ChrisWeigant.com

Please support ChrisWeigant.com this
holiday season!

A Look At The Field Heading Into The Third Debate

[ Posted Monday, September 9th, 2019 – 18:06 UTC ]

With the third Democratic presidential nomination debate looming, it's time once again to check the polls and see how the field is doing. This week's debate will be hosted by ABC, so we'll all get a chance to see what sorts of questions they'll ask, in the first debate that will feature all the qualified candidates on one stage for only one night.

 

Campaign News

The Democratic field continues to slowly contract. Since the last horserace column we wrote, three more candidates have thrown in the towel. This time around, Kirsten Gillibrand, Jay Inslee, and Seth Moulton are the ones making their exit, dropping the entire field down to "only" 20 candidates left. Of the three, Inslee will still be worth watching during the rest of the primary race, because his endorsement is being heavily courted by more than one remaining candidate. Inslee made climate change his signature issue, so having his endorsement would bolster the case for any of the other candidates that they're the most serious about tackling the problem. Sadly, Inslee dropped out before CNN essentially gave him what he had been asking for from the Democratic National Committee -- an entire night devoted to the climate change debate.

Of course, it wasn't technically a "debate," since the D.N.C. has ruled that no actual debates can take place that aren't sanctioned by them -- and if any such event is held then any Democratic candidate who participates will be blacklisted from all the remaining official debates. So instead of debating each other simultaneously, the top ten candidates each appeared individually, one after the other.

What was astonishing is that they were each given a full 40 minutes to make their case. This meant the entire event stretched over a 7-hour period, making it perhaps the longest marathon event of the primary race. But kudos to CNN for (1) holding the town hall in the first place, and (2) for giving each candidate enough time to get past just the snappy talking points.

This Thursday the third official debate will take place, and due to the slightly-more-stringent entry requirements, there will only be 10 participants, who will all appear together on the same stage. Those who made the cut: Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Kamala Harris, Pete Buttigieg, Andrew Yang, Cory Booker, Beto O'Rourke, Julián Castro, and Amy Klobuchar. But the subsequent fourth debate may have to be split between two nights again, because Tom Steyer just met the qualifications today, assuring that there will be at least 11 candidates the next time around.

 

Top Tier

Our top tier remains the same, with only three candidates polling in the double digits. Leading the pack, as he has all along, is Joe Biden. Biden has been uttering some gaffes over the course of the past few weeks, but it hasn't altered his standing with the voters one bit. In fact, he's even bounced back a little.

A few weeks back, Biden had slid down to 26.6 percent in the Real Clear Politics rolling poll averages (from which we take all our data, as usual). This is still far better than any other candidate has managed since Biden entered the race, but for him it was a low point. Since then, however, Biden has climbed back up to 29.7 percent, which only continues an overall trend of his numbers oscillating around the 30 percent mark. For all the media attention on his gaffes, his support still seems pretty solid. Democratic voters simply don't care, since they feel they already know Biden and have excused his slips of the tongue for years now, one can assume.

The other two contenders in the top tier are Senators Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders. What's been interesting in the media of late is the conventional wisdom which emerged at the end of the summer, which does not actually match up with the reality of the polling. The storyline is, in a nutshell: "Warren surging, Bernie fading." This is not actually true. In fact, they're both currently experiencing a small upturn in polling.

Both parts of that talking point are either outdated or wrong, in fact. Warren did experience a surge in polling, but it happened months ago. Her rise began at the start of June, but it peaked (at 16.3 percent) by mid-July, and has flattened out since then. Bernie, on the other hand, has been perhaps the most consistent of any candidate in the polls, since roughly May. His numbers fluctuate between about 15 and 19 percent, and have done so ever since. So keep this in mind if you hear some pundit blithely talk about a "summer slide" for Bernie that never actually happened.

In fact, what has happened is that Bernie and Warren have been flipping the number two spot for the past few weeks, due to some polls that put Warren solidly in second and some that put Bernie there instead (both have polled as high as 24 percent in individual polls). This is countered by other polls that show each of them in the low teens, so it'll likely take a while to see what the outcome will be -- and it will almost certainly be affected by this week's debate.

From the beginning of August, Warren held a slight lead over Bernie in the polling average, but then at the end of the month Bernie caught up and passed her. About a week ago, Warren snatched the lead back and now stands in second place. But this whole see-saw movement has kept within a margin of roughly two points -- neither candidate has really pulled away from the other at all. Over the past week, both Sanders and Warren have seen a slight upswing, leaving Warren currently at 18.0 percent with Bernie right behind her at 17.5 percent.

What seems significant to me is that the support for the two of them together now represents a larger share of the voters than Biden's. Sanders-plus-Warren is now over 35 percent, while Biden is just below 30. What all of this means to the race as a whole is anyone's guess, but it is a fairly recent development.

 

Second Tier

We're going to be a bit more expansive when drawing the lines for the second tier, although we still can't quite bring ourselves to move Kamala Harris back up to the top tier. Harris is polling at 7.5 percent, but while her trendline has flattened out it still seems to be slowly sinking. She has lost all the ground she managed to make after the first debate, but she's still pretty solidly in fourth place.

Below her, and rounding out what might be called the "upper second tier" is Pete Buttigieg, currently polling at 4.3 percent. Mayor Pete has also seen his numbers slowly sink over the summer, as he used to be solidly above the 5 percent line. He sure can raise money, but so far raising his standing in the polls has eluded him. About the best that can be said for Buttigieg is that he's owned a solid fifth place for months now.

Below Harris and Buttigieg is the lower portion of the second tier, people who are polling above one percent but still below three percent. Currently, this includes Andrew Yang (at 2.7 percent), Cory Booker (2.5), Beto O'Rourke (2.3), and Tulsi Gabbard (1.7). Yang has seen the most positive movement within this range, as he's moved up from the third tier. In mid-August, Yang was only at 1.2 percent. Now, a 1.5-point improvement may not sound like much, but down here at the bottom of the standings, it is pretty impressive.

The other three candidates in this range all have pretty flat trendlines, although Booker and Gabbard have made small gains (of less than a point), while O'Rourke continues his downward trajectory by slipping once again (although also less than a full point). Gabbard did move up from the last time around, when we placed her in the third tier, but at the same time she's the only one currently in the second tier who will not be on the debate stage later this week.

 

Third Tier

And then there's "the pack." These are the people who are all hovering on the brink of ending their campaigns, to state it in the most brutal terms. Amy Klobuchar and Julián Castro are leading this pack at the moment, but Klobuchar has only a 1.0 percent polling average while Castro sits at 0.8 percent. Both, however, will be in this Thursday's debate, differentiating them from the rest of the third tier.

Everyone else is polling at 0.6 percent or less. Here's the rest of the third tier, just for the record (in order of their polling averages): Bill de Blasio, Tom Steyer, John Delaney, Michael Bennet, Marianne Williamson, Tim Ryan, Steve Bullock, Wayne Messam, and Joe Sestak. As mentioned previously, Steyer just posted a Nevada poll which was the fourth qualifying poll showing him at two percent or better, which means he will be invited to the fourth debate, but he already missed the cutoff for the third.

I have not been able to dig out the criteria for the fifth debate yet, which interests me because it should serve to further winnow the field. I would assume that candidates will have to hit three percent in a number of qualifying polls, if they keep to how the criteria has changed so far, but I haven't yet been able to confirm that. Whatever the criteria for the fifth debate turns out to be, it should almost guarantee that from that point on we'll only get a single night with all the candidates on stage together each time.

 

Conclusions

This has been the longest stretch yet between debates, as for some reason the D.N.C. decided to skip August. The third debate has generated a lot of interest, because for the first time all the top 10 candidates will be facing off against each other. Due to the vagaries of the previous draws, this will mean that Elizabeth Warren will face Joe Biden for the first time on a debate stage.

Warren and Biden have not seen eye-to-eye throughout the course of their respective careers in politics. Warren strongly disagreed with Biden on several issues, the most prominent being Biden's bankruptcy bill, so it should be interesting to see if the two take each other on. What probably won't happen, though, is any sparks between Warren and Sanders, because so far they have both kept to their unspoken non-aggression pact. At this point in the race, it really wouldn't help either one of them to turn and attack the other. This will undoubtedly change, later on, but for the time being I fully expect Bernie and Elizabeth to tag-team Biden and the other moderates on stage with them.

Of course, the other seven candidates will all be desperately seeking that magic "breakout moment," so some sparks will undoubtedly fly from the edges of the stage. Warren, due to her virtual tie with Bernie for second place, may have the biggest target on her, since all the other candidates have seen what happened when Kamala Harris successfully took on Biden in the first debate -- her numbers went up for a short period, but then they came right back down again. Biden is still pretty well-loved among the Democratic base, so if you're a candidate looking for a fight, you probably would consider Warren a safer target at this point. So we'll have to see whether she can take some incoming attacks herself this time around.

The conventional wisdom in presidential politics is that nobody pays much attention before Labor Day, when everyone starts getting interested in the nomination race. I'm not so sure that maxim holds up this time around, because a whole lot of Democrats have been interested in getting rid of Trump since about January of 2017. So far, the first two debates haven't really shaken the race up much at all -- Harris had a surge that fell back, and Warren continued a climb that actually predated the first debate. All the other movement has been pretty marginal, and it has all taken place at the very bottom of the field.

We're going to end on a program note here, for our readers. Due to the debate being on a Thursday this week, instead of pre-empting our regular Friday column we're going to make the effort to write up a "snap reaction" column which should appear late Thursday night. So if you're wondering why there's no Thursday column up, please be patient and check back after the debate to see my reactions. And to share your own, in the comments, of course.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

73 Comments on “A Look At The Field Heading Into The Third Debate”

  1. [1] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    "Time to once again check the polls . . ."

    While you're at it, don't forget the tea leaves and the pig entrails - they're substantially more accurate!

  2. [2] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Warren strongly disagreed with Biden on several issues, the most prominent being Biden's bankruptcy bill …

    Wasn't that a Republican bill in 2005?

    Didn't Biden vote against earlier versions of the bill before successfully adding protections for women and children.

    Wasn't this Republican bill going to pass in a Republican-controlled senate and didn't Biden succeed in adding some good amendments?

    I can certainly understand why there is so much confusion about Biden's support for, ah, "his" bankruptcy bill. ;)

  3. [3] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    What probably won't happen, though, is any sparks between Warren and Sanders …

    That's right! Because they'll both be busy ducking incoming from Biden. Heh.

  4. [4] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Yeah, I know … in my dreams. :(

  5. [5] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    Re Bernie ad Elizabeth's polling (pretty much ALWAYS) exceeding Biden's numbers, I've long thought it significant that two progressives (each supported by different slices of the Prog electorate) beat out "Mr. Mainstream."

  6. [6] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Have you thought about what the significance of that is for the general election?

  7. [7] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [1] C.J. Stucky

    Okay, are you saying that all polling is worthless just because most of them predicted that Trump (who enjoyed (1) Brother Vlad's help, (2) Comey's blabbing on Hillary (thank you Carlos Danger!) and (3) lame, inept, vastly overconfident (as in '08) Hillary was dreadful, would LOSE? Er, please feel free to see it that way a-yup.

  8. [8] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [6] Why, yes. The general election cannot help but see the following minimum anti-Trump vote: basically all the Bernie and Elizabeth supporters (regardless of who wins Bernie/Elizabeth as there will be no PUMA foolishness this time around), plus the non-Bern/Liz Democratic cohort, non-Trump Independents and non-Trump Farmers and other Republicans. As in 2018 this should do the trick, methinks.

  9. [9] 
    Michale wrote:

    First, let me get a bit of old business out of the way..

    There is still **NO** retractions made on the NOAA statement that President Trump was totally, unequivocally and 1000% accurate in his Hurricane Dorian statements..

    OK.. Moving on..

    "Season 7... {ssiigghh} MOVING ON!"
    -Robert Singer, SUPERNATURAL

    :D

  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:

    What was astonishing is that they were each given a full 40 minutes to make their case.

    And, in Joe Biden's case, he made the case that he is NOT crazy.. :D

    What was astonishing is that they were each given a full 40 minutes to make their case. This meant the entire event stretched over a 7-hour period, making it perhaps the longest marathon event of the primary race. But kudos to CNN for (1) holding the town hall in the first place, and (2) for giving each candidate enough time to get past just the snappy talking points.

    Yes, President Trump and every patriotic American wants to thank CNN for giving the Dim candidates PLENTY of rope to hang themselves..

    All of the candidates plans can be summed up thusly:

    "We're going to ban everything that makes life livable and enjoyable"

    Thanx, CNN.. For putting MORE nails in the coffin of the eventual Democrat nominee..

    :D
    I'm not so sure that maxim holds up this time around, because a whole lot of Democrats have been interested in getting rid of Trump since about January of 2017.

    And has FAILED at **EVERY** attempt to do so..

    Don't forget THAT little nugget of reality, eh? :D

  11. [11] 
    Michale wrote:

    While you're at it, don't forget the tea leaves and the pig entrails - they're substantially more accurate!

    A-Frakin'-Men to THAT!!

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    I can certainly understand why there is so much confusion about Biden's support for, ah, "his" bankruptcy bill. ;)

    This may be what CW is referring to..

    Joe Biden’s Bankruptcy Bill Could Complicate His Presidential Run
    Elizabeth Warren has called out the current Vice President in the past.

    http://inthesetimes.com/article/18366/joe-biden-president-bankrupcty-bill

  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:

    @MtnCaddy

    Re Bernie ad Elizabeth's polling (pretty much ALWAYS) exceeding Biden's numbers, I've long thought it significant that two progressives (each supported by different slices of the Prog electorate) beat out "Mr. Mainstream."

    Which simply proves what I have said all along.

    This is a PARTY PURITY primary, NOT an electability primary..

    Joe Biden is going to lose and JL will have to vote for President Trump.. :D

    How awesome is THAT!!?? :D

  14. [14] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    Have you thought about what the significance of that is for the general election?

    The significance is clear..

    **NO** Independent or NPA will vote for a Dem candidate who promises open borders, throwing ALL Americans off their health plans and giving crimmigrants free, full healthcare plans..

    This is the beauty of the Democrat Primary..

    If Biden wins the nomination, all of the far Left progressives will stay home or, in a fit of pique, vote for President Trump. ("Take THAT, you worthless Democrat Party!!! PUMA!!!!")

    Result: President Trump wins

    If any of the other Far Left candidates win, the mainstream and moderate Democrats will stay home or, in a fit of SURVIVAL, vote for President Trump..

    Result: President Trump wins

    This, of course, doesn't take into account the Independents and NPAs... If Biden wins, he might be able to pull in some of them but no where near enough to make up for the loss of the Democrat Base..

    Result: President Trump wins

    If a Far Left Dem wins, then the Independents and NPAs will flock by the tens of millions to vote for President Trump, scared to death of the harm that a Far Left POTUS could do to this country..

    Result: President Trump wins

    As you see.. No matter WHICH scenario you choose..

    The result is always the same..

    Democrats are facing their own Kobyashi Maru scenario..

    And, as in the original.... They can only "win" if they cheat...

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:

    @MtnCaddy

    Wow.. So much unadulterated BULLSHIT in a single comment..

    Congrats.. Yer a Democrat's Democrat..

    As I am wont to do, allow me to bring FACTS to your unadulterated bullshit..

    Okay, are you saying that all polling is worthless just because most of them predicted that Trump (who enjoyed (1) Brother Vlad's help,

    There are ZERO facts to prove this..

    There are, however, DOZENS and DOZENS of FACTS that prove you're spewing bullshit.. Not the least of which is the FACT that *EVERY* Democrat who discussed it, up to AND INCLUDING your Messiah, Barack Hussein Obama, stated UNEQUIVOCALLY and FOR THE RECORD that any Russian interference had NO EFFECT on the outcome of the election...

    Let me repeat that, in case you are up in the cheap seats...

    RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE HAD ***NO EFFECT*** ON THE OUTCOME OF THE ELECTION

    I don't even HAVE to mention the FACT that Democrat White Knight Mueller spent upwards of 30 Million Dollars and 2 years **PROVING** President Trump had NOTHING to do with Russia Interference..

    You see, Russ??? This yahoo brings bullshit.. and I bring the FACTS.. And the result?? MC will bail. :D

    (2) Comey's blabbing on Hillary (thank you Carlos Danger!)

    So??? Democrats are morons.. How is that President Trump's fault??

    and (3) lame, inept, vastly overconfident (as in '08) Hillary was dreadful, would LOSE?

    Hay..She was YOUR candidate.. YOUR Democrats nominated her..

    'Sides.. I knew that Hillary was going to lose the SECOND that President Trump took the GOP primary..

    ANYONE not a Party slave knew that Hillary was going to lose...

    Er, please feel free to see it that way a-yup.

    Of course you want CRS to see it that way.. Party Slaves always do..

    But CRS is one of the few here who can see the FACTS past all of ya'all's bullshit..

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    [6] Why, yes. The general election cannot help but see the following minimum anti-Trump vote: basically all the Bernie and Elizabeth supporters (regardless of who wins Bernie/Elizabeth as there will be no PUMA foolishness this time around), plus the non-Bern/Liz Democratic cohort, non-Trump Independents and non-Trump Farmers and other Republicans. As in 2018 this should do the trick, methinks.

    What about the Russians?? Aren't they going to be active and handing the election to President Trump??

    Funny how you scream hysterically about Russian interference in 2016, but totally and utterly ignore it in 2020..

    Probably because you know Russian Interference is total and complete bullshit and will have no effect on 2020, just as it had no effect in 2016...

    Hoisted by yer own PICARD!!! :D

  17. [17] 
    Michale wrote:

    Normally, I don't bother with Brietbart links.. They are equivalent to ya'all's DailyKOS links or MotherJones links or HuffPoop links..

    But THIS was just too funny to pass up..

    Leftists’ D.C. ‘Impeach Donald Trump’ Protests a Bust

    A website and eventbrite.com promoted rallies in Washington, DC, and other cities across the country to take place Monday to push for the impeachment of President Donald Trump – but no one showed up for the one at the Capitol.
    https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/09/09/lleftists-d-c-impeach-donald-trump-protests-a-bust/

    What if Hysterical Trump/America haters threw an Impeachment and no one came!?? :D

    hehehehehee Ya almost gotta feel SORRY for Democrats..

    They are in the pits and CONTINUE to dig.. :D

  18. [18] 
    Michale wrote:

    On a more serious note..

    NRA sues San Francisco over terrorist declaration
    https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/nra-sues-san-francisco-terrorist-declaration-65498939

    Not being a civil legal expert, I was wondering if the more logical ones here (CW, JL, etc etc etc) could give me their opinion on the legal ramifications for San Franfeces and the strength of the NRA case..

    I am referring back to the SCOTUS case where they ruled that the City Council of some Colorado city can't use their governmental powers to punish a religious baker.

    This NRA case seems to have similarities to that case..

    Comments???

  19. [19] 
    Kick wrote:

    CW: What seems significant to me is that the support for the two of them together now represents a larger share of the voters than Biden's. Sanders-plus-Warren is now over 35 percent, while Biden is just below 30. What all of this means to the race as a whole is anyone's guess, but it is a fairly recent development.

    I don't find this so significant for reasons we've discussed before. Also: Why are we not adding all the other so-called "Moderate" candidate's percentages to Biden's? ;)

  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liberals haunted by social media tactics they use against the right
    https://thehill.com/opinion/technology/460595-liberals-haunted-by-social-media-tactics-they-use-against-the-right

    Hoisted By Their Own Picard!!! Part Duex

    :D

  21. [21] 
    Michale wrote:

    The people who have made an industry out of destroying ordinary people’s lives over old social media posts and out-of-context comments are very upset that it’s happening to them. The New York Times, clearly worried by the recent exposure of blatantly anti-Semitic tweets posted by one of its reporters, and clearly worried that even more embarrassing material is in reserve, tried to stop the hemorrhaging with a rambling article demonizing the independent journalists who uncovered the tweets.

    It's no fun for the Left when the shoe is on the other hand, eh?? :D

  22. [22] 
    Michale wrote:

    In fact, much of the liberal media sphere went into panic mode, vehemently declaring that this particular exercise of the First Amendment is actually an attack on the First Amendment. The reason why liberal editors are so distraught that independent conservative journalists are publishing evidence of the racist, anti-Semitic, and otherwise vile sentiments expressed by their supposedly “objective” employees comes down — as it usually does — to power.

    Many journalists are in the profession not to inform the public, but to gain the power to destroy people who question them — and they don’t like those tactics being turned against them. “[U]sing journalistic techniques to target journalists and news organizations ... is fundamentally different from the well-established role of the news media in scrutinizing people in positions of power,” the Times wrote in its article — which was of course labeled “news,” not “opinion.”

    Translation of the NY GRIME editorial

    "Waaaaaa!!! Waaaaaa!!!! Whine!!!! Whine!!! Waa!! Waa!! Whine.."

  23. [23] 
    Michale wrote:

    The newspaper’s publisher, Arthur Sulzberger, added that “The political operatives behind this campaign will argue that they are ‘reporting’ on news organizations in the same way that news organizations report on elected officials and other public figures,” but he roundly rejected that claim, insisting that his antagonists are trying to “manipulate the facts for political gain.”

    To their credit, not everyone in the elite media world is buying it. Erik Wemple of The Washington Post and Jack Shafer of Politico both wrote rebukes of The Times’s indignation. Neither is a conservative “political operative,” but both found Sulzberger’s statement hypocritical and incongruent with The Times’s own reporting on this story. As Wemple put it, “For decades now, representatives of the mainstream media have answered conservative critiques by imploring: Judge us by the work we produce, not by the fact that more than 90 percent of us are liberal/Democratic. Mainstreamers cannot have it both ways.”

    Considering that Times recently held a staff meeting at which employees strategized over how best to undermine President Trump, Sulzberger doesn’t have much standing to complain about media bias. Clearly, he thinks that his journalists deserve special privileges and protections because the targets of their attacks are so important.

    The Journo List all over again.. :^/

  24. [24] 
    Michale wrote:

    Most hypocritical of all, however, is HuffPost editor in chief — and New York Times alumna — Lydia Polgreen. She called the prospect of journalists being held to the same standards as their targets “extremely alarming,” hypocritically arguing this “should worry anyone who cares about independent journalism” — even though people now being attacked by the establishment media are acting as independent journalists.

    In the mind of leftist journalists, destroying people’s lives is “speaking truth to power” and “independent journalism.” It’s not. It’s a pure, shameless abuse of power by those who have it against those who don’t. It’s a deliberate exploitation of the far-left hate mobs that Big Tech still allows to organize on social media, even as the tech giants ban conservative users for “harassment” when they criticize journalists.

    Just recently, The New York Times complained to a professor’s employer about a tweet referring to one of its high-profile columnists as a “bedbug.” The liberal media have made an art form out of digging up controversial tweets in order to attack ordinary Americans who support President Trump, and now that they’re being given a dose of their own medicine, they’ve discovered that they don’t like the taste. What goes around comes around, though, and those who live by the social media “gotcha” game shouldn’t be surprised if their eventual undoing comes by the same means.

    This is why it's impossible to take ANYTHING the NY GRIME says seriously..

    Their bias is flagrant, obvious and STATED!!

    It truly is nothing but a propaganda arm of the Democrat Party...

  25. [25] 
    Michale wrote:

    @'Nuck

    Now we're finding out the CIA pulled one of their most valuable assets out of Russia because they figured Trump would tell his pals in the Kremlin they had a spy in their midst.

    And NOW we are finding out, directly from the CIA, that your claim was NOTHING but complete and utter bullshit!!!

    "CNN's narrative that the Central Intelligence Agency makes life-or-death decisions based on anything other than objective analysis and sound collection is simply false. Misguided speculation that the President's handling of our nation's most sensitive intelligence — which he has access to each and every day — drove an alleged exfiltration operation is inaccurate."
    -Brittany Bramell, CIA Director for Public Affairs

    Once again... Ya'all spew the bullshit..

    And I slap ya'all down with FACTS...

    And now 'nuck will bail...

    Rinse.. Repeat...

  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:

    You see, Russ..

    What you call "Bullshit" is nothing but FACTS that you don't like.. FACTS that prove ya'all's claims are the real bullshit around here..

    Mueller Report, President's statement on Dorian, NOAA Statement, CNN claims on the CIA, President Trump's statement on VA Gov Northam and on and on and on....

    Ya'all spew nothing but BS and I respond with the FACTS that prove the claims are nothing but BS..

    "And so it goes and so it goes... And so will you soon I suppose."
    -Billy Joel

  27. [27] 
    dsws wrote:

    [2] Liz
    Wasn't that a Republican bill in 2005?

    I believe this is correct. At least, it was introduced by a Republican. I don't know how partisan it was during drafting and debate.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bankruptcy_Abuse_Prevention_and_Consumer_Protection_Act

    Wasn't this Republican bill going to pass in a Republican-controlled senate

    I don't see why it necessarily would have. They didn't have 60 votes.

  28. [28] 
    Michale wrote:

    Why the media dislike Andrew, Tulsi, Bernie and Marianne
    https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/460224-why-the-media-dislike-andrew-tulsi-bernie-and-marianne

    It's commentaries like this that I miss around here..

  29. [29] 
    Michale wrote:

    Democracy Dies From Bad Fact-Checking
    The Washington Post is feeding into Trump’s agenda by turning fact-checking into an ideological weapon.

    https://www.thenation.com/article/bernie-sanders-bad-fact-checking/

    Very interesting article...

    It's at the heart of why it's a safe bet to ignore fact-checkers..

    Because, as Joe Biden says, Democrats are all about "Truth" and FACTS be damned...

  30. [30] 
    Michale wrote:

    Looks like we have an election today in North Carolina..

    Democrats have been up in arms, claiming that this election is a "MUST WIN" for President Trump and if the Democrat wins it's "all over" for President Trump...

    Here's my prediction..

    If the GOP candidate wins, Democrats will do a COMPLETE 180 and claim the loss was no big deal.. It was meaningless..

    :D

    As I have said in the past..

    Democrats are so predictable... :D

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Propaganda Arm of the Democrat Party, the Leftist MSM, is making the same mistake they did in 2016...

    They are covering President Trump nearly exclusively to the exclusion of Democrat candidates..

    During a 3 month period (June, July, August) the media devoted 838 minutes to President Trump.. That's nearly 14 hours exclusively to President Trump..

    Compare that to Joe Biden who got the next highest coverage... Less than 1hr & 14 mins coverage..

    It's easy to predict a President Trump win... :D

    Democrats are making all the same mistakes over again, plus a host of new ones... :D

  32. [32] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Pollsters and pundits should be putting a lot more emphasis on voter second choice preferences among the top 4 Democratic contenders.

  33. [33] 
    Michale wrote:

    Pollsters and pundits should be putting a lot more emphasis on voter second choice preferences among the top 4 Democratic contenders.

    Yea, cuz knowing who the first luser is, is always important.. :D heh

    You funny, Stig.. :D

  34. [34] 
    Michale wrote:

    Regarding the "millions" that President Trump is making off the US Military??

    We have heard ya'all's bullshit..

    Is military money really propping up a Trump resort?

    But committee Democrats left a number of things out of their letter. Some are available in public documents on the internet, while some came from the Air Force in response to the story.

    The first thing to note is that a public database shows the Air Force signed a contract for refuelings at Prestwick in 2016, before the Trump administration entered office. In addition, Air Force planes made many stops at Prestwick before Trump. According to information provided by Air Force officials, planes stopped at Prestwick 95 times in 2015, 145 times in 2016, 180 times in 2017, 257 times in 2018, and 259 times through August 2019.

    Some of the flights were documented on YouTube. There are hobbyists who like to make and post videos of planes landing and taking off at various airports around the world. A search for "USAF" and "Prestwick" yields lots of videos of Air Force planes at Prestwick, many of them dating from before the start of the Trump administration. (Here is one.)

    So the stop at Prestwick might have been a first-ever for the crew described in Politico, but not for the Air Force overall. In a statement released after the Politico report, the Air Force said there are a number of reasons for using Prestwick:
    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/is-military-money-really-propping-up-a-trump-resort

    And then we have THE FACTS....

    You see the pattern?? Ya'all get hysterical over reports attacking President Trump..

    And then ya'all look like FOOLS when the FACTS come out and the claims are nothing but out and out bullshit, out of context crap or completely one sided without ALL the facts...

    Then ya'all rinse and repeat again and again ad nasuem...

    Ya'all NEVER seem to learn that you can't win with bullshit..

  35. [35] 
    Michale wrote:

    Air Force mobility aircraft, primarily C-17s, have increasingly leveraged Prestwick as a stopover location between 2015-2019 due to several key factors. Prestwick's 24-hour-a-day operations make it a more viable option for aircraft traveling to and from the U.S. Central Command Area of Responsibility compared to other military stopover locations that have imposed increasingly restrictive operating hours. Additionally, Air Mobility Command [AMC] issued a flight directive to mobility crews in June 2017 designed to increase efficiencies by standardizing routing locations, with Prestwick being among the top five locations recommended for reasons such as more favorable weather than nearby Shannon Airport, and less aircraft parking congestion than locations on the European continent that typically support AMC's high priority airlift missions. By considering factors like these to save costs and increase operational efficiencies, Air Operations Center contingency planners have increasingly turned to Prestwick to develop route plans for lower priority contingency needs such as training, deploy/redeploy and Guard airlift missions.
    -USAF Press Release

    Has nothing to do with the pittance the Trump resort makes and EVERYTHING to do with FACTS and REALITY...

  36. [36] 
    Michale wrote:

    Re: the CNN Climate Change Boondoggle..

    CNN's Climate Debate Hurts the Democrats It Tried to Help

    CNN's Climate Debate Hurts the Democrats It Tried to Help
    COMMENTARY
    .By Charles Lipson - RCP ContributorSeptember 09, 2019
    CNN's Climate Debate Hurts the Democrats It Tried to HelpAP Photo/Matt Rourke
    CNN’s climate “townhall” was meant to promote Democrats, showcasing an issue dear to the hearts of the party’s liberal base and the 2020 presidential field. The candidates were delighted to join. It gave them a chance to show they are truly green, care as deeply as the activists, and intend to act decisively. They stopped just short of demanding we all walk to work and heat our homes with Sterno cans.

    The candidates signaled their virtue with evangelical fervor. It was reminiscent of an old-fashioned revival, this one for a new secular religion. One by one, the top-tier contenders vowed to spend vast amounts of taxpayer money, kill millions of jobs, and impose sweeping controls on the U.S. economy. It was a bidding war with somebody else’s money.

    CNN’s amen chorus never bothered to ask three crucial questions. First, how can America pull off this ambitious agenda without breaking the federal budget and fundamentally changing the way we live? Second, if these proposals were implemented, how much would they actually reduce global warming? Most estimates show, unfortunately, that they would have little impact, far less than one degree on the thermometer over several decades. Third, how can this global problem be solved if China and India continue to fill the air with soot?
    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/09/09/cnns_climate_debate_hurts_the_democrats_it_tried_to_help_141204.html

    This is what hysterical Global Warming fanatics just don't get..

    The US is meeting obligations of the Paris Accord even if the US doesn't sign on..

    Every country of the Accord are FAILING to meet their obligations..

    Even if they do, the BIGGEST dumpers of carbon into the air (India and China) are going to continue dumping..

    The Paris Accord is an exercise in international futility...

    And THAT is why President Trump was right to pull us out of the treaty...

  37. [37] 
    Michale wrote:

    The session also raised questions pertaining to electoral politics. The debate revealed the Democrats’ Catch-22: The climate proposals that most appeal to elites are those that most repel rank-and-file voters, especially in the swing states of the upper Midwest.

    The harder the primary fight, the worse the Catch-22. In a tough primary season, each candidate is forced to concentrate on winning the immediate battle. That fight is for the hearts and minds of primary voters in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina — as well as donors in Beverly Hills, Nob Hill, and Beacon Hill. The general election can wait. That’s true not just for climate change but for gun control, abortion, health care, and immigration — all issues on which the candidates have taken similarly strong progressive positions. Vital as those are for party activists, they will likely haunt the nominee in autumn 2020.

    Exactly...

    Every viable Dem candidate sans 1 is totally destroying their chances to prevail in the General Election..

    EVERY... ONE.. OF.... THEM.... Sans Joe Biden..

    Biden is mouthing the words and parsing them to give him wiggle room in the General.. Not much, but some..

    But every other viable Dem candidate is damn the torpedoes and full steam ahead in hysterical race to see how far Left they can go...

    They are moving so far Left that they won't be able to FIND the Center.. Even if their supporters would let them...

    Once again.. FACTS and REALITY.. I know, I know.. It sucks for Dems... But hay.. That's the path they have chosen..

  38. [38] 
    Michale wrote:

    And the Coop Dey Grassie???

    The Democrats’ problem is not just that these proposals are unrealistic, unaffordable, and unpopular with the general public. It’s also that they are all on videotape, in the candidates’ own words, ready for Reelect the President ads in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. Good luck flipping Texas blue after watching them.

    That’s why CNN’s climate forum actually tripped up the candidates it was meant to help. It doesn’t matter that few Americans watched. It doesn’t matter that the moderators acted more like campaign cheerleaders than journalists

    What matters is that Republicans recorded every second. They will use those clips to bind the eventual nominee to a hostage chair, to be flogged with a rubber hose. Note to Democrats: The hose and tape will be made from carbon.

    WHAM!!!! POWWEEE!!! BIFF!!!!

    Charles Lipson brings it home..

    I can guarantee you we will see dozens and dozens, if not HUNDREDS of GOP ads and Re-Elect President Trump ads that feature Democrats in their OWN words, sounding their death knell...

    Democrats won't be able to scream FAKE NEWS because it's their own faces, their OWN voices, their OWN words, not only un-coerced but giddly... willingly.. EAGERLY putting their words to posterity..

    Everyone here knows what I am saying is factual.. Hell, even a few brave ones here in Weigantia have come out and STATED it..

    The race for POTUS in 2020 is effectively over.. Democrats disqualified themselves even before choosing a champion...

    It's all over but the tears and the incredulous screams and cries of:

    HOW COULD THIS HAPPEN!!!!???? AGAIN!!!!????

  39. [39] 
    Michale wrote:

    OK Gonna take a break to let ya'all catch up.. :D

  40. [40] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    dsws,

    The bill passed by a margin of 75-25 with 57 Republicans, one independent and 17 Democrats voting for it.

    It was a Republican bill and a Republican controlled senate. It didn't reach the 60 vote threshold and, you're right, it wouldn't have necessarily passed just because Republicans had control.

    But, the Bill was going to pass the senate regardless of how Biden voted. The bill was emphatically NOT "Biden's bill. But, he did make improvements to it and therefore it received his support.

    All of this ALWAYS gets lost in any discussion of "Biden's bill". Which is what frustrates me to no end.

  41. [41] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Shocking!! Abdsolutely positootly SHOCKING!!!

  42. [42] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    i wonder whether any of the "second tier candidates" are still in a position to win the nomination. in any case, here is an article i came across, about donald's state of mind:

    https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/09/donald-trump-not-well/597640/

  43. [43] 
    Michale wrote:

    And the award for the greatest firearm sales goes to...????

    Gun sales surge 15%, driven by self-protection and Pelosi-Schumer demand for limits
    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/washington-secrets/gun-sales-surge-15-driven-by-self-protection-pelosi-schumer-demand-for-limits

    PELOSI SCHUMER AND THE DEMOCRAT PARTY!!!

    :D

    Ya just GOTTA love the irony.. :D

  44. [44] 
    Michale wrote:

    i wonder whether any of the "second tier candidates" are still in a position to win the nomination. in any case, here is an article i came across, about donald's state of mind:

    ANY therapist or psychologist who is willing to make a prognosis on the bases of the Leftist MSM's 92% HATE hard-on for President Trump???

    They should have their licenses pulled and be barred from practicing for life...

  45. [45] 
    Michale wrote:

    OF COURSE!!! It was right in front of us the WHOLE time!!!!

    https://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/stg090519dAPR20190905034509.jpg

  46. [46] 
    Michale wrote:

    Apparently, Bolton is out at the White House..

    I make 2 predictions..

    #1- A lot of Weigantians will swarm back here to crow that Bolton got canned..

    #2- All the Weigantians who said that President Trump was an IDIOT for hiring Bolton, will NOW do a 180 and claim President Trump was an IDIOT for FIRING Bolton..

    :D

  47. [47] 
    Michale wrote:

    All the Weigantians who said that President Trump was an IDIOT for hiring Bolton, will NOW do a 180 and claim President Trump was an IDIOT for FIRING Bolton..

    And they will see absolutely NOTHING wrong with their hypocritical position... :D

  48. [48] 
    Paula wrote:

    IN OTHER NEWS: John Bolton says he resigned last night - Blotus claims he fired Bolton. So Bolton's out.

    If we have to decide who's version is the true one, I'd go with Bolton's as DJT's claims nearly always turn out to be false.

  49. [49] 
    Michale wrote:

    Hahahahahahahaha

    Do I know my Weigantians or what!!???

    Like I said..

    SO Predictable.. :D

  50. [50] 
    Michale wrote:

    I'd go with Bolton's as

    So, they guy you called every name in the book, you NOW believe, because he says what you want to hear..

    My gods, don't you people have ANY strength of convictions??? :eyeroll:

  51. [51] 
    Michale wrote:

    Let's check in with the NOAA again, shall we??

    Statement from NOAA

    September 6, 2019

    Welcome to noaa.gov

    From Wednesday, August 28, through Monday, September 2, the information provided by NOAA and the National Hurricane Center to President Trump and the wider public demonstrated that tropical-storm-force winds from Hurricane Dorian could impact Alabama. This is clearly demonstrated in Hurricane Advisories #15 through #41, which can be viewed at the following link.

    The Birmingham National Weather Service’s Sunday morning tweet spoke in absolute terms that were inconsistent with probabilities from the best forecast products available at the time.
    https://www.noaa.gov/news/statement-from-noaa

    Yep.. Statement is still there..

    NO RETRACTIONS issued.. :D

    Gods, it's tough to be factually accurate all the time.. :D

  52. [52] 
    Michale wrote:

    To be fair, I have to concede I did lose that bet with myself...

    I did wager that at least two Weigantians would have the courage to admit they were wrong and issue an apology to President Trump..

    Sadly, this did not occur..

    #verydisappointed

  53. [53] 
    TheStig wrote:

    NYPOET22-42

    "i wonder whether any of the "second tier candidates" are still in a position to win the nomination."

    There are no winner take all primaries in the Democratic 2020 primaries. Given the number of candidates in the upper tier, it's possible, even likely, that no candidate will be nominated on the first ballot...and if so, the delegates are going to have to sort things out. At this point, second best choice could prove very important very important.

    See my comment 32 regarding pollsters paying attention to second most popular presidential aspirants.

  54. [54] 
    TheStig wrote:

    addendum to 53

    Nash equilibrium

    (in economics and game theory) a stable state of a system involving the interaction of different participants, in which no participant can gain by a unilateral change of strategy if the strategies of the others remain unchanged.)

    see movie "Beautiful Mind"

    I'm sure political consultants are familiar with the concept.

  55. [55] 
    Michale wrote:

    Given the number of candidates in the upper tier, it's possible, even likely, that no candidate will be nominated on the first ballot...and if so, the delegates are going to have to sort things out. At this point, second best choice could prove very important very important.

    If you think it's going to be THAT tidy, I have some swampland down here in FL I wanna sell you. :D

  56. [56] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Yep.. Statement is still there..

    NO RETRACTIONS issued.. :D

    Of course there aren’t retractions, Trump has the final say on what every agency posts! Even if the Director grew a pair and put out a retraction, his boss, Wilber Ross (what a used condom would look like if it suddenly came to life) has already said anyone who contradicts Trump will be fired! Ross will just hire someone who will retract the retraction.

    Retractions are made when an agency states something incorrectly. Do you honestly believe that that human hemorrhoid would ever admit that he was wrong about anything? Why am I bothering to ask you this? I forgot your cult’s mantra: “God is never wrong!”

  57. [57] 
    Michale wrote:

    Of course there aren’t retractions, Trump has the final say on what every agency posts!

    And yet, Balthy claimed that there would be retractions..

    Why did he say that if Trump has the final say on what every agency posts??

    There is a disconnect here and it's at ya'all's end..

    Even if the Director grew a pair and put out a retraction, his boss, Wilber Ross (what a used condom would look like if it suddenly came to life) has already said anyone who contradicts Trump will be fired! Ross will just hire someone who will retract the retraction.

    Facts to support??

    NONE.. Just a bunch of anonymous claims that have NO FACTS to support..

    Retractions are made when an agency states something incorrectly.

    Agreed.. So the NOAA statement was 1000% factual..

    I am glad we can agree on that..

    Why am I bothering to ask you this? I forgot your cult’s mantra: “God is never wrong!”

    Says the guy who TRULY never admits when he is wrong..

    Like this NOAA thing.. Ya'all were 1000% totally and unequivocally WRONG..

    And ya'all can't admit it..

    Take a look in the mirror if you want to see someone that can't admit when he is wrong..

  58. [58] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Michale,

    [From Friday’s comments]

    11 million?? 2 million??

    BBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    For a man of President Trump's worth, 11 mil or 2 mil is pocket change.. He probably carries that on him..

    The military is paying to keep Trump’s property afloat. If Trump was actually picking up the bill, then there would not be a problem because we know that they’d never get paid!

    The man will not only go down as the worst president of all time, he might go down as the worst businessman of all time! He doesn’t have the Midas touch, he’s got the “My Ass” touch!

    The FACT is, Balthasar was PROVEN wrong by the facts.

    AGAIN......

    That’s between you and Balthy, but for the record, the FACT is that NOAA did not post a retraction, not that Trump was correct!

    Once again.. Ya'all have the bullshit...

    Well, we do have you!

    I have the facts..

    You have us... close enough.

  59. [59] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    "Hoisted By Their Own Picard!!! Part Duex
    :"

    Should read, 'Hoisted by their own Petard'

    Bolton lasted longer than predicted. You don't get a buttoned lip with Bolton, add that to facial hair, which Trump finds unkempt, Bolton was never touted for the long haul...

    It's academic, in a little over a year, all these freaks will be packing up their Ouija boards and tin foil Maga hats to make way for the incoming president and his/her staff.

    LL&P

  60. [60] 
    Michale wrote:

    The military is paying to keep Trump’s property afloat. If Trump was actually picking up the bill, then there would not be a problem because we know that they’d never get paid!

    And yet, the FACTS prove you wrong..

    Is military money really propping up a Trump resort?

    But committee Democrats left a number of things out of their letter. Some are available in public documents on the internet, while some came from the Air Force in response to the story.

    The first thing to note is that a public database shows the Air Force signed a contract for refuelings at Prestwick in 2016, before the Trump administration entered office. In addition, Air Force planes made many stops at Prestwick before Trump. According to information provided by Air Force officials, planes stopped at Prestwick 95 times in 2015, 145 times in 2016, 180 times in 2017, 257 times in 2018, and 259 times through August 2019.

    Some of the flights were documented on YouTube. There are hobbyists who like to make and post videos of planes landing and taking off at various airports around the world. A search for "USAF" and "Prestwick" yields lots of videos of Air Force planes at Prestwick, many of them dating from before the start of the Trump administration. (Here is one.)

    So the stop at Prestwick might have been a first-ever for the crew described in Politico, but not for the Air Force overall. In a statement released after the Politico report, the Air Force said there are a number of reasons for using Prestwick:
    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/is-military-money-really-propping-up-a-trump-resort

    The man will not only go down as the worst president of all time, he might go down as the worst businessman of all time! He doesn’t have the Midas touch, he’s got the “My Ass” touch!

    Of course you think that.. You are living on nothing but hate..

    But the FACTS say something completely different..

    That’s between you and Balthy, but for the record, the FACT is that NOAA did not post a retraction, not that Trump was correct!

    Once again, you are wrong..

    The FACTS prove it..

    From Wednesday, August 28, through Monday, September 2, the information provided by NOAA and the National Hurricane Center to President Trump and the wider public demonstrated that tropical-storm-force winds from Hurricane Dorian could impact Alabama. This is clearly demonstrated in Hurricane Advisories #15 through #41, which can be viewed at the following link.

    The Birmingham National Weather Service’s Sunday morning tweet spoke in absolute terms that were inconsistent with probabilities from the best forecast products available at the time.

    The NOAA proved that President Trump was factually accurate and ALL of ya'all were wrong..

    I love how you tapdance, but facts are facts..

    President Trump was factually accurate.. The NOAA confirmed this..

    And Balthy swore up and down that, come Monday, the NOAA would print a retraction..

    The NOAA never did..

    Once again.. Ya'all's bullshit..

    And my FACTS...

  61. [61] 
    Michale wrote:

    Should read, 'Hoisted by their own Petard'

    Yes.. For those who are ignorant of Trek and Weigantia.. :eyeroll:

    Bolton lasted longer than predicted. You don't get a buttoned lip with Bolton, add that to facial hair, which Trump finds unkempt, Bolton was never touted for the long haul...

    Facts to support??? jeesh :eyeroll:

    Look who I am asking for facts...

    It's academic, in a little over a year, all these freaks will be packing up their Ouija boards and tin foil Maga hats to make way for the incoming president and his/her staff.

    Whatever you have to tell yourself to make it thru your sad and empty day.. :D

  62. [62] 
    Michale wrote:

    Oooooo A Harvest Moon this Friday The 13th!! :D

    Won't that be fun!!??? :D

    It is quite rare for the whole United States to experience a full moon on Friday the 13th, which is superstitiously known as an unlucky day. The last time it happened was on October 13, 2000. And if it you miss this one, you’ll have to wait nearly three decades for it to happen again on August 13th, 2049.

    I plan on being there for the next one.. :D

  63. [63] 
    Michale wrote:

    That’s between you and Balthy, but for the record, the FACT is that NOAA did not post a retraction

    Exactly.. Balthy said there WOULD be a retraction..

    There wasn't..

    Ergo, NOAA's OFFICIAL statement confirming President Trump was factually accurate is still the position of the NOAA..

    An Organization whose word YA'ALL treat as gospel...

    So, no matter how ya want to spin it.. Ya'all are WRONG...

  64. [64] 
    Paula wrote:

    In the annals of "this is how you do it!" there's a clip being tweeted around from CNBC/Jim Cramer saying Wall Street is terrified of Liz Warren and says she must be stopped!!

    So Liz retweets the clip with: "My name is Elizabeth Warren and I approve this message."

  65. [65] 
    TheStig wrote:

    The Mustache has been waxed.

  66. [66] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Plenty of dissension about NOAA's actions:

    On Monday, the director of NOAA’s National Weather Service, Louis Uccellini, led a standing ovation for the forecasters in the Birmingham, Alabama, office who corrected Trump’s false assertion that Alabama was in Dorian’s path. NOAA is part of the Department of Commerce, and on the same day, the New York Times reported that Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross “threatened to fire top employees at the federal scientific agency responsible for weather forecasts last Friday after the agency’s Birmingham office contradicted President Trump’s claim that Hurricane Dorian might hit Alabama.”

    This conflict culminated in a letter McLean sent to NOAA staff promising an investigation into why the agency released that statement supporting Trump’s false warnings for Alabama. That now-public letter reads:

    During the course of the storm, as I am sure you are aware, there were routine and exceptional expert forecasts, the best possible, issued by the NWS Forecasters…As I’m sure you also know, there was a complex issue involving the President commenting on the path of the hurricane. The NWS Forecaster(s) corrected any public misunderstanding in an expert and timely way, as they should. There followed, last Friday, an unsigned press release from “NOAA” that inappropriately and incorrectly contradicted the NWS forecaster. My understanding is that this intervention to contradict the forecaster was not based on science but on external factors including reputation and appearance, or simply put, political.

    McLean goes on to explain that he will investigate whether the NOAA press release was a violation of the agency’s policy on scientific integrity:

    Unfortunately, the press release of last Friday violated this trust and violated NOAA’s policies of scientific integrity. In my role as Assistant Administrator for Research, and as I continue to administratively serve as Acting Chief Scientist, I am pursuing the potential violations of our NOAA Administrative Order on Scientific Integrity…I have a responsibility to pursue these truths. I will.

    A casual look at headlines reveals the turmoil that still buffers the agency:

    Commerce Chief Threatened Firings at NOAA After
    Trump’s Dorian Tweets, Sources Say
    Mother Jones

    Trump Tried to Bully NOAA. Its Chief Scientist Just
    Released a Remarkable Letter to Fight Back.
    Salon

    Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross faces calls to resign
    after reports of meddling at NOAA
    CNN

    NYT: Wilbur Ross threatened firings at NOAA
    Washington Post

    NOAA leader, in Alabama speech, says ‘weather
    shouldn’t be a partisan issue’
    Vox

    Sharpiegate turns into a real scandal with Wilbur Ross’s threat to fire NOAA officials
    Associated Press

    NOAA scientist: agency likely broke science integrity rules
    Ars Technica

    In speech to forecasters, NOAA chief tries to tamp down Sharpie controversy
    NBCNews.com

    Plenty to indicate that I wasn't wrong. Republicants just can't give on this one.

  67. [67] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    46

    Apparently, Bolton is out at the White House..

    I make 2 predictions..

    #1- A lot of Weigantians will swarm back here to crow that Bolton got canned..

    You're "predicting" that commenters on a political chat board might actually post about arguably the biggest political event of the day? *laughs*

    I "predict" Donald Trump will knowingly lie, and I "predict" water is wet. :)

  68. [68] 
    Kick wrote:

    JL
    42

    i wonder whether any of the "second tier candidates" are still in a position to win the nomination.

    I think it's not out of the "realm of possibility" for one of them to win it.

  69. [69] 
    Kick wrote:

    Russ
    56

    Wilber Ross (what a used condom would look like if it suddenly came to life)

    *laughs*

    And we haven't forgotten that Wilbur is the "used condom" who lied under sworn oath to Congress about why the Commerce Department wanted to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census and the Supreme Court described as "contrived."

  70. [70] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    i predict that the next pie you eat will be tasty

  71. [71] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @james t,

    here is the image in question:

    https://images.app.goo.gl/2QUWLXCkndptaLBg6

  72. [72] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Kick,

    You're "predicting" that commenters on a political chat board might actually post about arguably the biggest political event of the day? *laughs*

    I "predict" Donald Trump will knowingly lie, and I "predict" water is wet. :)

    Love it! And it still cost him 3.99/minute talking to Ms. Cleo to come up with that prediction!

  73. [73] 
    Kick wrote:

    Russ
    72

    Heh! :)

Comments for this article are closed.