The 2016 presidential campaign has transformed from business as usual into a new moment in American politics, with implications that could be far-reaching, disruptive and transformative.

The voters of New Hampshire confirmed what polls have been suggesting for months: Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump are serious candidates for president, with large coalitions in each party behind them.

The two men are the types of candidates who traditionally succeed in European, not American, politics: the populist conservative and the socialist. Trump is essentially creating a political wing of his own, defined by his outlandish promises to singularly change American government with his leadership and business acumen and his ability to tap into the concerns many Americans have about illegal immigration, the threat of home-grown terrorism, the rising cost of health care and other threats to the middle class.

RELATED: Trump victory and Rubio collapse plunge GOP race into chaos

Sanders has pushed well beyond the liberalism of past progressive candidates like Bill Bradley and Howard Dean, directly arguing America should be more like countries in Western Europe that have much larger safety nets and define themselves as socialist, not capitalist.

It’s not at all clear whether either candidate will eventually win their party’s nominations.

Close video As the fight heads into SC, here's what to expect The 2016 contest moves into South Carolina now, where Jeb Bush’s family has been strong. Can other candidates make inroads in the southern state? The Morning Joe panel discusses. The 2016 contest moves into South Carolina now, where Jeb Bush’s family has been strong. Can other candidates make inroads in the southern state? The Morning Joe panel discusses. share tweet email Embed

But they have already proved that what were assumed to be the laws of politics were in fact only customs and traditions to be broken. While the other candidates in both parties have raised millions through “super-PAC’s,” both Sanders and Trump have eschewed that approach, with the Vermont senator relying exclusively on small donors and Trump running a media-driven campaign in which he has spent little on polling or campaign infrastructure.

Democratic voters were thought to be too practical to embrace a candidate who pushed single-payer health insurance, which even progressive candidates like Dean and Barack Obama stopped short of proposing.

The Republican National Committee, three years ago, released a detailed report arguing the party must soften its rhetoric on immigration to appeal to people of color. The GOP’s voters were expected to fall in line and embrace a candidate, like Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio, who followed that formula.

A popular theory in political science, referred to as the “The Party Decides,” argues that influential donors and insiders in each party have the ability to shape the nomination process and push voters toward the candidates of the elites.