So Trump took the New Hampshire primary with 38,481 voters & Bernie Sanders with 63,000 plus compared to Clinton’s 43,000 plus. Something’s not adding up here since the population of NH is 1,330,608. In US politics, for years, the majority of eligible voters don’t bother to register; the majority of registered voters don’t bother to vote. So candidates are elected by a minority of eligible voters.
In the 1980s, in a speech Sanders gave in Boston, he discussed that phenomenon. He said on the one hand it reflected disdain of the electoral process & on the other hand, political passivity. It might have been the last time the guy had something politically cogent to say.
Whereas in Iowa, it was Democratic Party hacks, for the most part, who voted, in NH it appears it had a popular component. But just how “popular” is 63,000 plus votes in a population of 1,330,608? What the hell is going on here?
But I still maintain that this whole dog & pony show of caucus & primary elections is not so much for popular consumption as it is for the ruling elite to understand their electoral options–given that they clearly have a crisis of leadership. Trump versus Sanders? Send in the clowns.