How did Hillary win so big in California?

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I'm seeing some really big numbers, like 60% to 40% in favor of Hillary in California. (Don't have exact figures).

So how did it go from a close race in California to a change in a single day?

What were the factors that created this change?

 

[Harry Bosch]

I'm seeing some really big numbers, like 60% to 40% in favor of Hillary in California. (Don't have exact figures).

So how did it go from a close race in California to a change in a single day?

What were the factors that created this change?

I think that it's mostly because people recognize that we need to come together and defeat Trump. Trump had an awful week last week. Trump is the one who is uniting most democrats into wanting to defeat him. The second obvious reason is that California is very diverse state. Bernie does well with younger white people - not as well in diverse states. I believe that Bernie won South Dakota yesterday....

 

[iolo]

it is what tends to happen - at first people vote against an establishment they hate, then face the possibility that it might get even worse, and run. It will be like this till we restore democracy.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I'm seeing some really big numbers, like 60% to 40% in favor of Hillary in California. (Don't have exact figures).

So how did it go from a close race in California to a change in a single day?

What were the factors that created this change?

Polls were all over the place with California, between 2 to 17 points. Very large state, and a lot of minority voters.

 

[Rhea]

There were a lot of early assumptions that all of those new voters were all Sanders supporters. It looks like that assumption may have been wrong.

 

[Lunawalk]

I'm seeing some really big numbers, like 60% to 40% in favor of Hillary in California. (Don't have exact figures).

So how did it go from a close race in California to a change in a single day?

What were the factors that created this change?

I think that it's mostly because people recognize that we need to come together and defeat Trump. Trump had an awful week last week. Trump is the one who is uniting most democrats into wanting to defeat him. The second obvious reason is that California is very diverse state. Bernie does well with younger white people - not as well in diverse states. I believe that Bernie won South Dakota yesterday....

No Clinton won the South Dakota by two points.an upset.Now the need to unite to defeat Trump

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

People like to be on the winning team. Simple as that. It had already been announced and was front and center on all of the mainstream news sites that Hillary had won.

 

[Playball40]

Yup, early announcement that Hillary won likely had an impact.

 

[repoman]

One aspect is the high level of Latinos.

This is not judgmental, since I have a lot of respect for people who can navigate every day in a second language, but that puts them at a disadvantage for getting at more accurate news sources that can be found on the internet versus just watching piece of shit CNN. I don't know how Univision covered Bernie vs Hillary.

 

[Deepak]

Yup, early announcement that Hillary won likely had an impact.

I guess I can see a potential bandwagon effect, but since voting is inherently private wouldn't someone who was swayed by the early announcement simply stay home?

 

[Horatio Parker]

Media creation? Polls had HRC ahead by 20-25 points for months. Suddenly, the race tightened? Or were polls designed or interpreted to try and make a story out of this snoozer?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[funinspace]

Feel the Bern vs the Clinton Machine

One aspect is the high level of Latinos.

This is not judgmental, since I have a lot of respect for people who can navigate every day in a second language, but that puts them at a disadvantage for getting at more accurate news sources that can be found on the internet versus just watching piece of shit CNN. I don't know how Univision covered Bernie vs Hillary.

I think this May 12th article sums up how Univision would generally cover Bernie vs Hillary:
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/univision-hillary-clinton-bill-clinton-117851

The relationship between the Clintons and Univision is deep — from owner Haim Saban’s unabashed support for Hillary Clinton’s election effort to a partnership between Univision and the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation, to the network’s newscasts that have bashed Republicans and, most recently, praised Hillary’s new position on immigration — putting her squarely in line with the network’s stance on the issue.

The importance of Univision for the Latino electorate and 2016 is hard to overstate. It is by far the biggest Spanish-language media network in the United States when it comes to revenue, ratings and stations owned. In some markets, such as Los Angeles, the Univision-owned local newscasts are in the top one or two by ratings. On big nights for the Hispanic community, such as President Barack Obama’s remarks on immigration in November, Univision raked in 4.8 million viewers, more than any other network. During the July sweeps last summer, Univision boasted the No. 1 spot in prime time among viewers ages 18 to 49 for the second year in a row.

 

[repoman]

<snip>

Why isn't Univision owned by a Latino?

Disappointing.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Media creation? Polls had HRC ahead by 20-25 points for months. Suddenly, the race tightened? Or were polls designed or interpreted to try and make a story out of this snoozer?

Suddenly is right. Up to the end of May it was a railroading, and consistently so.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Yup, early announcement that Hillary won likely had an impact.

I guess I can see a potential bandwagon effect, but since voting is inherently private wouldn't someone who was swayed by the early announcement simply stay home?

Only if they wanted to lie about it. Not if they actually wanted to feel that they were on the winning team. Humans are weird.

 

[Horatio Parker]

Media creation? Polls had HRC ahead by 20-25 points for months. Suddenly, the race tightened? Or were polls designed or interpreted to try and make a story out of this snoozer?

Suddenly is right. Up to the end of May it was a railroading, and consistently so.

Who railroaded who?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Suddenly is right. Up to the end of May it was a railroading, and consistently so.

Who railroaded who?

I meant that the polls indicated that Clinton was going to crush Sanders.

 

[Horatio Parker]

Ah, gotcha.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[J842P]

One aspect is the high level of Latinos.

This is not judgmental, since I have a lot of respect for people who can navigate every day in a second language, but that puts them at a disadvantage for getting at more accurate news sources that can be found on the internet versus just watching piece of shit CNN. I don't know how Univision covered Bernie vs Hillary.

The Spanish-language channels have almost exclusively been covering Trump.

 

[Colonel Sanders]

Or how about this possibility: more California voters like Hillary than Trump. That would be consistent with Democratic voters across the country who have given Hillary 3 million+ more votes than Bernie. This despite the fact that Sanders has been covered by the media far more than Hillary and his supporters have been far more vocal.

Dare I say the words, "silent majority"?

I speculate that one of the things voters are wary of is putting uncertainty in the White House. And I think it may come from the Bush/Cheney years. For the most part, Hillary is predictable and unfrightening. There won't be any batshit crazy foreign policy. She's not going to wage war on American industry. She'll continue to move the country incrementally to the left and when she leaves office, the country won't be dramatically different, but it will be farther to the left, and this will continue for the next generation because by the time she's done, there might be a 6-3 left majority on the Supreme Court.

Rational decisions made by rational voters.