Edwards (Money) Surge?

There has been some serious movement on the part of Edwards recently.

But, this from Talking Points Memo (great website, check it out).

Edwards Money

If true, this is great news and great momentum for Edwards (and supporters of Edwards).

I will try to get a real post out later today.

-Zen Blade

Rise and Fall, part II.

Rise and Fall of the Candidates

A while back I mentioned the rise and fall of the Republican candidates... well, the rise and fall continues:

Iowa
Democrats: Obama peaked and is coming down. Edwards and to a lesser extent Clinton are gaining ground. The Democratic side of the election will be decided by the negotiations inside the caucuses.

Republicans: Huckabee appears to have met the ceiling, and now he is crashing. Romney is exposing Huckabee's negatives, and it appears to be working. We'll see if Huckabee can stop the bleeding. Meanwhile, McCain's corpse is fighting on. This is why you bury dead people under 6ft of dirt. A strong 3rd for McCain and a 1st or 2nd for Romney will yield an exciting New Hampshire face off. Note: A Romney 2nd place finish will make New Hampshire far more exciting than a Romney 1st place finish.

New Hampshire
The races are tightening on both sides.
Democrats: Clinton and Obama are tied. Edwards is averaging the upper teens and has recently had a couple of polls showing him in the low 20's. If Edwards wins in Iowa, there is no telling what will happen in New Hampshire. A 5-10 point swing in favor of the Iowa winner is not uncommon.

Republicans: If McCain's corpse is fighting on in Iowa, then either his soul or his clone or his severed head preserved in a glass bowl (a la Futurama) is rallying his followers in New Hampshire. Romney is fighting on two fronts, Iowa and New Hampshire. If Romney is able to ride out the Iowa storm and then persevere in New Hampshire, he's got the nomination (barring some unimaginable event).

Iowa Dems
The prettier trend lines for the Democrats. Usually a day or two behind. Shows the convergence.

Today is Sunday the 30th. The election is Thursday the 3rd.

-Zen Blade

Benazir Bhutto We Hardly Knew Ye

Son to be her successor...

In my previous post I tried to minimize my feelings of distrust, but I desired to point out the fact that Bhutto was far from perfect (corruption).

Well, naming your 19 year old son as the person who should lead your political party upon your death does not come across to me as the act of a devout republican.

Luckily our country doesn't elect political leaders based upon their bloodline....
oh, wait...

-Zen Blade

Three-Legged Race Extravaganza

WOW!
Three polls over the past two days for Iowa showing the following:

29%
29%
28%

30%
29%
28%

29%
26%
25%

Now, does it really matter which number belongs to which candidate? This is as close as it fricking gets!

And the pollster.com Iowa average, which may be a day or two behind.
So close... this is unbelievable.
-Zen Blade

Pres. Stories and Numbers: A Follow Up

From a friend who wanted to leave a comment:

I wanted to post a reply on your blog entry “Presidential News Stories and Numbers” but I didn’t agree with the terms of service to become a blogger in my own right – at least not yet. So, here are my question-comments, for your personal consumption, by means of which I intend to pick your news-saturated brain:

Hear, hear! I always wonder what proportion of the media's influence on elections is intentional and how much is the result of the law of unintended consequences, but I can't think up an "experiment" that could tell the two apart. Regardless, do you really think that word of mouth could generate enough momentum for a lagging candidate to seriously compete with the media favorites? It would be great if it could...

First, regarding intentional versus unintentional actions and consequences, I think it depends on the media outlet. Fox "News" clearly has an agenda, is biased, and attempts to sell a narrative to push a particular angle. Other media outlets such as Meet The Press clearly attempt to give each candidate a fair shake. These same shows often have pundits and commentators on the show who comment about the election or candidates. These pundits most often focus on the predominant narrative or meme that is filtering through the pundit class. Many of these narratives and memes I will also mention, but I attempt to mention/include other candidates as much as possible.***However, at this point, the race on the Democratic side really is down to three people.

One source of conflict is that newspapers have to sell papers in order to stay in business and new shows must have viewers to stay on air. So, much like the hottest trends in the fashion world or who the hottest pop star is, the individuals who determine what story will be on the front page, the individuals who decide what the night's big story is wield an incredible amount of power. The bottom line for many of these individuals is money. So, what story line will give them the biggest profit? If the buzz in the pundit class is about one or two candidates, then suddenly that candidate or those candidates will be everywhere. This is similar to the situation on January 4th. Whoever wins the January 3rd caucus will/should be on EVERY newspaper in the country, and the meme of the day will take off and infect everyone.

HOW the story will be written/spun will depend on the individuals writing and publishing the story. So... perhaps some of the narratives being put out are done so simply because all people are subject to the popular story of the day, but there are other cases where people attempt to put out a specific story to move public opinion in a specific direction. There are also definite cases (like this summer/fall) where it is BETTER for the pundit class to have a two-person race between Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama than a six-person race between a whole bunch of candidates that cannot be easily contained/written about. It is easier to dumb down than to enlighten up.

As for the second part of the question, YES WORD OF MOUTH CAN SUCCEED. But, the difference is the number of mouths spreading the word versus the number of households infected by the media. For example, my family and friends and colleagues know I support John Edwards. Many of these people like Edwards far more than I would expect given his standing in the polls. However, if I talk to someone who doesn't know Edwards they are often far less inclined to support him. Word of mouth may not turn people in to blind followers, but it does serve as an introduction. People are introduced to a candidate and are more likely to take a look at the candidate.

DOES WORD OF MOUTH WORKS ON THE SMALL SCALE OF IOWA AND NEW HAMPSHIRE? In these two states the race for the Democratic nomination is completely different from the rest of the country, where Hillary Clinton has a commanding lead. However, in Iowa the race is a statistical three-person tie. In New Hampshire, Obama and Clinton are now tied, and Edwards is in the high teens--trending up in recent weeks. Now, in these two states the media differential is also much smaller... so, maybe word of mouth was important 6 months ago, but now the media differential is the more important factor. The main candidates have enough money to compete with one another for all of January...so, the candidates are far more even. February is a different matter.

In summary, media dominates over word of mouth in the VAST majority of situations. However, when media is not particularly focused, or is not particularly strong, word of mouth definitely dominates. So, if your friends don't read the news, if you talk to them, you will have a HUGE INFLUENCE.... Your friends may not acknowledge this fact when you are present, but when you are away, they will remember the words that you said.

So why is media so pervasive? It's almost everywhere, but maybe there's another reason: Peer pressure? Social norms? Backing a winner? What everyone else is doing? Maybe the media is strongly associated with each/some of these?

Hopefully this post wasn't too long and winding...

-Zen Blade

47 Degrees is the New Cold

My last day in California. The other day the weather was only about 47 degrees Fahrenheit in the morning. Needless to say, we were all freezing. It was SOOOOO cold.

I don't know what "cold" is where you live or where you grew up, but I am dreading my return to New Haven tomorrow. In New Haven, 47 degrees this time of the year would be quite warm.

oh well, I should go out and enjoy the sun while I still can.

-Zen Blade

Death of a Prime Minister

Benazir Bhutto

Benazir Bhutto Assassinated


What to say? A person has died. A person that millions of people believed in was assassinated. What effects will this death have on the world, on the USA, on the elections that will happen within the next month or so?

Bhutto was an outspoken moderate, but she was also someone who was twice accused of corruption. I won't take a position on whether or not I think she would have solved the incredible internal difficulties within Pakistan, but her death will only make the situation that much more complicated.

The first fallout of her death will perhaps be seen in Iowa and New Hampshire. Will voters suddenly think twice about their candidate because of this recent development? If so, Barack Obama is in very serious trouble. He is regularly seen as being the "least experienced" by voters.

-Zen Blade

Christmas Politics

Whether you are a Christian (of any stripe), a person of some other faith, an agnostic, or an atheist, one can not deny the continual growth of personal faith in politics and government.

I am a huge supporter of personal faith. I defend just about any religion from attack, including newer religions such as Mormonism or Scientology. However, I believe that personal faith is not appropriate within the public sphere of governance. Being a private citizen is VERY different from being a public official. Offering a general prayer for good fortune is different from offering a specific prayer to a Savior to give salvation to a particular individual or group of individuals. Public officials who represent all Americans are constitutionally bound to show no deference to one religion [over-simplification, but the essence of my view]. However, there seems to be a growing trend of individuals not simply stating how religious they are, but how non-religious or how deviant their political opponent(s) are.

From Article Six of the Constitution:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

These individuals are essentially creating a Religious Test. Not one enshrined in law or written down on paper, but a Test in the eye of the public. For the sake of historical memory, I wish to add this link on Presidents and Religion. From there you can find more information on Founding Fathers, etc... if you desire.

So, who might I be referring to when I say that someone is creating Religious Tests?

Governor Huckabee.
I am very disturbed by many of Governor Huckabee's comments:

"Don't Mormons believe that Jesus and the devil are brothers?"
**His opponent Mitt Romney is Mormon.

"I do not necessarily buy into the traditional Darwinian theory, personally."
**I would feel comfortable with a president who accepts Evolution, but I can let this comment slide. He just needs a science adviser.

"I think that students also should be given exposure to the theories not only of evolution but to the basis of those who believe in creationism."
**This is a big problem. Creationism is a specific set of religious beliefs. It is NOT neutral. It is utter opinion and belief. There is no empirical evidence or data that would lead one to accept Creationism as science. Any president who believes that students should be given exposure to Creationism believes that students need specific religious instruction from our public schools.

And then there is his recent television commercial: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xn7uSHtkuA

Notice the cross? Some think the cross was put there on purpose, others say the "cross" is simply a window or something that appears as a result of light. Well... do you remember the "rats" commercial from 2000?

My point: Many people will say or do anything to win. I fear Huckabee is willing to exploit religion, perhaps even more so than Bush, in order to win. The worst part of Huckabee's exploitation is not that it appears to be a continuation of Rove's use of Nixon's Southern Strategy (but for religion), but that Huckabee is so brazenly and openly talking about bringing Christianity to Government. Couple that with Huckabee's "accidental" attack on Mormonism, and this devout Agnostic (and secularist) is very much afraid of what might happen were Huckabee to be the Republican nominee.

Anyways, have a good holiday season. If you celebrate Christmas, Merry Christmas. If not, then I hope you are enjoying the week.
Also, Bah Humbug.

-Zen Blade

Presidential News Stories and Numbers

Every so often I read a post about the Presidential candidates and media coverage. The particular piece may focus on how much media coverage there is this election cycle or the piece may focus on how much more media coverage a particular candidate or two is getting this week because of a specific story or endorsement, but occasionally the piece discusses the potential impact of this unbalanced media coverage.

However, most stories and most online posts I read about the Democratic Nomination for President focus on how the primary is a two-person race, even though there are 6 serious candidates. Do such stories merely reinforce the meme that voters only have two choices or perhaps do these stories create, propagate, and drive this meme?

Using a Google News search, here are the top six Democratic candidates. This isn't an exact science. The top three candidates are ordered based upon favorite status for the overall election, the lower three candidates are ordered based upon the order I believe they will finish in Iowa.
Google News searches:

Hillary Clinton:......56,620
Barack Obama:......37,128
John Edwards:.......33,296
Joe Biden:...............6,752
Bill Richardson:......8,152
Chris Dodd:.............6,038

Senator Clinton:..............23,118
Senator Obama:..............19,037
Senator Edwards:............12,079
Senator Biden:.................2,960
Governor Richardson:......2,940
Senator Dodd:.................3,028

Clinton:...........91,375** (other "Clinton")
Obama:...........42,433
Edwards:.........57,611** (other "Edwards")
Biden:..............8,037
Richardson:.....28,156** (other "Richardson")
Dodd:...............10,801

Democrat Hillary Clinton:.....40,918
Democrat Barack Obama:.....33,906
Democrat John Edwards:......23,186
Democrat Joe Biden:.............6,289
Democrat Bill Richardson:....5,815
Democrat Chris Dodd:...........5,876


From the lists, it is clear that there are more media stories that mention Hillary Clinton than anyone. After her, comes Barack Obama, John Edwards, etc... However, taking the "Democrat X,Y" list, Hillary has about 20% more stories than Barack Obama, and nearly 80% more stories than John Edwards. The other candidates are nowhere to be seen.

What these numbers fail to tell us though is how significant each article was for each candidate. My anecdotal experiences tell me that most stories focus on Hillary and Obama, while making occasional mention of other candidates, and any story that focuses on John Edwards will mention Hillary and Obama as his rivals and how he plans to fight/beat them.

So, is this media coverage fair?

I think if the current difference in media attention was a recent phenomenon of the past month or two, then this would be fine. BUT, that is simply not the case. Since the Spring the media has focused on Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. I fear that the media's desire to have a story line has negatively impacted the ability of candidates to compete on a level plain. What chance does a Chris Dodd, who takes many courageous positions, have against a media titan like Hillary Clinton? When people only see/hear one or two candidates on TV or in the paper, what chance do other candidates who are never mentioned have?

I fear the media has propagated a self-fulfilling prophecy regarding the Democratic race. This self-fulfilling prophecy has only been further advanced by a number of national unions who have a clear favorite (John Edwards), but have hesitated to make any national endorsement for fear of not backing the candidate who will win the primary:
"Neither Nevada's SEIU or Culinary Local 226 have made an endorsement yet."

The SEIU and the Culinary Local are two of the largest (if not the outright largest) unions in Nevada. If they strongly endorse a candidate, that candidate will potentially receive thousands of supporters in Nevada. In addition, the national SEIU was expected to endorse Edwards, which would have been a big boost, but did not. The hesitancy on the part of these unions is a direct result of the narrative that the Democratic primary is a race between two people. Why risk upsetting the ultimate victor by endorsing an underdog? Some unions will be willing to make that endorsement, but many will not. And, as a result, the candidate who might have won--were he to have union to support-- is now likely to lose, because he has no union support.
But back to the main point,

It is dangerous to allow the media to dictate the terms of our democracy and our elections. People respond to their friends and their family. If you have a favorite in an election, do your candidate a favor and be willing to mention his/her name to your friends/family every so often. Your family may not go out and vote for your candidate, but they will be aware of his/her existence and the next time your candidate's name is mentioned somewhere, or not mentioned, perhaps your friends and family will remember the good things you said. Democracy requires participation, not simply trust in and consumption of the news media and whatever narrative they are attempting to sell.

-Zen Blade

Regarding (Pumpkin) Pie and Politics

A friend of mine and I made a bet. Each of us would choose one Democratic candidate and if that person wins the nomination, then the other one of us would have to buy the winner a pie. So, which candidate did we each choose?

Well, I chose John Edwards. My friend?? Well, he wasn't sure at first. But then he asked me who was leading. We made this bet back during the Summer, so I told him the leader by a wide margin is Hillary. So, he chose Hillary.

I would say that the bet at the time was slightly insane for anyone but the most devout supporter. But now, I am feeling much better. I can win a free pumpkin pie. I do not know what type of pie I will have to purchase if Hillary wins.

And what if Obama wins?

Well, our lab will receive two pies. Just so long as Hillary and Methuselah (my friend) do not win the nomination and a pie, respectively.

-Zen Blade

Why John Edwards?

For those who don't know, I have supported John Edwards (JRE) since 2003.

Why did I support him in 2003:

He was a fresher face. He had a certain lack of experience, which I acknowledged then and now, but he was talking about themes that resonated with me (Two Americas). He also had charisma and it was apparent to me that he was the only Democrat who could appeal to "Middle America". His accent and his cultural background allow a lot of people who don't normally vote Democratic to identify with him. **Self-identification is a big deal**

Why did I support him in 2005-2006:

He continued his work with poverty. He spent one spring break taking college students to New Orleans. A few hundred students working for a week or two may not change the world, but the effort to bring attention to New Orleans and the lack of rebuilding there is important. Who else took the time to do this? He relentlessly campaigned for raising local minimum wage in numerous cities and states. JRE also took a lot of time to better educate himself. He traveled abroad: Africa, Europe, Asia; and he met with world leaders. We all knew he wanted to run again, if his wife stayed relatively healthy, and during this time he took the steps to better prepare himself in the event he did run for president again. Also, during this time he publicly apologized and took responsibility for his IRAQ vote. --A politician admitting he made a mistake.

Why I support him now:

John Edwards is a fighter. He knows the system is not working--wealth consolidation in this country is only speeding up. He was the first 2008 candidate to put forward a serious Universal Healthcare proposal. Senators Clinton and Obama followed months later. He was the first to continue to pursue pushing the minimum wage higher, to $9.50/hr. Senator Clinton has just proposed such a bill (with some differences) in the senate Minimum wage bill. These are but two examples of how JRE has been THE MOST progressive candidate this cycle, and regardless of whether he becomes the nominee he has managed to move the party in a great direction. Other issues I agree with him on are tackling poverty (especially rural areas), how to approach large corporations, nuclear power, getting people involved in our democracy, the farce of "the war on terror", "college for everyone" program, etc...
If you want someone who has the background of living as an average American, who worked hard and succeeded, who does not take any lobbyist or PAC money, and who is upfront on his positions, and who isn't afraid to threaten to take away congress's healthcare (if they don't pass Universal Healthcare for Americans) support JRE for president.

I will not talk about why I am not voting for Senator Obama or Senator Clinton at this point, but I may in the future.

-Zen Blade

The Rise (and Fall) of the Candidates

This primary election is getting crazy interesting.

A bit ago I wrote the following in an e-mail to a former labmate:

**John McCain (his support just hasn't crumbled, and he could become the
default "safe" candidate after Huckabee wins in Iowa)

The context of this writing was who I thought might win the primaries. I think given the continued openness on the Republican side is amazing. At this point, if the Republicans want any chance to win the presidency I think they have to look to McCain, and I think many within the Republican leadership must know this. I predict that support may begin to consolidate around McCain before/during/after New Hampshire.

Here's the national picture for the Republican nomination. The most interesting part of this chart is the rise and fall of the candidates:
http://www.pollster.com/08-US-Rep-Pres-Primary.php

Essentially, no candidate has been able to build a following of support AND THEN hold onto that support. Thompson crashed, Giuliani is crashing, Huckabee is surging--but he has so many negatives that can and will be exploited. Meanwhile, Mitt Romney and John McCain have managed to hold some support.
Here's New Hampshire:
http://www.pollster.com/08-NH-Rep-Pres-Primary.php

Again, Thompson and Giuliani are crashing, while Huckabee appears to be rising. Romney has held onto his New Hampshire lead, but he has peaked too soon. He'll be coming down shortly. But look at McCain. He is rising from the dead. It's happening in New Hampshire, and it may be happening in Iowa....

So, what about Iowa? Iowa doesn't matter for the Republicans. Only Huckabee and Romney have been putting much time+money into campaigning in Iowa. You can avoid/skip one state and survive, but it is highly unlikely that you can skip two states and stay viable with all the media attention that will result from each election. Here's Iowa:
http://www.pollster.com/08-IA-Rep-Pres-Primary.php

Notice that only two individuals have a realistic chance at winning... Thus, everyone else (and the media) will care far less about who wins. However, if McCain finishes 3rd in Iowa... that would be a big deal. Whoever finishes in 3rd will have outperformed whoever finished in 2nd.

So... what about McCain again? Well, of the following individuals, which seem like they may know something about running the country:
Huckabee, Romney, Giuliani, Thompson, McCain

Thompson has been an actor for the past several years, Romney was a governor for four years, Giuliani was a mayor but then did nothing of note after finishing that gig, and Huckabee was governor of Arkansas for ~10 years. McCain is a long-serving senator.

I've got nothing against governors or mayors, but neither Romney nor Giuliani were seen as particularly successful leaders within their constituencies. Giuliani has recently had corruption issues, the whole "letting his wife know that he was divorcing her via a press conference", and all the conflicts with the local press and local citizens groups (including fire fighters).
Romney had no chance at winning reelection, and used his state as a punching bag while campaigning for the nomination. That might actually help him in the primaries, but he has changed so many of his positions, AND he is Mormon--a fact that Huckabee loves to point out. Religion doesn't matter to most people, but it does matter to a segment of the Republican party, the segment that loves to go out and vote.

Thompson... well, once he starts campaigning more than 6 hours a day...

Huckabee has apparently done a decent enough job: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huckabee
Not a perfect job, and you can question his motives, but he was reelected and pursued some programs that moderates and liberals would approve of. However, his religious views and some of his comments and policies make him unpalatable to everyone. His wrapping himself within a religious bubble is scary. His comments regarding individuals with AIDS are frightening. His social programs on spending and taxes would scare many Republicans (and perhaps Democrats). His lack of foreign policy knowledge frightens me almost as much as his constant mentioning of religion.

John McCain: His experience is unquestioned. His position on Iraq and some other issues I disagree with. However, he isn't running for the Democratic nomination. He is running for the Republican nomination. His position on many issues is in alignment with the Republican voters. If the individuals who are mad at him because of 2000 can get past that, I think McCain would have a great chance at winning. However, that could be a very big IF.

Here is my predictions as of today (best to worst chance):
McCain, Huckabee/Romney, Giuliani, Thompson

-Zen Blade

A Few Days Later...

And the New Haven Public Works finally plows the street on the side of my house.
Granted, better late than never. However, today is Wednesday. The last of the snow and ice fell on Saturday night, maybe Sunday morning? This slow response might be understandable if New Haven were located in CA or Florida, but this is CT. I am fairly certain it has been snowing in CT on a regular basis for many years now. One would expect a quicker and more proper response. I'm not knowledgeable enough to lecture what the response should look like, but maybe some sand before the snowfall gets really bad, maybe some plowing during and after the storm. If you travel to any of the neighboring towns--Hamden+Branford for example-- immediately after a snow storm, the main roads and even many of the side roads are already well taken care of. Why is New Haven so slow? I don't know, but it frustrates me and many of my friends and colleagues who aren't from New Haven.

Luckily, I will be in CA by tonight. 10 days away from New Haven. So nice...

-Zen Blade

The First Post

This is the first post.
With the 2008 Presidential Primary season heating up and the races tightening on both sides, I decided to start writing my thoughts. I will be home with my folks until the 30th. Here is a format where I can say what is on my mind, and hopefully inform a few of my friends who may be interested in knowing what is happening. If you find any of this useful, then you have made me a happy person. Feel free to leave comments and your own opinions.

Currently, I am planning political writings, but I can see myself deciding to write about other subjects as well.

-Zen Blade