Since Governor Gavin Newsom enacted a $20-per-hour mandate for fast food employees in April, California has lost 10,000 jobs and numerous franchises closed locations. MIG Reports analysis show distinct disapproval from Californians in their discussion of Newsom.

• In 2024, Gavin Newsom’s approval on the economy is trending downward, currently at 35%, which is 7 points below his six-month average of 42%.

Economic Issues

• Public sentiment is highly negative about the wage mandate's impact on fast-food jobs in California, blaming Governor Newsom's policies.
• Californians are discussing their desire for lower taxes as the current tax rates as detrimental to businesses and leading to job losses like the 10,000 fast-food employees.
• Newsom is perceived as ineffective in managing the state's economy and addressing the needs of lower-income families, leading to feelings of disenfranchisement.
• Concerns include increasing crime rates, high costs of living, and more people leaving the state. These make it difficult for many to afford essentials like fuel, food, utilities, and medication.

Fiscal Policy

Governor Newsom’s name is mentioned frequently and mostly negatively. Most Californians criticize him for how he handles the state's budget and transforming a surplus into a deficit.

Some voters interpret California's large budget deficit as contributing to the loss of 10,000 fast food employees. There isn't a specific emphasis on the wage mandate, but complaints are often tied back to overall economic mismanagement.

Many California residents complain about the cost of living, prices for gas and food, and a decrease in their savings. They directly point to the governor's policies as a reason for these changes.

Overall, Californians seem to distrust Governor Newsom, which seems largely due to his financial decisions. People are voicing their frustrations about the state's budget deficit and the perceived negative impact of Newsom's economic policies on their personal finances.

Sentiment about the overall economic health of the state is negative. Voters express concerns over job loss, increased living costs, and overall poor management of California's economy.

There is also a sense of exasperation, as people feel their concerns and hardships are not being addressed. They urge Newsom to "sit down” and get in touch with the people.

People are frustrated and dissatisfied with Newsom's leadership and many call for fresh leaders who can manage the economy better.

Recent economic data from the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis went viral showcasing economic disparities for Americans between the Trump and Biden administrations. MIG Reports analyzed voter commentary to identify sentiment patterns and reaction trends.

What Americans are Saying

When comparing economic strains under the Biden administration versus the Trump administration, it's important to consider consumer prices, household net worth, and discussions involving taxes.

Consumer prices as measured by the Consumer Price Index, a measure of the average change over time in the prices paid by consumers for goods and services, have illustrated a rising trend with inflation. Between the two administrations, the American public has witnessed a noticeable shift in inflation rates under Biden.

As for household net worth, which is a measure of the value of all assets, minus the total of all liabilities—there is a mixed view. Changes in household net worth are not only determined by economic policies but also influenced by a variety of other factors like changes in property values, stock market performance, savings rates, debt levels, and more.

Generally, the housing market has seen significant increases, as has the stock market. However, disparity remains, as not all Americans hold assets in the form of property or stocks. Regardless of individual situations, both the housing and stock markets performed better during Trump’s administration.

Americans are also discussing day-to-day costs and are vocal about their tax obligations under Biden's administration. There are common concerns about taxation fairness, particularly concerning churches that engage in political expression, mega-churches, and big corporations. By contrast, Trump was often touted as the president for deregulation and tax cuts, particularly with the 2017 tax reform which lowered corporate tax rates. However, critics argued this increased wealth disparity.

Household Net Worth

During Trump's presidency, some Americans expressed optimism about lower taxes and the benefits to business owners and wealthy investors. Trump’s promise to reduce taxes was welcomed by those who view it as an incentive for economic growth and personal wealth accumulation. Some commend wealthy business owners under Trump's leadership, acknowledging their roles in job creation and charity donations.

Under Biden's presidency, discussions around wealth have also centered on taxation but with a different tone. People express concerns about increased taxes and their impact on personal and corporate wealth. This sentiment is particularly pronounced among the wealthy and business owners who claim they are unfairly targeted by higher tax rates.

The discourse also includes those championing higher taxation for the rich as a means of wealth redistribution. Some argue the wealthy and corporations should pay more taxes to fund government projects and programs that benefit the wider populace.

Many American voters express views about illegal immigrants and their impact on the economy. Some support amnesty for illegal immigrants, arguing they could contribute more substantially to America's tax revenue, however a consistently growing number of Americans disagree.

This study of online conversations gives a sense of the current mood and concerns of Americans. Perspectives for Americans of their economy under Biden and Trump consider and reflect multiple factors, including consumer price index, household net worth, day-to-day living expenses, and taxes. Notably, former President Trump gives Americans more confidence in all aspects.

Voter reactions to Steve Bannon being ordered to jail are divided but with severe negativity, much like opinions on Donald Trump's conviction. The rhetoric varies sharply, with a considerable number viewing the order as a red flag for the state of democracy in the U.S., while others believe it's necessary for the government to maintain its authority.

Discussion Trends

Critics of Jailing Bannon

• Critics of the order to jail Bannon view it as political persecution. They believe Bannon is a pawn in a political game orchestrated by the Biden administration.
• Comments accuse Biden's administration of using power to silence and jail political opponents. They equate these actions to tactics used by dictators and communist regimes.

• Critics see Bannon's indictment as a threat to governance and an attack on free speech. Common phrases include "deep state," "lawfare," and "banana republic," indicating distrust in institutional justice.
• There is a trend of linking this situation to broader conservative grievances. These grievances include perceived infringements on First Amendment and Second Amendment rights.

Those Cheering the Order

• Some view Bannon's indictment as a step towards accountability and upholding the rule of law. This narrative portrays Bannon as challenging institutional authority and jeopardizing democratic norms.
• These views are less visible compared to the critics of the actions taken against Bannon.
  

Rule of Law

A recurring topic within these discussions is the perceived decline of the rule of law in America. While both sides invoke this term, they interpret and apply it differently based on partisan perspectives. Some believe Bannon's punishment upholds the rule of law because he broke the law and must face the consequences just like any citizen.

However, others feel the rule of law is being undermined, contending that Bannon's case is an instance of political persecution rather than a lawful procedure.

There is disparate sentiment depending on a person’s political orientation. However, across the board, there is a shared concern for the health of American democracy and the country's justice system, though opinions on the current state of these institutions vary sharply.

Demographics play a significant role in the polarized viewpoints, with partisan affiliations primarily driving the discourse. Ideological differences aside, there appear to be shared anxieties about the rule of law, democracy, and the use of power in politics—themes that resonate with Americans of all political stripes.

On the 80th Anniversary of D-Day, illegal aliens organized a protest in New York City, blocked traffic and demanded Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) be abolished. MIG Reports analysis of American reactions shows unified disapproval.

The dominant sentiment Americans express is one of concern about uncontrolled illegal immigration. There are many comments highlighting issues of human trafficking and drug cartels. There is criticism of both Republican and Democrat politicians. Voters blame various representatives for damaging immigration policies, whether through inaction or misguided action.

The online conversation often includes derogatory and offensive remarks towards some politicians, demonstrating a high level of emotional intensity and strong political polarization on the border.

For instance, comments directed at politicians like Lauren Boebert and Ilhan Omar ranged from personal attacks to demands for expulsion or deportation. This hostility signals a high degree of controversy and animosity on the U.S. border crisis.

There is also a lot of mocking in online conversations as voters accuse certain representatives of hypocrisy or lack of effectiveness. The sentiment towards open borders is highly negative, with many expressing concerns about national security and maintaining the rule of law.

It seems most unhappy rhetoric comes from conservative-leaning individuals. They consistently express negative sentiment toward the border as a political issue, mentioning crime, border security, and national sovereignty. However, most Americans seem to have some anger or mockery and generally don't support the current border situation. This suggest that additional demographic groups share overall disapproval on border issues, but with different perspectives and emphasis than conservatives.

Recently, a group of 57 scientists from around the world who used United Nations-approved methods concluded a study which determined global warming is increasing. However, the study was only able to point to an increased use of fossil fuels across the globe. The collection of authors was formed to provide annual scientific updates every seven to eight years for major U.N. scientific assessments.

MIG Reports performed a comparative analysis of public discussion and sentiment about climate change and reactions to the U.N. study.

Discussion Trends

Analysis compares views of climate change in general and reactions to the recent U.N. study. When discussing climate change overall, analysis shows:

• Sentiment: Americans are polarized, with a consensus of urgency around climate change curbed by significant skepticism.
• Consensus on Urgency: Those who view climate change as urgent warn of extreme temperatures and rising CO2 levels. They call for renewable energy investment, fossil fuel reduction, and recognition of environmental and economic benefits. There is also an emphasis on the impact of climate change on health and agriculture.
• Expert Input: Contributions from scientists, medical professionals, and environmental experts call for immediate action and policy measures (e.g., executive orders, clean energy endorsements).
• Skepticism: There are also recurring doubts about the ability of modern science to predict weather, framing climate change as a natural occurrence. This group cites historical climate cycles and claims there is manipulation and exaggeration in studies motivated by control and financial gain. These conversations reveal severe skepticism about accelerating global warming and highlight contradictory data.
• Engagement Level: Americans are very engaged with discussions about climate change related to personal lifestyle, economic implications, and political ideologies.
• Conclusion: Data suggests there is a deep divide among Americans on the topic of climate change. There is strong advocacy on one side and skepticism on the other, as some see climate change as a geopolitical or financial tool.

Analysis of discourse reacting to the recent U.N. study indicates shows:

• Sentiment: American attitudes toward the study are mixed, similarly to overall views of climate change.
• Awareness and Concern: Many express concerns about global warming, referencing environmental changes (e.g., floral blooms in Antarctica and deforestation) and public health impacts. Many strongly advocate for climate action, clean energy, and celebrating World Environment Day.
• Skepticism: However, skeptics attribute changes in the study to natural cycles, critical theory, or population control. There is some doubt around human-made CO2 as a major factor in global warming. This group accuses scientists of using climate change to gain status or money, claiming much of their conclusions are fearmongering.
• Engagement Level: There’s significant engagement about the U.N. study, which includes confrontations and personal attacks.
• Branching Topics: Conversations about the study also tend to include discussions about personal lifestyle choices, economic implications, and political ideologies related to climate change in general.
• Conclusion: Data suggests Americans are polarized, despite the scientific study, emphasizing the need for clear and reliable information.

Disparity Between Perspectives and Sentiments

Conversations about climate change broadly and the U.N. study also show some disparity:

Level of Consensus

Overall, there are mixed opinions about climate change. There are both significant concerns and strong skepticism, highlighting a polarized public view.

Public consensus on the recent study shows a sense of urgency toward climate change, but there is also substantial skepticism about its causes and severity.

Focus on Advocacy vs. Skepticism

The subject of climate change sees a balanced focus on advocacy for climate action and skepticism about the science and motives behind climate change claims.

Regarding the study, there is a stronger emphasis on urgency and a need for immediate action. There is some skepticism and mistrust of the scientific community and perceived motives.

Nature of Skepticism

Skepticism towards climate change in general includes doubts about human impact, claims of natural cycles, and accusations of fearmongering for control or monetary gain.

Skepticism toward the U.N. study focuses on scientists' predictive abilities, historical climate cycles, and manipulation for control or monetary gain, with added doubt about accelerating global warming.

Engagement and Confrontation

Both topics show high engagement levels, with significant confrontations and personal attacks, reflecting the deeply polarized nature of the discourse.

Branching Discussions

Both topics extend discussions beyond climate issues to personal lifestyle choices, economic implications, and political ideologies.

In summary, both general and more specific discussions about climate change reflect a highly engaged and polarized discourse online. There is a clear divide between advocacy for urgent action and skepticism about the causes, severity, and motivations behind climate change narratives. The need for reliable, understandable information is evident in both discussions.

Claudia Sheinbaum was elected as Mexico's first female president, which has led to a flurry of public reactions. The assassination of at least 37 political candidates in Mexico has also stirred trepidation. MIG Reports analysis shows increasing worry about what this means for safety and sovereignty in the United States.

Sentiment Analysis

Online commentary links Sheinbaum to drug cartels, suggesting she was elected by their influence. This belief causes a deep concern about Mexico's ongoing accommodation of drug trafficking and related violence. Sheinbaum's election adds to a narrative of skepticism about her ability to improve the situation. With forecasts that Sheinbaum would win, there was an immediate drop in sentiment from American observers.

Some voices accuse Sheinbaum of being a socialist who will worsen the crisis of illegal immigration in the United States. This prospect also increases concerns about threats to American national security posed by drug cartels who may operate more freely.

Many voters express disappointment, anger, and fear, at the implications of a Sheinbaum presidency, citing likely increases in drug trafficking, violent crime, and illegal immigration in the U.S.

Many also suggest Sheinbaum's victory is meaningless due to Mexican election being commandeered by the cartels. People also view Sheinbaum as having ineffective and socialist policies.

Sheinbaum’s supporters online celebrate the historic significance of her achievement as Mexico's first female president. Some of the supportive commentary is hopeful she will focus on curbing Mexico's high murder rate, which is largely caused by cartel activity.

Discussion Analysis

Some of the top discussion topics related to Sheinbaum’s election include:

• America's drug crisis, specifically the fentanyl epidemic
• The potential for continued lax border control policies
• People argue for stricter policies both on drug control and border security

Notably, there is little sentiment noted about Sheinbaum's policies or ideas beyond the issues of drugs and immigration. This suggests broader understanding of her platform has been overshadowed by these dominant concerns.

Recent reporting on Boston Mayor Michelle Wu's potential decision to give children a role in budgeting priorities is being mocked online. The program, which was approved in 2021, aims to include all residents in budget participation, even kids as young as 11. Boston City Council members are also criticizing Wu, calling the plan “unserious” and “wholly inappropriate.”

Not just a political issue, many apolitical citizens are criticizing the move with the same arguments many right leaning partisans are using. Liberals are also apprehensive of supporting the plan. While some consider the proposal inclusive, others vehemently oppose it. For the most part, progressives are either silent on the issue or pushing back.

While there is general negativity toward a participatory budgeting process, most of the negative reactions are from conservatives and Republicans who criticize liberal leaders. Many seem concerned about the concentration of power and the potential influence of leftist ideologies in the decision-making process. There are strong references to the concept of "wokeness" and its impact on these decisions.

Many view the proposed plan as the result of ideological pushes toward diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), with some framing it as possible indoctrination. Some of these reactions also follow larger discussion trends amongst conservatives regarding freedom of speech.

Positive reactions predominantly come from those who hold progressive or left-wing ideologies. They point to inclusivity, representation, and potential contributions to the betterment of society, praising the decision. This group seems more enthusiastic about child involvement, often framing it as a necessary step towards a more diverse and fair society.

This inclusive view is not representative of all Democratic Party members, though. Council Member Ed Flynn (D) published a letter to Director Renato Castelo saying, "I am writing to again emphasize my unequivocal and vehement opposition to the voting process for project proposals from the Office of Participatory Budgeting, particularly in allowing residents as young as 11 years-old to vote for projects to be earmarked.”

There are also responses that are not politically motivated. This group is concerned with the logistical and practical implications of participatory budgeting. They question the decision-making abilities of children and whether they have the necessary understanding and maturity to make these choices.

MIG Reports analysis of Donald Trump’s conviction in New York City shows a continued negative reaction through the weekend. Fury is largely influenced by conservative and less progressive demographics expressing dissatisfaction with the trial and beliefs the process was unjust and politically motivated.

Discussion Trends

A lot of the conversation is highly partisan with right leaning comments often criticizing liberals, the court, and other institutions involved in the decision.

Some voters believe the unjust Trump conviction is a step towards communism and an attack on conservative values.

There is a palpable sentiment of deep division within the country, often illustrated through derogatory language, and a complete disconnect in the interpretation of events by both sides of the aisle.

Sentiment Trends

One clear trend a sense of disappointment and dissatisfaction with both the Democratic Party and the Biden administration. This is expressed through repeated criticism and anger towards Biden, expressions of disagreement with his policies, and criticism of his administration’s political maneuvers and lawfare. Many show support for a Trump comeback and tend to downplay or dismiss his legal issues.

Liberals and progressives express a more disjointed sentiment. Some celebrate the conviction as a win for democracy and justice, while others raise issues about social divisiveness stemming from political polarization. Far left and progressive voters sometimes express dissatisfaction about perceived insufficiency or inadequacy of systemic changes the conviction may bring.

Accusations Against the Uniparty

• Conversations frame Trump's conviction as perpetrated by a system run by a corrupt bipartisan "uniparty." Many believe the uniparty or the deep state aims to consolidate power—and most view the Republican party as complicit.
• Most discussion comes from Trump supporters who view him as fighting against this corrupt establishment. The verdict reinforces support for him and decreases sentiment towards Biden due to his perceived association with the uniparty.

Rule of Law

• The largest volume of conversation refers to Trump's conviction being a result of political bias and legal system misuse.
• Most voters express dissatisfaction with Democrats and Biden, while a minority support the conviction. They view the entire trial as a breakdown of the rule of law.
• Those who approve of the verdict view it as justified and mostly support the current administration. Notably there seems to be very little middle ground on this issue, with most voters either strongly in favor or strongly opposed.
• Some sub-groups believe Republicans are undermining the constitution and rule of law, increasing support for Biden and decreasing support for the GOP.
• As a result of disillusionment and distrust of the system, there is discontent with politicians like House Speaker Mike Johnson and Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg for their perceived bias and corruption.

Deep State

• Conversations about Trump's potential conviction are emotionally charged and polarized, often reflecting selective viewpoints, depending on the echo chamber.
• Trump supporters discuss corruption involving the "deep state," Democrats, and CIA, expressing dissatisfaction and viewing the conviction as unjust.
• Trump critics see the potential conviction as a form of justice, feeling satisfaction at his possible downfall. This may also suggest motives are skewed away from solely seeking justice but influenced by a partisan outlook.

After a New York Times article speculating Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito revealed sympathy for January 6 protesters with an upside-down flag at his home, liberals are calling for his recusal. Amid escalating political turmoil and wavering trust in the justice system, partisan arguments are breaking out between the left and the right.

Reactions to the media reporting and Democrat calls for recusal can primarily be divided along political lines. Those who support Democrats argue Alito's actions have demonstrated bias and breach of conduct. Republicans and those on the right label the recusal outcry as a politically motivated on conservative Justices.

Liberal Outcry Against Justice Alito

Left leaning voters tend to see the call for Alito’s recusal as entirely justified. They cite a belief in his partisan bias and claim he involves himself in political activities outside of his judicial duties. They argue for the necessity of maintaining impartiality and integrity in the judiciary, calling for transparency and accountability from judges. They also voice concern about the potential corruption of the judicial system, applying this fear specifically to Alito.

Mainstream media outlets and Democrats insist Alito’s refusal to recuse himself brings up concerns of fairness. They accuse his wife of sympathizing with January 6 protests by her flag choices, citing this as a violation of judicial ethics.

Conservative Reactions to the Idea of Alito’s Recusal

Most right leaning Americans take umbrage at the idea that Justice Alito should recuse himself for an unfounded rumor which they consider a nonstory. Republicans are more likely to see Democrat arguments as part of a larger-scale effort to control and manipulate judicial systems to their advantage.

Those on the right view accusations against Justice Alito as an attempt to undermine the balance of power on a Supreme Court with a conservative majority. There are also vocal questions and accusations about Democrats’ political motivations in attacking Alito.

Conservatives argue calls for Alito’s recusal are highly hypocritical when contrasted with Democrat reactions to judges like Arthur Engoron or Juan Merchan – who both side with Democrats in their judicial decisions.

Double Standards Applied to Conservatives

Critics who oppose Alito’s recusal highlight Democrat hypocrisy. They point to alleged ethical violations by liberal judges such as Judge Merchan, which Democrats dismiss as inconsequential.

Those on the left claim to seek a stronger ethical code and accountability in the judiciary for figures like Justice Alito. However, many point to this as an outrageous inconsistency that is exclusively applied to conservatives.

Accusations of double standards are especially stark as voters on all sides voice concern with the allegations against Judge Merchan. Many are calling for thorough investigations into connections with his daughter and her financial dealings regarding Trump’s recent New York trial.

However, conversations about Judge Merchan have not generated the same amount of outcry as Justice Alito's controversy. Some critics perceive this as a display of political bias against conservatives by the media and Democrats. They accuse both of overlooking and under reporting ethical violations from liberal judges and becoming hysterical about benign issues like the flag choices at the Alito home.