Primary puts voters in the presidential race

The hot candidate du jour, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, has leapfrogged from the obscure rear of the Republican presidential pack in California, just as he has all across the country.

And, mirroring the rest of the nation, many Republican voters in California (41%) are dissatisfied with their choice of candidates.

These findings from a new statewide poll were released Wednesday night by the Public Policy Institute of California.

In a nutshell, the survey shows that former Mayor Rudy Giuliani of New York is far ahead in California, supported by 24% of likely GOP voters in the Feb. 5 primary. Former Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts trails at 15%. Neither of these candidates’ numbers has changed significantly since a September poll by the same think tank.

But Huckabee, a plain-spoken Southern Baptist preacher, has jumped from oblivion to third place at 12%, a gain of 10 percentage points. He has particularly won converts in California’s Bible Belt, the Central Valley, and is running a distant second there.

The dramatic surge has come at the expense of Sen. John McCain of Arizona and former Sen. Fred Thompson of Tennessee, who have lost 4 and 6 points, respectively -- the total of what Huckabee has gained. McCain now is at 11% and Thompson at 10%.

“The fact that Huckabee has come out of nowhere into contention suggests that Republicans are open-minded and looking for someone who has some answers,” says PPIC pollster and President Mark Baldassare.

In the Democratic race, little has changed in two months. Unlike in other states, where the contest is tight between Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois and former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina, Clinton has been running away with it in California. The numbers: Clinton 44%, Obama 20%, Edwards 12%.

The majority of all voters surveyed (58%) -- Democrats, Republicans, independents -- voice dissatisfaction with the amount of attention the candidates are spending on important issues. All I can figure is that these voters must not have been paying much attention themselves -- neither watching the televised debates nor reading newspaper reports.

But 78% profess to be closely following the campaign news.

Californians are fortunate that the Legislature, in its own self-interest, moved up the state’s presidential primary from June to early February. In June, it would have been like holding a general election two weeks before a president’s inauguration. The voting would have been totally irrelevant.

At least on Feb. 5, no candidate will have yet scooped up enough convention delegates to clinch the nomination. California voters will be allowed to participate in the nominating process rather than being forced to watch from the nosebleed seats.

And that’s the main benefit of moving up the primary to “Tsunami Tuesday,” when 22 states will hold presidential contests in what will be tantamount to a national primary. The benefit is not about gaining coveted “clout.”

Nor is the motivation envy of those pampered pipsqueak states Iowa and New Hampshire that perpetually vote first. Well, maybe a little envy combined with a sense of injustice. After all, California is offering nearly 11% of the total Democratic convention delegates; New Hampshire fewer than 1%.

The public’s interest jibes with the Legislature’s self-interest in this case. The public gets a meaningful presidential primary. The Legislature sets up an opportunity for voters to change term limits in time for many termed-out lawmakers to run for reelection next year.

As Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata (D-Oakland) observed last February when the Legislature was moving up the primary: “The more you take self-interest out of any political decision, you reduce the ability to get something done. I mean, it’s a plain fact of life.”

The poll shows that the term-limits measure, Proposition 93, still is ahead but continues to slip. The latest figures are 47% in favor and 38% opposed, an 8-point drop in support since September.

The survey indicates that many voters are confused. Prop. 93 would reduce the total number of years someone could spend in the Legislature from 14 to 12, but allow all the time to be served in one house.

Currently, lawmakers are limited to three two-year terms in the Assembly and two four-year stints in the Senate. Prop. 93 also contains a sweetheart deal for incumbents: They could spend a total of 12 years in their current house, regardless of previous service.

Virtually all legislators support Proposition 93 because it makes term limits more flexible. But many voters apparently think that it tightens them: Those who support term limits overwhelmingly favor Proposition 93. And voters lean against the sweetheart deal, even without it being called that.

Voters also tend to think that advancing the presidential primary to February was a good idea. They can start voting with absentee ballots on Jan. 7 -- only four days after Iowans caucus and one day before New Hampshire votes. At least a third of California’s voters are expected to have cast ballots by election day.

The outcomes in Iowa and New Hampshire -- states that don’t determine nominees as much as destroy candidacies -- will recast the race for Californians. Unknown is how many voters on Feb. 5 will merely jump aboard the bandwagons of expected winners.

Baldassare doesn’t believe many: “I don’t think Californians are going to say, ‘The people from Iowa and New Hampshire have spoken and we have a lot in common with them, so that’s how I’m going to vote.’ Because we don’t have a lot in common with Iowa and New Hampshire, face it.”

Thanks to the earlier primary, California will have its own role to play and some entertainment to enjoy. It’ll be fun watching Huckabee. Is he just du jour or for real? The Central Valley may help answer.

--

george.skelton@latimes.com