Recent news of airplane manufacturer Boeing’s guilty plea for conspiracy to defraud the U.S. government is enraging Americans. The plea, in connection with two deadly 737 Max crashes, resulted in fines and penalties which, most Americans, feel is a meager punishment.
Despite the rare moment when a corporate giant admits to criminal wrongdoing, the two catastrophic crashes in Indonesia and Ethiopia, which killed 346 people, are only a small part of why Boeing’s brand value continues to plummet.
American sentiment toward Boeing consists of anger and disappointment. Many perceive Boeing's agreement to pay a $243.6 million fine is outrageously lenient given the magnitude of the tragedy and the $24.8 billion victims’ families hoped for.
There is a significant outcry that the punishment does not fit the crime, particularly since no one is facing jail time. The company already faced $2.5 billion in penalties and payouts in 2021, but critics argue financial penalties alone are inadequate to hold the company accountable for the loss of human lives.
With news of Boeing’s guilty plea, online mentions skyrocketed aspublic sentiment crashed down to 36%.
Ongoing scandals and negative press coverage continue to erode public views of Boeing, which faces negativity more severe than American hatred of Mexican cartels.
Destroying Public Trust
American view of Boeing and consequently, air travel, has been severely compromised. Ongoing scandals, safety incidents, and rumors about the dead whistleblowers cast a long shadow over Boeing's reputation.
The aviation industry's overall safety and integrity now face heightened scrutiny. The idea of boarding a Boeing 737 Max or any aircraft manufactured by Boeing terrifies many travelers. Incidents like the recent aborted takeoff of an American Airlines Boeing 737 due to a blown tire amplify these concerns.
This incident occurred as the aircraft accelerated for takeoff, resulting in a catastrophic tire failure, which later caused a fire. The immediate danger of the situation was compounded by a delayed response from emergency trucks. This heightened concerns over the readiness and efficiency of ground support systems in handling such emergencies.
JUST IN: American Airlines flight 590 out of Tampa, Florida narrowly avoids disaster after multiple tires blow out during takeoff.
As the plane was picking up speed and seconds away from liftoff, the tires blew out.
The FAA's order to inspect 2,600 Boeing 737 planes over potential oxygen mask failures further erodes confidence in air travel, suggesting systemic quality control issues within the company. Many are also discussing recent news that Boeing’s Starliner capsule will be stuck in space, possibly until mid-August, due to technical issues.
Another recent incident where two planes nearly collided mid-air resurfaced fears about the impact of DEI initiatives in the aviation industry.
Remember when the FAA threw out over 700 qualified Air Traffic Controller applicants (who passed the test) just because they were white? https://t.co/KaECGX3uke
The juxtaposition of Boeing's insignificant penalties with other high-profile cases also fuels ideas of a two-tiered justice system. Americans increasingly believe corporate entities receive lenient treatment compared to individuals—especially for those who hold the "wrong" ideology.
Most people view Boeing's fine as a "sweetheart deal" that fails to hold anyone accountable to the victims' families. Critics argue this penalty amounts to a slap on the wrist for Boeing, a multi-billion-dollar corporation, and fails to deliver real justice or corrective pressure.
The sense of injustice is exacerbated by the fact that no individual executives face criminal charges or jail time. In contrast, some people point out Trump's fine of nearly $500 million including interest for his valuation of Mar-a-Lago.
They fined Donald Trump 2x more for accurately appraising the market value of his home than Boeing got fined for killing people. https://t.co/jhfbrI7DZy
Many, especially on the right, view these disproportionate penalties as clear evidence of favoritism and politically motivated justice. These reactions frame the justice system as being unfairly weaponized against anyone who doesn’t align with the “Uniparty.”
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.
President Joe Biden publicly stating he plans to stay in the presidential race has caused viral discussion online and among Democrats. There are passionate debates on both sides, but especially within Biden’s own constituencies. MIG Reports data shows a split among those who hope Biden stays in to beat Trump at any cost, and those who vehemently insist he step down.
Biden's Increasing Health Concerns
Biden's mental and physical health have nearly overshadowed all political conversations in recent days. Critics often raise concerns about his age and clear cognitive decline, with many pushing for him to step down.
More Democrats are now saying a younger candidate like Kamala Harris or others should take the helm. Some Democrat leaders, including Nancy Pelosi, also insist that time is growing short for Biden to make a decision.
Voters across the political spectrum discuss the possibility of Biden suffering from dementia, Parkinson's, and other health issues. This focus on the President’s increasing feeble appearance causes many to question his ability to handle the pressures of the presidency.
Democrats are now split on whether Biden can withstand another rigorous campaign. His supporters often dismiss these concerns as baseless attacks meant to undermine Biden’s credibility. They argue he is capable of fulfilling his duties and the media is making unjustified claims.
Other Democrats say, even if Biden does not have the capacity to continue as the sitting president, they are not bothered. A viral clip of Whoopie Goldberg promoting a similar idea went viral, drawing criticism from Republicans and some Democrats.
Whoopi: "I don't care if [Biden] pooped his pants. I don't care if he can't put a sentence together. Show me he can't do the job, and then I'll say, okay, maybe it's time to go...I have poopy day all the time. All the time." pic.twitter.com/QlMHzH8LF9
— Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) July 8, 2024
Any Blue Won’t Do
A salient point in the conversation is the perception of party loyalty and internal disarray among Democrats. The idea that influential Democrats and former supporters are now withdrawing their support for Biden is gaining traction.
Notable figures and entities, such as a Disney heiress and a growing number of mainstream media outlets, are shifting their allegiance or calling for Biden to step aside. Recent news that fervent Obama supporter George Clooney is calling for Biden to step down displays the significant fracture among Democrats.
George Clooney urges Joe Biden to step down as the 2024 Democratic nominee for president in a new op-ed:
“We are not going to win in November with this president. On top of that, we won’t win the House, and we’re going to lose the Senate. This isn’t only my opinion; this is the… pic.twitter.com/EArMreTtMk
This swell of infighting among Democrats gives critics space to argue that a party in disarray will weaken their chances in the upcoming election. Many are also questioning whether VP Harris could carry the ticket, should Biden step down.
Trending Sentiment
Sentiment toward Biden is polarized. There’s a mixture of die-hard support and vehement opposition. Supporters champion his achievements and leadership, expressing frustration towards those within the party who are contemplating a replacement. They argue Biden represents stability and a return to normalcy compared to the chaotic tenure of his predecessor.
Opponents paint a grim picture of Biden’s presidency, attributing various national issues to his leadership and suggesting that his running for re-election would be detrimental to the country. They evoke strong imagery of moral and political decay, centering on personal attacks against Biden and his family.
For undecided voters, the ongoing discussions introduce an element of uncertainty. They are weighing the implications of Biden continuing his presidency against emerging critiques and alternative possibilities. The growing divide may influence undecided voter perceptions of party stability.
Independents, often swayed by pragmatic considerations and a broader perspective beyond strict party lines, are closely observing these developments. The Democratic Party's ability to maintain coherence and present a strong, unified case for Biden’s continuance remains a key factor for these voters. Visible rifts and intra-party dissent may deter their support, emphasizing the importance of how Democrats manage these narratives moving forward.
Conversations among those aligned with the Uncommitted Movement—a pro-Palestinian movement critical of Biden’s Israel policy—have added another layer of complexity to the debate. While not all primary-held states have an “Uncommitted” option for Democrats, notable results included:
Michigan: 13.3% Uncommitted
Minnesota: 19% Uncommitted
New Jersey: Approximately 9% Uncommitted
New Mexico: Approximately 10% Uncommitted
Online discussions suggest this movement is likely to continue through August and the Democratic National Convention. However, if Biden stays in the race, he will likely receive the official nomination via Zoom, without attending in person.
A recent scoop alleging President Biden and his staff have been concealing ongoing visits from doctors who specialize in Parkinson's Disease created firestorm among voters and the press.
As Biden’s approval plummets and Democrats begin jumping ship, the White House is struggling to keep media and voters on their side. Sentiments toward the Biden family and allegations against them have reached lows in the mid 30% range over the last 15 days.
Mainstream Media Finally Wakes Up
Mainstream media and Democratic pundits have been responding with sharp criticisms toward Biden and his administration since the President’s disastrous debate performance. While some are still attempting damage control, trying to maintain a semblance of unity and stability, most seem to be turning on Biden.
Many observers suggest media figures, who have long been feigning ignorance of Biden’s clear cognitive decline, are turning on Biden because they believe he cannot win the election. Articles and reports from mainstream media outlets notorious for supporting Democratic narratives are now, for the first time in his presidency, asking tough questions about Joe Biden.
Figures like Joe Scarborough are generating harsh criticism for, just weeks ago, claiming Joe Biden was “more than cogent” and completely fit to serve. Now, those same talking heads are calling for Biden to step down—deepening distrust many Americans already held towards the media.
A Soviet-Style Coverup
In a recent White House press conference, Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre struggled to address questions about the allegations of Parkinson’s and medical exams. She claimed medical privacy privileges and security concerns for doctors involved.
Meanwhile, mainstream media reporters voiced dissatisfaction with the official White House responses. They said urgent questions about the president's health justify a release of public information, rather than suppression of information by the administration.
Truly incredible clip.
Jean-Pierre is asked over and over again why a Parkinson’s expert visited the White House multiple times.
She says she can’t answer for “security” and “privacy” reasons.
More media representatives are now expressing frustration and dissatisfaction at White House talking points. They emphasize the lack of transparency to the press, which garners scoffs among many voters who believe the press, until now, has been complicit. Criticisms grew even more sharp the next day, as Karine Jean-Pierre admitted to lying about O’Connor and Dr. Cannard’s White House visits.
The pressing nature of Biden’s health concerns is making his administration’s inability to provide clear answers particularly concerning for many Americans. This frustration is also causing significant backlash toward Biden as a candidate and his family who are rumored to be pushing him to stay in the presidential race.
A Puppet President?
Allegations of President Biden being controlled by unelected figures like Jill Biden and Hunter Biden are also gaining traction. However, while Republicans and many Democrats balk at the idea of unknown and unelected individuals or groups running the White House, some Democratic voters insist it doesn’t matter as long as Trump loses.
One viral NBC news clip shows Parkinson's expert Dr. Tom Pitts explaining Joe Biden’s clear and obvious signs of the disease. He also says, as a Democrat, he has been shocked to witness the dystopian level of gaslighting from the White House—which he likens to a Soviet Union propaganda campaign.
NEW: Parkinson's expert Dr. Tom Pitts tells NBC that Biden clearly has it. No debate.
Following the chaotic White House press briefing, it is not just critics who are calling out the Biden administration. More and more Democrats view the administration’s non-answers as indicative of a coverup.
Republican Voter Reactions
Among Republicans, there is a palpable sense of vindication combined with indignation. Many on the right have long questioned Biden’s fitness for office. The media and Democrats finally admitting their own suspicions only seems to increase Republican suspicions that Democrats have acted disingenuously.
Republican voters are not only concerned about the implications for national leadership but are also actively using the news to criticize the Democratic Party's apparently failing strategy.
While many Republicans believe Biden should step down for the good of the country, they also say it would be politically advantageous for them if he stays in the race. They view Biden's health issues as compromising national security and undermining public trust. However, some Trump supporters fear if Biden is removed, any other challenger could pose a problem for Donald Trump in the general election.
Democratic Voter Reactions
Democrat voters seem more defensive, with various reactions. There is a mix of concern for Biden’s health and frustration at the optics and handling of the situation. Many loyalists maintain that Biden remains the best option to uphold the party’s values and policies. They also say he may be the only person who can beat Trump in November.
Yet, a faction of Democratic voters is urgently calling for more transparency and possibly re-evaluating their support. Calls for Biden to step down are increasing within the Democratic base as worries mount around the long-term implications if he stays in.
Many Democrats also feel a deep sense of betrayal and concern over Biden’s health revelations. His obvious fragility has prompted supporters to grapple with questions of being lied to. There are also disagreements about whether Vice President Kamala Harris is a capable a safety net, should Biden become incapable of continuing his duties.
U.S. voter views of border security and immigration are mostly negative, with sentiments ranging from anger to calls for stringent policy reforms. MIG Reports data shows deep frustration and concern, particularly among conservatives who feel Biden's immigration policies jeopardize national security, economic stability, and sovereignty.
Border Security Discussions
Taxpayer Dollars
Alleged misuse of taxpayer money is a recurring theme, with numerous claims that government funds are being funneled to supporting illegal immigrants at the expense of U.S. citizens. This includes allegations of social security benefits and other welfare programs being extended to illegal immigrants. These notions spark outrage among taxpayers who believe these funds should benefit American citizens, particularly veterans and the elderly.
The Open Border
Significant uproar continues over the lack of effective border security. Most Americans, including an increasing number of Democrats, say Biden’s policies have led to a crisis at the border.
An open border, many say, is worsening rising crime rates and societal instability. Phrases like "illegal immigrant crime wave" and "migrant invasion" are common, portraying the situation as a crisis requiring urgent and drastic measures like a border wall and mass deportations.
Violent Crime
Public safety is a major concern, with numerous stories highlighting violent crimes committed by illegal immigrants, including murders and human trafficking. The sentiment here is one of fear and the belief that stronger border enforcement is necessary to protect American lives.
Economic Strain
Outside of these viral stories, the broader conversation continues to focus on the economic impact of illegal immigration. Many argue illegal immigrants undercut wages and take jobs that would otherwise go to U.S. citizens. This exacerbates unemployment and economic challenges for native-born workers.
Discussions also touch on the strain illegal aliens place on public services, including healthcare and education systems. This further intensifies fiscal pressures on states and local governments.
Election Integrity
The political dimension is ever-present, with claims that Democrats are using illegal immigration as a strategy to secure future votes by offering free services and benefits to immigrant communities. This accusation includes assertions of an ongoing effort to allow non-citizens to vote, which is perceived as a threat to the integrity of the electoral system.
Worry About Violent Crime
Public sentiment generally oscillates between deep anxiety and frustration. There are discussions often suggesting mass illegal migration is a result of broader systemic and political failures in the U.S. Many people also discuss high-profile cases of illegal alien crimes.
In Texas, there was a tragic shooting at a Chick-fil-A where two workers were shot dead. The alleged perpetrator, Oved Bernardo Mendoza Argueta, is an illegal immigrant from El Salvador. The victims, Brayan Godoy, a father of four, and Patricia Portillo, a grandmother, lost their lives, igniting anger about lax border controls.
The Texas Department of Public Safety also captured numerous wanted fugitives who entered the U.S. illegally and committed various crimes within the state. This crackdown highlights the persistent issue of criminal elements infiltrating the U.S. through the border.
Another crime stirring public outrage is the horrific murder of Brayan Godoy who was gunned down by an illegal immigrant. People also continue to discuss the murder of Rachel Morin, Laken Riley, and Jocelyn Nungaray. Many American parents are worried for their children—especially young girls who are often victims of these crimes.
There is also growing fear of war criminals and human rights abusers entering the United States. Illegal aliens from Central America, Africa, and Asia, have been implicated in a myriad of serious crimes. There are allegations of extrajudicial killings, rapes, recruitment of child soldiers, forced abortions, and violence against civilians. The strain on resources to locate and arrest these individuals underscores the burden on the U.S. immigration system due to lax border enforcement.
The narrative is amplified with assertions that lax border controls are escalating dangers to national security. Many people are also fearful of cartel activity involving human and drug trafficking.
Americans frequently talk online about censorship and the dangers of Big Tech and corporation gatekeeping. When they discuss these things a common subject, especially among right leaning voters, involves political discrimination.
One of the themes in online discussion includes credit card companies that track customer purchases and could potentially report certain purchases or even block usage. American reactions to this are deeply influenced by broader socio-political contexts, personal privacy concerns, and economic security apprehensions.
Americans Worry About Privacy
A huge concern for Americans across the political spectrum is privacy and surveillance. People express unease at the idea of Big Tech companies or other corporations having detailed records of their purchasing habits. This creates a sense of being constantly watched, which feels invasive to most citizens.
Many people also fear how their data might be used. There are worries around data marketing strategies or information being shared with third parties including government entities. Some see it as a breach of personal freedom, challenging the right to privacy in a digital age increasingly dominated by data capitalism.
Financial Surveillance and Censorship
Many Americans question whether they can trust banks or credit card companies. Discussions about the Canadian government shutting down trucker bank accounts during the protests of 2022 are frequently mentioned, especially among Republicans and conservatives. U.S. voters do not want to see similar political and financial discrimination emerge in America.
The potential for credit card companies to block usage based on political statements or purchase history adds a layer of anxiety. This is especially true considering how dependent modern society is on credit for daily expenses and emergency situations.
For those with precarious financial standings or who are living paycheck to paycheck, financial censorship could spell disaster. The power wielded by credit card companies—capable of determining a person’s financial solvency—fuels apprehension about corporate overreach and its implications on individual economic stability.
Regulation for Big Tech and Corporations
There are conversations about how to effectively implement regulation and accountability for credit card companies and other businesses. Voters call for greater transparency and oversight to prevent abuse of power.
There is also a vocal segment advocating for more stringent data regulations to ensure tracking and data collection are done ethically. Some want protective measures in place to prevent arbitrary withdrawal of services which customers cannot protest.
Most Americans are vocal about the need for stronger consumer protections. This includes calls for clearer guidelines on data usage and stricter penalties for companies that violate consumer trust. Different voter groups on both sides of the aisle discuss stricter regulations, although opinions about the method and degree of regulation differ.
Apprehension About Social Credit
Across the political spectrum, there is also considerable apprehension about a system that would evaluate personal behavior and use those evaluations to grant or restrict access to societal benefits or market participation.
This idea, often called a social credit score system, gets criticism as a dystopian measure that would bring unprecedented levels of government surveillance and control. Critics argue social credit would infringe on basic civil liberties like freedom of expression and privacy. They fear it would lead to an authoritarian state where compliance is coerced through the threat of social and economic penalties.
One of the main concerns Americans express is the potential for misuse and discrimination. There is a widespread belief that a social credit system would disproportionately affect marginalized groups, exacerbating existing prejudices.
Liberals tend to fear minorities and the underprivileged would face economic or racial discrimination. Those on the right tend to fear political discrimination and censorship of conservative beliefs.
The fear of constant monitoring and the subjective nature of what constitutes "good" or "bad" behavior exists for many groups and demographics. Depending on which groups a person identifies with, concerns emerge about outsiders setting social credit standards, leading to arbitrary and biased decision-making.
The idea that market participation could be contingent on adherence to specific behavioral norms is deeply unsettling for many Americans.
MIG Reports data shows recent online discussions about economic hardships with inflation as a critical point of anxiety. Several key topics are frequently discussed among Americans as they react to their current economic struggles.
Many Americans are feeling significant cost increases day to day—particularly for essential items like food, gas, and housing. A lot of people point out this inflation disproportionately affects the middle and lower classes. Sentiment is frustration with anxiety about financial stability and the future.
Top Concerns for Americans
One of the big worries voters discuss is taxation. There is growing frustration about the fairness of the current tax system. Some critics—often on the left—say it favors the wealthy and large corporations at the expense of the middle class.
Higher taxes, particularly under Democratic policies, make people feel burdened as they are already struggling. Both working-class Democrat voters and right leaning voters have complaints about taxes on the middle class.
Employment and job security are also significant themes. People worry about corporations outsourcing American jobs, as in the case of Zoom cashiers in New York City. They also talk about the impact of union policies on job availability for blue collar workers.
Job concerns are intertwined with fears about the sustainability and dignity of the American middle-class workforce. Many middle- and working-class Americans worry about losing their jobs or not being able to find a job.
High inflation remains a top concern as well. Voters believe inflation rates are unacceptable and unsustainable. The rising cost of living, particularly groceries and housing, puts a significant strain on household budgets.
High interest rates also create a barrier for most Americans to purchase homes. This further adds to economic anxiety. Many voters also express displeasure with high gas prices, which have a cascading effect on their overall cost of living.
Dissatisfaction with Bidenomics
American families feel frustration, distrust in leadership, and a desire for change. Trump supporters are particularly vocal about reversing current policies they believe are detrimental to the economy. They dislike Biden policies they see as affecting fuel prices and border security.
Many argue Biden administration policies are increasing economic strain by exacerbating inflation and increasing layoffs. There is a distinct shift among some undecided voters and potential Biden defectors. They express sharp dissatisfaction with how Biden has handled the economy.
Talk about tangible economic outcomes which a second Trump administration might bring is increasing Trump’s support. Exasperated voters reminisce about the successes of his previous administration. They cite lower taxes, reduced regulation, and economic growth and appear to be attracting undecided voters and others dissatisfied with Biden.
Another positive discussion point is Trump’s proposal to exempt tips from tax. Many Americans hope for a return to policies that benefit the middle class. They want leaders who will address specific pain points like inflation and job security.
Conversely, Biden’s support drops with any spotlighting on his economic failures. Reminders of persistent inflation, high taxes, and a poor job market disheartens voters about his capability to manage the country's economy.
Stressing the immediate and visible impacts of pressing economic issues on everyday life resonates with those feeling the pinch in their own finances.
Over the weekend, a video of President Joe Biden ignoring a black woman holding Biden-Harris sign during a campaign rally quickly went viral. MIG Reports data show reactions to this video, amid larger questions of the President's fitness for office, are divisive and partisan.
Discussion About the Viral Clip
In the clip, President Biden is shaking hands and taking photos with supporters behind event fencing. People pointed out that he seemed to dismiss and pass over a smiling young black woman, instead greeting some white women beside her. Many people also commented on the young woman’s face which looked like excitement quickly turned to disappointment and rejection.
Smitten black girl rejected by Biden who instead stopped to take selfies with old angry white women. pic.twitter.com/iKWM52AMeP
The viral video quickly became a focal point for discussions about Joe Biden's relationship with his supporters, particularly among black and other minority communities. The video itself generated disappointment, outright anger, and ridicule. These emotions were palpable across various social media platforms as Americans shared the clip.
Several people recalled a 2020 campaign moment when then-candidate Biden asserted any black Americans who vote for Trump “ain’t black.” Another clip of a white woman standing beside the young black woman seemingly angrily rebuking her also drew criticism. Many on the right highlighted it as an example of white Democrats who virtue signal about race while, themselves, treating minorities poorly.
Look at how poorly the rude little old lady treats this young woman on Biden's rope line.
Lots of people are posting the clip of Joe ignoring the woman, but her mistreatment by the hag on her left needs to be seen as well.
Many Americans expressed frustration that the President would seemingly disregard a supporter. They view the incident as indicative of broader troubles his administration is facing with African American communities.
Frustrations for black Democratic voters are often tied to feelings of being undervalued or ignored by the party claiming to protect their interests. Critics argue this moment exemplified a pattern of neglect which needs to be addressed more broadly which only worsens tensions within the party.
Racial Dynamics and Democrats
Broader conversations around Joe Biden have evolved significantly between 2020 and 2024. In 2020, the focus was largely on Biden’s history, particularly his past legislative roles which adversely affected black communities. People pointed out his involvement with the 1994 Crime Bill.
Many also highlighted his choice of Kamala Harris as a running mate as being a progressive move toward diversifying leadership and as a strategic effort to secure the African American vote. The conversations then were a blend of cautious optimism and skepticism, with many adopting a “wait and see” attitude.
In 2020, many black voters viewed Biden as a preferable alternative to Trump, largely due to his association with Barack Obama and promises of restorative justice and policy reforms targeting systemic racism. Since then, there appears to be a notable shift.
In 2024, there is growing frustration over Biden’s unfulfilled commitments on racial issues. This sentiment is evident in the discussion surrounding the video and broader topics of economic disparity, police reform, and equitable healthcare access.
Some Democrats also view Kamala Harris’s achievement as the first female, black vice president as being overshadowed by unaddressed systemic issues. This leads to debates within the Democratic voter base about the efficacy and sincerity of the current administration's efforts.
Related Conversations About Race
There are several topics dominating online discussion:
Disenfranchised black Democratic voters
Perceived racism within the Democratic Party and broader politics
The performance and future of Kamala Harris
Sentiment among Democratic voters centers on feeling disenfranchised and ignored by party leaders. This amplifies a sense of betrayal on promises unmet since the 2020 election.
There are also internal debates among Democrats about the party’s true commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion. Some are questioning actions by Biden and other progressive Democrats that appear tokenistic and pandering rather than substantive.
Conversations about Kamala Harris often intersect with these themes. Some view her candidacy as integral to the future of racial equality in American leadership. Others criticize her performance and accuse the administration of using her as a shield against accusations of racism while not delivering on substantial policy changes.
The Supreme Court's decision on June 28 to overturn the Chevron deference doctrine has led to heated debates and fluctuating sentiment. MIG Reports shows overall sentiment towards the Supreme Court seems has slightly decreased as many Americans express concerns about the implications on future judicial coherence and executive actions.
Critics argue this decision could destabilize established regulatory norms, while supporters believe it aligns with a more originalist interpretation of congressional intent.
Trending Discussions
Discourse around the Chevron deference decision has primarily focused on the implications for administrative law and environmental regulations. Many worry the decision could undermine the ability of federal agencies to enforce regulations effectively. They especially worry about environmental protection, labor standards, and public health.
The Chevron deference doctrine granted agencies leeway to interpret ambiguous statutes. This enabled them to issue and enforce more comprehensive rules based on their expertise. Removing this deference calls into question the future robustness of agency regulations.
Another prominent discussion trend revolves around the political ramifications. Trump's supporters see the decision as a win, aligning with their broader agenda of reducing what they consider to be the overreach of federal agencies. This ruling, in their view, empowers smaller government and state rights, integral to their ideological framework.
Impact on Voter Sentiments
Among Trump supporters, the reaction has been largely positive. They view the decision as a step towards reducing what they perceive as government overreach and an unelected bureaucracy. This group expresses increased support for the Supreme Court, seeing it as a corrective force against Executive Branch agencies' expansive interpretations of laws.
The decision aligns with their broader desire for a more limited government and a stricter adherence to constitutional principles. Consequently, this demographic is likely to feel more empowered and validated, potentially increasing voter turnout in support of candidates who promise to uphold similar judicial philosophies.
For undecided voters, the reaction has been mixed. Some are cautious of the decision’s implications on regulatory oversight and public safety, seeing the potential for diminished protections in daily life. This demographic is watching the aftermath closely, particularly in sectors like environmental protection and consumer rights. They hope to see how the ruling will translate into real-world impacts before solidifying their stance.
Potential support movement from Biden to Trump due to this decision is likely minimal. Biden supporters underscore the importance of maintaining robust regulatory mechanisms to ensure public welfare and environmental health.
However, frustrations with administrative sluggishness and bureaucratic inefficiencies could push some voters to reconsider. Especially if they perceive the Supreme Court’s decision as a much-needed disruption to an inefficient system.
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png){kind=tracking}
.png){kind=tracking}
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png){kind=icon}
.png){kind=icon}
.png){kind=icon}
.png){kind=icon}