U.S. lawmakers proposed introducing a constitutional amendment aimed at addressing a potential "mass casualty" event, sparking debate across the political spectrum. The proposal, which involves replacing members of Congress and altering lines of succession during a national crisis, is generating public discourse. Analysis reveals reactions, underlying ideological concerns, and fears fueling voter discussions.

NEW - U.S. lawmakers plan for possible "mass casualty" event, proposing a constitutional amendment to replace members quickly and change various lines of succession in a "national crisis."https://t.co/1RAVKYLBbx

— Disclose.tv (@disclosetv) September 24, 2024

Voter Sentiment Breakdown

Republicans

Most Republican voters express strong skepticism, viewing the proposal as a potential power grab by Democrats or an attempt to undermine the Constitution. Concerns about election manipulation and consolidation of power are dominant.

• 62% Negative
• 21% Positive
• 17% Neutral

Democrats

Democratic voters are more open to the proposal, viewing it as a necessary step for protecting national security and preventing a power vacuum in the event of a crisis. They see it as a prudent response to increasing threats to the government.

• 55% Positive
• 29% Negative
• 6% Neutral
• Remaining value nondescript for qualitative analysis

Independents

Independent voters are split. Some recognize the need for such an amendment, but others are wary of potential overreach and abuses of power. Many are calling for a more bipartisan and carefully debated approach.

• 41% Negative
• 32% Positive
• 27% Neutral

Themes of Discussion

Abuse of Power

The most dominant theme across voter conversations is abuse of power. Many voters—especially Republicans and Independents—are concerned the amendment could be misused to consolidate political power and manipulate the democratic process. These voters view the proposal as an attempt to alter the constitutional framework for partisan advantage. Independents share these concerns but are more nuanced, calling for transparency and a rigorous debate before any decision is made.

National Security

Democrats focus on national security and continuity of government, framing the proposal as a safeguard against future crises. Their conversations highlight an urgency for measures to prevent governmental collapse in catastrophic situations. Democrats say that without such an amendment, the country risks political instability in the face of unexpected mass casualties.

Partisan Division

Deeply entrenched divisions between the political right and left create echo chambers, where voters primarily consume information that reinforces their existing beliefs. As a result, constructive dialogue and compromise on this issue appear increasingly unlikely. Both Republicans and Democrats approach the debate with deeply ingrained biases. Republicans focus on defending the constitution and Democrats push for modern safeguards.

Topic Volume

Within the discussion, several themes emerge with significant discussion volume.

Freedom of Speech—21% of discussion

The debate about free speech crosses party lines. Many defend Americans’ right to criticize the proposal while others express concerns over the potential spread of misinformation. Republicans are more likely to argue that free speech is under attack, while Democrats focus on the need to regulate disinformation in discussions about national crises.

National Sovereignty—18% of discussion

Conversations extend beyond the immediate amendment proposal to broader fears about American sovereignty. Republicans argue the proposal is emblematic of a globalist agenda that threatens traditional American values. Democrats say maintaining an inclusive, secure society requires adaptability in governance.

The Second Amendment—15% of discussion

Discussions about the Second Amendment show Republicans focusing on the right to bear arms as a critical component of national security in times of crisis. Many prioritize this right over enabling more government powers in a potential crisis. Democrats view gun control as part of the broader solution to maintaining order and preventing domestic instability.

American Identity and Values—12% of discussion

The debate also touches on American identity. Many Republicans express concern that foundational values like individual liberty and national sovereignty are at risk. Democrats argue for progressive changes to align governance with the realities of a diverse and dynamic society.

Institutional Distrust—10% of discussion

Across the political spectrum, there is a pervasive distrust of government institutions, which intensifies the debate around the amendment proposal. Many voters, particularly Republicans and Independents, fear such a significant constitutional amendment will become a tool for corrupt political elites to maintain or expand their power at the expense of democratic norms.

The Department of Justice releasing a ransom note written by Ryan Routh, the would-be Trump assassin, is generating shock. In the letter, Routh offers $150,000 to anyone who succeeds in taking the former president’s life.

Americans express many emotions across political lines, but Republicans and Independents are most vehement in their skepticism, outrage, and disillusionment. Many also accuse the DoJ of corrupt or reckless intentions by releasing the note.

Ryan Routh failed to assassinate President Donald Trump.

Routh is now offering a $150,000 bounty for whomever kills President Trump.

The DOJ released the letter.

Why would the DOJ publicly release this letter?

I have an idea--they're all in on it.

They all want him dead.… pic.twitter.com/UCmI9PuZMJ

— Breanna Morello (@BreannaMorello) September 23, 2024

Republican Reactions

For Republicans, the assassination along with allegations of multiple ongoing threats known to federal agencies, is powerful indictment of governmental failure. The conversation among Republican voters is largely framed by deep suspicion and distrust toward the government’s ability to maintain national security.

The perceived inaction of certain agencies like the FBI and Secret Servicemed, along with unsatisfying investigations, anger Americans. Voters react angrily to reports that U.S. Customs and Border Protection and the FBI received warnings about Routh prior to his assassination attempt.

More than 60% of the conversation among Republicans expresses a belief that the government has failed to prioritize the safety of citizens and now Donald Trump. There is a strong undercurrent of criticism toward the Biden administration’s policies and actions. Phrases like "soft on crime" and "weak on national security" dominate the rhetoric, with calls for greater accountability surfacing frequently.

“Ryan Routh is a ticking time bomb,” she recalled telling U.S. Customs and Border Protection officials in an hourlong interview upon returning to the United States at Dulles International Airport near Washington in June 2022. https://t.co/vYDucdjCbY

— TribLIVE.com (@TribLIVE) September 22, 2024

Around 62% of Republicans demand accountability, viewing the situation as part of a larger narrative of government incompetence or indifference to serious threats. Many are skeptical about the true motives behind federal institutions, suggesting security lapses indicate deep state incompetence or corruption. This distrust further solidifies partisan divides, reinforcing a narrative of political opposition victimizing and targeting Trump.

Independents Upset, but Fatigued

Independent voters approach the issue from a different angle. Their reaction, while similarly critical, is more nuanced. They focus on the assassination attempt being politicized. This group views the government's handling of the situation as a symptom of broader partisanship.

Around 45% of Independent voters call for “less politics and more action.” They hope for a bipartisan solution to the systemic issues these events have exposed. However, there is a noticeable split among Independents. Some remain engaged and see ongoing security threats against Trump as an opportunity for change. However, many are growing disengaged from the political process altogether.

Up to 55% of Independents show signs of possible voter disengagement in November. This is driven by a sense of fatigue and distrust toward federal and political institutions. Others express intentions to become more politically active, galvanized by the need for reform and accountability.

This divide reflects a broader frustration among Independents who feel caught between two polarized political parties. However, both groups tend to perceive the politicized rhetoric from partisans and the media as a tool for their own gain rather than focusing on solutions.

In the last several weeks, presidential endorsements have been playing a role in shaping voter sentiment and indicating the overall political mood. Both Donald Trump and Kamala Harris are facing the political repercussions—positive and negative—of high-profile endorsements or lack of endorsements.

National sentiment toward Trump continues to widen the gap between candidates with 56% support for Trump—a stunning 13% lead over Harris—compared to only a 5% advantage two weeks ago.

Trump Endorsements

Donald Trump has secured endorsements highlighting his conservative and populist support, increasing the contrast between him and establishment Republicans.

• Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s endorsement of Trump surprised some but shows Trump's appeal to populist and anti-establishment voters.
• Fraternal Order of Police endorsing Trump carries significant weight with law-and-order conservatives and strengthens his position as a rule of law candidate.
• Elon Musk endorsing Trump adds a layer of tech and pop culture credibility, furthering his anti-establishment image.

Harris Endorsements

Kamala Harris has had a rocky road with endorsements, particularly when it comes to working-class Americans versus celebrities and elites.

• The Teamsters Union refusing to endorse Harris is perhaps one the most notable instances. Historically, Teamsters always support Democratic candidates, but this year have refused to officially support Harris.
• Celebrities like Taylor Swift, Oprah, and Billie Eilish endorsing Harris draws excitement in her base but criticism from anti-establishment and anti-elite voters.
• The IRS Union also endorsed Harris, drawing sharp criticism from conservatives and middle-income Americans who are frustrated with the economy and taxes.
• Other establishment entities like National Security Leaders for America and those considered RINOs like Dick Cheney and 200 former GOP aides draws criticism from anti-establishment voters.

In the last two weeks, Harris has averaged higher sentiment in voter conversations about political endorsements with 48% to Trump’s 47%. But in the last three days, Trump has overtaken Harris by up to three points.

Trouble for Democrats

Unions

Recent Teamsters polling showed 58.5% of their members support Trump, with only 32.5% backing Harris. This is a significant advantage for Trump who trailed Biden by 8% just a few months ago. These cultural and political shifts signal working-class ire against Harris, raising questions about her ability to connect with traditionally Democratic blue-collar voters.

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

— Teamsters (@Teamsters) September 18, 2024

Many union workers enthusiastically express their support for Trump, which so far seems to be playing out in early voting and swing state support. This includes nearly 60% of Teamsters, 70% of Steamfitters Local 638, and 65-70% of UAW members.

YESTERDAY: Nearly 60% of @Teamsters are voting for President Trump.

TODAY: 70% of Steamfitters Local 638 are voting for President Trump.

ALSO TODAY: It’s estimated 65-70% of UAW members are voting for President Trump.

Hardworking Americans know President Trump HAS THEIR BACK. pic.twitter.com/fFOrRs9aXd

— Byron Donalds (@ByronDonalds) September 19, 2024

Some are interpreting the Teamsters’ decision not to endorse as a sign of low confidence in Harris's willingness to support working-class Americans. Others says it’s a result of Harris refusing to let the union's president speak at the DNC.

The IRS

Harris’s IRS endorsement may also hurt more than help her with the economy remaining a top issue for voters across the country. During a recent campaign rally, Trump mocked Harris, saying he’d “rather not have that endorsement.”

Donald Trump on Kamala Harris getting the endorsement of IRS agents:

“I would rather not have that endorsement.”🤣

pic.twitter.com/NK5eLdkeKB

— Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) September 24, 2024

Voters express outrage and concern about the potential implications of the IRS endorsement. Critics say it is a clear example of the government's overreach and politicized federal agencies. They say Harris's support for the Inflation Reduction Act, which provided the IRS with an additional $80 billion and 87,000 new agents, is a threat to individual liberties.

Law Enforcement

Some are also saying Harris’s backing from Police Leaders for Community Safety does nothing since the organization was only founded in March of 2024. This sudden emergence of alleged law enforcement support is dubious to many who point out the vague and nonspecific nature of endorsement announcements on the official Harris campaign X account.

There is particular criticism from those who decry crime rates and the rule of law under the Biden-Harris administration. This group often suggests attempts to manufacture law enforcement support is a cynical ploy by the Harris campaign to appeal to moderates and conservatives.

The single most astroturfed Presidential campaign in modern U.S. history.

The stunning endorsement that “normally backs Trump?”

They are referring to the Police Leaders for Community Safety, which was founded in March of THIS YEAR.

It’s a fake group. pic.twitter.com/g3vZfpKFAR

— Dustin Grage (@GrageDustin) September 24, 2024

Are There Votes Up for Grabs?

The impact of endorsements on voter groups remains opaque, though likely concentrating support among those who already lean to one side or the other. The critical question for many is whether certain endorsements can sway critical battleground and moderate voters. MIG Reports data from voter conversations suggests:

• 20% of Democratic voters are likely swayed positively by Harris endorsements, especially from celebrities like Oprah and Taylor Swift.
• 30% of Republican voters respond positively to Trump’s endorsements, especially from RFK Jr. and the Fraternal Order of Police.
• Around 10-15% of undecided voters may move toward Harris and potentially 5-10% to Trump—although these percentages are projections with low certainty.

The Whole Picture of Endorsements

Endorsements serve as a barometer for campaign momentum—and Trump currently seems have a stronger position. His endorsements from law enforcement, tech moguls, and even former Democrats like RFK Jr. highlight his ability to appeal to a broad range of voter groups. Furthermore, his ability to draw working-class support away from traditional Democratic strongholds like the Teamsters is particularly telling.

Harris, meanwhile, is struggling to maintain enthusiasm among key demographics. While celebrity endorsements may energize certain liberal and youth segments, the lack of union support and the controversial IRS endorsement suggest her campaign faces challenges among working-class and middle-income voters. Despite Joe Biden’s low favorability prior to dropping out of the race, enthusiasm for Harris seems to be largely driven by the media, elites, and political establishment figures rather than critical moderate voting groups in swing states, which she would require to win.

Boeing, a titan in the aerospace industry, finds itself in ongoing PR and legal battles. The recent departure of its defense chief and the new CEO shaking up the company’s top ranks come at a time when Boeing is already under immense pressure. Years of safety concerns, labor disputes, and questions about leadership have eroded public trust.

Leadership Instability and Strategic Direction

Boeing’s defense chief stepped down—a significant moment for the company. Leading one of Boeing’s most critical divisions, the defense chief was responsible for overseeing projects that are essential to both U.S. military capabilities and space exploration. The departure forces a reposition of the defense unit, which faces its own operational delays and controversies.

The new CEO Robert “Kelly” Ortberg’s decision to overhaul top leadership further signals Boeing’s internal dynamics in turmoil. While these changes could provide an opportunity for renewed focus, they also raise concerns about stability and continuity in a period where consistency is vital.

Investors and stakeholders are closely watching these moves, but there is skepticism about whether leadership changes alone can address deeper structural problems.

Boeing’s reputation has been marred by high-profile crises including:

• Multiple airplane failures and safety events
• The Starliner experiencing failures, leaving astronauts stuck in space
• Court battles and multiple dead whistleblowers
• Speculations about corporate corruption
• Damaging DEI initiatives which compromise safety and quality
• Layoffs and a perception that Boeing does not value its workforce

Now, any minute misstep by the new CEO could worsen the company’s precarious standing.

Safety and Profitability

A long-standing criticism of Boeing has been its perceived focus on profits over safety, a narrative which has intensified in recent years. The leadership changes, rather than reassuring the public, have only heightened fears that Boeing will continue down a profit-driven path at the expense of safety.

High-profile safety issues—such as those related to the 737 MAX aircraft—remain fresh in the public’s memory. Americans are increasingly vocal about Boeing’s need to overhaul its safety protocols, especially in contrast to competitors like SpaceX, which is often praised for its attention to safety.

Boeing’s relationship with the FAA has also caused scrutiny. Many perceive the FAA as lenient toward Boeing, particularly in contrast to perceived hostility toward SpaceX, fueling public frustration. Critics argue Boeing has not faced sufficient accountability for its safety lapses, and many fear that unless the new CEO addresses this issue head-on, Boeing risks safety, alienating regulators, and destroying the quality of air travel.

Labor Relations and Workforce Morale

Boeing also struggles with labor relations as layoffs, a hiring freeze, and 30,000 worker strike generates negativity. Many say the company’s actions, which leadership frame as necessary to safeguard its financial health, simply undermine workers—especially union employees.

Top executives continuing to receive substantial compensation also angers workers and the public. An infamous $45 million “golden parachute” awarded to a recently departed CEO symbolized the disconnect between Boeing’s leadership and employees.

Public and Investor Sentiment

The observing public’s sentiment toward Boeing is overwhelmingly negative. People express frustration about leadership decisions, safety hazards, and labor relations. Voter discussions reflect widespread skepticism about any prospect of meaningful change. There is a growing sense that Boeing’s issues are deep and systemic with few signs of change.

From an investor perspective, Boeing’s instability is a major concern. The company’s ability to innovate and compete—particularly against rising competitors in commercial aviation and defense—are tied to how effectively it manages this period of transition. If Boeing fails to improve its operational performance and address ongoing labor and safety issues, investor confidence could falter, leading to further financial strain.

The presidential race picture is unclear post-debate and amid early voting as both sides claim to have the edge in a tight race. MIG Reports analysis showed Trump surging after the first Trump-Harris debate on ABC, which coincides with Times/Siena swing state polling. Both MIG Reports data and polls show Trump gaining momentum in key battleground states and expanding his lead over Harris. With early voting underway and Harris’s numbers questionable, Democrats want a second debate.

"Kamala Harris dominated the debate" pic.twitter.com/0aXGDGsmY0

— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) September 23, 2024

Harris announced that she has accepted an invitation from CNN for a second debate, causing a stir on social media when she called Trump the “Former Vice President.” Meanwhile, Trump remains dismissive, saying it's too late for another debate and Harris is likely losing.

Kamala: “I’d like another debate. I hope the former Vice President would agree to that.”

Which Vice President is she talking about here?
pic.twitter.com/H8JhwYICNc

— Greg Price (@greg_price11) September 22, 2024

JUST IN: Donald Trump says he will *not* be doing another debate in October on CNN, says Kamala Harris is "losing badly."

"The problem with another debate is that it's just too late voting has already started."

"She's had her chance to do it with Fox... but now she wants to do… pic.twitter.com/LeNTo38wVA

— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) September 21, 2024

Voter Sentiment Breakdown

Voters from both parties are divided on whether a second debate would be productive, but Democrats largely support a second debate and Republicans do not.

• 42% of Republicans support a second debate, while 58% oppose it.
• 62% of Democrats favor another debate, with 38% opposed.

• Since the debate, national sentiment toward Trump has remained strong, surging from 52% the day following the debate to 55% today.
• Harris’s national sentiment has dipped from 47% the day following the debate to 45% today.

• In swing states, Trump has surged from an even 49% support for both candidates on the day of the debate to 50% for Trump today compared to 47% for Harris.

• Electoral college support also looks good for Trump with Republicans at 49% compared to Democrats at 47%.

Why Democrats Want a Second Debate

Among Democrats, the desire for a second debate stems from three key motivations:

• Hold Trump accountable: The top reason is an opportunity for Harris to challenge Trump and "call him out” for his dangerous and objectionable policies and rhetoric.
• Showcase Harris’s policies: Many also view a second debate as a chance for Harris to more clearly present her policies.
• Clarify issues for voters: Some Democrats believe another debate would help undecided voters gain clarity on important topics like healthcare and immigration.

Democrats who oppose a second debate cite:

• Skepticism about Trump’s participation: Some doubt Trump will engage seriously or fairly. They say he will refuse or use it to spread “misinformation.”
• Unproductive focus on personality: Some say another debate will devolve into personal attacks, giving Trump the spotlight over substantive issues.
• Harris’s ability to perform: Critics within the party worry Harris might struggle to effectively counter Trump’s aggressive tactics and off-the-cuff remarks.

Why Republicans Don’t Want Another Debate

Republicans largely dismiss or oppose the idea of another debate:

• Concerns about Trump’s performance: There’s unease about Trump’s ability to stay focused during debates. Some worry another debate would not help him.
• Debate bias concerns: Many are also critical of media outlets like CNN they view as biased in favor of Harris and actively attacking and fact-checking Trump.
• Nothing useful in a debate: Some say voters know who Trump is and will not find out anything informative from Harris, therefor another debate won't sway votes.

Those who support a second debate say:

• Redemption for Trump: Some Republicans think Trump deserves another chance to perform better, hoping in a second debate he would clearly defeat Harris.
• Show Harris’s true policies: Some say another chance to challenge Harris more directly on policy issues can still sway some undecided voters.
• Biased media: Those who say the ABC debate was unfair hope a second one will either be fair or more strongly point out bias if CNN moderators reveal bias.

What Happens if the Debate Takes Place?

Should Trump decide to accept the invitation, the potential outcomes are uncertain. For Harris, a second debate is a critical opportunity to make up lost ground. As Trump’s numbers grow, she needs a high-profile event to shift momentum back in her favor.

However, for a public sentiment comeback to be successful, Harris would need an extremely strong showing. Harris needs to resonate with swing voters on issues that matter most like the economy and the border. But she faces a challenge from progressive voters who prioritize social justice and anti-Israel issues, which alienate moderates.

For Trump, the stakes of another debate are high. While his base remains enthusiastic, another chaotic appearance could be a double-edged sword. While MAGA voters will likely continue with strong support, moderates on the fence may not like another spectacle like the viral Springfield cats and dogs issue.

A recent article discussing climate change revealed two distinct conversations:

• Climate change believer concerns about earth’s future
• Climate change skeptic arguments against worries or drastic action

Americans are quick to incorporate politics and energy policy into discussions about climate change. Sentiment trends are divided, with some voicing skepticism about the severity of climate change, while others emphasize the importance of addressing the issue urgently.

A funny thing happened as the WaPo tried to map out half a billion years of global temperatures and the "disaster of global warming" pic.twitter.com/HA6yxpf9V7

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) September 20, 2024

Echo Chambers Sustain Voter Views

Some Americans question the validity of climate change, labeling it a "hoax" or accusing politicians and environmentalists of exaggerating its effects. They argue extreme weather events are coincidental and that fossil fuels are not a primary cause of climate change. This group typically supports politicians, like Trump and Vance, who share skepticism toward drastic government interventions to address climate change.

Americans who are deeply concerned about climate change cite its devastating impact on the environment, human health, and the economy. They argue that science is clear about the dangers of climate change, saying urgent action is needed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and transition to renewable energy sources. These voters often express frustration with politicians who oppose climate change actions or support policies that prioritize fossil fuels over sustainability.

For the most part discussions seem isolated to those who share similar view, with little movement in opinion or engagement with the opposing side.

Public sentiment is also reflected in discussions around wind energy. Some highlight its importance for renewable energy, weather patterns, and ecosystems. Others express skepticism about the effectiveness of wind energy and argue it is not a viable alternative to fossil fuels.

MIG Reports data shows:

• 32% of comments express skepticism about the severity of climate change, labeling it a "hoax" or exaggeration
• 41% express worry about climate change, citing its impact on the environment and human health.
• 15% emphasize the importance of renewable energy sources like wind and solar power.
• 12% support fossil fuels, arguing they are necessary for economic growth and energy security.

A trending pattern emerges which reveals fear of government responses or lack thereof. Climate activists tend to fear law and regulation will not be enacted fast enough to curb the potential damages of climate change. For skeptics and doubters, fear comes more from government actions which could lead to unintended consequences. This group prefers less intervention for theoretical outcomes, which they radical speculation. Overarching themes include a general distrust toward institutions what will have industrial and financial benefits.

MIG Reports data from American conversations about the first weekend of early voting shows Trump positivity. Weighted analysis suggests the likely direction of mid-Friday through mid-Saturday early voting, as well as general discussion and sentiment trends.

According to voter discussions, Donald Trump has roughly even odds of leading in initial early voting. This assessment is made with moderate confidence, based on multiple MIG Reports data sets which—though they are not polls—often produce similar results to trusted polling.

Voter Reaction Analysis

• Trump: 66.80%
• Harris: 32.29%

Data suggests Donald Trump may lead up to 66.8% of early voting with his strongest positions on immigration, border security, and the economy. There is some concern regarding international conflict due to Trump’s polarizing leadership style—particularly regarding Israel and Ukraine).

Meanwhile, Harris does not hold a stronger position on the national security front. Harris’s support is found in discussions about healthcare, climate policy, and abortion. Harris gains ground with voters focusing on women’s rights and economic reform, although criticisms of her perceived ineffectiveness and lack of clear policy positions is pervasive.

Border Security

Border security is a dominant issue in early voter discussions, particularly for Trump supporters. Voters cite Trump's strong stance on securing the border, his push for stricter immigration policies, and his commitment to reducing illegal immigration as major reasons for their support.

Critics of Harris point to her leniency on immigration and "open borders" policies. They frame her approach as a security risk. Across voter conversations, including in early voting states, border security consistently ranks as a high priority issue. This leads to Trump gaining overwhelming support with voters who want border security urgently.

Preference for Trump also dominates about immigration policy, which many discuss with border security. His proposed wall and efforts to deport illegal immigrants resonates with voters worried about national security. Harris get criticism for her immigration policies, though some appreciate her focus on human rights and a path to citizenship for immigrants.

Economy

The economy is the other most frequently discussed issue for both candidates, though the tone varies significantly. Trump supporters praise his tax cuts, job creation, and efforts to stimulate economic growth—especially in sectors like manufacturing and small business.

Harris supporters focus on her plans to reduce inequality, provide healthcare for all, and tackle the rising cost of living. While Harris gains voters concerned about middle-class economics, Trump is the dominant choice for those focused on economic stability and conservative financial policies.

Social Justice

For Harris, social justice is a key issue among progressive voters. Discussions about her policies on racial equality, police reform, and civil rights play a central role in her appeal.

Among progressives, Trump is viewed as unsympathetic to social justice concerns as they accuse him of exacerbating racial tensions. The polarized nature of this debate shows division between Democrats and Republicans, with Democrats overwhelmingly preferring Harris on social issues.

Healthcare

Healthcare is also important for Harris’s supporters. Voters are drawn to her positions on expanding access to healthcare, supporting Medicare for All, and lowering prescription drug prices.

Criticisms of Trump’s healthcare policies, particularly his efforts to dismantle Obamacare are rampant among those who prioritize healthcare access. Trump supporters are more likely to praise his administration’s deregulation efforts in the healthcare industry, focusing on lowering costs and expanding options for consumers. Many also appreciate his alignment with RFK Jr.’s health platform.

Abortion

Abortion is a particularly important issue for Harris supporters, especially among women and progressives. Harris’s pro-choice stance and her vocal support for protecting abortion rights is a pillar of her platform, gaining a large share of her voters.

Trump’s supporters, particularly those with conservative values, are strongly opposed to abortion and prefer his efforts to restrict abortion access and appoint pro-life judges to the Supreme Court. The debate over abortion is a clear line of division between the two candidates, with highly emotional and polarized discourse.

The Mood for 2024

There is a noticeable anti-establishment tone throughout voter discussions, particularly among Trump supporters. They frequently voice distrust of the current political and media systems. These voters frame their support for Trump as a rebellion against entrenched elites, corrupt governance, and bureaucratic overreach. They particularly highlight border security, economic regulation, and perceived threats to national sovereignty.

For Harris supporters, while less overtly anti-establishment, there is still some frustration with the status quo. The is a point of contention regarding social justice, healthcare, and economic inequality. Progressive voters express a desire reform, but their stance is more about transforming the current system from within, rather than overthrowing it.

Overall, the anti-establishment sentiment is stronger and more explicitly expressed on the conservative side, whereas progressive voters are more focused on reforming the existing structures rather than rejecting them entirely.

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.

— unusual_whales (@unusual_whales) September 20, 2024

Overall Sentiment Breakdown

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.

🚨Huge scandal unfolding in @ChiPubSchools!

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.

Teachers say they spoke no Spanish, the kids spoke no English and… pic.twitter.com/opwlMKfOEn

— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) September 19, 2024

Mom Concerns: Anxiety and Empathy

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.