Update on California Count

My recollection is that California has until 7/7 to finish up.

Toby Ziegler at Liepar Destin's new site, TheProgressiveWng.com gives us some new info:

In the last California primary update, on June 21, Clinton lead Sanders statewide by a 9.5 percentage point margin or at 54.3%-44.8%. Now, eight days later, Sanders has trimmed the former Secretary’s lead a point and a half to 53.6%-45.5% or 8.1 percentage points (he cut it another 0.2 percentage points as of 6:42 pm). More notably in fact, he has cut her statewide lead by around 70,000 votes (from 478,000 to 408,000) since election night and another 38,000 since June 21. This is largely due to him winning the huge majority (~60%+) in the later counts in large counties such as Santa Clara, Los Angeles, and San Diego.

Sanders has overtaken Clinton in the post June 7 vote in Fresno, Los Angeles, Napa, and Monterey Counties, as depicted on the updated late vote election map above (you can view the interactive map here). He also defeated Clinton among the 2,203 late votes in Madera County (which had previously not reported since June 8), winning 56% of them which was a complete reversal from the election night totals. Furthermore, Sanders has expanded, to varying degrees, his late vote leads in Orange, San Diego, Ventura, San Luis Obispo, and Butte counties, among others…

Find more specifics at the link.

Here's the link to his interactive map.

Share
up
0 users have voted.

Comments

ZimInSeattle's picture

up
0 users have voted.

"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." - JFK | "The more I see of the moneyed peoples, the more I understand the guillotine." - G. B. Shaw Bernie/Tulsi 2020

moneysmith's picture

the Dems don't deserve him, but we do!

That would probably require serious oversight of the election by an outside group (UN?), to stop Clinton from stealing votes. But we need that no matter who's running. Obviously, no one in the federal gov't, from Obama on down, has the slightest interest in fair elections.

up
0 users have voted.

Hell is empty and all the devils are here. William Shakespeare

I believe that he does, he has to run third party because neither Clinton nor Trump come close to his pro-people beliefs.

I am still hopeful Sanders will be the nominee; failing that, I hope he runs 3rd party.

up
0 users have voted.

"The justness of individual land right is not justifiable to those to whom the land by right of first claim collectively belonged"

But we can't waste a lot of time waiting to see what he will do when he has given very little indication that he will separate from the Democratic Party. That's probably part of the Clinton time killing strategy. While we're waiting, we have to think about the World and the Country. We really need to learn how to turn our rants into strong, organized, community action if this movement is going to mean anything.

up
0 users have voted.

Beware the bullshit factories.

CaptainPoptart's picture

I can't see him splitting the vote with a third party run. Plus it's getting late to get on the ballot in all fifty states. Even if he runs with Jill, the Greens won't make it on the ballot everywhere.

up
0 users have voted.

I'd rather learn from one bird how to sing than teach ten thousand stars how not to dance. - e.e.cummings

Zinman's picture

Polling matters, but so does momentum and excitement, both of which Bernie has in abundance. Running Green, he could be on the ballot in 47 States, enough to win in a 3 way race with two unpopular opponents who have toxic political clouds following them everywhere. Furthermore, many of us are at or near our max Primary donation limit, but would be free to max out again on our allowable General Election contributions, which would be a giant boost to Bernie's campaign.

up
0 users have voted.

Be a Friend of the Earth, cherish it and protect it.

By declaring that he would vote for Hillary Clinton (Corporatist, TPP architect, Warmonger, Neocon, 'Regime Change' assassin, Police-Statist, Globalist, Bankster puppet), Bernie Sanders threw a big road block in the way of any progressive movement.

He must by now know that Jill Stein has reached out to him, and is willing to step aside and let Bernie share a co-Presidency ticket with him on the Green Party. Yet ... sadly he has refused.

He must also know that Donald Trump, unlike Clinton, would end the deIndustrialization of the United States, and end the (intentional) gutting of American Manufacturing, by terminating all these bad crooked trade deals, and not starting War with Russia/Syria, or do all the horrible "Regime Change" madness that the globalists and banksters want.

So the risk of a Clinton presidency is far greater and damaging, as it will set back any real progressive action, and substitute and conflate this horrible, right-wing, corporatism and perpetual Warfare with progressivism.

It's time for Sanders to leave the D-Party, as they are the enemy here and not in any way .. his friend. The movement could continue, if Sanders is bold. But by tucking his tail in and "voting for Clinton"(?), he is turning his once-impressive movement into just a mockery and something no longer serious anymore.

[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JK4WNA1aBUQ width:640 height:480]

up
0 users have voted.
Zinman's picture

I don't know the context of Bernie's statement, so I will not immediately assume the worst. In a head to head race between Hillary and Donald, I understand a reasonable case could be made for Hillary, but it would be a painful stretch for me to agree with it. Let's assume Bernie was pushed to say which of two bad choices he would prefer, and if he had to choose, he said he would choose Hillary, since ....whatever....whatever.... and she is at least grounded in political reality and knows the terrain and players.

up
0 users have voted.

Be a Friend of the Earth, cherish it and protect it.

I would not and could not vote for Hillary Clinton even for dog catcher.

[video:https://youtu.be/PpVXDGH6rTA width:640 height:480]

--

[video:https://youtu.be/e4LKAt1t_8M width:640 height:480]

up
0 users have voted.
Zinman's picture

You say you would not vote for HILLARY. So again, in a binary world, would you vote for Donald Trump or Hillary, if those were your only two choices"

up
0 users have voted.

Be a Friend of the Earth, cherish it and protect it.

Reread the first posting (above)

He must also know that Donald Trump, unlike Clinton, would end the deIndustrialization of the United States, and end the (intentional) gutting of American Manufacturing, by terminating all these bad crooked trade deals, and not starting War with Russia/Syria, or do all the horrible "Regime Change" madness that the globalists and banksters want.

So the risk of a Clinton presidency is far greater and damaging, as it will set back any real progressive action, and substitute and conflate this horrible, right-wing, corporatism and perpetual Warfare with progressivism.

up
0 users have voted.
Zinman's picture

Trump would not choose to fight de-industrialization of the West, because he thinks he could find a way to profit from it. In my estimation, he exclusively looks out for himself, and no one else gets any attention in his priorities.

up
0 users have voted.

Be a Friend of the Earth, cherish it and protect it.

Alphalop's picture

say a case could be made that Trump would be the less damaging candidate in the long term big picture view.

up
0 users have voted.

"I used to vote Republican & Democrat, I also used to shit my pants. Eventually I got smart enough to stop doing both things." -Me

Lookout's picture

There's no telling what will happen at either convention. There are likely scenarios. But we won't know till we know.

crystal ball too.jpg

up
0 users have voted.

“Until justice rolls down like water and righteousness like a mighty stream.”