I have a thin day today. It’s time to answer mail, but I’ve been hit with a lot of one-liners lately. I think it’s because Spring is coming to Saint Paul and we all have better things to do than comment on blogs at length. Well, I’m trying to scrounge up work so I have better things to do, too, so here’s this week’s mailbag.

Opening up the flat tax genie isn’t in the best interest of Democrats. Republicans have owned this one. If you want to go that way you’ll need a new name and focus.

That’s probably true. However, I do think that tax simplification should be the #2 goal, right after we figure out how to balance the budget. And get out of the War. Oh, and get some kind of real stimulus package. That’s #4 then, isn’t it? Yeesh.

No, seriously, my point is that some kind of increase on the upper end is inevitable after years of destroying the progressivity and running up debt. I’d hate to see that happen in the current structure because what we have now has too many ways out for those who really make a packet. We have to do this in a way that doesn’t squeeze the middle too hard, thus accentuating the growing divide between classes. You want to call it something else? Sure, I’m game.

Not to put a damper on things, but I’ve lost a lot of interest (in the Presidential race). ‘The Economist’ had an article a week or 2 ago pointing out how little things will change no matter who wins.

Sadly, that’s probably true. There aren’t a lot of options left for Washingtoon when it comes to the War, the economy, and nearly anything else. Everyone is stressing their ability to reach across the aisle and get things done, so we’ll just see if that translates into anything at all.

So you’ve really caught Obamania, haven’t you?

Do we really have a choice? My Mom, bless her, sees Obama as another Huey Long. Not that I think Obama is as corrupt or anything like that, but I can see how desperate times call for desperate measures. I understand how people must have felt when the first man who told ’em how it was in a clear voice came to town. It’s hard not to give it a try.

That’s all I can say for today. If you have something to say about one of my little musings, I’d love to hear it. Heck, I’d love it even more if you have work for a skilled writer or planner or internet marketing consultant (and I can cook dinner, too!). Send me all that ya got as wabbitoid47 at yahoo.com and I’ll do my best to help you out one way or the other.

Thanks for reading!

You’ve Got a Friend in Pennsylvania
I’ve been hesitant to write about the US Election for many reasons. For one, I have a lot of readers in Europe now, and I have to wonder how much they care about our obscure process. For another, it seems like everything possible has been said by the talking heads during the last six weeks, so what do I have to add? I have my usual routine, it turns out, so I thought I’d have at it the day before the primary in the land of my ethnic origins, Pennsylvania.

So who’s gonna win? That depends on what “win” means and which poll you believe. I’ll start with the latter. I posted some time ago how voters born after 1965 are likely to make up as much as 45% of the electorate this year. You can find the first of my “Generations” series here:

http://www.authorsden.com/visit/viewblog.asp?authorid=55121&blogid=30169

I’ve done an informal survey of the polls I can find “crosstabs” for; that’s the data on who made up the poll and how these sub-groups break down. Very few polls provide crosstabs, so I’m hesitant to put the work into a real study. But to give you one anecdote based on a very recent poll, the Quinnipiac, they showed Clinton leading 51-44 but among those under 45 years old she trails 41-57 and wins those older 54-40. For those numbers to give us the “final” result stated, they must have only 20% of the poll under 45 years of age. That’s ridiculous, even in an old state like Pennsylvania. If you adjust that share just up to 30% younger than 45, you find Clinton ahead 46-43 – which is about where most polls have the race.

Here’s my prediction for tomorrow: Clinton wins by 3-5% and it’ll be considered a big loss. The party leaders will start trying to put an end to this slugfest.

Why will they do that?

Because this race has gotten nasty, and mainly affecting Clinton so far. There’s been some damage done to the certain nominee, Obama, but according to a Newsweek poll most Democrats now see Clinton as dishonest. That’s not a position where anyone can say that there is a reason to continue.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/132721

Well, it could continue just for the entertainment value, assuming you come from a bizarre parallel universe where this is a kind of reality show that is remotely interesting. Consider for a moment that the Pittsburgh Tribune endorsed Clinton after she and her entourage had a cheerful, chatty little visit. Not strange? Yes, but this is the paper started by Richard Mellon Scaife more or less to harpoon the (Bill) Clinton administration. Their first really big story was how Vince Foster was murdered by Hillary to cover up their affair. Now Hillary Clinton is chummy with them?

The short answer is that this, the (latest) ravings of Ann Coulter, and the delusions of relevance put forth by Rush Limbaugh are all converging on the campaign of Hillary Clinton There is a kind of symbiosis between the haters and the hated, as each keeps the other visible. Take one side away and the whole industry starts to fall apart, unless they can goose their ratings with more proof Obama is a “secret Muslim”.

What’s this all mean as we watch the results? Look for the Hater Leeches to puff Clinton and her narrow win even as the Democrat names try to put an end to it. That’s all that matters at this stage.