Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton Hold Big Leads in Michigan: Poll
Source: nbc
Mar 6 2016, 10:44 am ET
Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton Hold Big Leads in Michigan: Poll
by Mark Murray
Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are leading their competitors by double digits in Michigan's March 8 primary, according to a new NBC News/Wall Street Journal/Marist poll.
...........................................
............................
Clinton up by 17 points in Democratic race
In the Democratic contest, Clinton leads Sanders among likely primary voters by 17 points, 57 percent to 40 percent. But the race is closer among the larger potential Democratic electorate Clinton at 52 percent and Sanders at 44 percent.
NBC News/WSJ/Marist Democrat poll
Mar 6 2016, 1:11 pm ET
Clinton is ahead of Sanders among African Americans (76 percent to 21 percent), those ages 45 and older (68 percent to 27 percent), Democrats (63 percent to 33 percent), women (61 percent to 36 percent), men (51 percent to 47 percent) and whites (49 percent to 48 percent).
Read more: http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-hold-big-leads-michigan-poll-n532576
Hillary Clinton ?@HillaryClinton 16h16 hours ago
"I am thrilled were adding to our pledged delegate count. Im grateful to everyone who turned out to support us." Hillary in Detroit
951 retweets 3,345 likes
Hillary Clinton ?@HillaryClinton 16h16 hours ago
Thank you, Louisiana!
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)Metric System
(6,048 posts)intrepidity
(7,296 posts)riversedge
(70,218 posts)will create jobs??--or how will breaking up the banks create jobs in MI???
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)... I find his campaign quite confusing.
Wibly
(613 posts)Maybe you want it to sound confusing so you don't have to take it seriously.
I find it odd you think Sanders' campaign is confusing yet you have no problem with Clinton's constant flipping, flopping, and going from 'let's maintain the status quo' to 'we have to do something about Wall Street'.
Personally, I think some folks around here need to drop their partisanship and open their ears and eyes.
I have dug into Sanders campaign promises, and they are nearly impossible. Free tuition at all public colleges is unaffordable. That money doesn't magically appear; we'd have to pay for it.
Breaking up banks? How deep does he go? He never says. He gives us a list of primary target but doesn't say where he ends.
You can support Sanders all you like, but assuming ignorance as the prime factor for anyone who doesn't join you is the kind of "partisanship" you decry.
sulphurdunn
(6,891 posts)or at least affordable college education for our kids, or health care, or think it rational to whittle casino banks down to a size where they can't flush the national economy when they go bust. I don't know about magic fixes, but I do know that large segments of the the country have been mesmerized into believing there is no money to raise their standard of living and that fixing the problem would require magic, even though magic didn't create the problem.
DownriverDem
(6,228 posts)I know there are those that don't want to hear the "time factor" in all this. You have to bring the country along. You have to have the House and Senate with you for big changes like this. Other countries have these things because their governments aren't spending all the money on the military industrial complex and empire building. We have ignored our domestic front under repub rule for decades. We do continue to move left and the wave keeps building. Hillary is part of that wave too and she will also have wide support in the general. She is a million times better than any repub candidate. We have a chance to have a left leaning Supreme Court for the next 30 years. Our progressive goals need a left leaning Supreme Court. We are all in this together. It's just that we must deal in political reality if we want to win big. Put another way we have to get our ducks all in a row.
sulphurdunn
(6,891 posts)The democrats had control of the presidency and both houses from 2008 until 2010 and did nothing. For the last 35 years "the time factor" has just been code for one step forward two steps back. There's no more time for that and there's no time like the present to begin correcting the rightward drift of both parties.
Nothing in the usual New Democrat, Third Way, populist campaign rhetoric suggest to me that another Clinton in the White House would accelerate any leftward wave in the Democratic Party establishment.
RiverNoord
(1,150 posts)He has made many, many statements of what he believes is necessary for the country, and these statements are aspirational, not 'here's what I will achieve if I am President.'
He's saying 'here's what I will strive for if I am President.' Sanders supporters aren't naive fools - we know that the work required to achieve, to the extent possible, such things (the two things you cite) as free tuition at public universities for all who are qualified to attend and resuscitation of enforcement of anti-trust laws, would be very demanding. Such things will not be achieved by a magic wave of President Sanders' pixie-dust wand of democratic socialism-power. The key point is that such things certainly won't come to pass if we elect public officials who don't want them to. That's a non-starter.
Your statement is unworthy of reasonable consideration. That's fine, in itself. You can make a broad statement such as 'free tuition at all public colleges is unaffordable' based on your claim of having 'dug into' this and other stated goals of Sen Sanders. It's not likely to mean much to anyone who doesn't already agree with you, as your words strongly suggest that, if you have examined the two (of course, you left 'big' out of 'breaking up banks,' and I expect you are likely not confused by the distinction) goals you described, you approached them with intent to find things to criticize, rather than with any sort of interest in considering their viability.
However, your third is a direct insult to millions of Democrats, and that's not fine.
I have never stated that people who support Hillary Clinton as the Democratic nominee are in any way ignorant in their support of her. I will no do so. Such a thing would be flat-out rude, and I accept the ever-present possibility that I am wrong. We're all wrong about things all of the time, and calling someone ignorant, given the possibility that I'm wrong, is reckless and counterproductive. It says 'I'm right and you're wrong and your perspective is utterly without merit.' Taking such a position in your own mind ensures that you will never learn from people you disagree with. And voicing such a position only insults - it never yields a positive outcome, unless your definition of a positive outcome is to insult and demean.
It appears to me, however, that what you're really saying is that supporters of Sen. Sanders are ignorant. By claiming that one of his stated goals is unattainable because 'That money doesn't magically appear' and another is so vague as to be meaningless, you're not defending supporters of Sec. Clinton from claims that they are ignorant, you're making the opposite claim of Sen. Sanders' supporters.
I'm far from ignorant on subjects such as 'what would be positive and negative about free tuition for all who qualify as able to attend in a publicly maintained secondary education system,' 'what would the potential costs and potential revenues resulting from such a system be,' and, 'does such a proposition represent a net gain or net loss for our country from a cost/benefit perspective?' And, finally 'who wins and who loses? (which is, unfortunately, where the analysis starts for a great many, and the primary losers, oddly enough, in such a proposition, are... big banks.)
If you mean only to insult, then at least have the courage to say so. If you don't mean only to insult, then why declare that millions of Democrats who are supporting the candidacy of Sen. Bernie Sanders are 'assuming ignorance as the prime factor' when they evaluate the positions of those who support Sec. Hillary Clinton. I certainly don't. I have never participated in a discussion on the subject of the merits of the candidacies of Sanders and Clinton, during which a position that supporters of Sec. Clinton are ignorant was advanced.
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)Did you even read Wibly's comment to which I was responding? Wibly said,
I find it odd you think Sanders' campaign is confusing yet you have no problem with Clinton's constant flipping, flopping, and going from 'let's maintain the status quo' to 'we have to do something about Wall Street'. Personally, I think some folks around here need to drop their partisanship and open their ears and eyes.
RiverNoord
(1,150 posts)And that's on my head. I apologize for failing to take a simple step that put your comments in context.
But the difference between stating goals and making campaign promises isn't merely a semantic non-distinction. Telling prospective voters what you aspire to is very different than telling prospective voters that you will achieve what you aspire to.
If you do not aspire, it is impossible to achieve.
Wibly
(613 posts)Sanders has made clear commitments to doing such things as making education entirely affordable, and bringing healthcare to everyone, and getting out of the wars and not engaging in new ones.
Those are not aspirational statements. Those are doable actions.
Wibly
(613 posts)If we can afford to drop bombs everywhere in the world, and give the richest people a tax free life, then we can afford free education.
Wibly
(613 posts)But have at it. People need to see the true vitriol of the Clinton campaign and the Clinton campaigners.
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)You just don't like it.
sulphurdunn
(6,891 posts)Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)It has nothing to do with me liking or disliking it.
Fact is, it does not substitute for substantive debate, and the person using such tactics simply demonstrates their own weaknesses.
It does nothing to further the discussion or resolve the debate.
Its like social masturbation. You seem to feel good about it, but everyone else is just going "ew".
PatrynXX
(5,668 posts)hence the problem for Hillary Trump wins hands down almost every state she's wone so has Trump People who share the same ideas seem to like the same type of people. Why blacks love trump I don't know It's been awhile , or I'd ask them. I don't get it
itsrobert
(14,157 posts)n/t
riversedge
(70,218 posts)the same will be said of the people of Flint.
dmosh42
(2,217 posts)JustABozoOnThisBus
(23,340 posts)and Hillary wants to increase the H1B program.
a2liberal
(1,524 posts)She literally wants to kill my job...
7962
(11,841 posts)It just makes NO sense to me.
This election is going to boil down to "who do I dislike the least out of these 2?"
Trust Buster
(7,299 posts)Bernie supporters will be in dire need of March 17th to drown their sorrows.....LOL
ananda
(28,860 posts)At least the 1% will be happy.
Unca Jim
(556 posts)Sanders will still get plenty of delegates.
silvershadow
(10,336 posts)tarheelsunc
(2,117 posts)Means if Sanders is already at a sizable deficit, it will be extremely difficult to make it up in the later primaries.
Unca Jim
(556 posts)I don't disagree Sanders has work to do. If Clinton dominates on the 15th, I'd agree it'll be over for him. However, if it's a similar number of delegates, it won't be over because many states that will tilt Sanders are later.
Diremoon
(86 posts)I have seen lots of Bernie stickers on cars and people advocating for him (even local DJ's!!). But I have not seen one Hillary sticker, or know anyone who favors her.
riversedge
(70,218 posts)Attorney in Texas
(3,373 posts)mahina
(17,655 posts)Cavallo
(348 posts)Thank you Bernie campaign and voters in Michigan!
Kablooie
(18,634 posts)sumpin' wrong here.