Anyways, it's the news that created the two-sidedness of the current political atmosphere, which is what led to the whole problem of conservative/liberal echochambers (that allow for fake news to spread so rapidly).
All these articles seem to say, "look what everybody else believes because of things other people said." It would be far more interesting to see an article about, "look what all our readers believe because of things we've said."
The article is clearly selecting statistics that would make Trump-voters look worse overall, only including one where Clinton-voters are more likely to believe the falsehood (that Russia likely hacked the actual election).
Just to name a few, I suspect the Clinton voters are more likely to believe these falsehoods: that women make 70-some cents on the dollar for equal work, that nuclear power cannot be safe, that police disproportionately use lethal force against black Americans.
>Democrats in America are evenly divided on the question of whether George W. Bush knew about the 9/11 terrorist attacks in advance. Thirty-five percent (35%) of Democrats believe he did know, 39% say he did not know, and 26% are not sure. Republicans reject that view and, by a 7-to-1 margin, say the President did not know in advance about the attacks.
I'm sure that with very little work, someone could create statistics showing the reverse effect of this article. The fact that their cherrypicked selection of fake news is all about anti-Clinton things makes it no real surprise that Trump voters agreed with it. If it was anti-Trump, Clinton voters would agree with it. Trying to make any sort of "finding" out of this information is a load of bullshit, but people will eat it up because it confirms their beliefs.