Fickleness pervades the polls

How volatile -- in both parties -- are voter attitudes in the presidential races?

Like quicksilver, as two stats from an avalanche of new polls vividly illustrate.

An ABC News/Washington Post survey finds Barack Obama narrowing Hillary Clinton's lead nationwide among Democratic-leaning voters. And, digging into the numbers, a key reason is a striking reversal in preferences among blacks.

In an ABC/Post poll a month ago, Clinton led Obama among African-Americans, 52% to 39%. But the new survey found not only that Obama had erased his deficit within the demographic, but leads Clinton by 60% to 32% -- a margin of almost 2 to 1.

A CBS News/New York Times poll reports a similarly stunning shift among Republican-leaning voters that speaks to the rise of John McCain and the fall of ...

Rudy Giuliani.

Just a month ago, the survey found Giuliani easily besting McCain as the GOP's "most electable" White House contender, 43% to 7%. The new numbers are almost exactly reversed -- 41% named McCain as the party's best bet come November, 12% picked Giuliani.

The political world may soon have to come to grips with a recurring malady: Pollster whiplash.

-- Don Frederick

Comments

[Ronald Loui]

Yes, a 41-point reversal in a few weeks, and that is a national preference, not just a SC preference. Congrats to the this blog once again for noticing rather than spinning (the paper's front page is leading with "Clinton has double-digit lead" -- true, but that's been the case all year -- the news is that the double digit lead is about to become a smaller, single digit lead).

But you know, it's not about race. I'm not white or black. Where Obama went to high school, 99.9% of the people were not black and not Hispanic. And it might not even be about gender, at least not on one candidate's side. I was raised by a single mother, an MD, and so was Obama, whose single mother got an advanced degree. How is HRC's life more inspirational for women than those women's?

Here is why Clinton's comments are so troubling, with reference neither to race, nor to gender:

1. SAYING TOO MANY APOLOGIES! She keeps apologizing for her remarks, distancing herself from Bill's remarks, and having to fire people on her staff, and, oddly for someone who wants to be a national leader, she never seems to be interpreted correctly for what she means to be saying. "I apologize for my staff's remarks/I fired him from the NH campaign/I can't control what my colleague says on my behalf/I'm running, not Bill/Her introductory remarks were inappropriate/That's not what I meant (da capo/repeat)." Those would be four strange years of not-quite-sure-what-she-meant Presidential remarks.

2. SAYING THINGS BADLY: She must have poor judgement to say things that cause so much difficulty that the democratic party has to patch itself together again during MLK week. "Some have said you are divisive." OK, it's not racist. It's not a thinly veiled attack. But it's more than ill-advised. It's at least evidence of poor judgement -- disqualifyingly poor judgement.

3. SAYING IT'S MINE! IT'S MY PRECIOUS! (GOLLUM): She must think it is all about executive power, if she really thinks it takes a president to get things done rather than a broad-based grass-roots movement -- a movement so compelling that defined a decade. Is she really saying she would rather be LBJ than MLK? Who would trade those places in history except someone who is covetous of the Presidency? Wouldn't anyone be happy going down in history as MLK? Wasn't there a national op-ed this weekend, "She wants it too much"?

4. SAYING ANYTHING TO GET ELECTED: The Clintons may have worked hard on behalf of various groups, especially since they are so practiced in identity-politics (vote your gender or vote your race). But they seem willing to say anything to get themselves elected again. Would they attack RFK next, if the polls scared them enough? Let's watch!

5. SAYING THINGS WITH SELF-PITY: those weren't tears, and the question wasn't about how she feels about the economy, the nation's military capabilities, the nation's respect around the world, or the state of our Constitution -- it was about how she manages to hold it together on the campaign. And the "it" might have been about her hair, if you read the full transcript of the question.

6. SAYING THINGS THAT ARE NOT TRUE: 35 years of experience doing what? 35 years ago, Hillary Rodham was trying to pass the Arkansas bar exam. Is that when her -change- clock started ticking? Why doesn't someone ever ask her what she was doing in early 1973? Also, she doesn't get things done in Washington. Major Senate bills passed: Obama 4 - Edwards 2 - Clinton 0. That's zero bills in seven years as a Senator.