“The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,
Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit
Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it.”

Omar Khayyam

Post on!

It's only Thursday morning.

registered Democrats for a while, will be voting for Hillary. The final tally will be within a 10 point spread. No candidate is going to get a 30 point spread.

A significant number of people I spoke with already voted by mail, those votes are not going to change

That is just my take

They won't have to bother with long lines or other issues.

Is that a requirement? People are pointing out all over DU that anyone with left, liberal or dem in their name posts most in the Clinton group. Just curious because I find their point of view to be the least liberal and most centrist on here.

Mail Message
On Thu May 26, 2016, 10:03 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

Let Me Guess...Another Clinton Group Member With Liberal In Their Name
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=1466139

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Is attacking another person because they support Clinton and has liberal in their name right? He is making accusations without evidence just because he hates Clinton.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Thu May 26, 2016, 10:07 AM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I disagree with the poster (I have liberal in my DU name but am an ardent Bernie fan), but I don't see anything particulalarly objectionable about it.
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Weak post but not hide worthy
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Leave it, and let it be mocked-in thread.

Leave it, and let it be mocked as a petty, whining rant from someone wondering which forum he'll have to join when he's no longer permitted to complain about Clinton in every post.

Leave it.
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: meh

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

I'm not attacking anyone's name. I myself am actually a liberal, leftist and I find it odd 9 out of 10 that use lib, left or dem in their name post mostly in the private Hillary Group when I examine their profiles. Not all. 9 out of 10. It's very interesting to me. I never flag anything. Clintonites do it like its their favorite hobby.

Just in case, Not A Clinton Triangular Way supporter.

I appreciate all liberals amd these days the further left the better. I don't like when some try to use our good name to promote war, incarceration, corporate influence and oligarchy. It's very Orwellian.

Bernie needs a huge win. Let's see if he gets it. If it isn't a huge win this thing is over, turn out the lights.

As a matter of fact, it will be over before the polls close in Cali. New Jersey will clinch it.

Are you assuming the Bernie voters will vote for Trump or stay home? Not sure on either question, what are your thoughts?

btw OS, how do u like ur crow served up?

Wait, I kind of liked him.





Loved the levity, Cryptoad!

"Dogs and cats, living together...."

Otherwise, hard to disagree.

only posted about 300 time. Maybe 200 of them were quotes from either Ghost busters or Stripes.

The other 100 were mostly hidden because I mentioned something factual about someone..........

Last edited Thu May 26, 2016, 01:07 PM - Edit history (1)

...a few hours before the California polls close.

If Sanders wins, it will be because he's the better candidate, and he represents the true will of the voters.

If Clinton wins, it will be because she cheated.

What a marvelously circular and self-fulfilling conspiracy theory you've put forth!

And this has been the exact narrative ever since Sanders decided to be a Democrat: no matter what the outcome, a Sanders loss could only be the result of cheating and trickery. Certainly it couldn't represent a shortcoming of his campaign, or an inability to get his voters to the polls, or a failure to get his voters registered according to long-standing rules. No, the only explanation is that Sanders was done wrong by the evil machinations of Clinton, Inc.

And before anyone accuses me of a straw man misrepresenting the true claims of Sanders' supporters, I invite you to explain why this sentiment has indeed been evident since day one, and I further invite you to provide a more accurate explanation for Sanders' failure to win the nomination.

Each time she has won a state, a troop of Sanders' loyal supporters have cried foul and not-so-subtly accused her of dishonest practices (i.e. cheating) including ballot destruction, influencing election rules, and outright voter suppression. The claim that Clinton has cheated originates entirely with those zealots, and it's not my job to defend their zany view.

And before you come up with some other nonsensical way to respond, I should perhaps tell you that I voted for Sanders in the PA primary and would happily vote for him if he lands on the November ballot. However, I have no patience for the bullshit rationalizations to explain Sanders' defeat and blame it on others.

....even though the Sanders people claim after every loss that it was fixed, rigged, she cheated, etc.

Even in Kentucky, which too has proven false.

QUIT AGREEING WITH ME, DAMMIT!!!!1!

She needs 612 pledged delegates more than what she has now. There are on 781 available pledged delegates left. She would need to capture about 95 percent of all of them to hit the magic number. The superdelegates do not vote until the Convention.

Sam

Neither candidate has enough pledged delegates to win. But the candidate with the majority of them will win the super delegates.

At the convention all of the pledge delegates and all of the super delegates will vote for the first time. And on the first ballot Hillary will win. It really is not that complicated.

The same thing has happened for the last 40 years.

Other than that, I did not ask this question of you.

Sam

who had Latino names were voting for Hillary in an whelming numbers.

Some interesting comments from the link:

"California looms largest in the Democratic presidential race, however: Clinton is likely to clinch the nomination on the evening of June 7 — factoring in the expressed preferences of unpledged superdelegates — even before polls close in California."

"The PPIC poll shows the race breaking along familiar lines. Sanders holds a large advantage among younger voters — leading 66 percent to 27 percent among voters under age 45 — while Clinton leads, 59 percent to 28 percent, among voters 45 and older."

but this sentence speaks volumes:

"Clinton has an 8-point lead among registered Democrats, with decline-to-state voters tilting toward Sanders".

In California, it will really come down to this. Long term Democrats, who have been registered and voting for years will go Hillary.

Those who were never aligned with the Democratic party will go with Bernie.

We will see what happens June 7, but there is no way any of the candidates are going to get 30% plus lead over the other, and Sanders needs at least that in the remaining primaries to stand a chance.

that the support of Hillary over Bernie wouldn't be in the range of 6 to 9 (white support vs. hispanic)

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/01/24/in-2014-latinos-will-surpass-whites-as-largest-racialethnic-group-in-california/

California demographics 2014

Hispanic/latino 39%
White non-hispanic 39
Asian 13%
Black non-hispanic 6%
Native American 1%

get a better handle on it.

In Northern and Southern California, there is a lot of diversity. Hispanic, African Americans, Asians, etc.

Your demographic breakdown is interesting, and anecdotedly with the calls I made, the Hispanic names I called were behind Hillary all the way.

I am not sure about PPPs sampling, but from what I have seen, those who identify with the Democratic party, will be voting for Hillary

There are also a lot of "new" registrations. Many are designated as NPP, (No Party Preference), which means they can request a Democratic, American Independent Party, Libertarian Party, or non-Partisan ballot. Republicans do not allow non-republicans to vote in their primary.

The last day to register was Monday

Let's see what a few more polls say

My guess is that the final vote will be within a 10 point spread

I have a Hispanic last name but I'm not Hispanic. My husband is Hispanic.

The only thing I can is those who have voted for Democrats in the past, from the virtual list I was calling from were for Hillary

either 6 points with whites, or 9 points with Hispanics, so you would think the gap overall should be in that range. What race is so skewed to Bernie that it is pulling the total vote all the way to a 2 point gap, even though it isn't more than a fifth of the voters?

And I'm voting for Bernie. Just go ahead and toss your theory out the window quietly. Nobody will look.

That means it could be Clinton by 46-44 (with 10% undecided), or it could be Clinton 53-37 or it could be Sanders 51-39.

Very sketchy poll considering the large margin of error and large number of undecideds.

"Don't trust the polls." The only one that matters is the one where people actually vote.

he wants to reform and he is violating the current laws.

Donations was more than $27. He has ask the report date be changes to a later time. Yes this has been out for a while, second letter for the same offense.

Hillary holds fundraisers that cost $350,000 a plate that gets funneled into her campaign. Now all of a sudden you care about ethics. Hilarious!

Hillary took for her campaign from each attendee, $2700. The rest went for other candidates. Did you know Hillary had also donated $10,000 to Sanders from similar fund raisers when he ran for Senator? These are the down ticket candidates Hillary has helped in the past.

This means Sanders will win in California. Awesome. Go Sanders.

preference either through internet or other responses for Hillary.

I am canvassing in my area of Southern California and registered voters on college campuses, and the voters I am talking to are solidly for Bernie.

So the experience is selective. People calling for Hillary are calling Hillary voters -- pre-selected.

If you go door to door in many Hispanic communities in Southern California, almost every household is for Bernie. That is my experience based on having just disregarded the list of pre-selected voters and having knocked on all the doors for several blocks.

It's a small sample, but a meaningful one.

We shall see. The polls do not measure newly registered voters or the decline to state voters who are numerous in California and who tend to back Bernie.

Wonder if Cali is using Debolt voting machines for the primary.

We had a secretary of state who took great interest in trying to have a paper verifiable trail for voting by machine. I don't know how reliable it is, but I think it will be a little harder to cheat in California than it has been in some other states. Can't say that for sure, but I think so. We have Democrats in power in California, but that won't mean that our primary is perfectly honest.

It is people like you who make the difference for Bernie Sanders.

Sam

We had a horrible experience with Republican governors who spent a lot of borrowed money that Jerry Brown has had to pay back. The debt of our state was out of balance with the tax revenue of our state under our Republican governors. Basically, the Republicans made a mess of our fiscal household in California and we have not rehired them. I think Jerry Brown is respected and pretty popular in California. I don't agree with him on everything, but he is doing a good job. He supports fracking though. And in a state with such an earthquake risk, that is not good.

…...refuses to do a CA debate.

The more people see them together, the more his numbers rise.

I hope she never does Fox. I only trust Chris Wallace and Brit Hume.

...since he needs more than 70% of the vote to close in on Clinton's delegate lead.

... that he can prevent her from reaching the minimum delegate requirement for nomination. That's my take, at least.

...If you're going to insist on a majority of pledged delegates as the threshold, then that's where Sanders needs an 80% haul in California (still no sign he's gaining in NJ).

If Hillary wins, she gets the most delegates, if Bernie wins, Hillary still gets the most delegates. See how that works? But it's all good, cause Bernie needs a gazillion votes, or something like that, cause the Democratic party sure as hell doesn't want or need Democrats who support Sanders, cause we're all such violent thugs, dontchaknow?

If Hillary ahead by 6 among whites, 9 among Latinos, and presumably even more among African Americans, how can she only be ahead by 2 for the entire state?

That is a complete statistical impossibility, given that those three groups make up the overwhelming majority of Californians.

I'm not saying the 18 point spread from the other recent poll is right either, but this one doesn't even work with its own internal math. It's garbage.

It just makes no sense. Yet I looked at the survey instrument itself and these are the margins that are listed.

They reported results by white and Latino, but I couldn't see a question showing where they asked respondents about race. Did you look for that?

Hillary will have clinched the nomination in NJ before CA votes are counted.... acts of futility. but funds are low,,,, keep those $27 a rollin in!

Maybe Bernie will win, maybe not, but he's taking this thing to the convention. And I'm with him all the way! Bernie or bust!

Go Bernie!

Reverse? How'd that work out?

They want to marginalize Bernie and supporters, sweep them under the rug at the convention and pretend the primaries were a convincing win for Clinton.

....Clinton ahead by 18%?

And Project538 gives the SurveyUSA that shows her ahead by 18% FOUR times the weight of this dubious 2% poll.

The SurveyUSA poll has Clinton ahead by 57-39, with only 4% undecided and MOE of 3.4%

This PPIC poll has Clinton up by 46-44 with TEN percent undecided and MOE of 5.7%

Which one is more likely to be accurate?

Considering that the Washington Times does a lot of hit pieces on Bernie and is still fomenting the "violence" rumors in Nevada, you are free to believe who you want. You might want to read both surveys and methodology

PPI: http://www.ppic.org/main/pressrelease.asp?i=2053

SurveyUSA: http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=779fe152-538d-4046-91af-20fe44a53dbd

Maybe this explains why Clinton is so "surprised" when the vote turns out to be almost even when some polls show her winning by 18 points

...the KABC/SurveyUSA poll to be 4X the weight of the PPIC poll.

I don't know where the Washington Times falls into all of this.

IS also extremely small: 552, plus as you said there are 10% of the voters who are undecided, plus the poll has a Moe of 5.7% Not to say a smaller poll can't be accurate, but when you thrown in all of those things plus how the % of who were polled were polled.

Outlier poll just like the one in Oregon that said Hillary Clinton would beat Bernie Sanders in Oregon by 18 points.

When you add in the email scandal this is just looking like a trainwreck.

We donated again for the 18th time to Sanders yesterday. He needs cash to bring this baby home...Go California! He is the best candidate I have had the pleasure of voting for in 50 years at the voting booth!

Hillary at all. Bernie is canvassing the state, holding multiple rallies daily. He's earning a win here voter by voter. After all of the negative news regarding HRC this week, I'm sure people are reevaluating their support. I predict Bernie will win CA convincingly. It will not be a squeaker.

For embarrassment purposes on June 7th.

how much is Brock paying?

Awkward cricket sound.

Looks like the cards fell differently. Hillary's margin proved greater than Bernie's fans expected. Maybe the Bernie fans should get a new crystal ball.

But before they do so, I do have a personal request: Could they look in their old crystal balls one more time and tell us what kind of dress did Eleanor McGovern wear to the McGovern Presidential Inaugural Ball in 1973? Enquiring minds want to know.