(cross-posted from Working Californians)

Obama is rolling out his energy policy today.  Would he be doing that if California had not moved up its primary?  Probably not.  Issues of importance to California, like the environment and immigration are getting a lot more bandwidth.  That is the topic of AdNag’s NYT article today and corresponding video.

The state is certainly gaining clout in the process, but this column is really lacking an understanding of what makes up a “Californian issue”.  There is also no distinction in the difference between a question with Californian origins or an issue that the Californian primary electorate cares a lot about.

The most striking example is global warming, an issue that was rarely raised in the past two presidential campaigns. Mike Huckabee, the former governor of Arkansas, was reminded of this on Thursday night when he was asked on national television at the first Republican presidential candidates’ debate, in Simi Valley, if he thought global warming existed. (Yes, Mr. Huckabee said, though he skirted the issue of whether humans were primarily responsible for it.)

Reducing global warming through governmental action is a bi-partisan issue in California.  Working Californina’s polling showed that 69% of likely Republican primary voters support strong government intervention “to reduce carbon pollution that causes global warming.”  It is smart politics for the candidates to address these issues.  Those candidates who deny the existence of global warming will have a hard time getting traction among Republican voters in California.

That is hardly the only issue California is putting on the table, as became clear as the presidential candidates from both parties campaigned through the state this week. In their travels they heard about, and talked about, issues that are dominating the politics of this polyglot state: immigration, stem-cell research, protecting public lands and – reflecting the acute concern of the influential Silicon Valley software industry – the so-called Net neutrality debate over the allocation of Internet bandwidth.

A question about immigration was sorely lacking from the Republican debate last week, something a Republican friend of mine was aggravated about.  The social issues, which tend to be less important to Republican voters here had plenty of time, at the cost of immigration among other issues.

Net neutrality is certainly something the netroots and the big Silicon Valley big wigs are pushing, but is not exactly a first tier issue in the state.  They are answering the issue because of the influential nature of those posing the question, not because it is a big “Californian” issue.  In general, AdNags’ definition of “Californian issues” is particularly broad and not based on voter interest in the subject, but rather the origination of the questions mostly posed by journalists, net neutrality aside.

Analysts from both parties said that given the political tides here, and what appeared most likely to surface in California’s public and political dialogue by Feb. 5, the candidates should be prepared to offer opinions about whether illegal immigrants should be eligible for drivers’ licenses or health care coverage; whether Congressional redistricting should be stripped from political leaders and put in the control of judges; and whether they supported another effort by the California Legislature to legalize same-sex marriage in a state with a large and influential gay population.

Health care is certainly on the tongues of California voters, but same-sex marriage and redistricting registers barely a blip.  Only 12% of Republicans consider same-sex marriage to be one of the top issues, and it does not register among the top 15 issues for Democrats in California.  Redistricting has the political elite in Sacramento all a twitter, but it is not exactly a first tier issue.

To some extent, this surfeit of issues reflects what has always been California’s reputation as being slightly ahead of the curve – some might argue off the curve – on all kinds of social and domestic issues. It also reflects the influence of this state’s sizable community of active Democrats, many of them more liberal than their counterparts in places like Iowa, and also its often-outspoken conservatives, especially in the southern part of the state.

Polling just does not support AdNag’s claims here, especially with regards to the environment.  This is not just about active Democrats, but rather stretches across party lines.  California is ahead of the curve because of a general shift in attitude on many issues, not just the Democrats. 

But it is just as much testimony to the energetic efforts by its governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican who has broken with the national party on a series of issues, to shape the discussion of the presidential campaign. In an interview, Mr. Schwarzenegger said he intended to use the platform of this primary to affect the course of his party’s presidential debate by pressing candidates to talk in detail about how, for example, to curb reliance on “fossil fuel and Middle East fuel” and how to respond to the flood of illegal immigrants, an issue that has confounded Republican politicians here for nearly a decade.

Schwarzenegger has without a doubt risen the profile of Republicans and global warming.  He is certainly leading his party on the issue, but in general he is following the will of the voters in California.  He was strategically pushed by advisors who had read the polling tea leaves to spend one week out of every four or five on the environment during his successful re-election campaign.  He was actually reluctant to talk about the issue, but was convinced otherwise.  It was a successful strategy for him.

While the article and accompanying video is certainly interesting, I think it would have behooved AdNags to discuss in more detail what he meant by “Californian issues”.  The whole timeline of the presidential primary is moved up and it is forcing the candidates to address a broader range of topics beyond those Iowans and New Hampshire residents care about.  That is a good thing for this country and California in particular. 

Part of our goals for Working Californian’s recent polling was to show campaigns the data in order to encourage them to address global warming, creating better jobs, improving our schools and health care system.  That is why it is so great to see Obama flesh out his energy proposal.  You can read his speech here.