Donald Trump's recent debate statement linking immigration to economic issues resonates with voters who also view these issues as linked. According to Trump, immigration and economic stability are inherently intertwined—a reality many segments of the electorate overserve on their own. However, many voters also reject this view or express neutral feelings. While immigration and economic issues remain high priority for all voters, how Americans think about them is starkly varied. 

The Border Impacts the Economy

Trump's supporters overwhelmingly view immigration as a key driver of economic challenges. These voters argue unchecked immigration, particularly illegal immigration, strains public resources. Many, like residents in Ohio struggling with an influx of immigrants, say migrant needs inflate housing and healthcare costs. They also say mass migration threatens job security.

Particularly on the right, agree that the economy is impacted by illegal immigration. However, mentions of this link vary depending on the origins of the discussion. Despite the variables, Trump’s assertion remains a point of agreement for most Americans.

What Voters Say

• MIG Reports data shows approximately 46.4% of voters believe stronger immigration controls would directly lead to improved economic conditions. They often mention reducing competition for jobs and lower inflation rates.
• 28.6% of voters align with Harris’s perspective, which suggests Trump is dramatizing the severity of both economic struggles and border security.
• 20% of voters voice neutral or mixed views, reflecting a more nuanced or indifferent stance on the issue.

Economy Conversations

In discussions about the economy:

• 57.2% support Trump's view that the economy is linked to immigration.
• 23.5% disagree with linking the issues.
• 19.3% remain neutral or indifferent to the connection.

Border Security Conversations

In discussions about the border and immigration:

• 35.6% support Trump's stance.
• 33.7% disagree, expressing concerns about oversimplification or sensationalism.
• 20.7% are neutral or hold mixed views, calling for more nuanced discussions.

Open Border Voters Disagree

Americans who disagree that immigration is tied to the economy say Trump oversimplifies complex issues. They say the economy's problems are rooted in broader systemic challenges like inflation, corporate policies, and global economic trends. Many of these voters claim Trump’s statements are nothing more than fearmongering.

Opponents also say Trump sensationalizes border and economy discussions by making false claims about immigrants increasing U.S. crime. This group believes immigrants contribute positively to the economy, filling critical labor shortages and fostering cultural diversity, which they believe outweighs the economic risks Trump outlines.

The Kinda-Sorta-I-Don’t-Know Vote

Mixed sentiment voters mostly express two perspectives. Some criticize both Trump and Kamala Harris’s views on the economy and immigration, while others opt to prioritize issues they view as more important. These viewpoints reflect a broader frustration with political rhetoric and a desire for more balanced dialogue.

Sentiment Analysis

Voters may feel more inclined to support Trump's stance on immigration when the issue is framed as economic. Many American workers feel personal impacts from job competition, inflation, and rising costs in their daily lives. Linking immigration to these concerns resonates more directly than speaking about it as a standalone issue.

When conversations focus primarily on border security or immigration issues, viewpoints tend to become more abstract. Voters may feel less directly impacted unless they live in a border or sanctuary state, leading to more mixed or neutral views.

Additionally, social conditioning may play a role if voters avoid expressing strong opinions on immigration to avoid being seen as racist or xenophobic. This common framing of border issues on the political left often aims severe criticism at border security concerns. When voters view immigration through the lens of economic impact, Americans are more able to justify a desire for stricter policies without touching on sensitive racial dynamics.

The public discourse surrounding the American job market under Democratic leadership presents a polarized landscape of opinions. As workers navigate the impact of recent jobs reports and unemployment figures, varying levels of confidence emerge. Political affiliations often shape perceptions of the Biden-Harris administration's economic policies.

This analysis examines themes of optimism, skepticism, and economic anxieties among voters.

Hope or Despair for Economic Recovery

Three dominant themes arise in the analysis:

• Optimism about job growth and economic recovery
• Disbelief about incorrect job numbers and economic stability
• Concerns about inflation and broader economic pressures

Americans express strong doubt about the long-term sustainability of current policies, along with some belief in Democratic leadership to foster job creation. Most voters express anxiety, while a minority remain hopeful about Biden-Harris plans to strengthen jobs.

Highest discussion volume:

1. Concerns about inflation and broader economic pressures
2. Skepticism toward job numbers
3. Optimism about job growth and economic recovery

Strongest negative sentiment:

1. Skepticism of job numbers and economic stability
2. Concerns about inflation and broader economic pressures
3. Optimism about job growth and economic recovery

Optimism Among Democrats

Democratic supporters maintain confidence in the economic trajectory Biden and Harris tout as positive. In various discussions, proponents highlight job growth, claiming the administration has created more than 15 million jobs since 2021. This, they suggest, is strong evidence of a recovering economy.

Approximately 40% of voter conversations reflect this optimistic outlook, emphasizing the Biden-Harris administration’s narrative of unemployment rates, historical job creation, and the resilience of the labor market despite recent global challenges. This group believes Democratic leadership’s progressive policies, aimed at fostering employment, are crucial to the country’s ongoing recovery.

Despite this optimism, Federal Reserve data shows August 2024 is the lowest year for August jobs in the past 10 years. This evidence of a cooling job market is increasing wider worries of an impending recession.

Skepticism of Job Numbers

In contrast to Democratic optimism, most voters remain skeptical about the reported job growth and unemployment figures. These doubts are driven by recurring downward revisions to job reports, with a shocking 818,000 fewer jobs than originally reported in the last year.

Many express suspicion about the accuracy of the data, with some alleging the numbers are manipulated or inflated. They say Democrats want to paint a more favorable picture for the Biden-Harris administration. This skepticism is further fueled by concerns that job growth disproportionately benefits non-citizens. This is particularly upsetting while American workers, particularly the middle class, continue to face economic hardship.

There are reports that more than 1.3 million jobs were lost by American citizens, while 1.2 million jobs were filled by illegal immigrant workers. Approximately 53% of voter comments express a sense of distrust, suggesting current policies fail to address the economic challenges of American citizens.

Economic Anxieties and Concerns about Inflation

A prominent theme throughout the discourse centers on inflation and the rising cost of living. These are frequently mentioned as critical issues affecting American households. Many commenters argue that, despite reported job numbers, inflation rates remain high, and wage growth has not kept pace with the increasing cost of essential goods such as food and gas.

Voter concerns are exacerbated by fears of a looming recession, with some predicting the current economic trajectory under Democratic leadership will lead to further instability. Most discussions address inflation as a pressing issue, underscoring the belief that ongoing economic pressures overshadow any gains in the job market.

Recent viral stories about job losses among American-born workers and job increases for foreign are causing anger among voters. MIG Reports analysis shows discussions are laced with worry about job security, economic inequality, and a perceived lack of government support.

As the labor market evolves, native workers express fears that foreign laborers, supported by illegal immigration, are taking jobs that belong to them. This narrative is rich in personal stakes and political dissatisfaction, painting a complex picture of an American workforce under pressure.

Holy shit:
Foreign-born workers: +635K in August
Native-born workers: -1.325 MILLION in August

Yes, 1.3 million NATIVE-BORN Americans lost a job in August pic.twitter.com/7EC3H1KH5Y

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) September 6, 2024

The Jobs Narrative

American conversations are dominated by the personal experiences of native-born workers who feel left behind in the labor market. In discussions focused solely on jobs, 62% of voters in the MIG Reports sample use first-person language such as "I feel" or "we are facing." This high percentage of personal pronouns highlights how job insecurity is felt at an individual level, with many expressing direct fear that their jobs are being taken by foreign workers.

People use phrases like “lost jobs,” “foreign competition,” and “native workers left behind” to express their anger. This reflects a shared sentiment that the job market is slipping out of the hands of Americans who need work and being given to cheaper laborers who are here illegally and likely do not contribute appropriate taxes.

While some Americans believe the economy is growing and job creation is on the rise, most are highly dissatisfied with current economic policies. Voters frequently link the situation to Biden-Harris policies, blaming Democrats for the job market. Frustration extends beyond immediate job loss to larger issues like inflation, stagnant wages, and government mismanagement.

Housing and Unemployment

Worries about finding sufficient employment extend into other societal issues, such as housing. As job stability declines for Americans, many native-born workers express growing concern about their ability to afford housing and maintain a stable standard of living. The commentary frequently links job loss to an increasing strain on personal finances. People discuss fears that foreign workers are taking jobs that would otherwise provide them with the means to secure affordable housing.

Around 66% focus on the negative impact of foreign workers on the job market. Voters call for stricter immigration laws and policies that prioritize native-born workers. The housing crisis is another flashpoint in these discussions, as many commenters believe that resources are being diverted from American citizens to accommodate foreign workers and their families. Phrases like “I can’t afford my rent while they get housing” emphasize the personal financial strain many feel, suggesting job loss and economic challenges are bleeding into other critical areas of life.

Economic Issues and Government Accountability

The anxiety over job security is mirrored in economic discussions as well. Discussions reflect broader fears about the economy, focusing heavily on inflation, taxes, and the government's failure to prioritize American workers.

• 70% of comments express negative sentiments toward the economy.
• 65% advocate for stricter immigration policies to curb the imbalance in the job market.

Sentiments from the jobs-centric discussions are echoed here, as many contributors link job loss to broader economic failures. Common phrases include “we need to prioritize Americans” and “the economy under Biden has failed,” showing how job concerns are intertwined with larger fears about the country’s economic future. Commenters frequently demand action from political leaders, calling for reforms that protect native-born workers from foreign competition and stabilize the economy.

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.

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

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

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

— unusual_whales (@unusual_whales) August 29, 2024

Overview of Public Sentiment

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

Frustration with Affordability

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

Distrust in Corporate and Government Entities

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

Calls for Regulatory Reform

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

Ideological Divides

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

Debate over Government Regulation

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

Critique of Economic Systems

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

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.

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.

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.

MIG Reports analysis of online conversations about rising bankruptcy filings coincides with wider economic worries. Bankruptcies have surged by 16% over the 12-month period ending March 31, 2024. This indicates American conversations about economic, social, and political concerns are more than worries. Voters express economic distress, financial instability, and fear the impact of government policies on their livelihoods.

The recent 16% increase in bankruptcy is similar to rates seen at the end of 2023. In the prior four years, bankruptcies were at their highest during COVID lockdowns. Despite coming down for the next three years, bankruptcy filings are now increasing again. Many attribute this to economic mismanagement by the Biden-Harris administration.

• U.S. Courts data shows there were 467,774 new bankruptcy cases filed during the cited 12-month period, compared to 403,273 in the previous year.
• Business bankruptcies saw a significant jump of more than 40%, rising from 14,467 cases in 2023 to 20,316 in 2024.
• Non-business bankruptcies, which involve individuals, also increased by about 15%, from 388,806 cases to 447,458.

Families and Businesses are Struggling

Americans continue to grow more concerned about financial instability, including due to rising bankruptcy rates. Conversations mention the challenges families and small business owners face along with economic stress, financial insecurity, and debt relief.

The plight of small businesses, often cited as especially vulnerable to economic fluctuations, underscores broader concerns about market volatility and consumer behavior shifts.

Voters discuss the role of government policies, with many skeptical of the effectiveness of stimulus packages and economic recovery plans. Phrases like "too little, too late" and "lack of support" indicate a sense of frustration about the government’s meager responses to economic challenges.

Political accountability also emerges as a significant theme. Americans link the increase in bankruptcies to perceived failures in government leadership and economic management. Voters criticize “Bidenomics” and the Biden-Harris administration for its policies causing inflation, using terms like "government failure," and "poor leadership." This dissatisfaction leads to a broader call for reform and changed leadership.

The Mood is Sour on the Economy

The national emotional tone is one of anxiety, frustration, and skepticism. People feel overwhelmed and worried about their financial futures. They wonder how they will afford basic living costs, completely giving up on saving for the future or retirement. There is a sense of betrayal by the political establishment and those who continue to grow wealthier.

Anger and distrust coexist with smaller pockets of hope and resilience. Some conversations highlight a commitment to community support. Despite the larger economic struggle, Americans still talk about "supporting local businesses" and "community strength" reflecting a proactive attitude despite the challenging economic climate.