Wow. Would you support or oppose abolishing ICE? Support: 84% liberal / 47% moderate (77% Dem / 52% Ind) Oppose: 10% liberal / 41% moderate (14% Dem / 35% Ind) Strongly Support: 71% liberal / 30%...
Wow.
Would you support or oppose abolishing ICE?
Support: 84% liberal / 47% moderate (77% Dem / 52% Ind) Oppose: 10% liberal / 41% moderate (14% Dem / 35% Ind)
Strongly Support: 71% liberal / 30% moderate (62% Dem / 38% Ind)
Somewhat Support: 13% liberal / 17% moderate (15% Dem / 14% Ind)
Not Sure: 6% liberal / 12% moderate (8% Dem / 13% Ind)
I tried looking for a list of politicians who support abolishing ICE, and found this article from the week of Pretti's killing. While there are more Democratic candidates to call for abolishing ICE, the number of Democrats in office calling for the end of ICE is a paltry eight, at least according to this list (spoiler alert: it's mostly who you'd expect it to be - Mamdani, Omar, Talib, Summer Lee, etc.). The disconnect between the Democratic Party establishment and its supporters is staggering. Is there another time in history where a major political party called the wishes of the vast majority of its members 'radical'?
Honestly, I think the Democratic Party is ripe for subjugation/overthrow in the same way that MAGA did for the Republican Party. As long as FPTP voting is in place in the US there can only be two...
Honestly, I think the Democratic Party is ripe for subjugation/overthrow in the same way that MAGA did for the Republican Party. As long as FPTP voting is in place in the US there can only be two major parties, but any structure can only stand so far to the side of its foundations before it falls. The Democrats in power are not aligned with their base, and that's unsustainable.
I saw at least in one primary race the "establishment" (incumbent?) Dem has been shifted to stating plainly "Abolish ICE" (I will try to find which guy it was) in response to being challenged from...
I saw at least in one primary race the "establishment" (incumbent?) Dem has been shifted to stating plainly "Abolish ICE" (I will try to find which guy it was) in response to being challenged from the left . I think the window is shifting on this one.
But yeah it has absolutely happened before, I think Abortion rights are one of those examples, even though the polling isn't quite as clear on it. When you ask the voters, when you get into the specifics of abortion and the practicalities of banning it, fewer people think that you should ban it entirely for everyone in all cases than polls show with a simple question.
In popular votes in red states, they consistently vote to maintain abortion rights/access and then the lawmakers undermine it (Missouri for example) over and over.
Yeah, I was thinking abortion rights as an example, but I don't think that really applies. For years, the majority of Republicans (and the most loyal faction of their coalition) wanted to overturn...
Yeah, I was thinking abortion rights as an example, but I don't think that really applies. For years, the majority of Republicans (and the most loyal faction of their coalition) wanted to overturn Roe v Wade. There has been fallout from the specifics in how abortion restrictions were applied, but at the very basic level, Republicans were operating in the interests of their base.
Off the top of my head, I think basic gun laws and higher taxes for billionaires might be examples of Republicans moving against their base, but the polling is a little muddled on that. Regardless, I don't think there is an 80-20 issue among Republican voters that's being contradicted or ignored by their party. It's a little more complicated with Republicans, since the voters and the politicians operate as some sort of fucked up binary star system from hell.
I don't think there's as large of a difference on abortion rights but I don't think the polls showing Republicans support banning it are accurate either due to the nuance. Sure the loud voices are...
I don't think there's as large of a difference on abortion rights but I don't think the polls showing Republicans support banning it are accurate either due to the nuance. Sure the loud voices are there but the voters even in heavily red states don't agree to the point of protecting abortion through public vote, not just adding exceptions.
I suspect there is an issue or two that falls into that 80/20 but because MAGA is so loud we're not hearing it. It could be war tbh, but I honestly don't follow polling data closely enough to know
Is that what they are saying? I think there is a difference between not vocally advocating for a policy and calling a policy ‘radical’. I think it’s more likely that experienced politicians have a...
Is there another time in history where a major political party called the wishes of the vast majority of its members 'radical'?
Is that what they are saying? I think there is a difference between not vocally advocating for a policy and calling a policy ‘radical’.
I think it’s more likely that experienced politicians have a more nuanced view of the issue, and want to dramatically curtail ICE in a way that doesn’t lend itself to a two word slogan.
Most politicians aren't running for national office so nationwide numbers aren't directly relevant for their electoral prospects. Support in different congressional districts likely varies a lot.
Most politicians aren't running for national office so nationwide numbers aren't directly relevant for their electoral prospects. Support in different congressional districts likely varies a lot.
Eeeeeehhhh....yeah....but I don't think that explains why only a handful of the ~250 Democratic congressional representatives support a position that is held by ~80% of the national base of...
Eeeeeehhhh....yeah....but I don't think that explains why only a handful of the ~250 Democratic congressional representatives support a position that is held by ~80% of the national base of support and a majority of independents. I'm not a math guy, but I don't even think that's possible.
Polls like this can be really tricky. As DefinitelyNotAFae mentioned elsewhere, when you do really black-and-white questions like this people say one thing (ban abortion!) but when you get into...
Polls like this can be really tricky. As DefinitelyNotAFae mentioned elsewhere, when you do really black-and-white questions like this people say one thing (ban abortion!) but when you get into the details they reveal much more nuanced views. To use a more liberal example than the abortion question, most people did not literally mean they wanted the police to receive zero funding when they said “defund the police.” What they really meant was something along the lines of “I think some police funding should go towards social workers and community support services, and I think non-police services should respond to thinks like mental health calls.” If you ask that question, you’ll get nuanced views in response. But if you ask “defund the police - yes or no?” you’re just going to get an answer that basically means “I identify with the democrats” or “I identify with the republicans.”
Very similarly, “abolish ICE” is a very cogent statement of philosophy but completely absurd as a policy position. So it’s not particularly surprising that if you ask voters, they interpret it as a statement of philosophy (and agree), but if you ask the people responsible for making policy, they interpret it as a policy question and say no.
Yeah, like people agree ICE sucks - but probably disagree on immigration policy more broadly. And even "abolishing" ICE would probably lead to the resurrection of the INS which could still do the...
Yeah, like people agree ICE sucks - but probably disagree on immigration policy more broadly. And even "abolishing" ICE would probably lead to the resurrection of the INS which could still do the same bullshit.
Yeah, that's why it's shocking to me that only a handful of Democrats have embraced the slogan. Axios ran an article about what Illinois Democrats mean when they say 'Abolish ICE'. The answers are...
Very similarly, “abolish ICE” is a very cogent statement of philosophy but completely absurd as a policy position. So it’s not particularly surprising that if you ask voters, they interpret it as a statement of philosophy (and agree)
Yeah, that's why it's shocking to me that only a handful of Democrats have embraced the slogan. Axios ran an article about what Illinois Democrats mean when they say 'Abolish ICE'. The answers are all over the place. If 'Abolish ICE' can mean a dozen different things to the policy maker, why not say it if the vast majority of your base agrees with the sentiment? Right now, most people think of ICE as the militarized police force that beats up their neighbors, rips families apart, and shoots liberal white ladies in the face. I get that replacing it will require a fairly complicated solution, but when someone asks if you support abolishing the bad thing, it's probably better to start your answer with "Yes, and.." or "Yeah, but.." than "Well..." or "No."
I can't help but see this as part of a pattern with other ~80-20 issues among lib/dem voters. There are similar levels of support for Medicare for all, restricting unconditional military aid to Israel, and raising taxes for rich people/corporations. There's some movement in that direction, especially post-2024, but you still don't really see any of that reflected in the politics of party leadership/mainstream Democrats. I don't have a crystal ball, but I suspect that it might be a big reason as to why their approval ratings are as bad as Trump's.
One difference is that the ICE hasn't been around for very long (it's post 9/11), so doing some kind of radical reorganization seems a lot more feasible than, say, getting rid of the New York City...
One difference is that the ICE hasn't been around for very long (it's post 9/11), so doing some kind of radical reorganization seems a lot more feasible than, say, getting rid of the New York City police and starting over. What would NYC do about crime in the meantime?
Personally I'm in favor of making whatever immigration enforcement might be needed within a state (having to do with residents already there) the job of a division of the state police - take the federal government out of it altogether. Then the federal government could fund efforts to increase immigration enforcement but they shouldn't be able to hire the staff or give them orders.
And then if some states just don't see it as a priority then nothing needs to be done.
Taking a position could help them in the primary if it's competitive, or perhaps in the general election if it's competitive and it would help get out the vote. There are probably a fair number of...
Taking a position could help them in the primary if it's competitive, or perhaps in the general election if it's competitive and it would help get out the vote. There are probably a fair number of incumbents with safe seats? Maybe they'll come out in favor later on?
I think there is a similar disconnect between the Republican Party and it's members. The republican party just has a better propaganda machine that distracts the people by focusing on wedge...
I think there is a similar disconnect between the Republican Party and it's members. The republican party just has a better propaganda machine that distracts the people by focusing on wedge issues. It's highly unlikely that your racist uncle really wants Trump to become a trillionaire while taking away his healthcare and social security. Meanwhile the uncle thinks immigrants are a bigger threat than outsourcing or AI because he doesn't hear about that every day on fox or talk radio.
Sad, but not surprising. This split has been happening for at least 10 years now (you can argue up to 20 years), but the same guard from 10-20 years ago are still in office today. Quite literally...
The disconnect between the Democratic Party establishment and its supporters is staggering
Sad, but not surprising. This split has been happening for at least 10 years now (you can argue up to 20 years), but the same guard from 10-20 years ago are still in office today.
Quite literally oitdated politicians. Millenials surpassed boomers in numbers in recent years as the largest voting bloc, and Gen Z seems to be even more radical. This change is a long time coming, and the Establishment won't willfully leave by themselves.
Support for abolishing ICE has hit a new high in this week's Economist / YouGov poll. Half (50%) of Americans now somewhat or strongly support abolishing ICE. Only 39% oppose abolishing the agency.
[...]
While majorities of Democrats have supported abolishing ICE in many YouGov polls this year, this marks the first time that at least half of Independents support abolishing ICE (52%). Most Republicans (68%) continue to oppose abolishing ICE, although about one-quarter (23%) now support it, which also marks a high point in support among Republicans.
Senate Democrats Block D.H.S. Funding Again Over Enforcement Guardrails I'll give them this, they're holding firm, even in the face of the administration using the war (that they started) in Iran...
I'll give them this, they're holding firm, even in the face of the administration using the war (that they started) in Iran as an attempted lever. Only Fetterman broke ranks.
Wow.
Would you support or oppose abolishing ICE?
Support: 84% liberal / 47% moderate (77% Dem / 52% Ind)
Oppose: 10% liberal / 41% moderate (14% Dem / 35% Ind)
Strongly Support: 71% liberal / 30% moderate (62% Dem / 38% Ind)
Somewhat Support: 13% liberal / 17% moderate (15% Dem / 14% Ind)
Not Sure: 6% liberal / 12% moderate (8% Dem / 13% Ind)
I tried looking for a list of politicians who support abolishing ICE, and found this article from the week of Pretti's killing. While there are more Democratic candidates to call for abolishing ICE, the number of Democrats in office calling for the end of ICE is a paltry eight, at least according to this list (spoiler alert: it's mostly who you'd expect it to be - Mamdani, Omar, Talib, Summer Lee, etc.). The disconnect between the Democratic Party establishment and its supporters is staggering. Is there another time in history where a major political party called the wishes of the vast majority of its members 'radical'?
Honestly, I think the Democratic Party is ripe for subjugation/overthrow in the same way that MAGA did for the Republican Party. As long as FPTP voting is in place in the US there can only be two major parties, but any structure can only stand so far to the side of its foundations before it falls. The Democrats in power are not aligned with their base, and that's unsustainable.
I saw at least in one primary race the "establishment" (incumbent?) Dem has been shifted to stating plainly "Abolish ICE" (I will try to find which guy it was) in response to being challenged from the left . I think the window is shifting on this one.
But yeah it has absolutely happened before, I think Abortion rights are one of those examples, even though the polling isn't quite as clear on it. When you ask the voters, when you get into the specifics of abortion and the practicalities of banning it, fewer people think that you should ban it entirely for everyone in all cases than polls show with a simple question.
In popular votes in red states, they consistently vote to maintain abortion rights/access and then the lawmakers undermine it (Missouri for example) over and over.
Yeah, I was thinking abortion rights as an example, but I don't think that really applies. For years, the majority of Republicans (and the most loyal faction of their coalition) wanted to overturn Roe v Wade. There has been fallout from the specifics in how abortion restrictions were applied, but at the very basic level, Republicans were operating in the interests of their base.
Off the top of my head, I think basic gun laws and higher taxes for billionaires might be examples of Republicans moving against their base, but the polling is a little muddled on that. Regardless, I don't think there is an 80-20 issue among Republican voters that's being contradicted or ignored by their party. It's a little more complicated with Republicans, since the voters and the politicians operate as some sort of fucked up binary star system from hell.
I don't think there's as large of a difference on abortion rights but I don't think the polls showing Republicans support banning it are accurate either due to the nuance. Sure the loud voices are there but the voters even in heavily red states don't agree to the point of protecting abortion through public vote, not just adding exceptions.
I suspect there is an issue or two that falls into that 80/20 but because MAGA is so loud we're not hearing it. It could be war tbh, but I honestly don't follow polling data closely enough to know
Is that what they are saying? I think there is a difference between not vocally advocating for a policy and calling a policy ‘radical’.
I think it’s more likely that experienced politicians have a more nuanced view of the issue, and want to dramatically curtail ICE in a way that doesn’t lend itself to a two word slogan.
Most politicians aren't running for national office so nationwide numbers aren't directly relevant for their electoral prospects. Support in different congressional districts likely varies a lot.
Eeeeeehhhh....yeah....but I don't think that explains why only a handful of the ~250 Democratic congressional representatives support a position that is held by ~80% of the national base of support and a majority of independents. I'm not a math guy, but I don't even think that's possible.
Polls like this can be really tricky. As DefinitelyNotAFae mentioned elsewhere, when you do really black-and-white questions like this people say one thing (ban abortion!) but when you get into the details they reveal much more nuanced views. To use a more liberal example than the abortion question, most people did not literally mean they wanted the police to receive zero funding when they said “defund the police.” What they really meant was something along the lines of “I think some police funding should go towards social workers and community support services, and I think non-police services should respond to thinks like mental health calls.” If you ask that question, you’ll get nuanced views in response. But if you ask “defund the police - yes or no?” you’re just going to get an answer that basically means “I identify with the democrats” or “I identify with the republicans.”
Very similarly, “abolish ICE” is a very cogent statement of philosophy but completely absurd as a policy position. So it’s not particularly surprising that if you ask voters, they interpret it as a statement of philosophy (and agree), but if you ask the people responsible for making policy, they interpret it as a policy question and say no.
Yeah, like people agree ICE sucks - but probably disagree on immigration policy more broadly. And even "abolishing" ICE would probably lead to the resurrection of the INS which could still do the same bullshit.
However the philosophy statement has shifted!
Yeah, that's why it's shocking to me that only a handful of Democrats have embraced the slogan. Axios ran an article about what Illinois Democrats mean when they say 'Abolish ICE'. The answers are all over the place. If 'Abolish ICE' can mean a dozen different things to the policy maker, why not say it if the vast majority of your base agrees with the sentiment? Right now, most people think of ICE as the militarized police force that beats up their neighbors, rips families apart, and shoots liberal white ladies in the face. I get that replacing it will require a fairly complicated solution, but when someone asks if you support abolishing the bad thing, it's probably better to start your answer with "Yes, and.." or "Yeah, but.." than "Well..." or "No."
I can't help but see this as part of a pattern with other ~80-20 issues among lib/dem voters. There are similar levels of support for Medicare for all, restricting unconditional military aid to Israel, and raising taxes for rich people/corporations. There's some movement in that direction, especially post-2024, but you still don't really see any of that reflected in the politics of party leadership/mainstream Democrats. I don't have a crystal ball, but I suspect that it might be a big reason as to why their approval ratings are as bad as Trump's.
One difference is that the ICE hasn't been around for very long (it's post 9/11), so doing some kind of radical reorganization seems a lot more feasible than, say, getting rid of the New York City police and starting over. What would NYC do about crime in the meantime?
Personally I'm in favor of making whatever immigration enforcement might be needed within a state (having to do with residents already there) the job of a division of the state police - take the federal government out of it altogether. Then the federal government could fund efforts to increase immigration enforcement but they shouldn't be able to hire the staff or give them orders.
And then if some states just don't see it as a priority then nothing needs to be done.
Taking a position could help them in the primary if it's competitive, or perhaps in the general election if it's competitive and it would help get out the vote. There are probably a fair number of incumbents with safe seats? Maybe they'll come out in favor later on?
I think there is a similar disconnect between the Republican Party and it's members. The republican party just has a better propaganda machine that distracts the people by focusing on wedge issues. It's highly unlikely that your racist uncle really wants Trump to become a trillionaire while taking away his healthcare and social security. Meanwhile the uncle thinks immigrants are a bigger threat than outsourcing or AI because he doesn't hear about that every day on fox or talk radio.
Sad, but not surprising. This split has been happening for at least 10 years now (you can argue up to 20 years), but the same guard from 10-20 years ago are still in office today.
Quite literally oitdated politicians. Millenials surpassed boomers in numbers in recent years as the largest voting bloc, and Gen Z seems to be even more radical. This change is a long time coming, and the Establishment won't willfully leave by themselves.
From the article:
[...]
Senate Democrats Block D.H.S. Funding Again Over Enforcement Guardrails
I'll give them this, they're holding firm, even in the face of the administration using the war (that they started) in Iran as an attempted lever. Only Fetterman broke ranks.
Maybe we're finally realizing it's a win.