Hillary deliberately timed this announcement to suppress voter turnout in California.

[stopbush]

193. Well, the summary you linked to had nothing to do with the link you

provided in your OP, did it? Both summaries you've provided weren't available at the link in your OP.

But beyond that, these summaries are interpretations of the data contained in the survey. They are characterizations of the data by the person writing the articles. I happen to disagree with their interpretations of the data. The LAT article you link to says this:

"Sanders’ chances of victory rest on big turnout of voters who typically don’t vote in primaries and who — in the case of the nonpartisans — will have to navigate complicated voter rules to request a Democratic ballot."

This from an article that appeared after the deadline had passed for indies erroneously registered in the right-wing American Independent Party to switch their registration to NPP so they could vote in the D primary. Over 85% of voters in this situation didn't bother to switch their registration.

So, even using the characterization of the data as presented in the LAT, they did NOT say that Sanders benefits from high voter turnout per se, but that he would benefit if there was a high turnout among the segment of voters who don't usually vote in primaries. That's a very specific segment of the electorate that Sanders would need to draw on to win, and I imagine it could be easily offset if there was a high turnout among the demos that heavily favor Hillary in the state, such as women, Latinos and rank-n-file Ds like me, who very much like what "establishment Ds" are dong in our state these days.