CA-NBC/WSJ: Clinton +2

[dspNY]

Probably too optimistic for Sanders. NBC wants a horse race and they ensured it with this poll. Clinton's lead is probably between 6-10 points. Clinton leads by 17 with voters who have already voted and that will make up at least 60% of the voters so this 2 point margin doesn't make a lot of sense.

By the way, the general election is a landslide in California (Clinton +24)

[dspNY]

So Hillary leads with whites and Sanders leads with Hispanics, that's different.

That's why the poll is too optimistic towards Sanders. No way does he lead with Hispanic voters there

[dspNY]

The "already voted" numbers are good.

They matter more than the top line and I think her lead is wider than the 17 point margin NBC presents here because the mail in ballots are skewing greatly older and more Democratic/less independent

[dspNY]

Among those who already voted, Clinton leads 58 to 41.

Hillary always does better with early voters. Even in Oregon, where it was all by mail.

Sanders actually won the early mail in voters in Oregon by about 5 and won the state by 12. This time Hillary is winning them by 17 and 60% of the ballots will be mailed in so it is hard to see that margin dropping to 2 with a state as big as CA. I think NBC is trying to make it a horse race when in reality Clinton leads by high single digits, which I expect the Field Poll to show when it comes out

[dspNY]

I could see this being a close race, but some of the subsamples do look a bit off, other than just the Anglo/Latino numbers.

Bay Area 56-42 Clinton, but LA County 54-40 Clinton?

I would imagine the Bay Area being a bit closer and LA County to be more heavily Clinton.

If those are right, how is this a 2 point race? Most of the Democratic electorate is in those 2 parts of the state (in fact most of the voters). Orange County and San Diego would have to be at least 60-40 for Sanders to get a 2 point race

[dspNY]

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.......

Sanders didn't compete in Texas precisely because the Latino population backed Hillary big-time there and he couldn't move them

[dspNY]

Among those who already voted, Clinton leads 58 to 41.

Hillary always does better with early voters. Even in Oregon, where it was all by mail.

Yeah but 41% of primary goers in 2008 voted early. If she wins early votes by 17 points and breaks even on election day, she wins.

Who says she breaks even on election day? Also, we might not know who wins for a while; there could be a lot of provisional votes, and those will go strongly for Bernie.

If she wins 60% of the early VBM by 17 she would have to lose the remaining 40% who vote on Election Day by 22-23 pts or more to lose the state