When Bernie Sanders came to Palo Alto last week, more than 2,000 supporters – including throngs of local residents – flocked to the athletic field at Cubberley Community Center to chant his name and hear him denounce Wall Street and proclaim a political revolution.
But when the ballots from local precincts were counted Tuesday night, it became clear that for all the buzz, Palo Alto is very much Hillary Clinton turf. Frontrunner Clinton won every Palo Alto precinct, in some cases receiving three times as many votes as the populist senator from Vermont.
In one precinct in Old Palo Alto, based around Waverley Street and Santa Rita Avenue, Clinton received 285 votes to Sanders' 87, according to data released by the Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters. Among votes cast at the Channing House, 308 went to Clinton to Sanders' 123. And in the Trinity Evangelical Lutheran Church, which includes two precincts, one had Clinton winning 336 votes to 92 while another gave her an edge 334 to 130.
Sanders fared somewhat better in other local precincts, though never well enough to threaten Clinton's lead. In the precinct around Louis Road in Amarillo Avenue -- near the Palo Alto Buddhist Temple -- Clinton's lead was a relatively modest 250 to 178. And voters whose polling place is Crossroads Community Church, at Middlefield Road and Marion Place, gave her an edge of 186 to 117.
Overall, Palo Alto precincts delivered 8,263 votes for Clinton and 3,876 votes for Sanders, which means she claimed about 67 percent of the total vote, while he took 32 percent.
Her margin of victory in Palo Alto was even wider than around the county at large, where Clinton captured 60 percent to Sanders' 39 percent.
On the Republican side, Donald Trump received more votes than any other candidate appearing on the ballot, a foregone conclusion in a race where every other candidate has dropped out. Despite that fact, Trump received only 948 votes from the 1,912 cast ballots. In many precincts, he received only a dozen votes, and his largest total was 63, from a polling place in the Stanford University campus.
Despite that fact, Trump ended up with one fewer vote in this precinct than Ohio Gov. John Kasich, who received 64 votes. His supporters were not deterred by the fact that Kasich dropped out of the race on May 4.
Kasich also gave Trump a run for his money in the south Palo Alto precinct that stretches along San Antonio Road, between Alma Street and Middlefield Road. In this area, Trump edged him out 34 votes to 31. In an Old Palo Alto precinct around Gamble Garden, Trump prevailed over Kasich 35 to 28. And in the Channing House precinct, where there are 1,271 registered voters, only 23 voted for the presumptive Republican nominee; 22 chose Kasich.
Countywide, Trump claimed 64 percent of the vote for the Republican nomination, while Kasich finished second with 20 percent. Ted Cruz, Ben Carson and Jim Gilmore followed with 11 percent, 4 percent and 1 percent, respectively.
• View the current tabulation of county results at sccvote.org.
Comments
Professorville
on Jun 9, 2016 at 10:25 am
on Jun 9, 2016 at 10:25 am
[Post removed.]
Evergreen Park
on Jun 9, 2016 at 10:41 am
on Jun 9, 2016 at 10:41 am
It should be noted that according to the website linked at the bottom of the article, only 77% of the vote has been counted so far.
Old Palo Alto
on Jun 9, 2016 at 11:01 am
on Jun 9, 2016 at 11:01 am
It is no surprise that folks in Palo Alto voted in mass for Hillary. They are first in line for the gravy train of corrupt politics. Political appointments to further their back and forth academic to government careers, government dollars for dubious research and social causes and sympathetic regulation to line the pockets of tech companies by accelerating the process of off-shoring jobs and abusing the H1B visa program.
There is an iniquitous triangle forming between Wall Street, First Street, and Sand Hill Road. Rather than building something worthwhile, inventing something new or making something more efficient to create wealth, it is much more easy to simply vote.
"A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury."
Mountain View
on Jun 9, 2016 at 11:13 am
on Jun 9, 2016 at 11:13 am
[Post removed.]
Registered user
Palo Verde
on Jun 9, 2016 at 2:32 pm
Registered user
on Jun 9, 2016 at 2:32 pm
Turning the politics........There are some of us who vote for Clinton even though we are not first or even in line for the gravy train! I can assure you I voted for her because I feel she is the only one who can beat Trump, I could not be convinced that Sanders had any way of realizing his dreams. Trump's total inability to be diplomatic will not go well outside of America. One day America will figure it is part of the world, and believe me other countries do not have the wonder and admiration of the USA that we seem to assume is there. America is a "young country(only 200+ years)" and IF the people of this nation chooses Trump it will be a disaster. Hilary Clinton, knows how to be diplomatic, how to be civil, and has knowlege of working with other nations, as well as being able to listen to and hear what others have to say. I will vote for her in the Election too!
Registered user
Barron Park
on Jun 9, 2016 at 5:18 pm
Registered user
on Jun 9, 2016 at 5:18 pm
@Turning the Politics of Personal Enrichment into an Art Form
Your analysis is a little out of date. With HRC there is no need to vote. You just need to aggregate large sums of money for a super PAC or cut out the middle man and donate directly to the Clinton Foundation.
Money = Access = Influence = Get Rich
Registered user
Downtown North
on Jun 9, 2016 at 6:11 pm
Registered user
on Jun 9, 2016 at 6:11 pm
If_the_FBI_is_Right_We_Must_Indict Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice for the risks to national security posed by their private email servers.
Registered user
Barron Park
on Jun 9, 2016 at 11:12 pm
Registered user
on Jun 9, 2016 at 11:12 pm
I guess you missed the State Department Inspectors General report two weeks ago that confirmed Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice DID NOT have their own separate email servers or anything analogous to the regulations HRC and her staff broke while in office.
Now that it is official, if you keep spreading that mis-information you are just being dishonest.
Registered user
Downtown North
on Jun 10, 2016 at 12:47 pm
Registered user
on Jun 10, 2016 at 12:47 pm
"I guess you missed the State Department Inspectors General report two weeks ago..."
You apparently misread it, or didn't read it at all. Guessing isn't good enough in this game.
Clinton only missed some minor bureaucratic rules twiddling that happened between the Powell/Rice regime and her tenure. Bureaucrats are always twiddling their rules. But we surely agree that more bureaucracy does not make us more safe, right?. The bad guys just do not respect our hallowed bureaucracy. So the net national security risk of home email is the same for the Powell arrangement as for the Rice arrangement as for the Clinton arrangement.
Therefore:
If_the_FBI_is_Right_We_Must_Indict Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice for the risks to national security posed by their private email servers.