Wednesday, 10 February 2016

Sanders and Trump win New Hampshire primary

quote [ Donald J. Trump and Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont harnessed working-class fury on Tuesday to surge to commanding victories in a New Hampshire primary that drew a huge turnout across the state.

The success by two outsider candidates dealt a remarkable rebuke to the political establishment, and all but guaranteed protracted, bruising races for each partys presidential nomination. ]

And by wide margins, too. Looks like people are voicing their dissatisfaction with the political status quo by firmly siding with the anti-establishment candidates.

With any luck this could be the herald to the end of the two-party system if they can both secure the nomination. At the very least the late-night talk show circuit will be very interesting for quite some time.
[SFW] [politics] [+6 Hot Pr0n]
[by ENZ@12:07pmGMT]


King Of The Hill said @ 8:48pm GMT on 10th Feb [Score:1 Interesting]
I like Sanders. There is a lot I don't like about him as well, but as a conservative(Independent) I like the man because he isn't groomed to run and he has nothing to run on but his ideals.

Hillary? Running on her name/brand.
Trump? Running on his name/brand/lack of filter.

That said, in the last couple of months he has starting pandering quite a bit. I know that is part of the game, but it irritates me when he does.

Will I vote for him? No... Even as an independent I can't align my ideals much with his.

Personally, I think we will all be most entertained if this is a Trump VS Sanders elections... Both represent the extremes of both right and left. I'm very curious to see what VP choices will be. I suspect Bernie will pick one that is far more logical than the one Trump picks.
mechanical contrivance said @ 9:20pm GMT on 10th Feb
Trump/Palin 2016!
HoZay said @ 9:45pm GMT on 10th Feb
ENZ said @ 9:57pm GMT on 10th Feb
King Of The Hill said @ 9:59pm GMT on 10th Feb
I don't suspect anyone is that stupid to select her as a running mate. If the man currently stands a chance to be the party nominee, as well the president the last thing he should do it pick her as a running mate.
HoZay said @ 10:25pm GMT on 10th Feb
After Iowa, I don't think you'll see Palin at another Trump event.
HP Lovekraftwerk said @ 11:50pm GMT on 10th Feb
I think "After X, I don't think you'll see Palin at another Y" is a Mad Lib that we'll be using until she dies.
foobar said @ 4:21am GMT on 11th Feb
Trump/Trump's Wig 2016!
HP Lovekraftwerk said @ 11:57pm GMT on 10th Feb
It's amazingly sad that Sanders is seen as an extremist.

Of course, the current GOPers are calling each other extremists, when they're not complaining a candidate isn't extreme enough.
sanepride said @ 5:42am GMT on 11th Feb
So if it ends up Sanders vs. Trump who would you vote for?
King Of The Hill said[1] @ 5:19am GMT on 12th Feb [Score:1 Interesting]
Neither. As an independent, there is not a single candidate that I can vote for. I will be voting local instead, I just won't be ticking the box for president.

cb361 said[2] @ 12:13pm GMT on 10th Feb
Siding with somebody worse than the establishment isn't a positive move.

I just realised that everybody will agree with my statement as written, no matter which edge of the political spectrum they're on.
ENZ said @ 12:22pm GMT on 10th Feb
How is Sanders worse than the establishment?
cb361 said @ 1:37pm GMT on 10th Feb
If you're right wing, you'd probably think so.
ENZ said @ 1:48pm GMT on 10th Feb
The right is always screaming the sky is falling regardless of how far left a Democrat leans when they're in the White House.
midden said @ 2:44pm GMT on 10th Feb
Well, that kinda is their job. They could do it with more panache, though.
Jodan said @ 5:53pm GMT on 10th Feb
There are a lot of lefties here. Though we don't seem to want to admit it.
HP Lovekraftwerk said @ 12:38pm GMT on 10th Feb
I don't think this would end the two-party system. About the most positive outcome I could see for both parties would be Sanders winning, but it would take some maneuvering for what I would hope would become the re-orientation of the political parties.

On the GOP side, with an actual liberal in the White House, maybe this could let what's left of the rational Republicans (the ones that don't want to live in a theocracy) re-assert themselves, as opposing Sanders' policies doesn't require the same vitriol and extremism that it takes to contrast with the center-right Democrats.

On the Dem side, a Sanders win might let them re-orient to be more progressive, not that it would take much. Hell, I'm just hoping we get back some of the employee and social spending we used to have, even as far back as Reagan that Wall Street has been slashing away at for decades.

I don't expect this to happen, but it'd be nice.
cb361 said @ 1:39pm GMT on 10th Feb
I remember thinking the same thing, eight years ago. I really expected the right wing to magnanimously admit they were wrong.
HP Lovekraftwerk said @ 3:05pm GMT on 10th Feb
I have no illusions for them to admit they're wrong. After all, staking out policies that contradict previous ones is a time-honored tradition, especially rhetorical ones: Like after years of claiming "liberals" want to change the very language we speak to be more politically correct (or control your mind, depending on how much tin foil is involved), the right wing started trying to *gasp* change the language, getting their opposition referred to as "the Democrat party" rather than "the Democratic party," culminating in such fumbles as "Freedom Fries" and "homicide bombers."

What I'm proposing is that they wouldn't require the Ted Cruizes or Donald Trumps to differentiate their policies to the public, which lands them firmly in Tea Party territory. If the moderates (if there are any left) wanted to regain control and maybe try for a more rational GOP, having someone who was actually liberal vs. someone who they just claim is a liberal would help in that regard.
sanepride said @ 2:06pm GMT on 10th Feb
As far as the two party system goes, the Republicans are in a lot more trouble than the Dems. But keep in mind that NH is a small, white state. It will be interesting to see what happens when a more diverse electorate starts voting.
XregnaR said @ 5:49pm GMT on 10th Feb
Paraphrasing some shit I read while slightly stoned the other night:

"I am afraid of Hillary because I think she is lying when telling us what she believes. I am afraid of Sanders [& Trump] because I think he [they] are telling the truth when telling us what he [they] believes."

Brackets are my addition.
Kama-Kiri said[1] @ 2:21am GMT on 11th Feb
If you push hard enough on the extremes of the political left-right spectrum it seems you pop out at the opposite end.

Your basic Trump supporter and your basic Sanders supporter seem motivated by the same fundamental sense of injustice / feeling of dissatisfaction, differing primarily on who they feel should shoulder the blame: Mexicans or Wall Street.

Sanders makes political capital from the delusion of the educated, increasingly impoverished middle class, while Trump makes bank off the anger of the NASCAR/WWE-watching demographic.
yunnaf said @ 8:26pm GMT on 11th Feb
A lot of smart, rich Republicans are backing Trump, not because they are for him, but because the party needs a housecleaning, and backing Trump will do it.

Sanders has caught the mood of America. The Universities have abandoned education for capital enterprise and ripping off society, Geithner put money in the pockets of bankers to pay themselves bonuses rather than bail out underwater homeowners, there is no justice for Blacks, there is no justice for main street -no charges against Wall street, the flames of the occupy movement are coming followed by Watts Riots.
sanepride said @ 11:03pm GMT on 11th Feb
Absolutely Sanders and Trump supporters share a deep-seated anger and distrust toward the political status-quo, not to mention a sense of disenfranchisement.
Of course if you tell angry people they have anything in common with their political opponents you're just going to make them angrier.
ithaqua10 said @ 2:54am GMT on 11th Feb
except that because of the ingrained rigged system that Bernie actually will lose in NH despite winning popular vote.

How Hillary Clinton is actually winning in NH even though she lost big
steele said @ 3:13am GMT on 11th Feb [Score:2 Informative]
WeiYang said[1] @ 11:27am GMT on 11th Feb
The way I see it, both candidates are telling the voters that the country is fucked up, AND IT'S NOT YOUR FAULT, and we good people are going to fuck over the bad people the way that they are fucking you over now.
Trump thinks specifics are effete, Sanders has specifics that are feasible only if all opposition magically vanishes. Voters are eating this shit up BECAUSE IT'S WHAT THEY WANT.

Post a comment
[note: if you are replying to a specific comment, then click the reply link on that comment instead]

You must be logged in to comment on posts.

Posts of Import
SE v2 Closed BETA
First Post
Subscriptions and Things

Karma Rankings