The AP calling it didn't change anything of note

[Station to Station]

The fact of the matter is that whoever has the most enthusiastic supporters is the candidate who will lose the least amount of votes - California was never going to win the nomination for Sanders, but if he was going to win the state he still will. That is the only logical conclusion one can draw from the past day's news.

The only people who will be staying home are those who weren't particularly engaged and don't care as much as the most fervent supporters. I dare say that given the insurgent nature of Bernie Sanders' campaign, it should be Clinton voters who are more likely to be swayed into inaction by the AP's decision to call the race. After all, the assertion from the Sanders camp has been for weeks that they know Clinton will go over the top in total delegates, but that they will seek to convert them prior to the convention.

[Lil Missy]

1. It just means we don't have to "play pretend" anymore.

[JimDandy]

8. The call wasn't about her being the nominee. It was about supressing the vote in CA

A win there for Bernie, in the bluest state in the US, with the most delegates up for grabs, reinforces the public's perception that she has been a weak candidate who can't even put away an "outsider" in the Democratic Primaries.

Clinton engineered and approved this announcement. It's uderlying objective was to supress the vote in CA. Sanders had a good chance to win the state if election day turnout was high, because younger voters, his demograhic, are election day voters. Clinton's votes were already in the bank (her demographic, older voters, aready voted absentee ballots), so this announcement was way less likely to affect her numbers.

[Lil Missy]

29. That's all balony. Hillary had no part in the decision.

And I don't believe anything could have kept Bernie supporters from voting.

He lost months ago. Time to get into reality.

[virtualobserver]

2. 5 million early votes were already in the bank. People who have already voted aren't swayed

Suppressing all votes on election day helps Hillary

[JimDandy]

4. Succinct.

[Station to Station]

6. So people who weren't very interested or invested

in Sanders' campaign won't show up. It requires a reach beyond tinfoil territory to imagine that will cost him a state.

[TDale313]

14. In a close race? You bet it could.

But done now, cause you're obviously not being at all intellectually honest about this. Even most Hillary supporters I've seen acknowledge this will hurt turnout.

[JimDandy]

16. It's a well known psychological tactic that's effective in suppressing the vote.

All voters, because they are people first, are susceptible to this tactic, but especially new voters-the youth.

[Station to Station]

18. In a standard election, yes

But this is entirely different. Clinton was going over the top tonight at the latest - Sanders made clear time and time again that he would have to win CA and THEN persuade SDs to switch. It's an entirely different scenario.

[JimDandy]

20. No, not different. And see post #8 for the reason Clinton did this.

[Station to Station]

5. There is nothing that should suppress votes

AP didn't call California, it stated that Clinton had enough total delegates to win the nomination, a fact that wouldn't be disputed by Sanders.

After all, the goal was to turn the SD's already attached to Clinton. It should change absolutely nothing for Sanders; no one who has followed any political race ever should be naive enough to think that it wouldn't be called, and indeed no-one who has followed Sanders in anything but the most casual manner would believe he would end the day with the most pledged delegates.

The situation is exactly the same - Sanders needed to convince SD's to turn prior to the convention and given his argument for them doing that would be because he defeated Clinton in California, nothing should change. Indeed, a Sanders supporter who wouldn't turn out on the basis of an AP projection anyone who has been following the race knew would come today at the latest probably wouldn't bother showing up in November.

It's a silly, nonsensical excuse. If it were a one-off vote such as in a general election, of course it would be scandalous. It's not, and it changes nothing of the racw's overall dynamic.

[virtualobserver]

7. Stop wasting your energy typing this nonsense

This message that the race was called was transmitted across all forms of media. It probably achieved its goal. We shall see. Its intention was quite clear.

[Station to Station]

10. So why did it disproportionately suppress Sanders' turnout?

That makes no sense. His was the insurgent campaign, the one which was reliant solely on the conversion of super delegates, something which would be made more likely by victory in California.

It literally makes no sense whatsoever to suppose that Sanders voters are more likely to stay home after the AP's verdict. Unless they haven't been paying attention to the campaign.

[virtualobserver]

19. It suppresses all turnout....which always benefits the establisment candidate....

Hillary has banked early voters in every primary.....Bernie is new to most voters.

Hillary supporters like yourself have introduced new concepts into the Democratic process....Getting paid huge amounts of cash for personal use does not corrupt a candidate and is not bribery.....Calling elections will not suppress votes....We should nominate the candidate with the highest unfavorable rating and the most baggage.

It is great comedy routine.

[Station to Station]

21. Woah, I'm not a Clinton supporter

Just a pragmatist. For what it's worth, I think she'll struggle horribly in 2020 against a shiny new Republican unless there's a hitherto unseen policy rabbit to be pulled from her hat when in the White House.

[Maedhros]

28. You condone the suppression of votes.

Go straight to Ignore. Do not pass Go. Do not collect $200.00.

/bye.

[TDale313]

12. Bullshit.

Telling voters the night before a primary that it's over, no point in voting, absolutely suppresses the vote. Decades of what happens to turnout here in California in national races when those races get called before we finish voting has shown this time and time again.

[Station to Station]

17. But the fact that Clinton would go over the top

with SDs included has been known for at least a month. If you're a Sanders supporter who has been paying the slightest bit of attention, you go and vote regardless because you knew it was being called within the next day or two regardless and you know that winning in CA is the only way he might be able to sway a few SDs.

If you're voting for Sanders, you KNOW he wasn't going to win the popular vote and that Clinton would have enough delegates to theoretically put her over the top tonight. You know that, for it is fact, for the Sanders campaign has been saying as much. You also know that the only chance of averting that outcome is to crush Clinton in California so that Sanders can make the case to SDs that he is the stronger candidate. You know that, unless you've failed to pay any attention or are too busy ranting about kooky conspiracy theories.

[itsrobert]

11. Get those excuses in before they expire

Setting it up quite nicely.

[virtualobserver]

13. I make no excuses for the establishment forces who close ranks for their favored candidate.

[itsrobert]

15. You mean the 3 million more voters

propelled Hilary to victory.

Why do you hate the voters?

[virtualobserver]

22. The voters did not call the race prematurely....

the voters did not restrict the number of debates.

the voters did not collect elite super-delegates by the hundreds prior to the first caucus.

[itsrobert]

24. You want supers to go with the loser

in opposite to what the voters wanted?

[virtualobserver]

25. I want supers to stay out of it

[itsrobert]

26. If so, the people have spoken

Clinton wins 3,000,000 plus more votes. I'm glad we agree. Hillary, the choice of the people!

[virtualobserver]

27. the choice of the vote suppressors

their technique has been effective....that does not comfort me.

[JimDandy]

23. His post had the cause. Yours has the effect.

And as has often been pointed out, the popular vote difference you cite, doesn't include totals from caucus states. Bernie handily won caucus states. But, even if they were included, the caucus totals are oranges, to the primary state's totals which are apples. And of course, Independents, who overwhelmingly go for Bernie, were shut out of closed primaries.

Did I cover all the well-worn points from my side? (Had nothing better to do while waiting for the CA totals, so I thought I'd entertain you, as I'm sure you have your well-worn rebuttals ready. The voting is almost done so what the hell)

[JimDandy]

3. May want to read the many posts already made on this subject as they will

provide you with analysis of the situation.

[TDale313]

9. It changed a lot.

I'm in California. The AP calling the race last night will by any reasonable measure suppress the vote. It was engineered to do so- there is no way a bunch of new Hillary Supers told the AP in time for them to call it at that point without letting the campaign know and getting an ok. They'd been contacting the Supers for months. It's not a new thing. The new thing was how that bunch decided to answer this time.

I'm pissed. This was an attempt to suppress the vote in my fucking state. I hope people come out anyway, but history is very clear on what something like this tends to do to turnout. The Clintons have made it very clear that they wanted to win California desperately. To "send a message". To bring Bernie and his supporters to heel. Bill running around saying Bernie supporters will be toast after California. You're not paying attention if you think they were already looking past today and didn't care what happened because they were already expecting to get the nomination. Yes, she has it won- but they intended California to make a statement to Bernie and his supporters and that's why I think they pulled that last minute trick. Which is perfectly legal and requires nothing more than telling a few of her Supers "tell the AP when they call you on this date" Not hard. Not illegal. Unethical af.