You always have to look at the wording of polls - that is exactly why I included it in my comment. I don't think this is "spin" on Pew's part but the fact that the current situation is different today than in 2006. In this case the comparison is mixed: the wording is worse is some ways better in others.
On one hand listening/reading without warrant is worse than tracking with secret order. But on the other hand targeting suspected terrorists is not as bad as targeting millions of Americans. After all that might be you!
The theory is that a secret court order procedure on much broader surveillance program is enough to make NSA's surveillance acceptable to 27% of Democrats seems farfetched to me.
Of course the clencher is that the new program is IN ADDITION TO the continuing 2006 program. This was not mentioned in the poll question. Too bad most people don't understand this.
> The theory is that a secret court order procedure on much broader surveillance program is enough to make NSA's surveillance acceptable to 27% of Democrats seems farfetched to me.
The procedural difference isn't the only difference in either the public facts or, more relevantly, the poll questions, and the issue isn't that it explains the entire difference, its that the difference in the circumstances and the poll questions makes the conclusion that the swing reflects a change of opinion on the same thing (whether partisan or otherwise) invalid.
On one hand listening/reading without warrant is worse than tracking with secret order. But on the other hand targeting suspected terrorists is not as bad as targeting millions of Americans. After all that might be you!
The theory is that a secret court order procedure on much broader surveillance program is enough to make NSA's surveillance acceptable to 27% of Democrats seems farfetched to me.
Of course the clencher is that the new program is IN ADDITION TO the continuing 2006 program. This was not mentioned in the poll question. Too bad most people don't understand this.