While making other updates I downloaded and added a bunch of new smiles.

Stein, the Green Party candidate, might be the only alternative to Donald Trump, if the Republicans pull an "October surprise" and force Hillary out of the race and there is no time for the Democrats to put another candidate on the ballot.

And if this sounds far-fetched, there was such a "surprise" in the 2002 Senate race in New Jersey, in which the Democratic incumbent, Bob Torricelli, was forced off the ballot at the last minute due to a conveniently-timed "scandal."  However, the Democrats managed to have Frank Lautenberg placed on the ballot to replace Torricelli, and Lautenberg went on to win the election.

But would that be legal in a Presidential election?

testing

This is a test

• One
  
• Two
  
• Three
  

Note: This assessment can change rapidly should the Republicans not play obstructionist games with the nomination of a Justice of the Supreme Court. Anyone with an approval rating below 40% is in extreme danger of defeat, no matter what State he represents. Many pols with such low approval ratings retire  or get defeated in a primary.

Of course, should Republicans act responsibly with an Obama appointment this assessment reverses.

Update: Vermont, Vermont Public Radio/Castleton: Pat Leahy is up 65-14. I doubt that anyone can dispute this one.
From March (last update)


My take (and rationale):



Approval polls only.


Gray -- no incumbent at risk.
White -- retiring incumbent or (should it happen) an incumbent defeated in a primary, with "D" or "R" for the party in question.
Yellow -- incumbent under indictment or with a terminal diagnosis short of the completion of his term, with "D" or "R" for the party in question.

Light green -- Republican incumbent apparently running for re-election, no polls.
Light orange --  Democratic incumbent apparently running for re-election, no polls.

Blue  -- Republican running for re-election with current polls available.
Red -- Democrat running for re-election with current polls available.

Intensity percentage shows the first digit of the approval of the incumbent Senator --

"2" for approval between 20% and 30%, "3" for approval between 30% and 39%... "7" for approval between 70% and 79%.

Numbers are recent approval ratings for incumbent Senators if their approvals are below 55%. I'm not showing any number for any incumbent whose approval is 55% or higher because even this early that looks very safe.

An asterisk (*) is for an appointed incumbent (there are none now) because appointed pols have never shown their electability.

Approval only (although I might accept A/B/C/D/F) -- not favorability. I do not use any Excellent-Good-Fair-Poor ratings because "fair" is ambiguous. A fair performance by a 7-year-old violinist might impress you. A 'fair' performance by an adult violinist indicates something for which you would not want to buy a ticket.

NO PARTISAN POLLS.

What I see so far with incumbents:

App      Rep  Dem

<40       8     0
40-44    2     0
45-49   1      2
50-54    3      0
55-59    0      0
>60       0      3
retire    3      3  
indict     0      1
oth off  1      0
no poll  6      1


Now -- my projection for the 2016 Senate election:

Sure R:

Alabama
Idaho
North Dakota
South Carolina
South Dakota
Utah

Likely R:
Alaska
Iowa (from Sure R)
Kansas


Edge R:
Arkansas
Indiana
Kentucky
Louisiana

Tossups
Arizona (from Edge R)
Georgia (from Edge R)
Nevada


All but one of the current tossups are current R seats.

Edge D:
Colorado
Florida*
Missouri* (from toss-up)
New Hampshire*
North Carolina* (from toss-up)
Ohio*
Pennsylvania*


Likely D:
Oregon
Washington


Solid D:
California
Connecticut
Hawaii
Illinois*
Maryland
Vermont
Wisconsin*


*flip (so far all R to D)

New Jersey looks like a fairly sure hold should current, but indicted, Senator Bob Menendez be compelled to resign.

Will KY & OR get Berned today?

Gabrielle, I hate to break this to you darling, but women already get equal pay to men.  If a businessman could save 25%, 23% or whatever the new number is by hiring women over men he'd be smart to fire all the men and hire only women.  The so-called pay gap is a complete myth based on economic ignorance and statistical chicanery. It only surfaces if you take the earnings of all men and all women and do a few simple calculations without taking into consideration other factors, not the least of which is men work more overtime than women and work in higher paying fields than women.

The great inflection is upon us. The ongoing fall in world wide fecundity, coupled with improved health care and longer life spans, has brought us to the point of Peak Youth.

And guess who's going to pay for this situation?  

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/were-...00694.html

Here are some reference links for secular cycles:

First chapter of Turchin and Nefedov’s Secular Cycles
http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/s8904.pdf

Secular cycles as demographic cycles:
http://cliodynamics.ru/download/Korotaye...apter1.pdf

Two millennia of Chinese secular cycles
http://cliodynamics.ru/download/Korotaye...apter2.pdf

Outline of US secular cycle
https://aeon.co/essays/history-tells-us-...-gap-leads

American instability cycles
http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.to...0Paper.pdf

I've gotten the basic layout for the WordPress site down and set up a preview.  I'll be tinkering somewhat with it, at some point I want a site wide logo.


http://www.generational-theory.com/wp/