New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

Donald Trump published 1 hour agoTrump doubles Obama's 2012 vote total in New Hampshire, signaling fired up base

Barbella

Senator
Could that be why dems are so angry?

With 87 percent of precincts reporting, Trump secured more than 120,000 votes in the Granite State. In 2012, Obama managed just 49,080 total votes in New Hampshire. The gap between the two presidents is likely to increase as more precincts report their totals Wednesday.

It also dwarfs the total of other incumbent presidents: then-President George W. Bush received 53,962 votes in the largely-uncontested GOP primary in New Hampshire in 2004. And in 1996, incumbent President Bill Clinton received 76,797 votes in New Hampshire's primary.
 

Mr. Friscus

I think, therefore, I poop
Could that be why dems are so angry?

With 87 percent of precincts reporting, Trump secured more than 120,000 votes in the Granite State. In 2012, Obama managed just 49,080 total votes in New Hampshire. The gap between the two presidents is likely to increase as more precincts report their totals Wednesday.

It also dwarfs the total of other incumbent presidents: then-President George W. Bush received 53,962 votes in the largely-uncontested GOP primary in New Hampshire in 2004. And in 1996, incumbent President Bill Clinton received 76,797 votes in New Hampshire's primary.
If that's accurate it's quite a surge.

How that manifests in the election is probably a pleasing appetizer for the Trump camp. As I've learned, I don't assume anything until the results are in. However, static votes mean a lot more than CNN polls..
 
If that's accurate it's quite a surge.

How that manifests in the election is probably a pleasing appetizer for the Trump camp. As I've learned, I don't assume anything until the results are in. However, static votes mean a lot more than CNN polls..
This should be terrifying to the Democrats. They should be scrambling to get behind a single strong candidate, and campaign relentlessly for him. Instead, I'm sure their reaction will be to excoriate all the "racists" in New Hampshire, and continue wheeling out their aged, demented, and degenerate freakshow. They just don't get it...
 

Mr. Friscus

I think, therefore, I poop
This should be terrifying to the Democrats. They should be scrambling to get behind a single strong candidate, and campaign relentlessly for him. Instead, I'm sure their reaction will be to excoriate all the "racists" in New Hampshire, and continue wheeling out their aged, demented, and degenerate freakshow. They just don't get it...
Well I'm split and torn here.

You're correct, of course. The Democrats need to find a candidate, but the type they need to find would be far more difficult to defeat. This candidate would be covered in identity markers of race, sex, youth, culture, etc, used as a fortress to fight off against simply addressing any particular issue. Obama broached on this, but it can be done to a far greater extent.

So as much as you want to critique the Democrat establishment for being dumb to stick it to their devoted followers, I'm actually glad they're dumb, because it's ensuring their defeat.

I don't want the Democrats to smarten up. Given their media privilege, they don't need to work nearly as hard to get elected.
 
Well I'm split and torn here.

You're correct, of course. The Democrats need to find a candidate, but the type they need to find would be far more difficult to defeat. This candidate would be covered in identity markers of race, sex, youth, culture, etc, used as a fortress to fight off against simply addressing any particular issue. Obama broached on this, but it can be done to a far greater extent.

So as much as you want to critique the Democrat establishment for being dumb to stick it to their devoted followers, I'm actually glad they're dumb, because it's ensuring their defeat.

I don't want the Democrats to smarten up. Given their media privilege, they don't need to work nearly as hard to get elected.

Don't worry, they'll never smarten up. It's abundantly clear now that they learned nothing at all from 2016, so I have absolutely no fear they'll muster a candidate that can beat President Trump. The plain fact is that they don't have one, never did, and it's virtually impossible now that one will emerge this close to the election. Mitt Romney's tacit offer to be that candidate was clearly lost on the Dems. I suspect they'll nominate a fringe candidate who ticks the appropriate victim boxes, like Buttigeig or Sanders, who will then go down in flames at the debates.
 

Mr. Friscus

I think, therefore, I poop
Don't worry, they'll never smarten up. It's abundantly clear now that they learned nothing at all from 2016, so I have absolutely no fear they'll muster a candidate that can beat President Trump. The plain fact is that they don't have one, never did, and it's virtually impossible now that one will emerge this close to the election. Mitt Romney's tacit offer to be that candidate was clearly lost on the Dems. I suspect they'll nominate a fringe candidate who ticks the appropriate victim boxes, like Buttigeig or Sanders, who will then go down in flames at the debates.
They don't have one now in place, but trust me, there's a Manchurian candidate out there.. a cocktail comprised ingredients such as

A minority who hates whites but will claim racism if attacked
A woman who hates men but will claim sexism if their policy is attacked.
An intergender who hates defining male and female and will claim to be oppressed if their policy is attacked.
A homosexual who hates religious values and will claim homophobia if their policy is attacked.
A foreign cultural who hates America and will claim a nation-phobia if attacked

The media will simply gush over this person, smitten with emotional lust and obsession like a 14 year old school girl over a boy band in the 90's.

They will avoid talking about any policy, and simply lash out about their identity with every breath.

This monster is being built currently by young Democrats who have already achieved power.

I guess I just see it coming. Maybe I'm wrong, but it'll be the epitome of nastiness and divisiveness.
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
This should be terrifying to the Democrats. They should be scrambling to get behind a single strong candidate, and campaign relentlessly for him. Instead, I'm sure their reaction will be to excoriate all the "racists" in New Hampshire, and continue wheeling out their aged, demented, and degenerate freakshow. They just don't get it...
The total of votes cast for democrats was well over 250,000 in this primary and in 2012 there was no competition. In 2008 Obama got over 100,000 votes in the primary.
 

Spamature

President
It's good that you're ignoring the signs of just how bad off your party is. Very good.
129k ? Big deal.
Bernie got 152000 in New Hampshire in 2016 and he had a competitor.
How did Trump do there in 2016 ? We know he lost the state to Hillary in the actual election.
 

sensible don

Mayor
Supporting Member
They don't have one now in place, but trust me, there's a Manchurian candidate out there.. a cocktail comprised ingredients such as

A minority who hates whites but will claim racism if attacked
A woman who hates men but will claim sexism if their policy is attacked.
An intergender who hates defining male and female and will claim to be oppressed if their policy is attacked.
A homosexual who hates religious values and will claim homophobia if their policy is attacked.
A foreign cultural who hates America and will claim a nation-phobia if attacked

The media will simply gush over this person, smitten with emotional lust and obsession like a 14 year old school girl over a boy band in the 90's.

They will avoid talking about any policy, and simply lash out about their identity with every breath.

This monster is being built currently by young Democrats who have already achieved power.

I guess I just see it coming. Maybe I'm wrong, but it'll be the epitome of nastiness and divisiveness.

Did this list come from rightwingersaresnowflakes.com ? I think it did
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
you DO realize the OP was discussing Obama's numbers in NH primary in 2012, right? Showing that they were larger in 2008 only bolsters the Op's position.
What position is that? Obama won both elections by both the popular vote and the EC.
Trump lost by 3 million votes and only through the creative math of the electoral college, got the job anyway.

I noticed that you skipped right on past the number of democrats & independents turning out for the Dem primary was twice what Trump's turnout was and in a state he lost in 2016 by 85,000.

You're all excited because he got a bit more than what he got in 2016...but it is still not enough to win.

Obama got 199k votes in 2012, Romney got 92k.
 
Last edited:

EatTheRich

President
Don't worry, they'll never smarten up. It's abundantly clear now that they learned nothing at all from 2016, so I have absolutely no fear they'll muster a candidate that can beat President Trump. The plain fact is that they don't have one, never did, and it's virtually impossible now that one will emerge this close to the election. Mitt Romney's tacit offer to be that candidate was clearly lost on the Dems. I suspect they'll nominate a fringe candidate who ticks the appropriate victim boxes, like Buttigeig or Sanders, who will then go down in flames at the debates.
Clinton mopped the floor with Trump at the debates. Her poll numbers shot up after each one. Then again, her campaign was all about policy while his was all about tapping into resentment with identity politics and personal attacks.
 

EatTheRich

President
129k ? Big deal.
Bernie got 152000 in New Hampshire in 2016 and he had a competitor.
How did Trump do there in 2016 ? We know he lost the state to Hillary in the actual election.
The Democratic primary got higher turnout because it was competitive. The fact that Trump got so many votes in a non-competitive primary is a good sign for him. He did win he Republican primary there in 2020:
 
Top