Now that Donald Trump has Won


“When the poll results are broken down by party, the discrepancy is pretty stark: Forty-three percent of the Democrats surveyed said they would support the federal government’s dismantling of ICE, while 79 percent of the Republican respondents said they were against it. Fifty-four percent of the independents polled also voiced support for keeping ICE.”

Only 1 in 4 voters in the poll, 25 percent, believe the federal government should get rid of ICE. The majority, 54 percent, think the government should keep ICE. Twenty-one percent of voters are undecided.”

"That said, a Politico/Morning Consult poll released Wednesday suggests that moderate Democrats’ skepticism about the political viability of “abolish ICE” was far from baseless. In that survey, just 25 percent of voters endorse eliminating the agency, while 54 percent oppose abolition. The movement has nonetheless succeeded in making “abolish ICE” a mainstream position within the Democratic electorate; 43 percent of Democratic voters say ICE should be melted, while 34 percent want to keep it around.

This suggests that, outside of blue districts, it probably isn’t in Democratic candidates’ short-term political interest to campaign on the abolition of ICE – especially since the party enjoys an enormous polling advantage on health-care, an issue which happens to be highly salient among midterm voters."

Again, Democrats should be focusing on issues that bring out the midterm voters. Without control of Congress, Abolishing ICE is a pipe dream anyway.


If the average voter is really that stupid, why do you think a nuanced policy of “well lets see, lets go line by line and see what is really good in this agency or not, and really reform this agency. Idk it’s complicated but I think with enough time and amendments we can find a workable middle ground” would do any better? Where is YOUR evidence that reform ICE is a better platform? There is none. You just don’t want to accept the fact that Abolishing ICE isn’t a conservative idea or one that you can get behind. That’s OK. We can get the votes elsewhere.


Hey, I want Medicare for All to be the #1 platform. Abolishing ICE is the cherry on top.


I want Democrats to win in 2018 so they can try to do both.


It’s called being sneaky enough about it so that they don’t realize they’re voting to abolish ICE. If the only hear about ending ICE’s most egregious policies at first, that’s a start. You then keep working your way down the list until, to paraphrase a conservative saying, you can “drown ICE in a bathtub.” At which point, even if it exists in name, it’s been so crippled that it can’t do anything anyway.

D: “Stop ICE from separating families!”
Dumb Voter: “Okay…”

D: “Stop ICE from wasting money on private prisons!”
Dumb Voter: “Okay…”

And so on.

Likewise, and I think to do so, they’ll need to be somewhat sneaky in non-deep-blue districts to pull it off.


This. 1000 times this.

Ironically, this is pretty much the tactic the “How to Abolish ICE” article put forward.


Awesome, glad we all agree on Abolishing ICE. It truly is a winning position :slight_smile:


We’re not disagreeing that ICE shouldn’t be abolished, we’re disagreeing about calling it that.

Branding is powerful. Branding is effective. Branding works. A piece by piece dismantling of ICE is easier if you start by stopping ICE from separating families, then moving on to private prisons, like @DMLou suggested.

Calling for the complete and utter abolishment of ICE opens Democrats up to all kinds of misinformation from Republicans and turns off independent voters.


I honestly believe the share of “independent voters” who would be swayed by GOP talking points today (and are not just GOP voters in all but name) is much smaller than you believe, and the share of possibly liberal/progressive voters who are not motivated by a clear message is much larger than you believe.


I’ve been listening to the podcast she’s on for a little while, and I finally followed her on twitter. She’s great.

As for “Abolish ICE,” I think the shifting of the Overton Window is worth the pushback. American voters only care about 0 to 2 actual policy issues, so I don’t think a wonky, nuanced take on this is worth the effort. Instead of forming another circular firing squad, it might be more worthwhile to spin the policy idea (stop systematically deporting people, especially in ways that violate international law) based on the particular local conditions in each election.

For example, a NYC campaign might be able to say “Abolish ICE, it’s super racist” and be done with it, whereas a campaign in rural VA might say “ICE is spending boatloads of your (taxpayer) money harassing your neighbor; wouldn’t you rather we spend that money giving you super cheap healthcare instead?”


I’ll have to agree to disagree with you there, as I think the situation is actually closer to the opposite.


I’m not sure we’re talking about the same person, since I’m pretty sure the only person I know who also follows her on twitter is Max. She’s just got a new book out, Confessions of a Single Mum - I don’t recall her being a regular on any podcasts, but I haven’t spoken to her much for a while because I am a shitty friend, so it might have been since then.


Oh! We’re totally talking about different people, though both of them have dunked on Piers Morgan on GMB. I was talking about Ash Sarkar, from Dazzle’s video.


They both have indeed, and def different people - I’m talking about Amy Nickell, I met her back when she was in Uni with Max. I wish I knew Ash Sarkar, she seems pretty cool. I’m like 70% sure she’s also a friend of Amy’s.


In other news, it’s starting to look good that the Democrat’s will pick up seats in the senate, AZ, TN and NV are looking like pick ups and only ND looks bad (though not a lot of polling out of IN) if they lose both and pick the other three up they will be 50/50. If they keep either, they get the senate. House is looking good and govenor’s races are all leaning heavily towards D.


While this is great, it’s more important to not let this distract us. Doesn’t mean anyone can let up. Still gotta be involved.


Interesting how even Ocasio-Cortez didn’t bring up abolishing ICE…

“Ocasio-Cortez left any talk of ICE or impeaching Trump back in the Bronx. Instead, she took the crowd back to 1861, when Kansas was admitted into the Union, having chosen to be a free state.”


I’m with Nelson on this one.

Have y’all not noticed how far Trump has managed to shift the Overton window on immigration, and especially on legal immigration?

Also, I think people are conceding far too much to the likes of Stephen Miller over this whole bugbear of “open borders”. Take a moment to seriously think about the spectrum between 100% closed and 100% open borders. Yes, the extreme 100% open endpoint is not viable for most developed countries in the short run, and perhaps also not desirable in the long run, but it’s clear that every developed country is way, way far away from 100% open on that spectrum.

Most importantly, though, if you ask “which direction should we go in?” it’s obvious the answer is “more open” in almost every country. Compared to its current levels the US would be better off with more immigration, not less, and in the long run greater freedom of movement around the world is a good thing for the world as a whole.

I don’t think it’s good enough to defend the “abolish ICE” slogan if all you do is correctly point out that it does not, in fact, mean “open borders”, because by distancing yourself from the latter without any real context you also give purchase to Republican propaganda about immigration, and then (in the context of the aforementioned spectrum) those same points against the endpoint of open borders will be used against the direction of more open immigration policy.


Similarly, if you critically examine some of the arguments made in favor of less harsh enforcement and/or greater levels of immigration, often the moral or economic underpinnings of those arguments do lead you somewhere close to actual “open borders”, even if that’s not what the people making those arguments actually want.

Thus, per the above, if you argue in the direction of open borders relative to the current state of affairs, you will sometimes need to go into the details of why you shouldn’t be going all the way in that direction; otherwise you expose yourself to a reductio ad absurdum by way of “open borders”.


Classic pragmatic politics vs “pragmatic” politics vs “pragmatic politics” problems all over the place here. Meanwhile I have trouble reconciling the very simple fact that the republicans call themselves small government but added ICE and the Department of Homeland Security… and now I guess maybe Space Force? Great “conservative” party there for you. Add more groups for more infighting and more red tape so you can drown it better or whatever.

Though I definitely get what people are saying that “abolish ice” = “open borders” to some people and that tricks them into being against it, though personally I arrive at something close to “no borders” in the long long long terms, though I don’t consider that a party of anything with the word pragmatic in it quotes or not at this moment.