A new LA Times/Bloomberg Poll of 3,211 Democrats and Republicans in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina (whose full results will be released shortly) shows Clinton with clear leads in the early states of Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina.

Iowa:

Romney      28
Giuliani    16
Thompson    16
Huckabee     8
McCain       7

Romney      28
Giuliani    23
McCain      12
Thompson    11
McCain

Thompson    26
Giuliani    23
McCain      15
Romney       9

Update [2007-9-11 18:15:10 by Todd Beeton]: The full results are HERE (pdf.)

There's more...

A new LA Times/Bloomberg Poll of 3,211 Democrats and Republicans in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina (whose full results will be released shortly) shows Clinton with clear leads in the early states of Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina.

Iowa:

Clinton     28
Edwards     23
Obama       19
Richardson  10

New Hampshire:

Clinton     35
Obama       16
Edwards     16
Richardson:  8

South Carolina:

Clinton     45
Obama       27
Edwards      7
Richardson   1

More on this later but what jumps out at me beyond Clinton's leads is that Edwards seems to be surging in New Hampshire at Obama's expense (this appears to be their first early state poll so there are no trend lines and this could be an outlier, but this is something to look for in subsequent New Hampshire polls.)

Update [2007-9-11 18:15:10 by Todd Beeton]: The full results are HERE (pdf.)

A sidenote: 54% of South Carolina Democratic voters are certain of whom they'll vote for as compared to 46% of New Hampshire Democrats and 41% of Iowa Democrats. In all three states, Obama is the top 2nd choice pick.

Update [2007-9-11 19:12:9 by Jonathan Singer]: I do just want to add that the "likely" voter screen for the LA Times and Bloomberg is a bit loose. Doing some back of the napkin math, the likely voter model used here would include more than 870,000 Democratic caucus participants -- which is a bit more than the 122,000 or so that participated in the last Democratic caucus. While there may be more excitement this time around than there was in 2004, there isn't that much more excitement. So what does that mean? A lot of the folks the Times and Bloomberg are deeming "likely" voters or caucus goers are in fact unlikely to participate come January. Most in fact. As such, while these numbers might be good gauges of the general sentiments of these states, I'm not certain how good of gauges they are of the sentiments of those who are actually going to play a large role in selecting the next Democratic nominee.

There's more...