United States of Anger: Primary upsets in New Hampshire point to an increasingly divided union

Billionaire businessman Donald Trump and socialist senator Bernie Sanders on Tuesday won the Republican and Democratic contests in New Hampshire, the first primaries of the 2016 election season. In a huge turnout, both candidates enjoyed healthy margins over their competitors.

READ MORE: Once unthinkable, upstarts Sanders and Trump win in New Hampshire

The size of their victories, which would have seemed implausible to many only a year ago, injects further uncertainty into this volatile election. And it also increases the prospects of a third-party run by former New York mayor Michael Bloomberg, another billionaire businessman, albeit of a more centrist stripe than Trump.

On Monday, Bloomberg confirmed he is considering running as an independent and cited his disappointment at the rancorous rhetoric of candidates of both major parties, which he called “distressingly banal and an outrage and insult”. Bloomberg, who believes that there could be “political space” for a centrist, third-party candidate in this year’s race, probably needs to make a decision this month as he would need to add his name onto ballots by early March in order to mount even a semi-credible campaign.

READ MORE: Former NYC mayor Michael Bloomberg confirms he is considering independent bid for US presidency

The continued appeal of the perceived insurgent, “outsider” candidacies of Sanders and Trump underlines that much of the US electorate remains in a febrile mood following the uneven economic recovery of recent years, and the continuing terrorism threat. Since the beginning of 2016, an array of polls have shown that 60 per cent or more of the population believe the country is firmly on the “wrong track”.

This national pessimism is one factor contributing to what some have termed the “United States of Anger”. This is fuelling the intensity of the anti-establishment political mood which, if anything, may be growing almost a decade after the financial crisis of 2008-09 began.

However, while the success of Trump and Sanders is remarkable, it is by no means unprecedented: US history underlines that income and status differences can be significant sources of political change. Both Trump and Sanders are appealing to many of those groups that have lost income and job security – including unskilled and semi-skilled people working in manufacturing industries that previously operated with high levels of unionisation – under the pressure of international competition. Hence, for instance, their anti-free-trade rhetoric, including denunciation of the Trans-Pacific Partnership which the US has agreed, subject to congressional ratification, with 11 other countries.

Such disaffected groups have significant potential claims on federal and state government support. And these claims are potentially open to mobilisation by insurgent politicians, as both Trump and Sanders are now demonstrating.