Boeing’s PR disaster in recent months over recurring safety complications is not letting up. American voters are feeling overwhelmingly negative about the jet company – expressing fear and criticism. There is a strong sense of frustration and disappointment with the company's handling of the safety issues. One particular issue people bring up is the incident involving the door panel of a Boeing 737 Max plane blowing out mid-flight.

• Boeing sentiment has been hovering in the mid 40% range while online discussion continues to grow more negative.

Safety Concerns for American Travelers

There is a clear concern about how safe Boeing planes are for passengers, particularly the 737 Max. People recurringly mention a near-collision incident involving a Boeing 737 Max and a Boeing 777, which, among other events, is fueling safety concerns. Some Americans question the safety of Boeing aircraft and often express nervousness about traveling in them.

Following the death of Boeing whistleblower John Barnett, more people are discussing their view of a decline in Boeing's quality and the impact of rushing projects. People are relating the problems to poor management and the company's focus on profits over audits and worker wellbeing, and a growing sense of incompetence in modern society.

The disapproval of safety standards at Boeing are not generally partisan, however right leaning Americans are more likely to bring up DEI, criticizing its woke impact on Boeing's operations. They suggest that DEI is partially responsible for the company's difficulties and call for its removal.

Reactions to Boeing CEO’s Resignation

The public seems to believe Boeing's priorities are more focused on production than on safety and quality. Some even go so far as to suggest that all Boeing aircraft should be melted down and started over.

Boeing CEO Dave Calhoun’s resignation is seen by many as a positive step. But there is also skepticism about whether this will lead to any real changes in the company's approach to safety.

American appear to have a generally negative view of Dave Calhoun and his leadership at the company. They also criticize the executive and management levels of leadership broadly.

There is some public relief at the news of Calhoun's resignation, and some suggest the entire company needs a complete overhaul or "start over." Public views on the company’s brand value indicates widespread dissatisfaction with Boeing's current image.

While some see Calhoun’s resignation as an appropriate response to the company's troubles, others question the timing and express cynicism about the executives' motives.

There is also criticism of large exit packages for departing executives, especially in the light of perceived gross negligence in handling safety issues. Some express concerns about the future of Boeing as a leader in the industry given the ongoing crises.

General Criticism of the Company

There are calls for more accountability and transparency from Boeing, with some suggesting that more information should be released about safety incidents and negligence allegations. Some even raise questions about potential criminal charges or ethical investigations related to safety issues and suspicion around John Barnett’s death.

Overall, public sentiment indicates a lack of trust or confidence in Boeing and its leadership, as well as increasing fear of boarding a Boeing jet. The way the company handles this crisis and its commitment to safety and quality moving forward will likely influence public perception and trust in the company.

Former president Trump’s appearance at Officer Jonathan Diller’s wake, an NYC police officer killed in the line of duty, telegraphed support for normal Americans. At the same time, Biden’s New York fundraiser packed with media and political elites communicated the sense of disdain many middle-class Americans feel from the ruling class.

While Trump's attendance at the wake was generally seen as a positive gesture, the same cannot be said for Biden's fundraiser. Many American voters argue Biden should be more focused on running the country, rather than raising money for his campaign.

Overall public sentiment leans more positively towards Trump's attendance at Jonathan Diller’s wake than towards Biden's fundraiser. However, these sentiments are somewhat influenced by existing political biases among partisans.

Most Americans see Trump's actions as personal and direct, appealing to individuals on an emotional level. But they view Biden's exclusive fundraiser as prioritizing the wealthy and influential.

• Swing state voter sentiment toward Trump spiked to 57% regarding police and crime with the announcement of his appearance at Jonathan Diller’s wake.
• Biden’s sentiment in swing states on the topic of fundraising dipped slightly to 48% on the day of the event.

Comparing Average American Views of Trump vs Biden

The political and wealthy classes seem to generally divide along political lines in their views of Trump’s recent actions compared to Biden’s. However, for working-class citizens and middle America, the lines do not seem as partisan.

Most average Americans view Biden as ensconced in the ruling class and he could possibly be losing cachet even among blue-collar Democrats. MIG Reports analysis of online conversations reveals a contrast in how everyday Americans view Trump compared to Biden.

How Americans Responded to Trump

Many voters express admiration for Trump's public appearance in support of law enforcement and Jonathan Diller’s family. They perceive this as a gesture of his commitment to “Back the Blue” and mingle with the people. This resonates both with his voter base and working-class voters of all political affiliations.

Trump's attendance at the wake is seen by most people as a gesture of respect and solidarity with police officers. Many highlighted the absence of similar gestures from the Biden administration, inferring Trump's actions will further endear him to normal Americans.

His generous donation to pay off the mortgage of NYPD Officer Diller's widow has also been lauded as an act of kindness and compassion. This emphasizes the contrast of Biden fundraising for himself from the wealthy on the same night.

However, critics have expressed skepticism, arguing that Trump's actions are politically motivated and aimed at gaining public sympathy. Some skeptics suggest the appearance was a cynical distraction from his ongoing legal battles.

There are also related discussions about how leftist critics and the media discuss Trump and his recent good week. Many voters express a view that Trump will always receive criticism from entertainment and news, even with a positive gesture like supporting a slain police office.

Middle-Class Criticism of Biden

Biden's fundraising event has generated severe negativity among many American voters, much like his recent border visit contrasted with Trump's. This majority accuses him of prioritizing fundraising and power over addressing national issues.

Many express concerns about the use of taxpayer money, suggesting Biden should be focusing on more pressing issues like border security and the economy. A lot of people question the timing of the fundraiser, suggesting it distracts from Biden’s image issues as the mainstream media praises a “glitzy” and “star-studded” event.

The fawning media coverage has also caused many middle-class and blue-collar voters to criticize perceived elitism at a dinner design to flaunt wealth and power. This group argues Biden is alienating average Americans in favor of costal elites.

Staunch supporters and leftists, however, praised Biden's commitment to raising funds for his party. They view preventing Trump from a 2024 win as imperative and advocate for Biden’s social justice and woke agenda.

This group views the fundraiser as a critical step towards maintaining a Democratic majority in Congress. They commend his commitment to addressing issues like climate change, healthcare, and economic recovery.

Online discussion analysis by MIG Reports finds widespread frustration and blame towards Democrats and specific politicians, such as Speaker Johnson, for the opioid crisis and fentanyl deaths. It appears much of the spirited discussion is among those who align with right-leaning ideologies.

Many voters link illegal immigration to crime, including violent crimes and especially drug-related offenses. There is a prevalent belief among this group that cartels and illegal immigrants pose a significant threat to American safety and security.

Overall, Americans link the opioid crisis to border control policies. Some suggest Republicans are responsible for not funding border control adequately, thereby enabling the smuggling of fentanyl and other opioids into the country. There's also criticism of the Democrats for the perception that they’re allowing and even encouraging illegal criminals and opioids to enter the country.

• Border security continues to be one of the top issues for most Americans, regardless of political leanings.
• Sentiment mostly remains below 50% with severe negativity directed towards the Biden administration
• Opioid discussion is lower than general border topics but is consistently linked to border security.

Most Blame Falls on Politicians and the Cartels

Most voters tend to blame politicians on the other side of the aisle – Democrats accusing Republicans and vice versa. Both political parties receive criticism for not taking enough action to curb the crisis, although the Biden administration gets most of the current criticism.

There's also significant blame placed on the cartels and illegal immigrants themselves. Many voters focus on the role of Mexico and China in contributing to the opioid crisis. They believe the Mexican government, especially President Andrés Manuel López Obrador, isn't doing enough to combat drug cartels that smuggle fentanyl into the U.S. China is also accused of being a source of fentanyl that gets moved across the U.S. border.

Multiple users link the opioid epidemic to human trafficking, implying the same cartels responsible for drug trafficking are likely involved in human trafficking. There are also allegations that NGOs at the southern border are facilitating illegal immigration, indirectly aiding drug trafficking.

Overall, most concerned voters argue the Biden administration's border policies enable drug cartels to have free reign.

Conservatives Are Highly Critical of the Border and Opioids

Right leaning voters often blame the Obama’s open borders policy and the perceived continuation of this policy under Biden. They attribute the opioid crisis and especially fentanyl deaths to uncontrolled cartel access. Many among this group believe if Donald Trump doesn't win in 2024, this will perpetuate and worsen the situation.

Conservatives and some moderates express anger over what they view as wasteful government spending, particularly on policies supporting immigrants. They blame the Democrats for prioritizing funding towards illegal immigrants over addressing the opioid crisis.

This group also blames open borders for many drug-related and, in their view, preventable deaths. They hold Democrats responsible for pushing open borders, and they demand stronger border control measures.

Certain voters blame Republican politicians like Speaker Johnson and Republicans in Congress for not taking decisive action against on the border and failing to support more immigration legislation and crackdowns. This, they believe, contributes to the influx of drugs into the country. There also appears to be a sentiment that the issue is being used as a “talking point” for political gain.

Liberal Voters Call for Funding and Healthcare Solutions

Some vocal liberals challenge the prevailing narrative that stricter border control is the primary solution to the opioid crisis. They argue most fentanyl enters the country through legal ports of entry and is brought in by American citizens. Some also criticize Republicans for blocking funding that could increase border staff and improve drug detection technology.

There is a sentiment that the healthcare system and doctors are contributing to the opioid crisis by refusing to prescribe opioids. There are criticisms of the healthcare system blaming it for penalizing doctors for prescribing painkillers and making opioids difficult to access for those in genuine need.

Some support new laws to curb the opioid crisis, and sometimes legalization of drugs, indicating a belief in legislative solutions to public health problems. There is also a call for bipartisan cooperation to address the crisis, framing it as a moral issue rather than a political one.

Online commentary concerning opioids is a large, varied topic which produces a lower sentiment than conversations pertaining to drug enforcement. 

Some of the common discussion include:

Fentanyl

There's a widespread concern about the proliferation of fentanyl in the illegal drug supply — a highly potent synthetic opioid. Many Americans express fear and confusion about reasons for its presence, given the drug's high lethality. They see fentanyl as counterproductive for drug dealers or the cartels. Some people believe the introduction of fentanyl is a deliberate act to harm or kill users, and there are theories that it is part of a broader conspiracy. Many also acknowledge the extreme danger posed by fentanyl, with some likening its use to playing Russian roulette. Others connect the presence of fentanyl in drugs to the need for changes in border policy.

Opioid Crisis

The opioid crisis is a significant point of discussion, with criticism aimed at politicians and pharmaceutical companies for their roles in the epidemic. Many feel these entities are profiting from the crisis and doing nothing to stop it. There's also a sense of frustration and anger over the perceived lack of action and accountability in addressing the issue, along with related border and crime issues.

Personal Responsibility

Some users emphasize the importance of personal responsibility in drug use, arguing that individuals must make the choice not to consume drugs. However, this viewpoint is not universally shared. Some point to external factors like the availability and potency of drugs and the difficulty of getting clean.

Drug Legislation

There's skepticism about the effectiveness of drug legislation in curbing the drug problem, with some viewing proposed initiatives like the END FENTANYL ACT with cynicism. There's a sense that previous legislation has only made the situation worse, and there's little faith that future legislation will be any different.

Drug Prohibition

Some users see drug prohibition as a significant factor in drug-related deaths, arguing that it forces people to use unregulated drugs and contributes to the prevalence of dangerous substances like fentanyl. There are calls for drugs to be regulated and sold in the same way as alcohol.

The Effect on Families and Communities

The impact of drug use and addiction on families and communities is a recurring theme. Users share personal stories of loss and devastation caused by drug addiction, particularly from fentanyl poisoning. There's also a sense that certain communities, like those with high opioid use, are stigmatized and overlooked.

Former president Trump’s merger deal to make the social media platform Truth Social public through a SPAC, combined with his reduced bail have his supporters celebrating. Stocks for the merged entity debuted with a stock price near $50, giving it a market value of approximately $6.8 billion, and trades under the ticker symbol "DJT."

As expected, reactions are divided along political lines with right-leaning Trump supporters praising Trump and criticizing New York AG Letitia James. Left leaning and “never Trump” Republican voters are less enthusiastic about these developments. Depending on a person’s political leanings, it seems the events confirm preconceived notions about whether Trump is receiving preferential treatment or political targeting.

MAGA Voters Love to See Trump Win

Conservative and moderate voters who view Trump as a target of a politicized justice system are celebrating the merger of Truth Social and DWAC as a triumph. They view it as a lifeline for his apparently dubious financial situation. Conservatives tend to view Truth Social as a beacon of free speech and a platform that offered Trump a space when no other platform would. The approval of the merger is seen as a potential $3 billion net worth increase for Trump, which conservatives perceive as a major victory and a source of vindication.

Right leaning discourse also lauds the reduction of Trump's bail amount, which was cut from $464 million to $175 million. They view this as another win for Trump, anticipating that the event will lead to an outpouring of "liberal tears."

Many Americans who are not vehemently opposed to Trump view his many legal woes as evidence of a political vendetta. They argue Trump's properties were assessed and taxed by the city and any discrepancy in their valuation for tax and loan purposes is not fraudulent. They also point out that the lenders were repaid and none of them lodged complaints against Trump. This group believes the legal challenges Trump is facing are attempts to financially drain him. Trump's recent bail reduction is seen as a justified action in the face of outrageous and ridiculous rulings.

• In recent days, with news of his bail reduction, Trump’s approval regarding legal cases jumped to 48%.
• Average sentiment in the last two weeks has hovered in the mid 40% range.

Liberals Claim Trump is Getting Preferential Treatment

More left-leaning voters are expressing frustration and disappointment with the approval of Truth Social's merger and the reduction of Trump's bail amount. They view the merger as a dangerous development that could give Trump control over a major stock, potentially allowing him to manipulate the narrative and spread disinformation. They also perceive the reduction of his bail as a sign of preferential treatment and continue to express hopes for his assets to be seized due to his ongoing legal battles.

This group paints Trump as a wealthy individual exploiting the system at the expense of the average worker, who ends up paying higher taxes and loan interests as a result. The recent move by Letitia James on Trump's Seven Springs property to start satisfying the $464 million judgment against him is seen as a step towards making him pay his fair share.

Liberals tend to voice concerns about Trump's financial track record, pointing to the ongoing investigations led by Letitia James. They argue that Trump has manipulated property values to reduce his tax liability and hope he will face severe penalties, including the potential seizure of his assets. Some even suggest that Trump Tower could be repurposed as a low-rent shelter for the homeless.

Voter Sentiment Toward AG Letitia James

Moderate and conservative voters who oppose the perception of a politicized judicial system express a belief that Letitia James and others are pursuing a political vendetta against Donald Trump. They see her attempts to investigate his financial dealings as politically motivated, rather than a legitimate effort to uphold the law.

There are claims that James' actions against Trump are an attempt to thwart his 2024 campaign and, therefore, amount to election interference. These voters sometimes compare the potential seizing of Trump's assets by James to actions taken in authoritarian regimes like Venezuela or Cuba. This implies a belief that such actions are an attack on private property and the rule of law.

Some voters are asking for a special counsel to investigate the alleged corruption and election interference by James and Judge Engoron.

Many Americans, regardless of political views, fear this Trump case could be harmful to business in New York and could potentially lead to a dangerous precedent.

Liberals and anti-Trumpers view James positively, applauding her for pursuing legal action against Trump and for her commitment to the principle that no one is above the law. They support her efforts to hold Trump accountable for alleged financial irregularities.

MIG Reports analysis of online discussions about increasing gas prices reveals people attribute this economic issue to political leadership. Under President Joe Biden people are noting the rise in fuel prices. Some attribute the increase in fuel prices to Biden's policies, while others defend Biden's administration, suggesting that other economic factors are at play.

Another theme that arises is the impact of rising fuel prices on other sectors, such as food and housing. Some users express concern that the rise in fuel prices is causing a concurrent increase in food prices and housing costs. Conversely, others argue that overall economic conditions have improved under Biden's administration, with lower interest rates and home prices than the previous year.

In terms of demographic patterns, there is a clear political divide. Those criticizing the rise in gas prices and its impact on the economy generally lean towards the right, while those defending Biden's administration lean left. Views on the issue do not appear to be deeply influenced by economic class, race, or geography, but rather by political affiliation.

It seems most people understand that fuel prices are rising, but there is disagreement over what is causing this increase. Some blame political policies, while others suggest that broader economic factors are responsible. With petroleum reserves likely unable to reduce prices as previously utilized by Biden administration, consumer worries about future prices will likely persist. 

Top Discussion Trends of Increasing Fuel Prices

Economic Impact

Many people express concern about the impact of rising gas prices on the cost of living, particularly food and housing. There is a general understanding that higher fuel prices contribute to increased costs for essential goods, which can put a strain on individuals and families, especially those in the middle and lower economic classes.

Climate Change

Some people connect rising fuel prices to climate change, suggesting global warming could exacerbate economic inflation. There is a growing view that environmental factors can influence the economy, although this understanding may be more prevalent among left-leaning voters with a higher level of education or interest in environmental issues.

Political Influence

There is also a belief that political decisions can influence gas prices. Some people accuse politicians of either causing or failing to prevent rising costs. This perception appears to be more common among those who identify with a particular political party or ideology, suggesting a possible political divide in understanding and responses to fuel price changes.

Geographic Differences

The conversation around fuel prices also varies geographically. For example, in Japan, the narrative focuses on changes in the Consumer Price Index and the impact of energy prices on inflation. In contrast, in the United States, the discussion often revolves around political and economic issues.

Misunderstanding and Misinformation

There is also some misunderstanding and misinformation about the causes and effects of rising fuel prices. Some people incorrectly believe that the government directly sets food and fuel prices, while others seem to underestimate the complex factors that contribute to economic inflation.

After a controversial encounter a female Planet Fitness member had with a trans person shaving his beard in the women’s bathroom, Planet Fitness is facing Budweiser-style public backlash. Allegations also include a biological man allegedly exposing himself to a 15-year-old in the women's locker room at Planet Fitness.

Many Americans are deeply upset with Planet Fitness's stance on trans issues. They feel the company is not respecting the rights of women but is supporting woke gender ideology. There are frequent calls for boycotts and strong language used against Planet Fitness, accusing the company of supporting potentially dangerous trans activists at the expense of women.

• Sentiment towards transgender rights has decreased slightly in the last two weeks, while discussion volume is up in the last week.

Online Discussion About Woke Policies at Planet Fitness

Public discussion about Planet Fitness is decisively negative, with many people declaring they intend to or have already canceled their memberships. Many are also praising the economic consequences of a growing Planet Fitness boycott, causing the company to lose stock value.

There is also a recurring theme of freedom of speech throughout the discussion. Some voters believe that by supporting transgender rights, Planet Fitness is suppressing the freedom of speech of women who disagree with their stance. They argue that everyone has the right to voice their opinions, even if they are seen as offensive or controversial by others.

There are also growing social media movements that display how dissatisfied people are with Planet Fitness' policies on transgender people using their facilities. There are people posting with the hashtags #BoycottPlanetFitness and #Misogyny, indicating a negative sentiment towards the company due to their perceived negligence of women's safety.

The discussion is heavily influenced by political ideologies, with many linking their views on Planet Fitness to their broader political beliefs. There is a clear divide between conservative and liberal viewpoints, with each side accusing the other of trying to impose their beliefs on the rest of society.

While the discussion is predominantly negative, there are also voices in support of Planet Fitness's stance on trans issues. These people argue that supporting trans rights is a matter of basic human rights and equality, and they applaud Planet Fitness for taking a stand.

How Different Voter Groups View Trans Rights

Conservative Voters

In general, conservatives tend to speak out against the inclusion of trans people in women's spaces like restrooms and locker rooms. This group often views this issue through the lens of biological sex rather than gender identity, arguing for the preservation of spaces designated for biological women.

Liberal Voters

More left-leaning voters are generally more supportive of trans rights, including the right to be included in spaces that align with their gender identity. They often argue for inclusivity and equality, seeing this issue as part of the broader fight for LGBT+ rights.

Moderates and Independents

There's no strong consensus among Independents, but they generally strive to find a middle ground. Some may support trans rights but also voice concerns about potential implications for cisgender women.

Discussions about Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) among Democrat voters in the last few days seem to be increasingly polarizing. After her recent comments calling for the U.S. to cease supporting Israel and to stop the “genocide” being perpetrated on Gaza, many voters are unhappy. AOC is one among several Democrat politicians to draw criticism from voters over the Israel-Palestine conflict — an issue that MIG Reports data suggests will be important for the Democratic Party in this year's election.

Younger and more progressive Democrats tend to align more closely with AOC than more moderate voters. However, even pro-Palestine Democrats sometimes voice disapproval that AOC’s language is not strong enough in condemning Israel.

More traditional and moderate Democrat voters, however, have significant grievances with Ocasio-Cortez's rhetoric, emphasizing the growing divide within the Party.

• In the last seven days, overall support for AOC has averaged 43% with a low of 42%.
• Her approval on the topic of Palestine plummeted to 37% and support regarding Israel reached a low of 38%.

Top Issues Decreasing AOC’s Support

There are conflicting opinions among Democrats which seem to be decreasing support for Ocasio-Cortez. According to MIG Reports data, the most recurring criticisms include:

Her Use of “Genocide”

AOC's use of the term "genocide" to describe Israel's actions has drawn significant criticism. Critics argue the term is inappropriate and exaggerates the situation, which could potentially inflame tensions. This group often accuses her of exaggerating the situation in Gaza by calling it a genocide. They say that while the situation is horrific, it does not meet the definition of genocide.

Failing to Condemn Hamas

Some voters are taking issue with what they perceive as AOC's failure to sufficiently condemn Hamas and other terrorist organizations. They argue her focus on Israel's actions overlooks atrocities committed by Hamas. These critics also criticize AOC for not calling for the release of Israeli hostages held by Hamas.

Ignoring Israel's Right to Self-Defense

Critics argue AOC downplays or dismisses Israel's right to self-defense against attacks. They suggest she should make clearer distinctions between the Israeli government's actions and the rights of Israeli citizens.

Accusation of Spreading Misinformation

There are also frequent assertions that AOC engages in spreading misinformation about the situation in Gaza – particularly regarding the amount of aid going into Gaza and the cause of famine in the region. They argue that more aid is going into Gaza now than before the conflict and any so-called famine is caused by Hamas hijacking aid for its own use.

They argue that Israel is not starving Gazans, citing evidence that food enters Gaza daily and suggesting that the situation could be improved if Egypt opened its crossings. They also argue that AOC should call for the surrender of Hamas to end the war.

Perception of anti-Israel bias

AOC also receives frequent accusations of having an anti-Israel bias in her comments and actions, which has alienated more moderate Democrat voters who support Israel.

More General Criticisms of Rep Ocasio-Cortez

There is recurring commentary on AOC’s understanding of complex issues. Some Democrats question her understanding of historical and geopolitical issues like the Israel-Palestine conflict and its underlying causes. They argue that she simplifies the issues and does not have a deep understanding of history, law, or international politics.

Similarly, some critics, often referring to her in derogatory terms, question AOC's general intelligence. They argue she is unqualified for her position and incapable of understanding complicated issues, which could decrease her credibility and support among voters.

Many moderate Democrats are also wary of AOC's political leanings, branding her as a socialist or even a communist. This is seen by some as too radical and a departure from the traditional principles of the party.

Recent online discussion about the terrorist attack in Moscow reveals a great deal of empathy and outrage among Americans. The attack is viewed as a heinous act of violence that has resulted in the loss of innocent lives.

American sentiment towards the attack emphasizes strong condemnation of terrorism, with many expressing their condolences to the victims and their families. There is a clear sense of unity against the act of terrorism, with many calling for an end to such acts of violence.

Prior to resigning, former Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Victoria Nuland promised this type of warfare as well as the assertion that the U.S. does not have a “Plan B” to resolve the Russia-Ukraine conflict. Online discussion shows a consensus of disapproval among Americans. The idea of terrorist attacks on civilians is not something that many Americans can condone or accept. While it's clear that there is a need to combat terrorism, the method of resorting to attacks on civilians is generally frowned upon.

Americans are unified in their condemnation of the terrorist attack in Moscow, and there is a strong sentiment towards ending terrorism. The idea of this type of warfare is not well received, and there is a general expectation that efforts should be made to prevent such attacks in the future.

The terrorist attack in Moscow is likely to continue fueling the current state of the Russia-Ukraine war as tense and filled with uncertainty. It has only escalated tensions, and the introduction of French troops to Ukraine also adds another layer of complexity to the situation. There's a pervasive worry about escalation and the potential for the conflict to spiral into a wider war.

While there's no clear consensus among Americans about the war itself, sentiment seems to be trending towards concern and disapproval. The war's ongoing nature, coupled with the recent terrorist attack and the involvement of more countries, could be leading to a decrease in support for the war among American voters.

Politically, it's likely the conflict could influence public opinion toward both President Biden and former President Trump, though it's unclear in what direction. If the situation continues to deteriorate, and the U.S. becomes more involved, it could continue to decrease support for whichever administration is perceived as mishandling the situation – especially with press pressing issues like the border for voters at home.

In conclusion, the current state of both the Russia-Ukraine war is causing a great deal of concern and division among Americans. The impact of this conflict on public sentiment towards political figures like Biden and Trump is still uncertain, but it's likely that their handling of these situations will play a significant role in shaping public opinion.