| Election Name: | 2016 California Democratic presidential primary |
| Country: | California |
| Type: | presidential |
| Ongoing: | no |
| Previous Election: | 2008 California Democratic primary |
| Previous Year: | 2008 |
| Next Election: | 2020 California Democratic presidential primary |
| Next Year: | 2020 |
| Candidate1: | Hillary Clinton |
| Home State1: | New York |
| Delegate Count1: | 254 |
| Popular Vote1: | 2,745,302[1] |
| Percentage1: | 53.07% |
| Map Size: | 280x320px |
| Color1: | d4aa00 |
| Candidate2: | Bernie Sanders |
| Color2: | 228B22 |
| Home State2: | Vermont |
| Popular Vote2: | 2,381,722 |
| Percentage2: | 46.04% |
| Delegate Count2: | 221 |
The 2016 California Democratic presidential primary was held on June 7 in the U.S. state of California as one of the Democratic Party's primaries ahead of the 2016 presidential election.
The Democratic Party's primaries in Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico and South Dakota were held the same day, as were Republican primaries in the same five states. Additionally, the Democratic Party held North Dakota caucuses the same day.
| Poll source | Date | 1st | 2nd | Other | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| California Secretary of State Primary results | June 7, 2016 | Hillary Clinton 53.1% | Bernie Sanders 46.0% | Others 0.9% | |||
| CBS News/YouGov[2] Margin of error: ±5.0% Sample size: 674 | May 31-June 3, 2016 | Hillary Clinton 49% | Bernie Sanders 47% | Others / Undecided 4% | |||
| American Research Group[3] Margin of error: ± 5% Sample size: 400 | May 31 – June 2, 2016 | Hillary Clinton 48% | Bernie Sanders 47% | Others / Undecided 5% | |||
| NBC/WSJ/Marist[4] Margin of error: ±4.2% Sample size: 557 | May 29–31, 2016 | Hillary Clinton 49% | Bernie Sanders 47% | Others / Undecided 4% | |||
| Field[5] Margin of error: ±4.1% Sample size: 571 | May 26–31, 2016 | Hillary Clinton 45% | Bernie Sanders 43% | Others / Undecided 12% | |||
| USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times[6] Margin of error: ± 2.9% Sample size: 1,500 | May 19–31, 2016 | Hillary Clinton 49% | Bernie Sanders 39% | Others / Undecided 13% | |||
| SurveyUSA[7] Margin of error: ±% Sample size: 803 | May 19–22, 2016 | Hillary Clinton 57% | Bernie Sanders 39% | Undecided 4% | |||
| PPIC[8] Margin of error: ±5.7% Sample size: 552 | May 13–22, 2016 | Hillary Clinton 46% | Bernie Sanders 44% | Undecided 10% | |||
| Hoover Institution State Poll[9] Margin of error: ±3.47% Sample size: 1,700 | May 4–16, 2016 | Hillary Clinton 51% | Bernie Sanders 38% | Others / Undecided 11% | |||
| Sextant (D)/Capitol Weekly[10] Margin of error: ±2.3% Sample size: 1,617 | April 28-May 1, 2016 | Hillary Clinton 49% | Bernie Sanders 39% | Others / Undecided 12% | |||
| SurveyUSA/KABC/SCNG[11] Margin of error: ± % Sample size: 826 | April 27–30, 2016 | Hillary Clinton 57% | Bernie Sanders 38% | Others / Undecided 6% | |||
| FOX News[12] Margin of error: ± 4% Sample size: 623 | April 18–21, 2016 | Hillary Clinton 48% | Bernie Sanders 46% | Others / Undecided 6% | |||
| CBS News/YouGov[13] Margin of error: ± 4.5% Sample size: 1,124 | April 13–15, 2016 | Hillary Clinton 52% | Bernie Sanders 40% | Others / Undecided 8% | |||
| Gravis Marketing[14] Margin of error: ± 3.4% Sample size: 846 | April 7–10, 2016 | Hillary Clinton 47% | Bernie Sanders 41% | Others / Undecided 12% | |||
| Field[15] Margin of error: ± 4.0% Sample size: 584 | March 24 - April 4, 2016 | Hillary Clinton 47% | Bernie Sanders 41% | Others / Undecided 12% | |||
| SurveyUSA[16] Margin of error: ± 3.6% Sample size: 767 | March 30 - April 3, 2016 | Hillary Clinton 53% | Bernie Sanders 39% | Others / Undecided 8% | |||
| USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times[17] Margin of error: ± 3.7% Sample size: 832 | March 16–23, 2016 | Hillary Clinton 47% | Bernie Sanders 36% | Others / Undecided 17% | |||
| PPIC[18] Margin of error: ± 6.2% Sample size: 529 | March 6–15, 2016 | Hillary Clinton 48% | Bernie Sanders 41% | Others / Undecided 11% | |||
| Field Poll[19] Margin of error: ± 5.6% Sample Size: 329 | January 6, 2016 | Hillary Clinton 46% | Bernie Sanders 35% | Martin O'Malley 1% Undecided 18% |
| Poll source | Date | 1st | 2nd | Other | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Field Poll[20] Margin of error: ± 5.0% Sample size: 391 | September 17 – October 4, 2015 | Hillary Clinton 47% | Bernie Sanders 35% | Martin O'Malley 1% Jim Webb 1% Lincoln Chafee 0% Other 2% Undecided 14% | ||
| Hillary Clinton 40% | Bernie Sanders 31% | Joe Biden 15% Martin O'Malley 1% Lincoln Chafee 0% Jim Webb 1% Other 2% Undecided 12% | ||||
| USC/LA Times[21] Margin of error: ± 3.6% Sample size: ? | August 29 – September 8, 2015 | Hillary Clinton 42% | Bernie Sanders 26% | Other/NA 16% Undecided 16% | ||
| Hillary Clinton 39% | Bernie Sanders 23% | Joe Biden 11% Other/NA 11% Undecided 16% | ||||
| Field Poll[22] Margin of error: ± 7.0% Sample size: 356 | April 23 – May 16, 2015 | Hillary Clinton 53% | Elizabeth Warren 13% | Joe Biden 6% Bernie Sanders 5% Jim Webb 1% Martin O'Malley 0% Lincoln Chafee 0% Undecided/other 22% | ||
| Emerson College[23] Margin of error: ± ? Sample size: 487 | April 2–8, 2015 | Hillary Clinton 56% | Elizabeth Warren 11% | Joe Biden 8% Bernie Sanders 3% Martin O'Malley 2% Jim Webb 1% Andrew Cuomo 0% Other 2% Undecided 17% | ||
| Field Poll [24] Margin of error: ± 5% Sample size: 425 | January 26 – February 16, 2015 | Hillary Clinton 59% | Elizabeth Warren 17% | Joe Biden 9% Bernie Sanders 6% Jim Webb 2% Others <0.5% Undecided 7% |
See also: Results of the Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016.
Sanders won eight Congressional districts, including the Latino-heavy 34th district in Los Angeles, represented by Clinton supporter Rep. Xavier Becerra. In the 28th district the candidates were separated by just 67 votes, which covers the Los Angeles suburbs of Glendale and Burbank, and is represented by Rep. Adam Schiff.[25]
| County[26] | Clinton | % | Sanders | % | Others | % | Totals | Turnout (%) | Margin | % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 164,889 | 51.5% | 153,955 | 48.0% | 1,577 | 0.5% | 320,421 | 10,934 | 3.4% | ||||
| Alpine | 113 | 44.8% | 137 | 54.4% | 2 | 0.8% | 252 | 24 | -9.5% | |||
| Amador | 2,516 | 50.4% | 2,386 | 47.8% | 88 | 1.8% | 4,990 | 130 | 2.6% | |||
| 11,766 | 37.0% | 19,739 | 62.0% | 315 | 1.0% | 31,820 | 7,973 | -25.1% | ||||
| 2,971 | 49.5% | 2,914 | 48.5% | 123 | 2.0% | 6,008 | 57 | 0.9% | ||||
| 835 | 49.3% | 809 | 47.8% | 48 | 2.8% | 1,692 | 26 | 1.5% | ||||
| Contra Costa | 103,333 | 56.7% | 77,862 | 42.7% | 1,082 | 0.6% | 182,277 | 25,471 | 14.0% | |||
| 1,119 | 40.4% | 1,598 | 57.6% | 55 | 2.0% | 2,772 | 479 | -17.3% | ||||
| 12,492 | 49.1% | 12,620 | 49.6% | 313 | 1.2% | 25,425 | 128 | -0.5% | ||||
| 45,436 | 56.0% | 34,663 | 42.7% | 998 | 1.2% | 81,097 | 10,773 | 13.3% | ||||
| 911 | 46.8% | 1,003 | 51.5% | 34 | 1.7% | 1,948 | 92 | -4.7% | ||||
| 8,135 | 28.7% | 19,928 | 70.4% | 240 | 0.8% | 28,303 | 11,793 | -41.7% | ||||
| 9,843 | 65.0% | 5,111 | 33.7% | 190 | 1.3% | 15,144 | 4,732 | 31.2% | ||||
| 1,001 | 42.5% | 1,313 | 55.7% | 44 | 1.9% | 2,358 | 312 | -13.2% | ||||
| Kern | 28,806 | 54.1% | 23,374 | 43.9% | 1,054 | 2.0% | 53,234 | 5,432 | 10.2% | |||
| 4,150 | 57.8% | 2,869 | 39.9% | 165 | 2.3% | 7,184 | 1,281 | 17.8% | ||||
| 3,988 | 42.7% | 5,195 | 55.7% | 148 | 1.6% | 9,331 | 1,207 | -12.9% | ||||
| Lassen | 812 | 42.6% | 1,023 | 53.7% | 70 | 3.7% | 1,905 | 211 | -11.1% | |||
| 780,013 | 54.4% | 639,886 | 44.6% | 14,768 | 1.0% | 1,434,667 | 140,127 | 9.8% | ||||
| 5,808 | 53.1% | 4,852 | 44.4% | 279 | 2.6% | 10,939 | 956 | 8.7% | ||||
| 43,283 | 56.4% | 33,214 | 43.3% | 260 | 0.3% | 76,757 | 10,069 | 13.1% | ||||
| 1,102 | 44.1% | 1,355 | 54.2% | 44 | 1.8% | 2,501 | 253 | -10.1% | ||||
| 6,048 | 32.8% | 12,259 | 66.5% | 119 | 0.6% | 18,426 | 6,211 | -33.7% | ||||
| Merced | 10,839 | 53.0% | 9,273 | 45.3% | 339 | 1.7% | 20,451 | 1,566 | 7.7% | |||
| 281 | 42.3% | 349 | 52.5% | 35 | 5.3% | 665 | 68 | -10.2% | ||||
| 799 | 43.3% | 1,038 | 56.2% | 10 | 0.5% | 1,847 | 239 | -12.9% | ||||
| 29,730 | 52.8% | 26,073 | 46.3% | 513 | 0.9% | 56,316 | 3,657 | 6.5% | ||||
| 13,583 | 53.4% | 11,682 | 45.9% | 190 | 0.7% | 25,455 | 1,901 | 7.5% | ||||
| Nevada | 8,175 | 36.9% | 13,827 | 62.4% | 148 | 0.7% | 22,150 | 5,652 | -25.5% | |||
| 171,593 | 51.9% | 156,235 | 47.3% | 2,767 | 0.8% | 330,595 | 15,358 | 4.6% | ||||
| 25,249 | 54.1% | 20,916 | 44.8% | 490 | 1.1% | 46,655 | 4,333 | 9.3% | ||||
| 1,211 | 44.1% | 1,475 | 53.7% | 62 | 2.3% | 2,748 | 264 | -9.6% | ||||
| 112,526 | 56.1% | 85,918 | 42.8% | 2,197 | 1.1% | 200,641 | 26,608 | 13.3% | ||||
| 109,898 | 54.6% | 89,428 | 44.4% | 1,933 | 1.0% | 201,259 | 20,470 | 10.2% | ||||
| 4,112 | 54.3% | 3,380 | 44.6% | 83 | 1.1% | 7,575 | 732 | 9.7% | ||||
| San Bernardino | 96,076 | 54.6% | 77,706 | 44.2% | 2,194 | 1.2% | 175,976 | 18,370 | 10.4% | |||
| 215,655 | 51.6% | 199,716 | 47.7% | 2,909 | 0.7% | 418,280 | 15,939 | 3.8% | ||||
| 116,359 | 53.6% | 99,594 | 45.9% | 961 | 0.4% | 216,914 | 16,765 | 7.7% | ||||
| 38,212 | 56.5% | 28,523 | 42.2% | 879 | 1.3% | 67,614 | 9,689 | 14.3% | ||||
| San Luis Obispo | 21,637 | 46.7% | 24,379 | 52.6% | 346 | 0.7% | 46,362 | 2,742 | -5.9% | |||
| 79,756 | 58.7% | 55,367 | 40.8% | 705 | 0.5% | 135,828 | 24,389 | 18.0% | ||||
| Santa Barbara | 31,927 | 46.9% | 35,717 | 52.4% | 474 | 0.7% | 68,118 | 3,790 | -5.6% | |||
| 159,480 | 57.5% | 116,193 | 41.9% | 1,840 | 0.7% | 277,513 | 43,287 | 15.6% | ||||
| 29,520 | 40.5% | 42,940 | 59.0% | 377 | 0.5% | 72,837 | 13,420 | -18.4% | ||||
| 7,809 | 45.4% | 9,026 | 52.4% | 377 | 2.2% | 17,212 | 1,217 | -7.1% | ||||
| Sierra | 224 | 42.5% | 297 | 56.4% | 6 | 1.1% | 527 | 73 | -13.9% | |||
| 2,466 | 38.0% | 3,894 | 60.0% | 126 | 1.9% | 6,486 | 1,428 | -22.0% | ||||
| 34,231 | 55.3% | 27,122 | 43.8% | 527 | 0.9% | 61,880 | 7,109 | 11.5% | ||||
| 55,595 | 47.3% | 61,167 | 52.0% | 803 | 0.7% | 117,565 | 5,572 | -4.7% | ||||
| 24,359 | 51.2% | 22,384 | 47.1% | 798 | 1.7% | 47,541 | 1,975 | 4.2% | ||||
| 4,023 | 52.7% | 3,463 | 45.4% | 146 | 1.9% | 7,632 | 560 | 7.3% | ||||
| 2,372 | 45.9% | 2,655 | 51.4% | 136 | 2.6% | 5,163 | 283 | -5.5% | ||||
| 672 | 35.1% | 1,211 | 63.3% | 31 | 1.6% | 1,914 | 539 | -28.2% | ||||
| 13,472 | 54.4% | 10,834 | 43.7% | 468 | 1.9% | 24,774 | 2,638 | 10.6% | ||||
| 3,433 | 48.2% | 3,592 | 50.5% | 91 | 1.3% | 7,116 | 159 | -2.2% | ||||
| 60,615 | 51.2% | 56,751 | 47.9% | 1,015 | 0.9% | 118,381 | 3,864 | 3.3% | ||||
| 17,655 | 48.2% | 18,761 | 51.3% | 190 | 0.5% | 36,606 | 1,106 | -3.0% | ||||
| 2,388 | 45.1% | 2,771 | 52.4% | 132 | 2.5% | 5,291 | 383 | -7.2% | ||||
| Total | 2,745,302 | 53.1% | 2,381,722 | 46.0% | 46,314 | 0.9% | 5,173,338 | 363,580 | 7.0% |
Clinton won the California primary, after Bernie Sanders had made a very serious play for the state and barnstormed it before election day. Sanders was significantly behind in the overall race by the time California voted (June 7, 2016), and it would have been hard for him to win the nomination by that point unless he persuaded Superdelegates to switch their support to him at the convention. He hoped a California win would assist in that effort. He rallied large numbers of supporters across the state, but in the end his barnstorming did not prevail, with Clinton winning by seven points (more than most polls predicted). She won in all the major cities: Sacramento, San Francisco, San Jose, Fresno, Los Angeles, and San Diego; Sanders did well in the northernmost counties bordering Oregon where he had won the month before.[27] After Sanders' disappointing loss, Rose Kapolczynski, an advisor to Barbara Boxer, described the primary results: "You can have a lot of excitement and a compelling message and inspire people, but if they don’t show up to vote, it doesn’t matter. Sanders did have very impressive rallies all over the state, but were those people turning around and calling their neighbors and taking action to get other people to vote for Sanders?"[28]
For her part, Clinton had campaigned aggressively for the state's diverse electorate, with Spanish, Korean, Vietnamese, Tagalog, and Chinese-language ads being aired by her campaign on the airwaves and on TV to make a play for both Latino and Asian American voters.[29]
Clinton was declared the presumptive winner of the democratic nomination by multiple news outlets on June 6, the night before the California primary.[30] [31] [32] [33] She had previously not had enough delegates, and the declaration that she had clinched the nomination was based on a survey of superdelegates, not on votes. This announcement being made the night before a primary as large as California's was considered controversial, and may or may not have affected voter turnout the next day.[34]