Majority Opposes Trump’s Muslim Immigration Ban, But It’s A Different Story With Republicans
Polling shows that most Americans oppose Donald Trump's plan to bar Muslim's from immigrating to the United States, but Republicans are far more receptive to the idea.
A series of new polls show that a majority of Americans oppose Donald Trump’s plan to bar Muslims from immigrating to the United States for some unspecified but allegedly limited period of time, but the picture is quite different when you look at Republicans and likely Republican voters, which suggests that the proposal is unlikely to hurt him in the race for the Republican nomination.
First up, late yesterday saw the release of a new poll from NBC News and The Wall Street Journal on the issue:
More than half of Americans disagree with Donald Trump’s proposal to ban Muslims from entering the U.S., according to an NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll out Thursday.
Fifty-seven percent of Americans oppose the billionaire’s call for a “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on.” But 25 percent of those polled support the idea.
Trump’s proposed Muslim ban has been widely criticized, with the White House and Republicans from House Speaker Paul Ryan to former Vice President Dick Cheney condemning the idea.
But support for Trump’s plan is somewhat higher among Republicans, 42 of whom support it, with 36 percent opposed.
Seventy-five percent of Democrats and 55 percent of Independents polled disagreed with Trump’s proposal.
More broadly, 41 percent of Americans see Trump’s language as “frequently insulting” and “the wrong approach.” One in four (24 percent) see his language as problematic but think the issues he raises are important, and 22 percent are supportive of his approach.
In the new CBS News/New York Times poll, the numbers are about the same even though in this case the question left Trump’s name off the question about the immigration plan:
Nearly six-in-10 Americans say the United States should not temporarily bar Muslims from other countries from entering the U.S., and two-thirds say such a ban would go against the founding principles of this country, a CBS News poll shows.
Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump sparked a firestorm when he proposed keeping Muslims from coming in.
There are sharp differences by political party. Just over half of Republicans responding — 54 percent — support such a ban, while most Democrats and independents do not.
The survey found mixed views on whether keeping Muslims from entering the U.S would make the country safer from terrorism, but a majority of those who favor such a ban feel it would.
Sixty-seven percent of Americans say the ban would go against the founding principles of this country – majorities across party lines agree on that. However, 53 percent of those who back banning Muslims from entering say such a ban would be in keeping with those principles.
In addition, the public is divided over whether the government should keep a database of Muslims in the U.S. Most Republicans favor it, but a majority of Democrats do not. Independents divide on the database idea.
Most respondents do not see Muslim Americans as more sympathetic to terrorists than other Americans. Those views have not changed much since 2011, when the country marked the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.
Thirty-eight percent of Americans think the religion of Islam encourages more violence than other religions, down slightly from April 2013, just after the Boston Marathon bombing. Views today are similar to those held in 2011. Americans are more inclined to say Islam encourages the same amount of violence as other religions — 48 percent said so.
Overall, Americans continue to have net negative views of Islam. Twenty-four percent have at least a somewhat favorable impression of the religion, while slightly more – 29 percent – view it unfavorably. The percentage without an opinion of Islam has increased since last month, soon after the Paris attacks.
Finally, a new Rasmussen Reports poll shows similar numbers, including plurality Republican support for Trump’s idea of a ban on Muslim immigration:
A new poll suggests that a plurality of Americans favor a temporary ban on Muslim immigration like the one proposed by Republican front-runner Donald Trump.
The survey by conservative-leaning Rasmussen Reports found that 46 percent of likely voters would favor a policy preventing Muslim immigrants from entering the country until tighter screening procedures can be implemented, while 40 percent would oppose such a measure.
Among likely Republican voters, 66 percent would support the ban, while 24 percent would oppose it.
Just 30 percent of likely Democratic voters would favor the proposed ban, while 55 percent said they would oppose it.
Those with no party affiliation said they would support the ban by a 45-39 margin.
Trump has been widely condemned by both parties for suggesting the U.S. should temporarily halt Muslim immigration in the wake of several terrorist attacks.
The top two Republican in Congress, House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), spoke out against the plan on Tuesday.
Except for the Rasmussen poll, these polls show slightly less Republican support for the idea than the “flash” poll that Bloomberg conducted in the immediate aftermath of Trump’s announcement late Monday afternoon. In that poll, 65% of likely Republican primary voters said that they supported the plan, while independents, Democrats, and Americans as a whole were widely opposed. As I said at the time, even if one took into account the fact that this was an online poll, albeit a scientific one designed to screen out the errors of other online polling, and the factored in the margin of error, it was clear that a significant portion of the Republican electorate appeared to support Trump’s idea. Each of these three polls appears to support that contention, as do the polls that have come out since the plan was announced on Monday, including a new New Hampshire poll from WBUR, showed Trump continuing to lead and seemingly increasing that lead in polling conducted after the plan was announced. Additionally, polling taken before the plan was announced, and before the attacks in Paris and San Bernardino, from the Public Religion Research Institute, the Pew Research Center, and a September Bloomberg Politics national poll, show widespread disdain for Muslims and Islam in general among Republicans, as does a new poll from YouGov. Finally, another datapoint from the new CBS/New York Times poll shows fear of terrorism is one of the major factors driving Republicans to line up behind Trump, which is odd if only because he has the least foreign policy experience of anyone in the race with the possible exception of Ben Carson.
Taken together, all of this would suggest strongly that, much like all of the other controversial things that Donald Trump has said since entering the race for President, his latest proposal is unlikely to hurt him with Republican voters notwithstanding the fact that it is rooted in xenophobia, bigotry, and an anti-Muslim bias that is more likely to help ISIS recruit sympathizers than it is to actually accomplish anything in the War On Terror.
I am shocked, shocked I tell you, that the Republican Party has become the home of racists. Lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas.
Fascists support fascism. Not all that surprising, when you think about it….
Correction Doug, a fear of Jihadist terrorism is driving them. Most Republicans seem to be just fine with far right Christianist terrorism.
Huh, well look at that. The majority of voters don’t support fascism. It might just be that continuing to be the adult in the room is a better strategy for Democrats than trying to become Franco to the Republican’s Mussolini.*
*Or, whatever. Not sure which fascist dictator is the warmer, cuddlier one. Pinochet?
Didn’t need polling to tell me what the xenophobes in the Republican party were thinking.
What pathetic excuses for Americans the folks who thump their chests about being real Americans truly are.
@Neil Hudelson: I think many Republicans are fine with either. After all, both only tortured and killed some of their citizens. Hey, its not like they were Hitler, is usually the sort of comment some of them make.
The GOP leadership doesn’t object to Trump’s nativism. Their horror comes from the fact that he’s a party outsider who opposes free trade and tax cuts, and who has previously expressed support for public healthcare and abortion rights.
Some of the leadership must be genuinely shocked that the party base doesn’t actually care all that much about the GOP’s pro-business policies. The coded language about minorities was always more appealing, and Trump scores points with that crowd due to his willingness to drop the pretense.
Sounds like the majority of America are just sissy nancypants pantywaists!!
If I or one of my loved ones are getting beat up in an alley, I hope that “a majority of Americans” aren’t the only ones around, cause surely they won’t save me!! I hope instead that the brave, patriotic 66% of Republicans, who must be brave and courageous and physically strong, because otherwise why else would be the cowardly supporting a lunatic idea? Those republicans would surely save me in an alley fight. (Assuming they don’t whip out their panic gun and shoot indescriminately at my assailants, killing me in the process)
This is very sober and reasoned political analysis, and you should all thank me for bestowing it upon you.
Fin.
It seems appropriate to point out Brian Buetler’s opinion, Trump Proves That Liberals Have Been Right All Along
Chickens…roost
David French over at NRO has an interesting question regarding the unfavorable opinion of Islam that is the plurality in America.
What is the people are informed, and this would impact Republican/independent voters more, by the 2 million individuals who have direct experience with Islam as practiced by the common people from their deployments? They come home, tell of what they saw and experienced and this information is not likely to reach the salons and faculty lounges of the DemProgs who pontificate.
Of course, even this raises some complication on an over all ban since many who served overseas support the immigration to America, those Muslims who they worked with such as interpreters.
@JKB: Mr. French reports that society in Iraq and Afghanistan is screwed up. Besides a Muslim population can you think of anything else those two counties have in common?
@Pch101:
Trump spent much of his career making profits of tax cuts, and his economic “plan” calls for a 10 trillion dollar tax cut, to be funded by “greatest job boom you have ever seen.”
@Pch101:
Trump spent much of his career making profits of free trade, and his economic “plan” calls for a 10 trillion dollar tax cut, to be funded by “greatest job boom you have ever seen.”
Republican leaders are appaled by him because he has no snowball’s in hell chance winning a general election, and to somewhat lesser extent, because they know he is emotionally incapable of being president.
@JKB: Unfortunately, Mr. French is at best suffers from a severe case of confirmation bias, or, more likely, is a bullshit artist.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/12/10/americans-like-muslims-more-than-they-like-donald-trump/
@JKB: As someone who has known and worked with Muslims for years, let me assure you that equating those who are in this country (or are educated enough to apply for and qualify for the visa programs, let alone afford to move here) with those living in dysfunctional, strife-torn countries is ignorant at best.
@JKB: On the other hand, many vets have more positive views of Muslims after interacting with them. This one from the UK for example:
http://www.facebook.com/chris.herbert6420/posts/10153191869156434
@JKB:
Nothing more craven that a couple bigots trying to rationalize their bigotry.
@bookdragon: That’s what I’m wondering. How many of these scaredy-pie Republicans have even ever MET a Muslim?
To read what some of these critters write, you’d think that all Muslims go around in niqabs or turbans, ride camels, and don’t have breakfast before bombing someone.
@JKB:
I wonder what someone would think of christians if their primary interaction with christians was to go to Uganda, Sudan, and Congo to fight the LRA.
And yet another attack on Muslims…..
I think the most frightening thing is this dimwit thinks that SHE is the victim, not the guys she attacked.
@grumpy realist:
It would be interesting to know how she feels she was “victimized.” Was it by their very existence? On that basis,may I go kick a few of the Kardashians? I hate what they’re doing to the culture.
@CSK: Thumbs up. Especially if I can do the same to Caitlyn Jenner. (on second thought, maybe giving Caitlyn a few Valium, a cold compress for the head, and a dark room to lie down in would be better. How a transsexual can be even more hysterical than I ever was with PMS is beyond me.)
@grumpy realist:
Look at it this way: Kaitlyn is a Kardashian.
@Grewgills:
Well, now what if the President and his minions were pushing the uncontrolled immigration of Christians from those areas?
@grumpy realist: A modest proposal: can we trade her and her ilk for some Syrian refugees like the ones Canada just welcomed?
@JKB: And by uncontrolled, JKB means “10,000 people, to be admitted via a vettting process taking at least 2 years.”
I simply can’t get it: how twisted and sick one has to be to come over here day after day just to sprout easily disprovable lies at people who think you are a monumental jackass? Don’t you have family, parents, children, friends, sports teams to follow, anything to give meaning to your sad existence? Lacking that, don’t you worry what this sort of thing says about the state of your psyche, or, even, if you are religiously inclined, soul?
@JKB:
That might be troubling. If, however, the president were advocating that we admit refugees from those areas after an intensive vetting process that typically took over two years I wouldn’t much worry about it. Would you?
@Grewgills:
You mean vetting like they did for the female San Bernardino killers.
But we know you aren’t being truthful. If a million people were migrating from Alabama and Mississippi to NYC, you’d be concerned that eventually there would be a NASCAR track in Central Park.
Certainly if they were escaping a war zone the right thing to do would be for us to welcome them to our country…of course, that is part of what you don’t get…the state of mind of refugees has more to do with where they are coming from rather than their religious beliefs…
@JKB:
The irony burns
The events of the last few weeks have certainly played into Trump’s style and message of putting the US back on top, and protecting the people. The wispy, morose responses and statements of the President have also only served to help Donald.
@JKB:
No. She was not a refugee. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt once and assume you weren’t up to speed on all the facts of the issue, and have no intention of continuing spread falsehoods.
Is there some kind of coherent point here? First, there’s no chance of a NASCAR track in Central Park. Secondly, the number of refugees moving to the United States is similar to around 700 people migrating to a city the size of New York. Pretty much the dictionary definition of something not worth worrying about.
@humanoid.panda:
It’s easily the most frustrating thing about the modern GOP, that discussing politics is pretty much just bookmarking snopes.com, not actually discussing anything substantive.
Pretty bad if true, though I wonder how accurate such polling is in the first place? There’s been a lot of commentary on how inaccurate political polling has become (as measured against actual election results); is there any reason to think it does any better on this issue than others?
My limited understanding is that modern polling only receives answers from a small group of people – those with 1) land lines who are 2) willing to pick up phone numbers they don’t recognize and then 3) waste five to ten minutes answering questions, while hopefully 4) not amusing themselves by giving the funniest answers they can think of.
I think a good test of how Republicans feel on this issue will come from Trump’s actual numbers when the primaries start.
@JKB: No, silly. She came in on a fiancee visa, which certainly didn’t involve two years of vetting. But perhaps you hadn’t checked that major fact?
BOMB, BOMB, BOMBs away….
Kristallnacht soon, but with Muslims instead of Jews?
I think if I were Muslim and American, I might start taking advantage of my Second Amendment rights and arming up considerably….
What never ceases to amaze me about the Internet and the media-academic cabal is the extent to which they’re so utterly divorced from the demographics that make up actual voting Republicans. Hence this constant disconnect.
In media newsrooms, on campuses and on blogs, it’s de rigueur to be Libertarians, anti-Republicans, liberals and closet liberals who chafe at being known as liberals. The GOP bashing never ceases. From the left, the right, and the putative center. Demographically we’re talking about a bunch of washed up ex-Hippie academics, journalists (no real world experience whatsoever), brie and bric-a-brac pseudo-intellectuals, useless students, irrational malcontents, Asperger’s types and other rabble.
Gather up a bunch of small business owners, criminal prosecutors, military officers, soccer moms, business managers, licensed professionals, etc., and poll them about this and other issues of the day, and you’ll get entirely a different set of responses from what’s being reported by the airheaded media. Those are the demographics who are Republican and who vote Republican, not the random dolts who might say to a 25-year-old pothead pollster assistant that they’re Republican.
But in any event, let’s say for sake of argument this nonsense liberal media-academia polling is accurate. Trump and his ilk are less than half of what’s ultimately a self-identified sample of Republicans, not even factoring in the MOE.
Let’s see what Trump’s hard data totals are at the first entirely closed direct primary. Not Iowa. That’s a retarded caucus. Not New Hampshire. That’s not truly a closed primary and it’s a ridiculous tiny state where government is the largest employer. Not South Carolina. That’s an open primary.
Let’s see the actual vote totals in Florida, a large and diverse state with a vibrant local economy, major industries, and a truly closed primary. If Trump “wins” there with 35% or less of the vote, perhaps the cabernet and foie gras demographics of the Internet finally will clue in as to who and what Republicans are and for what they stand, and will stop painting with such broad strokes. Doubtful, frankly. The reason being that if you’re over 40 and not already a committed Republican then either you work for the government, or you’re a trust fund baby, or you’re mentally ill.
In the best interest of a 2 party system, the Republicans need to vomit Trump out of the party. They will almost certainly lose the presidency, but could retain the House and thus negotiation power with Hilary. It is the best they can do. Of course, most of the progressives on this site do not want a 2 party system, but you can debate that without my input. I hope the Republican choose the non-Trump option and soon, and may all the Trump supporters go with him. I am horrified by the anti-Latino and anti-Muslim slant that Trump and some Republicans have taken. Kick them out of the party Abe Lincoln.
I can’t figure out whether this will be more of a Mothra vs. Godzilla fight or an Alien vs. Predator brawl.
Bring out the popcorn.
@grumpy realist:
Wait, are we talking about one of Trump’s wives here?
@grumpy realist: Some folks in Texas have been getting a jump start on Kristalnacht by breaking a Muslim family’s Windows night after night.
However they’d take their lives in their hands by exercising 2nd Amendment rights – those are only for white Christians dontcha know. Muslims buying guns would be shot on Stand Your Ground excuse of being ‘scary’.
From a country with a functioning government, with which we have intelligence ties. And yet, she was already radicalized and used a fake address.
And yet, your assertion is that we can have confidence in people from a failed state, where we have not links to the police or intelligence services and the territory is under the control of the very people we wish to block from entering the US.
@JKB: Quit moving the goalposts. You tried to equate the fiancee visa with the program used to clear refugees. The two are dramatically different. Don’t try to change the focus when you’re called out on obvious bullshit.
@Bill Lefrak: Again with the brie! For God’s sake, man, have you no standards?
@JKB:
The important fact is that screening for refugees is different from fiancé screening. Refugees undergo a process that takes 2 years or so, and there isn’t actually any evidence of problems with that system. Why are you so worried about about a non-issue, a distraction, rather than something real?
@Bill Lefrak:
Shades of Rove….. We’re losing? The polling must be wrong because it’s not telling me what I want to hear! Check it again and make sure you talk to the right people this time! Random dolts don’t count, only talk to the people I tell you to poll from! Who needs Iowa, NH, SC? Feh – We’ll win one eventually our way and that will prove Trump’s been number one all along!!
Do lead with that. Make bumper stickers and pass them out like candy. I’m sure undecided voters really want to hear that message. Winning!!!
@Bill Lefrak:
Personally, my money is on Trump doing worse in the Iowa caucuses than in any early primary. The caucuses require a campaign organization, and Trump doesn’t appear to have anything close to what it will take to get his supporters to show up for them.
@David M: One thing to think about is that there are a lot of these people who have been here for a while, ten – 15 years or so. They have been secretly indoctrinated, brainwashed, and programmed. Then at some point, they are set in motion by some cue: a phone call, a certain set of words or numbers, or some other signal to go into action. Those are the ones who are hard to find. They could have been programmed and brainwashed in some other country or here. The larger problem is finding out who is over all of this and going after them
This will require a whole new level of secret intelligence to uncover these groups
The intel we have now is insufficient.
@Tyrell: and do you write Hollywood thriller scripts in your spare time?
If we’re going to talk about “brainwashing”, let’s take a look at Rush Limbaugh’s ditto-heads, by the way…
@Kari Q: Shorter Tsar: if only people who I think agree with me were allowed to vote, my side would win. Win.every.friggin.time. Also, we must listen only to people in serious professions. Like soccer moming, which is seriously a profession. I am a serious person.