The Biden-Harris administration is currently facing significant criticism on multiple fronts. Among the top issues consistently emerging in discussions are inflation and illegal immigration. These issues are a core driver of voter dissatisfaction with the administration's shortcomings.

Economic and border issues are creating a potent mix of anger and frustration from Biden detractors. MIG Reports analyzed recent online discussions and identified other issues such as crime and education impacting Biden’s approval.

Voters are particularly disillusioned in these demographic groups:

Economic fears

• Middle-class Americans
• Suburban residents
• Middle-aged to older voters who are economically strained

Open border critics

• Many young voters
• Anti-establishment voters
• Conservative and border state Americans

Biden’s broken promises

• Black and other minorities

Inflation

Most Americans cite inflation and the economy as a primary concern. They argue inflation has significantly worsened under Biden’s tenure, often mentioning high gas and grocery prices.

Voters say Biden’s policies, including the Inflation Reduction Act, have failed to mitigate price increases. They feel their purchasing power eroding, making everyday life more expensive. Related topics like increased housing costs and high mortgage rates also accompany inflation discussions, emphasizing the financial strain households are feeling.

Illegal immigration

A major area of concern for voters continues to be border security. Critics blame the Biden administration for lax border policies which have resulted in a massive influx of illegal immigrants.

People often link border issues to crime, with many pointing out the rise in illegal immigration contributes directly to an increase in violence and drug trafficking. How the Biden administration is handling border issues often features in discussions. There is a heavy focus on egregious border mismanagement and its socio-economic impact.

Crime Rate

There is special attention on crime rates in major cities, which have become a flashpoint. Voters accuse the Biden administration of not doing anything to combat rising crime.

Many say the administration’s law enforcement policies are ill-advised and lackluster. This criticism is often linked to inflation and immigration, forming a narrative that crime is part of a larger systemic failure.

Education

There are discussions about how public schools are managed, with many disapproving of progressive ideology indoctrination. There are also still debates about controversial school closures and how education resumed during COVID. Critics argue unjustified restrictions have led to an irreversible decline in educational standards and student performance.

Sentiment Trends

Trending Downward

The prevailing for Biden campaign sentiment is increasingly negative. Complaints encompass frustrations over economic hardship, the deterioration of public safety, and dissatisfaction with national policy direction. There is anger towards how Biden is handling domestic and foreign policy, particularly regarding financial aid to Ukraine and how it is prioritized over American needs.

Switching Sides

Some trends suggest Biden supporters who become Trump voters are often motivated by economic dissatisfaction. They argue under Trump, various economic indicators such as gas prices, grocery prices, and unemployment rates were better managed. These Trump converts say he created a more stable financial environment. Similarly, Trump’s stricter immigration policies and more effective national security and public safety policies seem to also attract new supporters.

Demographic Patterns

The largest loyalty shifts appear most noticeable among middle-class and working-class voters who feel their economic conditions have worsened under the Biden administration. Many black voters and other minority groups also feel disenfranchised by Biden. They say he has failed to live up to his promises of improving their economic and social standing.

National sentiment data indicates many of these voters are feeling financial pressure and uncertainty, exacerbating their desire for a change in leadership.

Sentiment trends reflect a sense of betrayal and disappointment among previous Biden supporters. This is particularly evident among voters who once appreciated Biden's affiliation with the Obama administration or were influenced by local connections to him. A growing number of these disillusioned voters are turning to Trump, motivated by a belief that he would be tougher on immigration, rollback economic policies they believe are harmful, and better protect individual freedoms.

Demographic patterns suggest this shift is not uniform across all groups but is particularly notable among the working-class, suburban voters, and middle-aged to older Americans. Some young voters who feel passionately about issues like economic justice or immigration reform are also expressing disenchantment, although they may be more likely to turn towards progressive alternatives than to Trump.

MIG Reports studied voter conversations about the U.S. debt interest topping $1 trillion for the first time. Several topics around fiscal and monetary policies and inflation show a possible cascading effect on sentiment for Americans. People are generally pessimistic and lack confidence in proposals to address national debt.

Discussion Trends

National debt reaching $1 trillion is causing widespread online discussion, highlighting voter preferences for President Trump’s economy versus President Biden’s. People sense economic tension and express dissatisfaction. Many frequently mention inflation, taxation, and rampant government spending.

Discussions reflect a pervasive belief that current economic policies are ineffective. The debate on social services funding, such as Medicaid and welfare, further underscores a polarizing view on fiscal responsibility and societal support systems. Increased engagement on federal debt issues, quantified by a spike in social media interactions, marks a notable rise in public concern.

Sentiment Trends

Public sentiment towards political leadership amid these economic discussions is predominantly negative, especially towards President Biden. Voters criticize him for policies they believe exacerbate financial hardships for lower- and middle-income families.

Many Americans blame "Bidenomics" for rising cost of living and inflation. In contrast, views about Trump’s economy are mixed. A lot of Americans praise his pre-pandemic economic policies, while others criticize their long-term impacts.

Discussions suggest a bipartisan disillusionment with modern economic management. Debt interest worries intensify broader fears about economic hardship and fiscal uncertainty. This overall environment contributes to negative sentiment towards the Biden administration and all national leadership.

Negative sentiment extends to specific sectors like education and healthcare and often serves as a political lever, with voters criticizing both Parities for their roles in the mounting debt. The negativity has led to a 30% rise in discussions about national debt and interest payments in recent months.

The National Debt Ceiling

The issue of the U.S. federal debt interest surpassing $1 trillion reveals concerns about fiscal responsibility and economic stability. Surges in online conversation reveal public anxiety over America’s financial situation, particularly in light of recent legislative actions.

Sentiment about the federal debt milestone is predominantly negative. Liberals tend to criticize former President Trump and conservatives blame President Biden for contributing to the escalating national debt. However, there is also bipartisan dissatisfaction among many who have critiques for economic policies on both sides of the aisle.

President Biden faces backlash for his current ineffective economic policies and many also blame Trump's tax cuts and out-of-control spending, emphasizing the federal debt interest as a key indicator of economic instability.

Discussions often link the $1 trillion interest payment to broader economic conditions like rising expenses, inflation, and stagnant wages, highlighting frustrations over fiscal mismanagement and its impact on living costs and financial strain.

Recent reporting about Chinese entities purchasing farmland near U.S. military bases in have become a highly contentious topic. This increasing threat is generating considerable discussion and concern among various stakeholders.

Voter discourse explores not only the strategic implications of these real estate investments but also the broader geopolitical tensions and national security considerations. Sentiment surrounding Chinese entities acquiring U.S. farmland is predominately negative. Many express alarm and skepticism about the motivations behind these purchases.

Military Threats from China

National Security Concerns

There is widespread apprehension that Chinese ownership of farmland in proximity to military installations potentially enables espionage activities and provides strategic vantage points for surveilling U.S. military operations. Critics argue such acquisitions present significant risks to national defense, stressing the need for stricter regulatory oversight and transparency regarding foreign investments in critical areas.

Economic Concerns

There are concerns about the long-term consequences for American farmers and rural communities. Some worry Chinese investment could lead to land price inflation, making it more difficult for local farmers to compete or gain access to land. There is also anxiety that foreign control over agricultural assets could affect national food security and disrupt local agricultural economies.

Political Inaction

Americans are also criticizing political figures and policymakers, calling for legislative actions to limit or outright ban foreign ownership of farmland. They say this is especially important near sensitive sites such as military bases. Voters are also critical of leadership failure to disentangle the U.S. from existing and rising international tensions.

Legislators are exploring various policy tools to address these issues, including heightened screening measures for foreign investments, strengthened national security policies, and revisions to existing laws governing foreign land ownership.

Geopolitical Control

Conversations intersect with broader geopolitical dynamics and U.S.-China relations. Many view these farmland acquisitions as part of a larger strategic maneuver by China to expand its influence and control in critical sectors of the American economy. This perception is underscored by current tensions between the two nations over trade policies, defense matters, and global leadership roles.

Sentiment Trends

Public sentiment often reflects severe distrust towards the Chinese government's intentions. Many Americans view these land purchases as a covert extension of China's geopolitical agenda. The calls for vigilance and proactive measures reflect American desires to safeguard national interests against perceived foreign encroachments.

China's Anti-American Agenda

Many people are debating whether these acquisitions are a form of espionage or preparation for future confrontations. People say these risks are heightened by the current geopolitical climate involving China, Russia, and North Korea.

The perceived threats from these nations have escalated the anxiety of many Americans. This sentiment is compounded by recent military maneuvers and alliances involving these countries, adding to the narrative that U.S. adversaries may be encircling the country both physically and politically.

There is also substantial discussion around the broader theme of foreign influence in domestic affairs. Many are questioning the adequacy of current U.S. policies and the government's capability to prevent potentially malicious foreign investments. The role of political leaders in enabling or mitigating these threats is a hot topic, with some voicing criticism over perceived inaction or mishandling by current and past administrations.

Many Americans also have economic concerns, particularly the impact of these foreign purchases on local farming communities and the agricultural sector's stability. The fear is that foreign control over agricultural resources could undermine U.S. food security and sovereignty.

There is a pervasive feeling of distrust and frustration towards politicians, bureaucrats, and the broader political system, which many believe is too compromised or incompetent to safeguard national interests effectively. This distrust is often linked to broader discontent with the government's handling of international relationships and foreign policy, particularly considering recent global events involving China, Russia, and North Korea.

Online discourse about AI and American jobs continues to show worry. There is an overall negative sentiment, specifically among 50- to 60-year-olds and those in blue-collar positions.

Recent economic studies indicate negative sentiment is likely to continue as workers fear AI displacement in the workforce. This will likely extend beyond the cited demographics as more people consider the implications of AI on jobs. Several industries beyond blue-collar are feeling AI’s impact on the workforce.

• The automotive sector led in job cuts, with Tesla slashing 14,000 jobs. This adds to a total of 14,373 for the month and 20,189 for the year, a 108% increase from last year.
• Education jobs followed with 8,092 cuts in April, totaling 17,892 for the year. This is up 635% from the previous year due to budgetary constraints and recruitment issues.
• The Healthcare industry saw 5,826 job cuts in April, totaling 17,218 for the year, a 41% decrease from last year.
• Technology jobs saw 47,436 cuts this year, which is a startling 58% decrease from last year.

• The media industry reported 8,091 cuts this year, down 29%. However, the news subset is up 12% at 2,184 cuts.

While not all job cuts were directly a result of AI innovations, many view AI as one more threat among many for jobs. People worry about the economy and other factors, which worsen fears that companies may opt to save money with automation.

American Fears About AI Displacement

There is a sense of inevitability and concern in most discussions about job cuts and AI. People are apprehensive about the rapid pace of artificial intelligence development and its potential to automate jobs that were previously considered secure. This includes jobs requiring higher education or specialized training.

Conversations often reflect concerns about technological unemployment, with some expressing anxiety about being forced into early retirement before they have had a chance to secure financial stability.

Sentiment Trends

Feelings about AI’s impact on employment trends are largely negative. Many Americans worry that AI and automation could push them out of the labor market prematurely. This would damage their ability to save adequately for retirement.

Displacement anxieties are especially noticeable among middle-aged workers who feel they are too young to retire but too old to re-enter the job market if displaced. These discussions frequently underscore the lack of adequate retraining and reskilling opportunities, which exacerbates fears.

Demographic Patterns

Some demographic patterns are also evident in these discussions. Older workers, particularly those in their 50s and early 60s, are more vocal about their concerns, specifically regarding AI.

Older workers often highlight the difficulty in finding new employment at a later stage in their careers. They also mention the inadequacy of their retirement savings in the face of unexpected job loss.

Younger demographics seem to express a different kind of concern. Their focus is more on long-term job security and the career disruptions AI might cause. Many younger workers are optimistic about their ability to adapt to new working conditions. However, they are still somewhat anxious, especially amid larger economic worries.

Geographically, workers in regions with a higher concentration of manufacturing and traditionally blue-collar jobs express more anxiety. Discussions in more tech-centric regions might reflect a more balanced or even optimistic view, with some anticipating that new job categories will emerge as AI technology evolves.

Withing the negative discussion, there also exists a minority viewpoint that sees AI as an opportunity rather than a threat. This group usually consists of those who work in tech or have seen the benefits of AI integration in the workplace. They argue AI could enhance productivity, create new job opportunities, and improve work-life balance.

Donald Trump's comments last week promising to eliminate taxes on tips got voters talking, showing mixed support across the political spectrum. Overall, the idea of exempting tips from income tax is generally well-received. This is especially true for those directly affected—restaurant and hospitality workers—who stand to keep more of their hard-earned money.

Trump’s promise to reduce working-class tax burdens is getting enthusiastic support within this voter group. They feel this tax relief would directly benefit their day-to-day lives. However, detractors argue the plan could reduce federal revenues and contribute to budget deficits unless offset by other measures.

Online discussions about economic and tax policies reflect broader concerns about the economy, with many people comparing conditions under Trump and Biden. Some argue the economy was better under Trump's administration, citing lower inflation rates, lower energy and food prices, and a more robust job market. They believe Trump's tax cuts had a positive impact on economic growth and hope similar policies will revive the economy again.

• Trump’s approval on taxes remained relatively steady before and after his comments on eliminating tip taxes.
• However, his approval regarding “low income” jumped from 47% to 49% after his comments.

Demographic Reactions

Tip Workers

Service industry workers, who are the primary beneficiaries of this proposal, respond positively across the political spectrum. For many servers, bartenders, and other tipped employees, eliminating taxes on tips translates into a direct increase in take-home pay. This demographic appreciates the tangible impact on their daily lives, which could mean a more stable financial situation and less stress regarding tax filings.

Income Groups

Among the lower economic classes, Trump's proposal is largely welcomed. Despite political affiliations, individuals in these classes tend to focus on the increased disposable income, which would help cover living expenses and potentially mitigate financial instability.

Middle-class voters also express cautious optimism. Some see it as a necessary relief amid current economic challenges, such as inflation and high living costs. However, others worry about the broader economic ramifications which might lead to higher prices for essential goods.

Wealthier individuals, who may not be directly affected by the change, may still support it to boost consumer spending and morale within the service industry. Although some criticize it as a short-term political maneuver with uncertain long-term fiscal implications.

Age Groups

Demographic factors such as age and race also influence opinions. Younger voters, especially those working through college or in entry-level service positions, invite immediate personal benefits. Nevertheless, many still generally align with a broader generational stance that favors progressive taxation and public welfare.

Minorities

Minority communities, who are overrepresented in lower-wage service jobs, appreciate the direct financial relief. But they also remain cautious about the long-term impacts and hope for comprehensive wage reforms which align with Democratic tax platforms.

Trump Supporters Support No Tip Taxes

Republicans and Trump Supporters largely view his proposal to eliminate taxes on tips as a positive step. They believe it would benefit the working class, especially those in the hospitality and service industries who rely heavily on tips. These supporters say it would provide immediate financial relief, thus increasing disposable income for millions of Americans.

Usually Republicans, this group highlights the overall economic environment during Trump's previous term with lower inflation, energy independence, and lower taxes. They view past results as indicative of the future potential success of similar policies.

There is also a related conversation around Trump’s proposal to replace all income tax with increased tariffs. This plan to compensate lost tax revenues get support from those who believe it would strengthen domestic industries and ultimately benefit American workers.

Democrats Don’t Want to Lose Tax Revenue

Most Democrats commenting on Trump’s proposal express significant concern over the long-term economic impacts of eliminating taxes on tips. They also fear replacing all income tax with tariffs could spark inflation, decrease consumption, and potentially lead to a recession.

Critics feel lower taxes would exacerbate income inequality and create adverse effects on social security and Medicare funding, which are typically supported by tax revenues.

Some progressive Democrats and service industry workers, who are typically loyal to the Democratic Party, acknowledge that eliminating taxes on tips could offer genuine financial benefits to low-income workers. But these voters often couch their approval in broader critiques of Trump’s overall economic policies. They hedge by saying such isolated tax cuts fail to address systemic financial inequalities.

More mainstream and centrist Democrats were generally skeptical, viewing the proposal as a populist measure designed to garner quick support. They don’t believe Trump has real plans for a thorough solution to larger economic issues facing workers.

Anti-Trump voters say, while beneficial on its face, this tax change might not compensate for his other policies they view as detrimental to low-income and middle-class Americans. They cite programs like social services and healthcare, which they believe Trump wants to defund.

The petrodollar agreement, an agreed system of oil-producing nations selling their oil in U.S. currency, came to an end on June 9. This monumental shift in the global economic landscape has sparked fervent discussions and mixed reactions among Americans. Many discussions center around the potential economic consequences and geopolitical ramifications of this event, leading to heated debates and a wide range of opinions.

What Americans Are Saying

Potential Inflation Trigger

Many Americans express concern over the potential inflationary impact of ending the petrodollar agreement. Voters often highlight the potential for increased prices across various sectors as a direct response to the change.

People fear that, without the stabilizing effect of the petrodollar, the cost of imported goods and energy might rise sharply. This could exacerbate current inflationary pressures. These concerns are coupled with nostalgic references to prior periods of lower inflation and lower costs of living. These conversations suggest a feeling of economic apprehension and uncertainty about the future.

Weakened Purchasing Power

Another trend in online discussions is the broader economic implications for the United States. Some express worries that the end of the petrodollar agreement could weaken the U.S. dollar's position as the world's reserve currency.

This group argues a weakened dollar could undermine U.S. economic dominance globally and lead to fiscal challenges. This would impact everything from national debt servicing to everyday consumer prices. People are calling for economic reforms and policy adjustments to mitigate potential negative fallout.

Geopolitical Effect

There are also concerns about geopolitical complications. Many voters emphasize the strategic consequences of the petrodollar agreement ending, suggesting it might embolden rival nations like China and Russia.

Some fear these countries could leverage the situation to push alternative currencies for international trade, thereby diluting U.S. influence in global markets. These geopolitical discussions are imbued with a sense of urgency and a call for decisive action to safeguard national interests.

Sentiment Trends

Overall, reactions appear split. A segment of the discourse is permeated with fatalism and pessimism, anticipating severe economic disruption and loss of national power. This is reflected in expressions of distrust in current leadership and policy directions, highlighting perceived failures in maintaining economic stability and geopolitical prowess.

Conversely, there's also a sentiment of cautious optimism among some. This group views the end of the petrodollar as a potential catalyst for necessary economic reforms and diversification away from fossil fuel dependencies.

They argue this could usher in a new era of innovation and adaptability, where alternative energy sources and smarter economic policies might thrive. This perspective is often accompanied by calls for increased investment in technology and renewable resources as a pathway to sustaining economic growth and environmental sustainability.

Headlines about the May CPI report laud no movement as a sign the economy is improving. Reports also urge consumers to spend into the economy, despite Americans insisting they don’t have extra cash to spend.

Headlines are exclaiming a better-than-expected CPI report, but many people are focused on specific economic and financial issues directly impacting their quality of life this year. This includes things like taxes, investments, and government spending.

The mention of CPI in hashtags shows people view it as a key indicator of inflation trends. However, the overall sentiment implies voters have reservations about whether these measurements truly reflect their financial experiences and economic realities.

Headlines reporting a positive CPI report seem to bolster slightly increased national sentiment toward the economy and inflation. But online conversations are severely negative about the cost of living—especially housing prices. This is something Americans are considering heavily in their voting decisions. These voters appear to be predominantly middle-class homeowners or prospective homeowners who are hard-hit by rising property prices and high interest rates.

The U.S. Housing Market

Talk about the housing market focuses on high interest rates, which contributes to inflation and reduces people's capacity to afford homes. Americans voice a desire for home prices to be reduced to levels that are affordable even amidst high interest rates. This sentiment is often accompanied by skepticism about the likelihood of significant rate cuts happening before any kind of price correction.

Online discussion suggests there is a lack of faith in government or Federal Reserve interventions aimed at curbing inflation. There’s also negativity about the fact that housing is one of the most significant expenses in the average household. It seems many Americans believe low home prices due to high-interest rates might eventually happen, but not in the immediate future.

Many feel the current economy presents an adverse economic climate which strangles the affordability of homes. High interest rates are a particular pain point, preventing many from purchasing homes and increasing demand for renters leading to elevated shelter costs across the board.

Property Taxes

There is also significant discussion about property taxes, calling them a “scam.” This particularly applies to homeowners who have paid off their property. This group argues property tax undermines the concept of ownership. Some say property taxes enhance the value of properties and are essential to maintaining public facilities—but most homeowners tend to feel negatively about property taxes.

Crypto Investments

Cryptocurrency investments have also become a topic of conversation with news of the May CPI report. Conversations suggest a changing economic climate where individuals may be investing more in cryptocurrency and related ventures. Reports of a Bitcoin price jump and increased Bitcoin buys with the CPI numbers have crypto investors suggesting lowered inflation is causing crypto excitement.

Income Tax

Complaints about taxes are not limited to property taxes. Voters complain about the taxes on tips for service workers, debating its fairness. They also wonder whether tips should be considered income or gratitude gifts. Some show disgust towards people who do not pay taxes despite benefiting from government services, hinting at increased frustration over border security and taxpayer funding for illegal immigrants.

Taxpayer Dollars Misused

People also complain about the misuse of tax money in terms of allegations of fraud and misappropriation. There is concern over government-funded programs like the Frontline Worker payment program in Minnesota. This reflects a general discontent and demands for better accountability in public spending.

Elizabeth Warren's call for the Federal Reserve to cut rates has sparked responses from Americans on the left and the right. Most perceive her actions and recent press release as overly progressive or socialist leaning. Those who support her measures want to find greater means of reaching economic equality.

Overall, sentiment towards Elizabeth Warren's economic policies, tax platform, and desire for rate cuts are largely negative. Most voters react with skepticism and opposition, which can be seen in many of her tweets that get significantly ratioed.

If we tax the rich, we can fund opportunity for all.

— Elizabeth Warren (@ewarren) June 10, 2024

Warren’s Rate Cut Proposal

U.S. Senators Elizabeth Warren, Jacky Rosen, and John Hickenlooper wrote to Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell, urging him to lower the federal funds interest rates from their current high of 5.5%. They argue high rates are worsening the housing and auto insurance costs, which are key drivers of inflation. They believe rates are widening the economic gap between the U.S. and Europe, where central banks are cutting rates.

Warren asserts the Fed's policy is not reducing inflation as intended but is instead harming the economy and risking a recession.

Many Americans seem to believe current high interest rates benefit the wealthy and are detrimental to average citizens. However, most online discourse doesn’t specifically mention Warren’s call for rate cuts. This could indicate either a lack of understanding of the direct impact of federal interest rates on citizens’ daily lives or lack of interest in the topic.

• Warren’s overall approval dipped to 38% in the last few days with an increase in her online mentions.
• Approval for Warren on the topics of banking, the economy, and taxes are also dismal, falling as low as 32% for banking and 31% for taxes in the last two weeks.

Opinions of Warren’s Policies are Mostly Partisan

Many Americans discuss the potential impacts of a Fed rate cut, discussing whether it would remedy the economic strain citizens are feeling. Liberals generally support rate cuts, arguing for economic stimulus. Republicans and the fiscally conservative tend to be wary that artificially low interest rates will worsen runaway inflation.

Arguments Supporting Rate Cuts

• Liberals say lowering interest rates could stimulate economic activity by making borrowing cheaper for businesses and consumers, potentially leading to increased investment and spending.
• Reduced mortgage rates would likely encourage more home sales and purchases.
• High interest rates do not address the underlying causes of rising auto insurance costs, but lower rates could ease financial conditions for consumers facing these expenses.
• With other major central banks cutting rates, lowering U.S. rates could help prevent the dollar from strengthening too much, which can tighten financial conditions domestically.
• High interest rates risk pushing the economy into a recession, leading to job losses and business closures. Lowering rates could mitigate this risk and support job growth.

Arguments Against Rate Cuts

• Conservatives tend to say high interest are more effective at controlling inflation. Lowering rates risks worsening inflationary pressures, undermining efforts to stabilize prices.
• Maintaining higher rates could contribute to long-term economic stability by preventing overheating and speculative bubbles in asset markets, including housing.
• Higher interest rates benefit savers by providing better returns on deposits and fixed-income investments, which is important for retirees and others relying on interest income.
• Sudden changes in monetary policy can create uncertainty and volatility in financial markets, potentially destabilizing investment environments
• While other central banks are cutting rates, maintaining relatively higher rates in the U.S. can attract foreign investment, supporting the dollar and providing a buffer against global economic shocks.

The Political Divide on Economic Issues

More conservative and libertarian voters vehemently oppose Warren's proposals. They fear her approaches lean socialist or communist. They argue government involvement should be minimal and the Fed has little power to improve the economy.

They fundamentally disagree with the Federal Reserve controlling capital or being involved in “handing out” opportunities. They see Warren's actions as promoting over-dependence on government, which in their view contradicts their understanding of personal responsibility and paves the way toward an unsustainable economic system.

Liberal voter opinions on Fed policy are more difficult to discern. It appears there is segment of voters who support Warren's call for lowering rates, although they do not or cannot discuss the intricacies of the policy or why it would be beneficial. Among them, some voters in Michigan seem appreciative of her progressive stance. This group advocates government intervention to balance power dynamics and believes that equity of outcome should be a primary economic objective.

Overall, Warren's call to cut rates has prompted polarized reactions. Critiques correlate her call to socialist or communist principles, advocating for smaller government and personal responsibility. However, there are supporters who want economic equality and justice by any means.

Since Governor Gavin Newsom enacted a $20-per-hour mandate for fast food employees in April, California has lost 10,000 jobs and numerous franchises closed locations. MIG Reports analysis show distinct disapproval from Californians in their discussion of Newsom.

• In 2024, Gavin Newsom’s approval on the economy is trending downward, currently at 35%, which is 7 points below his six-month average of 42%.

Economic Issues

• Public sentiment is highly negative about the wage mandate's impact on fast-food jobs in California, blaming Governor Newsom's policies.
• Californians are discussing their desire for lower taxes as the current tax rates as detrimental to businesses and leading to job losses like the 10,000 fast-food employees.
• Newsom is perceived as ineffective in managing the state's economy and addressing the needs of lower-income families, leading to feelings of disenfranchisement.
• Concerns include increasing crime rates, high costs of living, and more people leaving the state. These make it difficult for many to afford essentials like fuel, food, utilities, and medication.

Fiscal Policy

Governor Newsom’s name is mentioned frequently and mostly negatively. Most Californians criticize him for how he handles the state's budget and transforming a surplus into a deficit.

Some voters interpret California's large budget deficit as contributing to the loss of 10,000 fast food employees. There isn't a specific emphasis on the wage mandate, but complaints are often tied back to overall economic mismanagement.

Many California residents complain about the cost of living, prices for gas and food, and a decrease in their savings. They directly point to the governor's policies as a reason for these changes.

Overall, Californians seem to distrust Governor Newsom, which seems largely due to his financial decisions. People are voicing their frustrations about the state's budget deficit and the perceived negative impact of Newsom's economic policies on their personal finances.

Sentiment about the overall economic health of the state is negative. Voters express concerns over job loss, increased living costs, and overall poor management of California's economy.

There is also a sense of exasperation, as people feel their concerns and hardships are not being addressed. They urge Newsom to "sit down” and get in touch with the people.

People are frustrated and dissatisfied with Newsom's leadership and many call for fresh leaders who can manage the economy better.