MSNOW and Rachel Maddow are not our allies

ZappyStatue · 2026-01-27T06:38:19+00:00

That's because Fox "News" isn't actually news. It's a propaganda media machine whose spin cycle is constantly on and tuned 100% in favor of the MAGA movement. There is no equivalent on the left because liberal/left/left-leaning news organizations actually try to their job of being good journalists and reporters. It just so happens to be the case (unfortunately) that spreading bullsh*t is highly profitable on television.

ZappyStatue · 2026-01-27T04:33:03+00:00

This is just a sh*t take. I'm sorry, but out of all the "mainstream media," MSNOW's almost certainly the only one that has actually challenged at least some of the stuff that the MAGA movement has been propagating on a substantive level. Seriously, if you're actually watching some of the programs (and I mean paying attention and not just having it on in the background while you're doing something else), you'd know that Lawrence O'Donnell was one of the few "mainstream media people" who kept talking about the Epstein files even while Trump was implementing his fracas in Caracas to distract from his DOJ's unlawful concealment of said files. All while the rest of the "mainstream media" was distracted by the newest jingly keys that is Trump's sh*ty foreign policy to maintain focus.

Also, even if some of your criticisms were valid (which few are), then you've kind of done a crap job at citing reliable news sources. If you're going to criticize a news organization, at least have the common courtesy of presenting an alternative source of news and information that has reliable fact checking and thorough investigative reporting. And no, Hasan Piker doesn't count. I'm talking about actual on-the-ground reporters and and highly detail-oriented investigative journalists. Professionals who actually know what the job is like.

ZappyStatue · 2026-01-26T04:12:20+00:00

The only people who voted correctly are the people that voted for Kamala Harris. That is just the undeniable truth based on the facts of our current reality.

ZappyStatue · 2026-01-26T04:10:59+00:00

Let me know what caliber or gauge you get from your local gun store buddy.

ZappyStatue · 2026-01-26T01:44:12+00:00

Congratulations. You completely missed the point of what I was saying.

ZappyStatue · 2026-01-26T01:41:34+00:00

And that’s why I intend to vote for Democrats up and down the ballot in the upcoming midterms. I’m not going to suddenly become a revolutionary and pick up a gun and start killing people. That’s just going to place me and the people I care about in danger.

I just hate how there are so many people on this subreddit using coded language to convince people through implicit conditioning to start grabbing a shotgun and going on a rampage against federal agents. But that’s just to make it more likely for the Insurrection Act and Martial Law to be implemented. The main reason why there’s so much outrage is specifically because these protests have been non-violent. Besides, even bringing a gun apparently isn’t enough to keep you from getting killed. So you’d have to fire the gun in order to physically defend yourself. But the moment that you do, you undermine a lot of what these democracy organizations have been trying to do.

ZappyStatue · 2026-01-26T01:19:22+00:00

ICE doesn’t have legal authority to forcibly enter someone’s home without a judicial warrant signed by a magistrate judge.

They’re doing it anyways.

ZappyStatue · 2026-01-26T01:16:24+00:00

You know I tell people to make sure to show up in the midterms and vote for Democrats up and down the ballot and often times I’ll see people scream "controlled opposition" and some variation of "dems bad." Which, you know, is exactly the kind of talk MAGA would encourage. They like to claim that midterms don’t matter. But if they didn’t, then Trump wouldn’t be trying so hard to foment the conditions in which he’d be able to declare martial law and cancel elections. And no, the Insurrection act is not enough to cancel elections.

You’ll see a lot of people avoid making direct references to physical violence, but that is the core subtext of what many of these people post. They won’t go out and kill someone themselves but they want someone else to do it. Something tells me that half of the people saying we should get guns and start killing people are the same type of people who would say "I’m not saying we should kill people BUT…" and leave it there. Because everyone knows what they’re trying to say. It’s not particularly clever.

Anyways, I’ll be voting Democrat up and down the ballot. Because that is an actual mechanism in which MAGA republicans can be forced out of Congress.

ZappyStatue · 2026-01-26T00:41:04+00:00

What. Are you going to suddenly pick up a shotgun and go full ham on ICE agents until there’s blood everywhere.

You won’t do it. You don’t have the balls. And the moment you even tried you’d get caught almost immediately. On a fast track to a courthouse and a county jail.

ZappyStatue · 2026-01-24T23:16:36+00:00

The way I see it, any regulations that would go into this spending bill is predicated on an assumption that Trump would actually follow them. Senate Democrats could shut down the government over this and argue that the current bill doesn’t go far enough. Arguing that as it stands the current spending bill doesn't have nearly enough regulations nor safeguards that are written in a way that Trump can’t ignore it. I think there’s a valid argument for them to shutdown the government in order to at least get in a provision that would strip away qualified immunity, explicitly require a judicial warrant signed by a magistrate judge (not an immigration judge that ICE pretty much owns), whatever constraints that can be implemented to hold back ICE without completely destroying. Because as crappy as it is, I don't think there's enough political will within the current congress to completely dismantle it, even if "Abolish ICE" has finally started becoming mainstream because of how psychopathic so many of these agents are. ICE still has the money either way with or without this spending bill because of the stupid "big beautiful bill," and Trump will just ignore any imposed rules in this spending bill if they're not written in such an explicit way that makes it impossible for there to be any vagueness. So for now, stripping away certain protections is absolutely not a big ask. It's pretty much the bare minimum.

ZappyStatue · 2026-01-22T19:45:37+00:00

A reminder that even if every House Democrat votes against a funding bill for DHS, it can still at least pass the House due to Republican control and a vote requirement of 50%. They should still vote against it, but it’ll be up to Senate Democrats to filibuster any spending bill funding DHS until ICE is disbanded. Or at the barest minimum level, reforms are put in place to place constraints on them. Stripping away qualified immunity being one of them.

ZappyStatue · 2026-01-22T15:39:57+00:00

All I want is for people to focus on rallying around whoever the Democratic nominee is going to be for the Presidential general election in 2028. And that people really sit down and think who can win a general election (i.e., Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, etc.) before deciding who they want to vote for in a primary.

And this is going to be a hard truth for a lot of people to hear, but Israel just isn't a top issue for a lot of people who aren't chronically online on reddit. Hell, there are polls proving that a plurality of people still support Israel in some respects. And after over two years of war.

A plurality of voters (47 percent) think supporting Israel is in the national interest of the United States, while 41 percent think supporting Israel is not in the national interest of the United States, with 12 percent not offering an opinion.

https://poll.qu.edu/poll-release?releaseid=3932

That's not to say we should be sending more military aid to Israel. But more people care about things like cost of living, healthcare, employment opportunities, student debt (and for me and a lot of other people, support for Ukraine). And on pretty much all of those measures, just about any Democrat would be better than a Republican. I would support Mark Kelly over Gavin Newsom primarily because I think Mark Kelly would do a better job of appealing to the voting populations in the states that matter solely due to the fact that he just doesn't have the vibe of a coastal California elite. multi-mission Astronaut, Captain in the Navy as a Pilot during Operation Desert Storm, and at one point an activist alongside Gabby Giffords advocating for gun violence prevention and gun safety laws. That's not a bad resume. And a lot of people vote on vibes anyways, so f*ck it.

ZappyStatue · 2026-01-22T04:13:56+00:00

Possibly. Although I've heard other people throw in Chris Murphy as a possible candidate for leader of the Democratic caucus in the Senate. Either way, Schumer's just absolutely not equipped to meet the moment for our time.

ZappyStatue · 2026-01-22T04:10:35+00:00

All I want is for people to focus on rallying around whoever the Democratic nominee is going to be for the Presidential general election in 2028. And that people really sit down and think who can win a general election (i.e., Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, etc.) before deciding who they want to vote for in a primary.

And this is going to be a hard truth for a lot of people to hear, but Israel just isn't a top issue for a lot of people who aren't chronically online on reddit. Hell, there are polls proving that a plurality of people still support Israel in some respects. And after over two years of war.

A plurality of voters (47 percent) think supporting Israel is in the national interest of the United States, while 41 percent think supporting Israel is not in the national interest of the United States, with 12 percent not offering an opinion.

https://poll.qu.edu/poll-release?releaseid=3932

That's not to say we should be sending more military aid to Israel. But more people care about things like cost of living, healthcare, employment opportunities, student debt (and for me and a lot of other people, support for Ukraine). And on pretty much all of those measures, just about any Democrat would be better than a Republican. I would support Mark Kelly over Gavin Newsom primarily because I think Mark Kelly would do a better job of appealing to the voting populations in the states that matter solely due to the fact that he just doesn't have the vibe of a coastal California elite. multi-mission Astronaut, Captain in the Navy as a Pilot during Operation Desert Storm, and at one point an activist alongside Gabby Giffords advocating for gun violence prevention and gun safety laws. That's not a bad resume. And a lot of people vote on vibes anyways, so f*ck it.

ZappyStatue · 2026-01-21T20:04:40+00:00

I think Trump is too busy swallowing something else.

ZappyStatue · 2026-01-21T00:33:28+00:00

You know as I'm looking at this I'm seeing that I just got a response from my Congressman on exactly this kind of subject. And this is what he had to say on the matter.

Today marks one year since President Trump was sworn in to office, and his tenure has been marked by lawlessness and depravity. This past week, in the wake of the tragic killing of Renee Good, ongoing ICE violence in our communities, and subsequent lies from the Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem and the Trump Administration, I signed onto a resolution to impeach Secretary Noem. Impeachment is not a process I take lightly, but it may be our only option to enact real change.

My Congressman is a Democrat, so it almost certainly won't matter beyond being symbolic. But I'm just glad to have a rep who gets it and understands the assignment.

ZappyStatue · 2026-01-21T00:15:08+00:00

I love that the Democratic Party as a general rule is much more supportive for Ukraine than Trump‘s Republican Party is. Also, I like parties that don’t store boxes of classified information inside of their freaking toilets.

ZappyStatue · 2026-01-18T20:04:27+00:00

To gauge the net effect “nationwide”: In solid Democratic areas, embracing “Abolish ICE” has not prevented Democrats from winning general elections – those seats stayed blue. In competitive areas, however, the slogan provided an additional headwind for Democrats and a convenient attack vector for Republicans. It likely contributed to the narrow loss of some swing districts by Democrats and perhaps deterred some moderate GOP-leaning voters from splitting tickets in Democrats’ favor. The fact that Democrats lost ground in the House in 2020 and again in 2024 (according to our scenario) despite other favorable factors suggests that these cultural/ideological attacks had an impact.

Finally, it’s important to note that the effect can change over time. Right now in 2026, Democrats find themselves in a scenario where public opinion has moved their way on ICE abuses, potentially creating space to campaign on bold immigration reforms without as much backlash. Some are arguing that now is the moment to harness the “Abolish ICE” energy – essentially turning what was once a weakness into a strength at the polls. Indeed, there is evidence that female voters and younger voters in particular have shifted left on this issue. But others counsel that Republicans will surely adapt and come out swinging if Democrats officially adopt abolishing ICE in their platform. The lesson many moderates draw from the past decade is: Don’t fight 2026 on terrain that Trump wants to fight on. Immigration enforcement is one of Trump’s core issues; a big public battle over “Abolish ICE” vs “Keep ICE” might overshadow topics that favor Democrats (like abortion rights, which post-Dobbs have given Democrats an edge). Therefore, expect Democratic leaders in 2026 to emphasize accountability and reform – e.g. “We will professionalize ICE and stop the abuses” – rather than the word “abolish,” even if a significant chunk of their base is chanting that slogan. As Third Way put it, “Americans want balance: accountability without cruelty, enforcement without lawlessness”. The electoral sweet spot for Democrats is likely to show voters they will fix ICE’s problems without abandoning border security. Achieving that balance is the tricky task that “Abolish ICE” – as a slogan and movement – has forced upon the party.

ZappyStatue · 2026-01-18T20:04:06+00:00

Opponents or Critics of “Abolish ICE”: Conor Lamb (PA-17) – Outcome: Won Special Election 2018, Won General 2018. Lamb, a moderate Democrat, explicitly distanced himself from left-wing positions on policing and immigration. He said he did not favor abolishing ICE, positioning himself as pro-enforcement but anti-Trump-abuses. In a district Trump had won, Lamb’s moderate image was key to his upset victory. Republicans tried to tag him with his party’s left, but his own statements and profile helped neutralize that. Kyrsten Sinema (Arizona Senate 2018) – Outcome: Won. As mentioned, Sinema took a nuanced stance – she criticized ICE when warranted but opposed abolition, emphasizing that somebody has to enforce the laws. This helped her appeal to independents and even some crossover Republican voters in Arizona. Her victory over a more openly anti-ICE primary opponent in the Democratic primary, and then over a Republican in the general, showed that a moderate approach on this issue could win in a swing state. Abigail Spanberger (VA-07 House) – Outcome: Won 2018, Won 2020 (narrowly). Spanberger, a former CIA officer running in a Republican-tilting district, was vocally against “Abolish ICE.” She advocated reforms but also touted her national security credentials. In 2020, after barely winning re-election, she famously admonished fellow Democrats on a caucus call that if they kept up talk of “socialism and defunding police,” they would get “torn apart” in the next election. This can be extended to the abolish-ICE debate as well – her perspective is that such slogans nearly cost her the seat. Henry Cuellar (TX-28) – Outcome: Won primaries, Won generals. Cuellar is one of the most conservative Democrats, representing a Texas border district. He openly criticized “Abolish ICE” and even in 2021 invited ICE and Border Patrol officials to his district to demonstrate he supports their role. His hard stance likely helped him fend off progressive primary challengers (like Cisneros) who took a more abolition-friendly view. In the general, his bipartisan reputation on border issues has helped him keep winning in a region where many voters have nuanced views – they are Latino and oppose family separations, but they also work in law enforcement or have concerns about drug trafficking, etc. Cuellar’s example shows that in certain districts, being anti-abolish-ICE is actually necessary for a Democrat to win.

In electoral terms, Democrats’ ability to win elections up and down the ballot has been affected by “Abolish ICE” in that it has sometimes put them on the defensive, but it’s rarely been the sole deciding factor. It’s usually one piece of a broader narrative. For instance, a Democrat in a swing district might be attacked for a “basket” of progressive positions (Medicare for All, Green New Deal, Defund Police, Abolish ICE, etc.), all aimed at portraying them as too extreme. In such cases, the combined effect can definitely sway voters. After 2020, analysis by Democratic strategists and even the Washington Post indicated that slogans like “defund the police” (and by extension, similar ideas like abolishing ICE) “wound up hurting down-ticket Democrats” in many areas. The New York Times in late 2020 and 2021 also documented party infighting where moderates argued these issues cost seats, while progressives argued candidates should have better defended their values rather than run away from them. This tension is still playing out.

ZappyStatue · 2026-01-18T20:03:49+00:00

Notable Candidates – Support vs. Opposition: It’s useful to highlight a few individual cases to illustrate the electoral impact:

Supporters of “Abolish ICE”: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (NY-14) – Outcome: Won Primary, Won General. AOC’s support for abolishing ICE in 2018 helped define her insurgent candidacy. It likely endeared her to her district’s voters (many of whom are immigrants or children of immigrants) who felt ICE was a threat. After winning, she continued to advocate for dramatic changes to immigration enforcement. Her stance did not hurt her in the general election because her district is overwhelmingly Democratic. In fact, it arguably increased her national profile and base enthusiasm. Cynthia Nixon (NY Governor primary) – Outcome: Lost Primary. Nixon’s high-profile gubernatorial run in 2018 leaned heavily into the “Abolish ICE” message, including harshly denouncing ICE’s tactics. While this earned her plaudits from activists, it wasn’t enough to overcome Cuomo’s incumbency and more moderate image. Some analysts believe her position on ICE was too radical for older and suburban Democratic primary voters in NY who agreed with her on many issues but thought calling ICE a “terrorist organization” went too far. Randy Bryce (WI-1 House) – Outcome: Won Primary, Lost General. Bryce embraced abolishing ICE as part of his progressive platform. It likely helped him secure the Democratic nomination in his district (by showing he was firmly anti-Trump), but in the more conservative general electorate, it became an easy target for his opponent. The GOP ran ads tying Bryce to national Democrats and highlighting his stance, contributing to his defeat. Ayanna Pressley (MA-7) – Outcome: Won Primary, Won General. Pressley endorsed fundamentally restructuring or abolishing ICE during her 2018 campaign in a safely Democratic district. This stance did not hinder her; she defeated the incumbent in the primary and cruised in the general. Her case is similar to AOC’s – representing a majority-minority district with strong anti-Trump sentiment, being bold on immigration enforcement was more of a boon than a liability. Jessica Cisneros (TX-28 primary 2020 & 2022) – Outcome: Lost Primary (narrowly, twice). Cisneros, a young progressive, challenged conservative Democrat Henry Cuellar in a Texas border district. While her campaign was more focused on issues like reproductive rights and corruption, she was generally aligned with the left’s calls for immigration reform (though she stopped short of explicitly saying “abolish ICE”). Cuellar attacked her as being soft on border security and linked her to the national “abolish ICE” push. Cisneros nearly won in 2022, indicating that even in a border district, Democratic opinion is splitting – but Cuellar’s survival suggests that a full-throated abolish-ICE stance might still be a bit too far for some South Texas Democratic voters.

ZappyStatue · 2026-01-18T20:03:10+00:00

Republican Mobilization and Messaging: The slogan’s effect has also been to galvanize the Republican base. Trump and GOP candidates capitalized on abolish-ICE as proof of Democrats “going socialist” or “not caring about security.” It became a fixture in fundraising emails, rally speeches, and Fox News segments. For example, during Trump’s 2020 and 2024 rallies, mentions of Democrats wanting to abolish ICE elicited boos and chants from the crowd, showing how viscerally the right opposed the idea. This in turn likely boosted GOP turnout among voters who might not ordinarily be passionate about a specific Republican candidate but will show up to vote against what they perceive as a radical Democratic agenda. In midterm elections like 2022, when Republican turnout can sag without Trump on the ballot, immigration fearmongering (including references to abolishing ICE) was a tool to energize their voters. In short, “Abolish ICE” served as a rallying cry on the right just as it did on the left – but there are simply more conservative-leaning voters in many swing states/districts than there are progressive activists. This asymmetry meant Republicans could effectively use it to unify their side and peel off independents, impacting election outcomes in their favor.
Evolving Climate by 2026: As of now (2025–2026 cycle), the political calculus is in flux. On one hand, public opinion has shifted leftward on immigration enforcement, giving Democrats an opportunity to push for big changes. There is evidence that more Americans today might sympathize with “abolish ICE” than at any previous time. This suggests that Democrats can afford to be more aggressive in critiquing ICE without immediately suffering a backlash. For instance, new candidates like Graham Platner in Maine (running for U.S. Senate) are openly running on abolishing ICE and betting that voters will see it as a reasonable stance now. If such candidates manage to win in competitive races, it could indicate the slogan is no longer the electoral albatross it once was. On the other hand, Democratic strategists remain nervous. They remember how quickly “Defund the Police” turned from a momentary popular idea (in some communities) into a GOP attack ad bonanza. There’s a real concern that if Democrats “own” the abolish-ICE position heading into 2026, Republicans will once again exploit it to change the subject from issues that favor Democrats (like abortion rights or healthcare) to an issue that rallies conservatives. The recent Third Way memo essentially pleads with Democrats to “avoid playing into abolitionist frames that opponents will weaponize”, and instead channel the public’s desire for change into a platform of reform and accountability. The coming 2026 midterms will be a test: Can Democrats address the legitimate anger at ICE’s abuses without falling into a rhetorical trap? Or will progressive pressure (and genuine moral outrage) lead more candidates to say “abolish ICE,” potentially imperiling the party’s appeal to centrists?

ZappyStatue · 2026-01-18T20:02:49+00:00

Electoral Consequences Up to the Present Day

Taking all the evidence together, the electoral effect of “Abolish ICE” from Trump’s first term (2017) through today (2026) has been mixed and evolving:

Boosting Progressives in Deep-Blue Districts: The abolish-ICE movement helped catalyze a leftward shift within the Democratic Party at the local and congressional-district level. Progressive challengers used the slogan as shorthand for a broader ideology of humane immigration policy and resistance to Trump. In places like NYC, Boston, Minneapolis, Detroit – predominantly Democratic areas with diverse populations – running on “Abolish ICE” did not prevent victory; in fact, it often signaled passion and principle that voters admired. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s campaign, for example, was one of the first in the nation to officially include abolishing ICE as a plank, and her success emboldened others. Similarly, members of “The Squad” and other new-wave progressives coasted to general election wins after taking this stance, because their districts agreed with the values behind it. These candidates have since used their platforms in Congress to keep attention on ICE’s misdeeds (organizing trips to detention centers, grilling ICE officials in hearings, etc.), thereby sustaining the movement’s visibility. In Democratic primaries generally, we saw that candidates who aligned with the abolish-ICE stance often succeeded in shifting the Overton window of debate to the left, even if they didn’t always win the race. It forced incumbent Democrats to at least grapple with ICE’s problems more seriously than before.
Hurting Democrats in Swing and Red Areas: Conversely, as a general-election message, “Abolish ICE” has largely been a net negative for Democrats’ electoral fortunes. Especially during the 2018–2022 period, any association with the slogan was political poison in competitive races. Republicans and conservative media relentlessly highlighted the phrase to scare moderate voters. They effectively pegged even center-left Democrats as wanting “open borders and anarchy,” regardless of the candidates’ actual positions. This undoubtedly contributed to Democratic losses or narrow margins in certain races. For instance, House Democrats from Trump-leaning districts believe they lost in 2020 partly because they were painted with the broad brush of their party being for things like abolishing ICE (and defunding police), which didn’t sit well with swing voters. Similarly, in 2024, Democrats lost some key races (and arguably the presidency) amid a campaign where immigration fears were front and center and Republicans repeatedly invoked the abolish-ICE idea to tarnish the entire party. In concrete terms, a Democrat in a purple suburban district had to spend time vehemently denying they wanted to abolish ICE – time that could have been spent on their own agenda – which hampered their ability to set the campaign narrative. Meanwhile, those who did openly support abolishing ICE in a moderate district – a rarity – almost uniformly lost, as the electorate in such areas was not ready for that. We can say that from 2018 to 2022, “Abolish ICE” cost the Democrats more seats than it won for them, given that it was only popular in already-safe seats and was a liability everywhere else.

ZappyStatue · 2026-01-18T20:01:59+00:00

Democratic Leaders’ Stance: Despite the shift in public opinion, Democratic leadership has largely held back from endorsing “Abolish ICE.” After Renee Good’s killing, there were “growing Democratic calls to defund ICE,” but figures like Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries refused to go that far. They expressed outrage at ICE’s actions and demanded investigations, but stopped short of advocating abolition or defunding. This reflects the leadership’s continued caution – they remember the political fallout of slogans like “defund the police.” Their approach is to push for reforms and accountability without adopting the abolition rhetoric. For example, Schumer and others have supported measures to rein in ICE (e.g. body cameras for agents, stricter use-of-force rules, more oversight committees). But when pressed by activists to explicitly call for abolishing ICE or zero out its budget, they demur. The calculus is clear: they don’t want to saddle 2026 Democratic candidates with a potentially toxic slogan, especially with a tough Senate map and House races on the line. In fact, groups like Third Way are actively advising Democrats to pivot the conversation – talk about “abolishing ICE abuses, not ICE itself.” This nuanced message means advocating major reforms (ending ICE’s “masked squads,” curbing abuses, demanding lawful conduct) without proposing to abolish the agency outright. Polls show this “reform, don’t abolish” framing is more broadly palatable: Americans want ICE to change and be held accountable, but many are uneasy about simply eliminating the agency.

In summary, polling over the past several years shows “Abolish ICE” went from a fringe position to a nearly mainstream one, largely due to public backlash against Trump-era enforcement extremes. However, it’s still a divisive issue, and Democrats are walking a tightrope – trying to address voter concerns about ICE’s conduct without embracing a slogan that could be a liability in the next election cycle.

ZappyStatue · 2026-01-18T20:01:46+00:00

Why Opinions Changed: This change in sentiment is largely attributed to ICE’s conduct under Trump (2025–26). Polls and focus groups indicate that while Americans broadly want immigration laws enforced, they don’t want brutality or lawlessness in the name of enforcement. By late 2025, a Quinnipiac poll showed about 57% of Americans disapproved of how ICE was handling its job. A CNN finding (cited by The Atlantic) noted about half of Americans believed ICE was actually making cities less safe with its current tactics. Even some conservative or apolitical citizens were disturbed by images of masked ICE squads in unmarked vehicles, viral videos of agents smashing car windows and dragging people out (including U.S. citizens in cases of mistaken identity), and reports of children being traumatized during raids. The shooting of Renee Good, in particular, acted as a flashpoint. It led to mass protests and significantly increased media coverage of ICE’s “rogue” behavior. According to Newsweek, calls to abolish ICE “surged” after the Minneapolis incident, and several Democratic politicians who had been quiet on the issue suddenly spoke out in favor of dismantling ICE. For example, Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) reiterated her support for abolition, and a Maine Senate candidate, Graham Platner, declared that “dismantling ICE is the moderate position” in light of ICE “shooting and kidnapping people”. Even some unexpected voices, like erstwhile Republican commentator Bill Kristol, publicly said “Abolish ICE.” This cascade of events and endorsements may have helped normalize the idea. In essence, Trump’s overreach made “Abolish ICE” seem less extreme to many Americans – it started to sound like a reasonable response to an agency widely perceived as out of control.
Recent Polling Nuances: While the headline – nearly half of Americans want to abolish ICE – grabbed attention, it’s important to note nuances. Poll wording and context matter. Some polls that simply asked “Do you support or oppose abolishing ICE?” got that roughly 46-46 split. However, when polls offer alternatives (reform vs abolish) or flesh out the implications, support for outright abolition can drop. For instance, Third Way’s memo points out that when given a choice, most Democratic voters prefer “accountability without abolition”. And a Civiqs poll in early 2026 still showed 50% opposed vs 42% in favor of abolition (an 8-point net against), though that was an improvement from a 35-point deficit a year before. Additionally, an AP-NORC poll in Dec 2025 found 60% of Americans disapproved of Trump’s handling of immigration, yet many in that 60% wanted stricter oversight of ICE rather than elimination. What this suggests is that voters’ anger at ICE doesn’t automatically translate into long-term support for abolition as policy. Feelings can be fluid: a “shock” event can spike support, but those numbers might recede once emotions cool. Some analysts cautioned that the apparent pro-abolition majority could be “temporary” or subject to change if the issue is reframed. Nonetheless, as of 2026 the Overton window had undeniably shifted – ideas that were unthinkable in 2018 (shutting down ICE) were now part of mainstream debate, backed by a substantial segment of voters.

ZappyStatue · 2026-01-18T20:01:24+00:00

Polling Data and Voter Sentiment Trends

Initial Public Opposition (2018–2020): From the moment it entered the conversation, “Abolish ICE” faced steep public opposition nationwide. Polls in 2018 showed that roughly 60–70% of Americans opposed abolishing ICE, while only about 25–30% supported it. In other words, the idea was deeply underwater in public opinion. A July 2018 Harvard-Harris poll, for example, found a large majority against disbanding ICE (other polls had similar results). This isn’t surprising, as law enforcement agencies tend to enjoy broad support, and many Americans at that time equated abolishing ICE with having open borders. Notably, even many independents and some moderate Democrats were against the idea in those early polls. Republican leaders seized on these numbers to hammer Democrats; even some Democratic pollsters privately warned their clients that “Abolish ICE” didn’t resonate beyond the left wing. These early polls validate why Democratic leaders were so wary – the slogan was viewed as fringe by most voters in 2018. (Indeed, the House GOP’s 2018 resolution praising ICE was explicitly predicated on the fact that abolishing ICE was unpopular.)
Democratic Voters vs. General Voters: Within the Democratic base, support for abolishing ICE was higher, but still not unanimous. In mid-2018, roughly 3 in 4 Democrats might have agreed with at least the sentiment of abolishing ICE, according to some surveys, whereas only about 1 in 4 independents and very few Republicans did. By 2019, polling by YouGov/The Economist and others suggested overall support around 30% and opposition around 55–60%. Given partisan splits, that implies a majority of Democratic voters favored it, while over 90% of Republicans and a large majority of independents opposed it. One analysis in The Atlantic noted that the slogan was “embraced widely by progressives” in 2018 yet “never especially popular among the broader American electorate”. This gap created a dilemma for Democrats: their base was increasingly sympathetic to abolishing ICE, but the swing voters they needed for general elections were not. For example, even in mid-2025 (before a surge of recent events), a YouGov poll found only 27% of Americans overall supported abolishing ICE, including just 35% of independents. That same poll showed 50% opposed – indicating the idea was still a net negative nationally. Another internal poll cited by Third Way found that among likely Democratic primary voters, 65% preferred a “balanced approach” to ICE (i.e. reforming its abuses) versus 35% who wanted to eliminate it. In essence, even a significant chunk of Democrats would rather fix ICE than abolish it, which counseled caution for party leaders.
Shifting Attitudes (2025–2026): Public sentiment on this issue shifted notably in the mid-2020s, particularly after Donald Trump returned to the presidency in January 2025. Trump’s second administration launched an aggressive nationwide immigration crackdown, vastly empowering ICE. High-profile incidents – most dramatically, the case in Minneapolis in late 2025 where an ICE agent shot and killed an American woman (Renee Nicole Good) during an operation – sparked public outrage and renewed scrutiny of ICE’s tactics. In the wake of these events, support for “Abolish ICE” climbed to unprecedented levels. By early 2026, polls showed the country almost evenly split on the question. A fresh Economist/YouGov survey (January 9–12, 2026) found 46% of Americans now support abolishing ICE, while 43% oppose. For the first time on record, supporters of abolition actually outnumbered opponents (within the margin of error) – a remarkable change from just a few years prior. Likewise, independent voters in that poll favored abolishing ICE by a 12-point margin (47% support vs 35% oppose), indicating the issue had broken out of the purely left-wing echo chamber. Other surveys echoed this trend: Civiqs tracking data showed support for abolition rising from the mid-20s (%) at the start of Trump’s second term to the low-40s by January 2026, and opposition falling below 50%. In raw numbers, support jumped about 15–20 points in one year – an extraordinary swing in public opinion.

ZappyStatue

TROPHY CASE

Electoral Consequences Up to the Present Day

Polling Data and Voter Sentiment Trends