"In the wake of combative impeachment hearings, those surveyed oppose by 51%-45% a Senate vote to convict Trump on charges of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress."

"Though those results may be sobering – almost half of Americans support removing the president from office – they are a bit better for him than the survey's findings in October, when Americans split 47%-46%. The findings underscore how durable Trump's support has been even in the face of testimony before the House Intelligence Committee that he used military aid and a coveted Oval Office meeting to pressure the president of Ukraine to announce investigations into one of Trump's political rivals."

That's USAToday reporting its new poll — under the headline "Narrow majority opposes removing Trump from office if he is impeached."

It's a "narrow" majority because 51% is only one percentage point above 50%, but it's 6 percentage points above the 45% who support removing Trump. And it's 4 percentage points more than opposition to removal the same survey found back before all the public hearings.

And I'm laughing at the idea that Trump's support is "durable... even in the face of" all that testimony. First off, it didn't just endure. It grew. A lot. And I don't see how the USA Today has a basis for characterizing the growth as something that happened "in the face of" the testimony. It seems just as rational to speculate that it grew because of the testimony. The hearings made impeachment seem like a partisan overreach. Or the hearings made the idea of removing the President seem more real and made people think something like, no, that's not how we behave in the United States. Before that reality set in, perhaps, people were more willing to say yes to removal because it seemed like a way express strong disapproval of the President.

I'm just guessing, of course, but my point is only that the USA Today should work harder on journalistic professionalism. I know it may sound silly. A pipe dream. But I like to say it anyway.

ADDED: Meade read this post and made a point that I've never heard anyone make and I think is really important and profound. The Constitution requires a supermajority of the Senators — two thirds — in order to remove the President and that expresses the principle that removing the President  is something extraordinary. That principle should be applied to the polls. We should look for much more than a mere majority in support of removing the President. Even if the "narrow majority" this poll found were in favor of removal, it should not be enough. To justify the extraordinary action of removal, the polls should show that more than 66% of Americans want it.

AND: What were the polls on Nixon? At the point when Nixon resigned, Pew Research showed that 57% of American adults supported removal. The trend in the poll numbers was sharply upward, up from 37% in less than 6 months.

Everybody's talking about cannibalism.

I'm just checking the front page over at USAToday, and I'm struck by the top entry on the "most popular" list:

"Police: Woman killed her infant, ate part of brain." Has the country gone mad? More of this bath salts, the new LSD business? No, it's a story from 2009, revived because... Well, I'm promoting it now, and if you clicked on it, you're pumping its popularity.

Can you place yourself in one of these 6 categories of voters?

USA Today categorizes us this way:

1. True believers: 30% of the electorate

... John McCain has some support among this group of the year's most intense voters, but Barack Obama has more. By 2-1, such voters back the Democrat.

This group includes the highest percentage of women, African Americans and liberals — the sort of voters who fueled record turnout in a string of Democratic primaries this year.

So the inflexible ideologues tend to be Democrats? Not necessarily. McCain doesn't inspire hardcore Republicans.

Anyway, I'm completely not the sort of person who would fit this category.

2. Fired up & favorable: 14% of the electorate

Like the "true believers," voters in the second group are overwhelmingly more enthusiastic than usual about voting. Unlike the first group, though, nearly all of them view McCain and Obama favorably....

They're confident in the ability of either candidate to handle the Oval Office...

That would seem to make them a swing group, but voters in this category say their minds are settled. By nearly 2-1, they support Obama.

A funny category! I almost belong here. I like both candidates, but I can't say I'm confident. And I can't say I'm "fired up" either.

3. Firmly decided: 12% of the electorate

... Although they are closely divided — 50% for McCain, 48% for Obama — few swing voters are in this group. Almost all of them say they have made up their minds about their vote.

This is like #1, but without the belief. I'd get myself into this category if it was time to vote. But it's not. So let's see what happens.

4. Up for grabs: 18% of the electorate

These voters are squarely in the middle. They tend to have favorable views of both candidates and are the most likely to say either would make a good president, but they aren't yet settled in their choice. They aren't paying as much attention to the campaign as the most engaged voters in the first two groups, but they're also not as disenchanted as those in the last two groups....

This battleground group has a GOP tilt. It includes the highest percentage of whites of any group and more of those who attend church every week. McCain needs to make major inroads with them to offset Obama's edge among other voters....

This is probably supposed to be my category. But I am paying attention! Yeah, but I'm paying attention so I can write about things, including the way the people in the other categories think. If I wasn't passionate about doing that, I'd be off paying attention to whatever else was the substance of my personal life.

5. Skeptical & downbeat: 12% of the electorate

.... They aren't excited about the contenders to succeed the president, either. Four in 10 haven't decided whom to support, by far the largest of any group, and the rest are open to changing their minds.

Voters in this group are older than average and the least likely to have a college education. It includes the highest percentage of those who live in small towns and rural areas.

They favor McCain over Obama by 11 percentage points, but can he persuade more of them to support him — and then turn out to vote?

Do these people deserve to be separated from #4 ... mainly just to insult them and impugn McCain?

6. Decided but dissatisfied: 16% of the electorate

... They include the highest percentage of conservatives and Republicans of any group, and they give Bush his highest job-approval rating, albeit still just 37%. This group is the least likely to see the Iraq war as a mistake, although 51% say that it was.

That underscores a quandary for McCain. The groups that clearly favor the Arizona senator are the two final ones. One gives Bush his highest rating, the other his lowest. One group has the fewest members who say invading Iraq was a mistake; the other has the most. Bridging that divide and building support from both groups could be a challenge, especially when it comes to calibrating how closely to embrace Bush.

National security concerns drive the "decided but dissatisfied" voters. It is the only group in which a majority favors a candidate whose strength is protecting the country from terrorism rather than fixing the economy, and the only group in which a majority doubts Obama can handle the responsibilities of commander in chief. This group is McCain's base, the only one in which his support tops 50%....

"I don't think either of these candidates are evil," McLen says of McCain and Obama, "but to use the cliché, I'm choosing the lesser of two evils."

Again, the style of categorization seems to be to make McCain voters sound bad. But in fact, I identify with this mentality. You don't believe government can really solve too many problems, but it damned well better provide security. I can't fit here though, because I'm undecided.

But why are these people so different from #1? Is it because they seem more creepily negative to USAToday?