Hillary Clinton's unexpected appearance at the Tony Awards has gotten fawning praise from liberals and disgust from conservatives. In her short speech, she mentioned her failed presidential campaign, celebrated women’s suffrage, and appealed to all Americans to get out and vote.
Many viewers were exhausted to see such a divisive figure like Clinton at an event traditionally dedicated to celebrating theatrical achievements. They view this disconnect as another indicator that mainstream media and entertainment are biased to the left.
A tweet from Deadline Hollywood showing a clip of Hillary Clinton's appearance garnered significant criticism both for Hollywood and Hillary herself in the replies.
Liberal Elites Can’t Get Enough of Themselves
Supporters argue Clinton's presence is a positive endorsement of the arts and a recognition of their cultural significance. To them, her participation symbolizes how politics and entertainment can collaboratively advocate for important social issues.
Partisan celebrities and political figures say they appreciate a seamless integration of political figures into entertainment venues. They view it as an opportunity for politicians to engage with different audiences and to humanize political discourse.
Media and progressive narratives frame Clinton's appearance as an endorsement of the arts, rather than an opportunistic and desperate attempt to pump up Joe Biden’s campaign. Many in this group deny that entertainment is increasingly being politicized by Democrats, instead claiming both art and politics stand to gain from greater visibility and mutual reinforcement.
Normal Americans are Exhausted by Elite Smugness
Conversations surrounding her appearance also bring attention to the disconnect between political elites and average voters. Many people see her presence at such events as indicative of a cloying political strategy that fails to resonate with everyday concerns.
They argue political figures hobnobbing with celebrities at glamorous events, like Joe Biden’s recent fundraising event, reveals they are out of touch. People feel the struggles of ordinary Americans who face real-life issues are diminished by theatrical political pandering.
Many who used to be fans of art and culture also believe awards shows, which have become extremely politicized, should be apolitical entertainment. They believe the arts should be an escape from the relentless news cycles and partisan battles.
Normal voters say the appearance of political figures at entertainment events feels invasive, turning what should be moments of levity and creativity into platforms for political grandstanding. This sentiment is particularly strong among those who feel the entertainment industry already leans too heavily into political advocacy, often at the expense of diverse viewpoints.
Criticism Toward Hillary and the Media
Critics also argue that Clinton is one of the worst offenders when it comes to alienating voters and appearing insular and self-congratulatory. For this group, Clinton’s appearance is not only out of place but downright insulting. Most view Clinton as a washed-up politician who cannot let go of her loss to Trump in 2016.
This perception is particularly acute among voters who are weary of the symbiotic relationship between mainstream media, Hollywood, and the political elite. They view these entities as working together to marginalize dissenting voices and dismiss substantial issues facing Americans.
Further exacerbating these tensions is a broader sense of frustration at the entertainment sector becoming increasingly politicized—and almost exclusively in service to liberal ideologies. Leftist bias, conservatives say, diminishes trust in both the media and political figures. It also alienates conservatives, promoting a sense of disenfranchisement in those being sidelined by elite and media narratives.
Overall, Hillary Clinton's appearance at the Tony Awards once again spotlights the contentious relationship between politics and entertainment in America. While liberal elites praise the gesture, most Americans view it as a cringey attempt by elites to maintain their power over politics and the culture.
Online discourse about AI and American jobs continues to show worry. There is an overall negative sentiment, specifically among 50- to 60-year-olds and those in blue-collar positions.
Recent economic studies indicate negative sentiment is likely to continue as workers fear AI displacement in the workforce. This will likely extend beyond the cited demographics as more people consider the implications of AI on jobs. Several industries beyond blue-collar are feeling AI’s impact on the workforce.
The automotive sector led in job cuts, with Tesla slashing 14,000 jobs. This adds to a total of 14,373 for the month and 20,189 for the year, a 108% increase from last year.
Education jobs followed with 8,092 cuts in April, totaling 17,892 for the year. This is up 635% from the previous year due to budgetary constraints and recruitment issues.
The Healthcare industry saw 5,826 job cuts in April, totaling 17,218 for the year, a 41% decrease from last year.
Technology jobs saw 47,436 cuts this year, which is a startling 58% decrease from last year.
The media industry reported 8,091 cuts this year, down 29%. However, the news subset is up 12% at 2,184 cuts.
While not all job cuts were directly a result of AI innovations, many view AI as one more threat among many for jobs. People worry about the economy and other factors, which worsen fears that companies may opt to save money with automation.
American Fears About AI Displacement
There is a sense of inevitability and concern in most discussions about job cuts and AI. People are apprehensive about the rapid pace of artificial intelligence development and its potential to automate jobs that were previously considered secure. This includes jobs requiring higher education or specialized training.
Conversations often reflect concerns about technological unemployment, with some expressing anxiety about being forced into early retirement before they have had a chance to secure financial stability.
Sentiment Trends
Feelings about AI’s impact on employment trends are largely negative. Many Americans worry that AI and automation could push them out of the labor market prematurely. This would damage their ability to save adequately for retirement.
Displacement anxieties are especially noticeable among middle-aged workers who feel they are too young to retire but too old to re-enter the job market if displaced. These discussions frequently underscore the lack of adequate retraining and reskilling opportunities, which exacerbates fears.
Demographic Patterns
Some demographic patterns are also evident in these discussions. Older workers, particularly those in their 50s and early 60s, are more vocal about their concerns, specifically regarding AI.
Older workers often highlight the difficulty in finding new employment at a later stage in their careers. They also mention the inadequacy of their retirement savings in the face of unexpected job loss.
Younger demographics seem to express a different kind of concern. Their focus is more on long-term job security and the career disruptions AI might cause. Many younger workers are optimistic about their ability to adapt to new working conditions. However, they are still somewhat anxious, especially amid larger economic worries.
Geographically, workers in regions with a higher concentration of manufacturing and traditionally blue-collar jobs express more anxiety. Discussions in more tech-centric regions might reflect a more balanced or even optimistic view, with some anticipating that new job categories will emerge as AI technology evolves.
Withing the negative discussion, there also exists a minority viewpoint that sees AI as an opportunity rather than a threat. This group usually consists of those who work in tech or have seen the benefits of AI integration in the workplace. They argue AI could enhance productivity, create new job opportunities, and improve work-life balance.
Video of former President Barack Obama escorting President Joe Biden off stage at a high-profile fundraiser is igniting conversations on social media about Biden's regular gaffes and confusion. The main themes revolve around concerns about Biden’s health, political strategies, and broader societal and institutional implications.
Many users are expressing alarm at President Joe Biden’s recurring moments of confusion or freezing on stage. More Americans are viewing these increasingly frequent episodes as a clear sign of his deteriorating health. The sentiment that Biden cannot be responsible for running the country is growing.
Discussions frequently reference Biden’s age and present it as a critical issue that impacts his capacity to govern. Sentiment is often inflammatory, highlighting a sense of urgency and alarm. There is also frequent mockery, memes, and brutal criticism, as Americans watch Biden's cognitive abilities erode in disbelief.
Biden’s supporters and those who dismiss the event downplay Obama leading the president off stage. These voices argue the incident was overblown by political opponents and media seeking to distort the narrative for sensationalism. They deflect, highlighting Biden’s accomplishments and capabilities, suggesting the short video clip does not reflect his overall performance and leadership.
Blue Collar Versus Tinsel Town
Another trend in the discussion is the increasing association of the Democratic Party and its key figures, including Obama and Biden, with Hollywood elites. This fundraiser, which featured high-profile celebrities like George Clooney and Julia Roberts, has resulted in criticism about the Democratic Party being out of touch with ordinary Americans. Social media posts imply a growing discontent with what some perceive as liberal elites' ignorance of the challenges everyday citizens face.
There is also a resurgence of the long-standing political rhetoric portraying leftist ideologies as communistic or socialistic. Some take the opportunity to paint Democratic leadership and their policies as fundamentally un-American or destructive.
These conversations often assert Democrats are utilizing manipulative strategies, like including amnesty for illegal immigrants and mass propaganda through mainstream media, to secure electoral victories. Many even believe Biden has escaped serious problems like potential prosecution because of special treatment.
Trump Supporters Pounce
Furthermore, there is significant backlash when people compare Biden to former President Donald Trump. Trump's supporters are leveraging this incident to emphasize their belief in Trump’s competency and leadership strengths. They say, despite his own controversies, Trump represents a more robust and capable alternative to Biden.
There are also comparisons between the fundraising efficacy of both political figures. Many point out that, despite glitzy Biden fundraisers and Trump's legal woes, Trump’s campaign is generating substantial grassroots financial support from many small donation donors. This draws a stark contrast with the Hollywood-centered donations for Biden.
Lastly, a segment of voters are focusing on the broader societal consequences of current political actions. They argue Biden’s administration, perceived as aligned with extreme liberal policies, is making the United States vulnerable to internal and external threats.
Concerns about border security, perceived leniency towards illegal immigrants, and an alleged erosion of American values are frequently mentioned. This fuels a broader narrative of an existential crisis facing the nation, with Biden depicted as a figurehead in a larger ideological battle.
Recent viral reporting is alerting Americans about illegal aliens in 49 states being given voter registration forms without requiring proof of citizenship. MIG Reports studied online reactions to the news and Americans are reacting strongly and mostly negatively.
Illegal Immigrants Register to Vote
The discourse on this subject is highly polarized, like most political conversations in America. Conservatives express concern over election integrity and illegals being allowed to register to vote. Liberals dismiss these concerns as politically motivated fearmongering.
Conservative Concerns
Voters on the right believe illegal immigrants voting would dilute legitimate votes. They argue normalizing illegal immigrant votes is a strategy of the left to get unearned votes. If illegal aliens are allowed to vote, most Republicans would view it as blatant election cheating by Democrats and a violation of America’s sovereignty as a country.
Conservatives place emphasis on voting irregularities and election integrity suspicions, particularly in Democratic areas like Fulton County, Georgia. Many conservatives fear rampant election fraud and call for stricter voter ID laws. They see legislative responses like the SAVE Act as necessary to protect democracy.
Liberal Rebuttals
Democrats and liberals claim widespread illegal voting is a myth perpetuated by Republicans. They view these claims as a strategy to justify restrictive voting laws, which they say would affect minority communities.
Social Media and Distrust
There is deep polarization and intense political rivalries on social media. Discussions involve political figures, historical grievances, and legal battles over election interference. Many people make accusations of corruption and election cheating cover-ups, leading to a climate of suspicion.
Broader Patterns
There is rampant distrust towards mainstream media and government officials.
Electoral legitimacy is a hotly contested issue and is especially tied to partisan debates.
The discourse reflects a mix of alarm, distrust, and political maneuvering.
Election Integrity
Many Americans want to focus on securing elections. There are references to alleged fraud and manipulation, especially in the 2020 presidential election. Some mention fraudulent ballots and voter irregularities in states like Michigan and Georgia.
Political Polarization
There is frequent accusatory language between political parties. Republicans blame Democrats for allegedly enabling election fraud. And Democrats say Republicans spread false claims and incite distrust among the electorate.
The two sides debate whether political figures like Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton should face consequences for election-related crimes. There are accusations of bias in law enforcement and legal systems.
Mistrust of Governmental Institutions
There are intense debates over the potential illegitimacy of 2024 election results. Some express concerns about voting machine manipulation, absentee ballots, and mail-in voting. There are calls for a return to manual, paper-based voting methods.
Sentiment Trends
Predominantly Negative and Distrustful
There is widespread skepticism regarding the fairness and transparency of elections. Many voters accuse the opposing Party of voter fraud and corruption. People online use charged and aggressive language reflecting frustrations and fears.
Many Americans also direct at individuals, political parties, and government officials involved in election oversight.
Defensiveness and Dismissal
Democrats tend to make arguments that election fraud claims are unfounded and destabilize democratic processes. They believe in the fundamental soundness of the electoral system and criticize claims of corruption.
Overall, it seems many voters lack confidence in the prospect of a "free and fair" election in 2024. Many people call for significant electoral reforms to restore trust.
Donald Trump's comments last week promising to eliminate taxes on tips got voters talking, showing mixed support across the political spectrum. Overall, the idea of exempting tips from income tax is generally well-received. This is especially true for those directly affected—restaurant and hospitality workers—who stand to keep more of their hard-earned money.
Trump’s promise to reduce working-class tax burdens is getting enthusiastic support within this voter group. They feel this tax relief would directly benefit their day-to-day lives. However, detractors argue the plan could reduce federal revenues and contribute to budget deficits unless offset by other measures.
Online discussions about economic and tax policies reflect broader concerns about the economy, with many people comparing conditions under Trump and Biden. Some argue the economy was better under Trump's administration, citing lower inflation rates, lower energy and food prices, and a more robust job market. They believe Trump's tax cuts had a positive impact on economic growth and hope similar policies will revive the economy again.
Trump’s approval on taxes remained relatively steady before and after his comments on eliminating tip taxes.
However, his approval regarding “low income” jumped from 47% to 49% after his comments.
Demographic Reactions
Tip Workers
Service industry workers, who are the primary beneficiaries of this proposal, respond positively across the political spectrum. For many servers, bartenders, and other tipped employees, eliminating taxes on tips translates into a direct increase in take-home pay. This demographic appreciates the tangible impact on their daily lives, which could mean a more stable financial situation and less stress regarding tax filings.
Income Groups
Among the lower economic classes, Trump's proposal is largely welcomed. Despite political affiliations, individuals in these classes tend to focus on the increased disposable income, which would help cover living expenses and potentially mitigate financial instability.
Middle-class voters also express cautious optimism. Some see it as a necessary relief amid current economic challenges, such as inflation and high living costs. However, others worry about the broader economic ramifications which might lead to higher prices for essential goods.
Wealthier individuals, who may not be directly affected by the change, may still support it to boost consumer spending and morale within the service industry. Although some criticize it as a short-term political maneuver with uncertain long-term fiscal implications.
Age Groups
Demographic factors such as age and race also influence opinions. Younger voters, especially those working through college or in entry-level service positions, invite immediate personal benefits. Nevertheless, many still generally align with a broader generational stance that favors progressive taxation and public welfare.
Minorities
Minority communities, who are overrepresented in lower-wage service jobs, appreciate the direct financial relief. But they also remain cautious about the long-term impacts and hope for comprehensive wage reforms which align with Democratic tax platforms.
Trump Supporters Support No Tip Taxes
Republicans and Trump Supporters largely view his proposal to eliminate taxes on tips as a positive step. They believe it would benefit the working class, especially those in the hospitality and service industries who rely heavily on tips. These supporters say it would provide immediate financial relief, thus increasing disposable income for millions of Americans.
Usually Republicans, this group highlights the overall economic environment during Trump's previous term with lower inflation, energy independence, and lower taxes. They view past results as indicative of the future potential success of similar policies.
There is also a related conversation around Trump’s proposal to replace all income tax with increased tariffs. This plan to compensate lost tax revenues get support from those who believe it would strengthen domestic industries and ultimately benefit American workers.
Democrats Don’t Want to Lose Tax Revenue
Most Democrats commenting on Trump’s proposal express significant concern over the long-term economic impacts of eliminating taxes on tips. They also fear replacing all income tax with tariffs could spark inflation, decrease consumption, and potentially lead to a recession.
Critics feel lower taxes would exacerbate income inequality and create adverse effects on social security and Medicare funding, which are typically supported by tax revenues.
Some progressive Democrats and service industry workers, who are typically loyal to the Democratic Party, acknowledge that eliminating taxes on tips could offer genuine financial benefits to low-income workers. But these voters often couch their approval in broader critiques of Trump’s overall economic policies. They hedge by saying such isolated tax cuts fail to address systemic financial inequalities.
More mainstream and centrist Democrats were generally skeptical, viewing the proposal as a populist measure designed to garner quick support. They don’t believe Trump has real plans for a thorough solution to larger economic issues facing workers.
Anti-Trump voters say, while beneficial on its face, this tax change might not compensate for his other policies they view as detrimental to low-income and middle-class Americans. They cite programs like social services and healthcare, which they believe Trump wants to defund.
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 governmentpower.
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 urbanplanning.
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.
.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)