A recent Gallup poll of American approval regarding immigration levels from 1965 through the present determined:

• 55% of Americans today want immigration reduced
• 25% want immigration levels to stay the same
• 16% want an increase in immigration numbers.

MIG Reports analysis of voter conversations online not only confirm polling data but reveal why Americans hold their current perspectives on immigration

Weighted Analysis

MIG Reports analysis weighs total discussion volume and approval percentages of immigration preferences by calculating the influence of each group's preference—decreased, maintained, or increased immigration—across multiple data sets.

By considering both the percentage of preferences within each data set and the total discussion volume of each set, the analysis determined the overall weighted preference.

MIG Reports analysis shows:

• 56.50% of voters nationally favor decreased immigration
• 26.22% favor maintaining current levels
• 17.29% favor increased immigration
• Additionally, in swing states, around 70% of conversations favor reducing immigration.
• In national conversations about the presidential election, 60% favor reducing immigration.
  

Why a Majority Wants Reduced Immigration

The predominant preference in voters discussions favors decreased immigration. This is driven by a variety of concerns revolving around national security, economic stability, and public safety.

Many Americans voice deep apprehension about illegal immigration as a major threat to the country’s security and economic well-being. Voters talk about reducing or stopping illegal immigration because they believe:

• Illegal immigrants contribute to rising crime rates: Discussions mention gang activity and violent crimes linked to immigrant groups, particularly in urban areas.
• An open order exacerbates economic challenges: People discuss job scarcity and inflation, arguing the influx of illegal migrants strains public resources like social services, healthcare, and housing.

There is widespread frustration and distrust toward Biden-Harris immigration policies, which voters view as too lenient. People direct their anger toward Democrats who they believe have failed to secure the border. Discussions emphasize a sense of urgency and alarm, with many advocating for stricter controls and even mass deportation policies.

Reasons for Maintaining Immigration Levels

Around 25% of voters in MIG Reports data advocate for maintaining current levels of immigration. They emphasize the need for a balanced and structured approach to the border. These voters typically argue that, while reforms may be necessary, a drastic reduction in immigration is not the solution.

Immigration advocates point out the importance of legal immigration pathways, highlighting the contributions of immigrants to the economy and society. They focus on the value of diversity and the critical role immigrant workers play in the economy. Here, they mention industries that rely heavily on labor from immigrant populations.

There is also a strong humanitarian element in these discussions. Voters want asylum seekers to have human rights protections. They argue a well-regulated immigration system can benefit the country by bringing in individuals who contribute positively to communities and the economy. Sentiments in this group are generally more optimistic and focused on the potential for policy reforms that balance security concerns with the need for inclusivity and economic growth.

A Minority Want Increased Immigration

The smallest segment of Americans supports increasing immigration levels. This view is driven primarily by humanitarian concerns and the belief in the positive impact of diversity. Often progressives and libertarians, this group focuses on America's moral and ethical responsibility to provide refuge to those fleeing persecution and violence.

Increased immigration proponents say the United States, as a nation built on immigration, has a duty to welcome those seeking better lives and to support their integration into society. They also emphasize the economic benefits of immigration, particularly the need for a growing workforce to sustain economic growth and address labor shortages in certain industries.

Advocates point out immigrants bring a wealth of skills, perspectives, and cultural richness which contributes to the vitality of the nation. Discussions include calls for comprehensive immigration reform that expands opportunities for legal immigration and strengthens support systems for newcomers. The tone in this group is often one of compassion and a belief in the long-term benefits of a more open and inclusive immigration policy.

Americans are talking about young men leaving the Democratic Party, highlighting a significant potential shift in political alignment. The exodus is driven by personal experiences, economic concerns, and identity issues.

Many young, Gen Z American men, particularly from working-class or middle-class backgrounds, feel the strain of economic challenges. They worry about housing affordability, rising living costs, and tax policies they perceive as harmful to their financial stability.

Carville: Young Men Are Leaving The Democratic Party In Droves, Numbers Are "Horrfiying" https://t.co/1FJBvyPJ1v

— RCP Video (@rcpvideo) April 3, 2024

MIG Reports analysis shows this demographic likely includes primarily white or non-minority men aged 18-35. This group perceives the Democratic Party as increasingly out of touch with their needs, especially concerning traditional masculine and economic policies.

Data shows around 25% of young Democratic men discussing their political stance online appear to be abandoning the Party. They discuss actively seeking alternatives, with a large proportion aligning with more conservative or libertarian ideologies.

Disillusionment and Lack of Representation

Many young men feel the Democratic Party no longer represents their interests, particularly concerning issues like traditional masculinity, economic policies, and governance. They express frustration and a sense of marginalization, feeling the Party's focus on legalistic frameworks and social issues does not align with their personal experiences.

This sentiment of alienation prompts words like "discrimination," "masculinity," "disillusionment," "failed policies," and "representation," in discussions. These men sense that Democratic leaders are increasingly distant from the Party’s original, working-class roots. They say liberals are now more focused on identity politics and equity rather than actionable policies.

Economic Concerns and Housing

Many young men believe Democratic policies have failed to address their economic struggles. This leads them to explore Republican policies which they believe offer better economic stability and solutions to housing affordability. They perceive that Democratic elites are “out of touch," expressing doubt that Party leaders understand or prioritize the struggles of the middle class.

The critique of tax policies, particularly concerning Harris’s proposal for unrealized capital gains taxes proposed, angers homeowners and men who view themselves as breadwinners. MIG Reports data shows 60% of discussions include stories of personal economic challenges directly linked to housing policies. Nearly 30% of this cohort express a drastic shift toward Republican support.

Shift Toward Conservative Alternatives

Young Democratic men are showing noticeable shift toward Republican figures—particularly Donald Trump. They view him as embodying a strong, masculine leadership style that resonates with this demographic. This view particularly spread following Trump’s attempted assassination and his action during and after the event.

Libertarian views emphasizing smaller government and economic independence are also gaining traction within this voter group. Phrases like "Trump represents economic stability," and "we need Trump back" are frequently mentioned.

There is a growing belief that Trump's leadership would better address men’s economic struggles than Kamala Harris’s. In addition to nearly 30% indicating a shift toward Republicans, another 10% express movement toward alternative or libertarian candidates.

Polarization and Urgency

Sentiment trends suggest young men feel an urgent need to switch allegiances to protect what they view as fundamental freedoms and to counter a perceived leftist agenda. This urgency is felt in urging peers to reconsider their political alignment based on shared experiences and cohort frustrations. Discussions frequently evoke a sense of nostalgia for previous leadership they felt better addressed their concerns, with phrases like "need a strong leader" or "better alternatives."

Nostalgia and Ideological Realignment

There is a sense of nostalgia and a yearning for political dynamics that resonate more closely with traditional values. This ideological realignment is driven by personal convictions and a desire to reclaim what they perceive as lost ideals, particularly in the realms of economic policy and national identity.

Young men say things like, "I am ready to fight tooth and nail for my future," revealing a deep personal investment in the outcomes of political decisions. This suggests many are not simply changing parties but are also motivated by a passionate desire to reclaim what they view as lost ideals.

The debate over federal funding continues as voters discuss the prospect of defunding the Department of Education. Voters on the right view the agency as a bloated bureaucracy pushing progressive ideology at the expense of academic performance. Those on the left frame federal oversight as essential to maintaining educational equity.

Recent controversies around DOGE’s financial investigations into federal spending intensify scrutiny of the Department’s budget. The exposure of wasteful government allocations emboldens Republicans demanding education reform and defunding.

Maxine Waters (D) is currently accosting random federal employees outside the Department of Education pic.twitter.com/5L8RviQ9rH

— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) February 7, 2025

Overall Sentiment

• 64% of those discussing defunding the Department of Education oppose the idea
• 36% of voters nationally support it

Opposition is largely driven by concerns over education equity, access to resources, and the fear of widening disparities between wealthy and low-income school districts. Supporters want to dismantle the Department, which they see as part of the federal bureaucracy, exempt from accountability. This group believes states are better positioned to govern their own education systems.

Strong Republican Support

Among Republicans, 57% support defunding the Department. They see it as a failed institution that funnels taxpayer dollars into bureaucracy rather than classrooms. Many conservatives point to the decline in U.S. education rankings since the agency’s establishment in 1979 as evidence that federal involvement has done more harm than good.

Fiscal conservatives say eliminating the Department would allow states to redirect billions toward local education initiatives or even return funds to taxpayers. There is also a strong demand for spending audits, with increasing skepticism of where education dollars are going. The perception that DEI programs, ideological curriculum mandates, and wasteful foreign education aid drives Republican frustration.

The cultural war in education is another driving factor. Controversies over progressive curriculums, transgender policies, and race-based education initiatives causes conservatives to view federal control as a tool for leftist social engineering. Parent uproar against things like a kindergarten LGBTQ pride book in the Penfield Central School District amplify calls for dismantling the Department.

Democrats Cling to Their Power

Around 85% of Democrats discussing this issue oppose defunding or dismantling the Department. They say federal involvement is essential to ensuring equal access to education. They say states cannot be trusted to provide a consistent standard of quality, fearing inequalities between wealthy and poor school districts.

There is also a strong defense of federal funding for disadvantaged students, with many on the left saying minority and low-income students would suffer without it. Partisan Democrats frame education as a fundamental right, not a discretionary budget item. They warn cuts could undermine public schools in favor of privatization efforts.

However, some moderate Democrats express frustration with inefficiencies in the Department, particularly when it comes to spending allocation and administrative bloat. While they oppose defunding, they acknowledge that federal education spending needs reform, particularly in reducing unnecessary expenditures.

Institutional Resistance

The strongest opposition to defunding comes from teachers and education administrators, with 80% rejecting the proposal. This group says cutting federal funding would jeopardize key programs, particularly those supporting special education, rural schools, and low-income communities.

Teachers frequently cite underfunded schools, teacher shortages, and the growing challenges of classroom management as reasons why the federal government should be increasing, not decreasing, its role in education. There is also concern that without federal funding, state governments will be forced to make cuts that will harm students rather than improve efficiency.

Fiscal Priorities and Political Realities

The debate over defunding or dismantling the Department of Education is part of a larger battle over federal spending priorities. DOGE’s recent revelations about government waste have amplified fiscal conservative calls for significant budget cuts and reducing federal bureaucracy.

Some Republicans argue funds should be redirected to domestic infrastructure, law enforcement, or national security rather than federal education programs they see as ideologically driven and grossly mismanaged. Others argue cutting education funding at a time of rising inflation and economic uncertainty is politically untenable, calling instead for reform.

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

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

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

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

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

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

— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) July 5, 2024

Anger Over Job Growth Only in Government

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

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

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

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

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

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) July 2, 2024

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

Arguments Over “Black Jobs”

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

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

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

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

Preferences for the Trump Economy

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

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

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

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

The Biden-Harris administration is currently facing significant criticism on multiple fronts. Among the top issues consistently emerging in discussions are inflation and illegal immigration. These issues are a core driver of voter dissatisfaction with the administration's shortcomings.

Economic and border issues are creating a potent mix of anger and frustration from Biden detractors. MIG Reports analyzed recent online discussions and identified other issues such as crime and education impacting Biden’s approval.

Voters are particularly disillusioned in these demographic groups:

Economic fears

• Middle-class Americans
• Suburban residents
• Middle-aged to older voters who are economically strained

Open border critics

• Many young voters
• Anti-establishment voters
• Conservative and border state Americans

Biden’s broken promises

• Black and other minorities

Inflation

Most Americans cite inflation and the economy as a primary concern. They argue inflation has significantly worsened under Biden’s tenure, often mentioning high gas and grocery prices.

Voters say Biden’s policies, including the Inflation Reduction Act, have failed to mitigate price increases. They feel their purchasing power eroding, making everyday life more expensive. Related topics like increased housing costs and high mortgage rates also accompany inflation discussions, emphasizing the financial strain households are feeling.

Illegal immigration

A major area of concern for voters continues to be border security. Critics blame the Biden administration for lax border policies which have resulted in a massive influx of illegal immigrants.

People often link border issues to crime, with many pointing out the rise in illegal immigration contributes directly to an increase in violence and drug trafficking. How the Biden administration is handling border issues often features in discussions. There is a heavy focus on egregious border mismanagement and its socio-economic impact.

Crime Rate

There is special attention on crime rates in major cities, which have become a flashpoint. Voters accuse the Biden administration of not doing anything to combat rising crime.

Many say the administration’s law enforcement policies are ill-advised and lackluster. This criticism is often linked to inflation and immigration, forming a narrative that crime is part of a larger systemic failure.

Education

There are discussions about how public schools are managed, with many disapproving of progressive ideology indoctrination. There are also still debates about controversial school closures and how education resumed during COVID. Critics argue unjustified restrictions have led to an irreversible decline in educational standards and student performance.

Sentiment Trends

Trending Downward

The prevailing for Biden campaign sentiment is increasingly negative. Complaints encompass frustrations over economic hardship, the deterioration of public safety, and dissatisfaction with national policy direction. There is anger towards how Biden is handling domestic and foreign policy, particularly regarding financial aid to Ukraine and how it is prioritized over American needs.

Switching Sides

Some trends suggest Biden supporters who become Trump voters are often motivated by economic dissatisfaction. They argue under Trump, various economic indicators such as gas prices, grocery prices, and unemployment rates were better managed. These Trump converts say he created a more stable financial environment. Similarly, Trump’s stricter immigration policies and more effective national security and public safety policies seem to also attract new supporters.

Demographic Patterns

The largest loyalty shifts appear most noticeable among middle-class and working-class voters who feel their economic conditions have worsened under the Biden administration. Many black voters and other minority groups also feel disenfranchised by Biden. They say he has failed to live up to his promises of improving their economic and social standing.

National sentiment data indicates many of these voters are feeling financial pressure and uncertainty, exacerbating their desire for a change in leadership.

Sentiment trends reflect a sense of betrayal and disappointment among previous Biden supporters. This is particularly evident among voters who once appreciated Biden's affiliation with the Obama administration or were influenced by local connections to him. A growing number of these disillusioned voters are turning to Trump, motivated by a belief that he would be tougher on immigration, rollback economic policies they believe are harmful, and better protect individual freedoms.

Demographic patterns suggest this shift is not uniform across all groups but is particularly notable among the working-class, suburban voters, and middle-aged to older Americans. Some young voters who feel passionately about issues like economic justice or immigration reform are also expressing disenchantment, although they may be more likely to turn towards progressive alternatives than to Trump.

President Joe Biden’s decision to approve a $1 billion weapons deal with caveats regarding Israel's attack on Rafah has elicited a wide range of reactions from American voters. This contradicting stance from Biden reflects and potentially deepens divisions and evolving attitudes among voters. MIG Reports analysis of these reactions, including any notable changes in sentiment over time, reveals three positions: America First, pro-Israel, and pro-Palestine.

Both American voters and lawmakers express frustration over what they perceive as Biden's inconsistent policy. Critics argue that, despite Biden’s statements, the reality on the ground does not justify a stringent enforcement of the condition that aid should not be used to target Rafah. The perception of hypocrisy is heightened by ongoing reports of civilian casualties and destruction in Gaza.

Some view Biden’s inconsistencies as an attempt to straddle a growing split in the Democratic Party over Israel versus Palestine support. Others view it simply as weak or unprincipled foreign policy.

Support for the Weapons Deal

Many voters who support the weapons deal argue it is crucial for Israel’s national security and its fight against Hamas. They emphasize Israel’s right to defend itself, especially considering recent conflicts and terrorist attacks by Hamas. Supporters emphasize the strategic necessity of the deal, framing it as a defensive measure against terrorism.

Some underscore the historical alliance between the United States and Israel, viewing the deal as a continuation of longstanding diplomatic and military support. This group often references Israel's role as a key ally in the Middle East and a bulwark against regional instability.

Critics of Supporting Israel

Many progressive and pro-Palestine voters express concerns about the humanitarian impact of the weapons deal. They cite the ongoing conflict in Gaza, arguing more weapons to Israel exacerbates the suffering of Palestinian civilians, including children. This group points out the psychological toll and destruction witnessed in Gaza, questioning the morality of further militarizing the region.

There is also a vocal contingent that questions the ethics and accountability of U.S. foreign policy. They argue U.S. support for Israel perpetuates a cycle of violence and undermines efforts for a peaceful resolution. This group often cites incidents of civilian casualties and accuses Israel of committing war crimes or genocide.

Political and Ideological Divides

Right versus left

The political right generally supports the weapons deal, aligning it with a broader pro-Israel, anti-terrorism stance. The left, however, is more divided, with progressive factions being particularly critical of Israeli policies and advocating for Palestinian rights.

Religious influences

Evangelical Christians in the United States, a key demographic within the Republican base, often support strong U.S.-Israel ties based on religious and prophetic beliefs. Conversely, secular and some younger Jewish Americans are more likely to critique Israeli policies, reflecting a generational shift. 

Demographic Changes Over Time

Young voters, particularly millennials and Gen Z, have shown increasing support for Palestinian rights over time. This demographic tends to view the Israeli-Palestinian conflict through a human rights lens and is more critical of U.S. military aid to Israel. Social media platforms and high-profile protests have amplified this perspective, making it more visible and influential.

Minority Communities

Jewish Americans

Jewish American opinion is increasingly polarized. While many older Jewish Americans remain staunchly pro-Israel, younger Jews are more likely to critique Israeli policies. Organizations like J Street have gained prominence, advocating for a two-state solution and more balanced U.S. policy.

African Americans

There is growing solidarity between African American activists and Palestinian advocates, rooted in shared experiences of systemic oppression and racial injustice. This has translated into increased skepticism towards U.S. support for Israel within these communities.

Latino and Asian Americans

While less monolithic in their views, there is a noticeable trend towards questioning U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East among these groups, particularly among younger individuals who are more likely to engage with global social justice movements.

Shifts in Mainstream Media and Public Discourse

Mainstream media coverage and public discourse around the Israel-Hamas conflict have evolved, with more platforms providing progressive viewpoints and highlighting Palestinian suffering. A traditionally pro-Israel American populous seems to be shifting. Mainstream and social media seem to be large contributors to changing public perceptions, particularly among younger people.

Recent anti-Trump conversations online show opposition to Trump's policies and personality but also a paradoxical hope among some for his re-election. This sentiment stems from a belief that a second Trump term could catalyze activism and protest. The dialogues reflect discontent with current Democratic leadership, as well as emerging patterns from younger, more diverse demographics.

In anti-Trump discussions, MIG Reports data shows:

• 30% discuss political identity
• 25% discuss protest and political activism
• 25% discuss economic issues
• 20% discuss civil liberties

Trump as a Catalyst for Protest

A recurring theme in anti-Trump conversations is the desire for Trump to win, not as an endorsement of his policies, but as an opportunity to mobilize protest movements. Certain anti-Trump factions say his presidency would create adversarial conditions for grassroots activism or hijacking corporate-fed movements which raged in 2020.

This group often uses language hinting at preparations for confrontation, with phrases like “prepare for protests” signaling a willingness to endure Trump’s policies for the sake of galvanizing opposition. This attitude is particularly prominent among younger progressives, who perceive a Trump victory as defining their political identity through resistance.

The notion that only an antagonist like Trump can spur movements reach their full potential has taken hold in various groups. Such views echo past reactions, such as the women's marches after Trump’s initial inauguration, where resistance served as a central theme in political engagement.

Minorities and Young Voters are Leaning Trump

There is also growing involvement among younger voters and diverse communities, especially Latino and African American populations. These groups are increasingly dissatisfied with both Trump and the Biden-Harris leadership. However, some younger Latino men shifted slightly towards Trump, citing economic concerns and stability they feel Democrats have failed to provide.

This demographic shift represents a significant divergence from traditional political loyalties. Younger voters, particularly those from minority communities, are vocalizing their frustration with what they perceive as the hypocrisy of establishment politicians. These voters are resistant to both Trump and the Democratic Party’s inability to address their economic and cultural concerns.

Generational Tensions

In addition to demographic diversity, there are also generational tensions. Older generations often frame the current political struggle through historical analogs like 1930s Germany). They mention the rise of authoritarian regimes and similar patterns in modern America.

Younger voters focus more on present-day concerns like identity politics and social justice. This generational divide reveals how different groups engage with the political system and respond to anti-Trump sentiments in various ways.

Strategic Forecast and Predictive Analysis

The ongoing discourse suggests if Trump wins a second presidency, his candidacy could reignite the forces propelling his opponents into action during his first term. Narratives also suggest dissatisfaction with both major parties could lead to more fragmented voting patterns, particularly in battleground states. If this happens, it could continue a trend of using social movements to gain political power rather than voting efforts.

A growing sense of disillusionment with systemic governance permeates discussions, with voters increasingly rallying around issues of civil liberties, economic justice, and identity politics. The dialogues imply that Trump’s candidacy could serve as a unifying force for these groups, albeit through their shared opposition to his policies.

Impact on Electoral Dynamics

If ideological movements continue to mobilize activists, it may lead to significant shifts in the traditional electoral map. States that have historically leaned conservative may see increased competition from progressive candidates, particularly those who resonate with the cultural and economic concerns of younger voters. The rise in political engagement, coupled with a heightened focus on grassroots movements, could potentially reshape the strategic priorities of both political parties in the future.

Quantitative Insights

While the primary analysis is qualitative, some quantitative patterns emerge:

• Protest Mobilization: 40-60% of anti-Trump discussions reflect a desire for activism and protest if Trump wins.
• Demographic Shifts: 25-35% of the anti-Trump discourse is driven by younger voters, emphasizing their growing influence in political discussions.
• Civil Liberties Concerns: Roughly 20% express concerns about authoritarianism, particularly focusing on civil liberties under both Trump and Harris.

Anti-Trump sentiments reveal a complex and evolving political landscape. Americans who oppose Trump’s policies also want to use his presidency as a touchstone for political activism. Trends suggest a growing mobilization among voters, particularly those eager to challenge the political status quo.

Over the weekend, a video of President Joe Biden ignoring a black woman holding Biden-Harris sign during a campaign rally quickly went viral. MIG Reports data show reactions to this video, amid larger questions of the President's fitness for office, are divisive and partisan.

Discussion About the Viral Clip

In the clip, President Biden is shaking hands and taking photos with supporters behind event fencing. People pointed out that he seemed to dismiss and pass over a smiling young black woman, instead greeting some white women beside her. Many people also commented on the young woman’s face which looked like excitement quickly turned to disappointment and rejection.

Smitten black girl rejected by Biden who instead stopped to take selfies with old angry white women. pic.twitter.com/iKWM52AMeP

— John Curtis (@Johnmcurtis) July 5, 2024

The viral video quickly became a focal point for discussions about Joe Biden's relationship with his supporters, particularly among black and other minority communities. The video itself generated disappointment, outright anger, and ridicule. These emotions were palpable across various social media platforms as Americans shared the clip.

Several people recalled a 2020 campaign moment when then-candidate Biden asserted any black Americans who vote for Trump “ain’t black.” Another clip of a white woman standing beside the young black woman seemingly angrily rebuking her also drew criticism. Many on the right highlighted it as an example of white Democrats who virtue signal about race while, themselves, treating minorities poorly.

Look at how poorly the rude little old lady treats this young woman on Biden's rope line.

Lots of people are posting the clip of Joe ignoring the woman, but her mistreatment by the hag on her left needs to be seen as well.

I honestly feel bad for her. pic.twitter.com/qFTikvLFH9

— Brick Suit (@Brick_Suit) July 6, 2024

Many Americans expressed frustration that the President would seemingly disregard a supporter. They view the incident as indicative of broader troubles his administration is facing with African American communities.

Frustrations for black Democratic voters are often tied to feelings of being undervalued or ignored by the party claiming to protect their interests. Critics argue this moment exemplified a pattern of neglect which needs to be addressed more broadly which only worsens tensions within the party.

Racial Dynamics and Democrats

Broader conversations around Joe Biden have evolved significantly between 2020 and 2024. In 2020, the focus was largely on Biden’s history, particularly his past legislative roles which adversely affected black communities. People pointed out his involvement with the 1994 Crime Bill.

Many also highlighted his choice of Kamala Harris as a running mate as being a progressive move toward diversifying leadership and as a strategic effort to secure the African American vote. The conversations then were a blend of cautious optimism and skepticism, with many adopting a “wait and see” attitude.

In 2020, many black voters viewed Biden as a preferable alternative to Trump, largely due to his association with Barack Obama and promises of restorative justice and policy reforms targeting systemic racism. Since then, there appears to be a notable shift.

In 2024, there is growing frustration over Biden’s unfulfilled commitments on racial issues. This sentiment is evident in the discussion surrounding the video and broader topics of economic disparity, police reform, and equitable healthcare access.

Some Democrats also view Kamala Harris’s achievement as the first female, black vice president as being overshadowed by unaddressed systemic issues. This leads to debates within the Democratic voter base about the efficacy and sincerity of the current administration's efforts.

Related Conversations About Race

There are several topics dominating online discussion:

• Disenfranchised black Democratic voters
• Perceived racism within the Democratic Party and broader politics
• The performance and future of Kamala Harris

Sentiment among Democratic voters centers on feeling disenfranchised and ignored by party leaders. This amplifies a sense of betrayal on promises unmet since the 2020 election.

There are also internal debates among Democrats about the party’s true commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion. Some are questioning actions by Biden and other progressive Democrats that appear tokenistic and pandering rather than substantive.

Conversations about Kamala Harris often intersect with these themes. Some view her candidacy as integral to the future of racial equality in American leadership. Others criticize her performance and accuse the administration of using her as a shield against accusations of racism while not delivering on substantial policy changes.

Recent events unfolding in Syria since the fall of Bashar al-Assad cause various factions to vie for power. Hay'at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), a jihadist group formerly linked to Al-Qaeda and backed by Turkey, leads governance of much of Syria today.

Recently, violence escalated as clashes erupted between the Turkish-backed Syrian National Army (SNA), a group largely made up of former ISIS fighters, and the U.S.-supported Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) in northern Syria. Both sides are accused of human rights abuses, including targeting civilians. Meanwhile, the SDF continues to hold territory in northeast Syria but faces threats from Turkish-backed forces and remnants of ISIS, highlighting the ongoing fragmentation and volatility of the conflict.

Reports and videos circulated widely of Alawites, Christians, and Druzes being persecuted and murdered. While the remnants of the Syrian Republic are burning, the West does not see the fire. Americans are filtering these events through their own obsessions.

The bloodletting in Aleppo, Damascus, and the hinterlands of a shattered state should be a foreign policy crisis. Instead, Americans view it as part of their own ideological war, stripped of autonomy and having little to do with the Middle East at all.

Discussion among voters is a conversation about America, projected onto Syria. Social media, fractured and reactionary, turns the issue into its own internal psychodrama. Discussion does not frame in terms of military realities, strategic failures, or historical grievances. Instead, there is moral outrage, partisan warfare, and selective concern, where real suffering is discussed only insofar as it serves a larger ideological narrative.

HUGE & VERY GOOD NEWS.

The #SDF has agreed to integrate "all civil & military institutions" into the #Syria state.

The deal was signed between Mazloum Abdi & Ahmed al-Sharaa in #Damascus today. pic.twitter.com/2fDq5Kfmj5

— Charles Lister (@Charles_Lister) March 10, 2025

The Battle Over Meaning

American online discourse is divided. One side is consumed with moral indignation, demanding U.S. leaders reckon with selective interventionism—questioning why some crises demand immediate response while others are left to fester.

These voices are outraged, convinced that Western priorities are dictated not by principle but by cultural alignment and geopolitical convenience. They argue American neglects Syria conflict because it lacks the strategic clarity of conflicts like Ukraine or the emotional weight of Israel. The suffering of its religious minorities—Christians, Druze, Alawites—elicits little more than a shrug.

Many do not discuss Syria at all. They may acknowledge the crisis, but only as an extension of America’s own domestic battles. The conversation is partisan, not geopolitical. They see the war not as between Hay'at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) and minority Syrians but between factions in America.

This American-centric group sees Syria is not a conflict to be solved, but a rhetorical device for indicting opponents, exposing hypocrisy, reinforcing ideological trenches. The conversation could just as easily be about domestic elections, immigration, or globalism—Syria simply serves as the latest theater in an endless war of narratives.

The American Attention Span

Discussions about Syria rarely frame it as an independent crisis—Americans bundle it into a larger debate about the failures of Western leadership. Conversation quickly shifts from sectarian violence to America’s foreign policy contradictions. The conversation bleeds into discussions of Ukraine, Israel, military aid, and domestic partisanship.

Few offer a sustained argument for intervention or withdrawal. Few explore the historical and strategic dimensions of the war itself. Instead, the narrative is driven by frustration, irony, and cynicism, as if everyone knows the conversation is performative. The outrage is real, but the engagement is shallow.

🚨🇸🇾 HTS ISIS Terrorist in Syria promises war against Christians

“We will wage Jihad against you -
even if it takes 20 years”

Syria today, Germany tomorrow, then France, Portugal, The UK and so on….. pic.twitter.com/jSJXSnFM2t

— Concerned Citizen (@BGatesIsaPyscho) March 9, 2025

The Collapse of Objectivity

For Americans, Syria is not the subject—it is a mirror. The suffering is real, but the discourse is detached. The loudest voices seek confirmation of their pre-existing worldview.

One side sees Western neglect as moral failure, the other sees Syria as another front in the battle between competing domestic ideologies. Both warp the conflict into something it is not, reducing it to a set piece in a far larger, more abstract war—one that exists not in Damascus or Idlib, but in the minds of Western observers.

We told you about Congo.
We warned you about Syria.
We warned you about Iran.

Now it’s all happening and those of us who were incessantly smeared by neocons for trying to get the truth out can do little more than hope you all OPEN your eyes.

It was all planned. All of it. https://t.co/kl7B3wxSZh

— Candace Owens (@RealCandaceO) March 9, 2025