UPDATE2: Datamar has released their data now too. Interestingly, they have John Edwards moving up since their last poll in the fall. But the big story is Obama tightening from an enormous lead to a more manageable 12ish.  Dems:

A poll released today by Datamar Inc, shows that U.S. Senator from New York, Hillary Clinton, 42.6%, is still the leader in the California Democratic Presidential primary. U.S. Senator from Illinois, Barack Obama, is second with 30.6%, and former U.S. Senator from North Carolina, John Edwards, 14.5%, is third. Findings are based on a January 11 – 14, 2008 survey of California voters.

Reps:

A poll released today by Datamar Inc., shows U.S. Senator from Arizona, John McCain in

first place in California with 24%; Former Governor from Massachusetts, Mitt Romney continues in second place with 20.4%; Former U.S. Senator from Tennessee, Fred Thompson is still in third place with 15.4%; Former Governor from Arkansas Mike Huckabee moves to fourth place with 13.4%; and Former Mayor of New York, Rudy Giuliani, drops to fifth place with 11.1% in the California Presidential primary.

UPDATE:Over the flip, find S-USA’s #s, h/t dKos.

I’ve not been posting too much on California presidential primary polls, mostly because they didn’t really diverge from the national polls. Oh, and they don’t have a whole lot of meaning because nobody had really done significant campaigning in the state.  But, with Obama’s first ad going up this weekend, perhaps now is a time to start looking at them.  So, today we get the LA Times poll PDF here.

In the GOP Primary McCain is riding the New Hampshire wave.  With today’s Rep primary in Michigan, much will change. That being said, McCain leads, but is within the poll’s margin of error (a hefty 6% for the Rep. primary).  Among likely voters, Arizona Sen. McCain was ahead with 20%. Fmr. Mass. Gov. Mitt Romney was at 16%, Former NYC mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani at 14% and Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee at 13%.

For the Dems, Clinton has a sizeable lead over Obama. Clinton has 47% to Obama’s 31% and Edwards trails at 10%, with a MOE of 5%. “Someone else” (Kucinich?) limped in at 2%.

At this point it seems clear that none of the Republicans can really afford an air war that would be required to really run away with California. Perhaps Mitt could throw in a pot of money to buy some spots, but I’m not sure if he’s willing or able to put in as much money as would be required to buy this state convincingly. Both Clinton and Obama have money to pay for TV time. I suppose the question that remains is whether anybody will be able to see the presidential ads between the 24/7 barrage of ads coming from the 4 Tribes on Props 94-97.

California. 1/11-13. Likely primary voters. (12/14-16 results)

Once again in the Corporate Media makes an “Executive Decision”, about who America should see as their Viable Choices:

Hillary Clinton

Barack Obama

John McCain

Rudy Giuliani

Mike Huckabee

Mitt Romney

Only these Candidates were the Focus of the latest CNN Poll

Where is John Edwards in this Poll?

(for that matter where is Ron Paul?)

[Edwards has done better than Giuliani, by a long shot!]

So much for Free Speech! So much for the Democratic Process playing itself out! So much for letting the People decide.

The Media Executives apparently feel it’s their Constitutional Right to narrow down your choices for you — They Know What’s best for us!

(Or is it really they know what’s best for them?)

New Poll results from that COM (Corporate Owned Media) with the “best political team on Television”:

CNN Opinion Poll

Interviews with 1,033 adult Americans conducted by telephone by Opinion Research Corporation on January 9-10, 2008. The margin of sampling error for results based on the total sample is plus or minus 3 percentage points.

FOR RELEASE: SATURDAY, JANUARY 12 AT 2 PM

Here is a typical Question from this Poll, using their “filtered” version of reality:

11. For each of the following candidates, please tell me whether you will definitely vote for that person in November if they won their party’s nomination, whether you might consider voting for that person, or whether you will definitely not vote for that person in November. (RANDOM ORDER)

Definitely For | Consider Voting for | Definitely Not Vote for | No Opinion

Hillary Clinton 37% 19% 43% *

Barack Obama 30% 32% 38% *

John McCain 22% 35% 43% *

Rudy Giuliani 19% 25% 55% *

Mike Huckabee 15% 31% 52% 1%

Mitt Romney 13% 25% 62% 1%

A search of this entire Poll, shows Edwards Name is NOT mentioned anywhere! … (apparently he “was abducted by Aliens”!)

Did Edwards quit Running?

Did Edwards do worse than Giuliani or Romney?

What gives CNN the Right to Censor Edwards from this Opinion Poll?

(An Opinion Poll that the Media Bobble-heads, will no doubt repeat at nauseum for the next week, too.)

Could it be that CNN did not quite like the Results, when Edwards was included in their last Poll?

CNN poll: Edwards DESTROYS GOP candidates (with graphs!)

by BruinKid – Thu Dec 13, 2007

Maybe CNN was worried about another strong showing by Edwards, if he was included in their Jan. Poll?

This is simply Outrageous!

No matter which Candidate you support, the Media should not be empowered to make arbitrary decisions like this!

In my opinion, if John Edwards received half the coverage that Obama and Clinton have, the results of those 1st two elections would have been very different.



The corporate media blackout of John Edwards gets worse

by JedReport – Sat Jan 05, 2008

The Constitution vested the power to pick our Candidates with us — WE the People

And NOT Them the Corporate Media!

Where will this Media’s “streamlining of reality” end?

They sold us the Iraq War, with a smile and a cheer — what will they try to sell us next?

If you care about Free Speech and a free and open and fair Democratic Process — Please let CNN know how you feel:



[email protected]

while your at it give these other sponsors of the “powers that be” a piece of your mind too:

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

It really is time to take OUR Country Back!

John Edwards is right: Enough is Enough!

thank you.

——— [some Fun Facts] ————-

Current Delegate Count

Obama 25

Clinton 24

Edwards 19

Kucinich 0

Romney 21

Huckabee 14

McCain 12

Thompson 8

Paul 4

Hunter 1

Giullani 1

http://mydd.com/

Looks like Corporate Media-Bias to me!

——————-

Iowa results are in.  By all accounts, it’ll be:

38% Obama

30% Edwards

29% Clinton

Other

34% Huckabee

25% Romney

14% Thompson

13% McCain

10% Paul

Other

So allowing for a possible 1% fluctuation somewhere, how does this impact the race and California’s role therein?  Thus far, California numbers have mirrored national polling almost exactly.  Anybody want to guess where the Iowa bounce takes us?

UPDATE: Most recent Field Poll (pdf) has California looking this way two weeks ago:

25% Guiliani

17% Huckabee

15% Romney

12% McCain

6% Thompson

Others

And Dems:

36% Clinton

22% Obama

13% Edwards

Others

I wrote this for today’s Beyond Chron.

Remember the 1970’s game show with Monty Hall called “Let’s Make a Deal”?  Contestants on the program would pick a prize behind one of three curtains, and some would inevitably get stuck with a “gag prize” – such as a high chair with a screaming baby, a giant hot water bottle, or a pet donkey.  Today’s gag prize is the 2008 Republican Presidential nomination, as the political climate for next year should be very problematic for the G.O.P.  While the Republican presidential field is more fluid this year than the Democratic side, that’s because (a) each candidate is seriously flawed, (b) voters aren’t happy with any of them, and (c) unless the Democrats really screw up, 2008 should be a terrible year for Republicans.  Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee can enjoy the sudden burst of media attention that his high placement in the polls has garnered, but – assuming he wins the nomination – how much would that prize really be worth?  Nobody should care who wins the Republican nomination, because it probably won’t matter much in the end.

It is readily apparent why the Democrats are favored to win the White House next year, regardless of which candidates get nominated.  The American people have so tuned out George W. Bush, and want his Administration to be over, that no Republican candidate wants to be his heir-apparent.  I can’t think of any historical precedent where a two-term President leaves office so unpopular that the candidates in his own party don’t want his support.  In 1988, the Republican candidates all ran on the Reagan legacy – and in 2000, Clinton was very popular so that Al Gore could be his anointed successor.

But on the issues, the Republican candidates have learned nothing from the Bush fiasco.  They unapologetically support our quagmire in Iraq, engage in sabre-rattling on Iran that would make Dick Cheney blush, and every debate they have is about who can “out-torture” the other.  On immigration, the Republicans have a ticking time bomb that will cause them to pay dearly at the polls – as the growing Latino population in Texas, Colorado, Arizona and other states will be voting in droves next year.  In the House and Senate races, the Republicans are having a tough time recruiting candidates – and their fundraising has been anemic.

Which brings us to Mike Huckabee, who until recently was a second-tier candidate largely ignored by the mainstream media.  While he currently leads in Iowa, and has a good shot at winning some early states, I don’t believe that such a low-budget campaign can withstand the avalanche of front-loaded primaries on Super Tuesday to win the nomination.  I can only find one explanation for the Huckabee phenomenon: the other Republicans are so bad, that by default he has surged to the top.

Let’s start with Senator John McCain.  One year ago, he was the front-runner for the Republican nomination – due to his maverick nature and good reputation from the 2000 race.  But more than any other candidate, McCain has tied himself to the train wreck that is Iraq.  He now supports the Bush tax cuts he once opposed, sucks up to a Religious Right he once denounced, and is now so delusional that he jokes about bombing Iran.  Once a rising star in his Party, McCain’s stock has fallen to virtual obscurity.

Then there’s Mitt Romney.  He’s got lots of money and delivers red-meat rhetoric to social conservatives, but they hate him because he’s Mormon.  While I think he’s gotten a bad rap for this, it’s hard to generate sympathy for an opportunist who has changed what he believes in so many times to suit his needs.  He was a moderate to get elected Governor of Massachusetts, but now wants to make conservatives think he is one of them.  He wants to double the size of Guantanamo Prison, and says he won’t appoint a Muslim to his Cabinet.  As Michael Dukakis said, the guy is “a fraud with a capital ‘F.'”

Rudy Giuliani?  At first, I thought there was no way that Republicans would nominate a New York Mayor who is pro-choice and supports gay rights.  But his 9/11 talk has helped him with the “national security” crowd, and until recently he was the front-runner.  Then the mistress story hit, which is not your garden variety sex scandal.  Rudy used the NYPD to escort his mistress around, and billed it to other city agencies – so it’s also a taxpayer corruption scandal.  Republicans quickly remembered why they didn’t like him in the first place, and are deserting him like the plague.

The only way I see Republicans possibly winning the White House is if Giuliani survives the scandal to win the nomination, and the Democrats nominate Hillary Clinton.  A nasty general election between these two polarizing figures would be brutal and anything could happen, but I still think that Clinton could pull it off to win.  But it won’t be pretty.

Moving along to Fred Thompson.  The only reason this former Tennessee Senator and washed-up actor is running for President is because John McCain’s campaign has hit rock bottom.  For Democrats who fear that people underestimated another actor who ran for President, Thompson has not exactly proven to be another Ronald Reagan.  His campaign has been described as “lackluster” and “awkward,” and it really doesn’t seem like he wants to be in the race.  And this is who Republicans were pinning their hopes on to be their savior?

Will Mike Huckabee bail out the Republican Party from its woes?  Don’t count on it.  The evangelical Christian may be the “flavor of the month,” but will Republicans still support him when they find out that he allowed the early release of a serial rapist?  Unlike the current Barack Obama surge – which could really help the Illinois Senator win the Democratic nomination and become our next President – Huckabee is the Republican media darling by default.

This is not to say that Democrats should get over-confident and complacent in the general.  Who gets elected President will matter a great deal over the next four years, and whoever takes over the White House will inherit the disastrous mess that George Bush has left behind.  That’s why Democrats and other progressives should be constantly on guard for the next year, although the odds are certainly in their favor.  My intention in writing this piece is not to make Democrats feel good.  It is to call out the mainstream media for continuing to cover the Republican nomination as if it mattered.

Following the Republican field is exciting – if your definition of excitement is watching a car accident and predicting who will have the fewest injuries.  There’s a reason why the Democratic field has been static for months between three front-runners, while the Republican side has been volatile.  Democrats like their presidential candidates, while Republicans are looking elsewhere.  When CNN asked 24 undecided Republicans at the last debate for their opinion, only one had an idea about who she’ll be voting for: John Edwards.

The media is not doing anyone a favor by focusing on the Republican presidential race.  It is an irrelevant sideshow of dysfunctional candidates, and a distraction from the real race: the Democratic nomination.  What will happen in Iowa within the next month between Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and John Edwards can be decisive about who will be the next President.  But the Republican field doesn’t matter – and the media’s only justification in following it is to cover a “horse-race.”

A horse-race to see who wins the “gag prize.”

Send feedback to [email protected]

Disclosure: MySpace is paying for my travel

MANCHESTER-Following John Edwards and Barack Obama, tonight (7PM eastern) John McCain will be the first Republican candidate to participate in a MySpace/MTV interactive forum.

It should be an interesting night. On one had, New Hampshire’s same day registration provision allows candidates on both sides of the aisle potential for a youth surge not showing up in the polls — which could be a substantive boost in the expectations spin. For McCain specifically, he has been bleeding market share in the MySpace friends primary. I’ll be looking to the interactive perspective as it fascinates me. What do you think I should be looking for during the event?

Some pics, I’ll be posting live pics here:

It is cold and snowing:

Does the national political press demand lodging that includes multiple line phones no matter where they are doing business?

Ah…

I’ve seen only a handful of presidential bumperstickers in Los Angeles the last few months. I’ve been waiting for those dreadful “Kerry Edwards” things to come off on the Dem side, but the pickings have been slim. What have you seen?

This weekend in Hollywood and Toluca Lake I saw a Rudy sticker, all by itself, a Fred Thompson sticker amidst Human Rights Campaign and “Don’t Test on Animals” stickers, and a John McCain sticker along side a UC Berkeley emblem. What gives? I had my Dean For America sticker flying from April 03 and replaced it in January 04 with a DFA sticker. I think I’ve seen exactly 2 Obama stickers and MAYBE one for Hillary. What’s happening here?  Are people still not decided? or am I driving around the wrong areas? What’s happening where you are?

Hillary Clinton continues to lead California by a significant margin according to the latest SUSA poll. (h/t to Political Wire)  Last month's are in parens.

Democrats                         Republicans

Hillary Clinton 46 (48)           Rudolph Giuliani 28 (34)
Barack Obama 28 (27)         John McCain 21 (21)
John Edwards 14                    F. Thompson 21 (11)
Other 8                                          Mit Romney 11 (12)
Undecided 4                              Newt Gingrich 8 (9)
                                            Undecided 3 (5)

More over the flip. 

There is much more movement in the Republican poll than the Democratic one, due to the emergence of Fred Thompson as a likely contender.  He is in the running here in California and if he does not stumble out of the gates he should get another bump from his announcement.  And this is interesting.

Among Conservatives, Thompson is up 12 points month-on month, and has gone from 4th place to 1st. There is volatility among Hispanics, who make up 17% of likely Republican Primary voters in SurveyUSA's turnout model: Giuliani has lost 23 points month-on-month, down from 46% to today 23%. Thompson's support among Hispanics is up 5 fold, from 5% to 24%. Margin of Sampling Error is high for this small subgroup, but the movement is striking nonetheless.

On the Democratic side, Clinton is holding steading on to a substantial lead.  There has been little that has occurred over the last month to shake up the numbers.  This poll was conducted prior to the debate on Sunday.

(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

I didn’t get around to posting the Republican Field poll. After all, I’m pretty sure that most people who read this blog are slightly less interested in that primary.  However, here is that GOP primary poll (PDF), it was released yesterday. Without Fred Thompson and Newt Gingrich, Guiliani leads McCain and Romney 36-24-7. With those two Guiliani leads McCain 29-21, with  the others all garnering less than 10%. But, the really good news? Each of the three leading Dems are leading comfortably over both Guiliani and McCain.

Bush, on the other hand, is an albatross for all of the Republicans. Today’s Field Poll pegs his support in California at 26%. Yes, you read that right Just slightly more than 1/4 of the state’s voters approve of the President. Is there a floor? Who knows? 20%? Now, he’s clearly losing his base.  Oh, and the fact that 72% view his handling of the Iraq War negatively can’t help things.