What was the turnout in California?

[democrattotheend]

Was it lower than expected? Or were there a lot of people who left the top of it blank? If so, I think that shows the AP had a big impact. If not, then maybe both candidates' internals were horribly off.

[Jennylynn]

1. 30% down from Obama/Hillary nt

[Skink]

4. How is that possible with the surge?

[Jennylynn]

5. They're saying it was the AP story. If I find the link I'll post it here.

I've been all over DU this AM so I have no idea which thread it was in. Oh! Just remembered. The title of the thread was, I think, "It worked". Hope that helps.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1280210237

[Skink]

6. Something worked.

[Jennylynn]

7. I posted the link.

[Lord Magus]

9. What surge? If you mean the surge of new registrations, registered to vote doesn't mean showing up.

[TwilightZone]

15. As has been proven repeatedly this entire campaign season

[onenote]

10. Obama/Clinton turnout was a historically large number by a big big margin.

Turnout for the Democratic primary in 2008 was over 74 percent, which was crazy high compared to other election years.

Going back to 1992 (and ignoring 2012 and 1996 when an unchallenged incumbent was running), turnout for the Democratic presidential primary has ranged between 43 percent and 48 percent, roughly calculated (using date available on the CA Secretary of State website).

In 2012, the number of registered Democrats was 7.4 million (a historic high, up from 6.7 in 2008, although the number in 2008 actually was lower than the number in 1996). I don't know exactly what registration was yesterday, but it was reported that it was slightly more than 8 million as of May 23, 2016. With approximately 3.4 votes cast in the Democratic primary (currently reported), that would put turnout at slightly above 42 percent, fairly low compared to other years, but not outrageously so.

[anotherproletariat]

2. I was on a conference call for Hillary volunteers in my county (in CA) this morning,

which was intended to recap the election, and thank people...and they said that their internals were pretty much spot on. This is why they kept saying in the last few days that they were cautiously optimistic. The reason they were not absolutely confident was because of the late registration surge and the fact that so many Sanders supporters were independents and have been shown to be difficult to poll. The new demographic of these voters (not 'regular democratic voters') made polling difficult throughout the primary season in other states as well.

Sorry, I don't know the turnout rate yet.

[democrattotheend]

3. Interesting

I guess that makes it less likely that she directed her supers to talk to the AP but avoid announcing. Personally I don't think she was behind the AP jumping the gun. It hurt her too in a lot of ways.

[brush]

8. Nah! AP is press. That's what they do, try to be the first to break a story.

You give Clinton too much credit. She doesn't control AP.

[democrattotheend]

13. That's what I basically said

I don't think Clinton or her team planned or even knew about the AP call.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

22. Probably it is what it is - a news organization trying to get a scoop

However, if one is to engage in conspiratorial theorizing, conservatives (who, in fact, do control much of the media -- including, oddly, NBC) might have leaked to story specifically to drive a wedge between the Clinton and Sanders wings of the party.

e.t.a. as I stated in another thread: if I were a Sanders supporter, the timing of the AP story would make me angry as well.

[Bluenorthwest]

12. She never campaigned in Oregon at all, never asked for our votes and this is a closed Primary

which she lost by a large margin which might have been smaller had she took an hour to note our presence. In 08 she was here constantly and it was noticed this time that she did not see fit to show up.

[Lizzie Poppet]

14. We don't matter up here.

Tiny slate of Electors, reliably blue. It's like we don't exist.

Cascadian secession can't come any too soon.

[brush]

16. I think that had more to do with allocating resources

Her campaign had to make decisions as to where to spend. They knew Oregon was going to go strongly for Sanders so they didn't invest heavily there. I think they made a similar decision about Kentucky at about the same time.

There was only so much money to go around. Her campaign, it can be argued, spent their money more cost effectively than the Sanders camp, what with his penchant for very expensive rallies which drew crowds but not necessarily voters.

All in all it worked out for her as she was able to win going away in California and New Jersey, after keeping funds in reserve for ground games and their very expensive advertising markets.

[JudyM]

17. Oh puhleeze. If her internals predicted that win, she and Bill wouldn't have scurried out there to

do a crushing schedule of 30 events! They were scheduled to be in NJ and suddenly changed plans.

You seriously buy that?? What else are they going to say? "We thought we were going to lose so we sure are lucky about that AP smokebomb."

[onenote]

19. and if the internals predicted she'd lose, why was Bernie spending time in CA and not in NJ?

These are silly arguments, both of them. Both camps spent time and effort in CA because it was not only important to win, but to win by the largest margin possible (although even a small win or narrow loss in CA by Clinton would not have impacted much of anything in terms of the strength of Sanders' argument to the SDs).

[JudyM]

23. Bernie didn't suddenly change plans. He was out there for an extended period as planned.

[anotherproletariat]

21. All I know is that they referred to "internal polls from over the weekend"

At that point, Hillary and Bill had already started campaigning throughout the state.

[JudyM]

24. I understand. It seems that's exactly what they "would" say, though, was my point.

[LonePirate]

26. She went to CA because she knew NJ would be a blowout in her favor.

There was zero need to campaign in NJ so shoring up support in the largest state became the priority.

[Zynx]

27. NJ wasn't competitive. California was.

[onenote]

11. with the exception of 2008, turnout appears to be only slightly down from prior years

Using information found on the California Secretary of State's website, and ignoring 2012 and 1996, when there was an essentially unopposed incumbent President on the ballot (and thus turnout was very low), turnout has ranged from around 43 percent to 48 percent. This year, it appears to have been slightly above 42 percent. Low, but not outrageously so.

(The odd year was 2012 when, as was the case nationwide, turnout in the Democratic primary was crazy high -- over 74 percent). Given that this year's primary was at the end of the process when it was essentially known who was going to have a majority of the pledged delegates and, even without the announcement on Monday, it had been widely reported over the preceding weekend that Clinton was on the verge of hitting 2383 with pledged delegates and SD commitments and would exceed that number based on the results in NJ before CA was even counted), I would think that expectations for turnout had already begun dropping before the Monday announcement. Thus, it's hard to say if it was lower than "expected."

[Hortensis]

18. Right. So many people only go to vote the top

of the ticket, anyway. In this case most probably felt they knew who was going to win, not all that different from most California presidential primaries.

[ancianita]

20. Lower. I don't know about the expected part. Food for thought...

http://cosmoso.net/where-did-12-million-california-voters-go/?r=cosmosopub22&utm_source=cosmosopub22



http://www.trbimg.com/img-57583bad/turbine/la-pol-ca-voting-problems-20160607-snap

?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=OCUJ5gVf7YdJQI2Xhkc2QIz%2BNvBstzhpAQSL2agx7Qh6CQFhOWC0cLLgBvrBtW353S3dULxzsiF8h%2Fq7vo0LOQ%3D%3D

[Zynx]

28. There are 18 million registered voters period, not newly registered voters.

The article starts with a faulty premise and then keeps going.

[JI7]

25. you think there were many people who supported Sanders but didn't vote for him but voted for other

Elections on the ballot all because of AP ?