Conversations about U.S. national security or Russia show public caution, with increased opposition to U.S. involvement.
Support for Ukraine is higher in discussions directly focused on Ukraine, with selective bias and social pressure possibly amplifying solidarity.
Fear of World War III remains a consistent concern across all discussion themes, reflecting widespread anxiety about potential global escalation.
Our Methodology
Demographics
All Voters
Sample Size
4,500
Geographical Breakdown
National
Time Period
1 Day
MIG Reports leverages EyesOver technology, employing Advanced AI for precise analysis. This ensures unparalleled precision, setting a new standard. Find out more about the unique data pull for this article.
The ongoing war between Ukraine and Russia, particularly Ukraine’s request for more U.S. weapons to strike deeper into Russian territory, triggers complex and divided discussions among Americans. Voters express support, opposition, and fears over U.S. involvement and the potential escalation to global conflict or World War III.
MIG Reports analysis of discussions about Ukraine, Russia, and U.S. national security concerns show some shifts in American sentiment based on framing and context.
Support for Ukraine
The level of support for Ukraine varies significantly depending on how the discussion is framed. When conversations directly focus on Ukraine’s situation, there is a notably higher level of support compared to discussions that center around broader national security concerns or Russia’s position.
In Ukraine-focused discussions, 60-70% of comments express solidarity with Ukraine, emphasizing the nation’s right to defend itself and criticizing Russia’s actions. This elevated support can be partially attributed to social pressure and selective bias—people may feel compelled to express solidarity due to the emotional framing of Ukraine as a victim of aggression.
In discussions centered on national security and Russia, support for Ukraine drops to 42%. These conversations introduce more critical perspectives, reflecting concerns about U.S. involvement and the potential unintended consequences of escalating military aid. Americans tend to be more cautious and pragmatic when the issue is framed around security or the complexities of geopolitical tensions.
Opposition to U.S. Involvement
Across all discussions, 31% of Americans express opposition to further U.S. involvement in the conflict, particularly when discussions focus on national security and Russia. Voters worry about the risks of escalation. They question why the U.S. should deepen its involvement in a conflict many view as not directly related to national interests.
In Ukraine-focused conversations, 15-20% express opposition. Some are reluctant to involve the U.S. further, but overall criticism is less pronounced. This, again, could be linked to selective bias where only conversations explicitly focused on Ukraine draw a sympathetic audience.
Neutral or Undecided
Around 25-27% of Americans remain neutral or undecided about the conflict. This group often expresses confusion or uncertainty about the situation’s complexity, calling for more information. These neutral opinions appear consistent regardless of the discussion's framing. This suggests many Americans remains unsure of how the U.S. should proceed.
Voter Discussion Themes
Discussions About Ukraine Support Ukraine
Voters who focus their discussion on Ukraine tend to present an emotional framing that portrays Ukraine as a victim of Russian aggression. This emphasis on moral responsibility, humanitarian concerns, and geopolitical justice includes stronger sentiments of support for Ukraine.
This pattern suggests selective bias and social pressure play a role. Voters may feel compelled to express pro-Ukraine views or avoid criticism in emotionally charged conversations. It’s also possible those who ardently support Ukraine are the main group discussing this subject. The focus on Ukraine itself seems to amplify positive sentiment compared to broader geopolitical discussions.
Concerns Over U.S. Involvement and Escalation
In discussions about national security or broader geopolitical implications, public opinion is more cautious. The potential risk of escalating conflict, especially drawing the U.S. into a deeper military engagement, emerges as a major concern.
People worry about the unintended consequences of providing Ukraine more advanced weapons, especially long-range systems that could directly target Russian territory. This theme draws more pragmatic and risk-averse perspectives into the discussion.
Fears of World War III
The fear of a larger global conflict is a recurring concern across all discussions. Around 50% of Americans express concerns about the potential for WW3. This sentiment is consistent whether the conversation is about Ukraine’s need for U.S. weapons, broader security concerns, or Russia’s actions.
This highlights American anxiety about the potential for escalated conflict beyond the region, potentially drawing in NATO and other global powers. Even when some downplay the risks, fears of a broader war remain a significant narrative driver.
Stay Informed
Share:
More Like This
The assassination attempts on former President Donald Trump have sparked a firestorm of online discourse. Recently, a U.S. Secret Service representative, while speaking at a press event, delivered a remark that continued the unsettling mood:
“There could be another geopolitical event that could put the United States into a kinetic conflict or some other—uh—some other issue, that may result in additional responsibilities and protectees of the Secret Service.”
NEW - Acting U.S. Secret Service Director: "There could be another geopolitical event that could put the United States into a kinetic conflict or some other- uh- some other issue, that may result in additional responsibilities and protectees of the Secret Service." pic.twitter.com/2KT4VJEqHP
MIG Reports analysis shows reactions are intense and divided with widespread skepticism towards agencies like the Secret Service and growing fears of violent conflict. This analysis dissects key themes and sentiments driving voter conversations, highlighting how Americans view the federal government’s relationship with Americans.
Top Discussion Topics
Polarization and Division (30%): The most dominant theme, reflecting deep political divides and hostility between opposing groups.
Distrust of Institutions (25%): Many Americans don’t trust the federal government, the Secret Service, or the media, speculating about perceived deceptive narratives.
Fear of War (20%): There is significant concern about potential violence or civil war, adding to the national anxiety.
Assassination Attempts and Accountability (15%): Discussions focus on blame and responsibility for Trump’s attempted assassination.
Media Bias (10%): Voters also discuss media manipulation and bias, contributing to the broader sense of corrupted institutions.
These themes collectively illustrate a nation gripped by uncertainty, fear, and blame. Most voters discussing the Secret Service and the recent Trump assassination attempt blame Democrats and the media.
62% blame Democrats and the media
21% blame Trump’s rhetoric
Polarization and Division
Routh’s assassination attempt intensifies already stark divisions between political parties. Both sides of the political aisle are quick to assign blame, with many on the right accusing Democrats of fostering an environment that encourages violence.
Left-leaning groups argue Trump's own divisive rhetoric is responsible for inflaming tensions. The conversation is steeped in animosity, as voters lash out against opposing ideologies. This polarization underscores how deeply fractured the nation is, with little room for compromise or shared understanding.
Distrust of Institutions
A majority of Americans express distrust toward institutions and agencies like the Secret Service and the FBI, claiming the media helps them present deceptive narratives. Many question the competence of the Secret Service in protecting Trump, with some even suggesting a mole or intentional negligence.
Skepticism extends to the media, where accusations of bias and propaganda are rampant. This pervasive feeling of animosity feeds into speculations about corrupt establishment motivations as voters question if they're being lied to. The lack of faith in these legacy institutions only deepens divisions between Americans.
Fear of Civil Unrest and Kinetic Conflict
Amid the blame and distrust, the potential for civil unrest or even civil war looms. Many conversations express anxiety over the country teetering on the edge of violent conflict. These fears are inflamed by comments like that of acting Secret Service director Ronald Rowe.
Terms like "kinetic conflict" appear frequently, suggesting a fear that corrupt government officials are willing to allow continued safety breaches to further their political ends. This theme reflects a growing unease about the future of the nation, where political violence could become the norm rather than the exception.
Assassination Attempts and Accountability
While assassination attempt is driving conversation, it is often paired with debate over who should be held accountable. Some call for greater security measures, citing the two recent and egregious attempts on Trump as evidence of institutional negligence.
Others argue that, whether from Trump or Democratic leaders, plays a significant role in fostering the climate of violence. This group calls for accountability, but there is disagreement about where the blame truly lies. This lack of clarity contributes to a broader sense of frustration and fear.
Media Bias
The media’s influence in shaping public perception is another recurring theme. Many on the right accuse mainstream media outlets of downplaying the seriousness of the assassination attempts. Those on the left decry media for not holding Trump and his supporters accountable for inciting violence.
Many express a belief that legacy media is complicit in spreading false narratives and stoking division. These criticisms reinforce distrust in institutions as people increasingly view media outlets as aligned with Democratic political agendas. The result is American voters seeking alternative news sources which often confirm their biases.
Potential Outcomes
A possible conclusion for recurring discussion themes of distrust is that Americans may be growing increasingly reactionary. Strong suspicions against institutions like the federal government and media, coupled with a desire to reverse perceived societal decline, points to more than just frustration.
Discussion often includes conspiratorial speculations and fears of civil war, which are common markers of reactionary movements. These conversations indicate longing for a return to a more "stable" past, rejection of progressive changes, and an inclination to view modern institutions as illegitimate or corrupt.
Together, these elements suggest the nation is increasingly embracing reactionary thinking, where the goal is not merely reform but a reversal of recent political and social developments. If this sentiment grows, it could lead to a movement that seeks to dismantle much of the progress made in recent decades.
An ABC whistleblower affidavit alleging the Harris campaign colluded with ABC to cheat in the presidential debate is generating controversy. MIG Reports analysis shows deep mistrust of the media and government institutions, with voters reacting to the polarized political environment.
Yesterday, ABC made a statement regarding the whistleblower affidavit. The only thing ABC said was that they did not give the questions or the topics to the Harris campaign. Well, nobody accused ABC of doing that. ABC has been accused of the following:
1.) Giving the Harris…
— Black Insurrectionist--I FOLLOW BACK TRUE PATRIOTS (@DocNetyoutube) September 17, 2024
There is strong sense of skepticism and disillusionment, particularly among Trump supporters. They often express beliefs that the establishment is working against him. Conversations also highlight a growing narrative of "waking up" to the realization that systemic bias and corruption permeate media coverage and political processes.
Endorsements from prominent anti-establishment figures like Elon Musk and certain rappers and businessmen also generate enthusiasm from voters who do not necessarily view themselves as conservative but align with Trump’s anti-establishment image.
What Voters are Saying
35% of discussions express distrust toward the media and establishment politics, highlighting widespread skepticism of institutional credibility.
25% mention polarization and tribalism, illustrating sharp divisions among factions.
20% discuss the concept of "waking up" to establishment bias, saying they now see through media manipulation for the first time.
10% voice distrust of political parties and the rise of conspiracy theories.
Negative sentiment related to the “whistleblower” keyword is not directed toward the individual, but the information revealed in the affidavit which, if true, strongly condemns ABC and Disney.
Media and Establishment Loses Credibility
35% of discussions express distrust toward the media and establishment.
Distrust of mainstream media and the political establishment underpins most voter conversations about the ABC whistleblower. Many believe the media, particularly outlets like ABC, actively work to manipulate public opinion against Trump.
People use words like "bias," "fake news," and "deep state." This exemplifies concerns that legacy institutions are not untrustworthy and involved in a coordinated effort to undermine Trump's candidacy. Negative sentiment extends both to media bias and a rejection of establishment politics as voters feel disconnected and disillusioned.
Polarization and Tribalism
25% mention polarization and tribalism.
Both pro-Trump and anti-Trump factions engage in deeply tribal behavior. Conversations are emotionally charged, with voters using inflammatory language to attack the opposing side. Rather than fostering nuanced debate, these interactions often devolve into accusations of "communism," "racism," “threats to democracy,” and "fascism."
Party loyalty often overshadows good faith conversations, reinforcing an "us vs. them" mentality. Entrenched divisions in the American electorate show each side increasingly views the other as an existential threat to the country’s future.
"Waking Up" Narrative
20% discuss the concept of "waking up" to establishment bias.
Many voters say they are "waking up" to institutional and establishment corruption. They believe the media, political elites, and other institutional forces are aligned in opposition to Trump’s re-election.
This group often says they have only recently become aware of this anti-Trump coordination. New and longstanding Trump supporters see themselves as having pierced through the veil of establishment propaganda. They see themselves as champions of truth and defenders against an oppressive establishment.
Distrust Toward Political Parties
10% voice distrust of political parties and the rise of conspiracy theories.
There is noticeable frustration with political parties—especially the Republican Party for not defending Trump. Some conversations reveal dissatisfaction with the GOP, where voters express disappointment that establishment Republicans do not push back against liberal media and political forces.
This internal criticism highlights a fragmentation in partisan politics, which aligns with previous reports of political realignment away from parties and in favor of ideology. Republican Party leaders—especially RINOs—are seen as either complicit or ineffectual in protecting conservative values.
Conspiracy theories and misinformation often generate discussion along with partisan disillusionment. Many share and discuss speculations about the deep state working with the media to rig elections, spread disinformation, or otherwise undermine Trump.
These theories often tie into broader fears about globalism, socialism, or corporate influence over politics. This element of the conversation suggests a growing distrust of official narratives to explain current events.
This sentiment is evident in reactions to Governor Ron DeSantis announcing an independent state investigation of the most recent Trump assassination attempt, citing distrust in the same federal agencies which many believe are targeting Trump.
BREAKING: Governor DeSantis Moves Trump Assassination Case Under State Jurisdiction
This means that Ryan Routh can be prosecuted for attempted m*rder, not just federal charges.
The Governor explained his rationale, saying, "In my judgment, it's not in the best interest of our… pic.twitter.com/TjvhX3aLWR
MIG Reports analysis of sentiment and support for Kamala Harris among Democratic voters reveals an enthusiasm gap. While some express strong support for her policies and leadership, most are not driven by Harris’s personal or candidate appeal. Instead, much of the enthusiasm stems from dislike for Donald Trump and his MAGA agenda.
Harris, who was deeply unpopular among Democrats during her 2020 presidential bid and in her tenure as Biden’s VP, seems to still be struggling with positive voter perceptions. This analysis explores key patterns behind voter support for Kamala Harris, highlighting how anti-Trump sentiment shape Democratic voter behavior.
Can Harris Pull Out a Win on Trump Hatred?
In the 2024 election, Kamala Harris faces similar challenges to those in 2016 and 2004, where negative sentiment against the opposition wasn’t enough to drive turnout. In both elections, opposition to Trump and Bush was strong, but lack of enthusiasm for Clinton and Kerry respectively resulted in lower Democratic turnout.
Google search trends indicate, in the previous two election cycles, the highest spikes in user searches for “register to vote” happened in mid to late September.
This year, mail-in ballot requests in critical states like Pennsylvania are down for Democrats, both compared to Republicans and compared to Democrats in 2020.
Harris's policies on immigration and Palestine are controversial within her own party, with many Democrats either finding her too liberal or disagreeing with her foreign policy. If her campaign relies solely on Trump hatred without generating positive enthusiasm for her candidacy, voter turnout may fall short. This may result in a repeat of the 2016 and 2004 elections, where Democrats were surprised to find opposition wasn’t enough to secure victory.
Enthusiasm is Actually Anti-Trump Fervor
Conditional Support for Kamala Harris
Kamala Harris has a base of support among Democratic voters, according to MIG Reports analysis of online discussions. Many voters praise her performance in the debate, her background as a prosecutor, and her stance on issues like social justice and healthcare.
Discussions of Kamala Harris which do not focus on the election show 43.6% express direct support for her. However, this support is not as stark with deeper analysis. In conversations mentioning Harris's policies or leadership positively, reactions also focus on the political climate over her accomplishments.
Criticism of Trump as a Driving Force
Much of the conversation among Democrats which mention Kamala Harris are not about her but rather about Donald Trump. In election-specific discussions, 25% of conversations focus solely on criticizing Trump. They label him as representing "terror" and "lies.” Harris supporters largely incorporate this sentiment in all their supportive mentions of Harris.
Voters frame Harris as a necessary opponent to Trump, positioning her as a vehicle for resisting Trump’s influence rather than rallying around her personal achievements or vision. This pattern suggests, for many Democrats, Harris represents the best hope for defeating Trump, rather than an inspiring candidate on her own.
Voter Behavior Motivated by Opposition
In conversations mentioning Trump and Harris in a head-to-head race, there is a mix of positive and negative sentiments about Harris. While 42% of the conversation was positive, much of that positivity is focused on her role as a foil to Trump. Voters view her as a champion against his policies.
Broader trends in Democratic voter enthusiasm show an urgency to reject Trump outweighing affirmative support for Harris.
Kamala as a Symbol of Opposition
In many cases, Kamala Harris's support appears to be symbolic, with voters rallying behind her as a replacement for Biden and a figurehead of the Party. While some say they appreciate her leadership and policies, 23.5% primarily criticize Trump and his allies. In addition to her role as a political opponent to Trump, Harris’s identity as a woman of color adds to the symbolic nature of her candidacy.
For many Democrats, her race and gender are celebrated as markers of progress, positioning her as a trailblazer in American politics. However, her identity also draws skepticism for others, with some feeling her symbolism outweighs her qualifications. This divide underscores the conditional nature of her support, where enthusiasm hinges on what she represents rather than her achievements.
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)