{"id":40802240223,"date":"2019-05-22T11:00:00","date_gmt":"2019-05-22T15:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.monmouth.edu\/polling-institute\/?post_type=poll&p=40802240223"},"modified":"2019-12-06T11:05:13","modified_gmt":"2019-12-06T16:05:13","slug":"monmouthpoll_us_052219","status":"publish","type":"poll","link":"https:\/\/www.monmouth.edu\/polling-institute\/reports\/monmouthpoll_us_052219\/","title":{"rendered":"McGahn, Mueller Should Testify"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

West\nLong Branch, NJ<\/em> \u2013 Most Americans would like to see special\ncounsel Robert Mueller and former White House counsel Don McGahn appear before\nCongress to testify about the Russia investigation. The latest Monmouth\nUniversity Poll<\/em><\/strong> also finds widespread public support for providing\nCongress an unredacted copy of Mueller\u2019s report, while at the same time showing\na preference for having the legislative branch move on to other issues. Public\nopinion on Russian interference in the 2016 election has not changed following\nthe report\u2019s publication. The poll also finds continued stability for President\nDonald Trump\u2019s job rating, re-election prospects, and public appetite for\nimpeachment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Two-thirds of Americans (67%)\nsay that McGahn should appear before Congress to testify about what he knew as\na key witness in the investigation. This includes 56% who say that McGahn\nshould appear at a public hearing and 10% who say that it should only be in a\nclosed setting. One-fifth (20%) say McGahn should not appear before Congress.\nMost Democrats (90%) and independents (65%) say McGahn should testify before\nCongress, while Republicans are split (41% should and 38% should not). The poll\nwas taken before McGahn refused to appear for a scheduled House Judiciary\nCommittee hearing on Tuesday.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A majority expects that\nCongress could learn something new from McGahn, although just 22% say this is\nvery likely to happen while 30% say it is only somewhat likely. Another 14% say\nit is not too likely and 23% say it is not at all likely that Congress would\nlearn anything from McGahn\u2019s testimony that was not already in the Muller\nreport. Another 12% are unsure. Just over half of the public has heard about\nMcGahn\u2019s participation in the Mueller investigation \u2013 12% have heard a lot and\n45% a little about it \u2013 but more than 4-in-10 (43%) have not heard anything\nabout this.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Nearly 3-in-4 Americans (73%)\nsay that Mueller should appear before Congress to testify about his\ninvestigation. This includes 58% who say that Mueller should appear at a public\nhearing and 14% who say that it should only be in a closed setting. Another 20%\nsay Mueller should not appear before Congress.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

More than two-thirds of the\npublic (69%) says that Congress should get a full version of the Mueller report\nalong with supporting documents. Just 21% say Congress should only have access\nto the redacted version. In a Monmouth poll released the day before the Mueller\nreport was published last month, 60% said Congress should have access to the\nfull report. Republicans are slightly more likely to support (44%) than oppose\n(40%) giving Congress the full report. In April, just 33% of Republicans\nsupported releasing the full report while 55% opposed this. Fully 91% of\nDemocrats and 68% of independents currently say Congress should be able to see\nthe full report.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

While a clear majority of the\npublic supports getting more details about the Mueller report, just over half\n(52%) say that Congress should move on to other issues now that the\ninvestigation has concluded. Just 41% say that Congress should continue to look\ninto concerns related to the inquiry. These results are similar to the public\u2019s\nopinion last month just before the report was released when 54% said it was\ntime to move on and 39% wanted Congress to continue the investigation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThe public wants the air to\nbe cleared, but the poll sends some mixed messages. This investigation has\nbecome so pervasive that it is seen as distracting Congress from the business\nof governing. The irony is that further stonewalling by the Trump\nadministration could actually pay off in short-term political losses for the\nDemocrats as they get bogged down in legal battles over subpoenas,\u201d said\nPatrick Murray, director of the independent Monmouth University Polling\nInstitute.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Trump\u2019s overall job rating\nstands at 40% approve and 52% disapprove, which is similar to his 40% to 54%\nrating in April. Over the past 12 months, the president\u2019s approval rating has\nranged between 40% and 44% while his disapproval rating has ranged between 46%\nand 54%. The president\u2019s job rating with different partisan groups currently\nstands at 86% approve and 11% disapprove among Republicans, 37% to 50% among\nindependents, and 6% to 91% among Democrats.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Fewer than 4-in-10 registered\nvoters (37%) say that Trump should be reelected in 2020. A majority of 60% say\nit is time to have someone new in the Oval Office. These results have been\nfairly consistent since November.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The poll finds that 39% of\nAmericans feel that Trump should be impeached and compelled to leave the\npresidency while 56% disagree with this course of action. Support for the\npresident\u2019s removal via impeachment has ranged between 36% and 42% since July\n2017. Opposition to impeachment has ranged between 53% and 59% during the same\ntime.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cOnce again, the main Trump\nmetrics are basically impervious to current events. A majority want someone\nelse in the Oval Office, but are willing to wait until the next election,\u201d said\nMurray.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The poll also finds stability\nin the public\u2019s assessment of Russian interference in the last U.S.\npresidential election. Even though the Mueller report\u2019s conclusion about this\nwas unambiguous, just under half (44%) of the public says that Russia\ndefinitely tried to interfere in the 2016 election. This compares to between\n36% and 43% who said the same in prior polls. Another 29% say that Russian\ninterference probably happened, 12% say it probably did not happen and 11% say\nthat it definitely did not happen. Just under half (49%) say Russian\ninterference caused a lot of damage to American democracy. Prior poll results\nranged between 44% and 47% who said this interference caused a lot of damage.\nAnother 19% say this caused a little damage and 28% say it caused no damage. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Over half of the public feels\nthat Russia also tried to interfere in last year\u2019s midterm elections (21%\ndefinitely and 36% probably). This is slightly lower than the number who\nexpected this to happen in a March 2018 poll (26% definitely and 38% probably).\nStill, 60% of the public says that the U.S. is not doing enough to stop Russian\ninterference in the American electoral system. Just 28% say that it is doing\nenough. These findings are in line with past poll results.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Monmouth University Poll<\/em> also finds that 20% of Americans approve\nof the job Congress is doing and 71% disapprove. A little over one-quarter\n(29%) say the country is headed in the right direction while 63% say things\nhave gotten off on the wrong track. These results are similar to Monmouth poll\nfindings from last month.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Monmouth University Poll<\/em> was conducted by\ntelephone from May 16 to 20, 2019 with 802 adults in the United States. \nThe question results in this release have a margin of error of +\/- 3.5\npercentage points. The poll was conducted by the Monmouth University Polling\nInstitute in West Long Branch, NJ.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

QUESTIONS\nAND RESULTS      <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

(* Some columns may not add to 100% due to\nrounding.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

1.<\/span> Do you approve or disapprove of the job Donald Trump is doing as president?<\/span><\/p>\n
\n   TREND:\n <\/td>\n May
\n 2019<\/strong>\n <\/td>		\n April 2019\n <\/td>\n March 2019\n <\/td>\n Jan.
\n 2019\n <\/td>		\n Nov.
\n 2018\n <\/td>		\n Aug.
\n 2018\n <\/td>		\n June
\n 2018\n <\/td>		\n April
\n 2018\n <\/td>		\n March
\n 2018\n <\/td>		\n Jan.
\n 2018\n <\/td>		\n Dec.
\n 2017\n <\/td>		\n Sept.
\n 2017\n <\/td>		\n Aug.
\n 2017\n <\/td>		\n July
\n 2017\n <\/td>		\n May
\n 2017\n <\/td>		\n March
\n 2017\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Approve\n <\/td>\n 40%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 40%\n <\/td>\n 44%\n <\/td>\n 41%\n <\/td>\n 43%\n <\/td>\n 43%\n <\/td>\n 43%\n <\/td>\n 41%\n <\/td>\n 39%\n <\/td>\n 42%\n <\/td>\n 32%\n <\/td>\n 40%\n <\/td>\n 41%\n <\/td>\n 39%\n <\/td>\n 39%\n <\/td>\n 43%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Disapprove\n <\/td>\n 52%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 54%\n <\/td>\n 51%\n <\/td>\n 54%\n <\/td>\n 49%\n <\/td>\n 50%\n <\/td>\n 46%\n <\/td>\n 50%\n <\/td>\n 54%\n <\/td>\n 50%\n <\/td>\n 56%\n <\/td>\n 49%\n <\/td>\n 49%\n <\/td>\n 52%\n <\/td>\n 53%\n <\/td>\n 46%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (VOL) No opinion\n <\/td>\n 8%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 6%\n <\/td>\n 5%\n <\/td>\n 5%\n <\/td>\n 8%\n <\/td>\n 7%\n <\/td>\n 11%\n <\/td>\n 9%\n <\/td>\n 8%\n <\/td>\n 8%\n <\/td>\n 12%\n <\/td>\n 11%\n <\/td>\n 10%\n <\/td>\n 9%\n <\/td>\n 8%\n <\/td>\n 11%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (n)<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n (802)<\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (801)<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (802)<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (805)<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (802)<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (805)<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (806)<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (803)<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (803)<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (806)<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (806)<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (1,009)<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (805)<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (800)<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (1,002)<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (801)<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n\n\n\n\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

2.<\/span> Do you approve or disapprove of the job the U.S. Congress is doing?<\/span><\/p>\n
\n   TREND:\n <\/td>\n May
\n 2019<\/strong>\n <\/td>		\n April
\n 2019\n <\/td>		\n March
\n 2019\n <\/td>		\n Jan.
\n 2019\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Approve\n <\/td>\n 20%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 24%\n <\/td>\n 23%\n <\/td>\n 18%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Disapprove\n <\/td>\n 71%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 62%\n <\/td>\n 68%\n <\/td>\n 72%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (VOL) No opinion\n <\/td>\n 9%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 14%\n <\/td>\n 9%\n <\/td>\n 10%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (n)<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n (802)<\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (801)<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (802)<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (805)<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n\n\n\n
\n   TREND: Continued<\/em>\n <\/td>\n Nov.
\n 2018\n <\/td>		\n Aug.
\n 2018\n <\/td>		\n June
\n 2018\n <\/td>		\n April
\n 2018\n <\/td>		\n March
\n 2018\n <\/td>		\n Jan.
\n 2018\n <\/td>		\n Dec.
\n 2017\n <\/td>		\n Sept.
\n 2017\n <\/td>		\n Aug.
\n 2017\n <\/td>		\n July
\n 2017\n <\/td>		\n May
\n 2017\n <\/td>		\n March
\n 2017\n <\/td>		\n Jan.
\n 2017\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Approve\n <\/td>\n 23%\n <\/td>\n 17%\n <\/td>\n 19%\n <\/td>\n 17%\n <\/td>\n 18%\n <\/td>\n 21%\n <\/td>\n 16%\n <\/td>\n 17%\n <\/td>\n 18%\n <\/td>\n 19%\n <\/td>\n 19%\n <\/td>\n 25%\n <\/td>\n 23%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Disapprove\n <\/td>\n 63%\n <\/td>\n 69%\n <\/td>\n 67%\n <\/td>\n 71%\n <\/td>\n 72%\n <\/td>\n 68%\n <\/td>\n 65%\n <\/td>\n 69%\n <\/td>\n 69%\n <\/td>\n 70%\n <\/td>\n 68%\n <\/td>\n 59%\n <\/td>\n 66%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (VOL) No opinion\n <\/td>\n 14%\n <\/td>\n 14%\n <\/td>\n 14%\n <\/td>\n 12%\n <\/td>\n 11%\n <\/td>\n 11%\n <\/td>\n 19%\n <\/td>\n 15%\n <\/td>\n 13%\n <\/td>\n 11%\n <\/td>\n 13%\n <\/td>\n 16%\n <\/td>\n 11%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (n)<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n (802)<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (805)<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (806)<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (803)<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (803)<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (806)<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (806)<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (1,009)<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (805)<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (800)<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (1,002)<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (801)<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (801)<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n\n\n\n
\n   TREND: Continued<\/em>\n <\/td>\n Sept.
\n 2016*\n <\/td>		\n Aug.
\n 2016*\n <\/td>		\n June
\n 2016*\n <\/td>		\n March
\n 2016\n <\/td>		\n Jan.
\n 2016\n <\/td>		\n Dec.
\n 2015\n <\/td>		\n Oct.
\n 2015\n <\/td>		\n Sept.
\n 2015\n <\/td>		\n Aug.
\n 2015\n <\/td>		\n July
\n 2015\n <\/td>		\n June
\n 2015\n <\/td>		\n April
\n 2015\n <\/td>		\n Jan.
\n 2015\n <\/td>		\n Dec.
\n 2014\n <\/td>		\n July
\n 2013\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Approve\n <\/td>\n 15%\n <\/td>\n 14%\n <\/td>\n 17%\n <\/td>\n 22%\n <\/td>\n 17%\n <\/td>\n 16%\n <\/td>\n 17%\n <\/td>\n 19%\n <\/td>\n 18%\n <\/td>\n 18%\n <\/td>\n 19%\n <\/td>\n 21%\n <\/td>\n 18%\n <\/td>\n 17%\n <\/td>\n 14%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Disapprove\n <\/td>\n 77%\n <\/td>\n 78%\n <\/td>\n 76%\n <\/td>\n 68%\n <\/td>\n 73%\n <\/td>\n 73%\n <\/td>\n 71%\n <\/td>\n 71%\n <\/td>\n 72%\n <\/td>\n 69%\n <\/td>\n 71%\n <\/td>\n 67%\n <\/td>\n 70%\n <\/td>\n 73%\n <\/td>\n 76%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (VOL) No opinion\n <\/td>\n 8%\n <\/td>\n 9%\n <\/td>\n 7%\n <\/td>\n 10%\n <\/td>\n 10%\n <\/td>\n 10%\n <\/td>\n 12%\n <\/td>\n 11%\n <\/td>\n 11%\n <\/td>\n 12%\n <\/td>\n 10%\n <\/td>\n 12%\n <\/td>\n 11%\n <\/td>\n 11%\n <\/td>\n 10%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (n)<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n (802)<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (803)<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (803)<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (1,008)<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n (1,003)<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n (1,006)<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n (1,012)<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n (1,009)<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n (1,203)<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n (1,001)<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n (1,002)<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n (1,005)<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n (1,003)<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n (1,008)<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n (1,012)<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n\n\n\n

*\nRegistered voters<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

3.<\/span> Would you say things in the country are going in the right direction, or have they gotten off on the wrong track?<\/span><\/p>\n
\n   TREND:\n <\/td>\n May
\n 2019<\/strong>\n <\/td>		 April
2019 <\/td>		 March
2019 <\/td>		\n Nov.
\n 2018\n <\/td>		\n Aug.
\n 2018\n <\/td>		\n June
\n 2018\n <\/td>		\n April
\n 2018\n <\/td>		\n March
\n 2018\n <\/td>		\n Jan.
\n 2018\n <\/td>		\n Dec.
\n 2017\n <\/td>		\n Aug.
\n 2017\n <\/td>		\n May
\n 2017\n <\/td>		\n March
\n 2017\n <\/td>		\n Jan.
\n 2017\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Right direction\n <\/td>\n 29%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 28%\n <\/td>\n 29%\n <\/td>\n 35%\n <\/td>\n 35%\n <\/td>\n 40%\n <\/td>\n 33%\n <\/td>\n 31%\n <\/td>\n 37%\n <\/td>\n 24%\n <\/td>\n 32%\n <\/td>\n 31%\n <\/td>\n 35%\n <\/td>\n 29%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Wrong track\n <\/td>\n 63%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 62%\n <\/td>\n 63%\n <\/td>\n 55%\n <\/td>\n 57%\n <\/td>\n 53%\n <\/td>\n 58%\n <\/td>\n 61%\n <\/td>\n 57%\n <\/td>\n 66%\n <\/td>\n 58%\n <\/td>\n 61%\n <\/td>\n 56%\n <\/td>\n 65%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (VOL) Depends\n <\/td>\n 4%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 7%\n <\/td>\n 6%\n <\/td>\n 7%\n <\/td>\n 6%\n <\/td>\n 3%\n <\/td>\n 5%\n <\/td>\n 6%\n <\/td>\n 3%\n <\/td>\n 7%\n <\/td>\n 4%\n <\/td>\n 5%\n <\/td>\n 4%\n <\/td>\n 4%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (VOL) Don\u2019t know\n <\/td>\n 3%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 3%\n <\/td>\n 2%\n <\/td>\n 3%\n <\/td>\n 3%\n <\/td>\n 3%\n <\/td>\n 4%\n <\/td>\n 1%\n <\/td>\n 3%\n <\/td>\n 3%\n <\/td>\n 5%\n <\/td>\n 3%\n <\/td>\n 5%\n <\/td>\n 2%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (n)<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n (802)<\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (801)<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (802)<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (802)<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (805)<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (806)<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (803)<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (803)<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (806)<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (806)<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (805)<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (1,002)<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (801)<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (801)<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n\n\n\n
\n   TREND: Continued<\/em>\n <\/td>\n Aug.
\n 2016*\n <\/td>		\n Oct.
\n 2015\n <\/td>		\n July
\n 2015\n <\/td>		\n June
\n 2015\n <\/td>		\n April
\n 2015\n <\/td>		\n Dec.
\n 2014\n <\/td>		\n July
\n 2013\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Right direction\n <\/td>\n 30%\n <\/td>\n 24%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 28%\n <\/td>\n 23%\n <\/td>\n 27%\n <\/td>\n 23%\n <\/td>\n 28%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Wrong track\n <\/td>\n 65%\n <\/td>\n 66%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 63%\n <\/td>\n 68%\n <\/td>\n 66%\n <\/td>\n 69%\n <\/td>\n 63%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (VOL) Depends\n <\/td>\n 2%\n <\/td>\n 6%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 5%\n <\/td>\n 5%\n <\/td>\n 5%\n <\/td>\n 5%\n <\/td>\n 5%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (VOL) Don\u2019t know\n <\/td>\n 3%\n <\/td>\n 4%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 3%\n <\/td>\n 3%\n <\/td>\n 2%\n <\/td>\n 3%\n <\/td>\n 4%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (n)<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n (803)<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (1,012)<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (1,001)<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (1,002)<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (1,005)<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (1,008)<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (1,012)<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n\n\n\n

            * Registered voters<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

[QUESTIONS 4 & 5 WERE ROTATED<\/em>]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

4.<\/span> Do you think President Trump should be impeached and compelled to leave the Presidency, or not?<\/span><\/p>\n
\n TREND:\n <\/td>\n May
\n 2019<\/strong>\n <\/td>		March
2019 <\/td>		\n Nov.
\n 2018\n <\/td>		\n April
\n 2018\n <\/td>		\n Jan.
\n 2018\n <\/td>		\n July
\n 2017\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Yes, should\n <\/td>\n 39%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 42%\n <\/td>\n 36%\n <\/td>\n 39%\n <\/td>\n 38%\n <\/td>\n 41%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n No, should not\n <\/td>\n 56%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 54%\n <\/td>\n 59%\n <\/td>\n 56%\n <\/td>\n 57%\n <\/td>\n 53%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (VOL) Don\u2019t know\n <\/td>\n 5%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 4%\n <\/td>\n 5%\n <\/td>\n 5%\n <\/td>\n 4%\n <\/td>\n 6%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (n)<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n (802)<\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (802)<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (802)<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (803)<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (806)<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (800)<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

[REGISTERED VOTERS ONLY: moe= +\/-<\/em> 3.7%<\/em>] <\/p>\n\n\n\n

5.<\/span> Looking ahead to the 2020 election for President, do you think that Donald Trump should be re-elected, or do you think that it is time to have someone else in office?<\/span><\/p>\n
\n TREND: REGISTERED VOTERS<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n May
\n 2019<\/strong>\n <\/td>		 March
2019 <\/td>		\n Jan.
\n 2019\n <\/td>		\n Nov.
\n 2018\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Should be re-elected\n <\/td>\n 37%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 38%\n <\/td>\n 38%\n <\/td>\n 37%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Someone else in office\n <\/td>\n 60%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 57%\n <\/td>\n 57%\n <\/td>\n 58%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (VOL)\n Don\u2019t know\n <\/td>\n 4%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 5%\n <\/td>\n 5%\n <\/td>\n 4%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (n)<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n (719)<\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (746)<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (735)<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (716)<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

6.<\/span> Now that the Mueller investigation is over, should Congress move on to other issues or are there still concerns related to that investigation that Congress should continue to look into?<\/span><\/p>\n
\n TREND:\n <\/td>\n May
\n 2019<\/strong>\n <\/td>		\n April
\n 2019\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Congress should move on\n <\/td>\n 52%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 54%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Congress should continue to look into\n <\/td>\n 41%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 39%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (VOL)\n Depends\n <\/td>\n 2%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 2%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (VOL)\n Don\u2019t know\n <\/td>\n 5%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 5%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (n)<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n (802)<\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (801)<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

7.<\/span> The Justice Department released a redacted version of the Mueller report. Should Congress be able to have a full version of the report including supporting documents or should it only be able to have the redacted version?<\/span><\/p>\n
\n TREND:\n <\/td>\n May
\n 2019<\/strong>\n <\/td>		\n April
\n 2019*\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Be able to have a full version\n <\/td>\n 69%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 60%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Only be able to have the redacted version\n <\/td>\n 21%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 30%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (VOL)\n Depends\n <\/td>\n 2%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 5%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (VOL)\n Don\u2019t know\n <\/td>\n 7%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 5%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (n)<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n (802)<\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (801)<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n\n\n\n

[* April 2019 question wording: \u201c<\/em>Should the Justice Department<\/em>\nprovide the full Mueller report to\nCongress or should it be able to redact or black out some information it\nconsiders sensitive?\u201d]<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

8.<\/span> Do you think Robert Mueller should or should not appear before Congress to testify about his investigation?\u00a0 [If SHOULD<\/em>: Should Mueller testify in a public hearing or in a private hearing that is closed to the public?]<\/span><\/p>\n
\n  \n <\/td>\n May
\n 2019<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Should \u2013 public hearing\n <\/td>\n 54%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Should \u2013 private hearing  \n <\/td>\n 14%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Should \u2013 both (VOL)\n <\/td>\n 4%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Should \u2013 unsure which\n <\/td>\n 1%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Should not\n <\/td>\n 20%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (VOL)\n Don\u2019t know\n <\/td>\n 7%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (n)<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n (802)<\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

9.<\/span> The former White House counsel Don McGahn was a key witness in the Mueller investigation. How much have you heard about the information he provided \u2013 a lot, a little, or nothing at all?<\/span><\/p>\n
\n  \n <\/td>\n May
\n 2019<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n A lot\n <\/td>\n 12%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n A little\n <\/td>\n 45%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Nothing at all\n <\/td>\n 43%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (n)<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n (802)<\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

10.<\/span> Do you think Don McGahn should or should not appear before Congress to testify about what he knew?\u00a0\u00a0 [If<\/em> SHOULD<\/em>: Should McGahn testify in a public hearing or in a private hearing that is closed to the public?]<\/span><\/p>\n
\n  \n <\/td>\n May
\n 2019<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Should \u2013 public hearing\n <\/td>\n 51%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Should \u2013 private hearing  \n <\/td>\n 10%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Should \u2013 both (VOL)\n <\/td>\n 5%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Should \u2013 unsure which\n <\/td>\n 1%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Should not\n <\/td>\n 20%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (VOL)\n Don\u2019t know\n <\/td>\n 14%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (n)<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n (802)<\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n\n\n\n\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

11.<\/span> How likely is it that Congress would learn something new from McGahn\u2019s testimony that was not included in the Mueller report \u2013 very likely, somewhat likely, not too likely, or not at all likely?<\/span><\/p>\n
\n  \n <\/td>\n May
\n 2019<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Very likely\n <\/td>\n 22%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Somewhat likely\n <\/td>\n 30%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Not too likely\n <\/td>\n 14%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Not\n at all likely\n <\/td>\n 23%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (VOL)\n Don\u2019t know\n <\/td>\n 12%<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (n)<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n (802)<\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

12.<\/span> Do you think the Russian government tried to interfere in the 2016 presidential election \u2013 would you say definitely, probably, probably not, or definitely not?<\/span><\/p>\n
\n  \n <\/td>\n May
\n 2019<\/strong>\n <\/td>		\n Jan
\n 2019\n <\/td>		\n March
\n 2018\n <\/td>		\n July
\n 2017\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Definitely\n <\/td>\n 44%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 40%\n <\/td>\n 43%\n <\/td>\n 36%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Probably\n <\/td>\n 29%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 29%\n <\/td>\n 30%\n <\/td>\n 29%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Probably not\n <\/td>\n 12%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 16%\n <\/td>\n 14%\n <\/td>\n 18%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Definitely\n not\n <\/td>\n 11%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 10%\n <\/td>\n 9%\n <\/td>\n 10%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (VOL)\n Don\u2019t know\n <\/td>\n 4%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 4%\n <\/td>\n 3%\n <\/td>\n 6%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (n)<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n (802)<\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (805)<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (803)<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (800)<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

13.<\/span> If Russia did interfere in the presidential election, how much damage did it cause to American democracy \u2013 a lot, a little, or none at all?<\/span><\/p>\n
\n TREND:\n <\/td>\n May
\n 2019<\/strong>\n <\/td>		\n Jan.
\n 2019\n <\/td>		\n March
\n 2018\n <\/td>		\n July
\n 2017\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n A lot\n <\/td>\n 49%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 46%\n <\/td>\n 44%\n <\/td>\n 47%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n A little\n <\/td>\n 19%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 21%\n <\/td>\n 25%\n <\/td>\n 21%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n None at all\n <\/td>\n 28%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 30%\n <\/td>\n 29%\n <\/td>\n 28%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (VOL) Don\u2019t know\n <\/td>\n 4%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 3%\n <\/td>\n 3%\n <\/td>\n 4%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n   \n (n)<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (802)<\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (805)<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n (803)<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (800)<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

14.<\/span> Do you think the Russian government tried to interfere in the 2018 midterm election \u2013 would you say definitely, probably, probably not, or definitely not?<\/span><\/p>\n
\n TREND:\n <\/td>\n May
\n 2019<\/strong>\n <\/td>		\n March
\n 2018*\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Definitely\n <\/td>\n 21%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 26%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Probably\n <\/td>\n 36%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 38%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Probably not\n <\/td>\n 22%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 20%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Definitely not\n <\/td>\n 12%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 11%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (VOL) Don\u2019t know\n <\/td>\n 8%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 5%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (n)<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n (802)<\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (803)<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n\n\n\n

[*\n<\/em>March 2018 question wording<\/em>:<\/em> \u201cDo you think the Russian government is\ntrying to interfere in the upcoming 2018 midterm elections?\u201d]<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

15.<\/span> Is the U.S. government doing enough or not doing enough to stop Russian interference in the American electoral system?<\/span><\/p>\n
\n TREND:\n <\/td>May
2019<\/strong><\/td>		 Jan.
2019 <\/td>		\n March
\n 2018\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Enough\n <\/td>\n 28%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 27%\n <\/td>\n 27%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Not enough\n <\/td>\n 60%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 57%\n <\/td>\n 59%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (VOL) No interference\n happening\n <\/td>\n 3%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 2%\n <\/td>\n 2%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n (VOL) Don\u2019t know\n <\/td>\n 9%<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n 14%\n <\/td>\n 12%\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n   \n (n)<\/em>\n <\/td>\n (802)<\/em><\/strong>\n <\/td>\n (805)<\/em><\/em>\n <\/td>\n (803)<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

[Q16-33 held for future release.<\/em>]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

METHODOLOGY<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Monmouth\nUniversity Poll<\/em> was sponsored and conducted by the Monmouth University\nPolling Institute from May 16 to 20, 2019 with a national random sample of 802 adults\nage 18 and older, in English. This includes 322 contacted by a live\ninterviewer on a landline telephone and 480 contacted by a live interviewer on\na cell phone. Telephone numbers were selected through random digit dialing\nand landline respondents were selected with a modified Troldahl-Carter youngest\nadult household screen. Monmouth is responsible for all aspects of the survey\ndesign, data weighting and analysis. Final sample is weighted for region, age,\neducation, gender and race based on US Census information. Data collection\nsupport provided by Braun Research (field) and Dynata (RDD sample). For\nresults based on this sample, one can say with 95% confidence that the error\nattributable to sampling has a maximum margin of plus or minus 3.5 percentage\npoints (unadjusted for sample design). Sampling error can be larger for sub-groups\n(see table below). In addition to sampling error, one should bear in mind\nthat question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can\nintroduce error or bias into the findings of opinion polls.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n DEMOGRAPHICS (weighted)<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Self-Reported<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 25%\n Republican<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 44% Independent<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 31% Democrat<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n  <\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 48% Male<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 52% Female<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n  <\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 31% 18-34<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 33% 35-54<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 36% 55+<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n  <\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 64% White<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 12% Black<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 16%\n Hispanic<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n   8% Asian\/Other<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n  <\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 69% No\n degree<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 31% 4 year\n degree<\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n  <\/em> <\/em>\n <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n\n\n\n

Click on pdf file link below for full methodology and crosstabs by key demographic groups.<\/strong> <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Trump rating stable; less than half say Russia \u2018definitely\u2019 interfered in 2016<\/p>\n","protected":false},"featured_media":40802240225,"template":"","geography":[18],"class_list":["post-40802240223","poll","type-poll","status-publish","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","geography-national"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.monmouth.edu\/polling-institute\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/poll\/40802240223","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.monmouth.edu\/polling-institute\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/poll"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.monmouth.edu\/polling-institute\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/poll"}],"version-history":[{"count":9,"href":"https:\/\/www.monmouth.edu\/polling-institute\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/poll\/40802240223\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":40802244975,"href":"https:\/\/www.monmouth.edu\/polling-institute\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/poll\/40802240223\/revisions\/40802244975"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.monmouth.edu\/polling-institute\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/40802240225"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.monmouth.edu\/polling-institute\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=40802240223"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"geography","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.monmouth.edu\/polling-institute\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/geography?post=40802240223"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}