There are some clear trends in how people use and perceive the concepts of “MAGA” versus “Progressive.” In general, MAGA is associated with pro-Trump Republicans. The term progressive is generally associated with liberal or left-leaning politics. However, there are some varying definitions and perceptions for each word, depending on a group or person’s viewpoint.
How MAGA is Used
MAGA is often linked with a conservative political stance.
Discussions frequently referring to traditional values, resistance to “wokeness” or progressive ideologies, and an emphasis on patriotism.
Supporters view MAGA as a symbol of defiance against political correctness.
MAGA is often used to express support for stricter border control and election integrity.
The term is often used pejoratively by those who disagree with these views, associating MAGA with regression, intolerance, divisiveness, and a lack of progress.
However, supporters of MAGA tend to view it positively, associating it with a return to perceived traditional American values and norms.
How Progressive is Used
The term “progressive” is often associated with left-wing politics, social justice issues, inclusivity, and change.
Progressive is frequently used to criticize the Biden administration's handling of border control and economic issues.
Critics of progressives often use the term “woke,” implying that progressives are overly sensitive and focused on political correctness
Supporters of progressivism view it as a necessary drive towards social and economic justice and equality.
MIG data shows the term “progressive” is often used online negatively toward those with left-leaning politics. Liberals themselves seem to use it less often in these discussions.
A possible conclusion could be that “progressive” is losing effectiveness as a branding term.
MAGA Conservatives
According to MIG data, the perception of MAGA among conservatives includes:
A strong stance on the US border including support for stricter security and physical barriers.
Prioritizing America’s issues and struggles at home as opposed to over-funding foreign aid.
There are internal debates within MAGA about how the party should be lead and whether Republicans can find unity.
Donald Trump remains the figurehead of the MAGA movement and feelings of negativity or positivity toward MAGA correlate with feelings about Trump.
There are internal disagreements within MAGA between populist and conservative views of abortion.
MAGA supporters often express strong support for Israel, viewing it as an ally in the Middle East and criticizing Hamas for the escalation of violence.
The discussions show that conservatives view MAGA positively, associating it with personal freedom, protection of individual rights, and a bulwark against perceived threats like big tech censorship, 'woke' culture, and perceived liberal agenda.
Progressive Democrats
According to MIG data, the perception of progressives among left-leaning people includes:
Leftists generally view progressives favorably, seeing them as advocates for social justice, diversity, and equity.
Progressives are seen as champions of change, fighting for issues like race and gender equality, and climate change.
There’s support for plight of the Palestinians and criticism of Israel for what leftists perceive as disproportionate use of force and violation of human rights.
Discussions about the economy and taxes are relatively low, suggesting either lack of concern among leftists or quiet disagreement with progressive economic polices.
Progressives are not directly mentioned in discussions on the border but are implicitly positioned as the ideological opponents of MAGA conservatives.
Overall, on the top trending topics that do not include social justice and equity issues, there is low discussion volume among progressives and democrats.
The discussions show that liberals view progressivism positively, associating it with gender equality, social justice, diversity, and .
Moderates and Independents on MAGA vs Progressive
There is a clear distinction between how conservatives view MAGA and how moderates and independents see it. Similarly, leftists view progressives positively and the perception by moderates and independents tends to be more negative. The perception of both MAGA and progressives seems to be largely influenced by political affiliation, leaving moderates skeptical.
MAGA
Some moderates perceive MAGA positively for its focus on economic growth and national pride.
MAGA has recently gained some support from moderates and independents on things like the Texas border crisis and child sex change operations.
There are concerns about divisive rhetoric, perceived authoritarianism, and its association with far-right ideologies.
Many moderates perceive MAGA as an extreme or radical representation of conservative politics.
There is criticism for controversial aspects like a perceived association with nationalism, xenophobia, and aggressive foreign policies.
While some moderates are critical of Biden, they express skepticism about the effectiveness of MAGA’s impeachment push as a solution.
Many moderates express dislike for Trump and an unwillingness to vote for him.
Progressives
Some moderates appreciate the progressive focus on social issues and equality, others express concern about perceived radicalism, identity politics.
Moderates and independents tend to support progressive views on abortion and criticize MAGA for its perceived stance on women’s health.
There is also criticism among independents for a perceived disregard for economic realities in leftist politics and Bidenomics.
Many moderates are critical of progressive attitudes toward the Israel-Hamas conflict.
There is dislike for progressive silence on the border and are perceived as promoting open borders and enabling illegal immigration.
Some feel that the progressive movement is too focused on symbolic gestures rather than substantive policy changes.
Online discussions about union support for Donald Trump and union leadership support for Joe Biden reveal a spectrum of opinions. Some posts accuse UAW union bosses of not representing their members and claim that Biden has worked against the interests of auto workers. These posts often argue that the union leadership has sided with the Biden administration, which they believe has harmed working-class Americans.
American workers seem divided in their support for Trump's and Biden's policies, with some expressing strong support for Trump's policies and others strongly supporting Biden's policies. However, the general sentiment towards the Biden administration's union policies seems negative, with many comments calling for his impeachment.
Raises Trump's Support:
Hiring union workers.
Strong stance on border issues.
Support from the Republican party.
Perceived financial acumen due to billionaire status.
Opposition to mass migration.
Lowers Trump's Support:
Perceived disregard for the working man.
Alleged history of not paying workers.
Perceived prioritization of billionaires over workers.
Accusations of using border issues for campaign reasons.
Negative sentiment from union leadership.
Union Approval - Trump vs Biden
Raises Biden's Support:
Policies believed to create jobs.
Enforcing strong labor standards.
Proposals for clean energy.
Perceived willingness to negotiate on issues like border control.
Support from union members.
Lowers Biden's Support:
Accusations of ignoring border crisis.
Perceived lack of strong stance on border issues.
Lack of significant discourse on his union policies.
Perceived partisan politics.
Absence of notable union endorsements.
Wages and Salaries
Under Trump's Administration
Some dissatisfaction with what they perceived as globalist control over union leadership
Criticism of UAW President's negative comments about Trump, with suggestions that this reflected a broader trend of union leadership being out of touch with their members' interests
Supporters of Trump's policies argued that his promises of Rust Belt revitalization were being undermined by union leaders aligned with the Democratic Party.
Under Biden’sAdministration
Substantial support for his policies, particularly those perceived as promoting social and racial justice.
These supporters often used the term "woke" in a positive context, arguing that being aware of and actively attentive to important facts and issues, especially issues of racial and social justice, was a crucial part of supporting Biden's policies.
Also criticism of Biden's policies, arguing that a focus on "woke" politics was alienating certain sections of society and that this could harm support for unions
Some concerns that Biden's policies were putting American citizens at risk, particularly in relation to immigration.
Union Trends
Union membership rate of public-sector workers (32.5%) continued to be more than five times higher than the rate of private-sector workers (6%).
The highest unionization rates were among workers in education, training, and library occupations (32.7%) and protective service occupations (31.9%).
Percentage of Workforce Union Membership Over Time
Discussions online about the recent SCOTUS ruling that Texas must not use razor wire at the border are highly charged and divided. The majority of sentiments expressed are in favor of border control measures. Many express frustration towards the Republican party's actions regarding immigration policy and border control.
Between 6,000 and 14,000 people have been talking about border and immigration issues daily in the last week.
Public sentiment towards border issues in the last 7 days averaged 45%.
What Texans are Saying About the Border
Texans show strong support for the enforcement of border control measures.
Many Texans are outspoken about their belief in the need for a physical barrier, such as a wall, to deter illegal border crossings.
There is great support for the actions of Texas Gov. Greg Abbott and criticism of the Biden administration's immigration policies.
A majority of Texans are critical of SCOTUS' ruling to remove the razor wire.
Abbott supporters argue that the state's actions are necessary to ensure security and protect against threats such as drug cartels and human trafficking.
Some also contend that federal interference in the state's efforts to control the border is unwarranted.
A recurring sentiment is that voters support legal immigration, but not illegal immigration.
Many commenters express support for Texas' stance on immigration.
Texans applaud Abbott's actions, such as deporting over 100,000 undocumented immigrants, and seem to favor strict border control measures.
Voters are critical of supposed conservative leaders whom they perceive as not adhering strictly to conservative principles, including Justice Barrett.
There is a sense of dissatisfaction with the current Republican party in Texas, with calls for more conservative leadership and criticism of perceived liberal agendas.
Many express readiness to assist in defending the border, criticizing the federal government.
A minority contingent of people condemn the use of razor wire as inhumane and dangerous.
Overall, the majority of the discussions reveal a split within the Republican party in Texas between those who align more with MAGA and more moderate or 'establishment' Republicans.
Approval for Texas Leaders
In the days following the SCOTUS ruling allowing razor wire to be removed from the Texas border, Greg Abbott’s approval increased from 45% a week ago to 51% today.
Ken Paxton’s approval increased from 47% a week ago to 50% today.
Reactions to Biden Administration Policy
Public sentiment towards the Biden administration's immigration policies is overwhelmingly negative.
There is a stark contrast between the collective sentiment towards the federal government's immigration policies and the state of Texas' stance on the issue.
There is a general sentiment that Biden is prioritizing illegal immigrants over US citizens.
Many people believe the Biden administration's policies are ineffective and have led to an increase in illegal border crossings.
The sentiment is that Biden is not taking the necessary steps to secure the southern border and is contributing to an "invasion" at the southern border.
Most commenters express strong opposition to what they perceive as an "open border" policy, and are advocating for stricter border control measures.
Some progressive voices are present in the discussions, expressing support for a more diverse and progressive platform. However, these voices are in the minority.
Solutions the People Want
Some propose the creation of a human wall or using the homeless population as a deterrent.
Others suggest the construction of an electric fence.
Many express support for more stringent measures, such as the use of razor wire at the border.
There is also a call for state governors to bolster their State Guards in response to perceived federal government inaction.
Some have expressed a desire for mass deportations, while others argue that such an approach would be unrealistic or result in conflict.
Voters call for politicians who support open borders to step forward, suggesting a desire for transparency and accountability.
There are repeated calls for the governor to declare the situation an "invasion," which could trigger legal authority for Texas to protect its own border.
In conclusion, the SCOTUS ruling and the broader issue of border control is a contentious topic amongst Texans and Americans in general. Overall sentiment leans towards a more conservative approach to immigration, with criticism directed at both state and federal officials for perceived inaction or leniency.
There is a clear divide within the Republican party in Texas, and a desire for more conservative leadership. Despite this, there is also a minority progressive voice advocating for more inclusion and border leniency.
Recent MIG data shows that online discussion about an impeachment inquiry against President Biden has not yet garnered wide attention, although there is some increase.
Discussion jumped from 506 to 1,278 people talking about “impeachment” between December 10 and 11.
Sentiment toward the subject dropped from 47% to 46% on the same days.
What discussion does exist seems to be split according to political leanings.
Comments in Favor of Impeachment
Some argue there is evidence that President Biden had illicit interactions with unspecified individuals and should therefore be impeached.
Some believe that the President acted illegally or unethically regarding his family's business interests, citing an Associated Press poll that 70% of Americans, including 40% of Democrats, support this view.
Users point to the alleged spending of Hunter Biden as a potential point of investigation and grounds for impeachment.
Some mention that the House is expected to vote on an impeachment inquiry due to alleged evidence that Biden had multiple interactions with his son's foreign business associates.
Some argue that Biden lied about his son's activities, which they view as grounds for impeachment.
Comments Against Impeachment
Some argue that Republicans are seeking to impeach Biden without any concrete evidence of wrongdoing.
Arguments that the impeachment inquiry is a political move by Republicans aimed at undermining Biden's presidency.
Some vocally support Biden and Harris and plan to vote for Democrats in future elections, suggesting they do not support the impeachment inquiry.
Users cited Mitt Romney's statement that he has not seen any evidence to authorize the impeachment inquiry.
Some people argue that the situation in the country would be much worse if Biden was not the president, indicating they do not support the impeachment.
MIG data shows that online discussions about homeschooling in Brazil are not particularly prominent.
Low discussion suggests that it may not be a popular topic of conversation in relation to other current events or that it does not generate as much controversy or attention as other issues.
However, the lack of discussion on homeschooling does not necessarily reflect a lack of interest or importance of the issue in the broader Brazilian context.
The top discussion topics in Brazil over the last 30 days do not include anything specifically related to homeschooling or education regulations.
Public Discussion About Education
There is some discussion about education secretaries working on reinforcement schooling in 2024 due to almost 80% of students not learning anything during the pandemic.
There are some calls for the adoption of homeschooling in response to Brazil's poor performance in PISA, a global student assessment.
The fact that Bolsonaro's government had four Ministers of Education, each seemingly worse than the last, is also a point of dissatisfaction.
Jair Bolsonaro
Sentiment seems predominantly negative for Bolsonaro.
Positive
Some defend Bolsonaro, arguing that he kept the country financially stable during the pandemic.
They say poor performance in education is due to a system deeply entrenched in Marxism.
Some also suggest that the criticisms are unfair given that Bolsonaro only had four years in power compared to the 14 years of PT rule.
Negative
Some express disgust towards Bolsonaro, with references to a friend of his allegedly making inappropriate comments about women.
Accusations of Bolsonaro inciting a coup, accusations that he’s a thief and corrupt with some demanding his arrest.
Many criticisms focus on Bolsonaro's handling of the COVID-19 pandemic, with accusations of negligence and delay in vaccine procurement, contributing to a high death toll.
Dissatisfaction with Bolsonaro, accusing him of having allowed inflation to grow more than da Silva.
Lula da Silva
Public opinion toward da Silva seems mixed.
Positive
Some commenters applaud actions taken under Lula da Silva's administration, specifically in relation to actions against organized crime.
They reference the confiscation of over 3 billion reals from organized crime, and laud the efforts of President Lula and his government.
Praise for his recent negotiations with Germany, which resulted in significant investment in a high-tech lab to combat pandemics.
The government's Desenrola Brasil program, which aims to help citizens resolve their debts, is praised by some users who view it as a positive initiative from the Silva government.
Negative
Criticism for indirectly contributing to Bolsonaro's rise to power and accuse him of involvement in various frauds.
Some call da Silva a thief and a criminal.
Criticism for his comments comparing Israel's defense actions to genocide, with calls for balance from authorities.
Some accuse him of supporting terrorist groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah, while others defend him, stating that he would never support such groups.
The recent Congressional hearings on antisemitism in Ivy League schools, specifically focusing on Representative Elise Stefanik's questioning, have sparked intense online discussions. The sentiment surrounding Stefanik's stance on Israel and her inquiries into antisemitism varies widely. Despite the polarization, a notable theme emerges from the conversations: a growing belief among many Americans that Ivy League institutions are not doing enough to curb hateful rhetoric on their campuses.
Key Themes Of Discussion
Support for Stefanik's Questioning:
Many online commentators expressed appreciation for Stefanik's pointed questions during the Congressional hearings. Some thanked her for bringing attention to the issue of antisemitism and criticized Harvard for what they perceived as a failure to condemn hateful rhetoric. Stefanik's inquiries about calls for the destruction of Israel were seen as necessary to address concerns about the university's code of conduct.
On the flip side, there were criticisms of Stefanik, with some questioning her approach. Detractors accused her of conflating legitimate criticism of Israeli policies with antisemitism and argued that her definition of antisemitic behavior was overly broad. Some even suggested that Stefanik was using the situation for political gain, aligning herself with former President Trump.
Debate Over Free Speech:
The discussions also delved into the broader debate over free speech on college campuses. Some users argued that universities should focus on educating individuals making antisemitic statements rather than outright punishment. Others contended that certain forms of speech, particularly those inciting hatred or violence, should not be protected under the banner of free speech.
A recurrent theme in the discussions was the criticism directed at Ivy League institutions and academia. Some users accused these institutions of fostering antisemitism and failing to protect Jewish students adequately. This criticism extended to the perceived evasiveness of academic responses, contrasting them unfavorably with the perspectives of "ordinary" working people.
There are varied opinions towards defunding Ivy League institutions altogether. The majority of the posts do not explicitly advocate for defunding, but they do express disappointment and concern about how these institutions are handling issues of antisemitism and so-called "woke" ideologies. There are calls for the resignation of university presidents and criticism of their responses to the Congressional hearings.
Conclusion
While online discussions on antisemitism in Ivy League schools are diverse and often polarized, a common thread emerged – a growing perception among many Americans that Ivy League institutions are falling short in addressing and preventing hateful rhetoric. We saw a rise in both positive and negative comments for Stefanik on topics like “Israel” and “Ideologies,” while support for “universities” experienced a dip the day of the hearing and the day after.
The hearings, particularly Stefanik's questioning, have brought to light the complexities of the issue, reflecting broader debates on free speech, political motivations, and the role of academic institutions in shaping societal values. The calls for increased accountability and efforts to confront antisemitism on campuses suggest a need for continued dialogue and action in the pursuit of tolerance and understanding.
Governor Gavin Newsom’s public opinion has dropped after outrage over San Francisco’s overnight clean up for foreign dignitaries arriving for last week’s APEC Summit.
The Details
Ahead of the summit, San Francisco authorities dismantled homeless encampments downtown, scrubbed away graffiti, and installed murals and decorative crosswalks to spruce up high-traffic zones.
Newsom acknowledged the summit motivated the city to "raise the bar" on cleaning efforts.
What they’re saying
The Governor quipped to reporters 'I know folks are saying, 'Oh, they're just cleaning up this place because all those fancy leaders are coming to town,' said Newsom late last week.
'That's true, because it's true - but it's also true for months and months and months prior to APEC, we've been having conversations.'
"He was more concerned with promoting...his policies instead of addressing the human suffering on our streets," said Jennifer Friedenbach of the Coalition on Homelessness.
Conservative Pundit Megyn Kelly derided the Governor’s priorities, “Gavin Newsom and Mayor Breed clean up the city just in time for the Chinese leader to show up there with Joe Biden...They’re important, but the actual residents of San Francisco can pound sand,' Kelly said on her podcast.
Movement
As media focused on the pre-summit clean up and Newsom’s comments acknowledging the clean up, Newsom has earned consistently lower daily opinion scores.
In the first half of the last 30 days, Newsom’s daily opinion scores only fell below 45% once.
Since November 9th, Newsom's daily public opinion scores have only topped 45% once, mostly lingering between 43-44% on most days.
Despite touting negotiation wins with China on fentanyl and carbon emissions, opinion amongst users discussing Newsom online tumbled further on the first day of the Summit, dropping from 44% on November 15th to 39% on November 16th.
This was the lowest daily opinion score for Newsom in the last 30 days.
Lasting Impression
The California Governor continues to be attacked for the clean up fiasco, finding himself in first place amongst major politicians who earn more negative than positive comments online.
Looking ahead
As speculation grows over a future Newsom presidential bid, the spotlight on California’s homelessness crisis seems unlikely to dim, posing a significant political challenge to the California Governor’s political ambition.
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis sees a boost in Iowa after landing a coveted endorsement from Iowa Governor Kim Reynolds this week, but he still faces a towering challenge from Donald Trump in the state's critical caucus.
The Details
Reynolds, who holds an 81% approval rating in Iowa, heaped praise on DeSantis at a GOP event near Des Moines. “He fought for parents’ rights in schools, implemented the toughest abortion restrictions in the country, and brought law and order back to the Sunshine State,” she said.
Former President Trump got early wind of the endorsement, writing on Truth Social the day before Reynolds’ endorsement, “If and when Kim Reynolds of Iowa endorses Ron DeSanctimonious, who is absolutely dying in the polls both in Iowa and Nationwide, it will be the end of her political career in that MAGA would never support her again, just as MAGA will never support DeSanctimonious again.”
Trump won the 2016 and 2020 Iowa caucuses, but Reynolds’ endorsement may lead to a tightening race shaping up in 2024 between Trump and DeSantis.
Highly Unusual
Reynolds endorsement is a serious break from Iowa caucus norms-Iowa governors have historically stayed neutral in the caucus and avoided endorsing candidates.
Movement
A new report from Media Intelligence Group, which employs state-of-the-art artificial intelligence to monitor and database the support and sentiment of candidates, finds that DeSantis has already seen a boost in Iowa after Reynolds’ endorsement.
Analyzing online discussions of GOP primary candidates in Iowa, MIG’s report averaged positive and negative comments to determine support for all candidates and found that DeSantis doubled his support amongst Iowans this week.
Iowans are well aware of Reynold’s decision to throw support behind the Florida Governor, with “endorsement” being the most frequently discussed topic amongst Iowans discussing the Presidential candidates remaining-ahead of other issues like race relations and abortion.
While DeSantis likely benefited from a strong debate performance as well, DeSantis began trending upward prior to the debate.
The day of Reynold’s endorsement, DeSantis climbed from 16% support on Sunday, November 5th, to 25% support on Monday September 6th.
As of Friday, November 10th, DeSantis currently holds 31% support amongst Iowans discussing GOP candidates online.
Yes, but...
Trump still remains ahead in MIG’s report and other Iowa polls. Trump holds 47% support according to MIG’s report-a 16% gap DeSantis will have to close before the January 15th Iowa Caucus.
Between the Lines
The Reynolds endorsement may matter most for DeSantis' battle with Nikki Haley for second place.
The former UN ambassador was the center of much attention at the GOP’s Wednesday Debate in Miami as she and entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy traded emotionally charged blows.
However, MIG’s report found only a 3% bump for Haley in Iowa support, from 6% to 9%, post debate.
With the holiday shopping season approaching, consumers appear conflicted about risking their usual shopping plans amid rising crime rates nationwide.
What the Data Says
Media Intelligence Group reports that public discussions reveal an emerging apprehension and caution regarding shopping dangers.
Reports of increased theft and organized retail crime in many major cities have been generating headlines all year.
Various reports also revealed that retailers lost more than $112 billion in 2022 due to crime.
Major brands like Target, Walmart, Nordstrom, Macy's, and others have closed store locations because of increasing theft.
Now, the danger of in-store criminal activity has people expressing their hesitation to shop during what has traditionally been the heaviest shopping season of the year.
Some people argue that positive economic indicators like 2.0% and 2.1% GDP growth in Q1 and Q1 of 2023 point to a hospitable environment for spending.
However, concerns also persist about inflation's toll on families’ spending power, making purchases challenging.
What Americans are Saying
The MIG report suggests caution rather than fear is the prevailing mood among Americans.
Shoppers seem alert to potential dangers but not fully deterred.
Many do say they’ll think twice before venturing out or spend less time browsing in stores.
Meanwhile corporations seem quiet in the public forum but are likely keeping a close eye on shrinking revenues.
People are hesitant due to increased risks of theft and organized retail crime.
Some express fear about potential mass shootings in places like malls and shopping centers.
And most Americans feel uncertain about the overall economy affecting their spending power.
Media Denial
At the same time, many media outlets push back on the narrative that retail crime is significantly increasing nationwide based on available data.
Many headlines suggest that retailers may be overstating or sensationalizing the issue.
Some journalists express a desire for “more objective” data collection on retail crime trends before concluding there is a major national surge occurring.
Despite media pushback, these pressures may cause retailers to see decreased profits through the end of 2023.
.png)
.png)
.png)
.jpg)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
