Even if one believes that Gillibrand is "worth a damn" she currently has ZERO qualifying polls to her credit, and a minimum of four are required to participate in the september debate. So I am going to color her gone after this debate- and she is free to surprise me. Klobuchar already meets the polling requirement, I think, but is still short on the requirement for X number of donors. I dont think she is that far off and can probably get there. So, she probably will make it on to September, most likely anyway. Gillibrand = Clown Down. Probably take her a couple months to announce that though. But I dont think the media is going to be giving much attention to those who dont qualify for the sept debate.
I think Gillibrand has an actual message if she could articulate herself better. Her default is family issues if you listen to her speak but she isn’t/hasn’t presented herself in way that lets that shine through and that value set can go a long way in a democratic primary.
I am going to be supporting Marianne Williamson for Secretary of Defense. I look forward to seeing her love-bomb the hell out of Iran. Yeh Baby, rub those crystals, burn that incense and git er done!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If you are a trader, you should understand the below info and it should be shocking. Some excerpts below. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...lains-what-his-party-gets-wrong-about-climate A Democratic professor explains what his party gets wrong about climate My students had learned to remove the effect of other variables statistically, using a computer modeling technique called multiple regression, so the true level of correlation can surface. If it’s strong and the hypothesized cause precedes the effect in time, and you can’t think of any other causal variables that should be removed, then you have a case for causation. It turned out that computer models were indeed the basis for the U.N. claims about recent “detection” of a change in temperature, and “attribution” of the cause being CO2 emissions. But they weren’t testable statistical models; they were mathematical exercises in curve-fitting — essentially, finding a model that fits your data. The modelers themselves called them projections rather than predictions. These Global Climate Models randomly use thousands of input guesses until their output roughly tracks the chart of average temperatures. Then those final guesses are used to run the model forward to estimate how much warming industrial CO2 will cause in 100 years. But one of the input guesses is the warming effect of CO2, so the modelers control the final answer from the start! The “proof” cited by the U.N. study was that the fit improved when CO2 emissions are included in the model along with a few well-known natural events, such as solar changes and volcanoes. I laughed out loud when I saw that. I could create a great fit with temperature for any series, from batting averages to the stock market, if I too could fiddle with thousands of parameters. The father of these models was Cold War military theorist John von Neumann, who wanted to see if we could cause drought in the Soviet Union. He failed, thank goodness. Von Neumann joked, “with four parameters I can draw an elephant, and with five I can make him wiggle his trunk.” The claim of a thousand-year high came from a temperature chart called “the hockey stick,” generated by a backward-looking model that took a “new statistical approach” to the records of the widths of the rings of old trees. This one was pretty much all art and no science. The data conveniently wiped out a previous consensus that there had been a natural “medieval warming period” that exceeded today’s temperature. The resulting graph was flat until the carbon dioxide era and then shot up by grafting on different data (though not the raw tree ring proxies, which actually went down). On its face it was silly, and on careful reading it became even sillier. But what the U.N. and my student hadn’t recognized was that even if true, the chart was irrelevant to whether our recent warming is mostly human or natural. Every 100,000 years, oscillations in the earth’s orbit drive temperatures up and then down far more than the recent fluctuation. The processes and feedback are poorly understood. A brief stable period within this massive, complex system that ends in correlation with a change in a single variable, carbon dioxide, is no more proof of causation that a strongly oscillating period ending with the same correlation.
Some excerpts below. http://realclimatologists.org/Articles/2019/01/03/Climate_of_Incompetence/index.html I am one of the most qualified climate modelers in the world. Reading what Google tells them to, these people soon discover that I am also a global warming skeptic. I graduated from MIT with a B.S. in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, which is what IT is and which is my passion. After a few years on my own as a computer consultant I realized I wanted to do modeling on supercomputers. Modeling is just writing computer programs (a.k.a. programming or coding) to simulate, and thus be able to predict, the real world. Programming is a major part of IT. Since state universities, who must by law concentrate on educating, give a better education than more famous private universities, who concentrate on money and prestige making research, I decided to start at the University of Arizona (UA), which was working closely with the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), since they had former NCAR scientists as professors, like my prestigious UA advisor Dr. Robert Dickinson (a prestigious scientist but a despicable man). NCAR is a premier climate modeling institution in the world, with one of the most famous climate models, which at the time was called the Community Climate Model (CCM). Climate scientists are not programmers. I'm unique in that respect. Climate scientists also don't want to do the hard work -- taking courses and getting degrees -- to become programmers. UA/NCAR was my epiphany that climate scientists' IT incompetence was destroying climate science. After my M.S. from UA/NCAR I fled to Columbia University and NASA GISS (Goddard Institute for Space Studies), in New York City, for a Ph.D. I thought going to a famous private university like Columbia and a famous organization like NASA would improve the climate modeling situation. I could not have been more wrong; it made it worse, much worse. Despite being world famous for climate, particularly global warming since its head while I was there, James Hansen, is the "father of global warming", and having its own important climate model, NASA GISS is a relatively small organization, smaller than NCAR. The climate scientists do most of the model programming and their IT incompetence is legendary. Interestingly, the most notoriously IT incompetent scientist at NASA GISS was responsible for programming part of the insolation, the most important factor in global warming. After I had been at NASA GISS for long enough to become disgusted about it, I made a stink about how badly programmed the climate model was, with the implication that its world famous results, particularly about global warming, were thus questionable since the model was almost certainly full of bugs. NASA GISS then undertook a model recoding. Unfortunately the recoding was to be done by the same IT incompetent climate scientists who had badly coded it in the first place (except for me, who as a PhD student only had time to do a small part of it), so expecting different results was foolish. After the recoding the model was renamed Muddle, which is a play on the successive version it should have been called, Model E, with an acknowledgement that the code was still a mess, a muddle. It was named this by Gavin Schmidt, who is the head of NASA GISS now and a global warming celebrity, more interested in being a celebrity than in science. NASA GISS used to have its own supercomputer to run its climate model but they were so IT incompetent that they had it taken away from them and had to use the supercomputers at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC). While at NASA GISS, I spent a summer at GSFC, outside Washington D.C., attending NASA's supercomputing school. After I left NASA GISS, I was talking to a programmer from GSFC and he said they referred to NASA GISS's climate model as "The Jungle" because it was so badly coded. The results of NASA GISS's climate model, oft-cited as proof of global warming, are thus still questionable since the model is almost certainly full of bugs.
Watching MSNBC for the past hour the takeaway from last night is this, the free ice cream for everyone is falling apart. Now we'll see who rules the day in the democratic party, the sane and rational, or the lunatics pandering to the fringe.
So these debates... just hypothetically here... could Hillary announce tomorrow that she is in and then land her ass on the debate stage for the next round? How's that work? The reason I ask is I'm curious as to why Tom Steyer didn't get a chance to join the mix this time around. I mean we all love Marianne, but in reality wouldn't Steyer have been a better choice to parade out there for the cameras? Hell he's been running his impeach Trump commercials for well over a year. I would think that with the announcement of his candidacy earlier this month he's obviously planning to go the distance, at least thru the early primary states. And unlike the other long shots, he's got the bucks so he's not going away. Seems like he deserves a chance to be out there on the national debate stage to let the voters see what he's thinking.
To be in the debate you have to meet the criteria for the september debate which is - I dunno -2% in a minimum of four designated polls, and then X number of donors from X number of states, and like that. So if Hillary announced and Steyer announced and that translates into the above factors then I think they can get in. We are just talking theory and ground rules of course. Whether they are dead or alive, I dont know.
Last nights debate had substance and an airing ideas, values and broad policy. It was one of the best debates of the last few election cycles. Ideas were put forward and ideas were challenged and tested. Values were front and center and most of the candidates got a good amount of time. This motley crew is shaping up pretty well. Twitter is abuzz and gaga over Warren’s performance but she got smacked clean out of her shoes in real life. Delaney took her to task and is where the less vocal majority of Dems are on healthcare. Tim Ryan did a good a job and if he is doing nothing else he is pushing the candidates to address manufacturing and midwestern issues. He actually showed me a lot more policy and issue depth than I expect from him. Good for him on that and he gets big points on my scorecard. There’s a lot more to discuss with last nights debate because it was actually good but these are good starter points.