Recent layoffs and discussions about low hiring in the U.S. job market dominates voter conversations, according to MIG Reports data. Americans indicate their personal experiences with the economy shape their reactions to job reports. There continues to be significant division between those who perceive the job market as improving and those who believe it is deteriorating.
Data suggests public sentiment based on the language voters use to communicate their experiences. MIG Reports analysis coincides with a recent study from the Challenger Report showing 193% more job cuts from July to August 2024.
BREAKING: Hiring in 2024 is at a historic low, per CNBC + Challenger.
The job market in 2024 elicits polarized reactions:
55-62% of Americans express negative views, largely shaped by their personal financial struggles and the impact of inflation.
31-45% hold an optimistic outlook, focusing on macroeconomic indicators such as job creation, wage growth, and a strong stock market.
Despite some optimism, doubt and discouragement dominates voter discussions, particularly among those who distrust economic data or feel the government is not addressing the real economic issues Americans face.
Worker Perception of the Job Market
Most Americans in 2024 view the job market negatively. Many cite inflation, economic instability, and poor job quality as key concerns. Workers feel disconnected from the administration’s reports of macroeconomic success, pointing instead to personal struggles with rising living costs and job instability.
For struggling Americans, the realities of layoffs and stalled hiring directly affects their day-to-day lives. Personal accounts of job loss are also permeated by mentions of paycheck-to-paycheck living and eroded purchasing power.
Some do hold a positive view of the job market, however. They highlight media reporting and government figures of low unemployment, job creation, and economic growth as reasons for optimism. This group focuses on broader economic indicators like wage growth and a strong stock market, rather than their personal experiences.
Typically, in higher economic classes or politically left leaning, this group attributes economic successes to government policies. They particularly mention Biden-Harris measures, viewing the economy as successfully recovering from COVID.
Reasons for Reactions
People who believe the job market is bad typically base their views on personal experiences. They talk about their struggles with inflation, job instability, and rising living costs. These voters frequently blame government policies for failing to address the economic challenges middle class Americans face. For them, the negative impacts of inflation and unstable jobs outweigh any broader economic successes.
Those who perceive the job market positively rely on the Biden-Harris administration to support their views. They point to low unemployment, job creation in industries like manufacturing, and wage increases. This group tends to trust official economic reports and see selective macroeconomic trends as evidence of a stable and improving economy. They attribute economic progress to policies that they believe are fostering growth and recovery.
How Americans Talk About Jobs
The language people use in these discussions reflects their perspectives on the job market. Those who view the job market negatively often use first-person pronouns like "I" and "me" to emphasize their personal struggles. They talk about their individual experiences with statements like "I'm struggling to make ends meet" or "I lost my job because of inflation." This use of first-person language underscores the personal impact the economy has on their lives.
Voters who see the job market as strong tend to use third-person pronouns, such as "they" and "them." They describe the economy from a more detached perspective, with phrases like, “They’re creating jobs" or "The economy is growing." This language suggests a broader view, focusing less on personal hardship and more on the general direction of the economy.
Additionally, those with a positive outlook often adopt a factual and confident tone, while those with negative views express frustration, skepticism, and distrust. Skeptics frequently challenge the accuracy of official economic data, using sarcastic or confrontational language to question the narrative of economic recovery.
Recent news about Chicago Public School teachers being forced by administrators to pass migrant children has stirred significant debate and concern. MIG Reports analysis of discussions among moms and teachers shows concerns about the potential impact in their communities.
Both of these groups express mixed emotions about the impact on their children's and students’ education and school experiences. Reactions show a complex dynamic between empathy for migrant children and anxiety over how this shift will affect American children's academic and social experiences.
Chicago elementary teachers have come forward alleging that administrators instructed them they have to give migrant students a passing grade of 70% in every subject.
American moms are addressing the difficult nature of this dilemma. Across numerous datasets, between 62-75% fear the influx of migrant students will disrupt their children's education. They cite concerns about the strain on resources, overcrowding, and reduced individual attention from teachers.
Around 40-45% are also worried about social and cultural conflicts, such as bullying, that may arise in the integration process. Another 30% of moms caveat their discussions to express empathy, acknowledging that migrant children deserve a chance to rebuild their lives through education.
Teachers and Educators: Managing Practical Realities
Teachers and educators are at the forefront of this challenge as well. They are trying to balance empathy with the practical realities of accommodating a larger and more diverse student population.
MIG Reports data shows around 65% of self-described educators express concerns about the strain on resources. They note that current school infrastructure—staff, textbooks, and technology—may not be sufficient to manage the influx of new students.
Approximately 55% are particularly worried about the potential impact on the academic performance of their existing students. They say integrating migrant children will likely lead to disruptions in the classroom.
Despite teacher worries, around 40-45% remain committed to the principle of providing quality education for all children, regardless of background, and are determined to make it work with the right support.
A Complex and Nuanced Reaction
Reactions to this story reflect the complexity of empathy from mothers and teachers with the realities of the border crisis. Both groups grapple with balancing their desire for fairness and empathy with concerns about how illegal immigration is affecting the quality of education and social dynamics in American schools.
This all comes on the heels of American schoolchildren still reeling from the effects of school lockdowns during COVID, with parents still distrusting the school system.
Recent reports that the Biden Administration spent $42 billion on a “broadband expansion” project which has failed to connect anyone to the internet in three years went viral. Clips of FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr testifying in Congress enraged Americans. Carr explained that, after 1,039 days and billions of taxpayer dollars appropriated, not a single person has been connected to the internet.
MIG Reports data shows an overwhelming majority of Americans share Carr’s frustration and resentment. A bipartisan sentiment that government projects are failing, wasting taxpayer money, and private-sector solutions are being blocked, permeates voter discussion. Americans raise serious questions about the role of government in solving the rural broadband crisis.
$42 Billion for Nothing
Carr testified that, the past three years, the Biden-Harris administration allocated $42 billion for a broadband expansion initiative aimed at providing internet access to underserved rural areas. However, not a single household has been connected.
Americans agree with Carr’s critique, accusing the administration of gross mismanagement and calling this a clear example of government failure. For many, it exemplifies a pattern of bureaucratic incompetence, where billions are thrown at problems with no results.
In addition, Americans are angry that private sector solutions could solve the problem but are being blocked by crony capitalist corporations and government legal action.
1️⃣,0️⃣3️⃣7️⃣ days.
Vice President Harris has been leading the Administration’s signature, $42 billion plan to extend Internet to millions of Americans for 1️⃣,0️⃣3️⃣7️⃣ days now.
The result?
0️⃣ people have been connected to the Internet. Not one home. Not one business. None. pic.twitter.com/n1HLYkUZwD
Voters across the political spectrum are not just disappointed—they're outraged. MIG Reports data shows, among all voters:
68% disapprove of the broadband initiative spending and failure
22% decry the program as typical and wasteful government mismanagement
7% defend the project as important for rural Americans without internet
When it comes to voter groups:
80% of conservatives view the initiative as an abject failure, seeing it as a clear example of wasteful spending.
40% of liberals defend the initiative as necessary but poorly executed, while another 30% outright criticize the project.
50% of Independents are skeptical of the program’s effectiveness and relevance.
60% of swing state voters are frustrated, viewing the initiative as yet another fake promise with no real impact.
These reactions reveal dissatisfaction and outrage across political lines. Americans are furious with this program as an egregious waste of tax dollars.
Elon’s Starlink Getting Stuffed
Elon Musk claims Starlink could solve the rural internet problem quickly and for much cheaper, delivering high-speed internet to all rural areas across the U.S. He suggests, unlike the government’s failed and expensive project, Starlink is already operational and scalable. Most Americans agree with Elon that anti-competitive corporations and government regulators are actively blocking a real solution.
NEWS: Partisan politics is why FCC revoked Starlink's rural internet award, says FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr
Perhaps @SpaceX should also file a lawsuit against the FCC for improper, politically-motivated behavior – Just like the FAA.https://t.co/bO4TsoXdjJ
Using a combination of legal battles over spectrum rights and regulatory hurdles imposed by the FCC, corporations like Dish Network have lobbied against Starlink. Worsening the situation, Carr says the Biden-Harris administration has politicized the FCC to prevent Musk and Starlink from stepping in—and Americans agree.
Voter reactions to these tactics are similarly negative:
71% of Americans express opposition to the FCC’s actions against Starlink.
15% support the FCC’s efforts.
14% unsure or neutral.
Bidenomics at Work
What’s striking about this issue is the bipartisan nature of the dissatisfaction. Conservatives, liberals, and swing voters are all united in their frustration over government inefficiency and failure to solve real-world problems. This isn’t limited to broadband either.
MIG Reports data among all voters shows:
81% say they do not trust corporate motivations.
58% express concerns about the impact of stifling innovation on local economies.
71% are frustrated with elected officials.
85% oppose using tax dollars to support corporations
There is a strong sense of frustration across the aisle, with many feeling their voices are not being heard. This is demonstrated by comments like, "It's just another example of how our elected officials are more interested in serving the interests of corporations than the people who elected them." Around 61% of Democrats and 56% of Republicans express a sense of disillusionment with the current state of politics.
Many voters cite examples like this broadband initiative and Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg's much-criticized electric vehicle (EV) charging station plan—which appropriated $7.5 billion in tax dollars and has only completed eight charging stations. Americans view both projects as emblematic of the Biden-Harris administration’s failed promises.
MIG Reports data shows which messaging points from the Trump campaign resonate most with Independent and crossover who support him. Several key factors increase voter enthusiasm among potentially new Republican voters.
Trump’s campaign effectively taps into urgent voter concerns about economic security, border control, law and order, and anti-establishment sentiments. These issues are driving engagement and loyalty among swing voter groups.
Border Security and Immigration
The border is consistently a top issue among Republicans, Independents, and even some Democrats. Its prominence in American discourse is effectively galvanizing Independent and swing voters. Trump's hardline stance on securing the U.S.-Mexico border, enforcing immigration laws, and building a wall deeply resonates with voters who prioritize national security and economic stability.
Many moderate voters view Trump as the only candidate who addresses their concerns about the negative impact of illegal immigration and their desperation for strict border control. This issue consistently drives enthusiasm, with many expressing urgency for immigration reform and a return to Trump-era policies.
Economic Growth and Populism
Another pillar of Trump's moderate appeal is the economy. Voters respond positively to his policies aimed at reducing taxes, deregulating industries, and creating jobs through an "America First" economic agenda. Independent and crossover voters who feel left behind by globalization see Trump's protectionist trade policies and focus on revitalizing American industries as solutions to their economic frustrations.
Trump's specific proposals, such as eliminating taxes on overtime pay, tips, and Social Security benefits, are particularly well-received, fueling optimism that these changes will directly improve their financial situations. This economic populism appeals to voters who believe Trump will prioritize their financial well-being over corporate or elite interests.
Healthcare affordability and accessibility are also critical concerns among Independent and crossover voters. Many express frustration with the rising cost of healthcare and limited access to affordable insurance. They link costs to broader economic challenges.
Voters respond positively to proposals aimed at reducing healthcare costs and increasing access to affordable care, viewing these policies as essential components of economic stability and middle-class support .
Law and Order
There is growing Trump enthusiasm among those concerned with rising crime and public safety. His strong stance on curbing crime and supporting law enforcement appeals to voters who feel uneasy about rampant crime in Democrat-run regions.
Americans are disillusioned with Biden-Harris policies for public safety. Trump's emphasis on restoring order connects with voters who want leadership motivated to protect American communities and uphold traditional values.
Anti-Establishment
A growing segment of anti-establishment voters are also moving to support Trump along with figures like RFK Jr. and Tulsi Gabbard. These voters feel disconnected from the political system and view Trump as standing in opposition to the corporate and political elite.
Many voters gravitate toward Trump’s message of being an outsider who challenges systems and institutions. This position makes anti-establishment voters feel their frustrations with government corruption and media bias are heard. The idea of "draining the swamp" remains a potent rallying cry, with many seeing Trump as uniquely positioned to shake up the establishment and introduce real change in Washington.
National Sovereignty and “America First”
Trump's opposition to globalism, international institutions, and trade deals resonates with voters concerned about the loss of American jobs and the erosion of national identity. His patriotic messaging, which emphasizes American exceptionalism, strikes a chord with voters who are anxious about the future of the country and want a leader who prioritizes American interests.
Support for Military and Veterans
The Biden-Harris administration’s repeated disregard for veterans and Gold Star families infuriates certain moderate voters who support the military. Enthusiasm is strong among Independent voters—particularly those who feel slighted and neglected by Democrats. Trump's promises to increase military spending and improve veterans' benefits play well with voters who prioritize national defense and view veterans as deserving more robust support.
Abortion continues to be a central issue for the Harris campaign and voters are reacting. Following the KamalaHQ X account posting commentary on the tragic death of Amber Thurman, a Georgia woman who died after complications from an abortion pill, Americans are divided.
The Harris campaign used this incident to reinforce her stance on reproductive rights, positioning herself as a defender of women's healthcare. However, this has sparked fierce debate across party lines, with Republicans challenging the accuracy and sincerity of her message.
Statement from Vice President Harris on new report of a 28-year-old Georgia woman dying after not receiving urgent care needed for an infection under Georgia’s extreme abortion ban https://t.co/sf1yJp3foGpic.twitter.com/kM0pq3qG3K
“Abortion bans have fatal consequences. Amber Thurman should still be alive today. This is not just about Roe. This is about women’s lives.”
This frames the abortion debate as deserving sympathy in the wake of a tragic loss of life, blaming abortion restrictions for Thurman's death. But Republicans are pushing back hard, challenging Harris on the facts of the story.
Republicans Fact Check the Amber Thurman Case
As many on the right point out, the tragic death of Amber Thurman has been used to highlight the dangers of restrictive abortion laws, particularly by the Harris campaign. However, the facts tell a more complicated story. Amber Thurman died after a botched medical procedure following complications from an abortion pill. The problem wasn't an abortion ban—it was the abortion pill itself, combined with medical malpractice.
Georgia’s abortion laws, while stringent, still allow medical procedures like D&Cs (dilation and curettage)—a procedure for surgically removing sections of the lining of the uterus. This includes procedures following abortions or miscarriages. No state, Georgia included, prevents doctors from performing life-saving procedures to protect a woman’s health, a point conveniently omitted from Harris’s narrative.
For Republicans, this case exemplifies the broader issue: Democrats like Harris are using selective facts to maintain support on one of the top issues for their voter base. Meanwhile, they ignore the reckless prescription practices and FDA oversight failures which contributed to Thurman's death.
Kamala Harris is a LIAR!
Amber Nicole Thurman didn’t die because of lack of an abortion.
The abortion is what killed her! Abortion pills lead to her death.
Harris, who typically leads Trump in voter sentiment regarding abortion, dipped to 41% approval, below Trump’s 43% on the day she released the misleading statement.
In the last few days, both Trump and Harris have surged in sentiment for their respective abortion platforms.
How Americans View this Issue
American voter reactions to this incident and Harris’s campaign framing have been deeply polarized. According to MIG Reports data samples:
Democrats
72% believe Harris’s commentary on the abortion pill incident was accurate and support her position.
62% are more likely to vote for Harris because of her abortion views.
Republicans
62% view Harris's remarks as misleading, saying her campaign politicized the tragedy for electoral gain.
45% of Republicans say they are less likely to support Harris because of her abortion platform.
The partisan divide on this issue is not surprising. For Democrats, reproductive rights are a non-negotiable issue and many express intentions to vote with abortion as the main driver. They see Harris as a strong advocate for women’s health and view abortion bans as dangerous.
Pro-life Republicans see Harris’s approach as exploitative and misinformed. They shift focus to the ethical concerns around abortion pills and late-term abortions. Many within the party believe abortion should be restricted, and 25% even argue the abortion pill itself is too dangerous for unrestricted access—using the Thurman case as an example.
Abortion is Likely Crucial for Harris’s Election
Abortion has always been a divisive issue, but in the 2024 election, it has become a flashpoint. Especially in battleground states where voter sentiments can tip the balance of electoral votes. In states like Georgia, where Amber Thurman perished, local laws play a significant role in shaping voter views. Laws like Georgia’s Heartbeat Bill, which restrict abortions after six weeks, are a major point of contention.
MIG Reports data shows how abortion may influence voters this cycle:
62% of overall voters express anger or outrage over abortion bans, with many calling for restrictive laws to be repealed.
31% defend abortion bans, viewing them as necessary to protect the unborn.
7% favor the state-specific approach to abortion laws, part of Donald Trump’s platform.
Demographic trends also highlight the influence of abortion on voter behavior:
71% of women oppose abortion bans, particularly women under 30, with 65% of this demographic opposing these restrictions.
45% of mensupport abortion bans, showing a more divided perspective along gender lines.
The broader implications for the election are significant. In swing states, where independent voters often determine the outcome, abortion could be a deciding factor. Independents are split, with 45% believing the issue is being politicized and 31% advocating for greater access to reproductive healthcare. These voters are likely the ones Harris needs to sway if she hopes to secure victory in key battlegrounds.
The Importance of Abortion for Democrats
For Kamala Harris, abortion is not just an issue—it’s central to her 2024 platform. Her emphasis on reproductive rights resonates strongly with her base, especially women and younger voters. By focusing on the dangers of abortion restrictions, Harris is attempting to galvanize support from pro-choice advocates and position herself as a protector of women’s health.
However, the risks for Harris are clear. By overplaying the tragedy of Amber Thurman and misrepresenting the facts, she risks alienating moderate voters who might view her rhetoric as too extreme or politically motivated. The focus on reproductive rights could also backfire in swing states, where voters are more likely to support moderate or state-specific approaches to abortion laws.
MIG Reports analysis reveals several topics about which some on the right are asking, "why is nobody talking about this?" There is a sense of urgency in these conversations, indicating feelings of disillusionment among voters with accusations of media dismissal.
Topics vary by volume, discussion intensity, and the demographic focus of those expressing concern. The largest discussions are around border security, the economy, national security, media bias, and the most recent assassination attempt.
Summary of Findings
40% of conversation is focused on border security and its impact on communities.
30% of discussions are focused on the economy, with widespread frustration over inflation, taxation, and government spending.
15% of discussions are on Ukraine and Russia, reflecting fears about national security and foreign policy.
10% focuses on media bias, driven by frustrations over censorship and selective reporting.
5% of the conversation is on the assassination attempt, highlighting concerns about political violence and media silence.
Border Security
Border security is the highest volume discussion, capturing 40% of conversations. Americans are frustrated about the lack of government action and media scrutiny on the border. These critiques often accompany talk of the consequences of illegal immigration on citizen communities. The debate intensifies around specific cases, like the situation in Springfield, Ohio, where an influx of 20,000 Haitian migrants significantly increases the town's population.
Voters are concerned about the strain on local resources, with 63% of likely voters blaming Kamala Harris for the surge in illegal immigration. This sentiment spreads broadly among conservative and Republican-leaning voters who view the government's response as inadequate.
Discourse frequently highlights the economic burden of illegal immigration and the increased threats to national security. The prominence of this topic reflects its great importance to voters in 2024.
The Economy
The second most prominent topic, composing 30% in the conversation, is the economy. Voters are frustrated over rising inflation, taxation, and government spending. They often compare current economic policies to those under the Trump administration.
In one data set, 75% of conversations mention economic topics, while 60% specifically address inflation. The rising cost of living—like a 40% increase in food prices—amplifies concerns among middle-class individuals.
Discussions also extend to taxes, with debates over how government spending and national debt impact future generations. This focus on economic issues shows American anxiety about financial stability and a belief that Kamala Harris is not addressing these matters effectively.
Ukraine-Russia Conflict
Global security concerns, particularly related to the Ukraine-Russia conflict, account for 15% of discussions. There is great alarm over the potential for escalating tensions and the risk of a wider conflict. Around 75% of voters voicing concerns are conservatives who criticize the Biden-Harris administration's foreign policy. They fear Democratic policies increase the risk of global conflict and nuclear war.
There is a growing sense of urgency that the dangers of war are not adequately addressed in political discourse or media coverage. Fears of global conflict and anxiety about national security cause many to point out a lack of media attention to Biden-Harris policies.
Media Bias
Around 10% of the conversation is focused on media bias. Discussions reveal frustrations with perceived media censorship, selective reporting, and the marginalization of conservative voices. For instance, one data set indicates 71% of voters are upset by mainstream media bias. They often specifically mention bias against Donald Trump and other conservative figures.
Discussions frequently touch on concerns about the media shaping public opinion and suppressing critical viewpoints. Many feel this bias leads to the lack of discourse on key issues like border security and the economy. The relatively lower weight of this topic compared to others suggests that while media bias is a significant concern, it often acts as a framing device for broader discussions rather than being the central focus itself.
Assassination Attempts on Trump
Already a smaller discussion topic compared to other issues, the assassination attempts on Trump carry significant emotional weight among conservative and Republican voters. Around 65% of conservatives are expressing grace concern about these attempts, highlighting the double standard in media coverage. They often compare lack of media coverage for the assassination attempts to similar events involving Democratic politicians.
Voters express anxiety over political violence and a belief that the issue is being downplayed or ignored, contributing to a broader narrative of media bias. While it garners focused attention, the narrower scope of this topic limits its overall prominence in the discourse.
Recently, the Teamsters Union released the results of internal straw poll, electronic poll, and telephone poll shows significant favor toward Donald Trump over Kamala Harris. This is a shift from polling showing a Democratic lead prior to Biden dropping from the presidential race.
MIG Reports analysis of discourse shows union sentiment moving against Harris and why union workers are gravitating toward Trump.
TEAMSTERS RELEASE PRESIDENTIAL ENDORSEMENT POLLING DATA
“For the past year, the Teamsters Union has pledged to conduct the most inclusive, democratic, and transparent Presidential endorsement process in the history of our 121-year-old organization—and today we are delivering on… pic.twitter.com/CnFNN9uosx
Donald Trump has a significant lead among union workers, a critical working and voting group of Americans. Between 58% and 60% support Trump according to recent Teamsters polling. MIG Reports data reflects similar sentiments in voter discussions. Union workers, particularly those in industries like manufacturing and construction, are shifting toward Trump. They say his policies align better with their economic interests and job security.
MIG Reports data shows enthusiasm for Trump among 65.2% of union workers compared to 34.8% for Harris.
Enthusiasm for Trump
The enthusiasm for Trump among union workers is notable and strong, potentially signaling a significant voting bloc shift. Many union members admire Trump’s populist approach and his willingness to challenge the establishment. His "America First" policies, particularly on trade and immigration, resonate deeply with workers who feel threatened by outsourcing and illegal immigration.
Trump’s tough stance on these issues has created a sense of loyalty among union workers. They believe he is the only candidate willing to fight for their jobs and livelihoods. This enthusiasm is reflected in online discussions, where workers express admiration for Trump’s leadership and economic policies.
Reasons for Support
The top issues union workers cite with their support are Trump’s stances on:
Trade
Immigration
Job creation
His trade policies, which focus on protecting American industries and reducing outsourcing, appeal directly to workers who fear losing jobs to foreign competition. His tough rhetoric on immigration, which many view as a threat to job security and wage growth, further solidifies his support.
Meanwhile, Kamala Harris faces significant challenges with gaining union worker support. While she has attempted to court their support through endorsements from labor unions and promises of progressive policies, her association with the Democratic establishment and perceived focus on social justice issues over economic concerns alienates many. Union members skeptical of her record on trade and labor rights often see Harris as out of touch with their immediate needs, particularly regarding job security and economic growth.
Harris's Struggles
While Harris’s platform includes policies aimed at workers’ rights, raising the minimum wage, and addressing income inequality, these issues do not seem to resonate as strongly as Trump’s focus on job security and trade protection. Harris is perceived as more aligned with corporate interests and global trade practices, which many view as harmful to their industries. This disconnect has led to a lack of enthusiasm for her candidacy, as many union members remain unconvinced, she can effectively represent their interests.
In discussing mass deportations, Vice President Kamala Harris recently asked, “How’s that going to happen?” This comment, along with the U.S. government not knowing exactly how many illegal immigrants are in the country stirs impassioned reactions from Americans.
Kamala appears to be campaigning for Trump: "They have pledged to carry out the largest deportation, a mass deportation, in American history. Imagine what that would look like and what that would be." pic.twitter.com/l6CVbvZUwA
The public sentiment is predominantly critical toward Harris’s stance on immigration. Around 70% of Americans disapprove of her immigration policies and her views on open borders. MIG Reports analysis shows 55% support mass deportations, citing concerns over national security, crime, and the economic burden of illegal immigration. This figure aligns with a recent Scripps News/Ipsos survey showing 54% of Americans support mass deportation.
Americans Are Angry
The conversation around immigration is heated, with many Americans expressing frustration and anger towards Biden-Harris policies. Some common complaints include:
Government failure to enforce existing immigration laws
Large influxes of illegal immigrants
Migrants receiving preferential treatment over American citizens
Around 60% of Americans say the Biden-Harris administration's open border policies are responsible for overwhelming surges in migration. This, they say, includes the subsequent problems associated with it—like issues Ohio residents are facing. Many express concerns over safety and security in their communities, citing crime, violence, and exploitation by illegal immigrants.
Only 25% argue mass deportations are inhumane and unjust. This group says a more comprehensive and inclusive approach to immigration reform is needed. They argue immigrants, regardless of their status, contribute to the economy and enrich American society.
The Border is an Election Issue
MIG Reports analysis of other conversations regarding the border crisis show several supporting narratives.
In election discussions:
53% of Americans believe Trump would handle immigration well
45% believe Harris would handle it well
50% of black Americans believe immigration is negatively impacting their economic opportunities and communities
In swing state discussions:
71% of Americans are concerned about the economic impact of illegal immigration
55% believe Harris's open-border approach is harming the country
These patterns mirror the national perspective that immigration is deeply intertwined with concerns about national security, jobs, and the economy.
An ongoing public debate between Elon Musk and Gavin Newsom, fueled by social media exchanges, reveals American backlash against the CA Governor. In reaction to a parody ad for Kamala Harris using AI to simulate her voice, Newsom proposed legislation to prosecute those sharing “misleading” or “deceptive” content—including memes.
Musk argues this bill infringes on free speech—a view most Americans share. MIG Reports analysis shows discussion themes around free speech, government overreach, misinformation, and public trust.
I checked with renowned world authority, Professor Suggon Deeznutz, and he said parody is legal in America 🤷♂️ https://t.co/OCBewC3XYD
The issue of free speech dominates the conversation, with 76.67% of the public siding with Elon Musk. The overwhelming support for Musk stems from a strong belief that Newsom’s proposed law threatens the First Amendment. Many express concerns that government involvement in regulating parody or memes sets a dangerous precedent for future censorship.
Phrases like "tyrant," "communist," and "totalitarian" are frequently directed at Newsom, highlighting the hardline stance on this issue. For most Americans, free speech is an essential American value that must be protected at all costs—regardless of the risks posed by allegations of misinformation.
Government Overreach and Political Polarization
This debate between Musk and Newsom over memes has become a flashpoint for broader concerns about government overreach. Voters frame Newsom’s bill as an unconstitutional attempt to silence critics, positioning him as an authoritarian figure seeking to impose his will on the public.
Conservatives and Independents are particularly strong in their disapproval. Only 15.5% of the MIG Reports sample express support for Newsom. This group says the bill is a necessary tool to protect elections and prevent false information from corrupting democratic processes. However, even within this group, some express unease over the potential for government abuse.
The Role of Misinformation
The minority position emphasizes curbing “misinformation” to protect public trust in elections. Supporters say, though parody and memes are included in free expression, they can also undermine democratic integrity by pedaling deceptive narratives. This group believes the bill strikes a balance between free speech and public safety. They acknowledge that unchecked falsehoods have the potential to cause real harm. Despite this perspective, they struggle to gain traction in a conversation dominated by opposition to government censorship.
Public Distrust in Government
The conversation surfaces recurring American feelings of distrust toward government institutions. Musk’s framing of the debate—portraying Newsom as attacking free speech—resonates with those already skeptical of governmental power.
Many see the bill as part of a broader pattern of government interference in individual rights. They say censorship laws places public discourse in the hands of those in power, allowing them to determine what is considered “misinformation” or “deceptive.” This perception of government power grabs strengthens Musk's position as a defender of the people’s rights against an overbearing state.
Especially on X, voters view Musk as a champion of free speech. Their distrust fuels the debate and amplifies feelings of anger against government censorship and speech crackdowns akin to those seen in Europe.
Neutral and Undecided Voices
While the conversation is highly polarized, around 9.5% remain neutral or nuanced. This group either expresses uncertainty about the implications of Newsom's bill or attempt to frame the debate in more measured terms.
Some believe that while the bill has flaws, its intention may have merit. These voices suggest there is still room for debate and constructive discourse, though they are largely overshadowed by the more extreme rhetoric from both sides.
_.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)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)