Donald Trump's recent debate statement linking immigration to economic issues resonates with voters who also view these issues as linked. According to Trump, immigration and economic stability are inherently intertwined—a reality many segments of the electorate overserve on their own. However, many voters also reject this view or express neutral feelings. While immigration and economic issues remain high priority for all voters, how Americans think about them is starkly varied.
The Border Impacts the Economy
Trump's supporters overwhelmingly view immigration as a key driver of economic challenges. These voters argue unchecked immigration, particularly illegal immigration, strains public resources. Many, like residents in Ohio struggling with an influx of immigrants, say migrant needs inflate housing and healthcare costs. They also say mass migration threatens job security.
Particularly on the right, agree that the economy is impacted by illegal immigration. However, mentions of this link vary depending on the origins of the discussion. Despite the variables, Trump’s assertion remains a point of agreement for most Americans.
What Voters Say
MIG Reports data shows approximately 46.4% of voters believe stronger immigration controls would directly lead to improved economic conditions. They often mention reducing competition for jobs and lower inflation rates.
28.6% of voters align with Harris’s perspective, which suggests Trump is dramatizing the severity of both economic struggles and border security.
20% of voters voice neutral or mixed views, reflecting a more nuanced or indifferent stance on the issue.
Economy Conversations
In discussions about the economy:
57.2% support Trump's view that the economy is linked to immigration.
23.5% disagree with linking the issues.
19.3% remain neutral or indifferent to the connection.
Border Security Conversations
In discussions about the border and immigration:
35.6% support Trump's stance.
33.7% disagree, expressing concerns about oversimplification or sensationalism.
20.7% are neutral or hold mixed views, calling for more nuanced discussions.
Open Border Voters Disagree
Americans who disagree that immigration is tied to the economy say Trump oversimplifies complex issues. They say the economy's problems are rooted in broader systemic challenges like inflation, corporate policies, and global economic trends. Many of these voters claim Trump’s statements are nothing more than fearmongering.
Opponents also say Trump sensationalizes border and economy discussions by making false claims about immigrants increasing U.S. crime. This group believes immigrants contribute positively to the economy, filling critical labor shortages and fostering cultural diversity, which they believe outweighs the economic risks Trump outlines.
The Kinda-Sorta-I-Don’t-Know Vote
Mixed sentiment voters mostly express two perspectives. Some criticize both Trump and Kamala Harris’s views on the economy and immigration, while others opt to prioritize issues they view as more important. These viewpoints reflect a broader frustration with political rhetoric and a desire for more balanced dialogue.
Sentiment Analysis
Voters may feel more inclined to support Trump's stance on immigration when the issue is framed as economic. Many American workers feel personal impacts from job competition, inflation, and rising costs in their daily lives. Linking immigration to these concerns resonates more directly than speaking about it as a standalone issue.
When conversations focus primarily on border security or immigration issues, viewpoints tend to become more abstract. Voters may feel less directly impacted unless they live in a border or sanctuary state, leading to more mixed or neutral views.
Additionally, social conditioning may play a role if voters avoid expressing strong opinions on immigration to avoid being seen as racist or xenophobic. This common framing of border issues on the political left often aims severe criticism at border security concerns. When voters view immigration through the lens of economic impact, Americans are more able to justify a desire for stricter policies without touching on sensitive racial dynamics.
During the presidential debate, voters reacted strongly to Donald Trump’s comments about allegations that Haitian migrants in Springfield, Ohio, are eating pets and local park fowl. The story, which had already been circulating online and generating a wealth of memes, became a central point of discussion.
This report analyzes voter reactions, concerns about immigration, media bias, and impact on support for Trump and Harris.
Migrants Eating Pets in Ohio
The pet-eating allegations in Springfield, Ohio, began with a photo of a man carrying a dead goose and videos of residents alleging various pet and wildlife hunting among Haitian migrants.
Springfield is a small town in Ohio.
4 years ago, they had 60k residents.
Under Harris and Biden, 20,000 Haitian immigrants were shipped to the town.
NEW: Springfield, Ohio man says Haitian illegals are decap*tating ducks from parks & eating them, accuses commission members of getting paid off for allowing it.
“They're in the park grabbing up ducks by their neck and cutting their head off and walking off with 'em and eating… pic.twitter.com/uE3wI3CXl3
As the story gained traction online, particularly in conservative circles concerned about immigration, memes surged. People also began debating the veracity of claims and the details of the stories. Many Democrats adopted a sense of outrage and disbelief—including Rep. Eric Swalwell, who criticized the viral memes in Congress.
How do we know we are winning?
Democrats are losing their minds over memes in the halls of Congress
Trump's mention of these allegations during the debate further inflamed discussions and more memes. Many people also reacted to ABC’s debate moderator David Muir attempting to fact-check Trump’s claims.
Voter reactions to the allegations are divided both nationally and among Ohio residents. MIG Reports analysis shows trends among voter comments on memes and reactions to the debate.
National Sentiment
51% of voters nationally believe the pet-eating allegations, tying them to broader immigration issues.
26% outright dismiss the story, seeing it as an example of exaggerated rhetoric.
22% remain neutral or have not directly engaged with the rumors.
Ohio Sentiment
In Ohio, 52% of voters express a belief that migrants are eating pets, viewing this as symbolic of greater societal collapse and resource strain.
28% reject the story, calling it political fearmongering.
20% focus on the broader immigration debate without weighing in on the pet story.
Stories like this seem to stir up debate, confirming recurring reports that immigration and community safety are a top voter issue in 2024. The fact that national and Ohio-specific sentiments align closely—with 51% and 52% respectively believing the rumor—suggests the Haitian migrant story taps into broader national anxieties about immigration.
Memes Driving Voter Conversation
Memes have played a critical role in amplifying discussion around these topics. Analysis of meme-centric conversations shows 70% of commenters in the MIG Reports data set express strong support for Trump. They often use humor and AI-generated imagery to emphasize points about immigration and perceived Democratic denial.
Meme culture, especially among right-leaning voters, often rallies supporters around an issue while also criticizing the opposition. While many claim meme culture is relegated to “chronically online” circles, politicians and public figures more frequently engage with memes—as in the case of Swalwell and House Republicans.
On the flip side, Harris supporters largely dismiss the claims as absurd. Roughly 25% of national voters see these memes and stories as racist or misleading. Some accuse Trump’s camp of fearmongering with embellished stories which are not really happening.
Media Bias Exacerbates Voter Ire
The role of the media, particularly how these allegations were handled during the debate, also shapes voter sentiment. During the debate, ABC’s David Muir claimed to fact-check Trump’s claims in real-time, casting doubt on the veracity of the story. This, along with multiple fact-checks against Trump and none against Harris, fueled accusations of media bias.
Donald Trump gets fact-checked again during the presidential debate after accusing immigrants in Ohio of eating pets:
55% of Ohio voters criticize the debate moderators for openly favoring Harris. Many argued that Harris was given leeway in addressing the pet-eating allegations, while Trump faced sharper scrutiny.
Nationally, 40% of critique Muir and the media’s portrayal of the story, with many asserting media outlets are deliberately downplaying immigration issues.
This skepticism has strengthened Trump's position among voters, who often view the mainstream media as an arm of the Democratic establishment. The media’s perceived bias adds another layer to the debate, turning the pet-eating allegations into a broader discussion about the trustworthiness of political discourse.
Implications for Trump’s Campaign
Reactions to this multi-faceted story reflect a broader struggle between partisan viewpoints on the media and immigration. Data suggests voter frustrations are pushing support toward Trump—including in a swing state like Ohio.
Voter impact from this story shows:
Support for Trump remains high: 70% of immigration discussions express positive sentiment toward Trump and 42% of all discussions mentioning him express support.
Media Distrust: The perceived media bias, especially around fact-checking, has bolstered Trump's credibility among supporters.
Harris's Challenge: While her base largely dismisses the narrative as absurd, the broader immigration debate remains a vulnerability. Voters unhappy about immigration view Harris as part of the establishment that is failing to address real concerns.
MIG Reports data shows voter sentiment shifts following the first debate between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris. Views of bias from the debate moderators and broader political divides reveal anti-establishment sentiments.
The debate on ABC, moderated by David Muir and Linsey Davis, sparks a discussion about media bias, political alliances, and the establishment's role in shaping the election narrative. Voters are having contentious discussions centering on the notion that Trump is running against Harris as well as the broader political and media establishment. As these reactions unfold, they provide insight into the electorate's evolving perspective on Trump's anti-establishment image in the 2024 race.
Former Democrats backing Trump reveals the same point as Dick Cheney backing Kamala Harris. It’s not really about Republicans vs Democrats. It’s about the managerial class vs the citizen. pic.twitter.com/shjcQTar9x
Analysis of reactions from both sides reveals more than half of voters perceive the debate moderators and the media as biased against Trump. MIG Reports data shows 59.5% expressing dissatisfaction with the debate moderators, accusing them of favoring Harris.
Perceptions of bias feed into the broader narrative that Trump is the target of an organized hinderance effort by establishment figures. Additionally, 51.5% of voters believe Trump is actively facing opposition from establishment forces in the media and political elites in both parties. These findings illustrate the growing belief among Trump supporters that his campaign represents a challenge to entrenched powers. Voters view the election as representing more than just policy—they believe it’s a battle against a rigged system.
Trump Versus the Machine
Media Machine
Voter reactions Muir and Davis underscore perceptions of the establishment media seeking to crush Trump. This bolsters ideas that the media, a key pillar of the establishment, is unfairly targeting him.
Many believe Trump faced disproportionate scrutiny, with fact-checking and interruptions exclusively targeting him. They also assert that Kamala Harris was allowed to speak freely. Trump supporters interpret this as a clear attempt by ABC to undermine his candidacy.
65% criticize them for displaying bias against Trump and helping Harris.
72% feel the debate moderators intentionally aimed to damage Trump’s credibility.
Dissatisfaction directly fuels beliefs that the debate was not just a clash between candidates but a three-against-one demonstration of how the establishment manipulates the narrative against Trump.
Political Machine
The political establishment’s opposition to Trump also surfaces in voter conversations. More than half of discussions acknowledge that Trump's campaign faces formidable resistance from a coalition of establishment figures.
50% recognize establishment GOP figures like Dick Cheney and George W. Bush, appear to align with Democrats.
47% say the debate itself reflected political bias, with moderators pushing Democratic viewpoints to delegitimize Trump.
Voters express beliefs that Trump’s candidacy is a continuation of his fight against the "swamp," a term they use to describe career politicians and media figures who they believe undermine the interests of the American people.
Unwavering Loyalty
Views that Trump is running against the establishment further solidify supporter among anti-establishment voters. The debate reinforced their conviction that Trump stands as an outsider who challenges both parties and the media’s control. For them, the debate moderators, the format, and the overall media portrayal of Trump indicate his opposition is more than just political—it's systemic.
Despite this unfair targeting, Trump’s base remains resilient, with 60% of his supporters declaring him the winner of the debate. This emphasizes his capacity to confront establishment forces head-on.
MIG Reports analysis of voter discussions and reactions to the election debate between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump suggest voters believe Trump won.
Data shows distinct reactions from:
Democrats
Republicans
Independents and undecided voters
All voters combined
Weighted analysis of data from voter conversations on four key topics—security issues, border security, economic issues, and ideologies—shows a clearer understanding of voter sentiment and the perceived "winner." This analysis synthesizes opinions across different voter groups to provide a comprehensive overview of public reaction.
MIG Reports data shows across topics, Trump outperformed Kamala Harris among his base and all voters combined. However, Harris’s sentiment on the economy and ideologies may have an increased margin for error—and may potentially be artificially inflated—due to troll-posting from Trump supporters ironically praising her.
Security Issues
Security issues play a pivotal role in shaping perceptions of the candidates' debate performances. Across all voter groups, Donald Trump has a slight lead, gaining 45.46% of overall support compared Harris’s 41.98%.
Among Democrats, Harris is seen as the more capable leader, with 65% of Democratic voters praising her confidence and preparedness.
Republican voters show strong allegiance to Trump, with 65% believing he dominated the discussion on security.
Independents also lean toward Trump, with 60% of their comments supporting his stance, although 25% acknowledge Harris's performance.
12.56% of overall voter reactions are neutral.
Border Security
Trump handily wins the immigration and border discussion across all groups, with 56.12% of total sentiments in his favor.
Democrats largely rally behind Harris, with 65% approving her border comments, focusing on her humane approach to immigration.
Republicans overwhelmingly back Trump, with 82% crediting him for his firm stance on border control and framing Harris as ineffective.
Independents also lean heavily toward Trump, with 60% supporting his approach to border security, while 25% align with Harris.
The overall voter reaction remains consistent, showing 62% support for Trump.
Economic Issues
On the economy, Trump also holds an overall advantage, with 49.29% of voters favoring him compared to 42.16% for Harris.
Harris has 68% support among Democrats. They say she won the economic debate, citing her middle-class policies and critiques of Trump's tax cuts as effective.
75% of Republican voters stand firmly behind Trump, highlighting his economic record and ability to keep inflation low during his presidency.
Independents also favor Trump on economic matters, with 65% backing his approach and 30% saying Harris performed well.
Across all voters, the economic narrative skews toward Trump, who emerges as the more trusted candidate on this issue.
Ideologies
The ideological debate reveals a more nuanced picture, with Trump holding a lead overall at 47.79%, while Harris trails at 36.46%.
Among Democrats, 70% say Harris won the ideological argument, viewing her progressive policies and composure as strengths.
Republicans are loyal to Trump, with 84% supporting his stance and framing Harris’s ideas as too left leaning.
Independents are more divided on ideological issues, with 45% favoring Trump and 33% backing Harris.
The general electorate reflects a similar divide, with 45% for Trump and 33% for Harris. While Trump leads in overall sentiment, the ideological debate remains contested, with Harris holding significant support among certain groups.
A social media controversy swirled after an encounter between NFL player Tyreek Hill and the Miami Police Department. The encounter began when Miami PD pulled Hill over for driving 60 mph, issuing him a reckless driving citation.
Tyreek Hill ARREST body cam FOOTAGE released.. 😲‼️
MIG Reports analysis of conversations about racial issues and police shows:
62% of those discussing the issue criticize the police
38% showed support for the police
Those criticizing the police express concerns about the officer’s behavior, highlighting themes of excessive force, intimidation tactics, and systemic failures in accountability. People use words like "brutality," "defund," and "abuse" to express a strong sense of public frustration.
The remaining voices defending law enforcement highlight the importance of maintaining public safety and acknowledging the risks officers face. Supporters use terms like "public safety," "law enforcement," and "first responders," reflecting a belief in the essential role police play in community safety.
This analysis reveals a significant public inclination to criticize police actions, though a substantial portion still support law enforcement. While racial and police issues are often highly polarized in a post-BLM world, it is possible that Hill’s high public profile as an NFL player may exacerbate criticisms of police in this case.
The Hill encounter serves as a microcosm of the ongoing national dialogue on police reform and accountability, with many advocating for systemic changes. Others insist on the necessity of police presence for public order and compliance by everyone. The blended sentiment illustrates a divided but nuanced landscape, where public trust in law enforcement remains fragile.
Prior to the bodycam being released, Hill gave statements to the press stating he had “no idea” why officers placed him in handcuffs. Additionally, he said he was not disrespectful but was “still trying to put it all together.”
Tyreek Hill Bodycam RELEASED! PROVES HE LIED!
He was clearly speeding and did not follow a single direction given to him by the officers.
The South Florida Police BA say Tyreek Hill was uncooperative with cops and initiated what happened. and that they stand with the actions of… pic.twitter.com/Pw00sF0r9P
In a viral video, former law enforcement professional Brandum Tatum showed police bodycam footage of Tyreek Hill being in the wrong. This also generate discussion about similar events like former Seattle Seahawks Michael Bennett claiming Las Vegas Police pulled a gun and “threatened to shoot him in the head,” when it clearly didn’t happen.
New arrest video proves Michael Bennett lied. Two Hispanic & one black officer detained him. Will media cover this? https://t.co/Jlx6hT1BVr
The public discourse surrounding the American job market under Democratic leadership presents a polarized landscape of opinions. As workers navigate the impact of recent jobs reports and unemployment figures, varying levels of confidence emerge. Political affiliations often shape perceptions of the Biden-Harris administration's economic policies.
This analysis examines themes of optimism, skepticism, and economic anxieties among voters.
Hope or Despair for Economic Recovery
Three dominant themes arise in the analysis:
Optimism about job growth and economic recovery
Disbelief about incorrect job numbers and economic stability
Concerns about inflation and broader economic pressures
Americans express strong doubt about the long-term sustainability of current policies, along with some belief in Democratic leadership to foster job creation. Most voters express anxiety, while a minority remain hopeful about Biden-Harris plans to strengthen jobs.
Highest discussion volume:
Concerns about inflation and broader economic pressures
Skepticism toward job numbers
Optimism about job growth and economic recovery
Strongest negative sentiment:
Skepticism of job numbers and economic stability
Concerns about inflation and broader economic pressures
Optimism about job growth and economic recovery
Optimism Among Democrats
Democratic supporters maintain confidence in the economic trajectory Biden and Harris tout as positive. In various discussions, proponents highlight job growth, claiming the administration has created more than 15 million jobs since 2021. This, they suggest, is strong evidence of a recovering economy.
Approximately 40% of voter conversations reflect this optimistic outlook, emphasizing the Biden-Harris administration’s narrative of unemployment rates, historical job creation, and the resilience of the labor market despite recent global challenges. This group believes Democratic leadership’s progressive policies, aimed at fostering employment, are crucial to the country’s ongoing recovery.
Despite this optimism, Federal Reserve data shows August 2024 is the lowest year for August jobs in the past 10 years. This evidence of a cooling job market is increasing wider worries of an impending recession.
Skepticism of Job Numbers
In contrast to Democratic optimism, most voters remain skeptical about the reported job growth and unemployment figures. These doubts are driven by recurring downward revisions to job reports, with a shocking 818,000 fewer jobs than originally reported in the last year.
Many express suspicion about the accuracy of the data, with some alleging the numbers are manipulated or inflated. They say Democrats want to paint a more favorable picture for the Biden-Harris administration. This skepticism is further fueled by concerns that job growth disproportionately benefits non-citizens. This is particularly upsetting while American workers, particularly the middle class, continue to face economic hardship.
There are reports that more than 1.3 million jobs were lost by American citizens, while 1.2 million jobs were filled by illegal immigrant workers. Approximately 53% of voter comments express a sense of distrust, suggesting current policies fail to address the economic challenges of American citizens.
Economic Anxieties and Concerns about Inflation
A prominent theme throughout the discourse centers on inflation and the rising cost of living. These are frequently mentioned as critical issues affecting American households. Many commenters argue that, despite reported job numbers, inflation rates remain high, and wage growth has not kept pace with the increasing cost of essential goods such as food and gas.
Voter concerns are exacerbated by fears of a looming recession, with some predicting the current economic trajectory under Democratic leadership will lead to further instability. Most discussions address inflation as a pressing issue, underscoring the belief that ongoing economic pressures overshadow any gains in the job market.
MIG Reports analysis of online discussions surrounding DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas and migrant deportations reveals deep public concerns. As debates unfold among voters, frustration, fear, and occasional defense of current policies pervade. The narrative in voter conversations is charged with tension, reflecting Americans’ growing anxiety over national security, economic impact, and community safety.
Discussions predominantly focus on the effectiveness of immigration policies, the handling of illegal and legal immigrants. People also discuss the broader implications for the upcoming election.
We are providing this humanitarian relief to Haitians already present in the United States given the conditions that existed in their home country as of June 3, 2024. In doing so, we are realizing the core objective of the TPS law and our obligation to fulfill it. https://t.co/yBwOPk7eWJ
— Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas (@SecMayorkas) June 28, 2024
There is a collective sentiment that Biden-Harris administration officials, particularly Secretary Mayorkas, has failed to adequately address border security. This feeling of dissatisfaction manifests in discussions of border security and immigration policies.
Sentiment leans heavily negative, with voters blaming current policies for harming U.S. interests. From fears about the economy to concerns about public safety, Americans express a belief that immigration policies favor undocumented individuals at the expense of citizens.
Border Security
Dominating much of the election dialogue, voters criticize perceived failures at the border. They emphasize increased crime, economic instability, and cultural threats posed by illegal immigrants. Americans use strong, often alarmist language to describe an "invasion" at the border.
Concerns for security blend with demands for stronger enforcement and mass deportations, positioning border control as a key issue in the election. There is clear urgency in conversations, with deep frustration over what voters see as weak enforcement and a lack of accountability.
Immigration
Immigration policies overlap with concerns about border security, shifting the conversation slightly toward critiques of policy and Mayorkas’s leadership. In both election and American-daily-life contexts, public frustration intensifies. Many question the allocation of taxpayer resources and the strain illegal immigrants place on local communities.
The debate is framed around national integrity, with participants calling for stricter deportation policies to preserve jobs, safety, and public welfare. Anger about recent news stories involving crimes committed by illegal immigrants spurs critiques of policy inefficacy, portraying Mayorkas as a central figure in the ongoing crisis.
Mass deportation is now popular.
A majority of registered voters favor “a new national program to deport all undocumented immigrants currently living in the U.S. illegally,” 62-38%.
👀 A MAJORITY OF HISPANICS favor mass deportation, 53-47%.
The language Americans use highlights the nature of this polarized discourse. Third-person language dominates among those criticizing government officials and the impacts of immigration policies. This focus on accountability creates a tone of detachment and objectivity, with commenters often pointing fingers at Mayorkas and the Biden administration for perceived failings.
First-person narratives also surface, particularly in election-related contexts, where voters share personal stories of community impacts or emotional responses to the ongoing immigration debates. This first-person language serves to amplify the urgency and personal stakes tied to immigration policies, emphasizing how deeply these issues resonate with affected individuals.
Famed lawyer and long-time Democrat Alan Dershowitz recently announced he is leaving the Democratic Party. He explained the move is largely due to dissatisfaction with the Biden-Harris administration's stance on Israel. Dershowitz’s decision speaks to a broader trend of high-profile figures abandoning their traditional party allegiances, contributing to a growing narrative that the 2024 election is beyond party lines.
🚨 Lifelong Democrat Alan Dershowitz: “I am no longer a Democrat”
Alan Dershowitz’s announcement surprised many but also reflects a sentiment brewing within certain Democratic circles. His dissatisfaction with the Biden-Harris administration, particularly on their handling of the Israel-Hamas conflict, was a tipping point. Dershowitz, known for his staunch defense of Israel, feels progressive policies are a departure from essential values. Israel continues to be a thorn in Kamala Harris’s side as more traditional, pro-Israel Democrats and progressivepro-Palestine Democrats are both unhappy with leadership actions.
Voters, especially Democrats, express a mix of surprise, disappointment, and reflection. Many see his exit as symptomatic of deeper fractures within the Party. Some feel alienated by what they perceive as the Party’s drift toward more progressive or socialist policies. These ideological shifts are causing divisions not only among politicians but within the electorate.
Reactions from the Democratic Party Base
Among Democratic voters, Dershowitz's exit underscores a sense of internal discord that is dramatically worsened by the Israel-Hamas conflict. Conversations online reflect fractured reactions:
Surprise and Disappointment: Many are dismayed by Dershowitz leaving, interpreting it as a rejection of the core values they associate with the Party. But some of these voters do express concern over the Party's evolving platform, often describing it as a move towards socialism or Marxism.
Validation and Support: Those frustrated with Biden and Harris’s leadership, view Dershowitz's departure as a logical step. For them, his decision is a critique of the Party’s evolution, which they view as moral decline.
The reactions highlight the increasing division within the Democratic base, where traditional values around liberty and individual rights clash with far-left progressive ideologies.
A Broader Trend of Crossing Party Lines
Dershowitz is not alone in his decision to leave his party. His departure is part of a larger trend that sees key figures from both sides of the aisle breaking with their traditional affiliations, reflecting a more profound ideological realignment within American politics.
RFK Jr. and Tulsi Gabbard have both endorsed Donald Trump, marking significant defections from Democratic ranks. Both former Democrats, their endorsements symbolize a broader alignment with populist movements.
Mitt Romney and Dick Cheney, traditionally stalwart Republicans, have publicly supported Kamala Harris, further muddling the lines of partisanship. These endorsements suggest establishment Republicans continue to hold very anti-Trump viewpoints.
The establishment divide is also widened by more than 200 former Republican staffers endorsing Harris. This cross-aisle movement highlights a fundamental reality of the 2024 election—voters and political figures are no longer constrained by party identity.
How Voters View the New Divides
As voters react to these high-profile defections, a new pattern is emerging—one where the political divide of 2024 is seen less as Democrat versus Republican and more as a struggle between broader ideological and socio-political binaries:
Elitism vs. Populism: Many Americans frame the election as a battle between an entrenched political elite and the populist movements they perceive as fighting for the "common man." Both Democrats and Republicans are increasingly seen as catering to corporate interests, with voters expressing frustration over what they view as a lack of authentic representation.
Establishment vs. Anti-Establishment: Similar to elites, the political establishment is seen as part of a machine bent on protecting institutional power. Many voters, particularly Independents, view the establishment as a corrupt force prioritizing its own interests of Americans. Anti-establishment sentiments appeal to those who want to return power to the people.
Nationalism vs. Progressivism: Another binary pits advocates for strong national borders, economic independence, and military strength against those who push for progressive social programs, environmental initiatives, and globalism. Voters are grappling with how these competing ideologies align with their own identities and long-term visions for the country.
MIG Reports data further illuminates these shifts with analysis of voter comments online regarding ideologies and political topics.
55% of sampled voters acknowledge a shift in political identity regarding which party supports working-class interests.
40% of comments suggest skepticism over Donald Trump’s populist claims.
47% of believe issues rather than party affiliation should guide political choices.
54% identify as Independent, representing the shift away from traditional party loyalties.
68% of voters express approval of public figures crossing party lines when it is seen as genuine or principled.
55% convey a sense of frustration or betrayal in response to leaders perceived as compromising traditional values.
47% celebrate the emergence of alternative voices within elections, indicating enthusiasm for third-party or cross-aisle endorsements.
The ongoing partisan chaos unfolding in 2024 suggests ideological divides are driving views about the future of American politics. Traditional party structures may be less relevant in shaping voter behavior, with populist, nationalist, and progressive ideologies driving a new political alignment.
Recent viral stories about job losses among American-born workers and job increases for foreign are causing anger among voters. MIG Reports analysis shows discussions are laced with worry about job security, economic inequality, and a perceived lack of government support.
As the labor market evolves, native workers express fears that foreign laborers, supported by illegal immigration, are taking jobs that belong to them. This narrative is rich in personal stakes and political dissatisfaction, painting a complex picture of an American workforce under pressure.
Holy shit: Foreign-born workers: +635K in August Native-born workers: -1.325 MILLION in August
American conversations are dominated by the personal experiences of native-born workers who feel left behind in the labor market. In discussions focused solely on jobs, 62% of voters in the MIG Reports sample use first-person language such as "I feel" or "we are facing." This high percentage of personal pronouns highlights how job insecurity is felt at an individual level, with many expressing direct fear that their jobs are being taken by foreign workers.
People use phrases like “lost jobs,” “foreign competition,” and “native workers left behind” to express their anger. This reflects a shared sentiment that the job market is slipping out of the hands of Americans who need work and being given to cheaper laborers who are here illegally and likely do not contribute appropriate taxes.
While some Americans believe the economy is growing and job creation is on the rise, most are highly dissatisfied with current economic policies. Voters frequently link the situation to Biden-Harris policies, blaming Democrats for the job market. Frustration extends beyond immediate job loss to larger issues like inflation, stagnant wages, and government mismanagement.
Housing and Unemployment
Worries about finding sufficient employment extend into other societal issues, such as housing. As job stability declines for Americans, many native-born workers express growing concern about their ability to afford housing and maintain a stable standard of living. The commentary frequently links job loss to an increasing strain on personal finances. People discuss fears that foreign workers are taking jobs that would otherwise provide them with the means to secure affordable housing.
Around 66% focus on the negative impact of foreign workers on the job market. Voters call for stricter immigration laws and policies that prioritize native-born workers. The housing crisis is another flashpoint in these discussions, as many commenters believe that resources are being diverted from American citizens to accommodate foreign workers and their families. Phrases like “I can’t afford my rent while they get housing” emphasize the personal financial strain many feel, suggesting job loss and economic challenges are bleeding into other critical areas of life.
Economic Issues and Government Accountability
The anxiety over job security is mirrored in economic discussions as well. Discussions reflect broader fears about the economy, focusing heavily on inflation, taxes, and the government's failure to prioritize American workers.
70% of comments express negative sentiments toward the economy.
65% advocate for stricter immigration policies to curb the imbalance in the job market.
Sentiments from the jobs-centric discussions are echoed here, as many contributors link job loss to broader economic failures. Common phrases include “we need to prioritize Americans” and “the economy under Biden has failed,” showing how job concerns are intertwined with larger fears about the country’s economic future. Commenters frequently demand action from political leaders, calling for reforms that protect native-born workers from foreign competition and stabilize the economy.
.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)