Recent online discussion about the terrorist attack in Moscow reveals a great deal of empathy and outrage among Americans. The attack is viewed as a heinous act of violence that has resulted in the loss of innocent lives.

American sentiment towards the attack emphasizes strong condemnation of terrorism, with many expressing their condolences to the victims and their families. There is a clear sense of unity against the act of terrorism, with many calling for an end to such acts of violence.

Prior to resigning, former Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Victoria Nuland promised this type of warfare as well as the assertion that the U.S. does not have a “Plan B” to resolve the Russia-Ukraine conflict. Online discussion shows a consensus of disapproval among Americans. The idea of terrorist attacks on civilians is not something that many Americans can condone or accept. While it's clear that there is a need to combat terrorism, the method of resorting to attacks on civilians is generally frowned upon.

Americans are unified in their condemnation of the terrorist attack in Moscow, and there is a strong sentiment towards ending terrorism. The idea of this type of warfare is not well received, and there is a general expectation that efforts should be made to prevent such attacks in the future.

The terrorist attack in Moscow is likely to continue fueling the current state of the Russia-Ukraine war as tense and filled with uncertainty. It has only escalated tensions, and the introduction of French troops to Ukraine also adds another layer of complexity to the situation. There's a pervasive worry about escalation and the potential for the conflict to spiral into a wider war.

While there's no clear consensus among Americans about the war itself, sentiment seems to be trending towards concern and disapproval. The war's ongoing nature, coupled with the recent terrorist attack and the involvement of more countries, could be leading to a decrease in support for the war among American voters.

Politically, it's likely the conflict could influence public opinion toward both President Biden and former President Trump, though it's unclear in what direction. If the situation continues to deteriorate, and the U.S. becomes more involved, it could continue to decrease support for whichever administration is perceived as mishandling the situation – especially with press pressing issues like the border for voters at home.

In conclusion, the current state of both the Russia-Ukraine war is causing a great deal of concern and division among Americans. The impact of this conflict on public sentiment towards political figures like Biden and Trump is still uncertain, but it's likely that their handling of these situations will play a significant role in shaping public opinion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reasons for Uncommitted Voters

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

Perceptions of Biden

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

Influence of the Israel-Palestine Conflict

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

Uncommitted Votes

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

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer received vocal negative responses following his comments about Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Many voters did not approve of his call for new elections in Israel.

Schumer claimed that Netanyahu's government no longer fits the needs of Israel after the events of October 7 and has been too willing to tolerate the civilian toll in Gaza. He also compared Netanyahu to Putin and labeled him as an obstacle to peace.

Many people, including voters and other politicians, are criticizing Schumer for his remarks, saying he was unjustified in his rhetoric.

• Following his comments, discussion about Schumer online increased as his approval decreased.
• In the last two days, discussion about Schumer rose significantly from his average volume to nearly 2000 mentions.
• With the increase in discussion, Schumer’s overall approval also dropped, reaching 43% on the day of his Israel comments.
• Schumer’s support regarding Israel dropped slightly after his comments, while support regarding Palestine slightly increased.

Top Issues Decreasing Schumer’s Support

MIG Reports analysis shows the top influencing factors pushing Schumer’s approval down are related to Israel:

1. The first and most glaring issue causing support for Chuck Schumer to drop is his call for new elections in Israel. He has received considerable backlash for his interference in Israeli politics.
2. Schumer's public criticism of Benjamin Netanyahu has also been a divisive issue. While some agree with Schumer that Netanyahu's government is "stuck in the past," others see this as an unjustified attack.
3. Many critics accuse Schumer of siding with Hamas, a terrorist organization, over U.S. ally Israel.
4. Schumer is losing support for the perception of prioritizing partisan politics over the welfare of American hostages held by Hamas. People argue he should focus on securing their release, rather than calling for new elections in Israel.
5. Some accuse Schumer, who is Jewish, of betraying Israel and the Jewish community with his comments, saying his actions have shown him to be a poor "Guardian of Israel."

Overall, Schumer seems to be losing support among pro-Israel Democrats and much of the Jewish community. There are, however, some who support his comments.

Pro-Palestine Progressives Praise Schumer

A segment of progressive Democrats agreed with Schumer, stating that the Israeli government under Netanyahu has indeed lost its way and has become a pariah state. They also concurred with Schumer's suggestion that the war with Hamas has created a significant political issue for the Democrat Party, potentially costing them in the next election.

A few also applauded Schumer's call for a "fresh debate about the future of Israel" and his insistence on a future two-state solution. His remarks have been described as "remarkable," with praise for Schumer's assertion that Netanyahu's coalition "no longer fits the needs of Israel."

Progressive supporters argue that it's possible to support the Palestinians without supporting Hamas and to support Israel without supporting Netanyahu's government.

Israel Supporters Express Shock at Schumer’s Rhetoric

Many on the right and some of Schumer’s more moderate Democrat constituents vehemently disagree with his remarks about Israel. They say it was inappropriate and out of place for an American leader to involve himself in Israeli politics. For instance, Speaker Johnson called Schumer's comments, "highly inappropriate" and "plain wrong."

Schumer is receiving blowback for what many perceive as interference in Israel's internal affairs. Many say American politicians should let Israel and its people decide their own leadership. Some also suggested that Schumer's comments were primarily aimed at securing support from constituents who are in favor of Palestine.

There are comments labeling Schumer a "fake Jew" and saying honest Jewish people would not make such objectionable and interfering comments. Some voters even suggested a special vote in New York to remove Schumer from his position.

Overall, Schumer’s support seemed to dip because of the comments, highlighting the Democrat split over Israel or Palestine support, which MIG Reports has previously analyzed. Other politicians like John Fetterman have been criticized by the progressive wing of the Democrat Party. Many who were outraged at Schumer’s language accuse him of pandering to the Hamas wing of the Democrat Party.

Pennsylvania Senator John Fetterman is facing backlash from progressive voters over his support for Israel. Among other issues causing his Democrat base alarm, some are claiming he has veered too far to the right to maintain their support. MIG Reports analysis shows a significant split in his support base, reflecting the Party’s larger internal battle over the Israel-Hamas conflict.

Voters Angry at Israel Support by Party Representatives

A very vocal portion of progressive Democrat voters are increasingly critical of Senator Fetterman's stance on Israel and Hamas. They argue Israel's response to Hamas has been disproportionate and amounts to genocide. These critics loudly oppose Fetterman’s comments supporting Israel and accuse him of being complicit in what they view as genocide. They regularly challenge the view that Hamas is solely to blame for the conflict.

Pro-Palestine Democrats argue that Israel's actions violate the International Court of Justice and believe Fetterman supports these violations. Some accuse Fetterman of promoting propaganda and misinformation, further deepening their disapproval of his position on the issue. They argue that Israel has killed more civilians in a short period than Hamas has in history.

There is a sense of disappointment in Fetterman, indicating Democrat voters had previously supported him but have been turned off by his views on the Israel-Palestine conflict. Pro-Palestine advocates are expressing severe dissatisfaction with any Democrats who support Israel, and many are suggesting that Fetterman's stance is a deal-breaker for them.

Internal Disagreement with Pro-Israel Voters

The growing division and dwindling support for Fetterman is reflective of a larger crack in the Democrat Party. MIG Reports has previously reported the old-school and new-school split between Israel supporters and radical Palestine supporters.

The Democrat voters who still express support for Fetterman's position argue that Israel has a right to defend itself against Hamas, which they label as a terrorist organization. They appreciate his stance on Israel, viewing it as a necessary ally in the Middle East.

Often older or more traditional Democrats, this group believes Fetterman is making morally correct choices by supporting Israel. They also commend Fetterman for his continuous support for Israel, appreciating his perspective that Hamas is not only a threat to Israel but to the entire Middle East.

However, support numbers for Fetterman suggest that the pro-Palestine segment of Democrat voters may be winning out.

• In the last two weeks, support for Fetterman among Democrat voters has swung wildly, trending down.
• Overall support dipped to a 14-day low of 40% and a high of 55%.
• Fetterman’s support regarding Israel-Palestine issues dropped to a low of 35%, sitting at 37% on March 11.
• The most recent support dip comes with increased discussion of the Senator, suggesting growing displeasure.

Other Reasons Democrats are Unhappy with Fetterman

While the Israel-Palestine issues seems to be the most significant complaint his voters have, Fetterman is also losing support for other issues:

• Fetterman's criticisms of the President have led to significant backlash from some Democrat voters. They believe he's inadvertently helping Trump and weakening the Party.
• Democrat voters perceive Fetterman as not being a true progressive. They accuse him of deceiving the people of Pennsylvania by pretending to be a progressive when he's increasingly siding with the right.
• Fetterman's "tough guy" bit is not resonating well with some Democrat voters. They believe his nonchalant attitude when discussing vital issues is disconcerting, including the way he dresses and speaks.
• His associations with controversial figures like Nina Turner and Kyrsten Sinema have also caused a split in his support.
• There are complaints of "tokenized gay people" on Fetterman's staff, suggesting Democrats feel Fetterman is using these individuals as a shield or for political gain.

Comments like, "This seemed just like much of your drift to the right," indicate there may be a broader perception that Fetterman is moving away from his party's core values. This could potentially worsen a split among Democrats if these perceptions continue to proliferate.

Fetterman’s accused drift towards more conservative positions pose a problem that seems to be facing many Democrats. The most outspoken progressive activists are protesting and making demands – most frequently about a ceasefire in Gaza – but Democrats may also be losing ground with the majority of Americans on issues like the border and the economy.

A pro-Palestine protest at the State of the Union address in Washington, D.C. has generated online controversy. The protest disrupted the proceedings and led to a spirited discussion on social media platforms and across various media outlets. While the incident was disruptive, it also ignited a broader debate about the Israel-Palestine conflict, the right to protest, and the Democrat Party's stance on these issues

This protest especially sparked debate within the Democrat Party — particularly among those who believe the party should support Palestine. Some argue the Party's traditional support for Israel is increasingly at odds with its commitment to human rights and social justice.

Talking About - Democrats

Sentiment - Democrats

Potential Problems for Democrats Going Forward

This issue has the potential to become a significant problem for Democrats, particularly if it leads to deeper divisions within the party. The Party's stance on Israel is already a contentious issue, with some members calling for greater Palestine support among leadership. This protest could amplify these calls and further fray Democrat unity.

A reasonable forecast would suggest that these types of protests and disruptions will continue. The Israel-Palestine conflict has been a divisive issue in American politics for decades, and recent events in the region have only heightened tensions. Furthermore, the increased visibility of protests on social media platforms suggests protestors will consider their efforts effective.

Most of the public discourse revolves around the role Hamas is taking in Gaza and their responsibility in the ongoing conflict. Some argue that Israel is doing what it can to defend itself against a hostile entity that refuses to recognize its sovereignty and frequently launches attacks against it. Vocal protestors, however, point to high civilian death tolls in Gaza as evidence of Israel’s guilt.

Support

Support for Ukraine does not appear to be a major point of contention. Many American conservatives and liberals alike have voiced support for Ukraine, condemning Russian aggression. However, the level of support varies.  

While some Americans advocate for continued military and financial aid to Ukraine, others express a preference for diplomatic solutions or a more isolationist stance, resisting entanglement in foreign conflicts. Furthermore, online commentary suggests that, while the Russia-Ukraine conflict is a concern for Americans, it is not their primary focus. Domestic issues, particularly those related to political ideology and cultural shifts, appear to take precedence.

Americans who continue to support Ukraine often cite the country's commitment to democracy and sovereignty. There is a deep-rooted belief in the need for international cooperation to uphold these principles. However, some question how much support should be provided, particularly in terms of military aid, and express apprehension about the potential escalation of conflict. 

Those who are more apprehensive of supporting Ukraine have varied reasoning, ranging from general anti-war sentiment, concern over U.S. spending, Ukraine’s stance on supporting Israel against Palestine, and preferring to prioritize domestic issues like immigration.

Plan B

In terms of a Plan B if Ukraine loses the war, it seems many Americans are not fully aware of the intricacies of the situation. The narrative around this topic tends to be vague, often limited to calls for increased diplomatic efforts and negotiations. However, there is an underlying fear of the potential fallout should Ukraine lose the war, with some expressing concern about the possible expansion of Russian influence.

It's also important to note that public opinion can fluctuate based on current events and media coverage. Changes in the conflict's intensity, revelations about the human cost of the war, or shifts in U.S. domestic politics can all sway perceptions and attitudes towards the conflict in Ukraine. Prior to resigning as Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs, Victoria Nuland spoke at length about U.S. commitment to “Plan A” and no necessity for a Plan B.

Skepticism and Doubt

Finally, there is a sense of skepticism towards Ukraine's status as an independent nation. Some allege it to be a CIA puppet, following a CIA coup in 2014. This perspective seems to underline the complexity of the conflict and various forces at play. 

There is a distinct lack of trust in information dissemination, with many Americans harboring suspicions about the media's portrayal of the war. This distrust is more pronounced among conservatives, who often express sentiment against mainstream media. They perceive it as biased and out of touch with the realities of ordinary Americans. The highly polarized political climate also breeds skepticism, as does the spread of misinformation on social media, and doubts about the credibility of mainstream media outlets. 

Opinions on President Biden's handling of the Ukraine War are deeply polarized. Some Americans express support, while others are highly critical, often linking their criticisms to broader issues such as immigration, perceived threats of communism, and allegedly rigged elections. There is a common thread of skepticism towards the administration's intentions and actions, with many believing that America is being led down a harmful path.

Aaron Bushnell’s public demonstration and self-immolation outside the Israeli embassy in Washington, D.C. has sparked a broad range of responses and attitudes among Americans. The breadth of these responses and the intensity of the conversations they provoke are indicative of a highly polarized society.

Some Americans are expressing strong anti-establishment sentiments, with a vocal group accusing Google of bias and alleging that its Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems are pushing a "woke" or progressive agenda. For these individuals, the self-immolation is seen as a potent symbol of resistance against perceived censorship and manipulation by powerful entities.

Others express sympathy for Bushnell, reflecting on personal experiences of hardship or trauma that may have driven him to such a desperate act. They evoke a sense of nostalgia for a time before the current political and cultural turmoil, reminiscing about past concerts or shared cultural experiences.

There are also numerous comments pointing to a perceived liberal bias in the media, with assertions that stories are framed or reported in a way that supports a particular political agenda.

• Discussion about Bushnell’s demonstration have been trending on Twitter, generating more than 800,000 posts.
• This is nearly double the number of posts referring to “Free Palestine” — another trending topic.
• Bushnell’s name also quickly became one of the most searched terms on Google.

Security Issues

The comments reflect a wide range of beliefs and emotions, from intense sympathy and admiration for Aaron Bushnell's act of protest, to harsh criticism and blunt dismissal of his actions. The narratives can be broadly grouped into four categories.

Support for the Palestinian cause

A significant number of comments expressed solidarity with Bushnell's act, viewing it as a heroic stand against perceived Israeli atrocities in Gaza. These commenters often use the incident to highlight their belief in Israel's alleged genocide against Palestinians, calling for more attention to the conflict and the liberation of Palestine. They also criticized mainstream media outlets for allegedly covering up the incident or not giving it due attention.

Criticism of Bushnell's act

Some commentors disagreed with Bushnell's actions, calling them misguided, extreme, or even foolish. These individuals often attributed his actions as being a result of propaganda or misinformation about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Defense of Israel

Other comments defended Israel, arguing that it is not committing genocide and that it has a right to defend itself against Hamas. Some of these commenters questioned the validity of the term "Palestine," suggesting that Palestinians are merely Arabs from other countries. Others suggested that the conflict is more complex than Bushnell's protest suggested, with blame to be shared by various parties, including Hamas and countries that support it.

Criticism of U.S. policy

Some commenters criticized U.S. politicians and policies, suggesting that America is too supportive of Israel or complicit in its alleged abuses. Others expressed concern about the potential implications of the incident for U.S. involvement in the conflict.

Despite trending on Twitter and becoming one of the top Google searches, many news outlets are providing limited coverage or in-depth analysis. Overall, the wide range of responses reflects the complexity of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the strong emotions it evokes among Americans. The incident has clearly served as a flashpoint for broader debates about the conflict, U.S. foreign policy, and the role of individual protest in political discourse.

Analyzing the political climate in Brazil and understanding the reasons behind the popularity of Jair Bolosnaro and the unpopularity of Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva requires a nuanced understanding of the socio-political dynamics of the country. Additionally, a key factor is the absence of a political race. Without a ballot box to decide on, all Brazilians can voice their discontent to the country’s current leader.

Head to Head - Bolosnaro and da Silva

Talking About - Bolosnaro and da Silva

Sentiment - Bolosnaro and da Silva

Bolosnaro

Jair Bolsonaro has gained popularity for several reasons. Firstly, his tough on crime stance resonates with a significant portion of the Brazilian population, who are tired of high crime rates and corruption. His commitment to reducing bureaucracy and promoting economic liberalization, which includes privatization of state-owned companies and reduction in state intervention in the economy, appeals to the business community and the middle class. Bolsonaro’s nationalist rhetoric, his commitment to traditional family values, and his stance against political correctness also appeal to a significant portion of the Brazilian populace. Furthermore, his handling of the COVID-19 pandemic, despite international criticism, has found support among those who prioritize economic stability over stringent lockdown measures.

However, there are many factors that have led to a decrease in Bolsonaro's support. His perceived mishandling of the COVID-19 pandemic, with Brazil having one of the highest death rates in the world, has led to widespread criticism. His environmental policies, particularly his handling of the Amazon rainforest fires, have been controversial both domestically and internationally. Furthermore, accusations of corruption and nepotism within his administration have led to decreased trust and support.

da Silva

As for Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, or Lula, his popularity has suffered due to a variety of factors. The largest among these is the corruption charges that led to his imprisonment, tarnishing his image and that of his Workers' Party. Despite overseeing a period of significant economic growth and implementing social programs that lifted millions out of poverty, Lula’s legacy has been overshadowed by the corruption scandal.

However, there are factors that still generate support for Lula. His social programs, including Bolsa Familia, continue to be popular among the lower income population. His ability to maintain economic stability during his tenure is also remembered positively. Furthermore, Lula maintains a strong base of supporters who see him as a victim of political persecution, and his recent legal victories have led to a resurgence of this support.

Holocaust Comments

Analyzing the Brazilian public's reaction to Lula's comments, it's clear that his statements have stirred up significant debate. Lula da Silva, President of Brazil, made a controversial comment comparing the situation in Gaza to the genocide committed by Hitler during the Holocaust. The comments have ignited a passionate response among Brazilians, with the public appearing to be sharply divided.

The narrative reveals that a significant portion of Brazilians agree with Lula, expressing their support for his stance on social media. They argue that Lula's comparison is valid, viewing the conflict in Gaza as a war between a well-equipped military and innocent women and children. These supporters believe that the Israeli government's actions toward Palestinians are akin to genocide, and they are not shy about voicing their opinions. They accuse Globo, a major Brazilian media outlet, of supporting genocide due to its perceived lack of critical coverage of the issue.

However, not all Brazilians agree with Lula's statements. His critics accuse him of trivializing the Holocaust by comparing it to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. They argue that Israel has the right to defend itself and that Lula's comments cross a red line. This group believes that Lula's comments are harmful to the Jewish community and, in some cases, have even led to calls for his punishment.

It's important to note that the Israeli government has taken offense to Lula's comments, leading to a diplomatic strain between the two nations.

Lula's detractors accuse him of supporting terrorists and dictators, using the phrase "Lula é" followed by the names of organizations and leaders such as Hamas, Iran, Hezbollah, Maduro, and others. They argue that Lula is aligning Brazil with these entities, thereby endangering the country's international standing and potentially its safety. They call for Lula's impeachment, citing Article 5 of Law 1079/50, which prohibits acts of hostility against foreign nations that could lead Brazil to war or compromise its neutrality.

These critics also express their support for Israel and the Jewish people, condemning Lula's comments as anti-Semitic and rejecting his comparison of the situation in Gaza to the Holocaust. They argue that Lula is unfairly vilifying Israel while ignoring the actions of Hamas and other groups they view as terrorists.

In conclusion, Lula's comments have sparked a heated debate among Brazilians. While some agree with his comparison of the Gaza conflict to the Holocaust, others vehemently denounce his remarks. This difference in opinion among Brazilians underscores the complexity of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and its global impact.

Impact to Support - da Silva