4:06pm 88% counted now, and Biden will finish second ahead of Buttigieg. I’ve done an article for The Conversation that emphasises the differences between the county delegate count (huge win for Sanders) and the initial popular vote (far less impressive for Sanders).
9:50am Monday Still only 60% reporting. If Nevada was close like Iowa, there’d be another stink about the slow results.
4:30pm 43% now reporting, and Sanders has 47% of county delegates, but only 34.5% of the initial alignment vote. He has 40.3% of the vote after realignment.
4:08pm CNN has more up-to-date figures on initial and final votes. Using CNN’s results, I calculate that Sanders has 35% of the initial vote and 40.5% of the vote after realignment with 34% in. Those figures are not as impressive for Sanders as his share of county delegates (47%).
Once again, we’ve had a dreadfully slow caucus count. Hopefully there’ll be more clarity tomorrow.
2:10pm And it’s suddenly jumped to 22.5% reporting, with Sanders at 34% on first alignment, 40% on final alignment and 47% of county delegates.
2:07pm With 11% reporting, the Sanders margin is smaller on the first alignment votes. Sanders has 34% on this measure, Biden 19%, Buttigieg 16% and Warren 12%. On popular votes after realignment, Sanders has 40%, Biden 23%, Buttigieg 17% and Warren 10%. On county delegates, 47% Sanders, 24% Biden and 14% Buttigieg.
Sanders is being assisted in the final alignment votes by being the only candidate who exceeds the 15% threshold in the vast majority of precincts.
12:20pm With 4% reporting, the Associated Press has CALLED Nevada for Bernie Sanders.
11:18am Once again (as in New Hampshire), the AP count, used by the NY Times, is well behind the count used by the TV networks including CNN. With 10% reporting, the CNN results give Sanders a large lead in initial votes, but there are no percentages.
11:05am As with Iowa, the counting in Nevada is SLOOOOW!! Just 3.4% of precincts have reported their initial alignment.
9:52am With less than 3% reporting, Sanders has 44% of the initial vote, 54% of the final vote and 55% of county delegates. The initial vote is slightly ahead of the other two measures in precincts reporting. Still a long way to go, but it’s looking like a big win for Sanders.
8:41am With 1% reporting, Sanders has 48% of the initial alignment, 53% of the vote after candidate realignment, and 52% of the county delegates. Biden is a distant second with 18%, 23% and 26% on these three measures respectively.
7:33am The caucuses actually began 33 minutes ago. First results are expected by 8:30am. Entrance polls give Sanders about 35%, with the next highest at 15%.
Guest post by Adrian Beaumont, who joins us from time to time to provide commentary on elections internationally. Adrian is an honorary associate at the University of Melbourne. His work on electoral matters for The Conversation can be found here, and his own website is here.
The Nevada Democratic caucuses begin at 10am local time Saturday (5am Sunday AEDT). I am not sure when to expect results; they could come in the early morning, but may not come on Sunday at all, given the Iowa fiasco. Caucuses are managed by the party, not the state’s electoral authorities. It should be a relief that there are very few caucuses after Nevada.
Democratic delegates are allocated proportionally to all candidates who clear a 15% threshold, both within a state and Congressional District. In the RealClearPolitics Nevada poll average, Bernie Sanders has 29.0%, Joe Biden 16.0%, Pete Buttigieg 14.0%, Elizabeth Warren 14.0% and Amy Klobuchar 10.5%. Current national polls give Sanders 28.7%, Biden 17.3%, Mike Bloomberg 15.2%, Warren 12.7%, Buttigieg 10.0% and Klobuchar 6.7%.
With these polls, Sanders is the only candidate far enough above 15% to be assured of clearing that threshold virtually everywhere. If these national poll results are reflected on Super Tuesday March 3, when 14 states vote and 34% of all pledged delegates are awarded, Sanders’ share of delegates would far exceed his vote share.
There is one contest after Nevada before Super Tuesday: the South Carolina primary next Saturday. Biden needs a big win, but his lead over Sanders has plunged from 14 points in late January to just four points now.
Bloomberg had been gaining in the polls, at least before Wednesday’s widely criticised debate performance. However, in a direct match-up with Sanders, he got crushed by a 57-37 margin in an NBC/WSJ poll. While Bloomberg is winning the votes of those Democrats who believe only a billionaire can beat Donald Trump, most Democrats dislike giving the nomination to a billionaire.
If nobody comes near a majority of pledged delegates, there will be a contested Democratic convention in mid-July. Should this occur, it would be the first since 1952. If Bloomberg defeated Sanders at a contested convention, the Democratic party’s left would react badly to the perception of a billionaire stealing the nomination from their guy.
Assisted by the good US economy, Trump’s ratings are trending up. In the FiveThirtyEight aggregate, his net approval is -7.8% with polls of registered or likely voters. Trump still trails the leading Democrats in RealClearPolitics averages, with Sanders, Biden and Bloomberg leading by 4.5 points, and Buttigieg, Warren and Klobuchar leading by two points.
Sanders/Klobucher is the best team to defeat Trump.
With $500m from Bloomberg.
On age, I personally think Biden, Bloomberg, and Sanders are all too old. Warren’s right on the borderline, as were Clinton and Trump in 2016 and Reagan in 1980. It’s not so much their capacity for the presidency that worries me (though if I were one of their loved ones, I’d certainly be secretly praying they didn’t win that likely death sentance), but rather the perception and the attacks it opens them up to.
I’ll say this about Sanders, though – at least he’s still full of fire and energy. It’s a stark contrast to Biden and Bloomberg, both of whom increasingly look like tired, lost old men way past their prime. Bloomberg, in particular, looked every bit someone returning to politics after a relaxing retirement when he floundered on the debate stage this week. It’s probably not an coincidence that Sanders is the only one of the three thats still a serving politician, whereas the other two have been out of the game for four and six years respectively. In any case, “cranky, fiesty old man” is far prerably to “tired, mildly confused old man” in a political race. (Though, ideally, someone who looks like they could survive the next winter would be even better.)
Trump too, despite only being a few years younger than the Democrats’ three old men, just… seems younger. Yes, he’s had more work done than most porn stars, his health is likely the worst of them all, and he may well be suffering from the early symptoms of dementia (though, honestly, he’s always been narcissistic loony, so who knows?), but he’s still got fire and energy. Trump is many things, most bad, but “tired” isn’t one of them. It arguably helps that he such an infantile person – you don’t look at him and see a senior citizen, because he gives off the vibe of a perpetual adolescent.
DP,
Should Bernie Sanders survive the gale force onslaught that would come his way during the election campaign, and he somehow survived that and won the election, he is likely to have at least one of the Houses of Congress held by the other party. He will thus get very, very little to zero of his agenda through both Houses of Congress and into practise. Remember how hard it was for President Obama to get Obamacare done? Multiply that by a factor of infinity.
“As for where Bernie sits on the spectrum – clearly on the Labor Left.”
***
https://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2020
The Greens have far more in common with Sanders than Labor ever will. Unfortunately, Labor are just one half of the two party establishment we have here in Australia.
Firefox
I don’t understand why you aren’t talking up the prospects of Jill Stein? She could peel off some progressive votes, oops! I mean the US Greens could hold the majors to account.
Bernie is running for a mainstream party, not a protest party.
Like others here I agree Sanders should and will be the Democrat nominee now. If not for the IowaFail caucus fiasco this would have been recorded as his third win in a row.
Those trying to dampen hops in Sanders are supporters of either Republicans or the dems Ancient Regime, which is part of the reason they are in their current mess.
I would have preferred Warren to win, but at this point it is clear that Sanders has a better shot at both the nomination and the presidency.
Or Howie Hawkins
Maybe he can do a Ralph Nader and splinter the progressive vote?
https://howiehawkins.us/
So funny how the Labor establishment are trying to jump on the Bernie bandwagon lol.
Sprocket, Jill Stein isn’t even running. The US Greens are at a monumental disadvantage due to the undemocratic system in the US which has entrenched the two party system. Thankfully we don’t have that problem in Australia.
Bernie is running against the party establishment because it doesn’t represent the left. Droves have left Labor for the Greens in Australia because they don’t represent the left either.
Yeah, I don’t really credit those compass results at all. Any political spectrum that lists both Warren and Sanders as more-or-less centrists clearly needs some calibration.
I’m curious – I assume the far top-left corner would be for the likes of Mao and Stalin, but who would be on the two bottom corners? And where exactly would genuine far-right fascists like Mussolini and Pinochet go given that wannabe fascists like Trump are already crowding that space. Why is Kasich so close to Trump? Why is Buttigeig more right-wing than Biden? Why is Yang, the guy who wants to bring in a fucking UBI, considered one of the most economically right-wing of the lot?
The Australian one has some, er, issues too. Any cursory analysis of Labor and the Greens’ platforms in the 2019 elections would surely show them as closer to each other than to the Coalition, ON, or even Centre Alliance. Likewise, Bernadi’s Conservatives were noticeably more right-wing than the Coalition, with an openly homophobic, transphobic, Islamophobic, and climate-denying campaign (whereas the Coalition do at least try to pretend they don’t have such tendencies.)
Given this seems to be economic ideology on the horizontal spectrum and social ideology (or general “government influence”) on the vertical, where do, say, environmental issues fit in here?
“over a young, fit, charismatic, moderate veteran from the Mid West. But, hey, love is blind, so they say.”
Perhaps it’s the case that the Dem voter base is highly aware of the extent to which candidates are influenced by the donor class. Drain the swamp, as they say.
I reckon Political Compass’s party/candidate ratings are rubbish and that the site has taken a great idea and turned it into an embarrassment. I had a go at their questions answering them as best I thought the ALP, Greens and Liberals (or if no position their supporters) woud answer, and got results about 5 points down and left to what the site got. At best what they are ranking parties on is something completely different from the questions they put to people taking the test.
One can pick ways in which politics has generally moved to the right across a range of parties but one can also pick the same in terms of moving to the left (eg same-sex marriage). Maybe there are a lot more of one than the other, maybe not, but the point is their current questions list doesn’t pick that up so their assessments of parties – if anything other than subjective – shouldn’t either.
Asha, all your questions about their methodology and where historical figures fit in are addressed on their website. See here: https://www.politicalcompass.org/analysis2
As for the specifics of each compass…
US:
The Political Compass is a universal tool, applicable to all western democracies. It shows the whole potential political landscape, not simply one within the confines of any particular country. For example, Bernie Sanders is popularly perceived in his own country as an off-the-wall left figure; in other western democracies he would sit squarely within the mainstream social democratic parties that regularly form governments or comprise the largest opposition. Conversely, a US candidate who believes in unfettered market forces or capital punishment may be seen at home as mainstream, but ‘extreme’ in other developed countries. Similarly, ‘Obamacare’ is seen as a liberal/left initiative in the US, while in other developed countries it is viewed as a tepid version of the long-established universal public health care systems that are broadly supported by conservatives as well as social democrats.
From the initially crowded field of candidates in the US 2020 primaries, there are some interesting clusters of attitudes. For example very few candidates are opposed to increases to the military budget, including some who are nevertheless also against foreign intervention. Some with a strong commitment to countering climate change nevertheless uphold an equally strong commitment to unlimited economic growth, and sometimes even to the further deregulation of corporate polluters.
The Democratic camp offers a more interesting diversity of ideologies than usual, with Sanders generally more at home with Green Party policies. By contrast Joe Biden portrays few solid convictions, beyond a sense of entitlement to the nomination. Steyer and late-emerger, multi-billionaire Bloomberg, are candidates closer to the ideological heart of today’s neoliberal Democratic Party. It’s a matter of bewilderment to us that Bloomberg has been described as a socialist in some quarters. Whether you see this description as complimentary or contemptuous, it’s certainly ludicrous. Notwithstanding his vast wealth and close Wall Street ties, Bloomberg’s unswerving commitment to balanced budgets and market forces place him on the hard economic right. While he holds some undoubtedly socially liberal positions, as New York mayor he also took certain authoritarian positions, especially regarding law and order. The more socially liberal Steyer, on the other hand, professes a late conversion from the economic values of his hedge fund past.
With the exception of Weld, there are few significant differences between Republican candidates. Weld, like the Libertarian Party’s Vohra, has an especially strongly-held libertarian outlook on the economic scale.
While the Democratic outcome remains in doubt, the successful Republican is a foregone conclusion. The big surprise is that a majority of Christian fundamentalists favour the candidate that Jesus would almost certainly be least likely to choose.
https://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2020
Australia:
This Australian election marks an all-time high in public contempt for party politicians. Perpetual in-fighting within the ruling Liberal-National coalition, and the decidedly uncharismatic prime ministership of Christian fundamentalist Scott Morrison, has kept Labor in a steady lead in most polls — despite the failure of its leader, Bill Shorten, to ignite the public. His refusal to approve or rule out the controversial Adani coalmine project reflects a desire not to frighten the horses. While some of his economic proposals are more bold they, too, are a mix of the neoliberal directions that the party has been on since the mid-80s, with some concessions to traditional Labor sentiments. It is a reflection of the all-round confusion of political identity that Shorten’s adversary for party leadership, Anthony Albanese, is touted as coming from the left of the party, though he attacks Shorten for being anti-business.
The Greens, too, pose us with difficulties because of a considerable difference between the pragmatic willing-to-do-deals leader Richard Di Natale and the mainstream membership that insist on a more radical direction in the tradition of their much-loved earlier leader, Bob Brown. The Greens have also been hurt by warring between the national organisation and the state organisations that have demanded more control. Nevertheless the Greens, both socially and economically, remain to the left of Labor.
One Nation’s Pauline Hanson, unlike the leaders of many of Europe’s new authoritarian nationalist parties, continues to wrap hardline social policies and neoliberalism together as naturally as fish and chips.
This time ’round there’s an unprecedented number of independent candidates, many of them carefully positioned to do maximum damage to Labor and, more especially, Liberal heavyweight incumbents in vulnerable seats. This has turned out to be the most interesting aspect of an otherwise lacklustre election.
https://www.politicalcompass.org/aus2019
Bonza @ #160 Sunday, February 23rd, 2020 – 6:15 pm
Well, idk if Americans want to support another guy supported by the Russians either?
C@tmomma says:
Sunday, February 23, 2020 at 3:55 pm
I mean, it’s absolutely comical to see people boosting someone who has already had one heart attack on the campaign trail, won’t release his medical records, and will be the oldest POTUS in history, should he last that long, not to mention confronting a new majority Republican House and Senate that won’t pass diddly squat of his agenda, over a young, fit, charismatic, moderate veteran from the Mid West. But, hey, love is blind, so they say.
____________________
You’ve really got yourself worked up betty c@tmomma
The two-party system in the US is a very different beast to Australia’s.
In the States, not only is it an astonishingly rare occurrence when an independent or a minor party candidates wins even a local council seat, but the two-party system has been entrenched for over two hundred years – there has never been a case where a minor party has come out of nowhere and grinded their way up to eventually winning the presidency. Anytime a new government party was formed (The Democrats under Jackson, the Whigs under William”I died in thirty days” Harrison, the Republicans under Lincoln), it’s always been a rebranding of the shattered remnants of one of the previous major parties – well, apart from Jackson’s Democrats, I suppose, which were just one faction of the Democratic-Republican party, which had more or less become the only viable party after the collapse of the Federalists and imploded into in-fighting, leading to an election with four seperate candidates, all of whom were Democratic-Republicans.)
While the ridiculous ballot laws and lack of any sort of preferential or proportional system do play a huge part in stopping smaller US parties from having any hope whatsoever of winning, well, anything, it also creates a circular problem of the minor parties generally being totally incompetent, since anyone who is actually serious about a political career just becomes a Democrat or Republican. So, the minor parties are left with hopeless and delusional perennial candidates, occasionally getting lucky when some (generally deeply flawed and unelectable) Democrat or Republican splits from their own party and decides to run as a Libertarian or Reform candidate or something. Every so often you get a George Wallace or Ross Perot or Jesse Ventura (or Bernie Sanders back in the day) who manages to buck the trend, but – on the presidential level – the most one can hope to achieve is being a serious spoiler to whichever candidate is closest to you.
In Australia, however, independents and minor party candidates can and do regularly win office. As such, they have (semi) competent executives, and can often attract reasonable competent, electable candidates, since it’s possibly to have a legitimate, successful political career as an indy or minor party polly.
It’s still mostly a two-party system, but I think that’s just got a lot more to do with with how the votes fall from election to election and the Australian public’s deep aversion to minority governments rather than an inherently unfair system. And at least one upstart little minor party has actually managed to go from being nobodies, to holding the BOP, to winning federal government, all in less than thirty years – a bunch of crazy, radical lefties calling themselves the Labor Party. (The Liberals, on the other hand, are simply the latest rebranding of the Protectionist/Anti-Socialist merger of 1909, with both those parties being the latest iterations of the political alliances turned organised parties that formed on the state level in the latter half of the 1800s.)
If the US system was like ours, Sanders would almost certainly be leading (or a major figure in) a left-wing minor party, while Trump quite likely would be leading a One Nation-esque outfit. Conversely, if we had a US style system, Bob Brown surely would have been a contender for the Labor leadership at some point, likewise both Hanson and Palmer for the Liberals (the latter probably as continual perennials.)
It looks like Pete Buttigieg is catching up on Uncle Joe, in this treacle like slow count..
LVT, do you know what they say in Alaska to twerps like you?
“I reckon Political Compass’s party/candidate ratings are rubbish and that the site has taken a great idea and turned it into an embarrassment. I had a go at their questions answering them as best I thought the ALP, Greens and Liberals (or if no position their supporters) woud answer, and got results about 5 points down and left to what the site got.”
***
It can cause some people to react angrily and dismiss the results as rubbish if it doesn’t align with their own world view. They make a note of that on their site. I reckon it’s pretty much bang on the money, which I will admit is rare for a political website in this day and age. It put me just next to the Greens and Sanders when I did it.
Firefox:
Yeah… I can’t say I really agree with a lot of those assessments. All the talk of the “neo-liberal establishment” suggests they are coming at this analysis from a pretty left-wing, pro-Bernie, pro-Greens, pro-Corbyn agenda – nothing wrong with holding such viewpoints, but it does seriously undermine the websites claim to be some objective rating of both users’ and notable political figures’ ideological leanings and is clearly colouring the results.
Biden’s a deeply flawed candidate, but he does have actual policies, most of which are broadly on the centre or centre-left. As does Buttigeig, as much as he tries to hide it – most of which are left-wing to some degree or another, including taxing carbon, funding renewables, strengthening unions, raising the minimum wage to $15, and all around progressive social policies. Certainly I can’t see how he’s *more* right-wing than Biden on nearly any measure, or how he (or Biden) could be so much closer to Trump and his insanely anti-choice, homophobic, climate-denying, pray-the-school-shooting-away enablers in Congress than to Sanders or Warren.
And, of course, the assesment of Shorten’s 2019 environmental platform is all about Adani with no mention of his of renewals and an ETS, the former seeming a particular oversight given how much shit Labor copped on “they’re gonna take our utes!!!” I imagine if they cover the next Queensland state election, they’ll have a whole lot to say about Adani and defeating silence on land clearing.
‘All the talk of the “neo-liberal establishment”’
***
…is accurate analysis of the situation that exists.
food for thought : nevada caucus entrance polls. -a.v.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/entrance-polls-2020-nevada-caucuses/
This piece argues that Bernie is taking over the Democratic Party and making it relevant to working class people.
https://jacobinmag.com/2020/02/bernie-sanders-nevada-caucus-democratic-primary-win
“Certainly I can’t see how he’s *more* right-wing”
***
By right/left they are talking about economic policy. It needs to be noted that they base the graph on prior voting records, meaning Biden and Buttigieg are where they are in part because of things they’ve actually done in the role of VP and Mayor. Sanders is likewise judged on his history as a Senator. It’s not just about what they say they’ll do but what they have actually done.
They couldn’t have been more accurate about Shorten, his sitting on the fence on Adani, and his inability to ignite the Australian people. They obviously also recognise that Labor doesn’t take climate change seriously. Yep, even some of the establishment Dems take climate change far more seriously than the ALP.
FF
You sure can post some tripe. Labor brought in the Clean Energy Act – a revolutionary piece of legislative architecture. Something the Democrats could barely dream.
And Labor lost an election over their commitment to real action on climate change, and have had to suffer 10 years in the wilderness, in part by the whiteanting of the Greens who couldn’t give a rat’s arse about real action on climate change.
So it is pleasing that the Democrats have adopted policies to save the planet. Let’s hope that they win in November and take their rightful role in leading the world on this existential issue.
“You sure can post some tripe. Labor brought in the Clean Energy Act – a revolutionary piece of legislative architecture. Something the Democrats could barely dream.”
***
It’s so funny how Labor are happy to claim the achievements of the Bandt/Gillard/Ind gov when it suits them but pretend the government never existed when it doesn’t. The ETS/Carbon Price was a Greens’ policy which we got Labor to introduce as part of the minority gov. And yes, it was revolutionary.
***
“And Labor lost an election over their commitment to real action on climate change, and have had to suffer 10 years in the wilderness, in part by the whiteanting of the Greens who couldn’t give a rat’s arse about real action on climate change.”
***
Oh no. Labor spent three years ripping themselves apart. You only have yourselves to blame for losing in 2013.
Firefox:
And, again, no mention of his policies on taxing carbon, on renewal energy, on electric cars. Just Adani, Adani, Adani, as if that’s the only environmental game in town.
In both 2016 and 2019, Shorten went to the people with some of the most ambitious climate policies ever proposed by a major party. Moreso than Rudd in 2007 (his basically amounted to “we’re going to tackle climate change with an ETS”, in a political climate where that was an exponentially safer thing to say), much moreso than Gillard in 2010 or Rudd 2.0 in 2013, and significantly moreso than the Coalition basically ever. Doing so was a genuine risk that opened the Labor Party to a host of attacks, and quite likely contributed to their eventual loss. But none of that ever gets mentioned. Just motherfucking Adani.
Shit like this is exactly what caused me to abandon the Greens in the first place.
(And, yep, Shorten was a pretty uninspiring opposition leader. Not sure what the fuck that has to do with where Labor sat on the left-right spectrum in the lead up to the 2019 election, however.)
The issue of fracking is yet another where Sanders and Labor have greatly differing policies. Sanders, just like the Greens, knows that fracking needs to be banned full stop. Labor are allowing the NT to be fracked in yet another sign that they don’t give a toss about the environment. Make no mistake, Bernie would be appalled by Labor’s support for environmental vandalism. He’s all for holding the fossil fuel industry accountable, not propping them up like Labor does.
one place the democrats set up in was the sprawling bellagio casino complex on the strip, so employees could vote during their lunch hour. canadian cbc went along to talk to the staff.
Like most Democrats, Kimberly Carr said she’d vote for anyone against Trump.
But she wants Sanders. The VIP host at the Bellagio supported Elizabeth Warren, then switched to Sanders on the second ballot in Saturday’s caucuses.
She said the party needs someone with fire in the belly and bold policy ideas to take on Trump. She has two kids in college and loves Sanders’ zero-tuition policy.
There’s one other thing she loves about him. As she listed the policies she likes, one in particular made her burst out laughing.
Carr’s job is to usher the highest-paying casino customers to their rooms upon arrival, and guarantee they’re pampered with the finest luxuries the Bellagio has to offer.
That policy she likes? “Taxing the rich,” she said, laughing.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/sanders-socialist-revolution-sweeps-sin-city-with-nevada-caucus-win-1.5472925
right on, sister! milkin’ ’em beats eatin’ ’em. -a.v.
They sure did.
And there were a whole lot of reasons for this. A big one the incredibly hostile public response towards the carbon tax brought in during the Gillard government – the one you take full credit for while Labor and the independents got to cop all the political backlash – which led to both the party and government making a whole lot of foolish decisions in order to halt an impending electoral wipe-out.
Of course, said controversial carbon tax never would have even needed to be a thing if Labor had been able to pass their previous, more modest ETS back in 2009. Then, had the Greens won the BoP in 2010 (which, regardless of how the post-ETS events unfolded, would have been very likely in the Senate at least), they could have continued to fight to make said ETS stricter, eventually getting to something close to the 2011(?) scheme without scaring the masses to anywhere near the same degree.
Labor may well have still imploded (Rudd would still have been Rudd, after all) and Abbott may well still have won on 2013, but things sure would have been easier within the “great big new tax” albatross on their backs the whole time. Perhaps Labor and the Greens could have at least retained a blocking majority in the senate, making it impossible for Abbott to “axe the tax” – assuming that was still on the cards 4-5 years after the passage of the ETS.
Oh, the blame on this one is shared by many, Labor most definitely included.
Uhhg seriously? We’re not going to start flogging the dead CPRS horse again, are we? It would have been terrible, it never happened, Rudd abandoned “the greatest moral challenge of our time”, people like me abandoned Labor for the Greens and haven’t looked back, and the Greens were then able to get something far better implemented soon after.
Tristo, Clem Atlee earlier – ref. Luciana Berger
Clem is on the money .. Ms. Berger was out of step with her very left-wing Liverpool constituency virtually from the get go – starting way back in 2012 I think, in the aftermath of the “Councillor Jake” phenom (Google is your friend)
My spies tell me she has already started back-channel machinations to rejoin the party
Firefox
What ‘you got implemented’ is dead, buried and cremated. The Greens have contributed to the destruction of our environment, and will continue to do so as long as you trash the only political force capable of change.
Sprocket, but it was actually implemented and was working well, unlike the CPRS that never was. And yes, Labor gifted power to Abbott and allowed it to be repealed.
Firefox:
You know, I bought and touted that same line once upon a time, until I actually educated myself on the differences between the two schemes. The one that eventually got legislated was definitely a lot stronger, but to suggest the initial one was worthless is, IMO, not true at all.
In any case, we are getting rather off-topic here.
“In any case, we are getting rather off-topic here.”
***
I’m happy to leave that there and agree to disagree. We Greens/Labor people just repeat the same arguments back to each other whenever the CPRS is brought up lol
Firefox:
No disagreements from me on that score!
C@tmomma:
Um… a cerebral venous thrombosis is a type of ischaemic stroke.
Yes, let’s say something I neither said nor alluded to to try to discredit me because you haven’t got an argument to refute the actual points I made.
She had a clot that was discovered when her concussion was investigated. The concussion could have caused the clot, or the clot could have resulted in a fall leading to concussion.
Cerebral venous thrombosis is rare in adults (there are estimated to be ~3-4 cases per million, per year; the hospital I was treated at said they see about one patient a year with it). Hardly anyone presenting with concussion is found to have it.
What Clinton had was a transverse sinus cerebral thrombosis. That is technically a stroke as it’s a cerebrovascular accident (CVA).
It’s pretty rare as almost no one gets an MRI as soon as they feel unwell with dehydration. It rarely causes symptoms that last depending on what sinus(es) are involved. And it almost never recurs.
Sanders’ heart attack is more of a worry but it seems he’s got a good chance at seeing out four years. Eight years would be a push though.
Diogenes @ #188 Sunday, February 23rd, 2020 – 9:26 pm
Thank you, Diogenes. You made the point well and succinctly that Hillary Clinton did not have the sort of ‘stroke’ of the sort which would have been debilitating for an extended period of time or may have led to permanent incapacity, such as was alluded to. If not directly, then indirectly.
“ Um… a cerebral venous thrombosis is a type of ischaemic stroke.”
No it’s not. Ischaemic strokes are due to lack of incoming blood supply. A venous thrombosis can cause infection but it does it by reducing the outflow of oxygenated blood by so much collaterals can’t open up.
“Sprocket, Jill Stein isn’t even running. The US Greens are at a monumental disadvantage due to the undemocratic system in the US which has entrenched the two party system. Thankfully we don’t have that problem in Australia.”
Firefox the Greens have 1 seat in the Federal House of representatives. Don’t pretend the Greens are something more then they are.
Diogenes:
I had a tonic-clonic seizure followed by left upper limb paresis and loss of sensation and proprioception. Mine was not related to dehydration.
From what I’ve read, there is about 10% risk of death in the acute phase (increased to about 50% with the condition I have that lead to it), and about a 3% risk of recurrence.
C@t
If you have a big enough venous thrombosis (eg superior sagittal sinus) you can definitely die.
Diogenes:
Cause infarction, I assume you meant. I had a venous infarct.
Yes, that’s what I had.
C@tmomma:
How do you “know” this, C@t, unless Hillary releases her medical records relating to the incident? Or are you relying on official statements made in the media?
Why is this level of ‘proof’ acceptable for one candidate, but you require the original medical records of another?
Diogenes @ #193 Sunday, February 23rd, 2020 – 9:33 pm
I assume that’s what, almost, happened to Michael Schumacher?
Mr Newbie @ #195 Sunday, February 23rd, 2020 – 9:37 pm
You seemed to know what she had, ie a ‘Stroke’. How did you know that for sure?
Mr Newbie
If it’s from dehydration etc, it’s very unlikely to recur so the course of anticoagulants is short.
If there is an underlying prothrombotic tendency (Leiden, protein C or S deficiency) it’s much more likely to recur and I think lifelong treatment is advised.
C@tmomma:
Again, you’re claiming I said something I didn’t. I’ve noticed you do that a lot.
I never said that Hillary was neurologically damaged from this incident. My point in bringing this up is that it seems to be a major issue for you that Bernie had a heart attack, but yet it was perfectly fine for a candidate I assume you supported in 2016 to have had a type of stroke 4 years prior.
C@t, I’m curious to know… if you were (I assume you’re not, but I could be wrong) a US citizen and Bernie wins the nomination, would you vote for him?