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

Voters Angry at Israel Support by Party Representatives

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

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

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

Internal Disagreement with Pro-Israel Voters

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

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

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

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

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

Other Reasons Democrats are Unhappy with Fetterman

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

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

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

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

At last week’s State of the Union address, President Biden continued efforts made by Democrats in recent years to position the Democratic Party as the Party of the working class, taking on the rich and corporations. “Look, I’m a capitalist,” Biden remarked. “If you want to make or can make a million or millions of bucks, that’s great. Just pay your fair share in taxes.”

Taking on the wealthy represents a pivot from the era of Bill Clinton Democrats, whose Clinton ads of the day now sound more like modern Republicans. Clinton told viewers in a televised ad during his first bid for office, “Our government has failed us. And one of its worst failures has been welfare. I have a plan to end welfare as we know it.”

Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren has been on the forefront of pushing Democrats to the modern “Eat the Rich” Party brand. But despite Biden and Warren’s confidence in their appeal to middle class voters, online discussions surrounding Warren’s rhetoric on raising taxes does not just land on deaf ears, it enrages distrustful Americans who increasingly believe Democrats are the party of the elites.

What They’re Saying

Normally, Warren’s tweets garner around a hundred responses, but Warren’s tweet praising efforts to unleash the IRS on the “Ultra Rich” earned more than 5,000 responses. 

MIG Reports’ analysis of responses to the tweet uncovered a combination of distrust and mockery. People expressed a “perception of hypocrisy,” with a number of users criticizing Warren for her personal wealth, suggesting she should be taxed more heavily or accusing her of not paying her fair share.

The theme of distrust and of hypocrisy extended beyond Warren, with many responses to Warren’s tweet lowering Warren's sentiment by associating her with other controversial figures such as Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden. This discourse highlighted how the President’s own son pleaded guilty to tax evasion.

Others responding to the Massachusetts Senator’s tweet asserted that the level of tax revenue is not the problem, but government spending. Voters mentioned Warren “arguing that the focus should be on reducing spending rather than increasing taxes.” 

By the Numbers

Since Warren’s comments on raising taxes, MIG Reports finds a serious blow to her approval among those discussing her online. Warren tends to hover below 250 mentions online. This earns her a near neutral approval rating on days when she has low online discussion volume.

• On the day Warren tweeted calling for higher taxes, her mentions doubled their usual rate, and her approval rating fell.
• On March 10th, Warren's approval rating was 47%. The day of her tax comments, approval tumbled to 43% and fell to 41% by March 12th.

It’s clear there is a direct correlation between Warren’s tax-the-rich rhetoric and her drop in approval. Warren’s ratio of positive to negative comments in discussions involving economics showed a ratio of 25 positive percentage points to 85 negative percentage points.

A Historic Shift

Perhaps the best explanation for why efforts from Democrats like Warren and Biden increasingly fall on deaf ears is found in the partisan wealth divide in elections. In 2016, Pew Research found that, “Although many middle-class areas voted for Barack Obama in 2008, they overwhelmingly favored Donald Trump in 2016.”

This trend has continued since Trump’s rise in politics. Axios reported that, “64% of congressional districts with median incomes below the national median are now represented by Republicans.” Moreover, despite regularly labeling Republicans as the “Party of the Rich,” Democrats represent nine of the 10 richest Congressional Districts in America.

It's easy to understand why middle-class Americans simply don’t trust Democrats to hold elites accountable. Americans see politicians as part of the elite. Households across America are united in banning members of Congress from stock trading. Yet Democrat legislators continue to utilize insider information to make suspiciously successful stock trades, earning millions in a profession that pays $174,000 a year.

President Biden’s efforts to hold tax cheats accountable falls flat with Americans who have been following Hunter’s tax evasion charges. Rhetoric from Democrat politicians about taking on the rich or fixing the financial system doesn’t seem to be convincing working-class Americans to forget that Democrats are often among the "Ultra-Rich” they decry.

To many Americans, Democrats both act and speak like the elite class they claim to hold accountable. Online discussions suggest middle-class Americans can hardly distinguish DNC talking points from the elites they felt mocked them for not being able to “just work from home” during COVID. Many normal Americans feel attacked when the rich, politicians, or media commentators tell them to simply buy a $50,000 electric car to save the planet. Republicans will likely continue to win middle class America, a crucial segment of the electorate, if Democrats continue to act and talk like the people Americans feel detest them.

During the State of the Union, President Biden referred to the perpetrator of Laken Riley's murder as an "illegal immigrant." Numerous liberals promptly voiced their disapproval of Biden's choice of the term "illegal," contending that it is dehumanizing and reinforces detrimental stereotypes about immigrants.

This led the administration to initiate efforts to retract the use of the term, but it appears to have caused more harm than good.

The decision to backtrack on using the term "illegal" when referring to illegal immigrants has ignited a passionate and divided public response. The reactions on social media platforms showcase a polarization deeply rooted in political beliefs, with many expressing a sense of betrayal and disappointment. This has significantly contributed the the border security conversation over the last few days.

The conversation erupted after Biden's State of the Union on March 7th.

In response to Biden's backtracking, many Americans have expressed concerns.

Most dominantly, users accuse Biden of prioritizing the feelings of undocumented immigrants over the rights and safety of American citizens. The refusal to use the term "illegal alien" is viewed by this group as a form of disrespect towards victims of crimes committed by unauthorized immigrants.

A significant portion of social media users criticize Biden for not using the term "illegal aliens," emphasizing its legal and factual accuracy. This group contends that individuals who have violated U.S. immigration laws should be referred to as such, framing the issue as a matter of adherence to the rule of law.

Critics connect Biden's language choice to broader immigration policies, arguing that the administration's approach has led to increased unauthorized border crossings and crime. The use of softer language is seen by some as an attempt to divert attention from the challenges associated with immigration.

Many respondents express genuine concerns about safety, particularly regarding crimes committed by unauthorized immigrants. Specific cases, such as the tragic murder of Laken Riley, are cited as evidence of the dangers associated with illegal immigration, further fueling the negative sentiment.

A prevailing belief among critics is that Biden's language change is politically motivated, with accusations of the Democratic Party pandering to unauthorized immigrants for political gain. The decision to include unauthorized immigrants in the U.S. Census is cited as an example, adding to the perception of political maneuvering.

Another common thread in the responses is the criticism of what users perceive as an open border policy under the Biden administration. Critics argue that this policy contributes to an alleged increase in crime and other issues related to immigration.

The overwhelming sentiment on social media is one of frustration and disappointment. Biden’s misstep seems to have upset voters across the board with left-leaning voices decrying his use of “illegal” to begin with and right-leaning voters angered by his retraction. The negative backlash reflects a deep division on issues of immigration policy and national identity, with many demanding stronger borders and a more assertive approach from Biden to address the problems associated with illegal immigration.

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

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

Talking About - Democrats

Sentiment - Democrats

Potential Problems for Democrats Going Forward

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

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

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

Steven K. Nikoui is a Gold Star Father whose son was killed in Afghanistan. His arrest during President Joe Biden's State of the Union address has sparked significant controversy and debate. Nikoui was arrested for protesting Biden's handling of the Afghanistan withdrawal. Many view the arrest as an affront to Nikoui’s right to free speech and a blatant disregard for his personal loss.

The incident is even more contentious when contrasted with the lack of arrests during a pro-Palestine protest that blocked Joe Biden’s route to the SOTU. The protestors, who were demonstrating against the President's stance on Israel, were not apprehended. This lenience led to accusations of bias and unequal treatment. Critics argue that the difference in response is politically motivated, with the Biden administration showing tolerance towards protests that align with their political agenda while cracking down on those that do not.

The discourse regarding these two incidents has been polarized, with opinions largely divided along partisan lines. Biden supporters argue any comparisons between the two incidents are misguided. They attribute Nikoui's arrest to disruptive behavior during a highly important and sensitive occasion. They further contend that allowing the pro-Palestine protests was appropriate, given their peaceful nature and the protestors' right to free speech.

Critics argue the disparity in treatment between Nikoui and the Palestine protestors is a clear indication of the administration's selective enforcement of the law and disregard for the principles of free speech when it goes against their narrative.

Nikoui’s arrest also underscores the highly charged and divisive political environment in the U.S., with even a solemn occasion like the State of the Union becoming a hotbed for controversy and protest. This incident, along with the broader discourse it has inspired, is a stark reminder of the deep ideological divide that continues to characterize American politics.

The aftermath of Senator Katie Britt's response to the State of the Union _address reveals a stark division in public opinion, particularly along party lines. While Republicans applaud her strong stance on border security and energetic critique of President Biden's policies, Democrats criticize what they perceive as a lack of substance and resort to shallow insults that question her intelligence.

Republicans and Independents Praise Britt's Stance on Border Security

Many Republicans appreciated Senator Katie Britt's strong stance on border security, viewing it as a resolute pushback against Biden’s open border policy. Supporters commended her focus on critical issues such as sex trafficking and crime, interpreting it as a call to action to protect U.S. citizens. Britt's energetic contrast to President Biden and her sharp criticism of his policies, especially on border control, resonated positively with Republican party members.

Independent viewers also admired her for offering a contrasting view to President Biden's vision of America. They appreciated the energy and freshness she brought to the table, considering it a stark contrast to Biden's age and perceived lack of dynamism. Some individuals saw her as a refreshing new face in the Republican party, effectively highlighting what they perceived as the failures of the Biden administration.

Democrats Insult Britt's Appearance and Style

On the Democratic side, criticisms of Senator Britt's response were focused on what they perceived as a lack of substance. Some likened her performance to that of an overeager first-year drama student, questioning the authenticity of her delivery.

Notably, some Democrats went beyond policy critiques, resorting to sexist insults targeting Senator Britt's appearance and style. They described her appearance as "sweet" with a performance that was deemed fake and theatrical. Comparisons to characters from popular culture, such as a commander's wife from the Handmaid's Tale, were used to criticize her speech about kitchens and perceived lack of freedom.

Democrats also compared Britt to other female Republican leaders, such as Iowa Governor Kim Reynolds and South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem. Like Britt, these leaders are often criticized by Democrats for their perceived lack of intellectual depth and “reliance on appearance over substance.” This seems to be the go-to criticism for women they view as attractive.

Conclusion

Senator Katie Britt's response to the State of the Union address has undoubtedly stirred up a mix of reactions. While Republicans laud her for taking a strong stance on border security and offering a fresh perspective, Democrats criticize her appearance and performance over actual policy.

Arizona Senator Kyrsten Sinema announced her decision to not pursue re-election in 2024, igniting an explosion of political commentary across the country as to which Senate front runner from the Republican and Democratic Party, Kari Lake and Ruben Gallego, would benefit more from the maverick Senator’s departure. NRSC Chair Senator Steve Daines (ND) responded in a press release saying, “With recent polling showing Kyrsten Sinema pulling far more Republican voters than Democrat voters, her decision to retire improves Kari Lake’s opportunity to flip this seat.” Daines’ Democrat counterpart, Democrat Senate Chair Senator Gary Peters (MI) offered a similar statement of confidence, telling Axios, “​​We were gonna win regardless, but now we even have a stronger hand.” However, MIG Report’s analysis of Arizonans discussing Lake and Gallego online adds to a series of indicators that Lake may have an early edge that spells defeat for Gallego.

By the Numbers

Since Sinema’s departure, Lake has averaged 53% to Gallego’s 47% in head-to-head support analysis, which weighs the volume of each candidate’s ratio of positive to negative comments. 

Kari Lake vs Ruben Gallego 3/5 - 3/7

• Over the last 30 days, Lake’s approval on immigration has been stronger than Gallego’s. Immigration promises to be a key issue on the ballot in 2024, especially in a border state like Arizona..
  
• Among Arizonans discussing Kari Lake and immigration policy online, MIG Reports found Lake earns 49% approval.
  
• Meanwhile, among Arizonans mentioning Gallego and immigration online, MIG Reports shows Gallego receiving a lower approval rating of 43%.

Lake’s Advantage: Die-Hards

More promising for Lake may be her enthusiasm advantage. Poll after poll suggests that turn out could be low in November. A recent New York Times/Sienna poll showed just 23% of Democratic Primary voters were excited about Biden. Worse, a Harvard poll showed less than half of young Americans plan to vote in 2024. While Lake’s populist streak has been labeled a liability, her die-hard base, driven by anger over mass migration, doubts over election integrity, and the Biden Presidency, could be her biggest strength.

• Over the last 30 days, Lake earned 5,565 direct mentions online in Arizona, while Gallego earned 3,666.
  
• This continues to be a theme for Lake month after month. In January, her advantage in online mentions was 7,079 to Gallego’s 2,986.

What They’re Saying

MIG Reports analysis of the most frequent comment themes both candidates receive online paints a picture of a broader narrative that could shape how Arizonans vote. The battle over digital political landscapes is increasingly important as more Americans turn away from prime time TV for their news to social media.

• MIG Reports found that while detractors label Gallego “a socialist or communist” and “criticize his extreme left policies,” messaging from supporters may soften Gallego’s appeal to moderate Republicans and McCain Republicans.
  
• Gallego’s supporters online highlight Gallego's military service and see him as a key asset to helping “defeat MAGA influence in Arizona.” This messaging is more consistent with Biden Democrat messaging than a Bernie Sanders or “Squad” supporting Leftist.
  
• Conversely, Kari Lake supporters champion her “support for her conservative policies and her alignment with Trump.” They also believe “she will protect Arizona from becoming too progressive.” This messaging is more palatable to Sinema supporters or moderate Republicans than the former.

Looking Ahead

Sinema's decision not to seek re-election represents yet another twist in an election that looks to be unlike any in recent years. While both factions of the American political spectrum sought to assure voters and donors that Sinema’s retreat is yet another reason to cast a vote or make a donation, early signs show Kari Lake may have a series of advantages. More importantly for Lake, the factors that give her this edge show no signs of dissipating.

• Lake’s base has been fervent since 2022, after months of legal battles over election integrity claims, and the fervor likely won’t stop.
  
• After years of Democrats claiming immigration is a nonissue and mocking Republicans for exaggerating the border crisis, convincing voters that “actually it’s Democrats who are serious on immigration” will be a herculean feat. This suggests Lake’s stronger approval ratings over Gallego on the key issue of immigration will be very difficult to reverse.
  
• Worse, Gallego will have to boost a depressed Democrat electorate alone, with Biden doing little to galvanize the vote like Obama did in 2008, when he helped deliver a super majority in the Senate. In turn, Lake appears to have this advantage in Donald Trump, who brings a boost to down ballot Republicans who otherwise struggle in Midterms and Special Elections.
  
• The final and perhaps key factor is whether McCain Republicans and Sinema Independent supporters will vote for Lake, who once shunned McCain voters, or vote for Gallego, a (suspiciously recent) former member of the extreme left Progressive Caucus. A third option for this segment of Arizona voters represents yet another advantage for Lake: don’t bother to vote at all.

The public response to President Joe Biden's State of the Union address appears to be polarized, as expected, reflecting the nation's political divide. His supporters see the speech as a passionate defense of his policies and a strong criticism of his predecessor, Donald Trump.

They perceive Biden's tone as fiery, strong, and presidential, and view the address as a successful articulation of his vision for a second term. Several supporters refer to it as one of the best State of the Union addresses they have seen, expressing feelings of pride and admiration for the president.

Democrats largely praised President Biden's State of the Union address. Key conversations among Democrats centered on Biden's forceful stance against former President Donald Trump, his focus on reproductive rights, freedom, and democracy, and his proposed policies for a second term. Many vocalized their perception of Biden's energy and vigor throughout the speech.

On the other hand, critics of the president see his address as overly partisan and politically motivated. Some described it as the most "nakedly political" State of the Union in history. They accuse Biden of focusing more on attacking Trump and dividing the nation than providing a constructive vision for the future. Some critics also accuse him of neglecting the border crisis and other key issues, and some call for his impeachment.

Republicans called the speech overly political and lacking in concrete solutions. They highlighted Issues such as the border crisis and perceived failures in addressing crime, inflation, and the cost of living. Some Republicans also questioned Biden's competence and insinuated that his speech was not his own, implying that he was being controlled by others.

Independents had mixed reactions. Some echoed the Democrat praises, lauding Biden's energy and his focus on democracy and individual rights. Others, however, aligned with the Republican criticisms, particularly regarding the border crisis and the perceived lack of real solutions.

Talking About - Joe Biden

Concerns Among Various Voter Groups

In terms of demographics, it appears that younger audiences were more concerned about a potential TikTok ban, with many arguing that it would limit their freedom of expression. Older audiences were more likely to focus on issues such as the “Stop WOKE Act” and perceived shifts in the political landscape. Overall, sentiment towards President Biden following the State of the Union address varied significantly based on political affiliation. Democrats generally expressed support for the President, although there were some criticisms of his handling of certain issues. Republicans were largely critical of the President and his policies, while Independents expressed a range of views.

Democrats

• Concerns about the expansion of the so-called “Stop WOKE Act” in Florida, with some criticizing it as a violation of First Amendment freedoms and a step towards censorship.
• Discussions about the potential TikTok ban, with some expressing concerns about freedom of speech and potential government overreach.
• Accusations that Republicans have moved away from their historical stance on social justice, with some referencing comments made by Republican Mark Robinson on women's suffrage.
• Criticism of conservatives for insisting biological sex exists, with some arguing that it infringes upon people’s preferred gender identity.

Republicans

• Strong support for the “Stop WOKE Act” in Florida, viewing it as a necessary step against perceived woke culture.
• Concerns about the potential TikTok ban, with some framing it as an issue of national security due to the app's connections with the Chinese Communist Party.
• Criticisms of President Biden's State of the Union address, with some arguing it lacked substance and did not adequately address key issues.
• Discussions around the evolving political landscape, with some arguing that Republicans have become the anti-establishment party.
• Accusations that Democrats are attempting to silence conservative voices, with some alleging that Democrats are pushing for censorship and restrictions on freedom of speech.

Independents

• Concerns about the potential TikTok ban, with some arguing that it infringes upon freedom of speech and sets a dangerous precedent.
• Discussions around the evolving political landscape, with some suggesting that both parties have strayed from their historical stances.
• Criticisms of perceived woke culture, with some arguing that it is detrimental to societal cohesion and unity.
• Debates about gender identity, with some suggesting that it is an individual's right to identify as they choose.
• Discussions about the need for more intellectual debate in politics, with some expressing frustration at the current level of discourse.

Economic Issues

Biden's address seemed to increase positive sentiment among Democrats regarding his tax proposals and focus on social issues. However, this issue decreased sentiment amongst Republicans and some Independents, who disagreed with his views on taxes, government spending, and foreign aid.

The top five economic issues that generated discussion were:

Taxes

• Republicans disagreed with Biden's claim that corporations and the wealthy need to pay their "fair share" of taxes. Some argued corporations do not pay taxes but pass the cost to consumers through higher prices and lower wages. Others stated that corporations already pay taxes by employing thousands of people who pay taxes.
• Democrats and Independents were split on this issue, with some supporting Biden's proposals and others expressing skepticism.

Government spending

• Many Republicans and some Independents criticized the government for overspending, with some calling for a reduction in the number of government employees.

• Democrats generally showed more support for government investment, although some expressed concerns about fiscal responsibility.

Social issues

• Democrats and Independents spoke about the need for better support for people with disabilities and lower-income individuals.
• Republicans, however, were more likely to attribute these issues to individual responsibility rather than government intervention.

Foreign aid

• Some Republicans and Independents criticized Biden for sending money to foreign countries. They argued that tax money should be spent on American people first.

Fact-checking

• There were conversations about the accuracy of Biden's statements, with some Republicans accusing him of lying about tax issues.

Border Security

One of the most dominant topics was immigration policy, specifically the Laken Riley Act. Economically, lower-income individuals expressed concerns about the potential impact of increased immigration on job security and wages. Meanwhile, higher-income individuals were more likely to focus on the moral and ethical implications of immigration policy.

Democrats focused on the perceived lack of compassion in the Laken Riley Act. Many questioned the morality of detaining and deporting immigrants without consideration for their circumstances.

Republicans primarily focused on the Laken Riley Act and its impact on national security. They pointed to the case of Laken Riley, a victim of a crime committed by an undocumented immigrant, as a reason to support stricter immigration policies. They criticized Democrats for their opposition to the bill.

Independents also discussed the Laken Riley Act. Like Republicans, many Independents expressed support for stricter immigration controls to protect American citizens. However, they also expressed concern over the potential for human rights abuses under such policies.

Support

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

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

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

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

Plan B

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

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

Skepticism and Doubt

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

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

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