Recent trouble for certain regional banks has caused some Americans to express their concerns about how banking and interest rates are impacting the economy. A year ago Silicon Valley Banks collapsed, generating fears of another 2008-style financial crisis. This is mentioned today, along with huge losses for New York Community Bank as fearful discussions resume.
The general sentiment towards banks, especially those involved in political and economic decision making, appears to be driven by skepticism and concern.
The Fed and Potential Dollar Collapse
Some Americans express concern over increasing inflation, national debt, and the role that banks and politicians may play in exacerbating the situation. There are also mentions of alleged corruption involving politicians and their bank accounts.
There is also scattered talk about the Federal Reserve, with some Americans expressing doubts about its policies and actions in managing the economy. There are specific concerns about the potential for a U.S. dollar collapse and the role that the Federal Reserve may play in this. Some voters believe that the Federal Reserve and other banks are working together against the interests of small investors.
People concerned with the American financial system often mention Jerome Powell, the chair of the Federal Reserve. Some praise his caution in monetary policy and his approach to interest rates. However, there is also significant criticism, accusing the Federal Reserve of being a private banking system that lies and works against the interest of the average person.
Banking sentiment online hit a 30-day low of 46% on February 11.
The 30-day high was 49% on February 26, with relatively high discussion just over 1,000.
Fear About Potential Bank Failures
There is also general concern about the stability of the world financial system. People speculate about the potential for more bank failures and the possibility of the dollar losing its status as world reserve currency. They mention the national debt and the potential for a dollar collapse, pointing to warnings from large institutions like Bank of America.
There's also discussion about inflationary challenges and disagreements about the best monetary policies to maintain stability. People appear to be aware of the complex global economic dynamics at play.
Discussion about potential bank failures often arises alongside concerns about the level of risk-taking by banks, the adequacy of their capital buffers, and the effectiveness of regulatory oversight.
Basel III
Online discussion also touches on banks' opposition to the higher capital requirements proposed in Basel III. Users claim that banks have spent a lot of money lobbying against these regulations.
There is a common thread in the conversation suggesting banks are using their financial power to manipulate politics and the market. Some mention Basel III to make the point that banks have spent a significant amount of money to bribe politicians in their favor regarding legislation. There seems to be a significant level of distrust and skepticism towards the banking sector and its role in shaping regulatory requirements.
Bitcoin Speculation with Increased Financial Skepticism
Many people also discuss the issue of "too big to fail" banks and record-low sentiment following the 2008 GFC. They discuss the moral hazards created by government bailouts for banks. More recently, the discussion has also focused on the potential effects of digital currencies like Bitcoin and fintech companies on the traditional banking system.
Amid Bitcoin hitting new all-time highs, some speculate that digital currencies are a solution that threatens traditional banks. Some also argue about the role of banks and financial institutions in the cryptocurrency market. They compare Bitcoin with traditional banking systems, stating that the latter is corrupt and benefits only large institutions.
There seems to be distrust in the current financial system and the Federal Reserve. These voters suggest the adoption of a CBDC might face resistance from those in the public aware of its implications. Some mention that corruption and money laundering within the banking sector could be mitigated by the transparency and traceability of digital currencies.
It’s not obvious whether political affiliation influences voter opinions about the U.S. banking and financial system. These discussions tend to be skeptical of both government and large corporations, which may be appealing to both right- and left-leaning voters.
While the segment of American voters involved in talk about banks and digital currencies is not overwhelmingly large, most Americans feel the squeeze of rising costs and the discussion is likely indicative of an underlying concern among those who are following current and potential conditions.
During the State of the Union, President Biden referred to the perpetrator of Laken Riley's murder as an "illegal immigrant." Numerous liberals promptly voiced their disapproval of Biden's choice of the term "illegal," contending that it is dehumanizing and reinforces detrimental stereotypes about immigrants.
This led the administration to initiate efforts to retract the use of the term, but it appears to have caused more harm than good.
The decision to backtrack on using the term "illegal" when referring to illegal immigrants has ignited a passionate and divided public response. The reactions on social media platforms showcase a polarization deeply rooted in political beliefs, with many expressing a sense of betrayal and disappointment. This has significantly contributed the the border security conversation over the last few days.
In response to Biden's backtracking, many Americans have expressed concerns.
Most dominantly, users accuse Biden of prioritizing the feelings of undocumented immigrants over the rights and safety of American citizens. The refusal to use the term "illegal alien" is viewed by this group as a form of disrespect towards victims of crimes committed by unauthorized immigrants.
A significant portion of social media users criticize Biden for not using the term "illegal aliens," emphasizing its legal and factual accuracy. This group contends that individuals who have violated U.S. immigration laws should be referred to as such, framing the issue as a matter of adherence to the rule of law.
Critics connect Biden's language choice to broader immigration policies, arguing that the administration's approach has led to increased unauthorized border crossings and crime. The use of softer language is seen by some as an attempt to divert attention from the challenges associated with immigration.
Many respondents express genuine concerns about safety, particularly regarding crimes committed by unauthorized immigrants. Specific cases, such as the tragic murder of Laken Riley, are cited as evidence of the dangers associated with illegal immigration, further fueling the negative sentiment.
A prevailing belief among critics is that Biden's language change is politically motivated, with accusations of the Democratic Party pandering to unauthorized immigrants for political gain. The decision to include unauthorized immigrants in the U.S. Census is cited as an example, adding to the perception of political maneuvering.
Another common thread in the responses is the criticism of what users perceive as an open border policy under the Biden administration. Critics argue that this policy contributes to an alleged increase in crime and other issues related to immigration.
The overwhelming sentiment on social media is one of frustration and disappointment. Biden’s misstep seems to have upset voters across the board with left-leaning voices decrying his use of “illegal” to begin with and right-leaning voters angered by his retraction. The negative backlash reflects a deep division on issues of immigration policy and national identity, with many demanding stronger borders and a more assertive approach from Biden to address the problems associated with illegal immigration.
American sentiment towards banning TikTok and President Trump's remarks about TikTok and Facebook reveals a deeply divided populace. The divide is largely along party and generational lines.
Democrats generally express concerns about censorship and the restriction of freedom of expression, viewing the proposed ban as an overreach by the government.
Republicans, on the other hand, largely support the proposed ban due to national security concerns. Many Trump supporters are skeptical that social media platforms try to restrict what users see and hear.
Independents vary in their views, with some expressing concerns about data privacy while others worry about the impact on freedom of speech.
Age also plays a significant role in the conversation. Younger Americans, who make up a significant portion of TikTok users, are generally more opposed to the ban. Older Americans seem more supportive. Race and economic status, however, do not seem to play a significant role in the conversation, with views crossing racial and economic lines.
President Biden on March 8th endorsed possible legislation that could lead to the popular video-sharing app TikTok being banned in the United States.
Sentiment on Ideologies shows a split among political parties and respective leaders since the idea of banning TikTok has resurfaced.
TikTok is expected to be most used/consumed social media platform in 2025 among U.S. adults.
Rebels Without a Cause
Former President Donald Trump's remarks about TikTok and Facebook evoked divided opinions. He posted on Truth Social, “If you get rid of TikTok, Facebook and Zuckerschmuck will double their business. I don't want Facebook, who cheated in the last Election, doing better. They are a true Enemy of the People!”
Many support his concerns about TikTok and Facebook's potential threats to national security and user privacy. Others see his comments as politically motivated and self-serving.
Democrats generally criticize Trump's comments as an attack on free speech and an attempt to control the narrative. Republicans largely agree with his criticisms of these platforms, fearing that social media only shows users what the platforms wants them to see.
Sentiment analysis shows mixed views on the potential Congressional legislation banning TikTok. Many Americans express skepticism and a general distrust towards politicians, irrespective of their stance on the issue.
A pro-Palestine protest at the State of the Union address in Washington, D.C. has generated online controversy. The protest disrupted the proceedings and led to a spirited discussion on social media platforms and across various media outlets. While the incident was disruptive, it also ignited a broader debate about the Israel-Palestine conflict, the right to protest, and the Democrat Party's stance on these issues
This protest especially sparked debate within the Democrat Party — particularly among those who believe the party should support Palestine. Some argue the Party's traditional support for Israel is increasingly at odds with its commitment to human rights and social justice.
Talking About - Democrats
Sentiment - Democrats
Potential Problems for Democrats Going Forward
This issue has the potential to become a significant problem for Democrats, particularly if it leads to deeper divisions within the party. The Party's stance on Israel is already a contentious issue, with some members calling for greater Palestine support among leadership. This protest could amplify these calls and further fray Democrat unity.
A reasonable forecast would suggest that these types of protests and disruptions will continue. The Israel-Palestine conflict has been a divisive issue in American politics for decades, and recent events in the region have only heightened tensions. Furthermore, the increased visibility of protests on social media platforms suggests protestors will consider their efforts effective.
Most of the public discourse revolves around the role Hamas is taking in Gaza and their responsibility in the ongoing conflict. Some argue that Israel is doing what it can to defend itself against a hostile entity that refuses to recognize its sovereignty and frequently launches attacks against it. Vocal protestors, however, point to high civilian death tolls in Gaza as evidence of Israel’s guilt.
Steven K. Nikoui is a Gold Star Father whose son was killed in Afghanistan. His arrest during President Joe Biden's State of the Union address has sparked significant controversy and debate. Nikoui was arrested for protesting Biden's handling of the Afghanistan withdrawal. Many view the arrest as an affront to Nikoui’s right to free speech and a blatant disregard for his personal loss.
The incident is even more contentious when contrasted with the lack of arrests during a pro-Palestine protest that blocked Joe Biden’s route to the SOTU. The protestors, who were demonstrating against the President's stance on Israel, were not apprehended. This lenience led to accusations of bias and unequal treatment. Critics argue that the difference in response is politically motivated, with the Biden administration showing tolerance towards protests that align with their political agenda while cracking down on those that do not.
The discourse regarding these two incidents has been polarized, with opinions largely divided along partisan lines. Biden supporters argue any comparisons between the two incidents are misguided. They attribute Nikoui's arrest to disruptive behavior during a highly important and sensitive occasion. They further contend that allowing the pro-Palestine protests was appropriate, given their peaceful nature and the protestors' right to free speech.
Critics argue the disparity in treatment between Nikoui and the Palestine protestors is a clear indication of the administration's selective enforcement of the law and disregard for the principles of free speech when it goes against their narrative.
Nikoui’s arrest also underscores the highly charged and divisive political environment in the U.S., with even a solemn occasion like the State of the Union becoming a hotbed for controversy and protest. This incident, along with the broader discourse it has inspired, is a stark reminder of the deep ideological divide that continues to characterize American politics.
Online discussions have roiled American voters after allegations that President Biden is secretly flying immigrants into the U.S. This controversy appears to have originated from a report by Ben Bergquam which suggests the U.S. is funding processing centers in South America and transporting immigrants to America before they reach the border.
Reactions to the accusation that President Biden has flown more than 300,000 illegal immigrants directly into American airports reveals intense anger. Most of the discussion is among those who despise Biden's immigration policies and view such actions as a direct threat to the safety and welfare of American citizens.
Many Americans express a deep sense of frustration and anger, accusing Biden of prioritizing the needs of illegal immigrants over the safety and welfare of American citizens.
This news comes right before Biden’s 2024 State of the Union address, and as dissatisfaction remains high on immigration and the economy, which are the top two issues in voters’ minds.
Americans Feel Betrayed by the Biden Administration
Many voters involved in the discussion call for Biden's impeachment, with some alleging that he has committed acts of treason. These critics argue that Biden has betrayed the American people by secretly smuggling hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants into the country. They say this project was hidden from the public because the administration knows Americans would be enraged if they knew about it. Some critics even go as far as claiming that Biden "cheated" his way into office and has "sold America out."
A lot of people also voice concerns over potential security risks, claiming that such actions enable criminals to enter the country. There are some who still defend Biden and criticize impeachment attempts as political stunts. While support for the administration is largely partisan, there is more and more bipartisan anger over the border.
There is also a lot of discussion and frustration over a case involving a Guatemalan man named Juan Jose-Sebastian, who was arrested in Florida but is wanted in Oregon for multiple counts of rape and sexual abuse. Many people are upset that, despite his charges, Oregon won't extradite him, and ICE won't pick him up, leading to his release. People are also offended when the mainstream media dismisses their concerns, refusing to cover what voters view as important immigration news.
Calls for Impeachment
The comments calling for President Joe Biden's impeachment and accusing him of treason stem from a variety of issues. The number one reason is border security and, specifically in the last day, the scandal over flying in illegal immigrants. There are some other issues voters cite as reasons to impeach the president.
Border Security
Voters accuse Biden of compromising national security and destroying the economy with illegal immigration. Many accuse him of funding processing centers in South America.
Foreign Policy
A segment of progressive Democrat voters want Biden impeached for failing to impose a ceasefire in Gaza and funding conflicts abroad.
Bribery and Corruption Allegations
Many point to Biden family corruption, with allegations centered on his brother James Biden. They claim James confirmed during an impeachment inquiry testimony that a $40,000 check made out to Joe Biden in 2017 used funds he received from a Chinese government-linked company.
Treason
Some critics accuse Biden of treason for aiding the country's enemies or betraying the nation. The reasons vary, with some tying it to allegations of corruption, foreign policy, or border security.
The aftermath of Senator Katie Britt's response to the State of the Union address reveals a stark division in public opinion, particularly along party lines. While Republicans applaud her strong stance on border security and energetic critique of President Biden's policies, Democrats criticize what they perceive as a lack of substance and resort to shallow insults that question her intelligence.
Republicans and Independents Praise Britt's Stance on Border Security
Many Republicans appreciated Senator Katie Britt's strong stance on border security, viewing it as a resolute pushback against Biden’s open border policy. Supporters commended her focus on critical issues such as sex trafficking and crime, interpreting it as a call to action to protect U.S. citizens. Britt's energetic contrast to President Biden and her sharp criticism of his policies, especially on border control, resonated positively with Republican party members.
Independent viewers also admired her for offering a contrasting view to President Biden's vision of America. They appreciated the energy and freshness she brought to the table, considering it a stark contrast to Biden's age and perceived lack of dynamism. Some individuals saw her as a refreshing new face in the Republican party, effectively highlighting what they perceived as the failures of the Biden administration.
Democrats Insult Britt's Appearance and Style
On the Democratic side, criticisms of Senator Britt's response were focused on what they perceived as a lack of substance. Some likened her performance to that of an overeager first-year drama student, questioning the authenticity of her delivery.
Notably, some Democrats went beyond policy critiques, resorting to sexist insults targeting Senator Britt's appearance and style. They described her appearance as "sweet" with a performance that was deemed fake and theatrical. Comparisons to characters from popular culture, such as a commander's wife from the Handmaid's Tale, were used to criticize her speech about kitchens and perceived lack of freedom.
Democrats also compared Britt to other female Republican leaders, such as Iowa Governor Kim Reynolds and South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem. Like Britt, these leaders are often criticized by Democrats for their perceived lack of intellectual depth and “reliance on appearance over substance.” This seems to be the go-to criticism for women they view as attractive.
Conclusion
Senator Katie Britt's response to the State of the Union address has undoubtedly stirred up a mix of reactions. While Republicans laud her for taking a strong stance on border security and offering a fresh perspective, Democrats criticize her appearance and performance over actual policy.
Arizona Senator Kyrsten Sinema announced her decision to not pursue re-election in 2024, igniting an explosion of political commentary across the country as to which Senate front runner from the Republican and Democratic Party, Kari Lake and Ruben Gallego, would benefit more from the maverick Senator’s departure. NRSC Chair Senator Steve Daines (ND) responded in a press release saying, “With recent polling showing Kyrsten Sinema pulling far more Republican voters than Democrat voters, her decision to retire improves Kari Lake’s opportunity to flip this seat.” Daines’ Democrat counterpart, Democrat Senate Chair Senator Gary Peters (MI) offered a similar statement of confidence, telling Axios, “We were gonna win regardless, but now we even have a stronger hand.” However, MIG Report’s analysis of Arizonans discussing Lake and Gallego online adds to a series of indicators that Lake may have an early edge that spells defeat for Gallego.
By the Numbers
Since Sinema’s departure, Lake has averaged 53% to Gallego’s 47% in head-to-head support analysis, which weighs the volume of each candidate’s ratio of positive to negative comments.
Kari Lake vs Ruben Gallego 3/5 - 3/7
Over the last 30 days, Lake’s approval on immigration has been stronger than Gallego’s. Immigration promises to be a key issue on the ballot in 2024, especially in a border state like Arizona..
Among Arizonans discussing Kari Lake and immigration policy online, MIG Reports found Lake earns 49% approval.
Meanwhile, among Arizonans mentioning Gallego and immigration online, MIG Reports shows Gallego receiving a lower approval rating of 43%.
Lake’s Advantage: Die-Hards
More promising for Lake may be her enthusiasm advantage. Poll after poll suggests that turn out could be low in November. A recent New York Times/Sienna poll showed just 23% of Democratic Primary voters were excited about Biden. Worse, a Harvard poll showed less than half of young Americans plan to vote in 2024. While Lake’s populist streak has been labeled a liability, her die-hard base, driven by anger over mass migration, doubts over election integrity, and the Biden Presidency, could be her biggest strength.
Over the last 30 days, Lake earned 5,565 direct mentions online in Arizona, while Gallego earned 3,666.
This continues to be a theme for Lake month after month. In January, her advantage in online mentions was 7,079 to Gallego’s 2,986.
What They’re Saying
MIG Reports analysis of the most frequent comment themes both candidates receive online paints a picture of a broader narrative that could shape how Arizonans vote. The battle over digital political landscapes is increasingly important as more Americans turn away from prime time TV for their news to social media.
MIG Reports found that while detractors label Gallego “a socialist or communist” and “criticize his extreme left policies,” messaging from supporters may soften Gallego’s appeal to moderate Republicans and McCain Republicans.
Gallego’s supporters online highlight Gallego's military service and see him as a key asset to helping “defeat MAGA influence in Arizona.” This messaging is more consistent with Biden Democrat messaging than a Bernie Sanders or “Squad” supporting Leftist.
Conversely, Kari Lake supporters champion her “support for her conservative policies and her alignment with Trump.” They also believe “she will protect Arizona from becoming too progressive.” This messaging is more palatable to Sinema supporters or moderate Republicans than the former.
Looking Ahead
Sinema's decision not to seek re-election represents yet another twist in an election that looks to be unlike any in recent years. While both factions of the American political spectrum sought to assure voters and donors that Sinema’s retreat is yet another reason to cast a vote or make a donation, early signs show Kari Lake may have a series of advantages. More importantly for Lake, the factors that give her this edge show no signs of dissipating.
Lake’s base has been fervent since 2022, after months of legal battles over election integrity claims, and the fervor likely won’t stop.
After years of Democrats claiming immigration is a nonissue and mocking Republicans for exaggerating the border crisis, convincing voters that “actually it’s Democrats who are serious on immigration” will be a herculean feat. This suggests Lake’s stronger approval ratings over Gallego on the key issue of immigration will be very difficult to reverse.
Worse, Gallego will have to boost a depressed Democrat electorate alone, with Biden doing little to galvanize the vote like Obama did in 2008, when he helped deliver a super majority in the Senate. In turn, Lake appears to have this advantage in Donald Trump, who brings a boost to down ballot Republicans who otherwise struggle in Midterms and Special Elections.
The final and perhaps key factor is whether McCain Republicans and Sinema Independent supporters will vote for Lake, who once shunned McCain voters, or vote for Gallego, a (suspiciously recent) former member of the extreme left Progressive Caucus. A third option for this segment of Arizona voters represents yet another advantage for Lake: don’t bother to vote at all.
As primaries are well under way in early 2024, there is a stark contrast between voter groups regarding trust in the election process. Democrats are more likely to fully trust the results of the 2020 election, with a belief that Joe Biden won fair and square. Republicans are extremely skeptical of the validity of voting processes around the country.
A highlight among many Republicans and Independents is the question of election integrity. There seems to be a growing belief that election fraud may occur again. In general, all voters have suspicions about potential outcomes of the 2024 election, but with different emphases, depending on party allegiance.
Democrats Trust the System and Criticize Trump
Voter sentiment among Democrats seems to be mixed. There are many who express strong support for Joe Biden. They express faith in the electoral process that led to his presidency. There seems to be little consternation about whether they can trust that their vote will be counted.
However, there are also many criticisms of the Biden administration among Democrats. This is driven less from skepticism about election integrity and more a result of the current state of America. Dissatisfaction could potentially impact their confidence in the election process if they perceive the party is forcing Joe Biden on an electorate who believes he’s too senile to serve.
Democrats tend to express concerns about interference from foreign powers more than a rigged internal voting system. Confidence in the electoral process is often linked to the party's emphasis on expanding voter access and reducing barriers to participation.
However, many Democrats voice concerns about voter suppression, particularly in communities of color, and the impact of gerrymandering on election results.
Democrat voters emphasize the importance of preserving democracy and fair elections, claiming a lack of substantial evidence of widespread voter fraud as proof of a reliable system. They also criticize Republican attempts to challenge the 2020 election, claiming it undermines democracy through false claims of fraud.
Democrats seem to focus more on the importance of voting and the impact of voter turnout, as seen in the mention of early voting in Texas and the low turnout in Dallas.
Overall, Democrats voice fears of specific politicians, like Trump, undermining the election process. They seem to fear foreign interference more than a broken system.
Republicans Are Highly Suspicious of Election Integrity
Many Republican voters express dissatisfaction with suspicious circumstances in many states during the 2020 election. As a result, they tend to speak skeptically about whether they believe votes are accurately collected and counted. There is a swath of Republicans who accuse Biden of cheating his way into office.
A lot of people allege fraud or corruption in local precincts, national parties, and even the news media when calling election results.
Republicans generally support stricter voter ID laws, oppose mail-in ballots, and point to cases of inflated voter rolls or votes by the deceased. They perceive many voting “irregularities” as attempts by the Democrats to control the election process.
They call for measures like volunteer supervision and ending mail-in ballots to ensure fair elections. They question the legality of abrupt changes made to voting rules and any delays in vote counting.
Many Republicans are concerned that, unless these election integrity issues are addressed, Trump may not be able to take office even if elected in 2024.
Overall, Republicans seem disillusioned with voting practices in specific states and nationwide. They tend to be highly suspicious that Democrats will do anything to ensure an electoral win. Many often express a belief that Donald Trump has been targeted both by a rigged election system and politicized legal indictments.
Independents Are Skeptical Across the Board
Independents tend to be more skeptical of the political process in general, often citing the influence of money in politics and the two-party system as problematic.
Many express dissatisfaction with both major political parties, indicating a broader distrust of party politics and the election process. Others indicate a willingness to vote based on a candidate’s performance rather than party affiliation, suggesting a level of confidence in the election process.
There are independents that agree with Republicans that the election process and the reliability of the election results is suspect. This group seems to be looking for more transparency and evidence to support cheating claims made by both the Democrats and Republicans.
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)