Some might just stay home, or waste their vote by angrily writing in their candidate even though he conceded.
If their candidate works to get the nominee elected, that might change a few minds.
They'll do what they want to do. It's their vote.
For those who say "Trump? NEVER!" I offer this link:
https://newrepublic.com/article/127442/explains-trump-sanders-crossover-vote
Last week a survey from Washington-based Mercury Analytics surfaced with a most curious finding: Roughly 20 percent of Democrats said they would defect from their party to vote for Donald Trump, with a surprising number of them declaring with 100 percent certainty they would be comfortable doing so. A smaller chunk of Republicans (14 percent) said they would switch to vote for Hillary Clinton.
The survey ignited a firestorm of intrigue. Are Democrats really so taken with Trump? Given Trump’s extremist boosters (most recently an openly white-supremacist super PAC), the ready crossover seemed especially confusing. How could the right-wing candidate with some of the most extreme views in the race attract voters who ostensibly lean toward the center or left?
As The Washington Post’s Philip Bump points out, there’s probably not as much in the Mercury Analytics poll to get excited about as there initially seemed. But the prospect of crossover voting between the parties still deserves attention, especially in the unique cases of Trump and Bernie Sanders, whose mutual appeal to many of the same voters has been well noted. “Voters who were on the fence between the seemingly polar opposite candidates said both communicated well with working-class people and made strong cases for how they would improve the economy,” The New York Times reported from Vermont last week, observing the odd phenomenon of voters who consider the two candidates quite comparable. In the words of one voter: “Bernie is my No. 1 choice, and Trump is No. 2. They’re not that different.”
That voter’s view is not ill represented in the media. Despite the fact that Sanders and Trump are worlds apart politically, they have suffered endless comparisons, with some of the more ambitious parallels suggesting the two candidates are political twins. If they were similar in terms of policy, that could account for why they sometimes capture the interest of the same voters. And yet they aren’t, as I recently argued, in agreement on their major policies: The conclusion that they are can only be reached by cherry-picking issues they agree on along with several more mainstream candidates, or by abstracting a policy issue to the point that important distinctions are buried under general categories. ....One explanation is that Americans aren’t necessarily well-informed when it comes to policy particulars. A 2010 Pew Forum survey on policy and the public found that only 14 percent of Americans knew the current inflation rate; less than half knew which party held the majority in the U.S. House of Representatives; and only 16 percent knew that more than half of loans made under TARP had been paid back. Meanwhile, a 2012 Pew Forum poll on last cycle’s presidential campaigns found that just under half of voters knew what a super PAC was, and only 39 percent could identify John Roberts as the current Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. In other words, the technical policy differences that distinguish candidates from one another on paper might not always be entirely clear to voters, meaning their interest in various candidates shouldn’t automatically suggest that they view candidates’ policies as similar. ....
= new reply since forum marked as read