Both Trump and Harris are battling to secure votes from traditionally Democratic voters like minority groups and working-class Americans. These groups have reliably leaned left in the past, but recent trends suggest a growing disillusionment with Democratic leadership. This opens the door for Donald Trump to potentially make gains among voters who are typically out of reach for Republicans.
🚨Holy sht!
Even CNN is being forced to tell the American people how BAD Kamala’s polling is.
The polls have NEVER been this bad for a Democrat running against Trump. She’s even hemorrhaging minorities.
MIG Reports data suggests Trump has an approximate:
10-20% support among black voters.
20-30% support among Hispanic voters.
10-20% support among Asian-American voters.
While these numbers are not overwhelming, they suggest a potential increase compared to previous Republican candidates. Trump's economic message resonates with those who feel the pinch of rising inflation and stagnant wages.
MIG Reports data from voter conversations shows minority groups are overwhelmingly focused on domestic issues. Analysis suggests the economy, healthcare, and immigration dominate minority voter concerns. This focus is particularly sharp given rising costs of living, housing shortages, and ongoing healthcare debates.
Top Concerns for Minority Voters
Economic Concerns: Rising grocery and housing prices are central issues, with many blaming Democratic policies. Minority voters often disproportionately feel economic strain and want solutions that directly impact their lives.
Immigration and Border Security: Immigration is both practical and symbolic for minority groups. Hispanic voters often support Trump's tough immigration stance—particularly legal immigrants whose jobs are threatened by an open border.
Healthcare and Reproductive Rights: Healthcare is a focus, especially abortion. Some minority groups are split between supporting Trump's pro-life platform and fearing his policies threaten women’s healthcare.
Distrust of Government: Among minorities, there is deep skepticism toward government institutions and their competence. There is frustration with political leaders and agencies, which are often viewed as biased or manipulated.
Like all voters, minority groups prioritize issues they believe affect them immediately and directly. However, they often don’t focus on foreign conflicts or geopolitical strategy, instead preferring tangible solutions to domestic problems.
Contrast with Overall Voter Priorities
There is a notable difference in the top issues among minority voters compared with high priorities among all voters. National security and foreign conflicts like Ukraine and Israel are top concerns for the broader electorate, but these issues do not crack the top five among minorities.
Comparison of Top Issues
Minority Views of Trump
Historically, minority voters have been a difficult demographic for Republican candidates to attract. However, Donald Trump may have an opportunity to capture some degree of support within these communities.
Notions that Trump "helped all Americans" economically before COVID resonates with segments of black and Hispanic voters. Trump's stance on job creation and tax cuts, while controversial, appeals to those who see his policies as protecting American jobs. This is particularly true in lower-income communities.
Voters Don't Trust the Polls
Another dimension across all voter groups is skepticism of polls and the political establishment. Many believe polls cited by the media are biased or manipulated to fit a certain narrative. This distrust further complicates voter outreach efforts as many point to previous election cycles where Trump outperformed his poll numbers.
In the context of minority voters, skepticism extends to both parties but particularly harms Democrats who are seen as part of the political establishment.
Sentiment Toward Polls Among Minority Voters
42% express skepticism toward poll numbers.
21% believe polls are manipulated or biased.
55% show negative sentiment toward polls.
This disillusionment erodes the credibility of pollsters but also influences how voters view politicians. The Democratic Party, as the current party in power, bears the brunt of this skepticism. Trump, often viewed as a political outsider, tends to benefit from positioning himself as fighting against establishment mechanisms.
Potential to Capitalize on Anti-Establishment Sentiments
If Trump continues to make inroads with minority voters, especially in key battleground states, he could wrest important voters from Kamala Harris. While minority support for Trump remains relatively modest compared to the overall electorate, even a slight increase in black, Hispanic, or Asian-American support could prove decisive.
Analysis suggests by gaining just 5% more of the Hispanic vote in states like Florida, Nevada, or Arizona, Trump could tilt the balance in his favor. Similarly, a 3-5% increase in black voter turnout for Trump in states like Michigan or Pennsylvania could be enough to counter Democratic margins in urban areas.
However, extreme partisan divides and distrust in polling also causes some to suggest Republicans consistently remain too hopeful for gaining minority votes. This group holds that GOP ceilings for these important voters continue, even in 2024.
Every single election cycle, Republicans confidently predict that a wave of minority support for the GOP is right around the corner.
But it never seems to materialize.
Based on the past 50 years, the GOP's ceiling with minority voters seems to be:
Discussions online about the recent SCOTUS ruling that Texas must not use razor wire at the border are highly charged and divided. The majority of sentiments expressed are in favor of border control measures. Many express frustration towards the Republican party's actions regarding immigration policy and border control.
Between 6,000 and 14,000 people have been talking about border and immigration issues daily in the last week.
Public sentiment towards border issues in the last 7 days averaged 45%.
What Texans are Saying About the Border
Texans show strong support for the enforcement of border control measures.
Many Texans are outspoken about their belief in the need for a physical barrier, such as a wall, to deter illegal border crossings.
There is great support for the actions of Texas Gov. Greg Abbott and criticism of the Biden administration's immigration policies.
A majority of Texans are critical of SCOTUS' ruling to remove the razor wire.
Abbott supporters argue that the state's actions are necessary to ensure security and protect against threats such as drug cartels and human trafficking.
Some also contend that federal interference in the state's efforts to control the border is unwarranted.
A recurring sentiment is that voters support legal immigration, but not illegal immigration.
Many commenters express support for Texas' stance on immigration.
Texans applaud Abbott's actions, such as deporting over 100,000 undocumented immigrants, and seem to favor strict border control measures.
Voters are critical of supposed conservative leaders whom they perceive as not adhering strictly to conservative principles, including Justice Barrett.
There is a sense of dissatisfaction with the current Republican party in Texas, with calls for more conservative leadership and criticism of perceived liberal agendas.
Many express readiness to assist in defending the border, criticizing the federal government.
A minority contingent of people condemn the use of razor wire as inhumane and dangerous.
Overall, the majority of the discussions reveal a split within the Republican party in Texas between those who align more with MAGA and more moderate or 'establishment' Republicans.
Approval for Texas Leaders
In the days following the SCOTUS ruling allowing razor wire to be removed from the Texas border, Greg Abbott’s approval increased from 45% a week ago to 51% today.
Ken Paxton’s approval increased from 47% a week ago to 50% today.
Reactions to Biden Administration Policy
Public sentiment towards the Biden administration's immigration policies is overwhelmingly negative.
There is a stark contrast between the collective sentiment towards the federal government's immigration policies and the state of Texas' stance on the issue.
There is a general sentiment that Biden is prioritizing illegal immigrants over US citizens.
Many people believe the Biden administration's policies are ineffective and have led to an increase in illegal border crossings.
The sentiment is that Biden is not taking the necessary steps to secure the southern border and is contributing to an "invasion" at the southern border.
Most commenters express strong opposition to what they perceive as an "open border" policy, and are advocating for stricter border control measures.
Some progressive voices are present in the discussions, expressing support for a more diverse and progressive platform. However, these voices are in the minority.
Solutions the People Want
Some propose the creation of a human wall or using the homeless population as a deterrent.
Others suggest the construction of an electric fence.
Many express support for more stringent measures, such as the use of razor wire at the border.
There is also a call for state governors to bolster their State Guards in response to perceived federal government inaction.
Some have expressed a desire for mass deportations, while others argue that such an approach would be unrealistic or result in conflict.
Voters call for politicians who support open borders to step forward, suggesting a desire for transparency and accountability.
There are repeated calls for the governor to declare the situation an "invasion," which could trigger legal authority for Texas to protect its own border.
In conclusion, the SCOTUS ruling and the broader issue of border control is a contentious topic amongst Texans and Americans in general. Overall sentiment leans towards a more conservative approach to immigration, with criticism directed at both state and federal officials for perceived inaction or leniency.
There is a clear divide within the Republican party in Texas, and a desire for more conservative leadership. Despite this, there is also a minority progressive voice advocating for more inclusion and border leniency.
The War on Drugs, a global campaign led by the U.S. federal government with the aim of reducing the illegal drug trade, has long been a point of political and social contention. Views on this issue tend to vary depending on political affiliation, racial and economic background, age, and geography.
Partisan Views of the War on Drugs
Democrats generally advocate for a more health-centered approach to the issue. They emphasize prevention, treatment, harm reduction strategies, and decriminalization of marijuana. They often argue the War on Drugs has disproportionately targeted minority communities, leading to systemic racial disparities in drug-related arrests and incarcerations.
Decriminalization or legalization of marijuana efforts emphasize potential economic benefits and reducing the number of nonviolent drug offenders in prisons. They often argue the War on Drugs has disproportionately impacted communities of color and lower-income individuals. This, they say, leads to systemic injustices. The Democratic Party has increasingly endorsed medical marijuana and decriminalization of possession.
Republicans typically support strong law enforcement measures to combat drug trade. They argue for increased border security and stringent punishment for drug offenders. They often attribute the drug problem to lax immigration policies and assert that stronger border controls could help prevent drugs like fentanyl from entering the country. This group prioritizes maintaining public safety however, this viewpoint is evolving.
Some Republicans, such as Georgia's Governor Brian Kemp, have shown support for marijuana legalization, causing confusion among conservative constituents.
Independents generally lean towards more moderate strategies that balance law enforcement with prevention and treatment. Their views are varied, but they often align more closely with the Democratic viewpoint, favoring decriminalization or legalization.
Other Demographic Groups on the Drug War
Age also plays a significant role in shaping views on the War on Drugs. Younger generations, who have grown up in an era of changing attitudes towards certain drugs like cannabis, are more likely to support reformative approaches like decriminalization and treatment. Older generations tend to maintain more conservative views, favoring law enforcement and punitive measures.
Geography is another factor, as urban and rural communities experience different aspects of the drug crisis. Rural areas, for instance, have been hit particularly hard by the opioid epidemic. And urban areas often struggle with issues related to drug trafficking and violence.
Racial and economic backgrounds also influence perceptions of the War on Drugs. Minority communities, particularly African American and Latino populations, have been disproportionately affected by drug-related arrests and incarcerations. Economically disadvantaged communities often bear the brunt of the drug crisis, suffering higher rates of substance abuse and related health issues.
It's likely that the War on Drugs will remain a politically divisive issue. As the country continues to grapple with the fallout from the opioid epidemic, debates will likely center around the balance between law enforcement and treatment strategies. Furthermore, concerns about racial justice and the societal impacts of drug criminalization will continue to shape public discourse on this issue.
As newer generations become more politically active, it’s possible there will be a shift towards more progressive policies. However, strong law enforcement measures will likely remain a key component of the country's overall strategy to combat drug abuse.
Reparations, which refer to compensating descendants of African slaves in America for the economic disparities black Americans suffered, are a growing topic of political and social discourse in the United States. However, opinions on this matter vary broadly among various demographics and political affiliations, causing various proposals for reparations to elicit mixed reactions.
National sentiment toward racial reparations hovers in the low 40% range, suggesting it has not become a widely popular issue.
In general, Democrats have a more negative sentiment on racial issues than Republicans, suggesting they may see more of a need for something like reparations.
Supporters and Detractors of Reparations
Many African American voters view reparations as a necessary act of justice and financial redress that should address hundreds of years of institutionalized slavery, racial discrimination and inequality. Advocates argue economic compensation would be an effective way of remedying the racial wealth gap. They also believe it would be a required step to achieving racial justice. They contend slavery helped build the wealth of the nation on the backs of the enslaved, and the benefits of that economy have lingered into the 21st century.
However, not all Americans support reparations — particularly conservatives and Republicans who consider it part of woke ideology. Those in opposition to racial reparations argue slavery was a historical event that current generations bear no responsibility for. Many express fears about the potential economic costs and social implications of racially motivated and imposed payments. They raise concerns about the practicality of determining who would qualify for reparations, and how a program might be administered.
Reparations critics also worry about the economic feasibility of such a large and coercive transfer of wealth. They fear they could lead to increased taxes or government debt, without effectively or fairly solving problems for economic classes or races.
Others argue reparations could potentially increase racial tension and divisiveness. These critics, spanning the spectrum of political ideologies, often promote targeted policies aimed at improving education, housing, and job opportunities for minority communities rather than directly compensating individuals for past injustices.
Political and Generational Divides
The dividing lines of how Americans view reparations seem to be largely political and perhaps generational. The Democratic party has generally been more supportive of reparations, with some democratic presidential candidates in 2020 urging studies on the issue. Conversely, Republicans have been broadly opposed to reparations, with several key figures arguing they would be costly, divisive, and unfair.
The progressive left are the strongest advocates for reparations and say they are necessary to confront the country’s history of racial injustice. More centrist Democrats focus on broad social programs aimed at reducing economic inequality, rather than reparations specifically for black Americans.
Younger people like Gen Z are also more open to the idea of reparations than older generations. One study indicated less than one-third of white adults of any age support reparations, compared to about three-quarters of black adults. While Democrats have been more receptive to reparations, polls show that the party is divided along racial and generational lines.
A significant proportion of African American voters support reparations, viewing it as necessary for achieving racial justice. Other minority groups have also expressed support, drawing parallels between their experiences and the historical injustices faced by African Americans. However, white voters are generally less supportive of reparations.
Ideological Drivers
There is a portion of black conservative voters who do not support reparations, as well as white liberals who do. This suggests support for or opposition to reparations is not wholly racial in nature, but largely ideological.
Talk about reparations often goes beyond the question of financial compensation and ventures into addressing systemic racism, wealth disparity, educational opportunity gaps, and other forms of inequality that persist in modern America.
Those who believe in equity and systemic racism are more likely to support the idea of reparations. Those who believe in meritocratic achievement, personal responsibility, and free market capitalism are less likely to support reparations.
Online discussion among Democratic supporters talking about Representatives Hakeem Jeffries, Ayanna Pressley, Rashida Tlaib, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and Ilhan Omar reveal linguistic patterns on the left. A surface-level understanding portrays these representatives simply as liberal and progressive champions.
However, patterns suggest an overlap in support for actions which align with traditionally right-wing or pragmatic stances. Though support is contingent on the cultural position or ideological alignment with certain constituencies.
Turns out everyone is a blood and soil nationalist for the right group https://t.co/aPrDMnxXU9
The overarching thematic analysis supports the idea that the representatives occasionally align with right-wing or centrist actions primarily as a tactical approach to serve specific constituencies. While Americans overwhelmingly view leftist representatives as progressive leaders, their rhetoric and policies often become selectively pragmatic for groups they most closely identify with—be it racial, cultural, or ideological communities.
This balance between identity-driven representation and stated progressive ideals creates a dynamic where their "left-wing" label becomes dissonant. While the voter base expects ideological purity from their representatives, inconsistencies and compromises create accusations of failure to commit.
Supporter Perceptions of Leftist Leaders
Among those seen as progressive standard bearers, fervent left-leaning voters voice both support and criticism.
Hakeem Jeffries
Supporters largely praise his ability to unite Democrats and resist the Republican agenda, cementing his role as a capable, if cautious, progressive leader.
Yet, his pragmatic decisions—favoring unity over bold leftist policies—sometimes draw criticism from progressives as centrist compromises.
Ayanna Pressley
Pressley's staunch advocacy for racial justice and marginalized communities gains admiration with the base who see her as carrying forward Dr. King’s legacy.
Critics on her own side accuse her of leaning into identity politics rather than addressing systemic class-based issues.
Rashida Tlaib
Tlaib’s vocal support for Palestinian rights and justice for marginalized communities positions her as a progressive figure.
Detractors say her policies are rooted more in ethnic and cultural identity than progressive principles, which creates tension for those who do not share in identity.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
AOC’s base sees her as a fearless advocate for progressive values and someone who fights against Republican hypocrisy.
However, her perceived inconsistencies on issues like corporate interests lead some to question her loyalty to the working class over elites.
Ilhan Omar
Omar’s progressive stance on immigration and minority rights resonates with supporters who view her as a symbol of inclusion and diversity.
Critics say leniency toward illegal immigration is damaging to moderates and legal immigrants in her base.
Ilhan Omar went viral for saying that she is "Somali first, muslim second" and then a whole bunch of wild stuff. What people don't know is that what she actually said is wild ethno-nationalist expansionism on par with the ideology of Adolph Hitler. Let me explain: pic.twitter.com/AltsrTScho
Democratic voters often align their praise with how well these politicians serve the specific communities they identify with.
Tlaib and Palestinian Advocacy: While her base views her as a necessary voice for Palestinian justice, critics say her singular focus on ethnic identity limits her appeal.
Pressley and Black Voices: Many supporters laud Pressley for advancing racial equity, but detractors question whether her identity politics are exclusionary or divisive.
Omar and Immigrant Rights: Omar’s advocacy for illegal immigrants is seen as a direct appeal to Somali and other minority constituencies. This sparks criticism from those outside these groups who feel alienated by her positions.
Kamala Harris’s recent commitment to eliminate Columbus Day and replace it with Indigenous People’s Day caused a cultural and political firestorm. Her recent remarks coupled with resurfaced footage of her 2021 address condemning the “shameful” history of the United States draw sharp criticism.
While some applaud Harris’s efforts as a step toward historical accountability, many see her rhetoric as politically motivated and divisive. MIG Reports analysis reveals how her statements fracture the electorate and raise questions about her fitness for office.
Emotional Reactions and Backlash
Harris’s comments elicit many reactions, but prominent emotions include frustration and anger. Americans view her remarks a dangerous departure from traditional American values. They say eliminating Columbus Day would be an unnecessary erasure of the nation’s history. This sentiment is exacerbated with reshares of her 2021 condemnation of America’s “shameful” past.
Kamala Harris on Columbus Day:
"European explorers ushered in a wave of devastation, violence, stealing land, and widespread disease" pic.twitter.com/3XijDf5Ldo
Critics accuse Harris of pandering to the progressive left and using identity politics to curry favor with marginalized groups while alienating the broader electorate. Many see her comments as part of a larger trend of political correctness run amok, where prioritizing minority narratives undermines the nation’s cultural heritage. Many Americans are disillusioned, betrayed, and call Harris inauthentic.
Demographic Patterns
In reactions, there’s a clear generational and ideological divide. Older, more conservative voters—many of whom respect traditional American history—are overwhelmingly critical of her stance. Often white, rural or suburban voters, they perceive Harris’s comments as an attack on history and American values. For them, Columbus Day symbolizes respect for American achievements and national pride.
Younger voters, particularly urban and minority voters, are more supportive of Harris’s position. They like her progressive messaging and would rather recognize Indigenous People’s Day as a long-overdue step toward historical justice.
However, these divides are far from unanimous. Many younger voters question whether Harris’s actions are substantive, or a pandering gesture meant to placate activists. Some say she will not actually address the issue. Ohers prioritize more important progressive causes like economic inequality or healthcare reform. This ambivalence suggests a disconnect between Harris’s rhetoric and the progressives she is trying to appeal to.
Criticism Over Progressive Revisionism
Harris’s statements can be seen as microcosm of overall cultural and political divisions in American society. Her comments about Columbus Day, rather than fostering unity, have further polarized the electorate.
Conservatives see her position as part of a progressive assault on the country’s historical foundations, stoking frustration over cultural erosion and political overreach. This group sees Harris’s leadership as representing the dangers of progressive politics. They decry the constant reexamination of history as undermining national identity.
Harris’s identity as a woman of color in a high political office adds another layer to the criticism. Many view her ascent as emblematic of a Democratic Party which prioritizes identity politics over competence and leadership.
Voters view Harris as an out-of-touch figure more focused on equity than the issues facing everyday Americans. Many are more worried about the economy, healthcare, and national security. This incident, therefore, damages her standing with many voters.
Linguistic Patterns and Symbolism
The language Harris’s critics use is mostly defensive and fearful. They use words like “betrayal,” “erasure,” and “political correctness,” revealing anxieties about the direction of the country.
Many see Harris’s actions as part of a broader cultural battle over traditional American values. They view history and traditions as under siege by a progressive agenda that prioritizes equity and over the good of the nation.
Even among supporters, there is a noticeable wariness about the sincerity of Harris’s stance. They use words like “performative” and “empty rhetoric,” suggesting they doubt her commitment to the ideas she speaks about. This skepticism heightens with inconsistencies that paint her as a politician curating her appearance rather than taking a stance.
Oregon ended its three-year experiment with decriminalizing drugs, causing discussion over the fentanyl crisis. Reactions from voters on this decision show mixed sentiments, mirroring the divergent views on drug decriminalization in other states.
While some individuals and states hail this as a necessary step towards public safety and discouraging drug use, others see it as a regressive move that infringes on personal freedom and perpetuates the war on drugs.
Oregon decriminalized drug possession in 2020 with 58% approval from its voters.
Oregon’s drug overdose deaths have been fueled predominately by fentanyl.
Overdose deaths have increased from 280 in 2019 to 1,250 in 2023.
In Florida, Governor Ron DeSantis has expressed strong opposition to legalizing recreational marijuana, suggesting it would decrease the quality of life in the state and lead to more marijuana smells. This view is not shared by all, with some calling him a "freedom-hating fraud" for his stance on the issue.
In contrast, states like Colorado and Massachusetts have pursued progressive drug reform policies, similar to the one Oregon attempted. In Colorado, the governor appeared at an equity workshop celebrating minority-owned cannabis businesses. In Massachusetts, Governor Maura Healey granted pardons to tens of thousands of residents with misdemeanor marijuana convictions. Some progressive voters believe in the potential for the cannabis industry to promote economic growth and social equity. They also view legalization as a commitment to addressing the historical injustices of drug criminalization.
In Virginia, however, Governor Glenn Youngkin vetoed a bill intended to establish a recreational cannabis market, indicating a more conservative stance on drug reform in line with DeSantis.
These varying responses reflect the ongoing debate over drug decriminalization in the United States. Different states are adopting policies based on a range of economic, social, and political factors. The recriminalization of drugs in Oregon may therefore be seen as part of this broader national conversation, with the state's decision likely to influence and be influenced by developments in other parts of the country.
Given recent reactions to the $61 billion aid package for Ukraine, it's clear opinions on this issue are contentious among Americans. As we look towards the 2024 election, these divisions could become even more pronounced. Many voters express concern about the amount of money being spent abroad while issues at home, such as rising food costs and threats towards minority communities, are not being adequately addressed.
Critics of the bill argue the aid package is a misuse of funds, asserting the money could be better spent addressing domestic issues.Some feel it’s an example of the U.S. involving itself in conflicts that do not directly affect the country, suggesting an “America Last” sentiment. They also express skepticism about the effectiveness of the aid and question the motivations behind the bill. Some on the right accuse Speaker Mike Johnson of pushing through the bill for political gain.
Supporters of the bill see it as a necessary measure to support allies and uphold democratic values in the face of aggression. They argue providing aid to Ukraine is in the U.S.'s strategic interest. They also claim opposing the bill equates to supporting Russian aggression and undermining democracy. However, there is stronger support for the parts of the bill that provide aid to Israel and Taiwan.
Many Americans express dissatisfaction with the bill as a whole. Their primary concern is the domestic impact, questioning why such a large sum of money is being sent overseas while American citizens are struggling with high living costs, poverty, and other social issues. They criticize the government for neglecting domestic needs in favor of foreign aid.
Another group, including some hardline Republicans, voice their opposition to the aid package for ideological reasons. They view it as fueling conflicts and promoting a globalist agenda, with some suggesting it's part of a Zionist project for world domination. They also express concerns about the potential for money to escalate conflicts in the Middle East and Asia.
There seems to be a growing sentiment of frustration among voters at the perceived neglect of domestic issues. This could potentially drive a surge in support for Trump and others who more often champions an "America First" stance.
Overall, it seems a significant portion of the population dislikes the massive foreign aid package. They believe funds should be used at home to address things like poverty, healthcare, and infrastructure. If this group becomes frustrated enough, they’ll likely support candidates in the 2024 elections who prioritize domestic issues over international ones.
Recent discussions about trust in the voting system are stirring American fears—particularly around illegal immigrants voting. This issue sparks concerns over election integrity, immigration policy, and national identity. Discussions about the potential for various kinds of election interference permeate mainstream political discourse and online debates. Most American voters express anxiety about what they see as a potential erosion of democracy.
Why Do People Fear Illegal Immigrant Voting?
Since 2020, fears of election interference and cheating have weighed on voters across the political spectrum. Many believe lax border policies and a lack of stringent voter ID laws could allow non-citizens to vote. This, they believe, would undermine the legitimacy of election outcomes.
The perception is heightened by claims that allowing illegal immigrants to vote certainly skew the results in favor of candidates lenient on immigration policy—often, but not exclusively, Democrats. Many on the right also assert this is an intentional but unspoken strategy by Democrats to gain votes.
The passionate tone of conversations is palpable. Many voters see illegal immigrants voting as not just a policy issue, but a direct threat to the integrity of the voting process. Words like "betrayal," "treasonous," and "national security" frequently surface in these exchanges, illustrating the intensity of public sentiment.
The Fear is Growing
MIG Reports analysis of online conversations shows:
Nationally
52% of express a belief that illegal immigrants will vote.
75%, regardless of whether they believe illegal immigrants will vote, express concern about the issue.
59% vocally disapprove of the idea of illegal immigrants voting.
16% express approval or are neutral about the issue of illegals voting.
Swing states
Belief in the threat of illegal immigrants voting:
45% believe illegal immigrants will vote in the election.
31% dismiss the idea as a false narrative or conspiracy theory.
24% are neutral or unsure.
Sentiment about illegal immigrant voting:
51% disapprove of the idea of illegal immigrants voting in the election.
21% express approval or support for allowing illegal immigrants to vote.
28% of comments are neutral or unsure.
Though a majority nationally disapprove and express concern, swing state voters are more divided. Voters in critical states still express concern more often than indifference or support, but not as strongly as in national samples.
Reasons Voters Are Concerned
Voter fears are driven by election integrity, national sovereignty, and the perceived manipulation of democratic processes. Many fear allowing illegal immigrants to vote is unfair and threatens national interests. They say giving undue voting rights to groups who often do not pay taxes and are not part of the national social contract, weakens the voice of citizens. They say it erodes the sanctity of the voting process.
Many Americans are also express broader frustrations about immigration policy. They consider unchecked migration as a larger threat to national identity, the economy, and safety as well as election integrity.
Progressives and Democrats are more likely to be proponents of allowing illegal immigrants to vote. This minority argues migrants contribute to the U.S. economy and deserve representation in the democratic process. They claim the number of illegal immigrants voting is minuscule, dismissing fears of meaningful impact on the election.
The SAVE Act
Central to the debate is the SAVE Act, a bill proposed to tighten voter eligibility rules and ensure that only U.S. citizens can cast ballots in federal elections. The legislation would require states to verify the citizenship of voters and impose stricter penalties for voter fraud.
Supporters of the SAVE Act argue the bill is a necessary safeguard to prevent illegal immigrants from voting and protect election integrity. Many of those concerned about illegal voting cite the SAVE Act as the only effective way to address this perceived vulnerability in the system. For them, this legislation represents a proactive solution to what they see as a looming threat to democratic legitimacy.
Critics, however, argue the SAVE Act is a thinly veiled attempt to suppress minority votes, saying it would make it more difficult for naturalized citizens and lower-income communities to vote. They claim widespread voter fraud, including voting by illegal immigrants, is largely a myth and only happens “rarely.”
How Could This Impact the 2024 Election?
If illegal immigrants are allowed to vote, or if perceptions persist that they are voting illegally, the impact on the 2024 election could be profound. Based on current voter sentiment, likely outcomes include:
Erosion of Trust
Beliefs that illegal immigrants are voting—especially if proven true—deepen distrust in election results. Already, more than half of voters are concerned about this issue, and these concerns could further polarize the electorate. Lingering disagreements about the 2020 election and various voter fraud allegations will likely heighten the emotional response if voters believe illegal immigrants are voting in great numbers.
Boost to the SAVE Act and Similar Legislation
If concerns about illegal immigrant voting persist, we may see a surge in support for the SAVE Act or similar bills aimed at requiring voter ID and other integrity measures. Politicians who align themselves with this movement could gain momentum, particularly in conservative-leaning districts.
Political Ramifications
Should illegal immigrants vote in noticeable numbers—whether allowed by legal loopholes or through fraud—most believe the results would favor the Harris-Walz ticket. Any suspicion or evidence of illegal voting could lead to a backlash, causing continued disagreements about election results.
Legal Challenges and Protests
An uptick in allegations of illegal voting could result in a wave of legal challenges, further delaying election results and heightening tensions. Protests from both sides of the issue could erupt, making the post-election environment volatile and unpredictable.
.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)