world

Sanders, Trump win in New Hampshire

95 Comments
By JULIE PACE and KATHLEEN RONAYNE

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2016 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.

95 Comments
Login to comment

Incredible! It looks as if the majority is looking for a major departure of the last 7 years.

0 ( +8 / -8 )

In the general, both Clinton Sanders would not only beat the living crap out of Trump, Team Dem would take back the Senate, maybe even the House, and many state and local position. Trump is a toxic bag of nativist stupidity.

Anyways, please, oh, please, oh please, haberdasher and tv personality Donald J. Trump win today!

5 ( +11 / -6 )

I was watching a Trump rally last night on Periscope and I couldn't really believe it. Is that really what goes on?? He doesn't say ANYTHING of substance, does crappy stand up, jokes about his hair etc etc. It was like watching the drunk uncle at a cheap wedding, you know: "I love you guys you're the greatest..." amazing really...

7 ( +13 / -6 )

Nothing worth following about Republican nomination,it is so dull,and boring,the only thing makes people follow,is Trump show,thats all,while on the other hand Democratic nomination worth following up and interest,because it makes big difference who will win Hillary or Sanders.I believe it will be a real big revolution on all levels if Sanders will win.Lets keep hoping(not walking).

1 ( +5 / -4 )

@CrazyJoe,

He has given more substance than any of the other candidates. But lets be honest the media is for the most part liberal left-wing so thats what theyll report. If I can recall you are also left leaning so I dont expect you to say anything good. He`s given details countless times. He can poke fun at himself which is an excellent quality.

@ghoneim mohamed,

Are you wishing for America to continue failing?

-11 ( +5 / -16 )

Best link I could find to follow.

http://m.wmur.com/politics/election-map

Go trump!

-3 ( +7 / -10 )

It's interesting that Sanders is considered radical in the US for suggesting the rich pay a fair share but in some ways he is more to the right of old Republicans such as Eisenhower or Nixon if we look at the tax rates during their time. The neoliberal Regan brought in the big shift, which is wonder the wealthy loved him. Clinton and Obama should have reversed this trend but they have overseen growing income inequality.

Eisenhower Marginal Tax Rate on Regular Income over $400,000: 92% - 91% Maximum Tax Rate on Long-Term Capital Gains: 25%

Nixon Marginal Tax Rate on Regular Income over $200,000: 77% - 70% Maximum Tax Rate on Long-Term Capital Gains: 27.5% - 36.5%

Regan Marginal Tax Rate on Regular Income: over $215,400: 69.125% - over $29,750: 28% Maximum Tax Rate on Long-Term Capital Gains: 20% - 28%

7 ( +10 / -3 )

It's interesting that Sanders is considered radical in the US for suggesting the rich pay a fair share but in some ways he is more to the right of old Republicans such as Eisenhower or Nixon if we look at the tax rates during their time.

It looks very progressive in the '50's and '60's but I believe the real effective tax rate for millionaires in today's dollars was around 50 percent in the early 50's and dropped throughout the decade reaching 30 percent or so by 1960 which is close to what it is today. The wealthy also shoulder a much higher share of the overall tax burden than 50 or 60 years ago.

-8 ( +1 / -9 )

It's much more complex than just listing tax rates. Loopholes, rebates, shelters and offshore monies are not factored in.

Taxes will increase for the wealthy no matter who is in place. Generally a republican generates job growth and not at Micky D's or Walmart, livable skilled wages which in turn expand the tax base. The liberals want to give away what we don't have. The debt clock is frightening to watch. NO DEMOCRATIC president in this race will reverse that clock.

Taxing the very wealthy won't work. They will simply set up adresses offshore. Even that Hollywood crowd which wants wage equity.....and they are worth millions of dollars a year for their work? Yet they'll preach to the sheep.

-14 ( +1 / -15 )

Mr. Sanders seems to be the most honest candidate but it's not the time for More Socialism in the U.S. right now- I'm suffering enough in my Obamanized Wallet .

-11 ( +1 / -12 )

He has given more substance than any of the other candidates.

I'm willing to admit he has more ideas than I might give him credit for, but more than ANY of the others? Please. I've seen the debates, and the difference in the amount of substance on the Repub and Dem sides is like night and day.

But lets be honest the media is for the most part liberal left-wing so thats what theyll report.

Television media is on the side of the status quo. They keep getting paid as long as things stay the same. Sanders is as much a victim to them as Trump. The difference is that Trump actually deserves the ridicule.

He can poke fun at himself which is an excellent quality.

Are you kidding me? He has some the thinnest skin I've ever seen, and his twitter rants prove it.

Are you wishing for America to continue failing?

How exactly do you think America is failing? And when have truly progressive ideas ever been implemented to be responsible for that failing? Almost everyone agrees that both Trump and Sanders would bring about real change. I just think a President Trump would be a disaster, and I'm confident most of the country agrees.

7 ( +8 / -1 )

Even Sanders admits that nobody, but nobody, ever paid 90% (or whatever) in income taxes. It is a joke. And the marginal rates only applied to those making over 3 million in modern terms, which was obviously an extremely small share of the population.The rate was on the books, but nobody paid them. Even liberals like Old Man Joe Kennedy were pros at doing that. And there used to be a lot LOT more deductions. Thus, someone at the 60% level might only pay an actual 20%. When Reagan lowered the progressive rates, the vast array of deductions were also trimmed back heavily to a shadow of what they were.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

Looking like Sanders devoired Hillary. Interesting.....

Looks like Jeb may take 3rd, imagine that. He spent 10:1 compared to Trump who is a clear leader. Also interesting....

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

if Sanders and Trump are the best options the American system can throw up, we're all in deep trouble...

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

if Sanders and Trump are the best options the American system can throw up, we're all in deep trouble...

Pffft . . . better than a barrack hussein obama. But hey don't blame me. I never voted for, "Change."

Congrats to Sanders & Trump. (LoL) Hillary got snuffed in NH.

-13 ( +2 / -15 )

Trump and Sanders or forecasted or declared winners.

For current numbers: http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/2016/primaries/2016-02-09

News on the Democratic side. Bernie destroys Clinton by well over double digits. Although impressive, since everyone though this would happen, its not really news. At least, that's how Team Clinton will play it. Sanders will milk it for all its worth. Low info voters will be impressed. Who is this Sanders fellow, they will ask. The real question is, will this help Sanders in South Carolina. Up to now, no evidence that he has moved the needle there and elswhere.

On the Republican side: Trump crushing was also expected, so the same story as above for Trump. With a third of the vote in, and if the pecentages hold, the big winner is Kaisich, since he's leading the second tier by more than a few points.

Rubio is a BIG LOOSER. Currently no 5 behind Bush and Cruz. RoboMarco may have been it. So much for weeding out and consolidating the establishment vote. Same goes for Cruz. If NH ain't Cruz territory, where else other than Iowa is...?

Bush is also a winner to a lesser degree, because he's in third. He really needs a medal, even if a Bronze. He's got tons of cash, and when Rubio goes down....

So, the establishment candidates (Bush, Kaisich, Rubio, et al) have gooten ore votes when all put together than Cruz and Trump. But it is fractured. And Trump wins.

Conclusion; Trump wins, the Republican party looses.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

"Republican Party elites who are eager to coalesce around a single more mainstream candidate to challenge Trump and Cruz, whom they believe could be unelectable in the November general election." - article

Which summarizes the end of the GOP. When a political party ends up with either a religious nutball or pompous jackass it's tie to take the tent down. The GOP is no more. Just nutballs and jackasses.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

With 22% of the vote in, Sanders is at nearly 20% points above Clinton. If this holds, that is a blowout even Team Clinton can spin favorably. SAnder is about to speak.

Later.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Trump has supporters,thats fine.He be might be clearer and more straight in expressing his opinions than others,thats also true,but he already lost great part of voters,even on his party level,let alone others.Political game has its own rules,every one has to follow,but no one can or even dares to change the rules.Trump show can work well on congress elections,but not as USA president.This another story.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

If Sanders is the nominee, it's the final countdown for the Dems! Ahhh, just conjures up memories of the Wizard of Oz when the munchkins were dancing around singing "ding, dong the witch is dead..."

-11 ( +3 / -14 )

"watching a Trump rally last night on Periscope and I couldn't really believe it. Is that really what goes on?? He doesn't say ANYTHING of substance, does crappy stand up, jokes about his hair etc etc. It was like watching the drunk uncle at a cheap wedding," - comments

This is the most concise description of the Trump stump tactics.

Trump rambles between ejecting protesters and telling the crowd he knows this guy or that guy and he's great and they work really well together. "That Dali Lama, Lama big hitter, I call him Lama, , , ,"

Trump seems so certain of his celebrity that bamboozling a crowd of dolts shows how much contempt Trump has for all the "American Losers" at his rallies.

It is astounding how absolutely repellent this vulgar man is. As the comment quoted says perfectly, the Trump stump is nothing more than watching an old man stagger through the field of his pet peeves, blatant prejudice and bloated self importance.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

Which summarizes the end of the GOP.

Wrong. The Grand Old Party will always remain in US politics, and you know this.

The GOP is no more. Just nutballs and jackasses.

(LoL) & what say you about a spineless barrack hussien obama and his goons?

-7 ( +3 / -10 )

Sanders " We {Dems and the country] must come together and NOT ALLLOW right wing Republicans to take the White House"

"People want real change."

"We can no longer continue to have (a system) where Wall Street and the Billionaire CLass continue to buy elections...Americans understand that is not what democracy is about. That is what oligarchy is about. And we will not allow that continue."

Hell, yea!

4 ( +6 / -2 )

The Dems are in a panic mode now, regardless of what they want the public to think, there is a very real concern that Trump can pull this off and especially if Sanders is the nominee, then it's lights out! One of my good friends who works for KTLA in Los Angeles has a friend that is a liberal and an insider, the Dems are really concerned now that they have a deeply flawed candidate and that they are looking at other possible contingency plans should Hillary drops out or is pushed out for some benign reason.....

-13 ( +1 / -14 )

The Dems are in a panic mode now, regardless of what they want the public to think, there is a very real concern that Trump can pull this off and especially if Sanders is the nominee, then it's lights out!

Actually, we're hoping for a Sanders vs. Trump:

CONFIDENCE OF LEAD The probability that Sanders leads Trump is 98%.

Link:<http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-general-election-trump-vs-sanders

7 ( +7 / -0 )

bass4funk,

The Democratic party establishment might be panicking, but progressive voters aren't.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

I've long said that Kasich is the sleeper candidate. Looks like he'll come in a strong second. Governor of Ohio, a real maverick, steadfast in his beliefs but not in-your-face - he could have a shot. We'll see how he does down south in South Carolina. (Not that I'd prefer him as president, but at least he has substance.)

Taxing the very wealthy won't work.

MarkG, that's a common conservative stance: can't tax the rich or the corporations 'cause they'll simply offshore. Any suggestions? Perhaps we should drastically downsize that behemoth that consumes 58% of the Federal budget, the Pentagon.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Actually, we're hoping for a Sanders vs. Trump

And Trump will do to Sanders like that song from funk master Bootsy Collins "Body Slam"

CONFIDENCE OF LEAD The probability that Sanders leads Trump is 98%.

....and then the Dems woke up to the harsh reality and found themselves hugging boxes of Kleenex tissues after Sanders gives his speech and concedes to Trump.

The Democratic party establishment might be panicking,

Might? Might? Bit of a gross understatement there....

but progressive voters aren't.

That's because No one really cares about them and they're not big enough to influence the overall elections. So there is no reason for them to be alarmed. And what the hell does Progressive mean? When did liberals start using the term progressive as if it takes away from what liberals are: socialists, pure and simple. At least Sanders can admit what he is, unlike most of these people that think changing the euphemism of the word will make it seem they are less for income redistribution.

-12 ( +1 / -13 )

No one really cares about them and they're not big enough to influence the overall elections.

Good point bass. Look at our native California for example . . . you just know Hillary has got that state in the bag.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

these people that think changing the euphemism of the word will make it seem they are less for income redistribution.

As I a liberal progressive socialist atheist income redistributist, I think you misunderestimate us. We are not changing the euphemisms of the word; we simply want to make the pie higher, because we know how hard it is to put food on your family.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

bass4funk,

Progressivism and liberalism have gone hand in hand now for about 100 years now, so long the lines between them have blurred. Socialism used to be more openly associated with them too until it became a dirty word. How do you work in media and not know this? Try looking up what each mean yourself sometime.

Sanders is a liberal, a progressive, and yes, a democratic socialist. And most polls show he'd win in a Trump vs Sanders match up, and if Clinton wins, it'll be her that beats Trump. Maybe you're the one that should be alarmed.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Liberal progressive socialist atheist income redistributists, unite! All you have to lose is your thesauri!

0 ( +3 / -3 )

@Bass One of my good friends who works for KTLA in Los Angeles has a friend that is a liberal and an insider,

A bit surprising a seasoned journalist like you would use this person as a source. I hope when you were on assignment in Iraq you were a little more selective about where you got your info.

And what the hell does Progressive mean?

One thing it doesn't mean is regressing, going back to the 1950's like the Koch brothers and other right wingers want. Progressive might mean that it's 2016 and for the US to face the future it needs to be more inclusive, do a better job of providing opportunities for all its population. It might mean finding ways to improve the economy such as keeping more jobs onshore. It might mean relying less on perpetual war, constantly feeding the military-industrial-academic complex. It might mean cutting back on the size of the military and bringing most troops back to the US to protect its borders. It might mean finding ways to rely less on petroleum, and then developing alternatives to burning it. It might mean reducing the control of those running the Republican and Democratic parties and not marginalizing political parties that can offer alternatives to them. It might mean more term limits for elected officials at all levels. It might mean meaningful restrictions on campaign contributions. It might mean many things: it's up to US citizens to decide. Unless of course the majority want to go back to the 1950's.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

@Ptownsend,

1950`s? elaborate.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Well, Christie is certainly out now, so we're down to five - Trump, Kasich, Cruz, Bush, and Rubio - and none of them are likely to drop out soon. This will be fun, particularly if the latter three find reason to attack Kasich. This will only bring him more attention and, given his laconic nature, will only backfire. My guess is that they will not be able to help themselves.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

This will be fun, particularly if the latter three find reason to attack Kasich.

Yeah, it will be fun. They will attack Kasich. Its the Hunger Games. Very entertaining too. I wonder how Sanders will do in South Carolina?

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

TRUMP!TRUMP!TRUMP!

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

@pointedview 1950`s? elaborate.

1950, 1951, 1952, 1953, 1954, 1955, 1956, 1957, 1958, 1959

3 ( +6 / -3 )

They have to attack Kasich. Republicans no longer make policy.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

It might mean finding ways to improve the economy such as keeping more jobs onshore. It might mean relying less on perpetual war, constantly feeding the military-industrial-academic complex. It might mean cutting back on the size of the military and bringing most troops back to the US to protect its borders. It might mean finding ways to rely less on petroleum, and then developing alternatives to burning it. It might mean reducing the control of those running the Republican and Democratic parties and not marginalizing political parties that can offer alternatives to them. It might mean more term limits for elected officials at all levels. It might mean meaningful restrictions on campaign contributions. It might mean many things: it's up to US citizens to decide

Shhh......don't stop now....you almost sound like a conservative (other than cutting the military, of course).

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Congratulations for Bernie Sanders who succeeded to surprise us, as i hoped,hopefully will keep doing.On the other hand Trump winning doesnt surprise me,still a long way full of hard times waiting for him,i still believe he wont win,though i strongly believe he is the best of Republican candidates,but no way to compare him with Hillary,let alone Sanders,but again i repeat"NEVER SAY NEVER IN POLITICS".

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Not that this is a Japan election but whoever posted " Trump is a toxic bag of nativist stupidity" comment does not know politics much less about business. Trump, dump, chump whatever one calls this businessmen should get respect, so what if he went bankrupt, he did it in a way that stuck it to the banks, hell why not do the same to China. Clinton on the other hand is surprising that she isn't being indicted for breaking US Patriot Act. Finally to Sanders, that is one everyone should be wary with this rhetoric and social standards else everyone forgets the underlying socialist country that is not by any means dead nor ever was.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

As I a liberal progressive socialist atheist income redistributist, I think you misunderestimate us.

Really, I doubt it.

We are not changing the euphemisms of the word; we simply want to make the pie higher, because we know how hard it is to put food on your family.

Difficult to do when trying to take other peoples money or you try to punish success.

Progressivism and liberalism have gone hand in hand now for about 100 years now, so long the lines between them have blurred.

One main reason is, when the word socialism hits the palette of most Americans it leaves a metallic taste in their mouths.

Socialism used to be more openly associated with them too until it became a dirty word. How do you work in media and not know this?

Hey, I'm from California. That's like asking me if I know who Mickey Mouse is. Come on now.....

Try looking up what each mean yourself sometime.

That's the problem with libs, they depend on Google too much.

Sanders is a liberal, a progressive, and yes, a democratic socialist.

And I applaud him for his honesty, that doesn't mean the country overwhelmingly would vote for a socialist knowing that it would virtually further bankrupt the nation, California is already a mess and the libs are still not done with it?

And most polls show he'd win in a Trump vs Sanders match up, and if Clinton wins, it'll be her that beats Trump. Maybe you're the one that should be alarmed.

Lol, Alarmed? No, not even close. I know libs will put out anything to make it seem in the most impossible situation they are winning and it makes sense to have hope, but this is going to not only be fun to watch when the Dems lose, but the fact that this might once and for all humble them. I would bet $600 that Sanders would lose, not only lose, but it wouldn't even come close and even if he did, he'd serve one term becaus the damage that would make the country implode would be irrevocable.

A bit surprising a seasoned journalist like you would use this person as a source.

Why, because he's one of the more famous journalists in L.A. On TV and is a liberal??

I hope when you were on assignment in Iraq you were a little more selective about where you got your info.

You don't know the first thing about reporting in a war zone, with all due respect.

One thing it doesn't mean is regressing, going back to the 1950's like the Koch brothers and other right wingers want.

No, we just want you libs to relocate to overseas.

Progressive might mean that it's 2016 and for the US to face the future it needs to be more inclusive, do a better job of providing opportunities for all its population.

You guys had almost 8 years and believe me, more income redistribution, punishing people for success and higher taxation won't do it. How are you guys going to tackle the debt? How are you guys going to deal with radical Islam instead of just turning the cheek and making peace with a radical group that would cut off your head in a blink of an eye. How are you going to get 47 million people off of welfare, create high paying jobs over $8 without destroying small businesses? How are you guys going to rebuild race relations since Obama has completely.....that up? How are you guys going to bring the corporate tax rate of 40% down, the cost of living in the metropolitan cities? How are you going to fix our infrastructures that are in urgent need of a serious overhaul, especially in the East Coast. What about the 1% that have the power to relocate? What will you guys do when many of them will start to hide their money from the greedy socialists or just move away then what? The middle class has been for the most part wiped out over the past 7 years, so how will you libs deal with all these problems? Flowers, paisley and unicorns ain't gonna cut it.

It might mean finding ways to improve the economy such as keeping more jobs onshore. It might mean relying less on perpetual war,

So that means, in lib language, we just have to deal with living with the occasional terrorists killing and bombing people, but that's just life.

constantly feeding the military-industrial-academic complex.

I like a strong and powerful military, in fact, it helps me sleep better at night.

It might mean cutting back on the size of the military and bringing most troops back to the US to protect its borders.

If we had a wall, we wouldn't need the military to do the job a wall or electric fence could do.

It might mean finding ways to rely less on petroleum, and then developing alternatives to burning it.

We're doing that already and in the meantime and until that time comes where we can throw algae in our gas tanks, we should drill for more oil at home, that way, we are less dependent on Mideast oil.

It might mean reducing the control of those running the Republican and Democratic parties and not marginalizing political parties that can offer alternatives to them. It might mean more term limits for elected officials at all levels.

Well, on that part, you won't get an argument from me.

It might mean meaningful restrictions on campaign contributions. It might mean many things: it's up to US citizens to decide. Unless of course the majority want to go back to the 1950's

In the 1950s if you even uttered the word socialist you were an outcast. Good times.

-8 ( +2 / -10 )

"If Sanders is the nominee, it's the final countdown for the Dems! Ahhh" Yes, and it will also be Trump with pretty much the same policies. But just an entertaining big mouth. At least with Trump we can have some cool comedy hours.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Mrs. Bill Clinton got beat by a guy who until last year was not even a democrat.

If she wasn't such an evil person, you might almost feel sorry for her. But once again, a socialist with massive appeal to the millennials just cleaned her clock in New Hampshire.

Mrs. Clinton got the white over 65 vote and those who make over $200,000. Sanders mopped the floor with all the other voters.

The American people have awoken to her duplicity and her deceitfulness. Unfortunately, she will hang around until Super Tuesday but by then the Bern will have an insurmountable lead.

Watch the DNC fire Debbie Schultz, throw Bernie under the bus and push Joe Biden into the nomination. Bernie will then run as an independent bleeding millions of democratic votes; thus ensuring the GOP will win the White House.

Doesn't matter who wins on the GOP side because the democrats are on a pathway to that special place that Madeline Albright assured us exists. . . .

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

Watch the DNC fire Debbie Schultz, throw Bernie under the bus and push Joe Biden into the nomination. Bernie will then run as an independent bleeding millions of democratic votes; thus ensuring the GOP will win the White House.

That would be the best dream scenario for the GOP. As for Schultz, she has got the be the biggest joke the DNC EVER elected as head leader.

Doesn't matter who wins on the GOP side because the democrats are on a pathway to that special place that Madeline Albright assured us exists. . .

You beat me to it. Albright really can't say anything. If you see Biden suddenly jump into the race, you know for sure the Dems have hit the ceiling.

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

If you see Biden suddenly jump into the race, you know for sure the Dems have hit the ceiling.

Heh, more like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. . . .

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

But once again, a socialist with massive appeal to the millennials just cleaned her clock in New Hampshire.

Well, Tex, I know that geographic education in the Lone Star State doesn't extend far beyond Kansas and Oklahoma (think it has to do with the limited number of fingers on one hand), so I thought I'd clue you in to the fact that New Hampshire is next to and a virtual twin of Vermont, of which Sanders as been a long-time senator. (You can look it up.) His victory there was a given, though his margin was better than expected. Still, primaries now shift to your neck of the woods - South Carolina (Google it - it's a few to the right of Oklahoma). We'll see what happens there. Whoever prevails, though - Bernie or Hillary - will have easy going with whatever charred wreckage emerges from this Republican debacle.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Bernie or Hillary - will have easy going with whatever charred wreckage emerges from this Republican debacle.

Hillary just got served and clobbered and you talk about the GOP being a charred wreckage? I'm surprised that the presidency is once again eluding her,

-5 ( +3 / -8 )

"For some Republican leaders, back-to-back victories by Trump and Cruz, an uncompromising conservative, add urgency to the need to coalesce around a more mainstream candidate"

Um, no thanks? We've never had anything but "mainstream" candidates taking office, and we've got a $19 trillion national debt, a porous border, a screwed-up healthcare system, etc., etc., there needs to be MAJOR change, not Obama-style change.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

There's just a tad of irony in hem hawing about the GOP candidates.

The Dems are being throat-punched by a lifelong "independent" that became a Democrat like 5 minutes ago, one who accomplished precisely nothing in his very obscure political career, and has been relative political nobody--other than being commie union agitator--his entire life.

And the GOP is a debacle?! Pffffftttttt!

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

The difference is that the GOP candidates are all completely out to lunch, while Sanders is awesome.

It's going to be nice to watch him take the nomination and the White House to follow.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

(...uh...realist...The Repubs are being throat-punched by a lifelong "independent" that became a Republican like 5 minutes ago, one who has never had a political career, and has been relative political nobody--other than being casino developer and TV host--his entire life. The difference is it looks increasingly likely your guy will get the nomination. FYI.)

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Sanders is a fraud promising all you lazy wannabe's a bunch of goodies he knows he can't deliver. You clowns are pumping his dope straight into your veins.

Uh...Laguana....he's not my guy, so what "difference"? Compared to what? Whom? FYI. I was belittling him. FYI. And, he won't win the DNC bid. FYI. They'll oust him first. FYI. He'll end up running as an independent. FYI. And when he does, FYI, he'll cipher votes to the GOP. FYI.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

I think it would be a mistake to nominate Sanders. The guy talks sense I'll grant, but he could put a Republican in the WH. Clinton can win the general election against all comers from the Republican crazy Asylum, I'm just not sure Sanders can.

At least Kaisch made a decent result, he's probably the only sane candidate from the monster raving loony party. But having poured all his resources into NH I don't see how he can carry on against the war-chests of the crazies and obviously limp-wrist Bush III.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

"and those who make over $200,000" It seems the Dems are the smart people's party. Interesting analysis.

"with massive appeal to the millennials" I have figured out that people who say "millennials" are just old bitter people who are jealous of the "millennials'" youth. I can't think of any other reason why they say that.

"you talk about the GOP being a charred wreckage?" No difference since if Trump is elected it still means more taxes and more publica healthcare.

"and we've got a $19 trillion national debt" Trump's tax hikes can address this

"a porous border" The Mexicans said they will not build the wall. It's the US's problem. But the Republicans said that illegal immigration is reversing so is it a real problem?

"a screwed-up healthcare system" Makes a good point for Medicare for all.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

"The difference is that the GOP candidates are all completely out to lunch"

What about Chris Christie?

"At least Kaisch made a decent result, he's probably the only sane candidate from the monster raving loony party."

What about Chris Christie?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

What about Chris Christie?

He's toast.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Right, Madverts. Interestingly, that supposedly "deep bench" of the GOP has dwindled to Trump, Cruz, Rubio, Kasich and Bush, and in the panic of preventing the former two (or one) from being nominated, the party seems to have lost track of giving any sh!t about the ultimate electability of their nominee. Only the latter two have any semblance of a chance in the general election, particularly if against Clinton. I'd love to see Kasich rise, if only to make the race a bit more sporting.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

"Chris Christie" He is a fat white Republican Obama. He has the same basic Obama ideas but is actually electable- and at the same time no one is going to doubt that he is 110 American. I'd say he has a pretty decent shot and his behavior is presidential unlike Trump. Warning! He is a secret lover of ObamaCare and expanded Medicaid in his state (Go Republicans).

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

60% Sanders, 38% Clinton.......all those NH women heading to that special place in hell. Heaven help them!

The problem with a two candidate primary. The choices are limited. It was preceived Hillay has it in the bag. Yesterday proved they need to wake up. It wasn't a loss, it was a slaughter for Hillary. She needs to get her village aligned.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

If you see Biden suddenly jump into the race, you know for sure the Dems have hit the ceiling.

They have really backed themselves into a corner this time. It is too late for Biden or anyone to get their name on the ballot for the primaries but I wouldn't be surprised at all if neither Sanders or Clinton had enough delegates for a first round win at the Convention. Then the negotiating starts.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

seems like the clown car term is correct the occupents were wrong. The DNC clown car is correct with DWS at the wheel. And it's okay, they can take time off to be artists and collect "entitlements" from the hard working citizens as Nancy one said.

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

"The problem with a two candidate primary. The choices are limited." Ross Perot

"all those NH women heading to that special place in hell." For what? And what about the men of NH?

"and collect "entitlements" from the hard working citizens" Old white bitter Republicans on (or soon to be) government support who somehow think they are important to the US's prosperity and are really bitter towards the "millennials" on reasons of age alone.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

nishikatFEB. 10, 2016 - 09:10PM JSTOld white bitter Republicans on (or soon to be)

I'm pretty sure they are all in that Bubble.

government support who somehow think they are important to the US's prosperity and are really bitter towards the "millennials" on reasons of age alone.

They're living in the past. Us millennials want a change from the bygone era where homophobic, racist, bigoted Republican bubble dwellers remain in Denial. They really are the Western Taliban.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

The difference is that the GOP candidates are all completely out to lunch, while Sanders is awesome.

Awesome at what? Bloviating and regurgitating the typical mantra of robbing Paul to give to Peter?

It's going to be nice to watch him take the nomination and the White House to follow.

It's Feb. 10th, please wait until April 1st. to make that hilarious joke again, love it. ROFL,

(...uh...realist...The Repubs are being throat-punched by a lifelong "independent" that became a Republican like 5 minutes ago,

Republican? Who?

one who has never had a political career, and has been relative political nobody--other than being casino developer and TV host--his entire life.

We had a peanut farmer, an actor and a constitutional lawyer that was in the Senate and only voted president, so what's the problem?

I think it would be a mistake to nominate Sanders. The guy talks sense I'll grant, but he could put a Republican in the WH. Clinton can win the general election against all comers from the Republican crazy Asylum, I'm just not sure Sanders can.

I most definetly hope and agree with that.

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

Clinton can win the general election against all comers from the Republican crazy

It is going to be tough, particularly if Bloomberg runs as an Independent, which he likely will, and her legal troubles heat up, which they most definitely will.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

"The difference is that the GOP candidates are all completely out to lunch, while Sanders is awesome."

"Awesome at what? Bloviating and regurgitating the typical mantra of robbing Paul to give to Peter?"

George Bernard Shaw said that the government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always count on the support of Paul. Over the past thirty-odd years, the government has been in the pocket of Paul while Peter has been completely shafted.

Bernie Sanders offers something different. It's about bloody time.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

MarkG: Yesterday proved they need to wake up. It wasn't a loss, it was a slaughter for Hillary. She needs to get her village aligned.

So what I can piece together from Republican comments here is that they believe Clinton was poised to win New Hampshire and collapsed. And it looks like the bubble is printing stories about some kind of chaos with the Democrats. Interesting.

I'm pretty sure the GOP read the headlines outside of the bubble and just switched the parties around. The GOP is in chaos? Well let's tell our followers that the Democrats are in chaos. You see that a lot with "Obama won't compromise" type catchphrases. They most likely read about how people felt about the GOP then switched it around and presented it to the low information bubble dwellers who now repeat it.

At the end of the day it's the same story. Republicans tell themselves that they still have a shot at the White House while doing nothing to expand their base. Possible, but not likely, and at some point the GOP will have to come to terms with this. It looks like they aren't ready to do that yet.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

LizzFEB. 10, 2016 - 10:16PM JST It is going to be tough, particularly if Bloomberg runs as an Independent, which he likely will, and her legal troubles heat up, which they most definitely will.

Bah, you've been saying this since Beeeenghaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaziiii.

Do you mind using quotes in your posts? They are sometimes hard to make sense of if for the rest of us if you don't. Thanks :)

0 ( +2 / -2 )

"Bah, you've been saying this since Beeeenghaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaziiii." Yes, and many have been saying that Obama should be arrested for defrauding the Department of State to fake his citizenship and WHEN will he get arrested for that?

But for Hillary if it wasn't mail-gat, or Benghazi, it would be something else? People would make a scandal if Hillary didn't use a No. 2 pencil for her SATs decades ago. Jeez. (1) Evidence (2) Arrest (3) Discussion- like with Scooter Libby.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

There has been no upside to Mrs. Clinton's campaign for several months now. She's been battling Mr. Sanders all the time for supremacy, and with the exception of a "coin toss" in Iowa, has come up empty.

For angry leftists expecting a truly socialist United States where everything is free, a crackpot like the Bern is a dream come true.

Even younger voters, many of whom were not even born when Mrs. Clinton's long career of manipulation, ineptitude and deception first began, are not warming to her, no matter what identity she switches to today. She's a fake, always has been and always will be. . . .

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

"For angry leftists expecting a truly socialist United States" ObamaCare started with Nixon and the National Review pushes a mandate.

But socialist?! So what? Sweden is socialist and they have one of the highest percentages of billionaires for their population. Sure. I'd love to be a billionaire with an 80%(?) tax rate. Because I'd still have 200 million dollars and it seems Sweden is a true socialist billionaire factory. Gimmie more of that!

"She's a fake, always has been and always will be. . . ." Then go Trump. He will surely raise taxes as he said. More taxes= socialism.

Again, people who complain about "socialism" and "millennials" are usually over 65 and using it "Keep your ObamaCare government hands off my government Medicare"

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Bernie is awesome. He's getting young people interested in the political process and young people these days skew left. It's the ticking time bomb for the GOP and Sanders is accelerating that. The GOP knows this but they can't change so instead they are working hard to remove polling stations from college campuses, curbing voter registration drives, refusing to accept college issued IDs at voting stations, etc. One GOP official shut down civics classes in his district because "It was confusing my son about whether he could vote or not." Yep, he actually said that. And of course bubble dwellers accept it without question since they are trained to keep quiet.

I'm betting if bubble dwellers really saw some of the comments Bernie makes they'd agree with a much higher percentage than they think. Why is Healthcare putting people into bankruptcy? Why is nearly all new income going to the top 1%? Why do companies pay these massive fines for fraud but no one ever goes to jail? How can we have a democracy with the rich pouring millions and millions of dollars into elections? Why have wages been falling for decades? Why is college over a thousand percent more expensive today than in the 80s?

You might disagree with his solutions but he's brining up issues that need to be talked about. That alone is a win. Republicans shouldn't feel threatened by the questions, they should be asking them to their politicians and demanding answers. But then again this is a group so controlled that they just stand there breathing through their mouths with a blank look when you ask them why their party hasn't had a single vote on an Obama replacement.

You'll notice that no GOP member here talks about specific thing Sanders says, obviously because they are kept in the dark. It's mostly just catchphrases. Ask them what they think about the government massively profiting on student loans and they'll immediately cut you off with, "Sanders?!?! The commie?!?! Oh my God that man is going to take all of our money and give it to lazy people!!!" And then no one talks about the student loan problem. Gotta love the bubble dwellers ignoring issues that should be important to them, all because the socialist said it.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Clinton can win the general election against all comers from the Republican crazy

Perhaps if she is to be the nominee or if she's not indicted.

George Bernard Shaw said that the government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always count on the support of Paul.

So now we're quoting socialists??

I prefer a clearer pragmatic view of capitalism.

Winston Churchill: Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.

Over the past thirty-odd years, the government has been in the pocket of Paul while Peter has been completely shafted.

More like, the overreach of government is what is stifling and impeding the growth of America.

And it looks like the bubble is printing stories about some kind of chaos with the Democrats. Interesting.

More like the truth, but I get it why the Hillary camp and the Dems altogether would put on a poker face to give the simulation that all is well in the unicornverse.

'm pretty sure the GOP read the headlines outside of the bubble and just switched the parties around. The GOP is in chaos?

Both parties, the difference is, the GOP has more candidates and are funnier and more entertaining to watch. the Dems on the other hand is like watching the grass grow without the humor.

Well let's tell our followers that the Democrats are in chaos.

Trying to deny it is not being truthful and not accepting to deal with reality. Come on now....

You see that a lot with "Obama won't compromise" type catchphrases. They most likely read about how people felt about the GOP then switched it around and presented it to the low information bubble dwellers who now repeat it.

Is that what you libs are reaching for? Desperation hit an all time low for you guys now.

At the end of the day it's the same story. Republicans tell themselves that they still have a shot at the White House while doing nothing to expand their base.

Super, we went through this so many times and your calculations with the exception of Obama winning a second term are quite off the mark.

Possible, but not likely, and at some point the GOP will have to come to terms with this. It looks like they aren't ready to do that yet.

Denying once again the inevitable. LOL

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

A one-term embarrassing Trump presidency would guarantee 8 years of a real New Deal-style Democratic president . I say VoteTrump!

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Bernie is awesome.

If you like Karl Marx and socialism, then give a big Hell Yeah!

He's getting young people interested in the political process and young people these days skew left.

Amazing how a big chunk of young people don't know anything and because our school institutions are overrun with out of control, heartless and communist socialist liberals, we are creating some of the most ignorant and ill-informed and lazy generation that believes big government and government entitlement dependency is the way to go.

https://youtu.be/0e50fQLyebI

https://youtu.be/nlgi-tH8oag

I laughed so hard, I almost threw up! At the same time, it's very sad. That kind of thought process would never have been in anyone persons head 9 years ago. This is why math is important, but kids just don't learn it anymore, if they did, we wouldn't be talking about all this.

It's the ticking time bomb for the GOP and Sanders is accelerating that.

Hmmmm, actually, it's the other way around, but why crash an inferiority complex party?

The GOP knows this but they can't change so instead they are working hard to remove polling stations from college campuses, curbing voter registration drives, refusing to accept college issued IDs at voting stations, etc.

But having thug Black Panthers intimidating Whites, having dead and illegals vote is perfectly ok? I really do understand why you guys are so adamant about Photo ID, it would cut the fraud down and God knows the Dems would have a worst scenario nightmare if it goes through. If they were honest and upfront, it wouldn't even be an issue, but the party of excuses (very bad excuses) will say anything to make you think doing it is in some shape or form, racist??! LOL

One GOP official shut down civics classes in his district because "It was confusing my son about whether he could vote or not." Yep, he actually said that. And of course bubble dwellers accept it without question since they are trained to keep quiet.

How many times have we heard from teachers bullying kids in government classes that if they have any conservative views they are often scorned and ridiculed from their teachers or having a different opinion or for being a conservative. So the party of tolerance is actually really NOT that tolerant.

I'm betting if bubble dwellers really saw some of the comments Bernie makes they'd agree with a much higher percentage than they think. Why is Healthcare putting people into bankruptcy?

Why did the Dems ran a horrible and flawed system through without a single GOP vote and lied to people that they could keep their doctor and their premiums wouldn't rise?

Why is nearly all new income going to the top 1%?

Why do we have 47 million people on food stamps and why don't we have higher wage paying jobs? Oh, then that would mean, people would need less government. Well, we just can't have that, can we?

Why do companies pay these massive fines for fraud but no one ever goes to jail?

Maybe some of these people are friends of Hillary's.

How can we have a democracy with the rich pouring millions and millions of dollars into elections?

Hillary received over 600K Goldman for 3 speeches. The 1% pantsuits lady that claims she fights for inequality but lives as good as Trump or Romney. Hypocrites! Maybe if the Dems would get out of peoples lives and wallets we could have a real democracy.

Why have wages been falling for decades? Why is college over a thousand percent more expensive today than in the 80s?

If we could get the banks and the and the Federal Government out of the educational system, we could bring a lot of the tuition down. But Deems love taxes too, too much, get them out, tuition would go down.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/a-surprising-reason-for-rising-college-tuition-2015-07-07

If the majority of kids knew this, Bernie wouldn't be where he's at now.

You might disagree with his solutions but he's brining up issues that need to be talked about. That alone is a win.

No, it just means, we need to get rid of the Federal Government out of the educational college system.

Republicans shouldn't feel threatened by the questions, they should be asking them to their politicians and demanding answers.

Put if Hillary gets asked a question and doesn't want to answer she gets a pass and that's Ok?

But then again this is a group so controlled that they just stand there breathing through their mouths with a blank look when you ask them why their party hasn't had a single vote on an Obama replacement.

They have a lot of ideas, but they want to make sure their ideas work and not shove them down the throats of Americans and then later get the blame for it, smart move.

You'll notice that no GOP member here talks about specific thing Sanders

You mean like talking about FREE STUFF every 10 min.? You're right, they don't!

says, obviously because they are kept in the dark. It's mostly just catchphrases. Ask them what they think about the government massively profiting on student loans and they'll immediately cut you off with, "Sanders?!?!

Sanders is one part of the problem as well as the banks and Federal Government.

The commie?!?! Oh my God that man is going to take all of our money and give it to lazy people!!!"

Pretty much.

And then no one talks about the student loan problem.

I never hear Bernie talking about creating strong work ethics and working to create higher waged jobs by cutting taxes and encouraging growth in the private sector.

Gotta love the bubble dwellers ignoring issues that should be important to them, all because the socialist said it.

No, just Dems are so busy being mesmerized by an old 74 year old Bolshevik and thinking if he's president, America will be a prosperous, but in reality it would be far worse that having Obama serve one more term.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

Bernie Sanders should realize it wont be easy at all for him presidency marathon,Hillary backed by hyper giant lobbies and cartels will make cut throat war.Its simply to be or not war,because Bernie is ending a big stable period,,policies,rules and power balances to start a new era.Normally will be a war between one gonna set against one gonna rise,thats why i consider this elections is one of the most important one in the History of States in case Sanders will win.Hopefully he will.All best of luck Sanders.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

George Bernard Shaw said that the government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always count on the support of Paul.

If Paul equals the public sector, he's looking pretty fat.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

"You mean like talking about FREE STUFF every 10 min.? You're right, they don't!" Don't say bad things about the SS and Medicare you are on

"Hillary received over 600K Goldman for 3 speeches." Is that illegal?

0 ( +2 / -2 )

How many times have we heard from teachers bullying kids in government classes that if they have any conservative views they are often scorned and ridiculed from their teachers or having a different opinion or for being a conservative. So the party of tolerance is actually really NOT that tolerant.

Exactly. Those lib teachers are full of so much one-sided nonsense. Let the kids form their OWN opinions and how they will place its value.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

"that if they have any conservative views they are often scorned" Like the arrested PP anti abortionists. Yes, it's the Democrat's fault they are facing years.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

mohammed: Bernie Sanders should realize it wont be easy at all for him presidency marathon

Bernie Sanders needs the marathon. I love pretty much everything he says about the domestic situation in the US but I'm curious as to how he will handle international affairs. The US has a unique position and it's important to vet that. Vetting people takes time. I want to know what his worldviews are before I'll vote for him. If he can't produce confidence on that issue then he'll have trouble maintaining against Clinton.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Chris Christie is out. Kind of disappointed since he seems to be one of the normal Republicans out there.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Bernie Sanders needs the marathon. I love pretty much everything he says about the domestic situation in the US but I'm curious as to how he will handle international affairs.

He probably won't be able to do anything. Given his aggressive tax proposals there won't be anything left to deal. With any kind of military threat if it arises.

The US has a unique position and it's important to vet that. Vetting people takes time. I want to know what his worldviews are before I'll vote for him.

Given Sanders history when it comes to being pretty much domestically interested in mostly financial matters, like with Trump, he'd better study and study quick or he'll be an even bigger laughing stock than he already is.

If he can't produce confidence on that issue then he'll have trouble maintaining against Clinton.

And with the mounting problems she has, so much to the point it's slowly harming her presidency, you just might see old Joe Biden jumping into the race.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

"Given his aggressive tax proposals" Trump will raise taxes. This will fuel government healthcare.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"How many times have we heard from teachers bullying kids in government classes" - comments

Finally someone has the courage to attack teachers from their imaginary world of victimhood. Comical.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Ask them what they think about the government massively profiting on student loans

The government isn't profiting; the lenders are. The lenders lobbied the government to guarantee student loans, in essence ensuring a scheme where profits are privatized and risk is socialized (dumped on the government, i.e., the taxpayers). From the lender's point of view, it's heads I win, tails you lose. The government is on the hook for any defaults. About Sanders' "free education" plan, the question is: You don't pay my rent; why should I pay for your kids' education?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You don't pay my rent; why should I pay for your kids' education?

Do you want to live with a bunch of uneducated people?

And it's an honest question, because that's what it comes down to. The higher the overall education levels of a country, the more economically stable it is, and the higher quality of life for everyone. It also decreases the levels of income disparity.

So to directly answer your question, because it makes your country a better place, and your life a more quality existence.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Do you want to live with a bunch of uneducated people?

I'd rather live with uneducated people who pay their own way than educated people who don't.

The higher the overall education levels of a country, the more economically stable it is, and the higher quality of life for everyone. It also decreases the levels of income disparity.

First, post hoc ergo propter hoc. Second, sending poorly educated people to college is not going to increase the education level. The U.S. does not have a shortage of college graduates.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sending poorly educated people to college is not going to increase the education level.

What? By very definition, it most definitely is. But lets ignore that. It's not about sending someone 'poorly educated' to college. It's about creating class mobility. As long as college is kept too expensive for lower class people to be able to afford, it restricts their mobility. And when the lower classes are kept down, they will look to other means to get themselves out of poverty - drug dealing and crime being one means that many turn to.

The U.S. does not have a shortage of college graduates.

What does that have to do with anything? It's not about a shortage, it's about increasing overall education levels to create a better standard of life for everyone.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

What does that have to do with anything? It's not about a shortage, it's about increasing overall education levels to create a better standard of life for everyone.

What you'll end up with is more people with paper credentials who don't know anything, because they were not prepared to go to college. You'll also end up with a lot of uni drop-outs because they haven't been educated to university level. I don't consider that an increase in education level.

Schools are throwing money at poor students who qualify for grants and scholarships. The problem is that too many don't qualify, or they "qualify" by virtue of quotas and then drop out because they can't hack college. The difference in Europe is that fewer people overall go to university and admissions are competitive. That model does't apply to the U.S. A more effective use of the money would be in improving pre-college education.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

What you'll end up with is more people with paper credentials who don't know anything, because they were not prepared to go to college.

Why? How does making college free allow for people to pass without making the grades? That makes no sense. They will still need to pass their courses to graduate.

You'll also end up with a lot of uni drop-outs because they haven't been educated to university level.

Yes, this is true. But better that more people have more opportunities, with some failing, than to just keep them all out in the first place.

I don't consider that an increase in education level.

The uni drop outs are not. The additional college graduates are most definitely an increase in overall education levels.

Schools are throwing money at poor students who qualify for grants and scholarships.

For the most part, only the ones with excellent grades, or who are good at sports. That doesn't help the people who are capable, but not exceptional.

Having college be prohibitively expensive simply prohibits the poor from going to college. And that goes against the American dream, where class mobility is a possibility.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Why? How does making college free allow for people to pass without making the grades?

Making college free encourages crappy schools to take your money without giving an education. If you're spending someone else's money, you care less about the value of education.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Making college free encourages crappy schools to take your money without giving an education.

You don't think there should be standards for educational institutions that operate on public funds? That just doesn't make sense at all, and would be absolutely stupid.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites