Nope CA does not matter, not at all, no siree

[nadinbrzezinski]

when was the last time any presidential campaign visited El Centro? The calendar read the 1970s decade (Clinton yesterday)

When was the last time any campaign paid attention to San Diego oh now 3 times? This year, BOTH are doing it, Clinton has had Bill here TWICE< and she came here now actually 2 times if I count the donor visit back in oh October in La Jolla?. Sanders is coming to San Diego on Sunday for the third time, that is the third major rally.

So yeah I agree, California does not matter at all.


And just for fairness we did get our Trump-attempt of a riot event as well. And we also had a Cruz rally

I will be there in the corner having a belly laugh.

[lagomorph777]

1. Hey, it's only 475 delegates, why should Hillary worry?

It's in the bag, right? Just declare victory before CA polls close, and Bernie voters will bow and scrape before HRM HRC.

[nadinbrzezinski]

4. I am just noting this

[NWCorona]

2. It's hard to believe California will be voting next Tuesday.

Time flies!

[nadinbrzezinski]

3. Quite honestly I cannot wait

I want to vote for PROP I and it better damn pass. People need those dang 50 cents an hour.

[1StrongBlackMan]

7. What is the Prop I measure?

[nadinbrzezinski]

8. Here

https://reportingsandiego.com/2016/05/18/proposition-i-minimum-wage-increase-city-of-san-diego/

[frylock]

13. Word.

I'm filling out my ballot this weekend.

[nadinbrzezinski]

14. We are going to do this in person, but we always do

[frylock]

18. I usually fill out a ballot and drop it off at my polling station on my way to work.

I like to thank the volunteers and get an 'I Voted' decal.

[nadinbrzezinski]

42. As working press we tell them to keep them

but... the way this is looking, I expect them to run out of them. Jose Padilla was talking higher turnout than the November Presidential

[Ghost Dog]

56. ... And, you know your ballot gets properly counted

how?

[nadinbrzezinski]

64. The sticker does nothing for that,

What helps you to know if they even counted it, is the receipt at the top of the form, or at the bottom. At this point I assume it is not going to be counted right anyway

[Ghost Dog]

68. .

Be realistic. Avoid paranoia. Check out (via Poland) Spain: 'interesting' politics, and with its heart generally in a better place, these days (in spite of the Austerity): http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2016/02/spanish-return-sephardic-jews-160203101543476.html

[JonLeibowitz]

78. My CA mail in ballot came with an "I voted" decal. Did you check for one?

[Fumesucker]

5. We all remember that Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California

[Raster]

10. Yes we do...

[brooklynite]

6. The last competitive Primary (2008)?

California voted on Super Tuesday in February.

[nadinbrzezinski]

9. Ok, check your calenddar

What month are we in? Oh yeah, JUNE. Nice snark and by the way, we did not get that many visits in CA either.

Yeah, yeah HRC came to SDSU ONCE, which was covered by the school paper. These events are being covered by every news outlet in town, Though I am not feeling that bad any more, Trump has refused credentials to Politico as well..

[malokvale77]

50. He forgot to mention...

Obama was the incumbent in 2012. He wasn't primaried as far as I know.

PA: Did you get your mail?

[nadinbrzezinski]

51. Yes today

thanks

[malokvale77]

53. Yay.

Keep up the good work.

[nadinbrzezinski]

55. We shall we shall

[joshcryer]

11. Since it will be called when NJ polls close...

...it's a moot point.

[nadinbrzezinski]

12. Whatever JOSH

if that was the case, why the fuck are both campaigns spending so much time in CA? You missed it.

By the way, I care less about the primary than you think, But what I wrote, points as to how much it matters.

[Maru Kitteh]

16. Oh my. Salty language for someone so impartial who "doesn't care."

[nadinbrzezinski]

21. I care about Prop I

and at a higher level this matters, or why is it that both campaigns are spending so much time, And salty language, my ass.

By the way, I would not be using the Kool aid man as a sig, but hey... I agree with you completely... koolaid, neoliberal flavor indeed. Is that like Orange?

[reddread]

17. they want to sell one message while their actions defy the message

essentially calling themselves liars before anyone with eyes.

[nadinbrzezinski]

32. She will be the nominee, hook or crook

but she will,

But the CA does not matter is a lie

[joshcryer]

19. Clinton needs to narrative build.

The last thing she needs is to clinch the nomination and lose CA or only win it by a point or two. A 5 point win would be nice but the larger the better. A convincing win in CA gets her GE campaign off to a running start. And it also shuts down any argument Sanders might have to the supers.

Mind you 85% of mail in independents did not get a Democratic mailer (they had to request it). So it's going to be quite ugly when it comes down to it.

[nadinbrzezinski]

22. Ok now you are getting it, that is part of it

so it matters. Thank you

And if she loses, the narrative gets harder to build. And if she loses, there are a few other things at play right now, They are at play regardless but that is another point,.

So you do get it. Why the snark then?

[joshcryer]

23. It's unfortunate she has the "weak candidate" trope...

...when she's far ahead of where the junior senator from Illinois was in 2008.

But it's clear her campaign is pro active and countering it. I don't think she's concerned about losing, she's concerned about having to repeatedly shed the trope throughout the campaign.

The snark, wasn't intended, I just think the media will be too worked up about the first woman nominee than caring about CAs polls closing. Unless something crazy happens, they'll be like "it's all proportional, doesn't matter who wins." If Clinton takes it by 5 points or more, it'll be like "Clinton clinched and appears to have a lot of support in CA."

If Sanders wins all the energy Clinton gets for winning the nomination gets sucked out of the room and the media spends the next week "raising questions" hoping the loser does something crazy.

[nadinbrzezinski]

24. If you were serious I would discuss this with you

but that "trope" as you call it, started in places like Der Spiegel months ago. They pay attention to our elections and it is not a fucking game for them.

The trope as you call it is analysis as a political scientists, has nada to do with the votes in a primary. And that trope, let's just put it this way, she is not just weak, but seriously wounded. But I cannot seriously discuss as an adult with you. And I have said this before, I care little who your party nominates. For all I care, you could nominate the man on the moon, but this is a historic mistake and it has not a thing to do with Sanders,

I am an observer in what is turning to be a horror movie. You are way too invested to see it. And for that I am sorry.

But I do not think RIGHT NOW you can actually have an adult discussion on this. And I am sorry for that.

I am also sorry that if the worst case scenario happens, we are already talking where exactly we intend to request asylum. And I am very serious on that, like a heart attack, a full deadly blockage.

[joshcryer]

25. Your belittlement has zero relevance to what happens.

I laid out the three scenarios. One of them has to happen. We will see which one.

[nadinbrzezinski]

26. See what I mean

I cannot even try to discuss this with you. So do have the last word. Please proceed.

[joshcryer]

28. You posted a litany about "adult discussions."

And how you don't think you can have one with me. Real bipartisan, constructive, kind hearted there.

You damn straight I'll take the last word. Tuesday can't come quick enough.

[nadinbrzezinski]

31. Yes Josh we know

it cannot come fast enough...

Let me make this very crystal for you

She will be your party's nominee. She is your party's nominee. That does not betray her weakness or how wounded she already is. You are making a mistake that historians will note in history books. One that I will personally blame you and your party for. And this has not one iota to do with how many people have voted.

And as to adult, no, you cannot have a discussion with somebody who is in love with a politician.

And soon you will have a free republic like environment where the echo chamber will deepen and the sense of we are right and confirmation bias will continue DU, and the Democratic Party is becoming exactly what it was critical off Republcians. Again, I do not expect you to see it, but that is also a symptom of where we, as a nation are going towards, That nice thing in the distance is a precipice The country is on the wrong track for the working class and the middle class, she won't change that.

Oh and Josh back in the real world, did you check the economic data for MAY? It might be a glitch or might be signaling the end of the business cycle, If it is a glitch, whatever, end of business cycle, and that is likely given how long this one has gone on... well then.

[joshcryer]

38. She's not weak.

She's already dominating the news cycle with her full frontal Trump attacks. Yet again, the national news will open with Clinton v Trump. And it's practically day two of her GE campaign.

It is a trope that the woman who had more votes than the man, more delegates, more states won, is weaker than the man is absolutely real and not worthy of consideration. Obama did not get this crap in 2008 and he won by a much narrower margin. It's a total and complete double standard.

And my, you talk about having an adult conversation but trip over schoolyard rhetoric accusing me of being "in love" with Clinton. Bizarre to say the least.

[malokvale77]

52. She is weak.

She maybe dominating the news cycle (right along with Trump) but except for MSNBC, she is not looking good for the scrutiny.

[puffy socks]

77. so weak she's kickin the stuffing out of Bernie

CA vote doesn't matter except in the heads of the illogical Berners where the nomination is concerned.
It's giving voters a voice as it should but isn't going to change a thing.
Bernie won
NO indictment is coming.
Bernie is NOT going to get the SDs to flip

Hillary has the nomination

[JDPriestly]

27. Hillary reads her speeches. I repeat: reads her speeches.

Is her memory that poor?

Is she that bad when she speaks extemporaneously?

People who read their speeches seem inauthentic because they don't make good eye contact with their audience.

And that is Hillary's problem. She can't make good eye contact with an audience when her eyes are peaking at the teleprompter or at notes all the time.

For her audiences, feeling that somehow she is really talking to them personally is probably, at this stage, more important than what she is saying.

Trump says outrageous and stupid things. Everybody with a mind knows that. But . . . . he makes real contact with his audiences.

That is where his power is. That is why people believe him.

Hillary won't have a chance unless she starts getting real and forgets about being right and smart and perfect and presidential and proud.

Bernie is real to his audiences and those who interview him. We forgive those who seem real to us.

Hillary is not the right candidate. She does not reach her audiences. They don't think she is real.

[nadinbrzezinski]

29. That was one of the criticism from those stupid Germans indeed

Oh and the idiot Mexicans noted a few other things. Will PM you

[joshcryer]

30. Clinton is a bureaucrat through and through.

There's nothing wrong with that. Trump appeals to the lowest common denominator.

[Ghost Dog]

60. Trump appeals to the lowest common denominator...

That's it exactly. He's studied Hitler's/Goebbels's methods: appeal to, awaken and arouse those mass (frustrated) emotions.

Ms. Clinton's (faux) 'rationalism' won't cut it.

... But I'm guessing, that being USA, and in memoriam Bobby Kennedy, that, err, other ways will be found and employed to stop him and enable her.

[Ghost Dog]

58. Hmm. Political asylum somewhere for qualified US citizens...

Um, how many of you, potentially, are we talking about here?

[nadinbrzezinski]

59. two or three actually

a few I could, but would be going from bad to worst.

That said, I need to get a certified copy of my dad's polish passport

[Ghost Dog]

62. Ah. Poland's not looking very healthy, politically,

recently (but it is EU, as long as that lasts)... You speak Spanish... Any French?

... But I meant, of not just your family/friends in particular: of US Cits in general?

[nadinbrzezinski]

63. Spanish, Hebrew, sort off,

and that passport could allow me to get an EU passport

[Ghost Dog]

66. There's no 'EU passport' as such that I'm aware of.

Only national passports.

Right of abode in one EU country, such as Poland, gives right of abode (and to work, although any formal qualifications often need to be bureaucratically certified, which can cost money and take time) in all EU countries.

... And, hey, California is pretty cool, a pesar de los pesares, right?

[nadinbrzezinski]

67. White technically correct

as a child of polish citizen I can apply.

[frylock]

15. As evidenced by Hillary's ramped-up campaign schedule here.

[joshcryer]

20. See post 19.

Obviously a loss would look bad. The larger she wins by the better.

[JoePhilly]

33. So which is it?

Hillary is "snubbing" CA ... or Hillary is very very very "scared of losing" CA.

The Bernie camp view on this seems to flip every few hours.

[nadinbrzezinski]

34. I am just noting this as a reporter

you guys keep going it does not matter, Obviously it does, to both camps.

And personally I hope we get credentials, (Trolley time though) becuase that looks like a must be at event as press, unless of course we have a fire to the east. I mean a wild fire, They have not issued the red flag, but it is coming.

For the record, two campaigns granted them, two did not... and that was very revealing on both that denied them. And I am in good company with at least one.

[JoePhilly]

37. Two things can be true at the same time.

1) CA matters and its people should get to state their view ... and they WILL get to do so.

2) Because of where CA is positioned in the primary process, it is highly unlikely that CA will change the outcome.

Both of these statements are true.

[nadinbrzezinski]

39. C) It matters to both campaigns

Or they would not be spending the resources they are. I suspect why they are doing it, but DU is not the place to make that argument anymore.

As a reporter I find this to be actually HISTORIC... but hey, we are in a state that is always made fun off, and all that. As to changing the calendar. the state did that, twice, and third time told the parties, you pay for it. we administer it for you. We are not paying those extra millions for you

You can guess what was the answer from BOTH state parties was. So no, I don't expect a change in the schedule either. I might be wrong, but I simply don't expect it.

[JoePhilly]

40. Only one of the candidates is ensuring they are all set for the GE.

Also ...

Bernie needs to win CA by huge numbers to have ANY chance of flipping SDs.

Hillary wants to make sure that CA is big in the GE. So you go spend some time now to engage the people who will work for you through the GE.

[nadinbrzezinski]

41. I am not going to make the argument here

but I get it why both campaigns are doing this. I feel an analysis piece coming though, celebrating the fact that San Diego has had this loving attention from 4 national campaigns... because I do not expect to see this much attention to my city in my life time again, well except for the usual ATM stop and both parties do it.

[B Calm]

35. Great post. California is going to decide who our next candidate will be!

[Demsrule86]

46. It won't

You are deluding yourselves...technically Jersey will make Hillary the nominee but in reality she has won in many places.

[B Calm]

47. Oh, my bad.

[MrMickeysMom]

36. MORE BULLHORNS!

[Tarc]

43. 3,033,824 votes, 270 pledged delegates

[Demsrule86]

44. It has no impact on who the nominee will be

But Hillary wants to end it with a bang, and I hope she does. Sander is out;he can not win. All this hysteria is so much nonsense...Obama lost California in 08...President Obama.

[nadinbrzezinski]

45. So they are both spending the money just for fun

got it!!!!

[Demsrule86]

69. Hillary would like to eviscerate Bernie in California

to put an end to his nonsense sooner...we do have a general to get to, he has behaved very badly. I sincerely hope she wins ...big would be nice...end it now. No matter what...she is the nominee on Tuesday. Pres. Obama lost California and the last nine primaries he had less than 100 delegates than Hillary...the supers won't switch, but Bernie is hurting the party and needs to go. On Tuesday, we are having a nomination party...sometime after Jersey the first woman in our history will be the presumptive nominee...and the ladies in my family will join with the men( and another lady in my daughter's case) who love them to enjoy this moment.

[nadinbrzezinski]

72. She could be spending money on a national GE, which in effect is exactly what she is doing.

But I have to say, I got to compare and contrast adds, and styles in them, That happens so rarely it is not even funny.

[RufusTFirefly]

48. Darn right. It's time to bring those Bernie supporters to heel! n/t

[GummyBearz]

49. Hi nadin

Who are you voting for mayor? I don't really know the candidates

[anotherproletariat]

54. It clearly matters for optics, but it won't change who gets the nomination.

I think everyone can agree on that.

[malokvale77]

57. I think it is about time that the largest Democratic leaning state...

has a say in the elections.

[Garrett78]

61. It matters in terms of the narrative, not so much in determining who the nominee will be.

The Clinton campaign probably thinks winning CA would make it more likely that Sanders will concede prior to the convention vote.

Of course, why would there be any doubt? After all, the contests are rigged, we're told over and over again. If CA is important, Clinton will just rig it, right?

[nadinbrzezinski]

65. Actually they have been quite rigged since at least 2000

that is when I came to that conclusion. So I have not expected my vote to count since 2000.

Whether they do it here or not, I will leave to the clean election advocates, but to me it is an issue and it is independent of party. This year AZ was pretty bad, and IMHO a rehearsal for November.

For the record, just if you are keeping tabs, OH seems to have started with the caging of voters already and cleaning of voters rolls in preparation for Nov Should I remind you what happened at Cuyahooga CO in 2004? After 2000 that was an issue that mattered to partisans on the D side of the House. Well, this is one of those that you cannot be half pregnant, either you care all the time, or you don't

[Garrett78]

70. Then Clinton can just rig it to win it, right?

Why bother with campaigning to the extent you mention in your OP?

[nadinbrzezinski]

71. That is the concern actually

I don't think it is that bad... but we have real issues with election integrity, and both parties ignore it, becuase they both benefit from it. This is what people with Common Cause have told me,

This is the pattern, Election is rigged. does't matter who, for all we care it could be the Martian party on the Hades Plain. The side affected will immediately start making noise, while the other side drags it's feet, When it reverses the pattern reverses.

You either care for this or you don't. But to me it is another step down the path towards corruption. Nor is this unknown in US History. We have had periods where rigged elections were part of the course for party machines. So

[Garrett78]

73. The accusations of rigging on this site always come from Sanders supporters.

Wouldn't that indicate Clinton should have no trouble winning nearly every single contest? And yet here we are with a delegate difference of less than 300 and both candidates making multiple trips to CA, as you point out in the OP.

There have even been accusations that the closure of polling places is somehow a way of rigging a contest in Clinton's favor. This makes zero sense when you think about it critically. First of all, long lines due to a shortage of polling places typically occur in urban areas. And it's Clinton who does better in urban areas. Secondly, the reason places (such as Puerto Rico) have a shortage of polling places is they simply don't have enough people or money to maintain as many polling places as they'd like. It's not a conspiracy. It's a matter of economics.

[nadinbrzezinski]

74. If you want to insist that this is only this election

sure, I don't think we have much else to say to each other. But AZ led to lawsuits from both campaigns... so either you care, and I think you don't, or you don't.

I concluded 16 years ago that I am truly wasting my time voting, but I still do it, becuase I am too stubborn. So if you think I am talking Sanders, I guess he ran in 2000

[Garrett78]

75. I think shenanigans took place in FL in 2000, and maybe OH in 2004.

But I was simply making the point that there's an obvious flaw in the argument put forth by many on this site regarding the Clinton vs. Sanders race. If the primary is so rigged in Clinton's favor, why so much effort to campaign and why is Clinton ahead by fewer than 300 pledged delegates? Surely she could have rigged her way to 2383 by now. Why would a shortage of polling places in urban areas help the person who does better in urban areas? Why would we still have vote-suppressing caucuses?

I suspect you continue to vote because you doubt your own theory that voting is a waste of time.

[nadinbrzezinski]

76. And I am making the argument that it does exist

it is thing, it is real, and either you care, or you don't. This is not a half way thing, As to OH in 2004, it is not probably, it did happen. You might want to go find Conyers's report on this. The way it happened, is almost undetectable, the beauty of it. The only reason why it was detected is the "hack" into the SOS system. For the record, same exact thing happened in Mexico in 2006 and Calderon became President because the leftist was too crazy. The irony is that both were partially detected by exit polls from the polling company. the Mitofsky group.

And this happens in local elections even more often.

You know the difference between Mexico and the US? We are exceptional argle bargle, In Mexico it was...ok so what is new? Another stolen election. Yes, people were real pissed. I was there for my aunt's burial, so I did talk to people And while pissed, they were not particularly surprised.

Well I am not particularly surprised when that shit happens here. Oh and 2008 and 12, they were out of what in Mexico we call the Torta effect, aka the margin you can steal one.

But in the states both benefit, so they really don't care, and try to call it a conspiracy theory. A historian and a statistician will have fun in a few decades... assuming we as a species don't go the way of the dodo with climate change though.