Poll Shows Democratic Support For Impeachment Falling While Republican Support Is Rising

There is a curious twist in the post-Muller hearing polling. Hill-HarrisX found that the support for impeachment fell after the Mueller hearing among Democrats while rising under Republicans and Independents.

The Hill-HarrisX survey found a drop of four points in support among Democratic voters (to 67 percent) for impeachment proceedings against Trump.

However, among Republicans and Independents support for impeachment actually went up. Republican support for impeachment went up 8 points while support among independents jumped 9 points. Republicans still remain at a low level (seventeen percent). However, support among the critical independent voters is now at 35 percent.

It is a strange outcome for hearings that were openly structured by the Democratic leadership to “educate” the public on the charges.

31 thoughts on “Poll Shows Democratic Support For Impeachment Falling While Republican Support Is Rising”

  1. In this age of spam telephone calls how many are like me and don’t answer unknown numbers? Many folks that I know would raise their hand. If that is the case, can the accuracy of polls do anything but decline?

  2. Aaron Maté
    ‏Verified account @aaronjmate

    ICYMI, my latest for @RCInvestigates — after Mueller’s testimony, a look at some of the biggest lingering mysteries surrounding the collusion aspect of the Russia probe.

    Here Are 5 Big Holes in Mueller’s Work

    By Aaron Maté, RealClearInvestigations
    August 1, 2019

    Robert Mueller’s two-year, $25.2 million investigation was supposed to provide the definitive account of Donald Trump, Russia and the 2016 election. Yet even after he issued a 448-page report and testified for five hours before Congress, critical aspects remain unexplained, calling into question the basis for the probe and the decisions of those who conducted it.

    Time and again in his report and his testimony, Mueller refused to address a wide range of fundamental issues, claiming they were beyond his purview. Some of the issues Mueller and his team did not clarify include whether the FBI had a sound predicate for opening a counterintelligence probe of the Trump campaign; whether the FBI knowingly relied on false material; and the links between U.S. government agencies and key figures who fueled the most explosive claims of an illicit Trump-Russia relationship. Mueller claimed that he was prevented from answering critical questions due to ongoing Justice Department reviews, one by Attorney General William Barr and U.S. Attorney John Durham and the other by Inspector General Michael Horowitz. In the meantime, here are some of the biggest mysteries that Mueller’s team left hanging in the air.


    1. Link to Senate Intell Report at article:

      ” The U.S. Senate’s Select Committee on Intelligence released Volume 1 of its report on Russian Active Measures Campaigns and Interference in the 2016 U.S. Election is as dark as it gets. The report summarily states that “the Russian government directed extensive activity, beginning in at least 2014 and carrying into at least 2017, against U.S. election infrastructure at the state and local level.” ….

      What else? “Throughout 2016 and for several years before, Russian intelligence services and government personnel conducted a number of intelligence-related activities targeting the voting process … the Committee found ample evidence to suggest that the Russian government was developing and implementing capabilities to interfere in the 2016 elections, including undermining confidence in U.S. democratic institutions and voting processes.” ……

      As the January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) concluded, and as the Committee report notes, the Russians were ‘prepared to publicly call into question the validity of the results’ and ‘pro-Kremlin bloggers had prepared a Twitter campaign, #DemocracyRIP, on election night in anticipation of Secretary Clinton’s victory.’ This plan highlights an additional reason why nation-wide election cybersecurity standards are so critical. If Russia’s preferred candidate does not prevail in the 2020 election, the Russians may seek to delegitimize the election.” …..

      More? “While not formally part of the U.S. election infrastructure, the devices and accounts of candidates and political parties represent an alarming vulnerability in the country’s overall election system. Russia’s campaign of hacking the emails of prominent political figures and releasing them through Wikileaks, Gucifer 2.0, and DCLeaks was probably its most effective means of influencing the 2016 election. The Committee has received extensive testimony about these operations, the vulnerabilities that allowed them to occur, and the threat those vulnerabilities pose to the integrity of American democracy.’ Yet little has been done to prevent it from happening all over again.”


      1. There’s not one thing specified in that quotation.

        And you want real security, return to paper ballots and tabulating machines which are not networked. You don’t need the federal government to tell you to do that, much less the intelligence agencies in particular.

        1. As noted, the link to the Senate Intell Committee Report – produced under a GOP majority – is in the Forbes article. TIA fails to note that the report confirms Russian disinformation attacks, including plans to try and delegitimize the results if Hillary had won, and providing Wikileaks with the stolen emails.

          TIA is in the uncomfortable position of having to believe that Senate Republicans who have seen the evidence are part of the Deep State conspiracy he so desperately needs to believe.

          1. “Disinformation attacks”? I have news for you. You’re hit with disinformation every day. Most of its coming from journalists.

            1. You’re hit with disinformation every day.

              That is such a great point. The problem for many people is they are so committed to wanting whatever information they receive to be true or false, that they completely skip validating it. It takes work. We have to ask questions. Is it reasonable? Is it logical? Is it verifiable? Is there any evidence? Even if there is evidence, is it tainted? Did the process to gather that evidence follow objective standards?

              Over the last 3 years, we’ve been bombarded with information. How much of it do we want to be true or false? How much of it has evidence proving it true or false? If there is evidence, how was that evidence gathered? What does that evidence prove?

              I asked the following question to Hill and Anon1 and they clearly are doing everything possible to not answer it. Any person actually interested in the truth has to question what the evidence proves. Of course they have to question how that evidence was gathered. But if the evidence exists, what truth can we make of it?

              Given all available evidence regarding foreign interference in our 2016 election, what parties within the United States conspired with foreign entities?

              Why does disinformation work so well? There’s a bias for that.

              1. Oily, I’m not shipping any questions from you. The answer to that one is the Trump campaign and is supported by overwhelming evidence.

                Let me ask you another – you haven’t answered my question about what the presidents foreign policy objective was :

                If the supposed Deep State went to all the trouble you have to believe they did for that conspiracy to be true, including enlisting our intelligence agencies, the FBI and the Trump appointees who head them, and now the Senate Republicans who just issued the first part of their Intelligence Committee report, why would they protect the Trump campaign from public knowledge of it’s being investigated while announcing a re-investigation of Hilarity less than 2 weeks before the election? Of course fairness to both the candidates and voters was the perfect excuse for announcing this revelation.

                Take you time.

            2. Indeed, but the most obvious source is the one with the most to gain from untruths, in this case your cult leader and his allies.

              The kind of illogic and gullibility required to support a fantastical tale like the Deep State, and the number of people and institutions that would have to be in on the conspiracy – now add Senate republicans – is not unheard of – see 9/11 truthers – but the number of idiots who believe it is. Fortunately most Americans don’t.

        2. Like the US border immigration crisis, suddenly computer hacking is a concern but not during Obama’s 8 years of sheer insolence and imperiousness

          It happened during Obama’s reign of terror and he did nothing.

          Hillary delegitimized herself year after year for decades with help from no one but her arrogance including literally giving classified information to China and anyone else on the internet. She was willfully reckless and irresponsible with her illegal server and email / blackberry practices.

          The Left made excuses for Obama and Hillary which is why they should be charged and prosecuted.

          Mr. Comey described, in fairly blistering terms, a set of email practices that left Mrs. Clinton’s systems wide open to Russian and Chinese hackers, and an array of others. She had no full-time cybersecurity professional monitoring her system. She took her BlackBerry everywhere she went, “sending and receiving work-related emails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries.” Her use of “a personal email domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent.”

          …intruders were thoroughly inside that system for years — since at least 2007 — before the State Department shut its system down several times to perform a digital exorcism in late 2014, nearly two years after Mrs. Clinton left office.

          Either out of embarrassment or to protect its sources of intelligence, the Obama administration has never publicly blamed Russia for stealing data from the unclassified systems at the State Department and the White House, just as it has never publicly identified China as the culprit in the theft of security-clearance information on nearly 22 million Americans stored by the Office of Personnel Management.


      2. October 18, 2016 | Obama to Trump: “Stop Whining,” “No Serious Person” Believes U.S. Elections Can Be Rigged Or Stolen

        “There is no serious person out there who would suggest that you could even rig America’s elections, in part because they are so decentralized. There is no evidence that that has happened in the past, or that there are instances that that could happen this time,” the president said to the future president in October 2016.

        “Democracy survives because we recognize that there is something more important than any individual campaign, and that is making sure the integrity and trust in our institutions sustains itself. Becasue Democracy works by consent, not by force,” Obama said.

        “I have never seen in my lifetime or in modern political history, any presidential candidate trying to discredit the elections and the election process before votes have even taken place. It is unprecedented. It happens to be based on no fact. Every expert regardless of political party… who has ever examined these issues in a serious way will tell you that instances of significant voter fraud are not to be found. Keep in mind elections are run by state and local officials.”

        “That is both irresponsible and, by the way, doesn’t really show the kind of leadership and toughness you’d want from a president,” he also said. “You start whining before the game is even over? If whenever things are going badly for you and you lose, you start blaming somebody else. Than you don’t have what it takes to be in this job.”

        “And if he gets the most votes, it would be my expectation of Hillary Clinton to offer a gracious concession speech and pledge to work with him in order to ensure that the American people benefit from an effective government. And it would be my job to welcome Mr. Trump, regardless of what he has said about me, or my differences with him, and escort him over to the Capitol at which there would be a peaceful transfer of power. That is what Americans do. That is why America is already great. One way to make it less great, is if you start betraying those basic American traditions that have been bipartisan and have helped to hold together this democracy now for well over two centuries.”

        “So I’d advise Mr. Trump to stop whining, and go make his case to get votes,” the president said strongly.


  3. Why would any RepubliCon approve of an impeachment of Trump?
    Only a dumb Dem is in support. The impeachment trial will lose– because there is no evidence of high crimes or misdemeanors.
    We want Pence! Build a Fence. Do not Meance.

  4. CNN’s Don Lemon does his best to get a black pastor to attack Trump and when the pastor doesn’t, Lemon smears the black pastor who refuses to take his bait. To pose Lemon’s question back to him: “Why should anyone take YOU seriously?”

  5. “When you strike at a king, you must kill him.”

    – Ralph Waldo Emerson

    Professor Turley is being disingenuous. The good professor absolutely sees the proven criminal machinations of the co-conspirators in the Obama Coup D’etat in America. He firmly grasps that impeachment and related efforts are “red herrings” attempting to distract from the profoundly treasonous, capital acts of liberal democrats and American socialists. The Russia “collusion” hoax was a strike at the King. It failed. Now the perpetrators shall have their turn on the docket and the damning evidence transcends preponderance; it is overwhelming and irrefutable.

    In the U.K. until 1870, the penalty for challenging the authority of the King was to Draw and Quarter. The liberal, socialist, progressive, democrats have challenged the authority of the King – the duly elected President of the United States.

  6. Impeach Trump, and when that fails, what happens next? He will be the biggest nightmare the liberal left could have ever imagined.

  7. This topic is a time wasting dumb article way beneath the level of of this site.

  8. What is “an old GOPer”? Is it pronounced as if there was an h after the P. Goffer? Grand Old Party. How old would Abe Lincoln be if he was alive now? RepubliCons should not be in favor of impeaching Trump. Maybe they want to have the impeachment trial but win the trial. Call it go-fur trial and error.

  9. If we impeach Trump then we get Pence. He is in favor of a Fence and not a Wall.
    A fence is good. So is a wall. Vote for Trump and Pence and keep America great. At any rate.

    1. Yes, vote for Pence and give Trump a Pardon.
      Remember Pres. Ford giving Nixon a Pardon? Probably not.

  10. It’s a reasonable guess that GOPers who support impeaching Trump are lower- income folks.

    1. The GOP respondents who favor impeachment aren’t necessarily lower-income folks. They could be tenured professors, or Bill Kristol and his pals, of fans of Morning Joe Scarborough. Or they could be New England Republicans, the region which gave us Lowell Weicker and aisle-crossers like him.

      1. The terms Republican and Democrat or Liberal or conservative have so many definitions they are quite useless. All i can think of that might be worth something would be Constitutionalists versus Socialists and even those would be quickly twisted. Objectivists versus Subjectivist maybe but then the same problems as most of them are used to ‘twisting and maiming the dictionary thanks to the PC movement

  11. 1. Pollsters relied on random digit dialing for decades, a method which no longer produces valid sampling frames, so they’ve resorted to a number of kludges.

    2. It’s a reasonable guess that you get more ‘ironic’ responses these days than you once did.

    I really don’t understand why you take an interest in one-off polls.

    1. /even when they are done properly the results are twisted so it’s hardm not to say why bother

Comments are closed.