Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

NWCorona

(8,541 posts)
Tue May 31, 2016, 11:09 AM May 2016

Poll: 50% Say Clinton Should Keep Running Even If Indicted

"Most continue to believe likely Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton is a lawbreaker, but half of all voters also say a felony indictment shouldn’t stop her campaign for the presidency.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 43% of Likely U.S. Voters think Clinton should immediately stop campaigning if she is charged with a felony in connection with her use of a private e-mail server while secretary of State. Fifty percent (50%), however, think she should continue running until a court determines her guilt or innocence. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

Voters were evenly divided on this question in January, but at that time we didn’t include the name of any candidate.

Among Democratic voters, 71% believe Clinton should keep running, a view shared by only 30% of Republicans and 46% of voters not affiliated with either major party.

Forty percent (40%) of all voters say they are less likely to vote for Clinton because of the e-mail issue, while nearly half (48%) say it will have no impact on their vote. Just eight percent (8%) say the issue makes them more likely to vote for the former first lady.

Sixty-five percent (65%) consider it likely that Clinton broke the law by sending and receiving e-mails containing classified information through a private e-mail server while serving as secretary of State. This includes 47% who say it’s Very Likely. These findings are unchanged from January. Thirty percent (30%) still say Clinton is unlikely to have broken the law with the e-mail arrangement, with 16% who say it’s Not At All Likely."

http://m.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/may_2016/50_say_clinton_should_keep_running_even_if_indicted

This is an interesting poll and it's kinda what I expected.

92 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Poll: 50% Say Clinton Should Keep Running Even If Indicted (Original Post) NWCorona May 2016 OP
If representative, it explains a lot. flor-de-jasmim May 2016 #1
Who are you going to vote for when Sanders is not the nominee? KingFlorez May 2016 #2
This is a news post, and you follow up with a loyalty pledge? How transparent. JonLeibowitz May 2016 #3
Nobody said anything about loyalty KingFlorez May 2016 #4
And one with a transparent purpose on this board. JonLeibowitz May 2016 #6
You don't seem to get what "loyalty oath" means in this context. merrily May 2016 #28
Is that a real question? NWCorona May 2016 #7
Yes KingFlorez May 2016 #8
First. I will never vote for Trump and will do everything in my power to stop him NWCorona May 2016 #15
Post removed Post removed May 2016 #9
Thank you KingFlorez May 2016 #10
I would rather vote for Jill Stein than Hillary. At least Jill Stein opposes the FTAS. Baobab May 2016 #20
At least the Green Party advocates progressive ideas. EndElectoral May 2016 #54
Is dishonest for you to say LoverOfLiberty May 2016 #74
The question is out of order, and inappropriate, especially on DU. merrily May 2016 #30
Yes, because nobody here ever talks about who they vote for. CorkySt.Clair May 2016 #66
Talking about it on your own initiative is one thing. Asking others how they will vote is merrily May 2016 #68
This message was self-deleted by its author artislife May 2016 #45
ZING!! n/t JimDandy May 2016 #64
Yes it is. And anyone who is being intimidated or punished for stating how they want to vote JimDandy May 2016 #60
If Clinton is the Democratic candidate I will just write in Bernie. I will support good people. Baobab May 2016 #14
You want to check the laws in your state before writing in anyone. In some states, merrily May 2016 #31
Those Republicans will just throw it away scscholar May 2016 #56
Which Republicans? Please don't post things that just make you seem silly. merrily May 2016 #58
Neither. Tierra_y_Libertad May 2016 #26
8% say the issue makes them more likely to vote for the former first lady. ucrdem May 2016 #5
That's political suicide AgingAmerican May 2016 #16
What does Issa have to do with this? Matt_in_STL May 2016 #18
He was the bag man back in 2012: ucrdem May 2016 #23
He's not running the investigation, the FBI is. Matt_in_STL May 2016 #24
"That's loyalty! " No, that is paid posters voting in online polls J_J_ May 2016 #19
If only she'd knock over a bank or something. Orsino May 2016 #32
Issa. Marr May 2016 #55
Thanks! Interesting and a little unsettling. floppyboo May 2016 #11
Not even a little Joob May 2016 #36
It's like watching a fatal car crash in slo-mo. floppyboo May 2016 #49
Maybe I'm old-fashioned, but I can't imagine any major political party running an unindicted felon leveymg May 2016 #62
Republicans and her supporters want her to run Robbins May 2016 #12
Of course they do. Orsino May 2016 #38
So 71% of Dems are so asinine they won't budge no matter what, and 31% of Repugs are laughing at us. reformist2 May 2016 #80
huh... elana i am May 2016 #13
The investment that people have in Hillary Clinton can’t be overlooked. NWCorona May 2016 #17
They made the wrong investment. Baobab May 2016 #34
And there is the number that proves the party has left me. 71% of Dems are okay with indictment. Matt_in_STL May 2016 #21
The majority of democrats Abouttime May 2016 #35
This isn't a Republican witch hunt, this is an FBI investigation. Matt_in_STL May 2016 #39
The head of the FBI was appointed by GW Bush philosslayer May 2016 #71
Oh yes, it's all a conspiracy against Hillary. Matt_in_STL May 2016 #72
No, he was appointed by Obama in 2013. DesMoinesDem May 2016 #92
well said. nt grasswire May 2016 #51
Sixty-five percent (65%) consider it likely that Clinton broke the law. Tierra_y_Libertad May 2016 #22
This is the upside of identity politics. lumberjack_jeff May 2016 #25
If indicted, she should end her White House bid bigwillq May 2016 #27
A land line pole. Might as well invent the numbers. The_Casual_Observer May 2016 #29
We know she broke the law, the OIG said it. The only question left is whether her and/or her inner morningfog May 2016 #33
The OIG says she broke State Department regulations, not COLGATE4 May 2016 #41
Administrative laws are still federal law. She broke them. morningfog May 2016 #43
We'll have to see if anyone pursues the destruction of records meme. COLGATE4 May 2016 #46
By anyone, of course you mean "FBI" and by meme, of course you mean "evidence." morningfog May 2016 #50
When we see some facts we can talk about this more COLGATE4 May 2016 #75
We have facts. At least four federal public records were not produced by her morningfog May 2016 #81
And? COLGATE4 May 2016 #83
18 U.S. Code § 1519 morningfog May 2016 #85
Well, aside from having to prove that there was destruction with an "intent to impede, obstruct COLGATE4 May 2016 #86
The "knowingly" element goes to the destruction, which is already a proven fact. morningfog May 2016 #89
I assume you have proof that they weren't destroyed by accident? COLGATE4 May 2016 #90
No, the conclusion dfrom the OIG says this: floppyboo May 2016 #69
Rules are not laws. Calling them legal requirements begs the issue. COLGATE4 May 2016 #73
That's what I guessed. But can 'rules' have 'legal requirements'? Or just recommendations? floppyboo May 2016 #76
They are requirements without any mechanism for enforcing them. I.e. closer to COLGATE4 May 2016 #77
I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying the OIG is begging the issue? That she broke the law? floppyboo May 2016 #78
The OIG did not say she broke the law. COLGATE4 May 2016 #79
Well that's bull shit! bkkyosemite May 2016 #37
Sounds good to me. kstewart33 May 2016 #40
It proves there really is a cult of personality with Hillary Arazi May 2016 #42
Rasmussen? progressoid May 2016 #44
That is disgusting. highprincipleswork May 2016 #47
They must all be Trump supporters. n/t Binkie The Clown May 2016 #48
Of course Republicans want her to run if she's indicted. Got to be kidding me. EndElectoral May 2016 #52
And 70% of Dems B2G May 2016 #57
Yup. Surprised it's only 30%. (n/t) thesquanderer May 2016 #67
Not surprised nadinbrzezinski May 2016 #53
I weep for our country n/t JesterCS May 2016 #59
I bet the Republicans sure said so. Jester Messiah May 2016 #61
This has to be the "Onion." Vinca May 2016 #63
Well, it's official. lagomorph777 May 2016 #65
I don't think an online pollwould be scientific trudyco May 2016 #70
I'll take it a step further. If the 71% prevail, I will drop them like a bad habit. reformist2 May 2016 #84
Great, we have a culture of corruption now. Waiting For Everyman May 2016 #82
Exactly, people accept it, especially if it someone they support. Very sad. BillZBubb May 2016 #88
71% say someone under indictment for a felony should keep running? That is disgusting. BillZBubb May 2016 #87
very stupid idea. Cobalt Violet May 2016 #91

KingFlorez

(12,689 posts)
2. Who are you going to vote for when Sanders is not the nominee?
Tue May 31, 2016, 11:10 AM
May 2016

When Clinton isn't indicted, who will you vote for between her and Trump?

JonLeibowitz

(6,282 posts)
3. This is a news post, and you follow up with a loyalty pledge? How transparent.
Tue May 31, 2016, 11:11 AM
May 2016

I also hear there are more than two people & parties on the ballot.

merrily

(45,251 posts)
28. You don't seem to get what "loyalty oath" means in this context.
Tue May 31, 2016, 11:38 AM
May 2016

Also, how people vote is their own business.

NWCorona

(8,541 posts)
15. First. I will never vote for Trump and will do everything in my power to stop him
Tue May 31, 2016, 11:22 AM
May 2016

The issue of voting for Clinton is much more complicated. I say that from the comfort of Washington State that will never go for a Republican. If the polls said something different I would have a dilemma.


Response to KingFlorez (Reply #2)

Baobab

(4,667 posts)
20. I would rather vote for Jill Stein than Hillary. At least Jill Stein opposes the FTAS.
Tue May 31, 2016, 11:26 AM
May 2016

Hillary should start her own party. Its dishonest for her to try to portray herself as a progressive when she is not.

merrily

(45,251 posts)
68. Talking about it on your own initiative is one thing. Asking others how they will vote is
Tue May 31, 2016, 02:20 PM
May 2016

another thing entirely, especially since some answers can get people banned from DU.


If you think my saying a question is inappropriate is ugly, I can conclude only that you have no idea how an ugly DU post actually reads. Either that, or your claim is totally phony. One or the other.

Response to KingFlorez (Reply #10)

JimDandy

(7,318 posts)
60. Yes it is. And anyone who is being intimidated or punished for stating how they want to vote
Tue May 31, 2016, 01:04 PM
May 2016

or did vote, or are threatened with, or actually removed from DU for how they want to vote, or how they actually did vote, should retain an attorney. I believe the federal voting act specifically prohibits such actions.

Baobab

(4,667 posts)
14. If Clinton is the Democratic candidate I will just write in Bernie. I will support good people.
Tue May 31, 2016, 11:21 AM
May 2016

I wont vote for Trump and I will support the Democrats that I can, (many/most of whom are not part of this scheme) with the exception of the ones that I know are in bed with the current incumbents.

In terms of supporting candidates, yes if I see Bernie supporting a candidate I am much more likely to vote for them than the others.

The country desperately needs real change. I suspect that I am not the only Democrat who is very close to leaving the party if things don't really change really fast.

I like the proposal of putting Elizabeth Warren in charge of the party. If the "Third Way" people want their own party let them start one and join it.

They do not speak for most of us. They hijacked it by deception.

merrily

(45,251 posts)
31. You want to check the laws in your state before writing in anyone. In some states,
Tue May 31, 2016, 11:41 AM
May 2016

a write in at the top of the ticket invalidates the entire ballot, or so I've been told.

ucrdem

(15,512 posts)
5. 8% say the issue makes them more likely to vote for the former first lady.
Tue May 31, 2016, 11:13 AM
May 2016

That's loyalty! Incidentally I agree completely with the title. If Obama can't stop an indictment that will be a shame but it won't mean squat coming from team Issa. Some of us know a hawk from a handsaw.

 

Matt_in_STL

(1,446 posts)
24. He's not running the investigation, the FBI is.
Tue May 31, 2016, 11:29 AM
May 2016

As much as I hate Issa and know he is a criminal in his own right, his pointing out a glaring gap in security doesn't attribute the results of the investigation to him at all. This is all the FBI and the investigation, and results, will lie squarely with them.

floppyboo

(2,461 posts)
49. It's like watching a fatal car crash in slo-mo.
Tue May 31, 2016, 12:20 PM
May 2016

Or one of those bad nightmares where its as if you are running from disaster through clay mud. But you just can't wake up. Fuck!

leveymg

(36,418 posts)
62. Maybe I'm old-fashioned, but I can't imagine any major political party running an unindicted felon
Tue May 31, 2016, 01:38 PM
May 2016

Not since this guy in 1972:

Robbins

(5,066 posts)
12. Republicans and her supporters want her to run
Tue May 31, 2016, 11:20 AM
May 2016

the GOP is jumping for joy they can run against Her.her supporters don't care.they are happy as long as she is nominee on her doing anything including throwing all progressives under the bus.

Orsino

(37,428 posts)
38. Of course they do.
Tue May 31, 2016, 11:46 AM
May 2016

A different Democratic nominee would mean the Right would have to change up some of their talking points. Selling Clinton outrage is the thing they already know how to do, whether or not it's effective.

reformist2

(9,841 posts)
80. So 71% of Dems are so asinine they won't budge no matter what, and 31% of Repugs are laughing at us.
Tue May 31, 2016, 03:25 PM
May 2016

We're in a huge mess.

NWCorona

(8,541 posts)
17. The investment that people have in Hillary Clinton can’t be overlooked.
Tue May 31, 2016, 11:24 AM
May 2016

If this was a Republican the numbers would be much higher.

Baobab

(4,667 posts)
34. They made the wrong investment.
Tue May 31, 2016, 11:44 AM
May 2016

Time for them to make another one. I suggest Bernie.

She can't win in this situation. She's the wrong choice. She's a dishonest phony.

 

Matt_in_STL

(1,446 posts)
21. And there is the number that proves the party has left me. 71% of Dems are okay with indictment.
Tue May 31, 2016, 11:26 AM
May 2016

When an overwhelming majority of the party is okay with a candidate under indictment, that says everything that needs to be said about blinding loyalty to a person and not the cause.

 

Abouttime

(675 posts)
35. The majority of democrats
Tue May 31, 2016, 11:45 AM
May 2016

have been seeing the repukes hound the Clintons since 1992, they see this as just the latest witch hunt. The majority of Americans view Hillary in a sympathetic light, she will win this November and become our Nations first female President. 50 years from now nobody will be talking about the emails but the history books will show that the first black president was succeeded by the first female president and both were Democrats. History will also show that trump will be the end of the repuke party, thanks to the Clintons.

 

Matt_in_STL

(1,446 posts)
39. This isn't a Republican witch hunt, this is an FBI investigation.
Tue May 31, 2016, 11:47 AM
May 2016

And while I doubt an indictment comes of it (whether deserved or not), the fact that 71% of the party is okay with a Federal indictment brought down by the Obama DOJ is rather disturbing and says a lot about where the party has gone. You can't claim to be the party of integrity when you are willing to elect someone who has to work their inauguration around their court dates.

 

Matt_in_STL

(1,446 posts)
72. Oh yes, it's all a conspiracy against Hillary.
Tue May 31, 2016, 03:16 PM
May 2016

Obama reappointed Comey at the FBI, so that one falls on him now. The State IG was also a Dem appointee, so how can we spin that one?

 

Tierra_y_Libertad

(50,414 posts)
22. Sixty-five percent (65%) consider it likely that Clinton broke the law.
Tue May 31, 2016, 11:27 AM
May 2016

The perception of wrongdoing is often as damaging as the reality of wrongdoing.

Saying that it will have no impact on the election is whistling Dixie while having your head buried in the sand.

 

lumberjack_jeff

(33,224 posts)
25. This is the upside of identity politics.
Tue May 31, 2016, 11:29 AM
May 2016

The fundamental reason for voting for you, your identity, doesn't change even if you're a criminal.

 

bigwillq

(72,790 posts)
27. If indicted, she should end her White House bid
Tue May 31, 2016, 11:35 AM
May 2016

For the sake of the party. It would be a huge distraction.

 

morningfog

(18,115 posts)
33. We know she broke the law, the OIG said it. The only question left is whether her and/or her inner
Tue May 31, 2016, 11:44 AM
May 2016

circle broke a criminal law.

COLGATE4

(14,732 posts)
41. The OIG says she broke State Department regulations, not
Tue May 31, 2016, 11:57 AM
May 2016

any law. For breaking regs there are no penalties.

 

morningfog

(18,115 posts)
43. Administrative laws are still federal law. She broke them.
Tue May 31, 2016, 11:58 AM
May 2016

No, there is no penalty, they are not violations of criminal laws. I made that clear.

The OIG provided evidence of a possible criminal violation: destruction of federal records, a felony.

 

morningfog

(18,115 posts)
50. By anyone, of course you mean "FBI" and by meme, of course you mean "evidence."
Tue May 31, 2016, 12:28 PM
May 2016

Four emails were obtained by the OIG which were not in HIllary's production to State. All those not produced, she claims to have destroyed. That is what you call a little problem.

COLGATE4

(14,732 posts)
75. When we see some facts we can talk about this more
Tue May 31, 2016, 03:17 PM
May 2016

intelligently. Until then it's rank speculation.

 

morningfog

(18,115 posts)
81. We have facts. At least four federal public records were not produced by her
Tue May 31, 2016, 03:26 PM
May 2016

and she stated that she destroyed those not produced.

 

morningfog

(18,115 posts)
85. 18 U.S. Code § 1519
Tue May 31, 2016, 03:29 PM
May 2016
18 U.S. Code § 1519 - Destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in Federal investigations and bankruptcy-

Whoever knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States or any case filed under title 11, or in relation to or contemplation of any such matter or case, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

COLGATE4

(14,732 posts)
86. Well, aside from having to prove that there was destruction with an "intent to impede, obstruct
Tue May 31, 2016, 03:33 PM
May 2016

or influence the investigation..." you also have to prove the "knowingly" part of it. Much easier said than done.

 

morningfog

(18,115 posts)
89. The "knowingly" element goes to the destruction, which is already a proven fact.
Tue May 31, 2016, 03:53 PM
May 2016

Hillary, or someone on her staff, knowingly and intentionally destroyed the records.

The question unanswered publicly (but probably answered by the FBI) is whether there was an intent to impede, obstruct of influence.

floppyboo

(2,461 posts)
69. No, the conclusion dfrom the OIG says this:
Tue May 31, 2016, 02:49 PM
May 2016

"... the office of the Secretary ... been slow ... to manage effectively the legal requirements..."

When are legal requirements not legal requirements? Why did they use this language? It does not say rules. I would think for a document with such far reaching implications and the time it took them to spit it all out that every word is chosen carefully.

COLGATE4

(14,732 posts)
73. Rules are not laws. Calling them legal requirements begs the issue.
Tue May 31, 2016, 03:16 PM
May 2016

There are zero penalties for not following the rules. Not so with the laws.

COLGATE4

(14,732 posts)
77. They are requirements without any mechanism for enforcing them. I.e. closer to
Tue May 31, 2016, 03:20 PM
May 2016

suggestions than laws.

Arazi

(6,829 posts)
42. It proves there really is a cult of personality with Hillary
Tue May 31, 2016, 11:58 AM
May 2016

They don't care about policies or integrity, they're solely about voting for her regardless of criminality.

Its proven here on a regular basis as Hillary supporters never want to discuss her positions, or Libya, or cluster bombs.

Explains a lot

 

nadinbrzezinski

(154,021 posts)
53. Not surprised
Tue May 31, 2016, 12:33 PM
May 2016

And I expect this regardless of letter or name. People get way too invested in these people they do not know, and who could care less about them.

Vinca

(50,168 posts)
63. This has to be the "Onion."
Tue May 31, 2016, 01:40 PM
May 2016

If she's indicted and doesn't drop out we should rename the party. I suggest the "Titanic Party."

trudyco

(1,258 posts)
70. I don't think an online pollwould be scientific
Tue May 31, 2016, 03:03 PM
May 2016

This poll doesn't sound valid at all if it includes an online poll. That can be easily manipulated. I do think a lot of people leaning towards Hillary don't really understand what all she's done or her covering up or possible RICO with the Clinton Foundation. They just think this is another Right Wing witch hunt.

But I seriously doubt that many Democrats would chose to ignore justice.

BillZBubb

(10,650 posts)
87. 71% say someone under indictment for a felony should keep running? That is disgusting.
Tue May 31, 2016, 03:41 PM
May 2016

The Democratic party truly has left me it seems. I would expect something like that from republicans, but never Democrats. The Third Way has won.

If the situation were reversed and it was the republican front runner under indictment, how many Democrats would feel the same?

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Poll: 50% Say Clinton Sho...