Hillary can lose CA by 50 points and still gain a majority.

[Slutty Mathlete]

From Nate Silver's excellent website. They are live-blogging the Primary tonight.

NATE SILVER 9:59 PM

Clinton Can Afford To Lose California By 50 points

If current results hold in New Jersey, New Mexico, North Dakota and South Dakota, Clinton will add 116 pledged delegates from those states (Sanders would get 87), leaving her 99 pledged delegates shy of 2,026, the number required to clinch a pledged delegate majority.

 

That means Clinton only needs 21 percent of the pledged delegates available in California to hit 2,026. She could lose the state to Sanders by more than 50 percentage points and still come out ahead.

Here's the full live-blog: http://fivethirtyeight.com/live-blog/june-7-new-jersey-california-primary-presidential-election-2016/

[Owlsarecool15]

Politics are tiring.

[25%Cotton]

Politics are tiring.

fix't

[Vik0]

But losing California would kinda be embarrassing 

[Owlsarecool15]

fix't

 

Tbh, I could have fixed it myself.

[25%Cotton]

Tbh, I could have fixed it myself.

no your life is over, as is mine for forgetting that space i just edited in

[Slutty Mathlete]

But losing California would kinda be embarrassing

 

Just like it was for Obama in '08?

[Owlsarecool15]

no your life is over, as is mine for forgetting that space i just edited in

 

You don't make any sense, but okay.................#FlopFixing

[Ogre Shrek]

That's on the assumption that the super delegates who have pledged their votes to her, do indeed vote for her in the Democratic Party's convention in July.

 

A month is a long time in politics.

[Vik0]

Just like it was for Obama in '08?

 

You'd have to note that California in '08 was on Super Tuesday, when Hillary had strong favor whereas Obama was some senator starting to gain steam. I would also like to emphasize the 'a little' in my previous statement. Sanders has obviously lost some steam, plus California is one of the states with the most delegate counts and mixed minorities. Losing wouldn't hurt her at all, but it would bring some thought on the favorability of her.

[GUILD]

dam

[Nanners]

I've loved this site since the 2012 elections, hopefully some people here actually read it

[Slutty Mathlete]

I've loved this site since the 2012 elections, hopefully some people here actually read it

Yeah it's great for political sanity. They analyze numbers and stray very little into pundritry.

[Felineso]

Sigh. This election cycle has been disappointing. I think most people really aren't too crazy about either choice of Trump or Clinton. For me, it's come down to choosing between sugar-free diet ice cream or fat-free cake for dessert. They are both meh.

But I don't despair too much because the beauty of American government is that the Constitution ensures checks on the power of the President, so if either Trump or Clinton wins the Presidency they actually cannot wield complete power. The public often forgets that the Legislative Bodies (Senate, Congress) and the Judicial Bodies (Federal Courts) can hold just as much power as the Presidential Office. Don't underestimate the importance of Senators, Congress people, and Judges who decide the laws. American voters: Do your homework and think about who should be in Congress, Senate, and other elected offices. It isn't all just about who is elected President. So much passion is directed towards just the Executive Presidential office every four years, yet by in large, American voters aren't as interested in the equally important positions in the other Branches of Government for some reason.