The Torture question seems very problematically phrased to me. That is, its impossible to figure out what people thought they were answering. Hell, even I, a torture opponent, might answer "yes" to "there are circumstances where...." Sure, there are circumstances where even *I* might agree to torture someone for information. Or personally approve of a government official who willingly took the legal risk to do so. But that doesnt' mean that I don't fully support an open investigation and prosecution of the Bush admin officials and democrats who put forward torture as an official government policy, who tortured in order to force false confessions, etc..etc..etc... The fact that the country is so evenly split on this question indicates, to me, a huge possibility for movement towards (or away from) investigation or prosecution based on further information. If Obama and the Dems and a few good republicans made a concerted case for investigation, or investigation and prosecution, because of *law breaking* and also because of harm to america's safety and reputation I'd expect to see those numbers shift radically. Of course the washington media will never agree. If the numbers are against them its just a "popularity poll" of course.

aimai

I think the easiest way to change this number is to phrase it like this: If North Korea captured an American soldier with sensitive and timely information, would you approve of the North Koreans using torture?

People are afraid and ashamed to admit the U.S. did evil. So they rationalize it by saying it's needed to keep them safe. This is entirely predictable. It will take decades before society is ready to look at this issue clearly. How long did it take us to admit detaining Japanese Americans in WW2 was wrong?

Where will the Republican rhetorical arguments go from here? I know, we will be told we've been duped, and Ernst Rome lives! -Kevo

If I may become a dime-store psycologist for a moment (call it a Broder moment, I guess), I think the problem in dealing with the torture debate lies with the act itself being so unfamiliar that people internalize the question and ask themselves: if I were tortured, would I talk? The public, anamoured with Jack Bauer types or vigilante-style Batman justice, are convinced torture works because they want to believe it works, and they feel it would likely work on them if put to the screws.

/Broder off

It's a sad day for America when almost 50% believe it is ok to throw out the Geneva Conventions, break the law and torture. Another legacy of the Bush/Cheney Third World White House.

The question should have been framed as "torture is illegal" and I'll bet the responses would have been a bit different. Other suggestions above are good as well.

I think JMG makes a real sound observation.Regardless, that's a disturbing number of Americans that think torture is acceptable under any circumstances.

Raised by a republican mom with an extended family in which the only democrats were craaazy, I spent my childhood reading our Reader's Digest condensed books about torture in the Soviet Union and in China. While my political views have changed dramatically since then, I retained the knowledge that torture is always wrong. It seemed then and now like a basic human value.

It's yet another example of how far the republican party has gone from its roots and how it managed to drag a lot of the country along with it, by treating what used to be insane ideas (it's a good idea for Americans to torture if they feel threatened) as common sense.

Well, aside from the torture numbers, I'd say OUR side is doing pretty well. I'm not surprised that so many people feel hopeful for the first time in six years. I know I certainly am.

Mostly encouraging, but the nation is still roughly divided on the torture issue. Also, skepticism about AGW has increased lately, but most of the increase is driven by increasingly squirrely attitudes of Faux/Drudge/Rush addled conservative separatists.

BTW I'm surprised about that Congressional approval workup, wasn't overall total approval of Congress down around 20% recently?

Just 21% are confident in congressional Republicans. For congressional Democrats, it was 36%. For President Obama, it was 60%.

Maybe Bush was on the right track--it would be easier if this was a a dictatorship, only with Obama as dictator. A better solution would be to just have a better Congress.

"50% said we're going in the right direction, up from 8% in October."

Woah! 92% thought we weren't going in the right direction last October? I'd have agreed, but man, that's some near-unanimity.

Or do you mean it's up _by_ 8% since October?

As civilians in a secular society, Americans have no experience or expertise to really know what torture does or does not accomplish. Republican torture defenders believer a TV show and waterboarding prisoners are roughly the same thing. Celebrity pundits, (David Gregory this morning) ask questions like "can we succeed against al Qeada without using torture?". Evangelicals are woefully ignorant of history and how torture was used to extract false confessions and force apostates to recant. In this vaccum of knowledge how can any poll deliver useful results?

Neil.

"BTW I'm surprised about that Congressional approval workup, wasn't overall total approval of Congress down around 20% recently?"

Yet Mattew Dowd claimed during the roundtable this morning on 'THIS WEEK' that the Congressional Democrats have "not benefited" from Obama's "big bright light", and are down in the polls.

I wasn't aware that ABC News offered Purple Kool-Aid with their breakfast bagels.

I still maintain a lot of the torture support is because it's mostly brown people or Muslims. There was a study Sully linked to that showed that on a scale watching people suffer who are white was something like a 4 (out of 7) but dark skinned people rated a 2.

...48% said "there are cases in which the United States should consider torture against terrorism suspects."

It seems that since so many people have been influenced by '24' that no poll should ask if torture is okay without also asking a separate question: "Do you watch the TV drama '24'?"

In the same vein, bcinaz points out that

Evangelicals are woefully ignorant of history and how torture was used to extract false confessions and force apostates to recant.

Again, more questions should be asked, these about basic history, such as "In what decade was World War II [or, say, the Civil War] fought?" and "Who was President when World War I was fought?" or "What state was George Washington from?"

Tying these answers in with how the person answered the torture question would elicit some evidence of the education level of those who answer that it is okay to torture.

This kind of polling tie-in questioning should always be done. A "Yes" or "No" from individuals on a question needs to be fleshed out to get some understanding of the poll: all yeses and all noes are not equal. Compiling them as if they are equal is useless for understanding. Pollsters break down polls by gender and race and income, and sometimes by education level attained. But they should be testing the general but pertinent historical knowledge level along the way, also.

For example, if 'X' number of people answered all of the historical questions wrong (or correctly), that should be pointed out as to how those people answered the polled question.

.

I am in Latin America now. When people tell me that they hate the government of the United States, but not it´s people, I remind them that we are a democracy and that the government is a reflection of the people.

So I say they can go ahead and hate the people of America if they want. At least 30-50% of them. I do anyway. And it´s mutual.

Cheers.

90% said he is "willing to listen to different points of view";

He can keep that going easily. Good faith efforts without getting rolled. I still believe sensible minds in the Republican party will give up on the Tom DeLay solidarity-for-its-own-sake BS. (Sensible being a relative term, perhaps.)

"Obama has met or said he's willing to meet with leaders of foreign countries that have been hostile toward the United States... , 71% support the president's approach.

29% don't approve of Obama... it's always right about that number.

and Simon, above...

No, you read it right. 8% thought the country was going in the right direction in October.
Yes, it was nearly unanimous how much we hated George Bush. Even 20 of the 28% that approved of George Bush.
Perhaps they didn't male the connection between the two? ("If it weren't fir the dadburned Democrats, George'd set the country straight, by cracky!")

Obama is a sick joke, and the rest of the country will find this out eventually with the reality of Obama's socialism becoming harder and harder to deny. Wake up people. Obama is positioning himself as a tyrant, coddled along by a fawning media covering for him and not holding him accountable. What a disaster for our country. Wake up people, before it's too late!