2016 US Presidential Elections Thread [Trump Wins] Page 19

Started by Kanzler January 31st, 2016 9:29 PM
  • 53965 views
  • 1240 replies

Esper

California
Seen June 30th, 2018
Posted June 30th, 2018
Pretty disappointed it won't be happening. I was hoping all three would somehow end up in one debate.

Under normal circumstances yeah, but Sanders has already dug himself quite the hole, to be quite honest.
Really? I mean, he may have burned bridges with many in the Democratic Party, but among voters he's doing better and better. His polling is the best among any candidate. His message has always been that his getting the nomination is a long shot, but until the convention it is not settled so in order to keep the message he's got alive and not let it be swept under the rug by the media or diluted by a more centrist candidate like Clinton he's staying in the race.

Esper

California
Seen June 30th, 2018
Posted June 30th, 2018
snip
I would respectfully disagree. Long counter argument in the spoiler, but tl;dr Sanders is probably fairly safe for any possible re-elections in his home state so he doesn't need to kowtow to the DNC and doesn't need to censor himself.

Spoiler:
His talks lately have been less about his personal chances of getting the nomination and more about how corrupt the system is, though that point has always been part of his main message. He's not wrong about the damage that money does to the political system, I believe. (Though feel free to argue otherwise.) I don't think he personally feels wronged, but some of his supporters probably do. With the shenanigans with some of the elections in places I can understand. My own voter registration was sent to me as mail-only and as NPP I'll have to go in person to vote because NPP don't automatically get a mail vote for presidential candidate (since they're party-specific). I'm happy to go in person, but it was only recently that my county officially declared that they would except exchanges at polling places - before they were saying it would be a provisional ballot (and we know those aren't worth the paper they're printed on).

The "rigged" part of the system is not specifically only the way votes and such are counted, but partially the way that the media (which I'd cynically call an unofficial branch of government) has not been at all fair to Sanders and with misleading headlines and such that affects how low-information voters vote. Every element of the various party and non-party systems in place favor whoever the establishment wants as a candidate and make it hard for an outsider to have a chance.

Sanders has been pretty respectful of Clinton. If anything his supporters would have liked to see him be more direct with her. I mean, what has he said or done lately that seems like he's taken a "**** Clinton" attitude? The thing in Nevada? Where a Clinton supporter picked up a chair and the Sanders supporters had him hug it out after? The anger? They were railroaded and not listened to which went against the rules. That aside, I'll agree that he's trying to speak a lot and get his message out, but, like, this is a democracy, and as I said earlier he's not been given fair coverage in most media.

And, again, Clinton is not the nominee. She's only the likely nominee. After the convention we'll see what Sanders does, but like I said in my previous post, he wants to ensure his message gets attention and staying in the race is the best way to do that.

Esper

California
Seen June 30th, 2018
Posted June 30th, 2018
By talking about how corrupt the system is, he's also pretty much knocking down Clinton by proxy. Clinton is seen as "the establishment", "the status quo", "the system", etc. It really doesn't help when you're continuing to assault the establishment at this point when the "establishment candidate" has already basically won, because that doesn't really help the overall message any. "Political revolution" isn't the negative vitriol that's surrounding the Sanders campaign and its supporters, "Political revolution" starts by electing the officials that you truly believe would carry on Sanders' message into seats of Congress, and keeping those people in those seats. What Sanders is doing now isn't uniting the Democratic Party, he's kind of hurting it.

What's important to note about Sanders' speeches nowadays (feel free to correct me here, I haven't had a chance to look deeply into this but from what I hear) is that he isn't saying much against Trump, it's more about antagonizing the Democratic Party when it really needs to come together. At this point where party unity is just about essential and crucial to seize the White House, a move like that is going to cause further damage.
The Sanders rally I went to was mostly about all the things that he and other progressives want, i.e., single payer healthcare, and about all the problems in the world and country, i.e., climate change and racism. Some of it was specifically targeted at Trump (though I can't remember if he specifically name checked him - it was obvious either way) and not much about Clinton specifically. His gripes at the DNC are more about how they're not doing as much as they need to. Big difference to calling out Trump's active sexism and racism and xenophobia. One of the things he said was that (paraphrasing) "real change comes from the bottom up not the top down."

And what is the overall message exactly? To me, it's fighting for the things that will be best for the people. I believe that Sanders staying in the public eye is good for that and so do a lot of people. I do not see "negative vitriol" anywhere except from Trump and Trump-like people. Pointing out major flaws of the American government and democratic system is a good thing because without doing so we aren't ever going to fix them.

In what way? How would "being more direct" with Clinton help Sanders? I'm honestly curious about this.
Early on Sanders didn't want to call Clinton by name or say things like "Clinton took money from Wall Street" and whatever. He'll say things like (paraphrasing) "Will the American people trust a candidate that's taken money from Wall Street to regulate the millionaires? I don't think so." He wouldn't say "Clinton can't be trusted" or "Clinton has lied about her record" or whatever else some of us Bernie supporters would like to have said on the record.

As crappy as that was, even though most people felt wronged, it shouldn't have had to happen in the first place. Now most people are afraid that what happened in Nevada is going to happen again at the convention in Philadelphia, because (with all due respect), it doesn't take an expert political reporter to see that, yes, Clinton has basically won and Sanders has lost; it's virtually impossible at this point for Sanders to convince a massive portion of superdelegates to switch sides and he wants to be told he lost at the convention officially before he really makes another move.

As for what Sanders might do next? Who knows. I'm hoping he'll actually get to work on reuniting the party against Trump, but at the way things are going, I wouldn't be surprised if he set the party on fire and walked out right after the convention, which is the worst case (and quite possible) scenario.

Of course, what Rachel Maddow says here may actually be 100% true and everyone would just riot because it lets out anger, and everyone would hug it out afterwards. But what if it doesn't? It's a very real and very frightening possibility that can make a difference between a Clinton presidency and a Trump one.
You're right. It shouldn't have happened. The people running it should have followed the rules and they didn't. So, I mean, what are people supposed to do? Let them get away with it and say nothing? This is one of the issues about how unfair "the system" is when it comes to the media. If the media were being honest and fair they wouldn't immediately demonize the voters there and would talk about how the people running railroaded the voters.

gimmepie

Age 27
Male
Australia
Seen 1 Hour Ago
Posted 7 Hours Ago
24,971 posts
11.1 Years
Situations like this are exactly why the US electoral system seems really weird to an outsider like me. It essentially forces people on the same side to go to war for the Presidency. Here you vote for the party, not for the candidate and whoever is leading the party takes the spot of PM. There's been a lot of issues with our system sure, but I think a system in which Hillary or Sanders were heading a party and not fighting for themselves would have made things a lot less messy and would have made a Trump presidency extremely unlikely since few Republicans would give him control of the party.
RPWLA&MVGGaming Journal

Ivysaur

Grass dinosaur extraordinaire

Age 32
He/him
Madrid, Europe
Seen 2 Days Ago
Posted April 5th, 2023
21,076 posts
16.2 Years
Situations like this are exactly why the US electoral system seems really weird to an outsider like me. It essentially forces people on the same side to go to war for the Presidency. Here you vote for the party, not for the candidate and whoever is leading the party takes the spot of PM. There's been a lot of issues with our system sure, but I think a system in which Hillary or Sanders were heading a party and not fighting for themselves would have made things a lot less messy and would have made a Trump presidency extremely unlikely since few Republicans would give him control of the party.
That is a topic for another day, but essentially that's the difference between Parliamentary systems and Presidential ones. The latter are all about giving power to a certain person, not to a party, which results in a) parties being just empty shells with the tag "liberal" and "conservative" in which anything goes as long as they respect the tags, and b) "lesser of the evils" voting in November since the way seats are given makes it impossible for any other party to win anything other than at a very local level. Sanders was originally a member of the Vermont Progressive Party, but had to run as a backseat Democrat for all his career because... there are only two labels you can wear in an election, you know?

Sadly, to change anything you'd need to remake the entire US system from the ground, which requires amending the Constitution, which is just not going to happen. So yeah.

In defence of the US systam, you get stability: 4-year terms with no snap elections ever and no motions of no-confidence or strange crap. On the down side, the system is so stable you cannot change anything in bulk, you can only move a tiny step a time, and most people feel disenfranchised because there are only two options to vote for (see: Badsheep being excited because the Libertarians might even take an utterly irrelevant 5% of the vote in a good year). You prevent political upheaval.... for the better and for the worse. And the "worse" is what Sanders is intent on showing with his campaign.

Kanzler

naughty biscotti

Male
Toronto
Seen April 22nd, 2022
Posted March 11th, 2022
5,957 posts
14.8 Years
If you're fighting for whats best for the people, you wouldn't be hurting the party that's trying to strive for that same goal.
That sounds very authoritarian. I can't imagine anyone I know saying anything of that sort about the three main parties here (all of which arguably do more for the people than American parties), even the most socialist of the three. Intraparty conflict is normal. I don't get why party loyalty is so important.

Esper

California
Seen June 30th, 2018
Posted June 30th, 2018
snip
My answers to all your questions boil down to: Clinton is not necessarily going to be good for the country. She's hawkish and we don't need more war. She's not at all progressive on social issues (barring perhaps women's rights) except after the fact. So the benefit in not falling in line is to push for a progressive agenda for the country which will not find a leader in Clinton. It's to say that while Clinton is better than Trump she's terribly flawed and does not at all represent what progressives want or what will address the underlying troubles of the country. It's basically saying that "lesser of two evils" as a mindset is damaging and dangerous to the future of our country and needs to be changed. We're demanding better than "lesser of two evils".

Esper

California
Seen June 30th, 2018
Posted June 30th, 2018
Okay, so your solution to pushing for a progressive agenda is having a xenophobic misogynistic racist as a president instead of someone who's actually the closest thing to Sanders himself? Is that your real idea of being a progressive? I think that kind of logic is terribly flawed. If you want to push for a real progressive agenda, you'd pick the person that's closest to that agenda, not veer right of course and go way off kilter. I don't think that's how things work.
I think we've had this argument in this thread before so I won't rehash it.

Yes, American politics is very much a "lesser of evils" system sometimes, and it always has been. If you wish to be one of the few, few people who vote for the Libertarian Party in a meaningless effort to make a statement, so be it, but if I was a Sanders supporter, I'd be more than happy to see Clinton in the White House than any of her GOP opponents. Say what you will about Clinton herself, but it'd be a lot easier to actually push for a progressive/more liberal agenda with someone who at least most people know as remotely liberal.
The lesser-of-two-evils system can be changed if we move to publicly funded campaigns and take dark money and super-PACs out of the process. That would make it much easier for third party, non-party, or political minorities within parties to run and be successful. I don't think a progressive agenda can really happen with the system we have now so, no, I don't agree that it would be a lot easier with Clinton over Trump. Maybe a tiny bit easier because as a Democrat she would have to pay lip service at least, but that won't really get things anywhere.

Ivysaur

Grass dinosaur extraordinaire

Age 32
He/him
Madrid, Europe
Seen 2 Days Ago
Posted April 5th, 2023
21,076 posts
16.2 Years
The lesser-of-two-evils system can be changed if we move to publicly funded campaigns and take dark money and super-PACs out of the process. That would make it much easier for third party, non-party, or political minorities within parties to run and be successful.
There is a problem, known as "first past the post", also known as "winner take all". In a system where any position is held by the candidate that obtained the most votes in a poll, while everybody else gets nothing, even if they lost by a single vote, there is no incentive or reason to have a third party. With two strong incumbents, launching a third party requires a lot of money and publicity you probably can't have without tons of money to run ads- so essentially, the only successful third-party candidates would be Trumps. And if you just set a spending limit, even coming from their own pockets, then people will continue to vote R/D everywhere because that's the way it's always been and they are the only ones on TV after all. Look at the UK, where their "third parties*" only add up to 10 seats in a 650-strong Parliament, because people just vote Conservative or Labour, despite having tight and low expense limits.

The problem is the electoral system. Unless you change it, you are going to have a two-party system eternally. Because if another conservative or left-wing party arises and becomes successful, everybody will leave the R/Ds and join them instead, because otherwise you are just splitting up the vote and handling a plurality win to "the other side". In the UK, everyone who used to vote Liberal now votes Labour, after the Liberals were overtaken by them in the 1920s. After all, it's the only way to stop a Conservative Government from happening!

*not counting the SNP, who are essentially the one-party-state owners of Scotland.

I don't think a progressive agenda can really happen with the system we have now so, no, I don't agree that it would be a lot easier with Clinton over Trump. Maybe a tiny bit easier because as a Democrat she would have to pay lip service at least, but that won't really get things anywhere.
I don't think you are looking at this the right way. Having Clinton will probably mean a couple of steps ahead and, at absolu-horri-catastrophically worst, a "lip service" standstill. Having Trump will probably mean two steps back before even starting, and at worst, infinite steps back. Imagine: President Trump nominates a 40-year-old Scalia to replace Scalia, as the republicans want. Then, say, Justice Ginsburg dies and he nominates another 40-year-old Scalia. And a heavy right-leaning SC decides to destroy unions (it's one of the pending cases on their desk), decide that people not elligible to vote don't count when approportioning representatives (favouring older and whiter states and taking a lot of EVs away from places with migrants like California or Florida; it's another case on their desk) or take on Roe vs Wade because hell why not, let us leave the matter to the states. All of that while wasting billions of money on the wall, starting political wars with all of their allies and reinvigorising the extreme nativist fringe. Suddenly, a progressive agenda is not just as hard to achieve as before, but actually much harder, because you first have to undo all the damage he's going to make.

Esper

California
Seen June 30th, 2018
Posted June 30th, 2018
Look, I'm going to vote for whoever ends up against Trump, but I'm not going to be silent about how I feel and overlook the problems. If Clinton is so weak that a few harsh words from Sanders and his supporters is enough to make her lose an election then she probably wouldn't have won in the first place had Sanders never entered the race. All she has to do is adopt a few progressive stances, admit that she isn't perfect and that *gasp* she has been mistaken in the past and gotten better and that would greatly close up the sincerity gap and endear her to a lot of Bernie supporters and clench the election for her.

ShinyUmbreon189

VLONE coming soon

Age 31
Male
Chicago
Seen December 17th, 2022
Posted July 7th, 2019
1,461 posts
11.2 Years
Okay, so your solution to pushing for a progressive agenda is having a xenophobic misogynistic racist as a president instead of someone who's actually the closest thing to Sanders himself?
Okay, first off I'm just going to say a few things and that's it. I am not defending Trump at all as I hate the man but I'm also not voting for anyone else, the election is a circus, so I'm not voting period. But, the crap you hear about Trump is mostly false. When Trump does a rally the media only shows specific clips of his announcements to bash him rather than giving his whole speech to the audience. What they show you is what they expect you to perceive Trump as, it's a tactic to control the masses opinions. The man DOES NOT come off as racist, Muslim isn't a race it's a religion, they are actually "Arabs" and when he speaks of the Muslim people he's talking about the extremists or "ISIS", not the whole Muslim religion or Arabic people. When he speaks of Mexicans, he's talking about "illegal immigration" and keeping them out. People need to really start doing their research rather than getting all their information through the media or from a friend.

Somewhere_

i don't know where

Age 23
Male
somewhere (duh)
Seen June 5th, 2019
Posted March 17th, 2019
Look, I'm going to vote for whoever ends up against Trump, but I'm not going to be silent about how I feel and overlook the problems. If Clinton is so weak that a few harsh words from Sanders and his supporters is enough to make her lose an election then she probably wouldn't have won in the first place had Sanders never entered the race. All she has to do is adopt a few progressive stances, admit that she isn't perfect and that *gasp* she has been mistaken in the past and gotten better and that would greatly close up the sincerity gap and endear her to a lot of Bernie supporters and clench the election for her.
I just found a poll that but Gary Johnson at 18% against Clinton and Trump (Weld is VP). Im not left-wing, but Clinton seems watered down to me... at least Bernie has principles. You probably know the Sanders community better than me, but I see a lot of Bernie or Bust stuff. Do you think they will prefer Jill Stein over Clinton? Im predicting the Green Party to get a larger percent of the vote this election than any other previous election.

As much as I dislike Trump, I dont think he is racist. I have to agree with @ShinyUmbreon here.

Esper

California
Seen June 30th, 2018
Posted June 30th, 2018
The man DOES NOT come off as racist, Muslim isn't a race it's a religion, they are actually "Arabs" and when he speaks of the Muslim people he's talking about the extremists or "ISIS", not the whole Muslim religion or Arabic people. When he speaks of Mexicans, he's talking about "illegal immigration" and keeping them out. People need to really start doing their research rather than getting all their information through the media or from a friend.
But that's, like, exactly how racism works. You don't specify, you lump in all of one group of people. Same with islamophobia and similar things. I mean, when you say "Muslims" and not "ISIS" or "ISIL" or "Al Qaeda" then you're saying not just "ISIS" or "ISIL" or "Al Qaeda" but all Muslims. That's just, like, how language works. And that's the intention, to get people stoked up by playing on their phobias and prejudices. So, like, it doesn't matter that Trump or others say "oh, when I said that I meant something else" because he keeps doing it. Plus, like, you can't say something and then after the fact claim it means something else.

I just found a poll that but Gary Johnson at 18% against Clinton and Trump (Weld is VP). Im not left-wing, but Clinton seems watered down to me... at least Bernie has principles. You probably know the Sanders community better than me, but I see a lot of Bernie or Bust stuff. Do you think they will prefer Jill Stein over Clinton? Im predicting the Green Party to get a larger percent of the vote this election than any other previous election.
I think if they know about Stein lots would prefer her, but that most will not vote for a third party, but then I don't know a lot of people.

Somewhere_

i don't know where

Age 23
Male
somewhere (duh)
Seen June 5th, 2019
Posted March 17th, 2019
But that's, like, exactly how racism works. You don't specify, you lump in all of one group of people. Same with islamophobia and similar things. I mean, when you say "Muslims" and not "ISIS" or "ISIL" or "Al Qaeda" then you're saying not just "ISIS" or "ISIL" or "Al Qaeda" but all Muslims. That's just, like, how language works. And that's the intention, to get people stoked up by playing on their phobias and prejudices. So, like, it doesn't matter that Trump or others say "oh, when I said that I meant something else" because he keeps doing it. Plus, like, you can't say something and then after the fact claim it means something else.



I think if they know about Stein lots would prefer her, but that most will not vote for a third party, but then I don't know a lot of people.
I think the LP can get 15%- a recent poll shows Gary Johnson at 18%, and thats all they need to end the two party system. I am a Libertarian, but I dont mind the pseudo-libertarian Gary Johnson and William Weld combo because they can end the two party system, which I believe to be destructive.

I think you might be right though- a lot of people may vote Clinton simply to vote out Trump and a lot of people may vote Trump to vote out Hillary.

Racism: "the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races." While Trump is anti-immigration, this does not make him racist. He does not claim that whites are superior to other races- that is unscientific and philosophically inconsistent. There are many other reasons he wants closed borders (I'm not agreeing with him): less money distributed to the immigrants in subsidies and helping prevent terrorism (the merits of this I am skeptical of). But a lot of people within the Alt-Right movement also suggest that this is a matter of keeping the Western values and culture that have been fought and built up over centuries, and the idea is to retain these values because the other cultures either lack them or contradict them (basically borders acting as cultural barriers). Again, not agreeing, but the reasons are not out of racism (although Im sure there are some like that, but not Trump), but for practical purposes.

ShinyUmbreon189

VLONE coming soon

Age 31
Male
Chicago
Seen December 17th, 2022
Posted July 7th, 2019
1,461 posts
11.2 Years
shinyumbreon189 you say he isnt racist but like...the majority of hispanics disagree with you on that.
That's because they think he's taking about all hispanics when he's not. He's only talking about the illegal immigrants, and even then he's just saying he wants them out and to stop them from immigrating. How is that racist? It's not like he said he wants to return every hispanic back to Mexico, just the illegal ones. If that's racist then this country is at the point of no return screwed and might as well go back to the old days of grouping races and not allowing them to interact with eachother. This muks getting ridiculous. America back to their old games again, history always repeats itself.

Esper

California
Seen June 30th, 2018
Posted June 30th, 2018
Trump has not claimed to be a racist, no. But if we define racists based on self-identification there wouldn't be very many racists. We know there are a lot more. A lot of it is thinly-veiled suggestions and insinuations such as when a judge, Gonzalo Curiel, ordered recently to have some documents unsealed (related to the Trump University controversy) and Trump has to mention at a rally that the judge is "Mexican" - the judge was born in Indiana, not Mexico - because he's, what, being thorough? He's trying to associate being Mexican with being something bad. That's racist.

pastelspectre

Memento Mori

Age 25
he/him
The Pacific Northwest
Seen 2 Weeks Ago
Posted 2 Weeks Ago
2,156 posts
13.1 Years
I will contribute hello. I do not like Trump. He is racist, sexist and overall a bad choice for a president. I prefer Bernie. He will do better, I believe. That is all. I shall say nothing more.

Kanzler

naughty biscotti

Male
Toronto
Seen April 22nd, 2022
Posted March 11th, 2022
5,957 posts
14.8 Years
@DavidShuster

Citing email investigations + comparative polls v Trump, several @HillaryClinton superdels suggest they'll switch if @BernieSanders wins CA
https://twitter.com/DavidShuster/status/738412975111974912

what does anybody know this guy can bernie sanders please win california jeez this race gets better and better

Ivysaur

Grass dinosaur extraordinaire

Age 32
He/him
Madrid, Europe
Seen 2 Days Ago
Posted April 5th, 2023
21,076 posts
16.2 Years
News alert: if every superdelegate voted for the candidate winning in their state (acting like winner-takes-all delegates or something), Clinton would still win because she has won more states. And, as Nate Silver said, if the big plan is getting superdelegates to support Sanders despite Clinton winning the primary, well, I'm sure the people who voted for Clinton (who are the majority) will take it nicely, won't they?

I mean. Whoever wins will be a mess. But only one of the two can claim she's won the primary. Much as I would like Sanders to be the candidate, this is pretty much the same as if the Republicans had maneuvered to get Cruz in the convention.

Two interesting articles: Sanders isn't doing well with "true" independents (he's just sweeping every democratic voter who calls herself an independent) and The system isn't rigged against Sanders - he's just getting fewer votes than Clinton

Esper

California
Seen June 30th, 2018
Posted June 30th, 2018
Clinton may have more votes, but lots of people aren't going to forget how she got those votes with the help of the mainstream media who have been far and away Clinton supporters (if they're not Republicans) and hardly ever gave Sanders a fair shot. I mean, after every debate they said "Clinton won" regardless of how the debate went. If you just read the headlines you'd think Sanders was an escapee from a mental institution or a bomb throwing communist. And plenty of people do only read the headlines, if that. The media completely failed in their duty as an institution of democracy, that is, informing the voting public.

Esper

California
Seen June 30th, 2018
Posted June 30th, 2018
Feels like they were trying to color the vote tomorrow to stave off a bad show in California. People, for some reason, often like to vote for whoever is "winning" and Clinton certainly wants to have the title going into the vote tomorrow. I think it's a mistake. This is going to create a lot of "Bernie or Bust" people.

Ivysaur

Grass dinosaur extraordinaire

Age 32
He/him
Madrid, Europe
Seen 2 Days Ago
Posted April 5th, 2023
21,076 posts
16.2 Years
Feels like they were trying to color the vote tomorrow to stave off a bad show in California. People, for some reason, often like to vote for whoever is "winning" and Clinton certainly wants to have the title going into the vote tomorrow. I think it's a mistake. This is going to create a lot of "Bernie or Bust" people.
Well, actually 2.8 million votes have already been cast in California (Clinton is leading 56-44, by roughly 216,000 votes), where early voting is massive. That's over half the total votes recorded in the 2008 primary, and considering turnout has been dropping this year compared to last time, I don't think this call will affect the result that badly. Either there is a massive flood of millions of "Bernie or bust" voters created overnight or he's just going to win/lose by slightly more/less than otherwise (say, 100k votes one way or another).

It is going to affect the narrative though, because now any victory of hers (538 give her a 80+% chance of winning and the early vote results support that) will be dismissed as a result of the early call distorting the vote. She's going to win, but I'm pretty sure this primary is not what she had wanted in the slightest. Now her future rests on the way she'll accomodate the Bernie voters.

Nah

Age 30
she/her, they/them
Seen 6 Hours Ago
Posted 6 Hours Ago
15,645 posts
9.5 Years
woo can finally psyducking vote in the primaries

Besides New Jersey and California, what other states are voting today?
Nah ンン
“No, I... I have to be strong. Everyone expects me to."

Esper

California
Seen June 30th, 2018
Posted June 30th, 2018
I went and voted as soon as the polls opened at 7 AM today because I had to turn in my NPP (no party preference) mail vote (because it didn't include a presidental candidate option) and I was worried they might not have enough if I waited until later. The little old ladies running the thing were a little confused at first, but at least it got sorted out and I didn't end up with a provisional ballot, which I was worried might happen.

Well, actually 2.8 million votes have already been cast in California (Clinton is leading 56-44, by roughly 216,000 votes), where early voting is massive. That's over half the total votes recorded in the 2008 primary, and considering turnout has been dropping this year compared to last time, I don't think this call will affect the result that badly. Either there is a massive flood of millions of "Bernie or bust" voters created overnight or he's just going to win/lose by slightly more/less than otherwise (say, 100k votes one way or another).

It is going to affect the narrative though, because now any victory of hers (538 give her a 80+% chance of winning and the early vote results support that) will be dismissed as a result of the early call distorting the vote. She's going to win, but I'm pretty sure this primary is not what she had wanted in the slightest. Now her future rests on the way she'll accomodate the Bernie voters.
Maybe, but I'm seeing more Hillary bumper stickers and signs today than I've ever seen so I'm just going to have to wait and see how things turn out. There are a lot of vote by mail people here, yes, but there has also been a surge of voter registration so how it goes could be pretty lopsided depending.

woo can finally ****ing vote in the primaries

Besides New Jersey and California, what other states are voting today?
Today it's California, New Jersey, Montana, New Mexico, South Dakota, and North Dakota (which is a caucus).