How did Hillary win so big in California?

[Horatio Parker]

I'm curious about the foreign aspect. Since 911 to Obama every Pres. contender had to have heavy national security cred. So will HRC follow in the more mellow(compared to GW) way of Obama, or will she feel the need to "do something"?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Keith&Co.]

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.

But during presidential elections, people complain that early reporting from the Eastern Time Zone leads to people staying home out West.
If they figure it's a done deal, they've got better things to do.

And you can always say 'My guy (gal) won!' at the water cooler without admitting you were seeking decent sushi when you could have been voting.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

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.

I'm sorry, but I fail to see how your post fits into the narrative that Hillary is hated by everyone and can only win by cheating. Please update your comments to bring them more into line with my warped perception of reality. Thank you very much.

 

[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.

I'm sorry, but I fail to see how your post fits into the narrative that Hillary is hated by everyone and can only win by cheating. Please update your comments to bring them more into line with my warped perception of reality. Thank you very much.

I know. I'm sorry. My establishment/media/gullible Democratic voter conspiracy theories have really atrophied over the years.

 

[J842P]

This despite the fact that Sanders has been covered by the media far more than Hillary and his supporters have been far more vocal.

Doubtful.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...lar-candidate-mentioned-on-television/402451/

 

[Colonel Sanders]

This despite the fact that Sanders has been covered by the media far more than Hillary and his supporters have been far more vocal.

Doubtful.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...lar-candidate-mentioned-on-television/402451/

It's doubtful you read the article very carefully.

Note the date: August 28, 2015.

 

[J842P]

Doubtful.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...lar-candidate-mentioned-on-television/402451/

It's doubtful you read the article very carefully.

Note the date: August 28, 2015.

There's this amazing thing called "the internet" and "digital computing" where you can now add data-driven visualizations that don't care when the article was written!


If you had given the dashboard more than a glance, you would have seen this link:
http://television.gdeltproject.org/cgi-bin/iatv_campaign2016/iatv_campaign2016

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Related article:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...anders-isnt-going-to-suddenly-win-california/

Completely objective news, including how they've framed the question.

 

[fromderinside]

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?

Well it was 65% to 35% Clinton from early and write in voting while the same day voting was more like 54% to 46% resulting in a 57% to 43% final result. Secondly nobody believes there are as many Hispanics in CA as there are not the real allegiance blacks have with the Clinton's. Finally, although CA isn't the oldest demographic voter state it isn't among the youngest either. Put all that together with the want to have a horse race and we get "how did she win by such a huge margin".

 

[arkirk]

There are still 2,000,000 uncounted votes in California. They definitely are almost entirely Bernie voters. If you can accept that crap, then go ahead and load another screwball into the chamber and play Russian Roulette again with our future. At some point it is going to come back on us....Of course the poor will be the first to suffer, but there will be enough suffering that the elite will get a taste...maybe more than just a taste.

 

[fromderinside]

There are still 2,000,000 uncounted votes in California. They definitely are almost entirely Bernie voters. If you can accept that crap, then go ahead and load another screwball into the chamber and play Russian Roulette again with our future. At some point it is going to come back on us....Of course the poor will be the first to suffer, but there will be enough suffering that the elite will get a taste...maybe more than just a taste.

Just in case you thought arkirk was putting you on: http://vote.sos.ca.gov/returns/president/party/democratic/

100.0% ( 22,356 of 22,356 ) precincts partially reporting as of June 10, 2016, 4:55 p.m.

Candidate Votes Percent

Hillary Clinton (Party Preference: DEM) 2,099,06 55.8%
Roque De La Fuente (Party Preference: DEM) 6,1890 0.2%​

Henry Hewes (Party Preference: DEM) 5,6800 0.2%​

Keith Judd (Party Preference: DEM) 5,7710 0.2%​

Bernie Sanders (Party Preference: DEM) 1,627,035 43.1%​

Michael Steinberg (Party Preference: DEM) 8,5190 0.2%​

Willie Wilson (Party Preference: DEM) 9,3230 0.2%

shows percentage of votes counted on election day
http://vote.sos.ca.gov/returns/status/

number of provisional and absentee votes counted and to be counted

http://elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov/statewide-elections/2016-primary/unprocessed-ballots-report.pdf



votes remaining to be counted​

mail provisional other total remaining​

STATEWIDE 1,632,530 718,869 72,208 2,423,607

A. Mail in are absentee and probably favor Clinton
B. provisional are divided between young and minority probably favoring no one.​

I remember that in 2000 CA had lots of votes out when Bush was declared and it looked like he also had the popular vote. Whoops, 500,000 plurality for Gore. Not likely to work that way for Bernie since most of outstanding votes are early mail-in votes of older voters.

 

[Colonel Sanders]

It's doubtful you read the article very carefully.

Note the date: August 28, 2015.

There's this amazing thing called "the internet" and "digital computing" where you can now add data-driven visualizations that don't care when the article was written!


If you had given the dashboard more than a glance, you would have seen this link:
http://television.gdeltproject.org/cgi-bin/iatv_campaign2016/iatv_campaign2016

Don't post old shit and then demand that I do your fucking job for you.

 

[J842P]

There's this amazing thing called "the internet" and "digital computing" where you can now add data-driven visualizations that don't care when the article was written!


If you had given the dashboard more than a glance, you would have seen this link:
http://television.gdeltproject.org/cgi-bin/iatv_campaign2016/iatv_campaign2016

Don't post old shit and then demand that I do your fucking job for you.

The graph in the link I originally gave isn't "old shit." It's the same graph as the second link, which is merely the source and is linked to in the first.

You jumped the gun. A simple "oops" would have been sufficient.

 

[Colonel Sanders]

Don't post old shit and then demand that I do your fucking job for you.

The graph in the link I originally gave isn't "old shit." It's the same graph as the second link, which is merely the source and is linked to in the first.

You jumped the gun. A simple "oops" would have been sufficient.

When I see the year 2015 at the top of the article, I need read no further. Your job, as one who claims to be able to provide contrary information, is to do so adequately. All you posted was a link, which is normally not enough for most people to bother to respond to in the first place. But I did, saw that the article was year old, and quit on it immediately. Why should I have to assume anything other than what's put in front of me?

If someone says they need a document from 2010 and instead I give them a document that clearly states at the very top of it "2009," they're going to walk that damn thing right back to me and tell me I got it wrong before bothering to read it any further. Or they're at least going to ask me why I've presented them with something with the wrong year on it. It's not up to them to go through it, make inferences, or do anything else. My job is to make sure they're reading what I want them to read.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

The graph in the link I originally gave isn't "old shit." It's the same graph as the second link, which is merely the source and is linked to in the first.

You jumped the gun. A simple "oops" would have been sufficient.

When I see the year 2015 ...

I stopped reading your post here.

 

[arkirk]

Just in case you thought arkirk was putting you on: http://vote.sos.ca.gov/returns/president/party/democratic/

100.0% ( 22,356 of 22,356 ) precincts partially reporting as of June 10, 2016, 4:55 p.m.

Candidate Votes Percent

Hillary Clinton (Party Preference: DEM) 2,099,06 55.8%
Roque De La Fuente (Party Preference: DEM) 6,1890 0.2%​

Henry Hewes (Party Preference: DEM) 5,6800 0.2%​

Keith Judd (Party Preference: DEM) 5,7710 0.2%​

Bernie Sanders (Party Preference: DEM) 1,627,035 43.1%​

Michael Steinberg (Party Preference: DEM) 8,5190 0.2%​

Willie Wilson (Party Preference: DEM) 9,3230 0.2%

shows percentage of votes counted on election day
http://vote.sos.ca.gov/returns/status/

number of provisional and absentee votes counted and to be counted

http://elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov/statewide-elections/2016-primary/unprocessed-ballots-report.pdf



votes remaining to be counted​

mail provisional other total remaining​

STATEWIDE 1,632,530 718,869 72,208 2,423,607

A. Mail in are absentee and probably favor Clinton
B. provisional are divided between young and minority probably favoring no one.​

I remember that in 2000 CA had lots of votes out when Bush was declared and it looked like he also had the popular vote. Whoops, 500,000 plurality for Gore. Not likely to work that way for Bernie since most of outstanding votes are early mail-in votes of older voters.

That is not true. The early mail in is not outstanding. What is outstanding is the PROVISIONAL BALLOTS GIVEN TO PEOPLE WHO HAD EITHER DECLINED TO STATE THEIR PARTY OR WHO HAD RECENTLY CHANGED THEIR REGISTRATION IN ORDER TO VOTE FOR SANDERS. The registration data was repressed and people who had registered and knew they were re-registered in time (like me for instance) were given a provisional ballot that can't be tabulated for about 30 days....what a bunch of hooey. This election is fraudulent...the rules are all cut in favor of Clinton. It is like she owns the fucking state. Unbelieveable the way voters were treated here. Meanwhile in Puerto Rico they just limited the polling places and polls for easy access to rich people. 3% turnout oh boy! Dishonest is Dishonest.

 

[fromderinside]

Got that data straight from the state elections site I referenced laddy. Sorry to disappoint./straightmaninsisting.