[Someone1234]

Sanders and Trump are doing well for similar reasons, they've both rejected the corruption which has become so commonplace in American politics. Trump is famously self-funded, and Sanders has a great grassroots campaign which has help keep him afloat. Neither has yet really resorted to corporate bribes.

That's why you're seeing them do so well with their own respective bases. While it is undeniable that the general public doesn't care about corporate bribery within politics, it is clear that enough people do to seriously bump the limited candidates that fight against it up in the polls.

Do I think either can win? I think, in theory, both could win their respective primary. But I also think that if either did win their respective primary then their "message" would be considered too extreme by the moderates which have the biggest swing vote in American elections, Republicans always vote Republican, Democrats always vote Democrat, it is the moderates that are the kingmakers.

So ultimately what I think will happen is that both will continue gaining in popularity, but when it comes right down to it, someone more "electable" will win the primary since neither party can afford to actually lose the presidency completely. That means maybe Hillary and Marco Rubio.

[radiorental]

Valid points, interested to hear what you make of the perspective that Sanders commands decent support from blue collar conservatives in VT?

His message/views appear to speak to a broader base than simply Team Blue fans.

[a8da6b0c91d]

Trump has no extreme positions that I've heard. Totally mainstream populist.

People are downvoting me, but if you don't realize that any policy comments Trump has put forth poll great you are just out of touch. You would be by definition "extreme."

[rmxt]

Right, because calling Mexican immigrants to the United States "criminals, drug dealers, rapists" is a completely reasonable position. I'm sure that many of the 100+ million people in the United States that are non-white would definitely agree with that.

http://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trumps-epic-statement-...

[thanatropism]

Did the parent poster say "reasonable"? He said "mainstream".

[rmxt]

I wrote the above in response to the GP position that they have "heard no extreme positions [from Trump]." I swear I didn't edit the page to include this:

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/extreme#Antonyms

[a8da6b0c91d]

A lot of them do. And the white majority doesn't find the discussion around that point unreasonable. Like I said, you're just out of touch.

[rmxt]

Being "out of touch" with "the white majority" (or anyone for that matter) is fine by me, if it means being able to have nuanced and rational opinions. (Unlike Trump's broad brush statements.) Furthermore, your argumentum ad populum doesn't make Trump's statement any more just or accurate.

[gjm11]

Just out of curiosity, what do you think about "that point"? Do you think the Mexican government is pushing large numbers of drug dealers and rapists into the USA? Do you think this is an issue important enough that it should be a major part of a would-be president's campaigning?

[mikeash]

What's your basis for that statement?

[jeffreyrogers]

To me the remarkable thing is how well Trump is doing even after the media (on both sides) have tried to extremize his views. The contrast between what Trump actually says and how the media frames it is appalling.

But, by and large you're right. His policies are fairly mainstream and even the ones that sounds extreme (immigration being the main one) are commonly held by a large part of the population.

[ConceptJunkie]

It's simple, the people who support Trump don't trust the media, and with good reason. The media in this country has stopped even pretending they are impartial.

[0xCMP]

@rmxt It's not whether it's reasonable or not. Thats what people think and what they want. Those people vote too.