People are coming up to me here in Southern California asking me who I think will win the Republican nomination.

There is incredible interest in this election process, everybody's talking about it.

I always say the same thing.  I don't know who's going to win, I don't support any candidate publicly, and I don't root for anyone.

Sometimes people are disappointed when they hear that.

But I cannot possibly cover the election in a fair way if I'm rooting for somebody.

It's my job to ask the toughest questions I can to all the candidates.

It is also my mandate to tell you the truth about each person who wants power over you.

And I think I do that using facts and clarity.

Today there is new polling.  I'm just going to summarize it for you.

Nationally Donald Trump has a big lead in the Republican sweepstakes, about 41% according to CNN.

Ted Cruz is second, Marco Rubio third.

At this point those three men seem to have the only chance for the Republican nomination.

In Iowa it's a brawl between Trump and Cruz, anything could happen there.

In New Hampshire Trump is likely to win easily.

In South Carolina Trump is well ahead.

But polls change quickly.

For example in Iowa about 33% of the voters still say they could change their minds, a big number.

On the other side Hillary Clinton will defeat Bernie Sanders unless she is indicted in the email deal.

Sanders is competing well in Iowa and New Hampshire but has little chance in the larger states.  He is simply too far left even for many Democrats.

The American media is covering the race the way it always does: chaotically.

On talk radio you have rooting and there's nothing wrong with that.  Radio people are not reporters.

They build their ratings on a particular point of view.

TV, as always, leans left except for Fox News, which gives conservatives a voice to be fair and balanced.

However, at FNC I don't see any pattern of support for anybody -- it's all over the place.

On the Internet there is deception and you should understand how bad this situation is.

Let me give you an example.

Politico.com is heavily covering the election.

A recent article by Jack Shafer is a total distortion.

He writes:

"If Trump were a cable news show he'd be a less articulate version of The O'Reilly Factor, which channels many of the same century-old media currents Trump exploits."

Not sure what "century-old media currents" is, but I am certain it's a cheap shot.

Shafer continues:

"As Callum Borchers wrote recently in the Washington Post, O'Reilly doesn't give Trump a free ride when he appears on the show. …  But O'Reilly tempers his criticism with support, Borchers notes: In a November interview O'Reilly said to Trump, 'Look, you know I'm looking out for you, right?'"

Absolutely ridiculous, here's the context:

November 23, 2015

BILL O’REILLY: “You know I am looking out for you, right? You know that? I am looking out for you.  I look out for every honest politician.  I do not care what party they are in.”

The Politico story was designed to mislead readers into thinking I am supporting Donald Trump.

A blatant deception.

This is the problem with American journalism today.  There are no standards anymore -- each individual outlet does pretty much what it wants to do with little accountability.

That makes it harder for you the honest voter to decide who really is looking out for you.

And that's the memo.