American reactions to the federal government’s disaster response after Hurricane Helene continues to be sharply negative. Now, with Hurricane Milton destruction, opinions of VP Harris and DHS Secretary Mayorkas are overwhelmingly negative. Voters distaste for their leadership, disaster preparedness, and resource allocation.
Many are criticizing Mayorkas for his unwillingness to respond to criticisms that he was attending an award ceremony while natural disasters were ongoing for citizens.
Mayorkas put on the spot đź’Ą
CNN host: As Hurricane Helene was making landfall, Biden was at the beach, Kamala was flying between ritzy California fundraisers, and you were at an awards ceremony in Los Angeles. How do you respond to these allegations?pic.twitter.com/eJB1O6uNsb
There are also reports criticizing Mayorkas, Biden, and Harris for shopping, lounging on the beach, and toasting a beer on The Late Show amid serious safety threats and destruction after Helene and before Milton
This is where your President, Vice President, and DHS Secretary were as Americans were drowning from Hurricane Helene & fleeing for their lives from Hurricane Milton. pic.twitter.com/sg8nqzLnfN
77% of voters voice strong negative sentiment toward leadership and their response to disaster relief.
90% of Republicans drive the discussion, expressing negativity about disaster response and preparedness.
81% express dissatisfaction with Mayorkas, often calling him incompetent.
There is widespread frustration regarding FEMA funds and resources being directed toward illegal immigrants.
Americans make accusations negligence and callous responses to disaster recovery efforts.
Many also voice distrust in media reporting and election impacts for voters in disaster zones.
Political Criticism
Public sentiment about federal leadership during natural disasters is highly polarized. Discussions heavily focus on accusations that the current administration has mismanaged disaster recovery efforts. There is frustration among citizens who feel the federal response has been both inadequate and insulting.
Many directly compare the actions of the Biden administration unfavorably to those of previous leadership, particularly former President Trump, and express a desire for a change in leadership.
Mayorkas Incompetence
Americans are harsh in discussions about Secretary Mayorkas. They criticize his actions and decisions regarding FEMA and disaster relief but do not limit their criticism, also mentioning his failures on border security.
People describe Mayorkas’s leadership as "criminally incompetent," with public outcry calling for accountability by his impeachment or resignation. This criticism is exacerbated by reports that FEMA has billions in unspent disaster relief funds, despite his public claims of shortages.
This topic has resonated strongly with 80% of working-class voices, particularly those already burdened by economic hardships who feel neglected by federal aid. The language used in these discussions—terms like "betrayal" and "dishonesty"—illustrates a profound sense of abandonment by the government during times of crisis.
Mismanaged Funds and Negligence
Discussions around funding accuse FEMA of negligence and even animosity toward natural disaster victims. People criticize the federal government for its failure to help citizens, preferring to focus on “misinformation” and the comfort of FEMA workers.
Despite obstructing relief efforts, @FEMA’s Criswell says criticizing her agency is “dangerous”:
“It has a tremendous impact on the comfort level of our own employees … When you have this dangerous rhetoric like you’re hearing, it creates fear in our own employees” pic.twitter.com/ProJObu7fc
Funding discussions are saturated with criticism of FEMA for directing resources towards illegal immigrants at the expense of disaster preparedness. These criticisms are particularly poignant among rural residents, who feel that disaster recovery resources are disproportionately directed toward urban areas. They feel they’re being left to fend for themselves.
Online reactions to the Joker 2 movie show viewers perceive a clear divergence from its predecessor, Joker. The discussions provide insights into the film's reception, the demographics engaged in the discourse, and overall cultural reflections. Even among mainstream industry outlets like Rotten Tomatoes, there is a shared distaste toward the movie and severe backlash toward its producers.
They made the joker get gay gang raped then killed him.
The 2019 film Joker, directed by Todd Phillips, captivated audiences with its deep psychological exploration of the character, thrilling narrative arcs, and societal critiques. However, viewers feel Joker 2 lacks the same depth and innovative storytelling that characterized the first film. Many say it’s an attack on the young, disenfranchised white men who identified with the original movie.
65% of reactions express disappointment in the sequel.
Viewers say it fails to capture the "raw emotional intensity" of the first.
Concept and Direction
Some express concern about the creative direction, suggesting the sequel represents a cash grab rather than a genuine artistic endeavor. Critics view the choice to produce a sequel as an indication that the filmmakers prioritize marketability over narrative integrity. Many also argue the intent of Joker 2 was to destroy any sympathy disenfranchised young men found in the prequel’s nihilistic portrayal of society.
40% of discussions are skeptical of the film's motives, with terms like "exploiting the legacy."
Character Development
Fans of the first film argue the character development in Joker 2 feels rushed or unearned. They say the sequel attempts to replicate the original's success without adequately addressing the nuances that made Arthur Fleck's journey compelling.
Nearly 50% of critiques focus on underdeveloped characters, suggesting they fail to resonate on an emotional level.
Age Demographics
Younger audiences, particularly those aged 18-34, tend to express strong opinions against Joker 2, saying they want originality in cinema. Older demographics are more willing to accept traditional storytelling methods, leading to a more divided view of the sequel.
About 60% of younger viewers (18-34) are dissatisfied compared to 30% of older viewers (35+).
Cultural Impact and Reflection
The film operates within a cultural framework that includes discussions about mental health, societal alienation, and the repercussions of violence. This context amplifies the discourse where fans critique the film's inability to address serious themes.
55% of comments make cultural observations, saying the narrative fails to provide commentary on contemporary societal challenges.
Mental Health Stigma
There is a growing concern around the depiction of mental illness in films. Many say Joker 2 mishandles this subject, potentially contributing to harmful stereotypes rather than fostering understanding.
Roughly 45% express concern that the film lacks sensitivity towards mental health issues.
30% of discussions involve memes, emphasizing the gap between audience expectations and reality.
Patterns in Language
Emotion-Laden Language
Reviews use emotionally charged terms like "disappointed," "betrayal," and "uninspired," suggesting widespread dissatisfaction with the narratives. This language emphasizes the divergence in expectation versus reality.
Emotional language appears in about 70% of complaints.
Disillusionment with Sequels
Many viewers discuss a broader weariness with film sequels and remakes. People want innovative storytelling, particularly younger demographics who feel fatigued by repetitive content in mainstream cinema.
Approximately 50% of discussions express disillusionment with sequels in general.
The 2024 election is looking more like an uphill battle for Vice President Harris. Several factors, ranging from poor handling of key issues like disaster response and immigration, to lackluster media appearances, to a perceived fracture among Democrats, are compounding her challenges. MIG Reports analysis suggests the downward trajectory indicates Harris’s chances diminishing in the last month of campaigning.
Growing Negativity on Key Issues
Kamala Harris's support has been eroding across several critical issues, including Hurricane Helene response, immigration, the economy, and even abortion.
MIG Reports data shows the top discussion topics regarding Kamala Harris in the last three days reveal declining approval. Natural disasters, abortion, hospitals, Israel, national security, and the economy all show Harris with net negative support. The only issues with a net positive movement on October 8 are Palestine, her presidential nomination, and housing.
Net Change in Support (Last Three Days)
Natural Disasters: -10 points
Abortion Rights: -5 points
Hospitals: -4 points
These downward trends expose rising voter frustrations on critical issues. Americans are increasingly disillusioned with Harris's inability to handle issues they find important.
Hurricane Helene Debacle
Americans are frustrated and even enraged with the federal government’s response to Hurricane Helene, often blaming Harris directly. Online conversations show people believe federal aid was misallocated during recent disasters with massive spending for illegal immigrants and a pittance for hurricane victims.
Many feel the Biden-Harris administration focuses on international aid and support for illegal immigrants over disaster relief for citizens. This has been a particular sore spot for Republican and Independent voters who are increasingly skeptical of Harris’s competence to lead in crisis situations.
Immigration and Border Security
Harris’s role as "Border Czar" has done her no favors. Her policies on border security and unclear statements about future policies anger voters. Many routinely criticize Harris for being too lenient and facilitating a mass invasion in the last three years. The perception that her administration has failed to secure the border, while prioritizing foreign aid and migrant support, has created a significant credibility gap.
Biden Jumping Ship
Many voters are now inferring discord between Harris and Biden, further eroding her credibility even within the Democratic Party. Recent examples of Biden’s public remarks have fueled speculation that the two are not on the same page, which reinforces perceptions the Party is fractured at the top.
Disjointed Messaging Hurts Party Unity
Voters point out Biden seeming to undermine Harris regarding hurricane preparedness in Florida, with Harris claiming Governor DeSantis refuses to engage with the administration and Biden stating they’re in personal contact.
President Biden also recently overshadowed Harris by holding a press conference at the same time Harris was scheduled to go live on CNN.
Many also say Biden is countering Harris’s messaging by reiterating her role in the administration, saying she’s “singing from the same song sheet,” including her in negative voter sentiment about the last three years.
Voters are also discussing alleged animosity between Biden and Harris staffers in the White House, with allegations of a physical altercation occurring among staffers.
The confusion within the administration does not put voters at ease, causing speculations about disarray, Biden’s cognitive health, and hostility within the current administration. Many on the right joke about Biden recently wearing a Trump hat, saying he’s actively working against the Harris campaign. Democrats, meanwhile, express anxiety about Party fracture, worrying whether it hurts Harris’s chances. This disjointed messaging may signal growing problems for the Harris campaign and the Democratic Party overall.
There is a rising fear among Democrats that negative press and infighting could suppress voter enthusiasm and turnout. For a Democratic base that is already skeptical of Harris’s leadership abilities, this division is only exacerbating concerns.
Republican and Independent Sentiment
Republicans and Independents seem to be more united behind Donald Trump. Many take every opportunity to drive home their view that Harris is unfit for office. MIG Reports data shows Harris continues to trail Trump in national approval.
Voter Sentiment
Support for Donald Trump: 53%
Support for Kamala Harris: 45%
The sustained support gap is significant, particularly with most polling showing a tight race. All discussion data shows voters are concerned about the economy and immigration—two issues on which Harris is weak. For Republicans, there is hope that Trump is growing stronger, though many still express concerns about election integrity.
Less than a month from the election, early voting discussions among Americans reveal strong emotional engagement and division. Through analysis of voter conversations, key patterns in language, motivations, and support for Trump and Harris emerge. Sentiments among those who have already voted or plan to vote early shed light on the reasons behind their choices and how they articulate their political motivations.
Trump has stronger support on top issues except for abortion.
His highest leads are in campaign rallies and foreign policy.
Voter Reactions
Trump supporters emphasize economic concerns, patriotism, and frustration with Biden and Harris.
Harris supporters focus on social justice, stability, and empathetic leadership.
Language among Trump supporters is often combative and urgent, while Harris supporters talk about optimism and adherence to progressive values.
Both groups express strong emotional investment, framing early voting as crucial to the outcome of the election.
Support for Donald Trump
Among early voters, most Trump supporters express dissatisfaction with Biden and Harris, particularly on the economy and foreign policy. There is a clear desire for a return to more stable and prosperous times they experienced under Trump’s presidency.
Voters use phrases like "Trump gets things done" and "America-first policies." They vocally call for a shift back to Trump’s leadership. Republican voters emphasize voting early as an act of urgency, motivated by a belief that America’s values and future are at stake.
Trump supporters highlight patriotism and preserving traditional American values as key reasons for casting ballots early. They emphasize the need to "take back our country" and view their vote as a defense against progressive threats posed by Harris and Walz.
There is also a strong sense of community on the right, with solidarity in phrases like "we are united" and "together we will win." This collective sentiment is underscored by shared distrust of the media and election integrity, with some mentioning concerns about voter fraud or manipulation. Many call for Republicans to turn out and make a Trump win “too big to rig.”
The language among Trump supporters is aggressive and emotionally charged. Words like "disgusting," "pathetic," and "traitors" are used in reference to Democrats, emphasizing voter frustration and investment in the election’s outcome. This rhetoric positions the election as a battle for the nation’s soul, with Trump as the protector of Americas core values.
Support for Kamala Harris
The Democratic base supporting Harris tends to focus on the future and progressive change. Early voters prioritize social justice, gun control, abortion, and DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion).
Early voters saying voting is a proactive step toward ensuring progress in the face of perceived stagnation or regression under Trump. Their language reflects a commitment to progressive ideals, with phrases like "we must move forward" and "progress for all."
Harris supporters want stability and steady leadership. They say after years of political upheaval, Harris can bring balance and restore faith in democratic institutions. They use phrases like "protect our democracy" and "steady leadership," illustrating a belief in Harris’s ability to handle the economy and social division.
Personal connection and empathy are key themes in Harris support narratives. Many view Harris as representing their values, often sharing personal stories about how her policies impact their lives and emotions.
The emotional tone among Democrats contrasts with the urgency of Trump supporters. Harris’s backers focus on moral responsibility and uniting within the Party, framing early voting as a duty to prevent Trump from threatening democracy.
Vice President Kamala Harris's appearance on the "Call Her Daddy" podcast generated controversy across the internet. Harris’s attempt to engage with a younger, more progressive audience drew sharp criticism from conservatives and moderates.
Some of the criticisms people mention are:
Harris recording the podcast just days after Hurricane Helene, with recovery ongoing.
The buffet of her signature word salads which provide little or no substance on issues.
The objectionable nature of the podcast’s subject matter as a pillar interview of her campaign a month before the election.
Her inaccurate and uninformed comments on abortion and bodily autonomy.
Harris on "Call Her Daddy"
The "Call Her Daddy" podcast has built its reputation as an irreverent space for discussions on relationships, sex, and social issues—far from the usual platform for a sitting vice president. Kamala’s decision to appear on this show suggests her clamor to reach younger voters. But the subject matter raised eyebrows among many political observers, especially older and more conservative voters.
The podcast’s trivial tone starkly contrasts with more serious policy debates typically expected of national leaders. While 62% of younger voters appreciated Kamala’s outreach and relatability, 67% of older and conservative voters criticized the podcast, seeing it as another instance of “word salad” responses that fail to address pressing issues.
Voter Reactions
Much of the discussion following Kamala’s appearance focused on her remarks about abortion. Specifically, Harris asserted there are no equivalent laws governing men’s bodies in the way she says abortion imposes on women’s.
Many listeners pointed out that neither Harris nor the podcast host mentioned the draft. Voters point out that men are subject to government regulation through conscription laws—though now some are advocating for “inclusivity” in the form of female conscription.
Call Her Daddy Girl: “Are there any laws that give the government control over a man’s body?”
68% of pro-abortion voters support Kamala’s framing, emphasizing reproductive rights as an essential issue for women’s bodily autonomy.
75% of conservatives push back against Kamala’s claim, arguing the draft is a significant government imposition on men.
55% of swing voters find some merit in Kamala’s points but remain skeptical, with 45% calling her comments politically motivated.
Because Harris didn’t mention the draft, the public discourse made it a focal point, particularly as the segment was framed as attempting to think of an equivalent imposition on men. However, the messaging seems to work with younger progressive voters as 80% view Kamala’s commentary on bodily autonomy as progressive and necessary.
Young Voters vs. Older Voters
Kamala’s engagement with the "Call Her Daddy" audience was a clear attempt to connect with younger, progressive voters who value relatability and authenticity in political discourse. Among all younger voters, 62% react positively, praising Harris for stepping outside traditional political venues and making herself accessible to a new audience.
Older or more conservative voters react harshly, with 67% viewing the podcast as another example of Kamala’s inability to clearly articulate a coherent thought. These voters focus on her evasiveness on issues like inflation and immigration. Kamala's relaxed demeanor was seen not as refreshing, but as detached from the serious challenges facing the nation.
Kamala’s Challenge Moving Forward
Mixed reactions to Kamala’s podcast appearance underscore a fundamental challenge in her appeal to different voter blocs. Younger voters—especially those who are pro-abortion—see her as a relatable and progressive figure. The podcast appearance, while a calculated risk to broaden her appeal, may have done more to reinforce existing divisions than to unify disparate voter groups.
Many on the right also point out that Trump has been appearing on podcasts and doing alternative media interviews for months, which much larger audiences.
🚨RATIO ALERT🚨
DISLIKES on Kamala's recent cringe Call Her Daddy episode have officially eclipsed likes by a factor of TWO with only 100K views in one day
By contrast:
Trump commands REAL culture with appearances reaching tens of millions of views in mere HOURS
In the run-up to the 2024 election, Kamala’s ability to bridge these divides will be critical. Her media strategy may help solidify support among progressives, but risks alienating many segments of the electorate. The perception that she dodges difficult questions with "word salad" responses remains a significant barrier to her.
The entire Chicago Public Schools (CPS) Board of Education resigned, triggering a wide array of emotional and analytical responses. Parents, educators, and political commentators are weighing in on the controversial move involving widely criticized Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson. This event reveals frustrations about educational governance and catalyzes new discussions about the future of public schooling in Chicago.
Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson just compared the School Board he just forced out because they refused to blow out the budget by taking out a high interest loan to pay off the Teacher's union, to slave owners. He only has 1 trick which is call EVERYONE who disagrees with him RACIST pic.twitter.com/KBX6yNYf69
— Sean Fitzgerald (Actual Justice Warrior) (@IamSean90) October 7, 2024
Johnson appointed six new school board members after the entire board resigned amid budget disputes and tensions with the Chicago Teachers Union (CTU). The resignations followed disagreements over handling CPS finances, particularly regarding loans and pensions.
The appointments raise concerns about transparency and political influence. Critics argue replacing the entire school board was hasty, potentially sidelining voices that disagree with the union's stance. The timing, just before elections, adds to the frustration, with some city leaders feeling left out of the decision-making process and questioning the board's ability to handle financial and policy challenges.
Voter Reactions
Positive Sentiment (40%)
Parents and community members view the resignations as an opportunity for change, expressing hope for new leadership that might prioritize student needs over bureaucracy. Many articulate the desire for more accountability, with some suggesting a fresh board might be more attuned to the realities faced by students and families.
Negative Sentiment (35%)
Almost as many people voice skepticism and concern. Critics see the mass resignation as an indicator of dysfunction within the CPS and the Teacher’s Union. Phrases like “abandonment” and “lack of responsibility” permeate discussions, reflecting fears that this departure creates a leadership vacuum or suggests corruption among leaders.
Neutral or Analytical Sentiment (25%)
A quarter of reactions take a more analytical stance, focusing on systemic issues that led to the resignations. Commentary highlights the challenges of governance in the CPS landscape, including the interplay between state mandates, funding deficits, and societal pressures. This narrative suggests a need for comprehensive reform beyond personnel changes.
Impact on Parents
Disruption of Trust
A significant number of parents express feelings of betrayal and uncertainty. Parents have concerns about whether ongoing reforms and standard educational practices will suffer due to the instability following the resignations.
Desire for Engagement
Amid the upheaval, many parents actively seek information about the implications of the resignations for their children’s education. Parents rally around the call for greater community engagement in selecting new board members, signifying a shift toward more grassroots involvement in educational governance.
Anxiety About the Future
Uncertainty about future governance prompts feelings of anxiety and distrust among parents. Many worry about the potential for diminished support services and resources for students, especially those with special needs or underserved communities.
Language Patterns
Imagery of Battle
Many comments evoke a sense of struggle, with language that portrays the resignation as a battle between effective governance and an educational system under siege. Terms like “fighting for our kids,” “standing firm,” and “taking back control” express
the urgent calls for advocacy and accountability.
Crisis Narrative
Some frame the situation as a crisis, suggesting a breakdown in the system. This includes references to broader societal issues, such as educational inequity and funding challenges. People link the resignations to national educational trends rather than isolating them to Chicago.
Polarization of Educational Perspectives
People are divided about educational priorities. Some advocate for radical reforms and a reevaluation of funding sources, while others emphasize the need to maintain the integrity and stability of existing programs.
Calls for Unity
Despite divergent opinions, a recurring theme urges community solidarity and collective action. Many advocate for collaboration among parents, educators, and local organizations, perceiving a shared responsibility toward improving the educational landscape.
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.
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.
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.
.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)
.png)