what's going on with you?

I got offered that other job. After reviewing all the pros and cons about it balanced against health concerns, I have ended up staying where I am. For now, I may or may not regret my decision, but ultimately I can't do a lot of things requiring me in full sunlight for numerous hours of the day. On the personal front, I have gotten business cards and a website beyond Facebook up and running for my sewing. April was my best month ever for personal sales. I was really grateful for this since right after all that my rescue kitty was determined to be a diabetic, a week at the veterinarian clinic later and a shot a day of insulin, he is on the mend. I'm just really grateful my beloved kitty is going to be ok.

I want to make sure this is posted here.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/...pshot&_r=0

Assuming Trump and Clinton will be the nominees, I am interested in who everyone would vote for during the U.S. presidential election in 2016. I'm only including 3 options, with two of the options being the two main candidates and the other being a third party or write-in candidate. If you're planning to vote third party/write-in please post who you're voting for in the thread. I'm not going to include an option for not voting at all because some people can't vote in the U.S. election (that doesn't count as people choosing consciously not to vote) and I only want to see who people would vote for if they did.

Update: I set the poll results to public, so users can see who's voting for who.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/top-us-baby-...istration/

With the departures of Ted Cruz and John Kasich from the Presidential race, we are down to this:

Hillary Clinton vs. Donald Trump



Bernie Sanders vs. Donald Trump



30% -- lead with 40-49% but a margin of 3% or less
40% -- lead with 40-49% but a margin of 4% or more
60% -- lead with 50-54%
70% -- lead with 55-59%
90% -- lead with 60% or more

White -- tie or  someone leading with less than 40%.

In order to make it easier for people who are primarily interested the theory to avoid general political discussion I’ve created forums for theory and non theory political discussion.  Topics such as “is Trump the Grey Champion” and “is Trump the start of a realignment” go in the Theory Related Political Discussions forum, while topics about the horse race and the merits or lack thereof of each candidate go in the General Political Discussion forum. If theory related political threads drift into general political debate they will be split and/or moved to the General Politics forum.

In order to make it easier for people who are primarily interested the theory to avoid general political discussion I’ve created forums for theory and non theory political discussion.  Topics such as “is Trump the Grey Champion” and “is Trump the start of a realignment” go in the Theory Related Political Discussions forum, while topics about the horse race and the merits or lack thereof of each candidate go in the General Political Discussion forum. If theory related political threads drift into general political debate they will be split and/or moved to the General Politics forum.

Quote:When the thread contains personal attacks.

Quote:When the thread has drifted from the original topic, this can happen without anyone doing anything wrong conversation naturally drifts, however thread drift makes it difficult for readers to follow the discussion, when there a posts in thread on a different topic the thread can be split.

Quote:When a thread is posted in the wrong forum, mistakes happen and they can be corrected in about 30 seconds.

Quote:I plan on moderating this forum a bit more than the old forum was moderated, as the lack of moderation was turning people off.

And in a very, very good way.

Donald Trump's victory means that Darwinian economics and moral judgmentalism are out in the Republican Party, and in American conservatism as a whole, and "America First" nationalism and isolationism are in.

The great era that began with Ronald Reagan in 1980 ended on Tuesday - just as George McGovern's clinching of the Democratic Presidential nomination in 1972 ended the great era of national liberalism in the Democratic Party that began with FDR's nomination four decades earlier.

When all is said and done, I think that the Obama and Eisenhower Presidencies are going to look like good analogues. Both Presidents are chilly rationalists. Both respect legal precedents more than they trust legislation and the transitory will of the people in states. Both are practically scandal-free administrations. Both started with a troublesome war that both found their way out of. Neither did much to 'grow' the strength of their Parties in either House of Congress. In the 2008 election, Barack Obama won only one state that Eisenhower lost in either 1952 or 1956 (North Carolina); in 2012 he did not win any state that Dwight Eisenhower ever lost. This is amazing in view of the partisan identities of the two Presidents.

It may be premature, but I expect historians to hold Eisenhower and Obama similar in quality.

Despite the great differences in curriculae vitae, Eisenhower and Obama seem to have something very much in common: both are members of Reactive generations. 60-ish Reactives (George Washington, John Adams, Grover Cleveland, Harry Truman, and Dwight Eisenhower) may be the best sorts of leaders that Reactive leaders can be: cautious, mellow, respectful of precedent, and more trusting in legality than in the contemporary passion. Even if Barack Obama is one of the youngest Presidents ever elected and won't reach or surpass 60 as President (barring an amendment to undo the 22nd Amendment) he seems to act like someone in his sixties.

(The worst Reactive leaders are amoral, angry, cynical, bigoted leaders with an agenda of seeking revenge against real and imagined personal enemies -- like Adolf Hitler and Mao Zedong, puppets of tyrannical leaders such as Vidkun Quisling and Mátyás Rákosi, and such brutal functionaries of tyrants as Andrei Vishinsky and  Lavrenti Beria). When all is said and done, I think that the Obama and Eisenhower Presidencies are going to look like good analogues. Both Presidents are chilly rationalists. Both respect legal precedents more than they trust legislation and the transitory will of the people in states. Both are practically scandal-free administrations. Both started with a troublesome war that both found their way out of. Neither did much to 'grow' the strength of their Parties in either House of Congress.

The definitive moderate Republican may have been Dwight Eisenhower, and I have heard plenty of Democrats praise the Eisenhower Presidency. He went along with Supreme Court rulings that outlawed segregationist practices, stayed clear of the McCarthy bandwagon, and let McCarthy implode.


 
gray -- did not vote in 1952 or 1956
white -- Eisenhower twice, Obama twice
deep blue -- Republican all four elections
light blue -- Republican all but 2008 (I assume that greater Omaha went for Ike twice)
light green -- Eisenhower once, Stevenson once, Obama never
dark green -- Stevenson twice, Obama never
pink -- Stevenson twice, Obama once

No state voted Democratic all four times, so no state is in deep red.

(This site uses the very old red for Democrats and blue for Republicans... I do not make waves about that in that website).

To be sure, one would expect any winning President to win almost entirely states that FDR won in 1936 (all then voting except Vermont and Maine), that Nixon won in 1972 (all but Massachusetts), or Reagan won in 1980 (all but Minnesota).  But the overlay between Obama and Eisenhower fits far better includes all four such states that FDR, Nixon, and Reagan won in nearly-complete wins of the entire USA. As another coincidence, Eisenhower was the first Republican to win Virginia since 1928 (24 years) and Obama was the first Democrat to win the Old Dominion since 1964 (44 years) -- and both won the state twice.   


Now, Carter vs. Obama:

If anyone has any doubt that the Presidential Election of 1976 is ancient history for all practical purposes:

Carter 1976, Obama 2008/2012    



Carter 1976, Obama twice  red
Carter 1976, Obama once pink
Carter 1976, Obama never yellow
Ford 1976, Obama twice white
Ford 1976, Obama once light blue
Ford 1976, Obama never blue

....As you can see, Carter lost a raft of states (among them California, Oregon, Washington, Illinois, Michigan, New Jersey, Connecticut, Vermont, and Maine) that Democratic nominees for President have not lost after 1988, and some states (Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, and New Mexico) that Democrats have not LOST in Presidential wins. On the other side, Carter was the last Democrat to win Alabama, Mississippi, South Carolina, or Texas. Barring a major realignment of the states in partisan identity or an electoral blowout, Republicans are unlikely to win more than a state or two in white and Democrats are unlikely to win more than a state or two in yellow for the next couple of decades..