New Fox poll: Trump No. 1, trouble for Hillary?

Donald Trump comes in first in a just-released Fox News poll, with Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker a close second.

But the poll’s real story may be a sign of trouble for Hillary Clinton.

Clinton easily leads all Democratic contenders for the nomination, 59 percent compared to Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders 19 percent. But 70 percent of voters overall said a candidate who is sometimes less than honest is a “deal breaker” for them; plus, 58 percent said Clinton’s natural instincts lean more toward “hiding the truth” and “telling the truth” (33 percent).

Democratic voters say her natural instincts lean toward “telling the truth” at 61 percent, but even among those voters, 29 say Clinton is more prone to “hiding the truth.”

You can download the entire poll here.

Here’s a look at how GOP candidates fared:

  • Donald Trump — 18 percent
  • Scott Walker — 15 percent
  • Jeb Bush — 14 percent

None of the other candidates reached double digits.

Here’s the exact question that was asked about Hillary Clinton in the poll. Tell us what you think.


  1. saltycracker says:

    Its politics as usual, Donald is entertainment and the money reflects betting. The public is desperate for a real candidate to break out.

  2. xdog says:

    I’m curious what the numbers would be on the lie/truth question for other candidates. Maybe the next Fox poll will cover that. (Yeah, right.)

    As to the rest, it’s clear Trump is sucking all the air out of the room. Looking at Q10, his numbers continue to climb while !, Walker, Paul, and Rubio hold steady and Carson, Cruz, and Huckabee watch their support plummet. The also-rans continue to pretend they are candidates.

    This past week we’ve seen two different reactions to Trump from candidates. Cruz continues to speak well of him and wants a sit-down for unspecified reasons. Trump didn’t seem to know much about the reasons either, which isn’t surprising. Meanwhile Perry and Trump have squared off on who better understands border security. Charges of Trumpism and needing an IQ test fly. The world yawns.

    • Max Power says:

      Exactly it’s the rare politician whose instincts are to tell the truth as opposed to say what they think people want to hear.

    • Dr. Monica Henson says:

      Perhaps Cruz is gunning for a VP seat on the imaginary GOP ticket he envisions, as he recognizes that Trump is more appealing to the worst of the base than he is himself?

      • Ed says:

        Well considering the field isn’t set and Martin O’Malley is going to be a strong candidate… I mean we heard it in 2008, if not HRC then who? Then she finished behind John Edwards in Iowa. We heard in 04 she would scare away Dems and that never happened. She’s duplicitous and has appeal as a sort-of celebrity. But that’s not enough to win.

        • David C says:

          In 2008 you had Edwards, who had won 32% of the vote in Iowa in 2004 and pretty much camped out in the state for the next four years. You had another Senator running from a neighboring state–one who raised $100 million before a vote was even cast. And, in Iowa, you had a state that had never really had a Clinton campaign as a primary candidate before–in 1992, everyone skipped Iowa because Sen. Harkin (D-Iowa) was running.

          In 2016, you have none of those things: No ‘next time’ candidate who’s been bedding out among the corn people for nearly 6 years. No local Midwesterner running. Nobody else is really raising the money to challenge her. Even in articles where political media, desperate for some competition, tout a “Bernie surge” Clinton is still ahead by 40 points. This is heading to the biggest primary blowout since Gore stomped Bradley by double digits in all 50 states. And for the same reason: She’s the establishment heir apparent to a President well liked throughout the party.

    • MattMD says:

      I want to believe!

      Seriously, I have been thinking along the same lines for the past few weeks.

  3. northside101 says:

    Larry Sabato’s “Center for Politics” website (University of Virginia) has a new piece out today on the Trump candidacy, including potential damage to GOP if he were to run as an independent.

    Of course, both major political parties have experience when it comes to the debilitating effect third party candidacies can have. Here in Georgia in 1992, Ross Perot rolled up nearly 310,000 votes in a state that Bush the first lost to Clinton by fewer than 14,000 votes. Virtually certain that Bush would have carried Georgia that year without Perot on the ballot. Four years later, Perot vote totals in Georgia were cut by more than half, and Dole ended up winning Georgia by 27,000 votes. Also that year (1996), Libertarian Jack Cashin got about 81,000 votes in that year’s Senate race, in which Republican Guy Millner lost to Democrat Max Cleland by 30,000 or so vote. There was no general election runoff in 1996 (after Wyche Fowler lost in one to Paul Coverdell in 1992), so there was no second chance for Millner in a runoff. And in the state below us, in 2000 Gore trailed Bush by barely 500 0votes, in a state where Nader got about 97,000 votes. Also that year, Gore lost New Hampshire to Bush by little over 7,000 votes in a state where Nader took about 22,000 votes. Had Gore won either state, he would have been president.

Comments are closed.