Americans favor immigration executive action, 67-28

[Adam Griffin]

Not sure about the track record of the pollster, but here are the results:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Many individual elements of the executive action are very popular with voters:

o Allow undocumented immigrants who are parents of children or young adults living legally in the United States to stay in the United States without being deported (66% favorable, 28% unfavorable)

o Expand the DACA program that provides temporary legal status and work permits to undocumented immigrants who were brought to the United States as children (63% favorable, 27% unfavorable)

o Provide temporary work permits to qualifying immigrants (76% favorable, 21% unfavorable)

o Shift more security resources to the Mexican border (79% favorable, 16% unfavorable)[/quote]

Voters also strongly reject Republican attempts to block the measure:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Voters strongly reject aggressive strategies being considered by Republicans to block executive action, including a government shutdown and impeachment. By a 48-point margin (72% oppose, 24% favor) voters oppose a strategy of Republicans shutting down the government until the president agrees to end his executive action. While Tea party Republicans favor a shutdown strategy by 61% to 36%, Republicans who do not identify with the Tea Party oppose a shutdown by 62% to 32%. And by a 31-point margin, voters oppose impeaching the president and removing him from office in response to this executive action (63% oppose, 32% favor).
[/quote]

[Reaganfan]

It's a very Democratic pollster FYI

The survey was conducted for Americans United for Change, a pro-Democratic group.

[Mehmentum]

Wasn't there another poll taken before the official announcement that showed most people disapproving of this?  On the other hand, this fits that Latino Decisions poll that found 89% of Latinos in favor.

Regardless, I'd like to see more polling before I believe this.

[Likely Voter]

This is a complex issue and I suspect a lot depends on the wording. For example, here is how Hart and NBC polls describe the executive action

Hart description

You must be logged in to read this quote.

NBC/WSJ

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As you can see the NBC/WSJ poll didn't actually describe the executive action, just that Obama took one without Congressional approval. The Hart wording was very detailed describing the action in the way the administration would like.

That is why Hart gets 67/28 favorable and NBC/WSJ gets 38/48 approve/disapprove. In separate questions both poll (as others) have shown that large majorities favor the pathway to citizenship. I think what the NBC WSJ poll is showing mostly is that while some approve of the policy, they don't like Obama acting without Congress. (Of course, how many of them realize that Congress has held up on acting for 1 1/2 years)

[hopper]

I support the executive order for kids(the DOCA) but not the most recent executive order.

[Sbane]

I support the executive order for kids(the DOCA) but not the most recent executive order.

Then why deport their parents?

[Reaganfan]

A new Rasmussen Poll shows a staggering majority against this action.

[IceSpear]

A new Rasmussen Poll shows a staggering majority against this action.

As already stated, that's not surprising at all. The results of polls on this would be extremely skewed based on question wording.

[Adam Griffin]

A new Rasmussen Poll shows a staggering majority against this action.

As already stated, that's not surprising at all. The results of polls on this would be extremely skewed based on question wording.

Exactly:

"2* According to news reports, President Obama is considering granting amnesty to several million illegal immigrants without the approval of Congress. Do you favor or oppose the president granting such an amnesty?"

It might as well be "Do you oppose or oppose Obummer's freedom-crushing decision to possibly provide billions of people with special "immigrant welfare" for life?".

[King]

"granting amnesty to several million illegal immigrants"

LOL

[Likely Voter]

I thought Rasmussen was trying to go legit, that question is just ridiculous.

[pbrower2a]

Favorite Texas joke:

Do you know what you call a Texan who speaks good English?



MEXICAN!


Really, one of the best ways to avoid detection as an illegal alien is to speak unexceptionable English.  That implies paying attention to one's schoolwork, which is more than many Americans do.

Breaking families to enforce a law as rigidly as possible makes a mockery of the law. Obama did right, and GOP pols might as well accept that he actually can do something right.

...I'd love to see a new approval poll for the President.

[Likely Voter]

looking at the Rasmussen and Gallup tracking polls, there is a small net uptick in Obama's approval since the announcement but that could be just noise. But how this plays out with Obama is actually kind of irrelevant. The bigger issue is how it will play out in 2016.  Will reversing Obama's order 'on day one' be a litmus test for GOP primary? And will vowing to ramp up deportations be a liability for the general? That is the big game here.

[Mehmentum]

The bigger issue is how it will play out in 2016.  Will reversing Obama's order 'on day one' be a litmus test for GOP primary? And will vowing to ramp up deportations be a liability for the general? That is the big game here.

What Obama and the Democrats are banking on is:

A).  This will be a litmus test issue for the GOP in the 2016 primaries.
B). Hispanics will be extremely in favor of the executive action, and will be highly motivated to turn out because of it.
C). While a majority of the general population may oppose it, it won't be the deciding factor for many people outside of the Hispanic community.   Conservatives may be motivated to turn out by it, but conservative turnout is already sky high, so that will have a limited effect.

Its interesting how much question wording effects the outcome.  My guess is that how public opinion eventually falls will depend a lot on how the debate unfolds.

[Reaganfan]

The bigger issue is how it will play out in 2016.  Will reversing Obama's order 'on day one' be a litmus test for GOP primary? And will vowing to ramp up deportations be a liability for the general? That is the big game here.

What Obama and the Democrats are banking on is:

A).  This will be a litmus test issue for the GOP in the 2016 primaries.
B). Hispanics will be extremely in favor of the executive action, and will be highly motivated to turn out because of it.
C). While a majority of the general population may oppose it, it won't be the deciding factor for many people outside of the Hispanic community.   Conservatives may be motivated to turn out by it, but conservative turnout is already sky high, so that will have a limited effect.

Its interesting how much question wording effects the outcome.  My guess is that how public opinion eventually falls will depend a lot on how the debate unfolds.

Obama already only won 39% of white people. If Democrats keep this up, they will become known solely as the party of minorities. Doesn't that worry you even a bit?

[Ebowed]

Obama already only won 39% of white people. If Democrats keep this up, they will become known solely as the party of minorities. Doesn't that worry you even a bit?

That sounds better than getting 8% of blacks, but either way, I don't think Democrats are worried about a perceived connection to minorities.  LMAO.

[Reaganfan]

Obama already only won 39% of white people. If Democrats keep this up, they will become known solely as the party of minorities. Doesn't that worry you even a bit?

That sounds better than getting 8% of blacks, but either way, I don't think Democrats are worried about a perceived connection to minorities.  LMAO.

I didn't say that. You are missing my point.

IF you take away all minority voters, you realize that the Democrats who are damn near out of business in many parts of the country would be even WORSE off than they are today. If only whites voted, Mitt Romney would have won 46 states. If only whites voted, no more Mark Warner. We'd have Senator Scott Brown. You realize that all of the eggs are in one basket.

Doesn't that bug you at all, that there is a chance of a massive white backlash beyond 1994, 2010 and 2014? What if the Democratic nominee ended up with only 20% of the white vote in 2016? That was my question, you aren't bothered by that?

[Ebowed]

Obama already only won 39% of white people. If Democrats keep this up, they will become known solely as the party of minorities. Doesn't that worry you even a bit?

That sounds better than getting 8% of blacks, but either way, I don't think Democrats are worried about a perceived connection to minorities.  LMAO.

I didn't say that. You are missing my point.

IF you take away all minority voters, you realize that the Democrats who are damn near out of business in many parts of the country would be even WORSE off than they are today. If only whites voted, Mitt Romney would have won 46 states.

Doesn't that bug you at all, that there is a chance of a massive white backlash beyond 1994, 2010 and 2014? What if the Democratic nominee ended up with only 20% of the white vote in 2016? That was my question, you aren't bothered by that?

I'm not really bothered by that because outside of your fantasies, minorities will continue to exist.

If you're asking me if I am personally troubled as to how whites are now voting, yes, but probably for different reasons than you.

[© tweed]

whites are declining as a % of the population.  the problem is the inverse, that if the GOP remains the party of the whites-only it'll be slowly whittled down.  this already has started to happen.

[© tweed]

Naso's hoping for something like this, with the names inverted:

[Reaganfan]

Obama already only won 39% of white people. If Democrats keep this up, they will become known solely as the party of minorities. Doesn't that worry you even a bit?

That sounds better than getting 8% of blacks, but either way, I don't think Democrats are worried about a perceived connection to minorities.  LMAO.

I didn't say that. You are missing my point.

IF you take away all minority voters, you realize that the Democrats who are damn near out of business in many parts of the country would be even WORSE off than they are today. If only whites voted, Mitt Romney would have won 46 states.

Doesn't that bug you at all, that there is a chance of a massive white backlash beyond 1994, 2010 and 2014? What if the Democratic nominee ended up with only 20% of the white vote in 2016? That was my question, you aren't bothered by that?

I'm not really bothered by that because outside of your fantasies, minorities will continue to exist.

If you're asking me if I am personally troubled as to how whites are now voting, yes, but probably for different reasons than you.

I mean, it's been said that midterm elections keep swaying towards the Republicans more and more because they're an older, whiter electorate. But older and whiter didn't used to mean more Republican.

What did the Democratic Party do so bad to piss off the largest demographic in the entire country?

[Ebowed]

Naso's hoping for something like this, with the names inverted:

Well, we all know that, especially before and after his posts on Ferguson, but I just took amusement with the way he is choosing his words.  I mean, I'm worried that plenty of whites are racist.  I'm not worried about racists voting for Republicans.

Anyway Reaganfan, I'll have to admit that I don't really care what the Democrats did to alienate 60% of white voters because I'm in the other 40%, and the idea that you or any other person of a similar political disposition could worry on my behalf that I am losing representation is ridiculous at best.  You see, I'm not convinced that whites are somehow getting a bad deal.  So if you're going to stand around and worry about whites (potentially) losing their virtual stranglehold on America's political institutions and their influence on society generally, my only question is, why?

[Tender Branson]

It's a very Democratic pollster FYI

The survey was conducted for Americans United for Change, a pro-Democratic group.

Correct.

Quinnipiac just came out with a new poll yesterday and they show a 45-48 split.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2115

[Reaganfan]

It's a very Democratic pollster FYI

The survey was conducted for Americans United for Change, a pro-Democratic group.

Correct.

Quinnipiac just came out with a new poll yesterday and they show a 45-48 split.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2115

That made me chuckle.

[IceSpear]

Obama already only won 39% of white people. If Democrats keep this up, they will become known solely as the party of minorities. Doesn't that worry you even a bit?

That sounds better than getting 8% of blacks, but either way, I don't think Democrats are worried about a perceived connection to minorities.  LMAO.

I didn't say that. You are missing my point.

IF you take away all minority voters, you realize that the Democrats who are damn near out of business in many parts of the country would be even WORSE off than they are today. If only whites voted, Mitt Romney would have won 46 states. If only whites voted, no more Mark Warner. We'd have Senator Scott Brown. You realize that all of the eggs are in one basket.

Doesn't that bug you at all, that there is a chance of a massive white backlash beyond 1994, 2010 and 2014? What if the Democratic nominee ended up with only 20% of the white vote in 2016? That was my question, you aren't bothered by that?

The massive white backlash has already occured in 2010/2012/2014. There's likely no more room left to fall.