A new Times/Bloomberg poll posts soon

Barack Obama is winning the battle of "new ideas."  But that's about the only good news for him in a new Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll that focused on the three early-voting states in the presidential nominating process: Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina.  Hillary Clinton has a solid lead among Democratic-leaning voters in New Hampshire and South Carolina, and a lesser advantage in Iowa.

Obama, other than being clearly identified by voters as the leader in offering new ideas, fails to stake out any obvious advantages.  In Iowa and New Hampshire, he vies with John Edwards for second place.

In the Republican presidential race, the survey shows that Mitt Romney is on track with his strategy of focusing on Iowa and New Hampshire, and then hoping that victories in those two states will boomerang him past Rudy Giuliani -- who has more of a national following -- in contests that follow.  Romney leads in Iowa and, by a lesser margin, in New Hampshire.

Still, preferences among GOP-leaning voters are fractured, with no candidate claiming substantial support in either of those two states or South Carolina (where newly minted candidate Fred Thompson makes his best showing).

We won't reveal the exact numbers in the candidate matchups here.  For that, check LATimes.com at 2 p.m. Pacific time today and Wednesday's print edition for all the figures and analysis.

-- Don Frederick

Comments

[OEST]

Has Hillary Clinton ever NOT LED in any LA Times Poll, this year?

[TJFRMLA]

I'm suspect of any POLLS...They all LIE! They poll a few, select, very narrow dynamic individuals. They write the questions to support their desired outcome and they always have an alternative agenda. They are not to be trusted. Just Like MSM their owners have an "agenda". Pundits and Pollsters are a waste of skin. Vote for whom ever YOU decide...but do not let Pollsters & Pundits influence you.

[John]

"New ideas" may work as sloganeering, but it doesn't translate into a clear, actionable event that voters can understand. Hope is intrinsically passive. Our varied and complex global crises require a leader to be decisive, to act, not simply hope for a better world. Also, a lot was made of the "Oprah effect," but she has had mixed results. The media is too star struck to see this objectively.

[Bob Kholos]

The reason Barack Obama is not getting enough traction in the early primary states(exception Iowa) is that he acts like an incumbent President, rather than someone hungry for the office.
I will still vote for Obama or Richardson, but am quite worried about the Senator from Illinois not having the right campaign staff around him.
Let us wait until the late November polls to get a better feel for the Democratic Primary.