Online discussion of how people think and feel about COVID is varied and complex. It appears the majority of people believe the COVID pandemic is ongoing, according to the high number of tweets referencing current issues such as vaccines, potential risks, and ongoing political debates. Additional polling indicates that overall, people believe the COVID pandemic is over. There are also a small number of people who express skepticism about the reality of the pandemic, suggesting that it is a "fake pandemic" or "charade."

In terms of political affiliation, there are significant differences among Republicans, Democrats, and Independents. Some Republicans credit former President Trump with managing the pandemic effectively, while others criticize his handling of the crisis.

Among Democrats, there is strong criticism of Trump's handling of the pandemic, with some blaming him directly for their perception of a high number of COVID deaths in the United States according to the media. Independent views are not explicitly stated, but they seem to be divided, much like the other groups.

There is a strong focus on the COVID vaccine in online discussions, with some people praising its life-saving properties while others express concern about potential risks and side effects. Some voters mention vaccine mandates and their impact on employment and sports participation, indicating a significant concern over personal freedom and health.

Gallup data published March 2024, indicates similar data, indicating a trend that Republicans and Independents no longer consider COVID-19 to be a pandemic. While Democrats have been increasingly accepting, these levels appeared to have plateaued at around 40%. Also noteworthy is Gallup polling indicating that a return to normalcy is not a shared sentiment. The level of Americans who believe life has gotten back to normal has increased with distance from the pandemic. What has remained consistent are the levels of people who do not believe there will be a return to normalcy.

Recent news of a Haitian migrant being charged with raping a 15-year-old girl has American voters outraged. The offender, a parolee from Haiti, came to the U.S. through President Biden’s “Humanitarian Parole Program.” According to Fox News, the controversial program allows 30,000 migrants a month to fly directly into the country.

Many say this unforgivable immigration plan both contributes to Biden’s “open borders” problem and gives credence to Trump’s claims that Democrats are bringing criminals into this country through unchecked immigration.

Stories like this and the recent murder of Laken Riley have many American citizens outraged and demanding action. MIG Reports analysis reveals that sentiment toward Biden's Humanitarian Parole Program is largely negative. The main concerns appear to center around border control, safety, and the rule of law.

Voters Believe Biden Supports Open Borders

Many voters express frustration with what they see as a Biden administration open borders policy. People are calling for the southern border to be sealed and for mass deportations – something Trump has promised to do.

Overall, right leaning and moderate voters believe the parole program is a conduit for illegal immigration and are demanding stricter border control.

American Communities in Danger

Fear about safety is a prominent source of objection to continued illegal immigration. There's a common perception in discussions that the parole program is enabling criminal activities. Many point out that flying convicted prisoners into the U.S. will obviously lead to an influx of active criminals, increasing violence in American streets.

Demands to Uphold the Rule of Law

Many Americans also indicate a strong belief that those entering the country illegally are committing a federal crime and should be treated as criminals, not as newcomers. This, they say, is especially true for those who are already convicted criminals in their own countries. There's a sense of outrage over perceived protection and rights given to these illegal immigrants.

Impact on Citizens with Biden to Blame

There's a strong sentiment that Biden’s policies are negatively affecting American citizens' lives. Especially those who fall victim to violent crimes – often young people and children. Users voice concerns about the potential impact on jobs, taxpayer money, and social service. They also express concern about the potential cultural and demographic changes that could result from large-scale immigration.

Many are vocal about the border crisis being the fault of the Democrat Party and Biden's policy. They laud figures like Donald Trump and Governor Abbott for their stances on immigration.

Biden Policy Supporters

Some Democrats and more progressive voters support Biden’s border policies, including the parole program. Typically leaning to the left, this group frames their arguments in terms of human rights, compassion, and global responsibility.

They argue that the U.S. has a moral and ethical obligation to help those in need, particularly those fleeing violence or persecution in their home countries. They also argue that the U.S, as a wealthy and powerful nation, has the capacity to absorb and integrate new immigrants.

These supporters often criticize the anyone who objects to such policies, accusing them of fearmongering, racism, and xenophobia. They argue that these critics are overstating the potential risks of the policy and are motivated by prejudice or intolerance.

Overall, this topic of the border continues to be a divisive and increasingly negative subject for President Biden. While his progressive voters continue to support him, border security is shaping up to be one of the most important issues in the 2024 presidential election.

Kyle Rittenhouse, a divisive figure in American public discourse, gave a speech at the University of Memphis, which was met with significant protest. The event was charged with tension as students, evidently more politically active than in previous years, made their opposition to Rittenhouse's presence clear.

Rittenhouse, who was acquitted after shooting three people during protests in Kenosha, Wisconsin in 2020, was invited to speak by Turning Point USA. His speech was met by a wave of protests. These protests show a more active and vocal student body at the University of Memphis, compared to 2018 when conservative speaker Ben Shapiro visited without any significant opposition. This suggests a growing awareness or “wokeness” among the student body, reflecting a shift in political consciousness, or posturing, over the past five years.

The protest against Rittenhouse's speech was part of a larger thread of student activism on the day. Elsewhere, pro-Palestinian students at the University of Kentucky disrupted a speech by British Jewish conservative pundit, Ian Haworth. This was marked by anti-Israel chants and the pulling of the fire alarm. This indicates a broader trend of political activism on campuses, often directed against conservative speakers. It could also suggest a growing divide between the left and the right — and, increasingly, various factions within the left — with each side increasingly intolerant of the other's views.

Previously, high volumes of social commentary on protests have peaked during causes for Palestine, such as:

• 3-month anniversary of the Israel-Palestine War (Jan 7)
• March for Gaza (Jan 13)
• Worldwide protests of the Israeli-Palestine War (Jan 18)
• "Uncommitted Protests” in Democratic Primary (Feb 27)

Protests such as the one targeting Rittenhouse's speech could be seen as an exercise in free speech, a right both the left and right claim to champion. On the other hand, some might argue that these protests demonstrate an intolerance for opposing viewpoints, a criticism often leveled at the left by the right.

Rittenhouse's speech at the University of Memphis was a flashpoint in a broader narrative of increased political activism and polarization on American university campuses. The reaction to his speech is indicative of the heightened political consciousness among students, and of the tensions that can arise when controversial figures are invited to speak. Sentiments seem to be exacerbating a polarized political landscape, where both the left and right are increasingly unwilling to engage with opposing viewpoints.

Former Vice President Mike Pence recently made headlines with the announcement that he will not endorse Donald Trump for the 2024 presidential race. This statement came amid the backdrop of Trump securing sufficient delegates to clinch the Republican nomination for President, making him the presumptive Republican nominee.

Pence told Fox News, "It should come as no surprise that I will not be endorsing Donald Trump this year," sparking a flurry of positive media coverage for Pence. A recent opinion piece from the Hill proclaimed that Pence, “Saved the Country Once, and Might Do it Again.” However, reactions from Americans online captured and analyzed by MIG Reports reveals Pence’s actions will likely reverberate about as much as his bid for President did.

What They’re Saying

While Beltway pundits were busy praising Pence’s courage to not endorse his former running mate, online reactions reveal a starkly different reaction.

• Liberal users found Pence’s declaration insignificant, arguing, “He should have taken a stand against Trump earlier.”

Some, however, appear supportive of Pence’s decision, less interested in highlighting the morals of his decision and more interested in undermining Trump’s chances of beating Biden in November.

• There are also calls for other Republicans, like Nikki Haley, to follow Pence's example and refuse to endorse Trump.

While discourse on Pence’s decision was largely viewed as uninteresting or ignored by liberals, MIG Reports analysis of reactions showed significant ire among right-leaning voters.

• Conservatives dismissed his decision as irrelevant or even cowardly. There was considerable criticism towards Pence, with some labeling him as a RINO (Republican in Name Only), along with accusations of being a globalist and siding with the one-world government system.
• Hatred for Pence appears to have seriously magnified disdain since his initial run for President. Voters disliked his marked criticism of Trump during his short bid. Many mentioned they, “Feel that Pence is a traitor to the MAGA movement," with some even comparing him to Judas. They believe he has sold out the Republican Party and the American people, and they question his future in politics.

By the Numbers

Since Pence’s comments, MIG Reports finds a serious drop in his approval among those discussing him online.

• On March 15, Pence’s Fox News announcement caused his mentions to double their usual rate, and his approval rating fell shortly after.
• Following his announcement, Pence’s ratio of positive to negative comments in discussions displayed 187 positive points to 730 negative points.
• The bleeding continued the following day as he appeared on other outlets touting his decision, seeing a ratio of 178 positive points to 807 negative points on Saturday.
• Supporters of Pence’s decision, likely liberals based on MIG Reports data, lost interest in supporting Pence. Conservative anger persisted on Monday, seeing a ratio of just 99 positive points to 392 negative points that day.

As the dust settles on former Vice President Mike Pence's unequivocal decision not to endorse Donald Trump for the 2024 presidential race, beltway media failed to convey the implications of Pence’s decision across the country. Instead, media portrayed a narrative that Pence’s decision reflects a divide in the Republican Party.t seems Republicans outside of D.C. remain united in their support for President Trump.

Based on Trump’s uninterrupted cruise to the Republican Presidential nomination, securing support from his base should have been an easy conclusion to make. While many liberals were eager for other Republicans like Nikki Haley to join in Pence’s efforts, voter sentiment indicates anyone who attempts to undermine a Republican victory in November will struggle to find a future in the Republican Party.

Since the Michigan primary, a growing movement of those voting “Uncommitted” in Democrat primary races has gained momentum. The organic movement was created out of protest of the Biden administration’s handling the Israeli-Palestinian war. Party infighting between Joe Biden Democrats and Uncommitteds is complex and multifaceted. This analysis will focus on three main areas: reasons for Uncommitted voters, perceptions of Biden, and the influence of the Israel-Palestine conflict.

Reasons for Uncommitted Voters

Uncommitted voters in the Democrat Primary may be unwilling to support Biden for a variety of reasons. Some may not align with Biden's perceived moderate political views, preferring more progressive candidates. Others may be skeptical of his ability to enact meaningful change, given his long history in politics. Additionally, some voters may be wary of his age and health, questioning his ability to serve a full second term as president.

Perceptions of Biden

Public perception of Biden varies widely. Some view him as a steady hand with the experience and pragmatism needed to lead the country. Others see him as a career politician, disconnected from the needs of ordinary Americans. His handling of the Israel-Palestine conflict, in particular, has drawn criticism from both sides. More progressive voters believe he is too supportive of Israel, while more traditional Democrats argue he is not supportive enough.

Influence of the Israel-Palestine Conflict

The Israel-Palestine is one of the most significant issues on voter perceptions of Biden. Israel supporters argue Biden's approach to the conflict is too lenient on Hamas. Palestine supporters argue his pro-Israel approach supports genocide. This divide is reflected in the Democrat Party with younger or more progressive voters demanding support for Palestine and older or more moderate Democrats insisting the U.S. supports Israel.

Uncommitted Votes

• Hawaii and Minnesota have received the highest Uncommitted votes so far with 29% and 19%.
• Biden continues to receive critiques from the progressive wing of the Democrat Party, threatening his potential to have a strong showing against Trump in a general election.

On March 8, U.S. District Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman declared a federal statute barring undocumented immigrants possessing firearms to be unconstitutional. She contended that the law contravened the Supreme Court's decision in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, which emphasized the necessity for gun control measures to align with historical precedent. This court ruling allows illegal immigrants in America to take advantage of Second Amendment rights by purchasing firearms and ammunition. This policy has shocked many American citizens, generating concern and incredulity.

The legal dispute arose when Heriberto Carbajal-Flores, an illegal alien, faced charges for unlawful firearm possession. However, Judge Coleman contended that because Carbajal-Flores' criminal history lacks instances of weapon misuse or violence during his apprehension, he doesn't present a threat to public safety. Consequently, she argued that he should not be stripped of his Second Amendment entitlement to bear arms for self-defense.

MIG Reports analysis reveals a diverse range of opinions on the recent ruling, stirring emotional debate. The primary discussion revolves around the interpretation of the Second Amendment, the consequences of allowing non-citizens to own firearms, and the potential implications on gun violence.

Supporters of the ruling, who appear to be from various political affiliations, argue that the Constitution, including the Second Amendment, applies to everyone within the United States. They believe the right to bear arms should not be infringed, regardless of citizenship status.

Some even argue that gun violence has been on a downward trend and that expanding constitutional carry will lead to a further decrease.

• Gun control sentiment has increased slightly in the last several days, suggesting Americans are concerned about this issue.

Critics of the ruling, also from various political backgrounds, express concern that this decision could exacerbate gun violence. They worry about the potential inability of illegal aliens to undergo thorough background checks or mental health assessments. Many voters argue the Second Amendment was intended only for U.S. citizens. They say extending it to illegal aliens could have severe consequences. Some critics also see this ruling as a strategy to increase gun violence, which could then be used as a justification for stricter gun control measures.

Many are expressing frustration with what they perceive as lax border control policies and the implications for national security and public safety. These gun allowances for increasing numbers of illegal immigrants, many believe, threatens an increase in crime and danger for citizens.

Some concerns highlight the potential implications on the feasibility of thorough background and mental health checks. These concerns do not appear to be strictly partisan but are shared by voters across political affiliations.

Critics of the ruling point out that illegal immigrants have already violated immigration laws. They also worry about mental health patterns, citing studies that indicate 14% of undocumented immigrants meeting the criteria for depression, and 7% for anxiety. Substance abuse among illegal immigrants is at a similar level as among the citizen population.

Overall, the ruling has become another contentious issue in the ongoing national debate about gun violence and gun rights, and now possibly incorporating citizenship, public safety, and illegal immigration.

The public perception of Tyson Foods' hiring practices is becoming quite negative among many Americans. Discussions are particularly negative regarding news that Tyson Foods will shut down its Iowa pork factory, which broke alongside reports the company has hired 42,000 migrant workers and would like to hire that many more.

Some people are criticizing the company for prioritizing profits and open border policies over American employees. Many also accuse Tyson Foods of poor working conditions and unfair labor practices, including the alleged wrongful termination of workers.

Many Americans accuse Tyson Foods of being too liberal or woke, implying the company is overly concerned with diversity, equality, and inclusion (DEI) at the expense of other factors.

Some, however, support for Tyson Foods, acknowledging the company provides job opportunities in regions where employment opportunities may be scarce. These users argue that despite the criticisms, Tyson Foods plays a crucial role in the local economies where they operate – and especially for migrants looking for work.

Border and Jobs Sentiment Among Iowa Voters

In Iowa, voters seem dissatisfied with loss of American jobs while migrants seem to receive preferential treatment. Sentiment towards border security and jobs among Iowa voters has been particularly low in recent days.

• In the last 14 days, sentiment on jobs in Iowa sank to a low of 30% and reaching a high of 51%. Jobs sentiment averaged 40%.
• Sentiment about the border in Iowa sank as low as 29% in the last two weeks, with a high of 46%. Border sentiment averaged 38%.

• The border and the economy are among the top three issues Iowa voter are discussing, indicating their importance.

Some Iowans are criticizing Tyson Foods, alleging they will pay migrant workers less than minimum wage. They are calling for boycotts against Tyson Foods and advising others to buy local instead. Many voice concern about the impact on American workers and call for penalties for companies that hire illegal immigrants.

Others in Iowa question the legality and ethics of Tyson Foods’ practices, calling for stricter regulations and enforcement.

American Views of Corporate Hiring and Job Prospects

The discussion also touches on broader themes related to business ethics, freedom of speech, and the role of corporations in society. Many American workers express the belief that businesses should be held accountable for their actions and should not exploit their power or influence for profit.

More Americans seem disgruntled by news that more domestic jobs have been going to foreign-born workers than native citizens. Among other complaints about the economy, American voters express discontent at the Biden administration’s claims about increasing jobs. Many believe that employment numbers are skewed because of America’s open border.

Another point of contention involving Tyson Foods is the company's use of temporary or contract workers. Some argue this practice allows Tyson to avoid providing benefits and other protections to its employees. Others, however, feel it's a necessary business strategy in a highly competitive industry.

Another common theme, according to MIG Reports data, is the company's alleged lack of transparency. There is a sense of frustration with what workers perceive as Tyson's unwillingness to openly discuss its hiring and firing practices.

The hashtag #BidensBorderBloodbath has emerged as a focal point in the ongoing debate about the U.S.-Mexico border under President Joe Biden's administration. This online discourse reflects a broader national conversation on immigration and border security, and it doesn't look great for Biden.

Support for Biden on Immigration Issues, in particular, has dropped to a weekly low of 46%.

Republicans seized upon the hashtag to castigate President Biden's handling of the border crisis, attributing it to what they perceive as lax immigration policies and contrasting the media's narrative on Trump's "bloodbath" comments. They argue that the reversal of former President Trump's stringent measures has led to a surge in illegal crossings and subsequent violence, dubbing the situation a "bloodbath." Many Republicans assert that the Biden administration's actions have directly endangered American citizens and advocate for stricter border control measures to address the crisis.

The trend forced Democrats to address accusations of mishandling the border crisis, prompting them to clarify their stance on immigration and asylum policies. In large part, they defended President Biden's approach to immigration, emphasizing the humanitarian imperative behind it. They contend that migrants are fleeing dire circumstances in their home countries and seeking asylum in the U.S. as a refuge from violence and poverty.

Democrats criticize the use of #BidensBorderBloodbath as fearmongering tactics, arguing that it oversimplifies complex issues and demonizes immigrants. Instead, they call for comprehensive immigration reform that addresses root causes while maintaining America's commitment to human rights.

The online discourse surrounding #BidensBorderBloodbath reflects broader societal tensions and political polarization. It serves as a microcosm of the ongoing immigration debate, highlighting the stark differences in ideology and policy priorities between Republicans and Democrats.

The Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments today in a case that has ignited a fierce debate about free speech and government censorship online. Murthy v. Missouri will determine whether the Biden administration's efforts to pressure social media companies to censor certain content violated the First Amendment. The case stems from actions taken by the federal government in 2021 to combat what it deemed "disinformation" and "misinformation" on various online platforms.

The lawsuit, initially filed by the attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana, accused the Biden administration of overreach and likened its tactics to those of an "Orwellian Ministry of Truth." The government's actions, which included pressuring social media giants like Facebook and X (formerly Twitter) to remove content related to topics like the COVID-19 lab leak theory and vaccine efficacy, sparked widespread controversy and legal scrutiny.

Public Discourse

Republicans have been vocal in their concerns about the potential implications of government-led censorship. They fear that a ruling in favor of the government could set a precedent for broader censorship, particularly targeting right-wing media outlets. Many view this as an attack on dissenting voices and a fundamental erosion of democratic principles.

In contrast, Democrats emphasize the rights of private companies to moderate content on their platforms. They focus on their concern about former President Trump's influence on the Supreme Court, particularly through the appointment of three justices during his tenure. They fear this may bias the court's rulings in favor of his interests.

The case has ignited a flurry of discussions across social media platforms, reflecting a deep-seated unease and dissatisfaction with the current state of affairs. Many social media users have expressed dismay over what they perceive as growing authoritarianism and censorship in the country. There are fears that a ruling favoring government censorship could lead to further erosion of free speech rights, particularly for dissenting voices and right-wing media outlets.

Justice Jackson Inspires a Hot Debate

Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson made an interesting comment about the First Amendment that has further fueled debate.

Jackson's assertion that the First Amendment is "hamstringing" the federal government has drawn sharp criticism from Republicans, who argue that such a view indicates a fundamental misunderstanding or disregard for the principles enshrined in the Constitution. Some Republicans have gone as far as to suggest that her comments reveal a broader trend of governmental overreach and a willingness to curtail constitutional freedoms.

Democrats, however, have rallied behind Justice Jackson, citing her extensive legal background and qualifications for the role. They argue that criticisms of her are unfounded and politically motivated, emphasizing her impressive credentials, including graduating from Harvard Law and serving as a district judge. Many Democrats view Justice Jackson's comments as a reflection of her nuanced understanding of constitutional law and the complexities of balancing individual rights with government authority.

The debate surrounding Justice Jackson's comments has underscored the deeply polarized nature of the discourse surrounding the case. While Republicans express concerns about the potential implications of her views for free speech and individual liberties, Democrats defend her as a highly qualified jurist with a firm commitment to upholding the Constitution. Jackson's comments are likely to remain a focal point of discussion as the case progresses.

Conclusion

Overall, the case of Murthy v. Missouri has become a lightning rod for discussions about free speech, government overreach, and the role of the Supreme Court in safeguarding constitutional rights. As the oral arguments unfold, the nation awaits a decision that could have far-reaching implications for the future of online discourse and democratic governance.