MIG Reports data analysis of Democratic voter opinions about Joe Biden shows top priorities are partisan. Mentions of "cognitive decline" and "cognitive issues" are notably absent from the discourse, suggesting a lack of concern or acknowledgment among Democrats. Instead, the prevailing discussions focus on Joe Biden's achievements, actions, and leadership qualities, reflecting a strong support base as the President rapidly recedes from public awareness.

A Love-Hate Relationship with Biden

Democratic sentiment toward Joe Biden appears highly favorable as many pronounce commendations of his policy successes and overall governance. This is disorienting for some who highlight Democrat and media hypocrisy in the last several weeks.

In a matter of days, Democrats seemed to do a 180-degree spin from fawning praise to vehement criticism before and after the first presidential debate. The confusion is deepened by Democratic voices again turning on a dime back to glowing praise following Biden’s withdrawal from the presidential race—completing a 360-degree head spin.

Now, many Democrats extol Biden's competence in economic management, using phrases like "economic growth" and "master class in economic management.” These discussions emphasize a belief in the Biden-Harris administration's effectiveness at driving economic progress. These supporters actively promote further investment in the administration's vision.

Another prevalent theme in Democratic conversations is Biden’s perceived efficacy in international affairs and high-profile negotiations. The release of U.S. hostages from Russia provides a recent example for supporters to showcase Biden's adept diplomatic skills. They say things like, "Thank you, President Biden and VP Kamala Harris!" to underscore their appreciation.

The same group, however, fall silent during incidents like a seemingly confused President Biden boarding the plane which just delivered hostages Messrs. Gershkovich and Whelan. They also fail to comment on incoherent and confusing statements from both Biden and Harris.

Joe Biden climbed back up the stairs of an airplane that had just arrived and he wasn’t flying on, as Kamala watched in amazement

I mean, he legitimately has no idea where he is or what he’s doing
pic.twitter.com/g5dBZ0CqXo

— Ian Miller (@ianmSC) August 2, 2024

Circling the Wagons

Criticism of Biden within Democratic circles is sporadic and tends to involve attacks from opposing political figures rather than internal dissent. Some use words like "backstabbing," presumably referencing rumors that Biden was pushed out by party leadership.

Those questioning Biden's legitimacy as the sitting president are framed as Republican sympathizers rather than Democratic voters with legitimate concerns. The overarching tone is defensive and protective of Biden against perceived partisan attacks.

Finally, the collaboration and mutual support within the Democratic political landscape are highlighted. There are swells of endorsements for Biden's administration, with Harris as the successor.

Voters discuss "gun reforms," "Biden-Harris saved lives," and accolades from "economics professors" in a collective effort to bolster the administration's accomplishments and rally continued support. This is despite numerous and consistent hits on Joe Biden’s approval throughout the past week of several key topics.

Americans express relief and gratitude for the release of American hostages held by Russia, including journalist Evan Gershkovich, ex-Marine Paul Whelan, and Alsu Kurmasheva. However, there is also a complex underlying discussion about the Biden administration’s strategy, timing, and competence.

Conversations online show a mixture of gratitude, skepticism, and critical evaluations of broader foreign policies. There are overt emotional tones as Americans express relief at hostages being brought home. Nevertheless, there is anger and disappointment from those who perceive the negotiation's terms as unfavorable.

• Overall, sentiment regarding Russia and international security received a slight bump with news of American hostages coming home.
• Americans are positive about returning our countrymen but express negativity about the terms of the swap and the Biden administration.

Praise and Criticism for the Hostage Swap

Biden supporters show profound relief and appreciation for the administration's efforts to secure the hostage release. They consider it a successful negotiation and a significant diplomatic victory. They cite it as evidence of Biden's leadership and capacity to manage complex international crises.

Critics express gratitude for the return of American citizens but question the timing and terms of the prisoner swap. This group laments what the United States conceded to Russia in the exchange. They use terms like "unknown trade-offs," "concessions," and "secret deals," reflecting an underlying distrust of the administration's transparency and decision-making processes.

Many also argue the administration's timing was politically motivated, strategically using the deal to bolster Democratic support leading into the election. They say, rather than prioritizing the hostages' welfare, Biden used them as leverage when it was convenient for Democrats.

There are comparisons between Biden and former President Trump with Democrats suggesting Biden successfully accomplished what Trump could not. Trump's supporters, however, accuse the Biden administration of undermining American interests and being overly conciliatory toward adversarial nations like Russia.

Larger International Issues

The hostage swap is also inevitably intertwined with broader debates on U.S. foreign policy and national security. Some accuse the Biden administration of being lenient or complicit in other international issues, such as its stance on Israel and Ukraine.

People use terms like "complicity," "leniency," and "appeasement" to suggest Biden policies embolden adversaries and create unnecessary dangers for America. Many say the administration's actions demonstrate a lack of strength, negotiating from a position of weakness.

Critics argue the deal’s terms give away too much in return, including lifting sanctions and releasing individuals involved in serious crimes. There are also claims that this deal could set a dangerous precedent, potentially encouraging future detentions of Americans abroad.

Detractors argue Biden's approach might embolden adversaries by demonstrating a willingness to engage in negotiations, which they equate with capitulation or weakness. This group says Trump secured the release of hostages without making concessions or paying ransoms, thereby maintaining a stronger posture on the global stage.

Kamala Serves Up a Word Salad

In their joint public statement upon the hostages landing on home soil, President Biden and VP Harris also generated discussion and criticism. Many on the right accused Harris of delivering incoherent statements in her signature “word salad” fashion.

Many use her extemporaneous statements, which are often confusing and seemingly circular, as a reason to question her capability in handling complex international diplomacy. These detractors often draw comparisons to Joe Biden’s declining cognitive capabilities and Harris’s similarly meaningless and vapid remarks. People also question who is actually in charge of the country, viewing Harris as essentially in power, despite Biden still appearing as a figurehead.

The fact that first Joe Biden and now Kamala Harris cannot speak coherently without a teleprompter is not a bug but a feature for the staffers who run the presidency. The Party is more comfortable vesting authority in a politburo than a chief executive.pic.twitter.com/uRvZrTylLR

— David Sacks (@DavidSacks) August 2, 2024

Some also speculate about Biden’s apparent public confusion, sharing footage of him boarding the plane that brought U.S. hostages home. People wonder whether he wasn’t aware of where to go or what was happening. Others suggest perhaps he was using the airplane’s restroom.

Biden walked onto the plane after the prisoners got off

Did he think he was being exchanged to Russia?? pic.twitter.com/37GkBCT21s

— Jack Poso 🇺🇸 (@JackPosobiec) August 2, 2024

After a biological male was allowed to box a woman at the Olympics, many Americans are voicing strong objections and outrage. Female boxer Angela Carini withdrew from the match after only 46 seconds, saying it was the hardest she’d even been hit and that she could not breathe after a blow to her nose.

Imane Khelif's participation highlights concerns about unfair competition due to biological male advantages. People argue Khelif’s inclusion undermines the integrity of women’s sports, given the athlete's previous exclusion from the World Boxing Championship for failing a testosterone test and possessing XY chromosomes.

This sentiment encapsulates a broader frustration with the disproportionate influence of woke ideologies in sports and politics. Critics call for separate categories for transgender or intersex athletes or the establishment of a Trans Games akin to the Paralympics to preserve fairness in competitive sports.

After 46 seconds and a few hits to the face by a male, Carini forfeited the fight.

Call me crazy, but It's almost as if women don't want to be punched in the face by a male as the world watches and applauds.

This is glorified male violence against women.pic.twitter.com/RYU7aTbn0I

— Riley Gaines (@Riley_Gaines_) August 1, 2024

Many are also pointing out the International Boxing Association’s (IBA) statement on the matter, which urged people to question the Olympic committee on why this was allowed.

BREAKING. The International Boxing Association has released the following scathing statement regarding women’s boxing.

Thread. 1/ pic.twitter.com/JH88N4Ggp5

— Jennifer 🟥🔴🧙‍♀️🦉🐈‍⬛ 🦖 (@babybeginner) July 31, 2024

High profile figures like J.K. Rowling and Jake Paul have also spoken out on the issues, objecting to the event as a global outrage.

Could any picture sum up our new men’s rights movement better? The smirk of a male who’s knows he’s protected by a misogynist sporting establishment enjoying the distress of a woman he’s just punched in the head, and whose life’s ambition he’s just shattered. #Paris2024 pic.twitter.com/Q5SbKiksXQ

— J.K. Rowling (@jk_rowling) August 1, 2024

This is sickening. This is a travesty.

Doesn’t matter what you believe. This is wrong and dangerous. https://t.co/mddORfaK2D

— Jake Paul (@jakepaul) August 1, 2024

Positive Support is Scarce

Most reactions express anger, calling for fairness in women's sports. People often express concerns about fairness and safety, emphasizing that men are physically stronger than women—including intersex individuals with the physical advantages of biological men.

People vehemently argue that men do not belong in women's sports, criticizing the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and demanding action.

There are some supporters who call for "inclusivity," "progress," and "equity." They argue allowing men and women to compete in the same events is a step forward for gender equality in sports. This group seeks to challenge traditional gender norms and promote a more inclusive sporting environment.

Some supporters also allege that Khelif is not a transgender athlete but someone with DSD (differences of sexual development) or intersex. However, many in opposition argue this point is not relevant when intersex athletes with XY chromosomes still possess male physical advantages.

Overall, reactions are unified in their disapproval of Carini even being allowed in the ring with a male boxer.

Political Overlap

Reactions are not solely fixated on the match itself but connected with wider political battles. Discussions often include denunciations of liberal and socialist ideologies, highlight the progressive stance that transgender inclusion is the highest priority above female safety.

A male getting his feelings hurt matters more to @iocmedia & @TheDemocrats than a woman getting physically hurt

Read that again

— Riley Gaines (@Riley_Gaines_) August 1, 2024

Conservatives tend to argue progressives aim to dismantle traditional structures and norms. This outrage is often paired with criticisms of Democratic officials like Kamala Harris. People on the right and even some moderates point out that progressives like Kamala Harris promote “inclusion” and “equity” in sports, staying silent when women like Carini pay a physical price.

True or let her deny it https://t.co/z3OulP5eKJ

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) August 1, 2024

Another prevalent narrative is the perception of hypocrisy and political exploitation. Critics accuse progressives of promoting policies that allegedly harm women under the guise of inclusivity. Discussions often highlight claims of inconsistency, pointing out that gender identity and transgender issues conflict with feminist principles. People also accuse Democrats of hypocrisy for calling Republicans like J.D. Vance “weird,” while staying silent on female boxers being punched in the face by men.

Dudes are beating up girls in the Olympics but @JDVance is weird…

— Robert J. O'Neill (@mchooyah) August 1, 2024

Discourse and polling among young men reveals a burgeoning inclination to support Donald Trump over the Democratic ticket in 2024. This trend is capturing national attention, notably influencing public debates and media narratives. Analysts are examining whether this phenomenon signifies a larger shift among younger demographics or reflects a specific partisan appeal.

Trending Topics

A significant focus lies on economic grievances, particularly those affecting young voters. Commentary often highlights the high cost of living, with housing affordability as a primary concern. Young voters frequently express frustrations over soaring rent prices and the challenges of homeownership in current economic conditions. Phrases such as "can't afford to buy a house" and "housing prices are unbelievable" often surface, capturing their financial stress and dissatisfaction with the status quo.

A recent Truth Social post by Donald Trump speaks directly to this concern. Many young voters appreciate messaging like this, which contrasts with Democratic promises of future change, despite holding current office.

Sentiment Trends

Voter sentiment on the economy, and specifically housing, is overwhelmingly negative. There is disillusionment and anger toward current economic policies from Joe Biden and Kamala Harris.

Young voters associate their economic hardships with Democratic leadership, expressing a preference for policies they believe would alleviate their financial burdens. Comparisons to the economic environment under Trump are prevalent, with many arguing during his administration, they experienced more financial security and housing affordability. This underlying sentiment indicates a belief that the previous administration's policies better supported their economic aspirations.

Many view the Biden-Harris administration's efforts in areas like student debt relief and housing reforms as insufficient or out of touch with their realities. While some acknowledge measures like student debt forgiveness, these efforts are seen as inadequate compared to the broader economic pressures they face daily, particularly in housing.

However, despite being the current vice president, it is possible the public doesn’t completely equate Harris with current housing problems caused by the Biden administration. This suggests Republican messaging should continue to highlight links between the existing administration and more of the same if Democrats win.

Urgent Timing

The intersection of these economic themes with broader political narratives further fuels the discourse. Comments indicate a perception that Democratic leaders are more preoccupied with social issues and political maneuvers than addressing immediate economic concerns. This disconnect exacerbates the frustration and propels the appeal of Trump if he promises economic revival and stability.

In this context, young men’s increasing support for Trump is framed as a pragmatic choice rooted in economic self-interest. They articulate a desire for a return to what they perceive as a more robust economic period in their lifetime. This sentiment is bolstered by shared experiences of financial strain under both Biden and Obama during the Great Financial Crisis. This fosters a belief that conservative economic policies might offer more tangible relief.

The Trump Economy

Public discussions also reflect nostalgia for the perceived economic benefits of Trump's tenure. Phrases expressing longing for past conditions, such as "Trump years were much better" and "affordable housing under Trump," encapsulate this sentiment. These expressions are not merely backward-looking but reveal a substantive critique of current economic policies and a hope for future improvement under a similar leadership style.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren's recent statement that Kamala Harris, if elected president, plans to grant mass citizenship to 11 million illegal immigrants bombs. American reactions are sharply negative, with vehement opposition and a sense of urgency to prevent that from happening.

Illegal Immigration vs. Legal Immigration

Conversations heavily focus on distinguishing between illegal and legal immigration. There is a strong negative sentiment towards illegal immigration, with many expressing that legal pathways should be followed. Critics argue granting citizenship to illegal immigrants undermines those who have followed legal procedures. They say its a slap in the face to legal immigrants who have waited patiently.

Pathway to Citizenship

The term "pathway to citizenship" incites a mix of emotions but significant opposition when linked to illegal immigrants. The prevailing sentiment is one of frustration, as many feel providing a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants rewards unlawful behavior and incentivizes more illegal crossings. This is seen as unfair to all Americans who are forced to carry the economic and social burden.

Open Borders

The idea of open borders carries a strong negative connotation. Most Americans feel Elizabeth Warren’s plan would lead to chaos, increased crime rates, and a drain on public resources. The discussion links current open borders to a lack of national security and the dilution of American societal values, further stoking fears about the nation's ability to manage.

Economic and Social Concerns

Concerns about the economic burden of a large influx of citizens dominate the conversation. Many express fears that granting citizenship to millions of illegal immigrants would strain healthcare, social security, and other welfare systems. They conclude it would result in increased taxes and reduced benefits for lawful citizens. The sentiment here is overwhelmingly negative, with worries about long-term sustainability.

Voter Impact and Political Motives

There is a strong belief that efforts to provide citizenship to illegal immigrants are politically motivated, aiming to create new voters to support Democrats. This view is coupled with distrust and allegations of election manipulation and societal engineering. Sentiment is decidedly negative, with accusations of anti-American motives and disregard for current democratic norms and the protection of citizens.

National Identity and Security

The debate also touches on broader cultural and identity issues. Many comments reflect fears of losing the cultural cohesiveness of the nation due to rapid demographic changes. The sentiment towards maintaining national identity and ensuring newcomers assimilate into American society is strong. The negativity focuses on the erosion of these values, should Warren’s plan be implemented.

Undecided and Independent Voters

The intense debate around these topics may significantly influence undecided and Independent voters. Acting as a microcosm of broader national sentiments, these conversations likely polarize opinion even further. For Independents concerned about economic stability, national security, and cultural identity, the negative implications from Democrats like Warren may push them towards Trump.

Conversely, those emphasizing ethical approaches to immigration and humane treatment may solidify their support for comprehensive immigration reforms but could also be swayed by the economic arguments of the opposition.

Over the weekend, a viral story spread on social media pointing out “Trump assassination” and other variants were being removed from web searches on Google. The public's reaction shows a sharp disdain towards tech companies for this presumed act of censorship. Top keywords include:

• Trump assassination attempt
• Censorship
• Leftist media
• Google
• Secret Service
• Deep state
• Investigation

Sentiment about this revelation is predominantly negative, with most people expressing outrage and suspicion.

Hi Google @Google! Why are you censoring the ass*ss*nat*on attempt of DJT??

They’re trying to memory hole it. pic.twitter.com/NtvD9pNovn

— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) July 28, 2024

Big Tech Censorship is Alive and Well

Analysis shows public sentiment and recurring themes focus on free speech and censorship.

• Freed Speech: Voters debate the integrity of free speech, expressing concerns that removing organic search suggestions is an attempt at election interference.
• Censorship: There are strong accusations of censorship, connecting broader concerns about the control and manipulation of information by Big Tech.
• Political Bias: Accusations against Google and Facebook for political manipulation and protecting Harris while censoring Trump are rampant.
• American Values: Many say liberty, freedom, and democracy are at stake, reflecting worry that these foundational values are being undermined.

Many voters, especially on the right, accuse both Google and Facebook of acting as the communications arm of the Democratic Party. Even after admissions of “accidental” censorship, many Americans still take umbrage. Facebook’s claim that blocking a photo of Trump during the assassination attempt was accidental, draws claims the algorithmic “accidents” always benefit Democrats.

Freedom Versus Safety

Voter sentiment around Google suppressing searches about Trump and assassination can be divided into a few clear trends.

• Defenders of Free Speech: Many voters say, to preserve free speech, even controversial topics should not be hidden from search results. They believe removing or hiding search results related to political figures is a direct attack on American voters.
• Concerns about Misinformation: People on the left are concerned about the potential spread of harmful misinformation. They argue removing search “harmful” suggestions is necessary to prevent increased violence and to ensure responsible dissemination of information.
• Accusations of Political Bias: There are strong accusations that Google and Facebook display bias towards Democrats. Conservatives feel targeted and express resentment towards Big Tech companies they believe are suppressing their viewpoints.
• Calls for Regulation: In response to perceived biases and censorship, some advocate for greater regulation of tech giants to ensure a balanced and fair platform for all users.

Voter Impact

Undecided and Independent voters are likely influenced by these discussions. Their perception of political neutrality or bias in search engines can significantly sway their views on broader political issues.

• Trust in Media and Tech: Those who are already skeptical of media and Big Tech might find their beliefs reaffirmed, pushing them towards candidates who promise to regulate these industries.
• Political Disillusionment: Some Independents, witnessing these debates, may experience a heightened sense of political disillusionment, feeling neither side offers a solution to the pervasive issue of biased information control.
• Swing Votes Based on Free Speech: Candidates like Trump who strongly advocate for free speech and oppose censorship might attract voters who prioritize these values as central to their decision-making process.

Debates about American values, such as free speech, reveal deep ideological divides in the electorate. The public reveres core principles of liberty, freedom, and democracy, often contrasting them with perceptions of oppression and censorship. Many argue for the inalienable right to express opinions without fear of censorship, celebrating historical champions of these values.

People defend democracy through the lens of a free press, which they deem as essential for a healthy society. These discussions increase scrutiny of political figures and tech companies which may be influencing elections. Voters call for reforms to better align with American values, emphasizing freedom, liberty, and democratic participation amidst contemporary challenges.

Discourse about Kamala Harris and her stance on illegal immigration provides a history for Americans to navigate when forming opinions about her campaign platform. Many often reference Harris's tenure as San Francisco District Attorney, where she implemented the "Back on Track" program to help non-violent offenders, including illegal immigrants, avoid severe legal consequences.

This history, as well as her track record as “Border Czar” has been revisited extensively. Critics highlight Harris's efforts to clear the records of undocumented immigrants with drug offenses to protect them from deportation. This aspect of her history has ignited strong reactions from different voter bases.

A Breakdown in Kamala’s Prosecutor Image

More voters online are asserting that Kamala Harris let illegal immigrant drug offenders clear their records to protect them from deportation. This issue evokes strong negative sentiment, revealing a leniency on crime that betrays her tough prosecutor image. It is especially damaging when it involves illegal immigrants who have committed offenses. Negativity worsens with frequent assertions that Harris wants illegal immigrants who committed crimes to stay in the United States.

Harris promoted the "Back on Track" program, despite the case of Alexander Izaguirre, an illegal Honduran migrant in the program. Izaguirre allegedly assaulted a young woman, causing a skull fracture and long-term trauma. Harris later described the incident as, "A huge kind of pimple on the face of this program."

Another prominent topic is the border security bill negotiation that Harris supported and touted as bipartisan. This proposal aimed to invest $20 billion in border security, empower the President to close the border, and reduce asylum processing times from ten years to weeks. Public discourse emphasizes that Harris backed this comprehensive bill, despite its unpopularity for budget reasons and accusations of Democrat hypocrisy.

Experts Disavow Harris on the Border

Comments from public figures, such as the National Border Patrol Council President, Brandon Judd, also fuel discussions. Statements accusing Harris of refusing to implement existing policies and labeling her as indifferent to border security are widespread.

These statements intensely enhance negative sentiments towards Harris, portraying her as ineffective and uninterested in border protection. These augments also create positive sentiment towards Trump, who many view as proactive on border security, contrasting Harris's inaction.

Many on the right argue the Vice President’s disastrous legacy on the border could be a death blow to her campaign if Americans understand the truth. They argue this is the reason Democrats and the media are working so actively to reframe and even erase her border track record.

America Does Not Seem Fooled

The themes of border security and crime intertwine frequently, with passionate rhetoric framing Harris negatively as a "Border Czar" who failed in her duties. She is characterized as part of an "undemocratic communist regime" allowing a "terrorist invasion." This starkly illustrates the highly charged and negative language used to describe her role.

Positive sentiment toward Harris on the border is sparse, largely coming from her Party and media outlets. These entities often mention the bipartisan border security bill which Harris supported, while Republicans did not. However, the generally positive outlook on this aspect is overshadowed by broad negative sentiments.

Republicans also counter arguments that Democrats, including Harris, support border security with the proposed bill. They argue the administration already has the tools and laws it needs to control the border, but Democrats refuse. They specifically blame Biden and Harris for attempting to gain more funding with the bill, while ignoring existing border legislation.

Vice President Kamala Harris has recently made false claims about Project 2025 and Donald Trump. Her campaign and the media have spread claims that:

• Project 2025 will cut social security
• Project 2025 is Trump’s platform

Vice President Harris: Trump and his extreme Project 2025 agenda... Can you believe they put that thing in writing? Read it. It’s 900 pages. When you read it, you will see Donald Trump intends to cut Social Security and Medicare, give tax breaks to billionaires, end the… pic.twitter.com/msliYcmLuh

— Kamala HQ (@KamalaHQ) July 23, 2024

Harris’s comments about Donald Trump and Project 2025 during a campaign event have stirred significant public discourse. Many on the left and in the media defend Harris’s comments while those on the right are largely angry about alleged lies from Democrats.

Project 2025 is Trump’s plan for a second term.

Google it.

— The Democrats (@TheDemocrats) July 10, 2024

Project 2025 as Democrat Cannon Fodder

Harris’s comments on Project 2025, which she criticizes as regressive and harmful to the middle class, dominate discussions. Public understanding of the project varies, with some viewing it as a radical conservative agenda, and others seeming unaware or dismissive of it.

The claim that Project 2025 rolls back social programs like Medicare and Social Security generates anxiety among voters. Harris’s support from groups like "March for Our Lives" also plays a crucial role in shaping her public image.

Many on the left use Project 2025 as an attack against Trump and conservatives, claiming its radical agenda will destroy the country. Meanwhile, on the right, many debunk false claims Democrats or making. Others simply meme about Project 2025, using hyperbolic examples of “what Project 2025 will do,” poking fun as Democrat fearmongering.

Project 2025 will put Zyn dispensers in all mens bathrooms pic.twitter.com/dcCHZJKRh7

— 🏛 Aristophanes 🏛 (@Aristos_Revenge) July 18, 2024

Project 2025 will put one of these bad boys back in every refrigerator in America. pic.twitter.com/0c8GRXOTUq

— Sean Davis (@seanmdav) July 12, 2024

Trending discussions highlight Harris’s vocal opposition to Project 2025 and its framing as a threat to democratic values and social safety nets. This opposition resonates strongly with her base and some centrists, enhancing her image as a defender of social welfare.

Conversely, Trump’s disavowal of Project 2025 introduces complexity, as it partially neutralizes Harris's critique while still leaving room for debate about his broader policy agenda. However, Trump’s post on Truth Social distancing himself from Project 2025 is often glossed over by many in the media and voters discussing it online.

Project 2025 May Not Overcome Kamala Negativity

Online sentiment trends reveal a deeply divided public. Positive sentiment for Harris stems from her stance against Project 2025 and her endorsements, which boost her appeal among progressives and youth. Her claims of legislative achievement, such as the Inflation Reduction Act, are seen as evidence of her capability. However, previous MIG Reports analysis reveals these claims are mostly campaign strategy.

Negative sentiment arises from criticisms of her economic policies, causing inflation and high gas prices. There is also skepticism about her intentions within her own Party and negativity about the border.

For Trump, positive sentiment is driven by American admiration for his leadership and strategic moves, including his disavowal of Project 2025. His supporters view him as a resilient figure ready to tackle national issues. Negative sentiment towards Trump centers on fears of authoritarianism and concerns about his impact on democratic institutions, with Project 2025 seen as part of this troubling agenda.

Voter opinions of J.D. Vance's vice-presidential candidacy show hesitant hope, some skepticism, and direct criticism. Supporters laud his life story as emblematic of the American Dream. His rise from disadvantaged beginnings to the national political stage is seen as a testament to meritocracy.

Vance’s supporters are especially keen on highlighting his service in the Marines and his Ivy League education as accomplishments earned through hard work and determination. This narrative of individual effort resonates strongly with traditional American values of self-reliance and perseverance, giving cautious hope to those unfamiliar with Vance.

There are some who argue Vance's life story as a powerful counterpoint to criticisms of elitism within the political establishment. His rise from his socio-economic background situates him as an inspiring figure for many Americans dissatisfied with career politicians. This sentiment is compounded by comparisons to Kamala Harris, who many view as a DEI token.

However, many people also have concerns and sharp criticisms—especially when it comes to Vance’s tech ties.

• In the last 7 days, overall approval for J.D. Vance has hovered at or just below 50%.
• His approval on the economy fluctuates slightly but averaged 49% in the last week.
• Sentiment toward Vance on crypto has the highest high at 52%, but also the lowest low at 45%, likely due to lower discussion volume.

General Reaction to Vance’s Tech History

Public reactions to J.D. Vance's connections to Silicon Valley and the tech sector are mixed. There are supporters who are enthusiastic about the potential benefits of his connections. They say Vance's ties to Silicon Valley could drive innovation and economic growth. They also believe his relationships with tech giants may bring much-needed investment and expertise to various sectors, including education, infrastructure, and job creation.

Sentiment trends reveal deep concerns about economic and political power dynamics. The public repeatedly underscores that the middle class should not bear the burden of policies and systems that disproportionately benefit the wealthy elite. This discontent is amplified in the context of unions, with many feeling true advocacy for working-class interests is incompatible with benefiting from Silicon Valley's corporate wealth.

In contrast, there are individuals who view Vance’s background in the tech sector as potentially advantageous. There is cautious excitement about the possibility of having a candidate who understands the complexities and potential of technological innovation and its impact on the economy. They see Vance as a figure who can perhaps bring fresh, tech-driven perspectives to policymaking. This they hope will foster growth which can solve modern economic challenges with innovative solutions.

Public sentiment towards Vance is complicated by his perceived contradictions. Some voters applaud his narrative of rising from humble beginnings and attaining success, viewing it as a testament to the American Dream. However, this narrative is simultaneously criticized, with detractors accusing Vance of romanticizing his past while contradicting it through his political stances and elite connections.

Arguments Defending Vance

Americans seem generally disapproving of any perception of undue influence by wealthy individuals on politics. They also regularly express concerns over economic equity and fairness. Vance’s connections to Silicon Valley and his critiques of current economic policies elicit mixed reactions, ranging from support for his tech-oriented insights to strong disapproval of his financial backers and political rhetoric.

Despite general disapproval for wealth influencing politics, some Americans appreciate Vance for his rejection of traditional establishment politics within the Republican Party. They resonate with his "pro-union anti-corporate" rhetoric.

Hopefuls value what they see as his commitment to fighting corporate excesses and believe in his potential to rejuvenate the GOP with a blend of economic populism and cultural conservatism. These supporters tend to downplay or dismiss the negative characterizations, viewing them as media exaggerations meant to discredit a rising political figure who might disrupt the status quo.

Many supporters, tech enthusiasts, and crypto voters largely support Vance's commitment to clear cryptocurrency regulations. They appreciate his efforts to navigate the regulatory landscape, which they view as fraught with restrictive measures under current administration policies.

This group likes Vance's critique of the SEC's hardline enforcement tactics, which they believe stifle innovation. His legislative proposals aiming to overhaul how the SEC and CFTC regulate crypto are seen as steps towards an environment more conducive to technological growth and investment.

Vance's personal involvement in the crypto sphere, evidenced by his Bitcoin holdings and public comments, amplifies his credibility among crypto voters—who are increasingly seen as an important voting group. His actions such as voting to repeal controversial accounting rules and opposing stringent tax reporting requirements demonstrate a deep understanding of the challenges faced by the industry.

Supporters like Vance’s comments on the utility of cryptocurrencies in circumventing government overreach. This is highlighted by his stance on the Canadian trucker protests and gaining traction with voters who value financial autonomy and limited government interference.

Negativity Toward Vance as VP

Vance's controversial stances and his connections with influential figures like Peter Thiel can also drum up disapproval. Critics believe there’s reason for concern and Vance may pose a significant threat to democratic norms.

This position has been emphasized heavily in public discussions, particularly following Liz Cheney’s sharp critique. Cheney's assertions that Vance would "overturn an election and illegally seize power" and "capitulate to Russia" resonate strongly with liberals and anti-Trump Republicans.

Vance also faces criticism from some Republicans and the media for his perceived hypocrisy and controversial positions. Some praise his alignment with former President Trump, but others use his past criticism of Trump as evidence of hypocrisy or a disingenuous power play.

The influence of Peter Thiel and other billionaires financing Vance’s campaigns generates contentious debate about the role of money in politics. Critics argue his backing fuels fears of oligarchic control over democratic processes. This sentiment suggests a widening economic and representational gap, intensifying the debate over campaign finance reform.

Concerns arise regarding the potential for a monopolistic tech landscape bolstered by politicians like Vance. Critics argue Vance’s tech ties and support from high-profile tech investors could perpetuate a monopolistic ecosystem where large corporations dominate, leaving little room for grassroots innovation.