Survey reveals 47% of Republicans would still vote for Trump even if connected to Epstein's crimes

ThatRobGuy · Tuesday at 3:37 PM

NxNW said:
Clinton said to release all the files, because he's got nothing to hide.

Correct, so despite the fact that Fox News and other right wing pundits "implicated" him by selective reporting from single sources, that doesn't change your opinion of Bill Clinton nor would that change your voting behaviors.

Bill Clinton's Name On Epstein's List Comes As No Shock Given Their Past Ties - The List

Newly-unsealed documents relating to the crimes of Jeffrey Epstein contain references to former president Bill Clinton. We already knew they had a history.

www.thelist.com

One year after Bill Clinton denied any knowledge of Jeffrey Epstein's wrongdoing, a photo of the former president receiving a massage from an Epstein accuser went public (via The New York Post). The image was taken in 2002, the same year that Epstein and Clinton had publicly praised each other. Clinton was implicated by Chauntae Davies, who allegedly worked as a personal masseuse for Epstein.

That was my point, the way the poll being discussed in this thread was worded to the respondents, they didn't say "convicted of" or even "formally charged with", it merely said "implicated".

There's a big difference between those concepts.

Take this for example:
"If Joe Biden was implicated in sexual misconduct,"
(Which he was, by Tara Reade)
would that change how you voted?"

Guessing the answer for a lot of Democrats would be "No". (Due to the fact that the person making the allegation, the timing, and the potential motives for doing so can be suspect)

Bradskii · Tuesday at 4:16 PM

ThatRobGuy said:
Which definition are you using?

Again, they weren't asked 'Would you believe the authorities if he was implicated'. They were asked on the assumption that he had been implicated - that he was involved in some criminal activity, would they still support him.

That is plain enough.

ThatRobGuy · Tuesday at 5:04 PM

Bradskii said:
Again, they weren't asked 'Would you believe the authorities if he was implicated'. They were asked on the assumption that he had been implicated - that he was involved in some criminal activity, would they still support him.

That is plain enough.

No, it's not plain enough....

"Implicated" casts a wide net from that spans from single-source partisan hackery with a story that that's full of holes, all the way up to credible tangible forensic evidence.

And as I noted before, "Implicated" in a legal sense doesn't mean "proof that someone actually did it".

In the chain of guilt determination, the order goes:

Implication -> Investigation -> Prosecution -> Conviction

Keeping in mind, the very thing people are protesting out there (people getting deported due to being accused of gang activity) are on the basis of "implicated", if that was a good enough evidentiary standard for making major decisions, then there wouldn't be a huge fuss about it.

So no, I wouldn't expect them to change their vote merely by someone else "implicating Trump in the Epstein scandal"...for the same reason I wouldn't have expected any Biden voters in 2020 (myself included) to change their vote merely because Tara Reade implicated him in sexual misconduct.

Fantine · Tuesday at 5:18 PM

NxNW said:
Clinton said to release all the files, because he's got nothing to hide.

This may be the reason:

But while Clinton is a good person with a tragic flaw, Trump seems to be a dangerously tragic flaw in search of one small redeeming quality.

Personally, I hate to see small players get castigated for being small players while the principal offender walks away unscathed. And we have seen a lot of that in the last few years. The little fish--Michael Cohen, Allen Weisselberg--get thrown to the sharks even when their actions were dictated by their employer.

ThatRobGuy · Tuesday at 6:04 PM

Fantine said:
Personally, I hate to see small players get castigated for being small players while the principal offender walks away unscathed. And we have seen a lot of that in the last few years. The little fish--Michael Cohen, Allen Weisselberg--get thrown to the sharks even when their actions were dictated by their employer.

I don't know that we can say anyone who used Epstein's "services" were "small players"

When his circle was a "who's who" of multi-millionaires, billionaires, celebs, and high-profile politicians in 4 different countries, I don't know we can equate it with a "low level dealer getting busted while El Chapo goes free" type of dynamic.

Even your Cohen example...

He owned 200 New York City taxi medallions (for those who know what that signifies -- they went for over a million a piece), in addition to 6 different high-priced rental properties, and a 600k/year salary as an attorney.

Calling him a little fish is being a bit generous to him. He likely would've kept on doing what he was doing playing the role of "fixer for the billionaires" had he not got busted.

It shows how short-sighted some of the public are that they'll see him as being adjacent to "one of the good guys" simply because he'll flip only after there's no longer a financial incentive involved in staying loyal.

Bradskii · Tuesday at 9:36 PM

ThatRobGuy said:
No, it's not plain enough....

He's already suspected by many of being involved in something he doesn't want revealed. And that his name in the files might implicate him in the sense you are pushing has been discussed for quite some time. There'd be no point in asking if people would vote for him on what is already suspected by many. And rejected by some.

The question takes it to the next level. And still people say 'Yeah, sure. It's not like we voted for a priest'.

He's already been convicted of fraud. And found to have effectively raped a woman. And people still support him. Why on earth would you be surprised if they supported him even if he was involved with Epstein?

ThatRobGuy · Wednesday at 6:24 AM

Bradskii said:
He's already been convicted of fraud. And found to have effectively raped a woman. And people still support him. Why on earth would you be surprised if they supported him even if he was involved with Epstein?

Because people draw a clear distinction between crimes like "misappropriation of funds" and questionable civil cases, with that of crimes against children.

That's actually true of most crimes in comparison to child abuse.

There's a reason why even in prison, among hardened criminals, they have to separate those kinds of guys from the general population. Because even armed robbers draw the line at those particular types of crimes.

Bradskii · Wednesday at 5:42 PM

ThatRobGuy said:
Because people draw a clear distinction between crimes like "misappropriation of funds" and questionable civil cases, with that of crimes against children.

He raped someone. That didn't affect his support at all. He is on tape saying that he feels free to grab women by the genitals. No effect at all. He just took on a convicted sex offender to work in childrens' fitness programs and the girl in that case would be about the same age as those that were trafficked by Epstein. See any drop in his support?

Give me a break...

Yttrium · Wednesday at 10:06 PM

Being "connected" to the Epstein case is a ridiculously weak accusation. It amounts to a baseless rumor. I see no reason for MAGA fans to abandon Trump based on this. On the other hand, I get the impression that some of them are miffed at the perceived coverup.

ThatRobGuy · Thursday at 7:00 AM

Bradskii said:
He raped someone. That didn't affect his support at all.

If you're referring to the E Jean Carrol case, that was the questionable civil suit I was referring to.

It's not a case where his die hard base thinks "yeah, he raped someone, but I don't care"

It's a case where his die hard base doesn't believe he actually did that, and that the civil trial (which has a lower bar for evidence) was a sham involving an unreliable accuser, questionable timing, and very limited evidence.

And their skepticism on that isn't completely irrational...

It was right on the cusp of the election, and she decided to release a memoir called "What do we need men for?" where she accuses 21 men, with names and circumstances ranging from

Donald Trump in a public fitting room of a department store during business hours
The CEO of CBS in the lobby of a hotel
A US Passport official who she claims wouldn't give her a passport unless she sat on his lap
A Mafia boss in Chicago
A guy who owned a fur trapping company in Montana
A financial executive in Michigan
-- and a dozen others

Postvieww · Thursday at 7:22 AM

Say it aint so said:
Donald Trump has been talking about running for third term in 2028, which technically isn’t possible, but even so, it sounds like his supporters are beyond loyal, even when it comes to his alleged association with Jeffrey Epstein.

In July 2025, there was a survey of 1,000 Republicans, who were asked whether or not they would still vote for Trump even if it turned out he was in fact involved in the Jeffrey Epstein sex crimes, with an astounding 47% of survey-takers saying yes.

Apparently for about half the Republicans polled, being involved in a pedophile sex ring is not enough for them to end their support of Trump.
Need I remind people the make up of the vast majority of Trump supporters are White evangelicals by about 70-80 percent.
These are the same people who take stark issue with drag queen child book reading hour, but apparently have no problem if the POTUS is involved in a pedophile sex ring. Now, I know right know they have no problem with Trump extending favor to the likes of Ghislaine Maxwell; but wow. Just wow.

There is no evidence Trump was involved in a pedophile ring. If you have credible evidence please post it.

BCP1928 · Thursday at 7:41 AM

Bradskii said:
He raped someone. That didn't affect his support at all. He is on tape saying that he feels free to grab women by the genitals. No effect at all. He just took on a convicted sex offender to work in childrens' fitness programs and the girl in that case would be about the same age as those that were trafficked by Epstein. See any drop in his support?

Give me a break...

There is also the factor that Trump Christian supporters have a rather different idea about underage sex than the rest of us. For example, the age of consent in Tennessee is 13. The Epstein girls were said to be between 14 and 17, no biggie for a conservative Christian.

DaisyDay · Thursday at 8:07 AM

NxNW said:
Clinton said to release all the files, because he's got nothing to hide.

Um, Clinton knows that Trump has far more to hide while being in control of the files - so imo, that's a calculated risk worth the benefit the denial affords him. Fwiw, I don't think either of them is a pedophile. However, Ghislaine Maxwell is a convicted child sex trafficker and abuser - she was recently granted a tremendous favor by Trump, who not only wishes her well, but has seen to it that she be treated far more leniently than the prison system officially allows.

ThatRobGuy said:
Even your Cohen example...

He owned 200 New York City taxi medallions (for those who know what that signifies -- they went for over a million a piece), in addition to 6 different high-priced rental properties, and a 600k/year salary as an attorney.

Calling him a little fish is being a bit generous to him. He likely would've kept on doing what he was doing playing the role of "fixer for the billionaires" had he not got busted.

Taxi medallions were once a far more valuable commodity before the advent first of gypsy cabs and now of Uber and Lyft. That Owning medallions implies being connected to the powers that be in NYC which is not in question. But ultimately, Cohen was a little fish compared to those he swam with. No one is arguing that he was or is a "good guy" but he did take the fall, Mafia style, for his boss, who then discarded him as he had discarded Roy Cohn before him. Of course, he would have continued being the fixer were it up to him, but the person he fixed things for got off with a suspended sentence and a fine while he went to prison. No tears for Cohen, the little willing fish, but the director of the crime, the great white shark of the tale, got off relatively unscathed.

Say it aint so · Thursday at 10:09 AM

Postvieww said:
There is no evidence Trump was involved in a pedophile ring. If you have credible evidence please post it.

The poll question was " if it turned out he was in fact involved in the Jeffrey Epstein sex crimes"

So when Trump looks at a 10 year old girl and what immediately comes to mind looking at that 10 year old girl, is maybe he will be dating her in 10 years. I will give him credit for waiting. But what kind of Father looks at a 10 year old like that?

probinson · Thursday at 10:33 AM

Say it aint so said:
The poll question was " if it turned out he was in fact involved in the Jeffrey Epstein sex crimes"

Actually, the poll question was, "If Donald Trump was officially implicated in Jeffrey Epstein’s sex trafficking activities, would this make you more likely to vote for another party, or would it not affect your vote for Donald Trump?" Not sure why your statement above is in quotes since it doesn't appear anywhere in the poll.

For reference, here is a link to the entire poll.

https://leger360.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/U.S-Politics-Leger-338Canada-Maintenantmedia-FINAL.pdf

Larniavc · Thursday at 10:41 AM

Say it aint so said:
In July 2025, there was a survey of 1,000 Republicans, who were asked whether or not they would still vote for Trump even if it turned out he was in fact involved in the Jeffrey Epstein sex crimes, with an astounding 47% of survey-takers saying yes.

I have to conclude that they either do not think sex crimes against children are actually crimes or they just don’t care.

Say it aint so · Thursday at 10:44 AM

probinson said:
Actually, the poll question was, "If Donald Trump was officially implicated in Jeffrey Epstein’s sex trafficking activities, would this make you more likely to vote for another party, or would it not affect your vote for Donald Trump?" Not sure why your statement above is in quotes since it doesn't appear anywhere in the poll.

For reference, here is a link to the entire poll.

https://leger360.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/U.S-Politics-Leger-338Canada-Maintenantmedia-FINAL.pdf

Great. The quote is from the article itself. And "If Donald Trump was officially implicated in Jeffrey Epstein’s sex" and "if it turned out he was in fact involved in the Jeffrey Epstein sex crimes" Is a distinction without a difference.

Larniavc · Thursday at 10:44 AM

Say it aint so said:
These are the same people who take stark issue with drag queen child book reading hour, but apparently have no problem if the POTUS is involved in a pedophile sex ring.

Also cheerleaders for no abortions but lots of kids in children’s homes.

Turns my stomach.

Larniavc · Thursday at 10:50 AM

BCP1928 said:
For example, the age of consent in Tennessee is 13.

For real? Crikey. That’s pretty grim.

probinson · Thursday at 10:53 AM

Say it aint so said:
Great. The quote is from the article itself. And "If Donald Trump was officially implicated in Jeffrey Epstein’s sex" and "if it turned out he was in fact involved in the Jeffrey Epstein sex crimes" Is a distinction without a difference.

Then the article itself is wrong also.

The pollsters could have avoided this ambiguity by instead asking, If Donald Trump WAS FOUND GUILTY in Jeffrey Epstein’s sex trafficking activities, would this make you more likely to vote for another party, or would it not affect your vote for Donald Trump?

But they didn't. They chose to say "officially implicated", which isn't even a thing. They could have asked "If Donald Trump were formally charged..." As has been pointed out, the language "officially implicated" is dubious wording.

I can confidently say it wouldn't affect my vote, because I've never voted for him in the first place.

Survey reveals 47% of Republicans would still vote for Trump even if connected to Epstein's crimes

Part of the IT crowd

Old age should burn and rave at close of day;

Part of the IT crowd

Dona Quixote

Part of the IT crowd

Old age should burn and rave at close of day;

Part of the IT crowd

Old age should burn and rave at close of day;

Mad Scientist

Part of the IT crowd

Believer

Well-Known Member

I Did Nothing Wrong!! ~~Team Deep State

Well-Known Member

Legend

"Encourage him to keep talking. He's hilarious."

Well-Known Member

"Encourage him to keep talking. He's hilarious."

"Encourage him to keep talking. He's hilarious."

Legend

Similar threads