Recent discussions about trust in the voting system are stirring American fears—particularly around illegal immigrants voting. This issue sparks concerns over election integrity, immigration policy, and national identity. Discussions about the potential for various kinds of election interference permeate mainstream political discourse and online debates. Most American voters express anxiety about what they see as a potential erosion of democracy.
Why Do People Fear Illegal Immigrant Voting?
Since 2020, fears of election interference and cheating have weighed on voters across the political spectrum. Many believe lax border policies and a lack of stringent voter ID laws could allow non-citizens to vote. This, they believe, would undermine the legitimacy of election outcomes.
The perception is heightened by claims that allowing illegal immigrants to vote certainly skew the results in favor of candidates lenient on immigration policy—often, but not exclusively, Democrats. Many on the right also assert this is an intentional but unspoken strategy by Democrats to gain votes.
The passionate tone of conversations is palpable. Many voters see illegal immigrants voting as not just a policy issue, but a direct threat to the integrity of the voting process. Words like "betrayal," "treasonous," and "national security" frequently surface in these exchanges, illustrating the intensity of public sentiment.
The Fear is Growing
MIG Reports analysis of online conversations shows:
Nationally
52% of express a belief that illegal immigrants will vote.
75%, regardless of whether they believe illegal immigrants will vote, express concern about the issue.
59% vocally disapprove of the idea of illegal immigrants voting.
16% express approval or are neutral about the issue of illegals voting.
Swing states
Belief in the threat of illegal immigrants voting:
45% believe illegal immigrants will vote in the election.
31% dismiss the idea as a false narrative or conspiracy theory.
24% are neutral or unsure.
Sentiment about illegal immigrant voting:
51% disapprove of the idea of illegal immigrants voting in the election.
21% express approval or support for allowing illegal immigrants to vote.
28% of comments are neutral or unsure.
Though a majority nationally disapprove and express concern, swing state voters are more divided. Voters in critical states still express concern more often than indifference or support, but not as strongly as in national samples.
Reasons Voters Are Concerned
Voter fears are driven by election integrity, national sovereignty, and the perceived manipulation of democratic processes. Many fear allowing illegal immigrants to vote is unfair and threatens national interests. They say giving undue voting rights to groups who often do not pay taxes and are not part of the national social contract, weakens the voice of citizens. They say it erodes the sanctity of the voting process.
Many Americans are also express broader frustrations about immigration policy. They consider unchecked migration as a larger threat to national identity, the economy, and safety as well as election integrity.
Progressives and Democrats are more likely to be proponents of allowing illegal immigrants to vote. This minority argues migrants contribute to the U.S. economy and deserve representation in the democratic process. They claim the number of illegal immigrants voting is minuscule, dismissing fears of meaningful impact on the election.
The SAVE Act
Central to the debate is the SAVE Act, a bill proposed to tighten voter eligibility rules and ensure that only U.S. citizens can cast ballots in federal elections. The legislation would require states to verify the citizenship of voters and impose stricter penalties for voter fraud.
Supporters of the SAVE Act argue the bill is a necessary safeguard to prevent illegal immigrants from voting and protect election integrity. Many of those concerned about illegal voting cite the SAVE Act as the only effective way to address this perceived vulnerability in the system. For them, this legislation represents a proactive solution to what they see as a looming threat to democratic legitimacy.
Critics, however, argue the SAVE Act is a thinly veiled attempt to suppress minority votes, saying it would make it more difficult for naturalized citizens and lower-income communities to vote. They claim widespread voter fraud, including voting by illegal immigrants, is largely a myth and only happens “rarely.”
How Could This Impact the 2024 Election?
If illegal immigrants are allowed to vote, or if perceptions persist that they are voting illegally, the impact on the 2024 election could be profound. Based on current voter sentiment, likely outcomes include:
Erosion of Trust
Beliefs that illegal immigrants are voting—especially if proven true—deepen distrust in election results. Already, more than half of voters are concerned about this issue, and these concerns could further polarize the electorate. Lingering disagreements about the 2020 election and various voter fraud allegations will likely heighten the emotional response if voters believe illegal immigrants are voting in great numbers.
Boost to the SAVE Act and Similar Legislation
If concerns about illegal immigrant voting persist, we may see a surge in support for the SAVE Act or similar bills aimed at requiring voter ID and other integrity measures. Politicians who align themselves with this movement could gain momentum, particularly in conservative-leaning districts.
Political Ramifications
Should illegal immigrants vote in noticeable numbers—whether allowed by legal loopholes or through fraud—most believe the results would favor the Harris-Walz ticket. Any suspicion or evidence of illegal voting could lead to a backlash, causing continued disagreements about election results.
Legal Challenges and Protests
An uptick in allegations of illegal voting could result in a wave of legal challenges, further delaying election results and heightening tensions. Protests from both sides of the issue could erupt, making the post-election environment volatile and unpredictable.
Memorial Day is dedicated to honoring and remembering military personnel who have died in service to the United States. The day is marked by various activities including parades, ceremonies, and moments of silence. MIG Reports analysis shows public sentiment and discussion around Memorial Day can vary significantly across different ideological backgrounds.
General Sentiment
Most Americans respect and honor Memorial Day as a solemn and significant day. However, many discussions emphasize different aspects of the holiday. The sentiment attached to these discussions can differ markedly between conservative and liberal or progressive circles.
Conservative Perspectives
Conservatives emphasize the themes of patriotism, sacrifice, and national pride. They use Memorial Day as an opportunity to celebrate the military and express gratitude for the freedoms secured by fallen soldiers.
Discussions in conservative circles focus on attending parades, visiting memorials, and participating in ceremonies. There is often a strong sense of community and collective honor in these activities.
The sentiment in conservative circles is predominantly positive but can also be solemn and reflective. There is a strong emotional attachment to the military and a high level of respect for those who have served and sacrificed.
Liberal Perspectives
Liberals often use Memorial Day as a time to reflect on the consequences of war and the importance of peace. They emphasize the human cost of conflict and the need for diplomatic solutions to global issues.
Discussions tend to focus on the experiences of minority groups in the military, how we treat veterans, and issues like mental health and homelessness among former service members.
The sentiment in liberal and progressive circles can be mixed. While there is respect and honor for fallen soldiers, there is also critical reflection on the reasons for war and the treatment of veterans. Emotions can range from solemn to critical, with an underlying call for systemic change.
Partisan Differences on Social Media
Platforms and forums conservatives congregate often feature highly patriotic posts and discussions supporting the military. Users share stories of bravery and sacrifice, often accompanied by American flags and other national symbols.
Liberal social media discussions tend to include tributes to soldiers but are also likely to feature critiques of military interventions and discussions on how to better support living veterans. There are calls for policy changes and discussions on the broader implications of military actions.
Despite ideological differences, both conservative and liberal discussions share a common thread of honoring those who serve the country. However, the context and additional themes discussed can differ widely.
The recent inflation report and Consumer Price Index (CPI) report show a significant increase in prices. The inflation rate has soared, signaling a heightened cost of living for Americans. The CPI report, a measure that examines the weighted average of prices of a basket of consumer goods and services, such as transportation, food, and medical care, has seen a corresponding spike.
Sentiment among Americans towards these economic indicators is largely negative. This is not only rooted in the immediate impact of higher prices but also in a broader concern about the state of the economy. Confidence in the market is shaky, and this uncertainty seems to decrease public trust towards the Biden administration.
Along demographic lines, political affiliation plays a significant role in shaping sentiments. Democrats are more likely to view the situation as temporary or a result of global economic conditions. Republicans are more inclined to blame the current administration for the economic situation.
Race also plays a role in voter perceptions. Minority communities, particularly African Americans and Hispanics who are more likely to be in the lower economic strata, are feeling the brunt of the inflation more and struggling to get jobs. Their sentiment towards the current economic situation and trust in the government can be described as highly skeptical and frustrated.
The middle and lower classes are the most impacted by rising inflation. These groups are expressing a higher degree of dissatisfaction and are more likely to hold a negative perception of the market and the current administration.
Geographically, there is a negative outlook – but for varying reasons. In urban areas, where public transportation is more accessible, the impact of gas prices may be less felt than in suburban and rural areas where people rely heavily on personal vehicles. However, price increases on food and general cost of living have increased concerns about inflation for most Americans. The reasons for negative sentiment and a lack of confidence in the government vary among voter groups but are similar in terms of volume.
Increasing prices, such as the surge in the national gas prices from $3.61 for regular, $4.39 for premium, and $4.05 for diesel since February 19, has also sparked concerns and discontent. These price jumps are impacting American households and businesses, particularly those in lower economic classes and in regions where commuting is essential.
Other timely economic indicators seem to mirror distrust and general dissatisfaction. Following the inflation and CPI reports being released, the Dow Jones Industrial Average dropped 300 points. Several news outlets are covering the issue despite a history of complying with President Biden’s request to cover economic news with more positively.
Recent reporting revealed quiet steps the Biden administration has taken regarding asylum cases, angering voters. The executive order partially suspends asylum requests at the U.S.-Mexico border when unauthorized crossings exceed 2,500 foreigners a day (912,000 a year). However, the suspension excludes two key immigration classes:
Credible Fear applicants (an immigration process which leads to asylum)
Executive guidance for handling Credible Fear applicants suggests it will likely result in a loophole that still allows asylum, even beyond the daily crossings cap. In the minds of many Americans, the effectively creates mass amnesty without regard to voters desires to close the border.
Furthermore, since 2022, more than 350,000 asylum cases were closed by the U.S. government for those who don’t have a criminal record or are otherwise not deemed a threat to the country. A Venezuelan illegal alien who shot two NYPD officers was among the 350,000 to have his case closed, causing objections to what are deemed as threats to the country.
MIG Reports analysis of voter reactions shows a continuing distrust in current border policies and the Biden administration.
Immigration Issues
There are recurring discussions about the border wall initiated under former President Trump's administration. Many who view the border as a crisis would like to see it completed. However, discussions about the border wall indicate a consensus that a physical barrier is not the full solution to border control issues. Most believe we need a more sophisticated approach to managing the U.S. border.
Some voters express disapproval of the Republican Party's stance on the border crisis. They accuse the GOP of voicing their grievances but not acting decisively when given the opportunity to pass a bill. The frustration and dissatisfaction seems to come from both sides.
There are disparate views on the effectiveness of Trump's border policies and the border wall. Some argue Trump was successful in reducing illegal crossings and accuse Democrats of hindering border control efforts. The sentiment here is defensive and leans towards praise for Trump's efforts.
In general, both political parties blame the other side for issues at the border.
Border Security
Online conversations show overwhelming negativity towards the open borders policy, rampant illegal immigration, and the resulting consequences under the Biden administration. There is a high volume of posts calling for stricter immigration regulations, deportations, and blaming illegal immigrants for crime. Negative sentiment towards Biden is particularly strong, with allegations of dishonesty and perceived political maneuvering.
A minority of voters challenge the idea that current policies promote open borders, accusing critics of lying or of manufacturing political controversies. Usually Democrats, this group tends to question the integrity of politicians or citizens making open borders claims.
Despite Republicans hoping to keep the spotlight on Biden’s vulnerabilities and panic among Democrats, there is still significant interest in Trump’s choice for a running mate. Current discussions about Donald Trump's potential VP picks are heating up as people anticipate his impending announcement. MIG Reports data suggest top choices in terms of voter support volume and approval sentiment include Ben Carson, J.D. Vance, Marco Rubio, and Byron Donalds.
Within MAGA, there is a strong sentiment against anyone viewed as a RINO (Republican in Name Only). Figures like Doug Burgum and Marco Rubio have come under scrutiny for their insufficient alignment with the MAGA agenda.
Conversely, loyalty to Trump and America First is a crucial criterion for many supporters. Names like J.D. Vance and Ben Carson are frequently mentioned as preferable picks. Vance has garnered support for his commitment to America First and his potential appeal to younger and Rust Belt voters. Similarly, Ben Carson receives praise for his loyalty and personal integrity. However, there are concerns about his age and political charisma.
MIG Reports data shows Ben Carson leading in both voter support at around 15% and approval sentiment staying above 50% in the last week.
J.D. Vance is both generating buzz and garnering support with a 13% second position and 48% approval.
Rubio and Donalds both have lesser support, both around 7% and approval around 48% and 52% respectively.
Speculation About Trump’s Strategy
MAGA and GOP voters are speculating about possible strategies Trump make take to choose his running mate. One prevalent theme is his inclination to choose a Vice President who can expand his voter base by adding a fresh and dynamic appeal. With this strategy J.D. Vance frequently emerges as a favored candidate.
Despite some vocal opposition within the conservative sphere over Vance's past criticisms of Trump, his staunch support in recent years has earned him significant backing. Proponents argue that Vance's youth and vigor could help extend Trump's influence.
Some highlight the potential of picking someone with a strong appeal to minority groups and independents. Candidates like Byron Donalds and Doug Burgum are cited for their potential to attract these voter demographics. Donalds, with his compelling life story and intellect, could resonate with educated minorities and counter the Democratic narratives. Meanwhile, Burgum's less controversial, steady leadership style and his appeal to women and independents due to his moderate positions in certain areas are considered valuable.
Lastly, MAGA voters stress the necessity for a VP who aligns closely with Trump’s vision and can enhance his governance without overshadowing him. Loyalty is paramount, for those hoping for someone who won’t divert from Trump’s established agenda. They want a harmonious and effective administration, as many MAGA voters have adopted criticisms of Trump’s former VP Mike Pence.
While ideological alignment and loyalty are paramount, strategic considerations are also at play. For example, the potential disadvantage of removing Vance from the Senate, where every vote is critical, is a point of concern. There are also mixed feelings about selecting a current governor or senator who might face political complications or risks in their home states, which could impact the broader Republican strategy. Several people also mention those they view as out of the running like Ron DeSantis, Nikki Haley and Kristi Noem.
J.D. Vance
JD Vance brings a fresh perspective to the political scene, particularly appealing to younger voters. His non-traditional background and vocal stance against establishment norms mirror Trump’s outsider appeal.
Vance's life story, including his rise from a challenging upbringing to a successful career, resonates with voters who admire resilience and the American Dream narrative. Nonetheless, his past criticisms of Trump and the controversy over his rapid turnaround might alienate some of Trump's hardcore base.
His stance on controversial issues like abortion may polarize the electorate further, potentially undermining his candidacy. However, Vance’s appeal to the Rust Belt may be an asset, as this could help shore up crucial electoral support in that region.
Marco Rubio
Marco Rubio comes with significant political experience and a robust foreign policy background. His Cuban heritage and strong stance against Beijing make him an appealing candidate for voters concerned with global issues and Hispanic voter outreach.
Rubio's presidential run in 2016 elevated his profile, making him a recognizable and seasoned choice. Despite these strengths, his earlier clashes with Trump during the 2016 primaries might still linger in the minds of some Trump loyalists. His career political background might not excite the anti-establishment wing of Trump's base, who dislike swamp figures.
Some hope Rubio’s comparatively moderate image may draw in independents and suburban voters. However, many MAGA voters recall his affiliation with establishment politics, labeling him a RINO. Discussions frequently center on his neo-conservative stances, past failures to strongly back Trump during critical moments, and his immigration stance.
Ben Carson
Ben Carson has a significant base due to his unwavering loyalty to Trump and his moral compass, which resonates with many conservative voters. His background as a neurosurgeon and his calm, thoughtful demeanor make him a credible choice for those seeking stability and ethics in leadership.
However, Carson’s relatively low political profile and lack of forceful public presence have some critics labeling him as a "yes man." This diminishes his appeal among voters who want a more dynamic and assertive figure to energize the ticket. He generally appeals to voters who value integrity and decency.
Byron Donalds
Byron Donalds brings a strong narrative to the table, particularly his life story which could resonate with minority voters. His articulate opposition to Democratic policies makes him a favorite among conservatives looking for younger and more diverse leadership within the GOP.
Donalds' appeal lies in his potential to bridge gaps and bring new demographics into the fold, particularly educated minorities who feel disillusioned by current Democratic leadership. However, his relatively recent emergence on the national stage may work against him, as some question if he has the experience necessary.
Byron Donalds, while relatively less talked about in mainstream narratives, has a strong following among hardcore Trump supporters. His credentials as a staunch conservative and his energetic presence resonate with voters who want a VP who can actively fight for Trump’s policies.
American feelings toward the government show emerging fears tied to historical, socioeconomic, and political disillusionment. People are highly frustration with a government they view as disconnected from their needs. They say leaders are more aligned with political correctness or international obligations than with the people’s needs.
Frustrations are particularly evident in discussions about immigration, crime, inflation, and inadequate government responses to crises like Hurricane Helene. Many citizens feel their safety and local economic stability are ignored, further eroding trust in governance.
Everybody Is Feeling It
Voters are overwhelmingly concerned about government overreach and a lack of accountability. They mention things like "totalitarian control" and "censorship,” demonstrating anxieties about the potential erosion of civil liberties.
This sentiment is not limited to any one group but spreads across diverse demographics, from rural voters concerned about systemic failures to younger, urban voters focused on social issues like climate change and police reform. Both groups share a common feeling of being abandoned by political leaders, although their concerns often manifest in different areas of policy.
Generational Divides
Voters under 35 tend to be more complacent or negative about the country’s founding principles. They are skeptical of traditional governance structures.
Older generations strongly support the U.S. Constitution and view the founding of the country in a more positive light.
There’s frustration in minority and working-class communities, where voters view economic instability and cultural tensions as exacerbated by poor leadership.
While many express distrust toward the government, a majority still hold favorable views of foundational documents like the U.S. Constitution. This juxtaposes reverence for the country’s ideals and disillusionment with current leaders.
Despite calls for reforms, 60% of Americans oppose redesigning or discarding the Constitution. Voters want to maintain the nation's institutional framework while seeking accountability from elected officials.
Finding a Means to an End
The most vocal groups are rallying around populist figures who promise to dismantle existing political systems like Trump, RFK Jr., and Tulsi Gabbard, and Elon Musk. These figures tap into fears of government corruption and inefficiency, leading citizens to embrace more radical solutions.
Voters want transparency, enhanced community engagement, and bipartisan efforts to address economic and social issues. Restoring trust likely requires major overhauls to address the root causes of disillusionment and overhaul entrenched establishments. Americans want solutions to economic struggles and cultural fracturing, and they want their voices to be heard in policy discussions.
Online discourse from Democratic and left-leaning voters about Harris shows a deepening sense of disillusionment. There was cautious optimism when Harris entered the race, which gradually transformed into frustration and despair. Now, many Democrats are wondering whether Harris can manage a win.
The Joy Is Gone
The primary sentiment among Democrats is frustration. Over time, more voters are voicing dissatisfaction with Harris’s inability to articulate plans for major issues like economic policy, immigration, and healthcare.
Phrases like “she’s done nothing” and “flip-flop Harris” exemplify a sense of betrayal. Many feel promises made during the current administration have gone unfulfilled, leading to a breakdown of trust.
This frustration is often compounded by a sense of nostalgia, with some voters looking back on Biden and even Trump’s leadership. Many want a leader who shows decisiveness and strength. Many voters feel let down by Harris’s lack of assertive leadership.
Both MIG Reports data and betting markets show a decline in voter confidence toward Harris since she entered the race.
MIG Reports data shows Trump gaining 53% support nationally to Harris’s 44%, increasing the gap in the last week.
On Polymarket, Trumps has the advantages at greater than 60% odds compared to Harris with less than 40%.
Personal Stakes in Language
Voters who express personal disappointment often use first-person pronouns such as “I” and “we,” emphasizing their emotional investment in the election and its outcome.
Comments like “I feel betrayed” or “I trusted her” showcase the personal stakes causing some to turn on Harris.
Third-person language reflects a more detached, analytical critique. Phrases like “Harris is failing us” or “her policies are destroying the economy” indicate a shift towards more generalized criticisms.
Faking The Funk
Demographic patterns in the discourse reveal a generational and identity-based divide. Younger critics are particularly vocal against Harris, using humor and sarcasm to voice their frustrations. They say her failure to engage with progressive issues such as climate change and economic justice are unsupportable.
Minority voters, especially black Americans, express dissatisfaction over what they see as unfulfilled promises aimed at their communities. They say identity politics, which once energized Harris’s base, now feels like a hollow strategy, disconnected from meaningful action.
Most moderate or conservative Democrats, particularly religious individuals, express disappointment with Harris’s stance on issues like transgender inclusion and Israel.
Sarcasm and humor frequently appear as coping mechanisms, helping voters express their disappointment. Terms like “pandering” and rhetorical questions such as “why should anyone trust her?” show skepticism toward Harris’s authenticity and ability to lead. Some even invoke moral and religious language, suggesting their critiques extend beyond policy failures to a broader sense of moral disappointment.
Online discourse regarding Kamala Harris's campaign strategy shows her messaging has generated conflicting responses from Democrats and overall voters. There's enthusiasm driven by her focus on healthcare and abortion as well as skepticism of her ties to the political establishment. Voter dialogue about her campaign tactics offers insights into the likelihood of strong voter turnout.
Democratic and Left-Leaning Voters
Increased Enthusiasm and Desire to Vote
Younger progressives and left-leaning voters who resonate with Harris's focus on progressive issues like climate change and abortion show notable enthusiasm. This group, particularly active on social media, expresses a strong commitment to voting, with many driven by the urgency of countering conservative policies.
However, this enthusiasm is tempered by frustrations with a lack of substantial progress during Harris’s tenure as vice president. Some voters, particularly those who feel the Biden-Harris administration has been too complacent, express disillusionment.
A duality between excitement and frustration suggests that while Harris may energize younger and more progressive voter groups, there is also a significant portion who feel less motivated to support her campaign.
Cultural Force vs. Establishment Sentiment
Harris’s candidacy presents a cultural narrative that elicits admiration and skepticism. Her identity as a woman of color in a prominent political position is a source of pride for many progressives. These supporters view her as a trailblazer, embodying diversity and progress in American politics.
However, criticisms from within her own base label her as a product of the political establishment. These voters say her candidacy was an edict by elite political figures who wanted to push Joe Biden out, rather than a grassroots movement. This raises doubts about her authenticity and her ability to bring about real change.
General Electorate and Swing State Voters
Increased Enthusiasm and Desire to Vote
In the broader electorate, Harris’s campaign generates both enthusiasm and skepticism. Supporters, particularly those who resonate with her healthcare policies, such as “Medicare at Home,” express strong support. These voters, often from swing states, feel personal investment in progressive policies, driving their desire to vote.
However, many remain skeptical, particularly moderates and conservatives who criticize her policies and question her leadership. This polarization damages unity around her candidacy, even withing the base. Enthusiasm is largely concentrated among her core progressive supporters.
Cultural Forces and Establishment Sentiment
Harris’s position as a cultural icon, particularly among minority communities, continues to shape dialogue around her campaign. Supporters view her candidacy as a significant step forward in representation, linking her identity as a black woman to broader narratives of progress and equity.
Her identity narrative is undermined by critiques about position her as an establishment figure. Detractors argue that her rise to power is the result of a political coup, rather than her merit as a candidate. This contradiction of identity versus establishment skepticism is a central theme of her campaign.
The Harris campaign is fractured, driven by a mix of progressive enthusiasm and critiques of establishment politics.
The Israel, Iran, Ukraine, and Russia conflicts are wearing on the American people. There is now a shift in landscape of voter sentiment regarding these foreign issues. Even those who consistently support U.S. involvement in international conflicts are now expressing frustration our government prioritizing foreign aid over domestic needs.
While a minority still advocates for aggressive military responses, particularly in defense of Israel and as a deterrent to Iran, the emerging consensus is that America’s resources should be used on domestic priorities like inflation, disaster recovery, and the welfare of citizens.
42% of voters support military action
40% oppose foreign aid
18% criticize ongoing foreign conflict
Financial Burden
A recurring theme in voter discussions is dissatisfaction with the billions of dollars streaming into foreign countries like Ukraine. Americans view this as a prime example of how U.S. leadership, particularly the Biden administration, prioritizes other countries over Americans.
Some compare $24 billion allocated to Ukraine with the pitiful financial relief provided to Hurricane Helene victims at home, voicing frustration. Citizens decry high inflation, gas prices, and insufficient FEMA aid, questioning the rationale for continued military support abroad.
Economic concerns fuel much of the opposition to foreign aid and military engagement. People see a disconnect between the billions sent abroad and the financial hardships Americans face. Voters want U.S. military and financial resources to be used for domestic issues like inflation, unemployment, and disaster relief.
Americans say funding conflicts in Ukraine, Israel, or elsewhere is a betrayal of American taxpayers. The phrase “America First” resonates strongly in these discussions, emphasizing a desire for the government to refocus its priorities on the welfare of its own citizens.
Not My Monkeys, Not My Circus
Public sentiment around Israel also reveals deep divides. While there is still significant support for Israel's right to defend itself against threats from Iranian proxies like Hezbollah and Hamas, this pro-military stance is shrinking.
Many advocates view Israel’s aggressive military tactics as necessary self-defense, especially in the face of recent missile strikes from Iran. However, the conversation now criticizes U.S. military aid to Israel, calling out the humanitarian crises in Gaza and Lebanon, and questioning whether these actions truly align with American interests.
Views or Iran are similarly divided. Some say a growing military presence and missile strikes against Israel is justification for a more aggressive U.S. response. Others call for diplomacy and caution.
Pro-military action views say the Biden administration’s softer approach emboldens Iran, escalating tensions. They say the Trump administration’s stringent sanctions would have prevented these dangers.
However, many are voicing opposition to further involvement in the Middle East. People perceive U.S. involvement as expensive with little benefit to the average American.
America FIRST
Overall, Americans indicate desire for a shift towards prioritizing domestic economic stability over foreign engagements. The pro-war perspective, once dominant, is now being overshadowed by calls for the U.S. to address its own challenges before intervening overseas.
This sentiment reflects a growing awareness that America’s long-term stability may be in jeopardy. Voters want to do everything possible to secure their own futures before extending support abroad.
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
_Americans_(2).png)
_Americans_(1).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)