On July 13 in Butler, PA, former president Donald Trump held a campaign rally, during which, he was shot in the ear and took cover as follow-on shots continued between a would-be assassin and Secret Service counter-sniper agents.

President Trump was immediately removed from the scene, holding up a fist and chanting “fight” and “USA.” Americans and the world immediately took to social media to pour out reactions and feelings. MIG Reports analysis of these initial conversations reveals a complex and possibly disturbing trend:

• Deep political divisions and escalating tensions within American society.
• A mix of outrage, conspiracy theories, and heightened rhetoric from both supporters and detractors of Trump.

Trump  Supporters

Among Trump supporters, the sentiment is predominantly one of anger and determination. There is a strong sense of martyrdom surrounding Trump, with many asserting the assassination attempt is a direct result of the liberal media's rhetoric about the end of democracy and the Democratic establishment's aggressive stance against him.

This group tends to emphasize themes of divine protection and resilience, often invoking religious overtones and patriotic fervor. They argue the attack has only solidified their support for Trump and has awoken a "sleeping giant" of political activism within the conservative base.

Many conservatives and Trump supporters suggest a coordinated effort by the left, possibly involving figures within the Biden administration or intelligence agencies, to silence Trump. There is also increasing speculation of incompetence or even malice coming from within the Secret Service and DHS. Many point to recent inflammatory comments from prominent Democrats as evidence of incitement.

Anti-Trump Skeptics

Those opposed to Trump express skepticism about the motivations behind the attack and its implications. Some dismiss the seriousness of the attack, while others suggest it was staged by Trump or his allies to garner sympathy and galvanize his political base.

There are also claims that the shooter might not align with any clear political ideology, complicating the narrative further. This side is more likely to call for a measured and investigative approach, emphasizing the need to de-escalate political violence and rhetoric—despite some within the ranks openly lamenting the assassinations failure.

On the left, there is a counter-narrative that suggest Trump himself and allies are to blame for inciting violence. They suggest heightened animosity in America, leading to events like this attempted assassination, are the product of the toxic political environment Trump has fostered.

Independents and Undecided

Independent and undecided voters appear to be caught in the middle of these polarized viewpoints. The assassination attempt and subsequent reactions might push some undecided voters towards Trump out of sympathy or distrust towards the left's handling of political violence. Conversely, others may become disenchanted with the entire political process, viewing the escalating rhetoric and violence as evidence of a broken system.

The Pennsylvania Rally

Right-of-Center Responses

Trump supporters and right-wing voters mostly attribute the attack to liberal or leftist causes, linking the shooter to groups like Antifa. They claim Democratic leaders and anti-Trump rhetoric incited the attack and suggest the incident was either orchestrated or mishandled by government agencies, furthering distrust in federal institutions. This narrative is used to rally Trump’s base by highlighting systemic bias and targeted aggression against them.

Left-of-Center Responses

Left-leaning and liberal voices focus on gun control, noting the use of an AR-15 and the shooter's alleged Republican affiliations. They critique Trump’s history of incendiary language and emphasize broader issues of gun culture and political extremism in the U.S. This group is also skeptical about the details of the incident, separating the shooter’s actions from broader political groups.

Centrist Responses

The polarized conversations likely have a substantial impact on undecided and independent voters, who may find the vitriol and partisan accusations off-putting, leading to disillusionment with both major parties. High-profile violent incidents often push voters towards policy-oriented stances, potentially nudging them to support candidates advocating for gun control or criminal justice reforms.

Sentiment Trends

Sentiment trends align with ideological inclinations. Trump supporters feel outrage and victimization, while critics highlight the dangers of permissive gun laws and violent rhetoric. The discourse includes significant blame-shifting, with Trump backers accusing Democrats and "deep state" actors of foul play, while opponents called out perceived hypocrisies and the consequences of Trump’s polarizing language.

Assassination

Right-of-Center Responses

The predominant trend among Trump supporters is an outpouring of outrage and calls for accountability. Many posts focus on identifying and condemning perceived liberal incitement to violence, often citing past rhetoric from Democratic leaders and media outlets as catalysts.

There is a strong narrative that this attempt on Trump's life is a direct consequence of the "hate-filled" discourse promulgated by the left. Sentiment among Trump's base is highly charged, oscillating between anger, blame, and a renewed sense of fervor to support Trump against what they see as a corrupt and malevolent political system.

Left-of-Center Responses

Most on the left either downplay the severity of the attack or suggest it was staged, contributing to a narrative of skepticism and conspiracy. Criticism is aimed at security lapses and the potential political manipulation of the event. A fraction of posts reflect a chilling nonchalance or thinly veiled schadenfreude, which only serves to fuel the ire of Trump supporters further.

Neutral and Independent Responses

Neutral and independent voters are caught in the middle, attempting to call for calm and rational discourse in the aftermath. Sentiment analysis shows many undecided and independent voters are disheartened by the level of vitriol and divisive rhetoric coming from both sides. The assassination attempt and the subsequent reaction have left many in the center feeling alienated and distressed, worried about the implications for future political stability.

Impact on Centrist Voters

Undecided and Independent voters say extreme reactions only heighten their disenchantment with the current political climate. The discourse generates a perception of increased instability and the potential for wider societal divisions.

While the assassination attempt has undeniably rallied Trump's core supporters, solidifying their opposition to perceived left-wing extremism, independent voters may find themselves more wary of aligning with either extreme end of the political spectrum.

However, there are some in the middle who perceived Trump’s reaction and demeanor during the shooting as a sign of strong leadership and express heightened patriotism. Some even say it has swayed them to want to vote for him.

Broader Implications

Rhetoric on both sides, from charged accusations and language to actual threats and expressions of hope for further violence, exacerbates a deepening sense of mistrust and fear. Moderate voices calling for unity, calm, and rationality are crucial but easily drowned out by the cacophony of partisan anger.

The assassination attempt against Donald Trump has thus impacted the political landscape, potentially shifting the sentiments of undecided voters towards disengagement or a search for a candidate who promises a return to stability and decorum.

Joe Biden's recent "big boy" press conference, as his administration labeled it, took social media by storm. Conversations are primarily driven by his significant gaffes, including referring to Trump as the Vice President and Ukraine president Zelensky as Putin. These missteps are prompting widespread concern about his mental acuity and competence.

Voters are especially worried at a time when clear and decisive leadership is essential. The term "big boy press conference" was used by the press and White House staff to describe what was touted as a pivotal and unscripted press conference. However, most Americans on social media mocked the term, suggesting it is infantilizing and patronizing—although perhaps fitting.

No Flips, No Gains

Most of the American public, particularly those on the right, interpret Biden's mistakes as a troubling sign of cognitive decline. Although groups across parties are vocal in their criticism, arguing that such errors potentially undermine confidence in U.S. leadership on the global stage.

This aspect of the discussion often includes a juxtaposition with former President Donald Trump, who handled international crises much better. Many say the Russia-Ukraine conflict and the Israel-Hamas situation have worsened under Biden's administration.

Biden supporters, however, aim to downplay his verbal missteps, attempting to highlight substantive aspects of his press conference where he discussed foreign policy initiatives and the administration's stance on various global issues.

Defenders argue the president's gaffes are largely inconsequential or nitpicking. In some Democratic circles, Biden still have strong backing—although more elected representatives are calling for him to step down.

Some Democrats are trying to foster unity withing the party, emphasizing urgency and aiming to mobilize voters around continuing the Biden-Harris administration's agenda.

How People See It

Undecided voters and Independents are particularly impacted by discussions of Biden’s performance. Many in this group express growing concerns about the president's age and mental sharpness, which could sway them against voting for Biden in the upcoming general election.

This demographic appears to be leaning toward alternatives, both within the Democratic Party and potentially toward Trump. Many suggest a desire for a presidential candidate who can embody strength, clarity, and innovative solutions without the embarrassment of Biden’s increasingly shocking struggles.

Many people also criticize Biden’s image on the world stage in front of foreign leaders at NATO. They mention his flub in calling President Zelensky Putin and Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni’s disgusted reactions to Biden. Many argue these incidents are just the tip of the iceberg in how negatively foreign world leaders view the current U.S. President.

Biden’s handling of the Israel-Hamas conflict also continues to attract significant scrutiny. While some appreciate his diplomatic efforts to negotiate a ceasefire and his attempts to manage the humanitarian aspects, others criticize him for appearing to side too explicitly with Israel, potentially alienating voters who are sensitive to the plight of Palestinians.

During last week's NATO Summit in Washington D.C., President Joe Biden publicly said, “Ukraine will prevail against Russia.” This comment led to discussions about Biden's involvement in international conflicts and perceptions of poor foreign policy. The comment also seemed to cause repercussions on his already-dropping approval rating.

Sentiment about the Ukraine-Russia war trends towards cynicism and frustration for many Americans. This is particularly acute regarding U.S. aid and strategic outcomes. The contrast between Biden's involvement in Ukraine's defense and his support for Israel's actions against Hamas also stirs emotional and volatile discourse among U.S. voters.

Online conversations about the Ukraine-Russia war continue to generate interest among certain political groups. However, the volume of discussions on the Ukraine-Russia conflict is regularly overshadowed by ongoing concerns about Israel's war with Hamas.

• Consistent but low discussion volume about Ukraine-Russia compared to Israel-Hamas suggests American investment in Ukraine is lower priority.
• Although Ukraine sentiment is higher than sentiment for Russia or Israel, it’s likely more pressing issues will continue to push Ukraine to the back burner.

Ukraine's Battle for the Spotlight

American conversations about the Ukraine-Russia war often touch on global politics, military strategies, humanitarian crises, and economic impacts. There is talk about the effectiveness and moral obligations of international aid, especially from the U.S. and its NATO allies. While these topics generate engagement, the issue of Biden’s stance toward Palestine appears more pressing—especially within the Democratic voter base.

Undecided voter and independent sentiment about the likelihood of Ukraine winning the war is mixed. Many express skepticism about Ukraine’s future, suggesting a consternation over the ongoing scale of destruction and human suffering.

President Biden's assertion that Ukraine will emerge victorious is not universally accepted. Some say his stance is overly optimistic, considering the complex and entrenched nature of the conflict. Many also point out their view that Biden’s leadership does not help Ukraine put on a strong front against Russia. Biden’s efforts to maintain a coalition supporting Ukraine grows dubious amid questions about his reelection bid and Israel’s concurrent conflict.

Conversations around Ukraine often emphasize resilience and determination, albeit tempered with realistic concerns about the prolonged nature of the conflict. Americans point out the toll on Ukrainian civilians and America’s own financial investments.

Israel's War Stirs American Emotions

In contrast, the discourse on Israel's war against Hamas is more intensely charged with high emotions and moral declarations. The narrative is heavily punctuated by graphic descriptions of violence, civilian casualties, and allegations of war crimes on both sides. This conflict intertwines historical grievances with current geopolitical maneuvers, eliciting strong responses from global commentators and ordinary citizens alike.

Public sentiment about Israel versus Hamas is deeply polarized. There is unwavering support for Israel's right to defend itself among some voters. However, another segment of Americans decries the humanitarian impact on Palestinian civilians or U.S. involvement with Israel. The emotive language used in these conversations often intensifies the division, with instances of misinformation and propaganda adding to the complexity.

Recently, prominent political figures have sparked significant discourse by suggesting President Biden drop out of the race. This notion has generated a mixed reactions among Americans and revealing deep divisions within the Democratic Party.

Discussions primarily revolve around Biden's age and infirmity, recent and relentless gaffes, and his perceived electability against Donald Trump. The growing list, as of this writing, of influential figures who are questioning Biden or calling on home to drop include:

• George Clooney (who recently raised $30,000,000 for Biden’s campaign)
• Sen. Michael Bennett (CO)
• Sen. Jon Tester (MT)
• Sen. Sherrod Brown (OH)
• Sen. Peter Welch (VT)
• Sen. Patty Murray (WA)
• Rep. Raul Grijalva (AZ)
• Rep. Greg Stanton (AZ)
• Rep. Adam Schiff (CA)
• Rep. Scott Peters (CA)
• Rep. Jim Himes (CT)
• Rep. Ed Case (HI)
• Rep. Mike Quigley (IL)
• Rep. Eric Sorensen (IL)
• Rep. Brad Schneider (IL)
• Rep. Seth Moulton (MA)
• Rep. Jamie Raskin (MD)
• Rep. Hillary Scholten (MI)
• Rep. Angie Craig (MN)
• Rep. Mikie Sherrill (NJ)
• Rep. Pat Ryan (NY)
• Rep. Earl Blumenauer (OR)
• Rep. Adam Smith (WA)
• Gov. Maura Healy (MA)

Downward Trajectory

Trending online conversations suggest a growing frustration among Democrats, particularly those identifying as progressives or left-leaning centrists. They feel increasingly uncertain about Biden's ability to secure a victory in the next election.

Many express concerns Biden continuing his campaign may weaken the party's chances. They advocate for someone younger or different to take the mantle, like Vice President Kamala Harris. This sentiment aligns with demographic patterns where younger voters and minority groups appear less enthusiastic about a second Biden term compared to their initial support in the 2020 election.

Criticism of Biden's slip-up on the first question of his “big boy” press conference, referring to Vice President Kamala Harris as "President Trump," highlights fears about his mental acuity and readiness for another term. This gaffe has been weaponized by both the right and the far left to question his competency. Many also continue to question his physical health and stamina.

Some liberal voices within media spheres criticize the Democratic establishment for being slow to address internal calls for change, hinting at a desire for rejuvenated leadership.

Looking Ahead

Undecided and Independent voters seem torn between dissatisfaction with Biden's current administration and dread of returning to Trump-era policies. A potential alternative candidate for the Democratic Party may become a significant factor as these voters gravitate toward stability and effective governance.

Economic factors like inflation, which the administration claims is improving, and public safety concerns, such as the crime surge near Times Square, also shape the political battleground. How candidates address these issues will likely influence centrist support.

Younger voters, urban residents, and progressive activists want new Democratic leadership. Older voters and centrist Democrats tend to prefer an experienced candidate like Biden. This internal divide reflects broader national sentiments of political fatigue and desire for change.

Among Independents, there is a notable inclination to support candidates who offer pragmatic solutions over entrenched partisanship. This demographic often swings elections and currently shows a readiness to evaluate alternatives critically before making their final decisions. They focus heavily on economic stability, crime reduction, and foreign policy, as seen in their reactions to Biden's recent aid packages for Ukraine and legislative actions blocked by Senate Democrats.

Recent news of airplane manufacturer Boeing’s guilty plea for conspiracy to defraud the U.S. government is enraging Americans. The plea, in connection with two deadly 737 Max crashes, resulted in fines and penalties which, most Americans, feel is a meager punishment.

Despite the rare moment when a corporate giant admits to criminal wrongdoing, the two catastrophic crashes in Indonesia and Ethiopia, which killed 346 people, are only a small part of why Boeing’s brand value continues to plummet.

American sentiment toward Boeing consists of anger and disappointment. Many perceive Boeing's agreement to pay a $243.6 million fine is outrageously lenient given the magnitude of the tragedy and the $24.8 billion victims’ families hoped for.

There is a significant outcry that the punishment does not fit the crime, particularly since no one is facing jail time. The company already faced $2.5 billion in penalties and payouts in 2021, but critics argue financial penalties alone are inadequate to hold the company accountable for the loss of human lives.

• With news of Boeing’s guilty plea, online mentions skyrocketed aspublic sentiment crashed down to 36%.
• Ongoing scandals and negative press coverage continue to erode public views of Boeing, which faces negativity more severe than American hatred of Mexican cartels.

Destroying Public Trust

American view of Boeing and consequently, air travel, has been severely compromised. Ongoing scandals, safety incidents, and rumors about the dead whistleblowers cast a long shadow over Boeing's reputation.

The aviation industry's overall safety and integrity now face heightened scrutiny. The idea of boarding a Boeing 737 Max or any aircraft manufactured by Boeing terrifies many travelers. Incidents like the recent aborted takeoff of an American Airlines Boeing 737 due to a blown tire amplify these concerns.

This incident occurred as the aircraft accelerated for takeoff, resulting in a catastrophic tire failure, which later caused a fire. The immediate danger of the situation was compounded by a delayed response from emergency trucks. This heightened concerns over the readiness and efficiency of ground support systems in handling such emergencies.

JUST IN: American Airlines flight 590 out of Tampa, Florida narrowly avoids disaster after multiple tires blow out during takeoff.

As the plane was picking up speed and seconds away from liftoff, the tires blew out.

The pilot slammed on the brakes as the plane barreled towards… pic.twitter.com/P5kZ3N6pUO

— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) July 10, 2024

The FAA's order to inspect 2,600 Boeing 737 planes over potential oxygen mask failures further erodes confidence in air travel, suggesting systemic quality control issues within the company. Many are also discussing recent news that Boeing’s Starliner capsule will be stuck in space, possibly until mid-August, due to technical issues.

Another recent incident where two planes nearly collided mid-air resurfaced fears about the impact of DEI initiatives in the aviation industry.

Remember when the FAA threw out over 700 qualified Air Traffic Controller applicants (who passed the test) just because they were white? https://t.co/KaECGX3uke

— Jesse Kelly (@JesseKellyDC) July 10, 2024

Vitriol Over Disproportionate Punishments

The juxtaposition of Boeing's insignificant penalties with other high-profile cases also fuels ideas of a two-tiered justice system. Americans increasingly believe corporate entities receive lenient treatment compared to individuals—especially for those who hold the "wrong" ideology.

Most people view Boeing's fine as a "sweetheart deal" that fails to hold anyone accountable to the victims' families. Critics argue this penalty amounts to a slap on the wrist for Boeing, a multi-billion-dollar corporation, and fails to deliver real justice or corrective pressure.

The sense of injustice is exacerbated by the fact that no individual executives face criminal charges or jail time. In contrast, some people point out Trump's fine of nearly $500 million including interest for his valuation of Mar-a-Lago.

They fined Donald Trump 2x more for accurately appraising the market value of his home than Boeing got fined for killing people. https://t.co/jhfbrI7DZy

— Sean Davis (@seanmdav) July 8, 2024

Many, especially on the right, view these disproportionate penalties as clear evidence of favoritism and politically motivated justice. These reactions frame the justice system as being unfairly weaponized against anyone who doesn’t align with the “Uniparty.”

Following Independence Day, the New York Times published an opinion piece titled. “Does America Need a President?” Online conversation among American readers subsequently showed a stark contrast among political and social groups. The article generated reactions from skepticism to fervent agreement, provoking visceral reactions that often align with each reader’s political ideology.

Conservatives Scoff

Conservatives generally view the article as an attack on American traditions and constitutional norms. They argue the presidency is a crucial institution symbolizing unity and national leadership. These reactions often come with an added suspicion that questioning the presidency is an attempt to undermine traditional structures in favor of radical, possibly socialist, political reforms.

Voters on the right frequently express concerns about the left's influence on media and academic institutions. They connect the article to broader transformations they deem threatening to American society. Their feedback often includes anxieties about issues like immigration, economic regulation, and social policies like abortion and gender rights.

Some also argue narratives like this one from the NYT are attempts to protect an ailing President Biden—who many believe is not capable of fulfilling his presidential duties.

Progressives Entertain the Idea

Liberals and progressives appear more open to the question of whether America needs a president. They are using it to critique current and past administrations for their failures. They are also more likely to view the theory as a legitimate scholarly debate, encouraging discussions about democratic reforms and the decentralization of power.

For some, the article provides a platform to voice dissatisfaction with existing political structures and advocate for significant changes they believe will address systemic inequities and enhance democratic governance.

Demographic Patterns

Older conservatives, especially those who can recall periods of heightened national unity such as post-WWII or the Reagan era, are particularly resistant to notions challenge the presidency.

Younger demographics, including Millennials and Gen Z, tend to skew liberal and are often more enthusiastic about rethinking traditional government roles. Among younger Americans, there is considerable support for arguments that suggest power could be more equitably distributed among public institutions or directly by citizen initiatives.

Young voters are split, however. On one hand, they are fascinated by the idea of significant political overhaul. Many view our current system as outdated and inadequate for addressing modern challenges such as climate change, digital privacy, and social justice.

However, there is also a substantial contingent within this demographic that remains cautious about proposing such dramatic shifts without a clear and practical roadmap for implementation. This group seems to align with the segments of younger Americans who are moving to the right.

Republicans

Republicans tend to view the article as fueling narratives that contribute to a loss of national identity or sovereignty. Discussions here frequently reference "Project 2025" and other controversial programs opposing liberal overreach.

Topics such as social security, Medicare, and immigration reform are flashpoints. Some Republicans use these as examples of how liberal policies erode institutional integrity. This group prefers adherence to strict constitutionalist interpretations and a wary approach to federal overreach.

Democrats

Democratic voters use the article as a springboard to highlight current administrative deficiencies and historical injustices. This includes systemic racism and economic disparities.

There is a tendency among these Americans to advocate for radical reforms—often suggesting a need for novel governance structures. Arguments in favor of stronger local governance or communal decision-making models are common. Many progressives also focus on social justice issues, climate change, and healthcare reform.

Hardliners Disenfranchised

Discussions also reveal evolving attitudes towards social policies within the parties. For example, a notable faction within the GOP base is becoming disenfranchised with the party's shifting stance on issues like abortion. This suggests an internal fracture which is influenced by leaders who are perceived to strategically soften traditional stances to widen their appeal.

Meanwhile, among Democrats, there is an observable frustration towards moderate candidates or policies that do not adequately challenge entrenched systems of power. A similar chasm seems to be growing on the Democratic side over Israel-Palestine relations as well as Joe Biden’s bid for a second term.

President Joe Biden publicly stating he plans to stay in the presidential race has caused viral discussion online and among Democrats. There are passionate debates on both sides, but especially within Biden’s own constituencies. MIG Reports data shows a split among those who hope Biden stays in to beat Trump at any cost, and those who vehemently insist he step down.

Biden's Increasing Health Concerns

Biden's mental and physical health have nearly overshadowed all political conversations in recent days. Critics often raise concerns about his age and clear cognitive decline, with many pushing for him to step down.

More Democrats are now saying a younger candidate like Kamala Harris or others should take the helm. Some Democrat leaders, including Nancy Pelosi, also insist that time is growing short for Biden to make a decision.

Voters across the political spectrum discuss the possibility of Biden suffering from dementia, Parkinson's, and other health issues. This focus on the President’s increasing feeble appearance causes many to question his ability to handle the pressures of the presidency.

Democrats are now split on whether Biden can withstand another rigorous campaign. His supporters often dismiss these concerns as baseless attacks meant to undermine Biden’s credibility. They argue he is capable of fulfilling his duties and the media is making unjustified claims.

Other Democrats say, even if Biden does not have the capacity to continue as the sitting president, they are not bothered. A viral clip of Whoopie Goldberg promoting a similar idea went viral, drawing criticism from Republicans and some Democrats.

Whoopi: "I don't care if [Biden] pooped his pants. I don't care if he can't put a sentence together. Show me he can't do the job, and then I'll say, okay, maybe it's time to go...I have poopy day all the time. All the time." pic.twitter.com/QlMHzH8LF9

— Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) July 8, 2024

Any Blue Won’t Do

A salient point in the conversation is the perception of party loyalty and internal disarray among Democrats. The idea that influential Democrats and former supporters are now withdrawing their support for Biden is gaining traction.

Notable figures and entities, such as a Disney heiress and a growing number of mainstream media outlets, are shifting their allegiance or calling for Biden to step aside. Recent news that fervent Obama supporter George Clooney is calling for Biden to step down displays the significant fracture among Democrats.

George Clooney urges Joe Biden to step down as the 2024 Democratic nominee for president in a new op-ed:

“We are not going to win in November with this president. On top of that, we won’t win the House, and we’re going to lose the Senate. This isn’t only my opinion; this is the… pic.twitter.com/EArMreTtMk

— Variety (@Variety) July 10, 2024

This swell of infighting among Democrats gives critics space to argue that a party in disarray will weaken their chances in the upcoming election. Many are also questioning whether VP Harris could carry the ticket, should Biden step down. 

Trending Sentiment

Sentiment toward Biden is polarized. There’s a mixture of die-hard support and vehement opposition. Supporters champion his achievements and leadership, expressing frustration towards those within the party who are contemplating a replacement. They argue Biden represents stability and a return to normalcy compared to the chaotic tenure of his predecessor.

Opponents paint a grim picture of Biden’s presidency, attributing various national issues to his leadership and suggesting that his running for re-election would be detrimental to the country. They evoke strong imagery of moral and political decay, centering on personal attacks against Biden and his family.

For undecided voters, the ongoing discussions introduce an element of uncertainty. They are weighing the implications of Biden continuing his presidency against emerging critiques and alternative possibilities. The growing divide may influence undecided voter perceptions of party stability.

Independents, often swayed by pragmatic considerations and a broader perspective beyond strict party lines, are closely observing these developments. The Democratic Party's ability to maintain coherence and present a strong, unified case for Biden’s continuance remains a key factor for these voters. Visible rifts and intra-party dissent may deter their support, emphasizing the importance of how Democrats manage these narratives moving forward.

Conversations among those aligned with the Uncommitted Movement—a pro-Palestinian movement critical of Biden’s Israel policy—have added another layer of complexity to the debate. While not all primary-held states have an “Uncommitted” option for Democrats, notable results included:

• Michigan: 13.3% Uncommitted
• Minnesota: 19% Uncommitted
• New Jersey: Approximately 9% Uncommitted
• New Mexico: Approximately 10% Uncommitted

Online discussions suggest this movement is likely to continue through August and the Democratic National Convention. However, if Biden stays in the race, he will likely receive the official nomination via Zoom, without attending in person.

A recent scoop alleging President Biden and his staff have been concealing ongoing visits from doctors who specialize in Parkinson's Disease created firestorm among voters and the press.

As Biden’s approval plummets and Democrats begin jumping ship, the White House is struggling to keep media and voters on their side. Sentiments toward the Biden family and allegations against them have reached lows in the mid 30% range over the last 15 days.

Mainstream Media Finally Wakes Up

Mainstream media and Democratic pundits have been responding with sharp criticisms toward Biden and his administration since the President’s disastrous debate performance. While some are still attempting damage control, trying to maintain a semblance of unity and stability, most seem to be turning on Biden.

Many observers suggest media figures, who have long been feigning ignorance of Biden’s clear cognitive decline, are turning on Biden because they believe he cannot win the election. Articles and reports from mainstream media outlets notorious for supporting Democratic narratives are now, for the first time in his presidency, asking tough questions about Joe Biden.

Figures like Joe Scarborough are generating harsh criticism for, just weeks ago, claiming Joe Biden was “more than cogent” and completely fit to serve. Now, those same talking heads are calling for Biden to step down—deepening distrust many Americans already held towards the media.

A Soviet-Style Coverup

In a recent White House press conference, Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre struggled to address questions about the allegations of Parkinson’s and medical exams. She claimed medical privacy privileges and security concerns for doctors involved.

Meanwhile, mainstream media reporters voiced dissatisfaction with the official White House responses. They said urgent questions about the president's health justify a release of public information, rather than suppression of information by the administration.

Truly incredible clip.

Jean-Pierre is asked over and over again why a Parkinson’s expert visited the White House multiple times.

She says she can’t answer for “security” and “privacy” reasons.

Literally the worst press secretary ever.
pic.twitter.com/7ZUKLSWH6t

— Greg Price (@greg_price11) July 8, 2024

More media representatives are now expressing frustration and dissatisfaction at White House talking points. They emphasize the lack of transparency to the press, which garners scoffs among many voters who believe the press, until now, has been complicit. Criticisms grew even more sharp the next day, as Karine Jean-Pierre admitted to lying about O’Connor and Dr. Cannard’s White House visits.

The pressing nature of Biden’s health concerns is making his administration’s inability to provide clear answers particularly concerning for many Americans. This frustration is also causing significant backlash toward Biden as a candidate and his family who are rumored to be pushing him to stay in the presidential race.

A Puppet President?

Allegations of President Biden being controlled by unelected figures like Jill Biden and Hunter Biden are also gaining traction. However, while Republicans and many Democrats balk at the idea of unknown and unelected individuals or groups running the White House, some Democratic voters insist it doesn’t matter as long as Trump loses.

One viral NBC news clip shows Parkinson's expert Dr. Tom Pitts explaining Joe Biden’s clear and obvious signs of the disease. He also says, as a Democrat, he has been shocked to witness the dystopian level of gaslighting from the White House—which he likens to a Soviet Union propaganda campaign.

NEW: Parkinson's expert Dr. Tom Pitts tells NBC that Biden clearly has it. No debate.

He compares the coverup to the Soviets.

This is coming from a lifelong Democrat. pic.twitter.com/BcR0btWhja

— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) July 9, 2024

Following the chaotic White House press briefing, it is not just critics who are calling out the Biden administration. More and more Democrats view the administration’s non-answers as indicative of a coverup.

Republican Voter Reactions

Among Republicans, there is a palpable sense of vindication combined with indignation. Many on the right have long questioned Biden’s fitness for office. The media and Democrats finally admitting their own suspicions only seems to increase Republican suspicions that Democrats have acted disingenuously.

Republican voters are not only concerned about the implications for national leadership but are also actively using the news to criticize the Democratic Party's apparently failing strategy.

While many Republicans believe Biden should step down for the good of the country, they also say it would be politically advantageous for them if he stays in the race. They view Biden's health issues as compromising national security and undermining public trust. However, some Trump supporters fear if Biden is removed, any other challenger could pose a problem for Donald Trump in the general election.

Democratic Voter Reactions

Democrat voters seem more defensive, with various reactions. There is a mix of concern for Biden’s health and frustration at the optics and handling of the situation. Many loyalists maintain that Biden remains the best option to uphold the party’s values and policies. They also say he may be the only person who can beat Trump in November.

Yet, a faction of Democratic voters is urgently calling for more transparency and possibly re-evaluating their support. Calls for Biden to step down are increasing within the Democratic base as worries mount around the long-term implications if he stays in.

Many Democrats also feel a deep sense of betrayal and concern over Biden’s health revelations. His obvious fragility has prompted supporters to grapple with questions of being lied to. There are also disagreements about whether Vice President Kamala Harris is a capable a safety net, should Biden become incapable of continuing his duties.

U.S. voter views of border security and immigration are mostly negative, with sentiments ranging from anger to calls for stringent policy reforms. MIG Reports data shows deep frustration and concern, particularly among conservatives who feel Biden's immigration policies jeopardize national security, economic stability, and sovereignty.

Border Security Discussions

Taxpayer Dollars

Alleged misuse of taxpayer money is a recurring theme, with numerous claims that government funds are being funneled to supporting illegal immigrants at the expense of U.S. citizens. This includes allegations of social security benefits and other welfare programs being extended to illegal immigrants. These notions spark outrage among taxpayers who believe these funds should benefit American citizens, particularly veterans and the elderly.

The Open Border

Significant uproar continues over the lack of effective border security. Most Americans, including an increasing number of Democrats, say Biden’s policies have led to a crisis at the border.

An open border, many say, is worsening rising crime rates and societal instability. Phrases like "illegal immigrant crime wave" and "migrant invasion" are common, portraying the situation as a crisis requiring urgent and drastic measures like a border wall and mass deportations.

Violent Crime

Public safety is a major concern, with numerous stories highlighting violent crimes committed by illegal immigrants, including murders and human trafficking. The sentiment here is one of fear and the belief that stronger border enforcement is necessary to protect American lives.

Economic Strain

Outside of these viral stories, the broader conversation continues to focus on the economic impact of illegal immigration. Many argue illegal immigrants undercut wages and take jobs that would otherwise go to U.S. citizens. This exacerbates unemployment and economic challenges for native-born workers.

Discussions also touch on the strain illegal aliens place on public services, including healthcare and education systems. This further intensifies fiscal pressures on states and local governments.

Election Integrity

The political dimension is ever-present, with claims that Democrats are using illegal immigration as a strategy to secure future votes by offering free services and benefits to immigrant communities. This accusation includes assertions of an ongoing effort to allow non-citizens to vote, which is perceived as a threat to the integrity of the electoral system.

Worry About Violent Crime

Public sentiment generally oscillates between deep anxiety and frustration. There are discussions often suggesting mass illegal migration is a result of broader systemic and political failures in the U.S. Many people also discuss high-profile cases of illegal alien crimes.

In Texas, there was a tragic shooting at a Chick-fil-A where two workers were shot dead. The alleged perpetrator, Oved Bernardo Mendoza Argueta, is an illegal immigrant from El Salvador. The victims, Brayan Godoy, a father of four, and Patricia Portillo, a grandmother, lost their lives, igniting anger about lax border controls.

The Texas Department of Public Safety also captured numerous wanted fugitives who entered the U.S. illegally and committed various crimes within the state. This crackdown highlights the persistent issue of criminal elements infiltrating the U.S. through the border.

Another crime stirring public outrage is the horrific murder of Brayan Godoy who was gunned down by an illegal immigrant. People also continue to discuss the murder of Rachel Morin, Laken Riley, and Jocelyn Nungaray. Many American parents are worried for their children—especially young girls who are often victims of these crimes.

There is also growing fear of war criminals and human rights abusers entering the United States. Illegal aliens from Central America, Africa, and Asia, have been implicated in a myriad of serious crimes. There are allegations of extrajudicial killings, rapes, recruitment of child soldiers, forced abortions, and violence against civilians. The strain on resources to locate and arrest these individuals underscores the burden on the U.S. immigration system due to lax border enforcement.

The narrative is amplified with assertions that lax border controls are escalating dangers to national security. Many people are also fearful of cartel activity involving human and drug trafficking.