Democrat Primary Open Thread: California, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Dakota, and South Dakota

By Lambert Strether of Corrente.

Readers, I’ll add to this as the evening progresses, but here are some election topics for conversation starters. Voting readers, I’m interested in your experiences at the polls, no matter your state, or whether your experience is good or bad.

I should say that I have no sense of the electorate at all. The body language of both campaigns is opaque to me, no internal polls have leaked, and the press is impossibly tendentious, except possibly for anecdote. Also, the networks decided to do no exit polling, oddly, or not, although there is an (unattested) independent effort. So if you, readers, have any vetted (albeit unorthodox) tracking sources, please add them in comments.

The Evening’s Primaries

From Vox, reduced to a table. Hoping I got the time-zone arithmetic right!

State Closing Time Delegates Type
California 11PM EST/8PM PST 475 Primary
Montana 10PM EST/8PM MST 21 Primary
New Jersey 8PM EST 126 Primary
New Mexico 9PM EST/7PM MST 34 Primary
North Dakota 9PM EST/7PM MST (start) 18 Caucus
South Dakota 9PM EST/7PM MST 20 Primary

There will be many champagne corks popping in HillaryLand whenever she can be said to have truly “clinched” in the pledged + superdelegate count. This is premature triumphalism, albeit carefully engineered, since Clinton can’t truly be said to have clinched until the superdelegates actually vote, for the same reason, on the Democrat side of the aisle, that Trump can’t truly be said to have clinched, given that Mark Kirk of Illinois has taken back his endorsement.

Here’s one live blog: NBC. Another: TruthDigest. A third: The Wall Street Journal. A fourth: The Guardian.

AP Election Fixing Followup

Skepticism — let me be honest, and call it blistering outrage — in regard to AP’s “scoop” on Clinton “clinching” the Democrat nomination focuses on two issues: The timing, and the anonymous sourcing.

On the timing: To repeat, there’s no story here. “The party decides” is a well-known axiom, and that the party in the form of the Democrat nomenklatura overwhelmingly favors Clinton simply isn’t news. The only news here is the dateline of the story: Election Eve. Why not “round up” the delegates before, or after, an election? A question that answers itself, when asked.

On the sourcing: The superdelegates “rounded up” are not named. This is a violation of AP’s Style Guide:

So what’s the point of a professional news-gathering organization having a Style Guide if they don’t adhere to it? (And how many other instances of AP election coverage didn’t adhere to it?

Here’s AP’s pushback on Twitter:

The ranks of the tone police are far too full for me to consider joining, but I’m not alone in regarding Carroll’s “we counted” as unhelpful.

Voter Suppression and Election Fraud

Greg Palast, who’s been covering this beat for years:

There are a mind-blowing 4.2 million voters in California registered NPP – and they share a love for sunshine and Bernie Sanders. According to the reliable Golden State poll, among NPP voters, Sen. Sanders whoops Sec. Hillary Clinton by a stunning 40 percentage points.

On the other team, registered Democrats prefer Clinton by a YUGE 30 points. NPP’s can vote in the Democratic primary, so, the California primary comes down to a fight between D’s and NPP’s.

And there’s the rub. In some counties like Los Angeles, it’s not easy for an NPP to claim their right vote in the Democratic primary – and in other counties, nearly impossible.

Example: In Santa Rosa County, if you don’t say the magic words, “I want a Democratic crossover ballot,” you are automatically given a ballot without the presidential race. And ready for this, if an NPP voter asks the poll worker, “How do I get to vote in the Democratic party primary, they are instructed to say that, “NPP voters can’t get Democratic ballots.” They are ordered not to breathe a word that the voter can get a “crossover” ballot that includes the presidential race.

I’m not kidding. This is from the official Election Officer Training Manual page 49:

“A No Party Preference voter will need to request a crossover ballot from the Roster Index Officer. (Do not offer them a crossover ballot if they do not ask).”

They’re not kidding. Poll worker Jeff Lewis filed a description of the training in an official declaration to a federal court:

Someone raised their hand and asked a follow-up question: ‘So, what if someone gets a nonpartisan ballot, notices it doesn’t have the presidential candidates on it, and asks you where they are?’ The answer poll workers are instructed to give: ‘Sorry, NPP ballots don’t have presidential candidates on them.’ That’s correct: even when people ask questions of that nature, obviously intending to vote with a party.

This affidavit, and several even more horrifying, come from Election Justice USA, a non-partisan watchdog, hoping to get injunctions to stop this nonsense. Hear my talk with the group’s spokesman, Paul Thomas, on a special edition of the The Best Democracy Money Can Buy: Elections Crime Bulletin, which I host with Dennis Bernstein on the Pacifica Radio Network. –– Subscribe to this weekly podcast and download my Election Guide Comic Steal Back Your Vote for FREE. Let me throw in another complication. Nearly half of Californians vote by mail, ballots sent to your home automatically. Most NPP voters don’t realize that, to vote in the Democratic primary today, they must bring in their NPP ballot with the envelope, and say these magic words: “I want to surrender my ballot in return for a Democratic ‘crossover’ ballot.”

Got that memorized? Because if you don’t, if you say the wrong syllables, in some counties, you will be denied a Democratic presidential ballot.

Obviously something for the Sanders forces to set right at the convention. #Messy

On the bright side, it seems that Los Angeles election officials are responsive to tweets.

* * *

Each section is divided by a graphic. Oldest section is first. Sections, however, have newest snippet first.


9:00PM Looking for early tea leaves to read in California? Watch turnout: Sanders says heavy traffic would bode well for him, especially among young voters. And watch how the two candidates fare in areas that are predominantly Hispanic and African American, two groups that have given Clinton a lot of love in past primaries. A sign of potential trouble for #feelthebern: There’s been no sign of a surge in young voters in early vote-by-mail returns, despite a jump in registration of young people [AP. Sorry].


8:44PM Clinton campaign switches from campaign posters to flags: “The flags are a notable change from the blue campaign signs that have so far decorated her rallies, a symbol of a transition between the contest winding down and the one looming ahead” [Guardian].

8:28PM Polls are closed in New Jersey and NBC News projects both the Dem and GOP races are too early to call [NBC].

8:24PM “In her speech tonight, Mrs. Clinton plans to assert that she is the party’s presumptive nominee and will address the historic nature of becoming the first female nominee of a major party. She will also contrast her efforts to ‘break down barriers’ with those of Mr. Trump, according to a campaign official, and plans to congratulate Mr. Sanders and his backers, as she aims to win them over to her campaign” [Wall Street Journal].


10:03PM The Clinton camp has just sent a fundraising email announcing “together we secured the Democratic nomination,” Reuters reports” [Guardian]. Even I am amazed at the effrontery. What are the delegates and superdelegates? Chopped liver?

9:55PM Sanders projected to win North Dakota [Guardian]. Clinton leads New Mexico, up seven points with 22% reporting. She also appears out front in South Dakota.

9:47PM, Brooklyn Navy Yard: Crowd briefly chanting “Sanders quit!”

9:33PM Live feed of Clinton speech at Brooklyn Navy Yard [Guardian].


9:11PM Clinton projected to win New Jersey [Guardian]. Champagne flowing through the gutters of Brooklyn…


10:25PM Speech starts. “Tonight’s victory…” “Seneca Falls…” “Getting unaccountable money out of politics” “Unity is better than division, empowerment is better than resent, bridges are better than walls.” “Donald Trump tempermentally unfit to be President.” This is a laundry list interspersed with anti-Trump zingers. “This election is different. It really is about who we are as a nation.” “We are better than this.” “My mother taught me never to back down from a bully.” “On the day my mother was born, Congress was finally passing the Nineteenth Amendment.” [Browser crash; speech ends]. Correcting: My browser problems were so bad that I could have missed this on Sanders:

I want to congratulate Senator Sanders for the extraordinary campaign he has run. He has spent his long career in public service fighting for progressive causes… and let there be no mistake. Senator Sanders, his campaign and the vigorous debate that we had… have been very good for the Democratic party and for America.”

Did others hear this? (Just to make sure the Guardian wans’t quoting a transcript?) Thanks!

Adding: One thing I’ve already admired about Clinton is her persistence and resilience, which she’s certainly demonstrated in this campaign. And I can see why some supporters might feel “it’s time.” But I’m not sure, as a speech, this was any better than her opening speech on Roosevelt Island, except perhaps in its brevity.

10:20PM “Obama is still holding off an endorsement out of ‘respect’ for voters casting ballots Tuesday but could finally make public comment within hours – with attention focusing on his first ‘Tonight Show with Jimmy Fallon’ appearance Thursday” [Daily Mail].

10:18PM Star Spangled banner just concluded; presumably Clinton will start shortly, Live feed of Clinton speech at Brooklyn Navy Yard [Guardian]. Feed going in and out. Flags waving, she’s shaking hands, now at the podium.

10:07PM “‘I’m sure she’s going to talk to Bernie soon and begin the process of bringing the two campaigns together to honor what he’s achieved but also to be able to appeal to his voters,” John Podesta said on MSNBC Tuesday night.” [The Hill]. “But also.” Shouldn’t that be “and also”?

Screen Shot 2016-06-07 at 10.57.35 PM

2:35AM Readers, I have to turn in. I was monitoring Google News for word on Sanders’ speech this evening (or rather morning) from some major media outlet, and — hold onto your hats, here, folks — Google never showed anything. I finally filtered the “news” [clears throat] on “Past Hour,” and this showed up from Bustle. The full transcript, “The Transcript Of Bernie Sanders’ California Speech Is A Rousing & Defiant Call To Action”, has this:

But we understand that our mission is more than just defeating Trump, it is transforming our country. The vast majority of the American people know that it is not acceptable that the top tenth of 1 percent owns as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent; we’re going to change that. And when millions of Americans are working longer hours for lower wages, we will not allow 57 percent of all new income to go to the top 1 percent. And we will end a corrupt campaign finance system.

Democracy is not about billionaires buying elections. And we will end a broken criminal justice system. And we will break up the major banks on Wall Street. And we will join the rest of the industrialized world and guarantee health care to all people as a right. And we will bring about real immigration reform and a path toward citizenship. And we will tell the billionaire class and corporate America that they will start paying their fair share of taxes. And what we understand, and what every one of us has always understood, is that real change never occurs from the top on down, always from the bottom on up.

That is the history of America, whether it is the creation of the trade union movement, the civil rights movement, the women’s movement, the gay movement. And that is what OUR movement is about.

But you all know it is more than Bernie. It is all of us together. It is what this movement is about. Is millions of people from coast to coast standing up and looking around them and knowing that we can do much, much better as a nation. That whether Wall Street likes it, whether corporate America likes it, whether wealthy campaign contributors like it, whether the corporate media likes it, we, together, together we know what our job is. And that is to bring the American people together to create a government that works for us, not the 1 percent.

Next Tuesday, we continue the fight in the last primary in Washington, D.C. We are going, we are going, we are going to fight hard, we are going to fight hard to win the primary in Washington, D.C. And then we take our fight for social, economic, racial, and environmental justice to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania!

So I’d love to be a fly on the wall when Sanders meets with Obama.

Adding, since I had verbiage I could search on, I also found quotes from the speech in The Hill and The Telegraph but the full transcript was nowhere, certainly not from AP [clears throat]. Of course, real reporters need their beauty rest. No doubt they’ll publish the transcript tomorrow.

2:24AM 37.9% counted: Clinton, 59.6%; Sanders 39.4%7.

2:12AM 36.7% counted: Clinton, 60.0%; Sanders 39.0%.

1:46AM Live results: 33.0% counted, Clinton 60.4%; Sanders 38.5%.

1:08AM Live results: 20% counted, Clinton 61.7%; Sanders 37.2% [Los Angeles Times]. Sanders doing well in rural North, East. Polls had shown the race tightening: Clinton is at 47.7 percent to Sanders’ 45.7 percent [WHNT]. If, at the end of the night, this discrepancy holds, it will be unfortunate that there were no exit polls to explain.

1:07AM “A small group of voters in downtown Los Angeles had to wait an hour to vote after polls closed Tuesday when their polling station ran out of Democratic ballots” [Los Angeles Times]. More Democrat voter suppression.

12:21AM Obama statement: “In addition, at Senator Sanders’ request, the President and Senator Sanders will meet at the White House on Thursday to continue their conversation about the significant issues at stake in this election that matter most to America’s working families. The President looks forward to continuing the conversation with Senator Sanders about how to build on the extraordinary work he has done to engage millions of Democratic voters, and to build on that enthusiasm in the weeks and months ahead.” [Guardian].

11:02PM And now waiting for California…

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
This entry was posted in Guest Post, Politics on by .

About Lambert Strether

Readers, I have had a correspondent characterize my views as realistic cynical. Let me briefly explain them. I believe in universal programs that provide concrete material benefits, especially to the working class. Medicare for All is the prime example, but tuition-free college and a Post Office Bank also fall under this heading. So do a Jobs Guarantee and a Debt Jubilee. Clearly, neither liberal Democrats nor conservative Republicans can deliver on such programs, because the two are different flavors of neoliberalism (“Because markets”). I don’t much care about the “ism” that delivers the benefits, although whichever one does have to put common humanity first, as opposed to markets. Could be a second FDR saving capitalism, democratic socialism leashing and collaring it, or communism razing it. I don’t much care, as long as the benefits are delivered. To me, the key issue — and this is why Medicare for All is always first with me — is the tens of thousands of excess “deaths from despair,” as described by the Case-Deaton study, and other recent studies. That enormous body count makes Medicare for All, at the very least, a moral and strategic imperative. And that level of suffering and organic damage makes the concerns of identity politics — even the worthy fight to help the refugees Bush, Obama, and Clinton’s wars created — bright shiny objects by comparison. Hence my frustration with the news flow — currently in my view the swirling intersection of two, separate Shock Doctrine campaigns, one by the Administration, and the other by out-of-power liberals and their allies in the State and in the press — a news flow that constantly forces me to focus on matters that I regard as of secondary importance to the excess deaths. What kind of political economy is it that halts or even reverses the increases in life expectancy that civilized societies have achieved? I am also very hopeful that the continuing destruction of both party establishments will open the space for voices supporting programs similar to those I have listed; let’s call such voices “the left.” Volatility creates opportunity, especially if the Democrat establishment, which puts markets first and opposes all such programs, isn’t allowed to get back into the saddle. Eyes on the prize! I love the tactical level, and secretly love even the horse race, since I’ve been blogging about it daily for fourteen years, but everything I write has this perspective at the back of it.


  1. ek hornbeck

    Hey, at least California gets to count this year. Not since Robert Kennedy…

  2. KLG

    I’m going on radio silence. Just heard someone crying tears of joy about Hillary winning the nomination.

  3. Sue

    See story on zerohedge about possible collusion between Hillary Clinton campaign and AP

  4. Pavel

    I’m as pissed as anyone about this AP bullshit move (and its defenders), but frankly barring a miracle HRC was destined to get the nomination. (That deus ex machina in the form of an FBI report may still appear, however.)

    I detest the Clintons and especially Hillary more than just about anyone else on the planet. I suspect she’ll end up winning and there will be a brief period of triumphalism and whoops from her followers (and lots of plum positions for her donors and the FOCs of course).

    But then the investigations will start (or continue), the rabid Repubs will consider impeachment, the Clinton Slush Fund house of cards will fall apart, and at some point Bill and Hillary will look at each other and ask: Was this really worth it?

    1. Lambert Strether Post author

      I think in some ways the two campaigns are orthogonal. If you take “political revolution” seriously (as certainly many Sanders supporters do) then this election is just a phase. The election problems, for example, need to be brought before the convention #Messy.

      1. Jerren V Osmar

        I agree with your revolution sentiments. Just like Occupy, the fight doesn’t just go out of the masses when the media stops chattering, but instead it grows as things get worse.

        If things meaningfully improve then the disgruntled will go home, but I don’t see that happening anytime soon. I know that here in Lansing MI we plan on sending a very strong contingent to the DNC convention (10-30 people). Even that might best be seen as another training ground. I’ll miss this time when it is gone.

        1. Emma

          Certainly looks that way…..
          A beautiful tweet from Naomi Klein in response to the one by Clinton shown above:
          “Bull. Not under the plutocracy u represent. As a feminist, I should feel a thrill right now. I grieve that I don’t.”
          Soooooo……what about Tarzan tactics now?!
          Bernie Sanders grabs Jill Stein and storms all the way to the GREEN HOUSE !

      2. low integer

        I think in some ways the two campaigns are orthogonal.

        That is a very interesting way of looking at the Sanders and Clinton campaigns. Among other things, it implies that any effect Sanders has on the political spectrum is independent of, and cannot be undone by, the Clinton camp.

      3. dk

        Election quality needs to be addressed at the local level (county and state). In most states, county level offices have primary roles in data administration and quality, and are involved in every election.

        It bothers me that says it is focusing on the federal congress, before tackling state and local levels. State politics are key to a successful grassroots movement, most federal congressionals come up through the state/local ranks. State district campaigns are also a lot cheaper to finance, more bang/buck.

        Redistricting is coming in 2020, that is decided by State legislatures, which are currently overwhelmingly Republican controlled, with a hefty dose of Tea Party. The DNC’s D.C. myopia made them bungle 2010 redistricting.

        1. Waldenpond

          Yeah, I think it was around 4:30 CA time. He noted he’d lost a bunch of people when he said that, click. I have no idea what else they talked about. Cenk is a conservative. I have rarely made it through a whole show. When policy gets to left for him, he states he will go back to being a conservative. He’s only a D when they are a righty party. It’s as if he only covered the Sanders situation to be anti-establishment.

          What amuses me is he touts wolfpac all the time. Change! Just not too much! Incrementalism! Vote team D!

          I don’t think he gets that for many of us this has nothing to do with Sanders.

          1. Plenue

            Cenk Uygur is an idiot. TYT is pure gatekeeper media, and I say this with the authority of someone who was a big follower of theirs for years. My loathing for them is that of someone who drank the kool-aid for a long time, before finally breaking away. Ukraine in 2014 is what did it for me. Occasionally I still go to the TYT YouTube page (as well as the pages of TYT Network members and other affiliates like Sam Seder and Secular Talk) and search for Ukraine/Syria/Russia etc. Other than the occasional “omg, look at what a crazy dictator Putin is!” video the silence is deafening. And they’re just as vapid on pretty much every other issue as well. It’s a mad world when TYT can rightly claim to be the worlds biggest internet news show, and something like The Real News Network gets maybe a thousand views a video with vastly more substantive content.

            Wolf PAC is the sole TYT thing I still pay any attention to, and as far I can tell it’s basically DOA.

            1. Lambert Strether Post author

              I tried Cenk several years ago, but the comment section was a touch too testesterone-fuelled for me. Bad atmosphere, not much critical thinking (though Cenk himself was clearly a skilled broadcaster). Didn’t go back.

              1. Code Name D

                Cenk is firmly in the lesser-of-two-evils camp, so he has to transition to supporting Clinton. And even though he was critical of the AP calling the race as it did, he still says that this was merely a matter of trimming and that sooner or later, Sanders would have to stand down and stand behind Clinton. He is VERY HOSTILE to the Burnie or Bust argument.

                This does create a cognitive dissidence that they have discussed regularly, but I fear not thoroughly. Something that did come to a head last night with at least a segment I observed. If you’re goal is to prevent Trump from winning in November – then you can’t be critical of Hillary now that she is the nominee. This was a conflict they simply could not resolve. And there reaction to the AP story reflected that conflict.

          2. anon

            Sorry, but that’s not what he said.

            Cenk asked a guest whether Bernie should just suspend his campaign now or take it all the way to the convention. He asked that in the context of a conversation where he and the panel were speculating on what the convention would look like, everyone assuming Bernie would still be in it.

            I’m not a big fan of Cenk or TYT, but after seeing hours of debate and primary coverage your characterization of his views seems way off base. Again, I’m not saying he doesn’t come off as egotistical and obnoxious — he does. But from what I’ve heard he’s no conservative. If anything he’s pretty clearly anti-neoliberal and anti-neocon.

            But maybe I’m out of touch or missed some hidden subtext. After all, I voted for Carter twice and never understood how anyone could admit to being a “Reagan Democrat”.

            1. NotTimothyGeithner

              I can’t grasp voting for Reagan, but with Carter, here goes:

              -the Carter Doctrine, when we claimed the middle east as a U.S. colony. Jimmy doesn’t like to talk about it.
              -tax cuts for the rich
              -defense spending orly
              -destroying the truckers union
              -telling unions to get bent when they wanted to know about his efforts his efforts to fulfill his campaign promise to repeal Taft-Hartley

              In my humble opinion, Jimmy was building homes to atone for his Presidency. The DLC Dems mate him for losing in 1980, but not much else. The “he’s history’s greatest monster” line from “The Simpsons” was written by one of the writers who despised Jimmy for these reasons. They actually bring it up on the dvd commentaries.

              I don’t particularly care for the Kennedys, but Ted didn’t run against Carter over night line and Iran. There was a real opening, but Jimmy grew peanuts and was folksy.

              1. NotTimothyGeithner

                I almost forgot. Union voters who were likely veterans of Vietnam, Korea, and World War II were the ones who didn’t vote for Carter. Was Carter done in by Dateline and Ted Koppel or his anti-union efforts and preparations for the next war?

              2. Carolinian

                You left out the annoying Zbigniew–still around to annoy.

                Your list is valid but I suspect that the press and northern liberals disliked Carter for all the wrong reasons…more about killer rabbits, yellow booties, that cardigan etc. They saw him as a yokel.

                1. NotTimothyGeithner

                  Has Hillary brought on Zbigniew? I think this could be a 1980 election. Reagan’s racism was obvious then too. The Democrats have a deeply flawed candidate, and they simply refuse to see the obvious despite a challenger explaining the basic problem quite clearly. Trumgan or Reamp will continue to discuss issues, no matter how bizarre his positions, and and attack unpopular policies while Democrats worry about Nightline and stupid media stories which will be forgotten in a day.

                2. pretzelattack

                  kennedy, missle gap, cuban missle crisis which almost exploded into ww3, vietnam expansion,
                  lbj huge vietnam expansion. all the dem presidents in last 55 years have been sadly lacking, just usually better than their republican opponents. but voting for the lesser of 2 evils has brought us to our present desperate straits.

                  1. roadrider

                    kennedy, missle gap, cuban missle crisis which almost exploded into ww3, vietnam expansion,

                    Ignorant, un-historical bullshit! In what bizzaro-world was the Cuban Missile Crisis Kennedy’s fault? If it wasn’t for the military/intelligence establishment spoiling for a pre-emptive nuclear first strike against the Soviet Union since the fifties and encircling the Soviets with nuclear missiles in Europe (all prior to Kennedy taking office) Khrushchev would have had little motivation to put his missiles in Cuba. If it wasn’t for Kennedy’s standing up to the military (and risking overthrow) in that crisis, and refusing the knee-jerk response of air strikes and invasion, both of which would have very likely resulted in a full-scale nuclear war because of the tactical nuclear weapons that would have been used to repel such an invasion, neither one of us would be around to discuss his record.

                    Furthermore, it has been established beyond argument that Kennedy was going to withdraw from Vietnam, not expand the commitment. Non expansion in US troops or the nature of our involvement occurred until Lyndon Johnson cooked up a false “attack” on US naval vessels in the Tonkin Gulf and then introduced 500,000 US troops into Vietnam.

                    And you left out the LImited Test Ban Treaty (initially opposed by large majorities in the public an in Congress but passed by a huge margin due to Kennedy’s campaigning), support for self-determination for former European colonies, back channel negotiations with Castro to normalize US-Cuba relations, crackdowns on the Cuban exile raids against that nation and other moves to de-escalate the Cold War. All of that stuff probably got him killed.

                    So try reading a little history before shooting your uneducated mouth off about the last president to actually take on the military/intelligence establishment,

            2. YankeeFrank

              Cenk often annoys me but his panel has way more liberal people than him on it, especially Jimmy Dore. Dore is not only very insightful and very left, but he’s hysterically funny (he’s a comedian first). Dore also has a fellow who does voice impersonations named Mike Macrae (he nails Bill O’Reilly and many others) and they’re all on youtube for hours of entertainment fun.

              Cenk is good on analysis of political maneuvering and is sometimes liberal enough for me, but he’s definitely annoyingly centrist and “reasonable” sometimes.

              1. readerOfTeaLeaves

                I respect Cenk for building the kind of infrastructure that TYT represents. They’re smart, and totally engaged. If they give the traditional horserace reporters a run for their money, then so much the better.

                TYT went bonkers when Sanders talked about going on to Philly.
                My God, that Sanders crowd was simply incredible — the amount of energy in that crowd could launch rockets.

                The Bern is pretty strong tonight.
                Good news.

                1. Waldenpond

                  Sanders ‘going to the convention’ is party signalling. He’ll vote for H Clinton just like he voted for B Clinton.

                  The morning swipes at Sanders by Clinton people made me chuckle. He’s now sincerely campaigning against Trump and for Clinton. He’s brought in D voters, he’s making sure they stay engaged with the Ds rather than switch to an indie or the greens, he’s focusing them on Trump and he’s in a position to still raise money. They could not have a better ally.

                  1. Benedict@Large

                    They really don’t get it. Even after Sanders explained it for the hundredth time.

                    It was never about him. It was about his vision. And while he can take himself over to the Hillary side, he can’t take that vision. They don’t want it. And we’re not going without it.

                    And he told them that too.

                  2. RabidGandhi

                    The enemy is vanquished. Does it really matter what happens afterward? Who even cares about the GE; we can eat drink and be merry since the rabble have been halted outside the Versailles gates.

                  3. Waldenpond

                    Another benefit of having Sanders…. he knows he’s a convenient target for media. The elite can conveniently ignore Clinton’s e-mails, foundation scam,wars and keep writing about Sanders and the bros.

    2. Benedict@Large

      Impeachment. And just in time. I was looking for a cause to join after the Sanders thing wraps ups. And tickle me timbers, this time it won’t be about a blow job. This time we’ll have some real crimes.

      1. RabidGandhi

        It wasn’t about a BJ last time, there were real crimes: witness tampering and perjury to a grand jury.

        And the same will happen with this round’s real crimes, a half-arsed kayfabe effort will be made, and they will be distorted into something else.

  5. M.Black

    I’m always a little hesitant to provide a link to Zero Hedge, because of the racist, sexist, crackpot libertarian slant of some of their pieces (and a lot of their commenters), but they do pull interesting stuff from other online sources.

    In this instance they have found evidence of collusion between the Hillary camp and AP, along with what appears to be a screen capture of MSNBC showing an NBC Marist California poll from the end of May with an enormous lead for Sanders — by 17% among Democrats and more than 40% among independents. (This lead is so outsized, I’m wondering if the screen shot was actually not with reference to the straightforward candidate choice of likely voters but something else. Maybe a reader saw the actual MSNBC broadcast. I can’t find this poll online.)

    1. David

      I post warnings when I link to them as well. One commentator called the Zero Jew as well. I like to check in and see how my plans for world domination are going. …..its funny when their commentators cant get snark either. That said it is sort of addicting…..and they are exclusive on stuff like Ken Grifffen is up to.

    2. Dugh

      Lots of goodies (especially the chart porn) on ZH, as long as you understand the environment you’re in over there.

      “However, the discovery of @Cold_Stare that the AP graphic used to tell the world of Hillary’s success had an unusual URL has many questioning whether The Clinton campaign and AP colluded to announce this to avoid a devastatingly embarassing loss in California.
      Here is @Cold_Stare to explain….”

    3. Alex morfesis

      More like zero reality…clikbait…url whois tel number leads to some spam type pop up websites ie house wives date…blah blah blah…corp in netherlands with the word intl in it…

      $hillary would not be so sloppy anymore…

  6. eastofhwy

    From Los Angeles: several NPPs in front of me asking for, and receiving, D ballots. Unfortunately, although I thought I was registered Independent, I am registered ‘American Independent’ (coworker told me that was a common mistake when registering to vote — I was unaware and will remedy in near future) and I was unable to receive a D ballot. Requested possible write-in, poll workers gave me a list of write-in names I did not recognize. Would have loved to cast for Bernie, voted Green and down-ticket.

    1. Adamski

      Oh God I’m so sorry you were a victim of this. A giant mistake that the Sanders campaign made was not publicising this properly. It affects up to half a million people (that’s how many are registered in CA as AIP). Sanders’s people should have been giving instructions by mail to everyone covering this and telling everyone about it at each rally there if they weren’t already.

      1. Clive

        You know, sometimes when I read this stuff from outside the U.S. (which in both the formal education system when I was growing up and — more importantly — the huge influence of what we perceive to be the U.S. cultre is or, to use an awful phrase, its “brand values”, which were/are chockablock with all the usual notions of The Land of the Free and The Most Democratic Country on Earth) I simply cannot believe it.

        But I don’t doubt the veracity of what you and eastofhwy are saying for a single second.

        1. oh

          Too much rhetoric about the US being the largest Democracy. We can’t even get an honest voting system. Why do people have to register at all to vote? Should be able to walk in and vote with a driver’s license. After all, you’re forced to show said ID to register!

          1. Benedict@Large

            I’ve never had a problem voting, but my polling place won’t accept my voter ID as evidence I can vote. They don’t even want to see it. All they’ll accept is my state ID.

      2. zapster

        Sanders campaign did try to publicize this. Facebook had numerous items on it. There was also a suit filed to force the state to publicize it before the deadline, which was denied by a judge. Media, again, of course, refused to mention it.

  7. art guerrilla

    i suspect the feebs/doj droids are jockeying for positions/power, NOT to scuttle cliton…
    there will be no perp walk…

  8. Archie

    What happens if Trump bows out before the RNC? I never thought he was serious about winning.

    1. Archie

      I should add, doesn’t that change the democrat calculus? Even the Mittens would be in a good position to take on the HRC.

    2. sleepy

      I’m just now watching the teevee, and Trump is on railing against Hillary, talking about the pay to play Clinton Foundation, her emails, her support of trade deals, the stinking US infrastructure, and on and on.

      Good for him. He invited Sanders supporters to step aboard.

      1. Archie

        “I’m just now watching the teevee”

        Bless you. You have a much stronger stomach than I do.

        1. Starveling

          He has an uncanny knack for mixing boorishness with truth. Nations get the tranformational figures they deserve, sometimes, and instead of a Lincoln or an FDR modern clown America gets a reality TV hack. A fitting end to an empire that never should have been.

          It reminds me of the Ron Paul phenomena- only Trump seems to have a slightly better right-to-wrong ratio.

          1. sid_finster

            Not only does Trump mix boorishness with truth, many of his most boorish statements are his most truthful, in the sense that he says things that everyone knows to be true, but cannot be said aloud.

            Like his statements on Iraq and Libya.

            I will not vote for him, but I have the luxury of living in a deep red state.

          1. allan

            This Reuters reporter thought that Trump said `No PPP’.
            Presumably he meant TPP, but if he’s against public-private partnerships,
            that certainly distinguishes him from Clinton.

            1. inode_buddha

              just IMHO PPP == theft. Same thing the English did when they said “There are fewest poor where there are fewest commons”

      2. MyLessThanPrimeBeef

        Good for him to speak about the sort of things that people instinctively write about everyday why they can’t vote for her.

        Somebody has to say it.

    3. Waldenpond

      He likes being on tv so I can’t see him giving that up. Plus, winning is fun.

      He could continue on his reality tv shows and dealing real estate while Pres just as Clinton was laundering money while at State.

      Heck, if he thinks it’ll take too much time, he can get sworn in, say ‘just kidding’ and hand it over to his vp. He’d have lots of material for books and tv.

      1. Archie

        I get the narcissist angle. And he is a consummate reality tv star (barf). But actually being President? That seems like a real day job. Which leaves the possibility that he is a trojan horse candidate and all the more reason to vote for him.

        1. NotTimothyGeithner

          Obama and Shrub are two coke heads who have had the job, and they both found plenty of time to not do the job. Trump might be a clown, but he is a hard worker.

          1. Lambert Strether Post author

            Come off it. Shrub was a dry drunk and Obama did weed. No evidence on cokehead, which implies a long-term addition. Don’t make the blog look bad.

            1. Treadingwaterbutstillkicking

              Alexander Cockburn & Jeffrey St. Clair reported Shrub as both a user and possibly a dealer while at Yale, but couldn’t get their source on record:


              Others have reported on the Coke issue as well, including Salon & HuffPost (not insinuating quality reporting here BTW). These aren’t new or even shocking allegations.


              1. sd

                While GHWB was Vice President, local Maine police in the Kennebunkport area were saying one of his sons had been busted with a large amount of coke. It was swept under the rug because local law enforcement didn’t want the bad press.

                I heard this story long before I even knew there was a George W.

  9. katiebird

    I really, really hope that he Wins California and other states. Wins big.

    But, I REALLY hope that he sticks with his pledge to contest the nomination at the convention. I detest this PreConvention Unity shi¡t … Conventions are for hammering out serious issues and if everyone is silenced, why waste the time.

    In the same way that if a winning percentage of preselected delegates really truly — irrevocably — commit to a candidate before the primaries start, then let’s just cancle the Primaries.

    So. I guess I’m #BernieOrBust

    1. MyLessThanPrimeBeef

      On the one hand, voters in some states decide in February or March.

      Other voters decide in May.

      Or June.

      If super delegates decide in January, that is one month before February.

      Those voters deciding in March are 3 months ahead of those deciding in June.

      The time people decide, to me, is not an issue, either last Dec or this month.

      1. katiebird

        But they (the supers) haven’t voted and the can change their minds at any point … Yet we’ve been presented with this supposd force beyond our control from the beginning.

        1. MyLessThanPrimeBeef

          You’re right they can change their minds.

          They can also decide whether or not to tell whomever calling them whom they support. Presumably enough of them have come forth for Clinton this time, she is the ‘presumptive’ nominee.

          So, issue #1 is, yes, they can decide any time.
          #2, if enough of them put someone over the top, that person is the presumptive nominee.
          #3 should we have super delegates?

          To that, I believe the Sanders camp was or has been working on getting them to come over to his side.

          The assumption, then, is super delegates are to be counted…at least for this time.

          The thing to avoid is this: when we can’t get them to come over, we then say they are not legitimate. But if enough want to save the world and come over to our side, they are legitimate and should be counted (we will worry about doing away with them in 2020).

          1. Fiver

            The process is illegitimate and can only be made legitimate in the current case if the party brass (supers) suffer an attack of common decency and side with the evidently more popular and all around far superior candidate. Even a super delegate can in theory be saved.

    2. Carla

      The Democrat and Republican Conventions are owned by their corporate sponsors. Their sponsors (who also own the parties, BTW) will decide what the Conventions are for. You and I will NOT decide.

    3. flora

      I think Bernie will stick to his pledge. Just got a fund raising email from him asking for a donation he’ll divide equally with 7 other progressive candidates he’s supporting, including Canova and Teachout. Staying in the race gives him fund raising strength to help other progressives. Think one of the things most irritating/maddening to the corrupt neolib Dem establishment is Bernie’s fund raising skill from small donors. Progressives raising money outside the Dem estab neolib machine is the machine’s worst nightmare. The Dem estab thought they’d get Sanders to fold in the first few months for lack of money. This isn’t going according to their script. Their unconcealed desperation this late in the campaign is something to see.
      Bernie says he’s in the race until the convention and all the delegates vote.

      1. readerOfTeaLeaves

        As Wall Street on Parade put it, “The Mask Comes Off” in terms of Clinton/status quo’s desperate efforts to fend off Sanders in a last-ditch power-move:

        CBS thinks Sanders is ‘defiant’. As if that’s a bad thing.
        Too bad they can’t see ‘principled’, ‘determined’, ‘focused’, ‘ethical’, ‘original’, or ‘persistent’ when it walks in front of their eyes.
        Instead, they dish up authoritative blather about ‘circling the wagons’ around Hillary and getting ‘unity’.
        If I want bad advice or a terrible analysis, I’ll know where to look. Crikey.

      2. Yves Smith

        While I applaud Sanders raising funds for down-ticket races, I noticed that as of about a week ago, he quit soliciting funds for his campaign and started pitching only for other candidates or asking for phone bank support.

        I don’t know what campaign finance rules are (as in he may be prohibited by law from directing funds from his own campaign to other races), but I don’t like the signal of him stopping raising money for his own race. Similarly, the WSJ is reporting tonight that he is going to be cutting staff for his campaign. I’d be happier if there was a way for him to raise $ from now and segregate it: “If you give, this goes to our efforts though the convention and beyond if we prevail, and if not, we’ll distribute any remaining $ to these candidates [list] equally.”

        1. 3.14e-9

          Yves, the Sanders fundraising email I received yesterday says contributions will be split between Sanders and the six progressives he has endorsed so far, including two new ones, Kingson in N.Y. and Clements in Mich. It doesn’t specify what percentage the split will be. I went back and looked at the Tulsi Gabbard email from Saturday, and the wording is similar.

          I agree that it’s not the same as asking for contributions exclusively for his campaign, but then what would be his hook? Past emails have all been some variation on needing to keep up with Hillary’s big-money campaign. It would be hard to make that pitch now, and he likely understands the risk of hitting up supporters for more money right before he endorses Hillary, if that’s his plan. If it’s not, then I imagine a lot has to happen behind the scenes before he can announce his intentions.

          As for the lay-offs, doesn’t it make sense that he would cut field office staff in states that have ended their primaries? Campaigning is a temp job. The WSJ article and the even more-disparaging NYT version make it sound like he’s laying off people because he “failed” and because he’s running out of money. According to the WSJ, he had “just” $5.8 million in the bank at the end of April, “compared with Mrs. Clinton’s $30 million.” He dumped a bundle on TV ads in California, and now that the biggest primary is over, it seems to me that his advertising and travel budget will be considerably lighter.

          FWIW, I just sent a donation.

          1. 3.14e-9

            I just read the receipts from ActBlue. The contributions were split 50/50 for Tulsi Gabbard and evenly between Bernie and the six candidates he’s endorsing (as Flora noted above).

        2. MojaveWolf

          I just got an email this morning. He’s still raising money for himself, too. No other candidate mentioned.

  10. XYZ

    I voted earlier today in Santa Clara County. I’m pretty disappointed on how open primaries are handled.

    ————————-My Email to Registrar of Voters——————-

    Questions regarding voting instructions for NPP voters — Santa Clara
    County, CA.

    I voted at approx 10:40 am this morning in Santa Clara County,

    The polling place was:

    St. Marks Lutheran Church — Main Hall
    125 E Arques Ave
    Sunnyvale, CA 94085

    I am registered in California as NPP (non-party preference.) I have been
    NPP since I moved to Sunnyvale, CA and registered to vote in May 20XX.

    After providing my id and signing in my name the poll workers attempted
    to give me a Nonpartisan ballot by default. Since I knew the Nonpartisan
    ballot did not have a section to choose a presidential primary candidate
    I pointed to the NP-DEM (which was given to me.) I also asked why they
    attempted to give me a Nonpartisan ballot by default instead of
    inquiring about which NPP ballot I could choose from — I was offered
    zero choices or wasn’t made aware that I had a choice. The poll workers
    told me this was their training.

    My main concern is that a voter registered as NPP who comes in to vote
    may not realize that they have the opportunity to choose to vote in one
    of several open primaries.

    It is not partisan or biased for poll workers to inform voters of all
    they can vote for.

    Again, why were the poll workers instructed to not inform NPP voters
    that they could choose one among several ballots (Democratic,
    Libertarian, probably others)?

    I would very much like a valid response to this question.

    ———————— Response————————————-

    Good Morning X,

    Thank you for your email and question. We have taken many steps to inform NPP voters that they can cross over. We have conducted an aggressive education campaign regarding the ability of “no party preference” (NPP) voters to vote in the Libertarian, Democratic, or American Independent Party primaries. We have mailed over 150,000 postcards to NPP voters informing them they can “crossover” in this manner. In addition, we have distributed information about NPP crossover voting through 1) social media, 2) our website, 3) the Sample Ballot & Voter Information Pamphlet, 4) the Secretary of State’s State Pamphlet, 5) press releases from our office, and 6) media interviews. On election day, any voter asking about crossover voting is referred to the printed explanation available at every polling place. We have posted two copies of the NPP cross over voting notice provided by the Secretary of State’s Office at each polling place, including one at the table where voters check in. However, our elections officers do not automatically offer partisan ballots to NPP voters, because, among other things, we wish to limit any appearance of partisanship or partisan discussion by our Elections Officers. On election day, any voter asking about crossover voting is referred to the printed explanation available at every polling place and/or provided with a partisan ballot.

    Have a great day.

    Shannon Bushey, CERA
    Registrar of Voters
    County of Santa Clara
    1555 Berger Drive, Bldg. 2
    San Jose, CA 95112
    (408) 282-3005

    ——————— My Response ———————————

    Several final points:
    1) I never received a postcard.
    2) The sample ballot certainly does not make the process of requesting a
    party ballot clear.

    ‘We have posted two copies of the NPP cross over voting notice provided
    by the Secretary of State’s Office at each polling place, including one
    at the table where voters check in.’

    ‘However, our elections officers do not automatically offer partisan
    ballots to NPP voters, because, among other things, we wish to limit any
    appearance of partisanship or partisan discussion by our Elections

    This is not what I asked. The polling workers could point out the cross
    over voting notice, indicating to voters that they had a choice. Nobody
    expects a polling worker to offer a specific ballot.

    By the way, putting a notice on a table covered in sign in sheets while
    the voter is signing in is extremely poor placement as the voter focus
    will be elsewhere. I certainly did not see any cross over voting notices
    this morning.

    I have never been as disappointed in a polling place as today — and I
    have voted in every election since 1992 in the many states I have lived

    But I thank you for taking the time to respond. I will be sure to let
    people know about the voting process and your response.

  11. Jay M

    It takes a village, as somebody memorably opined.
    Versailles on the Potomac punches above its weight once again.

    1. Archie

      Interesting article Ian. Sanders has said he will do everything he possibly can to keep Trump from the WH. And I know he has said from time-to-time that he will ultimately support the Dem candidate, but the not-Trump declaration has seemed more sincere and compelling to me. As I posit elsewhere in this thread, what does Bernie do if Trump takes himself out of consideration or the R elites disavow him? That’s a whole new ballgame, imo, and Bernie would likely go for it as an Independent, I think. And it also fulfills my primary hope of this election that both legacy parties would be relegated to the dustbin of history.

    2. Roger Smith

      This would be incredible and it would completely undercut Clinton. I thought he should do this as well as by running, he would force those “ZOMG” Fear Trump folks to vote for him (the candidate who can actually beat Trump.

    3. Samuel Conner

      I’m not sure that I understand what the story is saying. It is a 3rd party independent run that is being described, or simply having Sanders on the ballot as an independent Democrat? There can be multiple candidates self-described as “Democrat” on a ballot. I voted for an independent Democrat for the House (against the “regular Democratic organization” candidate) in the NJ primary today.

      It might be wise to discount this story until the HRC people start screaming. OTOH, it might be a smart move by the Sanders camp, to have a credible threat (somewhere for Progressives to go) to bring with him to the Convention. Perhaps he could press the D establishment to incorpore “single payer” (and other things) into the D platform in exchange for not seeking to be on the ballot in November.

      I do get the impression that there is steel in Sanders’ spine.

      1. Adamski

        I think sore loser laws would prevent him getting on the ballot in many states if he is refused the Dem nomination. Party platform is worthless, so if the threat is a good idea then what he should extract should be — Clinton must publicly endorse single payer and promise to introduce legislation to that effect. And she or Sanders should organise a million person March on DC for single payer to pressure Congress. Indeed single payer is the best if Sanders policies to maximise Congressional gains for the Dems in the general.

    4. Kurt Sperry

      Excuse me if I’m a touch skeptical of lettexassecede’s bona fides and sources here!

      1. NotTimothyGeithner

        Agreed. An organization dedicated to providing up front money for progressive challengers to hire organizers and secure office space would be important to any campaign. Since the Democrat party has no interest, this kind of operation could be a major step by Sanders.

    5. tgs

      I will be disappointed if Bernie runs as an independent. His best move, IMOP, is to run with Jill Stein on a Green Party ticket and get that party back on the map. I am definitely voting for her.

      Bernie’s problem may be that Jill is too far left.

      In any event, what Bernie does not is make or break for his movement. I hope he doesn’t f*ck it up.

      1. Roger Smith

        The Green party is not even on all state ballots. It would be for show and nothing more. As Yves has said many a time, it makes way more sense for the Greens to focus on congressional and local state races, building up a network that they can more easily take national.

        My fear is that he endorses Clinton. X|

        1. Barmitt O'Bamney

          The Greens might not be on all states’ ballots, but they are more likely to be on blue state ballots than on red ones. He would only need to do well in a couple of close states. Causing Hillary Clinton to lose would be more than just cosmetic. If he could accomplish this Bernie would deserve the thanks of a bruised but grateful nation.

      2. Lambert Strether Post author

        Jill Stein is a good person who says the right things. IMNSHO the Green Party is a dysfunctional non-profit no sane candidate should go near. Very smart guy in Maine ran for Mayor of Portland as Green and swore off electoral politics altogether (this after beating off an assault on his petition by a Dem hack, too).

        1. Arizona Slim

          Thanks for confirming what I’ve long suspected about the Greens. Dysfunctional non-profit. That’s what I’ve been thinking.

    6. Waldenpond

      It doesn’t actually say anything….No who, what, when, where, why or how.

      It is true that if he’s going to the convention, it would preclude running in the general.

  12. jrs

    Los Angeles county voting went smoothly for me this morning. But I’m NPP and knew to ask for a Dem party ballot (I even had a mail in ballot but hadn’t used it, I just turned it in). In the 10 minutes or so I was at the polls another NPP voter also walked in and asked for a Dem party ballot, kind of wondering how it worked, I was prepared at that point to help him but the poll workers did. These are paper but machine counted ballots. Poll workers were friendly, helpful, and all ages.

    The thing is I was prepared to fight to the death for my right to vote, and some might have to really argue for it, but I’ve always before found voting in California a really easy experience (but one that sadly is usually mostly irrelevant on a national level) and did this time as well.

    1. jrs

      I have since talked to 3 other people voting in L.A. county two Dems and one NPP voting Dem voting afternoon and evening. Things went well. If the election is stolen it would be the vote counting machines maybe, I got no receipt from them, the poll worker merely told me it was successfully read.

  13. lb

    I live in Santa Clara county. This morning I voted in my largely empty polling station, dropping off my vote-by-mail ballot (I’m still registered with the D-party but likely to change that after this cycle). I asked the 7 poll workers there what instructions they were given for NPP voters. They knew what I meant by NPP but were surprised at my question. “If an NPP voter comes here and wants to vote with one of the parties which allows this, what do you say?” “I tell them they have the right to vote!” “Ok, but what do you give them?” “They’re a crossover voter.” “So do you give them a provisional ballot? Were you instructed to do that?” “No, I give them a crossover ballot”. I believe that last line was what was said (I’m paraphrasing). I explained that elsewhere in the state, instructions were given to give NPP voters in this situation a provisional ballot and the poll workers seemed pretty surprised and off-put.

    Now I wish I’d asked more carefully, just to see if I didn’t ask exactingly enough to find something askew, even if these folks seemed to give good answers.

    1. low integer

      Now I wish I’d asked more carefully, just to see if I didn’t ask exactingly enough to find something askew, even if these folks seemed to give good answers.

      I would suggest that in the future you would be better served by adopting a “clueless” disguise. If you understand the general dynamics of the situation and wish to see if someone, or a group of people, will act ethically, your best bet is to make yourself seem like easy prey, and see what they do. If they do try to pull the wool over your eyes you can continue the “clueless” act, making sure that you achieve your aim (getting the correct ballot) in a roundabout way, perhaps remembering at the last minute that your friend told you something about this and you really would like that particular ballot, and strain to recall the correct phrase, which of course you know back to front. This should avoid confrontation. You can also just drop the “clueless” facade and call people out, but expect some sort of confrontation (if it is a group that you are confronting you will probably end up with multiple people from the group to coalescing around you and talking at you) to occur if you choose this path.

      I know this is a bit late, however your comment was the catalyst for these thoughts.

      1. low integer

        Actually I note that seeing you are registered with the D-party this would not have been an option. In any case, it is a strategy that can be used in many situations.

  14. JCC

    For the first time during my 45 years of voting elegibility, I switched to Dem here in CA 35 days ago for the express purpose of making sure my vote for Sanders would not be compromised by Hillary and her quite obviously not democratic Dem Party. I found it a little degrading personally and regretted my temporary loss of non-alignment status.

    I will be switching back to Independent ASAP… and then pick up a bottle of Jamison to flood the foul taste out of my mouth. I feel like I’ve been shadowed by a bottle of Ipecac for the last month

    I just hope it was worth it.

    On the bright side, at least I won’t have to switch party affiliation to vote against her in November.

  15. Pejsek

    I live in San Francisco. This morning my 18 year old son who voted last Fall without issue and is registered as a Democrat was given a provisional ballot for some reason. I wish I had been there to protest. When I went to vote the poll worker asked me what ballot I wanted. I have been registered as a Democrat for the last four years. The poll worker could not explain to me why she asked the question. I don’t believe I would have had the option of voting Republican. Anyway, I got the Democratic ballot and voted for Sanders. Now looking forward to rejoining the ranks of No Party Preference.

    I agree with what Lambert Strether said above. This campaign is a phase. It has been illuminating to see so many masks dropped. But the Revolution will continue. The underlying issues are not going away,

    1. Kurt Sperry

      Masks dropped, exactly. This election cycle has thrown a light on the divides between the Democrat party and the left. Having Sanders as a viable candidate meant that people had to pick a side. The information gleaned from people in politics and the media (primarily) having to have made that binary choice will five years from now be like the Iraq War vote. People on the wrong side will be backfooted, playing defense and paying the price. This alone makes the Sanders candidacy worthwhile. But there’s so much else too. I think we’re going to win in due course, the trendlines are our friends–the kids get it.

      1. Adamski

        Exactly right. Hardly any Dems under 40 like Clinton. Reuters polling Explorer. A lot of people have been revealed as not caring about getting liberal policies implemented or leading public opinion on the issues other than so called social ssues. Middle aged Dems are still stuck in post Reagan syndrome and just hoping to keep Republicans out. But it’s been ten election cycles since Bill Clinton was elected and they have achieved little. Even gay rights was via grassroots and the courts. 20% of registered Dems used to identify as liberal. Today it’s half. If only the older ones had joined in, Sanders would have got the nom. Sadly it seems like we have to wait for more of the Reagan Dems to die.

  16. Amateur Socialist

    NPR coverage began 8 PM CT with pitiful typical triumphalist Clinton staffer Podesta then switched quickly to Trump speech(?!?) Who says he “welcomes Bernie supporters to his campaign with open arms”.

    1. DG

      Well – at least someone welcomes Bernie’s brigade! Stick a fork in “the lesser evil”…I’m sick of being condescended to and taken for granted!

      1. Kurt Sperry

        I’m still not voting for Trump but it’s nice to know someone at least pretends to want our votes. The Bernie demographic is numerically huge and “swingy” enough (and more so every day) to decide a good chunk of everything, if sufficiently organized and disciplined. Let nobody take us for granted.

        1. Fiver

          Right vis a vis the ‘Bernie demographic’ in terms of size and volatility, and also re organization and discipline, but it is vital to realize the potential heft of this popular movement may never again be realized in the face of the effort and money that will be devoted to crushing that very possibility going forward – within both parties, of course, but also via a virtually certain major assault on independent media.

          As an observer only, what happens now, how the Sanders camp reacts, what choices are made could not be more important for the American people and wider world. The tactics and actions of the Party, the Clinton campaign and the media – with Obama already in ‘lame duck’ mode – were as crassly calculating and tawdry and meant to be taken by the Sanders majority as their having been simply pissed on as anything in modern US political history. The entire process was demonstrably fraudulent – everyone saw it, and how much better an issue than that do people need around which to mount the effort now, with these numbers, to make this the big, non-violent, political fight the intent of which is to reverse a ‘bad choice’ made by the Party and the owners.

  17. Tom Stone

    I voted a few minutes after 7 AM and the polling place was busy. I also happened to drive by two other Polling places in the course of the day and they both had full parking lots.
    Western Sonoma County CA, and I had no problem as an NPP getting a crossover ballot.

    1. Kurt Sperry

      I’m used to the term in the context of engineering drawings. Here’s it means perpendicular to in the more metaphorical sense.

    2. Dugh

      I think of orthogonal in terms of the inner product of two linear operators being zero, as in unique with no overlap.

  18. local to oakland

    Alameda County NPP voter. “I want a Democratic ballot”. Handed one, no issues. About 10 voters present at 8 am.

    1. tegnost

      what I wonder about is someone this morning (nobody?) that they got the dem ballot but it was placed in a provisional sleeve, does anyone know more about this?

      1. nowhere

        Was me. My wife scanned her’s into the vote counting machine (we went at separate times), mine went into a provisional envelope and into a blue sack.

      2. aab

        That’s a provisional ballot. Period. You vote on a regular ballot. it’s put in a pink sleeve, then inside a pink envelope, and not counted like a regular ballot. It is separated and goes back to headquarters for more scrutiny. The LA registrar promised to count all that are valid, but when? And by what definition? It was making me crazy to listen to the inspectors telling people it was EXACTLY like a regular ballot to get them to not make a fuss. It’s not. And it wasn’t clear to me that every county registrar has made that same commitment. I doubt it, honestly.

  19. Paul

    Contra Costa County, CA (Richmond, near Berkeley) NPP voter. Poll worker asked which ballot I wanted. All went smoothly. The polling place, a Korean Baptist church, was pretty quite at 7:30 am. On the way out, a mother and son were entering, the son jumping about excitedly. “It’s his first time,” the mother said to me with an embarrassed grin.

  20. JM

    Is it just me or does that Hillary photo pinned to the tweet read “this was a coronation”. She looks smug.

    1. Anne

      It’s not just you; I nearly lost my dinner when I saw it.

      What you can’t see in that photo is that she’s standing on the rotting body of the democracy, a three-inch Manolo stiletto punched through its heart.

      1. OIFVet

        “Freedumb and democracy” was never more than a propaganda slogan for this great banana republic of ours. Thanks in part to Bernays and his successors, the US has managed to avoid having to answer for its innumerable crimes against humanity, all of them done in the name of…humanity… Somewhere in hell, Goebbels and the rest of the amateurs who ran the third reich are green with envy…

  21. Elizabeth

    SF NPP voter – I asked for a democratic ballot and got one. Voted for Bernie – I was the only voter there (the polling site is West of Twin Peaks). In my area (Inner Sunset) I’ve seen many Bernie signs, but only 2 Hillary signs. I’m hoping for a huge turnout for Bernie.

    I’m kind of skeptical of those vote counting machines, though.

    1. John

      Is anyone not skeptical of vote counting machines? if it is a computer it can be hacked.

  22. eastofhwy

    Re: both AP and Mrs. Clinton — impressive dirty politics. My first thoughts were aghast, thinking it was a joke and then, why bother voting?

    From LA: Several NPPs in front of me asked for, and received, D ballots. Unfortunately, I thought I was registered Ind., but am registered ‘American Ind.’, (a separate party a coworker told me was a common mistake when registering NPP in CA). I was unable to obtain a D ballot; upon asking for write-in possibility, was given a list of names I did not recognize. Wanted to vote for Mr. Sanders, was able to vote down-ticket.

    **(hope this isn’t duplicate — my similar post lost in moderation)

  23. Starveling

    I was discussing with my fiancee today who seems shocked that I’d consider going against Hillary- she wondered why I was giving her a harder time than I give to other candidates in the past. We have a chance, with the Republicans imploding, to get real left-of-center leadership for the first time in my lifetime. Hillary has a single chance to earn my vote- how she tacks after the convention. If she goes for the Republican ‘moderates’ I push the red button and give Trump a vote. If she tacks left for the Bernie vote I might consider listening- but how would we know it is good faith?

    As unlikely as it is, the only thing that might stop Trump from getting my vote is if Bernie ends up on the Green ticket somehow. Some slim odds on that.

    Sad days, these. How long for Cali results?

  24. Schnormal

    9:47PM, Brooklyn Navy Yard: Crowd briefly chanting “Sanders quit!”

    They threw out 126,000 votes just in the borough of Brooklyn. They weren’t even subtle about it (in one area it was everyone whose last name started with N-Z). People should go to jail for that. Instead they’ll be rewarded for helping Clinton hit that fake 3 million mark.

    This whole thing is making me sick.

      1. kimyo

        Second Brooklyn Election Official Suspended After Primary Foul Up

        The Brooklyn Board of Elections office has been under scrutiny since reports surfaced of widespread irregularities at the polls during New York’s presidential primaries. WNYC reported that 126,000 voters were dropped from the registration rolls in the months leading up to the vote, according to data supplied by the Board. On Thursday, Ryan updated that figure to be 123,000 Brooklyn voters.

  25. AJ

    I’ll have to decide between Stein or Trump. This whole thing is so sad and sickening. How did we get here? Where will we be in the next election cycle? My poor children- the world we have left them with is a cesspool of corruption. HRC and her banks are an assault on freedom that I can’t support.

    1. OIFVet

      I am going to write in George W. Bush. Never thought I would consider his presidency as “the good ol’ days”.

      1. jrs

        I like that: George W Bush! (and no of course I did not like the W administration but as a protest vote, it’s great)

  26. inode_buddha

    Exit Polls — I’m betting the reason why they aren’t having them, is to suppress the ability to challenge the results. Shit like this is the reason why the US needs UN election monitors, like any other self-respecting banana republic.

    1. j

      To earn UN election monitors, we would have to make a dramatic show of our BR state, such as
      having violently suppressed riots once or twice in something like successive elections, not just a one-off as we had in 1968. Our docile acceptance of the corrupt election process implies aquiescence, hence, no problem!

  27. Kst

    NPP voter in El Dorado County, California. I’m in a vote by mail district and requested a mail in Democrat ballot from the Elections office via email after I already received the NPP ballot. The new one came in a few days without problems which surprised me. I dropped it off at a polling location this evening that was fully staffed, with about 10 or so voters inside.

  28. Jeff W

    If you can’t (or don’t want to) stomach coverage with talking heads, you can watch the California primary results come in, county by county, on The Guardian’s live primary results page.

    1. Kurt Sperry

      Whoa, early days but Bernie’s having his ass handed to him with 7.1% reporting thus far. I do however dig the little Bernie on a lift truck animations.

      1. Jeff W

        Right, exactly.

        And it’s a little weird—San Mateo, where I live, is showing ~68% for Clinton and 30.7% for Bernie, with 0 precincts reporting? How does that work?

        In any case, the animations make it all worthwhile.

          1. Jeff W

            Thanks. So the earlier reporting is tilted toward vote-by-mail ballots (which would favor Clinton) and the later reporting takes into account the in-poll voting? Given the large percentage of people who vote by mail, it might not matter much, maybe.

    2. Number2Son

      Very depressing results from CA. A 13 point margin? Really? All the so-called progressive counties in the SF Bay Area (mine included) went for Clinton by wide margins. ‘Guess we’re going to get the government we deserve. Again.

      And for anyone holding out hope that Obama’s FBI or Dept. of Justice does their job, you should expect the email issue to get buried. Instead, we can look forward to Republicans continuing their hearing and investigations ad nauseum and congressional gridlock to tighten and the status quo to obtain.

      The only thing left to wonder about is how Clinton will impact down-ballot races. Will the enthusiasm this sucks out of a significant percentage of the voting public be more or less than having Trump on the other side?

      I hate to be cynical, but I wonder why I even bother voting. I hope the younger voters who were energized by Sanders are able to sustain this and help the movement along, starting at the state and local level.

  29. August West

    Weird, CNN reporting 30% of vote in with the same percentages as the NYT live results page. NYT says 6% of vote in.

  30. August West

    I have no words tonight. I am very dispirited and disgusted with the state of our supposed democracy. I may not vote at all. I really hope that Bernies’s movement continues but I’m feeling like the odds are against any non establishment truth speaker. I generally just feel tired of it all. With that, I will say goodnight.
    Bernie may still pull ahead in Cali but I just can’t listen and read any more. My head is swimming with propaganda. I don’t know what is truth anymore.

    1. Lambert Strether Post author

      A contemptible party deserves contempt. Fortunately, the English language is not static. Semantic drift is a wonderful thing, especially when it’s not a drift but a push.

  31. perpetualWAR

    Well, Bernie did call for a revolution……just wondering if that means another “Queen” will lose her head when the peasants want more than bread crumbs?

  32. C

    I have to say that I have never particularly disliked Hillary Clinton. I oppose many of the policies that she has defended and I, along with most of her donors, assume that she will reverse her stated opposition to the TPP and support for increasing the minimum wage the instant it is convenient to do so.

    But her conduct over the course of this election. The actions of her surrogates in openly threatening others, and her dogged insistence on avoiding the substance of Sanders’ claims has really turned me off. More to the point her use of almost every dirty trick that she has accused the R’s of using from missing registrations in New York to AP-backed vote suppression have convinced me that she cannot be trusted.

    If anything her constant fear of Bernie Sanders has been borne out. I am less likely to vote for her now than I was before. And all of the time she spends attacking Donald Trump will not change that. In many respects in terms of the actual policies that will affect me, I see no clear daylight between them, and my fear with her is that she would actually be more effective in implementing them than he would.

    1. C

      As a case in point, while the TPP is an obvious issue, consider the minimum wage.

      She haltingly, unwillingly, comitted to backing it when it looked like she might lose New York. She got the endorsement of the SEIU but did nothing for them. Not one word in support of their signature issue. Not one attempt to back the fight for 15 or even to smooth the way. And what she finally did say still has enough wiggle room to mean nothing. That, in many respects is her in a nutshell. Even after you give her your full undivided support all you get is a vague promise and indignant criticism for ever doubting her. What good is that?

    2. C

      I also have to add the AP to the list of organizations that shocked me with their coverage. It has taken them years to build up a reputation of trust but that one story burned it all away.

      It is not that I disagree with it. It is just that it was so deliberately a plant, so obviously content free, and violated all of their own rules. Such a story would have been halted in a college newspaper let alone any competent organization.

      The fact that a reporter wrote it and an editor approved it means that at an organizational level they wanted this to happen. This in turn means that all of their other coverage is suspect. If you violate your own rules so blatantly in this serious instance. What else are they doing?

    3. Adamski

      No, no, no! Another instance where the Sanders campaign dropped the ball — she said she opposes TPP in its current form! And the vote in Congress is being put off until after the election so no one can lose their seat over it in November. Opposing it in its current form means nothing, there are so many other countries that it cannot be renegotiated. It’s accept or reject. Reject please. As worthless as when she and Obama said in the 2008 debates that NAFTA could be renegotiated. They weren’t gonna.

  33. nowhere

    I really hate to impugn the integrity of those commenting in this thread, but, Lambert, I wonder if you check the IP addresses of some of the (new?) people commenting that they didn’t have problems securing a ballot (NPP voters), if there are any anomalies. There are a lot of names that I don’t recognize commenting, but…

    I probably need to remove my tin-foil hat and go to bed…

      1. thump

        I’m a longtime reader but an infrequent commenter. As many have said, we Californians are unaccustomed to the attention in this election. :)

      2. Waldenpond

        It’s absolutely dependent on the individual you come into contact with. I made an error on my ballot, went to the elections office, asked for a new one and got one. I was asked for my torn up one and offered to get it. Nope, just got a new one, filled it out, put it in it’s envelope, signed and left.

        It can take multiple times to register, a person can be dropped, switched, purged, and still get the wrong ballot in mail or person. I know some people routinely register to avoid some issues. The lists can be a mess and you have to be vigilant. It clearly isn’t worth the effort for many.

      3. XYZ

        I’m a long time reader (every day) but I rarely comment (as in once every 2 years or so). I added in my comments because they seemed relevant on-the-ground-information for today. My guess is that there are many, many (hopefully many more manys) more readers of NC than explicit commenters. Voting experience probably depends county by county so I wouldn’t read too much into new names and I’m glad others commented about their experiences, positive or negative.

        I did not agree with the Santa Clara County polling station information policy and had no issue contacting the Registrar of Voters over that and I was not satisfied with her answer. A timid NPP voter — given a Nonpartisan ballot — may have just not voted in the presidential primary. Regardless, I’m originally from Northern Nevada (Reno) and the Nevada debacle really pissed me off.

        As of 10:45 tonight Senator Sanders looks like he is getting stomped in my adopted state and it makes me sad. I’m in my 40s and this is the first time in my life I actually respected a presidential candidate. Not much more to say.

      4. Waldenpond

        Looks like CA voted for the suspension of convicted politicians item. Too bad. It was presented as a way to get rid of politicians but it made it harder expel convicted politicians (the vote was 50% +1, now it’s a 66% vote) and easier to just suspend with pay and benefits.

        I vote for less politicians all the time and vote for initiatives and encourage others to vote for initiatives. I imagine people are just busy and didn’t get around to reading their information booklet. I knew I was going to unregister as a D but I’m have a hard time imagining voting at all.

        1. jrs

          I agree with you. I voted against it. Noone serious seemed to be making an argument against it (the arguments presented against it on the ballot for instance were utter garbage arguments), but my own thinking just told me it was bad news, even if the noone was making the REAL argument against it – which in itself was odd.

    1. ambrit

      I’ll see your Gore Vidal, and raise you one Bill Buckley. “Real” conservatives will be looking into becoming ‘preppers’ about now. (We all know that the time to do that was when the Arch Demon Reagan was ‘anointed.’)
      /sarc/ Hey Thumpers! It’s perfectly clear! Reagan was the Anti Christ, and H Clinton is coming into town riding on the back of a seven headed beast! /sarc/

  34. Wellstone's Ghost

    I want Bernie to go into Philadelphia and call out these charlatans on national television for the elitist bastards they are. Give the citizenry a good solid look at the people we have in DC. Make the beltway gang squirm, if only just a little. A few predictions would be nice too. We can look at them on youtube years from now and remind ourselves what a mistake the Democratic party made. Then tell Hillary, “its all yours.” (followed by mic drop)
    P.S. Hold your local superdelegates accountable going forward FOREVER

  35. robnume

    My son was disenfranchised today in California.He had registered ‘Independent’ and did change his affiliation to ‘Democrat’ well before the deadline and was still on the rolls as an ‘Independent.’ Wish I’d read Lambert’s piece much earlier bout the ‘crossover democratic ballot.’ .

  36. Optic

    First time commenter here. Just started reading this site a couple of days ago. Interesting content and comments.

    Anyway, regarding today’s events… the one thing that has kind of stuck out for me – has anyone noticed that the Democratic primary in North Dakota had a grand total of 394 votes? Yes, 3 digits – 100% reporting, Bernie had 253 votes and Hillary had 101. Seems a bit crazy. Does anyone know the story behind this?

    Something else I wanted to mention regarding NPP ballots in California: My wife and I live in LA county, are registered NPP, and registered for permanent vote by mail ballots. A few months back we received letters asking if we wanted to receive a Democrat ballot, or one of the other choices (since we were NPP). We just had to make our choice, sign, and return, then we received our Democrat ballots some time later. All in all it worked out pretty smoothly, and it’s just something that I haven’t heard anyone else mention yet.

    1. sd

      No one in our household received letters. On top of that, one member had their party affiliation switched to Democratic even though they’ve been registered NPP for some time.

      1. Optic

        Interesting, sd. I don’t recall if the letter was from the county or from the state. If it was from the county, that may explain some of the discrepancies. I can understand that lots of mistakes may have been made, but they did set themselves up for it.

  37. aab

    Finally back from my long, long day of poll working in California.

    Every member of my team was a Bernie supporter. I think we’re all #Bernieorbust, but since we weren’t supposed to talk politics AT ALL, things slipped out obliquely. The head of the team is an old lefty prepared to vote for Trump if Bernie’s not on the November ballot.

    I am so saddened to hear of the disenfranchisement going on elsewhere. We told EVERY SINGLE NPP voter they could crossover. We bent over backwards to help people understand that was an option.

    Vote By Mail is a farce. The information isn’t very clear, so lots of people ask for it, then throw it out, show up at the polls, and then, since they’re only allowed one ballot, they have to vote provisional. That was at least 50% of our provisionals.

    They sent us to work a suburban, wealthy, conservative, mostly Republican precinct. They were crawling over glass to cast their vote for Trump, even though they all knew he had clinched the nomination. They were DYING to vote for him. One woman drove home to get her discarded Vote By Mail ballot so she could be sure it would be counted today. Aren’t these the kinds Republicans Hillary is planned to poach? Anecdote not data, obviously, but it sure didn’t look like that has a hope of working.

    I haven’t looked at the results. The fix is so obviously in. Even after we all knew vaguely that it was really bad, once the voters were gone the other members of my team were passing around their phone pix of Bernie from the rallies they had attended, speaking about him in awe.

    This will be an interesting summer.

    1. Jeff W

      “This will be an interesting summer.”

      Now is the winter of our discontent
      Made glorious summer by this sun of (New) York.

      —with apologies to Shakespeare’s Richard III

  38. Kim Kaufman

    I was a pollworker today in my poll in Los Angeles. We had about 15% who had to vote provisional for a variety of reasons – some longtime voters disappeared from the roll, others came in to vote but didn’t know they had to bring their vote by mail ballots to exchange, some didn’t know they were VBM (if they, in fact, were). They were five precincts in one large room and all were surprisingly under-staffed. There was a long line most of the day in one but not the others which was weird. Screwy stuff elsewhere:
    This was the most disorganized election in LA I have seen in a long time. Not sure why yet. But the nature of these primary elections is hugely difficult. We had 9 different kind of ballots to hand out. Hillary had a much bigger lead (in CA) when I got home which is obviously absentee ballots. Bernie is rising now that today’s ballots are coming in. Doesn’t look like he’s going to win CA and doesn’t look like I’ll stay awake much longer to find out tonight. Supposedly Bernie is meeting with Obama on Thursday. No matter: it’s not going to change many opinions about how awful Hillary is and how low this country has sunk with two totally rotten candidates running for president.

    1. dk

      Underfunding? At least, that’s what underfunding would look like.

      I have no knowledge, it’s just a guess. This would be found by comparing County budgets year over year, the State budgets usually kick something in, too.

      But that’s the way to undermine the elections system. Ballot twiddling? Voter purges? Available options, but so complicated and relatively risky (unless you’re running your email server at home). No, just starve the whole system, well in advance. Real taxpayers don’t want it anyway.

    2. aab

      By contrast, my rich Republican precinct — actually TWO rich Republican precincts in one gym — were overstaffed, and the longest the line ever got was maybe three people, only a handful of times.

      It was quiet and calm, all day long, in terms of our workload. We did get people saying they’d been switched, they had been registered as one thing for years and were now another, they had specifically switched away from Vote By Mail so why were they still registered like that. One guy got really upset and said he was never going to vote again. Another guy came to say that he was told at his polling place no Democrats were allowed to vote there and he’d have to do a provisional at ours. And the scanner at the other precinct was broken all day, and despite numerous calls to the guy over our heads, he didn’t come by until late afternoon.

      But it wasn’t like the reports I’m hearing from places like UCLA. And it’s hard to know how many of these people really were screwed by the registrar, given that so many were coming in and making lots of mistakes of their own. I would guess it was about half and half — in a precinct where they probably weren’t worried about Bernie voters. It’s also a form of suppression that it’s so over-complicated. These were the calmest, most entitled voters imaginable. One guy couldn’t remember which of his many houses was his registration address. And it still didn’t work very well.

  39. dk

    From the NYT liveblog:

    Nate Cohn 2:05 AM ET
    Here’s what I’m still not clear on: What does he want?

    Nate means, “What’s he negotiating for, does he think he can get a cabinet seat? What’s his price?”

    This is what total immersion in the political circus does. Everybody says stuff, that stuff is either dog whistling or focus-group tested pap, with plastic sprinkles for “flavor”. It doesn’t really count as speech, it’s theater, kayfabe. This=not-this, that=nothing, read my lips, not my voting record or my contributor lists.

    Then Bernie goes viral/national with direct, detailed and articulate issue positions (starting with the same ones he’s been presenting for decades) and it’s completely opaque to these people. What’s behind the curtain? How can anything have actual meaning without the agenda of a big-money interest behind it? Single payer impossible, no more stupid wars impossible, bank breakups impossible, WHAT DOES HE REALLY WANT? Because the things he’s saying are IMPOSSIBLE.

  40. Mr. Tibbs

    I am a long-time NC reader and a NPP mail-in voter in Santa Clara County, California. In late March, I received a reply card from our Board of Elections asking if I wanted a party ballot or a generic NPP ballot. I checked off the box for the Democratic Party and sent it back. When I received my ballot, I voted my preferences and sent it back (they even pay for the postage). The whole process couldn’t have been simpler or easier. I don’t know if every county in California operates this way, but I suspect they do.

    Honestly, you have to be living under a rock not to understand how to vote by mail in this state. I have spoken with lots of NPP voters over the last few months, and none have complained about an effort to suppress their vote with arcane rules and unreasonable demands on the voter. Compared to the crazy ballot measures we are regularly asked to vote on, it doesn’t take much effort for a NPP voter to figure out how to vote in a party primary.

    I am proud to have supported Bernie’s campaign with several donations, phone canvassing, and persuading family and friends in other states to vote for him. However, I must say that if there was any lingering confusion on the part of some NPP Bernie supporters as to how to obtain a Democratic Party ballot, whether voting by mail (as 60% of us do here) or in person, much of the blame lies with the Sanders campaign itself. One of the primary functions of any political organization is to educate its voters how to vote for its candidate. Unfortunately, I saw virtually no effort on the part of the campaign to do this. No television ads, no radio ads, no online ads.

    One of the things that attracts me to Bernie is his appeal to people who do not vote. We need to turn them into voters if we are to have any hope of making fundamental change to the system. Part of that job is not simply to implore people to vote, but to show them how. The “system” is not going to do it for us.

    Whatever happens between now and November, we have to keep this movement alive and growing so that no matter who wins the presidency, they will continue to hear our collective voice. We’re not going away.

    1. jrs

      yea kinda. IF it was stolen it was probably by the machines that count the vote, but since this is politically incorrect around these parts (and admittedly sometimes hard to know – so the results might very well be legit although having no exit polls is fishy) watch all kind of weird speculations and descent into ever further weirdness. It IS at least as difficult to make heads or tails of most propositions we have to vote on as to figure out the NPP voting.

      1. MojaveWolf

        I do not care how politically incorrect it is to say this The vote counts in Cali were rigged, Period. I will never again trust any US election that is not 100% hand counted paper ballots w/multiple observers, unless possibly it clearly and obviously goes against the desires of our “ruling class”, and even then I’d be raising an eyebrow and wondering about hidden agendas. Sorry to sound foily but this result has absolutely destroyed my trust in American democracy, and I don’t see how anyone not willfully blind can’t be at least wondering the same thing as I’m near certain of.

        The proposition was pretty clear, I thought, tho its effects were less clear. I thought it was a bad idea and voted no. O

  41. Mark Alexander

    It’s 3:11 AM EDT, and it appears Clinton is winning California, 58.2% vs Sanders at 40.8%.

    As a former Californian (I lived there for 54 years) I’m saddened and disheartened by this result. I really thought they’d do better than this.

    Yes, Sanders’ speech was rousing, but in the end, I believe the D-party is beyond reform. Clinton may make a few feints to the left to appeal to the voters that her husband recently described as “toast”, but it will all be for show and forgotten after the convention.

    I fear for the future of this country. We appear to be heading towards a situation where our next president will make us think nostalgically of Nixon.

  42. itsallgood

    why all the doom and gloom people? You really thought the game wasn’t rigged? That Sanders would be President???

    This whole election has me elated. People are more aware than they have ever been.

    1. Mark Alexander

      I’m not totally doomed and gloomed. The young people give me hope. They don’t care about party loyalty, and don’t get their information from the NYT and NPR. But we’ll have to go through a few more cycles of incremental crapification (a.k.a. “nuanced wonkiness”) before things get better. This is assuming Hillary doesn’t start WW3 with Russia, in which case we might as well be singing some Tom Lehrer songs like “So Long, Mom” and “We’ll All Go Together When We Go.”

  43. MojaveWolf

    Hello there. Since I’ve been on record here repeatedly saying I expect Sanders to win Cali by over 20%, and that is clearly not the official result, here’s my take:

    These results are pure fraud. I expect my ballot (mail ballot, dropped in mail ballot drop off in local library on Monday) is in ashes somewhere and a fake one in its place. I will repeat, these results are plain impossible. I have nothing kind or non-insulting to say to anyone who thinks they even might possibly have even a 1% chance of being accurate.

    My feelings are shared by a lot of people across the state. And (no, I’m not counting my twitter feed, which is obviously self selecting) I know 100s of people across the state, including in areas you’d think would go for Clinton, and at least half are in the 50+ demographic that is supposed to be for Clinton, and 25-30% are non-Caucasian. I know TWO Hillary supporters. Retired Navy in San Diego. Taking that further, NONE of the other Bernie supporters (or the Trump supporters, who are in a minority except among military) know many (or in a lot of cases any) Hillary supporters (and those who say they do know several list all of those as being rich Republicans who don’t like Trump and can’t vote in this primary).

    Democrats in RICH parts of the state seem to overwhelmingly prefer Bernie.

    Supposedly, Hillary won my county by over 20%. This is the county where, in the last couple of weeks while I’ve been wearing Bernie shirts & hats, 60 yr old white women, Hillary’s key demographic, when I gesture to them to get the shopping cart 1st, get it and give it to me, saying “Because you’re voting for Bernie.” An older black man, again, her key demographic, who I’ve never met before, walks up to me and shakes my hand and says “Bernie all the way.”

    To pick somewhere else I once lived at the time of said election, this result is the equivalent of claiming Mondale beat Reagan by double digits in Alabama in 84. It didn’t happen. THIS didn’t happen. And neither did a Hillary win in Cali in 2016. (and lest you think I just have no decent sense of things, I called 2008 for Obama after Iowa and can provide a link if you want, even tho I hated him & did everything I could to fight the inevitable; I have a pretty good sense of these things, not that 2008 was a particularly hard call)

    Yeah, early voting blah blah bull****. Rich sociopaths and their lackeys are a distinct minority, still. And there aren’t that many dementia patients for them to fill out ballots for. (before someone yells at me, I do not mean to insult dementia patients. My mother has dementia. Some HRC person may have filled out a ballot for her for all I know. I wouldn’t be surprised.) These results are garbage.

    This is such obvious, extreme, blatant cheating it’s like they are daring anyone to call them on it. I’m assuming it’s an effort to crush people’s will; I’m hoping it does the reverse.

    If it stands, and no one does anything, it’s the death of democracy. Seriously. We’re not talking small cheating here we’re talking about something truly massive. We might as well live in Soviet era Russia for all the validity of this result.

    At least half of you probably think I just don’t like who won but I’m telling you, this result is NOT POSSIBLE. It’s not real. If these results are legit may I wake up paralyzed tomorrow. I’m that sure.

    At this point anyone voting for Clinton is voting for an end to democracy. Really. This is so not good I don’t have words. If the Democratic party doesn’t repudiate this I’m going to actively work to defeat even their halfway decent candidates, since I think the only way to get real elections back is to purge everyone in power now. It makes me question every single result across the country, because these have no basis in reality. Really, really horrifying and ENRAGING, both at the same time.

    1. EricT

      That’s what happened in MA. Everyone I spoke to after the election didn’t know anyone who voted for Hillary. Our democratic republic is a sham.

  44. Number2Son

    MojaveWolf, I understand your anger. I live in Alameda county and I don’t know where Clinton’s margin comes from either.

    Only 91K votes for Sanders? In the county of UC Berkeley? Of Berkeley for that matter? What happened to all those “progressives”? On my small street alone there were 6 Bernie signs? Huh? It’s baffling to me.

    But I can’t believe this is simply the result of fraud. I rather expect this comes down to voters who haven’t followed the election closely and given the overwhelming establishment support for Clinton (both in the Dem party and media) that this made the difference.

    That’s the problem.

    The system itself is broken. And this is what we get as a result. I’m hopeful that even though those who were motivated and engaged were outnumbered this time around, that our energy can be turned into change that will make a difference in the elections that follow.

    1. Adamski

      I think it can be easily explained with the NPP voters who did not specifically ask for Dem crossover ballots because they didn’t know they had to, by mail-in ballots due to earlier voters being much more pro-Clinton in previous states, and by half a million Californians who thought they registered independent but instead chose American Independent Party which does not entitled them to a Dem crossover ballot. I was alarmed that Sanders’s campaign wasn’t talking about these issues incessantly in the run-up to this primary, maybe the people doing the ground work in the state were doing so but I didn’t see it from the campaign in the media

      1. MojaveWolf

        I woke up this morning and am not paralyzed. Therefore, I stand by my certainty that there was actual fraud as well as all the other kinds of cheating.

        And that makes at least as much, I would argue more, logical sense than the official “results”, and has at least as much, if not more, basis in reality.

        But yes, there was plenty of other sorts of shenanigans going on too. We need hand counted paper ballots with multiple observers for every step of the process from collection to counting everywhere. That would cost less and be more productive than a lot of things our government does. Plus give lots of people jobs. Get the same kind of nationwide economic boost as during the census.

    2. Tyler

      I moved to California about 10 years ago from the midwest, and was initially surprised by how less progressive (or liberal or whatever is the right term, since every term has been coopted by frauds) California is from where I lived in the midwest. Even in Berkeley — there is a huge contingent of the wealthy that work in San Francisco in finance, business, academia, etc. and live in the hills away from visibility. Many Californians (especially in the Bay Area) are socially liberal and yet libertarian or fiscally conservative.

      I think the problem is that reliable and engaged voters are the wealthy, and they do not want to rock to boat or prefer the current system. The wealth is substantial, especially in San Francisco, and the Bay Area. I read that the top 20% income in San Francisco is around $200k+. In the rest of the country that would put you in the top few percent of income earners.

      The less wealthy are unengaged because of the lack of responsiveness of government to their needs. Sanders tried to convince these individuals to vote, and in some places he was successful. In other places, less successful. My sense is that this movement Sanders is attempting will stall — it will not succeed until the technocratic class is decimated by bad trade deals and a flagging economy. And I do think that the technocratic class is next in line for losing, which would make their current voting ironic.

      1. Adamski

        Yes and there is a problem with the electorate seeing “liberals” who can be identified by their social liberalism and the economic stuff is merely implied and it can always be put on the back burner once in office. Now that Sanders presented a clear choice voters may wake up and see that. The discussion of the record of the Clintons has been healthy too. The age and class cleavage in the party has become very visible from the opinion polling.

        I was arguing with a Californian plutocrat about this lately who was saying such-and-such income is middle class, er, middle class in California. I looked up figures, I see it’s an unequal state and top heavy. Also reflected in housing costs, When it was all about Bush-bashing and then hoping-for-change from Obama there was party unity and it seemed that all liberals were friends. Not anymore.

        I can’t say this often enough but the main reason it was important for Sanders to win is that he would not be a deficit hawk when the next recession happens, and he has the tried and tested formula for being mayor of Burlington is the legislative branch is obstructing you — do what you can, while making public appeals for more support, then you can gain council (Congress) seats at the next election, instead of losing them like Bill Clinton and Obama did. Hillary Clinton might try the appeal to the Very Serious People by trying to balance the budget during a recession (remember grand bargains, if you doubt me that she would ever be that stupid).

        If politics is a powder keg today, imagine what if a new recession begins before this current recovery has been complete for most people! Even another 4 years of poor growth would mean the anger won’t subside; the Republicans will get crazier for example.

        On trade deals… Clinton says she opposes TPP “in its current form”, Sanders should have called her on that. Obama and Ryan have put off the vote until after the election, to prevent either party losing a seat when voting in favour. But get ready for more Dem losses in the midterms when they’ve ratified it and their constituents feel betrayed.

        1. Pat

          Not just Dem losses, this is a loser for most Republicans as well. I don’t know that their thought that voters will forget it in two years will work for the House members who just got reelected. The timeline for the Senate is better, six years is a long time when you don’t recognize the devastation this sucker will wrought. It is their best shot, but I’m really hoping it is a Hail Mary at this point. The sad thing is that I’m pretty sure the idiots who will obey party over voters on this will largely be the Dems.

      2. jrs

        I think the midwest is most open to Sander’s ideas because there is actually a lot less wealth inequality in the midwest. California is pretty polarized between rich and poor with a small middle class trying to hang on and constantly more squeezed. I don’t know that you actually can easily get traction for social democratic ideas in such a situation, with a few wealthy and hundreds of peasants.

  45. TheCatSaid

    As to where Sanders’ votes have gone, please see the link to info about the RICO lawsuit filed yesterday by two experienced election lawyers, Bob Fitrakis and Cliff Arnebeck. They’ve been gathering evidence since 2004 relating to election fraud. See the full video at The Institute for American Democracy and Election Integrity from a public meeting headed by Lori Grace at the end of May. There are additional clips and explanations at their main website,

    They’re going after the major media as accessories as well as those involved in directly carrying out the election manipulation.

    They are unequivocal that there is evidence that Bernie Sanders had sufficient primary election votes to win the Democratic primary.

    See also and their new report “Fraction Magic”. It includes evidence of fraud in the code of central tabulating computers used widely in many states. Since this “software patch” unapproved code was introduced in 2001, the many tabulators that count up the votes includes “features” that easily allow anyone to outright change elections in a large number of areas in precisely controlled ways, with only 60 seconds of physical access to the machine by a non-expert.

  46. Jeremy Grimm

    Time to push hard against TPP, TTIP, TISA. With Hillary in office I think they will find new life.

  47. Dave

    Too bad Greg Palast’s words
    “if you say the wrong syllables, in some counties, you will be denied a Democratic presidential ballot” –“Request a Crossover ballot”
    weren’t disseminated well BEFORE the California primary. We could have posted them all over the California media. All we saw were stories about New York’s provisional ballots not being counted and links to his books etc.

    Complexity is the enemy of democracy. Taking complex ideas and clarifying and simplifying them is the only way to educate the voting public.

    Most importantly, this applies to finance as well. Yves and Lambert, it would be great if you had an alternate feed to N.C. whereby certain important articles were slimmed down and simplified for the non-elite and non college-finance educated working class and poor person to read.

    The information in N.C. is golden, but usually is too long and too complex for the Short Attention Span reader to comprehend. If you want to feed a revolution, you need to bake more bread and fewer souffles.

  48. ks

    Interesting West Coast demographics. Washington, Oregon, and the northern part of northern California, all very non-Hispanic white, went for Bernie. He also carried very white mountain towns on the eastern side of Calif. In general, the more ethnically diverse the county, the more likely Clinton carried it. There are some anomalies – Clinton carried wealthy, white Marin Co. and Sanders carried UC campus-dominated Santa Cruz Co. (about 32% Hispanic), probably reflecting the influence of wealth in the former and students in the latter – but, at a glance, Clinton got the Hispanic vote.

    1. Dave

      Marin County is the wealthiest and healthiest county in the west, and the most educated. It’s where wealth goes to live and often drapes itself in Hippie regalia. Can’t tell you how many brand new Mercedes SUVs are parked at Spirit Rock Meditation Center alongside old Toyota station wagons with sleeping bags and lots of possessions piled up in them, hawk feathers on the dashboard and plenty of faded Obama stickers on the tailgate and bumper; so how’d that work out for ya?

      Hillary is the choice of the money mensches and the comfortable with some exceptions. Most of Bernie’s supporters are poor and have nothing to lose. Most of Clinton’s supporters have lots to lose.

      1. ks

        Dave, Not entirely true. I canvassed for Bernie and in my city most of his supporters were middle class and unhappy about the direction society was heading. I know Marin. It used to be just plain affluent and smug, now it’s wealthy and smug and considers itself progressive.

    2. TheCatSaid

      No, she probably didn’t win the minority votes. Please see the recent posts on the latest thread, about the Puerto Rico election, here and especially here.

      What is coming out is more shocking than I thought.

  49. Lambert Strether Post author

    Regardless of how you parse the chicanery, the left needs to figure out how to fight and win battles where its opponents base both tactics and strategy on identity politics. It really is that simple, and it will take time and effort.

    1. MojaveWolf

      That is true, tho I don’t think we actually “lost” this one outside of the official count. Massive disenfranchisement + massive fraud were, imo, needed on top of the massive propaganda by every MSM outlet and lots of the less obviously corporate places.

      1. Lambert Strether Post author

        There are excellent reasons to view Churchill dubiously. That said, the man could speak. From his “Bright Gleam of Victory” speech in 1942:

        Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.

        That’s pretty much how I feel about this primary. Adding… I think Sanders lost the election, and would have lost regardless of the election fraud, the voter suppression, and the rigging the Democrat establishment did. That’s not the same as losing a “revolution,” which by definition transcends a single campaign.

        I think the clearest gleam comes from the idea that “in a crisis, things correlate.” In AP’s election fixing story, for example, we see signs of a crisis in the elites: They “circled the wagons” (i.e., correlated with other elite factions). It’s the same deal with people like Tanden and DeLong going McCarthyite on leftists (more correlation). We should take their fearful body language as a serious data point.

        NOTE This is important, because the idea of the liberal order is that systems have relative autonomy, and derive their hegemony from the perceived integrity with which players in those systems exercise that autonomy; for example, that AP has a duty to report on elections, not fix them; that tenured university professors don’t keep lists of people they’ll fire once an election is won; that think tank CEOs making $340K a year don’t “kick down” by getting lowly bloggers fired.

        The 20%ers at AP, at Berkeley, and at Demos/CAP have, you might say, good will on the balance sheet. It will be interesting to see how of that good will they will be seen to have sacrificed, in future, simply to win an election. My guess is a good deal.

        1. Nekto

          The 5/27/2016 video from clearly and factually indicates the legal violations of the voting system, which they have been investigating for over a decade. And they claimed to open another law suit by 6/6/2016 specifically for this campaign regarding literal stealing the votes by the electronic vote registration system and suppressing the exit poll results by major MSM, which, presumably, resulted in cancelling the exit polls. The NC hosts must be well familiar with these people, one of whom is a co-chair of OH Greens. They made rather serious allegations saying that Sanders was supposed to win the elections, and everything would be available to public by the Democratic convention. So, it sounds very impressive even if only a fraction of it can be legally justified.

          Since NC pays so much attention to the current elections and the Bernie Sanders candidacy, It would be very helpful if NC hosts expressed their opinions about this video and the in general.

            1. Nekto

              They have a short summary of the 2.5 h video on the home page.

              “Concern has been expressed that the exit polls of the Democratic Primaries for this year, when compared to electronic voting machine totals, seem to show a pattern that might suggest that the electronic vote totals in about ten states may have been shifted from apparently votes from Sanders to Clinton. In contrast to other nations, exit polls used currently by the Federal Government to assess election fraud in other countries are adjusted continuously on election day to match electronic voting machine totals, rather than to determine whether the electronic vote is accurate. Edison Research which has done all the prior exit polls in this primary has refused to release the raw data, as it has routinely refused since 2004. A lawsuit is being submitted in Ohio about the refusal of both the Media Consortium and Edison Research to release the raw data which would show much more accurately who people really voted for.”

              “As computer security expert Stephen Spoonamore notes in the video above, when exit poll data varies more than 2% from electronic vote totals, the electronic vote totals are questionable. In fact, 2% is used as the boundary by the US government when determining that the election in another country other than the US has possibly been stolen.”

              The table data displayed on the page show the difference between the CNN exit poll results and the vote counts published the next day. They show various discrepancies of the Clinton-Sanders margin in favor of Clinton, many of which reach double digits. Based on this data, Sanders was the winner by the exit polls in MA (8% difference), IL (4.1% dif.), and MO (3.9% dif.) and lost OH by 3.8% rather that 13.8%.

              Even given the unusually large margins of errors, all uncertainty was in favor of Clinton, which can certainly cause reasonable doubts. Anyway, the case is supposed to be in the court by now, and this seems to be the most serious chance for Sanders to dispute the election results. And CA, where the exit polls were cancelled and the results were highly unexpected, is also a case in doubt. BTW, this organization conducted public exit polls in some CA counties, but they haven’t published the results yet. So, this site might be worth paying attention to.

        2. Fiver

          To assert Sanders ‘lost’ the election implies it was possible for him to win it, that he therefore either did not intend to win it, or otherwise did not do that which could have won it for him.

          I believe Sanders could’ve hit Clinton much, much harder with nothing but the truth of her own making, and taken her out of the race. He did not do it, and it’s not likely we’ll ever know precisely ‘why’. That said, what did transpire made it abundantly clear that so far as power was concerned, it was anybody but Sanders and popular, progressive political success via the ballot box was simply not going to be tolerated absent a far more robust, peaceful but determined, negative reaction from the electorate.

          If that very simple but awful truth is not sufficient of itself to galvanize a mass response by at least one of the tens of millions of the now essentially disenfranchised, including the bulk of the best people of the next generation, it’s very difficult to imagine what will unless Sanders now chooses to make legitimacy itself his fight. But Sanders is 74 years old, will doubtless be exhausted once the adrenaline ebbs, and unless he’s still got plenty of fire perhaps can’t be expected to carry this fight any further, meaning whatever leadership might emerge to oppose those bent on planetary ruin – the assured ground zero of our current dismal trajectory – is going to have to devise different means to confront illegitimate power in order to compel that power to respect legitimate democratic process. The gauntlet’s been thrown. If not recognized for what it is and picked up to return to sender with a little something extra on it, and now, there is no guarantee whatever another opportunity to get even this close to a peaceful transfer of power back to the people will ever again present itself.

    2. aab

      I think we have. It’s only election theft that has “won” this primary. There is really no question that he is only under 50% with extremely aggressive suppression and theft. The Bernie coalition in California is a true rainbow — young and old, every race, every economic class. Being at his rallies is an absolute trip. I realize that’s a self-selecting group, but the data does reflect it. Institutional power that can throw elections is still a problem, but it’s a different problem

      By the way, I’m pretty sure he’s actually going to officially win California. I don’t think the registrars are all in on throwing out the voted ballots. Several million have yet to be counted. It won’t be what it should — I believe the polling that suggested he was up by around 25% overall — but I think that’s why she had the AP call on Monday. Padilla had done everything he could, they had started to count the mail-in ballots (you start that a week before election day), and he could see it wasn’t going to be enough. I highly doubt a high margin of all those provisional and last minute mail-in ballots were for Hillary.

  50. Cinder

    Agree that many upper middle class and affluent Californians are happy with status quo economics. Socially liberal but economically conservative. And, the fallout from regime change in Libya and Syria is too remote to matter to many, sadly. Think the AP story did tremendous damage to Bernie. Polls just three days ago showed CA to be a dead heat or Bernie slightly ahead; unacceptable for Clinton to lose CA and limp to the convention. I volunteered for the campaign and my take is many low income Bernie supporters are not plugged in to social media but rely on M$M. And, they have little income or time. So when the story broke, why bother to vote?! Think Bernie lost many votes due to AP/Clinton stunt

  51. sierra7

    I live in CA in the “boonies” and had no problem getting “democrat” ballot as a, NP voter….so I could vote BS…..

Comments are closed.