Ubisoft, the developers of the Assassin’s Creed video game franchise, announced its newest game will feature a black protagonist in feudal Japan. The character, Yasuke, was an African slave brought to Japan by an Italian missionary. He served as a "retainer," which was essentially a servant to samurai. This anachronism for the sake of diversity sparked online debate, reflecting broader cultural, historical, and political tensions. The discourse spans multiple dimensions, including historical accuracy, cultural representation, and the impact of woke ideologies on creative industries like gaming.

Historical Accuracy and Cultural Representation

Criticism of Historical Inaccuracy

Many critics argue having a black protagonist in a feudal Japan setting is historically inaccurate. They contend that such a character would not fit the historical and cultural context of the period, since Japan was relatively isolated and homogenous.

Some emphasize that historical accuracy is essential for maintaining the integrity and immersion of a game set in a specific historical era. They believe bending historical facts for the sake of diversity undermines the educational and experiential value of historical fiction.

Support for Creative Freedom and Representation

Proponents of diversity argue video games are a form of art and should be allowed creative freedom. They posit that incorporating diverse characters can offer new perspectives and enrich storytelling.

Advocates for representation say including a black protagonist can challenge Eurocentric narratives in media and provide visibility for underrepresented groups, despite the game taking place in feudal Japan and not needing European characters.

Woke Ideologies and Cultural Wars

The Woke Right and Leftist Parallels

The rhetoric from the "Woke Right" mirrors that of what they criticize in "leftist loonies." Both sides are seen as being inflexible and dogmatic about their moral and ideological stances.

Some commentators on the right accuse the left of pushing “diversity and inclusion” at the expense of historical realism and traditional values. They believe that such moves are part of a broader cultural agenda that erases historical facts and promotes a progressive ideology.

Virtue Signaling and Corporate Agendas

Critics from both ends of the political spectrum accuse companies like Ubisoft of engaging in virtue signaling. They argue these companies adopt progressive stances not out of genuine commitment to diversity, but to appeal to a broader market and avoid backlash.

This sentiment is reflected in broader critiques of corporate practices that superficially adopt social causes. Many accuse them of failing to address underlying issues and engaging in "performative wokeness." 

Broader Cultural Context

Freedom of Speech and Censorship

The discussions often extend to debates about freedom of speech and the perceived censorship of conservative viewpoints. Some argue pushing back against historically inaccurate representation is a form of preserving free expression and historical truth.

Others counter that encouraging diverse representation is itself an exercise of free speech and creativity, and limiting this in the name of accuracy is a form of censorship.

Polarization and Social Media Discourse

Social media platforms amplify these debates, with many resorting to hyperbolic and inflammatory language. This polarization makes it difficult to have nuanced discussions about the balance between historical accuracy and modern pushes for diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI).

The dialogue often devolves into ad hominem attacks and entrenched positions, reflecting broader societal divisions on issues of race, history, and identity politics.

Recently, Kansas City Chiefs kicker Harrison Butker received criticism for being an outspoken Catholic during his graduation speech at a Catholic university. In reaction, the official Twitter account for the City of Kansas City came close to doxxing Butker in a tweet pointing out where he lives.

The same day, the tweet was deleted, and Kansas City again tweeted, this time apologizing for the doxxing.

We apologies for our previous tweet. It was shared in error.

— Kansas City (@KansasCity) May 16, 2024

In response, Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey notified the public he will be invoking the Missouri Human Rights Act in defense of Harrison Butker. The Missouri Human Rights Act (MHRA) is a state law that prohibits discrimination in employment, housing, and public accommodations based on various protected characteristics, including religion.

MIG Reports analysis of the reaction to AG Bailey’s defense of Butker highlights two general trends:

• A newfound support among right leaning Americans for being proactive about cancellation.
• A continuing environment for left-leaning Americans of seeking “accountability,” which conservatives view as cancellation.

AG Bailey is seeking to investigate and enforce applicable law if is should show Harrison Butker’s rights were being violated by Kansas City – for disclosing where Butker lives.

BREAKING: My office is demanding accountability after@KansasCity doxxed @buttkicker7 last night for daring to express his religious beliefs.

I will enforce the Missouri Human Rights Act to ensure Missourians are not targeted for their free exercise of religion.

Stay tuned.

— Attorney General Andrew Bailey (@AGAndrewBailey) May 16, 2024

Political Reactions

Conservative Voices

Many conservative voices appreciate Bailey's decision, viewing it as a stand for religious freedom and free speech. They argue Butker, like any American, has the right to express his beliefs without facing professional repercussions or being canceled.

Conservatives often criticize what they perceive as a double standard among liberals, who they believe champion free speech only when it aligns with their own views. They argue liberals are quick to call for consequences when speech opposes their values.

Liberal Voices

Liberals and progressives are critical of Bailey coming to Butker’s defense but are ignoring the objectionable actions by Kansas City’s official X account. They argue freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences and emphasize that Butker's comments, which are perceived as misogynistic, should not be protected under the guise of religious freedom.

Liberals often highlight that expressing controversial opinions can and should incur professional and social repercussions, especially when those opinions are viewed as harmful or discriminatory.

Views on Free Speech and Religious Rights

Pro-Free Speech Advocates

Advocates for unrestricted free speech, irrespective of political affiliation, support Bailey's invocation of the Missouri Human Rights Act. They argue Butker's right to express his religious beliefs should be protected.

These voices are often concerned about the potential for censorship and the slippery slope of limiting speech based on its content or the reactions it provokes.

Pro-Accountability Advocates

Advocates for accountability argue that, while Butker has the right to express his beliefs, he must also face the consequences of those expressions, particularly if they are harmful or discriminatory.

This group emphasizes the importance of protecting the vulnerable from speech that can perpetuate discrimination or harm. They say societal progress often requires holding public figures accountable for their words.

An NBC News report on the Satanic Temple's increased involvement in confronting Christian Nationalism in schools gained a largely negative reaction. The responses range from strong disapproval to acknowledgment of perceived issues with Christian Nationalism. The discourse is mostly composed of skepticism, criticism, and a few neutral or unrelated comments.

What Americans Are Saying

Many voters express distrust in NBC News and the mainstream media in general, suggesting the reporting is often biased or manipulative.

There is a notable trend of strong disapproval towards the Satanic Temple's involvement in educational matters. Some question the motives and appropriateness of joining forces with such a controversial group. Recurring comments like "smh" (shaking my head) imply disapproval and disbelief.

Broader Concerns about Media Ethics and Priorities

Some Americans criticize NBC News for not prioritizing what they believe to be more critical issues like political corruption and environmental concerns.

This sentiment is evident in discussion about issues more important to voters like the border and the economy. On more pressing topics, people make comments like, "Why isn't this being reported on the hour, every hour, every day?" This contrasts with the ambivalence or disapproval of NBC’s reporting choices.

Calls for Accountability and Transparency

Some called for more accountability and transparency in news reporting, particularly highlighting potential conflicts of interest, such as in the case of Katy Tur's coverage of the Trump case.

There is a pervasive sense of frustration with the media landscape as many make negative remarks about specific journalists and the media's focus. Comments like "Chuck Todd needs to be fired," underscore a broader dissatisfaction with media figures.

Spam and Irrelevant Content

Most of the discussion reflects a negative sentiment towards NBC News and the subject of the article. This includes distrust in media reporting, disapproval of the Satanic Temple's role, and frustration with media priorities.

Examples include: "smh," "Yeah, no," and "Why isn't this being reported on the hour, every hour, every day?"

Many responses include spam or irrelevant content, such as investment promotions and inappropriate comments, which detract from the main discussion. However, this lack of meaningful content could point to Americans’ dismissal of and unwillingness to engage with biased reporting.

There were very few, if any, explicitly positive comments regarding the article or NBC News in general.

Kansas City Chiefs kicker Harrison Butker has recently been the subject of intense scrutiny and criticism. A public commencement speech in which he made statements about women’s accomplishments in the home versus academic or professional achievements has led many to label him as misogynistic, homophobic, and transphobic. This controversy has sparked a significant debate online, with reactions ranging from strong support to vehement opposition.

The NFL has formally condemned Harrison Butker’s statements, a predictable move given the league’s previous affirmations of leftist ideas such as Drag Queen Story Hour. Some draw a stark contrast in the NFL’s professed stance on women’s rights compared to its actions. Many making this argument highlight the history of violent offenders employed by the NFL, citing 1,079 arrests, charges, and citations among NFL players since 2000. This, critics say, indicates a hypocrisy within the NFL in its support for women.

Support for Butker

Many of Butker's supporters argue that his comments fall under the right to free speech and should be protected regardless of their content. These individuals often criticize what they perceive as liberal cancel culture and argue expressing conservative views should not result in backlash.

Conservatives and religious Americans resonate with Butker's views, seeing them as an expression of traditional values. Butker's speech aligns many of these groups’ beliefs about gender roles, sexuality, and morality. Right leaning and conservative voters say Butker is being unfairly attacked by woke activists for a previously mainstream and traditional viewpoint. Meanwhile, they say liberals and progressives are allowed to say much more incendiary things without anyone batting an eye. 

Criticism Against Butker

Progressive and liberal Americans tend to argue Butker's speech perpetuates harmful stereotypes and discrimination against marginalized groups. They see his comments as regressive and damaging to the ongoing efforts for equality and inclusivity.

Many in the LGBTQ community express strong disapproval of Butker’s remarks. They highlight the negative impact they perceive such statements to have on the mental health and societal acceptance of LGBTQ individuals.

Demographic Patterns

Support for Butker tends to be stronger in more conservative regions where voters voice frustration with woke ideology in sports, especially in parts of the United States known for their traditional values. Criticism is more prevalent in urban areas and states with progressive political leanings.

Younger demographics, particularly those active on platforms like Twitter and Instagram, are more likely to criticize Butker’s speech. Older demographics, who might consume news via more traditional media or conservative channels, show more support for Butker.

Women, especially those advocating for gender equality, are more likely to criticize Butker’s remarks. Men, particularly those aligned with conservative ideologies, tend to support Butker’s views themselves and his right to express them.

Public Sentiment Analysis

MIG Reports analysis shows the criticism against Harrison Butker is louder and more widespread online than his support. However, the support he does receive is fervent and rooted deeply in ideological beliefs about free speech and traditional values.

Platforms like Twitter are saturated with criticisms, often trending with hashtags that call out Butker’s views. Conservative platforms and forums are more likely to defend Butker, framing the backlash as an example of liberal intolerance.

Mainstream media tends to highlight the controversy and the criticisms, possibly reflecting a broader societal shift towards progressive values. Some also argue that social media and mainstream media bias may drown out a more commonly held viewpoints among average Americans.

The reaction to Harrison Butker's speech is deeply polarized, reflecting broader societal divides on issues of gender, sexuality, and free speech. While a vocal group supports Butker, believing he has the right to express his views, a larger and more diverse demographic seems to be critical of his remarks, viewing them as harmful and outdated. This suggests that, at least in the context of social media and public discourse, the criticism against Harrison Butker resonates more widely, especially among younger and more progressive populations.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s comments about full-term abortion have elicited strong reactions from voters across the political spectrum. These reactions can be analyzed from several perspectives: political alignment, moral and ethical considerations, and implications for his presidential campaign.

Political Alignment

Kennedy's stance appears to have created a rift among conservative and right-leaning voters, many of whom have expressed shock and disappointment. For example, some voters mention withdrawing their support after initially being open to a compromise on state-level decision-making with a 15-week abortion ban.

These objections suggest Kennedy's comments may alienate a significant portion of potential conservative supporters who view full-term abortion as morally indefensible and equivalent to murder.

On the other hand, his stance might consolidate or even increase his support among liberal voters who advocate for expansive abortion rights. Some left-leaning voters also express discomfort with the notion of full-term abortion, indicating potential challenges in gaining unanimous support from this group as well.

Moral and Ethical Considerations

For many, Kennedy's comments have ignited a firestorm of debate on the moral and ethical implications. Many voters emphasize a moral objection to full-term abortion, equating it to infanticide. These responses often invoke religious or fundamental ethical principles, arguing full-term abortion violates the intrinsic right to life of the fetus.

The religious and ethical backlash is a crucial aspect of the conversation, as it taps into deeply held beliefs about the sanctity of life. For many Americans, these beliefs are central to their identity, community, and worldview. 

Implications for Kennedy's Presidential Campaign

The polarized response to Kennedy’s comments could have significant implications for his presidential campaign. His clear position on such a contentious issue may risk losing moderate and swing voters, who might view his position as too extreme. This is particularly evident in comments suggesting that even pro-choice individuals find the notion of full-term abortion excessive.

In addition, the controversy could overshadow other aspects of his campaign, focusing public and media attention on his abortion stance rather than a broader policy agenda. This could limit his appeal to voters primarily concerned with other issues like the economy, healthcare, or environmental policies.

Kristi Noem, the governor of South Dakota, has been facing significant controversy and backlash due to statements she made in a book about killing her own hunting dog. Noem admits to shooting Cricket, a dog she described as "untrainable." Her subsequent comments about President Biden's dog, Commander, have also generated criticism.

One of the most widespread reactions to Noem’s story is condemnation and horror. Even among her voter base, people have begun to question her character and suitability for office. The label "puppy killer" has been repeatedly used across the internet and social media, reflecting a strong negative reaction among voters, significantly tarnishing her public image.

Another major point of contention is the alleged falsehoods in her book, particularly her claim about having a confrontation with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un. This has been ridiculed and dismissed as a lie by critics, further feeding into narratives questioning her honesty and integrity.

Overall, the public reaction to Kristi Noem's recent controversies has been overwhelmingly negative. Critics on both sides of the political aisle focus on her character, honesty, and the appropriateness of her actions and statements.

• In the last two weeks, after significant backlash about the dog shooting story, Kristi Noem’s approval dropped from 50% to 38% as online mentions jumped to 2,500.

Universal Shock and Disapproval

Kristi Noem's recent controversies appear to have severely damaged her public image, particularly among voters who value animal rights and ethical leadership. The widespread criticism and negative reactions could potentially impact her political future, especially if she seeks higher office.

Even among Republican and conservative voters, sentiments lean heavily toward disgust and disapproval. Noem’s attempt to double down on her commitment to the story about Cricket has also garnered negativity.

Some presumably Democratic voters contrast Noem’s behavior with President Biden's persona as a dog lover, using it to emphasize a difference in character and compassion between the two. This not only serves to criticize Noem but also to bolster Biden's image.

Noem’s VP Chances Plummet

There is also significant discourse on how these controversies might affect her political future, particularly her aspirations to a potential vice-presidential candidacy. The negative press and voter reactions suggest this fiasco may derail such ambitions.

Suburban and educated voters, particularly women, who often play crucial roles in elections, might view this scandal as indicative of Noem's temperament and decision-making qualities. The extreme nature of her statements could alienate this demographic, which might be concerned about leadership style and empathy in governance.

The doubts about her honesty and the criticism she has faced could potentially alienate voters and impact her effectiveness in office. Many are expressing their withdrawal of support, even if they previously liked Noem.

• Regarding the possibility of Noem clinching a Trump 2024 VP pick, mentions of her spiked to more than 2,000 as approval for VP fell to 30%.

Media and Deflection

In an attempt at damage control, Noem has referred to the media’s portrayal of the events as "fake news," suggesting the media and public are not privy to the full context or facts. She encourages people to read her book for her version of the story, indicating she views the book as revelatory in setting the record straight.

Noem's portrayal of herself as a victim of media bias or a smear campaign has not been widely accepted. Instead, many see this tactic as a deflection from the substantive issues at hand. Those who believe in mainstream media bias against conservatives are particularly vocal that Noem is misusing the accusation in this situation.

A striking event at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill has caused a flurry of online reactions. UNC Chapel Hill fraternity brothers stood up, surrounding the American flag and protecting it from vandalism by pro-Palestine protesters on campus. Images and video of the incident have elicited strong reactions American public, many of which include praise and applause.

One of the best photos of 2024 so far:

Fraternity brothers are pelted by anti-Israel protesters at UNC Chapel Hill while protecting the United States flag as it is re-hoisted following its removal by protesters.

Well done, gentleman. 🫡🇺🇸 pic.twitter.com/0DiBQcVLBu

— Max Meyer (@mualphaxi) May 1, 2024

Many view the young men's actions as a demonstration of patriotism, upholding the values and principles of the United States, and protecting the country's symbols. These sentiments are often expressed by conservative voters who may feel the protests represent a threat to American values and traditions. However, many Americans who value the flag seem to support the students defending it.

A significant portion of the online discussion expresses a desire to see more young people, particularly strong young men, take an active role in upholding American values. Those who appreciate and champion the frat brothers' actions declare support and even donations.

• National sentiment toward protests and universities increased slightly after sensational events like the UNC frat boys defending the flag.
• Discussion volume has also increased in the last few days.

Throw a Rager GoFundMe

A GoFundMe started to “throw a rager” in celebration of the frat boys’ actions raised more than $500,000 in the first two days. This suggests American voters feel positively about supporting pro-America causes.

Discussion about the GoFundMe is slightly more divided, despite the significant amount of funds raised. Some feel that fraternity brothers are taking advantage of the generosity of others to fund what they perceive as an unnecessary and indulgent event. They argue GoFundMe should be used to raise money for important causes like medical bills, education, or disaster relief, rather than for a fraternity party.

On the other hand, many see no issue with the campaign, arguing the fraternity brothers have every right to fundraise for their party if people are willing to donate. They say the GoFundMe platform is open to all types of fundraising efforts and it is up to individual donors to decide where their money goes. Supporters of the campaign often view it as a harmless, fun way for the fraternity to celebrate and unwind.

Criticism of Counter-Protesters

Those who criticize the frat boys’ actions view them as an attempt to suppress or invalidate the protests. Often progressives and pro-Palestine sympathizers, this group argues the students’ actions ignore the broader issues Palestine protests aim to address. They prioritize the issues of police brutality and alleged genocide by Israel.

Many speaking out against the counter-protesters argue actions like those of the frat brothers – and even of police – are infringing on the protesters' right to free speech and peaceful assembly. They believe counter-protester actions, and the American support they have received, reflect a broader societal issue of intolerance towards dissenting views.

This group also highlights a perception of police brutality against pro-Palestine protesters. They say law enforcement's response has been excessively violent and unnecessary. They express concern about the potential for these incidents to escalate and result in further harm to students. There’s also a perceived double standard in police response to different pro-Palestine protesters versus pro-Israel and pro-America counter-protesters.

Unexpected Unity Against Joe Biden

A similar campus protest event revealed a surprising emergence of solidarity between two very opposed groups. A unique amalgamation of anti-Israel protesters and Trump supporters at University of Alabama began chanting together in disapproval of President Joe Biden. This unlikely moment of unity has also been garnering attention. The shared sentiment, expressed in “F*** Joe Biden” chants, is a notable point of convergence between two distinctly different groups.

.@UofAlabama — Both left-wing and right-wing demonstrators protesting against and for Israel unite in chants of, “F— Joe Biden.” pic.twitter.com/2DwMyW4X1g

— Andy Ngô 🏳️‍🌈 (@MrAndyNgo) May 1, 2024

As MIG Reports has previously analyzed, President Biden's approval ratings have been fluctuating and he has received backlash on several key issues. Thus, it is not entirely surprising to see protests of his administration. However, the coupling of anti-Israel protests with Trump supporters' vocal disapproval of Biden has certainly raised eyebrows.

While the two groups share a common dislike for the current administration, their reasons differ greatly. Anti-Israel protesters are often driven by concerns over the Israel-Hamas conflict, whereas Trump supporters primarily voice dissatisfaction with Biden's domestic policies.

Many online made sarcastic comments suggesting Joe Biden had finally delivered on his promise to bring America together.

White Boy Summer and a Resurgence of Patriotism

The term "White Boy Summer" has also gained significant attention, primarily due to its use in a viral internet meme. The phrase was popularized by Chet Hanks, son of actor Tom Hanks, in 2021. The phrase is often used to call for young American men to embrace positivity and respect for all races, along with American values.

Since its rise to popularity, the phrase has been taken up by many conservatives who identify as patriotic. It is often to represent a broader movement of young men aiming to "save" America and has recently been applied to the UNC fraternity brothers and other like students chanting “We want Trump” at University of Mississippi.

College kids at Ole Miss chant “We want Trump!

Can you feel the tide turning? pic.twitter.com/MpwEEQGKor

— 🇺🇸Travis Media Group🇺🇸 (@TM1Politics) May 2, 2024

Many conservative voters who use the term argue that young patriotic men are the backbone of America and have a crucial role to play in upholding traditional American values. They often emphasize themes such as personal responsibility, individual liberty, constitutional rights, and love of country.

There are references to those who embody White Boy Summer, like the University of North Carolina (UNC) fraternity boys, taking it upon themselves to counter the narrative of America's decline by engaging in various acts of community service and activism.

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.

— Megyn Kelly (@megynkelly) April 19, 2024

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.

Former President Trump recently announced his position on abortion, causing reactions from all sides. While there was speculation Trump might support a national 15-week abortion ban, in this video announcement, Trump said he plans to leave those decisions to the states. He said he’s proud to have overturned Roe v. Wade, but that, “It’s up to the states to do the right thing.”

While some conservatives and pro-life advocates are voicing unhappiness with Trump’s announcement, many pragmatic or moderate voters seem satisfied with his stance. Progressives and Democrats who tend to disagree with the overturning of Roe v. Wade seem unhappy across the board.

• Online discussion of Trump and abortion spiked on the day of his announcement, reaching nearly 2,500.
• Trump’s approval on abortion increased slightly nationally, moving from 45% before his announcement to 48% on the day and 52% the following day.
• In swing states, Trump’s approval on abortion dropped from 49% to 45% with the announcement, recovering slightly the next day to 46%.

Overall, it seems Trump’s populist stance is relatively well-received among moderate voters, who he needs to win in the general election.

Backlash for Mike Pence Tweet

Trump’s former Vice President Mike Pence also received negativity for an X post condemning what he called, “President Trump's retreat on the Right to Life.” He also called it a slap in the face to the millions of pro-life Americans who voted for Trump in 2016 and 2020.

President Trump’s retreat on the Right to Life is a slap in the face to the millions of pro-life Americans who voted for him in 2016 and 2020. By nominating and standing by the confirmation of conservative justices, the Trump-Pence Administration helped send Roe v. Wade to the…

— Mike Pence (@Mike_Pence) April 8, 2024

MIG Reports analysis of voter reactions to Pence’s attack on his former running mate reveals many view the statement as a slap in the face to the MAGA movement.

• Many people are expressing negative sentiment towards Mike Pence, with frequent accusations of him being a "traitor" or "backstabber."
• Numerous people are referring to Pence as a RINO, suggesting they believe he is not a true representative of conservative values or the Republican party.
• Others decry Pence for lacking the political skill to win or for hypocrisy on other issues.
• People are criticizing Pence for his pro-life stance, arguing that he cannot win elections if he continues to maintain this position. They argue most Americans are not pro-life, hence he cannot appeal to the majority with his current views.
• Some accuse Pence of being a hypocrite for claiming to be pro-life while supporting endless war.

Following his tweet, Pence received an onslaught of negative backlash, seeing five times as many negative comments as positive comments. As a result, Pence’s approval among those discussing him online dropped from 47% to 41%.

Republicans’ View of Trump’s Abortion Stance

Republicans have mixed responses to Trump’s abortion announcement, depending on the intensity of their pro-life views. Many applaud Trump's willingness to leave the decision to individual states, viewing it as a constitutionally sound approach.

A majority of conservatives and Republicans believe Roe v. Wade was unconstitutional and support Trump's call for states to decide on abortion rights. However, there are also staunchly pro-life Republicans who disagree with Trump's stance as too weak, saying that they value the sanctity of life over political pragmatism.

There are a few Republicans who express doubt about Trump's sincerity, suspecting that he is not genuinely pro-life and is just using the issue for political gain. They worry his stance could alienate some GOP voters, potentially costing him crucial support in the upcoming elections.

Although most conservatives are personally pro-life, many also say they support Trump’s decision as a fulfillment of the pro-life movement's long-term goals. This group believes Trump's relatively moderate position is a necessary step for their cause. They suggest this move is strategic, aiming to win more moderates in the election and that it will bode well, as other recent events have.

Moderate and Independent Responses

Moderates have a range of views, with some supporting Trump's position and others opposing it. Those in favor appreciate his nuanced approach, allowing for exceptions and leaving the decision up to states. Those against criticize Trump for reversing his position and accuse him of lying to gain political advantage.

Many moderates seem to be skeptical about Trump's pro-life stance. They express concerns about his shifting political views and question his sincerity. Some imply he’s merely using the pro-life platform to win votes, rather than genuinely supporting the cause. They suggest that his stance on abortion might not garner him the broad support he might be expecting.

Others, however, approve of his endorsement of states' rights, viewing it as a balanced approach that allows for a diversity of views on abortion. While those who disapprove can be very vocal, Trump’s approval on abortion among moderates and in swing states is still relatively strong. This suggests many independents may be satisfied but less willing to express it publicly.

Democrat Ire Over Roe v. Wade

Unsurprisingly, Democrats appear to be firmly against Trump's stance, focusing on the belief that his administration aimed to control women's bodies and limit their choices. Liberals accuse Trump of lying about his intentions, with some asserting that he laid the groundwork for a national abortion ban. They emphasize their ongoing anger over repealing Roe v. Wade and express concern about the potential impact of overturning it.

Democrats seem to largely feel that Trump's pro-life stance is dishonest, suggesting he was historically pro-choice and only changed his stance for political gain. They point to his past statements and actions as evidence. Some go as far as accusing him of exploiting the pro-life movement for his own advantage.