Additionally there is no discussion about selection bias here. For example, we know that since it's an internet survey, everyone on the survey has the internet

Additionally there is no discussion about selection bias here. For example, we know that since it's an internet survey, everyone on the survey has the internet or an ability to use the internet (eg: public library access?). That rules out a non-trivial portion of the population. Additionally, not everyone answers or engages in these surveys. So there's an additional bias. A lot of immigrants take a low profile, and dont vote, and don't engage civically, such as surveys. So missing those. In the end, the paper is assuming the people who self selected into taking this survey are representative of the entire population, and that might be true for the more common things, but for less common things, not so true. A good example is to fill up a jar with white marbles. Then put another 50 red ones on top. Now take the top 100 marbles as a "sample". You'd conclude from this that the jar is 50% red, when its actually like 5% red! This is the classic sampling bias/error. Since the paper doesn't touch this at all, I assume the authors know their conclusion is bogus and they don't want to go here because it'd destroy their headline: "NON CITIZENS GAVE OBAMA THE PRESIDENCY". So much shit in this paper, yet it masquerades as science.