The Guardian: Bernie Sanders leads Hillary Clinton by one point in new California poll!

[imagine2015]

The Guardian
Bernie Sanders leads Hillary Clinton by one point in new California poll
Mona Chalabi, Guardian US data editor
June 3, 2016

A new poll from the Los Angeles Times/USC Dornsife suggests that the pivotal state of California might be a tighter contest between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders than previously thought. A survey of 1,500 registered voters found that 44% of Democrats said they would support Sanders and 43% said they would back Clinton in the state’s primary which will be held next Tuesday.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jun/03/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-california-primary-polls

[PeaceNikki]

1. I think he needs to lead by something like 117% to have a shot at the nomination, though.

[imagine2015]

3. Where did you get that stat from? 117% of what? How about 300%? That should do it! LOL

It's simply not factual.

Neither Clinton nor Bernie will have enough elected pledged delegates to reach 2,383 convention delegate votes which would clinch the nomination.

The superdelegates will decide at the convention, and not before, whom they will cast their decisive votes for.

They are free agents and not pledged.

Bernie will probably need about 400 of them to win the nomination. That means about 200 superdelegates who have indicated they prefer Hillary Clinton would have to abandon her and vote for Bernie.

That's about the same number of superdelegates who did abandon her at the 2008 convention and voted for Obama.

So Bernie needs 117% of the superdelegates and remaining pledged delegates to simply have "a shot" at the nomination??!!!

Do you think Bernie getting 300% or 2,000% of the remaining delegates would give Bernie an even better "shot" at the nomination?

[PeaceNikki]

4. There, there.

[imagine2015]

9. So 117% of ?????? You don't know. But, it's a nice number! LOL

[seabeyond]

10. Shhh, really. She was teasing. See, that number? Higher than 100%. Cannot be. Was a joke. Lol.

[PeaceNikki]

11. .

http://www.wikihow.com/Tell-if-Someone-Is-Being-Sarcastic
http://www.wikihow.com/Detect-Sarcasm-in-Writing

[Txbluedog]

13. Awwww, cute!

[pdsimdars]

20. And what is more, the DNC keeps telling media (and Clintonites) NOT to add the superdelegates

in their totals because they are not real votes until the convention. But they keep doing it anyway.

[grossproffit]

25. 107% of the remaining delegates.

[dubyadiprecession]

2. registered voters and likely voters are two different animals..

One has party affiliation, the other has party affiliation, but will actually turnout to vote.
BS is behind Hillary by 12 points among likely voters in one of the recent california polls.

[seabeyond]

5. I was wondering the difference. Thanks. Two polls out with very different numbers. Nt

[bvf]

6. What poll was that?

And do you have a link?

[Cal Carpenter]

7. Which poll is that?

The last 3 or 4 seem to have them within a couple points of each other.

There was one at Clinton +10 recently, and one a couple weeks with Clinton at +18 but that one is a real outlier, it seems. Even Nate Silver is giving those 2 almost no weight at all.

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/primary-forecast/california-democratic/

[seabeyond]

8. I think a Stanford poll. Nt

[Cal Carpenter]

16. That one was taken in the first 2 weeks of May

although the results weren't shared until last week, I guess.

There have been 6 or 7 since then.

[seabeyond]

19. Ok. Thank you for the clarification. Polls aren't ones I take too seriously, but I was interested

in the difference.

[JackRiddler]

18. Oh no! "Likely voters"! The Juggernaut!!!

Guess what, people without party affiliation in California CAN VOTE in the Sanders-Clinton faceoff.

[libdem4life]

12. The natives are restless. Something is afoot.

The LA Times has endorsed Hillary. Pretty sure they know what they are doing.

Now we can still quibble over polls, however. Old. Tiring. Useless. Except this one is from yesterday...after The Speech and adulation on all TV Networks. Could be she pivoted a bit early?

Frankly making Trump look ridiculous is pretty easy. He is. However, running against Bernie...not quite such a walk in the park.

[KoKo]

14. Hard to know the reaction to that speech...

Some who were wavering may have loved it....some who have found her too hawkish in her foreign policy may have been turned off. Also CA has been voting since early May (I've read) so it's hard to know the effect of the media news then compared to now for those early voters. Anyway, I have my fingers crossed since I'm a Bernie supporter. If he'd been able to get into NC earlier he might have won it. We were closer for Bernie than the other states in the Sun Belt. And, Obama won NC in 2008.

[libdem4life]

15. All I heard...and I don't usually watch TV...and here, was that it was

her speech of crowning glory.

I don't see how anyone can be for Hillary and not be a Hawk. Just doesn't seem possible. Just like anyone who owns a bank is not likely a fan of Bernie. Always exceptions, of course.

It's a pretty polarized time we're in right now.

[pdsimdars]

21. The reason some loved it was because it is a battle/horse race speech and that is all they

crave. It wasn't anything specific about policy like Bernie. Is she going to break up the banks? Is she going to get single payer heath care? No. She doesn't talk specifics, she talks water color generalities just like Trump and all the others.

According to her, she can "get it done"and Trump can't. She is more prepared and Trump isn't. etc. Just vague generalities that sound tough and strong, but are merely empty rhetoric.

It was good attacks on Trump and fun to hear, but that's what it was, an entertaining sporting event where she scored a few blows and now they're all waiting to see the counter punch from Trump. Just more boxing, reality TV, horse race entertainment as usual.

Unlike the substantive policies Bernie lays out in every speech. Everyone knows exactly what he wants to do. Free education, single payer, break up banks, etc. AND he has put out where he gets the money to pay for them. What is more, 170 top economists have said his plan is the only one that makes sense. Even the guy whose life is the basis for the Gordon Gekko character in Wall Street says Bernie's is the only sane plan that will really lift up the economy. Bernie is specific and Bernie is real and he doesn't engage in nonsense, like her speech was. It was a political attack, not a policy SPECIFICS speech.

[libdem4life]

22. IMO, it was Red Meat for the California primary.

[KoKo]

23. IF....her delivery was impressive...

I watched it...I saw a "Dictatorial Personality." I know others will differ since "Dictatorial Personalities" aren't so much anything most people think of unless they are Political Junkies and realize what was done to Millions of Innocents in the Middle East due to her Policies as SOS. Not saying that Obama didn't have a hand in picking her due to whatever advice he had...or agreement was made with Hillary after the 2007 Convention.

[libdem4life]

29. She does well when scripted and protected by pre-selected questions

and just giving a speech.

Boomer women have had an interesting life...coming of age during the Viet Nam war, Nixon and Kennedy. We have had to struggle for equality, especially in the social/political realm. We had to be tough.

So, that being said. Yes, she has a Dictatorial Personality. She's used to fawning subordinates. Time will tell. It has to play out.

[KoKo]

33. Can't disagree with you....

coming from that demographic. Time Will Tell...

[libdem4life]

34. We probably don't have to worry about the fawning aides, though. Sigh.

[grasswire]

27. It was pretty much panned.

I saw it called (often) an attack Trump speech, not a foreign policy speech.

[libdem4life]

30. This is true. A red meat speech prior to California.

Pretty much everyone knows her foreign policy anyway...if they have any level of political awareness. And those who don't, no speech will be effective.

And, let's face it, Trump fascinates even the Democrats, for obviously different reasons. Most of us are shocked he's the Republican candidate. I actually felt sorry for Paul Ryan. But here we are, the Republicans have given in. We have to somehow discredit him without stooping to his carnival barker level. That's where I think his "genius" is.

[nadinbrzezinski]

28. They are part of the tribune organization

[JackRiddler]

17. Sounds like a 12-point win.

But that won't be so surprising. Nor will the states that one expects automatically for Sanders. The shocker's going to happen in New Jersey.

[Tarc]

24. Well, 1% is within the MoE, and unless he is going to win CA by 67% or so

Sanders will fall well short of his target delegate count.

[grasswire]

26. Hooray!

He's got the MO!

[tarheelsunc]

36. US VI: Clinton 7 - Sanders ZERO; Clinton with a 30-40% advantage in PR

But "those" places don't matter, do they?

[ucrdem]

32. Same poll has Clinton up 10% among those likely to vote though:

If that weren’t bad enough, there is good reason to think that the poll from the Los Angeles Times might be overstating Sanders’ share of the vote. Of the 1,500 registered voters they spoke to, 1,184 said that they were likely to vote. . . and among them Sanders’ narrow lead vanishes; he commands just 39% compared with Clinton’s 49%.

And at this point many or most of those have already voted for her by mail.

[arely staircase]

35. So what? He will never be the nominee. nt

[JoePhilly]

37. Well, then we should just award CA to Bernie!!!

I mean ... he's lead a few polls against Trump and Bernie supporters claim THAT is reason enough to flip the super delegates.

Why even hold the CA primary ... this poll says Bernie wins!!!!!!