On Friday, June 14, the House of Representatives passed a measure to increase the age of Selective Service by one year, to include all men from ages 18 to 26. The proposal also includes additional guidelines like automatic enrollment and women being drafted. Analysis of public sentiment reveals a complex landscape of opinions, as citizens debate the implications of these changes. In the aftermath of the measure, there was an observable dip in sentiment towards the military.

Increased Draft Age

The proposal to increase the draft age limit from 25 to 26 generated considerable debate. Supporters argue this change is in alignment with the evolving maturity and life stages of young Americans. They say that, by 26, young people are often more settled and better able to contribute to military service if needed.

Conversely there are concerns about the fairness and practicality of this shift. Critics highlight worries about disrupting the careers and personal lives of those establishing themselves professionally or starting families.

There is also a sentiment that extending the draft age could inadvertently discriminate against young adults who are more focused on higher education or starting their own businesses during these formative years.

Automatic Enrollment

While registering for the Selective Service is already mandatory for men, automatic enrollment as part of the Selective Service changes has sparked a heated discourse about personal freedom and governmental control. Proponents argue automatic enrollment would ensure a more equitable system, preventing any potential bias or administrative errors that might occur with self-registration.

Some believe it is efficient and can ensure no one is overlooked, thus strengthening national preparedness. However, this viewpoint is met with significant resistance from those who see it as an overreach of government power.

Opponents of automatic enrollment feel strongly that it infringes on individual rights and autonomy, making the idea particularly contentious. Many people worry about removing young Americans’ individual sovereignty. They also express fears about how automatic data collection might be used beyond military purposes.

Drafting Women

The possibility of including women in the draft has generated one of the most polarized discussions. Advocates for female inclusion argue from a standpoint of gender equality, noting that women have been serving in various military roles for years.

Those in favor of drafting women say including them would respect the principle of equal responsibility in civic duties. This view is often held by those who believe women can contribute just as effectively as men in various military and support roles.

Conversely, there are strong voices raising concerns about the potential physical and psychological burdens Selective Service would place on women – especially those with young families or health considerations. Some also argue from a traditionalist perspective, suggesting conscription should remain male-only due to historical precedents and societal roles.

News of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision not to hear a case challenging the abortion pill, or Mifepristone, has elicited significant reactions from Americans. A prominent theme is relief, mixed with caution.

Mifepristone is a prescription pill also known as the “abortion pill.” It works by inducing a miscarriage by blocking certain hormones, softening the cervix. It also requires a follow-up medication which sheds the baby from the uterus. The pill is considered effective within the first ten weeks of pregnancy.

Many pro-choice voters are celebrating the ruling, viewing it as a temporary safeguard for abortion rights. They view pro-life advocacy and initiatives as a threat to women’s abortion options. They emphasize the importance of codifying these rights into federal law to ensure lasting protection from future extremist attacks.

What Americans Are Saying

Relief and Caution

• Pro-choice voters celebrate the ruling as a temporary safeguard for reproductive rights.

• They place emphasis on the need to codify these rights into federal law for lasting protection.

Focus on Abortion Rights

• Many on both sides are taking the opportunity to reflect on SCOTUS overturning Roe v. Wade two years ago.
• There are concerns about the future preservation of reproductive freedoms.
• Some who lean left view the ruling as a procedural win, not a definitive safeguard.

FDA and Legal Standing

• The decision was based on the plaintiffs’ lack of legal standing, not a stance on abortion.
• It also highlights the fragility of the victory pro-lifers are hopeful for the potential of future legal challenges.

Political Discourse

• There are ongoing concerns about Republican efforts to restrict abortion access.
• Some call for political mobilization and electing representatives who defend reproductive rights.

Safety and Efficacy of Mifepristone

• Pro-choice voters view trust in Mifepristone as a reinforcement of the FDA's expertise and decisions.
• They advocate for medical decisions to be guided by science, not politics.

Broader Reproductive Health

• Discussions include debates about the potential need to use Mifepristone in cases of miscarriage.
• Some people highlight the multifaceted nature of reproductive care beyond just abortion.

Sentiment Trends

Most voters are polarized along ideological lines. On one side, many Americans are celebrating what they see as a crucial win for reproductive rights. They emphasize continued vigilance and activism. However, some express skepticism about the longevity of this victory and caution about taking comfort in what they see as a precarious ruling.

Pro-Lifers on Abortion Rights

There is a substantial counter-narrative challenging the legitimacy and morality of abortion rights. Pro-life voters who are critical of SCOTUS declining to hear the case argue abortion, including medication abortion, equates to the termination of unborn lives.

They highlight the moral and ethical considerations, saying the decision reflects broader political attempts to diminish the sanctity of life. This perspective frequently associates the protection of reproductive rights with broader societal and moral decline.

Reporting and polling services continually address election fraud as a worrying issue for American voters. Sentiment about election integrity and election turmoil in the U.S. is notably divided and charged with apprehension. Some reputable polling services indicate as much as 66% of Americans fear election cheating could impact the 2024 general election. MIG Reports analysis confirms Americans are indeed overwhelmingly worried about election integrity.

Overall Analysis

Election integrity concerns often range from potential system manipulations to various forms of fraud and cheating. This apprehension is particularly pronounced among Trump supporters—however, they are not alone in their worries.

Those who assert the 2020 election was rife with irregularities and fraudulent activity, believe it contributed to President Joe Biden’s victory. They cite incidents involving electronic voting machines, mail-in ballots, other anomalies in the process, and allegations between political figures and institutions as evidence of systemic corruption.

This prevalent fear underscores the deep mistrust within the electorate regarding the fairness and legitimacy of elections. It also reflects broader anxieties about the integrity of democratic processes.

Election Integrity Views are Ideological

Online discourse on social media and other public forums show significant political polarization about election integrity issues.

Conservative or Right Leaning Views

• Many believe in widespread election fraud during the 2020 election and potentially the upcoming 2024 election.
• There are concerns over mail-in ballots, electronic voting machines, and voter fraud.
• Conservatives view the current administration and Democratic figures as undermining election integrity.
• Many on the right believe the 2020 election was rigged and future elections are at risk without stricter measures.

Liberal or Left Leaning Views

• Liberals usually dismiss claims of widespread election fraud as misinformation or partisan strategy.
• They emphasize a lack of credible evidence for extensive election tampering, despite a lack of investigation, including by SCOTUS, in refusing to hear election fraud cases.
• Voters on the left focus on preserving democratic norms by protecting voting rights and ensuring broad voter participation.
• They see election fraud rhetoric as a tactic to justify restrictive voting laws that could disenfranchise minorities.

Demographic Patterns

• Those who believe election fraud is a serious issues are typically older, rural, more conservative, support former President Trump, are skeptical of mainstream media, and prefer alternative news sources.
• Those who say election fraud is not real tend to be younger, urban, progressive, they trust traditional media, emphasize evidence-based arguments, and advocate for rule of law.

Governor Kathy Hochul's handling of the NYC subway system, including a possible face mask ban, is upsetting voters in New York. Online reactions reveal strong opposition, frustration, and concern about her decisions. Conversations seem to suggest a vote of no confidence from many New Yorkers. Many people call for more consistent, health-conscious, and forward-thinking leadership to guide the city's future.

Recent headlines suggest Gov. Hochul may soon impose a face mask ban on the subway, which is receiving blowback from both liberals and conservatives. Left leaning voters view a ban as a disgraceful move, especially in the context of New York’s substantial suffering during COVID-19. These critics argue masks are essential for public safety, not just from COVD, but many diseases and pollution.

Right leaning voters are more likely to criticize Hochul for hypocrisy. They say mask mandates during COVID, which normalized masks in public, have now led to surges in crime four years later. They say masks are not and were never needed and Hochul and other leaders are now facing the consequences of reckless mandates over COVID fears.

• Gov. Hochul’s approval hovers in the low to mid 40% range with some spikes in discussion volume, which tend to correlate with a drop in sentiment.

Discussions Around a Mask Ban

Many New Yorkers are vehemently opposed to the proposed mask ban, perceiving it as a threat to public health. They say they are especially worried for the aging and immunocompromised who depend on the subway system. This sentiment is particularly acute among those who still view COVID as an ongoing pandemic. They suggest attempting to lower crime rates with a mask ban is an egregious disregard for their safety.

Others, however, feel banning masks is necessary to curb criminal activities where perpetrators use masks to conceal their identities. This group supports a potential ban and believes it could deter crime on the subway system and create a more secure environment for all passengers.

Pausing NYC Congestion Pricing

Many New Yorkers express dissatisfaction with her governance decisions, arguing they reveal a poor understanding of public needs. The ire directed at Gov. Hochul often touches on congestion pricing, which was intended to reduce traffic congestion in lower Manhattan and finance public transit improvements. Many criticize her decision to pause or scrap the congestion pricing plan, viewing it as a capitulation to special interests and suburban voters at the expense of city residents.

Some contrast Hochul's choice to paus congestion pricing with examples from other cities, like London, where congestion pricing has been highly successful in improving traffic conditions and public transit. The halt has led to feelings of betrayal among those who believe congestion pricing is crucial for reducing pollution, easing traffic, and funding essential transit improvements.

Critics believe with the governor backing away from congestion pricing, the financial stability of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) is at risk. They say this could potentially lead to a downgrade in its credit rating and deferred improvements to the subway system. The general sentiment is one of exasperation with the short-sightedness and lack of commitment to long-term urban planning.

Other Issues Impacting Sentiment

Among Hochul's vocal critics, there is fierce and often derogatory language, reflecting broader dissatisfaction with her policies and liberal governance style. People accuse her of authoritarianism and failed leadership, calling her a "lying destructive tyrant" and drawing parallels to repressive regimes.

Not Protecting the Working Class

New Yorkers call her out for a perceived inconsistency in policy making. They argue her claims of protecting working-class New Yorkers, increased payroll taxes in place of congestion pricing will be equally, if not more, harmful.

People complain about taxes on large businesses, which would bear the brunt of higher taxes and trickle down to employees and consumers. This, people argue, would hurt the same demographics the governor says she wants to shield.

Increasing Crime in New York

Further complicating Hochul’s public image is her stance on crime and gun violence statistics. Her administration faces backlash for leniency on crime and law enforcement policies. Critics argue her policies on bail reform and parole contribute to higher crime rates.

Voters blame increased lawlessness on her administration. Calls for stricter law enforcement and reforms to reverse these policies have been loud and consistent, with demands for her to intervene more decisively in criminal justice issues.

Deprioritizing Suburban New Yorkers

Some upstate New Yorkers feel disproportionally burdened by policies seen as biased towards urban interests. They voice resentment towards the continuous flow of resources from upstate to downstate projects, including MTA improvements, without proportional benefits.

Identity Politics

Racial and identity politics also animate much of the discussion. Accusations of condescension and racism have surfaced, particularly in relation to her comments and policies that some view as patronizing towards minority groups. These sentiments create a complicated portrait of her as a leader struggling to balance progressive values with practical governance.

The petrodollar agreement, an agreed system of oil-producing nations selling their oil in U.S. currency, came to an end on June 9. This monumental shift in the global economic landscape has sparked fervent discussions and mixed reactions among Americans. Many discussions center around the potential economic consequences and geopolitical ramifications of this event, leading to heated debates and a wide range of opinions.

What Americans Are Saying

Potential Inflation Trigger

Many Americans express concern over the potential inflationary impact of ending the petrodollar agreement. Voters often highlight the potential for increased prices across various sectors as a direct response to the change.

People fear that, without the stabilizing effect of the petrodollar, the cost of imported goods and energy might rise sharply. This could exacerbate current inflationary pressures. These concerns are coupled with nostalgic references to prior periods of lower inflation and lower costs of living. These conversations suggest a feeling of economic apprehension and uncertainty about the future.

Weakened Purchasing Power

Another trend in online discussions is the broader economic implications for the United States. Some express worries that the end of the petrodollar agreement could weaken the U.S. dollar's position as the world's reserve currency.

This group argues a weakened dollar could undermine U.S. economic dominance globally and lead to fiscal challenges. This would impact everything from national debt servicing to everyday consumer prices. People are calling for economic reforms and policy adjustments to mitigate potential negative fallout.

Geopolitical Effect

There are also concerns about geopolitical complications. Many voters emphasize the strategic consequences of the petrodollar agreement ending, suggesting it might embolden rival nations like China and Russia.

Some fear these countries could leverage the situation to push alternative currencies for international trade, thereby diluting U.S. influence in global markets. These geopolitical discussions are imbued with a sense of urgency and a call for decisive action to safeguard national interests.

Sentiment Trends

Overall, reactions appear split. A segment of the discourse is permeated with fatalism and pessimism, anticipating severe economic disruption and loss of national power. This is reflected in expressions of distrust in current leadership and policy directions, highlighting perceived failures in maintaining economic stability and geopolitical prowess.

Conversely, there's also a sentiment of cautious optimism among some. This group views the end of the petrodollar as a potential catalyst for necessary economic reforms and diversification away from fossil fuel dependencies.

They argue this could usher in a new era of innovation and adaptability, where alternative energy sources and smarter economic policies might thrive. This perspective is often accompanied by calls for increased investment in technology and renewable resources as a pathway to sustaining economic growth and environmental sustainability.

Hunter Biden's conviction for federal gun charges has sparked many conversations about justice and politicized prosecutions. Most voter opinions seem to align with their political affiliations, but there are pockets within Democrat and Republican partisans who emphasize different aspects of the issue.

Politicized Views of the Hunter Trial

Some Democrats feel frustration with perceived double standards in how the Biden family is treated compared to other political figures. Other Democrats affirm the court as completely unbiased, citing Hunter’s conviction as evidence. They also predict the conviction could generate sympathy for President Biden, citing the possibility of President Biden pardoning Hunter Biden post-election.

Others suggest the timing of the trial may be a strategic tactic by Republicans to divert attention from Donald Trump's conviction. These comments tend to frame the trial as a false distraction meant to create an illusion of nonpartisanship within the DOJ.

Republicans are more likely to feel Hunter's trial as a diversion, intended to draw attention away from more serious allegations about Hunter's alleged influence pedaling in Ukraine and China. Critics claim the DOJ intentionally minimalized charges to shield the “Biden crime family.”

Those on the right also believe Hunter Biden's laptop casually being authenticated during the trial highlights corruption from Democrats and the media who repeatedly denied its authenticity during the 2020 election.

A large part of the conversation on both sides draws comparisons to Donald Trump’s legal troubles. Democrats tend to argue Hunter was convicted to “get back at” Democrats after Trump’s conviction. Conversely, Republicans cite Hunter’s conviction as a performative way for Democrats to claim the courts are unbiased.

Who is the Justice System Weaponized Against?

Critics of the Biden administration view Hunter Biden's conviction as an instance of political favoritism. They argue the DOJ only prosecuted him on gun charges, while ignoring more severe crimes.

Conservatives believe the Biden family is engaging in a two-tier justice system where Democrats often don't face consequences for their actions. They believe the charges brought against Hunter Biden were carefully selected to protect Joe Biden from association with his son’s legal trouble, thus shielding him from political and legal backlash amid a struggling 2024 campaign.

On the other hand, Biden supporters view Hunter Biden’s conviction as evidence the justice system is not biased against conservatives. This groups draws a comparison to Donald Trump Jr., suggesting there should be greater scrutiny of his actions. According to liberals and Democrats, the courts are just for convicting Hunter Biden, but many potential crimes may be going unpunished by Donald Trump Jr., Trump himself, and others.

Hunter’s Laptop

Many Biden critics magnify the significance of Hunter Biden’s laptop. They interpret its authentication during the trial as a confirmation of a media and Democrat coverup. There are also widespread claims Hunter Biden’s laptop confirms many other, more serious crimes.

People call for the accountability of 51 intelligence officials who persistently dismissed the laptop contents as Russian disinformation. Many are vocally critical of Democrat hypocrisy in prosecuting Trump by saying he interfered in the 2020 election. Critics say Democrats were the ones interfering by squashing the laptop story.

Convicting Hunter on insignificant gun charges, some say, is a politicized effort to silence Trump supporters who take issue with the validity of Trump’s multiple prosecutions. This group views the left's narrative of “nobody is above the law” as a blatant double standard.

They also raise concerns about free speech, citing social media suppression of posts about Hunter's laptop in 2020. They are convinced that social media companies and news outlets conspired with the government to suppress dissent.

Biden Speaks at a Gun Control Rally

Soon after Hunter’s conviction, Joe Biden spoke at an event promoting stronger gun control in the U.S. This drew accusations of double standards in enforcing gun laws. Some people find it ironic that Joe Biden would give a speech about gun control while everyone expects he would unhesitatingly pardon his son’s sentence.

Many are incredulous at the timing of this appearance, pointing to the irony of a President advocating for stricter gun laws while his own son is convicted on three federal gun charges. These reactions also include accusations of hypocrisy against Democrats who sympathize with Hunter while holding anti-gun political position.

Meanwhile, those Democrats and gun control activists underscore the importance of thorough background checks to limit access to guns. They argue anyone celebrating Hunter's conviction should embrace stronger gun control laws.

Proponents of gun control see President Biden's speech and actions as an important part of the fight against gun violence. Despite Hunter's conviction, this group largely supports the administrative actions taken to reduce gun violence and establish gun safety measures. They do not view Joe Biden’s stance as hypocritical, but rather view him as a loving father who is unwilling to demonize his son.

Anti-Israel and climate change protestors took the field yesterday at the annual Congressional Baseball Game. Reactions to the protests seem to be mostly influenced by political affiliations.

Many are irritated by the protests, feeling they are disruptive, and indicate a lack of respect for Israel’s right to exist. Some Americans voice strong support for Israel and a desire to see pro-Palestine protestors arrested or deported.

However, many liberals also voice support for the protestors, emphasizing the importance of their right to free speech. They claim Palestinians are entitled to the same rights as Israelis and argue against the actions of Israel in the ongoing conflict. There’s significant portion of the online conversation advocating for the rights and lives of Palestinians.

Several social media posts react critically to the protest disruption by referencing other recent protests where protesters burned American and Israeli flags and damaging a WWI monument. People argue this kind of behavior is violent and would potentially lead to arrests if perpetrated against other symbols like Pride flags.

Discussion sentiment varies widely between political ideologies, and protests don’t seem to move opinions. This suggests a deeply entrenched and polarized view of the Israel-Palestine conflict. It also seems most sentiments lean toward outright support for Israel, or an emphasis on the rights and struggles of both Israelis and Palestinians.

There's significant backlash against protestors who engage in disruptive or violent behaviors. Americans generally disapprove of blocking roads or occupying buildings. Many strongly condemn these tactics and call for punitive measures against such protestors.

Fulton County DA Fani Willis and her boyfriend-turned-special-prosecutor Nathan Wade are making news again in the wake of Wade’s recent CNN interview. Following the indefinite pause in Willis’s RICO case against former president Trump, Wade appeared on CNN with Kaitlan Collins, causing a kerfuffle over the timeline of his relationship with Willis.

In a clip Collins posted on X, Nathan Wade struggles to respond to her question about when his romantic relationship with Willis began. After a short interruption by Wade’s team, he returned to the interview refusing to answer the question. This clip has garnered various reactions of incredulity, ridicule, and disgust from voters.

My exchange with Nathan Wade tonight on the timeline of his romantic relationship with District Attorney Fani Willis — including an interruption from a member of his team as he was answering when it began and when it ended. pic.twitter.com/S5AJzdsmOC

— Kaitlan Collins (@kaitlancollins) June 13, 2024

Nathan Wade's team interrupting him during the interview is raising doubts and suspicions among the public about the credibility of Wade, Willis, and even CNN for how it aired the interview. These discussions are adding to the ongoing speculations of hidden manipulations and collusion between Democrats, prosecutors, and the media.

Many suggest Wade's representation on CNN confirms inadequacies in both his and Willis’s abilities as legal professionals. There are also allegations about the two jointly strategizing on the draft and process of the case, feeding the narrative of collusion and undue influence.

Views of DA Fani Willis

Most voter opinions of Fani Willis seem to derive from their politics with people either condemning her or celebrating her for her perseverance. However, the general sentiment towards Willis is highly negative among most voters.

Voters often believe she is engaged in corruption and pursuing politicized prosecutions. They reference her alleged involvement in serious cases of graft, voter manipulation, and witness intimidation. Some also say Willis was part of a plot to intimidate witnesses in the concurrent trial against the rapper Young Thung.

The combinations of a Willis-Wade affair, alleged corruption, the indefinite pause on Trump’s RICO case, and outlandish proceedings in the Young Thug trial have served to further erode DA Willis’s reputation.

Allegations of Corruption

Most of Willis’s criticism comes from a belief that Trump’s RICO indictment was politically orchestrated. However, while some view Willis as an aggressive figure with political motivations, others see her as a crusader for justice in challenging Trump's alleged misdeeds. The news about her alleged involvement in election fraud and money laundering has added fuel to the public discourse. Her supporters stick to the notion of a political victimization plot against her, while opponents find the allegations as evidence for unethical behavior.

There are multiple accusations about her visit to the White House prior to Trump's indictment, suggesting collusion. This also raises concerns among certain voters of potential inappropriate influence by the Department of Justice (DOJ). Also, the fact that both Willis and Special Counsel Jack Smith may be disqualified from their respective cases has split the public's view further. Some see it as an affirmation of the law working properly, while others condemn it as an example of systemic corruption.

Willis as a Political Pawn

Some view Willis as a pawn in a larger political game, tied to figures like Joe Biden. Her impartiality is often questioned, with several users perceiving her actions against Trump as politically motivated rather than issues of criminality.

There is some mention of Hunter Biden's trial, comparing it to Willis and other public figures involved in prosecuting certain political figures. Some say Willis, Alvin Bragg, Jack Smith, and Leticia James are all products of elite law school DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) programs. This, they say, increases the likelihood of their prosecutions being politically motivated.

Many voters seem to believe that—while Fani Willis is likely a corrupt politician—she is a small fish in a larger political game being played at every level of the court system.

Current public discourse about the Democratic Party potentially replacing President Joe Biden as their nominee is slowly growing. Discussion is heterogeneous and fragmented, leaning heavily on individual political biases and perceptions. However, there is not significant or concentrated chatter suggesting the Democratic Party is considering replacing Biden.s

Several mainstream media reports have discussed this issue during the Democratic primary, specifically as the “Uncommitted” movement has gained steam. MIG Reports performed an initial study of online commentary to find insights into voter sentiment about replacing Joe Biden.

Google Search Trends previously showed an increase in searches for "Uncommitted Movement” and "replace Biden.” Often, these searches mirror primary election days. For the first time in 2024, "replace Biden” outpaced searches for "Uncommitted Movement.”

Online discourse shows low volume in several topics related to the nomination process. However, the notable disastrous swing in sentiment may indicate the discussion, while still a niche topic, may be heading to an inflection point.

Based on the two datasets, it is possible to extrapolate that voters are becoming curious about the feasibility of replacing Joe Biden as the Democratic nominee. This may prove to be one more chaotic element to an already unprecedented nomination process. In addition, Biden is set to be nominated via Zoom despite no COVID-lockdowns and growing voter dissatisfaction.

Voters are Increasingly Rejecting Biden

Online conversations reveal a predominantly negative sentiment towards the Democratic Party and Joe Biden. Most of the discussion focuses on allegations of platform discrepancies and lies from Biden’s administration.

Other prominent themes include accusations of corruption, communism, socialism, and a perceived bias in favor of Democrats in Hunter Biden's conviction. Several voters suggest the Democratic Party is no longer representing the views of its traditional base. There is criticism for perceived radical or extremist views within the party. Voters feel alienated and claim the party has diverged from its original moderate standpoint to adopt more radical ideologies.

Many also express a belief that the Democratic Party wants the “destruction of America.” This further indicates the extent of the negative sentiment as people view the Democratic party and Joe Biden as untrustworthy and power-hungry.

Voters accuse Democrats and the media of censorship, particularly surrounding the Hunter Biden laptop story. Politicians, news media, and government agents are being accused of participating in misinformation and election rigging.

There are only a few social media posts defending Biden and the Democratic party. These threads highlight some positive aspects of Biden's tenure. However, even within these comments, there's considerable criticism about how Biden is handling issues like the border, Israel, and the economy.

Prevalent negative sentiment implies a significant level of dissatisfaction with the current administration and the Democratic Party. Although this is not a comprehensive view of all Americans nor a scientific study, it provides some insight into current discussions and sentiment trends among Americans online. It's important to acknowledge that social media discussions often skew negative and may not accurately represent the views of the wider population.