May Gallup reporting shows approximately 65% of Americans think U.S. economic conditions have worsened since 2020, and a similar amount have a negative perspective toward the future. MIG Reports analysis based on online conversations shows a similar 64.64% of Americans have reduced confidence in the U.S. economy.

• The -35 index rating in Gallup’s report means, on a scale of +100 to -100, sentiment leans negative.
• On a 1-100 scale, it translates to 65% reduced confidence—mirroring MIG Reports weighted analysis within 1%.

Voters Consistently Lack Confidence in the Economy

MIG Reports analysis uses online voter conversation volume regarding the U.S. economy along with sentiment tracking. In this weighted analysis, the aggregate confidence levels show:

• 64.64% of conversations express decreased confidence in economic prosperity
• 23.05% reflect a neutral stance
• 12.31% convey increased confidence

These figures highlight the prevailing skepticism and concern Americans feel about the U.S. economic trajectory. Only a minority of voters maintain confidence or have an optimistic view of the government's current economic management.

MIG Reports data also shows voter views are largely influence by the actions of the Biden-Harris administration—particularly the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). Discussions that focus on confidence in economic prosperity are largely among Democratic establishment supporters.

The narrative emerging from these online conversations is one of serious concern about the economy. Most Americans are losing confidence in the economy, the government, and their own futures. While some still hold a neutral or positive outlook, most have become skeptical of the administration, calling for more effective economic governance.

Bidenomics is Decreasing Confidence

American doomerism on the economy stems primarily from rising inflation, increasing costs of living, and a belief in government mismanagement. Many voters believe the IRA has failed to alleviate the economic pressures they face. Instead, they say it has exacerbated inflation through increased government spending.

Conversations focus on "inflation," "rising costs," "spending," and "prices." People also direct frustration and anger at policies they view as disconnected from the public's interests. Sentiments such as "killing us without killing us" encapsulate the dire emotional mood around inflation’s impact on low-income households. This negativity further fuels widespread economic pessimism.

Some Say Hope is not Lost

The 23.05% of conversations which remain neutral on the economy express realism. These Americans acknowledge the challenges posed by inflation but recognize the potential benefits of government intervention.

One potential measure people mention is capping insulin prices and allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices. However, many remain uncertain about the long-term effectiveness of such policies. This leads to a mixed feeling of hope and skepticism. This group focuses on "jobs," "investment," "energy," and "climate." They acknowledge the IRA's goals but have reservations about its implementation.

A Few Believe the Talking Points

The smallest percentage of Americans—12.31%—voices support for of the IRA and other government initiatives. They tout Biden-Harris success reports like job creation in the clean energy sector, lower healthcare costs, and efforts to rein in corporate power.

These conversations often use keywords like "success," "jobs," "lower costs," and "investment" to emphasize the positive impacts of the Biden administration's policies. Supporters argue these measures are instrumental in building a more resilient economy and improving the lives of middle-class families.

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.

The public discourse surrounding the American job market under Democratic leadership presents a polarized landscape of opinions. As workers navigate the impact of recent jobs reports and unemployment figures, varying levels of confidence emerge. Political affiliations often shape perceptions of the Biden-Harris administration's economic policies.

This analysis examines themes of optimism, skepticism, and economic anxieties among voters.

Hope or Despair for Economic Recovery

Three dominant themes arise in the analysis:

• Optimism about job growth and economic recovery
• Disbelief about incorrect job numbers and economic stability
• Concerns about inflation and broader economic pressures

Americans express strong doubt about the long-term sustainability of current policies, along with some belief in Democratic leadership to foster job creation. Most voters express anxiety, while a minority remain hopeful about Biden-Harris plans to strengthen jobs.

Highest discussion volume:

1. Concerns about inflation and broader economic pressures
2. Skepticism toward job numbers
3. Optimism about job growth and economic recovery

Strongest negative sentiment:

1. Skepticism of job numbers and economic stability
2. Concerns about inflation and broader economic pressures
3. Optimism about job growth and economic recovery

Optimism Among Democrats

Democratic supporters maintain confidence in the economic trajectory Biden and Harris tout as positive. In various discussions, proponents highlight job growth, claiming the administration has created more than 15 million jobs since 2021. This, they suggest, is strong evidence of a recovering economy.

Approximately 40% of voter conversations reflect this optimistic outlook, emphasizing the Biden-Harris administration’s narrative of unemployment rates, historical job creation, and the resilience of the labor market despite recent global challenges. This group believes Democratic leadership’s progressive policies, aimed at fostering employment, are crucial to the country’s ongoing recovery.

Despite this optimism, Federal Reserve data shows August 2024 is the lowest year for August jobs in the past 10 years. This evidence of a cooling job market is increasing wider worries of an impending recession.

Skepticism of Job Numbers

In contrast to Democratic optimism, most voters remain skeptical about the reported job growth and unemployment figures. These doubts are driven by recurring downward revisions to job reports, with a shocking 818,000 fewer jobs than originally reported in the last year.

Many express suspicion about the accuracy of the data, with some alleging the numbers are manipulated or inflated. They say Democrats want to paint a more favorable picture for the Biden-Harris administration. This skepticism is further fueled by concerns that job growth disproportionately benefits non-citizens. This is particularly upsetting while American workers, particularly the middle class, continue to face economic hardship.

There are reports that more than 1.3 million jobs were lost by American citizens, while 1.2 million jobs were filled by illegal immigrant workers. Approximately 53% of voter comments express a sense of distrust, suggesting current policies fail to address the economic challenges of American citizens.

Economic Anxieties and Concerns about Inflation

A prominent theme throughout the discourse centers on inflation and the rising cost of living. These are frequently mentioned as critical issues affecting American households. Many commenters argue that, despite reported job numbers, inflation rates remain high, and wage growth has not kept pace with the increasing cost of essential goods such as food and gas.

Voter concerns are exacerbated by fears of a looming recession, with some predicting the current economic trajectory under Democratic leadership will lead to further instability. Most discussions address inflation as a pressing issue, underscoring the belief that ongoing economic pressures overshadow any gains in the job market.

An ongoing public debate between Elon Musk and Gavin Newsom, fueled by social media exchanges, reveals American backlash against the CA Governor. In reaction to a parody ad for Kamala Harris using AI to simulate her voice, Newsom proposed legislation to prosecute those sharing “misleading” or “deceptive” content—including memes.

Kamala Harris Campaign Ad PARODY pic.twitter.com/5lBxvyTZ3o

— Mr Reagan 🇺🇸 (@MrReaganUSA) July 26, 2024

Musk argues this bill infringes on free speech—a view most Americans share. MIG Reports analysis shows discussion themes around free speech, government overreach, misinformation, and public trust.

I checked with renowned world authority, Professor Suggon Deeznutz, and he said parody is legal in America 🤷‍♂️ https://t.co/OCBewC3XYD

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 29, 2024

Free Speech vs. Censorship

The issue of free speech dominates the conversation, with 76.67% of the public siding with Elon Musk. The overwhelming support for Musk stems from a strong belief that Newsom’s proposed law threatens the First Amendment. Many express concerns that government involvement in regulating parody or memes sets a dangerous precedent for future censorship.

Phrases like "tyrant," "communist," and "totalitarian" are frequently directed at Newsom, highlighting the hardline stance on this issue. For most Americans, free speech is an essential American value that must be protected at all costs—regardless of the risks posed by allegations of misinformation.

Government Overreach and Political Polarization

This debate between Musk and Newsom over memes has become a flashpoint for broader concerns about government overreach. Voters frame Newsom’s bill as an unconstitutional attempt to silence critics, positioning him as an authoritarian figure seeking to impose his will on the public.

Conservatives and Independents are particularly strong in their disapproval. Only 15.5% of the MIG Reports sample express support for Newsom. This group says the bill is a necessary tool to protect elections and prevent false information from corrupting democratic processes. However, even within this group, some express unease over the potential for government abuse.

The Role of Misinformation

The minority position emphasizes curbing “misinformation” to protect public trust in elections. Supporters say, though parody and memes are included in free expression, they can also undermine democratic integrity by pedaling deceptive narratives. This group believes the bill strikes a balance between free speech and public safety. They acknowledge that unchecked falsehoods have the potential to cause real harm. Despite this perspective, they struggle to gain traction in a conversation dominated by opposition to government censorship.

Public Distrust in Government

The conversation surfaces recurring American feelings of distrust toward government institutions. Musk’s framing of the debate—portraying Newsom as attacking free speech—resonates with those already skeptical of governmental power.

Many see the bill as part of a broader pattern of government interference in individual rights. They say censorship laws places public discourse in the hands of those in power, allowing them to determine what is considered “misinformation” or “deceptive.” This perception of government power grabs strengthens Musk's position as a defender of the people’s rights against an overbearing state.

Especially on X, voters view Musk as a champion of free speech. Their distrust fuels the debate and amplifies feelings of anger against government censorship and speech crackdowns akin to those seen in Europe.

Neutral and Undecided Voices

While the conversation is highly polarized, around 9.5% remain neutral or nuanced. This group either expresses uncertainty about the implications of Newsom's bill or attempt to frame the debate in more measured terms.

Some believe that while the bill has flaws, its intention may have merit. These voices suggest there is still room for debate and constructive discourse, though they are largely overshadowed by the more extreme rhetoric from both sides.

Former President Donald Trump released a 20-point plan outlining his 2024 platform. Predictably, the release was quickly and widely shared and discussed on social media. The document garnered approval from Trump’s base and strong disavowal from his opponents. Independent voters have a narrower perspective on the otherwise binary sentiment, but generally sway more in agreement with Trump’s plan.

Support for Trump’s Platform

Trump's plan, which includes measures like sealing the border, ending inflation, defending constitutional rights, and opposing Critical Race Theory in schools, receives ardent support from his core base. His followers, often associated with the MAGA movement, express enthusiastic approval, seeing his commitments as strong steps to restore American greatness.

They particularly emphasize issues like border security, energy independence, and upholding Second Amendment rights. These supporters articulate their devotion on social media, eagerly anticipating Trump's leadership to counter perceptions of a corrupt administrative state. They also hope international entanglements which weaken the nation's sovereignty will be resolved.

Conservative traditionalists, who may not align entirely with Trump but share common values, have mixed reactions. While they approve of points related to economic growth, military strengthening, and constitutional rights, there is hesitation around the more drastic aspects of the platform. Some are wary of expansive deportation and the perceived encroachments on states' rights and individual freedoms through proposed federal overreach in education and social policies.

Trump Critics Rip the Plan

Progressive and left-leaning groups react with intense opposition and vocal disapproval. They view Trump's platform as regressive, authoritarian, and potentially harmful to civil liberties.

Key points like mass deportations, the potential militarization of domestic policy, and rolling back social and racial equality initiatives provoke significant concern. Critics highlight fears of threat to democracy, climate change inaction, and economic policies favoring the wealthy over the working class.

Staunch opposition manifests in calls to action for voter mobilization and political activism. These critics hope to prevent a return to what they see as the divisive and dangerous policies of Trump’s administration.

In the Middle

Moderate and undecided voters express a mix of skepticism and cautious consideration. Some see potential merits in economic reforms and tax cuts proposed by Trump but remain wary of the broader implications of such an extensive policy overhaul.

Centrists ponder the feasibility of large-scale deportations. They also worry about the impact of education policies banning CRT and radical gender ideologies on societal cohesion and children's learning environments. This group appears pivotal, weighing the potential for policies they like versus the perceived risks of heightened political and social instability.

Independent and swing voters are often critical of both extremes. They scrutinize the platform's promises through a pragmatic lens, assessing their practicality and long-term effects. Issues like energy production and manufacturing resonate positively, but there is concern over the potential for increased authoritarian governance and reduced protections for minority groups.

Trump is showing consistent approval numbers, with approximately a two-point bump after his statement about Project 2025 and releasing his platform’s outline. This support may indicate a moderate sway toward Trump’s over Biden, amid ongoing health concerns. These sways may become more permanent depending on the Democratic ticket as well and continued economic stressors.

Recent viral reporting is alerting Americans about illegal aliens in 49 states being given voter registration forms without requiring proof of citizenship. MIG Reports studied online reactions to the news and Americans are reacting strongly and mostly negatively.

Illegal Immigrants Register to Vote

The discourse on this subject is highly polarized, like most political conversations in America. Conservatives express concern over election integrity and illegals being allowed to register to vote. Liberals dismiss these concerns as politically motivated fearmongering.

Conservative Concerns

Voters on the right believe illegal immigrants voting would dilute legitimate votes. They argue normalizing illegal immigrant votes is a strategy of the left to get unearned votes. If illegal aliens are allowed to vote, most Republicans would view it as blatant election cheating by Democrats and a violation of America’s sovereignty as a country.

Conservatives place emphasis on voting irregularities and election integrity suspicions, particularly in Democratic areas like Fulton County, Georgia. Many conservatives fear rampant election fraud and call for stricter voter ID laws. They see legislative responses like the SAVE Act as necessary to protect democracy.

Liberal Rebuttals

Democrats and liberals claim widespread illegal voting is a myth perpetuated by Republicans. They view these claims as a strategy to justify restrictive voting laws, which they say would affect minority communities.

Social Media and Distrust

There is deep polarization and intense political rivalries on social media. Discussions involve political figures, historical grievances, and legal battles over election interference. Many people make accusations of corruption and election cheating cover-ups, leading to a climate of suspicion.

Broader Patterns

• There is rampant distrust towards mainstream media and government officials.
• Electoral legitimacy is a hotly contested issue and is especially tied to partisan debates.
• The discourse reflects a mix of alarm, distrust, and political maneuvering.

Election Integrity

Many Americans want to focus on securing elections. There are references to alleged fraud and manipulation, especially in the 2020 presidential election. Some mention fraudulent ballots and voter irregularities in states like Michigan and Georgia.

Political Polarization

There is frequent accusatory language between political parties. Republicans blame Democrats for allegedly enabling election fraud. And Democrats say Republicans spread false claims and incite distrust among the electorate.

The two sides debate whether political figures like Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton should face consequences for election-related crimes. There are accusations of bias in law enforcement and legal systems.

Mistrust of Governmental Institutions

There are intense debates over the potential illegitimacy of 2024 election results. Some express concerns about voting machine manipulation, absentee ballots, and mail-in voting. There are calls for a return to manual, paper-based voting methods.

Sentiment Trends

Predominantly Negative and Distrustful

There is widespread skepticism regarding the fairness and transparency of elections. Many voters accuse the opposing Party of voter fraud and corruption. People online use charged and aggressive language reflecting frustrations and fears.

Many Americans also direct at individuals, political parties, and government officials involved in election oversight.

Defensiveness and Dismissal

Democrats tend to make arguments that election fraud claims are unfounded and destabilize democratic processes. They believe in the fundamental soundness of the electoral system and criticize claims of corruption.

Overall, it seems many voters lack confidence in the prospect of a "free and fair" election in 2024. Many people call for significant electoral reforms to restore trust.

Public sentiment on cartel-related issues in the United States is negative. As Americans grapple with the rising impact of cartel activities, including drug and human trafficking and gang activity, there is increasing tension between those advocating for a strong executive approach and those who still value traditional governance with checks and balances.

This analysis explores American sentiments regarding which form of leadership people see as most effective in addressing the perceived threats. Analysis also looks at how language—particularly the contrast between first-person and third-person usage—reflects the depth of personal investment in the problem and the expectation for leadership to deliver solutions.

MIG Reports data shows:

• 70% of Americans want a strong executive approach
• 25% want traditional governance to put protections in place
• 5% are ambivalent or resistant to addressing cartels

Strong Executive Approach

The 70% who want strong executive action express frustration with current government policies. They want strong, unilateral executive action similar to Donald Trump’s policies. These voters view the threats posed by cartels and immigration as immediate and urgent, requiring decisive leadership.

Traditional Governance

The 25% who favor a more traditional approach emphasize the need for bipartisan solutions. They seek full-scale immigration reform rather than over-reliance on executive power. This group would rather see it done procedurally than imminently.

Ambivalent or Resistant Sentiment

The minority who voice skepticism toward both executive overreach and traditional governance was genuine reform without partisan bias.

Issues Shaping Sentiment

Cartel Activities

Drug trafficking, violent crime, and human trafficking—including child trafficking—are recurring themes fueling public concern. The discourse often links cartel activities directly to the border crisis, which intensifies calls for stronger leadership and enforcement.

Fear and Urgency

Many Americans fear the consequences of Biden-Harris immigration policies, particularly rising crimes committed by illegal immigrants and the fentanyl epidemic. These fears drive the call for immediate and decisive executive action.

Perceived Government Failure

Public frustration largely stems from a belief that Biden and Harris prioritize political agendas over public safety and security. The perceived failure of traditional bipartisan methods, as well as policies like "Catch and Release," contribute to the urgency for stronger governance.

Language Analysis

First-Person Language: Problem Focus

When discussing the impact of cartel activities and border security, many Americans use first-person language. This reveals their personal investment in the issue. Statements like “We know this visit is just a political sham” and “I don’t feel safe,” suggest many are directly affected by the rise in crime, drug trafficking, and immigration failures.

The use of first-person language highlights the personal and emotional connection Americans feel regarding immigration. Many perceive cartel activities as a direct threat to their safety, families, and communities.

Urgency and Fear

First-person language amplifies the urgency of the problem, with emotional tones of fear, anger, and frustration dominating discussions. These emotions are particularly linked to alarming statistics such as fentanyl overdoses and crimes attributed to illegal immigrants.

Third-Person Language

Conversely, when Americans discuss solutions, they shift to third-person language, placing the responsibility on political leaders and government officials to act.

Detachment and Delegation

By using third-person language, voters place responsibility on political figures. Statements like “Kamala Harris is responsible for the illegal alien invasion” or “The government needs to step up” illustrate a belief that politicians are the ones who should resolve the crisis, since it’s their job.

Accountability and Criticism

This shift in language is often accompanied by criticism of current leadership. Public disappointment with figures like Kamala Harris and Joe Biden reflects a widespread sense that they have failed to address the border and immigration issues adequately. The use of third-person language to express frustration shows how the public holds these leaders accountable for the ongoing crisis.

Less than 30 days from the election, Democratic voters have mixed emotions about the Harris-Walz ticket. Analysis of social media discussions shows that, while a foundation of confidence exists, there are significant concerns about leadership, policy effectiveness, and party unity.

Democratic voter sentiment contains optimism, skepticism, disenfranchisement, and frustration. Left-leaning media like news interviews and Saturday Night Live have begun to make some criticisms of Harris and Walz, suggesting the media firewall may be cracking with increasing voter pressure.

BREAKING: SNL just went savage on Tim Walz's disastrous VP debate performance.

DOUG EMHOFF: “Tim will be fine. It's not like he's gonna say something crazy.”

TIM WALZ: “I've become friends with school shooters!” pic.twitter.com/esLOpdATc1

— The Vigilant Fox 🦊 (@VigilantFox) October 6, 2024

Summary of Findings

• Democratic voters express dual sentiments about Kamala Harris and Tim Walz.
• Most express confidence in the ticket’s ability to win, driven by key issues like abortion, gun violence, and economic stability.
• However, confidence is counterweighted by skepticism and pessimism, rooted in leadership concerns, disenfranchisement, and disconnect from voters.
• Themes of unity and frustration emerge as voters struggle over supporting candidates they feel have not addressed their concerns.

Confidence in the Ticket Winning

Many Democrats express confidence in Kamala Harris and Tim Walz, citing their track record on the economy, gun violence, and abortion as reasons for optimism. There is a clear belief that Harris and Walz have the potential to win. Voters talk about mobilization and turnout efforts.

Discussions include commitment to vote and collective determination. This sentiment is buoyed by a narrative of continuity and leadership, as voters want to continue the current trajectory and emphasize Democratic values.

However, much of the optimism is muted as people acknowledge the challenges of maintaining hope for a victory. These discussions reveal a tempered belief in success, where phrases like, “We need a deal maker,” are coupled with critiques of the broader political landscape. These Democrats feel it’s possible to win, but not guaranteed. They recognize the rhetorical limitations of Harris and Walz and sinking popularity.

A growing number of Democrats are expressing doubt or pessimism regarding Harris’s chances. These discussions assert that Harris and Walz are disconnected from the realities of working-class voters and have failed to address critical issues. Phrases like, “How can we win like this?” reflect a sense of disillusionment with leadership. This growing doubt exists in all groups of Democrats from average voters to pundits and political leaders.

Persistent Worries and Disenfranchisement

The most striking trend among Democrats is a sense of disenfranchisement and persistent worry. Many feel let down by party leadership, with comments frequently pointing to Harris-Walz failures in addressing pressing concerns.

People mention things like inflation, immigration, and the response to Hurricane Helene. There is frustration in phrases like, “They left thousands of people to die,” calling out the lack of accountability and responsiveness from Democratic leaders.

There is also concern among some key demographics, particularly minority communities. They feel neglected and lied to, further amplifying feelings of disenfranchisement.

Similar Arguments and Themes

Democrats also criticize Harris and Walz’s leadership, voice concerns about party unity, and a call for a new direction. Voters are frustrated with inaction by Harris and Walz who fail to take meaningful action on the economy, crime, and immigration. Many suggest Harris and Walz have not done enough to earn voter trust.

Party unity also emerges as a key concern, with some calling for a more concerted effort to consolidate Democratic support ahead of the election. While many are frustrated with the leadership, there are also voices urging the party to rally behind Harris and Walz to avoid a fractured base. Phrases like, “We need to strengthen our efforts,” reflect a recognition that internal divisions could hinder the party’s chances of success.

Finally, many want a new direction within the Democratic Party. Voters call for candidates who are more connected to grassroots movements and less beholden to traditional party politics. Comments such as, “Let’s stop voting for the party and start voting for the people,” capture the sentiment that the current leadership is not fully aligned with the needs and values of the Democratic base. This suggests a more authentic, people-centered approach—like that of RFK Jr. and Tulsi Gabbard—may appeal more to moderate Democrats.

Columbia University recently canceled its commencement ceremony in response to ongoing anti-Israel protests on campus. These protests, part of a broader wave of political demonstrations at U.S. colleges, have intensified, leading to significant disruptions and even police intervention. While reactions to the protests generally vary according to political leanings, Columbia’s canceled graduation seems to upset parents across the board.

Many supporters of the protests express concerns about security measures and the involvement of law enforcement. Discussions frequently mention the use of police force during raids at Columbia’s Hamilton Hall, where protesters were staying. Those who advocate for pro-Palestine action tend to condemn what they see as excessive force and police brutality, claiming the protests are peaceful.

The decision to cancel graduation has sparked debate over its impact on graduating students. Many argue the protests have unfairly deprived these students of a pivotal life experience. Protest supporters believe the cancelation underscores the seriousness of the Israel-Hamas conflict. Still others blame university administrators for allowing the protests to impact normal proceedings on campus.

• National sentiment towards universities and protests dipped below 40% at the beginning of May, as protests reached fever pitch.
• Sentiment seems to be slowly recovering as national attention turns to other events and discussion volume drops.
• Approval of President Biden on Israel and Palestine remains in the low 40% range as both right and left leaning voters seem unhappy with his handling of the conflict.

Reactions to Canceling Graduation

Protest supporters are more likely to focus on the reasons behind the cancellation, in their reactions. They point out public health or student safety concerns, and generally support measures that prioritize community welfare.

Pro-Israel and more conservative voters tend to view the cancellation as an overreaction and infringement on important milestones and traditions. They seem to view the decision as a capitulation to protesters by the administration.

Parents of university students, particularly those of graduating seniors, are being significantly impacted by the cancellation. They express disappointment, frustration, and unhappiness at the loss of an important ceremony for graduating students.

Reactions among parents are predominantly negative. Sentiments focus on the emotional and financial ramifications:

• Disappointment and frustration: Many parents express disappointment that their children will miss out on the ceremonial acknowledgment of their academic achievements.
• Financial concerns: There is frequent mention of financial losses relating to travel and accommodation bookings, as many families prepare for commencement months in advance.
• Request for Alternatives: A common request among parents is for the university to consider alternative forms of celebration, such as virtual events or smaller, department-specific ceremonies.

Critique of University Administrators

Many critics of the decision to cancel graduation are also critical of how university administrators have handled the protests in general. They say the administration is overly lenient or biased in favor of what they consider "left-wing" protesters. This sentiment is especially carried over among conservative voters who views their values as under attack by academia.

There is a frequent call for stricter actions against protesters who obstruct the functioning of educational institutions or who promote anti-American or violent rhetoric. Conservatives frequently cite:

• University failure to protect Jewish students and curb antisemitic rhetoric.
• A belief that administrators allow "political correctness" to stifle truly free speech and normal campus functions.
• The notion that universities are becoming safe havens for extremist views under the guise of academic freedom.

Liberal voters are more likely to support the administrators' decisions in handling protests, emphasizing the importance of free speech and peaceful protest. However, this group is not monolithic. Some progressives believe that university leaders are failing to adequately support minority and marginalized groups during protests. They argue administrators are not doing enough to meet the demands of protesters. Progressives often cite:

• Administrators not being proactive in defending free speech rights for all groups, especially minorities.
• Concerns over the potential suppression of academic freedom under external political pressures.
• The balance between maintaining campus order and respecting protesters' rights.