Poll: 60% don't trust Hillary, 62% say she'll 'do anything' to be president

[4248]

Voter trust in Hillary Clinton continues to drop as she struggles with a potential criminal investigation into improperly handling "top secret" information while secretary of state, according to a new poll.

The poll found that 60 percent do not trust Clinton (up from 56 percent last month), and that 56 percent do not believe Clinton shares their values.

What's more, the poll found that a growing number of people, now 62 percent, believe that the Democrat will "say or do anything" to win the presidency.

The Vox Populi Poll confirmed a growing trend that votes are suspicious of Clinton and are becoming less and less trusting of the former first lady and New York senator.

The poll will be easy for Clinton supporters to hit, being done for the anti-Clinton group American Crossroads a Super PAC co-founded by Karl Rove. But the numbers are similar to what other polls have found.

Worse, the new poll found that Clinton would lose to a Republican in six key states: Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nevada, Ohio, and Virginia.

Read poll http://www.americancrossroads.org/wp...st-Topline.pdf

Just offering another view point.

Why Voters Don't Trust Hillary Clinton another view point = http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...on_127567.html
---------------------------------
In July, Clinton told CNN's Brianna Keilar: "Everything I did was permitted. There was no law. There was no regulation. There was nothing that did not give me the full authority to decide how I was going to communicate."

Washington Post fact checker Glenn Kessler gave that statement three Pinocchios for "significant factual error and/or obvious contradictions."

[nogods]

The only think i can think of that wound be worse that Hillary's high mistrust rating would be Donald Trump's even higher mistrust rating.

6 months ago I would have thought only Satan could have gotten a lower trust rating than Hillary, but then Donald came along...

In an ABC/News Washington Post poll released Wednesday, barely a third of voters (37 percent) see Clinton as honest and trustworthy, compared to an anemic 27 percent for Trump.

Voters don't trust Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump

[4248]

So in essence you're saying Hillary Clinton is in the same league as Satan - but she's your candidate so that makes her more acceptable !

[HipKat]

Hillary Clinton IS Satan!

[Save Us]

Hillary Clinton IS Satan!

I wouldn't insult Satan like that.

[HipKat]

I wouldn't insult Satan like that.

I had to lol at that one!

[Mr. Lackawanna]

As a registered Democrat, I think she is lower that Satan.
In fact I would vote for Satan before I would vote for her,

[Save Us]

As a registered Democrat, I think she is lower that Satan.
In fact I would vote for Satan before I would vote for her,

Ah what the hell, why vote for the lesser of two evils?

[buffy]

but then Donald came along...

Trump can and will turn "unfavorability" around by addressing issues that matter...


Why a Stanford grad joined the Trump revolt: Column
Charlotte Allen 7:10 a.m. EDT March 28, 2016


I went to Stanford, and I voted for Donald Trump. So did my husband. He went to Yale.

And so we spent more than three hours standing in line to vote in Washington, D.C.’s Republican presidential caucus on March 12. We suspected that this would be time spent quixotically, as Washington is the bullseye of the anti-Trump GOP political and intellectual establishment. Sure enough, establishment favorite Florida Sen. Marco Rubio won the majority of the delegates, and Trump finished a poor third. Still, we wanted to be part of the nationwide rebellion against the establishment that has resulted in Trump’s becoming the clear GOP front-runner practically everywhere else in America. And we weren’t alone. Trump is actually enjoying surprisingly strong support among highly educated people like us — and for good reason.

The common wisdom is that the majority of Trump’s supporters are barely literate knuckle-draggers. They’re “low-information,” in the words of Trump’s leading GOP rival nationwide, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz. And it’s true that the largest education-level cohort among the Republicans who have consistently given Trump a double-digit lead in the primaries consists of people with high-school educations or less.

But in Massachusetts, home of Harvard and MIT and ranked as the No. 1 state in the union for residents possessing at least a bachelor’s degree, a CNN exit poll for the March 1 Republican primary showed Trump winning over 46% of voters with college degrees and even edging out Ohio “moderate” Gov. John Kasich (29% to 28%) among voters with postgraduate sheepskins. Exit polls in other states show similar results

For nearly 25 years — since President George H.W. Bush lost his bid for a second term in 1992 — the Republican Party has been unable to field a presidential candidate who could excite enough of its own party members to the ballot box so as to secure a majority of the popular vote. (In the lone exception, George W. Bush squeaked by with 50.7% in 2004 in a patriotic surge following 9/11.) The main reason: the GOP establishment’s suicidally inexplicable but intractable commitment to “comprehensive immigration reform” (amnesty for 11 million illegal immigrants and continued mass migration) and so-called free trade.

Voters of both political parties cite the U.S. economy, faltering since 2008, as one of their top concerns. And Republican voters can see perfectly well that it makes no sense to import around 400,000 illegal immigrants annually, the vast majority of them unskilled, into a labor market where, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the real unemployment rate is close to 11% if you count people who have given up looking for work because they can’t find it, or who are working part-time because they need the money but would prefer to work full-time. Furthermore, only the most Pollyanna-ish of economists would argue that unlimited immigration in a weak economy doesn’t depress wages.

Free trade is an elegant concept in the 18th-century pages of Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations. The Portuguese export wine to Britain, and the British export woolen goods to Portugal — a win-win situation, your Econ 101 professor would say. In the real world of the 21st century, “free trade” means 25 years’ worth of treaties and arrangements in which the U.S. hews to the Adam Smith playbook while China, for example, puts its thumb onto the scales via rock-bottom wages, allegedly ignored labor violations, poison-level air and water pollution and a manipulated currency. And “free trade” hasn’t exactly delivered Smith’s promised export benefits to the U.S. We currently run an almost $366 billion trade deficit with China alone and a $484.1 billion trade deficit worldwide.

I’ve been a journalist by profession for more than three decades, and my reporting trips have taken me on many occasions across the vast coast-to-coast Rust Belt left behind as one U.S. company after another has outsourced its manufacturing operations to low-wage havens abroad. I’ve seen the construction industry, once a decently-paying bulwark for skilled working class American men without much educational aptitude, be turned over to non-English-speaking illegal immigrants toiling for labor contractors at under-the-table wages a fraction of what on the record employees make. The Republican establishment’s response to this has been pathetic: a “reformicon” agenda of using the refundable earned-income tax credit to hand out welfare to the displaced American workers.

Trump promises to turn America into a country that does what nations ought to do: Put the interests of its own citizens first. That’s why he’s promised to build a wall along our southern border and to change our tariff practices to comport with export-import reality. He has also managed to grow the Republican Party, apparently generating record primary turnouts and inspiring thousands of onetime Democrats to switch to the GOP. That’s why my husband and I will be casting our ballots for Trump in November should he become the Republican nominee. Some would call that “anger.” I call it “hope.”

Charlotte Allen is a writer in Washington, D.C. Follow her on Twitter: @MeanCharlotte
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinio...lumn/82071844/