2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumSanders edging closer to Clinton in slow California vote count
More than two weeks after the election, state reports show that there are still 605,000 uncounted ballots in the state, and theres little the state can do to hurry the count along.
But the delayed count can have consequences, even if the final result doesnt change, said Ben Tulchin, lead pollster for the Sanders campaign.
While Tulchin says theres no question Clinton won the California primary, he believes the slow ballot count still hurt Sanders.
The election night results showed Clinton winning by 12 to 15 percentage points, he said. Those numbers became the national narrative, even though the final margin may be half that.
Ensuring accurate count
Tulchin, who works from San Francisco, is no stranger to vote counting in California, but months of tracking primaries for the Sanders campaign have given him a new perspective.
When you see how (vote counting) is done in 49 other states, you have to ask why (Californias delays) should be normal, he said. Its ridiculous.
http://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/Sanders-edging-closer-to-Clinton-in-slow-8322387.php?t=dfd33e5d077d4f3860&cmpid=twitter-premium
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)Renew Deal
(81,866 posts)beachbumbob
(9,263 posts)The final count minutes or months later made no difference..
still_one
(92,257 posts)AS NPP, (No Party Preference), because for one reason or another, they did not want to be officially registered as a Democrat.
If those who registered as NPP, did not request a Democratic ballot properly, or it was not available, then they were given a provisional ballot. Contrary to some of the MISINFORMATION spread on the INTERNETS, California counts ALL ballots, including provisional ones.
California has had this current voting system in place for more than a decade.
All the information was readily available to any REGISTERED voter. Not only through a voter pamphlet sent to every REGISTERED voter, but also at the California SOS website, and major newspapers.
KMOD
(7,906 posts)Is it about saving face somehow? Instead of losing by 13% he can say he only lost by 9%? What purpose does this serve?
villager
(26,001 posts)KMOD
(7,906 posts)The election night results showed Clinton winning by 12 to 15 percentage points, he said. Those numbers became the national narrative, even though the final margin may be half that.
villager
(26,001 posts)Yet if my California had been speedier in the vote counting -- like the way those Brits counted a whole country's worth of paper ballots in a night! -- there is a point about how the impression/interpretation might be different...
HarmonyRockets
(397 posts)Response to HarmonyRockets (Reply #35)
Post removed
HarmonyRockets
(397 posts)villager
(26,001 posts)HarmonyRockets
(397 posts)villager
(26,001 posts)Please proceed, and volunteer to have your own vote among the uncounted.
HarmonyRockets
(397 posts)then it wouldn't be necessary, would it?
villager
(26,001 posts)They absolutely share your views on vote counting, how certain votes count more (the way you view yours, for example) than others, etc.
HarmonyRockets
(397 posts)I'm not sure if you're trolling or if this is actually making sense somehow in your head.
Response to HarmonyRockets (Reply #53)
Post removed
Response to Post removed (Reply #54)
Post removed
Retrograde
(10,137 posts)like, who gets to lose to Nancy Pelosi in November. California voted on more than potential presidential candidates earlier this month: we also had primaries for state, federal and local offices on the ballot, as well as state and (in some cases) local propositions.
LongtimeAZDem
(4,494 posts)Clinton already has almost three times the votes she needs there to win the pledged majority.
If the counting trend continues, Clinton will win CA 53% to 45%, which is what FiveThirtyEight estimated before the primary.
And, this is already an active topic:
Sanders edging closer to Clinton in slow California vote count
LiberalFighter
(50,966 posts)The other 15% don't qualify. Use 85% of current provisional ballots and add to remaining mail ballots then deduct about 20% for ballots for other primaries over 100% would be needed.
CrowCityDem
(2,348 posts)fleabiscuit
(4,542 posts)Response to J_J_ (Original post)
Post removed
Response to J_J_ (Original post)
Post removed
jcgoldie
(11,631 posts)How did it hurt Sanders? What difference does it make if it was 12-15% or half of that?
stonecutter357
(12,697 posts)MattP
(3,304 posts)It's a state with 40 million people that actually counts every vote and is doing the opposite of Kansas in almost every way better right and slow than fast and wrong
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)onenote
(42,715 posts)As of the weekend, Sanders trailed by 428,575 with 605,824 ballots unprocessed. That means Sanders would have to win over 85 percent of the unprocessed votes to catch Clinton.
But that assumes all of the unprocessed ballots were cast in the Democratic presidential primary. However, as of the weekend, of the 8 million plus ballots processed, only around 60 percent had been cast in the Democratic presidential primary. If only 60 percent of the remaining unprocessed ballots were cast in the Democratic presidential primary, it means that Sanders is 428,575 votes behind with only 365,251 Democratic presidential primary ballots left. If every one of those ballots was a Sanders vote, he'd still be tens of thousand of votes behind.
But let's imagine that the percentage of unprocessed ballots cast in the Democratic presidential primary is 75 percent, not 60 (even though there is no particular reason to think that's the case). Then it would be possible for Sanders to catch Clinton -- if he got 97.7% of the unprocessed Democratic presidential primary votes.
It's over. Really.
MariaThinks
(2,495 posts)fleabiscuit
(4,542 posts)alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)Why continue fighting the primaries?
msongs
(67,421 posts)LongtimeAZDem
(4,494 posts)99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)DU's 'new rules' do not forbid examining how the CA election's vote counting is going
and why the fuck it took the state weeks to count its votes.
The integrity of our elections is the issue here, not who won CA.
Lord Magus
(1,999 posts)That's where the objections are coming from.
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)Lil Missy
(17,865 posts)Surya Gayatri
(15,445 posts)Vogon_Glory
(9,122 posts)cosmicone
(11,014 posts)Tom Rinaldo
(22,913 posts)This shouldn't be framed as if it only matters who won.
HarmonyRockets
(397 posts)That's the whole point of an election.
Tom Rinaldo
(22,913 posts)By that criteria I hear that Putin is on quite a roll.
HarmonyRockets
(397 posts)I'll go ahead and wait for an explanation before alerting.
Tom Rinaldo
(22,913 posts)However I do not agree that the only thing that matter is who wins, which is the assertion I replied to. Every facet of how our our democracy stages elections matters. Uneven playing fields for example matter also, which is an argument for public funding of elections. News black outs matter. Verifiable return matter. Not having burdensome obstacles to registering matters, etc. etc.
I think it is reasonable for us to discuss how the entire election process is America is staged in addition to and aside from who wins and loses. Which is the point I was making.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)floriduck
(2,262 posts)redstatebluegirl
(12,265 posts)The more you beat this horse, the more it hurts Senator Sanders in his negotiations with the DNC over the convention. I don't see him having a big role at this point. He, and you, need to accept a very well fought campaign defeat.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)To your credit, you didn't cite a guy with a bullhorn as your source.
randome
(34,845 posts)lamp_shade
(14,837 posts)Beacool
(30,250 posts)Yes, they need to fix their mess. It shouldn't take this long to have a final count, but the results in CA were irrelevant this year because by the time they voted Hillary had already achieved a large pledged delegate advantage. Whether she won or lost the state, she would still be the presumptive nominee.
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)Her Sister
(6,444 posts)Last edited Tue Jun 28, 2016, 08:44 AM - Edit history (4)
reporting as of June 27, 2016, 9:21 p.m.
State wide Uncounted: 586,872 As of 6/27/2016 5:02 p.m
Unprocessed Ballots: http://elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov/statewide-elections/2016-primary/unprocessed-ballots-report.pdf
and http://vote.sos.ca.gov/unprocessed-ballots-status/
Count reporting as of June 27, 2016: http://vote.sos.ca.gov/returns/president/party/democratic/ and
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/10RF1oGXLOMSnn3aW_rLgpnZM4wrEsCPDmvf35LjjjaA/edit#gid=0
Just an Update.
HRC #45
peace13
(11,076 posts)Interesting to see the comments above. Looking at our last election President Obama gave Hillary a position of power and esteem that left her in the action that she was looking for. She came out of it equal or better after her presidential loss. Senator Sander's is a grub on the boot of the process to many in the press and Clinton camp. It would be nice to be able to mention the man's name around here without the usual rude and unnecessary comments. It is very disheartening!
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)And I would feel fine about Bernie if he would start campaigning against Trump instead of continuing his barbs against the Democratic party. That said, at this point I don't think what he does or doesn't do is going to change much of anything about the convention or the GE.
peace13
(11,076 posts)Perception is 100 % of everything. Let...it...go! Don't poke, let other people have a conversation. You knew when you opened this OP that there was nothing here for you! People have a right to comment on actual news related items even if you think they don't!
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)However, I have a bias toward factual information. That's just how I roll.
Her Sister
(6,444 posts)frazzled
(18,402 posts)And the overall national primary race is even less close. Clinton and Obama was a close race in 2008. 48 to 48 %. This one is one of the lesser close races in a while.
fleabiscuit
(4,542 posts)MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Why?