(cross-posted from ATM Watch)

Starting with Hillary Clinton back in February, several presidential candidates so far this year have visited Google headquarters in Mountain View, CA for a one-on-one chat (Clinton) or a full-fledged townhall meeting (McCain, Richardson and Edwards) in front of 1,000 or so Google employees. While we always hear about Google executives being a great source of Silicon Valley cash for the candidates, these forums are more akin to, as Carla Marinucci puts it,

the New Hampshire pancake breakfast, the Iowa school auditorium, [or] the South Carolina church hall.

Yes, retail politics IS happening right here in California and, thanks to Google's YouTube channel (umm, yeah they have one) the forums are available for all of us to see. They give us a rare glimpse of the candidates off script (rare for those of us not in N.H. or Iowa or permanently glued to CSPAN that is.) And while the candidates do their best to stick to the basic elements of their stump speeches, it's the unexpected little moments that are most interesting, such as Hillary Clinton's sense of humor, the warm war hero's welcome John McCain receives or the stumbles of Richardson (calling on Google to go solar when they already have) and Edwards (it was in this forum that he mistakenly claimed to have read the Iraq NIE.) And yes the candidates even talk California such as when Hillary repeated her praise for California's having kept electricity usage steady over the past two decades while nationwide it's increased 50%.

Want to get a close-up and personal look at the candidates, check out the videos over the flip:

Sen. John Edwards, May 30

Gov. Bill Richardson, May 14

Sen. John McCain, May 4

Sen. Hillary Clinton, Feb. 25

(cross-posted from ATM Watch)

Conventional wisdom has long had it that California's decision to move up its primary to February 5 (along with many other states) would result in several undesirable consequences, not least among them being the increased importance of money in the campaign and the rise in influence of Iowa and New Hampshire (although how they could be more influential than they were in 2004 is beyond me.) Both of these scenarios, so the argument goes, point to a Hillary Clinton victory, making a February 5 “national” primary all the more problematic.

But over the past few months, reality, as it is wont to do, has seeped in and undermined the conventional wisdom. Take Q1 fundraising — Obama outraised Clinton in primary funds taking her title of presumed money leader away; and then there are the Iowa and New Hampshire polls, which have generally shown her to be much more vulnerable in the early states than she is nationwide. So what's a poor would-be front runner to do when the conventional wisdom that she had relied on to take her to victory falls down around her? It looks increasingly as though Clinton's answer is to buck conventional wisdom altogether and run hard for February 5.

This strategy requires the dismantling of one of the central assumptions about a frontloaded primary schedule, namely the heightened kingmaker status of Iowa and New Hampshire. 

Follow me…

Step one in shattering this assumption: change the media narrative. Central to this was the “leak” last week of the memo by a Clinton deputy campaign manager recommending that Clinton skip the Iowa caucuses altogether. Clinton, of course, immediately came out and denounced the memo, stating unequivocally that she intends to compete hard in Iowa. But the memo did its job, which was to plant the seed in the media that for Clinton, Iowa isn't make or break. And we all know the importance of Iowa and New Hampshire depends entirely on the expectations game spun by the media. For example, right now, Iowa is must-win for Edwards, which is a dangerous place to be. Clinton is slowly building a new media narrative, which is about lowering expectations for herself in Iowa and building up the importance of Feb 5.

Step two: develop an aggressive early vote strategy. As juls wrote HERE, the fact that Iowans actually will not be the first to vote in the 2008 presidential election was central to the controversial Clinton strategy memo. California has that honor, as our permanent absentee voters, 3.9 million strong, will be able to vote beginning January 7. And how better to reduce the importance of the results of Iowa and New Hampshire than to maximize the number of votes people cast before those results are even known.

As we've seen Clinton swoop in for money over the past few months, it's become clear that California IS much more than an ATM for her, but it's not the voters she's engaging with; rather it's the politicians whose endorsements she's racking up, and the staff she's hiring on the ground. As juls put it:

She has locked up the two highest profile Latinos in the state and will use them as surrogates on her behalf…It will be a very top down coordinated campaign that relies heavily on voter files to drive in early votes.

But these endorsements are not only key to winning California, they are central to her overall February 5 strategy. Frank at California Progress Report shares with us yet another strategy memo, this one on winning the Latino vote, released by the campaign on Wednesday morning, the day she received Mayor Villaraigosa's endorsement. The memo cites her polling strength in states with large hispanic populations such as California, New York, Texas, New Jersey, Colorado and Arizona. She's way ahead in all of them. The dates of their primaries or caucuses: February 5. Not surprisingly, neither Iowa nor New Hampshire is anywhere to be found on that memo.

If anyone can pull this off it's Clinton, whose husband turned second place in New Hampshire into a media victory in 1992. Funny thing about conventional wisdom…even when it’s wrong, sometimes it ends up being exactly right.

(cross-posted from ATM Watch)

So far, we’ve received hundreds of questions at our ATM Watch Ask The Candidates page. Today, Senator John Edwards responds. 

In the video below, Edwards addresses two of your most pressing issues, health care reform and energy independence. He then goes on to answer a specific question from Jane in Los Angeles: 

My three issues are poverty, peace and global warming.  I see them as connected.  Do you?  What would you do to address them, both domestically and internationally?  Are they your top priorities and if not, why not?

Great question, Jane.

Video and more over the flip…

Here's the video.  

Tomorrow, Senator Edwards continues to embody the spirit of ATM Watch with his Small Change for Big Change event at San Jose State University. It costs just $15, details are HERE.

If you're going to attend the event and you'd like to blog about it, click HERE button and follow the instructions to start your very own ATM Watch blog. We'd love to hear your first hand account and see your pictures and video of the event.

(cross-posted from ATM Watch)

Now that Memorial Day is behind us, 2nd quarter fundraising begins in earnest and you know what that means — time to visit the ATM.  In the next couple weeks, the top tier Democratic candidates will be visiting California in force with Clinton and Obama each following the other's lead meeting with donors in SoCal, while Edwards, as he has done throughout his campaign, strikes out on his own speaking to regular voters up north.

On Wednesday, Hillary begins her visit to L.A. with one of her usual large-dollar fundraisers at the home of Fox COO Peter Chernin but will then head to a younger hipper event at the Beverly Hills area home of director Brett Ratner in search of what Variety calls "new dollars."

As the year goes on, it becomes harder and harder to find untapped donors, particularly since so many people have maxed out. They cannot give more. So like Barack Obama, Clinton is turning to cheaper and hipper events. Ratner’s event costs $250 per person, $500 per person to also get into an after-party, and $1,000 for a VIP reception, the main reception and after-party.

Obama on the other hand will be heading to Hillary's stomping grounds down in Orange County on June 11 for a $2,300/plate (or $4,600 if you want to max out for the general too!) breakfast hosted by the OC Democratic Party at the home of Michael & Shohleh Chegini.

More…

And like Hillary, Barack currently has no plans to speak to anyone other than donors while he's here, although hopefully that will change. Every time he's come to California for an ATM withdrawal, he's always made time for us regular folks whether it be a massive rally or a speech to the congregation of a local church. We'll let you know what he has planned when we know. In the meantime, if you're an Obama fan, you can find a local Walk For Change event set for June 9th HERE.

Of all the Democratic candidates though, John Edwards has consistently embodied the spirit of ATM Watch and nowhere is that more evident than in his first "Small Change for Big Change" fundraiser scheduled for this Thursday at San Jose State University. And you're not going to believe how inexpensive this event is.

From Edwards campaign manager David Bonior (h/t Edwards in 08):

It's very expensive to reach out to voters in early primary states and across the nation. But the trouble with the usual fundraisers is that they are only open to those ready to write huge checks—and this campaign is built on reaching out to everyone.

So John asked his campaign to organize this series of grassroots fundraisers for supporters who share our passion but may only be able to spare $100, 50, or $25 dollars. In fact, for this Thursday's event, tickets are just $15 each.

You can get your ticket for the event HERE.

Senator Edwards is once again defying the conventional wisdom that no candidate in his right mind would ever attempt anything resembling retail politics in such an unwieldy state. Hopefully Edwards’s strategy will rub off on other candidates and more and more regular California voters will get some actual face time with the candidates.

(cross-posted from ATM Watch)

In Survey USA's post-debate poll of 317 California adults who watched the GOP debate on Thursday (h/t The Right's Field), a full 30% felt that Giuliani had won the debate; Romney and McCain were essentially tied for second place with 12% and 11% respectively; and 16% of respondents weren't sure who had won. The partisan breakdown of respondents was 45% Republican, 30% Democratic and 22% Decline to State.

What I find more interesting than winners and losers though is the fact that Survey USA had to poll 2,400 Californians to find 317 who'd actually seen the debate. That's a paltry 13% response rate. Compare that to the survey of South Carolina adults after the Democrats debated there a week prior. There, of the 1,250 SC adults interviewed, 403 said they had listened to the debate, or an enviable 32%. Survey USA draws an interesting conclusion:

For comparison purposes, 1 in 3 South Carolinians watched the Democratic debate, compared to 1 in 8 Californians who watched the Republican debate. Californians are far less engaged in political process than Carolinians, at this stage.

More (including a look at the poll’s crosstabs) over the flip…

On one hand this shouldn't come as too much of a shock considering South Carolina is used to being one of the early primary states and Californians are clearly electioned out after at least one election a year since 2002. But this conclusion implies that the two things are equivalent when really they're apples and oranges.

I'd argue that what Survey USA really should have concluded is that:

Californians are far less engaged in the political process when it comes to Republican field than Carolinians are when it comes to the Democratic field.

California is a blue state, Arnold notwithstanding, so it follows that we'd be less interested in the Republican field. And while South Carolina is a red state, over half the voting population is African American, so certainly a field that includes arguably the first viable African American presidential candidate would inspire more excitement there. And hell, 28% more people watched the Democratic debate nationwide anyway. There is clearly more excitement about the Democratic presidential candidates than their Republican counterparts in general, so it follows that that trend would be replicated at the state level. 

One of the key arguments in favor of the early primary has been that actually having a say in the process will increase voter engagement, something California desperately needs and I still think it will. But the extent to which there is truth to Survey USA's conclusion, we need to watch this question over the coming months. If this year's Democratic field can't excite a disillusioned California electorate, we're worse off than I thought.

An inspection of the poll's full cross-tabs reveals some interesting findings:

– Former Virginia governor Jim Gilmore showed signs of life in CA with an unusually strong 8% of the vote, beating even California's own Duncan Hunter. Gilmore was particularly strong among respondents who considered themselves "liberal" and those between 18-34 years of age. In fact, among both those groups, Gilmore's plan for Iraq ties McCain for second best behind Giuliani's. And on the question of whose immigration plan was best, Gilmore ties Tancredo, Romney and Hunter (8%) for 3rd place behind Giuliani (31%) and McCain (11%.) Does anyone even remember Gilmore's plans for Iraq or immigration?

– Giuliani enjoys more support from self-described conservatives than he does overall. While Giuliani was chosen as winner by 30% of the respondents, 32% of conservatives polled said Giuliani won the debate. Interestingly, when broken down by party affiliation, Giuliani enjoys 30+% support among both Republicans and Democrats but that number plummets to 19% among those that consider themselves Independents.

– While illegal immigration crusader Tom Tancredo only polled at 4% overall, the groups he did show strength among were conservatives (5%), Independents (9%) and, perhaps most interestingly, Asian-Americans (10%.)   

– As for the gender gap, women were more likely to support Gilmore than men were (11% to 7%) and were less likely to support Romney (10% to 13%) or McCain (9% to 12%) than their male counterparts were. But perhaps most telling, women were much more likely to be unsure as to who won the debate (25%) than men were (13%.)

The Republican candidates for president are in Simi Valley, CA at the Reagan library today for the first Republican debate of the 2008 presidential season. And while the location has more to do with the conservative icon whose library is playing host than the fact that it's in California, we at ATMWatch will be watching for references to California's primary and the issues Californians care about.

The debate will start at 5pm PDT (webcast available HERE) and is co-sponsored by MSNBC and politico.com, which asked people to submit questions online to be asked of the candidates during the debate, much as we are asking regular voters for questions to ask the candidates HERE. We're getting your questions to the campaigns and we'll have our first candidate response video next week.

Now, while we're used to asking candidates questions, we're not so used to candidates asking other candidates questions but that's exactly what John Edwards has done in advance of tonight's debate. His question for the Republican candidates:

"Has the Bush doctrine of a Global War on Terror backfired? Does the president's focus suggest a fixed enemy that can be defeated through a permanent military campaign or do you think we need a broader approach as many military leaders believe?"

1/3 of tonight's debate will be devoted to answering questions submitted online and will be voted on by readers. Hopefully we'll be able to rate Edwards's question up so it gets asked. Would love to hear them defend Bush's war strategy or even claim with a straight face that  there is one. Consider this an open thread.

The speeches the candidates gave on the floor of the CDP convention this weekend were peppered with allusions to California but rarely in any substantive way. The “good morning, California Democrats!” here and the “We need to make sure Nancy Pelosi remains Speaker of the House!” there. Not surprisingly, the speeches were variations on their stump speeches, which they give everywhere.

That’s where the post-speech press conferences came in. Many of the journalists asking questions were local and were interested in how the primary being moved up impacted the candidates’ campaign strategies. The candidates’ responses said a lot about each of them as candidates. You had the extremely disciplined Hillary Clinton rave about California when it came to discussing the endorsements of local Assemblymembers but when it came to answering a specific California-based question (from our friends at Speak Out CA!), she shifted to standard stump speech talking points. John Edwards, who has a healthy skepticism of the media (I wonder why, he was asked about hedge funds and haircuts for crying out loud) was less forthcoming and even a bit dismissive, although he did engage in some primary strategy speculation. And the down in the polls Bill Richardson was the most eager to engage with the local press in hopes of gaining some traction. He had some great answers including referring to California as an “ATM machine” ( we didn’t pay him to do it, I swear!), offering solutions for California’s transportation problem and the gem “if I go to every living room in California I’d be dead.”

The videos are over the flip and of course at ATM Watch as well.

Governor Richardson:

Senator Edwards:

Senator Clinton:

At the press conference I posted about over at ATM Watch, a journalist told Hillary the following regarding the delegates on the floor:

“Obama has their heart, you have their head.”

Now, Obama hasn’t spoken yet (he’s on at 2pm) but his campaign is certainly the most visible here at the convention and you get the sense that his supporters are the most passionate. And while there was some excitement on the floor in anticipation of Hillary’s speech, mostly among young women, there was very little as she was actually speaking. And her speech reflected why.  She committed the cardinal Democratic sin: making a laundry list of what she will do as president.

More…

As a wise woman leaned over and whispered to me, “she has no thesis.” This is in stark contrast to Obama whose entire campaign is about the overarching theme of a new kind of politics. What does Hillary offer other than experience and a husband whom we all would on some level love to see back in the White House? Whatever it is, she didn’t make the case on the floor today. You sort of get the sense that she’s written off a certain segment of the Democratic primary electorate and she made no effort to win them over today.

At the press conference I posted about over at ATM Watch, a journalist told Hillary the following regarding the delegates on the floor:

“Obama has their heart, you have their head.”

Now, Obama hasn’t spoken yet (he’s on at 2pm) but his campaign is certainly the most visible here at the convention and you get the sense that his supporters are the most passionate. And while there was some excitement on the floor in anticipation of Hillary’s speech, mostly among young women, there was very little as she was actually speaking. And her speech reflected why.  She committed the cardinal Democratic sin: making a laundry list of what she will do as president.

More…

As a wise woman leaned over and whispered to me, “she has no thesis.” This is in stark contrast to Obama whose entire campaign is about the overarching theme of a new kind of politics. What does Hillary offer other than experience and a husband whom we all would on some level love to see back in the White House? Whatever it is, she didn’t make the case on the floor today. You sort of get the sense that she’s written off a certain segment of the Democratic primary electorate and she made no effort to win them over today.