Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
2016 Postmortem
In reply to the discussion: 12.8%. That's the margin Hillary won CA by. Remember those suspect polls that were [View all]bhikkhu
(10,715 posts)87. Stolen from Bernie
...by nearly 2 million Hillary voters.
If you want to put it that way. I also think it unlikely that 400,000 Bernie supporters decided to stay home because of the AP story the day before. Or that 400,000 people were Bernie supporters, but decided to vote for Hillary because a story said she was going to win anyway. Neither of those describe any of the Sanders supporters I know, or any of them here; the simple problem was just that he didn't have enough supporters in California.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
120 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
12.8%. That's the margin Hillary won CA by. Remember those suspect polls that were [View all]
MariaThinks
Jun 2016
OP
Yeah well a news bomb stomped on turnout in California so that changed the situaton
Cheese Sandwich
Jun 2016
#24
And yet polling clearly showed that high turnout in California would benefit Sanders
Cheese Sandwich
Jun 2016
#34
Bernie had a slight lead if those who SAID THEY WOULD NOT VOTE were included in the poll.
Lord Magus
Jun 2016
#47
They also needed a cover story to explain why Bernie's 10% expected win turned into a 12% reported
GoneFishin
Jun 2016
#70
The question is who coordinated the movement of 20+ superdelegates on the night before the
Cheese Sandwich
Jun 2016
#37
Again. Imagine the scenario in which there were a dozen or more SDs ready to jump on Sanders' side
onenote
Jun 2016
#39
You know what happened before Monday that convinced more supers to announce for Hillary?
Lord Magus
Jun 2016
#48
Maybe they thought the election was over since that message was blaring from every MSM news?
Cheese Sandwich
Jun 2016
#65
Well, Sanders preyed upon their gullibility. If you are right, that gullibility cost him California
Hoyt
Jun 2016
#103
People are on polls overload. polls now about November aren't worth the time to look at.
tonyt53
Jun 2016
#2
Calling this vote suppresion is insulting to the victims of real vote suppression.
onenote
Jun 2016
#41
No you are making excuses for people who get a sad and decide they don't want to vote
onenote
Jun 2016
#78
Reporter gets reliable tip day before NY primary that Clinton is going to be indicted
onenote
Jun 2016
#83
Personally, I think the idea of the press taking direction from a political party
onenote
Jun 2016
#90
it wasn't "bad news".....they were told that the Presidential race was over
virtualobserver
Jun 2016
#91
exactly. Most recent polls had a two point spread. It was the survey USA and one other one I don't
still_one
Jun 2016
#27
I would be real careful about bragging about a CA win, entire blocks were not on rosters,
larkrake
Jun 2016
#7
amazing isn't it. Regardless of the margin of victory, regardless of the 2008 support levels,
MariaThinks
Jun 2016
#15
Yep. The great conspirators allowed Sanders to win in MN and WI just to throw folks off the scent
onenote
Jun 2016
#44
no, we already know the truth, some people just invent elaborate conspiracy theories
geek tragedy
Jun 2016
#14
Hell of a suppression technique that keeps 80% of the registered Dems from voting
fleabiscuit
Jun 2016
#23
So the media should avoid reporting facts because they might impact an election?
Lord Magus
Jun 2016
#61
Bernie's campaign spent too much money on large rallies (which are very expensive)
pnwmom
Jun 2016
#85
Polling organizations live and die by the accuracy of their polling predictions.
kstewart33
Jun 2016
#20
They also probably did not account for the provisional ballots that were foisted on unwary voters.
JDPriestly
Jun 2016
#29
What smells bad is the >30% reduced voter turnout due to the corporate media. The election results
JudyM
Jun 2016
#25
Seems it was reported that there were more new registrations in CA for this election...
JudyM
Jun 2016
#51
That is not the final tally. The provisional votes (and based on my experience, there were lots of
JDPriestly
Jun 2016
#28
This serves as a perfect example of why these potential presidential matchup polls that some
Trust Buster
Jun 2016
#33
Clinton is far more likely to get hit with a "November surprise" than Sanders is. (nt)
w4rma
Jun 2016
#60
No. Because there are a million FBI investigations surrounding her private server.
w4rma
Jun 2016
#115
There weren't any polls putting Bernie that far ahead. The best he's done was 1 pt.
Zynx
Jun 2016
#54
Pretty handy that there were none of those pesky exit polls which prove that Bernie should
GoneFishin
Jun 2016
#67
exit polls cost money and Hillary was a shoe in to win the nomination regardless of who won
qdouble
Jun 2016
#108
If you need to believe that AP's announcement did nothing, then sure, pollsters lied.
merrily
Jun 2016
#102
It doesn't matter. Even if for some miracle Bernie won by a few percentage points, Hillary would
qdouble
Jun 2016
#109
The AP announced it because your candidate lost. News organizations have been counting
qdouble
Jun 2016
#111
I just read that there are still approximately 3 million votes not counted.
ThinkCritically
Jun 2016
#116