2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 111,956
- 52,217
- 2,290
Ruh Roh scooby......President Trump was a sure thing to win the New Hampshire Republican Primary...since he is the sitting President ............ and yet...... he had a bigger turn out to vote in this forgone conclusion than any other President running for a 2nd term....and he did it by a wide margin...
While nobody was looking Trump shattered primary records in New Hampshire
So let’s put Trump’s margin of victory in perspective. With virtually all precincts reporting, President Donald Trump received 110,717 votes. For a trip down memory lane, Barack Obama got 49,080 votes in 2012. George W. Bush in 2004 managed a bit better with 52,962 votes. The only one who came remotely close to this number was Bill Clinton who nabbed 76,797 in 1996. Trump bested that number by more than 35,000.
Back in 1992, Bush 41 took 92,271 votes, but that figure should probably have an asterisk next to it because he was facing a pretty strong challenge from Pat Buchanan, who took 37% of the vote. Still, it was a strong showing, despite the fact that Bush would go on to lose the general election.
So what does this mean? I’d say that none of the Democrats should be taking New Hampshire for granted in November, despite the recent demographic shifts we discussed yesterday. While the outcome was never in doubt, what we’re looking at here is voter enthusiasm. New Hampshire Republicans turned out in record numbers on a blustery February day to cast their votes for Trump in a primary election that was completely meaningless.
While nobody was looking Trump shattered primary records in New Hampshire
So let’s put Trump’s margin of victory in perspective. With virtually all precincts reporting, President Donald Trump received 110,717 votes. For a trip down memory lane, Barack Obama got 49,080 votes in 2012. George W. Bush in 2004 managed a bit better with 52,962 votes. The only one who came remotely close to this number was Bill Clinton who nabbed 76,797 in 1996. Trump bested that number by more than 35,000.
Back in 1992, Bush 41 took 92,271 votes, but that figure should probably have an asterisk next to it because he was facing a pretty strong challenge from Pat Buchanan, who took 37% of the vote. Still, it was a strong showing, despite the fact that Bush would go on to lose the general election.
So what does this mean? I’d say that none of the Democrats should be taking New Hampshire for granted in November, despite the recent demographic shifts we discussed yesterday. While the outcome was never in doubt, what we’re looking at here is voter enthusiasm. New Hampshire Republicans turned out in record numbers on a blustery February day to cast their votes for Trump in a primary election that was completely meaningless.
