Online commentary concerning opioids is a large, varied topic which produces a lower sentiment than conversations pertaining to drug enforcement.
Some of the common discussion include:
Fentanyl
There's a widespread concern about the proliferation of fentanyl in the illegal drug supply — a highly potent synthetic opioid. Many Americans express fear and confusion about reasons for its presence, given the drug's high lethality. They see fentanyl as counterproductive for drug dealers or the cartels. Some people believe the introduction of fentanyl is a deliberate act to harm or kill users, and there are theories that it is part of a broader conspiracy. Many also acknowledge the extreme danger posed by fentanyl, with some likening its use to playing Russian roulette. Others connect the presence of fentanyl in drugs to the need for changes in border policy.
Opioid Crisis
The opioid crisis is a significant point of discussion, with criticism aimed at politicians and pharmaceutical companies for their roles in the epidemic. Many feel these entities are profiting from the crisis and doing nothing to stop it. There's also a sense of frustration and anger over the perceived lack of action and accountability in addressing the issue, along with related border and crime issues.
Personal Responsibility
Some users emphasize the importance of personal responsibility in drug use, arguing that individuals must make the choice not to consume drugs. However, this viewpoint is not universally shared. Some point to external factors like the availability and potency of drugs and the difficulty of getting clean.
Drug Legislation
There's skepticism about the effectiveness of drug legislation in curbing the drug problem, with some viewing proposed initiatives like the END FENTANYL ACT with cynicism. There's a sense that previous legislation has only made the situation worse, and there's little faith that future legislation will be any different.
Drug Prohibition
Some users see drug prohibition as a significant factor in drug-related deaths, arguing that it forces people to use unregulated drugs and contributes to the prevalence of dangerous substances like fentanyl. There are calls for drugs to be regulated and sold in the same way as alcohol.
The Effect on Families and Communities
The impact of drug use and addiction on families and communities is a recurring theme. Users share personal stories of loss and devastation caused by drug addiction, particularly from fentanyl poisoning. There's also a sense that certain communities, like those with high opioid use, are stigmatized and overlooked.
The relationship between non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and their relationship with Mexican cartels and other transnational criminal organizations is complex. MIG Reports analysis shows significant American concerns about these issues, particularly human trafficking and government complicity in crime activity.
There is a noticeable focus on the perceived failures of both NGOs and the Biden-Harris administration in addressing cartels furthering human trafficking and illegal immigration. This analysis highlights discussion trends, dominate concerns, and public sentiment about border security and the role of NGOs.
How Americans Feel
Voter discussions across thousands of comments is overwhelmingly negative:
39.4% of the conversation focuses on human trafficking
50.1% conveys belief in illegal activities by cartels and NGOs
27.8% focuses on criticizing the Biden-Harris administration
28% links cartels to fentanyl trafficking, emphasizing the connection between the opioid crisis and border security concerns.
The conversations reflect deep skepticism toward the government’s ability to protect citizens and frustration with the perceived complicity of NGOs in facilitating illegal activities through funding channels and logistical coordination.
Government Criticism and Accountability
Many Americans mention the Biden-Harris administration negatively in conversations about illegal cartel activity and border issues. They blame the administration’s border policies for enabling human trafficking and fentanyl smuggling. Voters argue the government’s refusal to secure the border has led to a rise in both trafficking and opioid-related deaths.
Americans are particularly vocal about their frustration with Democratic inaction. There is sharp criticism and concern that Biden-Harris policies prioritize the needs of immigrants over the safety of American citizens. This harsh critique reveals a widespread sentiment that government leadership is not concerned about protecting vulnerable Americans or addressing pressing border control problems.
NGOs and Their Role in Immigration and Trafficking
NGOs come under heavy fire in these discussions, with 50% linking them to illegal immigration and human trafficking. Americans believe NGOs, often funded by taxpayer money, facilitate illegal activities either through direct involvement or by offering support that allows traffickers and cartels to operate freely.
Many express outrage over NGOs profiting from the very problems they claim to solve. The conversation also highlights concerns that NGOs are enabling child exploitation by allowing traffickers to use legal loopholes to smuggle children across borders. This widespread criticism of NGOs reflects a deep sense of betrayal, as users perceive these ostensibly humanitarian organizations as working against national interests and using public funds.
Human Trafficking and Fentanyl Crisis
Human and drug trafficking is another deeply negative conversation. Nearly 40% of the discussion focuses on illegal trafficking. Americans are angry and worried about the exploitation of vulnerable populations, especially children. Many view child trafficking as a growing crisis which the government does nothing to solve.
Voters say government negligence, coupled with the actions of NGOs, is exacerbating the problem. Conversations are deeply emotional, often sharing personal stories or using vivid imagery to convey the severity of the safety issues for kids.
Drug trafficking, specifically fentanyl smuggling, is also linked to cartel activity and border security. Americans view Biden-Harris policies as directly contributing to the fentanyl crisis ravaging communities and families across the country. The connection between human trafficking and drug trafficking is a recurring theme, reinforcing the idea that these are intertwined issues which government has failed to address adequately.
Online discussion analysis by MIG Reports finds widespread frustration and blame towards Democrats and specific politicians, such as Speaker Johnson, for the opioid crisis and fentanyl deaths. It appears much of the spirited discussion is among those who align with right-leaning ideologies.
Many voters link illegal immigration to crime, including violent crimes and especially drug-related offenses. There is a prevalent belief among this group that cartels and illegal immigrants pose a significant threat to American safety and security.
Overall, Americans link the opioid crisis to border control policies. Some suggest Republicans are responsible for not funding border control adequately, thereby enabling the smuggling of fentanyl and other opioids into the country. There's also criticism of the Democrats for the perception that they’re allowing and even encouraging illegal criminals and opioids to enter the country.
Border security continues to be one of the top issues for most Americans, regardless of political leanings.
Sentiment mostly remains below 50% with severe negativity directed towards the Biden administration
Opioid discussion is lower than general border topics but is consistently linked to border security.
Most Blame Falls on Politicians and the Cartels
Most voters tend to blame politicians on the other side of the aisle – Democrats accusing Republicans and vice versa. Both political parties receive criticism for not taking enough action to curb the crisis, although the Biden administration gets most of the current criticism.
There's also significant blame placed on the cartels and illegal immigrants themselves. Many voters focus on the role of Mexico and China in contributing to the opioid crisis. They believe the Mexican government, especially President Andrés Manuel López Obrador, isn't doing enough to combat drug cartels that smuggle fentanyl into the U.S. China is also accused of being a source of fentanyl that gets moved across the U.S. border.
Multiple users link the opioid epidemic to human trafficking, implying the same cartels responsible for drug trafficking are likely involved in human trafficking. There are also allegations that NGOs at the southern border are facilitating illegal immigration, indirectly aiding drug trafficking.
Overall, most concerned voters argue the Biden administration's border policies enable drug cartels to have free reign.
Conservatives Are Highly Critical of the Border and Opioids
Right leaning voters often blame the Obama’s open borders policy and the perceived continuation of this policy under Biden. They attribute the opioid crisis and especially fentanyl deaths to uncontrolled cartel access. Many among this group believe if Donald Trump doesn't win in 2024, this will perpetuate and worsen the situation.
Conservatives and some moderates express anger over what they view as wasteful government spending, particularly on policies supporting immigrants.They blame the Democrats for prioritizing funding towards illegal immigrants over addressing the opioid crisis.
This group also blames open borders for many drug-related and, in their view, preventable deaths. They hold Democrats responsible for pushing open borders, and they demand stronger border control measures.
Certain voters blame Republican politicians like Speaker Johnson and Republicans in Congress for not taking decisive action against on the border and failing to support more immigration legislation and crackdowns. This, they believe, contributes to the influx of drugs into the country. There also appears to be a sentiment that the issue is being used as a “talking point” for political gain.
Liberal Voters Call for Funding and Healthcare Solutions
Some vocal liberals challenge the prevailing narrative that stricter border control is the primary solution to the opioid crisis. They argue most fentanyl enters the country through legal ports of entry and is brought in by American citizens. Some also criticize Republicans for blocking funding that could increase border staff and improve drug detection technology.
There is a sentiment that the healthcare system and doctors are contributing to the opioid crisis by refusing to prescribe opioids. There are criticisms of the healthcare system blaming it for penalizing doctors for prescribing painkillers and making opioids difficult to access for those in genuine need.
Some support new laws to curb the opioid crisis, and sometimes legalization of drugs, indicating a belief in legislative solutions to public health problems. There is also a call for bipartisan cooperation to address the crisis, framing it as a moral issue rather than a political one.
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.
Online discussions about Vice President Kamala Harris and her role as “Border Czar” under President Joe Biden is notably critical and with widespread disapproval. The public prominently questions her efficacy and commitment to addressing the complex issues at the southern border, often emphasizing her lack of communication with top Border Patrol officials like Jason Owens and Raul Ortiz. This perceived neglect fuels a narrative of incompetence and inaction.
What People Are Saying
Top topics in these conversations include illegal immigration, crime rates associated with migrant populations, and the economic or social impacts of border policies. Words and phrases such as "illegal immigrants," "cartels," "border crisis," and "fentanyl deaths" frequently surface, underscoring the public's focus on security threats and their repercussions on American communities.
The narrative also revisits Harris's past comments from 2019, where she dismissed the idea of a border crisis. This exacerbates the current sentiment that she is detached from the reality on the ground.
The Trump campaign’s efforts to spotlight Harris's border record drive many recent conversations. Trump’s calls with influencers like Border Patrol Union Presidents Brandon Judd and Paul Perez reinforce the critique of Harris as Border Czar. Recent Trump PAC advertisements Biden-Harris border failures, highlighting comments from Harris supporting decriminalizing illegal immigration and abolishing ICE.
Media Try to Change the Narrative
Many Americans, who are already disillusioned with the mainstream media, are pointing out rushed attempts to change Harris’s border narrative. Outlets are now claiming that Biden never appointed Harris as “Border Czar,” despite the very same outlets reporting on in at the time.
Axios in particular is facing severe backlash for retroactively correcting its own reporting calling Harris Border Czar. People rip Axios and other mainstream outlets attempting to walk back their own reporting in efforts to improve Harris’s image. Voters, especially on the right, accuse mainstream media of shaping politicized narrative and lying to Americans.
Journalists were calling Kamala the border czar until like five minutes ago. Don't let the media gaslight you. pic.twitter.com/oveoFcBn4G
Voters mostly feel Harris’s tenure as a failure. They attribute severe consequences like increased crime, profit gains for cartels, and widespread fentanyl deaths to her Border Czar policies. The criticism intensifies with claims of Harris's policies harming Special Education services due to resource strains caused by illegal immigration.
If the critical sentiment towards Harris solidifies among undecided voters, it is likely to hurt her presidential campaign given border security is a high-priority issue.
Democratic responses to Allan Lichtman’s "13 Keys" election predictions and their failure to capture public sentiment accurately. In the aftermath of Trump’s decisive victory, Democrats continue to grapple with their understanding of the loss. Meanwhile, broader political developments expose a charged environment of frustration, speculation, and party tension.
While Lichtman’s forecasts remain a focal point, discussions touch on immigration, national safety, and leadership accountability, showing a party at odds with itself and its strategy.
I am not joking when I say this is one of the greatest clips I've ever seen on a cable news show.
Cenk completely destroys Alan Lichtman by pointing out that his keys to the White House were wrong and Lichtman responds by accusing him of blasphemy.😂pic.twitter.com/4G1YF3cxTy
Trust in party leadership and political analysis like Lichtman’s "13 Keys" is waning, reflecting broader doubts about the Democratic Party’s understanding of public sentiment.
Many commenters say the party's messaging does not resonate with Americans. They complain about woke ideologies and a lack of relatable figures in leadership.
Voters worry about inflation, wages, and the overall economy. This, along with safety concerns, worsens critiques of Democratic governance and priorities.
Despite frustration, some Democrats call for unity and constructive dialogue. They promote collective progress instead of finger pointing and blame.
Discussion Themes
Democrats are desperately searching for the cause of their catastrophic loss, trying to pinpoint explanations. Many were shocked by the inaccuracy of predictions like Lichtman’s or polls like Ann Selzer’s, creating confusion about which issues turned the tide.
Outrage and Accountability
Democratic frustration touches on the failures of leadership, pollsters, and analysis. Leadership figures like Secretary Mayorkas and Director Wray are criticized for actions voters feel are evasive or insufficient.
Statements such as "Mayorkas and Wray’s refusal to testify is an outrage" illustrate a sense of betrayal and neglect of responsibility. These sentiments echo broader calls for resignations and reforms within party leadership.
Safety and Immigration Concerns
Safety issues, particularly those tied to immigration, feature prominently in postmortem discussions. Tragedies involving fentanyl and violent crimes committed by illegal immigrants dominate narratives.
Comments like "Every day, 350 Americans die from cartel-imported fentanyl" link these crises to perceived Democratic policy failures, reflecting a growing anxiety about national security.
Speculation and Distrust in Leadership
Speculative language creates a tone of distrust toward Democratic leadership. Comments like, "Biden clearly does not want this war to end" convey dissatisfaction with foreign policy decisions and perceived ulterior motives. This speculation extends to domestic governance, with many calling for transparency and prioritizing voters’ concerns.
Democratic Friction and Calls for Reform
Party divisions are growing, with abundant critiques of Democratic leadership and party strategy. Terms like "profound failure" highlight dissatisfaction with the party’s current trajectory. Voters want "self-reflection" and appeals to "good people" in leadership positions point to a desire for transformative change.
Voters voice confusion and frustration with leadership. However, the media and the political class still seem unwilling or unable to accurately assess the strategic failures which led to Harris’s historic loss.
Watching Allen Lichtman completely unravel as he realizes Kamala is going to lose Pennsylvania is priceless comedy. 🤣 pic.twitter.com/KdsCk0mpG7
Public sentiment on cartel-related issues in the United States is negative. As Americans grapple with the rising impact of cartel activities, including drug and human trafficking and gang activity, there is increasing tension between those advocating for a strong executive approach and those who still value traditional governance with checks and balances.
This analysis explores American sentiments regarding which form of leadership people see as most effective in addressing the perceived threats. Analysis also looks at how language—particularly the contrast between first-person and third-person usage—reflects the depth of personal investment in the problem and the expectation for leadership to deliver solutions.
MIG Reports data shows:
70% of Americans want a strong executive approach
25% want traditional governance to put protections in place
5% are ambivalent or resistant to addressing cartels
Strong Executive Approach
The 70% who want strong executive action express frustration with current government policies. They want strong, unilateral executive action similar to Donald Trump’s policies. These voters view the threats posed by cartels and immigration as immediate and urgent, requiring decisive leadership.
Traditional Governance
The 25% who favor a more traditional approach emphasize the need for bipartisan solutions. They seek full-scale immigration reform rather than over-reliance on executive power. This group would rather see it done procedurally than imminently.
Ambivalent or Resistant Sentiment
The minority who voice skepticism toward both executive overreach and traditional governance was genuine reform without partisan bias.
Issues Shaping Sentiment
Cartel Activities
Drug trafficking, violent crime, and human trafficking—including child trafficking—are recurring themes fueling public concern. The discourse often links cartel activities directly to the border crisis, which intensifies calls for stronger leadership and enforcement.
Fear and Urgency
Many Americans fear the consequences of Biden-Harris immigration policies, particularly rising crimes committed by illegal immigrants and the fentanyl epidemic. These fears drive the call for immediate and decisive executive action.
Perceived Government Failure
Public frustration largely stems from a belief that Biden and Harris prioritize political agendas over public safety and security. The perceived failure of traditional bipartisan methods, as well as policies like "Catch and Release," contribute to the urgency for stronger governance.
Language Analysis
First-Person Language: Problem Focus
When discussing the impact of cartel activities and border security, many Americans use first-person language. This reveals their personal investment in the issue. Statements like “We know this visit is just a political sham” and “I don’t feel safe,” suggest many are directly affected by the rise in crime, drug trafficking, and immigration failures.
The use of first-person language highlights the personal and emotional connection Americans feel regarding immigration. Many perceive cartel activities as a direct threat to their safety, families, and communities.
Urgency and Fear
First-person language amplifies the urgency of the problem, with emotional tones of fear, anger, and frustration dominating discussions. These emotions are particularly linked to alarming statistics such as fentanyl overdoses and crimes attributed to illegal immigrants.
Third-Person Language
Conversely, when Americans discuss solutions, they shift to third-person language, placing the responsibility on political leaders and government officials to act.
Detachment and Delegation
By using third-person language, voters place responsibility on political figures. Statements like “Kamala Harris is responsible for the illegal alien invasion” or “The government needs to step up” illustrate a belief that politicians are the ones who should resolve the crisis, since it’s their job.
Accountability and Criticism
This shift in language is often accompanied by criticism of current leadership. Public disappointment with figures like Kamala Harris and Joe Biden reflects a widespread sense that they have failed to address the border and immigration issues adequately. The use of third-person language to express frustration shows how the public holds these leaders accountable for the ongoing crisis.
Claudia Sheinbaum was elected as Mexico's first female president, which has led to a flurry of public reactions. The assassination of at least 37 political candidates in Mexico has also stirred trepidation. MIG Reports analysis shows increasing worry about what this means for safety and sovereignty in the United States.
Sentiment Analysis
Online commentary links Sheinbaum to drug cartels, suggesting she was elected by their influence. This belief causes a deep concern about Mexico's ongoing accommodation of drug trafficking and related violence. Sheinbaum's election adds to a narrative of skepticism about her ability to improve the situation. With forecasts that Sheinbaum would win, there was an immediate drop in sentiment from American observers.
Some voices accuse Sheinbaum of being a socialist who will worsen the crisis of illegal immigration in the United States. This prospect also increases concerns about threats to American national security posed by drug cartels who may operate more freely.
Many voters express disappointment, anger, and fear, at the implications of a Sheinbaum presidency, citing likely increases in drug trafficking, violent crime, and illegal immigration in the U.S.
Many also suggest Sheinbaum's victory is meaningless due to Mexican election being commandeered by the cartels. People also view Sheinbaum as having ineffective and socialist policies.
Sheinbaum’s supporters online celebrate the historic significance of her achievement as Mexico's first female president. Some of the supportive commentary is hopeful she will focus on curbing Mexico's high murder rate, which is largely caused by cartel activity.
Discussion Analysis
Some of the top discussion topics related to Sheinbaum’s election include:
The potential for continued lax border control policies
People argue for stricter policies both on drug control and border security
Notably, there is little sentiment noted about Sheinbaum's policies or ideas beyond the issues of drugs and immigration. This suggests broader understanding of her platform has been overshadowed by these dominant concerns.
Governor Gavin Newsom’s public opinion has dropped after outrage over San Francisco’s overnight clean up for foreign dignitaries arriving for last week’s APEC Summit.
The Details
Ahead of the summit, San Francisco authorities dismantled homeless encampments downtown, scrubbed away graffiti, and installed murals and decorative crosswalks to spruce up high-traffic zones.
Newsom acknowledged the summit motivated the city to "raise the bar" on cleaning efforts.
What they’re saying
The Governor quipped to reporters 'I know folks are saying, 'Oh, they're just cleaning up this place because all those fancy leaders are coming to town,' said Newsom late last week.
'That's true, because it's true - but it's also true for months and months and months prior to APEC, we've been having conversations.'
"He was more concerned with promoting...his policies instead of addressing the human suffering on our streets," said Jennifer Friedenbach of the Coalition on Homelessness.
Conservative Pundit Megyn Kelly derided the Governor’s priorities, “Gavin Newsom and Mayor Breed clean up the city just in time for the Chinese leader to show up there with Joe Biden...They’re important, but the actual residents of San Francisco can pound sand,' Kelly said on her podcast.
Movement
As media focused on the pre-summit clean up and Newsom’s comments acknowledging the clean up, Newsom has earned consistently lower daily opinion scores.
In the first half of the last 30 days, Newsom’s daily opinion scores only fell below 45% once.
Since November 9th, Newsom's daily public opinion scores have only topped 45% once, mostly lingering between 43-44% on most days.
Despite touting negotiation wins with China on fentanyl and carbon emissions, opinion amongst users discussing Newsom online tumbled further on the first day of the Summit, dropping from 44% on November 15th to 39% on November 16th.
This was the lowest daily opinion score for Newsom in the last 30 days.
Lasting Impression
The California Governor continues to be attacked for the clean up fiasco, finding himself in first place amongst major politicians who earn more negative than positive comments online.
Looking ahead
As speculation grows over a future Newsom presidential bid, the spotlight on California’s homelessness crisis seems unlikely to dim, posing a significant political challenge to the California Governor’s political ambition.
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
