Let's walk through this poll the way that Monmouth University did.

The attitude that most Americans have toward Washington is the attitude that your mom had when you were 12 and she found out you'd stolen $10 from her purse: She's not mad, she's disappointed. Americans, for the most part, are disappointed in their elected leaders, with two-thirds of them saying that Washington leaves them feeling dissatisfied. That's a bit different from the common understanding, which is that Americans are furious at the government. Some are; about 20 percent in this poll. That figure is higher among supporters of Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump (27 percent are angry) and lower among backers of Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton (13 percent). White voters were much more likely to say they feel angry about Washington than nonwhites, correlating to the party split.

Where poll respondents saw anger, it was in the political discourse. Two-thirds of respondents said that the campaign had brought out the worst in people -- although the percentage of Trump supporters who said it had was 18 percentage points lower than the number of Clinton supporters who said it had.

Monmouth then asked whether  the use of harsh language was justified, given the current state of the country. By a 2-to-1 margin, respondents said no -- except for Trump supporters. Among Trump supporters, the responses were split, with a slight plurality saying that the harsh language was indeed justified.

Then Monmouth asked who was more likely to use harsh language. The order there is interesting: The pollsters already have respondents' opinions on whether harsh language should be used. So: Half of all respondents said that both Trump and Clinton supporters used harsh language equally, but respondents were more than three times as likely to say it stemmed more from Trump backers than from Clintonites.

Two-thirds of Trump backers said both sides did it equally, but were three times as likely to blame Clinton supporters than themselves. Less than a third of Clinton supporters said the two sides used harsh language equally, with two-thirds blaming Trump supporters exclusively.

That's sort of odd, right? Trump backers think that harsh language is justified, given the state of the country. But they, who are more angry about the government (and 89 percent of whom disapprove of the job President Obama is doing), don't see themselves as using that harsh language more often. Nearly a quarter of them, in fact, think that Clinton backers use harsh language more than they do. Presumably because those Clinton supporters are angry -- justifiably -- at the state of politics in America?

A less charitable interpretation might be that Trump supporters first tried to rationalize the use of harsh language they see from their candidate, but when then pressed to put blame for it on one side or the other,  were more likely to put that blame on their opponents.

Perhaps that says something about the state of American politics, too.