The check-in agent looked over me critically. "You're not from Yemen, are you?"
"Nope," I said, resting my pillow and a stash of banana bread on the counter. "Not Yemen. Why?"
"Well, the computer says you are."
I admitted to her that I wasn't sure I could locate Yemen on a map, unless it was a very little map and I could gesture generally toward the Middle East.
She said she wouldn't have known either, if not for the honey. They don't have any, she explained. Yemen has no bees. (My mother would like living in Yemen, I thought.) She continued: because Yemen has no bees, it has to import all its honey. (This seemed reasonable.) Every Tuesday, when she worked at SFO, many people headed to Yemen would check in with boxes and boxes of honey--more boxes than their free luggage allowance afforded.
All that talk of bees and honey made me think of Pushing Daisies.
She leaned in across the counter. "They'd try to buy me off with honey," she confided. "To avoid penalties. But rules are rules!"
Sunday, January 27, 2008
Thursday, January 03, 2008
Incumbency
As the Iowa caucuses open tonight, it looks like Obama is opening a slim but consistent lead in the polls on the Democratic side. For example, the Zogby tracker I mentioned earlier, which refreshes 1/3 of its results each day, had Obama move from two points back on January 1 to a near-tie yesterday to four points ahead today. For the numbers to swing 4 points in Obama's direction when the results from December 30 were dropped and the results from January 2 added, he must have been running 12 points better on January 2 than on December 30. This seems to confirm that momentum has shifted to Obama in the closing hours of the race.
Whether this was merely reflected in the January 1 Register poll or helped along by it is up to your particular theory of polling and public opinion. I tend to think it's a combination: the trend had to be there in the first place, but waking up on New Year's to see Obama "in the lead" couldn't have discouraged even more Iowans from choosing to vote for him.
But, instead of focusing on today's poll numbers, I wanted to say something more general about incumbency. An "incumbent" candidate is one who is running for reelection. Bush was an incumbent candidate in 2004, Clinton in 1996, etc. Incumbents tend to begin races with very good name recognition, while their opponents tend to be less well known. This usually gives incumbents an early lead in polls that shrinks as their opponents become better known. This is also one reason why incumbents try early on to "frame" the popular description of their opponent before voters can come to their own conclusions.
In 2004, George Bush had nearly as dramatic a history of "flip flopping" as John Kerry. He opposed the Department of Homeland Security before he supported it. He was against intervening in other countries before he was for it. Etcetera. One could argue the Kerry campaign didn't successfully hit back on Bush for this. But it would have been hard to: Bush already had four years of incumbency to form a public opinion of him. People had made up their minds about what kind of man he was. Those who opposed him opposed him because they saw him as dumb, stubborn, and so on. Those who supported him supported him because they saw him as a good, strong man of steady conviction, someone they'd rather have over for a barbecue. They wouldn't have been swayed that much by reminders of an inconsistent record that they had already lived through and chosen to support.
However, in the closing days of a race between an incumbent and a challenger, undecided voters tend "to break for" the challenger. Why would this be? A well-regarded 1980s study suggests that undecided voters already know nearly everything they need to know about the incumbent. They've had years to figure out whether or not they like him or her, and if they're still not sure a few days before the election, they can't have liked him or her very much. The challenger, at least, has the potential to be different. In 2004, this effect was probably offset by fears of terrorism, stoked by Bin Laden's last-minute message to the American people, but in general it's held up, including in the 2006 mid-term elections.
I bring this up because one Democratic candidate chose to run for the nomination as if she were the incumbent. After all, she had the name recognition of an incumbent. She had (she claims) the experience of an incumbent. Unfortunately for Clinton, it seems she also has the flip side baggage of an incumbent: many Iowans who haven't made up their minds yet are breaking for one of the challengers.
This may be one reason she's a distant third when it comes to voters' "second choices" - which will be very important tonight, since many first choice supporters of Biden, Richardson, and the other Democratic candidates will probably find their candidates not viable and be given the chance to choose again.
It's still possible Hillary Clinton will win the Iowa caucus. The numbers are tight enough and the caucusing process sufficiently unpredictable. If she does, it's a clean road to the nomination. It'll vindicate her strategy of positioning herself (some critics would say posing) as an incumbent. But it's increasingly likely she'll take second or even third, behind John Edwards. If Obama wins a convincing victory tonight, it could boost him past Clinton in New Hampshire, where he's running a few points behind but a lot of people remain undecided. (And we know how that goes.)
Clinton's campaign will continue no matter what happens in Iowa and New Hampshire, because she remains very popular in many of the big states that will vote on February 5. But if the tide is going to turn against her nationally, it'll start to turn tonight.
I'll close this section of my post with a quote from today's Zogby poll analysis. It will seem very apt if Clinton loses Iowa, and rather premature if she wins-though even then, it's something she'll need to confront in the general election.
* * * * *
A quick anecdote. I was sharing with a male relative of mine, who proudly voted for Bush in 1988, Perot in 1992, Clinton in 1996, Bush in 2000 and Kerry in 2004 (whether this makes him independent, indecisive or merely remorseful I can't say) that it looks like a lot of independents and Republicans will be supporting Obama in Iowa, and that this foreshadows his crossover appeal in the general election were he to win the nomination.
"They're only pretending," he said to me, "so that Clinton isn't nominated. They're afraid of her."
In other words, he sees an Iowan right-wing conspiracy.
* * * * *
So, a peek at the right wing. Until recently, it's been very confused. But it looks like Huckabee could pull out a convincing victory against Romney tonight, clearing the way for McCain to upset the deflated Romney in New Hampshire. (Huckabee, a charismatic guitar player who doesn't believe in evolution, isn't polling well in New Hampshire and has very little ground organization there.)
It seemed unlikely a few months, but a match-up of McCain versus Clinton or Obama is more plausible by the day. And he'd do well against either.
Against Clinton, McCain can play the character card--he's a man of conviction, not a political opportunist. With his appeal to independents and moderates, he'd probably (to quote Charles Bibilos) "clobber her".
Against Obama, McCain can play the experience card--only more convincingly than Clinton could. This match-up is a tough one to call. It could go either way, especially if Obama selected an experienced running mate, like Joe Biden, and McCain selected someone younger and more hopeful, unlike Joe Lieberman. But regardless of the outcome, McCain versus Obama would probably be something that we haven't seen in a very long time in American politics: civil.
Whether this was merely reflected in the January 1 Register poll or helped along by it is up to your particular theory of polling and public opinion. I tend to think it's a combination: the trend had to be there in the first place, but waking up on New Year's to see Obama "in the lead" couldn't have discouraged even more Iowans from choosing to vote for him.
But, instead of focusing on today's poll numbers, I wanted to say something more general about incumbency. An "incumbent" candidate is one who is running for reelection. Bush was an incumbent candidate in 2004, Clinton in 1996, etc. Incumbents tend to begin races with very good name recognition, while their opponents tend to be less well known. This usually gives incumbents an early lead in polls that shrinks as their opponents become better known. This is also one reason why incumbents try early on to "frame" the popular description of their opponent before voters can come to their own conclusions.
In 2004, George Bush had nearly as dramatic a history of "flip flopping" as John Kerry. He opposed the Department of Homeland Security before he supported it. He was against intervening in other countries before he was for it. Etcetera. One could argue the Kerry campaign didn't successfully hit back on Bush for this. But it would have been hard to: Bush already had four years of incumbency to form a public opinion of him. People had made up their minds about what kind of man he was. Those who opposed him opposed him because they saw him as dumb, stubborn, and so on. Those who supported him supported him because they saw him as a good, strong man of steady conviction, someone they'd rather have over for a barbecue. They wouldn't have been swayed that much by reminders of an inconsistent record that they had already lived through and chosen to support.
However, in the closing days of a race between an incumbent and a challenger, undecided voters tend "to break for" the challenger. Why would this be? A well-regarded 1980s study suggests that undecided voters already know nearly everything they need to know about the incumbent. They've had years to figure out whether or not they like him or her, and if they're still not sure a few days before the election, they can't have liked him or her very much. The challenger, at least, has the potential to be different. In 2004, this effect was probably offset by fears of terrorism, stoked by Bin Laden's last-minute message to the American people, but in general it's held up, including in the 2006 mid-term elections.
I bring this up because one Democratic candidate chose to run for the nomination as if she were the incumbent. After all, she had the name recognition of an incumbent. She had (she claims) the experience of an incumbent. Unfortunately for Clinton, it seems she also has the flip side baggage of an incumbent: many Iowans who haven't made up their minds yet are breaking for one of the challengers.
This may be one reason she's a distant third when it comes to voters' "second choices" - which will be very important tonight, since many first choice supporters of Biden, Richardson, and the other Democratic candidates will probably find their candidates not viable and be given the chance to choose again.
It's still possible Hillary Clinton will win the Iowa caucus. The numbers are tight enough and the caucusing process sufficiently unpredictable. If she does, it's a clean road to the nomination. It'll vindicate her strategy of positioning herself (some critics would say posing) as an incumbent. But it's increasingly likely she'll take second or even third, behind John Edwards. If Obama wins a convincing victory tonight, it could boost him past Clinton in New Hampshire, where he's running a few points behind but a lot of people remain undecided. (And we know how that goes.)
Clinton's campaign will continue no matter what happens in Iowa and New Hampshire, because she remains very popular in many of the big states that will vote on February 5. But if the tide is going to turn against her nationally, it'll start to turn tonight.
I'll close this section of my post with a quote from today's Zogby poll analysis. It will seem very apt if Clinton loses Iowa, and rather premature if she wins-though even then, it's something she'll need to confront in the general election.
"When it became clear that voters in Iowa were looking for change, Clinton became the candidate who kept changing, not the one of change."
* * * * *
A quick anecdote. I was sharing with a male relative of mine, who proudly voted for Bush in 1988, Perot in 1992, Clinton in 1996, Bush in 2000 and Kerry in 2004 (whether this makes him independent, indecisive or merely remorseful I can't say) that it looks like a lot of independents and Republicans will be supporting Obama in Iowa, and that this foreshadows his crossover appeal in the general election were he to win the nomination.
"They're only pretending," he said to me, "so that Clinton isn't nominated. They're afraid of her."
In other words, he sees an Iowan right-wing conspiracy.
* * * * *
So, a peek at the right wing. Until recently, it's been very confused. But it looks like Huckabee could pull out a convincing victory against Romney tonight, clearing the way for McCain to upset the deflated Romney in New Hampshire. (Huckabee, a charismatic guitar player who doesn't believe in evolution, isn't polling well in New Hampshire and has very little ground organization there.)
Once McCain wins New Hampshire, he instantly becomes the front-runner against Rudy Giuliani, who has been sitting on the sidelines simmering in scandal soup. Meanwhile, Romney implodes and goes back to hunting varmints.
It seemed unlikely a few months, but a match-up of McCain versus Clinton or Obama is more plausible by the day. And he'd do well against either.
Against Clinton, McCain can play the character card--he's a man of conviction, not a political opportunist. With his appeal to independents and moderates, he'd probably (to quote Charles Bibilos) "clobber her".
Against Obama, McCain can play the experience card--only more convincingly than Clinton could. This match-up is a tough one to call. It could go either way, especially if Obama selected an experienced running mate, like Joe Biden, and McCain selected someone younger and more hopeful, unlike Joe Lieberman. But regardless of the outcome, McCain versus Obama would probably be something that we haven't seen in a very long time in American politics: civil.
Wednesday, January 02, 2008
Kentucky Fried Primary
In lieu of my own post today, I refer you to the rather greasy analysis of a fellow DemiDec editor, Charles Bibilos. I disagree with him somewhat about Huckabee's chances in the general election, but concur in most other regards, especially when it comes to the fried chicken. You may also enjoy reading about his adventures with dengue fever.
Tuesday, January 01, 2008
The Register
Happy New Year! Due to some impending deadlines in Korea, I don't have time to write in much detail, but I wanted to add a few more words on recent developments in Iowa.
The Des Moines Register poll came out last night. In 2004, it correctly predicted the Kerry, Edwards, Dean finish. (It didn't predict Dean's scream, but polls have their limitations.) It's easy to forget now, but Kerry wasn't the favorite even two weeks before the Iowa caucuses: Howard Dean was. Both Kerry and Edwards soared in the closing days of the campaign. The Register poll picked up on that. It's well-regarded for accurately assessing who is likely to participate in the caucuses, something with which national polling companies have less experience.
With that said, the Obama campaign seemed braced for bad news. It held a morning presentation yesterday about how it was positioned to continue campaigning in other states no matter what happened Thursday. Rumors bounced about on the Internet that his numbers were looking dim. The Clinton campaign had already stabilized a lead in most other polls, including Zogby's, and some had Obama slipping into third.
The Register poll turned those findings upside-down. On the Democratic side, Obama had the support of 32% of likely caucus-goers, compared to 25% for Hillary Clinton and 24% for Edwards. On the Republican side, it showed Huckabee maintaining a similar lead over the hard-hitting Romney (32% to 26%).
It's tempting to look at these numbers and cover them as what pundits call a horse race. "Obama soars to a lead!" "Edwards stumbles in the final lap." That kind of thing. I had a professor at the Kennedy School who felt otherwise, but I believe this kind of coverage in the media has the potential to affect the margins of public opinion. Undecided voters may be more likely to choose someone with a better chance of winning. It's similar to the phenomenon in sports known as "bandwagon fans". Even my beloved Clippers had some bandwagon fans a couple years ago.
So, let's not go overboard with these results. Let's check out some of the headlines, though. In the Register, the most widely-read newspaper in Iowa, the headline reads:
"New Iowa Poll: Obama widens lead over Clinton"
MSNBC matches this word for word, minus "New Iowa Poll".
Similarly, the Washington Post runs with "Poll Shows Obama Holds 7-Point Lead in Iowa"
-- These headlines imply (a) that there is such a thing as a lead and (b) that Obama had one. The former depends on how you look at things (you could argue that not a single vote has been cast) and the latter negates the last two weeks or so of media coverage, which revolved mostly around Hillary Clinton's growing lead (particularly plausible given recent foreign events) and an angry John Edwards surging past Obama. Obama got a lot of coverage for ostensibly implying that Hillary Clinton's foreign policy experience amounted to drinking tea with the wives of foreign leaders.
The Edwards and Clinton campaigns were quick to discredit some apparent quirks in the Register poll. For one, it predicts that 45% of the people attending the Democratic caucuses will be independents and Republicans. They strongly favor Obama. If they don't show up, Clinton "pulls ahead" in the numbers. This underscores my point from the other day: Obama is the candidate who, for whatever reason, most successfully reaches out to independents and Republicans. It would make him a very effective nominee, and very hard to defeat if the Republican nominee lacks similar crossover appeal. (It's ironic that for Democrats to nominate the Democrat with the best chance of winning next November, they may need help from some non-Democrats.) However, in 2004, only 19% of caucus attendees were independents and Republicans. So for the poll numbers to hold, there has to be a significantly different turnout in 2008. It's possible, but you never know.
Similarly, the poll shows that 60% of those attending the caucuses will be doing so for the first time. This would be remarkable. Since these new attendees heavily favor Obama (75% of those who said they plan to caucus for him say they've never caucused before) it makes his position a little precarious. The best predictor of future behavior, in relationships as well as in voting, is past behavior. Then again, the Clinton and Obama campaigns are working incredibly hard to turn out new caucus-goers, so it's not at all implausible that participation rates will soar.
What to make of all this? Probably the following.
1. Obama needed some good news with which to close out the campaign. This gives him momentum heading into the caucuses. His campaign will ignore the other polls unless they change in his favor. His opponents will do the opposite, but the Register is the most widely-reported and respected poll in Iowa. Advantage: Obama.
2. Turnout is key. This is a political truism; turnout is always key. But it really, really is. The winner Thursday will depend largely on who shows up for the first time.
3. What happens within the actual caucuses is also important. They're, to say the least, peculiar, especially on the Democrats' side. People gather in a room and publicly declare their candidate preference. They gather in groups accordingly. Groups which represent less than 15% of the room are required to dissolve; their members have to choose one of the remaining "viable" candidates (or, presumably, leave, but then they might lose out on the sandwiches being provided by the Clinton campaign.) Precinct captains for each campaign try to persuade the reallocated voters to join them. Reputably, there's even some wheeling and dealing. All this makes things unpredictable.
There's not much time left, but if you like the horse race, keep an eye on the Zogby three-day daily tracking poll. Remember, it's had Clinton in the lead for a few days. Each day, it adds a new day of results and removes the oldest day. If it reflects a tightening of the race tomorrow, it could mean that the Iowa poll results helped some late breaking voters decide for Obama. A third of caucus-goers also said they were still willing to change their mind before Thursday, so what looks like a tight race could break wide open for one or another of the three leading candidates before the end.
The Des Moines Register poll came out last night. In 2004, it correctly predicted the Kerry, Edwards, Dean finish. (It didn't predict Dean's scream, but polls have their limitations.) It's easy to forget now, but Kerry wasn't the favorite even two weeks before the Iowa caucuses: Howard Dean was. Both Kerry and Edwards soared in the closing days of the campaign. The Register poll picked up on that. It's well-regarded for accurately assessing who is likely to participate in the caucuses, something with which national polling companies have less experience.
With that said, the Obama campaign seemed braced for bad news. It held a morning presentation yesterday about how it was positioned to continue campaigning in other states no matter what happened Thursday. Rumors bounced about on the Internet that his numbers were looking dim. The Clinton campaign had already stabilized a lead in most other polls, including Zogby's, and some had Obama slipping into third.
The Register poll turned those findings upside-down. On the Democratic side, Obama had the support of 32% of likely caucus-goers, compared to 25% for Hillary Clinton and 24% for Edwards. On the Republican side, it showed Huckabee maintaining a similar lead over the hard-hitting Romney (32% to 26%).
It's tempting to look at these numbers and cover them as what pundits call a horse race. "Obama soars to a lead!" "Edwards stumbles in the final lap." That kind of thing. I had a professor at the Kennedy School who felt otherwise, but I believe this kind of coverage in the media has the potential to affect the margins of public opinion. Undecided voters may be more likely to choose someone with a better chance of winning. It's similar to the phenomenon in sports known as "bandwagon fans". Even my beloved Clippers had some bandwagon fans a couple years ago.
So, let's not go overboard with these results. Let's check out some of the headlines, though. In the Register, the most widely-read newspaper in Iowa, the headline reads:
"New Iowa Poll: Obama widens lead over Clinton"
MSNBC matches this word for word, minus "New Iowa Poll".
Similarly, the Washington Post runs with "Poll Shows Obama Holds 7-Point Lead in Iowa"
-- These headlines imply (a) that there is such a thing as a lead and (b) that Obama had one. The former depends on how you look at things (you could argue that not a single vote has been cast) and the latter negates the last two weeks or so of media coverage, which revolved mostly around Hillary Clinton's growing lead (particularly plausible given recent foreign events) and an angry John Edwards surging past Obama. Obama got a lot of coverage for ostensibly implying that Hillary Clinton's foreign policy experience amounted to drinking tea with the wives of foreign leaders.
The Edwards and Clinton campaigns were quick to discredit some apparent quirks in the Register poll. For one, it predicts that 45% of the people attending the Democratic caucuses will be independents and Republicans. They strongly favor Obama. If they don't show up, Clinton "pulls ahead" in the numbers. This underscores my point from the other day: Obama is the candidate who, for whatever reason, most successfully reaches out to independents and Republicans. It would make him a very effective nominee, and very hard to defeat if the Republican nominee lacks similar crossover appeal. (It's ironic that for Democrats to nominate the Democrat with the best chance of winning next November, they may need help from some non-Democrats.) However, in 2004, only 19% of caucus attendees were independents and Republicans. So for the poll numbers to hold, there has to be a significantly different turnout in 2008. It's possible, but you never know.
Similarly, the poll shows that 60% of those attending the caucuses will be doing so for the first time. This would be remarkable. Since these new attendees heavily favor Obama (75% of those who said they plan to caucus for him say they've never caucused before) it makes his position a little precarious. The best predictor of future behavior, in relationships as well as in voting, is past behavior. Then again, the Clinton and Obama campaigns are working incredibly hard to turn out new caucus-goers, so it's not at all implausible that participation rates will soar.
What to make of all this? Probably the following.
1. Obama needed some good news with which to close out the campaign. This gives him momentum heading into the caucuses. His campaign will ignore the other polls unless they change in his favor. His opponents will do the opposite, but the Register is the most widely-reported and respected poll in Iowa. Advantage: Obama.
2. Turnout is key. This is a political truism; turnout is always key. But it really, really is. The winner Thursday will depend largely on who shows up for the first time.
3. What happens within the actual caucuses is also important. They're, to say the least, peculiar, especially on the Democrats' side. People gather in a room and publicly declare their candidate preference. They gather in groups accordingly. Groups which represent less than 15% of the room are required to dissolve; their members have to choose one of the remaining "viable" candidates (or, presumably, leave, but then they might lose out on the sandwiches being provided by the Clinton campaign.) Precinct captains for each campaign try to persuade the reallocated voters to join them. Reputably, there's even some wheeling and dealing. All this makes things unpredictable.
There's not much time left, but if you like the horse race, keep an eye on the Zogby three-day daily tracking poll. Remember, it's had Clinton in the lead for a few days. Each day, it adds a new day of results and removes the oldest day. If it reflects a tightening of the race tomorrow, it could mean that the Iowa poll results helped some late breaking voters decide for Obama. A third of caucus-goers also said they were still willing to change their mind before Thursday, so what looks like a tight race could break wide open for one or another of the three leading candidates before the end.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
