Rising rental prices have become a festering pain point for Americans. Across social media, people share their frustrations, fears, and hopes, grappling with a growing housing affordability crisis. MIG Reports analysis shows Americans feeling stuck and demoralized.

“jarvis… simulate home prices after we deport 70 million illegal immigrants.” https://t.co/YfSiRB5XIZ pic.twitter.com/z6kqmxifHc

— Logan Hall (@loganclarkhall) December 2, 2024

Homes are Unaffordable

Housing discussions revolve around the feeling that rent and homeownership are becoming unattainable. Rent increases far outpace wage growth, leaving Americans questioning their ability to remain financially secure.

Younger generations acutely feel despair, describing homeownership as an impossible dream. They often express resentment toward older generations, blaming them for policies and practices that created today’s crisis.

Older Americans reflect on the comparative ease of securing housing decades ago, creating a divide in how different age groups perceive the root causes of the issue.

Policy Failures

Most voters criticize lawmakers and government bodies for failing to adequately address the housing crisis. They say elected officials prioritize corporate landlords and developers over average renters.

Renters increasingly call for regulation to curb exploitative practices in the rental market like unchecked rent hikes and predatory lease agreements. However, more conservative voters are also skeptical about traditional government interventions.

Some argue rent control measures and similar policies don’t address the complexity of housing markets. They would prefer holistic solutions like investment in affordable housing developments and community-driven initiatives.

Emotional Economic Toll

The psychological effects of unaffordable housing are a recurring theme. Stress, anxiety, and feelings of instability dominate the emotional landscape, with many people linking their mental health struggles directly to their inability to secure affordable rent.

For individuals and families, the looming threat of eviction or displacement exacerbates this strain. Stories of coping mechanisms—such as sacrificing necessities or taking on multiple jobs—highlight the depth of personal sacrifices made to maintain housing.

Gentrification Displacement

Gentrification is often cited as a key driver of housing displacement, especially in urban areas. Commenters share stories about how rising rents push long-term residents out of neighborhoods, disrupting community ties and erasing cultural identities.

Many lament that neighborhoods once defined by diversity and accessibility are now dominated by luxury developments, catering exclusively to wealthier demographics. This sentiment fuels discussions about the broader societal impacts of housing policies that favor profit over community health.

22% of US renters spend entire income on rent, per Redfin.

— unusual_whales (@unusual_whales) December 4, 2024

Nuances and Divergences

Regional and Local Differences

Conversations frequently contrast national trends with local realities. Rent spikes in cities like New York and San Francisco generate discussions that feel disconnected from smaller markets in the Midwest or South, where housing issues often involve job shortages or decaying infrastructure. Many stress that a one-size-fits-all approach to solving the crisis is inadequate, calling for localized strategies tailored to specific regional challenges.

Intersectional Inequities

Housing conversations increasingly highlight how race, gender, and socioeconomic status intersect to create unequal burdens. Marginalized groups, such as single mothers, immigrants, and low-income workers, often share stories of greater vulnerability to rent increases and housing insecurity. This intersectional lens suggests growing awareness of systemic disparities within the housing market.

Skepticism About Solutions

While calls for rent control and stricter housing regulations are common, they are not universally embraced. Critics say intervention measures might deter development or hamper market forces, further limiting housing supply. Others advocate for innovative solutions, such as public-private partnerships or co-op housing models, which are seen as more sustainable alternatives.

Rent & mortgage prices going up.. 🤦🏼‍♂️ pic.twitter.com/rKwnoLQQ5u

— HOW THINGS WORK (@HowThingsWork_) May 16, 2024

Donald Trump’s comment to Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau that Canada could become the 51st state has caused raucous reactions online. Joking about what might happen if his tariff plan destroys Canada’s economy, Trump suggested the U.S. would take Canada under its wing as a state and Trudeau could become the governor.

Overall reactions accept Trump’s joke for what it is, piling on with memes about Canada in both serious commentary and internet hilarity. Trump himself even added fuel to the fire by posting an AI image of himself with a Canadian flag.

In for the Lolz, Out for Real

MIG Reports data shows:

• 66% of American reactions lean into the joke, seeing it as characteristic of Trump’s rhetorical style and memetic power. Many also view it as an opportunity to roast Canadians.
• 34% take a more serious tone of skepticism or concern, viewing the comment through a lens of nationalism, U.S.-Canada relations, and cultural identity.
• Around 43% of the discussion comes from Canadians who react similarly with mixed humor and real fears of “Americanization” and cultural encroachment.

While Americans mostly take a sarcastic and joking tone, there are some giving honest reactions to the possibility, including advocating for Canada as a territory rather than a state, and providing cultural critiques of progressive ideology in the Great White North.

I’m in favor of annexing Canada, but only as a territory, not as state. We don’t need them voting.

— Sarah 🥨 (@cosmopterix) December 3, 2024

What Americans Are Saying

Jokes

Those approaching Trump’s comment with humor appreciate his ability to engage audiences with bold and unconventional rhetoric. They also demonstrate an eagerness to add a classic flavor of American mockery toward Canadians, holding Trudeau as symbolic of feminized culture and a less powerful nation.

Trump Announces Plan To Annex Canada And Rename It ‘Gay North Dakota’ https://t.co/tbuYeKWVyJ pic.twitter.com/5kaEV0hYF4

— The Babylon Bee (@TheBabylonBee) December 4, 2024

Jokes and memes often include:

• The absurdity of merging two culturally distinct nations.
• Trump’s penchant for using humor to deflect or lighten serious topics.
• Trudeau’s image in America as everything wrong with progressive governance.
• Insinuations of America’s “older sibling” ethos regarding Canada.

Dear Canada-

If you want to join the United States, we have a few rules.

1. The leaf flag must go.
2. Firearm possession must go up by 500% per household.
3. Justin Trudeau must be exiled to Cuba to be with his ancestry.
4. You will be referred to as snow Mexicans.

Sounds like…

— Steve 🇺🇸 (@SteveLovesAmmo) December 3, 2024

Criticism

Those who take a more critical stance toward Trump’s comment, highlight:

• Concerns about nationalism and cultural dilution.
• Apprehension over the impact of such rhetoric on U.S.-Canada relations and global perceptions of American governance.

These reactions are more pronounced among Democrats and Independents, who view Trump’s humor as undermining the seriousness of international relations.

Economic Anxiety

Canada is the largest trading partner for 34 of 50 U.S. states, with key industries like agriculture and manufacturing deeply intertwined across borders. This causes many Americans to use the comment as a jumping off point to discuss economic and trade concerns:

• Fear of rising costs and disrupted supply chains due to Trump’s proposed tariffs.
• Comparisons to historical policies like the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act cause anxiety about economic fallout.

Canadian Reactions

While there is less discussion among Canadians, like Americans, they have mixed reactions. Many accept the humor of the comment, but some have serious objections.

• Many dismiss the joke as typical of Trump's bombastic style.
• Those laughing about it find amusement in the idea of trying to merge Canadian and American culture and politics.
• Those expressing fears talk about the erosion of Canadian identity and values.
• They worry about an “Americanization” of their culture and governance.
• Some worry about economic sovereignty and retaliation, taking a cautious approach to U.S.-Canada relations.

Predictive Analysis

This discourse, while unlikely to have long-term political consequences, reveals important voter dynamics:

• For Republicans, humor will continue to reinforce Trump’s appeal, demonstrating his ability to gain attention and influence using unconventional rhetoric.
• Democrats will likely use the remark to amplify critiques of Trump’s governance style, further galvanizing opposition.
• Independents may have mixed reactions as many are frustrated with Trump’s persona, while feeling torn about the effectiveness of his policies.
• For Canadians, the discussion reinforces the importance of asserting cultural and economic independence, particularly in the face of U.S. dominance.

Donald Trump’s proposed tariffs, including 25% on imports from Canada and Mexico and 10% on goods from China, is generating discussion. Conservatives overwhelmingly back the plan as a bold move to strengthen national security and boost domestic industries, while liberals criticize it as economically reckless. Moderates and Independents are largely ambivalent, concerned about the economic consequences but intrigued by its potential.

With the stroke of a Presidential Pen, Trump plans to enact a 25% tariff on ALL products from Mexico & Canada and a 10% tariff on China

Why?

Because now he has all the leverage to negotiate trade deals and policies

We’re putting the American worker first again, not Wall Street pic.twitter.com/i1xrYIuGps

— DC_Draino (@DC_Draino) November 26, 2024

MIG Reports analysis shows:

• Conservative: 64-70% are supportive, citing job creation and economic sovereignty.
• Liberals: 70-72% oppose, warning of inflation and trade wars.
• Moderates: 50% are uncertain, with 30% supportive and 20% opposed.
• Economic Concerns: 45% of overall reactions fear inflation and rising prices.

Trump’s plan is as much a political gambit as an economic one. He positions the idea as a centerpiece of his broader “America First” narrative. Whether this strategy consolidates support or alienates key groups will likely shape the political landscape for Trump 2.0.

Arguments For and Against

For

• Strengthens domestic manufacturing and reduces reliance on adversarial nations like China.
• Provides leverage to renegotiate trade deals on more favorable terms.
• Aligns with voter demands for job creation and economic independence.

Against

• Risks escalating trade wars and harming international relations.
• Potential inflationary impact, particularly on essential goods like food.
• Short-term disruptions to global supply chains could outweigh long-term benefits.

Conservative Enthusiasm

Conservatives strongly favor Trump’s tariff plan, viewing it as a necessary tool to rebuild American manufacturing and reduce reliance on foreign goods. Supporters frame the proposal as an overdue correction to decades of globalist policies they say have hollowed out U.S. industries. The national security angle—tying tariffs to border control and drug interdiction—further energizes the base.

Key sentiments:

• Conservatives often see tariffs as a remedial action to curb illegal immigration and cartel activity.
• Supporters praise the plan for its potential to bring jobs back to American workers.
• Common phrases include “economic sovereignty” and “protecting our interests.”

However, some conservatives do voice reservations about potential inflationary effects and disruptions to small businesses that rely on imported goods. These criticisms are secondary to the overarching narrative of national economic renewal.

Liberal Criticism

Liberals roundly oppose the tariffs, emphasizing their potential to exacerbate inflation and harm consumers. Many argue the tariffs amount to a regressive tax, disproportionately affecting low- and middle-income families who are already struggling with rising costs.

Key criticisms:

• Liberals say tariffs will lead to higher prices on essential goods, particularly food and household items.
• Concerns about retaliatory trade wars disrupting global supply chains.
• The plan is framed as political theater rather than sound economic policy.

Liberals also cite warnings from corporations like Walmart and economic analysts who predict tariffs would stifle consumer spending and hurt U.S. exporters. Some on the right accuse Democrats of objecting, despite Biden enacting similar policies, simply because Trump proposed them.

Independents Divided

Moderates and Independents are split between caution and curiosity. While some acknowledge the need to protect American industries, many remain unconvinced that tariffs are the right solution.

Voter reactions:

• 50% express uncertainty, advocating for more balanced trade reforms.
• 30% view tariffs as a necessary tool for economic sovereignty.
• 20% outright oppose the plan, echoing liberal concerns about consumer costs.

Independents highlight the unpredictability of tariffs’ long-term economic impacts, particularly in swing states where manufacturing jobs are a critical electoral issue.

Overall Debate Themes

Discourse on tariffs intersects with broader ideological divides and economic concerns.

Economic Anxiety

• Inflation remains a top concern across demographics, with many voters fearing tariffs could worsen already high consumer costs.
• Food prices have become a flashpoint, with families worried about affordability.

Populism vs. Globalism

• Many in Trump’s base celebrate tariffs as a rejection of globalist policies, reinforcing his populist message.
• Critics warn of economic isolationism and its potential to weaken U.S. influence abroad.

Trust in Governance

• Across party lines, there is skepticism about government fiscal management and accountability.
• Many voters see tariffs as emblematic of a broader debate about how to prioritize American economic interests.

Conversations about offshoring white-collar jobs reveal concerns about economic shifts and a deeper reckoning with cultural identity, political accountability, and changing work in America.

MIG Reports analysis shows jobs-centric discussions and cultural observations permeate American thought and concern. Workers feel anxiety, frustration, and occasional resilience over what Americans are losing or fear losing—stable livelihoods, national pride, and a sense of control over their futures.

Anxiety and Adaptation

In discussions about jobs and American values, economic anxiety is a dominant theme.

• Jobs: 65% of comments express fear about job security and heightened awareness of eroding employment stability.
• American Values: 25% of these discussions are also anxious, placing fears in the broader context of job and economic pressures on American life.

The overlap between job discussions and American life and culture overlap in the idea that economic displacement is not merely a financial concern but a symbolic loss of upward mobility and stability—the American dream.

Adaptation emerges as a subtle yet significant counterpoint to anxiety. Jobs-centric discussions highlight American workers becoming resilient with retraining or exploring new opportunities in the face of inevitable economic shifts. This adaptive mindset contrasts with discussions about American values, where resignation—20% of the comments—forces people to accept globalization and displacement as unavoidable.

Cultural Identity and Economic Sovereignty

Perspectives diverge sharply in cultural narratives about the U.S. workforce.

• Jobs: These discussions touch on the erosion of cultural identity, with 30% linking job loss to a decline in the American dream. Offshoring and layoffs are viewed as an economic blow and a loss of what white-collar jobs once represented—stability, prestige, and self-reliance.
• American Values: These conversations frame cultural erosion as a technical failure of economic systems to safeguard workers. This perspective sidesteps cultural sentimentality in favor of labor-centric calls for reform.

Since the pandemic, job postings for physicians and physical therapists have surged more than 80%, while those for software developers, data analysts, data scientists, and IT operations have declined by 20% or more, per BI.

— unusual_whales (@unusual_whales) November 26, 2024

Resentment Towards Power Structures

• Jobs: Blame is cast beyond culture to include political leadership. Around 25% of these discussions revolve around perceived government failures to protect American jobs. This fuels frustration at both corporate and government institutions.
• American Values: 30% of this discussion voices anger at corporations for prioritizing profit margins over employees.

Anxiety About Globalization

Speculative language permeates both narratives, amplifying the uncertainty surrounding job offshoring. There is both fear of future instability and speculations predicting economic trajectories.

Both sets of discussion emphasize this speculative tone, embedding it within anxieties about systemic failure. Speculative language, in tandem with frustration, paints a tapestry of concerns about global competition, its inevitability, and what it means for national sovereignty.

Contrasts and Commonalities

Worries about job security and changing American work culture show a population grappling with the future. A shifting landscape where economic sovereignty and national identity feel increasingly out of reach causes many to worry.

• Jobs: Themes expand the work lens for technology, emphasize cultural identity and adaptive strategies, sharply critique political leadership.
• American Values: Themes discuss offshoring as an economic trend, resentment and resignation, focus on corporate greed and the need for stronger worker protections.

A viral report from CNBC claiming inflation is down triggered sharp criticism from Americans who are paying high prices in reality. The report claims, “The costs of this year’s holiday feast — estimated at $58.08 for a 10-person gathering, or $5.81 a head — dropped 5% since last year, the lowest level since 2021.” This drew outrage and ridicule from many online.

A live look at the $58.08 dinner for ten… https://t.co/bwWR9D2i6O pic.twitter.com/J6EDk0AAyX

— Carol Roth (@caroljsroth) November 25, 2024

Americans feel reports like this from legacy media outlets are disconnected from reality or hellbent on gaslighting the public into believing the economy is better than it is. Average households facing financial pressures from rent, groceries, and fuel feel acute strain as many point out wages are not keeping up with prices.

Public distrust in the media and political leadership is growing as people increasingly believe elites are telling them not to believe their lying eyes. Middle- and lower-income Americans point out that it’s easy for the media and political classes to shrug off inflation and believe the reports. But most families feel the financial squeeze shopping for Thanksgiving groceries.

Just got the most insane call from a liberal family friend who I argued with viciously throughout the election. He’s in his 60s, a successful businessman, but very liberal in the most boomer sense of the word, now lives in California.

He called me and he said you were…

— Disgraced Propagandist (@DisgracedProp) November 26, 2024

What Americans are Saying

Skepticism Toward Inflation Reports

• Most people disbelieve claims that inflation is improving, citing their real-life financial burdens, rising prices, and stagnant wages.
• Some also point out that official job reports have repeatedly been revised down, revealing a lack of integrity in government data.
• Many scoff at the claim that $58 could cover Thanksgiving costs, based on their own shopping experiences.

Three months ago, my husband went to the grocery store with me for the first time in a very long time because I generally do that on my own and he freaked out because butter was almost 8 dollars. He goes if I am panicking about spending eight dollars on butter how are people in… pic.twitter.com/IO6nIm3t0v

— Insurrection Barbie (@DefiyantlyFree) November 7, 2024

Distrust in Media

• 62% of those discussing the report online say media outlets misrepresent economic conditions to favor Democratic narratives.
• Reports on Thanksgiving costs are seen as an attempt by a dying establishment to maintain the façade of their own power while downplaying voter financial struggles.

It costs $60 for a family of 4 to eat at McDonalds.

But NBC News wants you to believe that Thanksgiving dinner for 10 people is $58 - the most affordable in 40 years. pic.twitter.com/5IYmL48oQJ

— John LeFevre (@JohnLeFevre) November 25, 2024

Political Frustrations

Americans tie inflation concerns to broader political criticisms, particularly toward Joe Biden and Democratic leadership, often mentioning “Bidenomics.” They say things like copious foreign aid and unchecked immigration have drastically worsened domestic financial hardships. Conversations frequently highlight a disconnect between the realities of rising costs and the optimistic rhetoric presented by political elites.

Blame on Democratic Policies

• Voters view massive spending on foreign aid for places like Ukraine and Israel as diverting resources away from American citizens.
• Most believe Democrats have allowed open border policies, criticizing the increased competition for housing, jobs, and social services.
• Some say government spending is out of control, citing Kamala Harris’s outrageous campaign expenditures as symbolic of Democratic fiscal irresponsibility.

Corporate Accountability

• Democrats have religiously placed blame on corporations for price gouging, claiming they exploit consumers—and some voters accept this explanation.
• Among Democratic voters, there is support for reforms targeting corporate practices that reportedly contribute to inflation.

Partisan Divide and Calls for Reform

Reactions are split, with conservatives overwhelmingly critical of the Biden administration and media narratives. A smaller group, mostly Democrats, defends inflation reports as misunderstood. However, this defense is largely drowned out by anger and despair.

Economic challenges under Democratic leadership have created an opening for conservative narratives emphasizing fiscal responsibility and populist policies. Many are excited and hopeful for a return to Trump-era economic stability, particularly middle- and lower-income voters.

Structural Changes

• Voters demand tax cuts on essentials to counter inflation.
• Many want to reduce foreign aid, shore up the border, and foster wage growth.
• Supporters argue Trump-era economic policies delivered greater stability, calling for trust in his economic strategies.

Predictive Analysis Heading into Trump 2.0

If depressed and strained sentiments persist, economic concerns will likely continue to dominate the first months of Trump’s second administration.

Conservatives in Congress may be successful in leveraging frustration over the economy and skepticism toward Democratic leadership to implement meaningful policies. Under Trump, expect a sharper focus on fiscal accountability, corporate and government reform, and reducing the disconnect between political rhetoric and economic realities.

Democrats, meanwhile, face an uphill battle to regain voter trust. Bridging the gap between optimistic narratives and reality is critical. However, some believe once Trump retakes the White House, media narratives could dramatically shift from optimism to doom and gloom. If this happens, it’s likely the legacy media will continue to lose cachet with the people.

The GOP has an opportunity to frame itself as the party of practical solutions and working-class advocacy, provided it can implement tangible solutions and improve people’s financial situations.

Spirit Airlines announced it is filing for bankruptcy (Chapter 11), sending shockwaves through the travel industry and beyond. Once a key figure in the ultra-low-cost carrier market, Spirit’s financial struggles have sparked a wave of public discourse and concerns about the economy, corporate practices, and government oversight.

Spirit airlines just filed bankruptcy! I can’t imagine why!
pic.twitter.com/X9sbrO70mv

— Badass (@Keepfighting250) November 18, 2024

Economic Fears Take Flight

A dominant theme across public reactions is economic anxiety, with many expressing concerns about the stability of the airline industry and its impact on workers. Comments frequently cite fears of job losses and rising travel costs, with some speculating Spirit’s bankruptcy could lead to a ripple effect throughout the travel sector.

People use phrases like “more layoffs are coming” and “this will hurt the economy,” tying Spirit’s struggles to the broader economy. Many also cite recent struggles for Boeing as foreboding of the airline industry declining.

Frustration with Corporate Practices

Public anger toward corporate mismanagement is another key theme. Many blame Spirit’s financial woes on poor decision-making, pointing to greed and executive bonuses as evidence of systemic failure.

Critics decry executive gain amid frustration with a lack of accountability and poor corporate management. These sentiments are further fueled by memories of government bailouts to airlines during COVID, which, for some, indicate corporations prioritize their interests over public welfare or customer service.

This morning Spirit Airlines filed for bankruptcy.

Eight months ago, the Biden DOJ bragged about "protecting consumers" by nuking Spirit's merger with JetBlue.

Everything government touches dies. pic.twitter.com/eVkUZPpB2y

— Bonchie (@bonchieredstate) November 18, 2024

Mixed Sentiments on Spirit’s Future

Consumer reactions to Spirit’s bankruptcy are divided. While some remain hopeful the airline’s affordability will keep customers loyal, others express doubts about its reliability, if some version of it survives.

Speculative comments like “they might still attract passengers” are countered by fears that bankruptcy will erode trust and lead to fewer bookings. These mixed reactions underscore the precarious nature of Spirit’s brand reputation and its ability to recover amid heightened public scrutiny.

Discussion is growing around Social Security as Americans worry about the future. While Social Security is a crucial safety net for many, public discourse reveals concern about sustainability and a desire for reform. Americans are anxious about economic stability, intergenerational equity, and whether government leadership is trustworthy.

💯"We're pretending and lying to the American people that the social security funds that are extracted from their checks is sitting in a lock box...The money is taken out of your check now, and that money is then given to those people who are retiring now!" pic.twitter.com/1HPIZZwVg7

— Rep. Chip Roy Press Office (@RepChipRoy) November 12, 2024

Support with Concern

• Most Americans express loyalty and concern for Social Security, though the degree of apprehension varies.
• Roughly 55-70% of comments worry about the program’s long-term viability, fearing rising costs, inflation, and potential mismanagement could jeopardize future benefits.
• Many view Social Security as an essential pillar of American life that should be preserved, but question whether current economic conditions will allow it to sustain future retirees.
• Anxieties are amplified by discussions about inflation, with many calling for adjustments to benefits that better reflect the rising cost of living.

Reform and Modernization

• Americans who support Social Security largely agree on the need for reforms to secure its viability without compromising the core mission.
• Around 25% of voters want moderate reforms to improve efficiency, while another 15–20% urge for substantial overhauls.
• Proposals include raising the cap on taxable income, implementing means testing, and modernizing payment structures to adapt to demographic and economic shifts.
• Demands for reform are coupled with critiques of government waste and inefficiency, suggesting redirected funds could reinforce Social Security.

Generational Equity and Economic Tensions

• There is also a generational divide in viewpoints. Younger Americans, skeptical about the program’s sustainability, worry they may never receive benefits equal to their contributions.
• Some frame Social Security as a “pay-as-you-go” system at risk of insolvency due to shifting demographics and economic challenges.
• older generations emphasize that they have paid into the system throughout their working lives and deserve the benefits promised.
• Economic pressures also spark discussion about broader fiscal concerns like wage stagnation and inflation.

Political Divisions

Social Security discussions are further polarized along political lines, with partisan affiliations shaping views on reform.

• Conservatives typically favor budget restraint and cuts to ensure sustainability, while progressives advocate expanded benefits and funding.
• Recent reports reveal an added layer of division tied to leadership perceptions, with mixed expectations for Trump’s proposed efficiency-focused reforms.
• While some anticipate positive changes, others express doubts about the sincerity or impact of his administration’s policies.
• Discussions branch into related issues like tax policies and foreign aid, with some arguing resources allocated abroad could instead bolster Social Security.

Who is ready for tax cuts!?!?!
We are ending taxes on social security, tips, and overtime!

— Anna Paulina Luna (@realannapaulina) November 14, 2024

Technology and Government Distrust

A recurring theme across discussions is lack of trust in government.

• Many Americans doubt current government structures can effectively protect Social Security, citing past inefficiencies and instances of mismanagement.
• Skepticism extends across party lines, with people questioning whether promised reforms will genuinely strengthen the program.
• Some say technology could enhance Social Security’s resilience by streamlining operations, reducing administrative costs, and increasing transparency, thus potentially restoring public trust.

Recent reports allege the Harris campaign spent the $1 billion dollars it fundraised, and after only 107 days, ended the campaign with a $20 million debt. This news elicits sharply negative voter reactions.

Reactions point to widespread perceptions of fiscal irresponsibility and elite detachment from American concerns. Voters express thankfulness that Harris lost, fearing such spending habits are indicative of Democratic tendencies with U.S. tax dollars.

Spender Versus Earner

Harris’s spending failures brighten the promises of fiscal conservatism by Trump.

• Financial Accountability: Trump supporters contrast his fiscal conservatism with Harris’s extravagant spending. Many align with his message of spending cuts, small government, and prioritizing taxpayer interests.
• Good for Trump: As the Harris budget deficit fuels perceptions of elitist excess, GOP and Independent voters call for Trump’s straightforward approach to budget efficiency and fiscal responsibility.
• Public and Private: Some point out that Trump’s success in the private sector earning money contrasts sharply with a career politician like Harris who is used to only spending.

Government Disgust

Across voter demographics, reactions indicate a strong sense of distrust and disgust at the Harris campaign’s fiscal management.

• Democrat Finances: Voters are in disbelief at the scale of spending by the Harris campaign, tying it to their criticism of overall government inefficiency.
• Wasting Money: Many see the campaign’s budget handling as emblematic of Democratic financial mismanagement. They say funds are wasted on ineffective initiatives that do not produce results—just like the Harris campaign.
• Incompetence: People criticize Harris’s campaign, linking it to longstanding frustrations with the Biden administration’s economic policy. Voters say budget issues reinforce views of Democratic leadership as fiscally irresponsible.

Disconnected from Voter Reality

The budget revelations come at a particularly tense economic time, with inflation and cost-of-living concerns dominating public sentiment.

• Elite Waste: Americans contrast their financial struggles with the extravagant political spending by elites for celebrity appearances and concerts. They say the billion-dollar fundraising was squandered, producing no benefits.
• Economic Realities: People view Harris’s spending as out-of-touch with economic reality and offensive to families struggling to make ends meet. They say the campaign prioritized campaign optics over reaching out to voters.

The anger and criticism are especially pronounced among working- and middle-class voters. The economic divide between political elites and regular Americans intensifies disgust as people express hope for budget accountability from the coming Trump administration.

The October 2024 jobs report only inflames concerns about the economy as a central election issue. The report, which revealed only 12,000 jobs added, fell drastically short of the 100,000 expected. This also comes after multiple reports were revised down, including nearly one million from April last year to March of this year.

The biggest story of the week was the jobs report:

October: 12k new jobs when 100k expected. Job growth negative if govt excluded.

September: 254k revised down to 223k (-31k).

August: 159k revised down to 78k (-81k).

Instead they got us focused on a fake poll.

— David Sacks (@DavidSacks) November 4, 2024

Many also point out that what little growth there is, comes from government job growth and foreign-born worker growth. The impact of immigration on employment continues to anger Americans who struggle every day to pay their bills.

This is why so many Americans could give 2 💩 about “celebrity endorsements.”

“How dare you, get on TV and tell me who is the morally superior candidate? When’s the last time you had to put back socks at Walmart, because you can’t afford to buy them for yourself and your… https://t.co/toKZYWVcJt pic.twitter.com/j9lbDd0ZPB

— Allison Dyer (@3rdGener) November 4, 2024

Election Implications and Future Projections

The current economic situation places job growth and employment policies at the forefront of the electoral landscape. As job data continues to underperform, voters want leadership that will practically improve their lives.

Given strong disapproval among Independents and center-right voters, the jobs report likely pushes people vote for Trump. Many who are in essential swing states appear ready to shift support away from Harris and pull the lever for Republicans.

• Swing Voters and Independents: Approximately 60% of swing voters are voicing frustration with the administration’s job creation record.
• Calls for a Change: A majority of Americans say the country is heading in the wrong direction. They want private-sector-driven policies over government expansion.
• MIG Reports Data: When the Oct. jobs report was released, discussion volume spiked while sentiment dropped from 46% to 40%.

Disillusionment with Job Growth

October’s weak job creation figure of 12,000—a substantial drop from expectations—causes anger and disappointment. Compounding the issue, job data for previous months is consistently revised downward, with September's jobs adjusted from 254,000 to 223,000 and August’s from 159,000 to 78,000.

These ever-weakening numbers drive deflated emotions about the economy under Biden-Harris, where “Bidenomics” is often cited as to blame.

Top Discussion Points

• Dismal Numbers: Only 12,000 new jobs were created in October, marking the lowest monthly growth since 2020.
• Private Sector Decline: Excluding government jobs, job growth was negative, intensifying frustrations at the Democratic focus on expanding public sector roles.
• Manufacturing Losses: October saw a loss of 46,000 manufacturing jobs, a statistic voters interpret as a sign of economic decline rather than growth.

Voters widely view these trends as indicative of a stalled economy, with many drawing contrasts to the “Trump boom” years. They say job creation was stronger and more favorably distributed across private sectors.

Many also complain that, even when they have work and increasing pay, their quality of life is decreasing because of inflation. This disappointment and desperation are driving people to decry the last four years—a point which the Harris campaign is forced to embrace.

Tim Walz is right. We can’t afford four more years of this! pic.twitter.com/SP9NPUmSeE

— TheLizVariant (@TheLizVariant) September 29, 2024

Government vs. Private Sector Job Growth

Americans are particularly angry about the makeup of job growth. Government employment overwhelmingly accounts for the pitiable growth numbers, which many see as unsustainable and “non-productive.” Voters say expanding government jobs does not stimulate the economy or boost GDP, which they view as the true engine of economic resilience.

The contrast in campaign platforms also becomes stark as Harris’s flagship economic contribution is more government workers while Trump has promised to appoint Elon Musk to decimate government bloat in a Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).

Who else thinks Elon Musk should cut 80% of the Government Jobs when Trump is Elected ? pic.twitter.com/Kcyi9t97fk

— Marjorie Taylor Greene Press Release (Parody) (@MTGrepp) October 19, 2024

Top Discussion Points

• Government Dependence: Most new jobs are government, a fact voters feel props up employment numbers without improving economic conditions.
• Private Sector Struggles: With manufacturing and other private industries shedding jobs, voters feel job creation is artificial, lacking the dynamism required for sustainable growth.

For many, this trend signals an economy increasingly dependent on government intervention. Voters worry continuing in this direction will stifle private sector vitality and limit opportunities for recovery, ultimately worsening quality of life.

Immigration and Job Competition

The issue of immigration adds to voter ire. More and more voters believe lack of border control contributes directly to job disadvantages for American citizens. They say prioritizing employment opportunities for American-born workers should be a top focus, rather than policies that increase labor market competition.

Top Discussion Points

• Foreign-Born Workers: Many of the jobs added have gone to foreign-born workers, resulting in a net loss for American-born workers.
• American First: There is a strong sentiment that labor efforts should focus on hiring American citizens first to stabilize the job market for citizens.

Americans increasingly see poor border policies as a job competition issue but also emblematic widespread economic mismanagement. As the workforce grows through immigration, many worry American workers will bear the brunt of stagnant job growth.

Ideological and Political Reactions

Despite the dismal economic signals brought on by the Biden-Harris administration, there are still clear partisan divides. For conservatives, Democratic policies are synonymous with heavy-handed government control, tax hikes, and regulatory expansion.

Voters who lean right overwhelmingly see the solution as returning to the economic policies of the Trump era. They want American worker jobs, tax cuts, deregulation, and reduced reliance on government roles. Many also support Trump’s tariffs plan.

Top Discussion Points

• Free-Market Advocacy: Americans want private-sector job creation through deregulation and minimal government intervention.
• Economy Concerns: Fears about inflation, increased taxes, and a lack of opportunities have driven some Democrats and Independents toward Trump.

Disillusionment is not confined to conservatives and MAGA voters. Traditional Democratic voters and many Independents are voicing dissatisfaction. Concerns over Harris’s role in worsening inflation, combined with poor job reports, lead some former Democratic supporters to reconsider their loyalties.