Former president Trump’s appearance at Officer Jonathan Diller’s wake, an NYC police officer killed in the line of duty, telegraphed support for normal Americans. At the same time, Biden’s New York fundraiser packed with media and political elites communicated the sense of disdain many middle-class Americans feel from the ruling class.

While Trump's attendance at the wake was generally seen as a positive gesture, the same cannot be said for Biden's fundraiser. Many American voters argue Biden should be more focused on running the country, rather than raising money for his campaign.

Overall public sentiment leans more positively towards Trump's attendance at Jonathan Diller’s wake than towards Biden's fundraiser. However, these sentiments are somewhat influenced by existing political biases among partisans.

Most Americans see Trump's actions as personal and direct, appealing to individuals on an emotional level. But they view Biden's exclusive fundraiser as prioritizing the wealthy and influential.

• Swing state voter sentiment toward Trump spiked to 57% regarding police and crime with the announcement of his appearance at Jonathan Diller’s wake.
• Biden’s sentiment in swing states on the topic of fundraising dipped slightly to 48% on the day of the event.

Comparing Average American Views of Trump vs Biden

The political and wealthy classes seem to generally divide along political lines in their views of Trump’s recent actions compared to Biden’s. However, for working-class citizens and middle America, the lines do not seem as partisan.

Most average Americans view Biden as ensconced in the ruling class and he could possibly be losing cachet even among blue-collar Democrats. MIG Reports analysis of online conversations reveals a contrast in how everyday Americans view Trump compared to Biden.

How Americans Responded to Trump

Many voters express admiration for Trump's public appearance in support of law enforcement and Jonathan Diller’s family. They perceive this as a gesture of his commitment to “Back the Blue” and mingle with the people. This resonates both with his voter base and working-class voters of all political affiliations.

Trump's attendance at the wake is seen by most people as a gesture of respect and solidarity with police officers. Many highlighted the absence of similar gestures from the Biden administration, inferring Trump's actions will further endear him to normal Americans.

His generous donation to pay off the mortgage of NYPD Officer Diller's widow has also been lauded as an act of kindness and compassion. This emphasizes the contrast of Biden fundraising for himself from the wealthy on the same night.

However, critics have expressed skepticism, arguing that Trump's actions are politically motivated and aimed at gaining public sympathy. Some skeptics suggest the appearance was a cynical distraction from his ongoing legal battles.

There are also related discussions about how leftist critics and the media discuss Trump and his recent good week. Many voters express a view that Trump will always receive criticism from entertainment and news, even with a positive gesture like supporting a slain police office.

Middle-Class Criticism of Biden

Biden's fundraising event has generated severe negativity among many American voters, much like his recent border visit contrasted with Trump's. This majority accuses him of prioritizing fundraising and power over addressing national issues.

Many express concerns about the use of taxpayer money, suggesting Biden should be focusing on more pressing issues like border security and the economy. A lot of people question the timing of the fundraiser, suggesting it distracts from Biden’s image issues as the mainstream media praises a “glitzy” and “star-studded” event.

The fawning media coverage has also caused many middle-class and blue-collar voters to criticize perceived elitism at a dinner design to flaunt wealth and power. This group argues Biden is alienating average Americans in favor of costal elites.

Staunch supporters and leftists, however, praised Biden's commitment to raising funds for his party. They view preventing Trump from a 2024 win as imperative and advocate for Biden’s social justice and woke agenda.

This group views the fundraiser as a critical step towards maintaining a Democratic majority in Congress. They commend his commitment to addressing issues like climate change, healthcare, and economic recovery.

After a controversial encounter a female Planet Fitness member had with a trans person shaving his beard in the women’s bathroom, Planet Fitness is facing Budweiser-style public backlash. Allegations also include a biological man allegedly exposing himself to a 15-year-old in the women's locker room at Planet Fitness.

Many Americans are deeply upset with Planet Fitness's stance on trans issues. They feel the company is not respecting the rights of women but is supporting woke gender ideology. There are frequent calls for boycotts and strong language used against Planet Fitness, accusing the company of supporting potentially dangerous trans activists at the expense of women.

• Sentiment towards transgender rights has decreased slightly in the last two weeks, while discussion volume is up in the last week.

Online Discussion About Woke Policies at Planet Fitness

Public discussion about Planet Fitness is decisively negative, with many people declaring they intend to or have already canceled their memberships. Many are also praising the economic consequences of a growing Planet Fitness boycott, causing the company to lose stock value.

There is also a recurring theme of freedom of speech throughout the discussion. Some voters believe that by supporting transgender rights, Planet Fitness is suppressing the freedom of speech of women who disagree with their stance. They argue that everyone has the right to voice their opinions, even if they are seen as offensive or controversial by others.

There are also growing social media movements that display how dissatisfied people are with Planet Fitness' policies on transgender people using their facilities. There are people posting with the hashtags #BoycottPlanetFitness and #Misogyny, indicating a negative sentiment towards the company due to their perceived negligence of women's safety.

The discussion is heavily influenced by political ideologies, with many linking their views on Planet Fitness to their broader political beliefs. There is a clear divide between conservative and liberal viewpoints, with each side accusing the other of trying to impose their beliefs on the rest of society.

While the discussion is predominantly negative, there are also voices in support of Planet Fitness's stance on trans issues. These people argue that supporting trans rights is a matter of basic human rights and equality, and they applaud Planet Fitness for taking a stand.

How Different Voter Groups View Trans Rights

Conservative Voters

In general, conservatives tend to speak out against the inclusion of trans people in women's spaces like restrooms and locker rooms. This group often views this issue through the lens of biological sex rather than gender identity, arguing for the preservation of spaces designated for biological women.

Liberal Voters

More left-leaning voters are generally more supportive of trans rights, including the right to be included in spaces that align with their gender identity. They often argue for inclusivity and equality, seeing this issue as part of the broader fight for LGBT+ rights.

Moderates and Independents

There's no strong consensus among Independents, but they generally strive to find a middle ground. Some may support trans rights but also voice concerns about potential implications for cisgender women.

The Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments today in a case that has ignited a fierce debate about free speech and government censorship online. Murthy v. Missouri will determine whether the Biden administration's efforts to pressure social media companies to censor certain content violated the First Amendment. The case stems from actions taken by the federal government in 2021 to combat what it deemed "disinformation" and "misinformation" on various online platforms.

The lawsuit, initially filed by the attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana, accused the Biden administration of overreach and likened its tactics to those of an "Orwellian Ministry of Truth." The government's actions, which included pressuring social media giants like Facebook and X (formerly Twitter) to remove content related to topics like the COVID-19 lab leak theory and vaccine efficacy, sparked widespread controversy and legal scrutiny.

Public Discourse

Republicans have been vocal in their concerns about the potential implications of government-led censorship. They fear that a ruling in favor of the government could set a precedent for broader censorship, particularly targeting right-wing media outlets. Many view this as an attack on dissenting voices and a fundamental erosion of democratic principles.

In contrast, Democrats emphasize the rights of private companies to moderate content on their platforms. They focus on their concern about former President Trump's influence on the Supreme Court, particularly through the appointment of three justices during his tenure. They fear this may bias the court's rulings in favor of his interests.

The case has ignited a flurry of discussions across social media platforms, reflecting a deep-seated unease and dissatisfaction with the current state of affairs. Many social media users have expressed dismay over what they perceive as growing authoritarianism and censorship in the country. There are fears that a ruling favoring government censorship could lead to further erosion of free speech rights, particularly for dissenting voices and right-wing media outlets.

Justice Jackson Inspires a Hot Debate

Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson made an interesting comment about the First Amendment that has further fueled debate.

Jackson's assertion that the First Amendment is "hamstringing" the federal government has drawn sharp criticism from Republicans, who argue that such a view indicates a fundamental misunderstanding or disregard for the principles enshrined in the Constitution. Some Republicans have gone as far as to suggest that her comments reveal a broader trend of governmental overreach and a willingness to curtail constitutional freedoms.

Democrats, however, have rallied behind Justice Jackson, citing her extensive legal background and qualifications for the role. They argue that criticisms of her are unfounded and politically motivated, emphasizing her impressive credentials, including graduating from Harvard Law and serving as a district judge. Many Democrats view Justice Jackson's comments as a reflection of her nuanced understanding of constitutional law and the complexities of balancing individual rights with government authority.

The debate surrounding Justice Jackson's comments has underscored the deeply polarized nature of the discourse surrounding the case. While Republicans express concerns about the potential implications of her views for free speech and individual liberties, Democrats defend her as a highly qualified jurist with a firm commitment to upholding the Constitution. Jackson's comments are likely to remain a focal point of discussion as the case progresses.

Conclusion

Overall, the case of Murthy v. Missouri has become a lightning rod for discussions about free speech, government overreach, and the role of the Supreme Court in safeguarding constitutional rights. As the oral arguments unfold, the nation awaits a decision that could have far-reaching implications for the future of online discourse and democratic governance.

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs generate a high level of polarization in the viewpoints across online discourse. Some people support DEI programs, viewing them as important tools to foster more inclusive and equal societies. They believe its efforts are to bridge the gap between different racial, ethnic, gender, and religious groups. They see DEI programs as a way to educate people about the importance of embracing diversity and promoting equality.

However, many others express skepticism and resentment towards DEI programs. They see these initiatives as forced and unnecessary, arguing they lead to reverse discrimination or that they are a form of political correctness gone too far. Others believe DEI programs do not address the issues they claim to and, rather, are tokenistic and break down traditional values.

Many view DEI as an ideology that exacerbates division and is a breeding ground for anxiety and depression. Some in this group believe “woke” activists are more likely to be unhappy, anxious, and depressed. This is backed by a study by psychological researchers in Finland, which has is frequently mentioned in these discussions.

MIG Reports also analyzed a trend of people calling for more transparency and accountability for DEI programs. They argue organizations need to provide clear evidence that these programs are effective, and not merely symbolic gestures.

Viewpoints on DEI can often be simplified in the “right-left” paradigm. There is also a gender aspect to the discussion, with the Finnish study suggesting that women are more likely to identify with woke beliefs than men. This has prompted conversations about gender roles and societal expectations.

Deeper Analysis

More Americans accept the possibility of DEI practices producing unintended outcomes. They believe forced DEI practices lead to negative impacts on organizational effectiveness, compromised safety standards, disrupted workflows, or internal tensions. For instance, if DEI initiatives prioritize diversity metrics over technical qualifications in hiring or promotion decisions, many believe it will lead to issues with competence or performance in critical roles within the aerospace industry.

Recently, online discussions about airline travel, airline delays, and airline safety events are trending — specifically regarding Boeing. Late 2023 saw large, parallel Google search trends spike for “DEI” and “Boeing.” 

Americans are beginning to push back on DEI programs and other forced diversity projects pushed by the media or corporations. Some of the issues many fear could arise from the forced introduction of DEI practices include: 

Compromising Safety Standards

Prioritizing diversity metrics over technical qualifications in aerospace industries may compromise safety standards, potentially increasing the risk of errors or safety incidents, especially if critical roles lack the necessary technical expertise due to diversity-focused hiring decisions. 

Disrupting Workflows

Introducing DEI initiatives may disrupt operations and productivity, potentially causing interruptions and delays to production schedules. 

Creating Internal Tensions

Forced DEI practices, if perceived as unfair, may lead to internal tensions, decreased collaboration, and morale issues among employees who believe diversity metrics supersede merit-based criteria in hiring, promotion, or project assignments. 

Undermining Competence and Performance

Prioritizing diversity metrics over technical qualifications in DEI initiatives for hiring or promotion decisions may lead to decreased competence and performance in critical roles. 

Legal and Regulatory Compliance Risks

Implementing DEI practices without considering legal requirements may expose organizations to compliance risks, including potential legal challenges, fines, and reputational damage if discriminatory practices violate anti-discrimination laws.

Societal decline in America seems to be a growing sentiment among many demographics, albeit distinct in the reasoning. These discussions are often heated and divisive, reflecting the polarized state of American politics. Fracturing of political leadership, societal norms, economic stability, and the justice system all contribute to a perception that society is decaying.

While many agree that America may be declining, Republicans, Democrats, and Independents, as well as other demographic groups such as race, age, and economic class, attribute different causes.

Political Viewpoints

Republicans are generally more concerned about societal decline, often attributing it to what they perceive as a breakdown in traditional values and an erosion of law and order. They tend to view societal problems such as crime, drug abuse, and family breakdown as symptoms of moral decay. Some Republicans also blame societal decline on liberal policies like welfare programs and lenient immigration laws, which they believe incentivize dependency and discourage individual responsibility.

Democrats often argue that societal decline is due to systemic problems such as inequality, discrimination, and a lack of access to quality education and healthcare. They tend to focus on societal structures and institutions, arguing that changes in these areas can help alleviate societal decline. Some Democrats also point to the influence of big corporations and the wealthy, arguing that they have too much power and that this contributes to societal decline. There are mixed views about President Joe Biden's impact on these systemic problems. Some Democrats believe he has initiated improvements, while others feel he has not done enough.

Independents express frustration with the polarized state of politics and the inability of politicians to work together to solve societal problems. They often call for pragmatic solutions and a focus on common ground. Their views on societal decline are often shaped by specific issues of personal importance, such as the economy, social justice, or immigration.

Cultural and Economic Influences

Economic class is a crucial factor. Those in lower economic classes often attribute societal decline to economic inequality and lack of opportunity. Lower-income individuals express frustration towards the wealthy and corporations, believing they do not pay their fair share of taxes.

Middle-class individuals also express concerns about how their taxes are being used, with some feeling they are shouldering an unfair burden. Meanwhile, those in higher economic classes tend to be more optimistic about the state of society, although they also express concern about societal problems such as crime and drug abuse. Some higher-income individuals express dissatisfaction, often aimed at perceived government misuse of their taxes.

• Older individuals express concern about retirement funds and social security
• Younger individuals are more likely to discuss student loans and job prospects
• People of all races discuss instances of perceived unfairness in taxation and societal structure

When considering race, people of color are more likely to attribute societal decline to systemic racism and discrimination. Meanwhile, white Americans, particularly those in lower economic classes, often attribute societal decline to economic insecurity and cultural displacement.

Age also plays a role in these discussions. Older Americans, who have witnessed significant societal changes over their lifetimes, are often more concerned about societal decline. Younger Americans tend to be more optimistic about the future of society, although they often express frustration with current societal problems.

The term "Christian Nationalism" has been increasingly used in public discourse, particularly by liberals, democrats, and leftists. While it is difficult to pinpoint exactly who coined the term, it is apparent that these groups have adopted and weaponized its usage for strategic political purposes.

 Christian Nationalism is often used to describe a political ideology that merges Christian faith with American patriotism, advocating for the establishment of either a Christian state or a state guided by Christian values. However, the term is being leveraged by liberals to paint conservative Christians as extremists or fundamentalists who are seeking to impose their religious beliefs on the nation.

Critics are now adopting the term as a way to call out what they see as an attempt to undermine the secular nature of the state and promote a form of religious exclusivity.

The strategic use of the term "Christian Nationalism" may be part of a wider effort to frame certain political ideologies as extreme or detrimental to the principles of a secular and inclusive democracy. By associating Christian Nationalism with far right or extremist movements, the mainstream may be trying to delegitimize the positions held by some conservatives, framing them as a threat to democratic norms.

This analysis does not conclude that all criticisms of Christian Nationalism are unfounded or politically motivated. However, there seems to be a concerted effort to lump all Christians and American patriots under the umbrella of Christian Nationalism, which is largely understood negatively.

On the right, the term is also contentious. Some Christians and conservatives totally reject the term. Others adopt it but push back on the negative connotations, justifying their beliefs as nonthreatening. 

Messaging Analysis

Sentiment about Christian Nationalism is somewhat dependent on its framing. It is either perceived as a patriotic expression of religious freedom or a threat to democratic principles and social equality.

People tend to understand Christian nationalism as either a cultural issue or a political issue. The rise of social justice movements, the political climate, and the portrayal of Christian Nationalism in media and political discourse all play significant roles in shaping these sentiments. 

Republicans

A large group of Republicans support Christian Nationalism as they believe it aligns with their core values of religious freedom, patriotism, and conservative moral values. They often link Christian Nationalism to the preservation of American heritage and the upholding of traditional family structures.

Sentiment increases among Republicans when Christian Nationalism is presented as a defense against perceived threats to religious freedom, such as the "woke" culture or progressive social policies. However, sentiment decreases when Christian Nationalism is associated with extremist actions or intolerance towards other religious or ethnic groups.

Democrats

Most Democrats view Christian Nationalism as a threat to the separation of church and state. They claim it could lead to discrimination against non-Christian and marginalized groups. For Democrats, negativity strengthens against Christian Nationalism when it is linked to extremist actions, such as the Capitol Hill riot, and decreases when it is presented as a matter of religious freedom or patriotism.

Independents

Independents have mixed views on Christian Nationalism. Their sentiment generally increases when Christian Nationalism is associated with the broader freedom of religious expression. It decreases when it is linked to extremist actions, intolerance, or breaches of the church-state separation.

Diversity in Christian Nationalism

For Black and Hispanic communities, views on Christian Nationalism are more complex and nuanced. Generally, these communities also exhibit high levels of religious participation, particularly in Christian denominations. However, their views on Christian Nationalism can diverge significantly with the perception of Christian Nationalism as racial grouping.

Among Black Christians, for instance, there is often a strong emphasis on social justice, reflecting a long history of activism in the Black church. This can sometimes lead to a rejection of Christian Nationalism, perceived as a political tool to maintain white supremacy and socio-economic inequalities. Nevertheless, there are also pockets within the Black Christian community that support aspects of Christian Nationalism, particularly around social conservatism.

The Hispanic community, on the other hand, is extremely diverse, with a broad spectrum of views on Christian Nationalism. Some Hispanic Christians, particularly those of a more conservative persuasion, may align with Christian Nationalist ideals, particularly around issues such as pro-life and traditional family values. However, others may reject this ideology, citing concerns around immigration policy and social justice.

Talking About - American Values

Sentiment - American Values

The National MS Society is facing severe backlash online for forcing a 90-year-old volunteer to step down from her position. The Society said Fran Itkoff was not "inclusive" when she sought clarification about the organization’s requirement to use pronouns.

Itkoff volunteered 60 years for the MS Society before being ejected, but the internet came to her defense, generating significant blowback for the organization.

• Many accused the organization of exemplifying “woke culture” and reacting excessively.
• Some called for donors to boycott the organization, alongside those who say they’ve donated in the past and will now stop.
• Itkoff’s dismissal has sparked outrage, with some stating they hope the organization fails after her unceremonious firing.
• A lot of the criticism emphasizes pronoun policies as especially harmful to older people, like Itkoff, who are unfamiliar with the concept.
• Itkoff was apparently not objecting to their use, but simply seeking clarification, revealing a ruthless intolerance among those who claim inclusion.
• The discussion begs the question: why are organizations forcing absolute adherence to new and highly contested norms?
• Sentiments reveal Americans are tired of the focus on pronouns detracting from organizations’ stated mission, in this case, helping people with multiple sclerosis.

Pushback Against Gender Ideology in American Discourse

Itkoff’s expulsion also reflects a broader debate and polarization around woke organizations and the clear divide in America over social justice, DEI, and required gender inclusivity.

• American sentiments increasingly see these initiatives as "woke" and "leftist," as partisan discussions continue to dominate more aspects of American life.
• Brands such as Dove and the “He Gets us” Super Bowl advertising campaign sparked recent controversy over inclusion’s continued march through American life.
• Many Americans are critical of both the politicization of the ads and the Super Bowl itself.
• While some see these social inclusion efforts as important for creating equity in America, Americans increasingly perceive gender ideology and DEI as a partisan political agenda.
• Many right-leaning voters are particularly upset about enforced use of pronouns, believing this to be an imposition on personal freedoms and an affront to reality.
• Sentiments show that Americans are frustrated with DEI and pronoun requirements in increasingly politicized workplaces and schools.

The Right Claims Cultural Wins Against Woke Organizations

After the widely successful Bud Light boycott last year, conservatives and right-leaning voters have continued to claim cultural victories. And now, backlash to Itkoff’s dismissal shows that Americans are asking: can the country have a multiple sclerosis charity that … fights MS?

• Some claim that organizations drifting into a “woke” agenda, like the National MS Society, should face consequences.
• Along with the Anheuser-Busch and Target boycotts, conservatives also claimed the resignation of Harvard president Claudine Gay in a DEI backlash capped with a major plagiarism scandal reaching the highest levels of the academy.
• Recent data shows a significant and growing level of concern around the protection of freedom of speech, and its perceived suppression.
• Many Americans feel their voices are being silenced by censorship, particularly from social media platforms and woke businesses.
• Conservatives, especially, are speaking up against what they perceive as woke coercion and are expressing their outrage.
• More people are saying they feel insulted and gaslit by those woke organizations that are increasingly forcing their agenda on customers, employees, and students.

Online discussion about woke, LGBTQ, and trans ideologies remains consistently between 8,000 and 10,000 mentions daily. Sentiment toward these issues also trends in the low 40% range, sitting at 44% today.