Former FBI Director James Comey posted and then deleted an image of shell art in the sand which depicted “8647.” The post, which many interpreted as an implied threat against President Trump, were immediately outraged.

This controversial event exacerbates the fault lines of political symbolism, institutional trust, and the public's demand accountability. Many believe the implied symbolism of “8647” is a call for assassinating the 47th president. In response, Trump’s FBI Director Kash Patel announced he’s looking into the incident in coordination with the Secret Service.

Just James Comey causally calling for my dad to be murdered.

This is who the Dem-Media worships. Demented!!!! pic.twitter.com/4LUK6crHAT

— Donald Trump Jr. (@DonaldJTrumpJr) May 15, 2025

Public Sentiment

MIG Reports data shows public response to Comey’s post and Patel’s announcement breaks down as follows:

• 45% demand Comey’s immediate arrest and prosecution
• 35% support a formal investigation without prejudging intent
• 20% are skeptical, viewing the probe as overreach or overreaction

These metrics emerge from online discussion in the 24-hour period following the viral post and Patel’s follow-up statement.

Interpreting The “8647” Code

For many on the right, “86” is universally understood as slang for eliminate, and “47” unmistakably refers to Trump, the 47th president. The outrage hinges on the fact that Comey—a career law enforcement official and former FBI Director—cannot credibly plead ignorance about the implications of using such coded language in public.

This is not merely about symbolic ambiguity. It comes against the backdrop of two assassination attempts on Trump and years of incitement normalized through double standards. While Comey defenders argue “86” does not necessarily imply violence, many say Trump and Comey’s histories add sinister layers to the symbol.

Roughly 60% of the total commentary discusses Comey's post as a direct threat, calling for law enforcement action. Elected officials, legal commentators, and former intelligence insiders echo the concern. Others, particularly on the left, dismiss the post as innocuous or turned accusations against MAGA, deepening the public divide.

Director Patel’s Response

Many see FBI Director Kash Patel’s public announcement that the FBI is cooperating with the Secret Service as a rare instance of proactive institutional response. It lands well among those who see a justice system rife with selective enforcement. His supporters applaud him for necessary and long-overdue counterattacks against deep state impunity.

We are aware of the recent social media post by former FBI Director James Comey, directed at President Trump. We are in communication with the Secret Service and Director Curran. Primary jurisdiction is with SS on these matters and we, the FBI, will provide all necessary support.

— FBI Director Kash Patel (@FBIDirectorKash) May 15, 2025

Yet Patel himself remains a divisive figure. While his defenders see him as one of the few willing to challenge entrenched intelligence networks, 70% of commentary referencing Patel expresses some kind of disapproval. There are concerns about Cabinet-level competence, past foreign consulting work, and perceived media unseriousness.

Only 10% of over sentiments express outright support for Patel as a credible institutional leader. The disconnect between his policy instincts and his public reputation is typical among MAGA figures, even for portions of the pro-Trump base.

Free Speech or Incitement?

Those who support investigating Comey argue that no American—especially a former FBI Director—should be allowed to post coded threats without scrutiny. Critics caution against criminalizing ambiguous speech.

The First Amendment defense has some traction, particularly among civil libertarians and institutional moderates, but it is undermined by the fact that similar defenses are rarely extended to Trump or his allies when critics accuse them of incitement.

Many Americans say, if leaders ignore coded language like “8647,” the precedent invites escalation. But if it’s prosecuted too aggressively, the chilling effect on speech could be real. But voters don’t care to parse the distinction. They want clarity and consequences.

Institutional Credibility and Double Standards

The backlash against Comey comes against a backdrop of years of perceived double standards—from Hillary Clinton’s emails to the Steele dossier to January 6 charges to the press suppressing Hunter Biden’s laptop story. For many, this moment is about cumulative grievances with a justice system that protects its own and punishes dissent.

Many view Director Patel’s announcement as an institutional correction—proof that some remnants of justice still exist. His critics say it’s political theater, but the broader takeaway is that the public no longer trusts institutions to apply laws evenly.

On April 13, Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro’s home was set on fire by an arsonist while the family slept inside. The incident occurred on the first night of Passover, adding a symbolic layer of vulnerability to what many call an act of political or religious hatred.

Last night at the Governor’s Residence, we experienced an attack not just on our family, but on the entire Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

This kind of violence has become far too common in our society, and it has to stop. pic.twitter.com/5HP5JSvgfc

— Governor Josh Shapiro (@GovernorShapiro) April 13, 2025

Public responses were immediate. Elected officials, law enforcement, and mainstream media outlets condemned the attack, framing it as a sobering reminder of the rising threat of domestic extremism. Liberal voices point to right-wing rhetoric and political polarization as the likely cultural backdrop for the violence.

However, the public narrative fractured almost instantly. While some express relief that the governor and his family were unharmed, others question how an arsonist penetrated the security perimeter of one of the most protected residences in the state. Where was the alarm? Why hadn’t cameras caught the incident? Why was the initial reporting so vague on motive, affiliation, or timeline?

Doubt about the official narrative spread within hours. What should have served as a unifying moment instead became the spark for a broad and intensifying backlash, rooted both in partisanship and the distrust of elite narratives and institutional authenticity.

Sympathy to Suspicion

For weeks, Shapiro's public sentiment hovered between 41% and 43%. In the past 24 hours, negativity went through the roof. Engagement volume also surged as sentiment toward Shapiro collapsed.

Shapiro’s support dropped significantly following the event, with certain topics like Palestine and outrage over violent crimes taking center stage. The backlash was spurred by the fire attack, but it stems from a larger ideological conflict between pro- and anti-Israel voices.

The Double Standard Problem

The most common criticism is from those who question where Shapiro and other Democrats’ outrage is when Republicans or conservatives are under attack.

Shapiro’s critics, including many Independents, point out the asymmetry in moral urgency when it comes to political violence. They point to recent examples of Teslas being torched by outraged Democrats or when Jewish-owned businesses were vandalized. Critics say when conservative figures or property are targeted the left is silent.

The backlash isn't completely partisan either. It comes from voters across the spectrum who are exhausted by differing levels of sympathy given based on the victim’s political stance. For some critics, Shapiro’s reaction—framed as statesmanlike by legacy press—seems more opportunistic or even rehearsed.

Palestine, Anti-Semitism, and Political Shielding

The fire occurred on the first night of Passover, stoking another line of debate. Timing would seem to unite the public in defense of a Jewish public servant. Instead, it split the electorate even further.

Online discourse links Shapiro’s Jewish identity to rising antisemitism within the Democratic base. Critics say he failed to confront pro-Hamas activism on campuses, remained quiet on antisemitic slogans at protests, and looked the other way when far-left actors cheered violence against Israel. These grievances are highlighted by the right, but Shapiro’s own party is also unhappy.

Rather than earning protection through identity, some accuse Shapiro of exploiting it. Voters read the media framing as an attempt to immunize him from criticism—suggesting the fire proved not only that he was a victim, but that any criticism is rooted in bigotry.

On the left, pro-Palestine activists decry Shapiro’s lack of express support for Palestine. They say he acts like a Republican in some ways, failing to uphold progressive values as a Democratic leader.

Butler, Staging, and Strategic Victimhood

Shapiro's drop in support is also worsened by assassination-related discourse. Some on the right attempt to tie him to the Trump assassination attempt in Butler, Pennsylvania. The suggestion—voiced across thousands of posts—is that Shapiro either had foreknowledge, direct involvement, or at the very least, benefited from the fallout.

Many now view the arson at his home as part of a pattern of staged events, manipulated victimhood, and deep-state media cycles. Whether or not these theories are well founded is a small point of discussion. The narrative in this case only requires motive. And many suspect Shapiro is a player in a much larger script.

MAGA Mobilizes, Independents Drift

Shapiro’s collapse isn't limited to right-wing echo chambers. His support is also cratering in neutral spaces. Conversations around political protest are also negative, reflecting disengagement from Republicans, Independents, and moderate Democrats. Moderates who once tolerated Shapiro as a steady, unflashy operator now see him as another overexposed actor in the political theater.

The MAGA response is highly suspicious. The rhetoric includes accusations of treason, corruption, and fraud. Phrases like “false flag,” “deep state pawn,” and “traitor” often appear in the same comment spaces that question the lack of footage or police presence.

And while Democrats try to frame the arson incident as a threat to public servants, the right reframes it as the inevitable consequence of hypocrisy and institutional rot. They say Democrats are perpetuating and escalating political violence either by refusing to condemn violence against the right or being involved in opaque and smokescreen narratives when violence originates among their own.

Donald Trump’s decision to declassify documents related to the assassinations of John F. Kennedy, Robert F. Kennedy, and Martin Luther King Jr. Is reawakening long-standing questions about government transparency.

Many see Trump’s actions as a bold step toward accountability, but critics say the timing and motives behind the decision are questionable. The declassification shows Trump’s desire for bringing accountability to government and giving the people what they want.

Republicans Want Transparency

Among Republicans, Trump’s decision has been overwhelmingly well-received. Approximately 69% of Republican voters express strong support, viewing the declassification as a long-overdue corrective to government secrecy. For many, this is both positive for accountability and reinforces Trump’s image as a leader willing to challenge entrenched power structures.

Supporters use phrases like “draining the swamp” and “finally getting the truth,” positioning the declassification as part of exposing deep-state corruption. This sentiment aligns with the populist undertones that have defined Trump’s political brand.

Republicans also see the declassification as an act of justice, with many framing it as an opportunity to validate suspicions about historical government misconduct. The narrative of “government coverups” resonates strongly within conservative circles, where skepticism toward institutional authority is deep.

Democratic Skepticism

Democrats are far less enthused as 70% express negative sentiment. Critics see the declassification as a distraction tactic aimed at diverting attention from Trump’s ongoing legal and political challenges. Or as part of a drastic overreach of excessive executive orders.

The phrase “fake transparency” appears frequently in Democratic commentary, implying distrust of Trump’s intentions. Rather than celebrating the disclosure of historical information, critics worry exposing files trivializes complex historical narratives for short-term political gain.

Concerns over misinformation also dominate Democratic discourse. Skeptics fear the declassification could oversimplify the legacies of RFK, JFK, and MLK, weaponizing their histories to serve contemporary political objectives.

Independent Have Lingering Doubts

Among Independents, reactions are varied. While there is some alignment with Republican enthusiasm for transparency, many Independents share Democratic concerns about Trump’s motivations. Around 55% of reactions are negative and 45% positive, reflecting a deep ambivalence that could have implications for Trump’s support among moderates.

Independent skepticism often centers on the perceived self-serving nature of Trump’s actions. However, they also express curiosity about the content of the declassified documents, suggesting the potential for new revelations could sway opinions over time.

Trust, Transparency, and Division

The polarized reactions to Trump’s declassification highlight three key themes that dominate the current political landscape:

Transparency as a Double-Edged Sword

While voters across the spectrum express a desire for transparency, interpretations of Trump’s motives differ sharply. For Republicans, exposing government documents shows Trump’s commitment to accountability. For Democrats and many Independents, it raises questions about whether a form of transparency is being used as a political tool rather than a genuine pursuit of truth.

Historical Narratives as Political Weapons

The declassification underscores how historical events are often reframed to serve contemporary political agendas. For Republicans, the disclosure reinforces their critique of government overreach and secrecy. For Democrats, it exemplifies the risks of manipulating history for partisan gain.

Partisan Distrust and Institutional Erosion

Both sides share a common thread of distrust—Republicans toward the so-called deep state and Democrats toward Trump’s motives. This mutual skepticism reflects a broader erosion of faith in political institutions, further exacerbating America’s ideological divide.

Implications for Trump’s Strategy

Trump’s decision to declassify these documents is emblematic of his tendency to energize his base through bold, polarizing actions. By positioning himself as a champion of transparency, Trump reinforces his populist appeal while drawing sharp contrasts with his political opponents.

However, the mixed reactions among Independents suggest potential limitations to this approach. While the declassification resonates strongly with his core supporters, it risks alienating those who view him as too divisive and rash.

The long-term impact of this decision will depend largely on the content of the declassified documents and whether they deliver the “hidden truths” many voters hope for. If the revelations substantiate long-standing suspicions about government misconduct, they could bolster Trump’s narrative. Conversely, if the disclosures are seen as inconsequential or politically motivated, they may reinforce criticisms of his leadership.

Political violence in the United States has seen a troubling resurgence, with assassination attempts now extending across the ideological and professional spectrum—from president-elect Donald Trump, UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson, and now far-right commentator Nick Fuentes. These events reflect a dangerous trend in political and social discourse, where rhetoric and actions converge to destabilize public life. This analysis explores the reactions to the Fuentes assassination attempt, focusing on general public sentiment and an emphasis from nuanced left-of-center perspectives.

A brief timeline of events:

• Nov 8: several Twitter accounts began sharing the home address of Nick Fuentes (remained on the platform to include through time of this publication)
• Nov 10: Maria Rose shows up at the home of Nick Fuentes, he pepper sprays her
• Dec 6: Nick Fuentes charged with battery
• Dec 18: John Lyons attempts to enter home of Nick Fuentes with a pistol and crossbow and is eventually killed by police (police believe he previously murdered 3 people that day)

Last night an armed killer made an attempt on my life at my home, which was recently doxed on this platform.

The gunman carried a pistol, crossbow, and incendiary devices. I believe he intended to kill me.

He is now dead. I am okay!

— Nicholas J. Fuentes (@NickJFuentes) December 19, 2024

General Reactions

Public responses to the Fuentes assassination attempt are starkly polarized, echoing broader societal divisions:

• Outrage at Violence: Many Americans across ideological divides expressed alarm and condemnation of political violence, emphasizing the need for civility and safety in discourse.
• Martyrdom Narrative: Among Fuentes’ supporters, the incident is framed as an attack on free speech and conservative values, amplifying his status as a symbolic figure in the culture wars.
• Criticism of Fuentes’ Rhetoric: Opponents argue that his inflammatory views contribute to societal division and violence, with some dismissing the attack as an inevitable consequence of his provocations.
• Skepticism Toward Media and Law Enforcement: Distrust in media framing and law enforcement's ability to fairly address politically charged violence permeates discussions, reflecting a crisis of confidence in institutional neutrality.

People have continued to doxx Nick Fuentes even after it was announced that his doxxing led to an attempted assassination

A lot of people need to go to jail for a long time pic.twitter.com/Cndl1l4GXe

— Spinachbrah 🥗 (@basedspinach) December 20, 2024

Leftist Perspectives and Rhetoric

Leftist commentary provides a more cerebral and interconnected critique, framing the event within larger systemic and ideological structures:

• Intersectionality of Identity Politics: Fuentes’ far-right rhetoric and identity as a white nationalist figure polarize reactions. Leftist commentators link the incident to broader societal dynamics, including racial and ideological conflicts, framing it as a symptom of systemic failures rather than an isolated event.
• Focus on Responsibility and Rhetoric: There's an emphasis on the role of extremist rhetoric in fostering environments conducive to violence. They argue that figures like Fuentes normalize hate speech, necessitating accountability not just for actions but also for words.
• Skepticism of Martyrdom Narratives: While condemning violence, leftist voices critique the right-wing portrayal of Fuentes as a victim, suggesting this framing deflects from his divisive role in American political life.
• Economic and Governance Overtones: Discussions connect political violence to broader anxieties about governance and economic instability. The assassination attempt becomes a focal point for critiques of systemic inequities, from fiscal policies to societal fragmentation.

NEW: The man accused of attempting to m*rder streamer Nick Fuentes is 24-year-old John Lyons.

Very dangerous times especially when we have degenerates praising Luigi Mangione for executing a man in the back.

Lyons reportedly traveled 140 miles to Fuentes' home after allegedly… pic.twitter.com/k4lVhEq1Ff

— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) December 20, 2024

Predictive Analysis

The assassination attempt on Nick Fuentes is not an isolated event but part of a growing trend of politically motivated violence that risks further destabilizing public discourse. Key predictions include:

• Intensified Polarization: The incident will likely deepen partisan divides, with each side entrenching its narratives—whether framing Fuentes as a martyr for free speech or an emblem of dangerous extremism.
• Rise in Radicalization: Fuentes’ supporters may rally around him, fostering further radicalization within far-right circles. Conversely, leftist movements may use the event to push for stricter regulations on hate speech and political rhetoric.
• Legislative and Cultural Shifts: This event could catalyze debates around free speech, accountability, and violence, potentially leading to legislative proposals aimed at regulating inflammatory rhetoric. Resistance from free speech advocates, however, may spark additional conflict.
• Splintering Within Political Movements: Fractures within both conservative and liberal factions may emerge as figures like Fuentes polarize internal discourse. Traditional conservatives may distance themselves, while far-right groups could become more insular and militant.
• Increased Security Measures: Rising fears of violence may prompt heightened security protocols for public figures across the spectrum, reflecting a broader societal shift toward self-protection in public life.

Don't doxx people
Nick Fuentes wasn't harmed, but the suspect fled police to his neighbor's house, shot at the guy and killed his 2 dogs pic.twitter.com/3jv36KjZRM

— MAGA M&M (@MAGAmegaMAGA) December 20, 2024

The assassination of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson casts a dark shadow over the fraught relationship between Americans and their healthcare system. Reactions to this unprecedented are angry, disillusioned, and fearful.

Thompson’s death has become a symbol for a growing and intense public reckoning with systemic dysfunction and ethical dilemmas in healthcare.

The CEO of insurance giant UnitedHealthcare, Brian Thompson, who was fatally gunned down in Manhattan today, was under DOJ investigation.

Was he about to take a plea deal and reveal all about congressional favors that gained them their monopoly?

Someone check on Nancy Pelosi. pic.twitter.com/BAKHomedGf

— TaraBull (@TaraBull808) December 4, 2024

The Healthcare System Under Fire

Public sentiment is overwhelmed with an unflinching disdain for the U.S. healthcare system. Critics discuss the high costs of care, inaccessibility, and a perceived indifference from health insurance companies toward the struggles of ordinary Americans.

Personal stories of financial devastation due to denied coverage or inflated bills saturate these conversations, creating a tapestry of collective outrage. The healthcare system is viewed not as a lifeline but as a labyrinthine structure designed to prioritize profit over humanity. This shared frustration links directly to Thompson’s assassination in the minds of those who view it as a manifestation of the anger simmering within society.

The narrative of corporate greed dominates these discussions. Many see health insurance companies as profit-first, sacrificing patient well-being for shareholder dividends. This group views the assassination as a breaking point for a society driven to desperation by systemic failures.

Discussion is unrelenting and often accusatory, placing blame on the shoulders of the system and its figureheads, like Thompson. Many make a cursory gesture of regret, while others express no sympathy for a CEO who was targeted for his role in the healthcare system.

@ unitedhealthcare assassin pic.twitter.com/iyevXaOHZp https://t.co/Y0JX4xAQTD

— brandon* (@brndxix) December 4, 2024

A Crisis of Ethics and Accountability

Thompson’s assassination also reignites debates about the ethical responsibilities of corporate leaders and the precarious balance between profits and public accountability. The intense focus on leadership ethics shows a tension in American society.

CEOs like Thompson are seen as business leaders but also moral actors whose decisions impact millions. Many argue these decisions, rooted in maximizing profits, carry profound societal consequences. They say powerful decision makers and elites create environments where average people get exploited.

In United States, when a healthcare CEO is assassinated, everyone laughs pic.twitter.com/NuiVaSO2XM

— Rap Game Edward Bernays (@Edward__Bernays) December 4, 2024

Violence in a Strained Society

This shockingly violent act prompts urgent conversations about the workplace and public safety. Concerns about security are pervasive, with many suggesting the incident is not merely a failure of safety protocols but a symptom of deeper societal fractures.

Some argue the stresses of oppressive systems and a lack of access to essential resources—healthcare among them—create conditions ripe for acts of desperation and violence. Many also decry the decaying rule of law particularly in New York—where the assassination occurred.

Discussions about mental health surface, drawing connections between systemic inequities and the psychological toll on society. Many frame inadequate mental health care as both a cause and consequence of the current healthcare crisis. This sentiment emphasizes a vicious cycle: a broken system perpetuates the very problems it fails to address.

The Role of Media and Political Undertones

Media narratives surrounding the assassination further complicate public perception. Sensational coverage often oversimplifies the motivations of both corporate decisions and what is known about the alleged assassin.

Some worry this event risks becoming a spectacle, overshadowing the urgent need for reform. Political dimensions also surface, with voices on all sides framing the incident within partisan or ideological battles. Healthcare reform, corporate ethics, and public safety laws all emerge as contentious topics.

A Grim Reminder of Systemic Failures

The reactions to Thompson’s assassination and the man identified as a person of interest express despair and urgency. Americans grapple with the human cost of systemic inequities and the moral implications of public reactions.

The crime magnifies the fractures within America’s healthcare and corporate structures, sparking calls for reform and discussions about the national mood. The collective anger and fear surrounding this event are more than reactions to a single act of violence—they speak to collective anger from citizens who feel at the mercy of predatory systems.

Thompson’s death is a lens into the discontent Americas feel about power, corporate greed, a corrupt healthcare system, and vigilantism.

The narrative that Iran is responsible for plotting to assassinate Donald Trump is generating heated discussion online. There is a divide between skeptics and those who believe Iran is an active danger. News that Donald Trump was briefed on intelligence about Iranian plots to kill him and reports that the Secret Service knew about these plots prior to the Butler, PA attempt, is causing consternation among voters.

🚨Just In: According to Federal sources, an Iranian assassination plot on President Trump's life was communicated internally within the Secret service prior to Butler, PA rally. pic.twitter.com/6PUJuOQ6bQ

— Real Mac Report (@RealMacReport) August 23, 2024

Skepticism About Assassination Plots

Most Americans are skeptical about the alleged Iranian plot against Trump, with approximately 60-70% expressing doubt. The primary reason people cite is distrust of political narratives.

Many say reports only serve as a distraction from domestic issues, such as economic problems, crime, and immigration. These, Americans believe, are more pressing concerns than foreign threats. This cynicism is exacerbated by widespread accusations of “fake news” and disinformation. Some say political leaders are using Iran as a convenient scapegoat to manipulate public sentiment.

Skeptics also cite a lack of credible evidence to support the claim that Iran is actively targeting Trump. Lack of concrete proof leads many to believe reports are exaggerated or completely fabricated to serve partisan agendas. This perception of manipulation is especially prominent among critics of Biden's foreign police. Overall, there is disillusionment with both U.S. leadership and media. People view political leaders as incompetent or corrupt and the media as complicit.

Some base their skepticism on a broader understanding of geopolitical dynamics. They say Iran plotting against Trump is unlikely given the current state of U.S.-Iran relations. They view allegations of assassination plots as part of a larger pattern of fearmongering by playing up the threat of foreign adversaries. This group is weary of foreign intervention narratives, viewing them as tools to manipulate public opinion prior to the election.

Belief that Trump is Under Threat

Despite the prevailing skepticism, 30-33% say they believe Iran poses a legitimate threat to Trump. This belief is bolstered by views of Iran as a long-standing adversary of the U.S. and a direct threat to national security. This group highlights Trump’s tough stance on Iran, particularly withdrawing from the Iran nuclear deal and overseeing the assassination of General Qassem Soleimani. To this group, Iran is targeting Trump as retaliation.

Believers see the alleged plot as a continuation of Iran’s efforts to destabilize U.S. politics and undermine its global standing. They say Trump’s aggressive foreign policy made him a target, and assassination plots are not only plausible but expected. Many frame Iran as a persistent threat to U.S. interests and a dangerous and hostile actor.

Many say the media portraying Trump as a victim of foreign threats as an essential part of his political narrative. They say targeting by Iran fits into a broader storyline of him standing up to adversaries, both foreign and domestic. This reinforces support for Trump and fuels a desire for stronger national security policies that prioritize defending the U.S.

Polarization and the Role of National Security

Division about where threats to Trump’s life are coming from reflects ongoing polarization in American political discourse. Discussions about Iran’s alleged plot are colored by political views and opinions on national security.

• Skeptics align with a more critical stance toward the U.S. government and media, seeing both as complicit in manipulating public opinion.
• Believers are more likely to support strong national security, viewing Trump as a defender of American interests against foreign threats.

Polarization is complicated by the perception of foreign influence in domestic politics. Many, regardless of whether they believe the allegations, express concern about the broader implications of foreign actors meddling in U.S. elections and politics.

Even those who are doubtful of the Iranian plot, acknowledge Iran could be working to destabilize U.S. politics through indirect means. This intersection of foreign and domestic narratives creates a complex environment where discussions about national security, political motives, and media credibility all converge.

Language Usage in Belief and Dismissal

An analysis of the language used in voter discussions about the alleged Iranian plot reveals a similar division in verbiage. First-person language, such as "I believe" or "we should be concerned," is predominantly used by those who believe in the narrative.

Around 78% of belief-oriented comments use first-person pronouns, indicating a strong emotional or personal investment in the idea that Iran is targeting Trump. This personal connection suggests believers view the issue as an extension of their identity or values, aligning their political stance with national security concerns.

Third-person language, like "critics claim" or "the administration has exaggerated," is more commonly found in comments that dismiss the narrative. 78% of dismissive comments rely on third-person pronouns, indicating a more detached and analytical approach. Skeptics often critique the narrative from a distance, questioning the motives behind claims and expressing doubts about the evidence.

Donald Trump canceled a campaign rally in Wisconsin due to Secret Service concerns about insufficient security resources. The Secret Service’s inability to secure the event fuels American anxieties and anger about fairness and competence in the agency. Across political lines, voters interpret the cancellation through a partisan lens. 

CBS News - Former President Trump's campaign scrapped plans for an upcoming outdoor rally in Wisconsin after the Secret Service said it did not have the personnel needed to secure the site.
https://t.co/CzvvtYIr79

— Steve Herman (@W7VOA) September 26, 2024

Times Are Tense 

Republicans are outraged, feeling targeted by injustice and bias. For many Trump supporters, the cancellation serves as further proof that the establishment is working against him.  

This sentiment drives fierce blame toward government institutions, including the Secret Service, for failing to protect a major presidential candidate. Independents express similar distrust, echoing concerns over the government's role in handling security threats. However, this group is more divided, with some viewing the rally's cancellation as a legitimate response to ongoing threats against Trump. 

Democrats largely channel their frustrations towards Trump himself, criticizing his handling of security concerns and placing blame on his campaign. Yet, even within this group, there is an undercurrent of anxiety about the larger implications of political violence and leadership safety. 

Political Realities 

This event highlights the dramatic fracture between partisan groups in America. The rally’s cancellation is not merely a logistical decision—it reflects increasing divisions about authority, safety, and justice. This incident underscores pervasive distrust shaping voter behavior, with each side retreating into narratives of blame, fear, and defiance against perceived establishment forces.  

Unlike many disheartening political events, this particular event is likely to increase voter turnout among anti-establishment voters rather than disenfranchise them. Voters feel increasingly motivated to defend their positions and respond to perceived injustices or threats. 

For Trump supporters, the sense of bias and distrust in government energizes them to rally behind him—this sentiment is also growing with Independents. Democrats may feel motivated by their frustration with Trump's actions and handling of the situation—however, they have nothing to point to as a mirrored injustice toward Democratic candidates. 

The Department of Justice releasing a ransom note written by Ryan Routh, the would-be Trump assassin, is generating shock. In the letter, Routh offers $150,000 to anyone who succeeds in taking the former president’s life.

Americans express many emotions across political lines, but Republicans and Independents are most vehement in their skepticism, outrage, and disillusionment. Many also accuse the DoJ of corrupt or reckless intentions by releasing the note.

Ryan Routh failed to assassinate President Donald Trump.

Routh is now offering a $150,000 bounty for whomever kills President Trump.

The DOJ released the letter.

Why would the DOJ publicly release this letter?

I have an idea--they're all in on it.

They all want him dead.… pic.twitter.com/UCmI9PuZMJ

— Breanna Morello (@BreannaMorello) September 23, 2024

Republican Reactions

For Republicans, the assassination along with allegations of multiple ongoing threats known to federal agencies, is powerful indictment of governmental failure. The conversation among Republican voters is largely framed by deep suspicion and distrust toward the government’s ability to maintain national security.

The perceived inaction of certain agencies like the FBI and Secret Servicemed, along with unsatisfying investigations, anger Americans. Voters react angrily to reports that U.S. Customs and Border Protection and the FBI received warnings about Routh prior to his assassination attempt.

More than 60% of the conversation among Republicans expresses a belief that the government has failed to prioritize the safety of citizens and now Donald Trump. There is a strong undercurrent of criticism toward the Biden administration’s policies and actions. Phrases like "soft on crime" and "weak on national security" dominate the rhetoric, with calls for greater accountability surfacing frequently.

“Ryan Routh is a ticking time bomb,” she recalled telling U.S. Customs and Border Protection officials in an hourlong interview upon returning to the United States at Dulles International Airport near Washington in June 2022. https://t.co/vYDucdjCbY

— TribLIVE.com (@TribLIVE) September 22, 2024

Around 62% of Republicans demand accountability, viewing the situation as part of a larger narrative of government incompetence or indifference to serious threats. Many are skeptical about the true motives behind federal institutions, suggesting security lapses indicate deep state incompetence or corruption. This distrust further solidifies partisan divides, reinforcing a narrative of political opposition victimizing and targeting Trump.

Independents Upset, but Fatigued

Independent voters approach the issue from a different angle. Their reaction, while similarly critical, is more nuanced. They focus on the assassination attempt being politicized. This group views the government's handling of the situation as a symptom of broader partisanship.

Around 45% of Independent voters call for “less politics and more action.” They hope for a bipartisan solution to the systemic issues these events have exposed. However, there is a noticeable split among Independents. Some remain engaged and see ongoing security threats against Trump as an opportunity for change. However, many are growing disengaged from the political process altogether.

Up to 55% of Independents show signs of possible voter disengagement in November. This is driven by a sense of fatigue and distrust toward federal and political institutions. Others express intentions to become more politically active, galvanized by the need for reform and accountability.

This divide reflects a broader frustration among Independents who feel caught between two polarized political parties. However, both groups tend to perceive the politicized rhetoric from partisans and the media as a tool for their own gain rather than focusing on solutions.

MIG Reports analysis reveals several topics about which some on the right are asking, "why is nobody talking about this?" There is a sense of urgency in these conversations, indicating feelings of disillusionment among voters with accusations of media dismissal.

Topics vary by volume, discussion intensity, and the demographic focus of those expressing concern. The largest discussions are around border security, the economy, national security, media bias, and the most recent assassination attempt.

Summary of Findings

• 40% of conversation is focused on border security and its impact on communities.
• 30% of discussions are focused on the economy, with widespread frustration over inflation, taxation, and government spending.
• 15% of discussions are on Ukraine and Russia, reflecting fears about national security and foreign policy.
• 10% focuses on media bias, driven by frustrations over censorship and selective reporting.
• 5% of the conversation is on the assassination attempt, highlighting concerns about political violence and media silence.

Border Security

Border security is the highest volume discussion, capturing 40% of conversations. Americans are frustrated about the lack of government action and media scrutiny on the border. These critiques often accompany talk of the consequences of illegal immigration on citizen communities. The debate intensifies around specific cases, like the situation in Springfield, Ohio, where an influx of 20,000 Haitian migrants significantly increases the town's population.

Voters are concerned about the strain on local resources, with 63% of likely voters blaming Kamala Harris for the surge in illegal immigration. This sentiment spreads broadly among conservative and Republican-leaning voters who view the government's response as inadequate.

Discourse frequently highlights the economic burden of illegal immigration and the increased threats to national security. The prominence of this topic reflects its great importance to voters in 2024.

The Economy

The second most prominent topic, composing 30% in the conversation, is the economy. Voters are frustrated over rising inflation, taxation, and government spending. They often compare current economic policies to those under the Trump administration.

In one data set, 75% of conversations mention economic topics, while 60% specifically address inflation. The rising cost of living—like a 40% increase in food prices—amplifies concerns among middle-class individuals.

Discussions also extend to taxes, with debates over how government spending and national debt impact future generations. This focus on economic issues shows American anxiety about financial stability and a belief that Kamala Harris is not addressing these matters effectively.

Ukraine-Russia Conflict

Global security concerns, particularly related to the Ukraine-Russia conflict, account for 15% of discussions. There is great alarm over the potential for escalating tensions and the risk of a wider conflict. Around 75% of voters voicing concerns are conservatives who criticize the Biden-Harris administration's foreign policy. They fear Democratic policies increase the risk of global conflict and nuclear war.

There is a growing sense of urgency that the dangers of war are not adequately addressed in political discourse or media coverage. Fears of global conflict and anxiety about national security cause many to point out a lack of media attention to Biden-Harris policies.

Media Bias

Around 10% of the conversation is focused on media bias. Discussions reveal frustrations with perceived media censorship, selective reporting, and the marginalization of conservative voices. For instance, one data set indicates 71% of voters are upset by mainstream media bias. They often specifically mention bias against Donald Trump and other conservative figures.

Discussions frequently touch on concerns about the media shaping public opinion and suppressing critical viewpoints. Many feel this bias leads to the lack of discourse on key issues like border security and the economy. The relatively lower weight of this topic compared to others suggests that while media bias is a significant concern, it often acts as a framing device for broader discussions rather than being the central focus itself.

Assassination Attempts on Trump

Already a smaller discussion topic compared to other issues, the assassination attempts on Trump carry significant emotional weight among conservative and Republican voters. Around 65% of conservatives are expressing grace concern about these attempts, highlighting the double standard in media coverage. They often compare lack of media coverage for the assassination attempts to similar events involving Democratic politicians.

Voters express anxiety over political violence and a belief that the issue is being downplayed or ignored, contributing to a broader narrative of media bias. While it garners focused attention, the narrower scope of this topic limits its overall prominence in the discourse.