Kyle Rittenhouse, a divisive figure in American public discourse, gave a speech at the University of Memphis, which was met with significant protest. The event was charged with tension as students, evidently more politically active than in previous years, made their opposition to Rittenhouse's presence clear.

Rittenhouse, who was acquitted after shooting three people during protests in Kenosha, Wisconsin in 2020, was invited to speak by Turning Point USA. His speech was met by a wave of protests. These protests show a more active and vocal student body at the University of Memphis, compared to 2018 when conservative speaker Ben Shapiro visited without any significant opposition. This suggests a growing awareness or “wokeness” among the student body, reflecting a shift in political consciousness, or posturing, over the past five years.

The protest against Rittenhouse's speech was part of a larger thread of student activism on the day. Elsewhere, pro-Palestinian students at the University of Kentucky disrupted a speech by British Jewish conservative pundit, Ian Haworth. This was marked by anti-Israel chants and the pulling of the fire alarm. This indicates a broader trend of political activism on campuses, often directed against conservative speakers. It could also suggest a growing divide between the left and the right — and, increasingly, various factions within the left — with each side increasingly intolerant of the other's views.

Previously, high volumes of social commentary on protests have peaked during causes for Palestine, such as:

• 3-month anniversary of the Israel-Palestine War (Jan 7)
• March for Gaza (Jan 13)
• Worldwide protests of the Israeli-Palestine War (Jan 18)
• "Uncommitted Protests” in Democratic Primary (Feb 27)

Protests such as the one targeting Rittenhouse's speech could be seen as an exercise in free speech, a right both the left and right claim to champion. On the other hand, some might argue that these protests demonstrate an intolerance for opposing viewpoints, a criticism often leveled at the left by the right.

Rittenhouse's speech at the University of Memphis was a flashpoint in a broader narrative of increased political activism and polarization on American university campuses. The reaction to his speech is indicative of the heightened political consciousness among students, and of the tensions that can arise when controversial figures are invited to speak. Sentiments seem to be exacerbating a polarized political landscape, where both the left and right are increasingly unwilling to engage with opposing viewpoints.

Former Vice President Mike Pence recently made headlines with the announcement that he will not endorse Donald Trump for the 2024 presidential race. This statement came amid the backdrop of Trump securing sufficient delegates to clinch the Republican nomination for President, making him the presumptive Republican nominee.

Pence told Fox News, "It should come as no surprise that I will not be endorsing Donald Trump this year," sparking a flurry of positive media coverage for Pence. A recent opinion piece from the Hill proclaimed that Pence, “Saved the Country Once, and Might Do it Again.” However, reactions from Americans online captured and analyzed by MIG Reports reveals Pence’s actions will likely reverberate about as much as his bid for President did.

What They’re Saying

While Beltway pundits were busy praising Pence’s courage to not endorse his former running mate, online reactions reveal a starkly different reaction.

• Liberal users found Pence’s declaration insignificant, arguing, “He should have taken a stand against Trump earlier.”

Some, however, appear supportive of Pence’s decision, less interested in highlighting the morals of his decision and more interested in undermining Trump’s chances of beating Biden in November.

• There are also calls for other Republicans, like Nikki Haley, to follow Pence's example and refuse to endorse Trump.

While discourse on Pence’s decision was largely viewed as uninteresting or ignored by liberals, MIG Reports analysis of reactions showed significant ire among right-leaning voters.

• Conservatives dismissed his decision as irrelevant or even cowardly. There was considerable criticism towards Pence, with some labeling him as a RINO (Republican in Name Only), along with accusations of being a globalist and siding with the one-world government system.
• Hatred for Pence appears to have seriously magnified disdain since his initial run for President. Voters disliked his marked criticism of Trump during his short bid. Many mentioned they, “Feel that Pence is a traitor to the MAGA movement," with some even comparing him to Judas. They believe he has sold out the Republican Party and the American people, and they question his future in politics.

By the Numbers

Since Pence’s comments, MIG Reports finds a serious drop in his approval among those discussing him online.

• On March 15, Pence’s Fox News announcement caused his mentions to double their usual rate, and his approval rating fell shortly after.
• Following his announcement, Pence’s ratio of positive to negative comments in discussions displayed 187 positive points to 730 negative points.
• The bleeding continued the following day as he appeared on other outlets touting his decision, seeing a ratio of 178 positive points to 807 negative points on Saturday.
• Supporters of Pence’s decision, likely liberals based on MIG Reports data, lost interest in supporting Pence. Conservative anger persisted on Monday, seeing a ratio of just 99 positive points to 392 negative points that day.

As the dust settles on former Vice President Mike Pence's unequivocal decision not to endorse Donald Trump for the 2024 presidential race, beltway media failed to convey the implications of Pence’s decision across the country. Instead, media portrayed a narrative that Pence’s decision reflects a divide in the Republican Party.t seems Republicans outside of D.C. remain united in their support for President Trump.

Based on Trump’s uninterrupted cruise to the Republican Presidential nomination, securing support from his base should have been an easy conclusion to make. While many liberals were eager for other Republicans like Nikki Haley to join in Pence’s efforts, voter sentiment indicates anyone who attempts to undermine a Republican victory in November will struggle to find a future in the Republican Party.

Since the Michigan primary, a growing movement of those voting “Uncommitted” in Democrat primary races has gained momentum. The organic movement was created out of protest of the Biden administration’s handling the Israeli-Palestinian war. Party infighting between Joe Biden Democrats and Uncommitteds is complex and multifaceted. This analysis will focus on three main areas: reasons for Uncommitted voters, perceptions of Biden, and the influence of the Israel-Palestine conflict.

Reasons for Uncommitted Voters

Uncommitted voters in the Democrat Primary may be unwilling to support Biden for a variety of reasons. Some may not align with Biden's perceived moderate political views, preferring more progressive candidates. Others may be skeptical of his ability to enact meaningful change, given his long history in politics. Additionally, some voters may be wary of his age and health, questioning his ability to serve a full second term as president.

Perceptions of Biden

Public perception of Biden varies widely. Some view him as a steady hand with the experience and pragmatism needed to lead the country. Others see him as a career politician, disconnected from the needs of ordinary Americans. His handling of the Israel-Palestine conflict, in particular, has drawn criticism from both sides. More progressive voters believe he is too supportive of Israel, while more traditional Democrats argue he is not supportive enough.

Influence of the Israel-Palestine Conflict

The Israel-Palestine is one of the most significant issues on voter perceptions of Biden. Israel supporters argue Biden's approach to the conflict is too lenient on Hamas. Palestine supporters argue his pro-Israel approach supports genocide. This divide is reflected in the Democrat Party with younger or more progressive voters demanding support for Palestine and older or more moderate Democrats insisting the U.S. supports Israel.

Uncommitted Votes

• Hawaii and Minnesota have received the highest Uncommitted votes so far with 29% and 19%.
• Biden continues to receive critiques from the progressive wing of the Democrat Party, threatening his potential to have a strong showing against Trump in a general election.

On March 8, U.S. District Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman declared a federal statute barring undocumented immigrants possessing firearms to be unconstitutional. She contended that the law contravened the Supreme Court's decision in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, which emphasized the necessity for gun control measures to align with historical precedent. This court ruling allows illegal immigrants in America to take advantage of Second Amendment rights by purchasing firearms and ammunition. This policy has shocked many American citizens, generating concern and incredulity.

The legal dispute arose when Heriberto Carbajal-Flores, an illegal alien, faced charges for unlawful firearm possession. However, Judge Coleman contended that because Carbajal-Flores' criminal history lacks instances of weapon misuse or violence during his apprehension, he doesn't present a threat to public safety. Consequently, she argued that he should not be stripped of his Second Amendment entitlement to bear arms for self-defense.

MIG Reports analysis reveals a diverse range of opinions on the recent ruling, stirring emotional debate. The primary discussion revolves around the interpretation of the Second Amendment, the consequences of allowing non-citizens to own firearms, and the potential implications on gun violence.

Supporters of the ruling, who appear to be from various political affiliations, argue that the Constitution, including the Second Amendment, applies to everyone within the United States. They believe the right to bear arms should not be infringed, regardless of citizenship status.

Some even argue that gun violence has been on a downward trend and that expanding constitutional carry will lead to a further decrease.

• Gun control sentiment has increased slightly in the last several days, suggesting Americans are concerned about this issue.

Critics of the ruling, also from various political backgrounds, express concern that this decision could exacerbate gun violence. They worry about the potential inability of illegal aliens to undergo thorough background checks or mental health assessments. Many voters argue the Second Amendment was intended only for U.S. citizens. They say extending it to illegal aliens could have severe consequences. Some critics also see this ruling as a strategy to increase gun violence, which could then be used as a justification for stricter gun control measures.

Many are expressing frustration with what they perceive as lax border control policies and the implications for national security and public safety. These gun allowances for increasing numbers of illegal immigrants, many believe, threatens an increase in crime and danger for citizens.

Some concerns highlight the potential implications on the feasibility of thorough background and mental health checks. These concerns do not appear to be strictly partisan but are shared by voters across political affiliations.

Critics of the ruling point out that illegal immigrants have already violated immigration laws. They also worry about mental health patterns, citing studies that indicate 14% of undocumented immigrants meeting the criteria for depression, and 7% for anxiety. Substance abuse among illegal immigrants is at a similar level as among the citizen population.

Overall, the ruling has become another contentious issue in the ongoing national debate about gun violence and gun rights, and now possibly incorporating citizenship, public safety, and illegal immigration.

The public perception of Tyson Foods' hiring practices is becoming quite negative among many Americans. Discussions are particularly negative regarding news that Tyson Foods will shut down its Iowa pork factory, which broke alongside reports the company has hired 42,000 migrant workers and would like to hire that many more.

Some people are criticizing the company for prioritizing profits and open border policies over American employees. Many also accuse Tyson Foods of poor working conditions and unfair labor practices, including the alleged wrongful termination of workers.

Many Americans accuse Tyson Foods of being too liberal or woke, implying the company is overly concerned with diversity, equality, and inclusion (DEI) at the expense of other factors.

Some, however, support for Tyson Foods, acknowledging the company provides job opportunities in regions where employment opportunities may be scarce. These users argue that despite the criticisms, Tyson Foods plays a crucial role in the local economies where they operate – and especially for migrants looking for work.

Border and Jobs Sentiment Among Iowa Voters

In Iowa, voters seem dissatisfied with loss of American jobs while migrants seem to receive preferential treatment. Sentiment towards border security and jobs among Iowa voters has been particularly low in recent days.

• In the last 14 days, sentiment on jobs in Iowa sank to a low of 30% and reaching a high of 51%. Jobs sentiment averaged 40%.
• Sentiment about the border in Iowa sank as low as 29% in the last two weeks, with a high of 46%. Border sentiment averaged 38%.

• The border and the economy are among the top three issues Iowa voter are discussing, indicating their importance.

Some Iowans are criticizing Tyson Foods, alleging they will pay migrant workers less than minimum wage. They are calling for boycotts against Tyson Foods and advising others to buy local instead. Many voice concern about the impact on American workers and call for penalties for companies that hire illegal immigrants.

Others in Iowa question the legality and ethics of Tyson Foods’ practices, calling for stricter regulations and enforcement.

American Views of Corporate Hiring and Job Prospects

The discussion also touches on broader themes related to business ethics, freedom of speech, and the role of corporations in society. Many American workers express the belief that businesses should be held accountable for their actions and should not exploit their power or influence for profit.

More Americans seem disgruntled by news that more domestic jobs have been going to foreign-born workers than native citizens. Among other complaints about the economy, American voters express discontent at the Biden administration’s claims about increasing jobs. Many believe that employment numbers are skewed because of America’s open border.

Another point of contention involving Tyson Foods is the company's use of temporary or contract workers. Some argue this practice allows Tyson to avoid providing benefits and other protections to its employees. Others, however, feel it's a necessary business strategy in a highly competitive industry.

Another common theme, according to MIG Reports data, is the company's alleged lack of transparency. There is a sense of frustration with what workers perceive as Tyson's unwillingness to openly discuss its hiring and firing practices.

The hashtag #BidensBorderBloodbath has emerged as a focal point in the ongoing debate about the U.S.-Mexico border under President Joe Biden's administration. This online discourse reflects a broader national conversation on immigration and border security, and it doesn't look great for Biden.

Support for Biden on Immigration Issues, in particular, has dropped to a weekly low of 46%.

Republicans seized upon the hashtag to castigate President Biden's handling of the border crisis, attributing it to what they perceive as lax immigration policies and contrasting the media's narrative on Trump's "bloodbath" comments. They argue that the reversal of former President Trump's stringent measures has led to a surge in illegal crossings and subsequent violence, dubbing the situation a "bloodbath." Many Republicans assert that the Biden administration's actions have directly endangered American citizens and advocate for stricter border control measures to address the crisis.

The trend forced Democrats to address accusations of mishandling the border crisis, prompting them to clarify their stance on immigration and asylum policies. In large part, they defended President Biden's approach to immigration, emphasizing the humanitarian imperative behind it. They contend that migrants are fleeing dire circumstances in their home countries and seeking asylum in the U.S. as a refuge from violence and poverty.

Democrats criticize the use of #BidensBorderBloodbath as fearmongering tactics, arguing that it oversimplifies complex issues and demonizes immigrants. Instead, they call for comprehensive immigration reform that addresses root causes while maintaining America's commitment to human rights.

The online discourse surrounding #BidensBorderBloodbath reflects broader societal tensions and political polarization. It serves as a microcosm of the ongoing immigration debate, highlighting the stark differences in ideology and policy priorities between Republicans and Democrats.

The Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments today in a case that has ignited a fierce debate about free speech and government censorship online. Murthy v. Missouri will determine whether the Biden administration's efforts to pressure social media companies to censor certain content violated the First Amendment. The case stems from actions taken by the federal government in 2021 to combat what it deemed "disinformation" and "misinformation" on various online platforms.

The lawsuit, initially filed by the attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana, accused the Biden administration of overreach and likened its tactics to those of an "Orwellian Ministry of Truth." The government's actions, which included pressuring social media giants like Facebook and X (formerly Twitter) to remove content related to topics like the COVID-19 lab leak theory and vaccine efficacy, sparked widespread controversy and legal scrutiny.

Public Discourse

Republicans have been vocal in their concerns about the potential implications of government-led censorship. They fear that a ruling in favor of the government could set a precedent for broader censorship, particularly targeting right-wing media outlets. Many view this as an attack on dissenting voices and a fundamental erosion of democratic principles.

In contrast, Democrats emphasize the rights of private companies to moderate content on their platforms. They focus on their concern about former President Trump's influence on the Supreme Court, particularly through the appointment of three justices during his tenure. They fear this may bias the court's rulings in favor of his interests.

The case has ignited a flurry of discussions across social media platforms, reflecting a deep-seated unease and dissatisfaction with the current state of affairs. Many social media users have expressed dismay over what they perceive as growing authoritarianism and censorship in the country. There are fears that a ruling favoring government censorship could lead to further erosion of free speech rights, particularly for dissenting voices and right-wing media outlets.

Justice Jackson Inspires a Hot Debate

Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson made an interesting comment about the First Amendment that has further fueled debate.

Jackson's assertion that the First Amendment is "hamstringing" the federal government has drawn sharp criticism from Republicans, who argue that such a view indicates a fundamental misunderstanding or disregard for the principles enshrined in the Constitution. Some Republicans have gone as far as to suggest that her comments reveal a broader trend of governmental overreach and a willingness to curtail constitutional freedoms.

Democrats, however, have rallied behind Justice Jackson, citing her extensive legal background and qualifications for the role. They argue that criticisms of her are unfounded and politically motivated, emphasizing her impressive credentials, including graduating from Harvard Law and serving as a district judge. Many Democrats view Justice Jackson's comments as a reflection of her nuanced understanding of constitutional law and the complexities of balancing individual rights with government authority.

The debate surrounding Justice Jackson's comments has underscored the deeply polarized nature of the discourse surrounding the case. While Republicans express concerns about the potential implications of her views for free speech and individual liberties, Democrats defend her as a highly qualified jurist with a firm commitment to upholding the Constitution. Jackson's comments are likely to remain a focal point of discussion as the case progresses.

Conclusion

Overall, the case of Murthy v. Missouri has become a lightning rod for discussions about free speech, government overreach, and the role of the Supreme Court in safeguarding constitutional rights. As the oral arguments unfold, the nation awaits a decision that could have far-reaching implications for the future of online discourse and democratic governance.

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs generate a high level of polarization in the viewpoints across online discourse. Some people support DEI programs, viewing them as important tools to foster more inclusive and equal societies. They believe its efforts are to bridge the gap between different racial, ethnic, gender, and religious groups. They see DEI programs as a way to educate people about the importance of embracing diversity and promoting equality.

However, many others express skepticism and resentment towards DEI programs. They see these initiatives as forced and unnecessary, arguing they lead to reverse discrimination or that they are a form of political correctness gone too far. Others believe DEI programs do not address the issues they claim to and, rather, are tokenistic and break down traditional values.

Many view DEI as an ideology that exacerbates division and is a breeding ground for anxiety and depression. Some in this group believe “woke” activists are more likely to be unhappy, anxious, and depressed. This is backed by a study by psychological researchers in Finland, which has is frequently mentioned in these discussions.

MIG Reports also analyzed a trend of people calling for more transparency and accountability for DEI programs. They argue organizations need to provide clear evidence that these programs are effective, and not merely symbolic gestures.

Viewpoints on DEI can often be simplified in the “right-left” paradigm. There is also a gender aspect to the discussion, with the Finnish study suggesting that women are more likely to identify with woke beliefs than men. This has prompted conversations about gender roles and societal expectations.

Deeper Analysis

More Americans accept the possibility of DEI practices producing unintended outcomes. They believe forced DEI practices lead to negative impacts on organizational effectiveness, compromised safety standards, disrupted workflows, or internal tensions. For instance, if DEI initiatives prioritize diversity metrics over technical qualifications in hiring or promotion decisions, many believe it will lead to issues with competence or performance in critical roles within the aerospace industry.

Recently, online discussions about airline travel, airline delays, and airline safety events are trending — specifically regarding Boeing. Late 2023 saw large, parallel Google search trends spike for “DEI” and “Boeing.” 

Americans are beginning to push back on DEI programs and other forced diversity projects pushed by the media or corporations. Some of the issues many fear could arise from the forced introduction of DEI practices include: 

Compromising Safety Standards

Prioritizing diversity metrics over technical qualifications in aerospace industries may compromise safety standards, potentially increasing the risk of errors or safety incidents, especially if critical roles lack the necessary technical expertise due to diversity-focused hiring decisions. 

Disrupting Workflows

Introducing DEI initiatives may disrupt operations and productivity, potentially causing interruptions and delays to production schedules. 

Creating Internal Tensions

Forced DEI practices, if perceived as unfair, may lead to internal tensions, decreased collaboration, and morale issues among employees who believe diversity metrics supersede merit-based criteria in hiring, promotion, or project assignments. 

Undermining Competence and Performance

Prioritizing diversity metrics over technical qualifications in DEI initiatives for hiring or promotion decisions may lead to decreased competence and performance in critical roles. 

Legal and Regulatory Compliance Risks

Implementing DEI practices without considering legal requirements may expose organizations to compliance risks, including potential legal challenges, fines, and reputational damage if discriminatory practices violate anti-discrimination laws.

Online discussions about food price increases since Joe Biden took office are heavily influenced by political affiliation, socioeconomic status, and geographical location.

• Discussion volume regarding inflation has increased in the past few days, suggesting high costs are on Americans’ minds.
• Average sentiment on inflation since the beginning of 2024 has averaged 47% but has dropped around 1% in the last week.
• MIG Reports data shows a trend of increased discussion coupled with decreased sentiment.

At-home food prices increased 5% from 2022 to 2023. They’re up 25% overall since 2019, severely impacting American families’ food prices and their views on inflation. Some of the influencing factors on prices include:

• Supply chain disruptions, weather events, energy costs, trade policies, currency exchange rates, subsidies, and demand-side factors.
• Political policies such as trade agreements, tariffs, energy policies, and agricultural subsidies.
• Government decisions regarding international trade, energy regulation, agricultural support, and currency management can contribute to price volatility and impact the affordability of food for consumers.
  

How Voter Groups and Demographics View Food Inflation

Many Republicans, according to online discussion, opinion pieces, and televised interviews, are attributing the rise in food prices to President Biden's policy changes. They cite the administration's increased spending, supply chain disruptions, and inflation as key reasons for the escalating costs. This group often uses the term "Bidenflation" or "Bidenomics" to describe this phenomenon, emphasizing their belief that Biden's economic policies are directly responsible for the increased prices.

Democrats generally defend Biden, asserting that the food price increases are a result of global factors beyond the control of any one administration. They point to what they believe is an ongoing COVID pandemic, global supply chain issues, and climate change impacting agricultural yields as major contributors. They argue that these problems were inherited from previous administrations. They assert it will take time for Biden's policies to take effect and alleviate these issues.

Independents seem to be of mixed opinion. Some align with Republicans in blaming Biden's policies, while others agree with Democrats that the rising prices are due to more global and systemic issues. Regardless of what they believe is the cause, most people express frustration with the situation and increasingly high costs.

Various demographic groups have varying views. Lower-income individuals and families, who are most impacted by rising food prices, express concern and frustration. But there's no clear consensus on who they believe is to blame. Some point to the Biden administration, while others blame systemic issues or corporate greed.

Geographically, individuals in high cost-of-living urban areas are expressing more concern about the rising food prices. Rural areas, especially farming communities, are also voicing concerns, as the price increases are impacting their livelihood.

Overall, every Americans seem concerned about the economy and their financial survival. Differences become apparent only in various views about what’s causing higher prices.