Let's All Admit It: The Scale and Scope of Clinton's California Victory is Surprising

[alcibiades_mystery]

OK, first, let's dispense with the formalities: Yes, Hillary was up 60 points and anything short of that is YOOOGE. Fine. OK, sure, I predicted Bernie wouldn't win a state, and I was wrong. Fine.

Now on to actual recent history. If somebody would have said on the weekend that Hillary would win 56-43, a 13 point margin, and would really dominate in Los Angeles (currently 58-41), San Francisco (56-44), San Diego (55-44), Sacramento (57-42), you would have said, NAH. I mean Clinton supporter, Sanders supporter, whatever. You would have said NAH. It's going to be close than that. You thought it would be closer. Admit it. You thought Sanders would win, some of youz. You regaled us with tales of collapsing internals and the like! It wasn't even close.

It wasn't. It probably never was. Clinton built a 400,000 vote lead in early mail-ins, and really never relinquished it. It was 400,000 votes with about 18% counted, and stayed that way. The current margin is 425,000 votes. It was never close.

For months we were told to wait for California. Well, it came and went, and Sanders got thumped. Thumped. It's satisfying, I'll admit.

OK, OK, elephant (haha) in the room: It's because of the AP Call!. The size and scope of the victory, the absolute trouncing of Sanders, suggests not. The fact that the difference in early vote was so large (65-35 and higher in many areas) suggests not. But let's assume that the AP call was the sole determining factor that "stole" California from Bernie. Let's assume it. My God, then, the genius of it! Assuming even a 1 percentage point win for Sanders (and many Sandersites expected a win much bigger than that), the Clinton people, by merely having their superdelegates announce at an opportune time, turned the election FOURTEEN PERCENTAGE POINTS in one day! That's what you'd have to believe. They shifted the vote by over 450,000 through this machination, if you believe that theory. The fucking political genius of it should stun you. Even if you believe this nonsense, isn't that a pretty great argument FOR making Secretary Clinton the nominee? How can we continue to claim that she is a weak candidate if she can shrewdly turn 450,000 votes and 14 percentage points on a dime?

Incredible!

Congratulations to Secretary Clinton on a hard fought victory. Since Sanders is not yet dropping out, I'll wait to congratulate him on his run when he does. We're still fighting, fine. Let's do it. Here's to hoping Clinton crushes him again in DC.

[hrmjustin]

1. The first round of mail in ballots was much stronger than I expected.

[w4rma]

111. California contraction: Hillary loses 30% of votes from 2008

Hillary Clinton’s base of support appears to have hit its high watermark eight years ago.

Hillary Clinton Eau Claire yawnThe election results from the California and New Jersey primaries are just the latest examples of the contraction of enthusiasm her campaign seems to be experiencing.

With 94.4% of precincts reporting, Clinton won 1,841,285 votes in California on Tuesday, compared to Bernie Sanders’s 1,416,742, Politico reports.

That’s nearly a 30% drop in total support from 2008, when she received 2,608,184 votes, or 51.47%. (Barack Obama got 2,186,662 votes or 43.16%.)

The results weren’t much better in New Jersey. While Clinton won the state — as she did in 2008 — she saw a decline in support there, too.

On Tuesday, Clinton received 542,656 votes, or 63.35% of the ballots cast compared to Sanders’s 315,194 votes, according to the Politico totals.

That’s a 13% decline in support from her 2008 turnout, when she received 613,500 votes — or 53.76% of the total votes, compared to 501,374 ballots cast for Obama.

http://www.theamericanmirror.com/hillarys-ca-support-falls-30-2008/

[texstad79]

2. Not surprising to me

Cali is demographically similar to NY, a large and diverse state. SBS did not have a prayer there.

All the polls showing a 2 point margin grossly oversampled whites, who are actually a minority in CA.

[brush]

41. Same here. Not surprised.

The surprise to me was how Sanders supporters thought he had a chance. After all, we've watched him do poorly, without much variance, throughout the primary season in large, diverse states.

Why was that suddenly supposed to change?

[texstad79]

43. Any port in a storm, I guess n/t

[Warren DeMontague]

100. People who think CA is like NY don't spend much time in CA, I think.

The West Coast is vastly different, philosophically, than the East Coast. California is quite likely going to fully legalize Marijuana this November. New York is still gripped by East Coast reefer madness panic, and regularly arrests people for smoking the stuff.

[Fresh_Start]

3. I never believed the pro-sanders numbers

I'm in a very liberal area....and had zero doubt bernie wouldn't win.
A few anxious moments..until I saw the Clinton GOTV effort.

[calguy]

4. Time for Bernie to give it up.

After running a good campaign and doing much better than anyone had expected, it's now time for him to exit the stage. He not only lost last night, he lost BIG time, as in he got his ass handed to him.
By not conceding and vowing to "fight on", he is looking like an old fool refusing to admit he has lost.

[Generic Brad]

93. I disagree. He needs to see it through to D.C.

He promised all his supporters the opportunity to vote for him and he has to make good on his word. Allow him to finish this with the dignity and respect he deserves.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

5. I tried to tell my fellow Californians here Cali is Clinton country.

You don't have to live in the provinces to be provincial in your outlook.

[CreekDog]

95. The Clintons have a relationship with California

the first evidence of it was when Bill Clinton beat Jerry Brown (our governor) in the 1992 Democratic Primary here by 7 points.

Clinton would visit frequently, and during the 1990's California become of the strongest Democratic states.

Then Hillary won the 2008 primary here handily (I know, i voted against her then! but for her this time).

[NCTraveler]

6. I don't think it's that surprising.

The Sanders camp has suffered some demoralizing defeats.

That and 99% of his supporters can put two and two together.

[Iliyah]

7. Makes you wonder how the corporate media and polls work closely together

One poll had BS winning the Hispanic votes. Another polls had BS winning the Asian votes. Many had 4-2 lead for HRC. Majority were completely off in mail in. Only a few polls had it right but was completely ignored.

I personally thought that majority of the polls were off. I was right. I voted - HRC!

[tonyt53]

8. Those numbers are close to what polling has there back in late winter.

I'm much more taken by the number of voters in ND. 355????? What the hell? Another clear indication that a caucus is worthless when choosing a presidential candidate. Bernie won two states that will be reliably GOP in November. Their oil-based economies will do that.

[LaydeeBug]

9. But it has to be taken with a grain of salt, bc of the AP's Eve of It Thing

because any argument can be made at either rate and it could be true: that Sanders supporters stayed home because they thought it was over, and that Clinton people did the same.

[FlaGranny]

46. Add to that the fact that many people vote

for the person they believe will be the nominee instead of the person they like best. They say, "I like Bernie but I voted for Clinton because I think she can win."

No one knew who the challenger was at first. The teevee has way too much influence on elections and the DNC did its share by minimizing and hiding debates (among many other machinations).

I am sure that many people last night stayed home. Let's hope that does not happen in November. I believe the turnout will be dependent upon how many people fear a Trump presidency enough to overcome their ennui and vote.

[CreekDog]

96. if they did, then why did Sanders nearly tie her on Election Day?

because what you posted is wrong.

[LaydeeBug]

102. nearly tie her? Honey, talk about "what you posted is wrong"

what I posted was right.

[CreekDog]

103. No you're wrong. Tell us what the margin was among election day voters

and you're wrong a lot btw.

[LaydeeBug]

104. No. I am right. Math is math. I'm right about a lot of things, and clearly

this is one of them. Try to wiggle any way you want, she *beat* him. By every standard. By every metric. This isn't "when he wins, it's a revolution, and when she wins, it's rigged". She beat him. She didn't cheat him. I hope you get to a point where you can accept that Bernie will not be the 2016 Democratic nominee.

[CreekDog]

105. you didn't post any math, so you can't claim to be using any

you lose. you're wrong.

[LaydeeBug]

107. when I brought up the math word "tie" (google it)

and the FACT that there was no tie (see where I referenced you being *wrong* because you *are*.

You're welcome.

[CreekDog]

109. there was a near tie on election day

what are you election day numbers?

or is your form of data consist of the word "no"?

[LaydeeBug]

113. Wow. Simple numbers really do elude you. nt

[CreekDog]

116. if you only want people as smart as you to understand something as serious as

an allegation of election fraud you go for that.

[LaydeeBug]

118. Because when he wins, it's a revolution and when she wins

it's rigged.


YAWN Your allegation is just that, sweets: *YOURS*

[CreekDog]

108. Math:

https://twitter.com/Nate_Cohn/status/740442215210717184

Nate Cohn

‏@Nate_Cohn

The election day vote in California continues to be almost exactly split. Clinton still holding at +400k statewide.

12:15 AM - 8 Jun 2016

[LaydeeBug]

114. Do you *see* that +400k number right there in that thar tweet?

[CreekDog]

115. yes, what does the 400k number mean to you that I should be concerned about?

[LaydeeBug]

117. Nothing. Nothing at all...except EVEN BY YOUR METRIC, he still loses. nt

[upaloopa]

10. I think we will find that Bernie's rally goers could not navigate CA's

party primary rules and combined with the fact that younger people just don't bother to vote. The increase in registrations was with Hispanics because of Trump

[auntpurl]

26. This!

Latinos will literally crawl over broken glass to vote against that MFer. And who could blame them, for god sake?

[Tom Rinaldo]

11. With this margin it is doubtful Bernie could have won had the AP not called it early

It might well have been much closer though. Bernie has three types of voting constituencies, one is a hard core base of progressive activists. Almost all of them would have voted either way, a few may have been disaffected leftists who are cynical about voting to begin with and reverted to non voting form after the call was made. Group two are less hard core young supporters, an age group that in the past has not reliably voted in elections not perceived as being high stakes - a much larger sub set of them may have become no shows as a result of an early call. The third group are atypical Democrats and Independents - the opposite of the hard core base voters that primary elections are usually dominated by. They aren't ideologues, but this year many of them are simply fed up with the status quo in America and are voting for anti-establishment candidates. Bernie has done quite well with that group, but they historically are not reliable primary voters. I believe that the AP call almost certainly suppressed participation by that group of voters.

[Triana]

13. He might have lost by a much smaller margin. It affects pledged delegates

but that's all.

But - those delegates are VERY important even if he doesn't win.

I figure the more delegates he gets - pledged or otherwise, even if he didn't get the nomination, the more influence he can have at and after the convention and in Hillary's admin. All along, I realized it's still important that he get as many delegates as possible - even if he doesn't win - and that is why - the more delegates he has the more power he has to influence in a more progressive direction both during the primaries and at the convention and most importantly - afterwards.

[Tom Rinaldo]

14. I 100% agree. n/t

[CreekDog]

98. Data doesn't show it.

If it were true then he would have needed a blowout on Election Day and NO polls even showed him with a lead.

Instead he basically tied on Election Day, which later polls suggested would happen.

But he lost badly in early and mail in voting, which polls earlier in the voting period (that began a month before Election Day) indicated. Two of the polls even had a 10 point and 18 point margin respectively during the first two weeks of voting.

So no, while your hypothesis sounds good, you posted a hunch, unsupported by data.

[CreekDog]

97. No he wouldn't have. He nearly tied Hillary on Election Day

He would have had to have a blowout against her on Election Day to make it close, but none of the polls showed him with even a lead. They did show a tie, but not a lead and he needed a blowout on Election Day to overcome the early votes which he lost badly.

Stop blaming the AP. His loss mirrors what the polls were indicating would happen.

The polls when the voting started last month showed a sizable margin and most people voted early. As the election neared, the margin closed and he did better.

But it was not enough, his tie late combined with her beating him by a lot early in a state that mostly votes by mail was in indicated in the polls.

[Demsrule86]

88. Nice excuse

The mail-in ballots were sent before Monday evening...when AP called the race.

[mcar]

12. K&R

[LuvLoogie]

15. K&R for tough love

[imwithhillary]

16. K & R

[Fast Walker 52]

17. his last shot was California, but he lost handily-- it's over

[frazzled]

18. There was another factor

Sanders himself, and his increasingly disconnected, belligerent behavior over the past month or so. Even if it's only anecdotal, acquaintances in California were telling me they were surprised that strong Sanders supporters they knew were getting totally fed up with him. Nevada was a big mistake.

[alcibiades_mystery]

19. Agreed

I heard an attendee at a Sanders rally this morning say he would vote for Trump in order to "pop the zit" of something or other. A sad end to an otherwise inspiring campaign. Sanders loved the cheers too much, and history will remember him as somebody who loved the cheers too much.

[geek tragedy]

21. process arguments and complaints get tedious nt

[geek tragedy]

20. according to polls, yes, according to demographics Sanders did pretty well nt

[alcibiades_mystery]

22. More the case in New Mexico, too

I'm surprised Sanders people haven't glommed on to the relatively close contest there. That should have been a gimme for Clinton, but was a bit closer than I expected, anyway.

[geek tragedy]

23. at this point, there is no point to talking points.

there's not even anymore of the stupid "she needs 2383 pledged delegates" hooey.

[alcibiades_mystery]

24. California really dazed them...I think a lot sincerely believed he'd win big there

The deflation is palpable.

[geek tragedy]

28. I think seeing Clinton giving a joyful victory speech pretty

much drove the point home that it really was over.

[auntpurl]

25. I've said for 2 months Hillary would win CA, and I guessed between 5 and 9 points.

Never expected double digits. But I'll take it!

[RandySF]

27. She even won San Francisco by 12%

[peace13]

49. It was like an amazing miracle.

Have you read anything about the presidential ballots in CA. If it's too good to be true .........

[Proud Liberal Dem]

29. If anything

one would think that the (premature IMHO) AP call for Hillary on Monday evening might have SUPPRESSED votes for Hillary and made Sanders supporters MORE likely to show up to vote for him.

[peace13]

30. People aren't stupid.

The claim is that Hill is the queen of the mail in vote. If this is true, her votes were already in before the screwing! Perfect.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

32. Just because Bernie lost

doesn't mean that there was foul play.

[peace13]

34. Ignorance is bliss.

Keep your head down. I'm not going to educate you. Google election fraud if you dare.

[dbackjon]

51. One can also Google tin-foil

There is no doubt that election fraud is real

It is however not how sander supporters view it

Election fraud is what the GOP does to steal elections

But Sanders supporters think that because the GOP Secretary of State in the GOP county recorder did things to suppress voter turnout in Arizona that is somehow an evil Clinton plot

[peace13]

64. http://www.democraticunderground.com/1280210298

Like I say, educate yourself. Some people have been dealing with this 'tin foil' thing for a long time! Show your ID and get a ballot without the presidential race on it. Another ballot...that's not possible sir. No one said life was fair.......Get over it!

I am not raining on your parade. Enjoy the moment. I'm sure this will all work out.

[alcibiades_mystery]

33. Like I said in the OP

If that's all it took to turn the result 14% (assuming the slimmest of Sanders victory but for the AP call), then you really have to wonder about the depth of Sanders' support.

[peace13]

36. I love that you don't care...as long as it worked for you.

Hold on to your panties because the Rovian machine will hit Hill with full force. You do remember that the IT guy for the Rethugs died mysteriously before he could testify. This is Ohio history. This was when it was discovered that Rove had filtered all votes through the RNC computer to get * into office. Rove will attack and it will be ugly but you don't need to worry because you can always blame Hills defeat on Bernie supporters failing to get behind her. That's my last word on people who do not expect integrity in our elections!

[alcibiades_mystery]

38. It's not a credible theory

I understand that this is your little pet belief. The reason why many roll their eyes at this nonsense is not because they don't care about election fraud, but because your beliefs are not credible.

It's also deeply incoherent for you to believe 1) Clinton, through some evil machination, turned the California vote 14% to her side AND, YET, 2) she will be a naive babe in the woods at the mercy of the Rovian trick in the general.

Either she is a shrewd manipulator or an innocent naif. Which is it? Ironically, your own laughable election theft theory in the primary makes Clinton even more fit for a nasty general than it does Sanders, who appears to be a sad, little vulnerable babe in the woods, unable to handle the Rovian onslaught. Your position makes no sense.

[brush]

48. Come on. Was there one Clinton win where you Sanders supporters haven't claimed fraud?

Give that tired argument a rest already.

[fleabiscuit]

75. +1

[LenaBaby61]

45. Hillary's votes were in before the screwing?

Good grief....

When the masks falls off it really falls off...

[peace13]

47. You accept the press disrupting and controlling the election.

I don't laugh at you. I pity you.

[LenaBaby61]

77. You Pity me?

Not sure where you live, but I live here In Southern California, and would like to think I know a thing or two about the state I've called home for over 5 decades. And for the record and as a Hillary supporter...

And NO, I didn't like the fact that the AP jumped the gun on Monday and named Hillary as the presumptive nominee. I knew it could happen, per my own research and per a piece from this past Friday's Rachel Maddow show where she said Hillary Clinton could secure the delegates she needed to secure the Dem nomination for POTUS from voting taking place in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands this past weekend, but still I wasn't expecting the AP to make the call when they did. I also didn't like the fact that Mrs. Greenspan aka Andrea Mitchell had the nerve to try to insinuate that the system was rigged against Bernie Sanders because of the AP call, but it was what it was, and like many others have said Bernie was way behind already due to heavy absentee voting which went for Hillary Clinton. It was always going to be difficult for him to catch up.

Secondly, what I found puzzling was Bernie's lack of a strategy for dealing with the South. I read where he said that it was too conservative? The press had nothing to do with the way Sen. Sanders ran his campaign down south. Also, there were a few things said coming out of Sanders camp which were a bit dismissive of the minority vote in the South and how strong it was for Hillary. Hillary took a beating down South 8 years ago, but she learned her lesson and this time around she competed took the time, and competed for every vote that was available to her. Now, we know that she nor Bernie are going to more than likely not win many Southern states, but in Hillary's case, she will be fighting hard for Florida, Virginia and even North Carolina. She has a great shot at Fla. and Va vs Trump, and a slight chance to at least keep it competitive vs Trump in NC. As a Hillary Clinton supporter, I'm hoping that some of that 3 dimensional chess Sen. Obama is known for rubs off on her this fall vs Trump. Looking back as a Hillary supporters, then Senator Obama beating Hillary Clinton and the Clinton machine was in retrospect extremely impressive--again, here's hoping that Hillary's form of 3-D chess serves her as well as it did here in California.

And lastly, as I mentioned I live here in California--have for over 5 decades and know the lay of the land pretty well I'd like to think. I knew those last 2 outlier polls showing Hillary Clinton ONLY up by 2 points over Bernie were wrong. I didn't think she'd win by 18 tbh, but knew she wouldn't win in a squeaker either. I live here and have friends from one end of this state to the other. Have been politically active since I was 18 (I'm 55 now). Had family members who suffered tremendously under the regime of a Reagan Governorship, an LAPD which was totally out of control, and I lived through the George Deukmejian, Wilson and Schwarzenegger eras, and living through and for the most part enjoying another Gov Brown Era. I lived through prop 187, Howard Jarvis's Tax Payers initiatives, The Watts Riots, the uprising and civil unrest stemming from the Rodney King police verdict---I lived though the state being RED and now living here and loving it now that our state has turned a lovely, beautiful shade of blue with a strong super majority for Dems. Hillary Clinton had an infrastructure in this state with was not only wide but deep and vast. She has a history and has made friendships here in the state going back a long time, and she used those friendships and network organizing to sure up support here in California, a state that is still remarkably after all these years still pretty Clinton-friendly in that she and her husband are known quantities ere, and it showed with the type of victory Hillary had yesterday. Kudos to Bernie, he gave it all he HAD and fought his heart out, but from where I sat, I knew that he was never going to win California, and especially not win it by a margin he needed to make a dent in Clinton's big delegate lead, and no the press had nothing to do with the fact that Bernie was in bad shape with the mail in ballot even before same day voting entered the picture.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

82. I had Sanders supporters laugh at me when I said California is Clinton country...

The Clintons' represent the balance between idealism and pragmatism which is necessary to govern a state as large and diverse as ours. That is the lens through which we elect our leaders.

It would be impossible to govern this state through a strict ideological frame, just as ot would be impossible to govern this nation through one.

[peace13]

83. I live in Ohio. Home of the stolen election.

I was on the streets marching against the stolen election with 150 other Ohioans while the rest of the country was Christmas shopping. Glad your good with CA. I will wait for the provisionals to be counted. Bernie Is an honest man and has seen it all this cycle. I doubt he will sweep irregularities under the carpet.

[LenaBaby61]

86. I remember the roll...

Ken Blackwell played in the "theft" of Ohio during the 2004 election.

There was wide-spread Racial discrimination, voter suppression involved. There were non-working voting machines as I mentioned, Ken Blackwell himself had a hand in huge voter purges which lead to hundreds of thousands of eligible voters being wiped off the voting rolls systematically for months and on voting night, IIRC, on a rainy voting night there in Ohio, there were still people standing in line when the voting was stopped.

2004 United States election voting controversies


During the 2004 United States presidential election, concerns were raised about various aspects of the voting process, including whether voting had been made accessible to all those entitled to vote, whether ineligible voters were registered, whether voters were registered multiple times, and whether the votes cast had been correctly counted. More controversial was the charge that these issues might have affected the reported outcome of the presidential election, in which the incumbent, Republican President George W. Bush, defeated the Democratic challenger, Senator John Kerry. Despite the existing controversies, Kerry conceded the election the following day on November 3.

There was generally less attention paid to the Senate and House elections and to various state races, but some of them were also questioned, especially the gubernatorial election in Washington, which was decided by less than 0.01% and involved several recounts and lawsuits. The final recount also reversed the outcome of this election.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_United_States_election_voting_controversies

[anigbrowl]

73. There was no screwing, just better organization

Monday, flyers started appearing all over my neighborhood addressed to Bernie fans with 'how to' information on voting (asking for the appropriate ballot if required and so on). Last-minute stuff like that seems really amateurish to me. Yes he held some big rallies around here but there didn't seem to be much of a long game, and the Clintons have been popular in California since the 90s, despite their faults...also the claim by many Sanders supporters that Hillary is just! the! worst! while Bernie is pure and beyond criticism....well, we've seen a lot of that come and go in California. Jerry Brown is not what you'd call a people pleaser but he's very popular as governor, and his endorsement of Hillary was certainly a big help to her.

[democrattotheend]

31. I absolutely blame the AP

I am not sure Bernie would have won otherwise but the internal polls for both campaigns seemed to suggest that he would. I don't blame Hillary for what the AP and NBC did but I definitely think it had the effect of depressing turnout in California and that the result would have otherwise been a lot closer, if not a victory for Bernie.

FWIW, I don't think the AP did Hillary any favors either with the premature announcement.

[alcibiades_mystery]

35. It's an awful lot of vote to shift, is all

14% combined swing? In one day? 450,000 votes?

It just seems so very unlikely.

I don't think you know the "internals" of either campaign, in any case. We heard a lot about how Hillary's "internals" were tanking in California. Like every election cycle's discussion of "internals," they're usually just a little mirror that we project our fantasies into.

[democrattotheend]

37. I don't think Bernie would have scheduled his speech in California after polls closed

Unless his internals showed a chance to win. And I think Hillary would have given her victory speech there if her internals had looked good. I doubt she would have passed up the chance to channel RFK.

Also, look at the Republican results. Since being declared the presumptive nominee Trump has gotten better than 70% in every primary (caucuses are different, because they bring out the most active members who are more likely to come out for their candidate to make a statement).

[alcibiades_mystery]

39. Tea leaves

"I don't think..."

"I doubt..."

Like I said, a mirror for projecting our fantasies.

[democrattotheend]

40. It's not tea leaves

I worked in Washington for several years and I know how these things work. Internal polls are usually very reliable, absent some last minute event that changes things. Generally, you can tell what a candidate's internal polls look like based on where they are scheduled to be on primary night. For example, on the night of the NY primary, Hillary gave her speech in NY, while Bernie gave his in Wisconsin. That is because both campaigns knew she was going to win in NY.

The one other time internal polls seemed to be inaccurate this cycle was Michigan. Bernie had already spoken and gone to bed when he was told he won!

[alcibiades_mystery]

42. We don't know what these internals said one way or the other

You're speculating.

In any case, if the internals were off so badly (it really was a trouncing), then they're not these magically accurate devices anyway. Again, 14 percentage points (assuming the narrowest of Sanders victories but for) is an awful lot of vote to move in a single day. Surely, working in Washington would have taught you that?

[democrattotheend]

44. Not really

It's not that a lot of people changed their mind. Once a winner is declared a lot of people don't bother voting. And some of those who do end up voting for the declared winner because people like to be with the winner.

Look at the Republican results. Trump did a lot better after being declared the presumptive nominee than before. My boyfriend had registered Republican to vote for Rand Paul (and couldn't change after he dropped out because of NY's crazy 6-month deadline), but decided it wasn't worth driving an hour to his parents' house to vote for him after he dropped out. A lot of people in California probably felt the same way.

[brush]

54. Why would he have a chance in such a large, diverse, non-caucus state?

Without much variance, that has been the pattern throughout the whole primary season.

Why would it change all of a sudden?

And as far as the AP call, seems that would have negatively affected the Clinton turnout if anything — her allegedly having it wrapped up so why bother to vote.

[democrattotheend]

56. Not sure I follow

The polls were showing the race tied or close to tied shortly before the primary. Are you saying they were all wrong because he never had a chance?

Diverse state or not, the demographics didn't change all of a sudden. The outcome of the race did compared to the polls conducted right beforehand.

Speaking of polls being off, are you saying Michigan is not a large, diverse, non-caucus state?

[brush]

60. Those polls were obviously wrong. And I did say "without much variance" . . .

which takes into account his Michigan win.

He hasn't done well with POCs in most other states so why would it suddenly change in California?

That should not have been a surprise.

The polling industry needs to develop new methodologies as they have been wrong so often this season — or maybe not. Maybe they tailor their results to fit what their clients want to hear.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

65. The Golden State is 39% white. The Wolverine State is 80% white.

Speaking of polls being off, are you saying Michigan is not a large, diverse, non-caucus state?

[lunamagica]

85. Oh, well, since we'r guessing here, During the last few days before the Ca vote, Sanders started

saying that even if he lost California, he would take it to the convention. That told me his internals must be awful.

Hillary's victory speech was in NY was just symbolism. Coming full circle. Perfectly logical

[Lord Magus]

62. What internal polls would those be?

You clearly haven't seen either campaign's internal polls, and if Hillary's internals said she was going to lose she wouldn't have been promising victory. She would've been downplaying expectations like she did in Michigan.

[democrattotheend]

74. You can tell by where the candidates go on election night

Bernie wouldn't have scheduled a speech in California after the polls closed if his internals showed him losing.

And Hillary probably would have taken the opportunity to give her speech in California in a way reminiscent of Robert Kennedy.

[StevieM]

67. I tend to think the AP call hurt Hillary more but either way I don't see how it could have mattered.

We are talking about a 13 point victory. And much of the vote was in early so it would have had to be a huge shift on Election Day, one that I see no evidence for.

Hillary never said that her internals showed her down. And of course Sanders is going to talk up his own internals.

As for what you wrote below, Hillary had been planning to be in NY on this day for a quite awhile. This was supposed to be the day she went over the top and became the presumptive nominee. She wanted to mark that occasion at home. Besides, the point to being in the state you've just won is to create a picture of momentum for the next state. The only place left to vote is DC where is is expected to win in a landslide.

[lunamagica]

84. How do you know what the internal polls were?

[nadinbrzezinski]

50. I know I should not post this

but I will anyway

The registrar predicted, expected, in San Diego, a turnout of 55-60 percent, that is presidential levels, They got 50 percent. That my friend is the bandwagon effect at play. It is textbook. Oh and the AP might as well just endorse her. That call is being criticized on the same grounds the networks ate it, on the Carter-Reagan election in 1980.

I blasted the AP, and so did other media. You know why? I don;t expect you to get it. but the Society of Professional Journalists, actually looks down on advocating for a candidate. They did that.

And on a professional ethics grounds, has not one thing to do with Clinton, this chaps my hide. And we will not join the chorus until one of two things happens, One of them drops out, suspends. or one crossed the pledged delegate count.(This is per Democratic Party request) I know I am a minuscule group of media that is taking a stand. You probably realize we are pretty much independent media.

[alcibiades_mystery]

63. I wish we could have a conversation without you

calling me stupid: "I don;t expect you to get it."

Are you able to have a conversation without these little condescensions? There's nothing that you "get" that I don't "get." When you can have a conversation without belittling your interlocutors, we can perhaps talk.

[nadinbrzezinski]

69. Whatever buddy

I just told you there was an effect, and if this was November and they did it for Trump you would be screaming, I might add, rightfully so. My ethics are NOT partisan or situational. And no, I do not expect you to get it. Not becuase you are stupid, This is pretty much inside baseball.

[alcibiades_mystery]

70. Whatever indeed

You have no special inside knowledge. Try speaking with people without insulting them. You'll get a better response, I promise you.

[nadinbrzezinski]

71. With some of you I expect a negative response even if I only post the sky is blue

As I said, I should not have posted it, but the effect was clearly felt in this county

[rusty fender]

94. But you've been advocating for Bernie ...

and you are a journalist?

[nadinbrzezinski]

112. Fighting the bias from media

Does not mean advocating for a candidate. I am sure in your mind covering a political rally means advocating for that candidate. We advocated so damn hard we endorsed no candidate at any level. Not even the dog catcher. But by the broken logic some use here, we advocated for Ted Cruz, and damn by doing due diligence and actually reading the material, and figuring out trump we did as well.

I pretended to vote on Tuesday. That is all you need to know. But if you think this year major media has not well, advocated, AP early call out is the latest in a series of incidents.

Of course, not being on anybody's side is actually an alien concept for partisans

[rusty fender]

119. You've denigrated Hillary

very severely, so it shows that you aren't quite the pure, non-partisan journalist that you claim to be.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

52. I called this race month ago...

Homogeneous and sparsely populated states are Bernie's bailiwick. The Golden State is the opposite of that,

[PufPuf23]

72. California north of San Francisco is "sparsely populated" and voted for Sanders.

The county where I reside, Humboldt, voted 68% Sanders to 31% Clinton, which explains why I failed to see a single Clinton bumper sticker or sign or had any organized outreach to me as a potential Clinton voter.

More surprising as have been registered and voted Democratic since McGovern in 1972 and gave a too generous check to POTUS Obama in 2008.

Some of the far north counties went solidly to Trump (example Shasta); in Humboldt county Sanders beat Trump 3X while Clinton beat Trump 1.3X (but should pick up more Sanders votes than Trump by some margin).

I always thought that Hillary Clinton would prevail as Democratic POTUS nominee and POTUS, if one read my posts at DU carefully, but I am disappointed and think we could have done better than Hillary Clinton as the next POTUS (barring the unforeseen and highly unlikely).

I have been registered and voted Democratic since McGovern in 1972 and do not plan to leave the party nor have a great change in outlook.

[JCanete]

53. Bernie supporter here, and i figured the numbers would be similar to NY.

California is a large bastion of very big democratic establishment money, and high profile, influential establishment politicians that all went to bat for the establishment. same as New York.

So I'm disappointed with the results, because I hoped for better, but I didn't anticipate better, and really, when it comes down to it, Sanders, who I never thought would get this far(and contrary to the narratives, never thought would win) did so on small contributions, and took 43 percent of the California vote. That's a major achievement, and one that should buoy my spirits about the next generation. Seeing young people engaged about the future is promising, if they don't let their enthusiasm die with Hillary's win, and don't buy into the narrative that "there is no movement .... har har har, snark."

But let me just recognize for a second, that Clinton has achieved a great deal. I admit I'm not a fan, but she's a powerhouse, and she had to work her ass off to become that. It will be a big deal that America has finally elected a woman as President. It's just that, in the context of the primary, she's always pretty much been the shoe-in. The work she did to make her a shoe-in, well that was impressive, a lot of it scares me but it was impressive, but there's nothing monumental about her taking 60 percent of California against Sanders, or nearly all of the super-delegates for that matter. To be the establishment means that you are supposed to do that.

So Again, getting to the top of the establishment? Amazing! 1 person in millions. Winning the nomination as the establishment? That goes with the territory.

[Agnosticsherbet]

55. That 450,000 from early vote can not be blamed on the AP. Those voters just liked Clinton better.

We should remember. She won California in 2008 with about 8%.

[democrattotheend]

57. Most of the early early voters were older

And expected to be in her camp. I will be curious to see how the vote from more recent early voters compares to election day voters.

I am also curious to see if turnout was lower than expected, or if many people left the top slot blank.

[Agnosticsherbet]

58. Because California is so large, and insists (rightly I might add) that there must be a paper trail.

it will take time.

I look forward to seeing that information, also.

[bemildred]

59. I was born and raised here, and it's no surprise to me.

The image of the place as presented in the media has very little to do with the place as it is.

And I do congratulate Ms Clinton, it is a big win, fair & square, she has got her shot, now lets see her unify the Party and kick the Republican's ass in Congress, and I will begin to believe.

[Orsino]

61. I was hoping for even a narrow win for Sanders...

...but this was a handy Clinton victory.

[Fla Dem]

66. If anything the AP call would have supressed HRC voters because according to them

she had already won. That was my fear that HRC voters would stay home and BS voters would turn out in large numbers just to show their support for him. That very well may have been the case too. Had it not been for the AP calling her a winner the nght before, her victory may have been even larger.

[StevieM]

68. Definitely agreed. I think we clearly saw that in New Mexico. (eom)

[Beacool]

76. I had no doubt that Hillary would win three states last night: CA, NJ and NM.

I was pleasantly surprised about SD.

[LenaBaby61]

78. Same here....

Concernins NJ, NM & especially California.

South Dakota was a WOW moment for sure for me also

[Beacool]

79. Yeah, it was a nice surprise.

For a while there it looked like she was also going to get Montana too, which eventually went to Sanders, but early on she was ahead.

[AgadorSparticus]

80. This doesn't surprise me at all. I have been saying this for some time now, the minority vote

The minority vote is vast and silent. No PoC is going to vote for Trump. HRC will win in a landslide.

[adigal]

87. I am amazed at the hubris of the Hillary crowd

That Trump is close and even ahead of Hillary in some recent polls should scare the hell out of all of us. But keep denying his appeal as he talks about NAFTA sending American jobs overseas and how the Clintons used their foundation fundraising from foreign countries while she was Sect'y of State. If she can't convince 45% of her own party that she isn't corrupt, how do you think she will convince any others???

Clinton may win in November, but I'm not convinced and she needs to start talking about jobs, the poor, the economy that's out there for most of us, not just the comfortable people who voted for her in the primaries.

[AgadorSparticus]

89. Many unregistered voters will be going Clinton. It will not be close.

For the same reason Hillary is kicking Bernie’s butt in the primary, she will take the GE. That trump and Sanders both have such a homogenous base will be their demise. You can't win on a national platform without the vote of PofC. Trump has already given the election to Hillary. I think people will be surprised by how much she will win. Latinos have been signing up in droves for a singular purpose of voting.

I see the polls. But most polls have Hillary ahead of Trump at this time.

[adigal]

90. Oh, ok, now that you told me it won't be close, I feel much better.

Seriously?? Take the blinders off. Trump has been catching up in every poll and even winning some.

[AgadorSparticus]

91. He may be ahead in the outliers but most polls have Hillary ahead.

[TCJ70]

81. It shouldn't be surprising...

...that's about the amount of the vote both candidates have gotten over the total primary. Maybe California should vote first next time since they were so representative.

[tandem5]

92. I predicted +13 before the AP call

just by using SurveyUSA as an absolute number and then using the other polls relatively between sample points which indicated that her lead was diminishing from +18. I guessed +13 see:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=2139375

So I would have said YAH.

[pat_k]

99. Discussion is premature until the votes are counted.

Mail-in ballots post-marked by June 7 are counted, so some unknown number of valid ballots are in the mail right now.

Some unknown number of provisional ballots have yet to be reviewed/counted.

To give you some idea of how many votes remain to be counted, look at Los Angeles County.

https://twitter.com/sarahdwire/status/740674035990835200?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

LA County Registrar says 1.4 million ballots have been counted so far, and estimates more than 570,000 more will be counted in coming days.

That's close to 30% that remain to be counted. And that's just an estimate. The number still in the mail is unknown.

You know who tends to do things at the last minute (like sending a ballot on election day)? Young people who support Bernie in higher numbers.


Perhaps Hillary's margin will increase, or stay the same, or decrease, or even disappear. No point in discussing until you know what it is.

[Warren DeMontague]

101. It was a solid win.

And it pretty much ends the story of the primaries, as far as I'm concerned.

So, yes. Congratulations to Sec. Clinton.

[Hekate]

106. Thanks for the analysis, Alcibiades. I am a very proud Californian today, & proud of Hillary!

She ran a superb campaign, and that meme about her people not being enthusiastic is a laughable canard. As I have said from the first: We Show Up to Vote. We do and we did.

[ucrdem]

110. Same here. Bill and Hill were each doing 3+ events per day last week.

They out-Bernied Bernie!