I’m not complaining. But I honestly don’t get it.

hillary-gallup.png

Note that Obama’s own rating is actually a point lower than what it was in February so it’s not like his popularity is digging into hers. Follow the link and start scrolling and you’ll see that the decline cuts across every possible division: regional, political, income, gender, race, marital status, education, you name it. Minuses all the way down the line. The nutroots will try to coopt it as proof that her position on the war is alienating people, but I doubt most Americans know anything about that except (a) she voted for it and (b) she’s against it now. Both of which are also true of Edwards, of course. In fact, her biggest drop is among self-identified “moderates” compared to “liberals” and “conservatives”: -11 to -8 to -9, respectively.

The upshot is that her 38-19 lead over Obama two weeks ago has crumbled to 31-26. I can’t think of anything she’s done recently that would inspire a backlash like this, so I’m throwing it open with an earnest, non-rhetorical exit question: What gives? If it’s a sampling error, how did they bungle the sample so badly as to achieve negatives across the board demographically? Or is this simply a question of familiarity with the Glacier breeding contempt as the campaign wears on?

Bonus exit question: Should Mitt be worried that he’s eight points behind one of the Democrats’ second-tier candidates?