An NBC News report on the Satanic Temple's increased involvement in confronting Christian Nationalism in schools gained a largely negative reaction. The responses range from strong disapproval to acknowledgment of perceived issues with Christian Nationalism. The discourse is mostly composed of skepticism, criticism, and a few neutral or unrelated comments.

What Americans Are Saying

Many voters express distrust in NBC News and the mainstream media in general, suggesting the reporting is often biased or manipulative.

There is a notable trend of strong disapproval towards the Satanic Temple's involvement in educational matters. Some question the motives and appropriateness of joining forces with such a controversial group. Recurring comments like "smh" (shaking my head) imply disapproval and disbelief.

Broader Concerns about Media Ethics and Priorities

Some Americans criticize NBC News for not prioritizing what they believe to be more critical issues like political corruption and environmental concerns.

This sentiment is evident in discussion about issues more important to voters like the border and the economy. On more pressing topics, people make comments like, "Why isn't this being reported on the hour, every hour, every day?" This contrasts with the ambivalence or disapproval of NBC’s reporting choices.

Calls for Accountability and Transparency

Some called for more accountability and transparency in news reporting, particularly highlighting potential conflicts of interest, such as in the case of Katy Tur's coverage of the Trump case.

There is a pervasive sense of frustration with the media landscape as many make negative remarks about specific journalists and the media's focus. Comments like "Chuck Todd needs to be fired," underscore a broader dissatisfaction with media figures.

Spam and Irrelevant Content

Most of the discussion reflects a negative sentiment towards NBC News and the subject of the article. This includes distrust in media reporting, disapproval of the Satanic Temple's role, and frustration with media priorities.

Examples include: "smh," "Yeah, no," and "Why isn't this being reported on the hour, every hour, every day?"

Many responses include spam or irrelevant content, such as investment promotions and inappropriate comments, which detract from the main discussion. However, this lack of meaningful content could point to Americans’ dismissal of and unwillingness to engage with biased reporting.

There were very few, if any, explicitly positive comments regarding the article or NBC News in general.

The New York Times reported that Justice Samuel Alito displayed an upside-down American flag during the January 6th events, interpreting it as a signal aligned with the "Stop the Steal" movement. The Supreme Court, which Justice Alito sits on, rejected a case challenging the election process in February 2021 and March 2021. It also rejected an appeal in February 2024 on a similar issue. MIG Reports analysis of reactions to this story highlight numerous issues regarding the Supreme Court, January 6, and the mainstream media.

Symbolism of an Upside-Down Flag

The traditional meaning of an upside-down American flag is a signal of distress or extreme danger to life or property. It is codified in the U.S. Flag Code as an official distress signal.

Within the context of political protests and movements, an upside-down flag has sometimes been used to signify a belief that the country is in peril or that the government is failing its people.

Justice Alito's Public Stance

Justice Samuel Alito, a member of the U.S. Supreme Court, is known for his conservative judicial philosophy. However, there is no public record of him making overt political statements in support of the "Stop the Steal" movement.

Public scrutiny and ethical guidelines typically prevent sitting Supreme Court Justices from engaging in overt political activities, thereby maintaining judicial impartiality.

The New York Times' Reporting

The New York Times may once have been considered a reputable news organization, but public sentiment towards mainstream media has significantly deteriorated. Like many traditional media outlets, the NYT has faced increased criticism and scrutiny regarding its interpretations and reporting biases.

In identifying Alito's upside-down flag as a signal for "Stop the Steal," the NYT drew expressions of distrust from many Americans. They point out such a claim requires substantial evidence, including the context in which the flag was displayed. Some also ask for statements or actions taken by Alito that might corroborate such an interpretation.

Counterarguments and Criticism

Lack of Direct Evidence

Critics say the NYT’s interpretation is speculative without direct evidence linking Alito to the "Stop the Steal" movement.

The absence of public statements or actions by Alito supporting the movement weakens the assertion that the upside-down flag was intended as a political signal.

Misinterpretation of Symbolism

Many say it’s possible the flag was displayed upside-down for reasons unrelated to the "Stop the Steal" movement, such as a general statement of concern for the country's direction or a miscommunication.

There are assertions that interpreting symbols is inherently subjective and can vary widely depending on the observer's perspective and biases.

Potential Bias and Propaganda

Many voters also view the New York Times report as part of a broader narrative to associate conservative figures with the January 6th riot, potentially as a form of political propaganda.

This perspective argues media outlets, including the New York Times, often push skewed narratives which align with their editorial stances or audience expectations.

MIG Reports analysis of public discourse about violent crime reveals several patterns, especially when understood through traditional media. This analysis examines various perspectives on violent crime, with a specific focus on prevalent themes, the influence of political affiliations, and observable demographic patterns.

Blame on Political Leadership and Policies

Many comments express frustration and anger towards political leaders such as Governors Gavin Newsom (California), Kathy Hochul (New York), and Gretchen Whitmer (Michigan). These leaders are often blamed for rising crime rates due to perceived lenient policies and failure to effectively prosecute crimes.

Voters also criticize District Attorneys and Attorneys General for allegedly not prosecuting crimes adequately. Americans often view failure to enforce rule of law as contributing to an increase in violent crime. Some more right leaning voters also cite prosecutions against Trump in places like New York and Georgia as hypocritical as DAs regularly fail to prosecute lower profile crimes.

Perception of Media Bias

There is a common sentiment that mainstream media outlets are ignoring or underreporting violent crimes, particularly when these incidents do not fit certain narratives.

Fox News is frequently mentioned as an outlet that some believe would cover these issues more comprehensively.

Criticism of Criminal Justice Reforms

Some voters hold strong opposition to criminal justice reforms, suggesting these reforms lead to the release of individuals who then commit more crimes.

The perception that violent criminals are not being kept in prison for long enough is also prevalent.

A segment of the discourse emphasizes the role of socioeconomic factors, such as homelessness, poverty, and housing issues, in contributing to violent crime. There are calls for addressing root causes of crime through initiatives like housing first policies and regulating corporate practices.

Some discussions highlight the issue of police brutality and the militarization of law enforcement as factors that exacerbate violence. There are accusations of systemic issues and the need for broader reforms to address police violence and its impact on communities.

Demographic Patterns

Conservative and right leaning voters tend to blame Democratic leaders for rising crime rates and perceive media bias against their viewpoints. This group also points out that rising crime in blue cities and states impacts the rest of the country, causing things like migration to red areas and rising car insurance rates because of increased car theft.

Conversely, individuals with more liberal or left-leaning perspectives focus on systemic issues such as police brutality and socioeconomic inequality as root causes of violent crime.

The discussion is heavily centered around major states like California and New York, which are often seen as representative of broader national trends. Urban areas, particularly cities known for their Democratic leadership, are frequently mentioned as hotspots for violent crime.

There is a noticeable divide in how different socioeconomic groups perceive the causes and solutions to violent crime. Those experiencing economic hardship are more likely to emphasize the need for social reforms and economic support.

Middle and upper-middle-class individuals tend to focus on law and order, advocating for stricter enforcement and longer sentences for criminals.

President Joe Biden surprised many Americans recently with a public challenge to Donald Trump for a presidential campaign debate. This was surprising both because it is still early in the year for a one-on-one presidential debate and because many have been skeptical that either candidate would agree to a debate.

Donald Trump lost two debates to me in 2020. Since then, he hasn’t shown up for a debate.

Now he’s acting like he wants to debate me again.

Well, make my day, pal. pic.twitter.com/AkPmvs2q4u

— Joe Biden (@JoeBiden) May 15, 2024

Many Democrats and liberals see Biden's challenge as a bold and confident move. They perceive it as a direct confrontation of Trump's reluctance to participate in debates and a way to hold him accountable.

Critics point out that Biden himself did not participate in primary debates and has allegedly worked to silence his opponents. They find it hypocritical for him to challenge Trump under these circumstances.

Biden's "Make my day, pal," remark quickly became fodder for memes and humorous commentary on social media. While some find it amusing and a sign of Biden's fighting spirit, others view it as cringe-worthy or out of touch. The reactions largely fell along partisan lines, with each side interpreting the challenge according to their pre-existing views.

Media Bias and Criticism

Many voters express concerns about the legitimacy and fairness of the debate process. They argue the criteria set by debate commissions or media organizations often serve to marginalize conservative candidates and viewpoints. These concerns are particularly prominent among Trump supporters who feel sidelined by the mainstream political apparatus.

There is a strong sentiment among Trump supporters that the debate conditions will be biased in Biden's favor. They criticize the choice of moderators and networks, suggesting outlets like CNN and ABC are inherently biased against Trump.

People also criticize the insistence on no studio audience and cutting the opponent's mic when they’re not speaking. Right leaning observers suggest that, should Biden go through with a debate, the media will allow precautions to prop up his image and hide his recurringly feeble public speaking performance.

Biden’s Cognitive State

Right leaning voters are highly critical of Biden's cognitive abilities. They argue Biden frequently struggles with staying alert and coherent during public appearances. They say this undermines his ability to effectively lead the country. The sentiment is encapsulated in comments like, "a president who can’t stay awake all day," underscoring a belief that Biden lacks the mental acuity required for the presidency.

Voters often cite instances where Biden has misspoken or appeared confused as evidence of cognitive decline. The suggestion is that Biden’s performance in any potential debate would be severely lacking, making him an easy target for a more aggressive and energetic opponent like Trump. There are also suggestions that Biden should be required to take a drug test before any debate to dispel suspicions of performance aids.

Liberal voters tend to downplay concerns about Biden's cognitive abilities. They dismiss criticisms as partisan attacks with little basis in reality. For this group, Biden’s experience, empathy, and policy priorities are far more important than occasional verbal missteps. They argue Biden has surrounded himself with a competent team that can help mitigate any potential shortcomings.

• In the last two weeks, sentiment towards Trump on the topic of President has remained steadily around 50%, while Biden hovers in the low 40% range.
• Trump has also managed a slight lead in overall approval among swing state voters in the last week, with Biden closing the gap slightly in the last two days.

Democratic Voter Reactions

Democratic voters have mixed reactions to Biden challenging Trump. Many view it as an opportunity for Biden to showcase his leadership and policy achievements compared to Trump. For instance, some Democrats believe Biden exceeded expectations in his State of the Union address and hope he can carry that momentum into the debates.

However, Democrats also worry about Biden's performance in debates. Some recall his previous debate gaffes and worry a poor performance could harm his re-election prospects. There's also skepticism about whether Biden, given his age and perceived cognitive decline, can effectively hold his ground against Trump's aggressive debate style.

Some Democrats are wary, fearing a debate might devolve into chaos, which they view as unfair. Democrats also seem to stay silent and decline engaging on the topic of Biden's cognitive health. Instead, they prefer to highlight his achievements and criticize the media for not giving enough attention to these accomplishments.

Many Democrats believe the debates will happen as scheduled, given the public commitments made by both candidates. However, some admit the potential for last-minute cancellations or changes, especially if Biden faces health challenges or Trump is convicted.

Overall, Democratic voters are cautiously optimistic but concerned. They see the debates as a necessity but are wary of the potential risks involved.

What Republicans Are Saying

Conservative and Republican voters are largely enthusiastic about the debates, seeing them as a platform for Trump to dominate Biden. Many believe Trump will perform well, citing Biden's declining cognitive abilities and dependency on handlers. This group often references Biden's past debate performances and public appearances as evidence of his inadequacy.

There is also a strong belief among Republican voters that the debates will expose the failures of Biden's administration. They expect Trump to capitalize on issues like border security, economic policies, and foreign affairs to criticize Biden.

Some of the Republican base also questions the integrity of the debate process. They suspect Biden might receive unfair advantages, such as pre-debate questions from the media. Many also predict the Biden team will find a way to bow out before the debate.

Republicans are generally confident Trump will show up for the debates, viewing him as eager to confront Biden publicly. However, they are less confident about Biden, fearing his team will back out if they perceive a significant disadvantage.

Independent Reactions

Independent voters are perhaps the most critical audience for these debates. They tend to be more skeptical and less ideologically driven than partisan voters. Many independents view the debates as an essential platform to compare the candidates' policies and leadership styles directly.

Some independents are hopeful the debates will provide clarity on the candidates' plans for the country. They are particularly interested in how both candidates address key issues like the border, the economy, and Israel.

Independents are split. Some are optimistic the debates will proceed as planned, while others doubt it, citing the unpredictable nature of both candidates and the political climate.

However, there's also a sense of debate fatigue among independents. Some see the debates as performative rather than substantive, doubting whether they will offer any new insights or change their opinions significantly.

Stormy Daniels, a former adult film star, was purportedly paid $130,000 as part of a non-disclosure agreement to prevent her from discussing an alleged affair with Donald Trump during the 2016 presidential campaign. Her testimony forms a significant part of the legal proceedings evaluating whether this payment violated campaign finance laws or other legal statutes. It is also causing significant online discussion.

Former president Trump’s ongoing legal battles and investigations seem to be playing a crucial role in shaping public opinion leading into the 2024 election. The more the cases are discussed in the media, the more polarized the public perceptions become.

Daniels’ testimony in the Trump hush money trial seems to cause American voters to more deeply commit to the views they already held. Trump's base has largely remained loyal, often viewing the case as a political witch hunt intended to undermine him.

Democrats and anti-Trump republicans are more likely to view Daniels’ testimony and the evidence against Trump as further support of his unfitness for office.

How Voters View Stormy Daniels’ Credibility

Partisan bias frequently seems to shape voter reactions to Stormy Daniels and whether she is a credible witness. Trump supporters are more likely to question her motives, suggesting she is seeking attention or financial gain. They largely view her as opportunistic or untrustworthy.

Trump critics are more inclined to believe her claims, using them to bolster their argument against Trump’s moral character. They praise what they view as “courage” and a willingness to challenge power.

There is a tendency among Trump critics to either dismiss Daniels’ personal credibility as unimportant, focusing instead on the legal aspects of the case, or to express sympathy towards her as someone who might have been wronged by a more powerful individual.

Among traditional Republicans, there’s a more mixed reception to Stormy Daniels. Some may question her motives but also express unease about Trump's moral and ethical judgments, suggesting a nuanced view that considers the possible distasteful actions of all involved.

Overall, the trial proceedings tend to reinforce the existing political stance many voters hold. For those less aligned with either political party, the proceedings could sway their opinion for or against Trump, depending on whether they emphasize moral behavior or an unbiased judicial system.

Media Influence on Voter Opinions

The media plays a crucial role in shaping public perception of the case and of Trump. Right leaning outlets typically frame the hush money case as either a non-issue or a politically motivated attack. This tends to reinforce the narrative of unjust persecution among conservatives.

Liberal and mainstream media outlets are more likely to highlight the virtue of Stormy Daniels or the objectionable comments and actions of Trump. They often argue these events disqualify Trump from holding office, influencing their audience to view the legal proceedings as both justified and necessary.

This and Trump’s other legal cases seem to have significant political ramifications. How this case is handled could influence voter turnout and preferences in upcoming elections, particularly if Trump is convicted.

From a legal standpoint, some voters are concerned with the precedents set by the case, particularly regarding campaign finance laws and the legal accountability of high-ranking officials. Those with legal concerns tend to focus less on Daniels’ personal credibility and more on the implications of the case for legal standards and political transparency.

The case also impacts the general public's trust in the judiciary and legal processes. How different groups perceive the handling of this case can either reinforce or undermine trust in the legal system. Any perceived bias or procedural errors could have long-term consequences for public confidence in judicial fairness.

Kristi Noem, the governor of South Dakota, has been facing significant controversy and backlash due to statements she made in a book about killing her own hunting dog. Noem admits to shooting Cricket, a dog she described as "untrainable." Her subsequent comments about President Biden's dog, Commander, have also generated criticism.

One of the most widespread reactions to Noem’s story is condemnation and horror. Even among her voter base, people have begun to question her character and suitability for office. The label "puppy killer" has been repeatedly used across the internet and social media, reflecting a strong negative reaction among voters, significantly tarnishing her public image.

Another major point of contention is the alleged falsehoods in her book, particularly her claim about having a confrontation with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un. This has been ridiculed and dismissed as a lie by critics, further feeding into narratives questioning her honesty and integrity.

Overall, the public reaction to Kristi Noem's recent controversies has been overwhelmingly negative. Critics on both sides of the political aisle focus on her character, honesty, and the appropriateness of her actions and statements.

• In the last two weeks, after significant backlash about the dog shooting story, Kristi Noem’s approval dropped from 50% to 38% as online mentions jumped to 2,500.

Universal Shock and Disapproval

Kristi Noem's recent controversies appear to have severely damaged her public image, particularly among voters who value animal rights and ethical leadership. The widespread criticism and negative reactions could potentially impact her political future, especially if she seeks higher office.

Even among Republican and conservative voters, sentiments lean heavily toward disgust and disapproval. Noem’s attempt to double down on her commitment to the story about Cricket has also garnered negativity.

Some presumably Democratic voters contrast Noem’s behavior with President Biden's persona as a dog lover, using it to emphasize a difference in character and compassion between the two. This not only serves to criticize Noem but also to bolster Biden's image.

Noem’s VP Chances Plummet

There is also significant discourse on how these controversies might affect her political future, particularly her aspirations to a potential vice-presidential candidacy. The negative press and voter reactions suggest this fiasco may derail such ambitions.

Suburban and educated voters, particularly women, who often play crucial roles in elections, might view this scandal as indicative of Noem's temperament and decision-making qualities. The extreme nature of her statements could alienate this demographic, which might be concerned about leadership style and empathy in governance.

The doubts about her honesty and the criticism she has faced could potentially alienate voters and impact her effectiveness in office. Many are expressing their withdrawal of support, even if they previously liked Noem.

• Regarding the possibility of Noem clinching a Trump 2024 VP pick, mentions of her spiked to more than 2,000 as approval for VP fell to 30%.

Media and Deflection

In an attempt at damage control, Noem has referred to the media’s portrayal of the events as "fake news," suggesting the media and public are not privy to the full context or facts. She encourages people to read her book for her version of the story, indicating she views the book as revelatory in setting the record straight.

Noem's portrayal of herself as a victim of media bias or a smear campaign has not been widely accepted. Instead, many see this tactic as a deflection from the substantive issues at hand. Those who believe in mainstream media bias against conservatives are particularly vocal that Noem is misusing the accusation in this situation.

Star Wars actor Mark Hamill’s recent White House appearance on May 4th generated buzz online and in mainstream media reports. Hamill’s joke referring to President Joe Biden as "Joe-bi-Wan Kenobi" gained praise and laughter from the media and a mix of skepticism and cringe from many voters.

The public reaction to Hamill's appearance seems to heavily depend on an individual's political orientation. Supporters of the current administration tend to view his visit as a positive and affirming endorsement. However, some still dislike celebrity activism and cringey punchlines. Biden critics question Hamill's motives and criticize the administration for engaging with Hollywood figures and promoting leftist celebrities instead of focusing on policy and governance.

Voter Reactions to Joe-bi-Wan Kenobi

In general, democrats are more likely to approve when politics is presented alongside cultural elements they understand and enjoy. They view Hamill’s appearance as a light-hearted political engagement which could help make Biden more accessible and appealing the broader culture. However, even if voters view the endorsement positively, it does not necessarily translate into voter turnout beyond the superficial level.

Conservative and Republican voters were largely critical of the press conference. They often suggest the Biden administration prioritizes celebrity and clout over effective governance. This group is also likely to perceive this as an evasion of pressing issues as Biden’s approval ratings continue to struggle.

Discussions About Celebrity Activism

Many people also view Hamill’s public endorsement of Biden as inappropriate. They see it as an attempt to mask the incompetencies and failures of the administration. They also point out cynicism around the idea of celebrities participating in political activism. Many accuse the orchestrators of this event of being out of touch with the general populace or engaging in activism through channels meant for entertainment.

Right leaning voters are more likely to express outright disapproval of celebrities engaging in political discourse or aligning with political figures. They argue celebrity endorsements can oversimplify complex issues or that celebrities lack the expertise to weigh in meaningfully on political matters.

Media Reporting and Criticism

Online comments also frequently mention the role of the media in portraying such appearances, with accusations of bias depending on the outlet. The coverage is often seen as either pandering to celebrity culture or unfairly critical of celebrities participating in politics.

Many conservatives criticize the mainstream media for its obsequious coverage of Joe Biden, despite many voters feeling the event was cringey and pandering. With cratering trust in media outlets, many people view reporting on events like this as hollow and disingenuous.

In the current political climate, American sentiment towards political opponents is increasingly polarized, showing a lack of trust between voters, leaders, and pundits. This trend can be seen across all forms of media, from mainstream news outlets to social media platforms, and even in personal conversations.

Many Americans voice a profound sense of distrust specifically towards mainstream media and traditional institutions like academia and government agencies. This is particularly pronounced among supporters of President Donald Trump, many of whom perceive mainstream news outlets as biased against their candidate. Sentiments of mistrust often extend to other traditional institutions, such as the judiciary, which are seen as being manipulated by political opponents.

The way the media and electorate portray political opponents is negative, often bordering on vilification. Incendiary and strong rhetoric has become commonplace in American political discourse. This is particularly apparent in news coverage and discussion of Donald Trump's ongoing legal issues.

Among mainstream media outlets, Trump’s legal challenges are invariably presented in a way that paints him as guilty before proven innocent. This narrative, coupled with the perceived leftist bias of mainstream media, further fuels distrust and animosity towards political figures, institutions, and the media itself.

• Online discussions show the highest volume of mentions regarding conservative and right leaning individuals like pundits, journalists, and influencers.
• Mainstream media outlets like cable news and online publications also generate significant discussion.

• Public sentiment toward conservative individuals and outlets is slightly higher than toward mainstream individuals and outlets.
• Conservative media sentiment seems to fluctuate the most, averaging 45% with a high of 50%.
• Mainstream media sentiment fluctuates less and stays lower, averaging 43% with a low of 41%.
  

Furthermore, there has been a marked increase in the use of inflammatory language and rhetoric when discussing political opponents. This type of discourse serves to further exacerbate division and mistrust among Americans, leading to a climate of hostility and confrontation.

MIG Reports analysis suggests that, unless there is a concerted effort to foster dialogue and understanding between opposing political camps, the level of polarization and mistrust is likely to persist. This could have serious implications for the functioning of American democracy, as well as the overall social cohesion in the country.

Nancy Pelosi recently appeared on MSNBC with Katy Tur, discussing Biden’s allegedly strong job growth numbers. Pelosi claimed Biden has created nine million jobs during his administration. In the exchange that followed, Tur asserted that job losses during Trump’s administration were due to COVID, rather than Trump’s policies.

Reactions to the interaction have split voters in an interesting way, with Republicans echoing Tur’s statement and Democrats siding with Pelosi. While reactions to the MSNBC exchange correspond with partisan divides, many Democratic voters are criticizing Tur and MSNBC for allegedly defending former President Trump.

This event suggests Democratic hatred for Trump may overcome ideological alignment with mainstream media outlets like MSNBC, which is widely viewed as left-leaning. Republicans point out that even a struggling economy and poor job prospects may not unify voters on contrasting narratives and political interpretations.

• Following the exchange between Pelosi and Tur, jobs sentiment toward Trump and Biden flipped, with Trump slightly surpassing Biden in approval.
• Sentiment toward MSNBC among all voters sits at 41%, with “propaganda,” “censorship,” and “fake news” among the top media-related discussion words.

Criticism of MSNBC and Katy Tur

Many voters across party lines are frustrated with MSNBC, especially Katy Tur. Democrats who agree with Nancy Pelosi’s accusation of Tur acting as a Trump apologist say Tur and the network promote a right-leaning bias. They appreciate Pelosi's criticism of Tur, and some have even called for Tur's replacement on MSNBC.

Conservative voters tend to assert Tur made a valid point about job losses during COVID, but still criticize MSNBC for its leftist bias. This group is more likely to discuss the general state of the economy and job market, with concerns about potential layoffs, increased unemployment, and concerns about inflation.

Following this contentious event, voters of all party affiliations express distrust and dissatisfaction with mainstream media, including MSNBC. A common criticism accuses the network of pushing narratives that align with certain political agendas.

Views of Nancy Pelosi

Interestingly, the exchange did not seem to negatively impact Nancy Pelosi’s approval. Many voters view Pelosi as a strong, assertive figure who challenges perceived bias in the media and unhesitatingly voices her opinions. Some Democrats thanked Speaker Pelosi for criticizing Katy Tur for defending Trump's job loss record.

However, many Republican voters are critical of Pelosi's comments, accusing her of undermining Trump's economic and jobs record. They argue Trump achieved significant job growth and that Pelosi is trying to manipulate the narrative to discredit him. These voters are mostly conservative and are generally opposed to Pelosi’s policies.

While partisan disagreement persists, there appears to be a consensus among both conservative and liberal voters that Pelosi is a skilled political operator. For conservatives, this manifests as critique of her as a master manipulator. For liberals, it is expressed as grudging respect for her ability to get things done.

• Despite Republican criticism, Nancy Pelosi’s nation approval increased slightly in the last few days, reaching 50% on April 30.