The divide between the Democrat establishment base and progressive branches is growing.
Some still support Israel's right to defend itself, but there is contention within the party over this issue
There is a contingent of Democrats and progressives who are critical of the US's military aid to Israel, condemning the treatment of Palestinians in Gaza.
Our Methodology
Demographics
All Voters
Sample Size
8,000
Geographical Breakdown
National
Time Period
30 days
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 Democratic Party’s divide between its establishment base and progressive branches is growing. Overall, there seems to be a split among Democrats and progressives, with some continuing to support Israel's right to defend itself and others advocating for a more balanced approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, with an emphasis on human rights and international law. There is a strong sentiment of frustration towards the amount of military aid going to Israel, with some suggesting it should be reduced or cut off completely.
Some Democrats are supportive of the US's military aid to Israel, viewing it as necessary to combat threats from Hamas and other destabilizing forces in the Middle East. They believe that Iran, backed by Russia and China, is a significant threat to global peace, and that the US and its allies must remain vigilant. They also argue that Hamas has been a significant contributor to the ongoing conflict and suffering in Gaza, using aid money for military purposes instead of improving the lives of Palestinians.
On the other hand, there are Democrats and progressives who are critical of the US's military aid to Israel. They condemn the treatment of Palestinians in Gaza and argue for a reassessment of the US's loyalty to Israel. They are concerned about the humanitarian situation in Gaza, accusing Israel of blocking aid and contributing to the suffering of the Palestinian people. Some go as far as calling for an end to US funding for Israel, equating Israel's actions in Gaza to genocide.
Talking About (Democrats)
Some of the more progressive Democrats express a sense of betrayal, calling it a "huge concession" that the bipartisan border-Israel-Ukraine package blocks all funding for UNRWA (United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East) from the US. They object to the idea of providing more money for Israel while reducing aid to Palestinian children.
The discussions also reveal a concern among Democrats about the potential implications of not passing the bill. Some users note that failure to pass the bill could lead to direct military confrontations in the Middle East and against Russia, suggesting a fear of escalation.
Stay Informed
Share:
More Like This
A recent classified info leak to CNN is stirring controversy. The leak—reportedly drawn from classified assessments—suggested that U.S. strikes on Iran did not cripple its nuclear capabilities, contradicting President Trump’s declaration that the sites were “obliterated.” Pete Hegseth’s combative press conference reignites tensions between America’s populist right, mainstream conservatives, and the press.
🚨 BREAKING: SecDef Pete Hegseth stares right at the press and goes scorched earth, spelling out their insanity. I could watch this all day.
"You, and I mean specifically YOU, the press, you cheer against Trump so hard, it's in your DNA and in your blood to cheer against Trump,… pic.twitter.com/nmazQcUP8a
For Trump’s core supporters, particularly the MAGA base, the mission was accomplished and the leaker deserves consequences. For critics, the leak revives deep concerns about overreach, propaganda, and the erosion of fact-based governance.
The Media Blame Game: CNN is “Fake News”
For Trump supporters, the leak to CNN is a calculated strike against the administration. Voters accuse CNN of “siding with Iran” and intentionally undermining U.S. military credibility. The term “fake news” is prevalent. Many also claim the intelligence community is once again operating as a partisan actor—a view rooted in long-standing grievances over Russiagate and impeachment-era reporting.
Liberals and progressives frame the leak as an act of whistleblowing. They praised CNN correspondents like Kaitlan Collins and Natasha Bertrand for challenging the administration’s narrative. Among moderates, the credibility of the intelligence itself sparks skepticism. The leak raises questions about timing, motive, and whether Americans hear the truth from the press.
Hegseth’s Press Conference
Pete Hegseth’s high-profile press conference drives the news cycle, generating online discussion. To Trump loyalists, it was a home run. His scathing remarks toward the press—accusing them of treasonous behavior—are celebrated as a show of unapologetic patriotism. Especially in rural and Southern strongholds, the aggressive posture signals resolve. Right leaning voters see Hegseth as asserting strength in the face of sabotage.
Beyond the MAGA circle, reactions are less charitable. Moderates and establishment conservatives discuss the event as a missed opportunity to reassure the public. Instead of addressing the specifics of the leak, Hegseth leaned into partisan performance. They see his tone as brash, dismissive, and combative. Critics argue he was more interested in energizing the base than providing clarity.
Narrative Over Nuance
MAGA voters who support Trump’s intervention in Iran say the success of the strikes remains nearly absolute. They dismiss the leaked intelligence suggesting otherwise. Supporters dismiss the leak as misinformation, focusing instead on the president’s forceful language: terms like “obliterated” and “historic” are treated as not just rhetorical but symbolic of American dominance.
Many in these spaces argue that the point of such operations is largely psychological. They say the goal is to demonstrate willpower and unpredictability to adversaries. To them, Trump’s choice of words is not an exaggeration, but a strategic posture. This group sees the leak as a deliberate attempt to blunt the psychological impact of the strikes and sow internal doubt.
MAGA vs. Establishment Voices
An undercurrent of discomfort and disagreement still divides more traditional conservatives and younger MAGA voters. Establishment Republicans and policy-minded thinkers raise flags about the administration’s handling of both the strike and the leak response. There seems to be a contradictory response where few outright reject the need for decisive action against Iran. However, they worry about rhetorical overreach and media bashing, returning to their standard critiques of Trump.
Establishment Republicans often worry about frayed internal discipline. They question whether bypassing congressional oversight, inflating battlefield results, and dismissing legitimate questions is a viable long-term strategy. Some conservative veterans and foreign policy hawks say Hegseth’s press conference was campaign theatrics more than a serious presser.
Wary voices aren’t necessarily hostile to Trump—they often supported his earlier foreign policy moves, including the Soleimani strike and the Abraham Accords—but they fear the cost of blurring the line between political performance and national security.
Meanwhile, MAGA voters who have been critical of Trump’s intervention in Iran return to their celebration of his style and rhetoric in press conferences. This tension within the party reiterates what a divisive and strong figure Trump is—even among his supporters.
Geography and Generation
Public reactions to the leak and Hegseth’s remarks generally fall along geographic and generational lines. In rural and conservative regions—particularly in the South, Midwest, and parts of the Mountain West—Americans are strongly pro-Trump. They see Hegseth as a truth-teller pushing back against a corrupt media elite.
Urban and coastal regions express more unease. Liberal enclaves in New York, California, and Washington, D.C. are more likely to believe the leaked intelligence. They are also more likely to question the legality of the strike and the long-term strategy behind it. These voters wonder if the administration is circumventing constitutional norms or escalating conflict unnecessarily.
Age adds another layer of complexity. Older conservatives are more likely to trust Trump’s depiction of events and see Hegseth’s tone as warranted. Younger voters—including many on the right—express skepticism. They are more attuned to the contradictions between leaked documents and public statements, and more cynical about both the media and political institutions in general.
This generational divide is especially pronounced among Independents, who frequently express exhaustion with “performance politics” from both sides. They want leadership that is less focused on optics, and they are frustrated with eroding credibility in every direction.
The upset in New York City’s mayoral primary is making national waves and sparking speculation about Democratic Party power. Zohran Mamdani’s victory over former Mayor Andrew Cuomo ignites fierce national debate and online tribalism.
65% of online discourse supports Mamdani’s win as a long-overdue break from machine politics and legacy corruption.
35% express skepticism, anxiety, or outright hostility, warning that a vote for Mamdani is a vote for chaos, inexperience, and socialism.
Many Americans feel Mamdani’s success in defeating a fully resourced, institutionally backed Cuomo is shocking but not surprising. High-profile endorsements from Gov. Ned Lamont, Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, and party donors failed to shield Cuomo from what many see as the collapse of Democratic gatekeeping.
Online discourse mocks Cuomo for believing he was “owed” the seat.
People frame his loss as a collapse of Democratic establishment power.
Mamdani’s win signals that party endorsements have lost power, especially among urban progressives.
The Progressive Upsurge Supports Mamdani
Among his supporters, Mamdani represents a belief that the Democratic base is done playing defense. Across social media, voters celebrate him for refusing corporate money, defending unpopular truths, and leaning into “moral clarity” over political caution.
While his policies remain underdefined in public discussion, the emotional core of his appeal is working. Meanwhile, national observers mock New York voters saying they lack understanding around Mamdani’s ideology and position on issues.
NY's next mayor is a radical Muslim socialist from Africa who only got citizenship 7 years ago…
The first candidate who says what we scream in the streets.
This wave of enthusiasm extends beyond NYC. Mamdani’s rise is already being cited as a blueprint for national progressive insurgency. Activists laud his ability to galvanize disaffected voters, particularly through:
Digital-native messaging that bypasses legacy media.
Grassroots organizing rooted in tenant rights and anti-corporate agitation.
Unapologetic stances on U.S. foreign policy, especially on Israel and Gaza.
Both energize base voters through disruption, not persuasion.
Both are treated by critics as existential threats and by supporters as symbols of righteous upheaval.
Critics, however, suggest Mamdani’s voter base is not comprised of the working-class people he claims to stand for. Many criticize him and affluent, white, female New Yorkers who can afford to vote for a socialist.
Affluent, white, female liberals will not rest until they've destroyed what's left of Western civilization.
Backlash and Alarm Over Radicalism and Inexperience
While Mamdani has significant support, there is also a strong backlash. Critics—ranging from institutional Democrats to disillusioned Independents—describe Mamdani’s win as reckless, destabilizing, and potentially catastrophic for urban governance. While few rush to defend Cuomo personally, many express fear that the alternative is even worse.
Operational incompetence: Mamdani is perceived as having no executive experience, raising fears of bureaucratic paralysis.
Ideological extremism: His ties to Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) and his unapologetic anti-Zionism make moderates and Jewish voters uneasy.
Urban decline: Some frame his win as accelerating New York’s slide into cultural radicalism and economic dysfunction.
In two decades NYC went from this to that. The consequences of mass migration from shitholes. pic.twitter.com/3lkbISrCp2
Cultural anxiety fuels much of the backlash. Critics warn that the city is now hostage to ideological performance over civic responsibility. Memes mock the idea of halal food trucks replacing NYPD precincts while others compare Mamdani to Lenin or Bin Laden.
What unites the opposition is not support for Cuomo but fear of what comes next. There is a consensus that New Yorkers chose symbolism over stewardship, and the consequences may be swift.
Identity, Tribalism, and Intra-Left Schism
Mamdani’s win provokes both partisan and internal Democratic discord. His ethnicity, religion, and outspoken views on foreign policy draw both admiration and vitriol. Online discourse quickly shifts into what it means to be American, progressive, or even electable.
Supporters say Mamdani is a moral counterweight to institutional hypocrisy. They want someone who stands for Palestine, challenges the donor class, and makes space for marginalized communities beyond symbolic gestures.
Critics accuse Mamdani of importing foreign ideologies, undermining American civic norms, or using religious identity as political cover. Some also highlight the fact that he’s a recent citizen, questioning his eligibility to run.
Tribal lines are solid as critics call him a “halal Marxist” and accuse New York of becoming “an open-air mosque.” Some even speculate that his win confirms evidence of sleeper radicalism or foreign influence.
Fissures among progressives and Democrats include:
Voters criticizing Bernie Sanders for not endorsing Mamdani or campaigning with him. Younger progressives call Sanders “a coward.”
AOC faces backlash for offering only muted praise, with commenters accusing her of being “progressive when it’s safe.”
A common sentiment is that politicians all talk Palestine until it costs them something.
Mamdani’s History, Symbolism, and Beliefs
Policy specifics are largely drowned out by emotional discourse, but many on the right point out Mamdani’s ideological identity. Critics say he has a history of consistent leftist activism. His base sees his beliefs not as dangerous but as morally necessary in a corrupt political system.
Mamdani’s ideological pillars, as expressed in public sentiment:
Socialist economics: Rent control, anti-eviction efforts, and direct challenges to real estate power define his local policy history.
Anti-imperialism: Some praise Mamdani for calling out U.S. foreign policy failures, especially regarding Israel, Gaza, and military funding.
Anti-corporatism: Supporters say he's “clean” in a city voters believe has been corrupted by lobbyists and PACs.
In a short period of time, Mamdani has become mythic—more narrative than person. In memes and slogans, he is alternately a revolutionary hero, a cult leader, or an avatar of ideological decay.
Why Did New York Vote for a Socialist?
Outside observers are quick to ask why New Yorkers would vote for a socialist. Online discourse suggests votes were fueled by rage, fatigue, and political disillusionment—not necessarily ideology.
Many believe New Yorkers didn’t vote for a Marxist revolution, but voted against corruption, stagnation, and performative centrism. Cuomo’s legacy—marked by scandal, patronage, and inertia—made Mamdani a contrasting figure.
Discourse suggests key motivations driving support include:
Rejecting machine politics: Many view Mamdani’s win as a cleansing break from the Bloomberg-De Blasio-Adams lineage.
Economic desperation: Skyrocketing rent, taxes, job instability, and homelessness make radical solutions more palatable.
Authenticity gap: Voters say Mamdani “means it,” while Cuomo represents scripted donor theater.
Mamdani’s socialism seems to be a placeholder for authenticity, moral clarity, and grassroots representation. To supporters, voting for him is cultural rather than policy based. Critics also highlight this point, suggesting that online searches for socialism spiked after Mamdani’s nomination.
Donald Trump’s unilateral ceasefire declaration following a brief but aggressive military exchange with Iran blurs fault lines on the American right.
MIG Reports data shows:
30% of conservatives express support for Trump’s swift action and ceasefire negotiation.
60% are skeptical or outright opposed, citing executive overreach, questionable motives, and concern over foreign entanglements.
10% offer mixed or uncertain assessments, often reserving judgment on the ceasefire’s durability or geopolitical consequences.
The ceasefire, which was almost immediately broken by both sides, accelerates pre-existing tensions within the MAGA coalition. While many are doubling down on their foreign policy viewpoints, Trump’s fiery press conference shifts dividing lines back to a more predictable pattern of pro-Trump versus anti-Trump.
Ceasefire Support vs. Skepticism
While the ceasefire announcement gained praise from some conservatives, most reactions included suspicion, doubt, or outright derision. Supporters laud the "12-day war" as proof of Trump’s ability to bring hostile regimes to the negotiating table through force. They describe it as efficient, patriotic, and a reaffirmation of Trump’s reputation for unpredictability.
But these voices are outnumbered. Most view the ceasefire as premature and performative—particularly after it was broken. They say Trump’s messaging is inconsistent and criticize the ceasefire as both countries continue firing rockets. For critics, the ceasefire lacks credibility and serves more as political theater than genuine statesmanship. Many accuse Trump of prioritizing optics over outcomes.
Even among those inclined to support Trump’s instincts, there is concern that his ceasefire was not rooted in enforceable terms. Others see it as a strategic capitulation that benefits Israel and global elites more than Americans. This sentiment fuels an undercurrent of betrayal among former loyalists who feel Trump is straying from his America First doctrine.
I spent millions of my own money and TRAVELED THE ENTIRE COUNTRY campaigning for President Trump and his MAGA agenda and his promises.
And Trump’s MAGA agenda included these key promises:
NO MORE FOREIGN WARS.
NO MORE REGIME CHANGE.
WORLD PEACE.
And THIS is what the people…
— Marjorie Taylor Greene 🇺🇸 (@mtgreenee) June 23, 2025
Trump's Angry Press Conference
Trump’s press conference expressing frustration with both Israel and Iran is a discussion flashpoint—especially after he dropped an F-bomb. His fiery delivery of “They don’t know what the F they’re doing,” immediately became an online meme, rallying MAGA supporters who have been critical of his foreign strategy. The exclamation ripped through right-leaning spaces, generating excitement, criticism, and praise.
For many, the outburst is instantly a classic Trump quip, showing raw, direct, and unfiltered anger. They view it as a sign that he remains the only political figure willing to cut through diplomatic double-speak and confront chaos with plain language. These voters defend the vulgarity as part of Trump’s strategic posturing.
Critics say the remark landed poorly. Even some Republicans say the statement suggests confusion, not control. Rather than projecting authority, it strikes them as emblematic of a presidency increasingly driven by impulse. This group feats he’s lost the plot, criticizing President Trump as more a “bystander” than the architect of U.S. policy.
President Trump on Israel and Iran: "We basically have two countries that have been fighting so long and so hard that they don’t know what the fuck they’re doing." pic.twitter.com/xrztmebALZ
Conservatives are still split into distinct factions, each interpreting the ongoing conflict through their ideological lens.
Pro-Trump Hawks
This faction backs Trump’s bombing campaign as a necessary act of deterrence. They view the strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities as evidence of bold leadership and strategic clarity. These supporters applaud Trump for acting quickly, projecting strength, and reasserting American dominance without committing to ground warfare. However, this group tends to be more critical of the ceasefire and his recent comments criticizing Israel.
BREAKING: Mark Levin attacks Trump peace deal "I hate this word CEASEFIRE"
This group sharply opposes how Trump executed the strikes. They argue bypassing Congress violates the War Powers Clause and sets a dangerous precedent. For them, no president—Trump included—should have unilateral authority to initiate military operations without legislative oversight. They warn that justifications based on executive necessity undermine foundational checks and balances.
America First Populists
These voices, once among Trump’s most vocal defenders, now express growing disillusionment. They see the conflict as a distraction from domestic priorities and view Trump’s rhetoric as increasingly aligned with foreign lobbying interests. Many frame the situation as a betrayal, saying MAGA was built on disentangling from foreign conflicts. However, this group may be slightly consoled by Trump’s ceasefire and his anger toward Israel breaking the ceasefire.
Disillusioned MAGA Voices
Distinct from broader populists, this group centers its critique on a perceived ideological drift. They point to changes in tone, personnel, and foreign policy posture as indicators that Trump has strayed from the nationalist foundation he once championed. They emphasize his inconsistency, question the legitimacy of the ceasefire, and warn that his approach is increasingly indistinguishable from the establishment elites he once challenged.
Anti-Establishment Fury and “Israel First” Backlash
Much of the negative response to Trump’s ceasefire is anchored in an intensifying anti-establishment current. Among disillusioned conservatives, the dominant theme is that Trump has compromised with the very forces the MAGA movement was created to resist. The language is sharp, accusing Trump of acting as a pawn for Israel or caving to RINOs.
This sentiment is widespread across populist-right spaces. Many accuse Trump of drifting into neoconservative territory, aligning himself with foreign policy hawks and global elites at the expense of U.S. national interest. The “Israel First” accusation, once taboo in Republican circles, is now voiced openly.
Critics also point to inconsistencies between Trump’s rhetoric and the reality on the ground. While Trump declared Iran's “nuclear program is gone,” independent voices and OSINT researchers cast doubt on the strike’s effectiveness. Many within his base worry that Trump is inflating results to claim victory while actual conditions remain volatile.
Implications for Trump’s Coalition
The Iran conflict has become a proxy battle for larger ideological struggles within Trump’s coalition. The right is fragmented over the identity of the conservative movement itself.
Trump’s hawkish allies, including high-profile evangelical voices and national security conservatives, remain loyal—but their numbers appear to be shrinking. Meanwhile, the populist-nationalist wing that fueled Trump’s rise is increasingly skeptical.
These tensions are now playing out across conservative media, grassroots forums, and campaign surrogates, revealing competing factions:
Neo-Jacksonians who seek to project power without entanglement.
Constitutionalists demanding process and restraint.
Israel-aligned hawks arguing for moral clarity and alliance loyalty.
Disaffected populists who see betrayal where they once saw revolution.
Trump remains the gravitational center of the GOP, but his ability to hold the coalition together through instinct and charisma is being tested. The ceasefire may not mark the end of a foreign conflict, but it may signal greater conflict within the movement Trump created.
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)