MIG Reports data shows online discourse on crimes committed by illegal immigrants in the United States is growing. A significant portion of the conversation focuses on allegations that illegal immigrants are responsible for high rates of violent crimes such as rape and murder.

These violent crime narratives are particularly evident among conservative voices who attribute these crimes directly to leniency and inefficacy in Biden administration border policies. Many liberals and immigration advocates counter these discussions with studies which ignore immigration law violations.

A recent trend in voter concerns is the growing focus on specific cases of violence, which are largely ignored by liberals and the media.

Border Security

Discussion trends reveal a strong correlation between alleged crimes committed by illegal immigrants and criticism of Democratic leadership, particularly President Joe Biden. Within these discussions, there is a recurring assertion that the administration's actions have led to an "open border" situation, which is allowing criminals to enter the country unchecked.

This perspective often comes with claims that the influx of illegal immigrants is a direct cause of increased crime rates. People say it poses an immediate threat to American citizens, particularly women and children.

Several key topics dominate the narrative:

1. People associate high-profile crimes with illegal immigration. Americans frequently cite specific crimes, like the rape and murder of minors, to emphasize the immediate threat.
2. Many also point to an erosion of law and order, saying the Biden administration has failed to maintain national security and protect American citizens.
3. There is a strong focus on the political failures and dishonesty of President Biden on border security, particularly the Border Patrol’s stance towards him.

Immigration Issues

Conversation is continuing around President Biden’s claim that the Border Patrol Union endorsed him. Many voters accuse Biden of lying to gain support, and these assertions are typically accompanied by reposts of the Border Patrol Union’s denial on X. This false claim seems to be a flashpoint, igniting further debate about presidential honesty and competency.

Sentiment Trends

The sentiment among those engaged in border discussions is overwhelmingly negative. The rhetoric is heavily laden with anger, frustration, and fear. There is a significant focus on individual cases, such as Jocelyn Nungaray, Rachel Morin, and other young children, to underscore the dangers. These cases are used as poignant examples to criticize Biden's immigration policies and to galvanize support for stricter border control measures.

American feelings lean heavily towards anger and betrayal. Many voters are outraged over the lies and the dangerous consequences they attribute to Biden’s open-border policies. This anger is amplified by specific instances of violent crimes committed by illegal immigrants, which are frequently dismissed or not covered by mainstream media.

Political Impact

Continued emphasis on crime and personal safety resonates with visceral and emotional responses. The stories of victimized American women and children at the hands of men who should not be in the country can be compelling for many voters who prioritize security issues.

Undecided voters who are particularly concerned about immigration and public safety may find these arguments persuasive and might lean towards Trump's tighter immigration controls and more robust law enforcement.

Julian Assange’s release from HM Prison Belmarsh in London on June 24th ignited a firestorm on social media. Assange’s plea deal with U.S. prosecutors has generally been met with enthusiasm from free-speech crowds. However, online discourse cascades into deeper conversations about more than just Julian Assange.

MIG Reports data shows the discourse around Assange's release generates intense debates over free speech, freedom of the press, global politics, and government transparency. Much of the conversation is shaped by political orientation and national identity.

How People Are Reacting to Assange’s Freedom

Much of the online conversation celebrates Assange's release as a victory for freedom of the press and free speech. Many Americans praise Assange for his role in exposing government secrets and misconduct. They view him as a hero who has suffered unjustly for his commitment to transparency. This group often includes references to government overreach and the importance of safeguarding journalistic freedom as a cornerstone of democracy.

There is also skepticism and outright disapproval of Assange, questioning his methods and the legality of his actions. This sentiment often comes from those who believe Assange's activities endangered lives and compromised national security. For these Americans, Assange's release is a troubling precedent that could embolden similar actions in the future.

Both sides of the argument include emotional intensity with passionate language and strong opinions from those involved. Many posts include references to past grievances with political establishments, underscoring deeper, long-standing frustrations with issues of governance, accountability, and civil liberties.

Demographic Patterns

Younger generations, particularly those active on digital platforms like X and Reddit, tend to champion Assange as a symbol of the fight against corrupt institutions. This demographic often aligns with more libertarian or left-leaning political views and is deeply concerned with issues of digital rights and government surveillance.

Older demographics, particularly those with a military background or conservative leanings, are more likely to voice concerns about Assange's impact on national security. This group often promotes narratives of patriotism and the protection of state secrets as paramount to national safety, reflecting a more traditional perspective on law and order.

Impact Analysis

For some, Assange's release is a catalyst for deeper reflection on their political beliefs and actions. Assange supporters indicate this event reinforces their distrust in government institutions. They also say it increases their likelihood of supporting candidates who prioritize transparency and civil liberties.

For others, particularly those concerned with national security, the release reaffirms their support for tougher policies on government whistleblowers and classified information leaks. Moderates and independents show a strong interest in the issue, as it speaks to governmental accountability and civil liberties. These topics are becoming increasingly central to American political discourse.

Based on current trends, these demographics will likely remain engaged with the issue, potentially influencing their voting behavior in future elections. They might lean toward candidates who emphasize civil liberties and whistleblower protection, seeing the issues as important to democratic principles.

Reactions also highlight potential interest from undecided voters and Independents. While Assange's release might not be the sole consideration for their votes, it could influence these segments. Framing themes of government accountability and personal freedom will likely appeal to this group.

Those who are disillusioned with both major political parties might view Assange's predicament as indicative of systemic issues that need addressing. This could cause them to gravitate towards candidates who advocate for reform and transparency.

Allegations are spreading online that a notorious hacking group called LockBit claims it hacked the Federal Reserve, breaching 33 terabytes of data. While the hack has not been confirmed, many Americans are discussing whether it could be real and, if so, what the implications might be.

The Fed, which is touted as a cornerstone of the U.S. financial system, claims to maintain robust security and stability, given its prominent position in global finance. Allegations of a breach at such a critical institution are naturally alarming and some speculate the Fed would never admit to a hack, even if it was true.

• Sentiment towards banks and the economy has leveled out since a dip on June 22, despite news of the possible hack.
• Meanwhile, crypto sentiment has increased to 53%, suggesting those looking for alternatives to traditional institutions are motivated by such news.

Do Americans Believe the Allegations?

Nefarious actors potentially accessing sensitive information and or causing disruptions to the Feds operations is a huge threat to privacy and national security. Hacking claims have not been officially confirmed by the Federal Reserve, nor have they been wholly dismissed. This ambiguity leaves voters grappling with potential data exposure and leadership incompetence.

Some Americans believe the allegations are credible, citing previous instances where government agencies were targets of sophisticated cyberattacks. This group contends if these rumors hold any truth, it underscores a grave vulnerability within the nation’s most crucial financial infrastructure, potentially jeopardizing not only national but also global economic stability.

Others are skeptical, saying the rumors lack concrete evidence and might be part of misinformation campaigns. They emphasize the Fed, given its importance, would likely have robust cyber defenses in place to thwart such threats. This group also claims hackers have an incentive to take credit for hacks which did not happen or were thwarted.

Sentiment About U.S. Financial Security

Most people react with anxiety, scrutiny, and speculation. Online conversations weigh the potential consequences if a security breach did occur. Many fear destabilization in the financial markets, loss of sensitive data, and a potential ripple effect on the global economy. This anxiety demonstrates underlying concerns Americans have about the integrity of the

News of a potential Federal Reserve hack spurs online speculation about the U.S. financial system and government competence.

Although unconfirmed, the allegations have many Americans expressing worry about the ability of government and banking agencies to protect American interests.

The discourse highlights an ongoing skepticism and distrust many voters harbor toward government institutions, increasing support for opt-out solutions like crypto.

Americans are reacting to California providing plastic straws in free drug kits for addicts, despite banning them in general use over environmental impact claims. This contradiction is generating public reactions of ridicule and disgust.

Many people are pointing out the inconsistency in policy implementation. Critics say banning plastic straws for environmental reasons while supplying them freely to drug addicts reveals a lack of conviction in California's environmental priorities. This contradictory stance also leads some to believe California’s stated reasons for its policies are disingenuous and politically motivated.

A viral video showing what is provided in California’s free drug kits elicited reactions of disbelief and anger. Many people criticize programs that claim to make drug use “safer” or that safe use fights addiction. They say these programs simply enable addicts at the taxpayer’s expense. All the while, the state penalizes average citizens for the alleged environmental impact of drinking out of plastic straws.

To fight climate change California Democrats took away plastic straws…

But to fight drug addiction they give free drug kits with plastic straws.

Make it make fvcking sense.
pic.twitter.com/u38JdT4DRy

— I Meme Therefore I Am 🇺🇸 (@ImMeme0) May 17, 2024

Arguments About Hypocritical Policies

Some voices support the state including plastic straws in “safe drug kits.” They claim it is a pragmatic approach to harm reduction. Advocates argue providing these kits, which aim to minimize health risks for drug users, is a necessary public health measure. They claim the immediate health benefits outweigh any environmental concerns, stressing the primary goal is to save lives and reduce the spread of diseases.

These discussions also bleed into broader debates about the effectiveness of California's environmental policies and governance. Some are skeptical about the long-term impact of banning plastic straws, viewing it as a superficial and performative measure.

There are also some who support climate initiatives who say there are more important systemic environmental issues to address. They argue for a more comprehensive approach to tackling plastic pollution and climate change rather than focusing on smaller, symbolic actions.

Criticisms About Government Spending

When voters learn of plastic straws being provided free in drug kits, many react with anger at tax dollar spending and misplaced government priorities. Critics say taxpayer dollars could be better used elsewhere, criticizing such a controversial use of resources. Many suggest the funds and efforts invested in harm reduction are ineffective and patronizing to citizens in need of help.

Progressive voters who support the harm reduction approach highlight their belief that marginalized communities are disproportionately affected by drug use. They claim these groups need compassionate and immediate care. They also advocate for integrating harm reduction efforts with environmental policies, which can lead to more holistic and equitable outcomes.

Resistance to “Harm Reduction” and Regulations

Right leaning and conservative voters are more likely to criticize government spending on supposed “harm reduction” initiatives. Often the same voters who criticize environmental plastic straw bans, this group views public funding for drug kits as a heinous perpetuation of the drug addiction epidemic—especially in blue cities and states.

Many argue the government should focus on addressing core issues underlying drug addiction like border security or comprehensive rehabilitation programs. They say facilitating safer ways to consume drugs is only detrimental. This viewpoint asserts harm reduction enables and legitimizes drug use rather than helping Americans to overcome it.

These Americans also tend to view the larger straw ban as an overreach, questioning the government's role in regulating everyday items and behaviors. They see a sharp hypocrisy in government facilitation for drug addicts but restrictions on all other citizens when it comes to straw use.

Voter conversations about California Governor Gavin Newsom in recent days have been intensely critical. There are multiple issues negatively influencing opinions, but one of the most severe is the alarming increase in antisemitic incidents. Jewish communities have faced violent assaults from protesters, especially in Los Angeles. The outrage has been palpable, with citizens questioning Newsom's stance and demanding immediate action to curtail hate crimes on the streets of LA.

• In the last 10 days, Newsom’s overall support has averaged 40%, dipping down from 44% to 38% with a spike in online mentions.
• Sentiment toward Newsom regarding Israel-Palestine issues dropped dramatically from 50% to a low of 27%.
• Voters are also extremely negative about the economy and crime, with Newsom’s sentiment respectively reaching lows of 33% and 30%.

Antisemitic Protests

Public discourse about Gavin Newsom is intensely focused on incidents of violence and tension between pro-Palestine protesters and the Jewish community in Los Angeles. Many disapprove of the violent clashes where pro-Palestine protesters reportedly assaulted Jewish individuals near synagogues, particularly in the Pico-Robertson neighborhood.

There are vivid descriptions of chaos, including instances where Jewish women have been pinned to the ground and injured. These events sparked alarm and outrage from Californians. Many are questioning where Gavin Newsom and other leaders are during these times of crisis.

People are also discussing the broader issue of antisemitism. There is palpable anger toward Newsom for not publicly denouncing antisemitic actions. Protesters blocking the entrance to synagogues and verbally or physically harassing Jewish attendees exacerbate fears and frustrations.

Many argue these disturbing protests cross a line beyond political protest and enter religious and ethnic discrimination.

Top Issues Impacting Newsom Support

The issue of rising antisemitism in California has been at the forefront of conversation in recent days. However, there are several ongoing issues which land blame at Newsom’s door, making voters angry.

Economic Struggles

There is considerable anger toward California leadership for how they are handling economic matters. High unemployment rates, exacerbating income disparities, and a surging cost of living fuel discontent. Many Californians say Newsom's policies are accelerating the decline of a state once renowned for its economic vitality and prosperity. Voters direct particular ire at legislative decisions, such as those surrounding the controversial SB7, which some argue undermines voters' rights concerning taxes, housing, and utilities.

California Senate Bill 7 (SB7) removes county and city government abilities to object to state-determined housing needs and reduces review times. Supporters claim it will address the housing crisis more effectively. However, opponents argue it undermines local autonomy, imposes a one-size-fits-all approach, and overburdens smaller governments. They also worry about potential community resistance and legal challenges regarding the erosion of local control.

Crime and Public Safety

Another pain point for Californians is the issue of public safety and infrastructure. Crime is alarmingly high, there is widespread homelessness, and ineffective policing leaves many citizens feeling unsafe and neglected. A gun violence incident in Oakland, where a family was attacked with an AK-47, has generated pronounced negativity. Many call for Newsom to address the growing menace of violent crime, which Californians feel he has utterly failed at.

Environmental Grievances

Environmental and energy issues also generate harsh criticisms for Newsom. People accuse him of prioritizing the interests of large energy firms over public rights, causing distrust. Recent rulings by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) regarding rooftop solar have only intensified these frustrations. The sentiment that California is being mismanaged extends to perceptions that Newsom failed to capitalize on the state's natural resources sustainably.

Distaste for Newsom Himself

Many Californians also place intense scrutiny on Newsom’s personal conduct and political aspirations. People castigate him for his failures in governance and his gauche ambition for higher political office, including the presidency. There are many allegations of corruption within the Democratic leadership in California, amplified by recent high-profile raids, further tarnishing Newsom's reputation. Many say the state's political landscape has become increasingly chaotic and dysfunctional under his leadership.

There is also sharp criticism of Newsom’s communication methods and ways of addressing state issues. His decision to deliver his State of the State address via a pre-recorded video rather than a traditional speech has been met with disdain. People interpret the choice as indicative of Newsom’s off-putting lack of transparency and accountability. Voters see Newsom as a member of the political elite who absolve themselves of blame and wrongdoing while citizens bear the consequence of their poor governance.

A thread that combines these various strands of discontent is how voters view Newsom’s hypocrisy and lack of accountability. Whether it's the accusations of failing to support healthcare workers, the disenchantment over neglected public services, or his cancelled State of the State address, it seems trust in Newsom is at an all-time low. The overarching narrative is that California, under Newsom's leadership, is grappling with deep-seated social, economic, and political crises, causing many people and businesses to leave the state.

News of U.S. prosecutors recommending the Justice Department criminally charge Boeing for violating the settlement on fatal 737 Max crashes, is generating discussion. On June 18, Boeing CEO Dave Calhoun testified in the U.S. Senate about numerous issues which sparked widespread public reactions.

Public commentary focuses on the aviation giant's apparent safety lapses and retaliatory tactics against whistleblowers. Americans seem deeply concerned and outraged over the company's negligence and the emerging whistleblower claims, which add fuel to an already blazing fire of public discontent.

Sentiment Trends

American attitudes are predominantly negative towards Boeing. There is a strong sense of betrayal, with people feeling Boeing's leadership, including Calhoun, place profits above human lives and safety. The CEO's large salary amid these allegations only exacerbates public anger. This highlights a stark disconnect between Boeing's top brass and any serious consequences for their actions.

Many Americans draw parallels between Boeing's corporate practices and broader systemic issues within American political and business practices. Americans believe Boeing's safety issues represent a larger problem in which corporate malpractice goes unchecked due to weak regulatory oversight and prioritizing corporate profit over public welfare. The speculation about favoritism and insufficient criminal prosecution by the Justice Department fuels the narrative of systemic corruption.

Belief in corrupt corporations leads calls for a more extensive overhaul, beyond penalizing Boeing. Public opinion suggests holding individuals at the top levels of management accountable, including demands for Calhoun's resignation, could be a starting point. However, transforming this sentiment into a broader movement against systemic corporate and political negligence requires strategic framing.

Corporate Corruption in America

Many voters believe Boeing's quality control issues and lack of repercussions are emblematic of larger problems in corporate America. There are recurring mentions of corporate greed, regulatory failure, and political complicity. Voter suspicions include:

• Whistleblower deaths and retaliation show grave moral and legal corruption.
• Boeing's situation with other corporate malpractice cases reveals a pattern of corporate negligence under weak administration.

While the public's immediate reaction is one of anger and disappointment towards Boeing, there is potential to channel this sentiment into a broader movement against corporate hubris. People seem to want robust regulatory governance, which they hope can lead to a significant systemic overhaul.

Online discussion about corporate corruption isn't limited to Boeing. Many people draw parallels between Boeing's situation and other issues like corporate tax evasion, legal loopholes, and the perceived inadequacy of regulatory frameworks.

Some Americans further associate these corporate malpractices with a corrupt political establishment. They believe politicians across party lines tend to protect the interests of big corporations over those of ordinary citizens.

This negativity seems to be impacting Boeing’s stock, which is down in 2024. It also remains lower than when the deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) between Boeing and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) was announced on January 7, 2021. The agreement required Boeing to pay more than $2.5 billion to resolve the criminal charge of conspiracy to defraud the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).

An Ecuadorian national in the U.S. illegally was arrested for raping a 13-year-old girl at a popular Queens park. NYPD made the arrest after a group of at least 10 neighbors swarmed and detained the criminal until police arrived around 1 a.m. on Tuesday.

BREAKING: We spoke to the #Queens man who recognized and physically restrained the alleged rapist, Christian Geovanny Inga, overnight. Jeffrey Flores says he saw the NYPD flyer and quickly identified the suspect, who he says frequents a bodega in Corona, Queens. @NBCNewYork pic.twitter.com/NPDKvOrEtM

— Melissa Colorado (@melissacolorado) June 18, 2024

Following the event, emotions are running high and political tensions continue among American voters. One prominent cause of pain and disagreement is immigration policy and public safety. These conversations surged as news came out that the illegal alien perpetrator crossed the border with a 3-year-old in 2021.

Americans Demand Border Security

A dominant sentiment on social media highlights anger and frustration towards the Biden administration and Democrats. Voters are expressing outrage, attributing the crime to the administration's lenient border policies.

This anger is often framed within a broader critique of government failures to protect American citizens, tying individual criminal acts to systemic policy decisions. Users argue policies allowing more illegal immigrants into the country, and those who make such policies, are directly responsible for increased crime rates, including violent acts like rape and murder.

There is also notable skepticism over media coverage, with accusations that mainstream outlets are downplaying or ignoring crimes committed by illegal immigrants. This distrust in media reporting is coupled with a strong desire for what users call "real justice" and a sense of having to take matters into their own hands due to government negligence.

The discussion is also frequently tied to legislative and policy debates, with people contrasting current border security measures against those implemented during the Trump administration. They draw comparisons to emphasize that border deaths were lower under Trump.

There is a call for a return to Trump’s policies, which many see as more effective in safeguarding American citizens. The narrative often suggests Biden and Democrats do not prioritize American lives but are instead focused on political agendas and international matters. People resent focus on things like Ukraine funding at the expense of national security.

The tragedy of events like the one in NYC has a clear impact on voting patterns. There are repeated calls for the 2024 election to be a judgment on the Biden administration’s immigration policies.

There is a strong indication that voters who identify as Republican or are dissatisfied with Democratic leadership, this issue will galvanize support for Trump or Trump-aligned candidates. The rhetoric suggests a rallying cry for change, using personal safety and national security as key motivators.

A Rebuke to Biden’s Immigration Policies

The prevalent voter sentiment is heavy with anger and frustration directed at the Biden administration's immigration policies. Many blame President Biden for an uncontrolled surge in illegal immigration, attributing violent crimes committed by undocumented individuals to his "open borders" stance.

A significant number of Americans argue Biden’s policy changes, which they claim dismantled the measures put in place by former President Donald Trump, have led to an increase in crimes committed by illegal immigrants. This has fueled accusations that Biden and the Democrats are more focused on securing votes through immigration policies than protecting American citizens.

There is also considerable debate about the effectiveness and intent behind Biden’s recent policies for “border relief” and amnesty. Critics insist these efforts are too little, too late. They also believe any policy adjustments are politically motivated attempts to repair the damage caused.

Even some Democratic or left-leaning voters express their frustration with Biden. This dissatisfaction could potentially motivate a swing toward Trump in the upcoming election, as many believe he had stronger immigration policies. However, there are voices calling out what they see as fear-mongering and misleading statistics aimed at stoking public fear and resentment against all immigrants, not just illegal ones.

Most Americans call for stricter immigration controls, including mass deportations, citing concerns about crime, economic impact, and public safety.

President Joe Biden’s border and immigration policies continue to upset Americans. Discussions about the U.S. border are rife with emotion, division, and significant concerns about Biden's failure to protect the country.

Voter sentiment is heavy with frustration and alarm among everyone critical of Biden's policies. Reactions encompass several recurring themes, notably the fear of national security threats, economic pressures, and political dissatisfaction.

The Top Worries for American Citizens

National Security and Public Safety

Many perceive President Biden's approach to the border as lenient and poorly managed, bordering on treasonous. A recurring narrative insists his policies enable illegal activities like drug trafficking, human trafficking, and even terrorism.

Specific references are made to reports of individuals with alleged ties to ISIS being apprehended within the U.S., fueling fears about inadequate screenings and the potential for future terrorist actions on American soil.

Economic Worry

Americans are still very worried about the economy and how illegal immigration impacts U.S. households. Many people argue an influx of illegal immigrants places undue stress on our financial resources.

Voters see taxpayer dollars being redirected to support illegal populations at the expense of American citizens, especially those from the middle and lower classes. Their dissatisfaction is reflected in discussions about inflated costs of living, including rising prices for food, housing, and general goods, which are attributed to the broader scope of Biden's economic strategies.

Another poignant aspect is social and security costs, with reports of tragic crimes committed by illegal immigrants angering citizens. Stories like that of Laken Riley’s murder underline the personal impact of what is characterized as reckless policy making.

The most high-profile crimes committed by illegal immigrants often elicits calls for significant changes in leadership or sharper policy shifts. The murder of Rachel Morin by an illegal immigrant is another frequently cited tragedy as emblematic of the dangers believed to be inherent in the current approach to border security.

America Last

Amidst safety and economic grievances, there is also noticeable political disillusionment. Critics often accuse Biden and his administration of putting the interests of illegal immigrants above those of the American people. They argue unchecked illegal crossings cause a dilution of American values and the erosion of national security.

Calls for more stringent deportation policies, the firing of political figures seen as complicit, and even the impeachment of President Biden and other officials appear frequently within these conversations.

Biden’s Support

Contrasting sharply with criticisms of Biden are Democrat supporters who view America as having legal and moral obligations to provide asylum and refuge to those in need. This group advocates for humane treatment and mindful consideration of human rights, which they argue are being addressed through current policies. However, the discussion here is often overshadowed by the louder and more predominant concern about the collapse of national security and economic instability.

Suspicions About Democratic Endgame

The reaction to Biden's policies also shows significant distrust toward Democrat border messaging and a deep skepticism about the authenticity of Biden’s motives. Some Americans believe the administration's actions are politically calculated to sway public opinion ahead of elections.

Critics don’t believe the Democratic Party supports genuine attempts to resolve immigration issues. Voter accuse Biden and Democrats of prioritizing political survival over effective governance are a common critique among opponents.

Many Americans express vehement opposition to Biden's approach, characterizing it as weak and labeling it an "open borders" policy that has led to an influx of criminal activity. These individuals often underline events where illegal immigrants have been implicated in violent crimes as evidence supporting their concerns, arguing Biden's administration has failed to protect American citizens.

Voters feel Democratic border policies prioritize illegal immigrants and may even have cynical ends like swaying the election through illegal voting. These fears heighten voter dissatisfaction and amplify demands for stricter immigration laws and greater border enforcement.

Supporters of stronger border security frequently emphasize the notion of legal immigration, maintaining they are not opposed to immigrants per se, but rather to illegal entry into the country. They advocate for mass deportations and the establishment of more rigid legislative measures, such as imposing severe penalties on those who hire illegal immigrants.

Governor Kathy Hochul's handling of the NYC subway system, including a possible face mask ban, is upsetting voters in New York. Online reactions reveal strong opposition, frustration, and concern about her decisions. Conversations seem to suggest a vote of no confidence from many New Yorkers. Many people call for more consistent, health-conscious, and forward-thinking leadership to guide the city's future.

Recent headlines suggest Gov. Hochul may soon impose a face mask ban on the subway, which is receiving blowback from both liberals and conservatives. Left leaning voters view a ban as a disgraceful move, especially in the context of New York’s substantial suffering during COVID-19. These critics argue masks are essential for public safety, not just from COVD, but many diseases and pollution.

Right leaning voters are more likely to criticize Hochul for hypocrisy. They say mask mandates during COVID, which normalized masks in public, have now led to surges in crime four years later. They say masks are not and were never needed and Hochul and other leaders are now facing the consequences of reckless mandates over COVID fears.

• Gov. Hochul’s approval hovers in the low to mid 40% range with some spikes in discussion volume, which tend to correlate with a drop in sentiment.

Discussions Around a Mask Ban

Many New Yorkers are vehemently opposed to the proposed mask ban, perceiving it as a threat to public health. They say they are especially worried for the aging and immunocompromised who depend on the subway system. This sentiment is particularly acute among those who still view COVID as an ongoing pandemic. They suggest attempting to lower crime rates with a mask ban is an egregious disregard for their safety.

Others, however, feel banning masks is necessary to curb criminal activities where perpetrators use masks to conceal their identities. This group supports a potential ban and believes it could deter crime on the subway system and create a more secure environment for all passengers.

Pausing NYC Congestion Pricing

Many New Yorkers express dissatisfaction with her governance decisions, arguing they reveal a poor understanding of public needs. The ire directed at Gov. Hochul often touches on congestion pricing, which was intended to reduce traffic congestion in lower Manhattan and finance public transit improvements. Many criticize her decision to pause or scrap the congestion pricing plan, viewing it as a capitulation to special interests and suburban voters at the expense of city residents.

Some contrast Hochul's choice to paus congestion pricing with examples from other cities, like London, where congestion pricing has been highly successful in improving traffic conditions and public transit. The halt has led to feelings of betrayal among those who believe congestion pricing is crucial for reducing pollution, easing traffic, and funding essential transit improvements.

Critics believe with the governor backing away from congestion pricing, the financial stability of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) is at risk. They say this could potentially lead to a downgrade in its credit rating and deferred improvements to the subway system. The general sentiment is one of exasperation with the short-sightedness and lack of commitment to long-term urban planning.

Other Issues Impacting Sentiment

Among Hochul's vocal critics, there is fierce and often derogatory language, reflecting broader dissatisfaction with her policies and liberal governance style. People accuse her of authoritarianism and failed leadership, calling her a "lying destructive tyrant" and drawing parallels to repressive regimes.

Not Protecting the Working Class

New Yorkers call her out for a perceived inconsistency in policy making. They argue her claims of protecting working-class New Yorkers, increased payroll taxes in place of congestion pricing will be equally, if not more, harmful.

People complain about taxes on large businesses, which would bear the brunt of higher taxes and trickle down to employees and consumers. This, people argue, would hurt the same demographics the governor says she wants to shield.

Increasing Crime in New York

Further complicating Hochul’s public image is her stance on crime and gun violence statistics. Her administration faces backlash for leniency on crime and law enforcement policies. Critics argue her policies on bail reform and parole contribute to higher crime rates.

Voters blame increased lawlessness on her administration. Calls for stricter law enforcement and reforms to reverse these policies have been loud and consistent, with demands for her to intervene more decisively in criminal justice issues.

Deprioritizing Suburban New Yorkers

Some upstate New Yorkers feel disproportionally burdened by policies seen as biased towards urban interests. They voice resentment towards the continuous flow of resources from upstate to downstate projects, including MTA improvements, without proportional benefits.

Identity Politics

Racial and identity politics also animate much of the discussion. Accusations of condescension and racism have surfaced, particularly in relation to her comments and policies that some view as patronizing towards minority groups. These sentiments create a complicated portrait of her as a leader struggling to balance progressive values with practical governance.