Going back to something discussed earlier, let's take a look at the poll that led the Los Angeles Times to run a story titled, "In California, It's Clinton and McCain."
Despite the fact that four out of ten Democrats surveyed have not selected a candidate yet, the paper feels confident enough to announce:
Those planning to vote in the Democratic primary here, as in Iowa and New Hampshire, embraced the notion of "change" as more crucial than "experience" in deciding which candidate to support. Obama led among voters who said change was their top priority.
Clinton, who has touted her experience and equated a vote for Obama with risk, dominated among those who hewed to experience but remained the choice of almost a third of voters who said change was imperative. By wide margins, Democratic voters also said Clinton would be the candidate best equipped to battle the Republicans in the fall.
So, Californians prefer change to experience, and equate Obama with the former and Clinton with the latter. Yet, in California, "it's Clinton." Maybe that's because she's seen as being "best equipped" for the general election. But doesn't that speak directly to her experience? Questions and contradictions abound, and the bottom line is that four voters in every ten say they might change their mind. The "tested-by-Republicans" meme could give Clinton a great opportunity to substantially widen her lead in California. At the same time, Californians' preference for "change" could reverse the current trend. Really, the only thing the poll reveals for certain is that its underpinning numbers stand to change dramatically. Sure, in the end, they might merely firm up the current standing. But that's not what happened in New Hampshire.
This is even more evident on the GOP side. The Times describes a race that's "uncertain," but puts it in horse race terms: "Among likely voters, Arizona Sen. McCain was ahead with 20%. Mitt Romney was at 16%, Rudolph W. Giuliani at 14% and Mike Huckabee at 13%. All four were within the poll's margin of sampling error." But the margin of error is nothing compared to the sizable population of voters reserving their right to change their mind: six in ten!
The most interesting front in this election season thus far is the process by which voters are arriving at their determinations, and this was rivetingly seen in Michigan, where a couple hundred thousand people gave up their time to come to the polls and make a protest vote in favor of "Uncommitted." The big story, on both sides of the aisle, is voter flux. Definitive statements on winners and losers are premature, and are having an effect on the dynamics of the race: the Obama camp's decision to label their rival Clinton as the "prohibitive favorite" in Nevada can be seen as a pre-emptive strike against the media's pre-determinations.
[At the risk of repeating myself, I'll point out again that you can make a pre-emptive strike of your own by signing your name on our "Say 'No' To Pollsters" petition. As long as the media refuse to highlight the here today, gone tomorrow nature of these kinds of polls, we should refuse to enable them by talking to pollsters.]