

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

Reactions to Subsidizing Down Payments

Support

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

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

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

Opposition

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

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

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

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

— JD Vance (@JDVance) August 16, 2024

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

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

It’s Been Done Before

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

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

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

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

Stimulus Drives Inflation

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

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

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

Harris’s Economic Record with the IRA

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

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

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

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