Former President Donald Trump released a 20-point plan outlining his 2024 platform. Predictably, the release was quickly and widely shared and discussed on social media. The document garnered approval from Trump’s base and strong disavowal from his opponents. Independent voters have a narrower perspective on the otherwise binary sentiment, but generally sway more in agreement with Trump’s plan.
Support for Trump’s Platform
Trump's plan, which includes measures like sealing the border, ending inflation, defending constitutional rights, and opposing Critical Race Theory in schools, receives ardent support from his core base. His followers, often associated with the MAGA movement, express enthusiastic approval, seeing his commitments as strong steps to restore American greatness.
They particularly emphasize issues like border security, energy independence, and upholding Second Amendment rights. These supporters articulate their devotion on social media, eagerly anticipating Trump's leadership to counter perceptions of a corrupt administrative state. They also hope international entanglements which weaken the nation's sovereignty will be resolved.
Conservative traditionalists, who may not align entirely with Trump but share common values, have mixed reactions. While they approve of points related to economic growth, military strengthening, and constitutional rights, there is hesitation around the more drastic aspects of the platform. Some are wary of expansive deportation and the perceived encroachments on states' rights and individual freedoms through proposed federal overreach in education and social policies.
Trump Critics Rip the Plan
Progressive and left-leaning groups react with intense opposition and vocal disapproval. They view Trump's platform as regressive, authoritarian, and potentially harmful to civil liberties.
Key points like mass deportations, the potential militarization of domestic policy, and rolling back social and racial equality initiatives provoke significant concern. Critics highlight fears of threat to democracy, climate change inaction, and economic policies favoring the wealthy over the working class.
Staunch opposition manifests in calls to action for voter mobilization and political activism. These critics hope to prevent a return to what they see as the divisive and dangerous policies of Trump’s administration.
In the Middle
Moderate and undecided voters express a mix of skepticism and cautious consideration. Some see potential merits in economic reforms and tax cuts proposed by Trump but remain wary of the broader implications of such an extensive policy overhaul.
Centrists ponder the feasibility of large-scale deportations. They also worry about the impact of education policies banning CRT and radical gender ideologies on societal cohesion and children's learning environments. This group appears pivotal, weighing the potential for policies they like versus the perceived risks of heightened political and social instability.
Independent and swing voters are often critical of both extremes. They scrutinize the platform's promises through a pragmatic lens, assessing their practicality and long-term effects. Issues like energy production and manufacturing resonate positively, but there is concern over the potential for increased authoritarian governance and reduced protections for minority groups.
Trump is showing consistent approval numbers, with approximately a two-point bump after his statement about Project 2025 and releasing his platform’s outline. This support may indicate a moderate sway toward Trump’s over Biden, amid ongoing health concerns. These sways may become more permanent depending on the Democratic ticket as well and continued economic stressors.
Recent viral reporting is alerting Americans about illegal aliens in 49 states being given voter registration forms without requiring proof of citizenship. MIG Reports studied online reactions to the news and Americans are reacting strongly and mostly negatively.
Illegal Immigrants Register to Vote
The discourse on this subject is highly polarized, like most political conversations in America. Conservatives express concern over election integrity and illegals being allowed to register to vote. Liberals dismiss these concerns as politically motivated fearmongering.
Conservative Concerns
Voters on the right believe illegal immigrants voting would dilute legitimate votes. They argue normalizing illegal immigrant votes is a strategy of the left to get unearned votes. If illegal aliens are allowed to vote, most Republicans would view it as blatant election cheating by Democrats and a violation of America’s sovereignty as a country.
Conservatives place emphasis on voting irregularities and election integrity suspicions, particularly in Democratic areas like Fulton County, Georgia. Many conservatives fear rampant election fraud and call for stricter voter ID laws. They see legislative responses like the SAVE Act as necessary to protect democracy.
Liberal Rebuttals
Democrats and liberals claim widespread illegal voting is a myth perpetuated by Republicans. They view these claims as a strategy to justify restrictive voting laws, which they say would affect minority communities.
Social Media and Distrust
There is deep polarization and intense political rivalries on social media. Discussions involve political figures, historical grievances, and legal battles over election interference. Many people make accusations of corruption and election cheating cover-ups, leading to a climate of suspicion.
Broader Patterns
There is rampant distrust towards mainstream media and government officials.
Electoral legitimacy is a hotly contested issue and is especially tied to partisan debates.
The discourse reflects a mix of alarm, distrust, and political maneuvering.
Election Integrity
Many Americans want to focus on securing elections. There are references to alleged fraud and manipulation, especially in the 2020 presidential election. Some mention fraudulent ballots and voter irregularities in states like Michigan and Georgia.
Political Polarization
There is frequent accusatory language between political parties. Republicans blame Democrats for allegedly enabling election fraud. And Democrats say Republicans spread false claims and incite distrust among the electorate.
The two sides debate whether political figures like Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton should face consequences for election-related crimes. There are accusations of bias in law enforcement and legal systems.
Mistrust of Governmental Institutions
There are intense debates over the potential illegitimacy of 2024 election results. Some express concerns about voting machine manipulation, absentee ballots, and mail-in voting. There are calls for a return to manual, paper-based voting methods.
Sentiment Trends
Predominantly Negative and Distrustful
There is widespread skepticism regarding the fairness and transparency of elections. Many voters accuse the opposing Party of voter fraud and corruption. People online use charged and aggressive language reflecting frustrations and fears.
Many Americans also direct at individuals, political parties, and government officials involved in election oversight.
Defensiveness and Dismissal
Democrats tend to make arguments that election fraud claims are unfounded and destabilize democratic processes. They believe in the fundamental soundness of the electoral system and criticize claims of corruption.
Overall, it seems many voters lack confidence in the prospect of a "free and fair" election in 2024. Many people call for significant electoral reforms to restore trust.
Public sentiment on cartel-related issues in the United States is negative. As Americans grapple with the rising impact of cartel activities, including drug and human trafficking and gang activity, there is increasing tension between those advocating for a strong executive approach and those who still value traditional governance with checks and balances.
This analysis explores American sentiments regarding which form of leadership people see as most effective in addressing the perceived threats. Analysis also looks at how language—particularly the contrast between first-person and third-person usage—reflects the depth of personal investment in the problem and the expectation for leadership to deliver solutions.
MIG Reports data shows:
70% of Americans want a strong executive approach
25% want traditional governance to put protections in place
5% are ambivalent or resistant to addressing cartels
Strong Executive Approach
The 70% who want strong executive action express frustration with current government policies. They want strong, unilateral executive action similar to Donald Trump’s policies. These voters view the threats posed by cartels and immigration as immediate and urgent, requiring decisive leadership.
Traditional Governance
The 25% who favor a more traditional approach emphasize the need for bipartisan solutions. They seek full-scale immigration reform rather than over-reliance on executive power. This group would rather see it done procedurally than imminently.
Ambivalent or Resistant Sentiment
The minority who voice skepticism toward both executive overreach and traditional governance was genuine reform without partisan bias.
Issues Shaping Sentiment
Cartel Activities
Drug trafficking, violent crime, and human trafficking—including child trafficking—are recurring themes fueling public concern. The discourse often links cartel activities directly to the border crisis, which intensifies calls for stronger leadership and enforcement.
Fear and Urgency
Many Americans fear the consequences of Biden-Harris immigration policies, particularly rising crimes committed by illegal immigrants and the fentanyl epidemic. These fears drive the call for immediate and decisive executive action.
Perceived Government Failure
Public frustration largely stems from a belief that Biden and Harris prioritize political agendas over public safety and security. The perceived failure of traditional bipartisan methods, as well as policies like "Catch and Release," contribute to the urgency for stronger governance.
Language Analysis
First-Person Language: Problem Focus
When discussing the impact of cartel activities and border security, many Americans use first-person language. This reveals their personal investment in the issue. Statements like “We know this visit is just a political sham” and “I don’t feel safe,” suggest many are directly affected by the rise in crime, drug trafficking, and immigration failures.
The use of first-person language highlights the personal and emotional connection Americans feel regarding immigration. Many perceive cartel activities as a direct threat to their safety, families, and communities.
Urgency and Fear
First-person language amplifies the urgency of the problem, with emotional tones of fear, anger, and frustration dominating discussions. These emotions are particularly linked to alarming statistics such as fentanyl overdoses and crimes attributed to illegal immigrants.
Third-Person Language
Conversely, when Americans discuss solutions, they shift to third-person language, placing the responsibility on political leaders and government officials to act.
Detachment and Delegation
By using third-person language, voters place responsibility on political figures. Statements like “Kamala Harris is responsible for the illegal alien invasion” or “The government needs to step up” illustrate a belief that politicians are the ones who should resolve the crisis, since it’s their job.
Accountability and Criticism
This shift in language is often accompanied by criticism of current leadership. Public disappointment with figures like Kamala Harris and Joe Biden reflects a widespread sense that they have failed to address the border and immigration issues adequately. The use of third-person language to express frustration shows how the public holds these leaders accountable for the ongoing crisis.
Less than 30 days from the election, Democratic voters have mixed emotions about the Harris-Walz ticket. Analysis of social media discussions shows that, while a foundation of confidence exists, there are significant concerns about leadership, policy effectiveness, and party unity.
Democratic voter sentiment contains optimism, skepticism, disenfranchisement, and frustration. Left-leaning media like news interviews and Saturday Night Live have begun to make some criticisms of Harris and Walz, suggesting the media firewall may be cracking with increasing voter pressure.
BREAKING: SNL just went savage on Tim Walz's disastrous VP debate performance.
DOUG EMHOFF: “Tim will be fine. It's not like he's gonna say something crazy.”
Democratic voters express dual sentiments about Kamala Harris and Tim Walz.
Most express confidence in the ticket’s ability to win, driven by key issues like abortion, gun violence, and economic stability.
However, confidence is counterweighted by skepticism and pessimism, rooted in leadership concerns, disenfranchisement, and disconnect from voters.
Themes of unity and frustration emerge as voters struggle over supporting candidates they feel have not addressed their concerns.
Confidence in the Ticket Winning
Many Democrats express confidence in Kamala Harris and Tim Walz, citing their track record on the economy, gun violence, and abortion as reasons for optimism. There is a clear belief that Harris and Walz have the potential to win. Voters talk about mobilization and turnout efforts.
Discussions include commitment to vote and collective determination. This sentiment is buoyed by a narrative of continuity and leadership, as voters want to continue the current trajectory and emphasize Democratic values.
However, much of the optimism is muted as people acknowledge the challenges of maintaining hope for a victory. These discussions reveal a tempered belief in success, where phrases like, “We need a deal maker,” are coupled with critiques of the broader political landscape. These Democrats feel it’s possible to win, but not guaranteed. They recognize the rhetorical limitations of Harris and Walz and sinking popularity.
A growing number of Democrats are expressing doubt or pessimism regarding Harris’s chances. These discussions assert that Harris and Walz are disconnected from the realities of working-class voters and have failed to address critical issues. Phrases like, “How can we win like this?” reflect a sense of disillusionment with leadership. This growing doubt exists in all groups of Democrats from average voters to pundits and political leaders.
Persistent Worries and Disenfranchisement
The most striking trend among Democrats is a sense of disenfranchisement and persistent worry. Many feel let down by party leadership, with comments frequently pointing to Harris-Walz failures in addressing pressing concerns.
People mention things like inflation, immigration, and the response to Hurricane Helene. There is frustration in phrases like, “They left thousands of people to die,” calling out the lack of accountability and responsiveness from Democratic leaders.
There is also concern among some key demographics, particularly minority communities. They feel neglected and lied to, further amplifying feelings of disenfranchisement.
Similar Arguments and Themes
Democrats also criticize Harris and Walz’s leadership, voice concerns about party unity, and a call for a new direction. Voters are frustrated with inaction by Harris and Walz who fail to take meaningful action on the economy, crime, and immigration. Many suggest Harris and Walz have not done enough to earn voter trust.
Party unity also emerges as a key concern, with some calling for a more concerted effort to consolidate Democratic support ahead of the election. While many are frustrated with the leadership, there are also voices urging the party to rally behind Harris and Walz to avoid a fractured base. Phrases like, “We need to strengthen our efforts,” reflect a recognition that internal divisions could hinder the party’s chances of success.
Finally, many want a new direction within the Democratic Party. Voters call for candidates who are more connected to grassroots movements and less beholden to traditional party politics. Comments such as, “Let’s stop voting for the party and start voting for the people,” capture the sentiment that the current leadership is not fully aligned with the needs and values of the Democratic base. This suggests a more authentic, people-centered approach—like that of RFK Jr. and Tulsi Gabbard—may appeal more to moderate Democrats.
Columbia University recently canceled its commencement ceremony in response to ongoing anti-Israel protests on campus. These protests, part of a broader wave of political demonstrations at U.S. colleges, have intensified, leading to significant disruptions and even police intervention. While reactions to the protests generally vary according to political leanings, Columbia’s canceled graduation seems to upset parents across the board.
Many supporters of the protests express concerns about security measures and the involvement of law enforcement. Discussions frequently mention the use of police force during raids at Columbia’s Hamilton Hall, where protesters were staying. Those who advocate for pro-Palestine action tend to condemn what they see as excessive force and police brutality, claiming the protests are peaceful.
The decision to cancel graduation has sparked debate over its impact on graduating students. Many argue the protests have unfairly deprived these students of a pivotal life experience. Protest supporters believe the cancelation underscores the seriousness of the Israel-Hamas conflict. Still others blame university administrators for allowing the protests to impact normal proceedings on campus.
National sentiment towards universities and protests dipped below 40% at the beginning of May, as protests reached fever pitch.
Sentiment seems to be slowly recovering as national attention turns to other events and discussion volume drops.
Approval of President Biden on Israel and Palestine remains in the low 40% range as both right and left leaning voters seem unhappy with his handling of the conflict.
Reactions to Canceling Graduation
Protest supporters are more likely to focus on the reasons behind the cancellation, in their reactions. They point out public health or student safety concerns, and generally support measures that prioritize community welfare.
Pro-Israel and more conservative voters tend to view the cancellation as an overreaction and infringement on important milestones and traditions. They seem to view the decision as a capitulation to protesters by the administration.
Parents of university students, particularly those of graduating seniors, are being significantly impacted by the cancellation. They express disappointment, frustration, and unhappiness at the loss of an important ceremony for graduating students.
Reactions among parents are predominantly negative. Sentiments focus on the emotional and financial ramifications:
Disappointment and frustration: Many parents express disappointment that their children will miss out on the ceremonial acknowledgment of their academic achievements.
Financial concerns: There is frequent mention of financial losses relating to travel and accommodation bookings, as many families prepare for commencement months in advance.
Request for Alternatives: A common request among parents is for the university to consider alternative forms of celebration, such as virtual events or smaller, department-specific ceremonies.
Critique of University Administrators
Many critics of the decision to cancel graduation are also critical of how university administrators have handled the protests in general. They say the administration is overly lenient or biased in favor of what they consider "left-wing" protesters. This sentiment is especially carried over among conservative voters who views their values as under attack by academia.
There is a frequent call for stricter actions against protesters who obstruct the functioning of educational institutions or who promote anti-American or violent rhetoric. Conservatives frequently cite:
University failure to protect Jewish students and curb antisemitic rhetoric.
A belief that administrators allow "political correctness" to stifle truly free speech and normal campus functions.
The notion that universities are becoming safe havens for extremist views under the guise of academic freedom.
Liberal voters are more likely to support the administrators' decisions in handling protests, emphasizing the importance of free speech and peaceful protest. However, this group is not monolithic. Some progressives believe that university leaders are failing to adequately support minority and marginalized groups during protests. They argue administrators are not doing enough to meet the demands of protesters. Progressives often cite:
Administrators not being proactive in defending free speech rights for all groups, especially minorities.
Concerns over the potential suppression of academic freedom under external political pressures.
The balance between maintaining campus order and respecting protesters' rights.
A recent Gallup poll of American approval regarding immigration levels from 1965 through the present determined:
55% of Americans today want immigration reduced
25% want immigration levels to stay the same
16% want an increase in immigration numbers.
MIG Reports analysis of voter conversations online not only confirm polling data but reveal why Americans hold their current perspectives on immigration
Weighted Analysis
MIG Reports analysis weighs total discussion volume and approval percentages of immigration preferences by calculating the influence of each group's preference—decreased, maintained, or increased immigration—across multiple data sets.
By considering both the percentage of preferences within each data set and the total discussion volume of each set, the analysis determined the overall weighted preference.
MIG Reports analysis shows:
56.50% of voters nationally favor decreased immigration
26.22% favor maintaining current levels
17.29% favor increased immigration
Additionally, in swing states, around 70% of conversations favor reducing immigration.
In national conversations about the presidential election, 60% favor reducing immigration.
Why a Majority Wants Reduced Immigration
The predominant preference in voters discussions favors decreased immigration. This is driven by a variety of concerns revolving around national security, economic stability, and public safety.
Many Americans voice deep apprehension about illegal immigration as a major threat to the country’s security and economic well-being. Voters talk about reducing or stopping illegal immigration because they believe:
Illegal immigrants contribute to rising crime rates: Discussions mention gang activity and violent crimes linked to immigrant groups, particularly in urban areas.
An open order exacerbates economic challenges: People discuss job scarcity and inflation, arguing the influx of illegal migrants strains public resources like social services, healthcare, and housing.
There is widespread frustration and distrust toward Biden-Harris immigration policies, which voters view as too lenient. People direct their anger toward Democrats who they believe have failed to secure the border. Discussions emphasize a sense of urgency and alarm, with many advocating for stricter controls and even mass deportation policies.
Reasons for Maintaining Immigration Levels
Around 25% of voters in MIG Reports data advocate for maintaining current levels of immigration. They emphasize the need for a balanced and structured approach to the border. These voters typically argue that, while reforms may be necessary, a drastic reduction in immigration is not the solution.
Immigration advocates point out the importance of legal immigration pathways, highlighting the contributions of immigrants to the economy and society. They focus on the value of diversity and the critical role immigrant workers play in the economy. Here, they mention industries that rely heavily on labor from immigrant populations.
There is also a strong humanitarian element in these discussions. Voters want asylum seekers to have human rights protections. They argue a well-regulated immigration system can benefit the country by bringing in individuals who contribute positively to communities and the economy. Sentiments in this group are generally more optimistic and focused on the potential for policy reforms that balance security concerns with the need for inclusivity and economic growth.
A Minority Want Increased Immigration
The smallest segment of Americans supports increasing immigration levels. This view is driven primarily by humanitarian concerns and the belief in the positive impact of diversity. Often progressives and libertarians, this group focuses on America's moral and ethical responsibility to provide refuge to those fleeing persecution and violence.
Increased immigration proponents say the United States, as a nation built on immigration, has a duty to welcome those seeking better lives and to support their integration into society. They also emphasize the economic benefits of immigration, particularly the need for a growing workforce to sustain economic growth and address labor shortages in certain industries.
Advocates point out immigrants bring a wealth of skills, perspectives, and cultural richness which contributes to the vitality of the nation. Discussions include calls for comprehensive immigration reform that expands opportunities for legal immigration and strengthens support systems for newcomers. The tone in this group is often one of compassion and a belief in the long-term benefits of a more open and inclusive immigration policy.
Americans are talking about young men leaving the Democratic Party, highlighting a significant potential shift in political alignment. The exodus is driven by personal experiences, economic concerns, and identity issues.
Many young, Gen Z American men, particularly from working-class or middle-class backgrounds, feel the strain of economic challenges. They worry about housing affordability, rising living costs, and tax policies they perceive as harmful to their financial stability.
Carville: Young Men Are Leaving The Democratic Party In Droves, Numbers Are "Horrfiying" https://t.co/1FJBvyPJ1v
MIG Reports analysis shows this demographic likely includes primarily white or non-minority men aged 18-35. This group perceives the Democratic Party as increasingly out of touch with their needs, especially concerning traditional masculine and economic policies.
Data shows around 25% of young Democratic men discussing their political stance online appear to be abandoning the Party. They discuss actively seeking alternatives, with a large proportion aligning with more conservative or libertarian ideologies.
Disillusionment and Lack of Representation
Many young men feel the Democratic Party no longer represents their interests, particularly concerning issues like traditional masculinity, economic policies, and governance. They express frustration and a sense of marginalization, feeling the Party's focus on legalistic frameworks and social issues does not align with their personal experiences.
This sentiment of alienation prompts words like "discrimination," "masculinity," "disillusionment," "failed policies," and "representation," in discussions. These men sense that Democratic leaders are increasingly distant from the Party’s original, working-class roots. They say liberals are now more focused on identity politics and equity rather than actionable policies.
Economic Concerns and Housing
Many young men believe Democratic policies have failed to address their economic struggles. This leads them to explore Republican policies which they believe offer better economic stability and solutions to housing affordability. They perceive that Democratic elites are “out of touch," expressing doubt that Party leaders understand or prioritize the struggles of the middle class.
The critique of tax policies, particularly concerning Harris’s proposal for unrealized capital gains taxes proposed, angers homeowners and men who view themselves as breadwinners. MIG Reports data shows 60% of discussions include stories of personal economic challenges directly linked to housing policies. Nearly 30% of this cohort express a drastic shift toward Republican support.
Shift Toward Conservative Alternatives
Young Democratic men are showing noticeable shift toward Republican figures—particularly Donald Trump. They view him as embodying a strong, masculine leadership style that resonates with this demographic. This view particularly spread following Trump’s attempted assassination and his action during and after the event.
Libertarian views emphasizing smaller government and economic independence are also gaining traction within this voter group. Phrases like "Trump represents economic stability," and "we need Trump back" are frequently mentioned.
There is a growing belief that Trump's leadership would better address men’s economic struggles than Kamala Harris’s. In addition to nearly 30% indicating a shift toward Republicans, another 10% express movement toward alternative or libertarian candidates.
Polarization and Urgency
Sentiment trends suggest young men feel an urgent need to switch allegiances to protect what they view as fundamental freedoms and to counter a perceived leftist agenda. This urgency is felt in urging peers to reconsider their political alignment based on shared experiences and cohort frustrations. Discussions frequently evoke a sense of nostalgia for previous leadership they felt better addressed their concerns, with phrases like "need a strong leader" or "better alternatives."
Nostalgia and Ideological Realignment
There is a sense of nostalgia and a yearning for political dynamics that resonate more closely with traditional values. This ideological realignment is driven by personal convictions and a desire to reclaim what they perceive as lost ideals, particularly in the realms of economic policy and national identity.
Young men say things like, "I am ready to fight tooth and nail for my future," revealing a deep personal investment in the outcomes of political decisions. This suggests many are not simply changing parties but are also motivated by a passionate desire to reclaim what they view as lost ideals.
The trend of job report numbers consistently being revised down is revealing a worse job market to Americans who are unhappy. Many feel deceived by the initial reports indicating a more robust job market, only for them to be corrected later to reveal a less optimistic reality—which more closely aligns with many workers’ experiences.
There is a growing sense of distrust and frustration towards the agencies and media sources reporting current job figures. People feel misled and uncertain about the true state of the job market, which complicates personal and financial planning.
JUST IN: The unemployment rate has ticked up to 4.1%, going over 4% for the first time since November 2021.
- 74% of jobs added last month came from government and healthcare education.
One viral topic around jobs includes news that most of the new job creations were government and education jobs. For many Americans, this has multiple implications on their perception of economic health and labor market dynamics.
In general, reactions are negative. Many interpret this as a sign of an economy relying too much on government intervention rather than private sector growth. They say it’s indicative of a stagnant private sector that is being choked by inflation and regulation.
Government employment is typically considered more stable, implying a potential increase in job security for those lucky enough to secure these roles. However, an economy heavily tilted towards government employment makes many workers feel that unnecessary jobs are being artificially created instead of driven by private sector growth.
Some also claim these government jobs are created specifically to pad job numbers.
This is how the Biden Department of Labor is fudging the data now: all job openings are government. pic.twitter.com/udxQSeKj0f
Many people are doubtful about the sustainability and impact of government job creation. They say an increase in government jobs does not create a healthy, flourishing economy. They also point out the rising unemployment rates among certain demographic groups, questioning the effectiveness of the administration's policies.
Arguments Over “Black Jobs”
A particularly contentious point of conversation is around employment for black Americans. During the first presidential debate, Donald Trump used the term to underscore issues like job displacement due to illegal immigration or underemployment in black communities.
On social media, this controversy led to heated debates over terms like "black jobs" and "black unemployment," illustrating the divide in how different groups interpret and discuss labor market outcomes. Democrats and progressives took the opportunity to criticize Trump for differentiating “black jobs” in their own category.
Republicans mostly reacted by highlighting the rise in black unemployment rates over the past year, despite reported overall job growth. They allege the gains in government jobs are not translating into meaningful employment opportunities for black workers.
Voters on the right argue Trump’s main point was to highlight unemployment specifically within the black community. They assert discussing "black jobs" is merely a way to highlight employment opportunities and challenges faced by black Americans, akin to other demographic-specific economic indicators.
Preferences for the Trump Economy
Trump supporters of all racial and ethnic backgrounds express a strong belief that the job market was at its peak during Trump’s administration. They especially point to black unemployment rates. They cite figures showing black unemployment hit a record low of 5.3% in 2019 under Trump. These supporters often frame their arguments around the belief that illegal immigration is undercutting job opportunities for black Americans.
They maintain that Trump’s administration ushered in significant gains for minority employment, despite sharp rises in unemployment during COVID. To conservatives, Biden’s tenure has not continued these successes. They say economic recovery, especially for black Americans, has been dismal.
Conversely, Biden supporters and liberals accuse Trump and his constituents of using racially charged rhetoric to pit black Americans against immigrants. They point to the record lows in black unemployment achieved under Biden administration in 2023 as evidence that Biden is improving the job market for black Americans.
Democrats highlight investments in infrastructure and historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs) as part of a broader strategy that includes focusing on economic development and community welfare. Many liberal voices decry the term “black jobs” as racially insensitive and misleading. They emphasize that job creation and employment statistics should not be segregated by race.
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.
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)