If this election turns out once again to be about “The Economy, Stupid,” I’m afraid the “stupid” label will apply more to the voters than the campaign staffers. How, exactly, is the average voter supposed to decide which candidate’s plans for the economy make the most sense? Or even to know how to define “makes sense?”

I have a little bit of education in economics. I took Economics 10 at Harvard 23 years ago and I took courses in microeconomics, macroeconomics, and finance as part of my MBA at Boston University about 10 years later. Now I don’t want to be smug, but I’m guessing that means I have learned more about economics than 90%, 95%, or maybe even 99% of registered voters. And you know what? I DON’T KNOW JACK SQUAT ABOUT ECONOMICS. And if I don’t know enough to make an intelligent decision, what hope is there for the average Joe?

What percentage of voters could give accurate definitions of the following terms?

• Economy
• Recession
• Unemployment Rate
• Inflation
• Federal Reserve Bank
• Gross Domestic Product
• Stimulus
• Corporate Earnings
• Budget Deficit
• Trade Deficit
• Weak Dollar
• Progressive vs. Regressive Taxes
• Tax Credit vs. Tax Cut vs. Tax Rebate

And yet the media and politicians throw these words around as if they were talking about the weather.

Even if we understood what they were talking about, is anyone out there telling us the truth or are they all just saying stuff that sounds good? As far as I can tell, Americans believe that somewhere out there is a magic economic policy that will provide:

• Higher wages
• Lower prices
• Higher stock values
• 100% employment (but only in “good jobs”)
• More consumer spending
• Less consumer debt
• Lower prices for imports
• Higher prices for exports
• A stronger housing market
• More affordable housing
• Lower interest rates (for borrowers)
• Higher interest rates (for investors)
• Lower (preferably zero) taxes
• Less government borrowing
• Everything we want, now
• Nothing we don’t want, ever

Does anyone out there have the guts to explain to us why we can’t have it all?

Dear political interviewers:

Can you please explain to me exactly what you’re trying to do during this primary season? Because it sure seems to me that you have little interest in helping your viewers make an informed, intelligent decision in the voting booth. Instead, it seems that your chief concern is to ensure that you get people tuning in every night to watch the cockfights that you are staging.

Please do us a favor and stop asking questions that candidates can’t answer without provoking a new round of squabbling. It’s obvious that the candidates don’t want to get those questions, but I think you somehow interpret their reluctance to respond as a sign that you are onto something important that we, the voters, need to know. That’s really not the case. We don’t need our politicians boiled down to nasty caricatures of themselves, nor do we want this election to be about one or two decisions that any of these folks made 5, 10, or 20 years ago.

What we need is a better understanding of how these people will behave once they stop campaigning and start governing. I’m not talking about specific policies. We all know that any action requiring legislation is going to end up a lot different from what the next president originally proposes. So don’t ask whether a certain number should be $100 billion or $150 billion, or whether a health care plan would cover 98% or 99% of the public.

Instead, how about asking the following:

• Who are your top domestic and foreign policy advisors right now? Whose counsel would you seek in those areas if you are elected?
• Generally speaking, under what circumstances should the will of the majority be trumped by the rights of the individual or the minority?
• When you get conflicting advice from people whose opinions you trust and respect equally, how do you make a decision?
• Sometimes it’s necessary to make short-term sacrifices for long-term gains. But it’s hard to get popular support for anything that causes short-term hardships. How would you get the American public to rally behind programs that might be painful to swallow?
• Does the United States have any responsibility to pursue policies that might improve the lives of people in other countries at the expense of its own citizens’ well-being? If so, give some examples and explain why this is appropriate. If not, what are some current or past examples of policies in this arena that have been wrongly pursued?
• What kind of person should be nominated to the federal judiciary in general and to the Supreme Court in particular?
• When is it appropriate for the president to use a signing statement to reinterpret or even negate legislation that has just been enacted?
• It is inconceivable that the United States would ever allow a foreign government to establish a military base on U.S. soil. Generally speaking, without specific reference to Iraq, when, where, and why is it appropriate to have U.S. military bases established on foreign soil?
• If a current federal law conflicts with your religious beliefs, would you work to have that law overturned or perhaps simply unenforced? Why or why not?

If you like those questions, give me a call. I’m sure I can think of some more. And yes, I will submit these questions at Politico.com.

What do you think about having these folks run the country?

President: Barack Obama

Vice President: Bill Richardson

Chief of Staff: Hillary Clinton

Secretary of State: Joe Biden

Secretary of Defense: John McCain

Attorney General: John Edwards

Secretary of the Treasury: Michael Bloomberg

Secretary of Education: Ted Kennedy

Secretary of HHS: Dennis Kucinich

Secretary of Commerce: Mitt Romney

Secretary of Transportation: Michael Dukakis

Secretary of Homeland Security: Condoleezza Rice

Secretary of the Interior: Al Gore

Secretary of Labor: Mike Huckabee

Ambassador to the UN: Bill Clinton

I think I’m still leaning toward Obama because I think/hope that he might enjoy more popular support while in office than Clinton would, but Hillary showed today on Meet the Press why she would also be a good president. She was smart, quick, insightful, tough, articulate, thoughtful, gracious, … well, watch it yourself and make up your own mind.

Very few, if any, media folks are talking about how the candidates are doing in the delegate count. CNN explains how the delegate apportionment works (in theory, anyway): Why delegates matter in the presidential race - CNN.com.

I guess a headline of “Hillary beats Barack by 3 points” sells more ads than “Hillary and Barack tie, get equal number of delegates.” That’s a shame. I suppose it may be true that a “victory” in New Hampshire means more than the actual number of delegates pledged, but that’s only because the media plays it that way.

As I saw the headline about today’s arguments regarding lethal injection, it occurred to me that this year’s campaign has been uncharacteristically quiet about the judicial branch. Where are all the questions about activist judges, litmus tests, strict constructionists, and so on? Just because none of the current SCOTUS justices are currently in intensive care doesn’t mean there won’t be a vacancy or two in the next four years. And we’ve got oodles of openings in lower courts. Why is nobody talking about this?

I am so tired of seeing pundit after pundit and reporter after reporter use the same canned analysis during the primary season. It feels more like they are covering each other’s coverage than covering the campaigns themselves. I think there should be a one-month moratorium on the following words and phrases.

• Candidate of change
• Inevitability
• Phenomenon
• Movement
• Reinvent himself / herself
• Tapped into
• Momentum
• Rock star
• Strong organization
• Appeals to the base
• Values voters (thanks for this suggestion, Lori)

It would be interesting to see if the talking heads could come up with anything original to say.