CRBC News

Most Americans Want Both Parties to Dial Down Inflammatory Rhetoric, Poll Finds

A Gallup poll finds growing majorities of Americans want both parties to tone down inflammatory rhetoric: 69% say Republicans have gone too far and 60% say the same about Democrats. These shares are higher than in 2011, when Gallup last asked the question after the shooting that wounded Rep. Gabby Giffords. Respondents most often blamed extremist viewpoints spreading online, followed by rhetoric from prominent politicians and commentators.

Most Americans Want Both Parties to Dial Down Inflammatory Rhetoric, Poll Finds

A recent Gallup poll shows growing majorities of U.S. adults want both major parties to reduce inflammatory language directed at political opponents.

Key findings

69% of U.S. adults say the Republican Party and its supporters have gone too far in their rhetoric, while 60% say the same about Democrats. Both figures represent notable increases from 2011, the last time Gallup asked this question following the shooting that wounded former Rep. Gabby Giffords.

Partisan respondents are far more likely to blame the other side for overheated language. Gallup’s data also show that the share of Democrats who say their own party has crossed acceptable limits slipped compared with 2011.

Survey participants most often pointed to extremist viewpoints spreading online as the leading contributor to political violence. Rhetoric from prominent politicians and media commentators was cited next, suggesting many Americans link harsh public language to a broader climate of threats and hostility.

Context and implications

Observers say the shift in attitudes comes amid heightened concern about politically motivated violence and the role of online platforms in amplifying extreme views. The poll underscores widespread public desire for cooler, less incendiary public discourse across the political spectrum.

Method note: The findings are from a Gallup survey comparing current responses to the same question asked in 2011. The poll reflects perceptions about rhetoric and its potential connection to violence, not causal proof.

Similar Articles