As Republican enthusiasm surges following the RNC and Democrats show disagreement and disarray, Senate races in several key states are heating up. Amid a huge news week including Trump’s attempted assassination, J.D. Vance accepting the VP nomination, and the RNC convention, Republicans are making a strong showing in their respective Senate races.

Here is the latest EyesOver and MIG Reports analysis of Senate races in Nevada, Wisconsin, Arizona, and Montana—all important races for the 2024 elections.

Nevada Senate: Sam Brown vs Jacky Rosen

The Nevada Senate race between Republican Sam Brown and Democrat Jacky Rosen shows Brown leading 60%-40% in head-to-head support. The wide gap in support comes from a significant spike in both approval and mentions for Sam Brown after his RNC appearance.

• Over the last 7 days, Brown's lowest topic approval score is ideologies (culture issues) at 43%, while Rosen's lowest issue is the economy at 43%.
• Brown's highest topic score is a tie between economic issues and border security at 47%. Rosen's strongest topic approval of border security is still low at 42%.
• The top three most discussed topics in discourse mentioning Brown and Rosen were ideologies, economic issues, and the attempted assassination of Donald Trump.

Candidate Summary

Sam Brown and Jacky Rosen's approval disparity has widened this week after being tied last week. In the last 7 days, Brown saw a 4% lead in approval, averaging 48% to Rosen's 44% in average approval. Brown also saw higher discussion volume than Rosen for the first time over the last 7 days.

Wisconsin Senate: Tammy Baldwin vs Eric Hovde

The Wisconsin Senate race between Democratic incumbent Tammy Baldwin and Republican challenger Eric Hovde currently shows Hovde leading 57%-43% in head-to-head support. Eric Hovde enjoyed a spike in online mentions due to the RNC.

• Over the last 7 days, Baldwin’s weakest topic approval is border security at 43%. While Hovde’s lowest topic approval score is abortion at 41%.
• Eric Hovde's strongest topics gaining approval are economic issues and border security, both at 47%. Baldwin's highest topic approval is abortion, also at 47%.
• The top three most discussed topics in discourse involving Baldwin and Hovde are ideologies (cultural issues), the economy, and Trump’s attempted assassination.

Candidate Summary

The gap between Eric Hovde and Tammy Baldwin's voter approval significantly widened compared to last week. Prior to the RNC, both were tied in approval. This week Eric Hovde holds a 47% 7-day average approval to Tammy Baldwin's 42%. This is also the first time Hovde has gained higher discussion volume than Baldwin.

Arizona Senate: Kari Lake vs Ruben Gallego

In the race for Arizona Senate, Republican Kari Lake currently holds a narrow lead over Democrat Ruben Gallego, capturing 52% compared to Gallego's 48%.

• On the issues, Kari Lake has the highest support for immigration issues, election integrity, and economic issues, all at 48%.
• Lake’s lowest sentiment issue is gun control at 40%, due to accusations from liberals about her 2A stances following the assassination attempt.
• Ruben Gallego’s highest issue approval is ideologies at 44%.
• His lowest is allegations, which refer to his association with Joe Biden and other unpopular liberals.

Candidate Summary

Ruben Gallego's support score stands at 42%, while Kari Lake's support score is slightly higher at 47%. While the race has been volatile over the last month, this week Lake has maintained an average lead.

Montana Senate: Tim Sheehy vs Jon Tester

Republican Tim Sheehy also holds a lead on Jon Tester in head-to-head support in Montana. Sheehy leads at 53% to Tester’s 47%.

• Over the last 7 days, Sheehy’s highest topic approval score is border security at 47%. Tester’s strongest topic approval score is abortion at 45%.
• Tester's weakest topic approval score is rally at 40%, while Sheehy's is abortion at 41%.
• The three most discussed topics in discourse involving Sheehy and Tester are ideologies, rally, and economic issues.

Candidate Summary

Sheehy and Tester's approval scores remain separated by the same 2% margin as last week, with Tester averaging 44% to Sheehy's 46%. Tester's approval dropped to its lowest point in the last 7 days after the assassination attempt on President Trump but has since recovered.

Prior to the RNC, many stream media—mostly from pro-immigration or establishment outlets—published stories about growing support for restricting, shrinking immigration and even mass deportations. The discourse around mass deportations, specifically the notion of deporting millions of illegal aliens, remains a volatile and contentious subject in contemporary American politics.

In the political sphere, support for mass deportations manifests predominantly within conservative and Republican constituencies. Advocates argue mass deportations are essential for upholding the rule of law, protecting American jobs, and ensuring national security.

They characterize current Biden’s immigration policies as dangerously lax, suggesting they fuel crime waves, drain public resources, and threaten social stability. Biden critics often point to specific crimes allegedly committed by illegal aliens as evidence of the danger.

Conversely, opponents of mass deportations, primarily from progressive and Democratic circles, emphasize compassion. They argue mass deportations would lead to significant human suffering, tearing families apart and disrupting communities.

Those against deportation highlight the contributions of illegal immigrants to the economy. They say many of them work in vital sectors and pay taxes. They also criticize the portrayal of immigrants as a source of crime and economic burden. Instead, they assert deportations narratives are based on exaggerated or misleading information.

Trending Immigration Topics

Crime and Safety

Concerns about criminal activities, particularly heinously violent ones, often involving illegal immigrants, are frequent concerns. Incidents involving violence, rape, murder, and property crimes are used to justify calls for stricter immigration policies and mass deportations.

Economic Impact

Debates about the economic costs of illegal immigration cover public spending on healthcare, education, and housing, and the impact on wage levels and job availability for American citizens. Proponents of mass deportation often argue illegal immigrants strain public resources and drive down wages. Opponents highlight the economic contributions and potential taxes paid by illegals.

National Security and Law Enforcement

Issues of national security are central, with some arguing the open border is enabling terrorists and criminals to enter the country. Discussions also focus on the effectiveness and moral implications of enforcement actions, such as those by ICE and the Border Patrol, and the adequacy of current security measures.

Ethical and Humanitarian Concerns

There is a robust debate about the moral and human rights implications of mass deportations. Critics argue these actions would result in widespread human suffering and advocate for a more compassionate approach to immigration reform, including path-to-citizenship initiatives.

Politicization of Immigration

Many argue immigration is being used as a political tool to gain voter support. Accusations are made against both parties. Democratic policies are seen as attempts to increase their voter base through amnesty programs. Republican rhetoric around immigration is perceived as a strategy to energize their base with tough-on-crime, national security stances.

Discussion Trends

There is a consistently high volume of conversations about the U.S. border. This is especially true for recurring and publicized crimes involving illegal immigrants, policy announcements by the Biden administration, and high-profile political debates. Social media platforms often serve as echo chambers, amplifying partisan viewpoints and sometimes spreading misinformation.

Sentiment trends reveal a deeply polarized landscape. On the right, sentiment is often characterized by frustration, fear, and anger, with posts frequently emphasizing threats to safety and economic security. On the left, sentiments lean towards empathy, concern for human rights, and criticism of what is considered xenophobic rhetoric. Both sides also show a clear distrust of the opposing narrative, exacerbating the divide.

Judge Aileen Cannon’s decision to dismiss the classified documents case against former President Donald Trump has sparked a whirlwind of reactions amid the firehose of news hitting Americans in the last few days. In her dismissal, she cited the “unlawful appointment and funding of special counsel Jack Smith.”

This news emerged alongside the flurry of other major developments, including Trump's announcement of Ohio Senator J.D. Vance as his vice-presidential pick and the assassination attempt against Trump.

While news of Judge Cannon dismissing this case may have dominated conversations for several days at any other time, it is now only one among many huge political news stories. Despite this, conversations show the event serving to strengthen Trump’s momentum—especially among his supporters.

• Conversations about Trump regarding his legal issues spiked early in the week, along with a slight bump in sentiment.
• Mentions crossed 5,000 regarding legal topics as sentiment ticked up from 43% prior to the weekend, to 46% with recent news.

Supports Agree with Judge Cannon

Trump supporters view the decision by U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon as a vindication, praising it as a just end to what they perceive as a politically motivated witch hunt. They argue the dismissal highlights a misuse of prosecutorial power and underscores their belief in the judiciary being corrupted by liberal forces. Some celebratory posts even suggest the tide has turned against what they label as a weaponized DOJ’s political persecution strategies.

Along with Trump surviving an assassination attempt and appearing, to roaring applause, at the RNC, many on the right view this decision a major victory for Republicans. They speak out against what they perceive as relentless politically motivated attacks by the Biden administration and Democrats.

Many speculate that Trump might reward Judge Cannon for her decision, potentially with an even higher judicial appointment should he regain the presidency. These comments indicate the positive atmosphere Trump supporters are experiencing, emphasizing excitement for Trump’s potential second term.

People also vilify Smith, arguing his appointment was part of a broader scheme by Democrats to derail Trump's political influence. They frame the dismissal as a correction of an illegal and biased prosecution—especially considering Robert Hur’s decision not to prosecute Joe Biden for similar crimes.

Opposition from the Left

Trump opponents are expressing outrage and disbelief. They criticize Judge Cannon, who was appointed by Trump, accusing her of blatant partiality and failure to uphold the rule of law. Prominent Democratic leaders, including Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, and left leaning legal experts vehemently argue that Cannon's decision flies in the face of established judicial norms.

Liberals view Judge Cannon’s ruling as an egregious attempt to exonerate Trump despite strong evidence that he mishandled classified information. They stress the necessity for an immediate appeal to overturn what they consider a profoundly flawed and politically biased judgment. This group feels the decision undermines established legal principles and sets a dangerous precedent for the future.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer's call to have Cannon reassigned and the decision appealed emphasizes the disbelief and dismay felt among Democrats. Experts predict the dismissal will certainly be appealed, potentially leading to a prolonged legal battle stretching well beyond the next presidential election.

Some suggest this delay tactic might benefit Trump politically, allowing him to use the unresolved case as a rallying cry against perceived legal persecution. Experts also highlight that appellate courts are likely to scrutinize Cannon’s interpretation of the Appointments Clause. They note previous cases involving special counsel appointments, such as that of Robert Mueller, being upheld despite similar arguments.

On July 15, anti-immigration protests regarding taxpayer-funded asylum infrastructure in Coolock, Ireland, became physical. The story also went viral among some groups in the United States.

MIG Reports studied online discussion to track parallels with American conversations about U.S. illegal immigration. Discussions reveal intense emotions and diverging political ideologies among American commenters.

Background

The events in Coolock, Ireland, involved local protests and arson attacks on construction sites intended for migrant centers. Some American commenters use these events as examples highlighting the consequences of lenient illegal immigration policies.

Many point to the imagery and reports from Ireland to underscore broader themes of national sovereignty, safety concerns, and the failures of current immigration policies. In this context, the sentiment is predominantly negative and alarmist, emphasizing fears of cultural and social disruption. Many Americans say, if the U.S. continues its current immigration path, it will face similar consequences as seen in Europe.

Discussion Trends

Among conservative Americans, there is a pronounced effort to link the disorder in Coolock with issues they view as comparable in the United States. A prevailing theme is government incompetence and betrayal by political elites. President Joe Biden and Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas are frequently criticized for their immigration policies. Voters argue they have cause similar crises at the U.S. southern border. This portends a sentiment of frustration and urgency for stricter immigration controls and policies more aligned with former President Trump's administration.

Conversely, liberal and progressive commenters often frame the events in Coolock in the broader context of humanitarian concern and the need for compassionate immigration policies. However, they are less likely to highlight the events themselves, instead focusing on criticizing the negative portrayals of immigrants. They often assert there are xenophobic undertones in the conservative discourse.

Sentiment Trends

Among conservative Americans, there is a strong correlation between negative sentiment towards the Biden administration and the heightened focus on illegal immigration as a key electoral issue. People discuss national security, economic strain, and cultural preservation.

Independent and undecided voters often find themselves swayed by these negative portrayals of current U.S. immigration policies, especially when framed around fears of safety and economic hardship. This demographic is critical, as their views on immigration could significantly influence their voting behavior in the upcoming elections.

Discussions often highlight an apocalyptic tone, suggesting a societal collapse due to unchecked immigration. This not only furthers negative sentiment but also activates a call to political action among right-leaning voters. This can potentially galvanize voter turnout in support of politicians who promise stringent immigration reforms.

Causes of Concern

Conversations tend to oscillate between reports of specific incidents involving illegal immigrants and broader claims about systemic problems due to illegal immigration. Sentiment in these discussions is predominantly negative, characterized by fear, anger, and a demand for action. The top issues Americans talk about include:

• Violent crimes involving illegal immigrants
• Economic concerns and resources used on illegal immigrants
• Public safety and health concerns
• Drug and human trafficking and child endangerment

Potential Election Impact

For independent and undecided voters, conversations using Europe as a sketch of America’s future can influence voting decisions. The portrayal of illegal immigration as a source of crime and economic strain can sway Americans toward candidates and policies favoring stronger immigration controls.

The narrative of government mismanagement and failure to protect citizens also continues to erode trust in current administration policies, pushing undecided voters towards change-oriented platforms.

MIG Reports data shows online reactions to mainstream media coverage of the assassination attempt against former president Donald Trump are intense and polarized. There is significant variance in how different news outlets and social media platforms reported and reacted to the event.

The narrative and sentiment analysis across various media outlets and social media platforms reveal a complex landscape of reactions influenced by political allegiances, underlying distrust of law enforcement agencies, and concerns about political violence.

Discussion Trends

The assassination attempt is fueling discussions about the perceived weaponization of the DOJ and FBI against Trump and conservatives. Many pro-Trump voters express skepticism over the integrity of these agencies, often casting the FBI as complicit in broader conspiracies against Trump.

These narratives also suggest a belief that the attempt on Trump's life may have been orchestrated or at least enabled by anti-Trump forces within the government. This includes suggestions the suspect was linked to groups like Antifa. This sentiment underscores a deep-seated view of institutional betrayal among Trump supporters.

Sentiment Trends

In conservative circles, the attempted assassination is being met with anger and a call for accountability from opponents, including the media, Democrats, and various government agencies. Language depicting the DOJ and FBI as corrupt and untrustworthy is pervasive.

Sentiment often includes anger, distrust, and a call to action, with strong support for Trump’s resilience and leadership. There's a sentiment of martyrdom projected onto Trump, framing his survival as another instance of his invincibility against orchestrated attacks, thereby rallying his base even further.

In contrast, anti-Trump reactions are fewer and appear to be more subdued, but still critical. These voices often refocus on Trump's previous alleged transgressions, including accusations of incitement on January 6 and illegal handling of classified documents. Sentiment here ranges from skepticism to outright hostility, with some dismissing the incident’s severity or attributing nefarious motives to the Trump camp itself.

Sentiment patterns from these discussions indicate strong demographic divides. Trump’s base, typically older, rural, and less trusting of mainstream institutions, responds with heightened defensiveness and a propensity to view the incident through the lens of allegations or conspiracy theories. Alternatively, younger, urban, and college-educated groups, generally more critical of Trump, emphasize the legal and ethical ramifications of Trump’s past behavior over the assassination attempt's immediate implications.

Demographic Patterns

Younger Americans, particularly those under 30, are more likely to approach the event with irony or disbelief. They frequently invoke internet memes and nuanced discussion of events, suspicions, and theories related to the assassination attempt.

Older demographics, particularly those over 50, express more traditional outrage and call for immediate justice and systemic changes. The generational divide in sentiment illustrates an underlying disparity in media consumption and reaction to political violence.

Impact Analysis

The impact on Independent and undecided voters could be significant. The event might galvanize Trump supporters while sowing further distrust among centrists. It could push Independents who were wary of Trump’s previous actions further away. They may view the event as symptomatic of a broader culture of violence and extremism associated with his rhetoric.

This event may alternatively draw some in the middle to Trump if they become dissatisfied with how Democrats and the media handle the situation. Some may also feel inspired by the leadership and patriotism displayed by Trump and his base.

The Supreme Court's decision on June 28 to overturn the Chevron deference doctrine has led to heated debates and fluctuating sentiment. MIG Reports shows overall sentiment towards the Supreme Court seems has slightly decreased as many Americans express concerns about the implications on future judicial coherence and executive actions.

Critics argue this decision could destabilize established regulatory norms, while supporters believe it aligns with a more originalist interpretation of congressional intent.

Trending Discussions

Discourse around the Chevron deference decision has primarily focused on the implications for administrative law and environmental regulations. Many worry the decision could undermine the ability of federal agencies to enforce regulations effectively. They especially worry about environmental protection, labor standards, and public health.

The Chevron deference doctrine granted agencies leeway to interpret ambiguous statutes. This enabled them to issue and enforce more comprehensive rules based on their expertise. Removing this deference calls into question the future robustness of agency regulations.

Another prominent discussion trend revolves around the political ramifications. Trump's supporters see the decision as a win, aligning with their broader agenda of reducing what they consider to be the overreach of federal agencies. This ruling, in their view, empowers smaller government and state rights, integral to their ideological framework.

Impact on Voter Sentiments

Among Trump supporters, the reaction has been largely positive. They view the decision as a step towards reducing what they perceive as government overreach and an unelected bureaucracy. This group expresses increased support for the Supreme Court, seeing it as a corrective force against Executive Branch agencies' expansive interpretations of laws.

The decision aligns with their broader desire for a more limited government and a stricter adherence to constitutional principles. Consequently, this demographic is likely to feel more empowered and validated, potentially increasing voter turnout in support of candidates who promise to uphold similar judicial philosophies.

For undecided voters, the reaction has been mixed. Some are cautious of the decision’s implications on regulatory oversight and public safety, seeing the potential for diminished protections in daily life. This demographic is watching the aftermath closely, particularly in sectors like environmental protection and consumer rights. They hope to see how the ruling will translate into real-world impacts before solidifying their stance.

Potential support movement from Biden to Trump due to this decision is likely minimal. Biden supporters underscore the importance of maintaining robust regulatory mechanisms to ensure public welfare and environmental health.

However, frustrations with administrative sluggishness and bureaucratic inefficiencies could push some voters to reconsider. Especially if they perceive the Supreme Court’s decision as a much-needed disruption to an inefficient system.

Former President Donald Trump's statements regarding Project 2025 have sparked varied reactions, significantly impacting his support base. MIG Reports analysis shows:

• Hardcore supporters see his disavowal as consistent with his style, maintaining loyalty and denouncing mainstream media and Democratic opposition.
• Critics and undecided voters are increasingly skeptical of Trump's inconsistencies, viewing him as untrustworthy and fearing potential rollbacks of rights and liberties.

Trending Discussions

Is Trump’s Influence Dangerous for Democracy?

Much of the discourse centers on the perceived risks of Trump's influence on American democracy. Critics argue his actions and rhetoric undermine democratic institutions and processes, fostering concerns about potential authoritarian tendencies.

Potential Consequences of Project 2025

Discussions are rife with fear about the implications of Project 2025, as critics warn it could lead to a rollback of rights and liberties. They fear it may revert societal progress to a pre-1960s framework. This has sparked alarm among progressive groups and civil rights advocates.

Trump vs. Biden Crisis Management

There is considerable debate comparing the crisis management abilities of Trump and President Biden. Supporters of Biden argue he represents stability and a safeguard against authoritarianism. Trump supporters highlight Biden's increasingly public vulnerabilities and inconsistencies.

Legitimacy of Biden’s Election Victory

The legitimacy of Biden's election victory remains a hot topic, with a growing percentage of Republicans expressing doubts about its validity. This trend is concerning for those who worry about the erosion of trust in the electoral process.

Trending Sentiment

Staunch Trump Supporters

Among hardcore Trump supporters, sentiment remains either stable or slightly increased. This group tends to rally around Trump in the face of criticism, reinforcing their loyalty and denouncing mainstream media and Democratic opposition as sources of misinformation.

Skepticism Among Critics and Undecided Voter

Critics of Trump and undecided voters exhibit growing skepticism towards him, particularly considering his inconsistencies regarding Project 2025. This group perceives Trump as increasingly untrustworthy, which has intensified their opposition.

Potential Voter Shift

The complex scenario reflects a potential shift in voter sentiment. While Trump’s loyal base may solidify turnout, indecisive and moderate voters are leaning away from him. Additionally, internal Democratic critiques and concerns about Biden's campaign capabilities could lead some 2020 Biden voters to seek alternative candidates unless effectively addressed by the Democratic party.

Anti-Trump Positions

Trump detractors often link Project 2025 to extreme, regressive policies like the suppression women's rights and the degradation of social security. This stokes fears of a return to a severely constrained society. This camp is deeply concerned about Trump's association with authoritarian tendencies and potential threats to democracy.

The trend of job report numbers consistently being revised down is revealing a worse job market to Americans who are unhappy. Many feel deceived by the initial reports indicating a more robust job market, only for them to be corrected later to reveal a less optimistic reality—which more closely aligns with many workers’ experiences.

There is a growing sense of distrust and frustration towards the agencies and media sources reporting current job figures. People feel misled and uncertain about the true state of the job market, which complicates personal and financial planning.

JUST IN: The unemployment rate has ticked up to 4.1%, going over 4% for the first time since November 2021.

- 74% of jobs added last month came from government and healthcare education.

- May jobs were revised down from 272K to 218K.

- April jobs were revised down from 165K to… pic.twitter.com/gHtXhW9EtP

— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) July 5, 2024

Anger Over Job Growth Only in Government

One viral topic around jobs includes news that most of the new job creations were government and education jobs. For many Americans, this has multiple implications on their perception of economic health and labor market dynamics.

In general, reactions are negative. Many interpret this as a sign of an economy relying too much on government intervention rather than private sector growth. They say it’s indicative of a stagnant private sector that is being choked by inflation and regulation.

Government employment is typically considered more stable, implying a potential increase in job security for those lucky enough to secure these roles. However, an economy heavily tilted towards government employment makes many workers feel that unnecessary jobs are being artificially created instead of driven by private sector growth.

Some also claim these government jobs are created specifically to pad job numbers.

This is how the Biden Department of Labor is fudging the data now: all job openings are government. pic.twitter.com/udxQSeKj0f

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) July 2, 2024

Many people are doubtful about the sustainability and impact of government job creation. They say an increase in government jobs does not create a healthy, flourishing economy. They also point out the rising unemployment rates among certain demographic groups, questioning the effectiveness of the administration's policies.

Arguments Over “Black Jobs”

A particularly contentious point of conversation is around employment for black Americans. During the first presidential debate, Donald Trump used the term to underscore issues like job displacement due to illegal immigration or underemployment in black communities.

On social media, this controversy led to heated debates over terms like "black jobs" and "black unemployment," illustrating the divide in how different groups interpret and discuss labor market outcomes. Democrats and progressives took the opportunity to criticize Trump for differentiating “black jobs” in their own category.

Republicans mostly reacted by highlighting the rise in black unemployment rates over the past year, despite reported overall job growth. They allege the gains in government jobs are not translating into meaningful employment opportunities for black workers.

Voters on the right argue Trump’s main point was to highlight unemployment specifically within the black community. They assert discussing "black jobs" is merely a way to highlight employment opportunities and challenges faced by black Americans, akin to other demographic-specific economic indicators.

Preferences for the Trump Economy

Trump supporters of all racial and ethnic backgrounds express a strong belief that the job market was at its peak during Trump’s administration. They especially point to black unemployment rates. They cite figures showing black unemployment hit a record low of 5.3% in 2019 under Trump. These supporters often frame their arguments around the belief that illegal immigration is undercutting job opportunities for black Americans.

They maintain that Trump’s administration ushered in significant gains for minority employment, despite sharp rises in unemployment during COVID. To conservatives, Biden’s tenure has not continued these successes. They say economic recovery, especially for black Americans, has been dismal.

Conversely, Biden supporters and liberals accuse Trump and his constituents of using racially charged rhetoric to pit black Americans against immigrants. They point to the record lows in black unemployment achieved under Biden administration in 2023 as evidence that Biden is improving the job market for black Americans.

Democrats highlight investments in infrastructure and historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs) as part of a broader strategy that includes focusing on economic development and community welfare. Many liberal voices decry the term “black jobs” as racially insensitive and misleading. They emphasize that job creation and employment statistics should not be segregated by race.

In recent discussions about First Lady Jill Biden, opinions vary significantly across social media platforms and online forums. Conversations often focus on her role in the Biden administration, her initiatives, and her public appearances. Sentiments range from positive admiration to critical scrutiny.

The Vogue Feature

Jill Biden's feature story in Vogue Magazine elicited a strong response from both supporters and critics. Admirers laud the article, which portrays Jill Biden as a compassionate, hard-working, and influential figure. For her supporters, the Vogue piece reaffirms their positive view of her as a dignified and effective First Lady.

Critics perceive the Vogue feature as an attempt to glamorize her role and deflect from the administration's shortcomings. They argue the coverage is overly favorable and ignores pressing issues such as inflation, immigration, and healthcare, viewing it as a distraction from more critical political debates.

Some also criticize rumors and allegations that Jill Biden is pushing Joe Biden to stay in the presidential race, even among Democratic calls for him to step down. Some pointed to a quote from Jill Biden in the Vogue article talking about the thrill of power as a sign of her undue influence and desperation to stay in the White House.

This is so wildly out of touch that I can’t believe it’s real https://t.co/UE5f0Cwc1x pic.twitter.com/UbZiowj5go

— brit (@pashedmotatos) July 1, 2024

American Views of Dr. Jill

Discussion trends about Jill Biden show a clear divide among the American public. Positive sentiments are generally related to her professional achievements, advocacy work, and personal demeanor. However, negative sentiments often focus on her perceived political influence and media portrayal.

A recent Vogue Magazine cover story featuring the First Lady exemplifies this divide, serving as a cultural touchstone evoking strong reactions from both sides of the political spectrum.

Support

Many people express admiration for Jill Biden's dedication to education and her work as a professor while serving as First Lady. Commentators and supporters frequently highlight her ability to balance professional responsibilities with her duties as the First Lady, seeing her as a positive role model. This sentiment is especially prevalent among educators and working professionals who draw inspiration from her commitment to her career.

Her public engagements and initiatives, such as advocating for military families and promoting community colleges, generally receive favorable comments. Voters often praise these initiatives for their focus on education, health, and family support—issues that resonate with a broad segment of the population.

Criticism

However, there is also a noticeable current of criticism, particularly around her involvement in political and policy discussions. Detractors argue her policy influence oversteps traditional boundaries for the role of First Lady. Critics are quick to scrutinize her speeches and public statements, looking for inconsistencies or political biases. These critiques frequently merge with broader criticisms of the Biden administration, reflecting polarized views on the current political landscape.

Many also suggest Jill Biden could be a key figure running the current administration, as more Americans adopt the belief that Joe Biden is too old and infirm to be running the country. Some suggest Jill Biden’s actions and speeches betray a willingness to commit elder abuse against her own husband who is obviously not in a state of vigor.

These sentiments also come on the heels of criticisms toward the presidential couple for a clip of Jill Biden encouraging Joe after the debate. Many people pointed to the praise as condescending both to Joe Biden and the American people.

Jill Biden is certifiably terrifying

All while Joe sits and waits for his juicebox pic.twitter.com/WDn3kZZ0ZE

— Riley Gaines (@Riley_Gaines_) June 28, 2024