A recent viral story about a retiring couple who are buried in a legal dispute with a squatter who took possession of their recently purchased dream retirement home in New York has sparked discussion about housing policies in blue cities. Many people are shocked and horrified at the extent of squatter's rights in New York and other Democrat-run cities.

On social media, New Yorkers express their concerns about squatters in their city, arguing they exploit loopholes in housing laws and exacerbate housing shortages. Many find it unfair and unsustainable that hardworking, taxpaying citizens must shoulder the burden of supporting individuals who, they argue, are not contributing to society in a meaningful way.

Many people have moved away or are threatening to move away from blue cities, citing frustration with policies that cater to squatters and illegal immigrants at the expense of law-abiding citizens.

Most Americans agree that there is a shortage of affordable housing across the country. But they tend to disagree on the causes and solutions.

In large, urban cities, where Democrats are often in power, there is a strong emphasis on tenants’ rights and protecting vulnerable populations. These places often have robust tenants' rights laws and policies aimed at preventing homelessness. However, these policies often face criticism from property owners who argue they unfairly infringe upon their rights and prohibit business, investments, and even the ability to occupy one’s own home.

Homeowners Frustrated with Squatter’s Rights

Many people – especially homeowners and landlords – see squatters as taking advantage of the system and property owners. They argue that property rights should be respected and that it's unfair for property owners to bear the burden of housing people without compensation. They often call for stricter laws and enforcement to protect the rights of property owners.

Those who can afford to own real estate express concerns about rent control policies, eviction moratoriums, and other tenant protections they see as too strict or lenient, leading to preferential treatment in favor of tenants.

Many property owners in places like New York argue that tenant-focused policies infringe the rights of landlords and homeowners. They believe they should have the right to control their own properties, including setting their own rental prices and choosing their own tenants.

Economic conservatives and property owners express frustration with overbearing regulations that make owning or renting property in blue cities nearly impossible.

Property Owners Vote with Their Feet

In many blue states and cities, there is a sentiment that tenant rights need to be protected. Mostly Democrats, voters and policymakers say landlords and homeowners should bear certain responsibilities. This includes maintaining safe and habitable living conditions, not discriminating against tenants, and not exploiting tenants with excessively high rents.

However, despite voting for politicians who enact tenant-focused policies, homeowners and landlords have been leaving blue cities in droves. Since COVID, many people have commented on the number of people moving from states like California and New York to places like Texas and Florida.

Many of the top reasons people say they left blue cities are economic. They mention high cost of living, food, real estate, and healthcare as reasons for leaving. A lot of inter-state migrants say they moved to avoid high taxes, progressive policies, or high crime rates.

Squatter and Tenant Defenders

There are advocates who argue tenant protections are necessary to prevent exploitation and displacement, particularly in cities with high living costs. They often point to instances of landlords using loopholes and aggressive tactics to evict long-term tenants and raise rents.

Some express concerns that affordable housing and systemic issues are one of the main issues facing middle- and lower-class Americans. They argue that squatters are often people who have fallen through the cracks of the system and are forced to resort to occupying vacant properties just to survive. They see the issue as a symptom of larger social and economic problems that need to be addressed.

Fewer Americans Can Afford to Own Real Estate

While the debate over housing policies in blue cities is often driven by partisan divides, Americans do seem to agree that housing is becoming too expensive across the country. Most people feel it’s prohibitively expensive for Americans to afford to own real estate. More are beginning to feel that, even if they could afford to own property, it may not be worth it.

For some, particularly younger generations, the importance of homeownership is decreasing. The flexibility of renting, coupled with an increasing emphasis on experiences over possessions, is challenging traditional notions of homeownership as a benchmark of success. However, this shift is not universal, and many Americans still aspire to own their own homes.

• Voters consistently say the economy, including the difficulties of housing, is one of their top issues of concern.
• Discussion about the economy is consistently high online, implying it remains on people’s minds.

The recent Supreme Court ruling that states cannot remove Donald Trump from their ballots has provoked a range of reactions across the political spectrum.

Republicans, as expected, have largely applauded the decision. For them, this represents not only a victory for Trump but also a confirmation of the principle that states should not have the power to dictate who can or cannot run for the presidency. This sentiment is reflected in the statements of figures like Illinois Republican Party Chairman Don Tracy and former UN Ambassador Nikki Haley, who have publicly backed the Supreme Court's decision.

Democrats, however, have expressed a mix of disappointment and resignation. Some left-leaning commentators, influencers, and media outlets have criticized the decision. They suggest it reflects the Supreme Court's conservative bias, despite a unanimous decision.

However, not all Democrats share this view. The response from some Democrats suggests a grudging acceptance of the ruling, with some even expressing relief that the decision was unanimous, thus avoiding a potentially divisive political battle.

Some Democrats say the decision is a blow to their efforts to hold Trump accountable for his actions while in office. Keith Olbermann and other far-leftists have even suggested drastic measures such as dissolving the Supreme Court in response to the ruling.

Independents have diverse views on the topic. But in general, they seem to lean towards acceptance of the ruling. Many appear to view it as a necessary affirmation of the democratic process, even if they personally dislike Trump.

The Supreme Court's ruling again reveals deep political divisions within the United States. However, the fact that the decision was unanimous may help to defuse potential political tensions and pave the way for a fair and open election in 2024.

This decision has also sparked debates about the role of the judiciary in political matters. Some suggest that the unanimous ruling sends a message that the court is not a tool for political maneuvering. This sentiment is echoed in statements such as "The Supreme Court was never going to save us from Donald Trump and frankly we shouldn’t want them to."

Overall, there seems to be a consensus among most Americans – except far-leftists – that the ballot box, not the courts, should determine political outcomes. The unanimous nature of the decision might also serve as a reminder of the independence of the judiciary and its key role in maintaining a democratic system.

The phrase "say her name" has long been associated with the Black Lives Matter movement, symbolizing the call for recognition and justice for black victims of police violence. However, recent developments have seen a shift in the narrative. The hashtag is now being used to draw attention to the tragic case of Laken Riley, a college student whose death has become a focal point in the broader discussions surrounding immigration, crime, and border control in the United States.

Origins of "Say Her Name"

The "say her name" movement emerged in 2015 following the death of Sandra Bland, a black woman who died in police custody. The phrase aimed to bring attention to the perceived overlooked experiences of black women in cases of police brutality. Over the years, it has been used to shed light on other similar incidents, becoming synonymous with the Black Lives Matter movement.

Shifting Focus to Laken Riley

The evolution of this phrase is evident in the passionate tweets flooding the digital realm. No longer confined to discussions within the Black Lives Matter framework, the hashtag is now a vessel for those critical of U.S. open border policies. Laken Riley's name is invoked, not as a symbol of racial injustice, but as an emblem of the broader debate on immigration and its alleged connection to crime rates. Social media users, predominantly critical of U.S. open borders policies, use the hashtag to draw attention to specific cases like Riley's, framing them as direct consequences of lax immigration control.

Twitter users engaging in the "say her name" discussion often critique political figures like Joe Biden for what they perceive as failures in addressing the issues of immigration and crime. The critiques are passionate, with many expressing anger and making demands for stronger border controls. This discussion completely overrides previous associations with the “say her name” movement.

With the invocation of Laken Riley's name and using the "say her name" hashtag, right-wing immigration hawks have added a personal and emotional element to the discussion. The narrative emphasizes the human cost of open border policies, presenting Riley as a symbol of the potential dangers associated with illegal immigration. Many are demanding accountability and action, holding political figures responsible for ensuring the safety of American citizens.

Conclusion

The evolution of the "say her name" narrative, from its origins in the Black Lives Matter movement to its current use in discussions surrounding Laken Riley's case, highlights the complex intersection of race, immigration, and crime in the United States and the right’s ability to co-opt a leftist narrative.

The term "Christian Nationalism" has been increasingly used in public discourse, particularly by liberals, democrats, and leftists. While it is difficult to pinpoint exactly who coined the term, it is apparent that these groups have adopted and weaponized its usage for strategic political purposes.

 Christian Nationalism is often used to describe a political ideology that merges Christian faith with American patriotism, advocating for the establishment of either a Christian state or a state guided by Christian values. However, the term is being leveraged by liberals to paint conservative Christians as extremists or fundamentalists who are seeking to impose their religious beliefs on the nation.

Critics are now adopting the term as a way to call out what they see as an attempt to undermine the secular nature of the state and promote a form of religious exclusivity.

The strategic use of the term "Christian Nationalism" may be part of a wider effort to frame certain political ideologies as extreme or detrimental to the principles of a secular and inclusive democracy. By associating Christian Nationalism with far right or extremist movements, the mainstream may be trying to delegitimize the positions held by some conservatives, framing them as a threat to democratic norms.

This analysis does not conclude that all criticisms of Christian Nationalism are unfounded or politically motivated. However, there seems to be a concerted effort to lump all Christians and American patriots under the umbrella of Christian Nationalism, which is largely understood negatively.

On the right, the term is also contentious. Some Christians and conservatives totally reject the term. Others adopt it but push back on the negative connotations, justifying their beliefs as nonthreatening. 

Messaging Analysis

Sentiment about Christian Nationalism is somewhat dependent on its framing. It is either perceived as a patriotic expression of religious freedom or a threat to democratic principles and social equality.

People tend to understand Christian nationalism as either a cultural issue or a political issue. The rise of social justice movements, the political climate, and the portrayal of Christian Nationalism in media and political discourse all play significant roles in shaping these sentiments. 

Republicans

A large group of Republicans support Christian Nationalism as they believe it aligns with their core values of religious freedom, patriotism, and conservative moral values. They often link Christian Nationalism to the preservation of American heritage and the upholding of traditional family structures.

Sentiment increases among Republicans when Christian Nationalism is presented as a defense against perceived threats to religious freedom, such as the "woke" culture or progressive social policies. However, sentiment decreases when Christian Nationalism is associated with extremist actions or intolerance towards other religious or ethnic groups.

Democrats

Most Democrats view Christian Nationalism as a threat to the separation of church and state. They claim it could lead to discrimination against non-Christian and marginalized groups. For Democrats, negativity strengthens against Christian Nationalism when it is linked to extremist actions, such as the Capitol Hill riot, and decreases when it is presented as a matter of religious freedom or patriotism.

Independents

Independents have mixed views on Christian Nationalism. Their sentiment generally increases when Christian Nationalism is associated with the broader freedom of religious expression. It decreases when it is linked to extremist actions, intolerance, or breaches of the church-state separation.

Diversity in Christian Nationalism

For Black and Hispanic communities, views on Christian Nationalism are more complex and nuanced. Generally, these communities also exhibit high levels of religious participation, particularly in Christian denominations. However, their views on Christian Nationalism can diverge significantly with the perception of Christian Nationalism as racial grouping.

Among Black Christians, for instance, there is often a strong emphasis on social justice, reflecting a long history of activism in the Black church. This can sometimes lead to a rejection of Christian Nationalism, perceived as a political tool to maintain white supremacy and socio-economic inequalities. Nevertheless, there are also pockets within the Black Christian community that support aspects of Christian Nationalism, particularly around social conservatism.

The Hispanic community, on the other hand, is extremely diverse, with a broad spectrum of views on Christian Nationalism. Some Hispanic Christians, particularly those of a more conservative persuasion, may align with Christian Nationalist ideals, particularly around issues such as pro-life and traditional family values. However, others may reject this ideology, citing concerns around immigration policy and social justice.

Talking About - American Values

Sentiment - American Values

The American perception of the economy, and Biden's handling of the economy, is a multifaceted issue. It’s shaped by various demographic, political, and personal factors. To fully understand this issue, we must consider the experiences of various voting groups.
Many Americans are feeling economic pain, particularly those in lower income brackets and the gig economy. Rising cost of living, low wages, and tax burdens are common grievances. Some feel they are overtaxed, while others are frustrated by what they see as a lack of value for the taxes they pay.

For instance, some gig workers on platforms like Onlyfans feel exploited. They say they must give a significant portion of their earnings to the platform in addition to paying taxes on their total earnings. Many who lost their jobs during COVID and other economic disruptions are financially stressed, concerned about rising cost of living, lack of affordable healthcare, and job insecurity.

Among racial and ethnic minorities, particularly Black and Hispanic Americans, there is increased economic anxiety and dissatisfaction. Lower-income individuals and those without a college degree also tend to view the economy more negatively.

The issue of immigration is a contentious one. Some citizens feel that their tax dollars are being unfairly allocated to support immigrants, rather than American citizens. This feeling is not confined to any one political group and is expressed by Republicans, Democrats, and Independents alike, suggesting a widespread concern about resource allocation.

Other Economic Factors Making Americans Feel Squeezed

The high cost of housing and the perceived exploitation by landlords is another issue causing economic distress. Some people argue that property taxes are too low, leading to landlords profiting excessively at the expense of renters.

Furthermore, there are concerns about the treatment of elderly citizens. Some feel this group’s financial needs aren't being met. This sentiment is often coupled with a feeling of being undervalued after a lifetime of contributing to society through taxes.

Trust in Joe Biden's administration to handle the economy varies dramatically along party lines. Many Democrats still support Biden, but there is also frustration and disappointment among some Democrats about perceived unfulfilled promises. Republicans, on the other hand, largely express dissatisfaction with Biden's economic policies. Independents' views are mixed, with some expressing frustration with the current economic situation and others remaining hopeful.

After both President Biden and former President Trump visited the Texas border, immigration talk online has surged to the top issue for both politicians. Reactions are scattered, mostly along party lines. But Biden’s approval on immigration continues to lag behind Trump’s.

• Border security was the most talked about issue for both men in the last 24 hours.
• Trumps approval on the border is 49% and Biden’s is 45%.
• Around 19,000 people were talking about the border online in the last 24 hours.
• Trump’s overall support remains slightly above Biden, although both received a slight bump after their border appearances.

Biden Perceived as “Shuffling” to the Border

A majority of people are expressing frustration and anger towards Biden's border policies. The comments about Biden's visit are also largely negative.

People are discussing the contrast of Biden at the border versus Trump at the border, saying Biden looked frail and fragile. There are some outcries by liberals who, instead of defending Biden’s mental and physical fitness, accuse Trump of being in worse condition.

There is also significant related discussion around Biden’s overall health and recent medical exam. Many voters are suggesting they don’t have confidence in Biden’s doctor’s assessment. They point out his appearance at the border did nothing to persuade them of Biden’s physical vigor.

Many people say they fear the potential impact of Biden’s frailty on his ability to handle complex and volatile international situations, including border security.

A lot of discussion also revolves around the murder of Laken Riley, a 22-year-old woman allegedly murdered by an illegal immigrant. This incident appears to have triggered a wave of outrage, with many blaming Biden's immigration policies for such tragedies.

People across political aisles are starting to argue that the Biden administration's open border policy and the reversal of Trump's immigration policies have led to an increase in illegal immigration and associated crimes. Some accuse Biden of prioritizing illegal immigrants over American citizens, suggesting they are more valuable due to their potential to vote for Democrats.

There is still a significant portion of Biden supporters who defend his approach to the border and his recent appearance. They argue that no president has managed to completely stop illegal immigration. They suggest that the current border crisis is also the fault of Republicans who failed to vote on a bipartisan border bill.

• Biden’s approval increased slightly with his border visit, reaching 46%.
• This is up from a meager 33% approval a week ago.

Trump Seen as Highly Entertaining at the Border

The overall discussion of Trump's border visit is positive. People praise his actions, voicing their desire for his return to office. Voters often feel that Trump was more proactive in dealing with border issues and that his approach was more effective.

Many people perceived Trump’s border visit as upbeat and entertaining – especially his jovial wave to Mexicans on the other side of the border fence. There were comments suggesting that one does not have to like Trump to be amused by his showmanship.

There is also significant support for Trump's approach to immigration policies. People are enthusiastic about his commitment to deporting illegal immigrants who break U.S. laws and his efforts to stop the flow of illegal crossings. Many voters say Trump's policies, like the "Remain in Mexico" policy, were effective in reducing illegal immigration and should be reinstated.

While much of the discussion about Trump’s border visit was positive, there are still many voices criticizing him. This group mocks his supporters and claim that Biden is doing a better job. They argue that the former president's health is a cause for concern and accuse him of leaning over during his visit. Mostly Democrats, these defenders favorably compare Biden to FDR, who was wheelchair-bound during his presidency. They dismiss concerns about Biden's health and criticize his detractors for focusing on his physical condition.

• Trump’s approval on border security increased with his visit, reaching 48%.
• This is up from a steady 45% for most of the week.

The Supreme Court's decision to hear former President Donald Trump's claim of immunity from prosecution has stirred up a maelstrom of reactions across the political spectrum.

Many Democrats reacted with outrage, viewing the decision as an unwarranted delay in bringing Trump to justice. They argue that the Supreme Court, particularly those Justices appointed by Trump, are aiding and abetting him by providing a legal lifeline. They fear this decision could further delay the trial on election interference charges, possibly even past the 2024 election. This sentiment is shared by some independents, who also express disappointment in the Supreme Court's handling of the case.

However, many Republicans view the decision as a necessary step in the due process of law. They argue that the Supreme Court is doing its due diligence by considering Trump's unprecedented immunity claim rather than rushing to judgment. They also counter arguments about biased Justices by pointing out that Trump's appointments to the court were fully within his presidential powers. 

Demographic Differences Regarding the SCOTUS Case

On a broader demographic level, younger voters or progressives are more likely to express anger and frustration at the perceived delay in justice. Older or more conservative voters tend to value the deliberative process of the court. 

Other demographic breakdowns show a pattern of support or opposition largely along party lines. However, the issue of presidential immunity is a complex one and does not neatly fall along partisan lines. For instance, some Republicans who value the rule of law may be critical of Trump's immunity claim. And some liberals who are wary of the expansion of executive power may view it with sympathy.

For those who were already critical of Trump, the decision has only reinforced their negative views. For those who support Trump, the decision has been a source of frustration and has contributed to their perception of the judiciary as being biased against the former president.

While there are general partisan trends, there are pockets within each group who may hold differing views. For instance, some Republicans have expressed concern about potential long-term damage to the party's reputation. And some Democrats recognize the importance of the court's decision in establishing a legal precedent for future presidents.

Discussion is heating up about the amount of taxpayer dollars being used to fund services and benefits for illegal immigrants. Headlines are emerging suggesting cities like Denver are cutting back on city employees to free up funds for immigrants. Federal funds are being diverted to support illegal immigrants with shelter, food, and cash.

These headlines are stirring up ire among American citizens who are already concerned about their own finances and the larger economy. Many people online express dissatisfaction with plans like the proposal to give $10,000 debit cards to illegals. More people are becoming vocal about their feelings that these initiatives are a misuse of tax dollars.

There are differing viewpoints which align with political affiliations, however, the issue is starting to supersede partisan lines. Generally, Republicans lean towards stricter immigration policies and criticize using tax dollars for illegal immigrants. Democrats tend to favor more lenient immigration policies and the provision of public services for migrants.

But as the Biden administration is forced to address the issue, there is growing bipartisan awareness of the impact on all Americans.

Public Opinion Is Shifting in Favor of Strong Borders

As the border issue reaches a fever pitch, public opinion grows more complex. It cannot be accurately summarized by party affiliation alone. Many variables, including personal experiences, geographic location, and demographic factors seem to be influencing voter perspectives on illegal immigration.

Overall, MIG data shows Americans’ desire to prioritize national interests, especially the safety and protection of citizens. Many argue that tax dollars should be used to care for American citizens before aiding illegal immigrants.

There is an increasing amount of support for building a wall along the southern border. Many people are mentioning a Monmouth University poll that indicated a majority of Americans now want a wall.

The border crisis continues to be the top issue for voters leading up to the election. MIG data suggests that public sentiment is shifting towards stricter border control.

Biggest Voter Issues

Governor Abbott’s Migrant Bussing

Many Texas voters approve of Governor Abbott's initiative to bus migrants to sanctuary cities. They view it as a way to lighten the burden on Texas and give sanctuary states what they asked for.

Texans are desperate to relieve the strain on resources and population overrun and believe that sanctuary cities should bear more responsibility. They also believe that this initiative is pushing the consequences of open-border policies into the spotlight, forcing a dialogue about immigration reform

Voters in all border states argue that the responsibility for immigration should be a national issue, rather than falling solely on border states like Texas.

Voters in Sanctuary Cities

Among Americans living in sanctuary cities, there are complaints that they are being targeted and burdened due to their policies. There is less discussion from residents of sanctuary cities, but those who voice public opinions tend to be critical of bussing migrants out of border states.

People in sanctuary cities raise concerns about the constitutionality of Abbott's actions. They question whether the Governor has the legal authority to dictate where immigrants can and cannot go.

They also worry about the economic implications of an influx of immigrants. They fear that it could lead to job losses for locals, wage suppression, and increased competition for limited resources.

There’s also talk of illegal immigrants overcrowding schools and healthcare systems and increasing crime rates. Some, however, are vocal in the opinion that sanctuary cities should welcome immigrants and provide them with the support they need to integrate into society.

Disapproval for Funding Illegal Immigrants

Most of the public commentary shows Americans are opposed to using tax dollars to fund services for illegal immigrants. They argue that it is unfair for tax-paying citizens to finance benefits for people not legally present in the country. This perspective often stems from a belief that illegal immigrants are taking advantage of the system, and the administration is encouraging it.

Americans say illegals are taking jobs from American workers, draining public resources, and contributing to crime rates. More voters also argue that tax dollars should be used to improve services for American citizens who are already struggling to get by.

There’s a growing sentiment that illegal immigrants should not be eligible for social services like healthcare and education, and some say they should not be allowed to work. There is frustration and anger around the perception that illegal immigrants are being favored over U.S. citizens.

Many express dissatisfaction with the current state of law enforcement, blaming Democrats for crime problems in their cities. They see this as an additional burden on taxpayers and businesses and call for a change in leadership. Many people also complain that Democrats have cut police budgets, exacerbating crime in places like San Francisco and New York.

A swell of news stories involving violent crimes by illegals is amplifying the frustration. Commenters refer to specific cases where illegal immigrants are accused or convicted of violent acts and, sometimes, repeatedly allowed back into the country. They express a sense of outrage and distress, accusing the government of wasting tax dollars on criminals.

The ire is often directed at Democratic politicians for supporting open border policies and Republicans for failing to act or oppose Democrats. And, while this can still be seen as a partisan issue, more Democrats and Independents are beginning to speak out about protecting America’s border.

Approval for Funding Illegal Immigrants

There is still a segment of voters – mostly Democrats – who support more funding for illegal immigrants. They see this crisis as a humanitarian issue. They point out that many illegal immigrants work in low-paying jobs and contribute to the economy through sales and income taxes. They also argue that denying services to illegal immigrants may lead to public health issues and increased poverty.

Some say religious organizations, particularly large ones, should pay taxes. Their reasoning is that this would increase revenue and reduce the burden on taxpayers. They argue that religious organizations should contribute the way businesses and individuals do.

This group also advocates for immigrants being allowed to work and pay taxes. They believe this would be more beneficial to the economy than the current situation.

Some Democrats argue that sanctuary cities provide a haven for undocumented immigrants. They believe migrants enhance the cultural diversity of the nation.

Those who approve of spending taxpayer money on illegals tend to view migrant bussing initiative as a form of political opportunism. They accuse Abbott of exacerbating a humanitarian crisis and hold him responsible for the distress and trauma experienced by both immigrants and first responders.

The potential invocation of the 25th Amendment to remove President Joe Biden has generated talk online and will likely become a contentious issue in the coming days. It's clear that sentiment varies widely among different political affiliations. However, there are also ideological fissures within both parties.

Democrats

Democrats seem largely dismissive of the idea and tend to have a negative sentiment towards this topic, as it portrays Biden in a vulnerable light. This group interprets the discussion as a distraction from more important issues and an attempt to shift focus from the GOP's own problems. They also see it as a form of political theater. Democrats express frustration with what they see as the GOP's hypocrisy, given the previous controversies and allegations surrounding former President Trump.

In public conversation, Democrats express confidence in Biden's capacity to perform his duties and decry the motives behind Republican calls for his removal. There’s also a theme of concern about the possibility of Vice President Kamala Harris taking over. This implies that not all Democrats are fully satisfied with the current administration.

Democrat approval for Biden is raised when Biden's efforts and accomplishments are highlighted such as the surprise appearance of Biden on "Late Night with Seth Meyers." Approval drops when accusations of illegality or incompetence are thrown at the current administration. Negative sentiment also arises when Democrats are accused of not fighting for American citizens and prioritizing other issues like illegal immigration. Further, some Democrats express concerns that these discussions may undermine their party's agenda and create unnecessary political instability.

Republicans

Republicans are divided. Some are ardent in their belief that Biden is unfit for office and explicitly support the invocation of the 25th Amendment. They cite his deficient mental capacity and handling of the border crisis as influencing factors. Others are more cautious, expressing concern about the potential repercussions, particularly the prospect of Harris assuming the presidency.

There are frequent references to the border crisis and the alleged failure of the Biden administration to address it, which raises sentiment among Republicans. However, sentiment falls with discussion of GOP efforts to invoke the 25th Amendment or attempts to cancel the State of the Union Address. These initiatives are seen by some Republicans as disrespectful or undemocratic.

Independents

Independents hold a range of views. Some support the invocation of the 25th Amendment, citing similar reasons to those of Republicans. Others, however, dismiss it as a political maneuver and criticize both parties for their perceived focus on political point-scoring rather than addressing the country's pressing issues.

It seems the discussion surrounding the potential invocation of the 25th Amendment to remove Biden is largely fueled by partisan politics. While some Republicans are pushing for it and some Independents support it, the majority of Democrats view it as a politically motivated distraction. There is no clear consensus on whether Democrats would support replacing Biden under different circumstance. Some Democrats express dissatisfaction with his performance, but there's no widespread call for his replacement within the party.