Breaking L A TIMES California Poll -Clinton 49% Sanders 39%

[DemocratSinceBirth]

But among those most likely to vote, based on their voting history and stated intentions this time around, Clinton led, 49%-39%, in the new poll. Her standing is bolstered by the reliability of her older supporters, who have a proven record of casting ballots.


http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-latimes-presidential-primary-poll-20160602-snap-story.html

[Renew Deal]

1. Polls are all over. 12, 10, 9, 2, 2

But none show Sanders with a lead.

[HerbChestnut]

28. Actually, this one does

For some reason (gee, I can only wonder why) the OP didn't include the real results. Bernie is leading 44/43 over Hillary. Read the article linked in the OP.

[Bill USA]

61. "among those most likely to vote.. Clinton led, 49%-39%"..polls of likely voters r better predictors

.. of election results.

The Vermont senator has battled Clinton to a draw among all voters eligible for the Democratic primary, with 44% siding with him to 43% for Clinton. That represented a nine-point swing from a USC/Los Angeles Times poll in March, in which Clinton led handily.

But among those most likely to vote, based on their voting history and stated intentions this time around, Clinton led, 49%-39%, in the new poll. Her standing is bolstered by the reliability of her older supporters, who have a proven record of casting ballots.

[HerbChestnut]

68. Sure and according to this poll he's also leading w/ early voters, 48-43.

So that all of this as a sign that CA is a toss up right now.

[JimDandy]

32. Bernie BEAT Clinton in THIS poll 44% to 43% among all voters eligible for the Democratic Primary!!!

Do you LIKE it when your fellow supporters are dishonest to you? Is "winning at all costs" now the new slogan?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

71. What part of likely voter don't you understand?

But among those most likely to vote, based on their voting history and stated intentions this time around, Clinton led, 49%-39%, in the new poll. Her standing is bolstered by the reliability of her older supporters, who have a proven record of casting ballots.


http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-latimes-presidential-primary-poll-20160602-snap-story.html

[John Poet]

98. Your headline says nothing about 'likely voters'.

It is misleading, intentional or not.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

101. I reported the numbers as they were reported...

I don't need a lecture from you... The only people whose lectures I listened to were my mom and dad, but they are dead now, not at my hands of course.

[Bill USA]

65. California Democratic Presidential Primary - RealClear Politics, avg 5 polls: HRC: 50.2%, BS: 42.8%

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512104282

[MadBadger]

2. A poll of all voters doenst really tell you anything

To all those that will cite those numbers

[tonyt53]

4. Usually, but that last sentence is a telling factor. Reliably accurate.

Also, if your assertion that a poll of all voters doesn't matter, why do Bernie's followers always cite those polls showing Bernie beating Trump by more than Hillary? A look at her wins when compared to the electoral college map is a more accurate gauge. i think "landslide" is the word to describe it. Oh, I learned as an 18 y/o voting in 1972 that people over 50 actually do reliably vote.

[Cali_Democrat]

3. Polls don't count unless they show Bernie winning.

Those are the rules.

You should self-delete this.

[beachbumbob]

10. So true...we will know in 5 days how much sanders has lost

The nomination by in popular vote...in pledged delegates...we already know 90% of the super delegates remain committed to Hillary...the few remaining primaries after June 7 of little consequence

[BeyondGeography]

5. Which reminds me

Obama had some good numbers against HRC in 2008, even leading in the (in)famous Zogby poll, then he lost by 8 or 9 points. This rings true.

[BootinUp]

7. Much higher turnouts that year though than we are seeing this time. nt

[realmirage]

15. CA isn't even relevant, just as in 08

After NJ Hillary will be declared the nominee

[LonePirate]

23. Actually, CA was relevant in 2008 as the primary was in early February instead of early June.

[realmirage]

6. That's far short of the 100% BS needs of CA delegates to clinch

[MariaThinks]

79. BS?

[realmirage]

88. Sanders initials

[hrmjustin]

8. I think it will be closer but i will take it.

[CrowCityDem]

9. This poll won't get attention. Watch.

[CorkySt.Clair]

11. Shock poll

[NWCorona]

12. I'm sure this poll will definitely bring comfort to some.

I've never said for sure that Bernie will win in Cali but I think he will end up pulling this off. It's gonna come down to turn out.

I listen to Pac everyday but I think this is more fitting for Hillary.

[auntpurl]

13. I love that song.

[NWCorona]

34. Me too!

[realmirage]

17. It doesn't matter either way. CA wasn't relevant in 08

and it isn't really relevant now

[NWCorona]

25. Hillary's actions in Cali speak otherwise.

[realmirage]

75. Just crossing her 't's.

If you really think CA is all that relevant you're going to have a rough night next Tuesday about 8pm ET

[beachbumbob]

26. I agree except to note

A double digit win by Hillary will the final REJECTION notice of Bernie...he outspent Hillary by huge margins and been in California for a couple weeks....this is finally the end of sanders

[auntpurl]

46. As a Hillary supporter, I somewhat disagree.

In practice, you're right. Hillary does not need to win CA, just as Obama didn't.

But in optics, it would be nice if she won it. She's spending time there because she knows a win there will be the final nail in the coffin in the PERCEPTION that Bernie is still viable. He isn't, not in reality, and he hasn't been for a long time, but the perception among his supporters being fueled by delusional promises from his own campaign, is preventing Hillary from concentrating fully on the GE.

[realmirage]

57. I don't really agree, though I see your point.

No one said Obama needed it in 08 and indeed he didn't need it to win the primary or the White House. Only a woman would be told she needs something no man ever needed, even for optics. Yes, it would be nice to win big, but it doesn't really matter in the end.

[auntpurl]

66. And I agree with THAT point completely.

There has been an unfair onus put on Hillary throughout this cycle. Just the fact people are arguing that she shouldn't be called the presumptive nominee after June 7 when she will have the requisite number of PDs and SDs together AND a majority of PDs alone, it's ridiculous. NO OTHER CANDIDATE has ever been held to that standard.

Still, after the torrent of unfair abuse she's been subjected to throughout this cycle, I kind of want her to shove it down their throats. That's just me being petty.

[realmirage]

74. The misogyny is rampant!

They'll deny it, but misogyny is often in the subconscious, so I don't expect any admissions. But we'll both be happy next Tuesday : )

[azurnoir]

14. Lol nice try but no fly good click bait though

link to poll and note question # 30

https://gqrr.app.box.com/s/xcuxiz76cj9ff0a5v4a1ruwo9gl0u566

[DemocratSinceBirth]

19. What part of likely voters don't you understand?

[azurnoir]

22. and what part of hard poll numbers do you not understand?

oh BTW Sanders scored higher with Latino voters than Clinton

[DemocratSinceBirth]

30. Here is the Huffington Post graph

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-california-democratic-presidential-primary


Do you notice something?

Being the paragon of empathy , helpfulness, and thoughtfulness, that I am I will point it out for you . They only include likely voters because likely voters are likely to vote.

[MariaThinks]

81. But if we ignore likely voters, then we can claim that hillary won because she cheated.

if BS wins, it's democracy, but if Hillary wins she must be cheating.

[JimDandy]

24. What part of BEAT Clinton in the poll don't you understand.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

33. Please see Post 30.

[JimDandy]

40. No. You change your DISHONEST, LYING post.

And jury, IT IS. Check the link. Really. We don't need this constant "win at all costs" from anyone in the DEMOCRATIC party.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

51. I couldn't care less about a jury.

No. You change your DISHONEST, LYING post.
And jury, IT IS. Check the link. Really. We don't need this constant "win at all costs" from anyone in the DEMOCRATIC party

-Jim Dandy

I couldn't care less about a jury. If I responded to your attack in kind I would be locked out of my own thread and I would expect a knock from LAPD, at any moment, on my door. The former would probably bother me more.


You picked the wrong poster to disrespect.

[JimDandy]

53. Oh please, posters that continue to post dishonest threads have every reason to be called on

them.

LAPD? Good Grief! Take a break from DU

[DemocratSinceBirth]

59. I didn't lie. I posted the numbers that poll aggregators use

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-california-democratic-presidential-primary

Your mileage may vary. In the working class milieu from which I come from when people are called liars hands are eventually thrown up.

[JimDandy]

62. Good Bye!! n/t

[DemocratSinceBirth]

67. Have a day.

[Number23]

94. Rec'ing in Mr. Dandy's honor

That man makes the best grits in town.



A nice hot bowl of that (and a chill pill the size of a Volkswagen) may be just what his namesake in this thread needs.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

95. Jim Dandy To The Rescue

[pintobean]

73. Jury results

AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service

Mail Message
On Thu Jun 2, 2016, 06:11 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

No. You change your DISHONEST, LYING post.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=2111192

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

This is an over-the-top insult, not based in fact, and this response is disproportionate. DSB did not attack this poster with any kind of similar nastiness. Time for this stuff to wind down and stop.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Thu Jun 2, 2016, 06:22 PM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: We're almost done with this craziness -- one can hope.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Dear goddess, this is a discussion board. Why is anyone alerting on a discussion. This one just happens to get heated but I just don't see where the poster did anything terrible, awful.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: post is insulting
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: censorship attempt, nothing wrong w post

[JimDandy]

76. Thank you.

Tired of the win at all costs going on here.

And just got my first hide ever in 10 years on DU in another thread. Can guess who.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

82. My parents were working class but my grandparents paid to send me to sleepaway camp...

My parents were working class but my grandparents paid to send me to sleepaway camp to get me out of New York City for the summer...They sent me to Camp Lakota. It's still around... When two kids had a beef the counselors would make them have a boxing match in the gym with the other kids watching... We wore gloves and boxed in a real ring. There were very few beefs.

The further the distance the less the courtesy.


Oh, you could commit any calumny against a Clinton supporter and your post wouldn't be hidden.

[pintobean]

89. I don't care

which candidate you support, the post wasn't hide worthy. Your accusation that the jurors voted based on primary preference is as bad, if not worse, than the post we adjudicated.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

90. I love you too...

In the working class milieu I was raised in if I called somebody a liar I better have been prepared to throw my hands up. Let your compadre find more timid posters to call a liar.





P.S. And the administrators have noted the unfairness of the jury system. That is why they have changed the rules; if you vote in a biased manner you can be removed from the jury pool and reaching five hides no longer result in a time out.

I have also seen posters get hides for posting jury results, fancy that...

[pintobean]

96. Oh, dear.

It stung, didn't it. Blaming a lame alert on the jury is a DU tradition, since 2011.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

97. I love you too... (REDUX)

[pintobean]

102. I have zero hidden posts

Not that I would stoop to such a tactic, but I don't need to hide personal attacks in edited posts, like you're doing. The irony is pretty funny, though.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

103. I live you too... (REDUX +1)

"I have zero hidden posts,"

And O.J. Simpson was acquitted after all the evidence pointed to him lobbing his wife and friend's domes off...

[John Poet]

99. In this case, the jury was right, and the poster was right.

Can't sue for libel when someone prints the truth.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

100. I didn't lie... I cited the likely voter numbers...

I didn't lie... I cited the likely voter numbers:







It is messed up and pusillanimous to hide behind a modem and call people liars though.

[JimDandy]

16. Bernie BEAT Clinton in the poll 44% to 43% among all voters eligible!!! Intellectually dishonest!

[realmirage]

20. Most eligible voters don't vote. That's why 'likely' voters

are the ones we focus on

[azurnoir]

29. so Clinton does better with imaginary voters?

[realmirage]

31. You're not making sense.

[azurnoir]

38. Likely voters didn't vote in the poll there fore they are imaginary

[JimDandy]

44. That is how polls have traditionally negated the youth vote and especially in this election!

[azurnoir]

48. No we're not talking about actually voting we're talking about a poll

thanks for your concern though

[realmirage]

77. You're still not making sense.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

41. She does better with people who actually vote. That isn't hard to grasp, is it?

[azurnoir]

43. Not in that poll she didn't nor did she do too well with Latino's

[DemocratSinceBirth]

21. Please see Post 19

Thank you in advance.

[azurnoir]

27. ah so it's what some imagine might possibly could have happened

thanks for clearing that up for us

[Haxen]

93. Field and NBC used LV

Nobody else has used RV in California.
Only LV.

[beachbumbob]

18. Been reported early vote count Hillary up nearly

Like 17 or 18%.... Early vote in California ....55-60% of the total...will be interesting as sanders has spent his last remaining cash and a couple weeks in California.....easily outspending Hillary by a factor of 10.....this maybe THE final knock out of sanders if this a huge victory for Hillary...the final rejection of Bernie....we can hope we send sanders back to Vermont

[JonLeibowitz]

37. Factor of 10? Got a source?

[beachbumbob]

49. As soon as sanders files FEC report

[JonLeibowitz]

50. So you've got nothing. Figured as much.

[beachbum bob]

55. not hard to figure out...3 weeks of tv ads in one the most expensive ad buy markets

2 weeks pretty much the campaing been in california...hillary not so much until a week or so ago....and historical data on how much bernie has outspent hillary in other races he has lost

sanders has bernt thru his cash and then some...and late on last FEC filings

[Mr Maru]

35. Not that it matters that much because she IS the presumptive nominee

and that will be undeniable by 8pm EST on the 7th, BUT

I'm predicting Hillary by 4% in CA.

JM2C

[auntpurl]

47. I've said between 5 and 9

I'm holding to that for the moment.

[JonLeibowitz]

36. Which question in the USC/LA Times PDF release are you referring to?

https://gqrr.app.box.com/s/xcuxiz76cj9ff0a5v4a1ruwo9gl0u566

I see no mention of the numbers the LA Times references nor the methodologies used for screening. But yes, I expect that if you exclude those voters who haven't voted in a primary election since 2008, then Clinton wins. No surprise there. Of course, the predictive power there is likely to be quite weak since many young voters today were too young in 2008 to vote.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

39. Please see Post 30.

Thank you in advance.

[JonLeibowitz]

42. More affectations and deflections. You didn't answer. I'll be more explicit....:

What was the voter screen to determine who was likely?

If that is not released, then I really could not give a damn what the poll says. Transparency in polling and in government matter a great deal.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

54. Here

But among those most likely to vote, based on their voting history and stated intentions this time around, Clinton led, 49%-39%, in the new poll. Her standing is bolstered by the reliability of her older supporters, who have a proven record of casting ballots.


http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-latimes-presidential-primary-poll-20160602-snap-story.html


And since I am a thoughtful, empathetic, and helpful poster here is the contact information for the L A Times for you to direct your queries:

Los Angeles Times
202 W. 1st St.
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Phone: [phone]

[Mr Maru]

56. It doesn't really matter what you think of the poll, or what I think of it

or anyone else. Hillary is the presumptive nominee before CA even finishes voting. That's just a fact.

[ucrdem]

45. "She also leads convincingly among registered Democrats," 53% - 37%

She also leads convincingly among registered Democrats; 53% of likely Democratic voters supported her, to 37% for Sanders. Throughout the year, she has carried party members in every state but Sanders’ home state of Vermont and next-door New Hampshire, where he won in a landslide.

[beachbumbob]

52. June 16 be here soon...

[ucrdem]

60. I think she's going for a TKO on Tuesday.

It's going to be a blowout here. Now I see why they went for the Hail Mary lawsuit which probably hurt more than it could ever have helped.

[DCBob]

80. If this was a Democrat only primary Hillary would have locked it up a long time ago.

Bernie has been given life by Indies and RepuberDems.

[Beacool]

58. Interesting....

"She also leads convincingly among registered Democrats; 53% of likely Democratic voters supported her, to 37% for Sanders. Throughout the year, she has carried party members in every state but Sanders’ home state of Vermont and next-door New Hampshire, where he won in a landslide.

As he has elsewhere, Sanders benefits here from party rules that allow registered nonpartisan voters — known in California as “no party preference” voters — to take part in the Democratic primary. Among nonpartisans who were likely to vote, he led by 48%-35%."

So, the only reason it's so close it's that people who are not Democrats are supporting him.

[ucrdem]

63. Yep. Which is why he sued to stop the show. Didn't work tho.

Cali has a semi-closed Dem primary meaning you either have to be a registered Dem or an NPP (undeclared, which is what you get via Motor-Voter, which is new here) and take an additional step to vote in the D primary. And you know what that means.

[Beacool]

69. Actually, it doesn't really matter.

"For all the threat the primary represents, Clinton, who likely will clinch the Democratic nomination even before Californians’ votes are counted, retains most of her strength in a general election contest against presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump."

[ucrdem]

70. LOL, you're right! But it would be a nice way of saying goodbye to our new friend.

We're going to give him something to remember us by.

[SidDithers]

64. Roger Troutman...

Sid

[DemocratSinceBirth]

72. They called your pal a liar for posting the numbers all poll aggregators use

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-california-democratic-presidential-primary

[Miles Archer]

78. Dem Race Tightens in California as Clinton Barely Leads Sanders 49% to 47%: Poll

Dem Race Tightens in California as Clinton Barely Leads Sanders 49% to 47%: Poll

Politics
Jun 2 2016, 2:20 am ET

Hillary Clinton is clinging to a narrow two-point lead over Bernie Sanders in California ahead of the state's June 7 primary, according to results from a new NBC News/Wall Street Journal/Marist poll.

Clinton gets support from 49 percent of likely Democratic primary voters in the state, while Sanders gets 47 percent, which is within the survey's statistical margin of error.

And among a wider electorate of all potential Democratic voters in California, Sanders is actually ahead by one point, 48 percent to 47 percent.

Clinton and Sanders running even in California wouldn't affect the overall delegate math in the Democratic race, where Clinton leads Sanders by some 270 pledged delegates and 770 overall delegates. (A tied race would essentially split the state's 475 pledged delegates right down the middle under the Democrats' proportional allocation system.)

[DemocratSinceBirth]

83. That's another poll...You are correct...

BTW, I saw where you made a thread alluding to me when I opined GOP donors will shun Trump... You got me... I was wrong about Sheldon Adelson. He loves filthy lucre more than he loves Israel.

However, many other GOP donors aren't so inclined to donate:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/22/us/politics/trump-money-gop.html


Just updating the record.

[Miles Archer]

85. I forgot who I had that conversation with, but yeah...

...I try my best to not make definitive statements about anything. If Adelson had refrained I would have also doubled back and made a statement along the lines of "I was told he wasn't going to do it, and I disagreed, but the other guy was right."

Guys like the Koch brothers don't want to "taint" their brand with Trump. Even if they do throw in a few bucks it will be under the table via some anonymous or hard to trace "Super PAC," but they will not associate their name with Trump. I could be wrong about that one too, but I doubt it. They've pretty much said the same thing publicly already, so they'd have to flip-flop, and that would taint the brand, too.

I just felt Adelson in my gut, that he was waiting to see how many clowns Trump ejected from the clown car, and when he was satisfied that he'd get a return on his investment, he'd do it. Adelson spends his money on influence. On DU we can say "Oh boy, now Adelson has the Donald in his back pocket" whereas the average Trump supporter probably thinks "WOW! A billionaire casino owner is giving Trump $100 million because he knows he's going to win!"

I lived in Nevada from 2012-2015. Adelson buying the Review-Journal was something I took personally, as invasive. I remember the posts the day he bought it...from the writers, on Facebook...which pretty much said "This means nothing other than the fact that he bought the paper. We will not be told what to write, we will not show bias." And they have stuck to their guns. They are still in my Facebook feed and it is NOT Trump 24/7.

From December:

The Adelson forces buy a newspaper, journalists fight back: a journal of my updates on this story

http://pressthink.org/2015/12/the-adelson-forces-buy-a-newspaper-journalists-fight-back-a-journal-of-my-updates-on-this-story/

[DemocratSinceBirth]

86. I suspect Trump opposes online gambling as it cuts into his business as does Adelson.

[MattP]

84. They ask are you likely to vote in the poll read it

That's likely voters in the poll, voting since 2008 has nothing to do with it

[Rex]

87. Picking up 70 plus delegates will be easy for HRC. nt

nt

[Logical]

91. Dramatic headline, check, silly video, check

[DemocratSinceBirth]

92. I love you too.

[R B Garr]

104. Thanks for posting this, DSB!

Great news.