California Up for Grabs, Poll Finds, as Clinton and Sanders Battle

[NWCorona]

LOS ANGELES — Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders are locked in a tight race in California, the nation’s most populous state and one that until recently seemed strongly in Mrs. Clinton’s corner, a new statewide poll has found.

The poll, released Wednesday night by the Public Policy Institute of California, showed Mrs. Clinton leading Mr. Sanders among likely voters, 46 percent to 44 percent — within the margin of error. A survey by the organization in March found Mrs. Clinton with a lead of 48 percent to 41 percent over Mr. Sanders.

The survey came as both Mr. Sanders and Mrs. Clinton have stepped up their campaign appearances here in anticipation of the June 7 primary. Mr. Sanders, after initially saying he would not advertise on television here — California is one of the most expensive states for television advertising, given its size and the number of media markets — took to the airwaves this week.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/05/27/us/politics/clinton-sanders-california-poll.html?referer=http://www.drudgereport.com/

[Renew Deal]

1. Bernie is down around 40 points from where he needs to be

And what is the Public Policy Institute of California?

California is starting to look a lot like NY.

[NWCorona]

2. Whether or not he's where he needs to be

If Hillary loses California it will be very bad.

[firebrand80]

19. If by "very bad" you mean "clinches the nomination"

Then yes, I would agree

[cali]

6. Losing California would demonstrate just how weak she is as a general election candidate

[auntpurl]

8. Like Obama was weak?

He lost California. Didn't seem to hurt him any. Of course, in the GE the Dems shellacked the Repubs in California, as they will do this time too.

[morningfog]

9. He didn't lose California on the last day of the primary.

Big difference.

[auntpurl]

11. First of all, it's not the last day of the primary.

DC is last.

Second of all, Hillary can lose California by a fairly large margin and still win.

Third, she is still following the Obama coalition which has served her well so far and was proven to be a winning strategy in 08 and 12.

Fourth, NJ is going to put her over the top before polls even close in CA.

[firebrand80]

20. C'mon, you know damn well

DC doesn't count

[Demsrule86]

14. Obama lost California...Ohio and PA

so no...Bernie won't be the nominee period.

[Renew Deal]

28. NY and TX too

[Demsrule86]

16. She has a 98% chance of winning California

And Bernie would need to win it by 70 points...to even come close in delegates...not going to happen... he only wants it so he can appeal to supers which won't help him anyway. Stick a fork in him...

[cali]

17. Isn't that the same chance she was given to win Michigan?

[firebrand80]

22. Winning CA narrowly isn't nearly good enough nt

[beachbum bob]

3. new york was up for grabs to...

doesn't matter either way, hillary will clinch the nomination when New Jersey counts their votes


thats the REAL MATH

[NWCorona]

4. Actually it's impossible for Hillary to clinch it before the convention

And that's real math!

[B Calm]

7. LOL

Here are the numbers:

Hillary has 1771 pledged delegates. Bernie has 1487 pledged delegates (284 fewer than Hill).

Hillary needs 612 more pledged delegates to get to 2383.

There are only 781 pledged delegates left in the remaining nine primaries:

Virgin Islands, PR, CA Mont NJ, NM, ND SD, DC

[morningfog]

10. That is not real math.

She will not secure a majority of the pledged delegates with a NJ win. The earliest she can do that is with California.

[B Calm]

5. Bernie will end up being the democratic nominee and our next President!

Take it to the bank.

[Demsrule86]

18. I don't know what bank you use

But I hope it is for math challenged customers...because Bernie has no shot...

[B Calm]

33. Here are the numbers.

Hillary has 1771 pledged delegates. Bernie has 1487 pledged delegates (284 fewer than Hill).

Hillary needs 612 more pledged delegates to get to 2383.

There are only 781 pledged delegates left in the remaining nine primaries:

Virgin Islands, PR, CA Mont NJ, NM, ND SD, DC

[Uncle Joe]

12. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, NWCorona.

[Demsrule86]

13. the Drudge report?

Really?

[NWCorona]

15. Bing actually

[Demsrule86]

21. Says Drudge

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/05/27/us/politics/clinton-sanders-california-poll.html?referer=http://www.drudgereport.com/ It is Drudge...icky.

[NWCorona]

24. I guess so but does he own the times?

[JackRiddler]

31. No, Public Policy Institute of California.

I know some people have trouble distinguishing between an actual source, the author of an article, the original publication, and the links aggregator that in this case reposted the info (that would be your Drudge Report). But it's not hard. Unless you want to intentionally confuse the matter?

[SidDithers]

23. So you were reading the Drudge Report, and clicked their link to the NYTimes...

Then you copied that link to DU, so that everyone who clicks your link gives credit to the Drudge Report for the referral.

Have I got that about right?



Sid

[NWCorona]

25. And what would that have to do with the nyt?

[CrowCityDem]

26. Clinton up 6 with Whites, 9 with Latinos, and only up 2 in the state? The internals don't compute.

[NWCorona]

27. I haven't delved into the poll that deep.

That is interesting.

[enid602]

29. WA

Pops couldn't even win the popular vote in WA, for crissake.

[NWCorona]

30. Maybe because it didn't matter?

Just look at Oregon.

[JackRiddler]

32. Give it up. There was no real primary in WA.

No contest, no campaigning, no interest. It's called a primary but elects no delegates, and people knew that was the case. WA should decide to have a caucus or a primary, but not both. Results meaningless.

[enid602]

34. record turnout

But it did attract record turnout. Isn't he expected to do best when there's record turnout? Telling, indeed.