Online conversations suggest the issue of child trafficking is becoming politicized with partisan disagreements about Biden-Harris open borders policies. Voters express disgust at what is occurring at the border, viewing a leadership change as increasingly necessary. In states like Arizona, Republican Senate candidate Kari Lake is voicing urgent voter concerns about cartel activity and drug and child trafficking in a way that Democrats are not. This is gaining her approval among increasingly concerned Americans.
Kari Lake, Change Candidate
Kari Lake is a Republican running for Kyrsten Sinema’s Senate seat in Arizona. She is often mentioned in conversations about the border and child trafficking as someone who sincerely cares. Voter sentiment is overwhelmingly positive toward Lake on these issues as frustration with Democrats mounts.
Lake regularly speaks out about border issues voters prioritize, while her opponent, Ruben Gallego, is deafeningly silent.
.@KariLake: “The biggest Human Smuggling, Drug Trafficking, Child Trafficking operation is underway here in Arizona...
Voters believe in her commitment to implementing stronger border security measures that will protect children and combat cartel trafficking. Conversations mention her with phrases like “close the borders to prevent more human trafficking” and “protect children from all forms of abuse.” Voters in Arizona and nationwide support candidates like Kari Lake who promise stringent reforms.
Lake, who is known as a fighter who does not back down, uses this to her advantage on cartel and trafficking issues. People view her as dedicated, willing to fight, and genuinely caring. Public sentiment toward Lake's border efforts is overwhelmingly positive.
There is a strong belief that she prioritizes eradicating child trafficking, unlike her Democratic counterparts. Many convey appreciation for her vocal stance and proposed policies aimed at tackling this issue directly.
The narrative around Lake is one of hope and support, portraying her as a figure willing to take robust action where others have faltered. Discussions about Lake reveal optimism, portraying her as a proactive leader capable of implementing strong border policies Democrats are unwilling to enact.
Outrage and Urgency
Outrage dominates discussions about the Biden-Harris administration's border policies, particularly regarding negligence and dismissal of child trafficking. Voters regularly talk of “open borders,” voicing frustration with the administration’s unwillingness to enforce border security measures.
Americans accuse the administration of exacerbating drug trafficking, human trafficking—specifically child trafficking—by ignoring border laws. Sentiment is overwhelmingly negative, with criticism directed at Joe Biden and Kamala Harris in her role as "border czar."
Accusations of incompetence and failure dominate conversations. People link Democrat failures to rises in crime, drug-related deaths, and unchecked border crossings. Sen. Chuck Grassley is drafting a Congressional Review Act to block the Biden-Harris administration from further enabling dangerous trafficking practices.
The connection between drug and human trafficking is another major concern. Voters express alarm and urgency about fentanyl and trafficking children streaming across the border via Mexican cartels.
An increasingly dangerous fentanyl supply in the U.S. generates fear across political lines as more Americans are impacted by drug addiction, overdose, and death. Many also attribute increased drug trafficking to lax border policies.
Rampant trafficking amplifies critiques of the Biden-Harris approach to border security. Voters demand more stringent actions to combat both drug and human trafficking.
DOJ sued HHS contractor Southwest Key 4 repeatedly turning blind eye 2 employee sex abuse of migrant children HHS’ UC Program Rule adds 2 the problem by weakening employee vetting / HHS even tried 2 block SW Key frm answering my oversight requests Congress must seek reforms
Discussions reveal a broader theme of political responsibility and blame, with voters divided along partisan lines. Terms like "Democrat policies," "Republican solutions," and NGOs frequently appear. Politics divides many opinions on how best to address border issues and trafficking.
Partisan debate intensifies the emotional engagement and urgency in public discourse. Voters say they feel betrayed by the Biden-Harris administration's failures. Further complicating this issue is the involvement of non-governmental organizations (NGOs). Accusations emerge of taxpayer-funded groups enabling Democratic border policies voters are starting to abhor.
EXCLUSIVE: I spent four months investigating the web of NGOs facilitating the Biden Administration's migrant crisis. These taxpayer-funded groups are pulling in billions of dollars and lavishing themselves with salaries and bonuses.
Some discuss the broader socio-economic impacts of immigration policies like inflation and resource scarcity, adding to their frustration. This deepens negative sentiment toward VP Harris, whose role as the Border Czar places responsibility at her feet. A lack of evidence that she took any action and financial support for NGOs from the Biden-Harris administration, will likely worsen sentiment.
Recently, a story went viral about democratic vice-presidential nominee Tim Walz participating in an "Abolish ICE" march. This has caused discussion about his political stance on immigration issues. Overall sentiment online is negative, reflecting deep concerns about Walz’s views on the border crisis.
The march, which occurred on June 30, 2018, was during the peak of the “Abolish ICE” movement. This suggests Walz may be influenced by the popular sentiments of leftist ideology.
Voters Want a Strong Border
Voter discussions consistently highlight Tim Walz’s beliefs, policies, and actions regarding immigration. People frequently use terms like open borders, sanctuary cities, illegal immigrants, and driver’s licenses for illegals in conversation about Walz. There is great apprehension about his support for providing state benefits to illegal immigrants at the expanse of citizens.
Most Americans view the Biden-Harris administration's open border policies as a threat to national security, prioritizing illegal immigrants over American citizens. This criticism extends to Walz who is increasingly viewed as supporting open borders.
Voters reference Walz’s comments about "ladder factories" to facilitate illegal crossings. People view his controversial comment about investing in ladders to circumvent a border wall as representative of his overall border stance.
Another critical conversation touches on the economic and social impact of Walz’s policies. Voters argue his approach drains state resources by using taxpayer funds for illegal immigrants while American citizens are crushed by inflation and taxes. Negative sentiment is often amplified by claims that his policies promote lawlessness and compromise public safety.
Americans view Walz’s record as governor, particularly his actions during the 2020 George Floyd protests, as evidence of his radically leftist stance. They speculate that actions like attending and Abolish ICE march reveals his inclination to be swayed by popular, radical leftist movements.
Critics claim Walz’s hesitation to deploy the National Guard in Minnesota allowed and escalated protester violence and destruction. This is further used to question his capability to handle a national immigration crisis as vice president.
Tim Walz: Not That Guy
Public sentiment toward Tim Walz as a potential vice president, particularly regarding his ability to manage the illegal immigration crisis, is overwhelmingly skeptical, if not outright hostile. Critics say his policies and actions epitomize the radical direction they believe the Democratic Party is taking. This narrative is bolstered by consistent claims that his policies favor illegal immigrants at the expense of national security, economic stability, and public safety.
There is a strong emphasis on the ideological divide Walz represents within the Democratic Party. Many discussions label him as a “radical leftist” or a “socialist,” accusing him of promoting extreme policies that alienate moderate voters.
Depiction of Walz as a radical are often paired with concerns about his proximity to far-left figures and policies who undermine traditional American values and governance. Sentiment trends indicate voters share negative opinions, painting Walz as unfit to handle national issues due to radicalism and past governance failures.
Viral tweets about parents who are unable to afford back-to-school supplies sparks conversations about economic issues, household finances, and school costs. MIG Reports shows parents are agitated and discussions are charged with political overtones in scrutinizing economic policies and their impacts.
34% of parents said they plan to take on debt to afford back to school supplies this year, and 16% said they plan to take on up to $1,000 in debt, per Credit Karma.
These discussions come within larger debates and worries about inflation, household expenses, debt, and the results of political policies. Younger voters are especially worried about their financial prospects.
The inability to afford back-to-school shopping is especially true for young parents – 39% of Gen Z and 37% of millennials.
Voters continue to compare the Trump’s economy with the Biden-Harris economy. Discussions juxtapose memories of low inflation, cheap gas, and secure borders during Trump's presidency against complaints of high inflation, unaffordable gas prices, and open borders under Democrats. This matches recent trends blaming Joe Bide and Kamala Harris for two key policies:
Open borders and unchecked migration harming American families
Voter engagement on economic topics confirms existing political schisms in sentiment. In general, Americans are dissatisfied with the economy, but causes and solutions are often determined by political beliefs. Nostalgia for past times is acute in conversations about living costs and financial insecurity for middle-class and working families.
Low Income, Low Expectations
People are talking about the financial burden placed on low-income families who cannot afford back-to-school expenses. Americans worry about the rising cost of essential items and the consequences for families already struggling to make ends meet.
Government allocation of resources being disproportionately directed toward illegal immigrants is a point of contention. U.S. citizens say welfare programs offer free housing, healthcare, and monthly stipends to people who should not even be in the country. This causes resentment as local communities continue to sink deeper into debt.
Voters blame to government saying things like, "Americans they put into tents with their policies suffer.” Many feel the Biden-Harris administration cares more about people who enter the country illegally than its own citizens.
Parents describe their struggles, lamenting the unaffordability of necessities like backpacks and school clothes. These expenses force many families into credit card debt just to buy school supplies. Sentiment in these discussions is predominantly negative, reflecting frustration and financial strain.
National Retail Federation data shows back-to-school costs for American families have increased from just under $700 in 2019 to nearly $900 in 2024.
Recently, police commissioner of London Sir Mark Rowley declared that social media users outside the United Kingdom may be extradited for terrorism-related charges. This announcement came in reaction to Americans observing English protests over forced mass immigration and intervening to overburden police resources.
England Police say they will extradite and imprison Americans over social media posts pic.twitter.com/VB6sIyWWnE
Americans perceived injustice on the part of the British government toward U.K. citizens who are demonized and arrested for protesting mass immigration. Reports of British citizens being arrested for their online speech was particularly offensive to Americans who value free speech. This caused Americans to troll police departments by spamming fake crime reports on police chat systems.
Americans on /pol/ discover that you can speak live to police officers in the UK to report crime pic.twitter.com/4q8nYbS2Oz
Online responses to the potential repercussions for American social media users are mixed.
Americans Fear Losing Free Speech
Sentiment trends among Americans are noticeably negative, reflecting deep concerns and frustrations. The tone of the conversations is defensive, as people assert their rights against government threats. This defensiveness sometimes adds a mixture of confusion and fear about what the future may hold if America loses its right to free speech.
Public sentiment largely views foreign governments pursuing Americans over speech as an overextension of legal authority and a threat to the constitutional freedoms American citizens hold dear.
Concerns are growing that situations like the one in Britain reflect global trends toward government control and authoritarian crackdowns. Some also worry about freedom at home, referring to the events and prosecutions following January 6.
Americans engaging in these discussions are fearful their social media postings could subject them to severe legal repercussions. They draw unsettling parallels between U.K. citizens being arrested for speech and January 6 protesters who faced severe legal consequences.
Sentiment about resisting increased threats to free expression reveals disillusionment. Many people feel powerless at the hands of governments that are rapidly encroaching on constitutional liberties. This sense of unease is heightened by concerns about increased surveillance, censorship, and punitive measures for political dissent.
The top conversations around freedom of expression include:
Law Enforcement Overreach: Many are in disbelief and angry that U.K. police would try to extradite and imprison Americans over online speech. They view it as unacceptable and an overreach of British legal power.
Free Speech Rights: Americans see the potential for extraditions as a direct threat to constitutional liberties. There is extensive debate about the need to retain these rights against authoritarian regimes.
Comparisons to January 6: Discussions frequently draw comparisons between U.K. immigration protests and crackdowns following January 6. Many view these events as politicized government action against dissenters.
Surveillance Concerns: There are worries about surveillance and governments gathering social media. People are anxious that governments are continuously monitoring citizens more closely and doling out punishments.
International Jurisdiction: Americans question the legal justifications and sovereignty issues involved in international jurisdiction over speech. People are unsure about the legitimacy and enforceability of such actions.
Recently, the online and print publication The Economist, went viral for its controversial coverage of protests in the U.K. A controversial article titled, "How to respond to the riots in Britain," called to “punish the thugs” and “stand up for immigration.”
This, to many in America and the U.K., is emblematic of typical mainstream media responses to national protests against unchecked immigration. Recent U.K. protests over the murder of three English girls roiled citizens about immigration in the U.K., eliciting these headlines from The Economist.
Along with placing blame on U.K. nationals, there are rumors of The Economist allegedly removing the Palestinian flag from a photo in one of their stories to downplay pro-Palestine involvement in riots. This fuels discourse criticizing the media, especially drawing backlash from Americans. People express mounting concerns over fake news, media bias, and free speech issues.
The Economist seems to have a problem with the Palestinian flag being displayed on its cover. pic.twitter.com/GWi0O0i955
Online conversations show public discontent and extreme distrust of media outlets. Americans, who are sensitive about free speech, accuse the U.K. government of silencing and punishing its citizens for speaking up about immigration. They view leaders as protecting antagonistic immigrants over native citizens. Incidents like this amplify existing anxieties about the integrity and objectivity of press coverage.
In the Total State the native population is criminal, the immigrant is sacred, and the narrative of the managerial elite is truth https://t.co/mC186MiScO
Online sentiment toward The Economist and the media is predominantly negative. People voice frustration and skepticism at media outlets they view as actively obscuring the truth or manipulating public perception.
This distrust is not confined to any single demographic but spans various groups. Moderates and undecided voters in America, who consume various media sources, are particularly affected. They express discomfort over the evident lack of transparency and the potential influence of media bias on public opinion and policy.
Skepticism toward the media connects with broader themes of political disenfranchisement and systemic corruption. People draw parallels between what they view as The Economist's disingenuous immigration coverage and wider distrust of government and institutional transparency.
There is heightened sensitivity toward perceived double standards and selective news coverage. Americans view both the U.S. government and the U.K. government as "two-tiered justice systems," aided by the mainstream media in playing political favoritism.
Anti-establishment feelings are widespread, fostering a climate of resistance to media narratives and opinions forced on the public by institutions. The skepticism extends to broader concerns, such as electoral integrity and the credibility of news about prominent political figures, further polarizing public opinion.
Trending discussions about Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, recently chosen as Kamala Harris's vice-presidential running mate, question his trustworthiness and integrity. Renewed allegations of “stolen valor” against Walz by dishonestly embellishing his military service are flooding social media and news outlets.
Critics expose Walz lied about his military record, reporting he retired from the National Guard just before his unit's deployment to Iraq in 2005. This raises questions about his commitment and honor. These accusations are particularly resonant among veterans and military families, who view such actions as deeply dishonorable.
🚨 Congressman Tim Walz literally voted TO PASS the Stolen Valor Act of 2013, which he is in DIRECT violation of.
Can’t make this stuff up.
He knew exactly what he’s doing, but thought he was immune.
Walz also liked when advocating to restrict certain firearms, perhaps to ally himself with the Ban Assault Weapons vote. Walz strongly implied he carried “weapons of war” despite never being deployed to a combat zone.
Tim Walz falsely claimed he carried weapons ‘in war’ in resurfaced clip: ‘Absolutely false’
Walz also used this nonexistent war experience to say it qualifies him to ban civilian weapons he classifies as weapons of war. https://t.co/ULLphFktt8
These stolen valor allegations have had significant impact on support for Walz, driving down voter sentiment.
Tarnishing His Character
The narrative around Walz also includes concerns about his character and personal responsibility. Reports are also surfacing of an alleged DUI incident in 1995 where he was reportedly driving at excessive speeds. This incident further fuels perceptions of Walz as someone who lacks the integrity and judgment expected of a national leader.
Court documents state that Walz, who was 28 years old and working as a high school teacher and football coach at the time, was caught speeding over 80 mph. He failed a breath test, registering a blood-alcohol level of .128. At that time, the legal limit in many parts of the country, including Nebraska, was .1, though it has since been lowered to .08.
Discussions consistently highlight a lack of respect for Walz and questions about his honesty. Voters call him "deceptive," and "untrustworthy" frequently underscoring their doubts about his character. This distrust seems to undermine his appeal to voters, with some suggesting he withdraw from the VP candidacy.
Media Deflection Aggravates Voter Disillusionment
While much of the voter discussion online is negative, media outlets seem to be attempting to defend Walz. On Aug. 9, Google results for “stolen valor” prominently highlighted J.D. Vance news, with most headlines framing the allegations as an attack against Walz by Vance.
This exacerbates voter ire which already exists against the media and Big Tech companies. Americans accuse the media of carrying water for Democrats, memory-holing Kamala Harris’s poor track record and now running cover for Walz.
Especially on the right, voters find the media reaction particularly egregious with emerging video of Walz’s staffers being confronted by combat veterans in 2009 over stolen valor claims. The fact that stolen valor is also a crime punishable with prison time also angers voters who view Walz as getting a pass from Democrats and the media.
Sentiment in discussions about Walz lean heavily negative, especially among conservatives and veterans who feel betrayed. Moderates and undecided voters also scrutinize Walz, voicing similarly skeptical and critical sentiments. This group is also influenced by fears of Walz’s economic mismanagement, lenience on crime, and extreme social policies. Many voters worry his policies are too far left, resonating negatively with his past statements.
American discussions about the Biden-Harris administration’s economy are becoming more chaotic as the election nears. Discourse reflects discontent about inflation, government spending, and border control.
Inflation
Inflation is one of the top concerns among American voters. Many believe, regardless of CPI reports, that inflation has reached unprecedented levels under Biden's presidency. There is frequent anguish about increasing grocery prices, gas prices, and overall living costs.
A sense that "everything costs more" dominates many conversations about the economy. People are frustrated over inflation rates, blaming the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) for failing to curb inflation. People say the IRA only increased government expenditures on initiatives that are non-essential and which Americans do not support.
Spending and Debt
Another significant area of lament is the national debt and fiscal policies. There are regular criticisms of federal spending, arguing Biden's administration has increased the national debt dramatically. Many also say the relief and infrastructure initiatives increasing this spending are not helpful.
This discourse is often intertwined with complaints about government inefficiency and corruption, particularly allegations that funds from the Inflation Reduction Act are being misallocated. Concerns about social welfare programs and their economic impact also feature prominently. Some say Biden’s policies are moving the country towards unsustainable socialist economics.
Discussion is Growing Turbulent
Following the assassination attempt on Donald Trump and Joe Biden dropping out of the presidential race, online discussion has become increasingly volatile. Particularly after July 7, discussion volume and sentiment has fluctuated significantly.
Economic Issues
Before July 7, fluctuations in discussion volume and sentiment regarding the economy were minimal.
After, discussion saw up to a 34% decrease, with volumes dropping from an average of 8,602 to as low as 5,670. However, the high after July 7 reached 8,920.
Sentiment fluctuated more widely, with a 17% increase from an average of 43% to a peak of 50%. The low dropped to 39%, which is a 9.6% decrease from the pre-July 7 average.
Inflation
Before July 7, fluctuations in discussion volume and sentiment regarding inflation were minimal.
After July 7, discussion decreased 48%, with volumes dropping from an average of 2,864 to as low as 1,488. The discussion peak was 4,230.
Sentiment varied with a 26% increase from the average of 43% to a peak of 54% and a low of 39%, which is an 8.6% decrease from the pre-July 7 average.
Border Problems Amplify Economic Problems
Border policy and its economic implications form another substantial part of the discussion. Online commentary frequently highlights dissatisfaction with the current state of border control, blaming the Biden administration for the illegal immigration crisis. Voters argue it burdens taxpayers and strains public resources. These points often include broader critiques of the administration's overall immigration strategy and the economic fallout from it.
Lack of Jobs, Disbelief About Jobs
Critics also voice concerns about job creation and employment. There is a significant amount of skepticism about official job creation statistics under Biden. People say the numbers are misleading. They say gains are from reemployment post-COVID lockdowns rather than genuine job creation. American workers often attribute rising unemployment rates and layoffs to Biden's economic policies, presenting a starkly negative view of the job market.
Government Jobs, the Sole Benefactor
However, not all conversations are critical regarding jobs. Some discussions acknowledge positive outcomes under Biden's administration, such as swift job recovery post-pandemic. Some also appreciate investment in infrastructure and clean energy, and international diplomacy that enhances economic stability. Supporters argue these initiatives have set a solid foundation for long-term economic resilience despite current challenges.
Public discourse about Joe Biden and Kamala Harris and their border policies reveals dissatisfaction, concern, and calls for action. Negative sentiment is sustained, with recurring discussion of policy failures, open borders, and fraud in immigration programs.
Border Security
Much of the public expresses disapproval toward Biden's immigration policies. There's a prevalent belief that Biden administration border policies are inadequate. People say this administration’s actions have led to unchecked illegal entries and increased crime. Most voters view the border situation as complete chaos and a crisis, voicing national security concerns.
Fraud and Security Concerns
There are many allegations of fraud in immigration programs. Phrases like "fraudulent information," "fake social security numbers," and "fraud revelations" are common. Americans view the Biden administration as either complicit or negligent in managing the immigration system. People often mention the suspension of the migrant flight program as evidence that Biden’s policies have only served to facilitate fraud and crime.
Impact on American Communities
Voters also link increased immigration to negative outcomes for American communities. They cite the cost of resources and taxpayer dollars, increased crime, and economic challenges. Many accuse Biden and Harris of prioritizing illegal immigrants over American citizens. Americans also resent housing and food benefits being provided to illegals and fear criminals entering the country.
Comparisons to Trump Administration
Trump’s policies provide a stark contrast to current Biden-Harris policies, generating a sense of nostalgia. Many believe Trump’s policies were more effective in curbing illegal immigration, praising things like Remain in Mexico and the border wall. People also express resentment at many of these policies which the Biden administration has reversed.
Political Ramifications
Biden’s border security failures have the potential to be devastating at the ballot box. There's widespread anger at Biden’s immigration policies which could impact voter decisions in November. This negativity crosses political lines as more Democrats—especially in sanctuary cities—express anger at the current situation. Some also fear election fraud and the potential for illegal immigrants to vote.
Personal Attacks
The border is a polarizing and hotly debated issue, with many conversations becoming passionate and emotional. People use words like “incompetence,” “failure,” and “corruption” to describe Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. People criticize Biden’s cognitive decline and Harris’s unintelligent public image.
Americans are Angry
Voters demand more effective policies. They express a sense of urgency and crisis, fuming at the government’s apparent lack of desire to protect U.S. interests. Voters are not just critical but also highly mobilized, suggesting immigration is a motivating issue when it comes to voting.
Following the assassination attempt on Donald Trump and Joe Biden dropping out of the presidential race, online discussion has become increasingly volatile. Particularly after July 7, discussion volume and sentiment has fluctuated significantly.
Immigration Issues
Prior to July 7, fluctuations in discussion volume and sentiment were minimal.
After, discussion volume increased by 635%, with volumes moving from an average of around 593 to a peak of 4,359.
Sentiment also varied more widely, swinging by about 14%. The average sentiment rose from around 37% to a peak of 45%.
Border Security
Before July 7, changes in both metrics were minimal.
After, discussion increased 750% from an average of around 842 to 7,157.
Sentiment fluctuated by 13%, indicating greater shifts in public mood, moving from 39% to a peak of 43%.
Immigration Issues
Top topics repeatedly center around the massive influx of illegal immigrants in the U.S. People assert that millions have entered the U.S. since Biden took office, with true numbers impossible to track. Voters often mention crimes involving illegal immigrants, expressing their frustration that this situation is allowed to continue.
Sentiment Trends
Public sentiment scrutinizes Democratic unwillingness to address the border. People discuss reports of rampant fraud in immigration programs and refusal by politicians to enact existing policies.
Allegations of the migrant flight program being paused due to systemic fraud, involving duplicate and fake Social Security numbers, fraudulent sponsor applications, and misuse of addresses, infuriate Americans. People say this exemplifies the administration's complicity in allowing criminals into the country.
Vice President Kamala Harris’s role as Border Czar also erodes the administration’s image. People criticize Harris and the media for attempting to change the narrative around her role at the border. Media claims that she was “never Border Czar” and not in charge of enforcement makes voters angry.
Negativity on the border and immigration catalyzes support for figures like Trump who promise to restore stringent immigration laws and reinforced border security.
Sentiment about the Biden-Harris administration's approach to national security and international relations, particularly in the Middle East, is intense and divisive. Online conversations show high anxiety and dissatisfaction among many Americans who fear escalating conflict between Israel and its adversaries. Americans express various critical perspectives and, in rare cases, acknowledge the administration's efforts.
Increasing Wars Increases Chaos
Americans accuse President Biden and Vice President Harris of inadvertently facilitating aggression from Iran and its proxies. Lifting sanctions and releasing funds to Iran, many say, fuels Iran’s military expansions and aggressive postures towards Israel. In addition, Americans are increasingly negative about spending taxpayer dollars on foreign support.
Critics say the Biden administration's approach shows weakness, compromising Israel's, and potentially America’s, security. Sentiments range from claims of betrayal to accusations of outright support for Israel's enemies.
Failure After Failure
A significant theme in voter discussions is Biden’s failure to prevent known threats. Critics note Biden and Harris knew about potential aggressions from Russia, and now Iran, but did not take preemptive actions.
Some express frustration over what they describe as a mismatched focus on domestic and international issues. They say leaders provide substantial military and economic resources foreign nations like Ukraine and Israel, while ignoring Americans. They believe domestic issues like the border and the economy are left unaddressed, worsening every day.
Supporters continue to praise the Biden-Harris administration, though these sentiments are less frequent. One point of recent praise was the successful negotiation for releasing American prisoners from Russia.
Turmoil in American Discourse
From May 31 to July 6, there are minimal changes in the volume and sentiment of voter conversations about international conflict. However, there are significant swings after July 7.
Security Issues
Discussions of Security Issues dramatically increased by 158%, moving from an average of around 9,300 to a peak of 24,960.
Sentiment also varied more widely after July 7, fluctuating by 15%.
Israel
Discussions of Israel increased by 207%, from an average of around 5,400 to peaks of 16,329.
Sentiment fluctuated by about 20%, indicating more pronounced shifts in public mood.
Iran
Discussions of Iran increased by 307%, rising from an average of around 350 to peaks of 4,547.
Sentiment for Iran also moved dramatically, changing by about 22%.
These recent fluctuations suggest increased public engagement and shifting moods, likely due to concerning news and developments during this period.
Sentiment Trends
Voters are predominantly critical towards Israel and Middle Eastern tensions, blaming Biden and Harris for the current situation. People compare Biden’s foreign policy with Trump’s, viewing Trump as a stronger leader. There is a nostalgic mood on foreign policy and people use words like, "strength," "leadership," and "peace.”
Conversations also reflect broader concerns about escalating global conflicts and economic instability. Many fear a global recession, market crashes, and nuclear threats. This suggests American apprehension extends beyond immediate security issues to the potential global ramifications of poor U.S. leadership on the world stage.
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
_.png)
_.png)
_.png)
_.png)
_.png)
_.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)