CA-NBC/WSJ: Clinton +2

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

^^ Sanders didn't compete in Texas, and there was legitimate voter disenfranchisement in Arizona. I don't think either is a good parallel to here.  That being said, if Sanders wins the state, I expect him to win among whites as well.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

deflect deflect deflect. Nobody complained about closed primaries being "undemocratic" before this election. Any problems in Arizona were problems because the state government ed up, not because nefarious Clinton actions.

I never said they were nefarious clinton actions; all I said was there was voter disenfranchisement in the state. It's perfectly possible that the result would be better for Sanders if more polling places were avaliable.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

^^ Sanders didn't compete in Texas, and there was legitimate voter disenfranchisement in Arizona.

What's voter disenfranchisement has to do with Sanders' poor performance among Hispanics?
If anything it's Clinton who should complain.
And Sanders lost Hispanics in a landslide even where he competed (Florida, New York).
He only won them in Illinois because of Rham's antagonism with the community.

Both NY & FL were closed primaries, I do think the surge in younger voters helps Sanders.

And if they were open Sanders would have won them, huh?
The level of delusion runs strong among Berniebots.

No, but they would have been a lot closer. Especially in NY, where the deadline for an existing registered voter to change to DEM was before the first democratic debate.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

^^ Sanders didn't compete in Texas, and there was legitimate voter disenfranchisement in Arizona.

What's voter disenfranchisement has to do with Sanders' poor performance among Hispanics?
If anything it's Clinton who should complain.
And Sanders lost Hispanics in a landslide even where he competed (Florida, New York).
He only won them in Illinois because of Rham's antagonism with the community.

Both NY & FL were closed primaries, I do think the surge in younger voters helps Sanders.

And if they were open Sanders would have won them, huh?
The level of delusion runs strong among Berniebots.

No, but they would have been a lot closer. Especially in NY, where the deadline for an existing registered voter to change to DEM was before the first democratic debate.

Excuses, excuses. In Texas Sanders didn't compete, in Florida and New York it was the closed primaries, etc, etc.
The cold hard reality is that Sanders' appeal among minorities is limited and I don't see any evidence why California would be any different.

BTW, several New York polls actually showed Sanders winning Hispanics by double digits. We all know what happened in reality.

Are you seriously denying that NY would have been closer if it was semi-open like CA is and had a more lenient party change deadline? You are beyond delusional.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

I actually think California is the state provides us the best outlook to how Hispanics really feel about the two candidates. Everywhere else Hispanics were relevant:

Nevada and Colorado - Caucuses
Illinois - Everyone hates Rahm
New York - Closed primary, registration deadline so early that it actually should be illegal
Florida and New Mexico - Closed primaries
Texas - Sanders didn't compete
Arizona - Who knows who really benefited from the long lines?

California doesn't seem to have any major knocks against it. Independents are allowed to vote, the registration deadline is lenient, republicans can't screw with the result because they aren't allowed to vote, no same-day registration (which would be very favorable to Sanders), the governor is a Democrat, both candidates are competing, no mayor to rally against, and it's not a caucus.

I just read something horrible.

Apparently it can take days and even weeks to count all the absentee/early votes in California, if the race is very close we might not know the winner for awhile.

Yeah, that's true for the general, where turnout tends to be pretty high despite the state being Safe D. Not sure how well it pertains to the primary. Of course, this is a largely mail-in state, and they're still counting votes in WA.......

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Sanders needs to consider this: if he damages the Democratic party by continuing his campaign, I wouldn't be shocked to see someone challenge him in 2018.

And win like 5% of the vote.

Hmm, I wouldn't be so sure. If Sanders does damage to Clinton and somehow hands Trump the presidency, I think a lot of Democrats would be on board behind the scenes to take out Bernie in Vermont.

So what? The man is more beloved than any other politician in the state and it's not even close. There is zero chance of him ever losing an election in Vermont.  You did see him deny Clinton viability there, right?

It wouldnt be hard to make Sanders remaining years in the Senate miserable you know. Chairmanships and committees? Nope, all gone. Anybit of power and influence hes built up in this party all these years can be easily taken away.

That wouldn't end well, you know. It'd just make the Sandernistas' claims about the establishment even more believable. If anything, it'd be completely counterproductive.

The socialization of the Democratic party is happening no matter what. Whether Senate Dems welcome Bernie back with open arms or very begrudgingly won't matter. Whoever is the revolution candidate next time will be favored to win the nomination.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

What a lousy poll