After both President Biden and former President Trump visited the Texas border, immigration talk online has surged to the top issue for both politicians. Reactions are scattered, mostly along party lines. But Biden’s approval on immigration continues to lag behind Trump’s.

• Border security was the most talked about issue for both men in the last 24 hours.
• Trumps approval on the border is 49% and Biden’s is 45%.
• Around 19,000 people were talking about the border online in the last 24 hours.
• Trump’s overall support remains slightly above Biden, although both received a slight bump after their border appearances.

Biden Perceived as “Shuffling” to the Border

A majority of people are expressing frustration and anger towards Biden's border policies. The comments about Biden's visit are also largely negative.

People are discussing the contrast of Biden at the border versus Trump at the border, saying Biden looked frail and fragile. There are some outcries by liberals who, instead of defending Biden’s mental and physical fitness, accuse Trump of being in worse condition.

There is also significant related discussion around Biden’s overall health and recent medical exam. Many voters are suggesting they don’t have confidence in Biden’s doctor’s assessment. They point out his appearance at the border did nothing to persuade them of Biden’s physical vigor.

Many people say they fear the potential impact of Biden’s frailty on his ability to handle complex and volatile international situations, including border security.

A lot of discussion also revolves around the murder of Laken Riley, a 22-year-old woman allegedly murdered by an illegal immigrant. This incident appears to have triggered a wave of outrage, with many blaming Biden's immigration policies for such tragedies.

People across political aisles are starting to argue that the Biden administration's open border policy and the reversal of Trump's immigration policies have led to an increase in illegal immigration and associated crimes. Some accuse Biden of prioritizing illegal immigrants over American citizens, suggesting they are more valuable due to their potential to vote for Democrats.

There is still a significant portion of Biden supporters who defend his approach to the border and his recent appearance. They argue that no president has managed to completely stop illegal immigration. They suggest that the current border crisis is also the fault of Republicans who failed to vote on a bipartisan border bill.

• Biden’s approval increased slightly with his border visit, reaching 46%.
• This is up from a meager 33% approval a week ago.

Trump Seen as Highly Entertaining at the Border

The overall discussion of Trump's border visit is positive. People praise his actions, voicing their desire for his return to office. Voters often feel that Trump was more proactive in dealing with border issues and that his approach was more effective.

Many people perceived Trump’s border visit as upbeat and entertaining – especially his jovial wave to Mexicans on the other side of the border fence. There were comments suggesting that one does not have to like Trump to be amused by his showmanship.

There is also significant support for Trump's approach to immigration policies. People are enthusiastic about his commitment to deporting illegal immigrants who break U.S. laws and his efforts to stop the flow of illegal crossings. Many voters say Trump's policies, like the "Remain in Mexico" policy, were effective in reducing illegal immigration and should be reinstated.

While much of the discussion about Trump’s border visit was positive, there are still many voices criticizing him. This group mocks his supporters and claim that Biden is doing a better job. They argue that the former president's health is a cause for concern and accuse him of leaning over during his visit. Mostly Democrats, these defenders favorably compare Biden to FDR, who was wheelchair-bound during his presidency. They dismiss concerns about Biden's health and criticize his detractors for focusing on his physical condition.

• Trump’s approval on border security increased with his visit, reaching 48%.
• This is up from a steady 45% for most of the week.

The Supreme Court's decision to hear former President Donald Trump's claim of immunity from prosecution has stirred up a maelstrom of reactions across the political spectrum.

Many Democrats reacted with outrage, viewing the decision as an unwarranted delay in bringing Trump to justice. They argue that the Supreme Court, particularly those Justices appointed by Trump, are aiding and abetting him by providing a legal lifeline. They fear this decision could further delay the trial on election interference charges, possibly even past the 2024 election. This sentiment is shared by some independents, who also express disappointment in the Supreme Court's handling of the case.

However, many Republicans view the decision as a necessary step in the due process of law. They argue that the Supreme Court is doing its due diligence by considering Trump's unprecedented immunity claim rather than rushing to judgment. They also counter arguments about biased Justices by pointing out that Trump's appointments to the court were fully within his presidential powers. 

Demographic Differences Regarding the SCOTUS Case

On a broader demographic level, younger voters or progressives are more likely to express anger and frustration at the perceived delay in justice. Older or more conservative voters tend to value the deliberative process of the court. 

Other demographic breakdowns show a pattern of support or opposition largely along party lines. However, the issue of presidential immunity is a complex one and does not neatly fall along partisan lines. For instance, some Republicans who value the rule of law may be critical of Trump's immunity claim. And some liberals who are wary of the expansion of executive power may view it with sympathy.

For those who were already critical of Trump, the decision has only reinforced their negative views. For those who support Trump, the decision has been a source of frustration and has contributed to their perception of the judiciary as being biased against the former president.

While there are general partisan trends, there are pockets within each group who may hold differing views. For instance, some Republicans have expressed concern about potential long-term damage to the party's reputation. And some Democrats recognize the importance of the court's decision in establishing a legal precedent for future presidents.

Discussion is heating up about the amount of taxpayer dollars being used to fund services and benefits for illegal immigrants. Headlines are emerging suggesting cities like Denver are cutting back on city employees to free up funds for immigrants. Federal funds are being diverted to support illegal immigrants with shelter, food, and cash.

These headlines are stirring up ire among American citizens who are already concerned about their own finances and the larger economy. Many people online express dissatisfaction with plans like the proposal to give $10,000 debit cards to illegals. More people are becoming vocal about their feelings that these initiatives are a misuse of tax dollars.

There are differing viewpoints which align with political affiliations, however, the issue is starting to supersede partisan lines. Generally, Republicans lean towards stricter immigration policies and criticize using tax dollars for illegal immigrants. Democrats tend to favor more lenient immigration policies and the provision of public services for migrants.

But as the Biden administration is forced to address the issue, there is growing bipartisan awareness of the impact on all Americans.

Public Opinion Is Shifting in Favor of Strong Borders

As the border issue reaches a fever pitch, public opinion grows more complex. It cannot be accurately summarized by party affiliation alone. Many variables, including personal experiences, geographic location, and demographic factors seem to be influencing voter perspectives on illegal immigration.

Overall, MIG data shows Americans’ desire to prioritize national interests, especially the safety and protection of citizens. Many argue that tax dollars should be used to care for American citizens before aiding illegal immigrants.

There is an increasing amount of support for building a wall along the southern border. Many people are mentioning a Monmouth University poll that indicated a majority of Americans now want a wall.

The border crisis continues to be the top issue for voters leading up to the election. MIG data suggests that public sentiment is shifting towards stricter border control.

Biggest Voter Issues

Governor Abbott’s Migrant Bussing

Many Texas voters approve of Governor Abbott's initiative to bus migrants to sanctuary cities. They view it as a way to lighten the burden on Texas and give sanctuary states what they asked for.

Texans are desperate to relieve the strain on resources and population overrun and believe that sanctuary cities should bear more responsibility. They also believe that this initiative is pushing the consequences of open-border policies into the spotlight, forcing a dialogue about immigration reform

Voters in all border states argue that the responsibility for immigration should be a national issue, rather than falling solely on border states like Texas.

Voters in Sanctuary Cities

Among Americans living in sanctuary cities, there are complaints that they are being targeted and burdened due to their policies. There is less discussion from residents of sanctuary cities, but those who voice public opinions tend to be critical of bussing migrants out of border states.

People in sanctuary cities raise concerns about the constitutionality of Abbott's actions. They question whether the Governor has the legal authority to dictate where immigrants can and cannot go.

They also worry about the economic implications of an influx of immigrants. They fear that it could lead to job losses for locals, wage suppression, and increased competition for limited resources.

There’s also talk of illegal immigrants overcrowding schools and healthcare systems and increasing crime rates. Some, however, are vocal in the opinion that sanctuary cities should welcome immigrants and provide them with the support they need to integrate into society.

Disapproval for Funding Illegal Immigrants

Most of the public commentary shows Americans are opposed to using tax dollars to fund services for illegal immigrants. They argue that it is unfair for tax-paying citizens to finance benefits for people not legally present in the country. This perspective often stems from a belief that illegal immigrants are taking advantage of the system, and the administration is encouraging it.

Americans say illegals are taking jobs from American workers, draining public resources, and contributing to crime rates. More voters also argue that tax dollars should be used to improve services for American citizens who are already struggling to get by.

There’s a growing sentiment that illegal immigrants should not be eligible for social services like healthcare and education, and some say they should not be allowed to work. There is frustration and anger around the perception that illegal immigrants are being favored over U.S. citizens.

Many express dissatisfaction with the current state of law enforcement, blaming Democrats for crime problems in their cities. They see this as an additional burden on taxpayers and businesses and call for a change in leadership. Many people also complain that Democrats have cut police budgets, exacerbating crime in places like San Francisco and New York.

A swell of news stories involving violent crimes by illegals is amplifying the frustration. Commenters refer to specific cases where illegal immigrants are accused or convicted of violent acts and, sometimes, repeatedly allowed back into the country. They express a sense of outrage and distress, accusing the government of wasting tax dollars on criminals.

The ire is often directed at Democratic politicians for supporting open border policies and Republicans for failing to act or oppose Democrats. And, while this can still be seen as a partisan issue, more Democrats and Independents are beginning to speak out about protecting America’s border.

Approval for Funding Illegal Immigrants

There is still a segment of voters – mostly Democrats – who support more funding for illegal immigrants. They see this crisis as a humanitarian issue. They point out that many illegal immigrants work in low-paying jobs and contribute to the economy through sales and income taxes. They also argue that denying services to illegal immigrants may lead to public health issues and increased poverty.

Some say religious organizations, particularly large ones, should pay taxes. Their reasoning is that this would increase revenue and reduce the burden on taxpayers. They argue that religious organizations should contribute the way businesses and individuals do.

This group also advocates for immigrants being allowed to work and pay taxes. They believe this would be more beneficial to the economy than the current situation.

Some Democrats argue that sanctuary cities provide a haven for undocumented immigrants. They believe migrants enhance the cultural diversity of the nation.

Those who approve of spending taxpayer money on illegals tend to view migrant bussing initiative as a form of political opportunism. They accuse Abbott of exacerbating a humanitarian crisis and hold him responsible for the distress and trauma experienced by both immigrants and first responders.

The potential invocation of the 25th Amendment to remove President Joe Biden has generated talk online and will likely become a contentious issue in the coming days. It's clear that sentiment varies widely among different political affiliations. However, there are also ideological fissures within both parties.

Democrats

Democrats seem largely dismissive of the idea and tend to have a negative sentiment towards this topic, as it portrays Biden in a vulnerable light. This group interprets the discussion as a distraction from more important issues and an attempt to shift focus from the GOP's own problems. They also see it as a form of political theater. Democrats express frustration with what they see as the GOP's hypocrisy, given the previous controversies and allegations surrounding former President Trump.

In public conversation, Democrats express confidence in Biden's capacity to perform his duties and decry the motives behind Republican calls for his removal. There’s also a theme of concern about the possibility of Vice President Kamala Harris taking over. This implies that not all Democrats are fully satisfied with the current administration.

Democrat approval for Biden is raised when Biden's efforts and accomplishments are highlighted such as the surprise appearance of Biden on "Late Night with Seth Meyers." Approval drops when accusations of illegality or incompetence are thrown at the current administration. Negative sentiment also arises when Democrats are accused of not fighting for American citizens and prioritizing other issues like illegal immigration. Further, some Democrats express concerns that these discussions may undermine their party's agenda and create unnecessary political instability.

Republicans

Republicans are divided. Some are ardent in their belief that Biden is unfit for office and explicitly support the invocation of the 25th Amendment. They cite his deficient mental capacity and handling of the border crisis as influencing factors. Others are more cautious, expressing concern about the potential repercussions, particularly the prospect of Harris assuming the presidency.

There are frequent references to the border crisis and the alleged failure of the Biden administration to address it, which raises sentiment among Republicans. However, sentiment falls with discussion of GOP efforts to invoke the 25th Amendment or attempts to cancel the State of the Union Address. These initiatives are seen by some Republicans as disrespectful or undemocratic.

Independents

Independents hold a range of views. Some support the invocation of the 25th Amendment, citing similar reasons to those of Republicans. Others, however, dismiss it as a political maneuver and criticize both parties for their perceived focus on political point-scoring rather than addressing the country's pressing issues.

It seems the discussion surrounding the potential invocation of the 25th Amendment to remove Biden is largely fueled by partisan politics. While some Republicans are pushing for it and some Independents support it, the majority of Democrats view it as a politically motivated distraction. There is no clear consensus on whether Democrats would support replacing Biden under different circumstance. Some Democrats express dissatisfaction with his performance, but there's no widespread call for his replacement within the party.

The tragic murder of University of Georgia (UGA) student Laken Riley has ignited a fervent online discussion, primarily focusing on illegal immigration, crime, and the broader political landscape. The sentiments expressed in these conversations are shaping public opinion and have the potential to impact the 2024 elections.

Online Sentiment

The online discourse predominantly reflects frustration with leniency towards illegal immigrants. People believe current policies arecontributing to a surge in crime and societal disruption. Many comments express concern over the increasing criminal activities of illegal immigrants, with references to murder and robbery. The blame is often directed at specific state governments, particularly California and New York.There is widespread support for stricter immigration policies and stronger border controls.

Political Impact

The murder of Laken Riley has the potential to impact the 2024 elections in various ways:

Political Climate

The incident could heighten political tension and strengthen anti-immigration sentiments. Candidates advocating for tough immigration policies may gain support in the wake of an event like this.

Policy Debate

The murder will likely intensify debates on immigration policies and border control, influencing campaign strategies. Some candidates may call for stricter laws and stronger border controls, issues often linked to political stances and actions of President Donald Trump.

Voter Sentiment

The tragedy may sway voter sentiment in Georgia, leading to increased support for candidates addressing crime and immigration.

Public Safety Concerns

The murder could raise concerns about public safety, prompting candidates to address these issues and propose solutions in their campaigns.

The subject of Border Security and Immigration continue to be top issues linked with both Presidential candidates.

Public Sentiment

Negative public sentiment against the current administration is palpable, with users blaming lax immigration policies for the student's death. There is a call for mass deportations, tighter border control, and criticism of specific politicians, including Joe Biden, Gavin Newsom, and the entire Republican party for perceived inaction.

Polarization and Divisions

The discourse is highly politicized, revealing a deep divide in opinions about the government's role and specific political figures. While some support the border wall and stricter immigration policies, others criticize both the current and past administrations for their handling of the immigration issue.

National Security Concerns

Supporters of the border wall argue for its completion, citing perceived national security risks. Some discussions mention the actions of “border vets” and a poll indicating majority support for the wall, signaling a potential shift in public sentiment.

Conclusion

The murder of UGA student Laken Riley has become a focal point in the broader debates on immigration. Online discourse reflects a polarized nation with deep-seated opinions on how to address these issues. As the 2024 elections approach, the incident has the potential to influence political agendas, shape candidate strategies, and impact voter sentiment, particularly in the state of Georgia.

Aaron Bushnell’s public demonstration and self-immolation outside the Israeli embassy in Washington, D.C. has sparked a broad range of responses and attitudes among Americans. The breadth of these responses and the intensity of the conversations they provoke are indicative of a highly polarized society.

Some Americans are expressing strong anti-establishment sentiments, with a vocal group accusing Google of bias and alleging that its Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems are pushing a "woke" or progressive agenda. For these individuals, the self-immolation is seen as a potent symbol of resistance against perceived censorship and manipulation by powerful entities.

Others express sympathy for Bushnell, reflecting on personal experiences of hardship or trauma that may have driven him to such a desperate act. They evoke a sense of nostalgia for a time before the current political and cultural turmoil, reminiscing about past concerts or shared cultural experiences.

There are also numerous comments pointing to a perceived liberal bias in the media, with assertions that stories are framed or reported in a way that supports a particular political agenda.

• Discussion about Bushnell’s demonstration have been trending on Twitter, generating more than 800,000 posts.
• This is nearly double the number of posts referring to “Free Palestine” — another trending topic.
• Bushnell’s name also quickly became one of the most searched terms on Google.

Security Issues

The comments reflect a wide range of beliefs and emotions, from intense sympathy and admiration for Aaron Bushnell's act of protest, to harsh criticism and blunt dismissal of his actions. The narratives can be broadly grouped into four categories.

Support for the Palestinian cause

A significant number of comments expressed solidarity with Bushnell's act, viewing it as a heroic stand against perceived Israeli atrocities in Gaza. These commenters often use the incident to highlight their belief in Israel's alleged genocide against Palestinians, calling for more attention to the conflict and the liberation of Palestine. They also criticized mainstream media outlets for allegedly covering up the incident or not giving it due attention.

Criticism of Bushnell's act

Some commentors disagreed with Bushnell's actions, calling them misguided, extreme, or even foolish. These individuals often attributed his actions as being a result of propaganda or misinformation about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Defense of Israel

Other comments defended Israel, arguing that it is not committing genocide and that it has a right to defend itself against Hamas. Some of these commenters questioned the validity of the term "Palestine," suggesting that Palestinians are merely Arabs from other countries. Others suggested that the conflict is more complex than Bushnell's protest suggested, with blame to be shared by various parties, including Hamas and countries that support it.

Criticism of U.S. policy

Some commenters criticized U.S. politicians and policies, suggesting that America is too supportive of Israel or complicit in its alleged abuses. Others expressed concern about the potential implications of the incident for U.S. involvement in the conflict.

Despite trending on Twitter and becoming one of the top Google searches, many news outlets are providing limited coverage or in-depth analysis. Overall, the wide range of responses reflects the complexity of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the strong emotions it evokes among Americans. The incident has clearly served as a flashpoint for broader debates about the conflict, U.S. foreign policy, and the role of individual protest in political discourse.

In a groundbreaking decision, Alabama's Supreme Court has stirred a national dialogue by recognizing frozen embryos as children, sparking heated discussions across party lines. This move, unprecedented and impactful, has triggered debates on reproductive rights, the sanctity of life, and the consequences of in vitro fertilization (IVF). It continues to inspire increased discussion.

Public Reaction

The ruling, which considers frozen embryos as children, has far-reaching implications. Supporters argue it aligns with pro-life values, emphasizing the sanctity of life from conception. However, critics see it as an encroachment on women's reproductive rights, questioning the priorities of pro-life Republicans. This development has reinvigorated discussions on abortion and abortion rights, raising essential questions about when life begins and the ethical dimensions of IVF.

Republicans find themselves in a complex position, torn between those who support the ruling for religious and moral reasons and those who worry about potential limitations on the rights of parents seeking IVF treatment. While the decision may be viewed as a win for the pro-life movement, internal divisions within the party may present challenges in presenting a unified front.

Among Democrats, the ruling is met with opposition and seen as a threat to reproductive rights. Democrats accuse Republicans of prioritizing unborn children over those already born, linking the decision to judicial appointments made during Donald Trump's presidency. Calls for vocal opposition and action from Democratic leaders echo through the party.

Independents, with their diverse political beliefs, showcase a spectrum of perspectives. Some align with Republicans, supporting the ruling on moral or religious grounds. Others join Democrats in criticizing its potential impact on reproductive rights. The varied responses from Independents underscore the complexity of the issue and the challenges of appealing to this diverse group.

Impact on the 2024 Elections

While it is challenging to predict the direct impact of the Alabama Supreme Court ruling on the 2024 elections, it has undeniably become a focal point of discussion. The ruling could mobilize voters on both sides of the debate, affecting conservatives who oppose abortion and liberals and moderates who champion reproductive rights. Candidates may need to clarify their positions on these issues to appeal to voters with strong feelings about abortion and IVF.

Potential Benefits and Drawbacks for Republicans

The conservative-leaning Alabama Supreme Court could potentially benefit Republicans by aligning with their values on abortion and religious freedom. The court's decisions may influence legal precedents and interpretations of state laws, supporting Republican policies. However, the ruling's potential implications on IVF and reproductive rights could alienate certain voter demographics, including women, younger voters, and suburban voters. This would pose challenges for the party in the upcoming elections.

GOP’s Unified Stance

Following the controversy, President Trump has asserted himself as a prominent figure in the discourse on reproductive rights. On Truth Social, he conveyed a strong stance, aligning himself with the overwhelming majority of Americans, including Republicans, conservatives, Christians, and pro-life advocates, in expressing robust support for the availability of in vitro fertilization (IVF) for couples aspiring to have children. Trump's voice is echoed by the Senate GOP's campaign arm, which actively encourages its candidates to join the conversation. In a recent directive, National Republican Senatorial Committee instructed candidates to vocally express their endorsement for IVF treatment and to condemn any effort to curtail its accessibility.

Conclusion

The Alabama Supreme Court ruling has ignited a national conversation on reproductive rights. Republicans, Democrats, and Independents express diverse perspectives. While the ruling aligns with conservative values, its potential consequences on IVF and reproductive rights may pose challenges for Republicans in gaining broad electoral support. As the debate unfolds, the political landscape leading up to the 2024 elections remains dynamic and subject to evolving public sentiment.

The recent wave of layoffs and bankruptcies in the mainstream media has captured the attention of many online discussions. It's not only the media industry that has been affected, but also the political landscape and the perception of journalism among the public.

Democrats

Democrat voters tend to frame these layoffs as a result of corporate greed, arguing that large media conglomerates are prioritizing profits over quality journalism. They often point to the decline of local journalism as a significant loss for communities, arguing that these outlets play a vital role in keeping local governments accountable. They also emphasize the importance of journalism for a functioning democracy and often point to corporate greed, the rise of big tech, and the decline of traditional advertising revenues as key factors behind the layoffs.

Republicans

Republicans, in contrast, often refer to these layoffs as a consequence for what they perceive as liberal bias in the media. They argue that journalism has lost its way, with some citing the rise of “activist journalism” as a contributing factor undermining public trust. There is also a narrative among Republicans that media companies have failed to adapt to the digital age.

Independents

Independents tend to fall somewhere in between, with some echoing the Democrats' concerns about corporate greed and others agreeing with Republicans that perceived bias is driving consumers away. Many independents also express concern about the rise of "clickbait" journalism and the impact this is having on the quality of news coverage. Independents express a range of views, often reflecting concerns about both the loss of local news coverage and perceived media bias. They tend to focus on the need for media companies to adapt to the changing media landscape and explore new business models.

By The Numbers

Local Journalism vs Establishment Protector

The comparison between activist journalism and local journalism is also a topic of discussion. Some people commend activist journalism for its role in highlighting societal issues and advocating for change. However, others believe it compromises journalistic objectivity and blurs the line between reporting and advocacy. Local journalism, on the other hand, is widely appreciated for its role in community-building and its focus on local issues, but its decline due to financial struggles is a source of concern.

The perception of journalists as maintaining the status quo or the protecting establishment media varies among voters. Some believe that mainstream media perpetuates existing power structures by gatekeeping platforms for established voices, while others see journalists as watchdogs who hold the powerful accountable.

The Future and AI

Recent events throughout the industry have led to emerging conversations about technology and further potential biases.

A controversy surrounding Google's Gemini AI has elicited a variety of opinions. Some view it as a reflection of Silicon Valley's "woke” culture and an attempt to rewrite history, while others see it as a symptom of broader issues in AI development, like bias in training data.

The rumored release of Elon Musk's “Unwoke” search engine has been met with mixed reactions. Some see it as a potential alternative to platforms they perceive as suppressing free speech. Others raise concerns about the potential for further polarization and misinformation.

The idea of subsidies for journalism to save the industry has support and opposition. Some argue that government funding is necessary to preserve a vital industry in the face of economic challenges. Others worry about potential conflicts of interest and the threat to journalistic independence if the industry becomes reliant on government funding.

Americans are growing more negative about COVID vaccines, amid recent headlines highlighting the possible risks associated with them. Many people on the right have been skeptical and expressing doubt for years, but MIG data shows Democrats are growing more skeptical as well.

Overall Vaccine Discussions

More people online are discussing the potential risks of getting vaccines and booster shots. The possible presence of heavy metals and potential for severe medical problems is becoming a common theme.

Americans are talking about the possibility that vaccines may cause blood clots, increase the risk of heart, brain, and blood disorders, and even contribute to the emergence of more serious diseases.

This is especially concerning for the many Americans who suggest the vaccines and online discussion about them, might be part of larger censorship conspiracies or cover-ups. Some consider the vaccines, like the virus itself, as a form of biowarfare or claim they contain harmful substances.

Some argue that, until now, censorship prevented the public from becoming aware of risks and dangers associated with experimental drugs like the vaccine. They remain dubious of the safety and efficacy of the vaccine, suggesting there would be much more negativity across the political spectrum without such severe censorship.

Across many professional groups and political divisions, people are questioning the rushed pace of vaccine development and approval, citing a need for long-term safety studies. Even those who still advocate for vaccines question why they don't prevent the spread of COVID, only lessen the severity of the symptoms.

Democrats Grow Negative on Vaccines

Historically, Democrats tend to be the voices advocating for COVID vaccines. This is largely still the case—however, sentiment within this group is surprisingly low.

• MIG data shows COVID vaccine sentiment among Democrats is 34%, a 14-day low.
• Overall discussion volume regarding COVID vaccines has averaged 635 mentions per day.

Until very recently...

• Democrats have long insisted that COVID vaccines are crucial tool for “ending the pandemic.”
• They have been stressing the importance of getting vaccinated and following public health guidelines.
• They tend to be very critical towards those potentially spreading misinformation about the vaccines, including public figures and political opponents.
• Often, they express concern about vaccine skepticism and resistance.

Current conversations reveal...

• Some Democrats are expressing concern about the alleged censorship of COVID news.
• There are more mentions of the possible side effects of the vaccines, including slight increases in heart, brain, and blood disorders.
• However, some Democrats argue that the risks of contracting COVID far outweigh these side effects.
• Many still criticize outspoken figures like Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene for allegedly spreading conspiracy theories and confusing the public.
• Some are calling for investigations into allegations of adverse effects from vaccines and demanding transparency.

While Democrats are still the most vocal group in favor of vaccines, it’s possible to conclude that they are becoming more aware of the risks. The overall conversation online suggests that, despite censorship, facts and studies about the realities of COVID vaccine dangers are being revealed.

In the face of changing public health guidelines, warnings, and efficacy studies, it seems more Democrat voters may be growing dissatisfied with demonstrated negative vaccine outcomes.