Los Angeles Times Poll -CA Clinton 45% -Sanders 37% /Clinton 59% - Trump 28%

[DemocratSinceBirth]

In the primary race, Clinton holds a modest lead over Sanders, 45% to 37%, among all Democrats and independent voters eligible to vote. Her lead is slightly larger, 47% to 36%, among those most likely to vote. Either way, that’s a significant problem for Sanders.


Against Trump, in particular, Clinton would win overwhelmingly, the poll indicated, carrying the state 59% to 28%.'''


http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-latimes-democratic-primary-poll-20160328-story.html

[RoccoR5955]

1. That shall change by the time California votes

And Bernie takes the lead!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

4. I have been working out five times a week. By June 7 I will be ready for Andre Ward.

[RoccoR5955]

75. Since when

does this have anything to do with the price of tea in China, or the Primary?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

77. Nothing but the likelihood of either occurring

Since when does this have anything to do with the price of tea in China, or the Primary?

[lagomorph777]

71. You mean like this?

[DCBob]

2. That will put a damper on the Bernie comeback scenarios!

[GeorgiaPeanuts]

3. Of course, because we all know polls are all knowing and static... Remember Michigan nt

[DemocratSinceBirth]

5. " A Michigan result will not help a delegate deprived Bernie when

the Cal primary rolls around. He needs to win it in a landslide, which is not going to happen."

[oasis]

6. A "Michigan" result will not help a delegate deprived Bernie when

the Cal primary rolls around. He needs to win it in a landslide, which is not going to happen.

[R B Garr]

7. A realistic assessment by Californians. Even Bernie supporters realize that Trump

is a surprising longshot that will affect the outcome of their decisions.

“I was much more excited about Bernie” earlier in the campaign season, she added. “We love him as a candidate. We also recognize that he’s not the most realistic winner.”

[kaleckim]

45. What utter drivel

“I was much more excited about Bernie” earlier in the campaign season, she added. “We love him as a candidate. We also recognize that he’s not the most realistic winner.”

This is no different than people saying that Saddam was behind 9/11. It is a talking point that just won't go away, but has no basis in fact. The Clinton team and the corporate media (and who in their right mind would doubt those groups, their policies have done the country so well in recent decades) have said he has no chance. Small problem. He polls better versus all the Republicans than she does and has for months (show me a single poll showing otherwise), does much better with independents (a huge and growing voting block), is more trusted, his stances on the issues are more in line with popular opinion and he is the only candidate running with net positives as far as favorability (beats her by over 30 points). There is nothing at all to back that up, it is a baseless talking point.

Besides, many Clinton supporters have admitted that if Trump is the nominee, both the candidates will win in a landslide (Sanders far more than Clinton, look at the polls nationally). If people vote for the corrupt neoliberal, at least stop pretending it is about electability. If electability is the issue, at this point in time, it points to Sanders. You can't provide any facts to say otherwise.

[R B Garr]

56. Oh, ffs, Saddam? What a freaking bizarre analogy. Sorry you don't like the realistic

tone of the article, but the entire thing was an extremely REALISTIC view about how "independents" are reconsidering Sanders after they initially fell in love with him. Everything in the article is the exact OPPOSITE of what you are saying.

LOL. How desperate.

[kaleckim]

58. Use the brain

Use your brain. I wasn't commenting on Saddam, I was commenting on how people accept propaganda, even when there is no basis in fact. As someone that opposed the Iraq War, unlike your candidate of choice, I remember how often people mouthed the Bush Administration's talking points, without bothering to check the facts. The article didn't prove that independents are reconsidering Sanders what so ever. Again, there is nothing at all to show they are or have, he has continued to do much better than she has nationally with that group. I also don't know why you have quotation marks around independents. Increasing numbers of people don't identify with either of the two major parties, no need for quotation marks. This is one poll done, in one state, in which independents and Democrats are asked about the two candidates and you might notice that they didn't mention what percentage of those they polled were independents versus Democrats. So, it isn't even possible to say that independents support him less, since they were lumped in with Democrats.

[R B Garr]

59. Thanks for your 7th post. Use your own brain and quit spamming me with bullshit.

You obviously didn't even read the article. I quoted those in the article and their quotes and the whole tone of the article are the opposite of what you are saying.

"Independents". Trump voters call themselves "independents", too. LOL.

[kaleckim]

60. Who gives a damn how many times I've posted

The article doesn't poll independents in isolation, so what you are saying is nonsense. You can't argue otherwise, your logic is flawed, clearly. I also don't get why you talk about "tone", what do you mean by "tone"? YOUR point is that independents are turning away from Sanders and you claim the proof is in the article. Fine, link quotes and data form the article to back your point (you won't and can't).

Oh, and some Trump voters may be independents. Some of them might be people that don't identify with either party but appreciate a good fascist when he or she comes around. What that has to do with what we are talking about...forget it. Look, I am a socialist, I am not in any party. I am an independent. There are lots of people like me, actually the largest share of the population in polling history now.

My advice: drop the damn smiley face, eye roll thing. Makes you look like you're in middle school. We're adults, have an adult conversation.

[R B Garr]

61. Thanks for your 8th post. It sounds quite hostile and irrational.

You obviously didn't even read the article. That's what I was responding to. The article deals with "independents", many of whom have looked at Sanders and after falling in love with him are realistic and making realistic choices and that is based on the fact that Trump has been in the race longer and now looks like a possibility where before that wasn't the case.

That's what the article says. Read the article.

I'm not going to argue nonsense with every little hostility you feel. It makes no sense.

And I'll add whatever smilies I want. Here ya go:

[kaleckim]

69. Your argument is not well thought out

"You obviously didn't even read the article."

No, I did, which is why I have shown what you are claiming to be nonsense. YOU either didn't read the article or have poor reading comprehension. I know what the damn article says, your argument can't be found in the article. You don't have to take my advice on the smiley faces, but it doesn't help to make you look anything other than immature.

"many of whom have looked at Sanders and after falling in love with him are realistic"

So, it is unrealistic to have what the state of California used to have, something close to universal college education? Other countries now have this. All other major countries have universal health care and he has a plan on how he'd like that to come about. Nothing is unrealistic, that stupid argument rests on the assumption that people expect those thing immediately. No one thinks in those terms. Every historic movement of note had a long term vision in mind (which is what Sanders and his supporters have), and they organized around that vision. Find one movement of historic importance that didn't have a long term vision. Using your "logic", the Civil Rights, labor, and environmental movement were all unrealistic, given that they all wanted fundamental change which would require a long battle to be realized.

The left (or with Clinton supporters, the "left&quot is truly pathetic in the US. Things that are done in other countries and which used to be done here, things that are entirely possible if certain structural changes are put in place, are "unrealistic". It shows you have zero vision, and neither does your corrupt candidate of choice.

[lagomorph777]

72. Sanders is consistently more electable, even if the GOP dumps Trump

Only Bernie can beat them ALL. And he beats Trump to a pulp.

[kaleckim]

74. Agreed

Her supporters keep on saying otherwise, it would be nice though if reality could enter the conversation. Cause there are no facts to back their claims up, at all. It seems that many of their arguments haven't evolved much since 1994 or so.

[Surya Gayatri]

8. YEEESSSS! I LOVE LA! LOL!

[stopbush]

9. How is a 12-point lead "modest?"

Would it be called a modest lead were it Bernie with the lead over Hillary?

I'm sorry, but even if every swallow at the Mission in SJ Capistrano landed on Bernie's podium, he hasn't a realistic chance of winning CA.

[still_one]

30. That's a lot of swallows

[KingFlorez]

10. He'll at least win Modoc County

lol

[DemocratSinceBirth]

12. And Humboldt County. He sure isn't winning Los Angeles County.

[KingFlorez]

13. Which means he's no winning the state

It's hard to lose Los Angeles County and still win statewide.

[amborin]

11. Sanders is catching up FAST!

[HumanityExperiment]

14. Math...

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/primary-forecast/california-democratic/

Notice which candidate has gained more ground than the other?

What is the 'ceiling' for each? appears one has hit her's...

[DemocratSinceBirth]

16. Math

http://election.princeton.edu/2016/03/26/no-path-forward-for-sanders/

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/bernie-sanders-continues-to-dominate-caucuses-but-hes-about-to-run-out-of-them/

http://cookpolitical.com/story/9419

http://predictwise.com/politics/2016-president-democratic-nomination

[HumanityExperiment]

17. Math....

22 primaries left for folks to cast their ballots

I'll take those odds since the ONLY candidate that's continued to increase their support over time is ONE, and that one is Bernie

embrace that fear you have going on, it's fun to see the posts that highlight that fear

[DemocratSinceBirth]

18. I literally laugh at the fact that you think I am fearful of anything.

Want to do a "Humanity Experiment". Please check my Sig to see the lens through which I view the senator and his supporters.


Thank you in advance.

[HumanityExperiment]

19. Sure...

your posts track the point I made, just so we're crystal clear

[DemocratSinceBirth]

20. Clear about what.

[ThePhilosopher04]

15. If Clinton is only at 45% in California right now

It's more of a problem for her than Bernie. Once Bernie campaigns there he will wrap up the undecideds.

[DCBob]

22. "Bernie math": 37 > 45

[nadinbrzezinski]

28. He already started

He is going to make the state competitive.

[basselope]

21. Wow. Catching up nicely. Easily Sanders by 10 come June 7th

[DemocratSinceBirth]

23. I am in Woodland Hills, not the tony part. I live in a 450 square foot rent controlled apartment.

Sanders win, I pay for a homeless person's dinner at the Morton's on Canoga Avenue. Clinton wins, you pay for a homeless person's dinner at Morton's.

Fancy restaurants, fancy cars, fancy homes do nothing for me...

[basselope]

36. Not betting.. just knowing.

Sanders by 10. The fact that Clinton is stuck under 50% is all you need to know.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

40. If you know something you should be confident about it.

Neither of us benefits.

[basselope]

42. I am confident about it.

Sanders by 10.

[kaleckim]

49. Maybe

support the candidate whose policies can help that homeless person and the poor instead of buying the homeless person dinner. You could do far more by changing a corrupt and inequitable system that is leading us to ecological collapse, and that won't happen with the candidate you support. She has all but announced that changing this horrible system is off the table. Anyone with a LONG TERM vision (which people pretend is an unrealistic short term vision) is a dreamer. That is what all historic figures of note have done. King's famous saying during the Civil Rights era was, "Don't even try." Bull Connor was around, the system in the South was in place forever, who did he and his supporters think they were? Same with the labor movement. Yes, there was no 40 (or 50) hour work week, no overtime pay, no safe working conditions, no weekend or child labor laws, and anyone with a society that was radically different than that shouldn't even try. Canada got Medicare by passing it in one province, and is spread thereafter. The social democrats had a long term vision and saw it through. So, don't support the candidate that wants to change the system and help the poor. Vote for the corrupt candidate, a person not trusted and a person that does worse than Sanders versus all the Republicans in polls, for whatever reason. I take it you are rich and are untouched by her stance on something like trade?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

52. I am loaded...Check the time line. I posted this first.

I take it you are rich and are untouched by her stance on something like trade?

I am loaded...Check the time line. I posted this first.

I am in Woodland Hills, not the tony part. I live in a 450 square foot rent controlled apartment.

I had to put gas in my car and eat on ten dollars a day, sometimes less, as I ran out of things to pawn.

I shouldn't reveal too much about myself...One time I googled my handle and saw folks discussing me in an unflattering way at the Cave.

[kaleckim]

55. I know that

which is why you supporting her makes no damn sense. Her being more "electable" is based on nothing, no polls show that (and don't say polls don't matter, or you'd have nothing to say about polls in California at this point in time). You also can't say she is more likely to work with freaking Republicans, as she's Hillary Clinton. The very idea that they'd work with her, of all people in the entire world, is laughable. They'd work with her if she gives away the store, and that is the only situation in which her working with them would be more likely.

So, why is a person in your position supporting her? Try responding by not focusing on me personally, or Sanders, or his supporters. Why do you support her, why is she a better candidate? Do you have any concerns about the FBI probe, her huge unfavorable ratings, the fact that she isn't trusted and polls much worse versus all the Republicans than Sanders, the fact that her top donors over her career are huge banks (and that she, her family and campaign have been doing countless fund raising events with corporate and financial lobbyists, which are ongoing)? If not, please explain that as well.

[DCBob]

24. I doubt that but even so that's not nearly good enough.

A 55-45 win for Bernie would result in just a 50 delegate gain.

Total CA delegates 475
55%: 261
45%: 214
Gain: 47

Hillary will still be leading by well over 200 delegates by then so a 50 gainer helps but he's still way behind.

[still_one]

33. That is what they don't seem to understand

[basselope]

39. So you assume he picks no other delegates between now and then..

Guess you forgot about WI, PA, DE, CT, NY, RI, IN, OR

Sanders won't need too much of a victory in CA by then.. just a victory will give him the majority of delegates by then.

[DCBob]

50. The biggies remaining besides CA are NY, PA, MD, NJ

All those are closed primaries and lean heavily to Hillary. If anything she gains between now and CA.

[basselope]

54. LMAO!

Okay.. you keep on telling yourself that.

[DCBob]

63. Laughter is often good for the heart and mind.

Hope it provides you some comfort.

[basselope]

68. Only in knowing Clinton will not be president.

[bobbobbins01]

25. That doesn't look like good news for Hillary at all.

Especially since it was taken right before Bernie's big wins this weekend.

What looks most troubling for her is that she's only 9% ahead with non-white voters there right now.

Given the amount of time left until CA and the results of this poll, and that its an open primary, I'd say things are looking good for Bernie.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

26. I will extend to you the wager I made to your associate in Post 23.

[bobbobbins01]

27. I can't afford Morton's.

That's why I'm supporting Bernie.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

29. I can't either but I will sacrifice what little I have to make a vulnerable person's life better.

Sanders win, I pay for a homeless person's dinner at the Morton's on Canoga Avenue. Clinton wins, you pay for a homeless person's dinner at Morton's.

That's why I am supporting Hillary.

[bobbobbins01]

32. Sounds about right.

She doesn't understand that a vulnerable person would rather eat regularly than have a fancy night out either.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

35. I don't know what you are implying.

I had to put gas in my car and eat on ten dollars a day, sometimes less, as I ran out of things to pawn.

Why would you think poor people don't like nice things

In the alternative we can pay for a week's worth of dinners at Dennys.

[bobbobbins01]

37. I'm saying that Mortons is expensive.

A homeless person would rather the money be used to provide many meals rather than one unnecessarily expensive one. Your heart may be in the right place(although it seems questionable to only provide a homeless person this aid should your candidate win) but your priorities are out of whack.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

43. I do what I can...

Your heart may be in the right place(although it seems questionable to only provide a homeless person this aid should your candidate win)

I do what I can, with very limited means. L A has lots of homeless people. I have bought lunch for more than a few.

[floriduck]

38. I didn't see a comparison of Hill vs Trump to Sanders vs Trump.

Did I miss that or did the article just fail to compare the two? The comparison they did does not separate each Dem candidate to Trump, one on one.

[basselope]

41. LMAO.

Oh god.. funniest thing I have read all day.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

44. Yet I am the only poster in this thread who wants to buy a homeless person dinner(s)

Go figure...

[basselope]

46. No, you want ME to buy a homeless person dinner.

Which if you understood homelessness at all, you would understand how empty a gesture this is.

Very typical Clintonian response to a problem. Yes, take the homeless person to a fancy restaurant for a night and you have done some good, when all you have done is helped support a very successful corporation by giving Morton's money.

Well played.. well played indeed.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

47. We can take him to Dennys or McDonalds for a week.

I chose Morton's because I don't own a car, so it would be easier for me to walk over there and pay.

There is a Dennys at Burbank and Topanga but that is a big but doable walk.


But again, why do you think poor people don't like nice things?

The problem is your privilege leads you to make all kinds of erroneous assumptions.

[basselope]

53. So just enrich other corporations and don't solve the problem

You explain Clinton policies EXACTLY.

Very enlightening.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

57. I am missing your point.

I don't live on Los Angeles' tony west side. I live with my girlfriend in a forty year old , 450 square foot, rent controlled studio apartment.

I haven't owned a car since 2009.

You are trying to make me into Daddy Warbucks.

You don't like McDonalds, you don't like Dennys, you don't like Morton's.

If Sanders win I donate $50.00 to :

http://sfvrescuemission.org/


If Clinton wins you do.

[basselope]

62. The fact that you are missing the point says it all.

Taking a homeless person to dinner (nice or otherwise) doesn't do ANYTHING to solve the problem. Even giving to a charity, doesn't solve the problem. It's a classic Clinton response. "Look, I did something nice that lasted 30 minutes.. problem solved".

Oh great.. we have the ACA.. now people have health insurance... Yipee.. Wait.. why does THIS still exist?? https://www.gofundme.com/7nshrngs

A very large % of people are homeless due to mental illness, which is not covered properly under any current health care plan and certainly won't be covered if we continue with this nonsensical ACA. Do you know what our platinum plan allows for mental health? 1 visit per month. Anything else.. pay out of pocket and it doesn't go towards your yearly maximum.

You want to help the homeless... work towards REAL health care reform and not this BS that currently exists.

You want to help the homeless... work towards getting money out of politics so the issues that get voted upon are issues the PEOPLE want and not the issues the corporations want.

So.. what will I do if Clinton wins?

Vote for a 3rd party.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

64. I get Medi Cal * because of the expansion made possible by the Affordable Care Act

Prior to the advent of the Affordable Care Act, people like myself and millions of medically indigent adults were ineligible for Medicaid. They are now. If someone is homeless they are presumably indigent as well and can get Medicaid or Medi Cal which covers mental health.

We need to build on the Affordable Care Act until everybody is covered , regardless of ability to pay, instead of blowing it up in some quixotic quest for a single payer system.


*CA's version of Medicaid.

[basselope]

70. Again.. a Clinton problem solver.

So suggest that Medi Cal "covers mental health" is to not remotely understand what it means to "cover mental health"

The ACA is garbage, it is a couple of tiny useful provisions, but it is otherwise, garbage. There's nothing to "build on" because it starts from the same flawed premise of health "insurance" over health care.

"coverage" does not = "care"

Try getting mental health issue and see how far Medi Cal "covers" you.

The Clintons of this world keep trying to build on a broken concept.. why? Because there are powerful lobbies defending the interests of the private hospitals, the drug companies and the MANY MANY for profit areas of the health care system. We don't have the public option because of a backroom deal with private hospitals.. b/c we all know it COULD have become law via reconciliation. But, the White House (aka Obama) pulled it from the plan.

The only way to reign in these lobbies is by controlling one aspect of the conversation... their customers. That's why single payer actually works to reduce costs, because it works like a union.

The fact that you think Medi Cal "covers" mental health shows how little you understand about the system.

In reality.. Trump's plan is probably better than Clinton's when it comes to health care. Get rid of the ACA.. keep the pre-existing condition rule, no lifetime limits and not allow insurers to throw people off plans, but scrap the rest and just let insurance companies cross state lines. It leads to the identical result. Crappy health care from crappy insurance companies.

So, yeah, keep supporting Clinton... you just better pray that you don't ever have a serious mental health issue.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

73. Medi Cal covers mental health benefits.

Try getting mental health issue and see how far Medi Cal covers you

https://www.lacare.org/sites/default/files/universal/bhs-faq.pdf

[basselope]

78. Woefully inadequate services.

A Clintonite solution.

Only the wealthy can afford REAL mental health services.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

79. If I had your ...

Only the wealthy can afford REAL mental health services.


A Clintonite solution.

If I had your money I would burn mine but coins make a poor fire. The notion of you suggesting a Medi Cal recipient is well off is patently absurd.

[basselope]

80. Try again.

Only the wealthy can afford REAL mental health services.

I am not suggesting a Medi Cal recipient is well off.

So, maybe I am suggesting that the services you receive as a part of Medi Cal aren't adequate.

They function under the "get the shit to shoe level" approach to health care.

Wealthy people can actually get full treatment.

[DCBob]

31. Its absolutely great news for Hillary.

Bernie needs a massive blowout win in CA to have any remote chance of winning. This poll suggests that wont happen.

[bobbobbins01]

34. No he doesn't.

56% is the average right now, by the time we actually hit California it could potentially be much less. 56% is not a massive blowout by any means.

[DCBob]

48. NY, PA, MD, NJ all big delegate states with closed primaries and all leaning heavily to Hillary.

A massive win in CA is really his only hope of closing the huge gap.

[bobbobbins01]

65. Every single state seems to lean heavily to Hillary.

Until it doesn't.

[DCBob]

66. SC,FL,MS,VA,NC,AL,GA,LA,TN,OH,AR,TX,AZ

[Eric J in MN]

51. He's trending upwards.

In September, the LA Times poll had him trailing by 16. Now by 11. Hopefully when people vote in June he'll win.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/ca/california_democratic_presidential_primary-5321.html

[auntpurl]

67. That's good news!

The polls are a bit early and things may change, but it looks hopeful.

Really just replying as an excuse to post this video

[lmbradford]

76. Awesome news

Since Bernie is outperforming polls by +15 on average and this puts him at -8, then he has a very good shot at winning. Plus, his numbers seem to go up the closer to election time in each state. VERY GOOD NEWS.