Reactions to the first day of the Republican National Convention garnered a range of responses including support and criticism. One of the biggest news stories from opening day was Trump’s announcement of his pick for vice president.

VP Nomination

Trump selecting J.D. Vance as his vice-presidential running mate generated most of the news on Monday. Reactions to this choice are largely positive among conservative circles, with many the choices as a strategic move that could bolster support for Trump’s potential second term.

However, there are undercurrents of skepticism as well. Some conservatives express doubts about Vance’s past comments on Trump, fearing he might later downplay his allegiance to the administration.

Too Much of the Same and Too Much Change

Another significant topic is the overall organization and leadership of the convention. Opinions are divided here, with some attendees praising the convention’s coordination and the lineup of speakers.

However, there are also criticisms, particularly aimed at perceived favoritism and the alignment of the convention's themes with specific Republican figures. Some conservatives feel the convention did not cater adequately to all segments of the party.

The presence of non-traditional American conservatism and non-Christian elements within the convention’s content and speaker roster garners mixed reactions. While inclusivity is celebrated by some as a reflection of a modern and evolving party, others within right-leaning circles criticize this shift. These critics argue it dilutes traditional conservative values and alienates core constituents who uphold more conventional views.

Trending Sentiment

Concerns around issues of security at the convention come into sharp focus, especially following a shooting incident in Albuquerque and attempted assassination of Donald Trump. Right-leaning audiences display significant concern over security measures, with discussions highlighting perceived inadequacies in the Secret Service’s preparedness to protect prominent figures like Trump. This issue stirs anxiety and dissatisfaction among many Republicans who emphasize the need for robust security protocols.

There is also considerable attention on potential 2024 Democratic strategies to counter the Trump-Vance ticket. Conservative voters and pundits speculate on the lines of attack Democrats might pursue. Some dismiss any strategic options Democrats might pursue as ineffective or a lost cause, given the current political climate. The rhetoric is charged, with many expressing confidence in the resilience of the Trump camp despite anticipated opposition.

There is also enthusiastic support for speakers who embody traditional conservative charisma, such as Tim Scott. His dynamic presence at the convention energizes the crowd and garners favorable reactions, even if he ultimately did not secure the vice-presidential nomination.

Criticism from within the Republican base does exist, particularly concerning allegations of superficial commitments to action over rhetoric. This sentiment is encapsulated in critiques of politicians who are perceived as skilled orators but ineffective in implementing significant changes. This internal critique reflects a thirst for tangible results among the conservative base.

Reports of 20,000 Haitians in Springfield, OH, have sparked intense reactions across social media. Americans focus on national security, government accountability, and cultural impact, with many conversations steering towards extreme stances on deportation policies.

The recent influx of 20,000 Haitians has amplified debates on immigration, with supporters and opponents expressing strong emotions. Trending topics center on increased threats to community safety and socioeconomic impacts. There is a notable surge in demand for stricter immigration measures. Many express distrust toward Biden’s administration, accusing them of weakening national security by allowing uncontrolled immigration.

Sentiment towards mass deportations in response to this influx is highly polarized. Among those favoring tighter border control, there is intense advocacy for aggressive actions such as mass deportations to resolve what they deem a crisis.

Advocates for deportation argue the current situation represents a severe breach in border security and a burden on local resources and infrastructure. Hashtags like #BuildTheWall and #MassDeportations surface repeatedly, emphasizing a narrative of reclaiming control and prioritizing national interests.

Conversely, opposition voices urge compassion and structured assimilation policies. Critics of mass deportations highlight the inhumanity and potential legal breaches entailed in such measures. Discussions in these circles stress the need for reform in asylum procedures and call for a balanced approach that includes supporting asylum seekers through systematic means. Sentiments in these conversations often feature calls for increased humanitarian support and criticize the aggressive rhetoric of deportation proponents.

Public discourse extends to the perceived political motivations behind immigration policies. Accusations against political figures for either mishandling the border situation or exploiting it for political gain surface frequently. The narrative often shifts towards broader societal and cultural impacts, with voters arguing about the balance between preserving national identity and embracing multiculturalism.

Social media engagement rates reveal this topic remains highly relevant, with a significant increase in discussions linked to related keywords like "border security," "illegal immigration," and "deportation.” The dynamic nature of these conversations underscores the profound and ongoing public concern over immigration policy and its implications for future governance and society.

In analyzing sentiment trends, it becomes clear that, while support for mass deportations garners substantial backing from certain groups, Americans are deeply divided. There is also a significant push for humane and structured immigration reform. The issue of the 20,000 Haitians in Springfield acts as a mirror, reflecting wider national anxieties over immigration, governance, and national identity.

Kicking off the 2024 Republican National Convention, Ohio Senator J.D. Vance was selected as Trump's Vice-Presidential pick. The announcement, made via Trump’s Truth Social platform, has polarized opinions, highlighting various factions within the GOP.

Reactions from the MAGA Base

Among Trump's staunch supporters, the response is largely positive. Many celebrate Vance as a fresh face who embodies the working-class struggles that Trump frequently highlights. Admiration stems from Vance’s transformation from a Never Trump critic to a MAGA advocate.

This segment perceives Vance as a potential successor for Trump’s populist agenda. They also say choosing Vance is a strategic move to secure the Rust Belt states, vital for the 2024 election. His background, including military service and authoring "Hillbilly Elegy," is seen as appealing to blue-collar voters and enhancing Trump's image as a champion of forgotten Americans.

Opposition and Skepticism Within and Beyond the GOP

Skepticism abounds within segments of the GOP and among Independents and Democrats. Critics from within the Republican Party highlight Vance’s previous harsh critiques of Trump, with some labeling him a flip-flopper driven by opportunism rather than genuine conviction.

Those who are wary of Vance often align with "Never Trump" Republicans who view the choice as pandering to Trump’s loyalist base rather than a unifying strategy for the broader party. The concern is that Vance will do little to attract moderate and Independent voters who are critical to winning the general election.

Concerns Over Voter Impact

Analysts and pundits express varying perspectives on how Vance’s candidacy might affect voter turnout. Some argue his selection will invigorate Trump’s base, solidifying support among core MAGA followers. Others contend that Vance lacks the broader appeal necessary to sway undecided voters or pull votes from the Democratic ticket.

Discussions also focus on whether Vance’s past as a Never Trumper might erode trust among unwavering MAGA supporters or if his new alignment with MAGA policies can mend those sentiments.

Sentiment Patterns and Discussion Trends

The overall sentiment trends suggest a polarized reaction. Loyal Trump supporters largely express approval, emphasizing Vance’s alignment with Trump’s policies and his perceived ability to carry on the MAGA legacy. Discussions often revolve around themes of loyalty, transformation, and Vance's potential to attract working-class voters.

On the other hand, detractors focus on his history of criticism against Trump. These sentiments are also echoed by moderate Republicans and Independents who doubt Vance's ability to appeal to a broader electorate. Critics voice concerns that Trump missed an opportunity for a more strategically beneficial choice, such as a candidate who might appeal to suburban women or minority voters.

Patterns Within GOP Factions

Vance’s selection has illuminated rifts within the Republican Party. Trump loyalists celebrate the move as a reinforcement of their influence within the party. However, establishment Republicans and those with a more traditional conservative outlook express reservations, underscoring a preference for a candidate who might bridge the divide between Trump’s base and centrists.

Reactions to President Biden's calls for unity following the attempt on Donald Trump’s life is serving to create more division. Aggressive political rhetoric on both sides exacerbates the contentious political landscape. Many are expressing a sense of hypocrisy as Biden’s own words one day prior to calling for unity call Trump a “danger to the country” and democracy.

Biden — days after an assassination attempt on President Trump — calls him "a real danger to the country" pic.twitter.com/PCnJrZempZ

— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) July 15, 2024

Conservative Takes

Biden's call for unity is met with skepticism or outright disbelief from both ends of the political spectrum. On one side, many conservatives and right-leaning individuals express hostility and doubt regarding Biden's intentions, interpreting his rhetoric as insincere or politically motivated.

They frequently cite examples of Biden’s own incendiary comments, along with other Democrats. They accuse Democrats and the media of fanning divisive flames against Trump and his supporters.

Many bring up a specific instance of Joe Biden saying it’s time to put Trump “in the bullseye,” which he later dismissed when questioned about it.

NBC: You called President Trump "an existential threat" and said it's time to put him "in the bullseye."

BIDEN: "I didn't say 'crosshairs.'" pic.twitter.com/RKeKVxULJ9

— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) July 15, 2024

Sentiment among conservatives is largely negative, with repeated calls for accountability among Democrats and leftist groups. They express frustration and anger, claiming Biden and liberals are the ones provoking violence with incendiary rhetoric that goes unchecked. This group tends to feel their perspectives and concerns are regularly undermined and demonized by mainstream media and political elites.

Many on the right also point to the fact that Morning Joe was pulled from MSNBC on the Monday following Trump’s shooting. The network allegedly sidelined the show to avoid inappropriate comments on live television that could be used against MSNBC. Conservatives took this as an admission that MSNBC and, specifically Morning Joe, are part of the problem when it comes to divisive rhetoric.

Pulling Morning Joe off the air is an admission.

— Bonchie (@bonchieredstate) July 15, 2024

Liberal Takes

On the other hand, discussions among liberals exhibit polarized emotions but focus primarily on the narrative of right-wing extremism and Trump's rhetoric. Here, sentiments veer towards portraying Trump and his supporters as the primary sources of division and violence. They accuse conservatives of inciting insurrection and civil unrest. Many also point out Trump’s shooter was registered as a Republican, placing the blame for political violence at the feet of Trump’s own side.

Liberals defend Biden's calls for unity as necessary and justifiable attempts to restore order and civility in American politics. They frequently highlight cases of violence attributed to right-wing extremists and decry the perceived hypocrisy of conservatives who fail to acknowledge their own side's contribution to the nation's divisive climate.

Demographic Patterns

Younger and left leaning voters often use social media to express their distrust and condemnation of Trump and his followers. They portray MAGA voters and Trump’s administration as threats to democracy. These sentiments are further amplified by older, staunch Democrats who recall past grievances and historical wrongs as justification for their current political stance.

Independent and undecided voters seem fractured in their reactions. Some feel alienated by the extreme partisanship and are disillusioned with both major parties. This group shows a mix of frustration and apathy, often expressing that the divisive rhetoric from both sides makes it hard to trust either.

However, violent incidents, such as the attempted assassination of Trump, have the potential to push independents to more firmly support one side over the other, depending largely on how the events and subsequent discussions are framed by the media they consume.

MIG Reports data shows online reactions to mainstream media coverage of the assassination attempt against former president Donald Trump are intense and polarized. There is significant variance in how different news outlets and social media platforms reported and reacted to the event.

The narrative and sentiment analysis across various media outlets and social media platforms reveal a complex landscape of reactions influenced by political allegiances, underlying distrust of law enforcement agencies, and concerns about political violence.

Discussion Trends

The assassination attempt is fueling discussions about the perceived weaponization of the DOJ and FBI against Trump and conservatives. Many pro-Trump voters express skepticism over the integrity of these agencies, often casting the FBI as complicit in broader conspiracies against Trump.

These narratives also suggest a belief that the attempt on Trump's life may have been orchestrated or at least enabled by anti-Trump forces within the government. This includes suggestions the suspect was linked to groups like Antifa. This sentiment underscores a deep-seated view of institutional betrayal among Trump supporters.

Sentiment Trends

In conservative circles, the attempted assassination is being met with anger and a call for accountability from opponents, including the media, Democrats, and various government agencies. Language depicting the DOJ and FBI as corrupt and untrustworthy is pervasive.

Sentiment often includes anger, distrust, and a call to action, with strong support for Trump’s resilience and leadership. There's a sentiment of martyrdom projected onto Trump, framing his survival as another instance of his invincibility against orchestrated attacks, thereby rallying his base even further.

In contrast, anti-Trump reactions are fewer and appear to be more subdued, but still critical. These voices often refocus on Trump's previous alleged transgressions, including accusations of incitement on January 6 and illegal handling of classified documents. Sentiment here ranges from skepticism to outright hostility, with some dismissing the incident’s severity or attributing nefarious motives to the Trump camp itself.

Sentiment patterns from these discussions indicate strong demographic divides. Trump’s base, typically older, rural, and less trusting of mainstream institutions, responds with heightened defensiveness and a propensity to view the incident through the lens of allegations or conspiracy theories. Alternatively, younger, urban, and college-educated groups, generally more critical of Trump, emphasize the legal and ethical ramifications of Trump’s past behavior over the assassination attempt's immediate implications.

Demographic Patterns

Younger Americans, particularly those under 30, are more likely to approach the event with irony or disbelief. They frequently invoke internet memes and nuanced discussion of events, suspicions, and theories related to the assassination attempt.

Older demographics, particularly those over 50, express more traditional outrage and call for immediate justice and systemic changes. The generational divide in sentiment illustrates an underlying disparity in media consumption and reaction to political violence.

Impact Analysis

The impact on Independent and undecided voters could be significant. The event might galvanize Trump supporters while sowing further distrust among centrists. It could push Independents who were wary of Trump’s previous actions further away. They may view the event as symptomatic of a broader culture of violence and extremism associated with his rhetoric.

This event may alternatively draw some in the middle to Trump if they become dissatisfied with how Democrats and the media handle the situation. Some may also feel inspired by the leadership and patriotism displayed by Trump and his base.

Despite Republicans hoping to keep the spotlight on Biden’s vulnerabilities and panic among Democrats, there is still significant interest in Trump’s choice for a running mate. Current discussions about Donald Trump's potential VP picks are heating up as people anticipate his impending announcement. MIG Reports data suggest top choices in terms of voter support volume and approval sentiment include Ben Carson, J.D. Vance, Marco Rubio, and Byron Donalds.

Within MAGA, there is a strong sentiment against anyone viewed as a RINO (Republican in Name Only). Figures like Doug Burgum and Marco Rubio have come under scrutiny for their insufficient alignment with the MAGA agenda.

Conversely, loyalty to Trump and America First is a crucial criterion for many supporters. Names like J.D. Vance and Ben Carson are frequently mentioned as preferable picks. Vance has garnered support for his commitment to America First and his potential appeal to younger and Rust Belt voters. Similarly, Ben Carson receives praise for his loyalty and personal integrity. However, there are concerns about his age and political charisma.

• MIG Reports data shows Ben Carson leading in both voter support at around 15% and approval sentiment staying above 50% in the last week.
• J.D. Vance is both generating buzz and garnering support with a 13% second position and 48% approval.
• Rubio and Donalds both have lesser support, both around 7% and approval around 48% and 52% respectively.

Speculation About Trump’s Strategy

MAGA and GOP voters are speculating about possible strategies Trump make take to choose his running mate. One prevalent theme is his inclination to choose a Vice President who can expand his voter base by adding a fresh and dynamic appeal. With this strategy J.D. Vance frequently emerges as a favored candidate.

Despite some vocal opposition within the conservative sphere over Vance's past criticisms of Trump, his staunch support in recent years has earned him significant backing. Proponents argue that Vance's youth and vigor could help extend Trump's influence.

Some highlight the potential of picking someone with a strong appeal to minority groups and independents. Candidates like Byron Donalds and Doug Burgum are cited for their potential to attract these voter demographics. Donalds, with his compelling life story and intellect, could resonate with educated minorities and counter the Democratic narratives. Meanwhile, Burgum's less controversial, steady leadership style and his appeal to women and independents due to his moderate positions in certain areas are considered valuable.

Lastly, MAGA voters stress the necessity for a VP who aligns closely with Trump’s vision and can enhance his governance without overshadowing him. Loyalty is paramount, for those hoping for someone who won’t divert from Trump’s established agenda. They want a harmonious and effective administration, as many MAGA voters have adopted criticisms of Trump’s former VP Mike Pence.

While ideological alignment and loyalty are paramount, strategic considerations are also at play. For example, the potential disadvantage of removing Vance from the Senate, where every vote is critical, is a point of concern. There are also mixed feelings about selecting a current governor or senator who might face political complications or risks in their home states, which could impact the broader Republican strategy. Several people also mention those they view as out of the running like Ron DeSantis, Nikki Haley and Kristi Noem.

J.D. Vance

JD Vance brings a fresh perspective to the political scene, particularly appealing to younger voters. His non-traditional background and vocal stance against establishment norms mirror Trump’s outsider appeal.

Vance's life story, including his rise from a challenging upbringing to a successful career, resonates with voters who admire resilience and the American Dream narrative. Nonetheless, his past criticisms of Trump and the controversy over his rapid turnaround might alienate some of Trump's hardcore base.

His stance on controversial issues like abortion may polarize the electorate further, potentially undermining his candidacy. However, Vance’s appeal to the Rust Belt may be an asset, as this could help shore up crucial electoral support in that region.

Marco Rubio

Marco Rubio comes with significant political experience and a robust foreign policy background. His Cuban heritage and strong stance against Beijing make him an appealing candidate for voters concerned with global issues and Hispanic voter outreach.

Rubio's presidential run in 2016 elevated his profile, making him a recognizable and seasoned choice. Despite these strengths, his earlier clashes with Trump during the 2016 primaries might still linger in the minds of some Trump loyalists. His career political background might not excite the anti-establishment wing of Trump's base, who dislike swamp figures.

Some hope Rubio’s comparatively moderate image may draw in independents and suburban voters. However, many MAGA voters recall his affiliation with establishment politics, labeling him a RINO. Discussions frequently center on his neo-conservative stances, past failures to strongly back Trump during critical moments, and his immigration stance.

Ben Carson

Ben Carson has a significant base due to his unwavering loyalty to Trump and his moral compass, which resonates with many conservative voters. His background as a neurosurgeon and his calm, thoughtful demeanor make him a credible choice for those seeking stability and ethics in leadership.

However, Carson’s relatively low political profile and lack of forceful public presence have some critics labeling him as a "yes man." This diminishes his appeal among voters who want a more dynamic and assertive figure to energize the ticket. He generally appeals to voters who value integrity and decency.

Byron Donalds

Byron Donalds brings a strong narrative to the table, particularly his life story which could resonate with minority voters. His articulate opposition to Democratic policies makes him a favorite among conservatives looking for younger and more diverse leadership within the GOP.

Donalds' appeal lies in his potential to bridge gaps and bring new demographics into the fold, particularly educated minorities who feel disillusioned by current Democratic leadership. However, his relatively recent emergence on the national stage may work against him, as some question if he has the experience necessary.

Byron Donalds, while relatively less talked about in mainstream narratives, has a strong following among hardcore Trump supporters. His credentials as a staunch conservative and his energetic presence resonate with voters who want a VP who can actively fight for Trump’s policies.

Joe Biden's recent "big boy" press conference, as his administration labeled it, took social media by storm. Conversations are primarily driven by his significant gaffes, including referring to Trump as the Vice President and Ukraine president Zelensky as Putin. These missteps are prompting widespread concern about his mental acuity and competence.

Voters are especially worried at a time when clear and decisive leadership is essential. The term "big boy press conference" was used by the press and White House staff to describe what was touted as a pivotal and unscripted press conference. However, most Americans on social media mocked the term, suggesting it is infantilizing and patronizing—although perhaps fitting.

No Flips, No Gains

Most of the American public, particularly those on the right, interpret Biden's mistakes as a troubling sign of cognitive decline. Although groups across parties are vocal in their criticism, arguing that such errors potentially undermine confidence in U.S. leadership on the global stage.

This aspect of the discussion often includes a juxtaposition with former President Donald Trump, who handled international crises much better. Many say the Russia-Ukraine conflict and the Israel-Hamas situation have worsened under Biden's administration.

Biden supporters, however, aim to downplay his verbal missteps, attempting to highlight substantive aspects of his press conference where he discussed foreign policy initiatives and the administration's stance on various global issues.

Defenders argue the president's gaffes are largely inconsequential or nitpicking. In some Democratic circles, Biden still have strong backing—although more elected representatives are calling for him to step down.

Some Democrats are trying to foster unity withing the party, emphasizing urgency and aiming to mobilize voters around continuing the Biden-Harris administration's agenda.

How People See It

Undecided voters and Independents are particularly impacted by discussions of Biden’s performance. Many in this group express growing concerns about the president's age and mental sharpness, which could sway them against voting for Biden in the upcoming general election.

This demographic appears to be leaning toward alternatives, both within the Democratic Party and potentially toward Trump. Many suggest a desire for a presidential candidate who can embody strength, clarity, and innovative solutions without the embarrassment of Biden’s increasingly shocking struggles.

Many people also criticize Biden’s image on the world stage in front of foreign leaders at NATO. They mention his flub in calling President Zelensky Putin and Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni’s disgusted reactions to Biden. Many argue these incidents are just the tip of the iceberg in how negatively foreign world leaders view the current U.S. President.

Biden’s handling of the Israel-Hamas conflict also continues to attract significant scrutiny. While some appreciate his diplomatic efforts to negotiate a ceasefire and his attempts to manage the humanitarian aspects, others criticize him for appearing to side too explicitly with Israel, potentially alienating voters who are sensitive to the plight of Palestinians.

Recently, prominent political figures have sparked significant discourse by suggesting President Biden drop out of the race. This notion has generated a mixed reactions among Americans and revealing deep divisions within the Democratic Party.

Discussions primarily revolve around Biden's age and infirmity, recent and relentless gaffes, and his perceived electability against Donald Trump. The growing list, as of this writing, of influential figures who are questioning Biden or calling on home to drop include:

• George Clooney (who recently raised $30,000,000 for Biden’s campaign)
• Sen. Michael Bennett (CO)
• Sen. Jon Tester (MT)
• Sen. Sherrod Brown (OH)
• Sen. Peter Welch (VT)
• Sen. Patty Murray (WA)
• Rep. Raul Grijalva (AZ)
• Rep. Greg Stanton (AZ)
• Rep. Adam Schiff (CA)
• Rep. Scott Peters (CA)
• Rep. Jim Himes (CT)
• Rep. Ed Case (HI)
• Rep. Mike Quigley (IL)
• Rep. Eric Sorensen (IL)
• Rep. Brad Schneider (IL)
• Rep. Seth Moulton (MA)
• Rep. Jamie Raskin (MD)
• Rep. Hillary Scholten (MI)
• Rep. Angie Craig (MN)
• Rep. Mikie Sherrill (NJ)
• Rep. Pat Ryan (NY)
• Rep. Earl Blumenauer (OR)
• Rep. Adam Smith (WA)
• Gov. Maura Healy (MA)

Downward Trajectory

Trending online conversations suggest a growing frustration among Democrats, particularly those identifying as progressives or left-leaning centrists. They feel increasingly uncertain about Biden's ability to secure a victory in the next election.

Many express concerns Biden continuing his campaign may weaken the party's chances. They advocate for someone younger or different to take the mantle, like Vice President Kamala Harris. This sentiment aligns with demographic patterns where younger voters and minority groups appear less enthusiastic about a second Biden term compared to their initial support in the 2020 election.

Criticism of Biden's slip-up on the first question of his “big boy” press conference, referring to Vice President Kamala Harris as "President Trump," highlights fears about his mental acuity and readiness for another term. This gaffe has been weaponized by both the right and the far left to question his competency. Many also continue to question his physical health and stamina.

Some liberal voices within media spheres criticize the Democratic establishment for being slow to address internal calls for change, hinting at a desire for rejuvenated leadership.

Looking Ahead

Undecided and Independent voters seem torn between dissatisfaction with Biden's current administration and dread of returning to Trump-era policies. A potential alternative candidate for the Democratic Party may become a significant factor as these voters gravitate toward stability and effective governance.

Economic factors like inflation, which the administration claims is improving, and public safety concerns, such as the crime surge near Times Square, also shape the political battleground. How candidates address these issues will likely influence centrist support.

Younger voters, urban residents, and progressive activists want new Democratic leadership. Older voters and centrist Democrats tend to prefer an experienced candidate like Biden. This internal divide reflects broader national sentiments of political fatigue and desire for change.

Among Independents, there is a notable inclination to support candidates who offer pragmatic solutions over entrenched partisanship. This demographic often swings elections and currently shows a readiness to evaluate alternatives critically before making their final decisions. They focus heavily on economic stability, crime reduction, and foreign policy, as seen in their reactions to Biden's recent aid packages for Ukraine and legislative actions blocked by Senate Democrats.

Following Independence Day, the New York Times published an opinion piece titled. “Does America Need a President?” Online conversation among American readers subsequently showed a stark contrast among political and social groups. The article generated reactions from skepticism to fervent agreement, provoking visceral reactions that often align with each reader’s political ideology.

Conservatives Scoff

Conservatives generally view the article as an attack on American traditions and constitutional norms. They argue the presidency is a crucial institution symbolizing unity and national leadership. These reactions often come with an added suspicion that questioning the presidency is an attempt to undermine traditional structures in favor of radical, possibly socialist, political reforms.

Voters on the right frequently express concerns about the left's influence on media and academic institutions. They connect the article to broader transformations they deem threatening to American society. Their feedback often includes anxieties about issues like immigration, economic regulation, and social policies like abortion and gender rights.

Some also argue narratives like this one from the NYT are attempts to protect an ailing President Biden—who many believe is not capable of fulfilling his presidential duties.

Progressives Entertain the Idea

Liberals and progressives appear more open to the question of whether America needs a president. They are using it to critique current and past administrations for their failures. They are also more likely to view the theory as a legitimate scholarly debate, encouraging discussions about democratic reforms and the decentralization of power.

For some, the article provides a platform to voice dissatisfaction with existing political structures and advocate for significant changes they believe will address systemic inequities and enhance democratic governance.

Demographic Patterns

Older conservatives, especially those who can recall periods of heightened national unity such as post-WWII or the Reagan era, are particularly resistant to notions challenge the presidency.

Younger demographics, including Millennials and Gen Z, tend to skew liberal and are often more enthusiastic about rethinking traditional government roles. Among younger Americans, there is considerable support for arguments that suggest power could be more equitably distributed among public institutions or directly by citizen initiatives.

Young voters are split, however. On one hand, they are fascinated by the idea of significant political overhaul. Many view our current system as outdated and inadequate for addressing modern challenges such as climate change, digital privacy, and social justice.

However, there is also a substantial contingent within this demographic that remains cautious about proposing such dramatic shifts without a clear and practical roadmap for implementation. This group seems to align with the segments of younger Americans who are moving to the right.

Republicans

Republicans tend to view the article as fueling narratives that contribute to a loss of national identity or sovereignty. Discussions here frequently reference "Project 2025" and other controversial programs opposing liberal overreach.

Topics such as social security, Medicare, and immigration reform are flashpoints. Some Republicans use these as examples of how liberal policies erode institutional integrity. This group prefers adherence to strict constitutionalist interpretations and a wary approach to federal overreach.

Democrats

Democratic voters use the article as a springboard to highlight current administrative deficiencies and historical injustices. This includes systemic racism and economic disparities.

There is a tendency among these Americans to advocate for radical reforms—often suggesting a need for novel governance structures. Arguments in favor of stronger local governance or communal decision-making models are common. Many progressives also focus on social justice issues, climate change, and healthcare reform.

Hardliners Disenfranchised

Discussions also reveal evolving attitudes towards social policies within the parties. For example, a notable faction within the GOP base is becoming disenfranchised with the party's shifting stance on issues like abortion. This suggests an internal fracture which is influenced by leaders who are perceived to strategically soften traditional stances to widen their appeal.

Meanwhile, among Democrats, there is an observable frustration towards moderate candidates or policies that do not adequately challenge entrenched systems of power. A similar chasm seems to be growing on the Democratic side over Israel-Palestine relations as well as Joe Biden’s bid for a second term.