Talk Elections

49/47. (https://twitter.com/mmurraypolitics/status/738112893229670401)

Among those who already voted, Clinton leads 58 to 41.

Probably too optimistic for Sanders. NBC wants a horse race and they ensured it with this poll. Clinton's lead is probably between 6-10 points. Clinton leads by 17 with voters who have already voted and that will make up at least 60% of the voters so this 2 point margin doesn't make a lot of sense.

By the way, the general election is a landslide in California (Clinton +24)

So Hillary leads with whites and Sanders leads with Hispanics, that's different.

Let the unskewing begin!

Dayum

It's gonna be a photo finish, which sucks for us easterners because by the time California gets called its gonna be well into Wednesday.

That's why the poll is too optimistic towards Sanders. No way does he lead with Hispanic voters there

I'll believe it when I see it. I don't see any reason why California Hispanics will like Sanders so much more than their counterparts in Texas and Arizona.

^^ Sanders didn't compete in Texas, and there was legitimate voter disenfranchisement in Arizona. I don't think either is a good parallel to here.  That being said, if Sanders wins the state, I expect him to win among whites as well.

And this is entirely before the Jerry Brown endorsement. Not that it will change much but in a close race it can make a difference.

What's voter disenfranchisement has to do with Sanders' poor performance among Hispanics?
If anything it's Clinton who should complain.
And Sanders lost Hispanics in a landslide even where he competed (Florida, New York).
He only won them in Illinois because of Rham's antagonism with the community.

Both NY & FL were closed primaries, I do think the surge in younger voters helps Sanders. Young latinos may be helping his numbers with the group overall.

deflect deflect deflect. Nobody complained about closed primaries being "undemocratic" before this election. Any problems in Arizona were problems because the state government ed up, not because nefarious Clinton actions.

()

I never said they were nefarious clinton actions; all I said was there was voter disenfranchisement in the state. It's perfectly possible that the result would be better for Sanders if more polling places were avaliable.

The "already voted" numbers are good.

They matter more than the top line and I think her lead is wider than the 17 point margin NBC presents here because the mail in ballots are skewing greatly older and more Democratic/less independent

In 2008. 41% of the primary voters voted early/absentee so it should be a big chunk.

Hillary always does better with early voters. Even in Oregon, where it was all by mail.

Yeah but 41% of primary goers in 2008 voted early. If she wins early votes by 17 points and breaks even on election day, she wins.

I dont see any unskewing, but the two of you continue to sh**t post as usual.

Is it okay to at least say this is an outlier?

It also shows Kamala Harris up 18 points which, while she's been up the entire race, she hasn't been up by that much in most recent polls.

Sanders actually won the early mail in voters in Oregon by about 5 and won the state by 12. This time Hillary is winning them by 17 and 60% of the ballots will be mailed in so it is hard to see that margin dropping to 2 with a state as big as CA. I think NBC is trying to make it a horse race when in reality Clinton leads by high single digits, which I expect the Field Poll to show when it comes out

And if they were open Sanders would have won them, huh?
The level of delusion runs strong among Berniebots.

No, but they would have been a lot closer. Especially in NY, where the deadline for an existing registered voter to change to DEM was before the first democratic debate.

I could see this being a close race, but some of the subsamples do look a bit off, other than just the Anglo/Latino numbers.

Bay Area 56-42 Clinton, but LA County 54-40 Clinton?

I would imagine the Bay Area being a bit closer and LA County to be more heavily Clinton.

If those are right, how is this a 2 point race? Most of the Democratic electorate is in those 2 parts of the state (in fact most of the voters). Orange County and San Diego would have to be at least 60-40 for Sanders to get a 2 point race

Excuses, excuses. In Texas Sanders didn't compete, in Florida and New York it was the closed primaries, etc, etc.
The cold hard reality is that Sanders' appeal among minorities is limited and I don't see any evidence why California would be any different.

BTW, several New York polls actually showed Sanders winning Hispanics by double digits. We all know what happened in reality.

Are you seriously denying that NY would have been closer if it was semi-open like CA is and had a more lenient party change deadline? You are beyond delusional.

If NY had early voting, vote by mail, more lenient party change rules, and a semi-open primary yes there's no doubt it would've been closer. The deadline to change parties in NY was in Oct while in Cali in May.

We aren't talking about the overall result here, we are talking about Hispanics.


And if I was born rich and handsome I would be George Clooney.

Poll shows Inland/Valley 54-44 Bernie and Coastal 58-36 Bernie.

My theory has been for a few weeks that you will see a massive Obama '08 to Bernie '16 swing in many smaller Northern California counties, similar to what you saw in Oregon in May, as well as a significant drop in Hillary support in Central Valley areas, including Sacramento & Fresno.

I just read something horrible.

Apparently it can take days and even weeks to count all the absentee/early votes in California, if the race is very close we might not know the winner for awhile.

That's true. Remember what happened with the Harris/Cooley race.

Well then I think we have different definitions of unskewing. I'm trying to contribute however, unlike you.

I actually think California is the state provides us the best outlook to how Hispanics really feel about the two candidates. Everywhere else Hispanics were relevant:

Nevada and Colorado - Caucuses
Illinois - Everyone hates Rahm
New York - Closed primary, registration deadline so early that it actually should be illegal
Florida and New Mexico - Closed primaries
Texas - Sanders didn't compete
Arizona - Who knows who really benefited from the long lines?

California doesn't seem to have any major knocks against it. Independents are allowed to vote, the registration deadline is lenient, republicans can't screw with the result because they aren't allowed to vote, no same-day registration (which would be very favorable to Sanders), the governor is a Democrat, both candidates are competing, no mayor to rally against, and it's not a caucus.



Yeah, that's true for the general, where turnout tends to be pretty high despite the state being Safe D. Not sure how well it pertains to the primary. Of course, this is a largely mail-in state, and they're still counting votes in WA.......

There are still mail in ballots being counted in Oregon and the election was 15 days ago...

Although not a close election at all, still unfortunately it is the downside of making it easier to vote by mail. :(

Sanders didn't compete in Texas precisely because the Latino population backed Hillary big-time there and he couldn't move them

He didn't compete in Texas as well because there were a ton of other states voting, including some much more favorable and it costs a ton of money to compete in the air wars in Texas.

Or we could stop thinking about Hispanics as a monolithic group and accept that differences exist between states and areas.

---

Looks like Hillary is in trouble. Can't wait for next Tuesday.

I mean, shes not. She's securing the nomination on Tuesday though so you have that to look forward to.

She has a chance of losing the largest and most diverse Democratic electorate to a democratic socialist from a tiny, very white state. That would be an embarrassing way to end the primary season and her polling bounce could be in jeopardy if Sanders touts it as a victory for his campaign and doesn't suspend. We know she's going to secure the nomination, what we don't know is how much she benefits from that if she loses the largest state in the country (I still think she'll win, but hypothetically).

Interesting stuff. Clinton leads by 17 among those who have already voted, but Bernie leads by 1 among a wider electorate of voters.

Color me surprised, this could actually end up quite close. I don't think Sanders will win, but I'll be impressed if it's actually a 2-point race.

If California is as close as this polls shows, Sanders won't be able to declare victory on Tuesday. Hillary however will, it doesn't matter.

Edit: However, even if Sanders loses California, he could still not concede. He's going to win the Dakotas and Montana. He could claim that as enough of a reason to stay in till the convention.

I seriously doubt it will be this close, but we shall see.

[/quote] Or we could stop thinking about Hispanics as a monolithic group and accept that differences exist between states and areas.

---

[/quote]

Agreed....

Just as "Asian-Americans" might vote very differently in the cities of Cupertino (Heavily Chinese-Americans) and Garden Grove (Heavily Vietnamese-American), let alone the huge Iranian-American community in Metro LA.

I suspect, and might well be wrong, that not only is there an age-income-regional scenario in California, but also a 2nd generation Latino population in SoCal where the Central American community (~600k) fleeing political violence in Central America in the '70s/80s, is living, working, and closely connected with a similar population from heavily indigenous states like Oaxaca and Guerrero in Mexico.

Not only do these communities come from regions/countries where there has been a recent history of struggle against extremely repressive, and even Fascist political structures, but also the parents of the millennial generation remember the mass deportation policies of the Bill Clinton Administration, that disproportionately targeted Central Americans in the '90s AND see a similar type of policy under Obama and what many consider to be his designated successor Hillary Clinton.

Note that this could not only explain some of the polling discrepancy in LA County, but also in places like Salinas/Watsonville/Fresno, where Central Americans are now surpassing Mexican-Americans working in the "pastures of plenty" that is California.

So yeah... will be interesting to look at precinct returns and compare from Pico Union/ McArthur Park (LA) to East LA and some areas in the Central Valley.

Reality is that in the event Hillary wins the Democratic nomination, she's going to have a hard time persuading working-class Latinos to register and turn out to vote when they see Democrat after Democrat making promises and yet not delivering, while deportations that "the Clinton's" have supported over the years are still continuing, even in what should be an extremely favorable environment after all of the hate speech that Trump has been spouting from the beginning to get his foot in the door in a long-shot Rep primary run.

I don't get it...Sanders needed to win this state 80/20 to put a dent in the pledged delegate lead. Who cares about who wins the state at this point? It always has been about delegates and Clinton will secure the nomination after polls close in NJ.

There will be no more rallies after next Tuesday. Sanders needs to consider this: if he damages the Democratic party by continuing his campaign, I wouldn't be shocked to see someone challenge him in 2018. I also wouldn't be shocked, if the Democrats re-take the Senate, to see them marginalize Sanders and treat him as an Independent.

He was given the opportunity to run as a Democrat. He has, and he has lost. If he continues this campaign after Tuesday it will say more about his ego than his principles.

If Sanders truly cared about the Democratic party, defeating Trump and solidifying his legacy, he will concede the race on Tuesday night or Wednesday and wholeheartedly throw his support behind Hillary.

Sanders desperately needs symbolic victories because he can't win actual ones.

Let's dispel with the notion that Sanders didn't compete in Texas. He spent time and money there and withdrew only after he saw that he wasn't making any progress.


Again, Clinton has carried Hispanics in every state but Illinois. From Connecticut to Florida and from Virginia to Arizona.
I see many saying that California's Hispanics might be more young and that's why it's plausible Sanders winning them. But young Latinos also supported Obama in 2008, yet still Clinton won them overall in California 67-32. I can believe that Sanders will overperform Obama but not by THAT much.

Also according to the 2008 primary exit poll California isn't an especially young state. The 18-29 voters were 16% of the electorate, just about the same as the entire US.

The states of AK, HI, WA, OR, ID, UT, WY, CO, NE, KS, OK, MN, WI, MI, IN, WV, RI, VT, NH, and ME all say hi. I mean, yeah, he's not winning the nomination, and narrowly winning CA wouldn't change that, but let's not pretend that Sanders has done nothing.

Clinton winning by 2% would gain her 242 delegates and she needs 257 to reach 2026, which is the magic number in pledged delegates. Once that number is reached, the race is officially done. I cannot see how Sanders continues to campaign when all the contests are up.

Do you mind telling Bernie and Jeff Weaver this?

And win like 5% of the vote.

Hmm, I wouldn't be so sure. If Sanders does damage to Clinton and somehow hands Trump the presidency, I think a lot of Democrats would be on board behind the scenes to take out Bernie in Vermont.

Not True... Bernie also won the Latino vote in Oregon, despite the lack of exit polls.

Although we don't yet have many county precinct returns available from Oregon, he won all 30%+ Latino counties, two of which an overwhelming majority of Anglos vote Republican (Malheur & Umatilla Counties). Additionally, precinct level results from Hood River County show that Bernie won 57-43 in 40%+ Latino precincts in more rural parts of the state. Additionally, the largest urban area (Marion Co.) with a large 25%+ Latino population, where again many Anglos vote Republican Bernie won 53-47%.

Results from the "Beauty Contest" in Washington State, with much lower voter turnout levels might be harder to discern, however we see similar results from >40% Latino Counties that are heavily Republican where Hillary dramatically underperformed versus her '08 results.

West Coast is quite a bit different from Arizona, Texas, Illinois, New York, and Connecticut, and California is even a totally different beast altogether.

If anyones interested, the RCP for California in 2008. The only pollster who was close was........SurveyUSA and Mason-Dixon.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/ca/california_democratic_primary-259.html

So what? The man is more beloved than any other politician in the state and it's not even close. There is zero chance of him ever losing an election in Vermont.  You did see him deny Clinton viability there, right?

He probably won the hispanic vote in Wisconsin as well.

Who says she breaks even on election day? Also, we might not know who wins for a while; there could be a lot of provisional votes, and those will go strongly for Bernie.

It wouldnt be hard to make Sanders remaining years in the Senate miserable you know. Chairmanships and committees? Nope, all gone. Anybit of power and influence hes built up in this party all these years can be easily taken away.

Or polling could be like 2008 and SUSA are the only ones who know what there doing. Guess we'll find out June 7th.

If she wins 60% of the early VBM by 17 she would have to lose the remaining 40% who vote on Election Day by 22-23 pts or more to lose the state

I hate to break it to you guys but Clinton will win with almost double digit margins.

Do you have any regional/county predictions or is this just a statement of perceived fact?

Hes the guy the Clinton camp pays to rig the machines.

That wouldn't end well, you know. It'd just make the Sandernistas' claims about the establishment even more believable. If anything, it'd be completely counterproductive.

The socialization of the Democratic party is happening no matter what. Whether Senate Dems welcome Bernie back with open arms or very begrudgingly won't matter. Whoever is the revolution candidate next time will be favored to win the nomination.

I basically agree with this map made by Holmes in another thread. I would only disagree with Napa County. As for specific counties, I see San Francisco going to Sanders by about 5-10 points, with Alameda and Santa Clara going for Clinton by similar margins. San Mateo, Marin and Contra Costa will be closer but should be Clinton wins. The San Joaquin Valley will also go for Clinton but not by 2008 margins but still solid margins in Fresno and Kern. Sacramento will be close but I still see Clinton winning. The Sacramento Valley should be won by Sanders but not by huge margins (with the exception of Butte and Yolo which should be blowouts). Sanders wins the mountains and north coast by comfortable margins.

The central coast is a little tough. I'm pretty torn on Monterey County but in any case it should be close. Santa Cruz is an obvious Sanders win along with San Luis Obispo. He should also win Santa Barbara but it will be close. Clinton wins Ventura county by about a 3-7 point margin. Los Angeles should be about 10-15 points. Orange should be about 5-10 points and San Diego should be about 3-7 points. The Inland Empire I also see at about a 5-10 point Clinton margin. Overall I am thinking Clinton by about 5-10 though looking at the latest Field poll, closer to 5 might be a safer bet. I trust the Field poll a lot and if they are finding a close race, then maybe there is something to it.

Oh, come on. You really think I am a Hillary hack? I actually hope she loses in 2020 after the Republicans nominate someone decent. Of course that's a lot to ask for. I am sorry I don't want to join in your socialist revolution lol.

It was my poor attempt at humor, I am a Clinton supporter making a joke about how Bernie supporters claim everything is rigged.

if anyoune should ever be called a bot that is you

New Poll: California President by Marist College on 2016-05-31 (https://uselectionatlas.org/POLLS/PRESIDENT/2016D/polls.php?action=indpoll&id=620160531008)

Summary:

Clinton:	49%
Sanders:	47%
Other:	1%
Undecided:	3%

Poll Source URL: Full Poll Details (https://www.scribd.com/doc/314520082/NBC-News-WSJ-Marist-California-Poll-Annotated-Questionnaire-June-2016)

Cool--- thks for posting!

Overall, the logic sounds pretty solid, although obviously California presents some significant challenges predicting outcomes compared to most states, because of the rapid demographic and population changes in just a few election cycles, and is a difficult state to model based upon election results elsewhere in the primary season.

It's pretty close to the map I have, although I see Marin tilting towards Bernie, despite Hillary improvements among upper income Anglos from '08 to '16 in West Coast large cities. One of the things I'm wrestling with is how higher-income voters on paper, that still have smaller amounts of disposable income because of high cost of living, in places like the Bay Area are going to vote, many of whom have adult children still living with them because of the housing crisis.

In a close election/ narrow Bernie win, I could see Contra Costa and Santa Clara flip from Hillary '08 counties and think Alameda will be an Obama > Hillary flip regardless but with tight margins.

Not seeing Monterey County flipping from '08 to '16, but if it does, then Hillary will have some significant problems with margins in the Central Valley (Fresno, Kern, etc...) since Salinas areas will account for >40% of the vote.

San Diego/Orange will likely be key indicators of a potential upset, the former with a large military/veteran component, student population, and within the city of San Diego a large "very liberal" Democratic electorate, and the latter a test of Sanders ability to dominate among voters <45 to offset older and wealthier OC Dems. Clinton beat Obama by 18% in '08, and other than Riverside/San Bernadino was her 3rd best county in the state, with the exception of a handful of small rural counties and medium-size Central Valley pop centers (Fresno/Kern in '08).

I can't wait for Hillary to clinch the nomination at 8 PM on Tuesday either. ;)

I mean, it'll be a nice trophy for Bernie if he wins it, but you all seem to forget that it really doesn't matter. It'll be a bit embarrassing for her, but it will make no difference in the end.

I also don't get why the Reddit crew is cheering that it is a tight race in some polls. Weren't they insisting he was going to win it by 50 points?

I agree that San Diego and Orange County will be the bellwethers. Perhaps the average of those two counties. The Inland Empire I think is a little more unpredictable. Those areas haven't been doing well as of late and are susceptible to Bernie's message but they also have a lot of Hispanics and Blacks. I think Orange County and the IE ending up voting similarly.

You may be right about Monterey County. I may be underestimating the Salinas/Salinas Valley vote and overestimating the Monterey liberal vote. That being said the margins will be lower than Clinton'08. Especially in the central valley because like the IE, they will be susceptible to Bernie's message due to local economic conditions. I don't think that will be enough to overcome the demographic problems Bernie has there though.

I am fairly certain about Santa Clara County voting for Hillary, perhaps by even a greater margin than Alameda. Alameda County has Berkeley and the white people who live in Oakland are also major Bernie supporters. There is no similar area in Santa Clara County, including Stanford. Bernie might win Stanford but it won't be by the same margins as Berkeley. Moreover, the areas surrounding it are not going to be comfortable with Bernie's message. The caveat of course being those with incomes in the 100-150k range may be more susceptible to Bernie's message in the Bay Area than in other places due to the high cost of living.

As an aside, how the Hispanic and especially the Asian vote go will make a huge difference. At this point I am assuming Asians vote 60% + for Hillary and Hispanics around 55% or so. Like you said, we don't have good exit polling from nearby states to validate that so we are flying blind in that regard. I am especially unsure how the Asian and Hispanic vote goes in the Bay Area. It's possible they vote Sanders but the rest of the state votes differently.

Aren't Asians the most Sanders-friendly minority group due to their high education levels?

I don't think Bernie necessarily wins those with high education levels.....Anyways, Asians are very incumbent/establishment friendly. There will be a huge split among generations as well as immigrant/native born voters. It's hard to gauge how that will play out.

I'm still betting on a 4-7% margin for Clinton like I have been for the last couple of months.

So this poll states a 56-42 Hillary win in the Bay Area, and to compare to '08 when Obama lost the state by 8.3% but won the Bay Area 47.9-47.5 (Am basically rolling 7/9 Metro counties and excluding Napa and Sonoma).

In order for this poll to make sense, regardless of MOE on regional sub-samples it makes absolutely no sense, where the Bay Area accounts for ~25% of the state primary votes, and even less sense if we broaden the Bay Area to include counties like Sonoma and Santa Cruz. The only way to explain it would be an extraordinary anti-Hillary swing in SoCal, regardless of a collapse in her support in rural Northern/Coastal/Mountain NorCal.

Still wrestling with the Bay Area, but if we look at Santa Clara County and potential swings, Obama's best cities was Palo Alto, and NW Santa Clara County (Los Altos and Mountain View) as well as some very wealthy white liberal towns like Los Gatos and Saratoga.

Hillary's three best cities were Milipitas (62% Asian-American), which has a rapidly growing Asian-American population, particularly Taiwanese-Americans and Indian-Americans, and is relatively "affordable" by Bay Area standards. Gilroy at the Southern end of Silicon Valley but more heavily agriculture oriented (60% Latino and could potentially be an indicator of similar areas), and then lastly San Jose (50% of the Dem Prim vote in Santa Clara County in '08), where Obama garnered barely 36% of the vote.

San Jose is 32% Asian (with over 10% of the population Vietnamese-Americans), and 33% Latino-Americans, and a fairly low 65+ population with an extremely large younger electorate, that regardless of ethnicity appear to be a strong Bernie voting block.

I think the 2016 Democratic Primary precinct swing map will be fascinating in the Bay Area in particular, because what I suspect we might see is more of a leveling out of the map because of age trumping ethnicity in many areas.

In San Francisco, the Hillary coalition was heavily based upon a coalition of Asian-Americans , particularly in the Western part of the city (Sunset District, Ocean Beach, and Chinatown), combined with more of a traditional "white working-class" population in South SF, as well as SOMA precincts, with Obama dominating in Height/Castro/Noe-Valley/Mission/Pacific-Heights-Marina, as well as historically AA areas like Hunters Point-Bayview.

In Santa Clara County, Hillary will likely over-perform in wealthier and Anglo areas like Mtn View, Saratoga, and Los Gatos, but see a significant swing against her in San Jose, Sunnyvale, and Miliptas, and heading over to the East Bay Contra Costa and Alameda are likely to see some dramatic shifts as well, not only in the flatland, but also the Oakland and Berkeley Hills and even further inland into places like Concord and Walnut Creek.

If Bernie wins California, Cupertino will likely flip as a broader representation of Asian-American voters in Silicon Valley as a 63% Asian-American city and Global HQ of Apple, where Hillary only won 51% of the Primary vote in '08, despite winning the county by 13% in '08.

I thought people with higher education levels favored Clinton?

Yup, should be some decent swings to Hillary in the wealthier cities, but places like Palo Alto are also some of the liberal areas of the Bay Area, and Bernie does well in liberal areas. In places like Berkeley, Oakland and San Francisco I am very certain at least the white people there will be voting heavily for Sanders. I am not so sure about Palo Alto, Mountain View, Menlo Park etc. As for places like Milpitas, Fremont and San Jose, how they vote could very well determine how the state votes. If they go as strongly for Hillary as they did in 2008, she might be able to build on her margins. I don't think it will happen though, although I expect her to win all those places. As Nate Silver wrote today, the Hispanic vote will be key, and I would add the Asian vote along with that.

Democratic control of the Senate in a 50/50 or 51/49 scenario (where Clinton picks a Democratic Senator in a red state to be her VP)? Gone. Without committee assignments - which is arguably the only reason an elected independent would affiliate with one of the two parties in the Senate in the first place - he has no reason whatsoever to continue entertaining the notion of propping up a Democratic Senate majority.

Uh, guys.  Nobody's touching Bernie in Vermont.  Period.  You can all daydream all you want about the Senate Dems throwing a hissyfit and stripping his committee assignments, but it ain't happening.  The Senate isn't full of disgruntled Atlas posters, you see.

By the way, Sanders already promised months ago to run in all future campaigns as a Democrat and not as an Independent.  Kind of a moot point.

Exactly.

Didn't Sanders win hispanics in NV?

No. The exit poll showed him winning them but actual results showed Clinton winning with more than 60% the Latino heavy precincts.

Do you have actual precinct results to back that up, or just blowing hot wind energy from Denmark?

Yeah, but the Latinos in those heavily Latino precincts might vote differently than Latinos in general.

It should be noted that we only have Nevada entrance polls, not exit polls.

Embarrassing miss for Marist.

Called it

What a lousy poll

It's 2016 and polling companies still don't know how to poll Latinos.