The Biden administration's recent rewriting of Title IX has sparked rage and objection from conservatives and moderates who worry about women’s safety. The changes effectively expand protections for transgenders on college campuses and strip due process for those accused of sexual harassment or assault.
Biden’s changes are a reversal of policies implemented during the Trump administration, which had narrowed the definition of sexual harassment and bolstered the rights of those accused. Now, many worry that college tribunals will threaten the accused’s ability to defend themselves. They also worry it could encourage more false accusations and incentivize universities to err on the side of harsher punishments.
In the last two weeks, sentiment on transgender issues has fluctuated, dipping 40% prior to the Title IX changes.
With a spike in conversation, sentiment received a slight bump to 45%, but flattened back out as conversations emerged.
Conversation is Negative but Progressives Celebrate
Much of the discussion MIG Reports analyzed expresses strong opposition to the changes. People argue this revision allows men or "transgender women,” to compete in women's sports and use women's locker rooms. Critics argue this undermines the fairness and safety of biological women and girls participating in sports.
Critics insist the physical differences between biological males and females give transgender athletes an unfair advantage in sports. They also express concerns about potential invasions of privacy in locker rooms. Despite protests insisting there are carveouts for sports, many interpret the language of Title IX to implicitly require transgender inclusion in sports.
Those opposed frame their arguments in terms of a perceived erasure or violation of women's rights. They argue the changes to Title IX are fundamentally at odds with the original intent of the legislation, which was to create equal opportunities for women in education and sports. They also call on any Democrats or liberals claiming to be feminists to stand up for biological women and girls.
Many conservative voices express dissatisfaction and call for lawsuits to reverse the changes. A tweet from political commentator Megyn Kelly reflects a strong sentiment among many right leaning voters who view the rise of transgender activism as an attack on women.
DO NOT EVER LET ANY DEMOCRAT TELL YOU THEY CARE ABOUT WOMEN’S RIGHTS EVER AGAIN IF THEY DO NOT STAND UP TO THIS ABOMINATION OF A TITLE IX REVISION. These regs are a nuclear level attack on women’s rights and men’s due process rights. JOE BIDEN MUST GO.
Meanwhile, Democrats have largely applauded these changes. They view them as necessary to protect the rights of marginalized groups and address sexual harassment and assault in educational institutions. Many Democrats argue the changes reflect modern understandings of gender and the need to ensure equal access to education for all students. They also argue the changes will help to create a safer and more inclusive environment in schools and colleges.
Frequent Criticisms of Title IX Revisions
Some of the most vehement objections to Biden’s Title IX changes include:
Violation of Due Process
Critics argue there's an increased potential to violate the due process rights of the accused. They say the new rules will lead to a presumption of guilt by tribunals, removing the accused’s right to cross-examine their accusers.
Overreach of Federal Power
Some conservatives and libertarians argue the changes represent an overreach of federal power into local and state educational institutions. They believe decisions about how to handle sexual misconduct should be left to individual schools or states.
Infringement on Free Speech
There are arguments that lowering the bar for what is considered harassment will create enforced speech. If transgender athletes can invoke harassment for being misgendered, freedom of speech will be curtailed.
Endangering the Safety of Girls
Many insist these changes endanger the safety of female students as biological men enter their spaces. Critics say the new rules could increase accusations and punishments for misgendering transgender athletes threatening women’s safety.
Potential for False Accusations
Critics argue the changes could lead to increased discrimination and retaliation against women and false allegation victims. They argue it will be more difficult for the innocent to defend themselves.
Adverse Incentives for Schools
Some critics argue the changes lack clarity and could lead to confusion for schools trying to implement them. They also worry that schools, to maintain government funding, will enforce heavy-handed policies that hurt students.
Overall, reactions to the Biden administration's changes to Title IX reflect complex and conflicting views of gender rights and the government’s role in enforcing speech. These debates are likely to continue in the political arena, the courts, and in educational institutions across the country.
MIG Reports analysis has identified the recent pro-Palestine protests at Columbia University as part of a growing fracture within the political left’s culture. It also seems to be an ideologically isolating movement, sectioning off its adherents from ostensible allies on other issues.
Reports of anti-Israel protests at Columbia University have sparked significant controversy. Some Americans are outraged by these protests, labeling them as antisemitic and praising the White House for publicly condemning them.
The arrest of Rep. Ilhan Omar's daughter at one of these protests has further fueled these sentiments.
As a result of her daughter’s involvement, Omar saw a significant decrease in her public approval.
However, supporters argue the protesters are exercising their right to free speech, drawing parallels with other controversial issues, such as marijuana legalization and police brutality. Some question the actions of Columbia University's administration in response to the protests and argue the arrests of student protesters are excessive.
Many Americans express concerns about the safety of Jewish students amid these protests, with some comparing the situation to historical instances of antisemitism. However, others argue these concerns are overblown and the protests represent a legitimate critique of Israeli government policies, rather than an attack on Jewish people as a group.
In terms of political implications, these protests appear to reflect broader divisions in American society, and more specifically the Democratic Party. Supporters of the protests often align with progressive political movements, while critics of the protests often align with conservative ones.
Culturally, these protests have reignited debates about free speech and the limits of acceptable political discourse. They have also brought renewed attention to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, prompting Americans to grapple with complex questions of identity, history, and international relations.
How Americans are Reacting to Ongoing Protests
Factors that increase sentiment towards these protests include a sense of solidarity with the Palestinian cause, perceived injustices faced by Palestinians, and the desire for freedom of speech and expression on college campuses. In contrast, elements that decrease sentiment include reactions to antisemitism, violence or intimidation, and the disruption of academic activities.
The top discussions around the protests include debates about freedom of speech versus hate speech, the role of universities in policing student protests, the impact of these protests on Jewish students and the larger Jewish community. People also discuss the political implications, particularly in relation to U.S. foreign policy towards Israel and Palestine.
If current trends continue, protests will continue to increase, along with heightened tensions and potential conflicts in public locations. This could lead to a greater polarization of opinions, with the potential for these protests to become a significant political issue that may hurt Biden’s approval. Increased media attention could further fuel contentions as well, perpetuating friction.
In terms of policy implications, universities may need to develop clear guidelines for student protests. The public and alumni may demand institutions protect freedom of speech while ensuring the safety and well-being of all students. Policymakers and Democrat politicians may also be pressured to address this anti-Israel voter group as the election draws near.
A recent Supreme Court decision not to hear the Mckesson v. Doe case has sparked a robust online discussion. Much of the commentary seems to be from liberal and left leaning voters who support BLM and other social justice protests.
The case in question involved DeRay Mckesson, a civil rights activist, who was sued by an anonymous police officer (Doe) who was injured during a protest Mckesson organized in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, in 2016. The lawsuit alleged Mckesson was responsible for the injuries because he should have anticipated violent actions during the protest.
SCOTUS’ decision essentially upholds a lower court ruling that organizers of protests can be held responsible for violence or illegal actions that occur, even if they didn't directly participate in or endorse such actions. This decision extends to the states of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas. Critics argue this decision essentially criminalizes protest organization.
Many discussing this subject seem to misunderstand the court decisions, believing SCOTUS made it illegal to protest, when in fact the court had declined to hear a case, leaving a lower court's decision in place.
The event has also sparked conversation about politicized and weaponized justice. MIG Reports data suggests liberals and conservatives both entertain ideas that the government and courts could be weaponized – however they disagree about whom the weaponization is against.
National sentiment towards SCOTUS is relatively high compared to protests and police.
Sentiment towards all topics related to protests and prosecutions for protests has declined slightly in the last two weeks.
Liberals Emphasizing Mckesson’s Plight
Those arguing the decision infringes upon the First Amendment tend to lean liberal. They say it’s chilling the right to protest by making organizers potentially liable for actions they cannot control. They see this as a move to criminalize dissent and express fear about the implications for democratic freedoms.
Some voice fears this could dissuade activists from organizing protests out of fear of legal repercussions. They argue holding organizers accountable for the actions of individuals within a protest is unfair and infringes upon the constitutional right to free speech and peaceful assembly.
Supporters of the decision argue protest organizers should be held accountable for any illegal activities that occur during their events. They believe this will deter violent protests and encourage peaceful assemblies. Although these voices tend to be more right leaning, there is much less discussion of the case among Republicans and conservatives.
Those who are discussing the case either blame Democratic leadership for lawlessness during protests or criticize Republican lawmakers for eroding democratic rights. The debate around this case highlights the partisan views many hold about protest rights, depending on the cause of the protest.
Contrasting Views of Weaponized Government
The politicized view of protests seems apparent when contrasting opinions about Mckesson v. Doe and January 6 prosecutions. Those who view the events of January 6 as an attack on democracy demand protesters be held accountable. These individuals frequently use terms such as "insurrectionists," "traitors," and "seditious clowns," and appear to be among the same group discussing the Mckesson v. Doe decision.
Liberal and progressive voters are more likely to call for the arrest, conviction, and jailing of J6 participants. This group also includes elected officials who they believe incited or supported the attack like former President Trump. Many demand a thorough investigation and express satisfaction when they see arrests and convictions.
Progressive and liberal voters express a sense of double standards in how different protests are handled. They say law enforcement response to the J6 demonstrators was less severe than responses to Black Lives Matter protests.
Conservatives View J6 Convictions as Weaponized
In contrast to liberals who claim lenience for Mckesson and maximum consequences for J6 defendants, conservatives view the courts as weaponized in the opposite direction. This group is more likely to claim J6 demonstrators were merely exercising their right to protest. They criticize the media and Democrats for applauding J6 convictions while shrugging off BLM protest violence.
Right leaning voters believe there is bias in the FBI's actions, specifically in the context of the prosecution of J6 participants. They contrast this with leniency towards leftist activists who commit crimes and violence in the name of Black Lives Matter of Palestine.
Conservatives are more likely to believe in the existence of the Deep State – a group of unelected bureaucrats manipulating the government. They express frustration and mistrust towards the government and politicians who politicize federal agencies and the court system.
There is a strong perception that conservatives are being unfairly targeted and labeled "domestic terrorists" by the FBI and other institutions.
MIG Reports data has identified a significant amount of dissatisfaction and frustration among Americans regarding cyberattacks and perceived failures of homeland security. Many of these feelings result from recent events that users suspect to be cyberattacks, which they blame on the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and its Secretary, Alejandro Mayorkas.
Some are calling for Mayorkas to resign, indicating dissatisfaction with his handling of security issues. There is a belief that DHS is not doing enough to prevent cyberattacks and protect American citizens. These sentiments are fueled by the perceived ineffectiveness and alleged corruption within the department.
Discussions have been increasing with a rising number of disastrous incidents on U.S. infrastructure, with many skeptical of reasons why. These events include things like the Baltimore Bridge, weather radar outages, and 911 outages. As foreign conflicts expand in countries like Russia and Iran, Americans are more worried they will never find the truth about responsible actors.
Anger is also directed at the government at large, with some voters accusing it of being compromised by foreign entities. They believe foreign adversaries have manipulated the government to their advantage, leading to a lack of accountability for cyberattacks.
Many people are apprehensive about the possibility of future attacks. There is a sense that the current government and security departments are not adequately prepared or competent to handle and prevent such incidents. As a result, there is a call for more stringent security measures and more robust responses to cyber threats.
There's also a level of anxiety about how cyberattacks could impact daily life, from increasing costs to potentially disrupting essential services. Some speculate about the potential for cyberattacks to escalate into physical conflict or even war, citing the mutual hostility between certain nations.
Others argue that hostile foreign adversaries could exploit American communications and cyber infrastructure to carry out attacks. However, there are also concerns about domestic threats, with some users accusing certain politicians and political groups of being "domestic terrorists."
MIG Reports identifies there is a significant divide in the perception of Trump among Generation Z voters. Some are staunch supporters of Trump, frequently using the hashtag #MAGA (Make America Great Again). This group sees him as a victim of leftist and liberal bias.
Gen Z often expresses frustration with the ongoing legal trials and perceive them as political witch hunts orchestrated by liberals and communists to undermine Trump’s credibility and popular support. They are also opposed to media outlets they believe are biased against Trump, accusing them of spreading lies and misinformation about the former president.
Many Gen Z voters believe the Ukraine-Russia and Israel-Hamas conflicts wouldn't have happened under Trump's leadership. They say Trump's stronger stance on foreign policy would have deterred such actions. These voters also seem to believe Biden's administration is weaker in comparison and this has led to an emboldening of U.S adversaries across the board. They also say Biden has allowed heightened tensions across the world and worsening economic markets.
Trump supporters among Gen Z express strong dissatisfaction towards Biden, with many accusing him of crimes, decrying his handling of global issues, and critiquing his performance at the State of the Union address. They also express support for Trump, with some suggesting he would do a better job at handling the country's issues.
A recent Harvard Poll shows President Biden continuing to struggle with young voters. The survey showed Biden holding a 45% to 37% lead over former President Trump among all 18- to 29-year-olds, with 16% undecided. The survey also highlighted that at this point in the 2020, Biden polled at 51% to Trump’s 28% among young voters, which corroborates MIG Reports evidence that Biden is losing sway with Gen Z and younger Millennials.
Biden’s Gen Z supporters often voice concerns about Trump returning to the White House and the impact this could have on the country. However, some express exasperation at the continued focus on Trump, accusing the messaging of “living rent-free" in people's heads.
It seems many Gen Z voters are becoming highly critical of Biden's performance. This could potentially indicate that Trump is gaining traction with this demographic. The reasons range from perceived failures in Biden’s policy decisions, alleged criminal activities, and a general dissatisfaction with his leadership.
Support for Biden among young voters seems to be less vocal, with much of the conversation focusing instead on criticisms of Trump. It is also noteworthy that some Gen Z voters express disillusionment with both major political parties and the current state of American politics. They seem to be searching for truth and fairness amidst what they perceive to be a highly polarized and partisan political environment.
Recent accusations of biased reporting against National Public Radio (NPR) have stirred up public resentment and calls for defunding. After veteran journalist Uri Berliner published an article with The Free Press chastising NPR for its unsupportable liberal bias, his subsequent suspension and resignation created controversy online.
Many discussions center around the belief that NPR, along with other mainstream media outlets, display a significant left-wing bias. People, including Berliner, argue NPR prioritizes a leftist agenda over objective journalism, contributing to polarization and distrust. This bias is perceived in the choice of stories covered, the framing of news narratives, and the selection of sources or experts for interviews.
Liberals tend to be more supportive, but some still have criticisms. They suggest NPR's bias is not so much a partisan issue but rather a reflection of the organization's commitment to "well-meaning liberal feel-good" coverage. They argue NPR is sometimes "wimpy" in its reporting and works hard not to offend anyone.
Disconcerting Comments from NPR’s CEO
There are heated debates around NPR's leadership, particularly the new CEO Katherine Maher. Critics argue her views undermine the objective pursuit of truth and threaten freedom of speech.
Berliner himself said in his resignation statement that her leadership “confirm the very problems” of leftist bias. Others like author Chris Rufo have exposed past comments from Maher, betraying her as an apparent leftist devotee. These discussions among journalists online have also generated public awareness and backlash.
EXCLUSIVE: Katherine Maher doesn't just want to "stamp out bad information" on the internet. She wants to replace it with "good information"—i.e., left-wing narratives—and force the public to "sit within that good information" as "a collective."
— Christopher F. Rufo ⚔️ (@realchrisrufo) April 18, 2024
Maher’s defenders praise her leadership skills and commitment to transparency, brushing aside accusations of clear partisan loyalty. Many critics cite her past work with Wikipedia, tweets and posts stumping for Joe Biden, and clear cut liberal perspectives on identity politics, censorship, and the First Amendment.
Taxpayer Dollars Supporting Left-Wing Media
NPR's public funding is a contentious issue. Critics argue taxpayer money should not be used to fund a platform that is being exposed as biased and propagandist. They argue for defunding NPR, asserting it should be privately funded like other media outlets.
Criticisms of taxation and government spending amid other pressing issues like a struggling economy and benefits for illegal aliens seems to exacerbate negativity toward public funding for NPR. While Americans struggle to make ends meet, many seem appalled and indignant about tax dollars being spent to support outlets like NPR.
Overarching Distrust of American Media
The issue of bias in NPR's reporting is not isolated but is part of a broader conversation about media bias in the United States. Americans are increasingly polarized in their perceptions of media bias, with many believing most news outlets have a political bias. This has rapidly eroded trust in mainstream media and spurred an increasing reliance on alternative news sources.
Online discussions also suggest Americans believe mainstream media actively supports the current administration and various Democrat political figures. Many of these discussions accuse the media and Democrats of lying and coordinating to push messaging for Democrat politicians.
Many accuse NPR and other outlets of being a propaganda arm for the Democratic Party, saying their views are dismissed and unrepresented. Some also direct personal attacks at various media figures like Katherine Maher, Rachel Maddow, and Don Lemon.
There is also discussion about a 2014 Pew Research Center study which found that NPR's audience skews liberal, with 67% identifying as left-leaning while only 21% identifying as right-leaning. Many commentors say even these percentages fail to capture the true composition of NPR’s left leaning audience.
Overall, many Americans view the resignation of Uri Berliner as indicative of a larger trend of liberal bias in media organizations.
On April 16, 1,300 illegal immigrants lined up outside City Hall in New York City expecting green cards to be handed out. The event occurred due to confusion, as the migrants are ineligible for green cards (an immigration benefit). Millions of illegal immigrants from dozens of ethnicities and backgrounds have entered the U.S. since 2021. This makes it difficult for unregulated NGOs with limited capabilities to convey messaging to everyone. With the ongoing border crisis, it’s likely events like these may continue and potentially worsen.
MIG Reports analysis reveals a divided but shifting political. Opinions also differ within racial and economic groups. Generally, voters’ views align with the broader national debate on immigration—a topic that has become increasingly polarized during the Biden administration.
Democrats, who generally support more inclusive immigration policies, seem to be less critical of the migrants seeking green cards. However, some expressed concerns about the practicality of completely open borders, yet also question what it would mean to “close” the border. They note many people cross for legal reasons. Despite this, the overall sentiment among Democrats is one of understanding and empathy for the migrants' plight.
Republicans use stronger language, referring to the situation as an “invasion” and calling for militarization of the border. They express frustration at the Biden administration's immigration policies and accuse them of incompetence and malfeasance. They also convey outrage about the perceived misuse of taxpayer money, arguing it should be used to address the southern border instead of funding foreign nations.
On April 16, following the migrants in NYC seeking free immigration benefits, Immigration discussions online surpassed Border Security discussion volume. This is anomalous as Border Security typically generates more mentions.
Further analysis reveals a shift in Latino voting patterns towards alignment with white, non-Hispanic blue-collar workers, a group traditionally associated with Republican voting. This could suggest a change in sentiment among legal immigrants towards tougher immigration policies.
Economic class also plays a role in shaping sentiments. Those expressing frustration at the misuse of taxpayer money often belong to the middle class. They express feeling the burden of taxes and the impact of national debt. In addition, many calling for increased border security are among the growing lower economic classes, possibly perceiving immigrants as a threat to their jobs or resources.
The general sentiment towards immigration during the Biden administration has been mixed, with political, racial, and economic factors playing a significant role in shaping public opinion. Recent events underscore the complexity of the immigration debate, growing economic concerns, and the current state of distrust and anger within the American public.
Following A15 pro-Palestine protests which shut down bridges, airport traffic, and caused chaos in the streets, Americans are discussing disparate law enforcement responses. In places like California and New York, many people feel the police did little to uphold the rule of law. These optics are a sharp contrast to how police dealt with protesters in Florida where arrests were made, and protests quickly dispersed.
Much of the conversation is divided along partisan lines with more liberal and Democratic voters advocating for the protesters’ rights. Those on the right or moderates who value rule of law tend to voice support for the decisive response from law enforcement in red states like Florida.
Sentiment toward protests on April 15 dropped in Florida to 31% from 43% the day before.
In California, protest sentiment increased from 38% prior to April 15, to 40%, suggesting more support for the A15 protests.
Palestine sentiment also decreased in Florida on April 15 and increased in California.
Backlash for Senator Cotton’s Tweet
A tweet from Arkansas Senator Tom Cotton has also sparked discussion about the prudence of civilian action to deal with protesters. Some people called his tweet a tongue-in-cheek call to vigilante action against protesters. Many others, however, took umbrage with the tweet.
I encourage people who get stuck behind the pro-Hamas mobs blocking traffic: take matters into your own hands to get them out of the way.
Much of the negative response and disapproval toward Cotton's message came from liberals and progressives who claimed he was calling for violence. Some even went as far as calling for his resignation or even imprisonment.
This group accused him of inciting violence and promoting vigilantism against peaceful protesters. Some use strong language to describe their disgust, calling him a "disgrace" and stating he belongs in prison.
There also seems to be a portion of right leaning voters who agree that blocking roads is inappropriate and potentially illegal, but they disagree with the notion of citizens taking drastic actions. This group cites examples like Kyle Rittenhouse and Daniel Penny who both “took matters into their own hands,” and faced severe legal consequences.
Many asked whether Cotton would be prepared to legally defend citizens who intervened, if progressive activists or politicized prosecutors came after them legally.
Other conservative and right leaning voters voiced agreement with Cotton. They said the right to protest does not grant the right to inconvenience others or block public thoroughfares. They argue protesters who do so should face severe consequences, including jail sentences.
Law Enforcement Response in Florida
There's a mix of reactions to pro-Palestinian protests in Florida disrupting traffic. Many express frustrations at the inconvenience, while others focus more on the rationale behind anti-Israel and anti-America demonstrations.
Many Floridians commend police actions and the law-and-order stance under Ron DeSantis's leadership, particularly in dealing with Pro-Hamas protesters. This group often contrasts the response of Florida law enforcement with that of police in New York, California, and other large cities in blue states.
Progressives tend to decry any arrest of pro-Palestine protesters. Some even compare DeSantis to Adolf Hitler, saying his leadership in Florida is authoritarian and racist. However, many of the voices criticizing Florida’s governance also seem to declare their unwillingness to live in or even travel to Florida.
Perceived Inaction by Police in New York and California
Many people online criticize law enforcement in San Francisco and New York City for being passive. They believe police stood by during disruptive protests and did nothing when demonstrators blocked roads and bridges. There is a sense of frustration over disruptions to travel and commerce, accusing the police of failing to maintain order.
There is also frequent criticism for protesters for causing inconvenience and potentially endangering public safety by roads. Many are particularly critical of pro-Palestinian, anti-Israel protests, accusing them of causing unnecessary disruption, insulting America, and burning American flags.
Some protest supporters and activists who were reacting to the Middle East conflict which now involves Iran, drew attention to police brutality, arguing police officers even in blue cities are too rough with peaceful protesters. This group criticizes those who they believe are more concerned with the disruption caused by protests than with the issue of police brutality itself.
Increasingly disruptive pro-Palestine protests are causing anger and frustration for most Americans. In San Francisco, anti-Israel protestors blocked the Golden Gate Bridge, causing an hours-long traffic disruption. At the same time, similar protests at the Seattle and Chicago airports severely inconvenienced travelers, preventing them from reaching departure terminals.
The protests have been met with severe negative reactions from many criticizing the danger and disruptions to uninvolved civilians and commerce. Online discussions revealed frustration and outrage from those who said protesters were potentially endangering children, emergency responders, or others urgently traveling.
Following Iran’s attack on Israel, support has dropped across the board for countries involved.
Palestine sentiment fell to a low of 37% in the last week, generating negativity with the protests.
Fewer people have been talking about Iran, but a spike in discussion coincided with a sentiment drop to 42%.
Pro-Palestine Messaging
Many of the protesters' messages were directed towards President Biden and other political leaders who show support for Israel. Protesters accuse American politicians of being too easily swayed by overseas interests – succumbing to Israel’s plight. Anti-Israel protesters accuse politicians of being puppets for a foreign power, while others expressed frustration at what they saw as a lack of independent thinking.
There have also been widespread protests involving burning American flags and chanting, “Death to America.” These protesters tend to be pro-Palestine activists of Middle Eastern descent, progressive Americans, and young people.
This group vehemently criticizes the Biden administration and Israel. They represent an increasingly divergent wing of the Democratic Party which is opposing historical Democrat support for Israel.
Disapproval Across the Board
Disapproval over the Biden administration’s handling of the ongoing conflict seems rampant on both sides of the political aisle.
Many American voters are concerned about the escalating tensions between Iran, Israel, and other global powers. There are fears about the potential for a direct military confrontation between these nations, which could lead to a large-scale conflict or even World War III.
As mentioned, far left activists and progressives who support Palestine are intensely critical of Joe Biden for supporting Israel. More conservative voters and some moderate Democrats are unhappy with increasingly dangerous and incendiary pro-Palestine protests that threaten the rule of law.
Many everyday voters are reacting with hostility towards pro-Palestine protesters, particularly those chanting "Death to America." There are calls for these protesters to be deported, and they are seen as un-American.
Some also argue protestors who disrupt traffic or other public services should face criminal charges. They highlight the differences between law enforcement responses in places like New York and California, compared to Florida.
Right leaning voters frequently call recent protests acts of domestic terrorism, expressing a desire for anti-American demonstrators to leave the country.
Potential Consequences for Joe Biden
The Biden administration's response to these protests and the overarching conflict will likely influence voter perceptions in the 2024 presidential election. Many progressive Democrats are unhappy with Biden and have voted “Uncommitted” in Democratic primary races. Moderates and Independents may also feel uninspired to vote for Biden if protests continue to inconvenience travel or threaten public safety.
Progressive and leftist voters may also object to voting for Biden due to his perceived failure to protect human rights. This group argues America's continued support for Israel, despite alleged human rights violations, contradicts the administration's stated commitment to human rights.
The protests themselves may influence public opinion on the broader issue of civil liberties and the right to protest. Many voters have not forgotten the violence and vandalism of 2016 and 2020 protests, seeking to prevent similar situations.
Law enforcement responses may also influence voters who value the rule of law. If people perceive the Biden administration as failing to enforce the law or protect public safety, it could have severe negative consequences for his reelection.
Finally, the protests could also impact Biden's relations with key international partners, including Israel and Arab countries. His administration's response to these protests and the broader Israel-Palestine conflict could influence these relationships, potentially affecting his foreign policy credentials and public perception.
Overall, pro-Palestine protests likely present a significant challenge for Biden, with potential implications for his 2024 Presidential campaign. How he navigates this issue could impact his public image, his standing within the Democratic Party, his appeal to certain voter demographics, and his foreign policy credentials.
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)