MIG Reports analysis of online discussions surrounding DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas and migrant deportations reveals deep public concerns. As debates unfold among voters, frustration, fear, and occasional defense of current policies pervade. The narrative in voter conversations is charged with tension, reflecting Americans’ growing anxiety over national security, economic impact, and community safety.

Discussions predominantly focus on the effectiveness of immigration policies, the handling of illegal and legal immigrants. People also discuss the broader implications for the upcoming election.

We are providing this humanitarian relief to Haitians already present in the United States given the conditions that existed in their home country as of June 3, 2024. In doing so, we are realizing the core objective of the TPS law and our obligation to fulfill it. https://t.co/yBwOPk7eWJ

— Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas (@SecMayorkas) June 28, 2024

There is a collective sentiment that Biden-Harris administration officials, particularly Secretary Mayorkas, has failed to adequately address border security. This feeling of dissatisfaction manifests in discussions of border security and immigration policies.

Sentiment leans heavily negative, with voters blaming current policies for harming U.S. interests. From fears about the economy to concerns about public safety, Americans express a belief that immigration policies favor undocumented individuals at the expense of citizens.

Border Security

Dominating much of the election dialogue, voters criticize perceived failures at the border. They emphasize increased crime, economic instability, and cultural threats posed by illegal immigrants. Americans use strong, often alarmist language to describe an "invasion" at the border.

Concerns for security blend with demands for stronger enforcement and mass deportations, positioning border control as a key issue in the election. There is clear urgency in conversations, with deep frustration over what voters see as weak enforcement and a lack of accountability.

Immigration

Immigration policies overlap with concerns about border security, shifting the conversation slightly toward critiques of policy and Mayorkas’s leadership. In both election and American-daily-life contexts, public frustration intensifies. Many question the allocation of taxpayer resources and the strain illegal immigrants place on local communities.

The debate is framed around national integrity, with participants calling for stricter deportation policies to preserve jobs, safety, and public welfare. Anger about recent news stories involving crimes committed by illegal immigrants spurs critiques of policy inefficacy, portraying Mayorkas as a central figure in the ongoing crisis.

Mass deportation is now popular.

A majority of registered voters favor “a new national program to deport all undocumented immigrants currently living in the U.S. illegally,” 62-38%.

👀 A MAJORITY OF HISPANICS favor mass deportation, 53-47%.

Per @CBSNews / @YouGovAmerica poll: pic.twitter.com/EsUaEsE4im

— Sahil Kapur (@sahilkapur) June 16, 2024

Language Patterns

The language Americans use highlights the nature of this polarized discourse. Third-person language dominates among those criticizing government officials and the impacts of immigration policies. This focus on accountability creates a tone of detachment and objectivity, with commenters often pointing fingers at Mayorkas and the Biden administration for perceived failings.

First-person narratives also surface, particularly in election-related contexts, where voters share personal stories of community impacts or emotional responses to the ongoing immigration debates. This first-person language serves to amplify the urgency and personal stakes tied to immigration policies, emphasizing how deeply these issues resonate with affected individuals.

On July 15, anti-immigration protests regarding taxpayer-funded asylum infrastructure in Coolock, Ireland, became physical. The story also went viral among some groups in the United States.

MIG Reports studied online discussion to track parallels with American conversations about U.S. illegal immigration. Discussions reveal intense emotions and diverging political ideologies among American commenters.

Background

The events in Coolock, Ireland, involved local protests and arson attacks on construction sites intended for migrant centers. Some American commenters use these events as examples highlighting the consequences of lenient illegal immigration policies.

Many point to the imagery and reports from Ireland to underscore broader themes of national sovereignty, safety concerns, and the failures of current immigration policies. In this context, the sentiment is predominantly negative and alarmist, emphasizing fears of cultural and social disruption. Many Americans say, if the U.S. continues its current immigration path, it will face similar consequences as seen in Europe.

Discussion Trends

Among conservative Americans, there is a pronounced effort to link the disorder in Coolock with issues they view as comparable in the United States. A prevailing theme is government incompetence and betrayal by political elites. President Joe Biden and Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas are frequently criticized for their immigration policies. Voters argue they have cause similar crises at the U.S. southern border. This portends a sentiment of frustration and urgency for stricter immigration controls and policies more aligned with former President Trump's administration.

Conversely, liberal and progressive commenters often frame the events in Coolock in the broader context of humanitarian concern and the need for compassionate immigration policies. However, they are less likely to highlight the events themselves, instead focusing on criticizing the negative portrayals of immigrants. They often assert there are xenophobic undertones in the conservative discourse.

Sentiment Trends

Among conservative Americans, there is a strong correlation between negative sentiment towards the Biden administration and the heightened focus on illegal immigration as a key electoral issue. People discuss national security, economic strain, and cultural preservation.

Independent and undecided voters often find themselves swayed by these negative portrayals of current U.S. immigration policies, especially when framed around fears of safety and economic hardship. This demographic is critical, as their views on immigration could significantly influence their voting behavior in the upcoming elections.

Discussions often highlight an apocalyptic tone, suggesting a societal collapse due to unchecked immigration. This not only furthers negative sentiment but also activates a call to political action among right-leaning voters. This can potentially galvanize voter turnout in support of politicians who promise stringent immigration reforms.

Causes of Concern

Conversations tend to oscillate between reports of specific incidents involving illegal immigrants and broader claims about systemic problems due to illegal immigration. Sentiment in these discussions is predominantly negative, characterized by fear, anger, and a demand for action. The top issues Americans talk about include:

• Violent crimes involving illegal immigrants
• Economic concerns and resources used on illegal immigrants
• Public safety and health concerns
• Drug and human trafficking and child endangerment

Potential Election Impact

For independent and undecided voters, conversations using Europe as a sketch of America’s future can influence voting decisions. The portrayal of illegal immigration as a source of crime and economic strain can sway Americans toward candidates and policies favoring stronger immigration controls.

The narrative of government mismanagement and failure to protect citizens also continues to erode trust in current administration policies, pushing undecided voters towards change-oriented platforms.

Amid former president Trump’s visit to the Libertarian National Convention and Chase Oliver’s subsequent nomination, discussions about Libertarian Party immigration platforms emerge.

Libertarian policies, which emphasize open borders and free movement across countries, get mixed reception from both conservative and libertarian voters. Conservatives are quick to point out immigration as a point of deep disagreement between themselves and libertarians – typically overlapping ideologically on other issues.

Libertarian candidate Chase Oliver’s immigration platform.

- Mass amnesty for millions in the U.S. illegally
- Path to citizenship for DACA
- Ellis Island style mass processing
- Expansion of H-1B work visas

Not a word about border security. https://t.co/gYRZobK98E

— Bill Melugin (@BillMelugin_) May 28, 2024

Many conservatives on X are pointing out that Oliver’s Libertarian platform aligns more closely with Biden’s open borders. This has also sparked discussions about how broadly aligned Republicans, and even Trump himself, are with Libertarians.

Libertarians and Immigration

Libertarians, true to their philosophical principles, usually advocate for less government intervention across the board. This includes freer migration policies influenced by a belief in the free market and individual rights – or more simply, open borders. They often view ideas like a border wall as an imprudent use of tax dollars. They say government intervention at the border is contrary to their overall philosophy.

This group also argues free labor movement is beneficial to the economy and individual liberty, rather than hurtful to American sovereignty. However, not all libertarians agree with this perspective. Some express skepticism about completely open borders, particularly in terms of security and preserving the nation's cultural and social fabric.

Many voters view Chase Oliver’s platform as advocating open borders based on freedom and prosperity. Some Libertarians envision a world where people are free to move and seek opportunities anywhere in the world. They often highlight the historic role immigrants played in fueling American innovation and economic growth. They assert fears of economic and cultural displacement are both misplaced and overstated.

Conservative Views of Libertarian Borders

Right leaning and conservative voters, especially under the current administration, widely disagree with Libertarian immigration policies. They tend to view border security and stopping migrant entries into the U.S. as extremely important.

Conservatives are more likely to support building a wall and deporting illegal immigrants. This view is underpinned by their emphasis on national security and protecting jobs and resources. This group also attributes illegal immigration as a major contributor to issues like crime and economic hardship.

Republicans and conservatives regularly cite border security, economic impact, rule of law, and national identity as top issues. They sometimes accuse the Libertarian Party of supporting lawlessness by advocating for open borders. They are also more likely to criticize Libertarians for having minimal support and political impact.

Some point to polling reports by outlets like Axios and Reuters/Ipsos identifying more than 50% of Americans – including Democrats – support mass deportations.

56% of US registered voters support deporting most or all immigrants living in the country illegally, Reuters/Ipsos poll has found.

— unusual_whales (@unusual_whales) May 29, 2024

Trump at the Libertarian National Convention

Donald Trump’s comments at the Libertarian National Convention also sparked discussion about the impact of the party. MAGA and conservatives who attended or viewed Trump’s remarks largely embraced what he said.

Trump supporters view his American-first immigration policies as safeguarding American values, jobs, and security. Despite the policy disagreements with Libertarians, they saw Trump's willingness to engage Libertarians as a true reflection of his assertive leadership style and an attempt to create unity on the right.

As for Trump himself, amid taunts and jeers from the crowd, he told Libertarians, "Maybe you don't want to win,” adding, “Keep getting your 3% every four years,” roasting the unruly audience.

Some argue Trump’s comments are accurate – especially with Libertarian policies like open borders becoming increasingly unpopular.

Trump just showed up to the Libertarian Party Convention, told libertarians "Maybe you don't want to win ... keep getting your 3 percent every four years,” then left.

Total Chad move.
pic.twitter.com/GxztfQ0V02

— BowTiedRanger (@BowTiedRanger) May 26, 2024

Vice President Kamala Harris’s opaque messaging on policy positions is becoming a point of concern for moderates and Independents. Voter groups like Democrats, Independents, and undecideds will be critical in the 2024 election. How they perceive Kamala Harris’s platform between now and the election will inform their view of her as potential president.

Liberals see her as a progressive leader who will push the country further left, generally supporting the Party candidate no matter what. Moderates are cautious about her policies, worrying the left is correct and wondering about the implications for traditional values and national stability.

• Sentiment toward Harris compared to Trump varies by topic. In the last day, the highest volume discussion topics show Harris low on inflation and border security. 
• Both Trump and Harris have strong approval regarding campaign rallies, presumably from each of their support bases.
• The current economy and border security have not been emphasized in conversations about Trump in the last day, however he sees negativity regarding allegations against him by Democrats.

Ideologies

Liberals see Kamala Harris as a champion of progressive ideals, often highlighting her support for workers' rights, social justice, and climate action. They praise her advocacy for labor unions and perceive her as representing average citizens against elites like Donald Trump. However, some liberals criticize her for not pushing far enough on certain progressive issues like economic equality and healthcare reform.

Moderates often view Harris as leaning too far left, associating her with socialist policies and expressing concern about her potential impact on traditional American values. They are wary of her support for universal healthcare and progressive reforms, fearing these might lead to increased government control.

Discussions about her Jamaican and Indian heritage also play a role. Some question her authenticity while others acknowledge her diverse background as a potential strength.

Security Issues

Liberals generally support Harris's diplomatic approach to security issues, appreciating her efforts to address systemic causes of migration and reduce global tensions. They praise her for securing prisoner releases and engaging in international diplomacy but may criticize her for not going far enough in reforming law enforcement.

Moderates express significant concern about Harris's ability to handle national security issues. They perceive her foreign policy, especially in the Middle East, as inconsistent, leading to distrust. They also associate her with the "defund the police" movement and fear increased crime under her administration.

Economic Issues

Liberals support Harris's economic policies, particularly her focus on climate action, job creation, and reducing inequality. They view her role in passing legislation like the Inflation Reduction Act as a positive step toward economic reform. However, they may want her to be more aggressive in challenging corporate influence and wealth inequality.

Moderates are critical of Harris's economic approach, often blaming her for contributing to inflation and economic instability. They express concern about fiscal irresponsibility and the potential burden on the middle class, fearing higher taxes and government spending under her policies.

Border Security

Liberals view Harris's border security policies as a humane approach to immigration reform. They support her efforts to address the root causes of migration and dismantle Trump-era policies. They praise compassion for illegal immigrants, emphasizing their right to migrate. However, some may criticize her for not being more proactive in pushing for comprehensive reform.

Moderates are furious with Harris's border security legacy, frequently criticizing her role as "Border Czar." They blame her for unchecked illegal immigration and massive security risks. They view her policies as both lenient and enabling to criminals looking to enter the country. Many also have harsh words for the apparent disregard for cartel activity and drug and child trafficking.

Worries about border failures are exacerbated by candidate Harris and her recent VP pick Tim Walz seeming to completely ignore child trafficking issues in favor of diversity, equity, and inclusion.

Immigration Issues

Liberals generally support Harris's immigration policies, praising her focus on humane treatment and systemic reform. They appreciate her advocacy for migrant rights but may call for more decisive action against restrictive immigration policies.

Moderates criticize Harris's immigration stance as overly lenient, associating her with increased illegal immigration and national security concerns. They express frustration over her halting deportations and call for stricter controls and decisive actions to curb illegal immigration.

MIG Reports deep-dive analysis on Mexican cartel presence in the United States highlights a few notable trends:

• Increasing concerns about cartel activities
• Polarization on illegal immigration
• Evolving discourse on the border
• Media blame for information gaps among voters

Cartels inflict severe humanitarian and socioeconomic harm on their own country and the U.S. They drive violence, exploitation, and forced migration; destabilizing communities, undermining development, and contributing to poverty and corruption.

They also play a significant role in irregular and illegal immigration, with migrants often falling victim to cartel violence. Their activities threaten national security by infiltrating U.S. neighborhoods with drug and child trafficking and organized crime.

• Discussion trends show drug and human trafficking are two of the most prevalent keywords related to border issues.

Common Viewpoints Among All Voters

Despite significant ideological and political divides, recent escalations in the border crisis are driving down approval for the Biden administration’s policies. Democrats and progressives are still much more likely to support the existing border situation. However, there are several key points of agreement that a majority of Americans share:

• American sentiment towards Mexican cartels is overwhelmingly negative.
• Cartels are primarily viewed through the lens of violence, drug trafficking, and the ensuing social harm.
• The opioid crisis driven by fentanyl is a major concern linked to cartel activities.
• Cartels are perceived as a direct threat to American society.

There also seems to be certain knowledge gaps in various demographics regarding border issues. Analysis suggests this is largely a result of media outlets selectively reporting or framing political narratives.

• Conservatives and legal immigrants tend to have the most initiative in seeking out information about the border and Mexican cartels.
• Wealthier and more left leaning Americans may have some knowledge, but largely accept media narratives.
• Young Americans and elderly Americans may both have a skewed view of the border due to lack of or outdated information.

Views of Mexican Cartels

Political Trends

Republicans tend to view cartels as a major threat exacerbated by perceived lax border policies under Democratic administrations. The narrative often links cartels to broader criticisms of immigration policy, highlighting issues such as fentanyl trafficking and human trafficking.

Democrats, while also concerned about cartel activities, focus more on the humanitarian aspects of immigration and the need for comprehensive immigration reform. There is less emphasis on cartels as the primary issue.

Geographic Influence

Border State residents in places like Texas, Arizona, and California are more likely to have heightened concerns about cartels due to their proximity to the Mexican border. These areas are more directly impacted by cartel activities like drug trafficking and illegal crossings.

Concerns about cartels in non-border states are often more abstract and tied to national narratives than direct experience.

Socioeconomic Status

Lower income communities are often directly affected by the negative consequences of drug trafficking and illegal cartel activity. They tend to see increased crime and addiction rates. Higher income communities are more likely to be focused on broader national security and economic implications rather than personal safety.

Overall Sentiment Trends

The volume of discourse around cartels has increased significantly in recent years. It is particularly pronounced amid the opioid crisis and high-profile cases of human trafficking.

Negative sentiment has also intensified, especially among Republicans and residents of border states. There is a marked increase in the association of cartel activities with broader criticisms of the Biden administration's policies.

However, there are notable demographics who are relatively ignorant of the complexity of cartel operations. This group includes:

• Some urban liberal populations – particularly those insulated from direct impacts. They often do not fully grasp the nuances of cartel operations and the effects on border communities.
• Younger Americans – especially those not living in high-impact areas. They may lack a comprehensive understanding of the issue, often receiving information through filtered social media narratives.

Top Discussion Topics Related to Cartels

Drug Trafficking

The fentanyl crisis is a significant concern. Many attribute the influx of fentanyl to cartel activities. This is often mentioned with criticisms of current border policies.

Human Trafficking

There is strong negativity towards cartels perpetrating human trafficking, particularly child trafficking. This topic ties into broader concerns about immigration policies and border security.

Violent Crime

Many Americans associate cartels with increased violent crime. This is true in border states and across the nation as cartels expand their operations.

View of Illegal Immigration

Political Trends

Republicans typically express strong anti-cartel sentiments. They often link cartel activities to illegal immigration and border security. Messaging from conservative media and politicians emphasizes the dangers posed by cartels in terms of drug trafficking and violent crime.

As with cartels, liberals and Democrats tend to focus more on humanitarian aspects of the immigration conversation. They highlight the plight of asylum seekers and the socioeconomic factors driving migration. They may be more critical of aggressive border policies they feel unfairly target immigrants.

Geographic Influence

Border State residents have heightened awareness and therefore stronger opinions about illegal immigration due to proximity and direct impact. Experiences with border security issues and local crime rates influence their views.

Residents of non-border states are generally less directly affected and may be more influenced by national media narratives. Their opinions can fluctuate based on high-profile news stories or political campaigns.

Socioeconomic Status

Working-class and lower income groups are more likely to support stringent measures against illegal immigration due to perceived competition for jobs and resources. They also have higher exposure to drug-related issues in their communities.

Middle- and upper-class groups often focus more on policy and humanitarian aspects, advocating for comprehensive immigration reform and international cooperation to tackle the root causes of cartel power.

Overall Sentiment Trends

Recent data, such as the rise in fentanyl-related deaths and reports of increased illegal crossings, have heightened public concern about immigration. This is particularly pronounced among conservatives, who link these issues directly to border security failures.

The topic of cartels and immigration has become highly polarized, with significant differences in sentiment between political affiliations. This polarization is fueled by targeted media narratives and political rhetoric.

There is also a growing divide between those advocating for empathetic approaches to immigration and those prioritizing national security. This divide is often along socioeconomic political lines.

Ignorance of the Border Crisis

Urban residents in non-border states far from the crisis sometimes have limited knowledge of cartel operations and immigration. Their understanding is largely shaped by media consumption, which can vary widely in accuracy and focus.

While more informed on certain social issues, younger Americans often lack detailed knowledge about the operational intricacies of cartels, focusing instead on broader humanitarian narratives.

Residents in higher socioeconomic brackets can also be somewhat insulated from the direct impacts of cartel activities, leading to a less urgent perception of the issue.

Overall View of the Border Crisis

General Sentiments and Understanding

Republicans typically express the deepest concern over cartel activities, associating them with broader issues of illegal immigration, drug trafficking, and national security. Sentiment is strongly negative, emphasizing the dangers posed by open border policies, which conservatives believe enables cartel operations. This group almost universally advocates for stricter border controls and increased law enforcement.

Democrats often frame the issue within a broader context of immigration reform and humanitarian concerns. While acknowledging the dangers of cartels, they argue for comprehensive immigration policies to address root causes and provide pathways to citizenship. Their sentiment is mixed, balancing concerns about security with empathy for migrants.

Media Influence

Media outlets play a crucial role in shaping public opinion. Conservative media often highlights violent incidents involving cartels and illegal immigrants. They disseminate information and bring awareness to what is happening while advocating for stringent border measures.

In contrast, mainstream and leftist media focuses on humanitarian aspects, critiquing harsh enforcement policies and highlighting stories of migrant suffering. Many view mainstream media as a critical cause for progressive and urban Americans’ lack of knowledge about border issues.

There is some media coverage, especially from outlets like NBC News and AP News, amplifying the perception of cartels as a pervasive threat. Reports on cartel violence and its impact on both Mexican and American communities reinforce the idea that cartels are a critical issue that requires urgent attention.

Public Awareness

There is a significant disparity in public awareness about cartel operations. Many Americans are aware of high-profile incidents and general issues related to drug trafficking and violence. However, detailed knowledge about cartel structures, operations, and their socioeconomic impact is limited. This is true across the board but is especially pronounced among those not directly affected by the border crisis.

Despite insufficient public awareness about border issues overall, discussions have dramatically increased during the Biden administration. Awareness also rises with high-profile incidents like the murder of Laken Riley, which many point out happens more frequently under current policies.

Social media platforms also amplify these discussions. This can result in viral awareness campaigns or sometimes lead to echo chambers where existing sentiments are reinforced.

Major Sentiment Trends

There is a noticeable increase in fear, especially among conservative circles. This is driven by increasing violent crimes and drug trafficking associated with cartel activities.

Among liberals and younger demographics, there is advocacy for balanced policies that secure the border while addressing humanitarian needs. This trend reflects an acknowledgment, even on the left, of unacceptable current conditions at the border.

On July 19, a worldwide outage of Microsoft devices relying on CrowdStrike products for cybersecurity experienced a major failure. This disastrous outage impacted industries from airlines to hospitals to offices. CrowdStrike is also the same firm which essentially initiated the Russiagate claim.

Americans took to social media with skepticism, frustration, and political blame games. MIG Reports data shows several dominant themes and sentiments from these conversations, reflecting the public’s varied concerns and theories about the event and its broader implications.

Top Topics and Keywords

The main narrative centers on cybersecurity issues, political intrigue, and widespread speculation. Keywords such as “deep state,” "Blackrock," "CrowdStrike," "Russiagate," "FISA warrant," "quasi-quo," "Biden administration," and "Microsoft outage" frequently appear. They are often wrapped in complex and sometimes conspiratorial storytelling.

Recurring topics include the link between historical political events such as Hillary Clinton's alleged mishandling of a private email server and the Benghazi attack. These are weaved into a broader narrative of political corruption and conspiracy involving corrupt corporations.

Another frequently discussed topic is the Microsoft outage, considered by many as a deliberate act with significant political undertones. Many say it was potentially intended to manipulate public perception or influence political outcomes. Some speculate the convenience of the outage for anyone attempting to bury evidence related to the Trump assassination attempt.

There is also significant discourse surrounding large corporations like Blackrock and their involvement in these events. This underscores a prevalent concern among the public about the influence of major financial and investment firms in political and national security matters.

Discussion Trends

The discussions trend towards a broader context of distrust in governmental and institutional transparency. There is a notable mix of factual recounting of past events and highly speculative theories about connections and motives behind the CrowdStrike incident.

Many discuss the present situation within their views of systemic fraud, manipulation, and political subversion. Individuals are vocal about their perceptions of collusion between the FBI, CrowdStrike, and powerful political figures to protect certain interests at the expense of transparency and justice.

Sentiment Trends

Sentiments largely skew negative, with a considerable amount of anger and distrust directed towards the Biden-Harris administration. A significant portion of the public views the administration as complicit or at least negligent in addressing cybersecurity threats and safeguarding public and private infrastructure.

There is also a thread of resignation and some despair as people discuss what they see as the futility of expecting accountability within current political systems. However, this sentiment is often coupled with a fervent call to action, stressing the importance of vigilance and political change to counter the perceived entwined interests of political, corporate and deep state entities.

Political Blame

Many fault the Biden-Harris administration. Labels of incompetence, weakness in protecting national security, and direct accusations of enabling larger conspiratorial networks are recurrent themes. The aftermath of the security breach elicits calls to hold the administration accountable, sometimes employing highly charged language that underscores a deep sense of betrayal and urgency.

Conversations often draw on recent, related failures or perceived inadequacies within the current administration. Many believe there is a pattern of negligence or deliberately corrupt oversight. People discuss “Biden Migrant Crime Wave,” inflation issues, and the Ukraine and Israel conflicts as interconnected failures, amplifying backlash against the administration.

Takeaway Analysis

American conversations about the CrowdStrike outage echoes broader concerns about deeply systemic corporate and government corruption. People view this event as a political maneuvering and national security failures intertwined with corporate failure.

Repeated mentions and constructed narratives around "deep state" orchestrations, billionaire-backed manipulations, and spy tactics illustrate a public highly conspiratorial. They are engaged but also profoundly troubled by the state of political affairs and cybersecurity.

These narratives and sentiments point to a collective sense of disillusionment and a clamor for more rigorous protective measures and accountability from those in power. The convergence of historical political events with contemporary security woes in public discourse also highlights an underlying continuity of mistrust and suspicion towards governmental and corporate actions within the realm of national security.

Only a few days prior to Election Day, voter discussions are tense. The atmosphere around Trump and Harris is fraught with tension, worry, and anticipation. Daily top discussion topics include:

• Culture issues
• The economy
• Border security
• Housing

Trump continues to hold a major advantage in social media discussions and a smaller edge in sentiment.

Trump Dominates Discussion Volume

Across the four top topics, Trump significantly outpaces Harris in mention volume:

• Trump gains nearly 20,000 daily mentions compared to Harris's 8,520.
• Voters discuss him more, both positively and negatively.
• The disparity suggests Trump’s rhetoric and policies elicit a greater response.
• Support for Trump on border security and economic deregulation contrast starkly with the criticisms from his detractors.

In contrast, Harris’s comparatively limited public engagement may indicate lower enthusiasm:

• Lower levels of attention may demonstrate Harris’s challenge connecting with voters.
• Those who could perceive her policies as either overly cautious or insufficiently distinct from Biden’s may not feel the need to weigh in.
• Her lower engagement on core issues potentially suggests a voter base that is less energized or divided in their support.

Trump’s Slight Sentiment Advantage

Though Trump’s higher volume might imply broader reach, the sentiment attached to both candidates is tighter.

• Excluding rallies, Trump leads Harris by a slight margin, holding an average sentiment score of 44.25% compared to Harris's 43.5%.
• A minor advantage suggests, despite divisive rhetoric, Trump’s stance on core issues resonates more positively with voters
• Those seeking strong leadership on economic and border policies are particularly positive toward him.

Culture Issues

Ideologies and culture war issues are relatively evenly matched for both candidates at 44%.

Trump

• This parity highlights the sharp cultural divide among Americans, where each candidate represents a competing ideological vision.
• Trump supporters view his cultural stances as a defense against progressive overreach and Democratic “dehumanization” of conservative values.
• There’s intense backlash against comments made by Democratic leaders and media who call Trump voters “Nazis,” “fascists,” and “garbage.”

Harris

• Harris’s alignment with progressive causes receives a mixed reception.
• While some view her as a voice for inclusivity and social justice, detractors interpret her policies as leaning too far left, threatening American values.
• Harris faces difficulty in uniting a broad coalition under a progressive platform, particularly moderate or non-woke Democrats.

Economic Issues

Economic issues a top issue in the 2024 race, with Trump holding a slight sentiment advantage—44% versus Harris's 43%.

Trump

• Trump advocates emphasizing his commitment to deregulation and tax reductions, which they argue will spur economic growth and alleviate inflationary pressures.
• They say he represents a return to a more business-friendly, self-sustaining economy.

Harris

• Harris’s unclear economic policies receive mixed responses.
• Her tax proposals, particularly on unrealized capital gains, are portrayed by critics as burdensome on the middle class and small businesses.
• Her supporters argue these measures will reduce wealth inequality, but critics frame her policies as economically harmful.
• Voters struggle between seeking economic equality and fearing increased government control.

Border Security

Border security is another critical area where Trump has an edge—43% to Harris's 41%. Frustration is high regarding Biden-Harris immigration policies.

Trump

• Trump’s tough stance on immigration resonates with voters concerned about resource allocation and national security.
• There are repeated grievances about Democrats prioritizing illegal immigrants over veterans and struggling Americans.
• Sentiment is urgent and concerned, with many voicing fears that current policies undermine public safety and strain social services.

Harris

• Harris’s role as “border czar” draws substantial criticism, with opponents framing her as ineffective in controlling the border.
• People say she’s indifferent to the consequences open borders have on American communities.
• There is public anger over drug trafficking and crime, with Harris getting blame as unwilling or unable to address the issue.
• Her supporters counter by advocating for policies of inclusivity and support for migrant communities.

Housing

Housing sentiment is balanced at 46% for both candidates. There is shared public frustration over affordability and living costs which transcends partisan lines.

• Rising housing expenses, coupled with inflation, fuel widespread discontent.
• Trump supporters argue his approach to deregulation and reduced taxes fostered a more affordable housing market.
• Harris supporters emphasize her efforts toward housing reforms aimed at long-term affordability and protections for vulnerable groups.
• However, proposed initiatives are overshadowed by the immediate economic strain Americans feel.