Share
Commentary

Huge: Hillary Beats Trump... in Poll on Who's More Likely to Have Colluded

Share

Finally — Hillary Clinton is leading in the polls. And we couldn’t be happier.

According to a survey by Rasmussen, it seems that even after three years of being told that Donald Trump’s presidential campaign was definitely, totally, 110 percent colluding with the Russians, Americans actually think his Democratic opponent was more likely to be in league with the Kremlin.

“Now that Special Counsel Robert Mueller has ruled out collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians in 2016, voters, like senior Republicans, are turning a suspicious eye toward Hillary Clinton’s campaign,” Rasmussen reported Monday. “Most also still suspect high-level wrongdoing at the U.S. Department of Justice.

“A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 47% of Likely U.S. Voters think Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign is more likely than President Trump’s to have illegally colluded with foreign operatives. Nearly as many (45%) still suspect the Trump campaign more.”

Now, granted, this is within the margin of error, which is 3 percent. However, it’s yet more evidence that the American electorate doesn’t exactly have buyer’s remorse when it comes to the 2016 presidential election, no matter how hard the media expounds on Russia, Stormy Daniels and/or whatever the president tweeted recently.

Trending:
Pope Francis Denies One of the Most Basic Tenets of Christianity in '60 Minutes' Interview

For evidence of that, take a June 2018 survey, also by Rasmussen.

“A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that only 40% of Likely U.S. Voters believe America would be better off today if Hillary Clinton had been elected president instead of Donald Trump. A plurality (47%) disagrees and says the country would not be better off,” it said. “Thirteen percent (13%) are undecided.

“Predictably, 74% of Democrats think the country would be better off under a Hillary Clinton presidency, and even more Republicans (79%) disagree. But voters not affiliated with either major party — by a two-to-one margin (54% to 28%) – do not believe America would be better off if Hillary Clinton had been elected in 2016 instead of Trump.”

And keep in mind, June 2018 was back in those halcyon days for Democrats when the special counsel was rolling along and undoubtedly was going to find some evidence of collusion.

Do you think Hillary Clinton colluded with the Russians?

Even going back to October 2017, Rasmussen found that voters were suspicious of the Clintons’ ties to Russia through the Clinton Foundation.

“The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 51% of Likely U.S. Voters believe it’s likely that Bill and Hillary Clinton or their close political associates broke the law in their dealings with Russia,” it reported at the time. “Thirty-seven percent (37%) say that’s unlikely. This includes 37% who consider illegal activity Very Likely and 20% who say it’s Not At All Likely.

“Sixty percent (60%) continue to believe it’s likely some actions Hillary Clinton took as secretary of State were influenced by donations made to the Clinton Foundation, with 45% who say it’s Very Likely. This is down slightly from highs of 64% and 49% respectively last August. Twenty-nine percent (29%) say it’s unlikely that Secretary Clinton did favors for some of those who contributed to the Clinton Foundation, but that includes only 12% who say it’s Not At All Likely.”

This, mind you, was before it was discovered that Clinton’s campaign and the Democratic National Committee had paid for the assembly of the Trump dossier, a wonderful slice of blatant opposition research that relied heavily on Russian intelligence sources and can’t actually be verified. Never mind the fact that this ridiculous document was used to obtain a FISA warrant on a member of Trump’s campaign — the mere fact that it was assembled with Clinton campaign money in the first place should be problematic enough.

Whether this counts as “collusion” in your book is somewhat thorny, although given there’s no evidence of any collusion between Trump and the Russians, pretty much anything that Clinton did is more likely to be collusion than anything Trump did.

Related:
'Squad' Member Revives Decade-Old Hoax in Bid to Pass 'Mike Brown Bill,' Gets Fitting Backlash

One of the most heartening developments since the synopsis of the Mueller report came out — at least from this angle — is that the Republicans have shifted from the defensive to the offensive, demanding probes into the other aspects of the 2016 election: the FISA warrant, the Trump dossier, former FBI Director James Comey’s decision to clear Clinton, all that fun stuff.

Was there Clinton collusion? Well, that’s what investigations are for. But now that we know there wasn’t any Trump collusion that can be proved, it’s still more likely that Hillary was the real colluder — and, from the poll numbers, America knows exactly how dangerous and corrupt a Clinton presidency would have been.

Truth and Accuracy

Submit a Correction →



We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.

Tags:
, , , , ,
Share
C. Douglas Golden is a writer who splits his time between the United States and Southeast Asia. Specializing in political commentary and world affairs, he's written for Conservative Tribune and The Western Journal since 2014.
C. Douglas Golden is a writer who splits his time between the United States and Southeast Asia. Specializing in political commentary and world affairs, he's written for Conservative Tribune and The Western Journal since 2014. Aside from politics, he enjoys spending time with his wife, literature (especially British comic novels and modern Japanese lit), indie rock, coffee, Formula One and football (of both American and world varieties).
Birthplace
Morristown, New Jersey
Education
Catholic University of America
Languages Spoken
English, Spanish
Topics of Expertise
American Politics, World Politics, Culture




Conversation