home
Too early to call it for Hillary in CA? (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jun 08, 2016 at 12:02:08 AM EST
CBS News is already proclaiming her the likely winner there. 14% of precincts have now reported statewide, and she's crushing Bernie in the San Francisco Bay area, winning 62% of the vote thus far, and that's where he was expecting to do very well.

Our friends in Millbrae suggest that while the Sanders campaign was busy staging yesterday's rally in San Francisco with the Golden Gate Bridge as its photogenic backdrop, Bill Clinton was busy shaking hands in the Castro, the Mission district, SOMA, Daly City, San Mateo and downtown Oakland. Anecdotal, to be sure, but it makes sense, given Sanders' pretty obvious failure to connect and resonate with Bay Area voters. Bill Clinton is a master of retail politics.

Anyway, this 62-37% margin is holding steady. In Sacramento, where counting is almost completed, she's winning 65%. It's the same in L.A. County, 65%. If the margin stays this way, the result would represent a major embarrassment for national pollsters, who had been calling the race a toss-up, whereas local polling had Clinton up by double digits.

Whether, yesterday's declaration in the media that Mrs. Clinton was the presumptive Democratic nominee had any effect on today's results, I'm not going to go there. I'm just enjoying the moment.

Aloha.

Parent

22% reporting, still holding (none / 0) (#10)
by FreakyBeaky on Wed Jun 08, 2016 at 12:22:30 AM EST
Pinch me. Can the polling have been that far off?

Parent
With 82% of precincts reporting, and ... (5.00 / 2) (#15)
by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jun 08, 2016 at 04:31:01 AM EST
... Clinton leading by a commanding 15-pt. margin, I'd say the answer is yes, the polls failed in California. Will the pollsters and media cop to it? Not likely.

Parent
Hillary routed Bernie in San Francisco. (5.00 / 2) (#16)
by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jun 08, 2016 at 04:39:22 AM EST
With 100% of the city's precincts now having reported at 2:40am PDT, she won by a solid 12-pt. margin. With 60% of L.A. County counted, she's up by 17 points there.

Parent
No poll had it a toss up (none / 0) (#12)
by CoralGables on Wed Jun 08, 2016 at 12:41:30 AM EST
Every California poll had Clinton winning. The "toss up" spin was nothing more than click bait.

Parent
Well ... (5.00 / 1) (#13)
by FreakyBeaky on Wed Jun 08, 2016 at 01:16:10 AM EST
Field, for example had Clinton by 2 with 12% undecided. Most showed a narrow but consistent lead. None of then had Clinton by 25 points. I was mostly looking at Pollster.

Parent
There were several within the past week ... (5.00 / 2) (#14)
by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jun 08, 2016 at 04:27:39 AM EST
... that had her two points up, and well within the margin for error. Well, at 11:22pm HST (2:22am PDT), she's up by 15 points with 82% of precincts reporting. A USC / LA Times poll reported five days ago even showed Sanders with a one-point lead.

Parent
And 538's projection (5.00 / 2) (#22)
by CoralGables on Wed Jun 08, 2016 at 08:11:10 AM EST
was Clinton to win by +9.5. I wouldn't call that a failure. It's why using aggregation and demographics is far more important than any individual poll.

Parent
I'm taking about the media, not Nate Silver. (none / 0) (#27)
by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jun 08, 2016 at 01:30:26 PM EST
The media desperately desired a horse race in California, and with Bernie Sanders putting all his campaign's eggs in California's basket they talked themselves into one, by cherry-picking data from those polls that conflated with their prevailing narrative about Hillary Clinton being in trouble there.

Quite obviously, she wasn't because she won California handily. You and I know that because we read a lot of different sources, and we have been saying for days that she was likely to prevail. But lots of other people did not, thanks to the media's misread / misuse of the polling data and their misrepresentation of the true state of the race.

Will the media cop to that? Probably not. Personally, I wish they'd dispense with polling altogether, because they're clearly using it to manufacture news and controversy rather than simply report on it.

Aloha.

Parent

Read today (5.00 / 1) (#28)
by jbindc on Wed Jun 08, 2016 at 01:34:50 PM EST
That many CA polls were wrong (at least in part) because they don't have enough Spanish-speaking pollsters, which coukd mean that HRC has an even BIGGER lead among Spanish-speaking Hispanics than we know.

Parent
I was Fortunate (5.00 / 1) (#42)
by Jane in CA on Thu Jun 09, 2016 at 01:41:17 PM EST
To be at the polling place at the same time a new citizen, possibly Hispanic, was voting for the first time ever, He had JUST gotten his citizenship, and he was very proud and very excited to be voting. He asked for a Dem ballot and the Republican behind him who had been good-naturedly teasing him, said, "Well, you know I'm just going to cancel your vote." I said, "go right ahead! I'm already here to cancel his!" The newly processed citizen seemed puzzled by the conversation but the Republican and I got a kick out it, anyway.

He seemed too nice to be a Trump voter, but given the fact that pretty much every Republican in California voted Trump, odds are that he was.


Parent

Looks like "exit polls" missed (none / 0) (#36)
by FreakyBeaky on Wed Jun 08, 2016 at 07:38:58 PM EST
Meaning polls way underestimated Clinton's lead in already mailed-in ballots.

You know, they never had to poll both intentions and actual votes together like this back in the day. I don't envy pollsters, especially during wacky primaries.

Parent

I never believed that Sanders was within (none / 0) (#51)
by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 15, 2016 at 09:08:59 AM EST
10 pts of Clinton in California. I read a lot of extrapolations about how he was, but after putting them down...I just didn't believe it.

Parent

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft