The Israel, Iran, Ukraine, and Russia conflicts are wearing on the American people. There is now a shift in landscape of voter sentiment regarding these foreign issues. Even those who consistently support U.S. involvement in international conflicts are now expressing frustration our government prioritizing foreign aid over domestic needs.

While a minority still advocates for aggressive military responses, particularly in defense of Israel and as a deterrent to Iran, the emerging consensus is that America’s resources should be used on domestic priorities like inflation, disaster recovery, and the welfare of citizens.

• 42% of voters support military action
• 40% oppose foreign aid
• 18% criticize ongoing foreign conflict

Financial Burden

A recurring theme in voter discussions is dissatisfaction with the billions of dollars streaming into foreign countries like Ukraine. Americans view this as a prime example of how U.S. leadership, particularly the Biden administration, prioritizes other countries over Americans.

Some compare $24 billion allocated to Ukraine with the pitiful financial relief provided to Hurricane Helene victims at home, voicing frustration. Citizens decry high inflation, gas prices, and insufficient FEMA aid, questioning the rationale for continued military support abroad.

Economic concerns fuel much of the opposition to foreign aid and military engagement. People see a disconnect between the billions sent abroad and the financial hardships Americans face. Voters want U.S. military and financial resources to be used for domestic issues like inflation, unemployment, and disaster relief.

Americans say funding conflicts in Ukraine, Israel, or elsewhere is a betrayal of American taxpayers. The phrase “America First” resonates strongly in these discussions, emphasizing a desire for the government to refocus its priorities on the welfare of its own citizens.

Not My Monkeys, Not My Circus

Public sentiment around Israel also reveals deep divides. While there is still significant support for Israel's right to defend itself against threats from Iranian proxies like Hezbollah and Hamas, this pro-military stance is shrinking.

Many advocates view Israel’s aggressive military tactics as necessary self-defense, especially in the face of recent missile strikes from Iran. However, the conversation now criticizes U.S. military aid to Israel, calling out the humanitarian crises in Gaza and Lebanon, and questioning whether these actions truly align with American interests.

Views or Iran are similarly divided. Some say a growing military presence and missile strikes against Israel is justification for a more aggressive U.S. response. Others call for diplomacy and caution.

Pro-military action views say the Biden administration’s softer approach emboldens Iran, escalating tensions. They say the Trump administration’s stringent sanctions would have prevented these dangers.

However, many are voicing opposition to further involvement in the Middle East. People perceive U.S. involvement as expensive with little benefit to the average American.

America FIRST

Overall, Americans indicate desire for a shift towards prioritizing domestic economic stability over foreign engagements. The pro-war perspective, once dominant, is now being overshadowed by calls for the U.S. to address its own challenges before intervening overseas.

This sentiment reflects a growing awareness that America’s long-term stability may be in jeopardy. Voters want to do everything possible to secure their own futures before extending support abroad.

American conversations about the recent Bank of America outages and other digital platforms like Spotify, Verizon, and PlayStation are worried. The clear pattern is that modern reliance on digital services and the systemic vulnerabilities that come with it feels precarious. Important technologies going offline, consumer frustration, anxiety, and skepticism are amplified, signaling wider problems beyond isolated technical failures.

Voter Reactions

• Frustration: 60% of voters express frustration with the outages.
• Anxiety: 30% worry over personal and financial security.
• Trust Erosion: 65% indicate a loss of trust in increasingly fragile technologies.
• Public Outcry: 25% actively take to social media, amplifying these concerns.

Reactions to Bank of America

Bank of America’s outage is a particularly striking example, with many customers seeing their balances temporarily reset to zero. This triggers widespread panic and dissatisfaction, with 70% reporting heightened financial anxiety.

Trust in banks is dwindling, with consumers questioning whether the outage reflects serious issues with technology stability. Many customers voice their intentions to switch banks, with around 30% exploring alternatives. This includes fintech solutions and credit unions. Despite reassurances from the bank, only 20% find these responses credible.

The Broader Perspective

The outages, however, extend beyond just Bank of America, reflecting a larger and more unsettling trend. These failures across industries—from financial institutions to entertainment and telecommunications—point to a fragile technological ecosystem that people heavily rely on for managing their daily lives.

As tech platforms fail, even temporarily, they challenge the security and reliability of our increasingly interconnected world. Consumers are left questioning whether companies, in their rush toward digital transformation and cost-cutting, are compromising service stability. Many also point to the drastic issues of lost power and internet in hurricane zones, praising Elon Musk for providing Starlink and criticizing the government for its failed efforts.

Recurring serious and suspicious outages cause Americans to call urgently for transparency and reliability. The emotional response to these outages—ranging from anger to helplessness—shows these service disruptions are not just technical glitches but serious safety concerns. In an age where banking, communication, and entertainment are digitized, people expect seamless service. When this system falters, it triggers a cascade of doubt, not only about corporate responsibility but also about the fundamental infrastructure supporting modern life.

MIG Reports analysis of voter sentiment on economic issues shows a clear pattern: Trump > Harris. Across numerous samples and economic topics, Americans voice their strong preference for Donald Trump’s policies and leadership.

Inflation

Inflation remains a central point of frustration, with 55% of voters in the MIG Reports sample favoring Trump’s policies. They cite his administration's ability to maintain lower costs of living and greater community safety. In contrast, only 18% expresses support for how Biden and Harris handle inflation, while 27% remain uncertain or neutral.

America First

Government spending draws even stronger criticism toward Democrats. While 65% support Trump’s fiscal policies, only 14% back Biden-Harris spending strategies. Many accuse the administration of prioritizing foreign aid over domestic needs. Sentiment is particularly strong in discussions of the misallocation of taxpayer dollars and recent government responses to Hurricane Helene. Americans are frustrated that economic assistance is sent liberally abroad while middle-class hardships remain unaddressed.

Taxation

Taxation is another hot topic, with 60% preferring Trump’s tax cuts, especially for the middle class and businesses. Only 20% view Harris’s proposed tax increases favorably. Skepticism runs high, with many believing the tax plans would burden the middle class further rather than provide relief.

Open Border Effects

Illegal immigration continues to dominate the economic discourse, with 55% arguing lax border policies under Biden and Harris exacerbate job competition and strain public services. Only 12% support the administration’s approach to immigration, and 33% are uncertain about its economic impact.

Executive Leadership

Leadership emerges as a stark contrast between the candidates, with 70% voicing confidence in Trump’s leadership on the economy. People view him as a more pragmatic and business-oriented leader. In contrast, only 15% support Harris’s leadership, with many criticizing her as disconnected from the economic struggles of everyday Americans.

A looming East Coast port strike is stirring significant debate, particularly the potential economic and political impact. Longshoremen up and down the East Coast plan to strike starting Tuesday. Many view a strike as both a labor issue and a critical election issue which could shift voter sentiment in favor of Donald Trump.

I warned about this days ago.

Longshoremen voted to strike, they walk out Tuesday.

85,000 dockworkers from Maine to Texas. Will impact 36 ports and all imports & exports from Maine to Texas!

This could get rough.

pic.twitter.com/w5gqxSfzth

— Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene🇺🇸 (@RepMTG) September 29, 2024

MIG Reports data shows voter discussions revolve around economic concerns, instability, labor relations, and political leadership. A clear sense of discontent toward the Biden-Harris administration threads through most of the discussion.

Voter Reactions to a Port Strike

Many Americans express fear of severe impacts caused by a union strike. In the wake of hurricane Helene, many in states like North Carolina and Tennessee are already struggling to get fuel—and a strike will likely cause supply issues for many more.

This is the line for gas at Sam’s club in Aiken South Carolina.

With the ports on strike and devastation from hurricane Helene…….

This will be national wide by Friday.

Be vigilant, be safe, Be smart

vote Trump come hell or high water!! pic.twitter.com/TddfHySx9I

— 🇺🇸🎙Chad “ThugZilla”Caton🎙🇺🇸 (@ImFiredUp2) September 30, 2024

Among the top discussion themes, Americans mention:

• Fear of supply chain disruptions and inflation.
• Blame toward Democratic leadership, specifically Joe Biden and Kamala Harris.
• Growing Trump support, with sentiments that a strike could increase turnout, especially among blue-collar voters.
• Working-class and rural voter frustration points out issues of job security and wage stagnation.

Economic Impact and Political Fallout

Americans voice growing anxieties about the economic consequences of a dock worker strike. Concerns about rising costs, inflation, and supply chain disruptions are rampant. Voters, especially from working-class backgrounds, are growing more frustrated with the Biden administration, which they perceive as failing to address pressing labor issues.

Blame for Democrats

Most people talking about the impending strike blame Biden and Harris, with 50-60% holding them responsible for economic mismanagement. While labor unions and corporate entities also receive criticism, current political leadership takes the brunt of the blame. Americans express frustration over ineffective policies that exacerbate economic uncertainty.

Increased Support for Trump

A consistent trend of hostility toward Democrats indicates a port strike would likely energize Trump’s base—especially blue-collar voters who feel abandoned by Kamala Harris. Many middle- and working-class Americans view Trump-era economic policies favorably, expressing nostalgia for his leadership. Many believe Trump will more effectively address their economic challenges, driving discussions about voter turnout in his favor.

Demographic Patterns

Working-class voters, particularly in rural areas and port cities, dominate the discussions. Anyone directly affected by potential job losses and economic disruptions are the most vocal about their dissatisfaction. While older voters focus on labor rights and economic stability, younger voters express frustration with the political system as a whole, demanding more meaningful change.

Billionaire businessman Mark Cuban went viral for saying inflation was not caused by "price gouging," defying the Democratic platform, for which he is known to act as a surrogate. He said on CNBC that unprecedented levels of government spending on things like the Inflation Reduction Act, for which Kamala Harris was the tie-breaker vote, are the true cause.

OMG. Mark Cuban accidentally admits the truth, says inflation was not caused by "price gouging," but rather record spending (which Kamala was the tie-breaking vote on.)

Kamala's top surrogate just blew up her entire economic message. Incredible. pic.twitter.com/HcwBLgYo6x

— johnny maga (@_johnnymaga) September 26, 2024

MIG Reports data shows Democratic views of inflation in two categories:

• The seriousness of inflation
• How talking about inflation impacts their candidate

Discussion among Democrats is carefully crafted to maintain voter confidence and achieve electoral success. Rather than a straightforward engagement with the economic realities Americans face, inflation becomes a rhetorical tool used to shift blame, deflect responsibility, and bolster the Democratic Party’s campaign narrative.

In recent interviews, Harris herself has deflected from answering questions about the economy, price gouging, inflation, and how she plans to help Americans.

What does this even mean…?

Kamala Harris: "Well if you are... hard working... if you... have... uh... the dreams and the ambitions and the aspirations of what I believe you do, you're in my plan." pic.twitter.com/vgnZpe1EKu

— Gunther Eagleman™ (@GuntherEagleman) September 25, 2024

Among Democrats:

• 40% blame Trump for the economy
• 25% acknowledge the negative state of inflation
• 19% express economic concerns
• 16% frame the economy as doing well

Glossing Over Inflation: A Strategic Approach

Democrats often acknowledge inflation, but the depth of that engagement varies. Many gloss over or reframed it as a problem inherited from the Trump administration. They frame the Biden-Harris administration as stabilizing the economy in the aftermath of Republican mismanagement.

By casting inflation as a residual effect of Trump’s policies, Democrats downplay the immediate economic concerns of Americans in favor of campaign messaging about aspirations and hope.

This approach is particularly evident in the way Democrats focus on government job reports, stock market gains, and a gradual decrease in gas prices. These elements distract from inflationary pressures, suggesting the current administration has things under control. However, Harris risks alienating voters who are directly impacted by rising costs of living, from groceries to housing.

Electoral Victory Over Economic Engagement

Many Democrats also prioritize winning the election over finding immediate economic solutions. Discussions show a focus on preventing a second Trump term rather than addressing the root causes of inflation for American voters.

Casting blame on Republicans reveals a defensive posture, with Democrats more concerned about economy narratives than offering actionable solutions. This allows them to use inflation as a talking point against Trump rather than as a policy issue in need of immediate attention.

The strategic deflection of blame reduces urgency and accountability to the American people. Instead, economic discussions are geared toward mobilizing voter sentiment, often simplifying complex financial realities into digestible, partisan soundbites. This reliance on political calculation places importance on a second Democratic administration over answering voter concerns.

Real Voter Concerns

While Democrats are clearly using inflation as a political tool, there are some expressing genuine concern about its impact on middle-class families. There is particular focus on housing and food costs for lower income Americans.

However, even these concerns are often accompanied by broader narratives of economic success under the Biden-Harris administration. By emphasizing solutions like tax credits or small business support, Democrats frame a positive electoral message rather than presenting them as pressing crises.

These trends create a dual narrative in Democratic discourse where some are forced to acknowledge the economic pain of voters, but quickly pivoting political messaging that downplays its severity. This tension between caring about economic realities and pursuing political success is a central feature of Democratic discussions on the economy.

Polarization and the Use of Blame

Partisan rhetoric drives Democratic conversations. By consistently blaming Trump, Democrats simplify the conversation, framing it as a political battle rather than a serious issue. This shifts voter attention away from current failures and pushes a narrative that a Harris administration would bring change.

This tactic, while effective in galvanizing the base, is also dismissive of the real economic challenges voters face. The risk here is that by leaning too heavily on partisan blame, Democrats may lose the opportunity to connect with voters.

American are navigating a period of economic uncertainty. Concerns focus on inflation, political distrust, and a volatile job market. Voter discussions touch on underlying causes and point to specific demographic trends and emotional reactions. In a critical election year, emotions are high, and negativity soars with living costs.

The level of uncertainty in the US consumer is at an all time high, per Bloomberg: pic.twitter.com/1FmUd36XY7

— unusual_whales (@unusual_whales) September 26, 2024

Causes of Economic Uncertainty

Inflation dominates consumer discussions, with the rising cost of living—particularly for groceries, housing, and energy—sparking widespread frustration. About 65% discuss concerns about inflation, saying wages are not keeping pace with increased costs.

Around 58% are skeptical toward government policies, especially those championed by Democratic candidate Kamala Harris. Americans blame the Biden-Harris administration for exacerbating economic struggles with ineffective fiscal strategies and tax policies.

People are also worried about the job market, taxes, and competition from foreign workers. Roughly 70% of voice concerns over rising taxes and their impact on middle-class and small business owners.

Effects of Economic Uncertainty

As inflation climbs and trust in leadership erodes, consumers respond by adopting more cautious spending habits. Many hesitate to make large purchases or increase consumption, reflecting a broader trend of economic retrenchment.

Nearly 20% of comments indicate a “survival mentality,” where saving takes precedence over spending due to uncertainty. This economic anxiety also drives political engagement, with approximately 25% supporting Donald Trump, citing better living during his administration.

Demographic Complaints

Middle-class Americans are the most vocal demographic in discussions about economic uncertainty. Around 60% of middle-class households say they struggle with rising costs and property taxes.

About 20% of discussions come from small business owners who fear taxes and inflation will devastate their operations. Younger voters, while less supportive of Trump, express disillusionment with both parties. Working-class voters speak primarily about job security and the erosion of union rights, representing 40% of the discussion.

Patterns in Reactions

Many Americans are dissatisfied with government policies. Around 60% express frustration over the Biden-Harris administration's policies for inflation, healthcare, and border control. Emotional polarization, amplified by political distrust, frequently results in blame for political figures.

Roughly 15% view the government as corrupt, saying political leaders intentionally exacerbate economic instability for their own gain. Amid this polarized landscape, many consumers yearn for change, with 52% advocating for a return to Donald Trump’s leadership as a corrective measure.

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 layoffs and discussions about low hiring in the U.S. job market dominates voter conversations, according to MIG Reports data. Americans indicate their personal experiences with the economy shape their reactions to job reports. There continues to be significant division between those who perceive the job market as improving and those who believe it is deteriorating.

Data suggests public sentiment based on the language voters use to communicate their experiences. MIG Reports analysis coincides with a recent study from the Challenger Report showing 193% more job cuts from July to August 2024.

BREAKING: Hiring in 2024 is at a historic low, per CNBC + Challenger.

— unusual_whales (@unusual_whales) September 20, 2024

Overall Sentiment Breakdown

The job market in 2024 elicits polarized reactions:

• 55-62% of Americans express negative views, largely shaped by their personal financial struggles and the impact of inflation.
• 31-45% hold an optimistic outlook, focusing on macroeconomic indicators such as job creation, wage growth, and a strong stock market.

Despite some optimism, doubt and discouragement dominates voter discussions, particularly among those who distrust economic data or feel the government is not addressing the real economic issues Americans face.

Worker Perception of the Job Market

Most Americans in 2024 view the job market negatively. Many cite inflation, economic instability, and poor job quality as key concerns. Workers feel disconnected from the administration’s reports of macroeconomic success, pointing instead to personal struggles with rising living costs and job instability.

For struggling Americans, the realities of layoffs and stalled hiring directly affects their day-to-day lives. Personal accounts of job loss are also permeated by mentions of paycheck-to-paycheck living and eroded purchasing power.

Some do hold a positive view of the job market, however. They highlight media reporting and government figures of low unemployment, job creation, and economic growth as reasons for optimism. This group focuses on broader economic indicators like wage growth and a strong stock market, rather than their personal experiences.

Typically, in higher economic classes or politically left leaning, this group attributes economic successes to government policies. They particularly mention Biden-Harris measures, viewing the economy as successfully recovering from COVID.

Reasons for Reactions

People who believe the job market is bad typically base their views on personal experiences. They talk about their struggles with inflation, job instability, and rising living costs. These voters frequently blame government policies for failing to address the economic challenges middle class Americans face. For them, the negative impacts of inflation and unstable jobs outweigh any broader economic successes.

Those who perceive the job market positively rely on the Biden-Harris administration to support their views. They point to low unemployment, job creation in industries like manufacturing, and wage increases. This group tends to trust official economic reports and see selective macroeconomic trends as evidence of a stable and improving economy. They attribute economic progress to policies that they believe are fostering growth and recovery.

How Americans Talk About Jobs

The language people use in these discussions reflects their perspectives on the job market. Those who view the job market negatively often use first-person pronouns like "I" and "me" to emphasize their personal struggles. They talk about their individual experiences with statements like "I'm struggling to make ends meet" or "I lost my job because of inflation." This use of first-person language underscores the personal impact the economy has on their lives.

Voters who see the job market as strong tend to use third-person pronouns, such as "they" and "them." They describe the economy from a more detached perspective, with phrases like, “They’re creating jobs" or "The economy is growing." This language suggests a broader view, focusing less on personal hardship and more on the general direction of the economy.

Additionally, those with a positive outlook often adopt a factual and confident tone, while those with negative views express frustration, skepticism, and distrust. Skeptics frequently challenge the accuracy of official economic data, using sarcastic or confrontational language to question the narrative of economic recovery.

Recently, the Teamsters Union released the results of internal straw poll, electronic poll, and telephone poll shows significant favor toward Donald Trump over Kamala Harris. This is a shift from polling showing a Democratic lead prior to Biden dropping from the presidential race.

MIG Reports analysis of discourse shows union sentiment moving against Harris and why union workers are gravitating toward Trump.

TEAMSTERS RELEASE PRESIDENTIAL ENDORSEMENT POLLING DATA

“For the past year, the Teamsters Union has pledged to conduct the most inclusive, democratic, and transparent Presidential endorsement process in the history of our 121-year-old organization—and today we are delivering on… pic.twitter.com/CnFNN9uosx

— Teamsters (@Teamsters) September 18, 2024

Trump's Lead Among Union Workers

Donald Trump has a significant lead among union workers, a critical working and voting group of Americans. Between 58% and 60% support Trump according to recent Teamsters polling. MIG Reports data reflects similar sentiments in voter discussions. Union workers, particularly those in industries like manufacturing and construction, are shifting toward Trump. They say his policies align better with their economic interests and job security.

• MIG Reports data shows enthusiasm for Trump among 65.2% of union workers compared to 34.8% for Harris.

Enthusiasm for Trump

The enthusiasm for Trump among union workers is notable and strong, potentially signaling a significant voting bloc shift. Many union members admire Trump’s populist approach and his willingness to challenge the establishment. His "America First" policies, particularly on trade and immigration, resonate deeply with workers who feel threatened by outsourcing and illegal immigration.

Trump’s tough stance on these issues has created a sense of loyalty among union workers. They believe he is the only candidate willing to fight for their jobs and livelihoods. This enthusiasm is reflected in online discussions, where workers express admiration for Trump’s leadership and economic policies.

Reasons for Support

The top issues union workers cite with their support are Trump’s stances on:

• Trade
• Immigration
• Job creation

His trade policies, which focus on protecting American industries and reducing outsourcing, appeal directly to workers who fear losing jobs to foreign competition. His tough rhetoric on immigration, which many view as a threat to job security and wage growth, further solidifies his support.

Meanwhile, Kamala Harris faces significant challenges with gaining union worker support. While she has attempted to court their support through endorsements from labor unions and promises of progressive policies, her association with the Democratic establishment and perceived focus on social justice issues over economic concerns alienates many. Union members skeptical of her record on trade and labor rights often see Harris as out of touch with their immediate needs, particularly regarding job security and economic growth.

Harris's Struggles

While Harris’s platform includes policies aimed at workers’ rights, raising the minimum wage, and addressing income inequality, these issues do not seem to resonate as strongly as Trump’s focus on job security and trade protection. Harris is perceived as more aligned with corporate interests and global trade practices, which many view as harmful to their industries. This disconnect has led to a lack of enthusiasm for her candidacy, as many union members remain unconvinced, she can effectively represent their interests.