Bloomberg Politics Poll: Nearly Two-Thirds of Likely GOP Primary Voters Back Trump's Muslim Ban


More than a third say it makes them more likely to vote for him, according to an online PulsePoll conducted by Purple Strategies on Tuesday.

Almost two-thirds of likely 2016 Republican primary voters favor Donald Trump’s call to temporarily ban Muslims from entering the U.S., while more than a third say it makes them more likely to vote for him.

Those are some of the findings from a Bloomberg Politics/Purple Strategies PulsePoll, an online survey conducted Tuesday, that shows support at 37 percent among all likely general-election voters for the controversial proposal put forward by the Republican front-runner.

“We believe these numbers are made up of some people who are truly expressing religious bigotry and others who are fearful about terrorism and are willing to do anything they think might make us safer,” Doug Usher, who runs polling for Washington-based Purple Strategies, said in his analysis of the findings. “This indicates that, despite some conventional wisdom expressed in the last 48 hours, this is unlikely to hurt Trump at least in the primary campaign.”


No one I know who supports Trump is saying he’s gone too far, yet when you watch the evening news you get the impression that people are turning against him because he’s too extreme.


I think it’s less likely that people are “expressing religious bigotry” and more likely that people are fed up with politicians first concern after an Islamic terrorist attack is about a “Muslim backlash”.


Just wait, if there are no further attacks between now and the start of primary season, everybody will disavow their support of these policy positions.



Is it even functionally possible for an American president to do such a thing?

It’s so surreal to see these poll results. When I was a teenager in the 2000s I used to play WW2 games for fun and thought the ideologies of those times were some distant enigma in history. So naive. I probably casually walked past somebody today that supports barring somebody from the United States because of their religion. Mary, Mother of Sinners, we are a cruel and depraved people. Pray for us. Save us from the fires of hell.


No ,you are not depraved…frightened maybe.
When I was a child ,middle school ,my dad worked for an American corporation.
A couple of times ,maybe three , my grandad 's chofer whom we trusted and loved came to pick me up from school during school hours which was absolutely unusual except an emergency. After my mom called.
My mom would be by the window waiting for dad ,and my brothers already at home, strange… They would not say anything ,but later we learnt is was about threat to life ,his or ours ,all because he worked for Americans. I wondered why they hated ,you know , “my dad and his friends who were so nice” so much. ( Kids always think dads own everything :slight_smile:
Many years later , I had the chance to live among you for some years. And get to know better.
You ,the people , are most loving and kind to live with.
Our presidents ,good or bad ,do not always represent our hearts.
God bless you and be at.peace…


I second that!


I saw tonight a report that the GOP is really concerned that Trump’s comments hurts their chances in 2016. Especially if he were to win enough delegates to actually clinch the nomination. Not only to win back the WH but in Senate and House races as well. The point was made that a party does not win nationally by subtraction but by addition. Yet this guy has found a way to alienate so many voters with his comments about Latinos, about women such as Megyn Kelly and Carly Fiorina, and now he wants to ban all Muslims. It was said there are races where candidates simply can not win if Trump is the GOP standardbearer. Will be interesting to see how Republican party officials deal with him. They have to be careful. He is back to talking about an independent run if he is not treated fairly.


The answer is not to lump all Muslims together and propose to ban all of them. Muslims make up 1.5 - 2 billion of the world’s population. A minority of which are terrorists.


Since that’s not what Trump is proposing, I’m not sure why you bring it up. Trump is proposing a moratorium until we get the “vetting process” fixed, which seems fairly rational when you remember that neither of the San Bernardino shooters were known to be on any “terror watch” lists.


I tend to agree but question the extent of his talking points. Is what your saying factual? Lets face it Trump spend 18 out of 24 hours on the news with this yesterday. He talked so much trash he lost his voice. In my opinion Obama and Lynch played the perennial victimhood card which is basically radical propaganda. Trumps pushback was directly in relation. If Lynch followed through with her thinking Trump would be being prosecuted for freedom of speech which is propaganda and agenda driven. In fact I think the Southern Poverty law center placed him on their watch list for whatever thats worth.

What concerns me is Trump slitting the party and its something Rep ought to start seriously thinking about before attempting to throw this guy under the bus.

I also think the method of determining Trumps followers is suspect at best. Its claimed they are basically Tri-State area, New England and uneducated. I think its a fairy tale by the opposition. Christie has very good support in NJ and CT. And the five blue states in this area are neither majority Dem or Rep but independent which makes the theory plausible but in reality its simply untrue. Lots of propaganda if you ask me. Cruz imho has handled all this correctly.


That said I also think the popularity contest may make for great conversation at the moment but it is a secondary point to our national security. And whos responsible for that failure at the moment? I haven’t been hearing the talking point of women and children refugees blown out of proportion from the left as of late, and well, whats to be said about Isis in backpedaling today? Obviously we have a very real issue, we are certainly not obligated to neglect safety in favor of what clearly is an unresolved issue. I don’t remember any fathers of this country stating we should throw caution to the wind. .


The vetting process for immigrants now takes more than eighteen months. Are we going to expand that to include every person who wants to travel for business or to take a vacation in the U.S.? How long would it take to create and implement a process like that?

And how would Trump determine who is a Muslim since that information is not on a passport? He says he’d ask them. Because, of course, no one who wants to engage in terrorist activities would lie.

This is the kind of simplistic “solution” that appeals to those who cannot understand the complexities of the situation and to whom broad, drastic measures seem effective. Most people who have spent years, if not decades, studying terrorism say that all this would do is radicalize American citizens. And the overwhelming majority of those who have committed or attempted to commit terrorist acts in the U.S. were either Americans or those who were already here.


Good points too. The funding has been cut so much by this administration that the FBI, NSA and CIA are under maned and from what I hear the FBI is calling back recent retirees to help out.

The FBI chief also said that Farook and Malik were radicalized at least two years ago and planned their evil martyrdom long before they were engaged.

“Our investigation to date shows that they were radicalized before they started courting or dating each other online, and as early as the end of 2013, were talking to each other about jihad and martyrdom before they became engaged and married and were living in the US,” he said.

Meanwhile, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) said Malik may have given false information on her visa application, the paper reported.

She may have provided an incorrect address in Pakistan on her K-1 visa application to hide her family’s ties to radical Muslims in the Punjab area.

“We now know that Ms. Malik, one of the San Bernardino attackers, arrived in the United States on a fiancée visa,” said Grassley, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. “This is yet another example of the failure of the screening process for those entering the United States. Our government apparently didn’t catch the false address in Pakistan she listed on her application or other possible signs that she was radicalized or an operative.”

Two government sources told the LA Times that Malik apparently used the name of a neighborhood or street near her home in Pakistan.

And the take last Friday in stark contrast to today with the FBI and Visas…

State Department spokesperson Elizabeth Trudeau said Friday that the State Department stands behind the visa process that allowed a terrorist into the United States. “Are you satisfied that Malik’s application process followed the proper protocol?” one reporter asked Trudeau, referring to San Bernardino shooter Tashfeen Malik, who had previously pledged allegiance to the Islamic State on Facebook. “Yes,” she said. “How can you say that with such assurance?” the reporter asked. Trudeau said that she is confident that this case followed protocol because the State Department is confident in its visa process. “Because we stand behind our screening process for visas,” she said. She attributed part of her confidence in the visa process to the fact that the process is consistently being improved and revised…When asked whether she could “say with absolute confidence that no one dropped the ball in this case,” Trudeau said that she has “no information that indicates that.” She later added that Americans can have confidence in the visa processing system.

Most people who have spent years, if not decades, studying terrorism say that all this would do is radicalize American citizens.

This I’m doubtful of.

And the overwhelming majority of those who have committed or attempted to commit terrorist acts in the U.S. were either Americans or those who were already here.

Doesn’t change primary issue though of security its both.


You could certainly expand it to include anybody who has visited terrorist hotspots like Pakistan, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, etc. If the current 18 month vetting process is insufficient to capture people like Tashfeen Malik and the Tsarnaev brothers, I’m not sure what purpose it is serving. It’s not like these people were “Bond-ian” supervillains. They were pretty stupid and obvious, and yet they still weren’t noticed until after they committed their terrorist acts.

Passports do tell you where the owner has traveled. Someone spending a lot of time in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, or any of the places known for training Islamic terrorists probably doesn’t have to tell you he or she is Muslim. It can be reasonably assumed until demonstrated otherwise.

There’s a couple simple facts that people who are freaked out over Trump don’t seem to grasp. First, there is no right for non-US citizens to come to the US. People come here at our discretion. Second, US immigration policy should be primarily focused on benefiting the people of the US. I fail to see how importing large numbers of people who are vehemently opposed to Western culture, whether inclined to terror or not, benefits the US.


I saw that news report, too. That spokesman for the Republicans was in
quite a little dither, wasn’t he? :wink:

I think the real reason the Republican party is worried about Trump’s comments
is because the more he talks, the higher he gets in the polls. And they
do NOT want Trump to win… he isn’t one of the good-old-boys.
The Republican party would be much more comfortable with Jeb
or Romney in the White House.
Trump hasn’t drunk the Kool Aid.

I’ve been voting Republican for years, but they’ve gotten to be almost
as bad as the Dems. Politicians interested only in their own special
interests and staying in office, most of them.

I am SO much enjoying watching Trump messing with the minds
of conservatives and liberals alike. :smiley:
Sit back and enjoy the show, folks.


The New York Times says in the following article that a poll puts Donald Trump at 35%, and says regarding Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump:

The possibility of her winning the presidency in 2016 is only marginally more palatable to American voters than that of Mr. Trump.

Think of the things Donald Trump has said and done, and this the case?


I think we can conclude Trumps followers are from everywhere and no-where exclusive.

It looks like his comments help him in South Carolina. Support for Trump increased eight points after his statement – from 30 percent the first two nights vs. 38 percent the last two nights. The shift is within the margin of sampling error.

Republican pollster Daron Shaw says, “There are enough people in the last two nights of the sample to question the widespread assumption that Trump’s comments will hurt him among GOP primary voters.” Shaw conducts the Fox News Poll with Democratic pollster Chris Anderson.

There’s no gender gap in Trump’s support, as about a third of men (37 percent) and women (32 percent) GOP voters make him their first choice.

Younger voters are less enthusiastic about The Donald. Twenty-nine percent of those under 45 back him compared to 38 percent of those ages 45 and over. Moreover, 30 percent of those under 45 say they would never vote for Trump.

The favorites among white evangelical Christians voting in the GOP primary are Trump (34 percent), Carson (18 percent), Cruz (15 percent) and Rubio (12 percent).

I also think the issue still resides in our current administrations failed policy much of same expected from Hillary who is need of Obamas followers so I can’t see much deviation from the current propaganda.

“In May, when two terrorists attempted to kill a whole lot of people in Garland, Texas, and were stopped by law enforcement, again, that morning before one of those terrorists left to commit mass murder, he exchanged 109 messages with an overseas terrorist,” Comey said.

The CA shooters are now believed to have been radicalized as far back as 2012 at the time of the purchase of the firearms. Comey also stated identification of the radicals is imperative to do his job. This is an honest guy for sure.


What you say is true. Now let’s take the next logical step. Given any group of 100 random Muslims wanting to enter the country, which few are the terrorists?

^^^This. It is obvious from the case of the San Bernardino shooters (radicalized for two years, false address, etc.) that the vetting process is broken. I’m not set in concrete on this issue yet, but I’m tending toward supporting a ban on immigration from certain parts of the world until such time as the vetting process has been repaired.

Edit: BTW, the authorization for the exclusion of certain classes of immigrants is already in the U.S. Code:

8 U.S. Code § 1182 – Inadmissible aliens Page 138

(f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President

Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.


I agree that the sensible thing to do is to halt any immigration of Muslims into the USA until the vetting process is improved. But I would probably not discuss it in public though.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit