2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumHillary deliberately timed this announcement to suppress voter turnout in California.
The Clinton campaign coordinated with their newly declared delegates to make their announcement to the press at the exact best moment to stomp on turnout for the California primary.
Most of Hillary's voters in California have already voted by mail
Bernie's voters are the last minute people who may or may not show up depending on how they feel.
Recent polling has shown that Hillary wins California easily in a low turnout situation, but Bernie ties or even wins in a very high turnout situation. Internal campaign polling may have shown even more of the same.
The timing of this announcement was clearly designed to suppress turnout, which is horrible for many different reasons.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)If anything it will suppress her vote not his.
Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)Agschmid
(28,749 posts)Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)Agschmid
(28,749 posts)Bernie supporters will be more determined than ever to vote tomorrow, if anyone's turnout it hurts it is hers.
Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)gopiscrap
(23,768 posts)Tortmaster
(382 posts)The ban starts immediately.
Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)okieinpain
(9,397 posts)Answer after all.
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)Yeah, I get that you want to claim no harm no fowl...won't work...and the fowl was intentional...because you have to be really chicken to resort to ploys like this to win.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)Yes because clearly this is entirely her fault.
still_one
(92,552 posts)others. Those of us who live in California WILL come out to vote.
are you from California?
LastLiberal in PalmSprings
(12,604 posts)but Clinton could have waited until tomorrow night to crow about her victory.
still_one
(92,552 posts)Other forums by some who support Hillary
For a lot of reasons I wish AP would have waited until after the last big primary tomorrow before tabulating counts
Besides the issues, people should vote to show support for their candidate
LastLiberal in PalmSprings
(12,604 posts)When I went to J-School, in Journalism 101 they emphasized the importance of "getting the jump" on other news sources, no matter the consequences.
I thought it was dumb then and still think it's dumb 40+ years later. AP & NBC could have waited until our polls closed here in California.
I'll still vote -- there are other issues I care about -- but it feels like my sister telling me I was getting a model train for Christmas two days before the event.
Spoilers!
still_one
(92,552 posts)displacedtexan
(15,696 posts)We have a zillion important propositions and downticket races that could be adversely affected by this AP/NBC shark jumping. It also lets the air out of that moment in time when someone crosses that finish line after a long, hard-fought race.
amborin
(16,631 posts)i spoke to voters tonight who were asking what is the point of voting
FYI: many Bernie supporters WORK HARD, some have two jobs, and voting is a difficult chore.
They have to find time before or after work to stand on a long line.
Go ahead, blame them for not voting by mail. That would show total lack of empathy.
This evil tactic will absolutely suppress voter turnout of Bernie Sanders supporters
Beacool
(30,254 posts)My state hasn't voted yet.
randome
(34,845 posts)[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]
Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)know they were coming on board. They timed that phone call for impact.
randome
(34,845 posts)I can't wrap my head around this kind of delusional thinking. All the reporters and all the media outlets are now working in tandem with the Clinton campaign. smh.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]
apcalc
(4,465 posts)The media constantly works against her...
AntiBank
(1,339 posts)most often omission.
kayakjohnny
(5,235 posts)Yes.
Where have you been?
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)The sleaziest, dirtiest campaign in US history. And we are still in the primary stage...
NanceGreggs
(27,821 posts)... of Bernie is a "flagging campaign"?
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Hence their sleeze in Puerto Rico, and now this.
Yes, flagging, her campaign has been steadily LOSING support for a solid year now. Now with the cheating turned up to 11, the exodus from her side will turn into a flood.
NanceGreggs
(27,821 posts)... she's been "losing" all the way the nomination.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)larkrake
(1,674 posts)NanceGreggs
(27,821 posts)Whether you like it or not is of no consequence whatsoever.
TheFarS1de
(1,017 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)What a loss. We could use him now.
apcalc
(4,465 posts)The media is constantly monitoring superdelegates. AP must have followed up on CNN John King's announcement yesterday that there were 40 more supers waiting to endorse her...
Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)The timing was clearly coordinated .
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)Not just Hillary. Bernie's handful of endorsers obviously coordinated the timing of their announcements with him as well. In his case it's more obvious because there are just 40 or 50, not 400, but it's no less true with Hillary.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Bernie's colleagues. This is the SDs, quietly, privately, avoiding Internet harassment sticking the knife in his back.
Because no one wanted six more weeks of this shit.
Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)Yeah I could see that could be part of it.
But do we really know it was people from Congress? It could have been any of the other ones.
But still it's an obvious political reality that these superdelegate endorsements are coordinated with the campaigns.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Go to prison for harassing a congressperson... They just bit the bullet and saved the delegates 6 weeks of harassment. More than that... They just paid Sanders back.
You nailed it.
Response to stevil (Reply #112)
Post removed
still_one
(92,552 posts)Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)still_one
(92,552 posts)other offices on the ballot.
There will be a large turn-out in California, sorry if that messes up your talking point
I would have preferred they waited.
But I'll be voting tomorrow.
still_one
(92,552 posts)Thanks
zappaman
(20,606 posts)It's literally around the corner and rarely a line!
still_one
(92,552 posts)Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)I said announcing a winner the night before would suppress turnout
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,128 posts)Bernie & Elizabeth 2016!!!
creeksneakers2
(7,492 posts)The AP has been surveying delegates since the election began. This news came from an AP survey. Its not from Hillary and its not a dirty trick.
If Hillary would have timed this she would have wanted it to come out on Tuesday to minimize news of a possible Sanders win in CA.
Sanders supporters here think everything that doesn't go their way is because of a conspiracy.
randome
(34,845 posts)They trickled in over days, maybe weeks, and it's delusional thinking to state with no authority that all 1483 (or whatever the number is) called in tonight.
Delusional.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]
Jitter65
(3,089 posts)Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)It was Bernie hoping for high turnout.
Duval
(4,280 posts)stopbush
(24,401 posts)Funny that Sanders continues to say high turnout favors him. It hasn't during this campaign. In fact, Sanders has done best when the turnout is low, like in the caucuses.
Turnout was high in PR yesterday and Hillary won in a landslide. There are many other examples.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/apr/19/bernie-s/sanders-largely-base-saying-we-win-when-voter-turn/
Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)expected to do much better if turnout is high in California.
He was actually winning but within the margin of error in a high turnout scenario.
stopbush
(24,401 posts)Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)stopbush
(24,401 posts)Can you provide the page number and question number in the results that supports your claim?
Thank you.
Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)stopbush
(24,401 posts)provided in your OP, did it? Both summaries you've provided weren't available at the link in your OP.
But beyond that, these summaries are interpretations of the data contained in the survey. They are characterizations of the data by the person writing the articles. I happen to disagree with their interpretations of the data. The LAT article you link to says this:
"Sanders chances of victory rest on big turnout of voters who typically dont vote in primaries and who in the case of the nonpartisans will have to navigate complicated voter rules to request a Democratic ballot."
This from an article that appeared after the deadline had passed for indies erroneously registered in the right-wing American Independent Party to switch their registration to NPP so they could vote in the D primary. Over 85% of voters in this situation didn't bother to switch their registration.
So, even using the characterization of the data as presented in the LAT, they did NOT say that Sanders benefits from high voter turnout per se, but that he would benefit if there was a high turnout among the segment of voters who don't usually vote in primaries. That's a very specific segment of the electorate that Sanders would need to draw on to win, and I imagine it could be easily offset if there was a high turnout among the demos that heavily favor Hillary in the state, such as women, Latinos and rank-n-file Ds like me, who very much like what "establishment Ds" are dong in our state these days.
Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)poll results.
I'll check the links to make sure they are working correctly but if they are I'm sorry I won't be able to assist further on this issue.
stopbush
(24,401 posts)does not support your claim that Sanders does better with high voter turnout. And the articles you reference really don't make that claim either.
You've basically provided links that disprove your premise.
Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)"If Clinton manages to hold him off and win the primary, it would be as a result of a low turnout that tilts the electorate in her direction."
Sanders has barnstormed California in recent weeks, hoping to grab a large share of the state's 475 pledged delegates up for grabs. However, if primary results are as close as recent polls indicate, Sanders and Clinton would split the 475 delegates evenly, which wouldn't give the Vermont senator much of a boost in his search for the nomination.
LaydeeBug
(10,291 posts)it is really shitty of them (the AP) to do this to her
DURHAM D
(32,619 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)Blaukraut
(5,695 posts)This AP call doesn't help her one bit in tomorrow's vote. On the contrary.
book_worm
(15,951 posts)well before the polls in California close.
Skink
(10,122 posts)KingFlorez
(12,689 posts)And Clinton cannot force superdelegates to not declare. She didn't want them to do it until after tomorrow, but it looks like some of them went against what she wanted.
Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)anigbrowl
(13,889 posts)I find it sad that you don't even attempt to offer reasons for believing this to be true; it seems you are just straight making things up to fit your feelings. This isn't exactly a winning tactic for you.
Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)That's just an obvious political reality. If you need proof of that I can't help you.
anigbrowl
(13,889 posts)And if they did so in this case, they were perfectly within their rights to do so.
Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)Especially if it was a large group of them doing it all at the same time.
anigbrowl
(13,889 posts)Rules of thumb are a good guide to what you can expect, but they're not universal and what you have here is a rule of thumb. Superdelegates are also human beings and I suspect some of them are not above cultivating a relationship with a reporter by giving them a little scoop when it will no longer have any serious impact on the outcome. IT's not like they need to save their endorsement for later in case she needs a final push.
Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)California primary, by coincidence?
MFM008
(19,839 posts)The guy who runs the election desk for NBC was on Larry O tonight and said they (and the AP) have been calling all the undeclared super delegates frequently to get them to commit. He also said it didn't matter what the candidates want, this is the way its done and has been done for 32 years. Now lets tone down the , if this situation was reversed and they had called it for Sanders you Berners would be elated.
KingFlorez
(12,689 posts)From what is being said, the AP did their own surveying of unpledged superdelegates and made the call based on that. It's not a matter of superdelegates just calling up AP and declaring their intention.
RichGirl
(4,119 posts)My question is...when are Bernie people going to take him off the pedestal and stop treating him like he is the second coming of Christ!!!
ecstatic
(32,814 posts)Matt_R
(456 posts)Or allowed to attack Democrats here.
Barack_America
(28,876 posts)Nope, definitely out after this stunt.
She just lost me, uber pissed. I was going to hold my nose and vote for her but now, nope. I hope this shit backfires, all her supporters stay home even more now.
Barack_America
(28,876 posts)The supers can carry her home in November too, as far as I'm concerned.
apcalc
(4,465 posts)Tragl1
(104 posts)Her justified scandal or not, I'm sick of the bullshit. I'm done trying to justify voting for her. Will be a backlash against this move, justified or not. Trump is a fool, he's a moron and won't be shit in the general, he is unraveling right now in the media. So let the crowning begin, I'm done, either write in Bernie or maybe Jill Stien as enviormmental policy is my thing. Anyways, I'm going back to beer
thucythucy
(8,139 posts)Somehow I get the feeling that you haven't been "trying to justify voting for her" all that much. You've been making phone calls? Talking to your myriad friends about voting for Hillary? Sending letters to the editor?
"Will be a backlash against this move, justified or not."
Yeah, that's the ticket. Punish a candidate for some media story, whether or not she or anyone around her had anything to do with it. Serves her right for killing Vince Foster, smuggling cocaine into Arkansas, and spiking Ken Starr's warm milk with acid.
Tragl1
(104 posts)Oh wait maybe it's the TPP "gold standard"
Or "we came, he died" Kissinger lite attitude and policies
Or the board of Walmart
Or the Monsanto support
Or the speeches she refuses to release
....the list goes on and on, I'm just tired of trying to be on my side of these issues, tired of being a humanist and trying to justify a non humanist political candidate, that's all.
I'm sorry if that doesn't fit your narrative of right wing talking points, she's not near left enough for me...
thucythucy
(8,139 posts)and fracking and the Iraq vote were the deciding factors.
But it seems to me you're being disingenuous saying this is "the last straw" or whatever when it's clear you never intended to vote for her anyway. Disingenuous to the point of being dishonest. Your post right here simply proves it.
It's the endless and mindless showboating that gets to me. "Now I'm REALLY not gonna vote for her." Yeah. Right. That and your statement that, whether or not it's justified, you'd just as soon enjoy the backlash, and facts be damned.
"Your honor, we don't know if the defendant is guilty or not, but let's fry her ass anyway."
Because conceptually I had worked up to supporting her versus Trump in my head, I really did. Then this happened, I'm sorry at some point, everyone reaches a limit. I'm not saying I won't be brought back to vote for her. But seriously as the guardian put it "a burst of last minute superdelegate support?" Really? The night before a huge primary, one in which Bernie has a shot of taking California? Come on, even the most die hard Hillary fans have to kind of shake their head at that? Don't you think it smells a little? Candidates aside, at best it's shoddy journalism and at worst outright voter suppression, by media manipulation. For me climate change is my issue, she beats Trump on that even exporting fracking technology while in office, I can't begin to tell you how much that pisses me off. BUT, she is better than Trump, so that was my justification. But this burnt me out, I can't say where I will be in Novemeber just how I am now.
thucythucy
(8,139 posts)I personally doubt the Clinton campaign had anything to do with this, because if anything it suppresses their turnout, not Bernie's.
But I hear what you're saying. The media in this country are incorrigible. The whole point is "get it out first" and "lead with what sells." Even the fucking weather is sensationalized. I can't tune into a local station to hear a weather report now, I have to tune into "First Warning!!!"
Fracking for me is an even bigger issue than the Iraq vote. I mean, Bobby Kennedy voted for the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, and lived to regret it. So if Hillary cast that vote out of political expediency, or cowardice, or even--who knows?--actually believe that WMD bullshit, she's seen the error and I can (just about) forgive her.
But fracking is, I think, a threat to the entire planet, and last I heard (and I could be wrong) Hillary hasn't changed her position on that. Either way, it's an issue we can't allow to go away.
American politics can drive one to eat detergent. I'll be glad when this primary is over.
Best wishes.
Tragl1
(104 posts)I get what your saying also. About it being now, how it looks or reads from your perspective. I respect my words are abrasive and wither or not it is her fault, the circumstance, like you said, the politics of it. That's what has me currently on the reactionary side of "now I won't."
Anyways I'm enjoying my beer. Regardless of politics think we all need to do that right now.
creeksneakers2
(7,492 posts)is something that didn't even happen. Not long ago, Trump was declared the GOP nominee based on surveys of delegates. That's how it works. There is no plot.
larkrake
(1,674 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)In which they attempted to taint the Hispanic vote in California.
That was the last straw for me.
TeacherB87
(249 posts)Things are really starting to get loopy around here.
None of you have any evidence that her campaign had anything to do with this, and the conspiratorial thinking shows.
The empressof all
(29,098 posts)Just sayin....
dchill
(38,641 posts)Waiting For Everyman
(9,385 posts)Cheating isn't winning.
Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)The Clinton machine is very very good at it.
Tarc
(10,478 posts)Pledged delegates + those superdelegates who have publicly endorsed > 2,384. It's just math, man. Relax.
senz
(11,945 posts)anigbrowl
(13,889 posts)ucrdem
(15,512 posts)so we might be in tie-ville for a few days
icecreamfan
(115 posts)Enjoy it while it lasts plutocrats. Millennials and Gen X won't fall for another corporatist warmonger like Clinton.
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)RandySF
(59,903 posts)Brickbat
(19,339 posts)MFM008
(19,839 posts)From voting. Nor should it stop any one else.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Setsuna1972
(332 posts)They made the announcement , not Hillary !
why did they need to place calls to super delegates?
creeksneakers2
(7,492 posts)How do you think they've kept count all this time?
Setsuna1972
(332 posts)It would have been a better fit had they waited for the NJ primary last night and THEN announce "Hillary Won" . Also, the Superdelegates themselves told AP, perhaps they wanted to send a message to Bernie and say ,"it's over, you won't be able to change our choice".
apcalc
(4,465 posts)Hope I'm wrong
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)Gomez163
(2,039 posts)Android3.14
(5,402 posts)Response to Android3.14 (Reply #201)
Gomez163 This message was self-deleted by its author.
RufusTFirefly
(8,812 posts)How democratic!
It also may explain what happened in Puerto Rico
Did the Democratic Party Commit Election Fraud in Puerto Rico?
Move along, folks. Nothing to see here.
justiceischeap
(14,040 posts)when you can suppress voter turnout in ALL of the states there are primaries in? I mean, this couldn't effect voter turnout for her in NJ, SD, ND, MT, NM & CA, it will only effect Sanders, never ever Hillary Clinton.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)rjsquirrel
(4,762 posts)Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)rjsquirrel
(4,762 posts)zappaman
(20,606 posts)Yeah, I thought not.
Fla Dem
(23,905 posts)any more tha BS did. Why would she want her vote suppressed?
reddread
(6,896 posts)A few years of having Hillary covered for by this level of analysis?
come on global warming.
RufusTFirefly
(8,812 posts)still_one
(92,552 posts)offices on the ballot to vote on then just the Presidential primary race.
Maybe the OP is a single-issue voter, but that doesn't mean people in California are
Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)Fla Dem
(23,905 posts)They were actively surveying super delegates to see where they stood.
Justitia
(9,316 posts)Doctor Jack
(3,072 posts)Its all going to be ok
Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)that's funny
laserhaas
(7,805 posts)still_one
(92,552 posts)then just the Presidential Primary, and THOSE OF US IN CALIFORNIA will be out to vote
Second, whether there is a low turnout or a high turnout, most of the California polls have it as very close, with Hillary having a slight advantage. THERE IS NO BLOWOUT election in California for either candidate according to the polls.
For Democrats who were registered since the last election, they are overwhelming for Hillary according to the polls.
The wild card is those registered as NPP, and that is why the polls are close.
California will be within a 10 point spread
It must be really sad to believe everything is a conspiracy
California has a LOT OF HILLARY SUPPORTERS, and it appears a lot of the newly registered voters in California are Sanders supporters.
and the polls are indicating it appears to be a wash
Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)still_one
(92,552 posts)that the Clinton camp timed this with AP is all wet. The Field poll is one of the most accurate polls in the state, and it makes it very clear that it is close.
As to the USC determination of who they determine is likely for not likely voters, I question that assessment. Those who registered as NPP are a wild card, and they cannot accurately determine if they are more likely or not to vote, since many of the NPPs are first time voters. So you can have that poll, and buy yourself a cup of coffee
madaboutharry
(40,248 posts)The Clinton campaign does not own the Associated Press and NBC. Not everything is a conspiracy to sabotage Sanders.
SFnomad
(3,473 posts)LoverOfLiberty
(1,438 posts)why, with ample evidence to the contrary, you chose to blame Hillary for this.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)Fla Dem
(23,905 posts)If for nothing else HRC wants as many primary wins, votes and delegates as she can get. It puts her in an even stronger position going into the convention.
Besides her campaign had plans for a celebratory event tomorrow night AFTER the NJ primary when she would pick up the necessary delegates to be the presumptive nominee. This was a premature announcement by the AP.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)...according to The media who decides who the candidates are. No need for Hillary supporters to show up...it's all over.
gopiscrap
(23,768 posts)RandySF
(59,903 posts)Beacool
(30,254 posts)I'm going to have to steal that. I could probably use it around here all day long.
Fresh_Start
(11,330 posts)there are primaries for the US Senate, the US House of Representatives, the state representatives, and propositions....along with local offices
Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)other areas.
Fresh_Start
(11,330 posts)if you want to make changes in this country
Fresh_Start
(11,330 posts)nt
Jester Messiah
(4,711 posts)Honestly, are you surprised?
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)And when that lie fell apart, they decided to do this. Hillary fears California.
Renew Deal
(81,901 posts)Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)1) Superdelegates do coordinate with the campaign on the timing their endorsement announcements to the press.
QED
That's it. It's a tautology.
Motive was established in the OP.
BreakfastClub
(765 posts)announcement on her site, by the way. You should delete this since what you wrote is a lie.
Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)And they decide when to call you back.
It was clearly coordinated if 20+ of them all moved on exact same day, which happens to be the night before the California primary.
So people will hear about it on the news tomorrow morning when they are running late for work and have to decide about voting .
anigbrowl
(13,889 posts)You're acting like it's a universal law when it isn't. Just because you think something is obviously true doesn't make it so. I feel like I'm arguing with some fundamentalist religious type that can't conceive of any ideas besides those they already believe.
Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)stevil
(1,537 posts)And you presented no evidence of campaign coordination. Did you? If not.....
Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)If turnout is suppressed it hurts Sanders the most.
So you think 20+ superdelegates all called the AP back today by coincidence ?
stevil
(1,537 posts)Why would this not suppress turnout for Hillary as well?
Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)They voted by mail.
stevil
(1,537 posts)Bye. One trick pony you are.
Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)and especially so with Hillary's voters.
senz
(11,945 posts)The Hill camp and their media supporters know that.
I wish you would not make fun of other posters' usernames.
Who had the high turnout? Who?
Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)Hillary is helped by lower turnout in California.
stevil
(1,537 posts)Maybe we can work together to have a Democratic candidate. Can we agree on that?
stillwaiting
(3,795 posts)I wish more HRC supporters empathized with what happened this primary.
The fact that they have not, but instead have mocked, ridiculed, and denigrated Bernie AND his supporters so savagely will make unity very difficult. How could it not? How do most Bernie supporters unite behind a candidate and her supporters who have little to no respect for us (if not outright disdain or hatred)?
Has any nominee from the past ever treated their opponents supporters with such contempt and disdain?
larkrake
(1,674 posts)Bernie is too close to spilling her milk. Wait til hes back in the Senate and blocks all her neo-con moves. He isnt going to let her bad decisions send this country into the toilet
wisteria
(19,581 posts)Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)chillfactor
(7,595 posts)Hillary had NOTHING to do with the announcement...give it a rest already!
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)And she doesn't decide their policy for when they release a story.
Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)The story was that 20+ superdelegates all moved at the same time to put Hillary "over the top".
Obviously coordinated. And on the night before the CA primary
senz
(11,945 posts)Not surprising that the corporate media would want to throw the election to the corporate candidate.
If Hillary had an ounce of honor in her soul, she would deny this false rumor. Because neither candidate will be able to clinch the Democratic nomination from the remaining primaries. It isn't possible.
She knows it, Bernie knows it, everyone who understands how it works knows it, but Hill partisans in the media are aware that most voters don't know it.
So the whole idea is to fool the voters and lower the turnout.
There are so many reasons to not want Hillary Clinton in the White House. And now we have another.
creeksneakers2
(7,492 posts)are probably as invalid as this one.
senz
(11,945 posts)flip-flopping on issues, dishonesty, gutter politics, lack of empathy, condescending attitude toward PoC, lack of conscience -- just a few off the top of my head.
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)Tomato
TomAHto
JudyM
(29,294 posts)nini
(16,672 posts)We're replacing senator Boxer, congress seats. Etc etc lots to get out for still.
I would assume regardless of who you are supporting for president you would still vote the entire ballot.
Response to Cheese Sandwich (Original post)
Lizzie Poppet This message was self-deleted by its author.
JI7
(89,290 posts)Demsrule86
(68,869 posts)It will more likely suppress her voters.
Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)voters in California have already cast their ballots by mail.
Demsrule86
(68,869 posts)I doubt all the votes are cast by mail anyway.
Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)though. Bernie's voters would be more election day walk ins.
itsrobert
(14,157 posts)Bravo.
Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)Raine1967
(11,589 posts)Can we please agree on that?
Raine1967
(11,589 posts)Can't we just make sure Trump is never allowed to live in the white house?
Trump is the enemy. Trump must be defeated.
Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)Raine1967
(11,589 posts)Many Dems will be doing the same thing... I never much liked fighting Dems, to be honest.
lovemydog
(11,833 posts)to hit the Florida Panhandle, the Cleveland Cavaliers to shoot poorly from the field, and the North Korean government to restart its nuclear facility at Yongbyon!
Raine1967
(11,589 posts)She did not.
You can declare it forever, She did no such thing.
HarmonyRockets
(397 posts)eastwestdem
(1,220 posts)this is not normal behavior.
Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)I continue to lose faith in our system.
Beacool
(30,254 posts)Always with the innuendos, assumptions and totally fabricated "facts".
Psst, a little real fact, it doesn't affect the end result whether Hillary or Sanders wins CA. CA would only give the winner bragging rights. She still will be the nominee, her pledged delegate advantage became insurmountable after the NY primary in April. Now carry on with your fantasy posts.
Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)NanceGreggs
(27,821 posts)... that the adherents of the Great Revolution - the people who were allegedly ready to march on D.C. and DEMAND their voices be heard - would fold like cheap suits if the MSM "called it" for Hillary?
I guess the Great Revolution wasn't so great after all.
LibDemAlways
(15,139 posts)the last couple of days. This tells me that Hillary is tanking here and she knows it. If she was ahead in CA, there would be big newspaper headlines like, "Hillary Poised for Big California Win." Instead, crickets. And so, on the eve of the election in the most populous state with close to 500 delegates at stake, the AP suddenly calls it for her. And Hilllary supporters on this site believe her campaign has nothing whatever to do with it, has no reason to want to suppress the California vote? Sorry, but that's bullshit.
I think it will backfire and Bernie supporters will be quite anxious tomorrow to send the Clinton campaign the message that California is Bernie country and we're not interested in playing their corrupt games or voting for their corporate owned candidate. Bernie will win California .
Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)"If Clinton manages to hold him off and win the primary, it would be as a result of a low turnout that tilts the electorate in her direction."
Sanders has barnstormed California in recent weeks, hoping to grab a large share of the state's 475 pledged delegates up for grabs. However, if primary results are as close as recent polls indicate, Sanders and Clinton would split the 475 delegates evenly, which wouldn't give the Vermont senator much of a boost in his search for the nomination.
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/bernie-sanders-leads-hillary-clinton-new-poll-california
MrWendel
(1,881 posts)DrDan
(20,411 posts)however satisfying and reassuring.
Carl Sagan
Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)AzDar
(14,023 posts)pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)but she can't clarify her message because only the 1% would buy into it. She is not for us and therefore can't really be clear on what she plans to do.
Bad Dog
(2,025 posts)is hardly news. Politics is a dirty game, it always has been.
Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)Bad Dog
(2,025 posts)In answer to your question, this is a political site and it attracts some quite anal obsessives. Lots of the political stuff, polls, who did what in a 50 year old photo, who said what back in the 60s and the voting intentions of some old git down the road aren't news but they get a lot of threads dedicated to them.
Nonhlanhla
(2,074 posts)Many of us Clinton supporters are also unhappy about AP's timing. It could suppress voter turnout for both candidates and affect the results. It also takes away from Hillary's planned victory speech this evening.
Take your tinfoil off.
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)It's good to be queen
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)LexVegas
(6,121 posts)Tarc
(10,478 posts)I was going to say something snarky, but sometimes the material just writes itself.
Btw, OP has a post hidden yesterday
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512134237
for saying pretty much the same thing, minus "the Latinos" slur.
MaeScott
(878 posts)onenote
(42,885 posts)The people who have faced violence and intimidation to prevent them from voting, who in the past faced poll taxes and other unconstitutional hurdles, and who today are being disenfranchised by ID requirements that are difficult for poor and elderly voters to meet.
No one is preventing a single Sanders voter from going to the polls. If they choose not to go it's entirely on them. The reality is that they have exactly the same reason to go today as they did yesterday. Sanders strategy was and still is to win as many contests by as large a margin today as possible thereby cutting into (but almost certainly not erasing) Clinton's pledged delegate lead. His strategy then involves taking the results from today along with GE polls to the SDs in an effort to persuade them to switch.
That strategy is unaffected by yesterday's announcement particularly since it was widely reported on Sunday and Monday that Clinton was so close to having a combined total of pledged delegates and SDs that it was inevitable that she would be proclaimed the presumptive nominee as soon as New Jersey (a state Sanders admitted he isn't going to win) was called.
So if Sanders voters stay home the only explanation is that they're low information voters who never understood what Sanders' game plan was or their fairweather supporters -- hardly the revolutionaries they've been depicted as.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)themaguffin
(3,833 posts)Freddie Stubbs
(29,853 posts)alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)libodem
(19,288 posts)On an AM station, so I'm privy to Faux Snooze, in the early hours.
All night, Hillary already won, California, she IS the nominee. The you don't need to go vote was implied.
WhiteTara
(29,739 posts)and news outlets and the actions of millions of people. She can bend all to her will and none can resist.
alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)The dumb little stories don't even make sense on their own terms.
WhiteTara
(29,739 posts)than Trump or Sanders.
artyteacher
(598 posts)felix_numinous
(5,198 posts)will NOT be inspired to participate in democracy, I wonder what other means will they take instead to be heard?
I hope Bernie Sanders has inspired enough people to continue to change the world in peaceful ways, because this country IS ALREADY ANGRY and it is the eptiome of stupidity and inept leadership skills that has squandered their enthusiasm and support to replace it with resentment and mockery. Because this is what IS the result of thuggery and forcing an election.
saidsimplesimon
(7,888 posts)Politics is a contact sport, this is a political tactic everyone should have expected from a Republican. I will follow the Sanders' GOTV efforts. We need to phone bank, offer rides, and keep on keeping on. As Senator Sanders would say, an athlete finishes the race, win or lose.
Triana
(22,666 posts)This was dirty business meant to suppress votes in the states voting today - esp California.
JEB
(4,748 posts)mhatrw
(10,786 posts)Ask yourself why.
Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)If there were some big crisis and Trump declares a dictatorship all those MSNBC clowns will bow their heads.
ChiciB1
(15,435 posts)think I saw a post from CommonDreams about Clinton and an email BEFORE AP announced, what people are beginning to perceive is NOT going to help Hillary when it comes to ANY ATTEMPT by Hillary to unite the two factions of Democrats now!
Too much funny business has gone on for way too long and this has been THE LAST STRAW for millions of Bernie supporters. Even if we fall on our sward and HAVE to vote for her it WILL only be because of Trump. She can expect NO LOYALTY and most importantly she won't get grass roots help. I've been disgusted for quite some time and right now I feel even MORE BETRAYED than ever!
This is just so rotten and smells to high heaven! I know better than to post that I'm really feeling but it ain't good!
For those who blithely think this is like 2008, IT'S NOT EVEN CLOSE!
Lil Missy
(17,865 posts)Oh, wait....
Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)Check through the thread I've posted lots of reasoning.