Even if they would vote for Trump should Clinton be the Democratic nominee,
I think that was a Sanders vote. It was an anti Democratic Party
establishment vote. Sanders talks directly to working and poor people
during his rallies and speeches and he differentiates his goals from
Clinton's and his record from her's. If the party is stupid enough to
nominate her in spite of her obvious unpopularity and Sanders' popularity,
the voters will turn to the other obvious alternative, the one they've been
hearing so much about. In this case, everything the party has done to
control who votes for whom, is working to their disadvantage.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Roger Loran
Bailey (Redacted sender "rogerbailey81" for DMARC)
Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2016 8:48 AM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] WV Primary
I wanted to make this post last night just before I went to bed, but a
thunderstorm kept me off the computer. So I decided to do it first thing in
the morning. I have seen no news this morning, so this is based on the
eleven o'clock news last night. It appears that Sanders beat Clinton in West
Virginia with fifty-three percent to Clinton's forty-one percent. There was
no mention of Keith Judd or Martin O'Malley, but after adding up the other
percentages I suppose they split less than one percent between them.
Candidates who have already dropped out and candidates who do not campaign
or take any positions on any issues usually get a low percentage, but this
is unusually low. They usually get at least between one and two percent.
Keith Judd seems to have suffered a precipitous decline since 2012 when he
got forty-eight percent of the vote against the only other candidate on the
ballot, Barack Obama. Anyway, I said it would be interesting to see how
candidates who did not campaign or take any positions would do since Sanders
poll numbers had declined so much since last month. One of them did do
rather well. There is a lawyer from Huntington West Virginia who put his
name on the ballot. The filing fee in this state is two thousand dollars, so
I suppose he just had a couple of thousand dollars lying around to throw
away. When he filed he said that he did not expect to win; he just wanted to
give West Virginians a choice. In other words, his candidacy was just a
lark. I keep forgetting his name. I think it is Howard something. Well, he
got six percent. That is unusually high for a lark candidate. I suppose that
represents the anti-Clinton/anti-Sanders vote. Even so, Sanders did much
better than the latest polls before the election predicted that he would. He
also did much worse than the polls indicated that he would do as of last
month. I still maintain, though, that his win in West Virginia was not
because of a pro-Sanders vote, but, rather, because of an anti-Clinton vote.
I heard another poll figure last night that backs that up. It seems that
forty-four percent of the Sanders voters intend to vote for Donald Trump in
November if the Democrat Nominee is Clinton.
