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

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

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

Support with Concern

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

Reform and Modernization

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

Generational Equity and Economic Tensions

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

Political Divisions

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

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

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

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

Technology and Government Distrust

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

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

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

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

Spender Versus Earner

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

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

Government Disgust

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

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

Disconnected from Voter Reality

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

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

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

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

The biggest story of the week was the jobs report:

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

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

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

Instead they got us focused on a fake poll.

— David Sacks (@DavidSacks) November 4, 2024

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

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

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

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

Election Implications and Future Projections

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

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

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

Disillusionment with Job Growth

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

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

Top Discussion Points

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

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

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

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

— TheLizVariant (@TheLizVariant) September 29, 2024

Government vs. Private Sector Job Growth

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

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

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

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

Top Discussion Points

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

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

Immigration and Job Competition

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

Top Discussion Points

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

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

Ideological and Political Reactions

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

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

Top Discussion Points

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

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

American feelings about their wallets are dismal, with constant discussions about the economy, inflation, and housing prices. There is unrelenting frustration and discontent with voters online as people tie the direction of the country to dissatisfaction with Biden and Harris. They want change, strained by daily financial pressures and perceptions of governmental inadequacy.

🚨 CNN ANALYST: Just 28% of Americans think the U.S. is on the right track. The incumbent party usually loses when that number nears 25%, and wins when it is near 42%. This is a bad sign for Kamala Harris. pic.twitter.com/tCbXkPLihD

— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) October 4, 2024

Can’t Afford a Home

Americans are dismayed over unaffordable living costs, tying these issues to political decisions and low housing supply—due in part to the massive influx of illegal immigrants.

Voters particularly critique policies in urban areas where prices are highest. The government's focus on broader political rivalries over actionable housing solutions angers Americans struggling to live comfortably.

Many say illegal immigration is exacerbating housing scarcity, calling for leaders to prioritize Americans. Voters want American citizens to benefit from housing initiatives instead of "overly accommodating" migrant populations.

🚨🚨🚨Tim Walz Approved an Immigrant Down-payment Assistance Program in Minnesota.🚨🚨🚨 SAME NGO that used Oregon tax dollars to give 30k to undocumented migrants.

The Minnesota CDC, similar to Hacienda CDC of Oregon, will cap down-payment assistance at 32k for first-generation… pic.twitter.com/RwICfEq3RO

— Breeauna Sagdal (@Breeauna9) October 31, 2024

Biden-Harris Didn’t Pan Out

Inflation is another focal point, with significant distress over soaring costs for essentials like food, housing, and energy. While some view the Inflation Reduction Act as a win for affordable healthcare, most perceive it as insufficient in the face of steep price increases.

Biden-Harris economic policies are largely under scrutiny, with critics linking the current inflationary environment directly to their policies. Voters suggest socialistic-leaning policies are hurting market forces.

Trump supporters juxtapose their financial situations today with the more successful Trump-era economic strategies. They want stability and lower inflation, even if they don’t like Trump for other reasons.

Left Behind

Economic issues as a whole encapsulate voter dissatisfaction. People discuss the allocation of federal funds and government spending priorities as hurting Americans.

Many citizens express disbelief over the amount of aid directed toward international conflicts, like Ukraine, while domestic needs are ignored. They voice frustration over high living costs and federal funds disproportionately benefiting illegal aliens. This stokes resentment around issues like entitlement sustainability and local infrastructure.

Voters critique the Biden-Harris administration's lack of transparency and responsiveness, with calls for policies that genuinely support the middle class. Social media discussions often echo Trump’s calls to shift from income tax to tariffs as a way to alleviate the working class's financial burden.

This level of economic unease indicates that Americans are dissatisfied and highly motivated as they consider alternative policy directions for the nation’s financial future.

Energy prices continue to rise, and American families are struggling to afford basics like air conditioning and washing machines. In California, many are giving personal testimonies of monthly electric bills over $1,800. This, many voters say, is unsustainable and cripplingly expensive. Some share stories of turning off appliances to make ends meet.

this is my friend's bill in san francisco

this is what happens when you vote democrat https://t.co/nrRR24GOU2 pic.twitter.com/f3kqrJoxTK

— Jenny, Girl from 4th 🌍, 鄰白廢物 🧠 🪱 (@JennyChachan) October 22, 2024

Voters are frustrated with government failures and misguided energy policies. They say it’s time for a leader who prioritizes economic reality over environmental idealism. The Biden-Harris administration, and specifically VP Harris, are central to the debate. Voters in California and across the country blame her governance strategies for the cost of energy and overall living expenses.

PG&E and Sky-High Utility Costs

A major part of the discussion about energy costs is directed at Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) and other utility companies. Voters across the political spectrum are dissatisfied with PG&E’s rate hikes, accusing the company of greed and poor management.

Voter Reactions

• 65% of the discussion is among middle-income voters who say rising utility prices directly impact their household budgets.
• 25% of the discussion is among lower-income voters who cannot afford energy bills and other necessities. Some say they must choose between food and power.
• Higher-income voters, while more tolerant of short-term price increases, also criticize the strain. They often defend renewable energy alternatives but still call for immediate economic intervention.

Americans urgently want regulatory reforms and corporate accountability. There's a very loud contingent demanding deregulation in the energy industry. Republican voters particularly argue that government intervention is exacerbating the situation, stifling competition, and allowing monopolies like PG&E to thrive without checks.

Political Ramifications from Energy

Voters are saying they will align themselves with candidates who promise economic relief and energy independence. The first Trump administration is often nostalgically cited as a time of lower energy prices and economic prosperity. Voters are frustrated by the lack of clear, actionable plans from Harris, saying they don’t trust her to “turn the page” on policy.

Voter Alignment

• Democratic Voters: 70% advocate for government intervention in energy pricing but express frustration at the inefficacy of current efforts.
• Republican Voters: 60% believe deregulation and free-market competition will lower energy prices, viewing Democratic policies as economically harmful.
• Independent Voters: 65% are anxious about rising energy costs and want pragmatic political solutions, regardless of party affiliation.

Environmental Idealism vs. Economic Realism

Criticism toward the Biden-Harris administration's energy policies often focuses on renewable energy. People criticize policies that prioritize environmentalism at the expense of practical economic concerns.

Voters say political leaders and those in urban areas are disconnected from the realities facing rural and middle-class Americans who depend on affordable energy.

Voter Sentiments

• Rural voters are angry at the focus on environmental idealism, which ignores the economic struggle of working families.
• Around 50% of voters discussing energy are skeptical of renewable energy transitions, particularly in states like California, where prices have skyrocketed.
• Critics use terms like “death cult” to describe the administration's environmentalist push for renewable energy.

Drill Baby, Drill

Within energy discussions, some voters criticize Harris’s flip-flopping stance on fracking. The lack of clarity around her advocacy or opposition generates skepticism and critique. Voters in areas with high energy costs are not convinced of her commitment to maintaining jobs in the fossil fuel industry.

For regions dependent on oil and gas, such as Pennsylvania, voters are keenly aware of the risks posed by restrictive policies. As some voters put it, “You will lose your jobs,” if fracking is banned. Others stress rising energy prices will worsen economic strain.

Voter Reactions

• 65% of comments from middle-income voters are concerned about the strain of utility bills on household finances.
• Voters view Harris’s inconsistent stance on fracking as a threat to jobs in oil and gas-rich regions, as well as the cost of energy overall.
• In oil-dependent regions, voters connect fracking bans with immediate economic hardships.

The economic implications of banning or restricting fracking are clear to voters who see fossil fuels as a bridge to energy independence. For them, Harris’s ambiguity on the issue is a slap in the face to their livelihoods and economic stability.

Ongoing military exercises conducted by China around Taiwan are creating flurry of discussion online. American conversations range from national security concerns to economic ramifications. As tensions rise, discourse is polarized, with emotional reactions and geopolitical analysis intertwined. MIG Reports analysis explores linguistic patterns, sentiment trends, and their impact on upcoming elections.

Today, China launched exercise Joint Sword 2024B, encircling Taiwan & rehearsing a “blockade on key ports & areas.”

Yesterday, the PLA posted this promo video foreshadowing the operation, titled 枕戈待旦, a Chinese idiom that means “resting on a dagger & waiting for the dawn” &… pic.twitter.com/2M7kqvpZpD

— Ian Ellis (@ianellisjones) October 14, 2024

MIG Reports data shows:

• 37% of discussions express national security concerns
• 32% talk about fear for economic consequences related to China
• 16% voice skepticism about media reporting on foreign affairs
• 15% discuss diplomatic engagement on international conflict

Linguistic Patterns

The language in discussions about China is both superficial commentary and in-depth geopolitical analysis. Around two-thirds of the conversations are emotionally charged, binary rhetoric. People frame the situation as a simple matter of strength versus weakness, with phrases like "China is a threat" and "Biden is weak." This group tends to call for immediate, forceful action, often in the form of military responses.

A third of the discussion addresses more complex geopolitical analysis, where users consider historical precedents, alliances, and U.S. foreign policy strategies. These conversations are measured, using analytical language regarding the implications of military action, diplomacy, and regional stability.

Humor and sarcasm also emerge, particularly in discussions criticizing Biden and Harris. People use mockery to target their ineffective management of both foreign and domestic crises, reinforcing the overall tone of dissatisfaction.

Voter Sentiment Analysis

Around 65-70% of voters are apprehensive about China's military actions, viewing them as aggressive and indicative of broader threats to U.S. national security. This sentiment is often tied to a desire for stronger leadership and military responses protecting American interests.

Economic concerns follow closely, with 55-60% of discussions linking China’s actions to fears about trade and job losses. Many view the military exercises as a sign of impending economic challenges and emphasize the need for policies that protect U.S. industries.

Around 25-30% of discussions advocate for diplomacy over military confrontation, pushing for a multilateral approach to de-escalate tensions. However, this group is overshadowed by the 55-60% who argue for a more assertive military stance.

Patterns and Anomalies

An anomaly within the discourse is skepticism toward media portrayals of China. Roughly 30% of voters suggest sensationalized media coverage is contributing to heightened tensions. This group advocates for a more balanced approach, expressing concern that aggressive rhetoric could escalate the situation further.

There is also a divide between emotional reactions and strategic analyses. Emotional commentary frequently emphasizes fear, anger, and frustration, while strategic discussions focus on long-term consequences and foreign policy solutions. This split highlights the complexity of public sentiment about China and the varying levels of voter understanding.

Electoral Impact

Discussions about China’s military exercises are important leading up to the election. National security will likely play a pivotal role in shaping voter behavior, with around 65% of potential voters indicating foreign policy will heavily influence their decisions.

If Donald Trump uses the situation to frame himself as a defender of national security, creating a strong contrast to the perceived weakness of Harris, it will likely play well with voters.

On October 11, a cargo train robbery in Chicago sparked significant online discussion, with many concerns emerging, from public safety to economic stability and governance. The discussions intertwine layered responses that highlight growing anxiety, frustration, and polarization in American communities.

🚨#BREAKING: Dozens of people are actively looting and breaking into a cargo train ⁰⁰📌#Chicago | #illinois⁰⁰At this time, an estimated 50 to 150 people or more are actively looting and breaking into a cargo train on the west side of Chicago, Illinois. Police have been… pic.twitter.com/SwDIOnSE90

— R A W S A L E R T S (@rawsalerts) October 11, 2024

Cities Aren’t Safe

Public safety is a top discussion theme with 60-65% of reactions across different demographic groups reflecting negative sentiment.

Americans view the robbery as emblematic of rising crime in urban environments. This exacerbates fears about the breakdown of law and order. Many commenters link the event to overall urban violence and decline. There are heightened feelings of vulnerability, particularly among older populations and those living in urban areas. Americans insist on the need for increased vigilance in the wake of the robbery, with some saying they are altering their daily routines in response to the incident.

Political Problems

Political accountability is another dominant topic, with around 60% of comments expressing criticism of local and national leaders for failing to uphold community safety.

Voters blame politicians, particularly those aligned with liberal policies, accusing them of failing to address crime effectively. This sentiment is particularly pronounced among conservative voices and those advocating for law-and-order. Progressives focus on systemic factors, citing economic inequality and the need for community investment, rather than punitive measures following incidents like this.

Top Issues for Urban Americans

Economic Factors

Around 40-50% of comments express economic anxiety, with some linking crime to inequality and some fearing long-term repercussions for local economics.

The economic impact of the robbery is a significant concern, especially regarding how crime affects businesses and the local economy. Discussions about the robbery frequently mention the destabilizing effects of organized crime on small businesses, the logistics industry, and local commerce. Reform vs Reckoning

Some advocate for increased law enforcement and harsher penalties. Others call for systemic reforms to address poverty and inequality. This polarization is greater among urban residents who express more anxiety than their suburban counterparts.

We The People, Can’t

In addition to concerns about safety and governance, many point to growing distrust in government and law enforcement ability to handle crime effectively. Roughly 70% of commenters express frustration with ineffective policies. Many say these policies prioritize political agendas over community safety. This frustration feeds into disillusionment with institutions, spurring demands for systemic change.

Overall, Americans talk of a fractured society grappling with questions about security, governance, and justice. The robbery, while a singular event, has become a focal point exemplifying anxieties about the future of urban life in America. Voters want accountability, demanding politicians and law enforcement officials take decisive action to restore trust and security.

Inflation is holding strong as a defining economic issue for voters in 2024. Since Biden and Harris took office, reports show consumer prices have risen more than 20%. Americans feel very little hope for relief if trends continue. Online discussions show strong dissatisfaction among all voters, though with some partisan disagreements about who is at fault.

If you made $100,000 a year when Biden-Harris took office...

Congratulations, you now make $83,000 a year.

Vote accordingly. pic.twitter.com/WAV2dI7m47

— John LeFevre (@JohnLeFevre) October 10, 2024

MIG Reports analysis shows:

• 64% of overall voters blame Biden and Harris for the current economy.
• 72% of Americans are unhappy with current wages relative to the cost of living.
• 59% express feelings of financial helplessness due to rising costs.

Data from Federal Reserve Economic Data justifies the negative sentiment Americans express with Consumer Price Index (CPI) trends during the Biden-Harris administration:

• The cost of All Items rose 21% from 2020 to today.
• Food at Home surged 25%.
• Medical Care costs have risen 10%.
• Rent for Urban Consumers rose 24.8% during the current administration.

Americans feel inflation as more than a statistic—they feel it as a daily reality. Discussions on social media overwhelmingly focus on the struggle to cover basic needs like groceries, housing, and healthcare. This is where 72% of voters express dissatisfaction with wage levels relative to inflation. Conservatives are often most vocal, viewing inflation as a consequence of Biden-Harris economic policies.

Wages Aren’t Keeping Up

The mismatch between rising prices and stagnant wages is further driving voter frustration. While the government reports nominal wage gains, increases are swiftly negated by inflation. Bureau of Labor Statistics data shows median weekly wages reached $1,151 this year. However, when adjusted for inflation, purchasing power is equivalent to just $946 in 2020 dollars. This gap between nominal and real wages highlights the tangible quality of life strains Americans feel.

MIG Reports data shows:

• 48% of economic discussions mention wage stagnation.
• 60% are skeptical of government statistics on job growth and wages.

Many Americans feel they’re being lied to about the state of the economy—though this sentiment is more common among Republicans. Voters say the so-called wage increases mean nothing when they cannot afford the same expenses they did four years ago.

Partisan Political Blame

Overall, Americans are unhappy about the economy. Most blame the Biden-Harris administration for rising inflationary pressures, but there are partisan divides. Sentiment is strongest among Republicans with 84% blaming Biden-Harris as the primary source of economic hardship.

Republicans

Inflation and the economy are top issues for Republicans, along with border security.

• Economic Mismanagement: Republicans view Democratic policies, particularly the American Rescue Plan and Inflation Reduction Act, as directly fueling inflation. They believe these measures injected too much money into the economy, benefiting government and corporate interests at the expense of citizens.
• Support for Trump: 85% of Republican voters intend to vote for Trump, saying his policies manage economic issues more effectively. They often cite pre-COVID quality of life, calling for “America First” policies that reduce government spending.
• Distrust of Government: 55% of Republicans are skeptical that a Harris administration would implement any substantial policy changes. They view the government’s attempts to combat inflation as ineffective or exacerbating.

The dominant tone among Republicans is one of anger and distrust, with many voters convinced that a change in leadership is the only way to address the rising cost of living.

Democrats

Many Democratic voters defend Biden’s economic policies, citing wage growth and job creation, though some acknowledge the ongoing challenges of rising costs.

• Economic Optimism: 25% of Democratic voters highlight Biden-Harris efforts to address inflation, pointing to initiatives like the Inflation Reduction Act and the American Rescue Plan as positive steps. They say inflation is now under control.
• Blaming Trump: 60% blame inflation on Trump’s legacy, specifically citing his tax policies, trade wars, and COVID-19 policies. They view Biden and Harris as working to fix problems inherited from Trump, not creating new ones.
• Frustration Over Jobs: However, 15% are skeptical about whether Biden-Harris initiatives will make lasting improvements. They acknowledge positive job reports but worry about wage growth. Tim Walz in particular is facing state-level criticism for perceived mismanagement.

The Democratic voter base is split between those who defend the administration and those who are frustrated by inflation and stagnating wages. The largest theme is defensiveness, as many say the highest priority is preventing a second Trump term.

Independents

Discussion among Independents is low, but most express disillusionment with both political parties. Many directly blame Democrats, but there is not loss of criticism for Trump as well.

• Economic Frustration: 62% focus on rising costs of living and the strain of inflation on average American families. There is urgency and a call for immediate action to slow skyrocketing prices.
• Kamala Blame: Many Independents criticize Harris for not addressing the inflation crisis effectively in the last four years. They say she mismanaged the economy as well as immigration, which impacts both economic strain and public safety.
• Poor Disaster Response: 25% criticize inequities in government support following Helene and Milton. Many voice discontent over the federal government prioritizing illegal immigrants over American citizens affected natural disasters.

Economic Discontent Drives Votes

With Election Day less than a month away, economic discontent is likely to influence voter behavior. Trump is poised to capitalize on this frustration, especially in swing states where economic concerns are a high priority.

Predictions

• Republican Turnout: Many expect high voter turnout among Republicans, particularly in suburban and rural areas hit hardest by inflation and stagnant wages.
• Few Swing Votes: Independents and moderates, though disillusioned with both parties, may swing Republican if Trump maintains strong economic messaging and Harris continues to fumble media hits.
• Economic Discontent: If Americans continue to feel individually impacted by economic conditions, they are likely to lean further into a change platform. Mixed messaging from Biden and Harris on Harris’s track record and future plans will likely push voters toward Trump.

The Israel, Iran, Ukraine, and Russia conflicts are wearing on the American people. There is now a shift in landscape of voter sentiment regarding these foreign issues. Even those who consistently support U.S. involvement in international conflicts are now expressing frustration our government prioritizing foreign aid over domestic needs.

While a minority still advocates for aggressive military responses, particularly in defense of Israel and as a deterrent to Iran, the emerging consensus is that America’s resources should be used on domestic priorities like inflation, disaster recovery, and the welfare of citizens.

• 42% of voters support military action
• 40% oppose foreign aid
• 18% criticize ongoing foreign conflict

Financial Burden

A recurring theme in voter discussions is dissatisfaction with the billions of dollars streaming into foreign countries like Ukraine. Americans view this as a prime example of how U.S. leadership, particularly the Biden administration, prioritizes other countries over Americans.

Some compare $24 billion allocated to Ukraine with the pitiful financial relief provided to Hurricane Helene victims at home, voicing frustration. Citizens decry high inflation, gas prices, and insufficient FEMA aid, questioning the rationale for continued military support abroad.

Economic concerns fuel much of the opposition to foreign aid and military engagement. People see a disconnect between the billions sent abroad and the financial hardships Americans face. Voters want U.S. military and financial resources to be used for domestic issues like inflation, unemployment, and disaster relief.

Americans say funding conflicts in Ukraine, Israel, or elsewhere is a betrayal of American taxpayers. The phrase “America First” resonates strongly in these discussions, emphasizing a desire for the government to refocus its priorities on the welfare of its own citizens.

Not My Monkeys, Not My Circus

Public sentiment around Israel also reveals deep divides. While there is still significant support for Israel's right to defend itself against threats from Iranian proxies like Hezbollah and Hamas, this pro-military stance is shrinking.

Many advocates view Israel’s aggressive military tactics as necessary self-defense, especially in the face of recent missile strikes from Iran. However, the conversation now criticizes U.S. military aid to Israel, calling out the humanitarian crises in Gaza and Lebanon, and questioning whether these actions truly align with American interests.

Views or Iran are similarly divided. Some say a growing military presence and missile strikes against Israel is justification for a more aggressive U.S. response. Others call for diplomacy and caution.

Pro-military action views say the Biden administration’s softer approach emboldens Iran, escalating tensions. They say the Trump administration’s stringent sanctions would have prevented these dangers.

However, many are voicing opposition to further involvement in the Middle East. People perceive U.S. involvement as expensive with little benefit to the average American.

America FIRST

Overall, Americans indicate desire for a shift towards prioritizing domestic economic stability over foreign engagements. The pro-war perspective, once dominant, is now being overshadowed by calls for the U.S. to address its own challenges before intervening overseas.

This sentiment reflects a growing awareness that America’s long-term stability may be in jeopardy. Voters want to do everything possible to secure their own futures before extending support abroad.