U.S. lawmakers proposed introducing a constitutional amendment aimed at addressing a potential "mass casualty" event, sparking debate across the political spectrum. The proposal, which involves replacing members of Congress and altering lines of succession during a national crisis, is generating public discourse. Analysis reveals reactions, underlying ideological concerns, and fears fueling voter discussions.

NEW - U.S. lawmakers plan for possible "mass casualty" event, proposing a constitutional amendment to replace members quickly and change various lines of succession in a "national crisis."https://t.co/1RAVKYLBbx

— Disclose.tv (@disclosetv) September 24, 2024

Voter Sentiment Breakdown

Republicans

Most Republican voters express strong skepticism, viewing the proposal as a potential power grab by Democrats or an attempt to undermine the Constitution. Concerns about election manipulation and consolidation of power are dominant.

• 62% Negative
• 21% Positive
• 17% Neutral

Democrats

Democratic voters are more open to the proposal, viewing it as a necessary step for protecting national security and preventing a power vacuum in the event of a crisis. They see it as a prudent response to increasing threats to the government.

• 55% Positive
• 29% Negative
• 6% Neutral
• Remaining value nondescript for qualitative analysis

Independents

Independent voters are split. Some recognize the need for such an amendment, but others are wary of potential overreach and abuses of power. Many are calling for a more bipartisan and carefully debated approach.

• 41% Negative
• 32% Positive
• 27% Neutral

Themes of Discussion

Abuse of Power

The most dominant theme across voter conversations is abuse of power. Many voters—especially Republicans and Independents—are concerned the amendment could be misused to consolidate political power and manipulate the democratic process. These voters view the proposal as an attempt to alter the constitutional framework for partisan advantage. Independents share these concerns but are more nuanced, calling for transparency and a rigorous debate before any decision is made.

National Security

Democrats focus on national security and continuity of government, framing the proposal as a safeguard against future crises. Their conversations highlight an urgency for measures to prevent governmental collapse in catastrophic situations. Democrats say that without such an amendment, the country risks political instability in the face of unexpected mass casualties.

Partisan Division

Deeply entrenched divisions between the political right and left create echo chambers, where voters primarily consume information that reinforces their existing beliefs. As a result, constructive dialogue and compromise on this issue appear increasingly unlikely. Both Republicans and Democrats approach the debate with deeply ingrained biases. Republicans focus on defending the constitution and Democrats push for modern safeguards.

Topic Volume

Within the discussion, several themes emerge with significant discussion volume.

Freedom of Speech—21% of discussion

The debate about free speech crosses party lines. Many defend Americans’ right to criticize the proposal while others express concerns over the potential spread of misinformation. Republicans are more likely to argue that free speech is under attack, while Democrats focus on the need to regulate disinformation in discussions about national crises.

National Sovereignty—18% of discussion

Conversations extend beyond the immediate amendment proposal to broader fears about American sovereignty. Republicans argue the proposal is emblematic of a globalist agenda that threatens traditional American values. Democrats say maintaining an inclusive, secure society requires adaptability in governance.

The Second Amendment—15% of discussion

Discussions about the Second Amendment show Republicans focusing on the right to bear arms as a critical component of national security in times of crisis. Many prioritize this right over enabling more government powers in a potential crisis. Democrats view gun control as part of the broader solution to maintaining order and preventing domestic instability.

American Identity and Values—12% of discussion

The debate also touches on American identity. Many Republicans express concern that foundational values like individual liberty and national sovereignty are at risk. Democrats argue for progressive changes to align governance with the realities of a diverse and dynamic society.

Institutional Distrust—10% of discussion

Across the political spectrum, there is a pervasive distrust of government institutions, which intensifies the debate around the amendment proposal. Many voters, particularly Republicans and Independents, fear such a significant constitutional amendment will become a tool for corrupt political elites to maintain or expand their power at the expense of democratic norms.

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

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

Ryan Routh failed to assassinate President Donald Trump.

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

The DOJ released the letter.

Why would the DOJ publicly release this letter?

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

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

— Breanna Morello (@BreannaMorello) September 23, 2024

Republican Reactions

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

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

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

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

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

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

Independents Upset, but Fatigued

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

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

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

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

A recent article discussing climate change revealed two distinct conversations:

• Climate change believer concerns about earth’s future
• Climate change skeptic arguments against worries or drastic action

Americans are quick to incorporate politics and energy policy into discussions about climate change. Sentiment trends are divided, with some voicing skepticism about the severity of climate change, while others emphasize the importance of addressing the issue urgently.

A funny thing happened as the WaPo tried to map out half a billion years of global temperatures and the "disaster of global warming" pic.twitter.com/HA6yxpf9V7

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) September 20, 2024

Echo Chambers Sustain Voter Views

Some Americans question the validity of climate change, labeling it a "hoax" or accusing politicians and environmentalists of exaggerating its effects. They argue extreme weather events are coincidental and that fossil fuels are not a primary cause of climate change. This group typically supports politicians, like Trump and Vance, who share skepticism toward drastic government interventions to address climate change.

Americans who are deeply concerned about climate change cite its devastating impact on the environment, human health, and the economy. They argue that science is clear about the dangers of climate change, saying urgent action is needed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and transition to renewable energy sources. These voters often express frustration with politicians who oppose climate change actions or support policies that prioritize fossil fuels over sustainability.

For the most part discussions seem isolated to those who share similar view, with little movement in opinion or engagement with the opposing side.

Public sentiment is also reflected in discussions around wind energy. Some highlight its importance for renewable energy, weather patterns, and ecosystems. Others express skepticism about the effectiveness of wind energy and argue it is not a viable alternative to fossil fuels.

MIG Reports data shows:

• 32% of comments express skepticism about the severity of climate change, labeling it a "hoax" or exaggeration
• 41% express worry about climate change, citing its impact on the environment and human health.
• 15% emphasize the importance of renewable energy sources like wind and solar power.
• 12% support fossil fuels, arguing they are necessary for economic growth and energy security.

A trending pattern emerges which reveals fear of government responses or lack thereof. Climate activists tend to fear law and regulation will not be enacted fast enough to curb the potential damages of climate change. For skeptics and doubters, fear comes more from government actions which could lead to unintended consequences. This group prefers less intervention for theoretical outcomes, which they radical speculation. Overarching themes include a general distrust toward institutions what will have industrial and financial benefits.

Recent reports that the Biden Administration spent $42 billion on a “broadband expansion” project which has failed to connect anyone to the internet in three years went viral. Clips of FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr testifying in Congress enraged Americans. Carr explained that, after 1,039 days and billions of taxpayer dollars appropriated, not a single person has been connected to the internet.

FCC Commissioner: Kamala's $42 billion broadband initiative hasn't connected anything in 3 years!

"It's been 1,039 days, and no one has been connected... no homes, no businesses, not even a shovel in the ground."

WHERE'D ALL THE MONEY GO???pic.twitter.com/M87gLy7LrB

— Tim Young (@TimRunsHisMouth) September 19, 2024

MIG Reports data shows an overwhelming majority of Americans share Carr’s frustration and resentment. A bipartisan sentiment that government projects are failing, wasting taxpayer money, and private-sector solutions are being blocked, permeates voter discussion. Americans raise serious questions about the role of government in solving the rural broadband crisis.

$42 Billion for Nothing

Carr testified that, the past three years, the Biden-Harris administration allocated $42 billion for a broadband expansion initiative aimed at providing internet access to underserved rural areas. However, not a single household has been connected.

Americans agree with Carr’s critique, accusing the administration of gross mismanagement and calling this a clear example of government failure. For many, it exemplifies a pattern of bureaucratic incompetence, where billions are thrown at problems with no results.

In addition, Americans are angry that private sector solutions could solve the problem but are being blocked by crony capitalist corporations and government legal action.

1️⃣,0️⃣3️⃣7️⃣ days.

Vice President Harris has been leading the Administration’s signature, $42 billion plan to extend Internet to millions of Americans for 1️⃣,0️⃣3️⃣7️⃣ days now.

The result?

0️⃣ people have been connected to the Internet. Not one home. Not one business. None. pic.twitter.com/n1HLYkUZwD

— Brendan Carr (@BrendanCarrFCC) September 17, 2024

The Outrage is Bipartisan

Voters across the political spectrum are not just disappointed—they're outraged. MIG Reports data shows, among all voters:

• 68% disapprove of the broadband initiative spending and failure
• 22% decry the program as typical and wasteful government mismanagement
• 7% defend the project as important for rural Americans without internet

When it comes to voter groups:

• 80% of conservatives view the initiative as an abject failure, seeing it as a clear example of wasteful spending.
• 40% of liberals defend the initiative as necessary but poorly executed, while another 30% outright criticize the project.
• 50% of Independents are skeptical of the program’s effectiveness and relevance.
• 60% of swing state voters are frustrated, viewing the initiative as yet another fake promise with no real impact.

These reactions reveal dissatisfaction and outrage across political lines. Americans are furious with this program as an egregious waste of tax dollars.

Elon’s Starlink Getting Stuffed

Elon Musk claims Starlink could solve the rural internet problem quickly and for much cheaper, delivering high-speed internet to all rural areas across the U.S. He suggests, unlike the government’s failed and expensive project, Starlink is already operational and scalable. Most Americans agree with Elon that anti-competitive corporations and government regulators are actively blocking a real solution.

NEWS: Partisan politics is why FCC revoked Starlink's rural internet award, says FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr

Perhaps @SpaceX should also file a lawsuit against the FCC for improper, politically-motivated behavior – Just like the FAA.https://t.co/bO4TsoXdjJ

— ALEX (@ajtourville) September 18, 2024

Using a combination of legal battles over spectrum rights and regulatory hurdles imposed by the FCC, corporations like Dish Network have lobbied against Starlink. Worsening the situation, Carr says the Biden-Harris administration has politicized the FCC to prevent Musk and Starlink from stepping in—and Americans agree.

Voter reactions to these tactics are similarly negative:

• 71% of Americans express opposition to the FCC’s actions against Starlink.
• 15% support the FCC’s efforts.
• 14% unsure or neutral.

Bidenomics at Work

What’s striking about this issue is the bipartisan nature of the dissatisfaction. Conservatives, liberals, and swing voters are all united in their frustration over government inefficiency and failure to solve real-world problems. This isn’t limited to broadband either.

MIG Reports data among all voters shows:

• 81% say they do not trust corporate motivations.
• 58% express concerns about the impact of stifling innovation on local economies.
• 71% are frustrated with elected officials.
• 85% oppose using tax dollars to support corporations

There is a strong sense of frustration across the aisle, with many feeling their voices are not being heard. This is demonstrated by comments like, "It's just another example of how our elected officials are more interested in serving the interests of corporations than the people who elected them." Around 61% of Democrats and 56% of Republicans express a sense of disillusionment with the current state of politics.

Many voters cite examples like this broadband initiative and Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg's much-criticized electric vehicle (EV) charging station plan—which appropriated $7.5 billion in tax dollars and has only completed eight charging stations. Americans view both projects as emblematic of the Biden-Harris administration’s failed promises.

Days prior to Fed Chair Jerome Powell’s announcement of a 0.5% rate cut, many reports speculated about the impending announcement. Americans just before the announcement, Americans were expressing outright skepticism and frustration at the idea.

Today, the national mood reflects widespread dismissal, with many questioning the government’s motives and doubting the effectiveness of Fed interventions. While there is scant support for the rate cut—though not wholesale support for the Fed—it is overshadowed by concerns interventions are politically motivated. Many say government actions primarily serves corporate and political interests rather than struggling Americans.

The Federal Reserve cut interest rates massively, just 48 days ahead of the election. Thank god for the independence of the Fed! 😅

Funny how some of us last year predicted exactly this would happen.

— Vivek Ramaswamy (@VivekGRamaswamy) September 18, 2024

Americans Not Buying It

Skepticism is the dominant theme across both housing and economic conversations. MIG Reports analysis shows 66.7% of voters view the rate cuts as a political maneuver designed to boost the economy ahead of upcoming elections.

In housing-specific discussions, skepticism focuses on the belief that rate cuts will benefit corporations more than ordinary families. Across multiple data sets, concerns about affordability, rising housing costs, and inflation surface repeatedly. This fuels feelings that the government is out of touch with the everyday challenges facing Americans.

Supportive-ish Tones

Though skepticism is dominant, there is a smaller but notable group—around 21% to 31%—who view the rate cuts positively. These voters say interest rate cuts are a necessary step to stimulate economic growth and help families.

However, even within this more optimistic group, concerns about broader economic issues and banking turmoil remain. This suggests fragile public trust in government initiatives.

Day Late, Dollar Short

The conversations also consistently highlight inflation, economic inequality, and housing affordability. Americans across various online discussions express frustration at the rising cost of living. They voice frustration about everything from groceries to healthcare rising in costs and becoming unaffordable.

Many argue government and Fed intervention, including rate cuts and housing assistance proposals, fail to address the root causes of these problems. Some say these supposed “fixes” often worsen problems by benefiting corporations and government more than average citizens. This sense of economic insecurity reinforces a narrative of distrust, where political decisions are perceived as disconnected from the needs of ordinary people.

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

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

How Americans Feel

Voter discussions across thousands of comments is overwhelmingly negative:

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

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

Government Criticism and Accountability

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

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

NGOs and Their Role in Immigration and Trafficking

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

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

Human Trafficking and Fentanyl Crisis

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

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

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

The assassination attempts on former President Donald Trump have sparked a firestorm of online discourse. Recently, a U.S. Secret Service representative, while speaking at a press event, delivered a remark that continued the unsettling mood:

“There could be another geopolitical event that could put the United States into a kinetic conflict or some other—uh—some other issue, that may result in additional responsibilities and protectees of the Secret Service.”

NEW - Acting U.S. Secret Service Director: "There could be another geopolitical event that could put the United States into a kinetic conflict or some other- uh- some other issue, that may result in additional responsibilities and protectees of the Secret Service." pic.twitter.com/2KT4VJEqHP

— Disclose.tv (@disclosetv) September 16, 2024

MIG Reports analysis shows reactions are intense and divided with widespread skepticism towards agencies like the Secret Service and growing fears of violent conflict. This analysis dissects key themes and sentiments driving voter conversations, highlighting how Americans view the federal government’s relationship with Americans.

Top Discussion Topics

• Polarization and Division (30%): The most dominant theme, reflecting deep political divides and hostility between opposing groups.
• Distrust of Institutions (25%): Many Americans don’t trust the federal government, the Secret Service, or the media, speculating about perceived deceptive narratives.
• Fear of War (20%): There is significant concern about potential violence or civil war, adding to the national anxiety.
• Assassination Attempts and Accountability (15%): Discussions focus on blame and responsibility for Trump’s attempted assassination.
• Media Bias (10%): Voters also discuss media manipulation and bias, contributing to the broader sense of corrupted institutions.

These themes collectively illustrate a nation gripped by uncertainty, fear, and blame. Most voters discussing the Secret Service and the recent Trump assassination attempt blame Democrats and the media.

• 62% blame Democrats and the media
• 21% blame Trump’s rhetoric

Polarization and Division

Routh’s assassination attempt intensifies already stark divisions between political parties. Both sides of the political aisle are quick to assign blame, with many on the right accusing Democrats of fostering an environment that encourages violence.

Left-leaning groups argue Trump's own divisive rhetoric is responsible for inflaming tensions. The conversation is steeped in animosity, as voters lash out against opposing ideologies. This polarization underscores how deeply fractured the nation is, with little room for compromise or shared understanding.

Distrust of Institutions

A majority of Americans express distrust toward institutions and agencies like the Secret Service and the FBI, claiming the media helps them present deceptive narratives. Many question the competence of the Secret Service in protecting Trump, with some even suggesting a mole or intentional negligence.

Skepticism extends to the media, where accusations of bias and propaganda are rampant. This pervasive feeling of animosity feeds into speculations about corrupt establishment motivations as voters question if they're being lied to. The lack of faith in these legacy institutions only deepens divisions between Americans.

Fear of Civil Unrest and Kinetic Conflict

Amid the blame and distrust, the potential for civil unrest or even civil war looms. Many conversations express anxiety over the country teetering on the edge of violent conflict. These fears are inflamed by comments like that of acting Secret Service director Ronald Rowe.

Terms like "kinetic conflict" appear frequently, suggesting a fear that corrupt government officials are willing to allow continued safety breaches to further their political ends. This theme reflects a growing unease about the future of the nation, where political violence could become the norm rather than the exception.

Assassination Attempts and Accountability

While assassination attempt is driving conversation, it is often paired with debate over who should be held accountable. Some call for greater security measures, citing the two recent and egregious attempts on Trump as evidence of institutional negligence.

Others argue that, whether from Trump or Democratic leaders, plays a significant role in fostering the climate of violence. This group calls for accountability, but there is disagreement about where the blame truly lies. This lack of clarity contributes to a broader sense of frustration and fear.

Media Bias

The media’s influence in shaping public perception is another recurring theme. Many on the right accuse mainstream media outlets of downplaying the seriousness of the assassination attempts. Those on the left decry media for not holding Trump and his supporters accountable for inciting violence.

Many express a belief that legacy media is complicit in spreading false narratives and stoking division. These criticisms reinforce distrust in institutions as people increasingly view media outlets as aligned with Democratic political agendas. The result is American voters seeking alternative news sources which often confirm their biases.

Potential Outcomes

A possible conclusion for recurring discussion themes of distrust is that Americans may be growing increasingly reactionary. Strong suspicions against institutions like the federal government and media, coupled with a desire to reverse perceived societal decline, points to more than just frustration.

Discussion often includes conspiratorial speculations and fears of civil war, which are common markers of reactionary movements. These conversations indicate longing for a return to a more "stable" past, rejection of progressive changes, and an inclination to view modern institutions as illegitimate or corrupt.

Together, these elements suggest the nation is increasingly embracing reactionary thinking, where the goal is not merely reform but a reversal of recent political and social developments. If this sentiment grows, it could lead to a movement that seeks to dismantle much of the progress made in recent decades.

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

Views of Crime Under Democrats

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

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

What Voters are Saying

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The top emerging themes of discussion include:

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

Voter Reactions

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

Republicans: Outrage and Betrayal

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

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

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

Democrats: Hesitation and Skepticism

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

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

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

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

Independents: Frustration and Calls for Nuance

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

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

Emerging Themes

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

Questions About Deep State Involvement

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

Partisan Polarization and Accusations

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

Media Criticism

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

Calls for Accountability

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

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