Jump to content
Slasher

Hillary wins 1st Vote of the Election in NH, but Trump is still leading.

Recommended Posts

Hillary Clinton 4, Donald Trump 2, Gary Johnson 1 -- and a single write-in surprise: Mitt Romney. 

With eight residents voting and five times as many reporters watching, Dixville Notch has spoken. 

On a frigid night in the largely forgotten region about halfway between the Maine and Canadian borders, the small northern New Hampshire town came alive for several minutes of kitschy democratic conflict. This latest round of wee hours voting extends a tradition that traces back more than a half-century. 

With the results in from Dixville Notch this long-awaited Election Day is officially underway, and sure as the Earth turns on its axis, the end of the 2016 presidential contest seems impossibly closer.

The Granite State's tight Senate race will enter Election Day deadlocked, with Democratic Gov. Maggie Hassan and incumbent Republican Sen. Kelly Ayotte each Dixville notching 4 votes. 

Tuesday night's result will hearten superstitious Clinton supporters. The town's small collection of dedicated voters have correctly picked the eventual winner in three of the last four contests. In 2000 and 2004 it broke for George W. Bush and in 2008 it delivered a victory for Barack Obama. 

Its more recent results have been less predictive. Romney and Obama split 10 votes in 2012, and John Kasich edged out Trump in this year's GOP primary kick-off. 

Nearby Millsfield, which also voted at midnight, delivered a big win for Trump, who scored 16 votes to Clinton's four. One voter wrote-in Bernie Sanders, the New Hampshire Democratic primary winner. Meanwhile, Clinton rallied to a narrow victory in Hart's Location, outscoring Trump by a 17-14 margin, with Johnson gaining another three votes and two more voters volunteering Sanders.

With overnight in-person voting completed, Trump carries a seven-vote lead over Clinton, 32-25. 

Millsfield in 2016 is looking to horn in on what has been a calling card for Dixville Notch since 1960, when John F. Kennedy shutout Richard Nixon, 9 votes to nil. Hart's Location, too, has a tradition here, one that traces back to 1948, when voting began at dawn, and then a move to midnight in 1952. But they quit in 1964, leaving Dixville Notch as the leading hours-after-primetime player. 

Wayne Urso, Millsfield's ambitious election official, is hoping to displace Dixville Notch. He spent the morning talking trash about his very-early voting rivals. 

"We actually have a population here," Urso told CNN. "They may be registered to vote there (in Dixville Notch), but if you ask them where they live, you'll find that nobody actually lives there."

The Dixville Notch voting takes place in the storied Ballot Room of the Balsams Grand Resort Hotel, which has been closed to tourists for five years as new owners work to revamp the once bustling ski stop. Millsfield's decision to take on the embattled establishment was made, he said, during a post-primary skull session.

"We had a meeting of all the voters -- because all the voters can probably fit in my living room," Urso said. Asked if they wanted to continue midnight voting in the general election, "Everyone said, 'Yeah.' "

But why this year -- why call attention to the town during this especially divisive season?

"We don't have that problem in Millsfield," Urso said of his isolated provincial town. "We almost never talk about politics amongst ourselves. Whether it's divisive across the country ... it doesn't pertain to us."

An American institution, indeed.

x

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sheezus said:

Summery please um2

Not even worth discussing. These are towns with populations of like under 100 who decide to have all their citizens vote really early on election day so they can be the "first votes counted". It's just a publicity stunt.

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Andrew said:

 

SHE'LL NEVER CATCH UP scream1 scream1 scream1 scream1

BYE AMERICA scream1 scream1 scream1 scream1

 

dead7

 

Sis, I'm genuinely wondering why Americans are so scared he'll win. I mean let's say worse case scenario, he is president and does want to nuke something, etc Obviously he's not nuking the US. So the rest of the world should be more worried if he won. All the talk about creating walls and banning Mexicans/Muslims will obviously not happen and was said to get votes (which he got). aretha1

 

I mean I don't recall people being this terrified when Bush was getting his 2nd term, although he sent their kids to die for oil and world war order agendas. jj4
 

Not that I'm pro-anyone or even voting cos I'm not a US citizen, but I'm wondering why Americans are like "omggg hell is about to start!!", when we non-americans are basically the ones that should be doing that. So why? brit12

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, H.O.N.E.Y said:

Sis, I'm genuinely wondering why Americans are so scared he'll win. I mean let's say worse case scenario, he is president and does want to nuke something, etc Obviously he's not nuking the US. So the rest of the world should be more worried if he won. All the talk about creating walls and banning Mexicans/Muslims will obviously not happen and was said to get votes (which he got). 

 

I mean I don't recall people being this terrified when Bush was getting his 2nd term, although he sent their kids to die for oil and world war order agendas. 

Because the consequences will absolutely get back around to us. You think he'd get away with nuking someone and as a country, the US would get off scott free? Not the case. There hasn't been a war fought on the soil of the Continental United States for 151 years and if Trump decided to use a nuclear weapon anywhere, we would be facing a war on our soil. That's not a pleasant concept to us.

 

The Bush era was marked by fear and intimidation. The whole country was on edge and a lot of rah-rah nationalism was keeping people in line and gave Bush his second term handily. The big thrust of that win was the fact that it's generally a bad idea to start a war, then make it someone else's problem. There was no transparency in what was going on until practically the end of Bush's second term. The public was just duped into thinking Bush was fighting a courageous battle against our sworn enemies, when he was really just spilling blood to keep gas prices down.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, H.O.N.E.Y said:

dead7

 

Sis, I'm genuinely wondering why Americans are so scared he'll win. I mean let's say worse case scenario, he is president and does want to nuke something, etc Obviously he's not nuking the US. So the rest of the world should be more worried if he won. All the talk about creating walls and banning Mexicans/Muslims will obviously not happen and was said to get votes (which he got). aretha1

 

I mean I don't recall people being this terrified when Bush was getting his 2nd term, although he sent their kids to die for oil and world war order agendas. jj4
 

Not that I'm pro-anyone or even voting cos I'm not a US citizen, but I'm wondering why Americans are like "omggg hel iss about to start!!", when we non-americans are basically the ones that should be doing that. So why? brit12

He could instantly deport millions of people, wreck the environment, start a trade war and/or actual war with China, set the supreme court back 2 generations... jj3 

 

He'd give a blank check to a Republican congress that would instantly repeal Obamacare with nothing to replace it, taking health insurance away from millions of people jj3 he'd also reinstate Bush/Reagan tax cuts for the 1% AKA himself that wrecked our economy before jj3 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Americunt said:

Because the consequences will absolutely get back around to us. You think he'd get away with nuking someone and as a country, the US would get off scott free? Not the case. There hasn't been a war fought on the soil of the Continental United States for 151 years and if Trump decided to use a nuclear weapon anywhere, we would be facing a war on our soil. That's not a pleasant concept to us.

 

The Bush era was marked by fear and intimidation. The whole country was on edge and a lot of rah-rah nationalism was keeping people in line and gave Bush his second term handily. The big thrust of that win was the fact that it's generally a bad idea to start a war, then make it someone else's problem. There was no transparency in what was going on until practically the end of Bush's second term. The public was just duped into thinking Bush was fighting a courageous battle against our sworn enemies, when he was really just spilling blood to keep gas prices down.

Although all of that makes sense, Hilary is pro-war and has always been and could bring about the same results as Trump winning. That was my main point basically, like why are they scared about Trump but not scared about the alternative and weren't scared about Bush, etc

 

Bush actually did what Americans are currently afraid that Trump will do which is alienate the US further and create more enimies,  but never got the hate that Trump is getting. The fact that the media is anti-Trump and people had these reactions to him, whereas the media was pro-Bush and people didn't get strong reactions to him makes me feel like they're led to hate things not for the right reasons. 

 

And what you said may be true for you and some other Pro-Hilary voters, but the majority of the country is not thinking like that and is only marching with the marchers just to say they marched. aretha1

 

I mean I would hope that Americans would think the way you described it would mean that the future is brighter than the past and that citizens of the greatest country on earth have finally realized that war is not the answer, but yeah... not buying that. jj4

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Andrew said:

He could instantly deport millions of people, wreck the environment, start a trade war and/or actual war with China, set the supreme court back 2 generations... jj3 

 

He'd give a blank check to a Republican congress that would instantly repeal Obamacare with nothing to replace it, taking health insurance away from millions of people jj3 he'd also reinstate Bush/Reagan tax cuts for the 1% AKA himself that wrecked our economy before jj3 

 

awk1 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, H.O.N.E.Y said:

Although all of that makes sense, Hilary is pro-war and has always been and could bring about the same results as Trump winning. That was my main point basically, like why are they scared about Trump but not scared about the alternative and weren't scared about Bush, etc

 

Bush actually did what Americans are currently afraid that Trump will do which is alienate the US further and create more enimies,  but never got the hate that Trump is getting. The fact that the media is anti-Trump and people had these reaction to him, whereas the media was pro-bush and people didn't get strong reactions to him makes me feel like they're led to hate things not for the right reasons. 

 

And what you said may be true for you and some other Pro-Hilary voters, but the majority of the country is not thinking like that and is only marching with the marchers just to say they marched. aretha1

 

I mean would hope that Americans would think the way you described it would mean that the furture is brighter than the past and that citizens of the greatest country on earth have finally realized that war is not the answer, but yeah... not buying that. jj4

People keep parroting Clinton being pro-war like it's fact; it's not. Clinton was and has been actively anti-war for years upon years. She was part of the anti-war movement going as far back as Vietnam. Yes, while in the Obama White House, she participated in a number of military actions, but that's a mess she had to deal with in her position because Bush's war outlasted his presidency. That's not her fault and it doesn't make her a supporter of war and/or the military industrial complex.

 

Bush did put the country in a rough place on the international scale and I'm in no way denying that he did. He was not the smartest person to ever hold the title of president, but despite that, he did make some smart changes to policies in this country. He was a terrible wartime president. His peacetime policies were relatively decent, albeit somewhat a product of their day at times. I'd rate him in the lower half of presidents overall. Now let's talk Trump. Trump is stupid. He's an idiot and there's really no denying it. People thought Bush was a goofy caricature because of the way the media portrayed him; he was actually just a bit dim at times. Trump is actually fucking stupid and it's disgusting. The media doesn't even have to spin it like they did with Bush. He just says this colossally idiotic bullshit all the damn time and it's insane. If Bush was a slow erosion on the foundation of some of our alliances, Trump is a backhoe clawing chunks out of them. He would undoubtedly offend every single country in the world within the space of a year. You've got to remember that the Bush years were not the same as right now. The way you're treating them, as if people were gullible and willing to believe anything is a misrepresentation of facts. People were desperate for hope. This was a world where 9/11 was not the distant memory it is today. People were sending their 18 year old kids off to fight a war in a country they'd probably only heard about in passing before then. When the President's providing a steady hand and any measure of calm collectedness, there's no reason not to follow their lead. War is a unifier and the US needed unity badly. It was a move that made sense at the time; it retrospect, it was not the correct one.

 

Given that you're not here in the US dealing with all of this in person, are you really in a position to say what the majority of the country is thinking? You're getting a skewed sample from the people posting online; they are not the average voter.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Americunt said:

People were sending their 18 year old kids off to fight a war in a country they'd probably only heard about in passing before then. When the President's providing a steady hand and any measure of calm collectedness, there's no reason not to follow their lead. War is a unifier and the US needed unity badly. It was a move that made sense at the time; it retrospect, it was not the correct one.

 

Nope, it never made sense to send your kids to a war on a country that has nothing to do with the terror attacks. That was a red flag right then and there and nobody can tell me otherwise. Lose hope? Yes they had lost hope, but doing something dumb without questioning the motives and reason behind it is not how you get hope back. They actually lost more hope due to the war, and lost money and jobs.

 

41 minutes ago, Americunt said:

People keep parroting Clinton being pro-war like it's fact; it's not. Clinton was and has been actively anti-war for years upon years. She was part of the anti-war movement going as far back as Vietnam. Yes, while in the Obama White House, she participated in a number of military actions, but that's a mess she had to deal with in her position because Bush's war outlasted his presidency. That's not her fault and it doesn't make her a supporter of war and/or the military industrial complex.

 

 

 

I'm not sure about Hilary's past in terms of voting for wars but didn't she vote for the Iraq War? How can you say she's there trying to clean up Bush's mess when she helped make that mess by voting for it? Also, these don't show she's pro-peace either. She doesn't value the human life any more than Bush did. 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Replies 13
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Not even worth discussing. These are towns with populations of like under 100 who decide to have all their citizens vote really early on election day so they can be the "first votes counted". It's jus

People keep parroting Clinton being pro-war like it's fact; it's not. Clinton was and has been actively anti-war for years upon years. She was part of the anti-war movement going as far back as Vietna

Nope, it never made sense to send your kids to a war on a country that has nothing to do with the terror attacks. That was a red flag right then and there and nobody can tell me otherwise. Lose hope?


  • Browsing now   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×