Claudia Sheinbaum was elected as Mexico's first female president, which has led to a flurry of public reactions. The assassination of at least 37 political candidates in Mexico has also stirred trepidation. MIG Reports analysis shows increasing worry about what this means for safety and sovereignty in the United States.

Sentiment Analysis

Online commentary links Sheinbaum to drug cartels, suggesting she was elected by their influence. This belief causes a deep concern about Mexico's ongoing accommodation of drug trafficking and related violence. Sheinbaum's election adds to a narrative of skepticism about her ability to improve the situation. With forecasts that Sheinbaum would win, there was an immediate drop in sentiment from American observers.

Some voices accuse Sheinbaum of being a socialist who will worsen the crisis of illegal immigration in the United States. This prospect also increases concerns about threats to American national security posed by drug cartels who may operate more freely.

Many voters express disappointment, anger, and fear, at the implications of a Sheinbaum presidency, citing likely increases in drug trafficking, violent crime, and illegal immigration in the U.S.

Many also suggest Sheinbaum's victory is meaningless due to Mexican election being commandeered by the cartels. People also view Sheinbaum as having ineffective and socialist policies.

Sheinbaum’s supporters online celebrate the historic significance of her achievement as Mexico's first female president. Some of the supportive commentary is hopeful she will focus on curbing Mexico's high murder rate, which is largely caused by cartel activity.

Discussion Analysis

Some of the top discussion topics related to Sheinbaum’s election include:

• America's drug crisis, specifically the fentanyl epidemic
• The potential for continued lax border control policies
• People argue for stricter policies both on drug control and border security

Notably, there is little sentiment noted about Sheinbaum's policies or ideas beyond the issues of drugs and immigration. This suggests broader understanding of her platform has been overshadowed by these dominant concerns.

Recent reporting revealed quiet steps the Biden administration has taken regarding asylum cases, angering voters. The executive order partially suspends asylum requests at the U.S.-Mexico border when unauthorized crossings exceed 2,500 foreigners a day (912,000 a year). However, the suspension excludes two key immigration classes:

• Unaccompanied children
• Credible Fear applicants (an immigration process which leads to asylum)

Executive guidance for handling Credible Fear applicants suggests it will likely result in a loophole that still allows asylum, even beyond the daily crossings cap. In the minds of many Americans, the effectively creates mass amnesty without regard to voters desires to close the border.

Furthermore, since 2022, more than 350,000 asylum cases were closed by the U.S. government for those who don’t have a criminal record or are otherwise not deemed a threat to the country. A Venezuelan illegal alien who shot two NYPD officers was among the 350,000 to have his case closed, causing objections to what are deemed as threats to the country.

MIG Reports analysis of voter reactions shows a continuing distrust in current border policies and the Biden administration.

Immigration Issues

There are recurring discussions about the border wall initiated under former President Trump's administration. Many who view the border as a crisis would like to see it completed. However, discussions about the border wall indicate a consensus that a physical barrier is not the full solution to border control issues. Most believe we need a more sophisticated approach to managing the U.S. border.

Some voters express disapproval of the Republican Party's stance on the border crisis. They accuse the GOP of voicing their grievances but not acting decisively when given the opportunity to pass a bill. The frustration and dissatisfaction seems to come from both sides.

There are disparate views on the effectiveness of Trump's border policies and the border wall. Some argue Trump was successful in reducing illegal crossings and accuse Democrats of hindering border control efforts. The sentiment here is defensive and leans towards praise for Trump's efforts.

In general, both political parties blame the other side for issues at the border.

Border Security

Online conversations show overwhelming negativity towards the open borders policy, rampant illegal immigration, and the resulting consequences under the Biden administration. There is a high volume of posts calling for stricter immigration regulations, deportations, and blaming illegal immigrants for crime. Negative sentiment towards Biden is particularly strong, with allegations of dishonesty and perceived political maneuvering.

A minority of voters challenge the idea that current policies promote open borders, accusing critics of lying or of manufacturing political controversies. Usually Democrats, this group tends to question the integrity of politicians or citizens making open borders claims.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently publicly issued a rare critique of U.S. President Joe Biden. He argued Biden’s decision to allow Ukrainian attacks on Russia with American weapons does not go far enough.

Speaking at Asia's top security summit in Singapore, Zelensky thanked Biden for allowing Ukraine to strike limited Russian territory with U.S. arms. But he also insisted the restrictions Biden included should be lifted.

MIG Reports analysis shows various sentiment and discussion trends among Americans on this subject. News about the Biden administration providing weapons to Ukraine for strikes in Russian territory are divisive. Comments and reactions are polarized and indicate a stagnation in support for Ukraine.

Views of Russia Conflict

Potential Conflict Escalation

Some Americans express concern that U.S. involvement in arming Ukraine could spur a wider conflict. They even fear potentially sparking a World War, causing skepticism, caution, and objections.

Broad Global Context

People draw parallels with Ukraine and conflicts in other foreign countries. Rising tensions in Israel, China, Iran, and others increase worries. Voters fear foreign relations with these countries—either friendly or confrontational—could be influenced or affected by America's role in Ukraine.

Russia and Putin

There are some who emphasize Russia's aggression, expressing support for Ukraine. However, a mirror of such sentiments sympathizes with Russia, juxtaposing the country's supposed intentions with those of the U.S. and NATO.

Among international concerns is an emphasis on domestic issues and internal politics within the U.S. Many voters talk about the divide at home among political leaders and previous administrations. Domestic worries seem to complicate American views on global politics, influencing their reactions.

Views of Ukraine

Escalation

American voters are divided over the Biden administration's decision to provide weapons to Ukraine for strikes within Russian territory. Some support Ukraine's fight for freedom and others sympathizing with Russia, worried about further straining U.S.-Russia relations.

Broad Global Context

Many express disappointment with Ukraine's stance on Israel and Palestine, shifting support among some who initially backed Ukraine. Historical references to events like the Vietnam War highlight concerns about U.S. involvement in foreign conflicts.

Financial Concerns

Some Americans see the decision as a strategic move in proxy wars, while others criticize the financial burden of sending substantial funds overseas. They argue taxpayer money would be better spent on domestic issues.

Domestic and Geopolitical Trends

Opinions on Ukraine are often linked to views on Israel, influencing support or criticism of Biden's actions. There are also concerns about China's growing power in the drone market and beliefs that U.S. foreign policy under Trump would improve regarding Ukraine and Israel.

Like in the case of Russia, there are those who relate Ukraine relations to American domestic politics. The sentiment that a change in administration could help prevails. Many insinuate a Trump administration would improve U.S. foreign policy, particularly concerning Ukraine and Israel.

Overall sentiment is concern and critique of U.S. and Ukrainian foreign policies. Many perceive Biden’s move to provide weapons as an escalation of a dangerous military conflict rather than a solution to an ongoing political crisis. They argue the roots of the problem lie within manipulative international politics and a harmful approach to foreign policy.

Recent reporting on Boston Mayor Michelle Wu's potential decision to give children a role in budgeting priorities is being mocked online. The program, which was approved in 2021, aims to include all residents in budget participation, even kids as young as 11. Boston City Council members are also criticizing Wu, calling the plan “unserious” and “wholly inappropriate.”

Not just a political issue, many apolitical citizens are criticizing the move with the same arguments many right leaning partisans are using. Liberals are also apprehensive of supporting the plan. While some consider the proposal inclusive, others vehemently oppose it. For the most part, progressives are either silent on the issue or pushing back.

While there is general negativity toward a participatory budgeting process, most of the negative reactions are from conservatives and Republicans who criticize liberal leaders. Many seem concerned about the concentration of power and the potential influence of leftist ideologies in the decision-making process. There are strong references to the concept of "wokeness" and its impact on these decisions.

Many view the proposed plan as the result of ideological pushes toward diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), with some framing it as possible indoctrination. Some of these reactions also follow larger discussion trends amongst conservatives regarding freedom of speech.

Positive reactions predominantly come from those who hold progressive or left-wing ideologies. They point to inclusivity, representation, and potential contributions to the betterment of society, praising the decision. This group seems more enthusiastic about child involvement, often framing it as a necessary step towards a more diverse and fair society.

This inclusive view is not representative of all Democratic Party members, though. Council Member Ed Flynn (D) published a letter to Director Renato Castelo saying, "I am writing to again emphasize my unequivocal and vehement opposition to the voting process for project proposals from the Office of Participatory Budgeting, particularly in allowing residents as young as 11 years-old to vote for projects to be earmarked.”

There are also responses that are not politically motivated. This group is concerned with the logistical and practical implications of participatory budgeting. They question the decision-making abilities of children and whether they have the necessary understanding and maturity to make these choices.

Immediately following his widely controversial conviction in New York City, former president Donald Trump:

• Raised more than $200 million.
• Created a TikTok account and gained 4.1 million followers.
• Continued to climb in betting markets for the 2024 Presidential election.

Since the end of May, Polymarket odds show Trump above a 50% chance at the presidency, hitting 56% over the weekend.

MIG Reports analysis shows Trump’s conviction created a significant and increasing level of support from his followers, despite the legal troubles. This is evident from various voter groups emerging on social media demonstrating overwhelming support directly because of the verdict. It appears the conviction has served to galvanize his support base.

From posts on social media, many of his supporters view his conviction as a political move by Democrats to "get Trump.” This view is echoed across various posts and groups, framing the entire legal process as a leftist attempt to target Trump. Many compare the legal measures against Trump to a lack of action against other political figures on the left, further cementing the view of political bias in the justice system.

There is a suggestion that political attacks against Trump have made MAGA stronger, implying the adversity is energizing Americans against Democrats. A sense of being “on the attack” over the perceived victimization of Trump is overwhelming in online discussions, particularly in those referring to Trump as an outlaw and a strong American.

Many voters suggest the election in November will see Trump return as President, indicating an expectation of his perseverance. Many also reminisce about his leadership, wishing to see him back in office, despite the conviction. Many are also talking about the major influx in campaign contributions post-conviction, underscoring the financial support backing him.

There are some posts critical of Trump and his supporters, describing his followers as a cult, decrying the narrative that he is a victim. Many among the opposition take every opportunity to refer to him as a convicted felon. It appears, however, that these criticisms are outweighed by the volume of support shown for Trump in the aftermath of the conviction.

Recent House subcommittee hearings with Dr. Anthony Fauci have brought conversations about COVID-19 and vaccines to the fore. As more information comes out and members of Congress question Fauci about his role in alleged information suppression during COVID, Americans’ trauma and anger seems to be boiling up.

Fauci's credibility is in question with heated and partisan disagreements about whether American voters believe what he says. Some accuse him of providing conflicting or misleading information with guidance on masks and COVID origins. There are frequent complaints that he continued to back policies such as social distancing and masking children in the absence of substantial scientific proof for effectiveness.

In general, people express frustration and confusion at the perceived inconsistency. There is also significant suspicion that Fauci and others involved in both pandemic response and pharmaceuticals related to COVID vaccines intentionally hid, obfuscated, and suppressed important information.

What Americans Are Saying

Online conversations show strong disapproval toward inadequate and questionable management decisions during COVID by health officials and politicians. Many condemn mask mandates and vaccine shaming which they say was perpetuated by Fauci and the media. This group vocally blames Fauci for death, illnesses, and social and economic consequences associated COVID-19 restrictions and vaccines.

There is still considerable debate on the efficacy and safety of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines. Many are also expressing concern about potential side effects such as DNA alterations, increased risk of cancer, heart conditions, and sudden deaths.

Many on both sides of the political aisle have become skeptical and disillusioned with COVID narratives presented by Fauci, the media, and politicians. Those who remain strongly in support of Fauci tend to be left leaning. They view him as a competent authority figure, accusing his detractors of being political. They maintain Fauci's policies saved countless lives during a dangerous pandemic and provided necessary restrictions.

Conversations about COVID often also include criticism of government actions in 2020 and the divisive role of media and political narratives in shaping public opinion.

Anger Over COVID Origins

One recurring topic is the origin of the virus. Many suggest COVID-19 virus was a product of gain-of-function research in the Wuhan Institute of Virology. They blame Fauci for allegedly funding the research, suggesting he conspired to insulate himself from any repercussions.

Many people are also angry at the lack of consequences for the actions of officials who, voters believe, lied and covered up their own unethical behavior.

There is also some discussion about former president Donald Trump’s role in handling COVID. Many voters, including some of his supporters, criticize how President Trump handled the crisis and his rhetoric since. Most voters seem to have a negative view of any topic related to COVID.

Vaccine Skepticism

A significant portion of Americans are increasingly suspicious of the COVID-19 vaccines. They attribute a variety of adverse events, including sudden death and severe physical ailments, to the vaccines.

There’s talk about conditions people call "turbo cancer" and claims the vaccines alter human DNA in a way that can be passed on to future generations. This group is also highly critical of Dr. Fauci, questioning his integrity and blaming him for the negative effects they believe are related to the vaccines.

Those who believe vaccines are harmful are also likely to believe officials like Fauci participated in cynical cover-ups to suppress information and disparage dissenters. Recent testimony by Fauci only serves to further infuriate this group, entrenching their views that Fauci, big pharma, and the NIH conspired to protect themselves at the expense of public health.

Mainstream Media and Chris Cuomo

Many discussions also involve a deep-rooted distrust in mainstream media and institutions who remain "deathly silent" on the impact of COVID and emerging accusations. Some Americans accuse healthcare providers and media of altering death reports, misrepresenting vaccine safety, and silencing counter narratives

Infuriated voters call out media outlets and figures for ignoring critical pieces of information and remaining silent about perceived dangers of the vaccines. They also blame mainstream media for gaslighting and shaming Americans about COVID restrictions and vaccines.

A recent debate between Chris Cuomo and Dave Smith also generated viral discussion about Ivermectin, a drug notoriously debated during COVID-19. Cuomo’s claim that he did not agree with the criticism Joe Rogan received for advocating Ivermectin was very negatively received. The debate brought Cuomo’s credibility and consistency into question for many viewers.

Many people are labeling Cuomo a “liar,” suggesting the evidence contradicts Cuomo's denials about his role in shaping public opinion. This group believes Cuomo and others in the media intentionally demonized people who questioned the mainstream narrative. They insist these figures continue to ignore objective analysis as it unfolds.

MIG Reports analysis of Donald Trump’s conviction in New York City shows a continued negative reaction through the weekend. Fury is largely influenced by conservative and less progressive demographics expressing dissatisfaction with the trial and beliefs the process was unjust and politically motivated.

Discussion Trends

A lot of the conversation is highly partisan with right leaning comments often criticizing liberals, the court, and other institutions involved in the decision.

Some voters believe the unjust Trump conviction is a step towards communism and an attack on conservative values.

There is a palpable sentiment of deep division within the country, often illustrated through derogatory language, and a complete disconnect in the interpretation of events by both sides of the aisle.

Sentiment Trends

One clear trend a sense of disappointment and dissatisfaction with both the Democratic Party and the Biden administration. This is expressed through repeated criticism and anger towards Biden, expressions of disagreement with his policies, and criticism of his administration’s political maneuvers and lawfare. Many show support for a Trump comeback and tend to downplay or dismiss his legal issues.

Liberals and progressives express a more disjointed sentiment. Some celebrate the conviction as a win for democracy and justice, while others raise issues about social divisiveness stemming from political polarization. Far left and progressive voters sometimes express dissatisfaction about perceived insufficiency or inadequacy of systemic changes the conviction may bring.

Accusations Against the Uniparty

• Conversations frame Trump's conviction as perpetrated by a system run by a corrupt bipartisan "uniparty." Many believe the uniparty or the deep state aims to consolidate power—and most view the Republican party as complicit.
• Most discussion comes from Trump supporters who view him as fighting against this corrupt establishment. The verdict reinforces support for him and decreases sentiment towards Biden due to his perceived association with the uniparty.

Rule of Law

• The largest volume of conversation refers to Trump's conviction being a result of political bias and legal system misuse.
• Most voters express dissatisfaction with Democrats and Biden, while a minority support the conviction. They view the entire trial as a breakdown of the rule of law.
• Those who approve of the verdict view it as justified and mostly support the current administration. Notably there seems to be very little middle ground on this issue, with most voters either strongly in favor or strongly opposed.
• Some sub-groups believe Republicans are undermining the constitution and rule of law, increasing support for Biden and decreasing support for the GOP.
• As a result of disillusionment and distrust of the system, there is discontent with politicians like House Speaker Mike Johnson and Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg for their perceived bias and corruption.

Deep State

• Conversations about Trump's potential conviction are emotionally charged and polarized, often reflecting selective viewpoints, depending on the echo chamber.
• Trump supporters discuss corruption involving the "deep state," Democrats, and CIA, expressing dissatisfaction and viewing the conviction as unjust.
• Trump critics see the potential conviction as a form of justice, feeling satisfaction at his possible downfall. This may also suggest motives are skewed away from solely seeking justice but influenced by a partisan outlook.

With a bombshell guilty verdict in former President Donald Trump’s New York trial, voter discussions emerged around preventing Trump from becoming the GOP nominee. Some prominent voices promoting this idea include:

Today's verdict is a fire-bell in the night. The Republican Party now has one last chance to change course, and not nominate a convicted felon for President.

— John Bolton (@AmbJohnBolton) May 30, 2024

It is not easy to see a former President and the presumptive GOP nominee convicted of felony crimes; but the jury verdict should be respected. An appeal is in order but let’s not diminish the significance of this verdict.

— Gov. Asa Hutchinson (@AsaHutchinson) May 30, 2024

There are also numerous other non-public social media profiles discuss installing previous primary candidates such as Ron DeSantis, Nikki Haley, and Vivek Ramaswamy.

MIG Reports analysis shows discussion of possibility of the Republican National Convention becoming a brokered convention or the Republican National Committee selecting a candidate other than Trump. Sentiment is primarily against the Democratic Party, with some comparing the party to a communist or socialist regime and voicing concerns that it is damaging the country.

Most voters express strong disagreement with the idea of the Republican National Committee choosing a different candidate. This suggests a strong loyalty to Trump among much of the Republican base. This potency of commitment suggests any decision to field an alternate candidate could result in substantial backlash or fracturing within the party.

There is also significant fear that the USA is turning into a "communist state," with people pointing out real or perceived similarities between the current Democratic Party strategies and historical actions of communist regimes. Some also mention a Republican Party which they fear harbors anti-Trump sentiment. Deviations from the Trump-led mainstream in the Republican party are also characterized as betrayals.

There are frequent mentions of the 2020 election being stolen and calls for direct action to "take America back." Voters repeatedly compare the current Democratic Party’s actions to the Nazi party under Adolf Hitler, particularly in relation to alleged suppression of free speech.

It is evident that emotions around this conversation are severe, with deep conviction among many inside and outside the GOP.

Swing States

Pro-Trump supporters are aggressive in their response, expressing deep loyalty to the former president and declaring their continued support. They portray Trump as a selfless patriot who risks his personal status and wealth for the sake of the American people. Their posts and hashtags, like #Trump2024, #MAGA, #MakeAmericaGreatAgain, suggest they see a future for Trump in leadership. They view any wrongdoing alleged against Trump as part of a witch hunt, orchestrated by liberal courts and the media, drawing on rhetoric used by Trump himself. They express disdain for Republican politicians who wish to distance themselves from Trump, accusing them of aligning with Democrats and having a secret agenda.

Supporters also voice concerns about the perceived erosion of American government and governance, accusing the state and its institutions of moving towards communism. For them, any attempt to sideline or convict Trump is seen as an attack on the American people's will and the constitution. Many suggest there will be a surge in Trump's popularity and predict backlash in upcoming elections.

Critics of Trump are pleased with the prospect of the Republican National Committee selecting an alternative candidate. They argue justice is being served with the charges against him. They do not sympathize with the narrative presented by his supporters, and instead, view Trump as a threat to democracy.

Despite the differences, there is a common narrative of the situation as a moment of crisis for the American republic - either through alleged political persecution and suppression or through the potential re-emergence of a figure they see as an ideological threat. Ultimately, the comments underscore the deep divides within the American political landscape.

After a New York Times article speculating Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito revealed sympathy for January 6 protesters with an upside-down flag at his home, liberals are calling for his recusal. Amid escalating political turmoil and wavering trust in the justice system, partisan arguments are breaking out between the left and the right.

Reactions to the media reporting and Democrat calls for recusal can primarily be divided along political lines. Those who support Democrats argue Alito's actions have demonstrated bias and breach of conduct. Republicans and those on the right label the recusal outcry as a politically motivated on conservative Justices.

Liberal Outcry Against Justice Alito

Left leaning voters tend to see the call for Alito’s recusal as entirely justified. They cite a belief in his partisan bias and claim he involves himself in political activities outside of his judicial duties. They argue for the necessity of maintaining impartiality and integrity in the judiciary, calling for transparency and accountability from judges. They also voice concern about the potential corruption of the judicial system, applying this fear specifically to Alito.

Mainstream media outlets and Democrats insist Alito’s refusal to recuse himself brings up concerns of fairness. They accuse his wife of sympathizing with January 6 protests by her flag choices, citing this as a violation of judicial ethics.

Conservative Reactions to the Idea of Alito’s Recusal

Most right leaning Americans take umbrage at the idea that Justice Alito should recuse himself for an unfounded rumor which they consider a nonstory. Republicans are more likely to see Democrat arguments as part of a larger-scale effort to control and manipulate judicial systems to their advantage.

Those on the right view accusations against Justice Alito as an attempt to undermine the balance of power on a Supreme Court with a conservative majority. There are also vocal questions and accusations about Democrats’ political motivations in attacking Alito.

Conservatives argue calls for Alito’s recusal are highly hypocritical when contrasted with Democrat reactions to judges like Arthur Engoron or Juan Merchan – who both side with Democrats in their judicial decisions.

Double Standards Applied to Conservatives

Critics who oppose Alito’s recusal highlight Democrat hypocrisy. They point to alleged ethical violations by liberal judges such as Judge Merchan, which Democrats dismiss as inconsequential.

Those on the left claim to seek a stronger ethical code and accountability in the judiciary for figures like Justice Alito. However, many point to this as an outrageous inconsistency that is exclusively applied to conservatives.

Accusations of double standards are especially stark as voters on all sides voice concern with the allegations against Judge Merchan. Many are calling for thorough investigations into connections with his daughter and her financial dealings regarding Trump’s recent New York trial.

However, conversations about Judge Merchan have not generated the same amount of outcry as Justice Alito's controversy. Some critics perceive this as a display of political bias against conservatives by the media and Democrats. They accuse both of overlooking and under reporting ethical violations from liberal judges and becoming hysterical about benign issues like the flag choices at the Alito home.