Responding to claims of voter suppression with data from California

[CreekDog]

The idea that hundreds of thousands or even millions were prevented from voting in the Presidential Primary is not indicated in the data. In California in particular, there's a neat trick to demonstrate this.

The Democratic Presidential Primary is only open to Democrats and non affiliated voters BUT, *anyone* can vote for Democrats in the US Senate Primary. Surely if there were tons of disenfranchised voters, you would see many, many more voters voting for Democrats in the Senate Primary than you did in the Presidential.

But how many more voted for Democrats in that open primary versus the closed one? Not much difference:

Votes counted (so far) for all Democrats in the US Senate Primary:
3,412,398
Votes counted (so far) for Democrats in the Presidential Primary:
3,482,752

Instead you see that slightly more voters (70,354) participated in the Presidential Primary (remember, semi-closed) than voted for Democrats in the open Senate Primary.

And the margin between Hillary and Bernie from votes counted so far is approximately 440,000 votes.

http://vote.sos.ca.gov/returns/president/party/democratic/

[ucrdem]

1. Good point.

California elections have never been simple and that's a new wrinkle.

[CreekDog]

4. California's transparency also helps us answer these kinds of questions

they put out the rules in minute detail, the counting schedules, the requirements, they require all valid votes to be counted, none of this "counted if the margin is within..."

[Eric J in MN]

2. So you're OK with open primaries

...since they barely make a difference and would get people like me to stop complaining?

[CreekDog]

3. I'm not okay with fully open primaries, the semi closed in California is okay with me however

I'm not sold on the non-presidential "top two" open primary.

Using the data to explain something doesn't mean I favor it.

[Gothmog]

5. Clinton's ground game in California killed Sanders

Sanders had no ground game at all in California. Sanders fired this ground game and decided to rely on TV ads and rallys. The Clinton team had a great ground game that killed Sanders https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/06/08/how-hillary-clinton-won-california/

Another critical factor: The state’s primary rules favored candidates who were meticulously organized and mobilized at the grass-roots level.

In 2008, more than half of the ballots cast in California were mailed in. Those voters tend to be reliable Democrats, and they also tend to be older. The Clinton campaign zeroed in on individual ballots, securing thousands of votes before primary day arrived.

"We just had a far superior ground game that was laser like focused on the early vote. That was a strategic focus on the campaign," said Buffy Wicks, Clinton's California state director. "We focused on this diverse coalition: women, African Americans, Latinos, AAPI voters.

"California is a majority minority state and the diversity of this state really lends itself to her and the diversity of the country will really lend itself to her in a general election," she added.

A lack of ground game is what hurt Sanders

[CreekDog]

6. but rallies!

BIG CROWD VOTE LOTS!!!