Conversations about U.S. national security or Russia show public caution, with increased opposition to U.S. involvement.
Support for Ukraine is higher in discussions directly focused on Ukraine, with selective bias and social pressure possibly amplifying solidarity.
Fear of World War III remains a consistent concern across all discussion themes, reflecting widespread anxiety about potential global escalation.
Our Methodology
Demographics
All Voters
Sample Size
4,500
Geographical Breakdown
National
Time Period
1 Day
MIG Reports leverages EyesOver technology, employing Advanced AI for precise analysis. This ensures unparalleled precision, setting a new standard. Find out more about the unique data pull for this article.
The ongoing war between Ukraine and Russia, particularly Ukraine’s request for more U.S. weapons to strike deeper into Russian territory, triggers complex and divided discussions among Americans. Voters express support, opposition, and fears over U.S. involvement and the potential escalation to global conflict or World War III.
MIG Reports analysis of discussions about Ukraine, Russia, and U.S. national security concerns show some shifts in American sentiment based on framing and context.
Support for Ukraine
The level of support for Ukraine varies significantly depending on how the discussion is framed. When conversations directly focus on Ukraine’s situation, there is a notably higher level of support compared to discussions that center around broader national security concerns or Russia’s position.
In Ukraine-focused discussions, 60-70% of comments express solidarity with Ukraine, emphasizing the nation’s right to defend itself and criticizing Russia’s actions. This elevated support can be partially attributed to social pressure and selective bias—people may feel compelled to express solidarity due to the emotional framing of Ukraine as a victim of aggression.
In discussions centered on national security and Russia, support for Ukraine drops to 42%. These conversations introduce more critical perspectives, reflecting concerns about U.S. involvement and the potential unintended consequences of escalating military aid. Americans tend to be more cautious and pragmatic when the issue is framed around security or the complexities of geopolitical tensions.
Opposition to U.S. Involvement
Across all discussions, 31% of Americans express opposition to further U.S. involvement in the conflict, particularly when discussions focus on national security and Russia. Voters worry about the risks of escalation. They question why the U.S. should deepen its involvement in a conflict many view as not directly related to national interests.
In Ukraine-focused conversations, 15-20% express opposition. Some are reluctant to involve the U.S. further, but overall criticism is less pronounced. This, again, could be linked to selective bias where only conversations explicitly focused on Ukraine draw a sympathetic audience.
Neutral or Undecided
Around 25-27% of Americans remain neutral or undecided about the conflict. This group often expresses confusion or uncertainty about the situation’s complexity, calling for more information. These neutral opinions appear consistent regardless of the discussion's framing. This suggests many Americans remains unsure of how the U.S. should proceed.
Voter Discussion Themes
Discussions About Ukraine Support Ukraine
Voters who focus their discussion on Ukraine tend to present an emotional framing that portrays Ukraine as a victim of Russian aggression. This emphasis on moral responsibility, humanitarian concerns, and geopolitical justice includes stronger sentiments of support for Ukraine.
This pattern suggests selective bias and social pressure play a role. Voters may feel compelled to express pro-Ukraine views or avoid criticism in emotionally charged conversations. It’s also possible those who ardently support Ukraine are the main group discussing this subject. The focus on Ukraine itself seems to amplify positive sentiment compared to broader geopolitical discussions.
Concerns Over U.S. Involvement and Escalation
In discussions about national security or broader geopolitical implications, public opinion is more cautious. The potential risk of escalating conflict, especially drawing the U.S. into a deeper military engagement, emerges as a major concern.
People worry about the unintended consequences of providing Ukraine more advanced weapons, especially long-range systems that could directly target Russian territory. This theme draws more pragmatic and risk-averse perspectives into the discussion.
Fears of World War III
The fear of a larger global conflict is a recurring concern across all discussions. Around 50% of Americans express concerns about the potential for WW3. This sentiment is consistent whether the conversation is about Ukraine’s need for U.S. weapons, broader security concerns, or Russia’s actions.
This highlights American anxiety about the potential for escalated conflict beyond the region, potentially drawing in NATO and other global powers. Even when some downplay the risks, fears of a broader war remain a significant narrative driver.
Stay Informed
Share:
More Like This
After president-elect Trump nominated Robert F. Kennedy Jr for Secretary of Health and Human Services, the left-wing media has predictably begun its efforts to sway public sentiment against him. A viral “fact check” of RFK Jr.’s criticism of Froot Loops in America, has ignited a wave of criticism toward media attempts to shape public opinion.
A New York Times fact-check called U.S. and Canadian versions of Froot Loops "roughly the same," focusing on similar sugar content but ignoring the important differences in additives. People are scoffing because the fact-check invalidates itself by claiming the two versions are the same while listing the same important differences the MAHA movement attempts to highlight.
Americans mostly see the media’s treatment of RFK Jr. as typical of biased and politically motivated anti-Trump narrative shaping. This, they say, contributes to the degradation of journalistic integrity and erosion of public trust.
Online discussions frequently highlight how fact-checking efforts by the media frame Trump, conservatives, and their associates as “fringe,” “conspiratorial,” and “paranoid.” Rather than engaging with the substance of RFK’s critiques about the health system or regulatory practices, media reports often focus on tangential issues or minor inaccuracies. For many, this approach shows an unwillingness to address concerns Americans share about health governance and corporate influence.
The Left are now drinking bottles of Seed Oil in protest of RFK Jnr nomination for Secretary of Health. 🤡🌍 pic.twitter.com/kuSPwrpVHB
The perceived mismatch between media focus and public priorities inflames frustration. Audiences are increasingly wary of media outlets that appear to sidestep meaningful critiques of government and industry practices, often opting not to consume coverage at all. For RFK supporters, coverage seems less like a good-faith effort to inform the public and more like a deflection from core issues of health reform and institutional accountability.
Health Reform as a Unifying Vision
While Kennedy’s platform does elicit some polarized reactions among voters, his message resonates with many Americans concerned about chronic health issues and the transparency of health agencies.
MAHA critiques of the healthcare system—pushing for reform, accountability, and better health outcomes—have struck a chord with voters across ideological lines. Conversations frequently highlight MAHA's focus on rising rates of chronic illnesses, infant and maternal mortality, and declining life expectancy in the United States.
These concerns, increasingly dismissed by mainstream political narratives, unify a public disillusioned with the status quo. Kennedy’s willingness to address these challenges head-on has made him a symbol of hope for systemic change. His calls for evidence-based policies and independent oversight of health agencies resonate deeply with those who feel neglected by traditional political narratives.
Dr. Casey Means Wows Liberal Audience and Gets Them to CHEER for RFK Jr.'s HHS Nomination
“If we were crushing it [at health], we would not be spending 2x every other country in the entire world and have the lowest life expectancy of any developed country in the entire world.”… pic.twitter.com/160GKOHQMh
The media’s hypocritical treatment of RFK Jr. contrasts sharply with the substantive discussions among Americans. Legacy media outlets, which at one time highlighted Kennedy’s efforts, now focus on his controversial views as overly simplistic.
However, public discourse shows interest in the MAHA critique of vaccines and food and drug reform. Supporters view Kennedy as someone who prioritizes integrity and transparency, challenging both corporate interests and entrenched government practices that many believe have failed the American public.
Far from the caricature mainstream narratives presents, many Americans view Kennedy as a thoughtful and principled advocate for reform. His legal battles against corporate malfeasance, such as his successful lawsuits against Monsanto, serve as a testament to his commitment to protecting public health and the environment. For his supporters, these actions lend to his credibility as someone willing to confront powerful interests in defense of the common good.
Media Skepticism Tarnishes its Legacy
The controversy around Kennedy’s media coverage reconfirms the shift in how Americans consume and interpret information. Social media and alternative reporting have amplified voices that challenge establishment narratives, creating a space where audiences can scrutinize and discuss issues on their own.
Cultural shifts in media consumption and trust speak to the existential challenges facing traditional media outlets. As public trust declines, figures like Kennedy gain traction by addressing concerns Americans feel are ignored or dismissed. The debate about his candidacy and public statements offers a window into the changing dynamics of media influence and public discourse in America.
Governor Kathy Hochul’s revival of congestion pricing has sparked heated debate among New Yorkers, amid widespread frustrations with her administration.
Hochul’s proposal, set to begin in January 2025, introduces a $9 toll for vehicles entering Manhattan's Central Business District during peak hours. This is intended to reduce traffic congestion and generate approximately $15 billion for the Metropolitan Transportation Authority's capital projects.
The initiative has faced criticism from various groups, including New Yorkers, with a viral clip of Hochul explaining the tax could have been $15, but instead is only $9. Many point out the incoherence of presenting this as a savings, when non-congestion pricing is nothing.
Did Kathy Hochul just do the Tik Tok trend “girl math” with congestion pricing? https://t.co/TSRfYqtTOq
New Yorkers see the $9 toll for entering Manhattan as a financial burden disguised as a cost-saving measure. While Hochul frames it as a reduction from $15, critics say, regardless of the cost, the tax disproportionately affects middle- and lower-income groups who depend on their vehicles for commuting. The toll, coupled with high living costs and inflation, adds to their already stretched budgets.
Distrust in Leadership
Many commenters express skepticism about Hochul’s fiscal priorities. Complaints focus on mismanagement of taxpayer dollars, highlighting issues like fare evasion on public transit and rising costs without corresponding improvements. New Yorkers see the toll as generating revenue at the expense of struggling residents.
Dissatisfaction with Public Spending
Critics frequently cite misallocation of state resources as a point of frustration. Funds directed toward illegal immigrant assistance are often contrasted with unmet needs in transit efficiency and public safety. This fuels sentiments that Hochul’s administration is out of touch with the struggle to afford living in New York.
Political Discontent
Leadership Critiques
New Yorkers and outside observers regularly criticize Governor Hochul as a perfect representation of extreme liberalism. They accuse her of being an elite, disconnected from voter realities. This perception is tied to broader frustrations with Democratic leadership in New York, which many view as prioritizing ideological goals over practical governance.
Economic and Crime Concerns
People view the congestion toll as part of a pattern of rampant governance failures. Critics link it to other policies they feel have worsened the quality of life, such as lenient bail reform laws and insufficient measures to address crime and public safety.
Ideological Priorities
The policy also intensifies debates about liberal dominance in state politics. Many call for a political overhaul and alternatives to what they view as corrupt and ineffective leadership. This dissatisfaction is a rallying point for voters considering Republican candidates.
Transparency and Incompetence
Revenue Allocation Skepticism
Distrust in how toll revenue will be used is a recurring theme. Many question whether funds will genuinely improve transit or if they will be lost to bureaucratic inefficiency. New Yorkers are offended at the audacity of Hochul to frame the $9 toll as a “savings,” calling it condescending and deceptive.
Messaging and Public Trust
Hochul’s communication around congestion pricing alienates voters who already feel neglected and taken advantage of by leaders. Many find the messaging tone-deaf, with comments suggesting the public is insulted by the idea that implementing a $9 toll is actually a win for government.
A 🧵looking at the Governor's statement announcing the return of the #CongestionPricing tax: 1) This isn't a "40% reduction in Congestion Pricing Tolls"... the toll is $0 today. This is a 100% increase in Congestion tolls to $9. This is Orwellian. pic.twitter.com/BhoGAAaZdF
Union members and leaders view congestion pricing as an unfair burden on working-class and middle-income families. They say a toll disproportionately impacts those who rely on vehicles due to limited public transit options.
Public Transit Issues
Union voices align with broader critiques of the MTA, citing fare hikes and declining service quality. They argue congestion pricing shifts financial responsibility onto vulnerable populations instead of addressing poor transportation management.
Union Opposition and Mobilization
Legal challenges, such as a United Federation of Teachers (UFT) lawsuit to stop the congestion pricing program, illustrate the growing opposition to New York governance from unions. Many Teamsters view Hochul’s policies as predatory, reiterating the shift away from Democratic politics which was clearly demonstrated in the 2024 presidential election.
Online discourse about the Ukraine conflict and U.S. foreign policy is taking an increasingly critical tone. President Joe Biden authorized Ukraine to use long-range missile against Russia, lightning passionate discourse among Americans.
Biden’s decision is widely viewed as a pivotal moment ushering in troubling U.S. entanglement in the war and escalating tensions with Russia. Conversations reveal a growing unease, with many questioning the wisdom of a strategy that could lead the United States into a potential direct conflict.
By authorizing long range missiles to strike inside Russia, Biden is committing an unconstitutional Act of War that endangers the lives of all U.S. citizens. This is an impeachable offense, but the reality is he’s an emasculated puppet of a deep state. https://t.co/5XDi0E16q1
Critics frame Biden’s decision to approve long-range missiles as a dangerous escalation, suggesting it signals desperation rather than a calculated effort to stabilize the conflict. It amplifies fears that the U.S. is treading on precarious ground, particularly with warnings from Russian officials. Online discussions paint the Biden administration as underestimating the geopolitical consequences of its actions and risking retaliation. Many on the right also speculate that Biden hope to leave Trump with an uphill battle in foreign policy.
War is a Racket
Many Americans say establishment foreign policy decisions are financially motived. They allege the Ukraine conflict is lucrative for defense contractors and the political class. This perspective aligns with a recurring skepticism about U.S. military engagements, which many see as prioritizing profit over human life and national security. People point to the prolonged nature of past conflicts like Afghanistan, saying the war in Ukraine is similarly perpetuated for financial gain rather than swift resolution.
Seeking Peace
Voter discussions are polarized over the role of the U.S. in global conflicts. While some see continued support for Ukraine as a moral imperative, many Americans take a cynical view of political motivations—especially when issues at home go unresolved.
Some contrast Biden’s policies with Trump’s, hoping a second Trump presidency might prioritize de-escalation and limit U.S. involvement in Ukraine. This anticipation for Trump’s “America First” foreign policy demonstrates shifting public sentiment toward establishment political norms.
Warhawk Fatigue
Overall, Americans express a sense of anxiety about the trajectory of U.S. foreign policy under Biden’s leadership. Conversations reveal apprehension over escalating military engagement and a critical view of Democratic motives. Increasing anti-establishment skepticism suggests Americans will not respond kindly to unnecessary conflict forced on the country by elites with conflicting incentives.
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
_.png)
_.png)
_.png)
_.png)
_.png)
_.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)