California will be seismic

[hootinholler]

Roughly 1.8 Million new voter registrations. Which skew young big time.

Roughly 4.8 Million votes were cast in the 2008 Democratic primary.

I seriously doubt the poll sampling reflects 1 in 5 voters will be new registrations, thus I think Bernie will (again) exceed the polls, but will it be enough to gain an outrageous advantage of like 70%?

Considering the ad buys and the hasty return to Ca by camp weathervane, I have a really good feeling about Ca!

[ucrdem]

1. I have a good feeling too

[Zorro]

21. Me too

I don't think it's some sort of groundswell for Bernie.

A lot of those new registrations are from minority groups spooked by Trump.

[JonLeibowitz]

29. Indeed, and young latinos prefer Bernie.

[brush]

35. Really, like they did in Arizona and Texas (not). I wouldn't be so sure of that.

Since when have POCs favored Sanders all across the country?

It's been pretty well proven that he doesn't do well in diverse states.

And popular Gov. Jerry Brown just endorsed Clinton.

[JonLeibowitz]

41. Diverse states like Washington, Alaska, Oklahoma, and Hawai'i?

[brush]

46. Oh, quite a long list there.

Hawaii, ok, but Washington, Alaska? No way.

You want me to list all the diverse states that Clinton won?

It'd be a lot longer than 2 or three states.

[Kentonio]

77. Alaska is extremely diverse.

[Demsrule86]

66. I would not add Washington to that group

As a non-binding primary drew out 3 times the voters and Clinton won.

[reddread]

2. oh but she's coming and bringing Hell with her

we will fall for her charms at the last minute.


Bernie who?

[Hiraeth]

37. I am cautiously hopeful but, never underestimate the adversary. Powerful machinery behind her.

[lagomorph777]

3. I have noticed a blackout of CA polls

...but I think Hillary's internal polling has spooked her.

[BlueStateLib]

20. field poll california this thursday

[Reiyuki]

34. No blackout, but RCP polls are swinging way past MOE

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/ca/california_democratic_presidential_primary-5321.html

HRC is +2 to +18 depending which polls you're looking at. Pretty insane stuff.


The last couple primaries that had these huge swings ended in Bernie's favor, so it's definitely in the realm of possibility..

[Renew Deal]

44. Bernie had a statement today saying he's going to keep running no matter what.

He only talks like that when he knows he's in trouble.

[LoverOfLiberty]

57. Clearly she went to CA one day early

because of the Brown endorsement.

[Dem2]

4. I've Got a Feeling

A feeling I can't hide oh no, oh no, oh yeah yeah! I've got a feeling yeah!

[ucrdem]

8. shake shake shake

shake shake shake

shake your boo-ty

[Nyan]

5. I'm very jittery about the fact that there's not gonna be exit polls.

[Lodestar]

18. Volunteers need to take up the exit polling. It's a red flag if exits are not counted. n/t

[msanthrope]

33. It means there's no point. nt

[Renew Deal]

45. I think they want to spend their exit poll money in NJ

So they can declare Hillary the winner quickly.

[Renew Deal]

6. California doesn't matter either way but it is starting to shape up just like NY.

[firebrand80]

7. It would be a nice moral victory for Bernie

But it won't stop Hillary from being the nominee.

[grossproffit]

80. You're kidding, right? This isn't a television show.

[sufrommich]

10. It would be as "seismic" as Hillary winning CA by 8 points in 2008.

In other words,too little too late.

[Joob]

11. It's Okay everyone, don't freak out. Pay attention to talking points. Be ready to strike back at 'em

We have the truth on our side and it's a powerful weapon. Especially since it's hard to lie in this day and age.

Connect the dots. For instance, animal rights protester. Sanders Rally. Later, "Environment group endorses Hillary"
(though they sound like lobbyists, whatever didn't do full research yet)

Either way, you can see where they plan to attack Bernie next, which is going to be comical.

[Agschmid]

28. "whatever didn't do full research yet"

Sort of sums up this whole primary season...

[Joob]

31. Yup. I got nauseous reading about them lobbying and making a PAC

I instantly closed it once I saw they were against fracking. I forgot how I found it, I think I typed in their name


*to be clear, closed it because of well, I could not even*

[CentralMass]

58. I caught that as well.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

82. the pac endorsed her, the group says it can't endorse as a non profit

[brooklynite]

12. Do I take it then that Sanders has given up on NJ?

If he loses there, his threshold in CA goes up, up and away...

[hootinholler]

17. Why do you think this has anything to do with NJ?

Want to talk about NJ? I suggest you start a thread.

[msanthrope]

32. Because NJ closes before CA. Math. nt

[brooklynite]

36. The OP is about Clinton coming back to CA to campaign...

...if she wasn't in CA, she'd likely be in NJ, right?

And since Bernie is spending all his time in CA, why shouldn't Hillary?

[Octafish]

13. People are sick of the status quo.

In California and nationwide.

[ucrdem]

15. We were sick of Bush and Ahnold, sure

So we elected Barack and Jerry. We're not sick of them at all. And California is still Clinton country.

[Octafish]

22. So why did you recall Gray Davis, when ENRON manufactured the ''energy crisis''?

Arnold rode up in his white horse and no one mentioned his friendship with Kenny Boy Lay.

[ucrdem]

23. Don't blame me. I voted for Bustamante.

But yeah the whole thing was a scam. As for how they pulled the vote off, I've never had a lot of confidence in CA vote counting though in the last decade it's gotten better as we've had a couple of good SoS's.

p.s. Bustamante was the Dem alternative in the recall election that was engineered by our own VRWC.

[Octafish]

24. I'm sorry: I did not mean to imply it was your fault.

Thanks for heads-up! From what you've posted on DU over the years, I know you're a good Democrat, ucrdem.

Good luck next week!

[ucrdem]

27. Thanks Octa!

[ContinentalOp]

62. Because Californians are not really that liberal overall, and we LOVE celebrity

Both of those factors work in Clinton's favor imo. I think CA voters are just fine with establishment politicians, and I don't think the Davis recall was an anti-establishment thing. Look out our current governor and both of our senators. They're about as establishment as it gets.

[WhiteTara]

78. That was first year of voting machines in Riverside county

and they stole the votes.

[randome]

14. You just can't stop being negative, can you? "Camp Weathervane".

Sanders' supporters are his worst enemy.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[hootinholler]

19. Hillary can't stop shifting positions can she?

It's like voting for a wheel of fortune, you have no clue what you will get when you ante up.

[riversedge]

54. When New credible information comes to lite-It is a sign of a critical thinker to assess

the situation and change course.

[Yurovsky]

68. Seriously? Like gay marriage?

What changed between Senator Clinton's vocal opposition to gay marriage and full LGBT rights and her tepid support after she fired up the POTUS campaign bus?

Public opinion, that's what. The very essence of having no moral compass, but rather just sticking a finger in the air to check the prevailing political winds. Critical thinking? Is that a joke?

[Lodestar]

16. Will require unprecedented vigilance via 'work-arounds' of information gathering,

eyewitnesses in all areas...on the ground and in the cyber sphere to watchdog and document,
collect exit polls, etc.

[Adrahil]

25. 30+ points good?

Say Bernie wins by 20 points...a very optimistic outcome for him. Then what? He will STILL fall short of what he needs.

[Sheepshank]

26. yeah...well your predictive ability actually suck.

[hootinholler]

38. I know!

That's why I didn't actually make any predictions.

[Sheepshank]

39. Unsubstantiated guessing on the polling, is predictive

...thus I think Bernie will (again) exceed the polls, but will it be enough to gain an outrageous advantage of like 70%?

Considering the ad buys and the hasty return to Ca by camp weathervane, I have a really good feeling about Ca!

you are not good at it.

[Uponthegears]

30. I wonder

What Secretary Clinton will tell unbound delegates (super or otherwise) if she can't carry the state with the largest electoral prize against a candidate whom she maintains isn't even in the race?

Electability . . . it matters

AND

electability = electoral votes

Where does Secretary Clinton make up for losing True Blue/True Bernie California and its 55 electoral votes?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

40. Losing the primary would not be good evidence of Sanders' electability.

Pointing at one state and saying "The votes in this state are magically more important; even though Clinton got more votes, Sanders should be counted the winner because his votes count for more" is not going to cut it.

[Uponthegears]

42. Oh and the spin starts

almost immediately.

Go ahead and say it . . . you know you want to . . .

Here is a FACT

If Hillary cannot take California in the GE (a possibility worth considering if she cannot even beat an "already defeated" Bernie in the primary with Jerry Brown standing next to her), she has to make up with 55 ELECTORAL VOTES that USED TO BE solid Blue.

Now take off your Hillary glasses and tell us:

WHERE DOES SHE GET THEM?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

43. If Clinton turns into a mongoose, she will have to learn to use sign language.

*If* Hillary cannot take California against Trump, *then* she will find it difficult (but not impossible) to win the general election.

*If* Sanders cannot take all the states he's lost to Clinton against Trump, *then* he would be mathematically certain to lose.

[Uponthegears]

50. Oh my

condescension instead of an answer.

Tempted, as I am, to rely on the fact that, in the GE, Hillary is going to lose the majority of states she's won against Bernie in the primary (particularly assuming a divided party), suffice to say that your If/Then blather leaves something to be desired.

The statement was structurally correct. The fact that you disagree with the premise (i.e., that a poor showing against a "weak" (in your mind) candidate in a primary where so much is stacked in her favor evidences a political weakness that does not bode well for the GE) does not change that.

Now take a stab at telling us where Hillary can pick up 55 electoral votes. With Hillary behind in the polls in Ohio, California is everything.

[Uponthegears]

55. Nice language

Here's a reality check for you

Hillary won't take North Carolina, or Mississippi, or Georgia, or Missouri, or Iowa, or Arizona (are you clicking these off as you go?)

She's behind in Ohio (still clicking?)

What's 227 + 55?

Here's the bottom line, Hillary needs Bernie's people in the GE. She particularly needs them in states with a large number of electoral votes.

[Godhumor]

47. ... that's not really how we use if-then statements

Obama lost California to an already defeated Clinton in 2008. He had no problem carrying it in the GE.

There is no correlation between primary results and GE results, because overall states demographics and voter inclinations vary wildly to primary demographics and inclinations.

[Uponthegears]

48. Clinton wasn't already

defeated in 2008 . . . did you forget the party line?

I think it goes like this:

"Hillary was MUCH closer, that's why SHE was justified in not conceding until AFTER the last primary."

[Godhumor]

49. I was a Clinton backer in 2008. She was already defeated and talked about as such

Regardless, it still doesn't matter to your "if-then" proposition. Not how it works.

[Uponthegears]

53. Hmmm

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/breaking-hillary-concedes-that-she/

Btw, just because you don't like admitting the political weakness that would be demonstrated by a CA loss, doesn't mean the If/Then "doesn't work."

Hillary has no leeway. Even if she carries the rest of Obama's electoral total except for Ohio, where she is behind, she loses the GE if she can't take California. She has nowhere else to look for electoral votes, a fact proven by your dodging the question.

Hillary knows it . . . why don't you?

[Cursive]

56. Obama lost Cali to Clinton in '08

[PeaceNikki]

67. President McCain totally agrees with you.

Obama lost CA by 8+ points in the primary.

[Uponthegears]

69. Good try guys

Hillary was still in the thick of the battle. According to the Hillary camp, Bernie has been toast since Super Tuesday. Losing by 8% to a strong candidate (backed by the Democratic Establishment) does not mean one is weak. Losing to a malcontent who has no chance of winning and is trying to destroy the party (Hillary supporters' words, not mine) does.

Do you get the difference?

[PeaceNikki]

70. Please link to where HRC called BS a

"malcontent who has no chance of winning and is trying to destroy the party".


kthxbai

Also, she'll get the required delegates to be the nominee before polls even close in CA.... so.....

[Uponthegears]

72. Did you miss the word "supporters?"

Kinda like you missed the words "super delegates are free to vote for anyone they choose?"

[PeaceNikki]

73. OK, Can you link to that quote from a supporter, please and thanks?

[Uponthegears]

75. in passim

The greater challenge is to find a Hillary supporter who has described him in any other way.

[PeaceNikki]

76. so... no.

kthxbai

[Uponthegears]

79. snore

[pdsimdars]

51. And, FYI, the upgrade to "camp weathervane" is Princess Weathervane and her ostrich army

[blackspade]

59. I think he has a good chance in CA.

But even with a win it is highly unlikely That he will get a large enough margin.
But hope springs eternal.

[edbermac]

60. Jury results

On Tue May 31, 2016, 02:22 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

You fucking hypocrite.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=2094188

REASON FOR ALERT

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

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

personal attack

JURY RESULTS

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Tue May 31, 2016, 02:36 PM, and the Jury voted 5-2 to HIDE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: lots of ways to call someone a hypocrite w/o being an ass.
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Getting a little crude there, Donald
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: That topic header is personal attack. The poster could have said any number of things that would have allowed the rest of the post to stand. The poster in Question has been here long enough to know better.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[StevieM]

61. I expect a 10 point Clinton victory. (eom)

[BootinUp]

74. I'm sticking with 10-15. nt

[MineralMan]

63. Well, that's California's fault.

[Octafish]

64. He's only down, what, 10-points?

Bernie could make that up in a day.

[Demsrule86]

65. It won't

That is what is really sad for you guys...it won't. All Hil needs is 10% and I am sure she will get that. Obama lost California ...at the end there is no momentum except for the concession speech...hurry up on that one

[ecstatic]

71. Bernie doesn't win diverse states, last I checked.

Of course, we might be in for a surprise. I guess "we'll see." 👀

[Samantha]

81. A political earthquake? Perhaps so knowing that pollsters don't usually count new voters

and I believe there is over a million, perhaps a million and one-half, new voters, the majority of which are in the age group Bernie attracts.

Anything can happen, but I feel good about his chances. Either way, though, the man has put in a Herculean effort and no one deny he has made a difference. He is my political hero.

Sam