Donald Trump Smashes Incumbent President Primary Record in New Hampshire

Congratulations Mr. President on a record-breaking win!

Donald Trump Smashes Incumbent President Primary Record in New Hampshire

WASHINGTON, DC - JANUARY 31: U.S. President Donald Trump and First Lady Melania Trump walk along the South Lawn to Marine One as they depart from the White House for a weekend trip to Mar-a-Lago on January 31, 2020 in Washington, DC. Senators are expected to debate and then vote …

Sarah Silbiger/Getty Images

CHARLIE SPIERING

12 Feb 2020 Breitbart News

President Donald Trump earned historic support in the New Hampshire primary on Tuesday, easily beating the vote tallies of four recent incumbent presidents in the state.

With 90 percent of the vote reporting on Wednesday, Trump won 123,629 votes in the Republican primary, despite not having a serious challenger.

Here is the tally for previous New Hampshire primaries for incumbent presidents, who also won their re-election.

President Donald Trump in 2020: >123,629
President Barack Obama in 2012: 49,080
President George W. Bush in 2004: 52,962
President Bill Clinton in 1996: 76,797
President Ronald Reagan in 1984: 65,033

. . . The Trump campaign celebrated the historic numbers on Twitter.

“Enthusiasm for Donald Trump is through the roof!” wrote Trump campaign manager Brad Parscale on Twitter on Tuesday night.

Trump also appeared pleased with the numbers as they came in.

“Wouldn’t a big story be that I got more New Hampshire Primary Votes than any incumbent president, in either party, in the history of that Great State?” he added. “Not an insignificant fact!" . . .

. . . “Fake News CNN and MSDNC have not surprisingly refused to talk about my record-setting number of voters in New Hampshire (and in Iowa),” Trump wrote on Twitter. “That’s why they are poorly rated Fake News!” . . .

Small typo correction mine.

2 Likes

Seems that 10% is more than Biden got.

I’d be curious to know how many of those are normally Dems who switched parties to upset the cart a bit :wink: I’ve considered doing so myself in some elections.

I guess the same question can be asked for those (crossovers?) who voted for Trump in the 2016 primaries.

1 Like

I’m amazed at the political victory laps and prognostications over the votes of a few hundred thousand people in a country of 240 million adults.

2 Likes

Gather ye rosebuds…

The win seems kind of inchoate to me. Over whom did he triumph? Joe Walsh?

2 Likes

Nepperhan . . .

Over whom did he triumph?

.

It is not who he triumphed “over” in this election per se.
He is an incumbant. (There is no significant opposition to incumbants in these cases).

But it shows a base that is willing to turn out even in seemingly irrelevant voting procedures. That is why in national political races they talk about “exciting the base”.

It is a measure of potential general election turn out.

Obama, Bush, Clinton, and Regan (whom Trump “triumphed over” at least in this catagory) had much smaller voter turnouts.

Here is the salient portion again . . .

President Donald Trump in 2020: >123,629
President Barack Obama in 2012: 49,080
President George W. Bush in 2004: 52,962
President Bill Clinton in 1996: 76,797
President Ronald Reagan in 1984: 65,033

2 Likes

Yeah, not as impressive as beating Lyndon Larouche, but he did double Clinton.

I remember her from the Dobie Gillis Show but how many CAFers were around then? :slight_smile:

I thought she had something to do with Andy Warhol?

Don’t tell me it was “Gilligan”?

President Trumps percentage win didn’t surprise me as Walsh pulled out and Weld is pretty unknown but I will give credit for the turnout. I think it was larger than anticipated?

Patty it. . .

I will give credit for the turnout.

True enough Patty. He had a great turnout.

What surprises me in post-election analysis is Bernie Sanders under-performing himself from four years ago.

. . . The numbers stand in stark contrast to 2016 when the Vermont septuagenarian bested former Secretary of State Hillary by double digits in New Hampshire. In that contest, Sanders garnered more than 152,000 votes, compared to just a little over 95,000 for Clinton. Overall, Sanders carried New Hampshire by more than 22 percentage points during that cycle.

The 2016 victory was made possible by high turnout and little competition—two luxuries Sanders did not have this time around. According to exit polls conducted by NBC News, turnout appeared to be lower across New Hampshire than in prior presidential primary cycles. The biggest dropoff seems to have come from new and young voters. In particular, according to one exit poll, only 11 percent of New Hampshire voters were younger than 29 on Tuesday, down from 19 percent in 2016. . .

1 Like

I think the turnout is a push back against Dem antics this past year. Real people are sick and tired of the power games being played by the House in DC.

3 Likes

Theo520 . . .

I think the turnout is a push back against Dem antics this past year. Real people are sick and tired of the power games being played by the House in DC.

I think you are correct.

.

It would be interesting to see how history would have changed if the Democrats ran an honest election four years ago (in my opinion, Bernie won the primary in earnest. Hillary needed it rigged to squeeze him out and got that).

.

I have a feeling a lot of us will be studying a lot more about socialism in the upcoming months.

It is going to be interesting talking to some of my liberal Democrat relatives, some of whom fought against Communism in wars.

It will be informative to see if they can bring themselves vote for a socialist now so they can tow the Democrat party line. Voting for a socialist is a prospect that has been inimical to them their whole lives long. They would bristle when I called Obama a socialist and denied it.

Now Obama will be campaigning with Socialist-Bernie before too long.

Bernie will probably attempt to “re-market” himself as a regular Democrat. I wouldn’t be surprised to see him pick Klobuchar as his running mate. (Him and Warren hate each other so she is probably out. But who knows? Alliances when seeking power can be strange.)

Bernie will re-market himself (we’ll hear lots about Denmark). Kind of like Hillary pretended that there was SOMETHING politically Pro-life in her, back in 2007.

But just like Hillary’s base knew they could count on her for abortion advocacy, Bernie’s support base will know too, they are just trying to fool the voters and that Bernie has socialism running through his proverbial veins.

1 Like

Hey, don’t slight Joe Walsh. He is a heck of a guitar player.

Not that Joe Walsh?

Oh…

…never mind, then.

I doubt it.

The other 50% + wanted Trump removed from office immediately.

ProVobis (on Bernie picking Klobuchar for a running mate) . . .

I doubt it.

Oh I am not saying that because of any “life” issues.

I know Klobuchar is rabidly pro-abortion. (That will be a prerequisite for Bernie - a pro-abort running mate.)

But I am thinking Bernie may use Klobuchar, to bridge the gap with establishment Democrats
(not with pro-life conservatives . . . even the never-Trumpers).

Who do YOU think Bernie will choose for his running mate?

Actually, it doesn’t. It shows that he got a high percentage of whoever wanted to vote in an essentially meaningless primary.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.