CA - Field: Clinton - 45 Sanders - 43

[IceSpear]

Pretty clear this is going to be a nailbiter now. My Clinton +3 prediction should be quite accurate.

It very well may end up being tight, but you'd think we would've learned by now it's not a rare occurence for primary polls to be significantly off the mark.

[IceSpear]

Her not winning California makes this whole thing an ugly mess, though.

In the same way Obama losing South Dakota made things an ugly mess.

[IceSpear]

Yet another gold standard bites the dust, joining Selzer and Marquette. Man, this cycle has not been friendly to the pollsters.

[IceSpear]

Pretty clear this is going to be a nailbiter now. My Clinton +3 prediction should be quite accurate.

It very well may end up being tight, but you'd think we would've learned by now it's not a rare occurence for primary polls to be significantly off the mark.

Lesson taught again.

[IceSpear]

Yet another gold standard bites the dust, joining Selzer and Marquette. Man, this cycle has not been friendly to the pollsters.

What did Marquette predict?

They did well on the GOP side (Cruz +10) but on the Dem side they had Sanders +4. Selzer was the opposite. They did fairly well on the Dem side (Clinton +3, which was very good if you assume O'Malley voters broke heavily for Sanders when he failed viability, which they did according to all information) but bombed the GOP side (Trump +5)