the exit polls are throwing a few wrenches into it.
1) the democrats have higher turnout than the republicans. that's hard to make sense of in west virginia, which is an open primary. so, voter registration is entirely irrelevant, because you can vote for either party (or both parties) regardless of how you're registered. would west virginia be in play in the general? well, hardly.
now, it is true that trump told people to stay home. so, you can at least understand the decrease in republican turnout that way. but, then, you can't argue that sanders is winning crossover trump votes - he must be winning voters that are not at all interested in the republicans.
2) yet, the exit polls are also suggesting that the voters self-identify as right-of-centre. that is inconsistent with the low republican turnout. it's just a contradiction, flat out.
3) sanders is apparently doing well with coal miners, which is another contradiction - as his climate policies are far tougher than hers are. i mean, i saw this narrative, but i rejected it as propaganda. the reality is that sanders will actually eliminate coal jobs (although he'll compensate them for it); who would actually believe that clinton is going to do anything other than flop on that, for the right price? i mean, i know what she said. but, who would possibly believe her? i suppose you could argue that it's just not thought through well. but, then, why is turnout for trump so low? if you're voting in favour of coal jobs, you'd have to be remarkably clueless to vote solely for sanders. even if you laughably believe what hillary said, you'd think you'd vote for trump as well as for sanders.
i do think that this is quite ominous for clinton, as the demographics in west virginia should overwhelmingly favour her. but, i can't rule out the possibility that what you're seeing is an ignorant reaction to a bald-faced lie, rather than a general shift in voting intentions amongst southern conservatives.
but, the evidence is mounting that there has been a big shift in southern support. let's see how she does in kentucky, first.
---
yeah.
see, this is what sanders said:
“While I strongly believe we need to combat climate change to make our planet habitable for our children and our grandchildren, let me be clear: We cannot abandon communities that have been dependent on coal and other fossil fuels,” he said, according to prepared remarks of his speech. “In my view, we have got to invest $41 billion rebuilding coal mining communities and making sure that Americans in McDowell County and all over this country receive the job training they need for the clean energy jobs of the future.”
when somebody puts aside $40 billion dollars for retraining in coal communities, you can be pretty sure they're going to shut down the industry more or less for good. so, this idea that they were voting for sanders as a reaction to clinton's coal comments is something that you ought to discard. it doesn't actually make any sense.
so, i mean, it's not like i didn't realize that the comments were likely to upset people. it's just that i couldn't imagine anybody voting for sanders as a response. the rational thing to do is vote for trump.
but, voters don't have perfect information. in fact, in places like west virginia, they tend to have very low information. i think it's entirely reasonable to suggest that they didn't do their research, and just foolishly kneejerked. that is, they heard something on the news (or talk radio) that they didn't like and they voted against that.
but, here's another strange statistic: apparently upwards of 40% of voters in the democratic primary are planning to vote for trump.
remember: this is also a state where you get significant numbers of write-ins.
i think the broader take-away from west virginia is that it's gone down the rabbit hole. what you really see in the numbers is a level of cynicism that exists only in the realm of the surreal. and, so, trying to predict results, or analyze results, is sort of pointless - you're assuming an inherent rationality that isn't actually there.
i think it's clear that my analysis was accurate: voters in the democratic primary were overwhelmingly conservative and broadly fit the same demographic patterns that voted heavily for clinton in surrounding states. they just refused to behave rationally.
i've pointed out a few times that i'm not an american; while i certainly know more about american geography than most americans know about canadian geography, i do have limits in my understanding. so, this is the question that i need a real answer to: just how similar is kentucky to west virginia? are we going to get these same kind of surreal results, that defy any kind of real logic? or is it going to align more with states like tennessee?
it's a big question, because it really defines whether sanders is still competitive. is he winning due to cynicism or enthusiasm? and, can it be projected to states that voted weeks or months ago or not?