Americans are talking about the anniversary of the U.S. Afghanistan withdrawal, particularly the tragic attack at Abbey Gate. Discussions are divided and emotionally charged as people express loss and grief for Gold Star families, place blame, and honor lives lost.

The anniversary prompts reflection on military actions and their implications. Conversations are a battleground for opinions on the leadership and policies of prominent political figures, including Donald Trump, Joe Biden, and Kamala Harris.

Many also point out the fact that Trump attended a memorial for the fallen soldiers while Biden and Harris—whose administration was responsible for the withdrawal—were not in attendance.

NEW: Donald Trump is the only president to attend Arlington National Cemetery to honor the 13 U.S. soldiers who died during the disastrous Afghanistan withdrawal.

President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris did not show up.

Earlier in the morning, Trump blasted the… pic.twitter.com/TMWNkdUWqk

— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) August 26, 2024

Public Sentiment and Leadership Criticism

Online discourse focuses on military and security issues, where public sentiment oscillates between pride in the military's efforts and deep-seated anger over leadership’s perceived failures.

Americans discuss the chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan, with keywords like "Abbey Gate," "security," and "intelligence" dominating the dialogue. Many are frustrated over the lack of preparedness and unnecessary loss of lives. This reflects a broader concern about the efficacy of U.S. military strategies and Biden’s leadership during the withdrawal.

The frustration often focuses on Biden and Harris, who are criticized for their handling of the situation. Voters portray them as responsible for the catastrophic failure that led to a tragic loss of life. Biden, in particular, garners approximately 25% of the discourse, with discussions frequently centering on keywords like "failure," "withdrawal," and "chaos," underscoring the public’s dissatisfaction with his leadership in this critical event.

Leadership Under Scrutiny

The discourse further delves into ideological divides, where the attack at Abbey Gate serves as a focal point for broader debates about national identity, government accountability, and the role of military power.

Among Trump supporters, there is a strong sentiment that he embodies the values needed to restore America's standing. Discussions emphasize his approach to national security and foreign policy. Trump dominates the discourse, with approximately 40% of the conversations focusing on him. They highlight his perceived strength in national security issues.

Conversely, Harris and Biden are often depicted as disconnected from the concerns of ordinary Americans. There are accusations of socialism and incompetence frequently surfacing in discussions. Harris in particular is the focus of around 35% of the discussions, where she faces significant criticism for her perceived leadership failures. People use keywords like "failure," "incompetence," and "socialism."

Emotional Responses and Political Accountability

The nation is also grappling with the consequences of its military actions abroad and the political leadership at home. The emotional intensity of the discussions, marked by anger, frustration, and a desire for accountability, underscores the deep divisions within American society.

Trump supporters express strong loyalty and optimism, often portraying him as a bulwark against socialism and government overreach. Criticism of Biden and Harris focuses on their handling of the Afghanistan withdrawal and related military strategies.

The attack at Abbey Gate, and the broader Afghanistan withdrawal, have become symbols of these divisions. Reactions reflect the immediate concerns about military strategy and deeper anxieties about the nation's future and the ability of its leaders to navigate these challenges.

On Aug. 21, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) released a staggering downward revision of nearly one million added jobs from its previously reported figures. This adjustment, spanning from April 2023 through March 2024, revised job growth down by 818,000, a significant 30% reduction from earlier estimates. The adjustment represents the largest revision since 2009 and has sent ripples through economic and political circles, drawing sharp reactions from voters and pundits.

BREAKING: The federal government announces that there were 818,000 fewer jobs created through March 2024 than previously reported

It’s the largest downward revision in 15 years.

This is the “record job growth” Kamala always talks about
pic.twitter.com/vR1afMbEfr

— Greg Price (@greg_price11) August 21, 2024

This is the biggest negative revision to payrolls since the global financial crisis.

Crucially, it took place in an election year and was meant to pad the numbers, making the economy appear much stronger than it was https://t.co/WtjpNSaytR pic.twitter.com/EIHW5Ynjev

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) August 21, 2024

Voter Reactions

Following the latest BLS report, voter sentiment on jobs dropped to 40% both nationally and in swing states. This is down from a 7-day high of 48% nationally and 46% in swing states.

The public’s response to reports of the revision is a mix of skepticism and suspicion. Many voters view the revision as evidence of intentional overestimation by the government, which many call "cooking the books."

This sentiment grows from the perception that the Biden administration manipulated job figures to present a more favorable economic picture than reality. Most voter conversations reflect this distrust, with phrases like "inflated job reports" and "massive scandal" dominating the discourse.

MIG Reports analysis shows 64.5% of conversations about the revised job report express suspicion towards the government's reporting. Most conversations frame the unprecedented revision as evidence of deliberate misinformation.

This high level of skepticism underscores a broader narrative of frustration and disillusionment with the Biden-Harris administration’s transparency. Americans are unhappy with the status quo and 25% of discussions specifically about jobs mention a desire for new leadership.

Many voters also deride Harris-Biden Commerce Sec. Gina Raimondo for saying on ABC News that she has no knowledge of any job revision numbers. She went on the blame Trump for lying about everything, reiterating that she is unaware of the official BLS report.

Reporter: Nearly a million jobs "created" since Kamala took office do not exist.

Raimondo: “I don’t believe it because I’ve never heard Trump say anything truthful.”

Reporter: "It is from the Bureau of Labor."

Raimondo: "I'm not familiar with that."pic.twitter.com/UFKJiwWuPZ

— Greg Price (@greg_price11) August 21, 2024

Anger at the Biden-Harris Administration

Some Americans have been talking all year about repeated job report revisions that always trend downward. There are also concerns about the number of jobs created being government positions or jobs filled by foreign-born workers. This paints a dire picture for native-born Americans searching for fulltime employment in the private sector.

Skepticism about government reports on jobs coincide with wider distrust of the overall economy narrative the Biden-Harris administration has been pushing. It also overlaps with discontent about border security as foreign nationals continue to stream across the border, taking low-wage jobs from American citizens.

Many voters believe the Biden administration's claims of economic recovery are misleading, indicative of chronic dishonesty. Discussions frequently connect Biden-Harris lies to broader critiques of the administration's leadership. As Americans continue struggling to make ends meet in a contracting economy with layoffs and rising prices, resentment against leadership is growing. These job revisions highlight ongoing issues of trust and credibility.

• Kamala Harris has seen a drop in approval on jobs to 42% nationally to 40% in swing states.
• Donald Trump holds strong at 44% approval on jobs nationally and 45% in swing states.

On Aug. 19, DHS OIG published a management alert regarding the inability of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to effectively monitor unaccompanied migrant children (UCs) released from the custody of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The report raises significant concerns about children's safety and the risk of trafficking for the 290,000 missing children.

MIG Reports analysis shows significant public concern in reaction to the report. Discussion particularly focuses on issues of human trafficking, border security, and immigration policies.

Key insights from American voter conversations include:

• Trafficking Concerns: The highest level of concern comes from discussions directly linking the Biden administration to the trafficking crisis. 75% of voters blame the current leadership and 75% express a strong desire for new leadership.
• Border Security Issues: Across multiple subtopics, about 70% of discussions express frustration with current border security policies, blaming them for exacerbating trafficking issues and missing children. This sentiment is consistent across different demographics, with a strong call for stricter immigration policies.
• Swing States and Political Impact: In swing states, 65% of discussions link trafficking with missing children, and 55% express a preference for a leadership shift. This suggests concerns may significantly influence electoral outcomes, with clear advocacy for returning to Trump-era immigration policies.

290,000 children are missing due to the open border policies of Biden, Harris & Gallego.

My heart breaks for these poor babies. https://t.co/SPzsvAZywn

— Kari Lake (@KariLake) August 21, 2024

Strong Discontent with Current Leadership

About 75% of people discussing trafficking issues directly blame the Biden-Harris administration for exacerbating the crisis. They refer to human trafficking, missing children, and cartel activity in conversations.

Dissatisfaction is not confined to one area; it spans across various aspects of border policy, with 70% of discussions in border-related topics also reflecting anger and frustration towards the administration. Around 70% are calling for stricter border controls and a change in leadership.

Many also criticize VP Harris for calling out Trump’s DHS for losing track of 545 children when, on her watch, nearly 300,000 have gone missing.

UPDATED: In 2020, Kamala Harris said DHS not being able to find the parents of 545 children was "outrageous and a stain on our national character."

Now under Border Czar Kamala Harris's leadership, DHS has lost nearly 300,000 illegal migrant children.

That's a 54,945.9%… pic.twitter.com/Q84WeB9hSc

— Steve Guest (@SteveGuest) August 20, 2024

Calls for Political Change and Stricter Policies

In addition to the general discontent, there is a strong push for political change. Roughly 65% of voters advocate for a return to Trump-era immigration policies, including measures like "Remain in Mexico" and increased deportations.

Around 60% link the missing children directly to human trafficking. This trend continues in broader conversations about border security, where 70% hold the administration responsible for the ongoing crisis and express a desire for a political shift.

Swing States and Electoral Impact

The sentiment in swing states mirrors national discussion, with a significant focus on the connection between missing children and trafficking. About 65% of voters in swing states link these issues and 55% want new political leadership.

While there is some skepticism—around 30% attributing the problem to broader social or economic factors rather than directly linking it to trafficking—the majority sentiment is one of urgency and a desire for accountability.

When considering the electoral impact, approximately 70% of believe the current administration's policies have failed to secure the border, which they see as contributing to the trafficking crisis. About 65% of discussions support Trump as the candidate best suited to restore order and security.

The overall mood is overwhelmingly negative, with 80% of conversations expressing anger and frustration.

Urgent Policy & Personnel Change Required

The overarching theme is deep dissatisfaction with the current administration's handling of border security and immigration. MIG Reports weighted analysis reveals approximately 66.9% of voters desire political change. Many advocate for a return to stricter border controls. There is a clear demand for leadership that prioritizes the safety and security of vulnerable populations, particularly children, who are seen as being at the greatest risk.

The chart shows that when more people are unhappy or frustrated with how things are being handled—especially regarding issues like trafficking and border security—they are more likely to want new leaders or changes in policies. Each point on the plot represents a different topic, and the closer a point is to the top right corner, the stronger the link between dissatisfaction (negative sentiment) and the push for political change.

The scatter plot's points, representing high levels of negative sentiment and advocacy for change, are closely tied to discussions involving these keywords. The frequent appearance of terms like "human trafficking," "missing children," "open borders," and criticism of Kamala Harris in connection with these issues indicates the more these topics are discussed, the stronger the call for political change becomes. This trend is consistently reflected across the topics analyzed.

On Aug. 6, Bangladesh’s prime minister, who held power for 15 years, fled in a helicopter and dissolved the Bangladeshi Parliament. Many are describing this as the result of a populist uprising rejecting the status quo, driven by Gen Z. This echoes similar populist movements around the world such as in England and Ireland.

Bangladesh protesters celebrate 'second independence' as a statue of former PM Sheikh Hasina's father is torn down after she resigned and fled the country. Al Jazeera’s @msaifkhalid explains. pic.twitter.com/dJ1eCh5722

— Al Jazeera English (@AJEnglish) August 6, 2024

MIG Reports data shows discourse among Americans regarding these events draws parallels to American anti-establishment movements. People compare backlash against establishment figures abroad to growing dissatisfaction with U.S. government entities like the DOJ, FBI, and other institutional bodies.

People often mention things like, "weaponizing DOJ," "indictments," "establishment Democrats," "election interference," and "January 6th defendants." These terms and phrases are interwoven with core concerns about politically weaponized agencies, selective prosecution, and election integrity.

Fear of a Growing Administrative State

Many American discussions draw parallels between the U.S. and broader global governance issues. Average citizens focus on perceived injustices and manipulations by governments against their people. The notion of a weaponized court system in America is central to these conversations. Voters grow concerned about the integrity and impartiality of the U.S. legal system and political establishments.

Further intensifying the discourse, fears arise of an overreaching government. One example includes references to the 1870s and allegations of election interference, which many fear is a problem today. Some also reference government elites and establishment mechanisms working behind the scenes, as in the case of Democrats replacing Joe Biden with Kamala Harris.

Comments frequently highlight the persecution of January 6th defendants, making accusations against certain government figures Joe Biden, Merrick Garland, and Kamala Harris. Many voters express concerns about selective prosecution and a two-tiered justice system. They point out leniency towards leftist protesters compared with stringent actions against right-wing protesters and activists.

Likening global concerns to domestic ones also introduces discussions about Chinese influence and authoritarian tendences. Many believe there are influential ties and funding issues involving the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and U.S. leaders. These suspicions may be exacerbated by observations that Kamala Harris and Tim Walz were nominated a single democratic vote. This further escalates the dialogue as Americans voice distrust in corrupted processes and politicians’ disregard for voter wishes.

Americans Feel Disenfranchised

Sentiment trends overwhelmingly show skepticism and distrust toward government institutions. Negativity is sharpest regarding misuse of legal and enforcement powers for political ends. The discussions maintain a critical tone, underscored by allegations of corruption, manipulation, and the undermining of democratic principles.

Public sentiment is especially critical toward the establishment, with numerous comments suggesting agencies and politicians are corrupt. These conversations often invoke both historical parallels and current geopolitical concerns to underpin their arguments, reflecting a heightened state of partisan and ideological polarization.

Very soon after news of a plea deal for 9/11 terrorist Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM), Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin revoked Brig. Gen. Susan Escallier's authority, reneging on the deal. This sudden reversal deepens already heightened concern among Americans over broader national security issues and the lack of clear leadership in the federal government.

Online discussions about this complete turnaround are heavily intertwined with worry about international conflicts, particularly in the Middle East. Americans are extremely worried about political and military leadership, viewing this situation as evidence that no clear direction or mission is driving decision making.

Partisan Disagreements Worsen Amid Chaos

Voters were generally angry about the plea deal to begin with and, while many are thankful it was negated, the complete disarray among leaders does not inspire confidence. There are national security concerns, evaporating governmental trust, questions about justice, and anger about the broader context of the War on Terror.

There is a stark divide among the public, with some arguing the government's reversal is a necessary stance to ensure that KSM faces the full weight of the law. These voices often advocate for the death penalty, reflecting a belief that the ultimate punishment is essential for crimes of such magnitude. Others viewed the plea deal as a pragmatic approach to preventing prolonged and potentially fruitless legal battles.

The most common keyword in these conversations is "trust," reflecting the erosion of public confidence in U.S. leadership. Voters express a shared sentiment that poor decision making contributes to an already growing distrust in political institutions and legal processes. There is also a belief that government selectively enforces the law based on political convenience.

The term "betrayal" surfaces frequently, encapsulating a sense of disappointment and disillusionment. There is a prevailing sentiment that reneging on the plea deal undermines the credibility of the U.S. justice system and anyone who allowed it to be made in the first place. The plea deal was divisive from the beginning, but the perception of bureaucratic infighting worsens optics.

Who is Running the Country

There is noticeable frustration about the glaring lack of leadership and governance from President Biden. As global conflicts intensify and various U.S. leaders seem to be in conflict with each other, these conversations grow increasingly critical and polarized. Americans worry infighting between various people with decision-making power shows their priorities are on their own agendas rather than America’s safety and security.

Mentions of Kamala Harris are often accompanied by sentiments of disapproval and censure. Many question whether she is the person running the country and, if so, whether complete administrative chaos is what a Harris administration would bring. There is also a wealth of rhetoric associating Harris’s leadership with ongoing crises such as the market crash, the border crisis, and extreme uncertainty about war.

Blaming Joe Biden and Kamala Harris

People discuss the role of Vice President Kamala Harris in the Biden administration and how she is perceived in various political and policy contexts. There is widespread concern about her ability to handle critical issues unfolding across international politics, the economy, and national security. Voters are divided on her performance, but many point out her failures, blaming her and Biden for the current confusion and disarray in U.S. governance.

Public sentiment toward Biden-Harris often leans negative, particularly when discussing issues under Harris’s influence. General perceptions of policy reversals, with terms like "flip-flopping" and "opportunist," lambast the inconsistency in her political stances, further fueling negative sentiment. This perception of inconsistency at the highest levels of leadership only domino down to the seeming confusion with events like this KSM plea deal and the Defense Secretary’s subsequent reversal.

The issue of terrorism and foreign policy also generates significant discussion. References to topics like "Middle East conflict" and explicit mentions of militant groups like "Hamas" intertwine Harris’s name with broader themes of national and international security. With many fearing the world is on the brink of war, failures in critical decisions like plea deals with terrorists terrifies Americans.

Online political discourse shows a strong, and increasing, anti-establishment sentiment posture among Americans. There is growing frustration with the current state of governance and political ideologies.

Discussions suggest a growing discontent with traditional political structures and figures, reflecting a pronounced disdain for perceived liberal and establishment institutions. Key topics include socialism, communism, and perceived threats to the Constitutional Republic. These trends appear to be intensifying, indicating a significant shift in the electorate's mood.

Indicators of Rising Anti-Establishment Trend

Constitutionality and Governance: Discussions frequently focus on the idea that the United States, a Constitutional Republic, is under threat from various internal and external forces. Americans criticize the constitutionality of actions by political leaders, particularly the Biden administration. Discussion of our Republic, the Supreme Court, term limits, and separation of powers are pervasive. There is growing concern about overreach and disregard for constitutional principles.

Socialism and Communism: The discourse also heavily focuses on distinguishing between legal and illegal immigration, with strong negative sentiment towards illegal immigration. The term "socialism" is almost universally condemned, with discussions highlighting economic decline, loss of personal freedoms, and corruption as inherent to socialist regimes. Comparisons to foreign political situations, such as those in Venezuela and Europe, further underscore this disdain.

Voter Impact

The propensity of anti-establishment voters to participate in elections remains high. Many express a strong desire to vote against perceived socialist or communist policies being pushed by the Biden-Harris administration. Support predominantly aligns with Trump, who promises to uphold traditional values and resist the erosion of constitutional authority.

Common voter sentiment includes strong opposition to socialism and communism, which they associate with the Democratic Party. Emphatic endorsements and declarations of voting intentions are frequent, indicating a high level of political engagement.

Sentiment Trends

Biden Disapproval: Sentiment trends predominantly negative towards the Biden administration and associated liberal policies. This negativity is driven by concerns about economic policies, perceived erosion of constitutional rights, and fears of creeping authoritarianism akin to socialist regimes.

Support for Trump: MAGA and conservative voters frequently use positive language when discussing Trump's policies and 2024 presidential run. They view Trump as an antidote to the establishment, capable of restoring economic stability, upholding individual rights, and combating the alleged "woke" agenda.

Reasons for Sentiment Trends:

• Many feel socialist policies threaten personal freedoms and economic autonomy, citing recent regime oppression in Venezuela as foreshadowing.
• Americans blame economic instability and job insecurity on Biden’s policies, which they view as socialist or overly liberal.
• There is distrust in mainstream media and government institutions, which people believe are complicit in Democratic agendas and suppressing dissent.
• More Americans identify with conservative and libertarian principles, fueling negative reactions to increasingly progressive policies.

Keywords Analysis

Top keywords in these discussions include:

• Socialism
• Communism
• Biden
• Harris
• Trump
• Election fraud
• Supreme Court
• Venezuela
• Freedom

These keywords indicate a strong focus on governance style, international comparisons, and fundamental freedoms. Public sentiment towards establishment structures is negative and largely antagonistic toward the Biden administration.

Online discourse about Israeli children recently murdered in a bombing reinforces divided public sentiment in the United States. Most discussions focus on the grief and outrage at the loss of life, condemning Hezbollah, and outcry against silence from the Biden administration, particularly Vice President Kamala Harris.

Many Americans fear attacks like this increase the possibility of conflict escalation for a variety of reasons:

• Questions the U.S. president and uncertainty about Biden transferring power to Harris
• The possibility of a terrorist attack during the Olympic games
• Turkey-Israel tensions rising

Double Standards

There are accusations of double standards, accusing the American media of highlighting loss of Palestinian lives, while downplaying Israeli casualties. Critics of Israel's government call it hypocritical, instead saying the U.S. and Israel are overlooking or downplaying Palestinian casualties.

Conversations about children killed in Gaza evoke deep sympathy and anger from anti-Israel groups. The criticism is not just aimed at Israel but also at international actors, including the European Union and the United Nations, for their perceived inaction or bias.

Meanwhile, Israel supporters express intense anger and mourning over the worsening situation and escalating tensions. Descriptions such as “innocent Druze children” and “playing soccer” emphasize the brutality and injustice of the attack. This sense of tragic loss underpins broader discussions, acting as an emotional catalyst.

Those who support Israel contrast American mainstream media coverage of Israeli victims compared to those in Gaza. They say reports and sympathies for Israel are buried while pro-Palestine, often, pro-terror protests get massive coverage.

Anger Toward Hezbollah

Those who are discussing the recent attack focus ire at Hezbollah, describing its actions as “terrorism” and “pure evil.” It is repeatedly framed as an “Iranian proxy,” reinforcing hostile views towards Iran and its influence in the region. Many Americans view Hezbollah as a primary antagonist, promoting Israel's right to self-defense and decisive retaliation.

Substantial frustration is also directed at the Biden administration for its lack of response. A significant number of comments criticize Vice President Kamala Harris for her silence, indicating a broader discontent with the administration's handling of foreign policy concerning Israel. Descriptors like “weak” and “ineffective” are repeatedly employed to characterize the administration, implying a need for stronger leadership.

This hesitancy and silence have sparked claims that the administration's inaction emboldens groups like Hezbollah. Some also draw stark contrasts with former President Trump’s foreign policy.

There’s a noted disdain for political figures perceived as too closely aligned with or supportive of pro-Palestinian and terrorist entities. For instance, mentions of figures like Kamala Harris and her connections to groups like CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations) spurred critical backlash.

Americans continue to discuss and disagree on geopolitical analysis. For instance, people discuss President of Turkey Erdogan's threats to Israel. Discussions are set against the backdrop of Turkey's geopolitical ambitions and historical hostility.

Conversations draw parallels to historical events like the Iraq War, interpreting them as part of a broader pattern of American and Israeli foreign policy actions in the Middle East. Critics claim Israel's strategic moves, including blaming Hezbollah for the Majdal Shams attack, are tactics to draw the U.S. into a larger regional conflict.

Views of Harris

Many Americans are also angry about the lack of leadership from the White House amid worsening international conditions. Reports that VP Harris is receiving briefings on the situation in Israel draw demands for explanation at Biden’s lack of visibility as President.

.@VP has been briefed and is closely monitoring Hezbollah’s horrific attack on a soccer field in Majdal Shams in northern Israel yesterday which killed a number of children and teenagers. She condemns this horrific attack and mourns for all those killed and wounded.

— Phil Gordon (@PhilGordon46) July 28, 2024

Some voters label Harris as anti-American, associating her with antisemitic and globalist ideologies. Discussions here are deeply negative, accusing both Harris and Biden of failing to deter threats to international stability. People use phrases “utter silence” to describe both Biden and Harris’s response, underscoring frustration at leaders dodging their responsibility.

Discussion largely contrasts Harris’s actions and statements with President Biden's silence. On one hand, Harris's "ironclad" support for Israel, as emphasized by her national security advisor, Phil Gordon, aligns with pro-Israel sentiment. However, many Israel supporters do not feel confident in the genuineness of these statements.

American views of DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas currently revolve around the recent assassination attempt on former President Donald Trump and the resignation of Secret Service Director Kimberly Cheatle. Online conversations reflect an intense scrutiny of the Secret Service's role in security failures and raise numerous concerns about potential cover-ups by federal agencies. Public sentiment strongly centers on accountability and transparency, primarily driven by a deeper distrust of government institutions.

There is a pervasive belief that Cheatle’s resignation is a move orchestrated to protect Mayorkas. Many voice skepticism and outrage over the perceived manipulation and mishandling of investigations related to the assassination attempt.

Trending Discussions

Voters demand more transparency and accountability from both the Secret Service, DHS, and the FBI. There is a significant emphasis on obtaining access to various forms of communications—radio, text, and emails—as well as forensic evidence. People want answers about shell casing locations and weapon descriptions. Witness statements, social media activity, and cell phone data from the shooter are also highly sought after by the public.

Many see Director Cheatle’s resignation as part of a larger "cover-up" to protect higher-ups, most notably Alejandro Mayorkas. Discussion frequently mentions deleted Secret Service text messages from January 6, which heightens suspicions of ulterior motives and hidden truths.

There is a persistent belief that Mayorkas or other leaders denied essential resources and support which could have prevented the assassination attempt, lending credence to conspiracy theories perpetuated by the public.

Sentiment Trends

Voter sentiment toward Alejandro Mayorkas is overwhelmingly negative, driven by accusations multi-agency conspiracies against Donald Trump. The public feels strongly that Mayorkas, Cheatle, and others should be held accountable. There are calls for their arrests and charges for accessories to attempted murder.

This intense scrutiny is exacerbated by fresh revelations in media reports, such as inconsistencies in statements from the Secret Service and Mayorkas’ office. These inconsistencies further fuels distrust toward investigators and leaders.

There are also claim from the founder of the social media platform Gab, that the shooter may have had a Gab account on which he posted support for Biden. This contradicts media and Democrat narratives denying that the shooter had a social media presence.

🚨Approximately 30 minutes ago, Gab learned that Thomas Crooks, the deranged Joe Biden supporter who attempted to assassinate President Donald Trump, may have had an account on our platform. We are unable to confirm that the account in question actually belonged to him.

The… pic.twitter.com/BcJrZJ4Yhk

— Andrew Torba (@BasedTorba) July 24, 2024

Sentiment trends indicate a profoundly polarized environment, with discussions frequently boiling over into demands for impeachment and broader political consequences. Furthermore, the public's reaction underscores a boiling distrust in government institutions and a belief that significant conspiracies are regularly hidden from view.

Impact on Voters

With these scandals and growing distrust, undecided voters in swing states and nationally may play a decisive role in the election. The way this situation unfolds and how it is handled could influence voter perceptions of the current administration's integrity and competence.

Critical voter groups will inevitably look to how the government addresses these accusations. A perceived cover-up or failure to transparently address the assassination attempt on Donald Trump could sway votes towards him. Especially if he continues to promise accountability and transparency.

On July 19, a worldwide outage of Microsoft devices relying on CrowdStrike products for cybersecurity experienced a major failure. This disastrous outage impacted industries from airlines to hospitals to offices. CrowdStrike is also the same firm which essentially initiated the Russiagate claim.

Americans took to social media with skepticism, frustration, and political blame games. MIG Reports data shows several dominant themes and sentiments from these conversations, reflecting the public’s varied concerns and theories about the event and its broader implications.

Top Topics and Keywords

The main narrative centers on cybersecurity issues, political intrigue, and widespread speculation. Keywords such as “deep state,” "Blackrock," "CrowdStrike," "Russiagate," "FISA warrant," "quasi-quo," "Biden administration," and "Microsoft outage" frequently appear. They are often wrapped in complex and sometimes conspiratorial storytelling.

Recurring topics include the link between historical political events such as Hillary Clinton's alleged mishandling of a private email server and the Benghazi attack. These are weaved into a broader narrative of political corruption and conspiracy involving corrupt corporations.

Another frequently discussed topic is the Microsoft outage, considered by many as a deliberate act with significant political undertones. Many say it was potentially intended to manipulate public perception or influence political outcomes. Some speculate the convenience of the outage for anyone attempting to bury evidence related to the Trump assassination attempt.

There is also significant discourse surrounding large corporations like Blackrock and their involvement in these events. This underscores a prevalent concern among the public about the influence of major financial and investment firms in political and national security matters.

Discussion Trends

The discussions trend towards a broader context of distrust in governmental and institutional transparency. There is a notable mix of factual recounting of past events and highly speculative theories about connections and motives behind the CrowdStrike incident.

Many discuss the present situation within their views of systemic fraud, manipulation, and political subversion. Individuals are vocal about their perceptions of collusion between the FBI, CrowdStrike, and powerful political figures to protect certain interests at the expense of transparency and justice.

Sentiment Trends

Sentiments largely skew negative, with a considerable amount of anger and distrust directed towards the Biden-Harris administration. A significant portion of the public views the administration as complicit or at least negligent in addressing cybersecurity threats and safeguarding public and private infrastructure.

There is also a thread of resignation and some despair as people discuss what they see as the futility of expecting accountability within current political systems. However, this sentiment is often coupled with a fervent call to action, stressing the importance of vigilance and political change to counter the perceived entwined interests of political, corporate and deep state entities.

Political Blame

Many fault the Biden-Harris administration. Labels of incompetence, weakness in protecting national security, and direct accusations of enabling larger conspiratorial networks are recurrent themes. The aftermath of the security breach elicits calls to hold the administration accountable, sometimes employing highly charged language that underscores a deep sense of betrayal and urgency.

Conversations often draw on recent, related failures or perceived inadequacies within the current administration. Many believe there is a pattern of negligence or deliberately corrupt oversight. People discuss “Biden Migrant Crime Wave,” inflation issues, and the Ukraine and Israel conflicts as interconnected failures, amplifying backlash against the administration.

Takeaway Analysis

American conversations about the CrowdStrike outage echoes broader concerns about deeply systemic corporate and government corruption. People view this event as a political maneuvering and national security failures intertwined with corporate failure.

Repeated mentions and constructed narratives around "deep state" orchestrations, billionaire-backed manipulations, and spy tactics illustrate a public highly conspiratorial. They are engaged but also profoundly troubled by the state of political affairs and cybersecurity.

These narratives and sentiments point to a collective sense of disillusionment and a clamor for more rigorous protective measures and accountability from those in power. The convergence of historical political events with contemporary security woes in public discourse also highlights an underlying continuity of mistrust and suspicion towards governmental and corporate actions within the realm of national security.