MIG Reports analysis has identified the recent pro-Palestine protests at Columbia University as part of a growing fracture within the political left’s culture. It also seems to be an ideologically isolating movement, sectioning off its adherents from ostensible allies on other issues.

Reports of anti-Israel protests at Columbia University have sparked significant controversy. Some Americans are outraged by these protests, labeling them as antisemitic and praising the White House for publicly condemning them.

• The arrest of Rep. Ilhan Omar's daughter at one of these protests has further fueled these sentiments.
• As a result of her daughter’s involvement, Omar saw a significant decrease in her public approval.

However, supporters argue the protesters are exercising their right to free speech, drawing parallels with other controversial issues, such as marijuana legalization and police brutality. Some question the actions of Columbia University's administration in response to the protests and argue the arrests of student protesters are excessive.

Many Americans express concerns about the safety of Jewish students amid these protests, with some comparing the situation to historical instances of antisemitism. However, others argue these concerns are overblown and the protests represent a legitimate critique of Israeli government policies, rather than an attack on Jewish people as a group.

In terms of political implications, these protests appear to reflect broader divisions in American society, and more specifically the Democratic Party. Supporters of the protests often align with progressive political movements, while critics of the protests often align with conservative ones.

Culturally, these protests have reignited debates about free speech and the limits of acceptable political discourse. They have also brought renewed attention to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, prompting Americans to grapple with complex questions of identity, history, and international relations.

How Americans are Reacting to Ongoing Protests

Factors that increase sentiment towards these protests include a sense of solidarity with the Palestinian cause, perceived injustices faced by Palestinians, and the desire for freedom of speech and expression on college campuses. In contrast, elements that decrease sentiment include reactions to antisemitism, violence or intimidation, and the disruption of academic activities.

The top discussions around the protests include debates about freedom of speech versus hate speech, the role of universities in policing student protests, the impact of these protests on Jewish students and the larger Jewish community. People also discuss the political implications, particularly in relation to U.S. foreign policy towards Israel and Palestine.

If current trends continue, protests will continue to increase, along with heightened tensions and potential conflicts in public locations. This could lead to a greater polarization of opinions, with the potential for these protests to become a significant political issue that may hurt Biden’s approval. Increased media attention could further fuel contentions as well, perpetuating friction.

In terms of policy implications, universities may need to develop clear guidelines for student protests. The public and alumni may demand institutions protect freedom of speech while ensuring the safety and well-being of all students. Policymakers and Democrat politicians may also be pressured to address this anti-Israel voter group as the election draws near.

A recent Supreme Court decision not to hear the Mckesson v. Doe case has sparked a robust online discussion. Much of the commentary seems to be from liberal and left leaning voters who support BLM and other social justice protests.

The case in question involved DeRay Mckesson, a civil rights activist, who was sued by an anonymous police officer (Doe) who was injured during a protest Mckesson organized in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, in 2016. The lawsuit alleged Mckesson was responsible for the injuries because he should have anticipated violent actions during the protest.

SCOTUS’ decision essentially upholds a lower court ruling that organizers of protests can be held responsible for violence or illegal actions that occur, even if they didn't directly participate in or endorse such actions. This decision extends to the states of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas. Critics argue this decision essentially criminalizes protest organization.

Many discussing this subject seem to misunderstand the court decisions, believing SCOTUS made it illegal to protest, when in fact the court had declined to hear a case, leaving a lower court's decision in place.

The event has also sparked conversation about politicized and weaponized justice. MIG Reports data suggests liberals and conservatives both entertain ideas that the government and courts could be weaponized – however they disagree about whom the weaponization is against.

• National sentiment towards SCOTUS is relatively high compared to protests and police.
• Sentiment towards all topics related to protests and prosecutions for protests has declined slightly in the last two weeks.

Liberals Emphasizing Mckesson’s Plight

Those arguing the decision infringes upon the First Amendment tend to lean liberal. They say it’s chilling the right to protest by making organizers potentially liable for actions they cannot control. They see this as a move to criminalize dissent and express fear about the implications for democratic freedoms.

Some voice fears this could dissuade activists from organizing protests out of fear of legal repercussions. They argue holding organizers accountable for the actions of individuals within a protest is unfair and infringes upon the constitutional right to free speech and peaceful assembly.

Supporters of the decision argue protest organizers should be held accountable for any illegal activities that occur during their events. They believe this will deter violent protests and encourage peaceful assemblies. Although these voices tend to be more right leaning, there is much less discussion of the case among Republicans and conservatives.

Those who are discussing the case either blame Democratic leadership for lawlessness during protests or criticize Republican lawmakers for eroding democratic rights. The debate around this case highlights the partisan views many hold about protest rights, depending on the cause of the protest.

Contrasting Views of Weaponized Government

The politicized view of protests seems apparent when contrasting opinions about Mckesson v. Doe and January 6 prosecutions. Those who view the events of January 6 as an attack on democracy demand protesters be held accountable. These individuals frequently use terms such as "insurrectionists," "traitors," and "seditious clowns," and appear to be among the same group discussing the Mckesson v. Doe decision.

Liberal and progressive voters are more likely to call for the arrest, conviction, and jailing of J6 participants. This group also includes elected officials who they believe incited or supported the attack like former President Trump. Many demand a thorough investigation and express satisfaction when they see arrests and convictions.

Progressive and liberal voters express a sense of double standards in how different protests are handled. They say law enforcement response to the J6 demonstrators was less severe than responses to Black Lives Matter protests.

Conservatives View J6 Convictions as Weaponized

In contrast to liberals who claim lenience for Mckesson and maximum consequences for J6 defendants, conservatives view the courts as weaponized in the opposite direction. This group is more likely to claim J6 demonstrators were merely exercising their right to protest. They criticize the media and Democrats for applauding J6 convictions while shrugging off BLM protest violence.

Right leaning voters believe there is bias in the FBI's actions, specifically in the context of the prosecution of J6 participants. They contrast this with leniency towards leftist activists who commit crimes and violence in the name of Black Lives Matter of Palestine.

Conservatives are more likely to believe in the existence of the Deep State – a group of unelected bureaucrats manipulating the government. They express frustration and mistrust towards the government and politicians who politicize federal agencies and the court system.

There is a strong perception that conservatives are being unfairly targeted and labeled "domestic terrorists" by the FBI and other institutions.

MIG Reports identifies there is a significant divide in the perception of Trump among Generation Z voters. Some are staunch supporters of Trump, frequently using the hashtag #MAGA (Make America Great Again). This group sees him as a victim of leftist and liberal bias.

Gen Z often expresses frustration with the ongoing legal trials and perceive them as political witch hunts orchestrated by liberals and communists to undermine Trump’s credibility and popular support. They are also opposed to media outlets they believe are biased against Trump, accusing them of spreading lies and misinformation about the former president.

Many Gen Z voters believe the Ukraine-Russia and Israel-Hamas conflicts wouldn't have happened under Trump's leadership. They say Trump's stronger stance on foreign policy would have deterred such actions. These voters also seem to believe Biden's administration is weaker in comparison and this has led to an emboldening of U.S adversaries across the board. They also say Biden has allowed heightened tensions across the world and worsening economic markets.

Trump supporters among Gen Z express strong dissatisfaction towards Biden, with many accusing him of crimes, decrying his handling of global issues, and critiquing his performance at the State of the Union address. They also express support for Trump, with some suggesting he would do a better job at handling the country's issues.

A recent Harvard Poll shows President Biden continuing to struggle with young voters. The survey showed Biden holding a 45% to 37% lead over former President Trump among all 18- to 29-year-olds, with 16% undecided. The survey also highlighted that at this point in the 2020, Biden polled at 51% to Trump’s 28% among young voters, which corroborates MIG Reports evidence that Biden is losing sway with Gen Z and younger Millennials.

Biden’s Gen Z supporters often voice concerns about Trump returning to the White House and the impact this could have on the country. However, some express exasperation at the continued focus on Trump, accusing the messaging of “living rent-free" in people's heads.

It seems many Gen Z voters are becoming highly critical of Biden's performance. This could potentially indicate that Trump is gaining traction with this demographic. The reasons range from perceived failures in Biden’s policy decisions, alleged criminal activities, and a general dissatisfaction with his leadership.

Support for Biden among young voters seems to be less vocal, with much of the conversation focusing instead on criticisms of Trump. It is also noteworthy that some Gen Z voters express disillusionment with both major political parties and the current state of American politics. They seem to be searching for truth and fairness amidst what they perceive to be a highly polarized and partisan political environment.

Recent accusations of biased reporting against National Public Radio (NPR) have stirred up public resentment and calls for defunding. After veteran journalist Uri Berliner published an article with The Free Press chastising NPR for its unsupportable liberal bias, his subsequent suspension and resignation created controversy online.

My resignation letter to NPR CEO @krmaher pic.twitter.com/0hafVbcZAK

— Uri Berliner (@uberliner) April 17, 2024

Many discussions center around the belief that NPR, along with other mainstream media outlets, display a significant left-wing bias. People, including Berliner, argue NPR prioritizes a leftist agenda over objective journalism, contributing to polarization and distrust. This bias is perceived in the choice of stories covered, the framing of news narratives, and the selection of sources or experts for interviews.

Liberals tend to be more supportive, but some still have criticisms. They suggest NPR's bias is not so much a partisan issue but rather a reflection of the organization's commitment to "well-meaning liberal feel-good" coverage. They argue NPR is sometimes "wimpy" in its reporting and works hard not to offend anyone.

Disconcerting Comments from NPR’s CEO

There are heated debates around NPR's leadership, particularly the new CEO Katherine Maher. Critics argue her views undermine the objective pursuit of truth and threaten freedom of speech.

Berliner himself said in his resignation statement that her leadership “confirm the very problems” of leftist bias. Others like author Chris Rufo have exposed past comments from Maher, betraying her as an apparent leftist devotee. These discussions among journalists online have also generated public awareness and backlash.

EXCLUSIVE: Katherine Maher doesn't just want to "stamp out bad information" on the internet. She wants to replace it with "good information"—i.e., left-wing narratives—and force the public to "sit within that good information" as "a collective."

Big Sister has arrived. pic.twitter.com/7kfq8VYHfj

— Christopher F. Rufo ⚔️ (@realchrisrufo) April 18, 2024

Maher’s defenders praise her leadership skills and commitment to transparency, brushing aside accusations of clear partisan loyalty. Many critics cite her past work with Wikipedia, tweets and posts stumping for Joe Biden, and clear cut liberal perspectives on identity politics, censorship, and the First Amendment.

Taxpayer Dollars Supporting Left-Wing Media

NPR's public funding is a contentious issue. Critics argue taxpayer money should not be used to fund a platform that is being exposed as biased and propagandist. They argue for defunding NPR, asserting it should be privately funded like other media outlets.

Criticisms of taxation and government spending amid other pressing issues like a struggling economy and benefits for illegal aliens seems to exacerbate negativity toward public funding for NPR. While Americans struggle to make ends meet, many seem appalled and indignant about tax dollars being spent to support outlets like NPR.

Overarching Distrust of American Media

The issue of bias in NPR's reporting is not isolated but is part of a broader conversation about media bias in the United States. Americans are increasingly polarized in their perceptions of media bias, with many believing most news outlets have a political bias. This has rapidly eroded trust in mainstream media and spurred an increasing reliance on alternative news sources.

Online discussions also suggest Americans believe mainstream media actively supports the current administration and various Democrat political figures. Many of these discussions accuse the media and Democrats of lying and coordinating to push messaging for Democrat politicians.

Many accuse NPR and other outlets of being a propaganda arm for the Democratic Party, saying their views are dismissed and unrepresented. Some also direct personal attacks at various media figures like Katherine Maher, Rachel Maddow, and Don Lemon.

There is also discussion about a 2014 Pew Research Center study which found that NPR's audience skews liberal, with 67% identifying as left-leaning while only 21% identifying as right-leaning. Many commentors say even these percentages fail to capture the true composition of NPR’s left leaning audience.

Overall, many Americans view the resignation of Uri Berliner as indicative of a larger trend of liberal bias in media organizations.

On April 16, 1,300 illegal immigrants lined up outside City Hall in New York City expecting green cards to be handed out. The event occurred due to confusion, as the migrants are ineligible for green cards (an immigration benefit). Millions of illegal immigrants from dozens of ethnicities and backgrounds have entered the U.S. since 2021. This makes it difficult for unregulated NGOs with limited capabilities to convey messaging to everyone. With the ongoing border crisis, it’s likely events like these may continue and potentially worsen.

MIG Reports analysis reveals a divided but shifting political. Opinions also differ within racial and economic groups. Generally, voters’ views align with the broader national debate on immigration—a topic that has become increasingly polarized during the Biden administration.

Democrats, who generally support more inclusive immigration policies, seem to be less critical of the migrants seeking green cards. However, some expressed concerns about the practicality of completely open borders, yet also question what it would mean to “close” the border. They note many people cross for legal reasons. Despite this, the overall sentiment among Democrats is one of understanding and empathy for the migrants' plight.

Republicans use stronger language, referring to the situation as an “invasion” and calling for militarization of the border. They express frustration at the Biden administration's immigration policies and accuse them of incompetence and malfeasance. They also convey outrage about the perceived misuse of taxpayer money, arguing it should be used to address the southern border instead of funding foreign nations.

On April 16, following the migrants in NYC seeking free immigration benefits, Immigration discussions online surpassed Border Security discussion volume. This is anomalous as Border Security typically generates more mentions.

Further analysis reveals a shift in Latino voting patterns towards alignment with white, non-Hispanic blue-collar workers, a group traditionally associated with Republican voting. This could suggest a change in sentiment among legal immigrants towards tougher immigration policies.

Economic class also plays a role in shaping sentiments. Those expressing frustration at the misuse of taxpayer money often belong to the middle class. They express feeling the burden of taxes and the impact of national debt. In addition, many calling for increased border security are among the growing lower economic classes, possibly perceiving immigrants as a threat to their jobs or resources.

The general sentiment towards immigration during the Biden administration has been mixed, with political, racial, and economic factors playing a significant role in shaping public opinion. Recent events underscore the complexity of the immigration debate, growing economic concerns, and the current state of distrust and anger within the American public.

Following A15 pro-Palestine protests which shut down bridges, airport traffic, and caused chaos in the streets, Americans are discussing disparate law enforcement responses. In places like California and New York, many people feel the police did little to uphold the rule of law. These optics are a sharp contrast to how police dealt with protesters in Florida where arrests were made, and protests quickly dispersed.

Much of the conversation is divided along partisan lines with more liberal and Democratic voters advocating for the protesters’ rights. Those on the right or moderates who value rule of law tend to voice support for the decisive response from law enforcement in red states like Florida.

• Sentiment toward protests on April 15 dropped in Florida to 31% from 43% the day before.
• In California, protest sentiment increased from 38% prior to April 15, to 40%, suggesting more support for the A15 protests.
• Palestine sentiment also decreased in Florida on April 15 and increased in California.

Backlash for Senator Cotton’s Tweet

A tweet from Arkansas Senator Tom Cotton has also sparked discussion about the prudence of civilian action to deal with protesters. Some people called his tweet a tongue-in-cheek call to vigilante action against protesters. Many others, however, took umbrage with the tweet.

I encourage people who get stuck behind the pro-Hamas mobs blocking traffic: take matters into your own hands to get them out of the way.

It's time to put an end to this nonsense.

— Tom Cotton (@TomCottonAR) April 16, 2024

Much of the negative response and disapproval toward Cotton's message came from liberals and progressives who claimed he was calling for violence. Some even went as far as calling for his resignation or even imprisonment.

This group accused him of inciting violence and promoting vigilantism against peaceful protesters. Some use strong language to describe their disgust, calling him a "disgrace" and stating he belongs in prison.

There also seems to be a portion of right leaning voters who agree that blocking roads is inappropriate and potentially illegal, but they disagree with the notion of citizens taking drastic actions. This group cites examples like Kyle Rittenhouse and Daniel Penny who both “took matters into their own hands,” and faced severe legal consequences.

Many asked whether Cotton would be prepared to legally defend citizens who intervened, if progressive activists or politicized prosecutors came after them legally.

Other conservative and right leaning voters voiced agreement with Cotton. They said the right to protest does not grant the right to inconvenience others or block public thoroughfares. They argue protesters who do so should face severe consequences, including jail sentences.

Law Enforcement Response in Florida

There's a mix of reactions to pro-Palestinian protests in Florida disrupting traffic. Many express frustrations at the inconvenience, while others focus more on the rationale behind anti-Israel and anti-America demonstrations.

Many Floridians commend police actions and the law-and-order stance under Ron DeSantis's leadership, particularly in dealing with Pro-Hamas protesters. This group often contrasts the response of Florida law enforcement with that of police in New York, California, and other large cities in blue states.

Progressives tend to decry any arrest of pro-Palestine protesters. Some even compare DeSantis to Adolf Hitler, saying his leadership in Florida is authoritarian and racist. However, many of the voices criticizing Florida’s governance also seem to declare their unwillingness to live in or even travel to Florida.

Perceived Inaction by Police in New York and California

Many people online criticize law enforcement in San Francisco and New York City for being passive. They believe police stood by during disruptive protests and did nothing when demonstrators blocked roads and bridges. There is a sense of frustration over disruptions to travel and commerce, accusing the police of failing to maintain order.

There is also frequent criticism for protesters for causing inconvenience and potentially endangering public safety by roads. Many are particularly critical of pro-Palestinian, anti-Israel protests, accusing them of causing unnecessary disruption, insulting America, and burning American flags.

Some protest supporters and activists who were reacting to the Middle East conflict which now involves Iran, drew attention to police brutality, arguing police officers even in blue cities are too rough with peaceful protesters. This group criticizes those who they believe are more concerned with the disruption caused by protests than with the issue of police brutality itself.

Recent conflict escalations between Iran and Israel have generated conversations among Americans about the U.S.'s position on the issue. Some Americans favor a more aggressive stance towards Iran, while others advocate for a balanced approach towards both countries.

Israeli Support vs. Iranian Support

Israel

• Supporters tend to be older, Republican, and Christian.
• There are also strong Israel supporters among Jewish liberals and Democrats.

Support for Israel is driven by a belief in shared democratic values, the historical alliance between the U.S. and Israel, and a sense of obligation to protect an ally from Iranian aggression. Supporters often highlight Israel's right to self-defense and the need for U.S. intervention. They also stress the importance of passing aid packages for Israel. This sentiment appears to be particularly strong among conservative and right-leaning individuals, as well as those of Christian faith who often express religious reasons for supporting Israel.

Iran

• Supporters are generally younger, Democrats, and secular or Muslim.
• This coincides with younger Americans being anti-Israeli and supporting Biden’s nuclear deal efforts with Iran.

Support for Iran appears to increase when the discussion centers around perceived Israeli aggression, the plight of Palestinians, and belief that Israel is in violation of international law. This perspective is often espoused by liberal-leaning Americans, many of whom criticize U.S. support for Israel. Much of this group has become increasingly involved in protests and gatherings to support Palestine. These individuals often cite Israel’s alleged violation of Iran’s sovereignty, such as the bombing of the Iranian consulate, as a reason for their empathy towards Iran.

Discussion Trends

U.S. Military Aid

One of the most common discussion trends concerns U.S. military aid to Israel. Many Americans express support for the aid, particularly in light of recent attacks from Iran. However, some criticize the U.S. for providing aid to Israel while not supporting other nations in conflict, such as Ukraine.

Accountability

There are calls for holding Iran accountable for its actions, with many Americans labeling Iran as a “terrorist nation.” On the other hand, some argue Israel also needs to be held accountable for its actions, accusing them of instigating the conflict.

Peace vs. War

A significant number of Americans advocate for peace in the Middle East. They express fatigue over the continued conflicts and call for an end to hostilities. However, there are also fears of potential escalation into a larger conflict, possibly leading to World War III.

Political Implications

The political implications of the Israel-Iran conflict are a hot topic. Some Americans criticize certain politicians for their stance on the issue, alleging that they are acting against the nation's interests. There are also concerns about the potential impact on U.S. relations with other countries, particularly Russia and China.

Economic Consequences

The economic consequences of the conflict, particularly the cost of military aid to Israel, are also a point of discussion. Some Americans express concerns about the sustainability of such expenditures in light of the U.S. debt situation.

Current conversations around the possibility of Trump's re-election among Democratic, left-leaning, and progressive voices reveal much concern, skepticism, and outright opposition. Rachel Maddow and other left-leaning commentators often criticize Trump's policies and leadership style, frequently discussing the potential implications and risks of a second Trump term. At the same time, they dismiss or redirect from problems with the Biden administration.

Much of the commentary class is focused on nebulous topics which are difficult to quantify or provide nuanced discourse on. Common discussions among leftists and progressives regarding a second Trump term typically center around perceived authoritarianism, isolationism, and abuses of power. There is a strong sentiment among progressives that a second Trump term would lead to the destruction of democratic norms and increased polarization.

Authoritarianism

Progressives fear authoritarianism if Trump is reelected. They fear a combative press relationship, disregard for checks and balances, and unilateral decision-making, warning a second term would escalate into a more authoritarian leadership style.

Isolationism

Progressives worry about Trump's isolationist foreign policy, claiming it strains alliances, undermines global cooperation on climate change, and empowers authoritarian regimes. They fear a second term would prolong or worsen these trends.

Abuses of Power

This group asserts Trump abused power in his first term, highlighting actions like firing FBI Director James Comey and attempting to manipulate the Justice Department against political foes.

FISA Concerns

There is fear Trump might misuse FISA to target domestic political opponents, risking civil liberties.

These concerns are sometimes shared among moderate Democrats and Independents, although the intensity of the concerns vary. There is a significant portion of moderate Democrats and Independents who appear to be more focused on other issues, or who might view these concerns as overly alarmist. Additionally, moderate Democrats and Independents might disagree with progressives on policy issues, even if they share some of the same concerns about a potential second Trump term.

MIG Reports analysis identifies that online discussions about Biden outweigh those of Trump. Despite this, Trump’s approval ratings are generally higher across issues important to voters. This showcases that establishment media’s messaging is not representative of the electorate or even the entire Democratic party.

Online commentary among left leaning voters also reveals dissatisfaction with the current political climate writ large. While many do criticize the conservative right, there is also dissatisfaction with what they see as the failures of both liberal and centrist Democrats. Some argue for a more radical, leftist approach to politics. Others express frustration at what they perceive as a lack of focus on key issues like economic inequality, healthcare, and the environment.

The Biden administration’s performance is another major focus of Democratic voter commentary. Some criticize Biden for his handling of the border crisis. Others accuse his administration of denying women the right to buy houses by allowing a significant increase in housing prices.

There is criticism directed towards Vice President Kamala Harris, with some suggesting she was chosen for her identity rather than her abilities or success.

Many left leaning and progressive voters are unhappy with the current tax system, expressing concerns about misuse of tax dollars. These voters are frustrated with how their tax money is being used, especially in terms of foreign aid and government spending. They suggest tax dollars are being squandered or misallocated, and express resentment over the perceived lack of benefits they are receiving in return for their taxes.

After a recent video of Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee showed her speaking at a high school during Monday’s solar eclipse. Jackson Lee is seen calling the moon a planet and saying it is “made up of gases.” She continued to say, "The sun is a mighty powerful heat, but it’s almost impossible to go near the sun. The moon is more manageable."

Comments from Americans online about Rep. Jackson Lee's statements are overwhelmingly negative. While Jackson Lee herself claims Republicans are criticizing her for something that is unimportant, voters seem to associate Jackson Lee’s misinformed comments as typical of politicians who regularly make false statements.

People online are mocking her for making such a glaring error. Some even called her a “moron” and others questioned the quality of her education. Many express disbelief that she has been re-elected multiple times despite her perceived lack of knowledge. The conversation strongly indicates a significant amount of voter dissatisfaction with Jackson Lee.

Voters also repeatedly bring up the fact that she used to sit on the House Science Committee and the House Space Committee, expressing incredulity that someone in her position could make such erroneous statements. They criticize her as being uneducated, incompetent, and even question her intelligence and that of anyone who voted for her.

Several comments also sarcastically suggest she should be the first person to try to live on the moon, given her belief in its gas composition. Some also express embarrassment and concern over her representation of Texas's 18th district.

Another emerging theme in the conversation connects Jackson Lee to Joe Biden, also mocking him for his own frequent fumbles, inaccuracies, and obvious cognitive decline.

The newsworthy event gave people a reason to criticize her for her policies as well. Some called her out for giving a poorly prepared eclipse speech rather than addressing more pressing issues like crime, border control, and high taxes.

People also seem frustrated about her being a part of the Congress that levies taxes. Overall, the sentiment appears to be negative, with voters voicing disapproval and mockery.

• Rep. Jackson Lee’s approval dropped as mentions spiked after the video was released.
• Her approval dropped from 47% on Sunday to 40% on Tuesday, along with an increase of online mentions from 14 to 278,

Voter Opinions of People in Congress

This incident with Sheila Jackson Lee echoes a broader theme in conversations about elected officials. There is a prevalent belief among American voters that most Congress members are self-serving, unaccountable, and lack the necessary qualifications to effectively carry out their duties.

Overall sentiment seems to be one of distrust and dissatisfaction. Many voters display a cynical view of the "ruling class" and their qualifications for office. People often feel their representatives are more interested in ideological posturing than in serving the people.

Several people express frustration with the perceived hypocrisy of politicians, suggesting they are out of touch with everyday Americans. Others take issue with politicians' intelligence, implying they are not informed or articulate enough to effectively govern.

There's a notable level of anger directed at both Democrats and Republicans, accusing both sides of being pompous and corrupt, as part of the political elite.

Another common sentiment is a perceived lack of accountability among members of Congress. Several voters say these officials have managed to evade consequences for their actions, further fueling the belief that they are above the law. This lack of trust in the integrity of Congress could contribute to voter apathy and disillusionment.

It seems most voters are deeply dissatisfied with the current state of American politics. This suggests a potential appetite for new voices and ideas in the political sphere.