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.

In discussing mass deportations, Vice President Kamala Harris recently asked, “How’s that going to happen?” This comment, along with the U.S. government not knowing exactly how many illegal immigrants are in the country stirs impassioned reactions from Americans.

Kamala appears to be campaigning for Trump: "They have pledged to carry out the largest deportation, a mass deportation, in American history. Imagine what that would look like and what that would be." pic.twitter.com/l6CVbvZUwA

— Breaking911 (@Breaking911) September 18, 2024

How Americans View Kamala

The public sentiment is predominantly critical toward Harris’s stance on immigration. Around 70% of Americans disapprove of her immigration policies and her views on open borders. MIG Reports analysis shows 55% support mass deportations, citing concerns over national security, crime, and the economic burden of illegal immigration. This figure aligns with a recent Scripps News/Ipsos survey showing 54% of Americans support mass deportation.

Americans Are Angry

The conversation around immigration is heated, with many Americans expressing frustration and anger towards Biden-Harris policies. Some common complaints include:

• Government failure to enforce existing immigration laws
• Large influxes of illegal immigrants
• Migrants receiving preferential treatment over American citizens

Around 60% of Americans say the Biden-Harris administration's open border policies are responsible for overwhelming surges in migration. This, they say, includes the subsequent problems associated with it—like issues Ohio residents are facing. Many express concerns over safety and security in their communities, citing crime, violence, and exploitation by illegal immigrants.

Only 25% argue mass deportations are inhumane and unjust. This group says a more comprehensive and inclusive approach to immigration reform is needed. They argue immigrants, regardless of their status, contribute to the economy and enrich American society.

The Border is an Election Issue

MIG Reports analysis of other conversations regarding the border crisis show several supporting narratives.

In election discussions:

• 53% of Americans believe Trump would handle immigration well
• 45% believe Harris would handle it well
• 50% of black Americans believe immigration is negatively impacting their economic opportunities and communities

In swing state discussions:

• 71% of Americans are concerned about the economic impact of illegal immigration
• 55% believe Harris's open-border approach is harming the country

These patterns mirror the national perspective that immigration is deeply intertwined with concerns about national security, jobs, and the economy.

The arrest of Sean "P Diddy" Combs on charges of sex trafficking and racketeering has sparked widespread discussions. Americas voice many reactions from disgust, outrage, to disillusionment.

Many view the allegations against Diddy as a turning point in holding powerful figures accountable. Others express cynicism regarding the outcome. The discussions both include opinions on Diddy and views of broader issues tied to the justice system, media coverage, and human trafficking.

BREAKING: @Diddy is now spending his days in New York’s most notorious jail, known for its “barbaric conditions.” 300+ grand jury subpoenas later, Diddy can’t wiggle his out of this one. And he’s not the only one… pic.twitter.com/M64EDxQUbh

— Jesse Watters (@JesseBWatters) September 19, 2024

What Americans are Saying

• 40%: Shock, outrage, and disgust
• 25%: Validation of long-held suspicions
• 20%: Media and justice system criticism
• 10%: Skepticism and division
• 5%: Tying Diddy’s arrest to other topics like border security

Shock, Outrage, and Disgust

The majority of online conversations focus on shock and outrage. People react strongly to the charges, expressing disgust at the alleged actions of a celebrity like Diddy. Many condemn his behavior, viewing his arrest as a critical moment for justice.

These reactions reflect a collective demand for accountability, particularly in relation to the heinous nature of sex trafficking. Voters demand justice, some calling for a harsh sentence, seeing this case as representing broader issues of exploitation in powerful circles.

Validation of Long-Held Suspicions

Many Americans express a sense of validation. They say they have long suspected Diddy of inappropriate behavior, adopting an, “I told you so" attitude. For this group, Diddy's arrest confirms rumors and accusations that have circulated for years.

This group views Diddy’s downfall as inevitable, reinforcing preconceptions about corruption and abuse of power in the music industry. These suspicions, now appearing substantiated, fuel arguments about systemic wrongdoing among celebrities and elites.

Criticism of Media and Justice System

There is also widespread frustration and distrust toward the media and justice system. Observers claim both institutions often protect wealthy, powerful individuals from facing serious consequences. Some view the media as complicit, either ignoring damaging stories or failing to investigate them thoroughly.

Many doubt whether Diddy will truly be held accountable, fearing his influence and wealth may shield him from the full weight of the law. This cynicism is common in conversations connecting Diddy’s case to overarching failures of justice for victims of trafficking.

Skepticism and Division

Although less common, some conversations reveal skepticism about the allegations. This group questions the legitimacy of the charges and the motivations behind the accusations. This contributes to a sense of division, as people debate whether Diddy is being targeted unfairly or whether the allegations are true. As with most topics, not everyone immediately accepts the narrative presented by prosecutors or the media.

Tying to Broader Topics

A smaller subset of conversations shifts the focus away from Diddy specifically, tying the story to broader political or social issues. One common connection is trafficking across the border and government immigration failures. These links point to larger concerns about human trafficking, using Diddy’s alleged actions as an example of how political decisions and systemic failures allow exploitation to flourish. Though not a dominant theme, this attachment reveals how some people frame high-profile cases like Diddy’s within wider political debates.

The relationship between non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and their relationship with Mexican cartels and other transnational criminal organizations is complex. MIG Reports analysis shows significant American concerns about these issues, particularly human trafficking and government complicity in crime activity.

There is a noticeable focus on the perceived failures of both NGOs and the Biden-Harris administration in addressing cartels furthering human trafficking and illegal immigration. This analysis highlights discussion trends, dominate concerns, and public sentiment about border security and the role of NGOs.

How Americans Feel

Voter discussions across thousands of comments is overwhelmingly negative:

• 39.4% of the conversation focuses on human trafficking
• 50.1% conveys belief in illegal activities by cartels and NGOs
• 27.8% focuses on criticizing the Biden-Harris administration
• 28% links cartels to fentanyl trafficking, emphasizing the connection between the opioid crisis and border security concerns.

The conversations reflect deep skepticism toward the government’s ability to protect citizens and frustration with the perceived complicity of NGOs in facilitating illegal activities through funding channels and logistical coordination.

Government Criticism and Accountability

Many Americans mention the Biden-Harris administration negatively in conversations about illegal cartel activity and border issues. They blame the administration’s border policies for enabling human trafficking and fentanyl smuggling. Voters argue the government’s refusal to secure the border has led to a rise in both trafficking and opioid-related deaths.

Americans are particularly vocal about their frustration with Democratic inaction. There is sharp criticism and concern that Biden-Harris policies prioritize the needs of immigrants over the safety of American citizens. This harsh critique reveals a widespread sentiment that government leadership is not concerned about protecting vulnerable Americans or addressing pressing border control problems.

NGOs and Their Role in Immigration and Trafficking

NGOs come under heavy fire in these discussions, with 50% linking them to illegal immigration and human trafficking. Americans believe NGOs, often funded by taxpayer money, facilitate illegal activities either through direct involvement or by offering support that allows traffickers and cartels to operate freely.

Many express outrage over NGOs profiting from the very problems they claim to solve. The conversation also highlights concerns that NGOs are enabling child exploitation by allowing traffickers to use legal loopholes to smuggle children across borders. This widespread criticism of NGOs reflects a deep sense of betrayal, as users perceive these ostensibly humanitarian organizations as working against national interests and using public funds.

Human Trafficking and Fentanyl Crisis

Human and drug trafficking is another deeply negative conversation. Nearly 40% of the discussion focuses on illegal trafficking. Americans are angry and worried about the exploitation of vulnerable populations, especially children. Many view child trafficking as a growing crisis which the government does nothing to solve.

Voters say government negligence, coupled with the actions of NGOs, is exacerbating the problem. Conversations are deeply emotional, often sharing personal stories or using vivid imagery to convey the severity of the safety issues for kids.

Drug trafficking, specifically fentanyl smuggling, is also linked to cartel activity and border security. Americans view Biden-Harris policies as directly contributing to the fentanyl crisis ravaging communities and families across the country. The connection between human trafficking and drug trafficking is a recurring theme, reinforcing the idea that these are intertwined issues which government has failed to address adequately.

After a second assassination attempt on Donald Trump, public discourse turns to the media’s role in covering such violent political events. Across multiple platforms, voters are voicing concerns about the media’s culpability in raising the national temperature and whether they adequately address the gravity of the situation. Many criticize biased coverage which tends to blame Trump’s own rhetoric for the attempt on his life.

What Voters Are Saying

MIG Reports analysis shows:

• 63.72% of voters say the media contributes to violent events by using inflammatory rhetoric and demonizing political opponents.
• 42.96% of voters expect the media to ignore or downplay this assassination attempt against Trump.

Voter frustration stems from a perceived media bias, particularly regarding how the press covers threats or violence directed at Trump compared to other political figures. Many point out examples like Dana Bash accusing J.D. Vance of causing bomb threats in Springfield, OH, while also denying the media’s role in heated political rhetoric that may have urged violence from assassins.

I can’t stop watching this. Dana Bash jerking her head around like a bird because her target didn’t accept her Narrative’s premise. Vance rejects the premises. Then he attacks the premises. Just beautiful. pic.twitter.com/gsNOV4hiwJ

— Oilfield Rando (@Oilfield_Rando) September 15, 2024

Some also point to clips of Democrats, celebrities, and media figures promoting inflammatory rhetoric against Trump and Republicans, while blaming them for causing violent reactions among extremists.

2.5 minutes of Democrats explicitly calling for using political vioIence.

They own this. pic.twitter.com/vMpVbmJYmc

— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) September 16, 2024

Many voters express concern over the portrayal of Trump as a "threat to democracy," which they argue creates an environment of hostility and encourages violent acts. Right leaning Americans feel the media carries water for Democrats while blaming Trump and Republicans.

Ryan Wesley Routh, suspect in Trump assassination attempt, embraced Biden attack lines, called the former president a threat to democracyhttps://t.co/6gTBI8liOe pic.twitter.com/mVRpnlIN6z

— The Washington Times (@WashTimes) September 15, 2024

People attribute the media’s reluctance to thoroughly report on these events to political alignment against Trump. They accuse mainstream outlets of downplaying threats against Trump while amplifying narratives that politically benefit the Democratic Party.

There are recurring discussions of the media “memory holing” events that make Trump look sympathetic, while hysterically and irresponsibly covering stories that present voters and Republicans as villains.

Erosion of Trust in Media

The public’s skepticism about the media's ability to report on sensitive issues without bias is growing. In overall conversations MIG Reports data shows 75% of voters believe the media contributes to violent events through inflammatory language and divisive rhetoric.

This perception is not just about Trump but reflects broader mistrust in how news outlets frame stories, with voters arguing media narratives are politically skewed and antagonistic to average Americans. This theme continues from previous stories of media prejudice like biased debate moderators, media running cover for Joe Biden, and plummeting trust in media.

One particularly notable sentiment is that the media allegedly “memory holes” events—a reference to George Orwell’s 1984. Many believe media outlets ignore stories that do not align with their preferred political narrative. There is outrage at this selective coverage as voters feel ignored, invalidated, and demeaned.

Implications for American Politics

Voter perceptions of bias in coverage reinforce pre-existing political divides, making bipartisan dialogue increasingly difficult. For many, the media’s reporting on Trump’s assassination attempts is emblematic of the growing divide between how average citizens view the world and how the political and elite classes portray it.

As voters lose confidence in institutions, they are turning to alternative platforms like X for news and reporting. Many discuss the importance of independent media to ensure facts and important stories come to the fore, despite mainstream media’s refusal to cover them.

They point to examples of independent reporters gathering facts and evidence more thoroughly than large media corporations. Many are also discussing instances of independent journalists like Nick Sortor confronting mainstream figures about their alleged lies.

🚨 NEW: I PERSONALLY confronted the MSNBC “reporter” here in Springfield, Ohio who is now on TV with Lester Holt blaming President Trump for his own ass*ss*nation attempt

And she tried to have me ARRESTED.

I attempted to ask @Maggie_Vespa why she is pushing VIOLENT, DIVISIVE… https://t.co/EoJ06Of9B8 pic.twitter.com/wXulsn1oAa

— Nick Sortor (@nicksortor) September 16, 2024

Last week, a USA Today reporter called my video on the Venezuelan gang activity in Aurora ‘largely disproven.’ This week, 8 gang members have been arrested, and a city statement describes the damage, but the reporter and her editors have doubled down, refusing to acknowledge the… pic.twitter.com/UqnKCHIhDs

— Matt Christiansen (@MLChristiansen) September 14, 2024

As media credibility continues to erode, it is likely that the public’s reaction to major political events remains polarized.

MIG Reports shows voters are comparing crime rates during the Trump and Biden-Harris administrations. As people engage with the topic of crime, themes of political bias, media manipulation, and immigration policies surface as focal points. These discussions highlight overarching concerns about how crime is managed, reported, and perceived in the current political climate.

Views of Crime Under Democrats

Data shows public sentiment leaning heavily toward skepticism about Biden-Harris policies for handling of crime.

• 62% of the MIG Reports data sample express distrust in crime statistics reported by the Biden-Harris administration.
• 45% believe crime has increased in discussions mentioning “crime under Trump.”
• The disparity between the views of each administration focuses on immigration, political agendas, and media bias.

What Voters are Saying

When comparing crime under Trump versus Biden-Harris, many view Trump’s administration as maintaining stronger law enforcement policies. They mention border security and stricter immigration controls.

In contrast, Americans perceive Biden-Harris policies as too lenient, particularly regarding immigration and sanctuary cities. Around 62% of commenters blame Democrats for increasing crime. People link rising crime to border policies, citing specific instances of migrant crime. They say current policies embolden criminals and endanger public safety.

Discussions also emphasize widespread distrust of media and official crime statistics—like rampant distrust in job numbers. Many Americans feel the media is downplaying or manipulating crime data to protect the Biden-Harris administration, including David Muir in the recent debate.

These perceptions about incorrect data further generate discontent. 45% suggest that media bias plays a significant role in shaping public opinion about the administration’s effectiveness.

Conversations don’t contain any noticeable defense that media is not shaping public opinion. Many also question the accuracy of reported crime stats, citing the number of large metropolitan areas which don’t report crime statistics to the FBI.

There are examples, like one from 2022. Among 19 of the largest law enforcement agencies—all of which are responsible for more than 1 million people—seven were missing from the FBI's crime data.

Voters are also concerned about politicization of law enforcement. Many believe the justice system under Biden-Harris is biased, with certain groups receiving preferential treatment. This idea of unequal justice adds to the frustration and deepens the divide between supporters of the two administrations.

A second assassination attempt on former President Donald Trump is generating strong reactions across the political spectrum. As details of the attempt unfold, voters express a range of emotions, from shock and outrage to skepticism and fear.

Ryan Wesley Routh, an individual who reportedly claimed ties to the Ukrainian International Legion, is the suspect in Sunday's attempt to assassinate former President Trump. Many are discussing Routh’s history of anti-Trump rhetoric, and online posts expressing disdain for his presidency. This, combined with apparent support for Biden and Harris is causing wide speculation about his motives. The attempt reignites tensions between Democrats and the media against American voters, causing debates about the state of American democracy.

The top emerging themes of discussion include:

• The alleged assassin's political affiliations and motivations.
• The role of Democrats and the media in inciting hatred and violence against Trump.
• Connections between Routh and Ukraine, the CIA, and other international actors.
• Demands for accountability and repercussions for inciting or engaging in violent behavior.
• The deepening divisions and partisan polarization within American society.

Voter Reactions

Voter reactions are largely splintered along partisan lines, revealing not only anger and fear but stark differences in how various groups interpret the event.

Republicans: Outrage and Betrayal

Among Republicans, the attempt on Trump’s life was met with overwhelming outrage. Many are furious about threats to Trump's safety after recurring calls for greater security and warnings of more attempts following the Butler, PA, attempt.

There are accusations against Democrats and mainstream media, who many view as inciting violence through inflammatory rhetoric and hostile coverage of Trump. Many on the right view the media as especially hypocritical. They say news outlets have exposed their double standards in blaming J.D. Vance for bomb threats in Springfield, Ohio, while also blaming Trump for the attempts on his own life.

Many Republicans express fears and concerns over the potential of assassination attempts being part of a coordinated effort from adverse motivations within the deep state. Allegations about Routh’s connections to the CIA and Ukraine fuel these theories. Speculations emerge that international actors or corrupt U.S. agency officials are connected to a plot to remove Trump from political life.

Democrats: Hesitation and Skepticism

Democratic voters are promoting what they call a measured response. While some voice relief that Trump is unharmed and condemn the violence in general terms, many also take a dismissive attitude. They focus on civility, “toning down rhetoric,” and discuss Trump’s gun views.

There was also a noticeable level of skepticism among certain Democrats, with some questioning suggestions that this was a serious assassination attempt. A minority even speculate that Trump may have staged one or both attacks as part of a political ploy.

Among Democrats, there more citing Trump’s own rhetoric as a cause of the attempted violence. Some in the media and voters online lament the possibility of the attempted assassination generating sympathy or votes for Trump in November.

Democratic skepticism is driven by a perception that Trump has manipulated media narratives in the past to gain sympathy and political advantage. Many call for a closer examination of the suspect’s motivations and affiliations before making any concrete judgments about the incident’s significance.

Independents: Frustration and Calls for Nuance

Independents voice frustration with the extreme partisanship on both sides. Many express a desire for more nuanced discussions about the assassination attempt, avoiding knee-jerk reactions they say come from partisans.

These voters want deeper investigations into Routh’s background and motives. They also question how this may reflect a broader issue of external influence or political extremism in American society. Some also highlight the media’s role in exacerbating political tensions, suggesting both sides contribute to a toxic atmosphere.

Emerging Themes

As discussions about the assassination attempt unfold, several key themes became evident across voter groups:

Questions About Deep State Involvement

Among Trump supporters, the alleged connections between Routh, the CIA, and Ukraine are at the forefront of discussions. Many believe the assassination attempt was part of a larger plan to silence Trump and prevent his political resurgence.

Partisan Polarization and Accusations

Both sides demonstrate the growing division in American politics. Trump supporters blame Democrats and the media for inciting violence, while some Democrats downplay the incident or redirect attention toward Trump’s own rhetoric. Accusations of hypocrisy run rampant, with both sides questioning the other’s commitment to condemning political violence.

Media Criticism

The role of the media in covering the assassination attempt is a significant focus of voter frustration, particularly among Republicans. Media outlets such as CBS, MSNBC, and The New York Times receive anger for their portrayals of Trump as a "threat to democracy." Many say the media is to blame for raising the rhetorical temperature, despite its own accusations against Trump.

Calls for Accountability

Across the political spectrum, voters want greater accountability—either for those inciting violence or those downplaying it. Many voters express the need for repercussions for both media figures and political leaders who contributed to the current climate of hostility.

Many on the right also want repercussions for Secret Service and DHS officials who have allowed these two attempts to take place. They suggest there is either incompetence deserving of firings, or corruption which ought to be cleaned out.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Secret Service designated the 2025 Electoral Vote Count as a national security event, sparking widespread and intense debate. This move, unprecedented in U.S. electoral history, has triggered a variety of responses from different segments of the American public.

Voters are grappling with concerns over democracy, transparency, and security. Reactions and sentiments around domestic policy, voting issues, and election integrity vary. Analysis of these differences provides insight into how Americans are processing this complex issue.

Sentiment Analysis

MIG Reports analysis shows a marked division in public opinion. The reactions can be grouped into four broad categories:

• Skepticism and concern (37%)
• Support for the decision (32%)
• Uncertainty (17%)
• Outrage or frustration (13%)

Each perspective offers its own unique breakdown of public sentiment, revealing the various underlying motivations, concerns, and narratives that shape these discussions.

Domestic Policy

Designating the vote count as a national security event has spurred conversations about government overreach and power. Analysis of discussions show 42% of Americans are skeptical, expressing concern that this move is an unnecessary overreach of executive power. Many fear the designation could set a precedent for future manipulation of the electoral process under the guise of national security.

Meanwhile, 27% support the decision, believing increased security is necessary to protect the electoral process from potential threats. However, even within this group, there is a sense of caution regarding the broader implications.

Another 21% of the conversation calls for greater transparency and accountability from the government, demanding more information about why this designation was made and how it will impact the voting process. The remaining 10% expresses outrage, viewing the designation as an affront to democracy and an attempt to suppress dissent.

Voting Issues

Discussions about voting issues show similar sentiments of deep skepticism and division. Around 42% express outrage and indignation, often using strong language to condemn the government’s decision. Many in this group view the move as an attempt to undermine the democratic process, with concerns about voter suppression and the militarization of the election. This group is largely composed of liberal and progressive voters who feel the integrity of the election is under threat.

The 27% who support the designation believe it is a necessary measure to secure the election from potential threats. This group, predominantly made up of conservative and Republican voters who view the measure as safeguard against fraud and external interference.

Additionally, 15% express confusion and uncertainty, seeking more clarity about what this designation entails. Another 16% demonstrate cynicism and apathy, questioning the effectiveness of any governmental action in securing elections and feeling disillusioned with the electoral process overall.

Election Integrity

Conversation about election integrity shifts slightly, with 42% supporting the move as a necessary step to protect the integrity of the vote and prevent potential voter fraud. This group feels safeguarding the electoral process is paramount. They view the designation as an appropriate and necessary measure.

Conversely, 27% believe the measure is an overreach of power, echoing concerns about executive authority and its potential abuse. Another 15% express uncertainty, reflecting the need for more information before forming a definitive opinion on the matter. Finally, 12% see this move as a partisan attempt to undermine the electoral process and discredit the outcome, with 4% specifically concerned about the potential for foreign interference.

During the presidential debate, voters reacted strongly to Donald Trump’s comments about allegations that Haitian migrants in Springfield, Ohio, are eating pets and local park fowl. The story, which had already been circulating online and generating a wealth of memes, became a central point of discussion.

Protect our ducks and kittens in Ohio! pic.twitter.com/YnTZStPnsg

— House Judiciary GOP 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸 (@JudiciaryGOP) September 9, 2024

This report analyzes voter reactions, concerns about immigration, media bias, and impact on support for Trump and Harris.

Migrants Eating Pets in Ohio

The pet-eating allegations in Springfield, Ohio, began with a photo of a man carrying a dead goose and videos of residents alleging various pet and wildlife hunting among Haitian migrants.

Springfield is a small town in Ohio.

4 years ago, they had 60k residents.

Under Harris and Biden, 20,000 Haitian immigrants were shipped to the town.

Now ducks and pets are disappearing. pic.twitter.com/OOFq3ZdTiA

— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) September 6, 2024

NEW: Springfield, Ohio man says Haitian illegals are decap*tating ducks from parks & eating them, accuses commission members of getting paid off for allowing it.

“They're in the park grabbing up ducks by their neck and cutting their head off and walking off with 'em and eating… pic.twitter.com/uE3wI3CXl3

— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) September 8, 2024

As the story gained traction online, particularly in conservative circles concerned about immigration, memes surged. People also began debating the veracity of claims and the details of the stories. Many Democrats adopted a sense of outrage and disbelief—including Rep. Eric Swalwell, who criticized the viral memes in Congress.

How do we know we are winning?

Democrats are losing their minds over memes in the halls of Congress

pic.twitter.com/OoqK02bNvN

— Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) September 10, 2024

Trump's mention of these allegations during the debate further inflamed discussions and more memes. Many people also reacted to ABC’s debate moderator David Muir attempting to fact-check Trump’s claims.

THEY'RE EATING THE DOGS pic.twitter.com/lQqMW5l8pT

— Tarquin 🇺🇦 (@Tarquin_Helmet) September 11, 2024

National and Ohio Reactions

Voter reactions to the allegations are divided both nationally and among Ohio residents. MIG Reports analysis shows trends among voter comments on memes and reactions to the debate.

National Sentiment

• 51% of voters nationally believe the pet-eating allegations, tying them to broader immigration issues.
• 26% outright dismiss the story, seeing it as an example of exaggerated rhetoric.
• 22% remain neutral or have not directly engaged with the rumors.

Ohio Sentiment

• In Ohio, 52% of voters express a belief that migrants are eating pets, viewing this as symbolic of greater societal collapse and resource strain.
• 28% reject the story, calling it political fearmongering.
• 20% focus on the broader immigration debate without weighing in on the pet story.

Stories like this seem to stir up debate, confirming recurring reports that immigration and community safety are a top voter issue in 2024. The fact that national and Ohio-specific sentiments align closely—with 51% and 52% respectively believing the rumor—suggests the Haitian migrant story taps into broader national anxieties about immigration.

Memes Driving Voter Conversation

Memes have played a critical role in amplifying discussion around these topics. Analysis of meme-centric conversations shows 70% of commenters in the MIG Reports data set express strong support for Trump. They often use humor and AI-generated imagery to emphasize points about immigration and perceived Democratic denial.

Meme culture, especially among right-leaning voters, often rallies supporters around an issue while also criticizing the opposition. While many claim meme culture is relegated to “chronically online” circles, politicians and public figures more frequently engage with memes—as in the case of Swalwell and House Republicans.

On the flip side, Harris supporters largely dismiss the claims as absurd. Roughly 25% of national voters see these memes and stories as racist or misleading. Some accuse Trump’s camp of fearmongering with embellished stories which are not really happening.

Media Bias Exacerbates Voter Ire

The role of the media, particularly how these allegations were handled during the debate, also shapes voter sentiment. During the debate, ABC’s David Muir claimed to fact-check Trump’s claims in real-time, casting doubt on the veracity of the story. This, along with multiple fact-checks against Trump and none against Harris, fueled accusations of media bias.

Donald Trump gets fact-checked again during the presidential debate after accusing immigrants in Ohio of eating pets:

“The Springfield city manager says there's no evidence of that.” pic.twitter.com/wiLNLgFU6B

— Pop Crave (@PopCrave) September 11, 2024

MIG Reports analysis shows:

• 55% of Ohio voters criticize the debate moderators for openly favoring Harris. Many argued that Harris was given leeway in addressing the pet-eating allegations, while Trump faced sharper scrutiny.
• Nationally, 40% of critique Muir and the media’s portrayal of the story, with many asserting media outlets are deliberately downplaying immigration issues.

This skepticism has strengthened Trump's position among voters, who often view the mainstream media as an arm of the Democratic establishment. The media’s perceived bias adds another layer to the debate, turning the pet-eating allegations into a broader discussion about the trustworthiness of political discourse.

Implications for Trump’s Campaign

Reactions to this multi-faceted story reflect a broader struggle between partisan viewpoints on the media and immigration. Data suggests voter frustrations are pushing support toward Trump—including in a swing state like Ohio.

Voter impact from this story shows:

• Support for Trump remains high: 70% of immigration discussions express positive sentiment toward Trump and 42% of all discussions mentioning him express support.
• Media Distrust: The perceived media bias, especially around fact-checking, has bolstered Trump's credibility among supporters.
• Harris's Challenge: While her base largely dismisses the narrative as absurd, the broader immigration debate remains a vulnerability. Voters unhappy about immigration view Harris as part of the establishment that is failing to address real concerns.