Skip to main content

Digging deeper into Hillary Clinton's level of trustworthiness

One reason I'm fascinated by politics is because I'm fascinated by people, numbers, geography, and trends. I find it interesting to read about numerous demographics from all around the country, to discover how they're voting, if there are any trends to the voting, what those trends are and how long they've been present (if at all), etc. With this most recent election cycle, I've been most intrigued by: The Trump phenomenon, the potential for greater Republican enthusiasm in the presidential election, the potential for greater Democratic enthusiasm in Congressional elections, establishment vs. non-establishment candidates, and voter priorities. Something else that's caught my interest is Hillary Clinton's image according to the general public, when it comes to her level of trustworthiness in particular.

Perhaps it's largely due to the Benghazi attacks and the email "scandal," but in any case, the general public does not see Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton as trustworthy. In a recently released Washington Post/ABC poll, it showed that just 37% of the electorate see Secretary Clinton as trustworthy, in comparison to 57% who feel otherwise. In response to these results, my big question is why do polls paint this issue in such a black-and-white manner?

Instead of just asking a single question on whether or not a politician is trustworthy, I'd like polls to ask a series of questions on the matter, such as:

- Is he/she trustworthy?

- In your opinion, what makes him/her trustworthy/untrustworthy? (provide potential answers)

- Whether or not you see him/her as honest, if he/she became president, do you trust he/she would get things done while in office?

- Of what's greater importance, feeling like a candidate is honest or feeling like a candidate can get things done?

A majority of the electorate may not believe Hillary Clinton to be an honest person, yet isn't this opinion held for most politicians? When people are asked, "In general, are politicians honest?" wouldn't a large majority of them likely laugh and say no while doing so? Isn't the more important question not "Do you trust a candidate's every word?" but "Do you trust a candidate will get things done while in office?"?

In the same poll, people were asked whether or not candidates had the "right experience to be president" and here were the results:

- Hillary Clinton: 66% (90% of Democrats, 64% of Independents, and even 40% of Republicans)

- Ted Cruz: 43%

- Marco Rubio: 35%

- Donald Trump: 26%

So, like most voters, do I believe Hillary Clinton is always going to be fully honest with the American people? No, but feel this way about any and every politician, and have a good feeling I'm not alone on that. The more important question is, if elected president, do I believe Hillary Clinton is going to get things done? The answer to that is a resounding yes.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/03/08/hillary-clintons-honest-and-trustworthy-numbers-are-lower-than-ever-it-might-not-matter/

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"