Links:
- Fox News (click on “May 20″ for results).
- ABC Links — Kentucky, Oregon.
- Kentucky State Board of Elections.
- Oregon SOS Elections Division (link to actual results isn’t up yet).

______________________________________________

10:37 p.m. — I’ll wait until a half-decent hour tomorrow morning to look at Oregon.

10:35 p.m. — Didn’t think it was possible, but Obama did even worse among non-African-Americans in Kentucky than he did in West Virginia:

Kentucky’s African-American turnout is based on the state’s 7.75% AA population makeup, increased by a factor similar to that actually seen in previous primaries to account for heavy interest and very heavy Democrat-leaning AA registrations.

Last week, I estimated that Obama’s percentage of the non-AA vote was between 21.55% and 22.3%.

As I said last week, “If this isn’t the most severe shellacking an allegedly presumptive presidential nominee of a major party has received in all of American history, I want to see what is.” Make that successive shellackings.

In Indiana and North Carolina two weeks ago, Obama got 41% and 35% of the AA vote.

Anyone else noticing a trend? This is death-wish material — and the Obama supporters appear poised to shut off the very idea of a debate over which of the two candidates has the better chance in the general. Of course, things can change in 5-1/2 months, but they can get still worse for Obama, as has been the case ever since shortly after Super Tuesday.

10:05 p.m. — At ABC, it’s Clinton by 35 points (65% – 30%) with 99% counted. The non-African-American vote calculator has been put into operation; results will be up shortly. The KY Board of Elections has what appears to be final numbers, with a 35-1/2 point Clinton blowout.

10:00 p.m. — I didn’t get too fired up for tonight, but the margins in KY and OR are worth watching. We’ll know KY pretty quickly. OR is, as I understand it, a mail-in thing, so I’m not sure of the immediacy of results.

As explained several times previously, this is a near-dead thread because Democratic Party rules enable even pledged delegates to change their minds at the August Democratic Convention.

In Kentucky, Mrs. Clinton is expected to win in a landslide, and Old Media says it will mean nothing.

Yeah, right — just another potential swing state that looks to be out of reach for Team Obama.

In Oregon, Obama is favored. I’d say he should win by 10, or some doubts should be raised. I’m not saying they will; I’m saying they should be.

In early May, Richard Wolf at USA Today tried to make a big deal over a very small statistic, and wrote one of those “signs of hard times” pieces that have become all the rage these days in Old Media (previous examples are here and here).

Wolf’s piece was hampered by a possibly excusable math error, courtesy of the data supplied. But he also showed no curiosity as to why there have been such wide variations in state-by-state changes in the number of those receiving “welfare” (now known as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or TANF).

Here’s how his report began:

States’ welfare caseloads starting to rise

State welfare rolls, which declined for more than a decade after a 1996 overhaul of the nation’s cash-assistance program, are beginning to rise, due in part to the struggling economy.

Federal data for the last half of 2007 show welfare rolls rose about 0.6%, and 27 states reported increases. That follows a decline of 68% since the federal law imposed work requirements, time limits and penalties for recipients who don’t follow the rules.

….. The reversal of a downward trend that began in 1994 reflects a hard reality facing the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program: The 3.9 million people who remain on welfare are mostly adults with physical, mental or emotional barriers to employment, as well as children being raised by someone other than their parents — often grandparents, who are not expected to get jobs.

….. Caseloads plummeted in the late 1990s, and while the 2001 recession caused some increases, they continued to drop through 2007. All but five states have cut caseloads by more than 50%. Wyoming leads with a 95% reduction; fewer than 500 recipients remain.

I’m not convinced that what Wolf claims in the third excerpted paragraph is correct. But if it is, wouldn’t it negate the “it’s the economy” argument as to why the caseload is increasing?

In any event, there is no overall evidence at the yearly caseload table accompanying the story that the 2001 sort-of recession interrupted the caseload decline (see this link; two negative quarters in a row never occurred; it’s the National Bureau of Economic Research which, in July 2003, declared that a recession had occurred from March-November, 2001):

As to the most recent data, Wolf, perhaps understandably, missed the fact that the Administration for Children & Families (ACF) caseload table did not, and still does not, have a value in June 2007 for Maine. I verified that the total caseload at the table is the sum of all values listed, including Maine’s zero.

Adding in 23,600 cases for Maine, roughly the average of the preceding and following months, totally eliminates the increase he reported:

3,858,204 – June 2007 caseload as reported by ACF
3,881,804 – June 2007 caseload, including Maine’s estimate

3,880,321 – December 2007 caseload
22,117 – Reported caseload increase (0.57%)
- 1,483 – Actual caseload decrease (-0.04%)

Wolf’s error is “perhaps understandable” because, while ACF’s error is pretty deeply buried, he somehow had to learn that 27 states increased their caseload between June and December 2007. If someone simply told him, then the error is understandable. If he actually counted up the increases himself, he would have to have seen Maine’s zero value, but not questioned it.

Giving Wolf’s premise the benefit of the doubt for a moment (but as you will see, that moment will pass) — It is true that the total welfare caseload began increasing after July 2007, from its alltime post-Reform low of 3.859 million to 3.911 million, or about 1.3%, during the next three months. But most of that increase was given back in November, as the caseload declined to 3.880 million, and December’s increase was almost imperceptible.

Moreover, Wolf paid way too little attention to what has happened in individual states. From July’s trough through December of 2007, here are the states whose caseloads (i.e., recipients) went up or down by what I see as either significant numbers or percentages:

In light of the above, I don’t see how anyone can make a case that changes in TANF caseloads are significantly tied to the economy. If that were so, Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Illinois would be moving in the same direction. But, as you can see, Ohio’s caseload is way up, while the others are way down. I would instead suggest that the changes, even in Welfare Reform’s twelfth year, have a lot more to do with how aggressively each state is in trying to move recipients off the dole and into productive work.

California alone had a bigger caseload increase than the countrywide net change. A somewhat useful USA Today table that accompanies the article shows the percentage of nationwide caseload by state. For comparative purposes, the table would have been much more useful if it had also told us the percentage of the nation’s population each state has. California, as an awful example, has 30% of the caseload even though its 36 million people make up only 12% of the country’s population. If the not-so-Golden State’s TANF caseload reflected the rest of the US, it would be a staggering 800,000 lower.

But I suppose that instead of looking at the detail as I have begun to, Wolf, like so many other Old Media reporters, found it easier to make breezy assumptions that fit his preconceived notions, one of which appears to be, “the economy has tanked.” For real evidence to support that notion, Mr. Wolf will have to look elsewhere.

Cross-posted at NewsBusters.org.

….. But I Don’t Have Time For:

• Pennsylvania is following the lead of Chicago and Indiana, and is close to a deal to lease its turnpike for $12.8 billion. And the reason Ohio won’t do this with its turnpike is …..?
• Uh oh — “Senate Strikes Housing Rescue Deal.” Frightening thought of the day: “Some are comparing the bill to the 2002 Sarbanes-Oxley Act, enacted in response to Enron’s collapse and other corporate scandals.”
• Yet another reason why the “Mr. BOOHOO OUCH nickname (Barack O-bomba Overseas Hussein “Obambi” Obama – Objectively Unfit Coddler of Haters) for Barack Obama fits like a glove — “This speech reveals Obama to have no grasp of history, no grasp of strategic implications of a nuclear Iran, and no clue how to secure the nation and handle foreign policy.” Yet again — Obviously, Objectively, Unfit.
• This story goes with the BOOHOO part of Obama’s nickname — “Lay Off My Wife.” So she can run off her mouth, and we can’t say anything, because it will hurt your (or her) feeeeeeeewings? Wahhhhh. What horse manure.
• Oh, and about that crowd of 75,000 — I have confirmed, by consulting library resources and from information obtained from those involved with the event, that the crowd at George W. Bush’s appearance at Voice of America Park in West Chester, Ohio during the 2004 presidential campaign was between 50,000 and 60,000 — each of whom, unlike at the Obama event this past weekend, had to have a ticket or be an accompanying child to get in. Tens of thousands more would surely have attended had there not been a ticketing process. Press coverage of this Ohio record-setting event outside of Cincinnati was virtually zero. I specifically remember that the wire reports avoided mentioning the crowd’s size. Certainly no one wrote fawning coverage about a crowd that was “the size of a city.”
        The kneepad press is really outdoing itself in advance of the near-certain pasting Obama is going to have administered to him tonight in Kentucky, aren’t they? I also suspect that Oregon will be closer than advertised. The “hell hath no fury” backlash to NARAL’s endorsement of Obama last week is an unquantifiable wild card. My guess, and it’s just a guess, is that it will be pretty influential tonight, and that a Clinton victory in the Beaver State is not out of the question.

Dangerous Trade Games Indeed — From a Wall Street Journal editorial this morning:

By rejecting long-settled procedures that prevented congressional sidetracking of trade deals negotiated by presidents, the House has hamstrung U.S. trade policy and created the gravest threat to the global trading system in decades.

….. the “fast track” process (was) embodied in trade legislation in 1974 and renamed Trade Promotion Authority in 2002. Under those rules, devised largely by Democratic legislators, Congress agreed to vote on trade agreements submitted by the president within a fixed period of time and without amending their terms, provided that Congress authorized the talks in advance and that administration trade officials consulted closely with the Hill throughout the process. This approach has enabled the U.S., under presidents and congressional majorities of both parties, to participate effectively in international trade negotiations.

The House action abruptly and unilaterally terminates this highly successful system. The immediate effect is to scuttle the pending free trade agreements with Panama and Korea, as well as Colombia, and to end any remaining prospect for an early conclusion of the Doha Round in the World Trade Organization.

The much more profound impact, however, is to remove the U.S. from any significant international trade negotiations for the foreseeable future. Current and former chief trade officials of three of the world’s largest trading entities have told me that, since the House action, the U.S. has lost all credibility. In other words, the “time out” proposed for trade policy by one of the major presidential candidates – a central goal of the opponents of globalization – has already been called.

The U.S. will suffer severe economic and foreign policy costs if the House action is permitted to stand. Careful studies at our Peterson Institute for International Economics show that the U.S. economy is $1 trillion per year richer as a result of the trade liberalization of the past 60 years, and that we would gain another $500 billion per year if the world could move to totally free trade.

The Peterson Institute findings are here in summary form.

About that $1 trillion PER YEAR: This means that as of 2005, when the study was done, our GDP is about 8% higher than it would have been. Our workers, corporations, and entrepreneurs have been freed up to do the things they are good at — things that are higher-value to us and our trading partners — while other countries workers, corporations, and entrepreneurs have taken on tasks at which they excel.

Has it been perfect? Of course not.

Has it been exploited by some (particularly China)? Yes, and it has to be addressed.

Are there things that we shouldn’t stop doing, despite the economics, for national security reasons? Yes (sorry, WSJ).

But on balance, does free trade beat the alternative? As Peterson notes — by miles.

Freer trade has also lifted millions worldwide out of poverty.

By shutting the door indefinitely on freer trade, the self-styled party of compassion has totally lost its bearings on this issue.

________________________________________________

From the “Fundamental Truths of Life” file, also in today’s WSJ — Kurt Hauser’s “law” and its meaning:

On this page in 1993, he (Hauser) stated that “No matter what the tax rates have been, in postwar America tax revenues have remained at about 19.5% of GDP.” What a pity that his discovery has not been more widely disseminated …..

Because Mr. Hauser’s horizontal straight line is a simple fact, it is ultimately far more compelling. It also presents a major opportunity. It seems likely that the tax system could maintain a 19.5% yield with a top bracket even lower than 35%.

Of course it can — The mid- and late-1980s top rate of 28% maintained that yield.

_______________________________________________

More bad news for recession rooters – Leading indicators rose. Not impressively, but up nonetheless.

Let’s compare the headlines on this item:
- Wall Street Journal — “Leading Indicators Rise For a Second Month.”
- CNNMoney.com — “Leading indicators edge higher.”
- Bloomberg, as carried in the NY Times — “Index Implies Slowdown May Prove a Short One.”
- Associated Press — “Index: Weak economy may dodge a recession.” The AP’s Ellen Simon’s opening: “Gas prices are high, food’s more expensive and the job market’s cold, but the U.S. may still avoid a recession.”

From Washington, Pennsylvania:

Friday, May 9, 2008

A veteran Washington County police officer who rushed into a burning group home Thursday to rescue an unconscious teenager doesn’t consider himself a hero, just a man doing his job.

Cpl. Michael Sulerud was one of three Washington city policemen who went into the group home to rescue a badly burned girl, police Chief James Blyth said.

The 18-year-old resident was taken to UPMC Mercy, Uptown, where she remained in critical condition in the burn unit last night.

Sgt. Robert Lemons and Patrolman Todd Foreman, who assisted in the rescue, “basically said (Sulerud) was the one who did the most,” Blyth said.

All three were taken to The Washington Hospital, where they were released after treatment for smoke inhalation, Blyth said.

“It’s not being a hero; it’s my job,” Sulerud said.

“This is what I do, what anybody else in emergency services — police, firefighters, paramedics — does, to help, protect, serve and assist others who need help. I was just doing what I know how to do,” Sulerud said.

“You know it’s a personal care home and the people there need help. I didn’t know if she was hurt or trapped. I was just trying to get up there and help her. I didn’t think twice about it. Somebody needed help. I didn’t really think of anything else.”

The fire erupted shortly after noon in the three-story house in the 900 block of East Maiden Street near the entrance to Washington Park.

“When we got there, workers and other residents of the home were coming around front. I asked the workers if anyone was left inside and they said one girl was trapped on the second floor,” Sulerud said.

“Sgt. Lemons and I went upstairs, basically on our hands and knees. (At the top of the stairs,) I looked right and couldn’t see anything. I looked left and couldn’t see but I used my flashlight and saw something about six feet down the hallway.

“I went into the hallway and found her lying unconscious. I reached down to grab her and Sgt. Lemons kept hold of me so I couldn’t get lost. I dragged her back toward me and handed her off,” Sulerud said. …..

Go here for the rest of the story.