JS

This one is so obvious that I am not going to cite sources: experience is a good thing for a candidate.

One of the big differences between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama is the experience. She has more of it. She is older, and that gives her a head start, but she has also done things that Obama hardly can match. As a first lady (oh I hate that term) she did not just sit idly or turn her energy to cookie making. She did stuff; some of it failed (e.g., the health care reform) and other things were more successful (e.g., immunization policies, adoption and safe families act). Regardless of the outcome of her effort, it must have given her valuable knowledge and experience. She should know how the executive branch works better than most people. Admittedly, Obama has another type of experience and it might be worth more than some of Hillary Clinton’s experience. However, even if this is taken into account, it seems impossible to match her in this aspect.

Commentators are criticizing Hillary Clinton for beefing up the experience numbers. They argue that she should withdraw 15 years of the 35 she claims to have served the public because during 15 years she worked at a law firm in Arkansas. She did public work on the side, but according to the commentators this was not her main focus during these years.

The interesting part is why Obama is not hitting Clinton harder with her odd math. A commentator suggests that by doing so, it would bring unwanted attention to Obama’s business with Tony Rezko, the shady landlord.

I think the answer is less specific; it is not about Rezko. Obama simply does not want to discuss experience at all because if he does it will bring attention to the big difference between the candidates. Experience should not be on the table from his perspective; he does not want to be priming people with this factor (Iyengar and Kinder has written a good book on priming). If people start bringing experience into their considerations when they select the candidate, Obama will be at a disadvantage.

The Clinton campaign have tried to make experience the big thing, but I believe that they have focused too much on just Hillary’s experience. We know that she has experience at this point. What the campaign needs to do now is to hammer home the importance of experience regardless of who has it. They should point to all the bad things that can happen because of lack of experience and all the good things that come from experience. Just by putting experience on the agenda, to make it accessible in the minds of people, Hillary Clinton will gain from it.

written by Jacob \\ tags: Hillary Clinton, Obama, politics, primaries, priming

An optimistic sign for Democrats is the huge turnout in primaries and caucuses. If this pattern can be sustained, the party will have a better chance in the general election.

In media we often hear of three groups that are turning out in larger numbers than normally (if 2004 was normal): women, blacks and young people. Tom Holbrook has looked closer at exit polls from the Democratic primaries and caucuses that have been held so far. The figure below reflects exit poll data for all states combined. The figure shows an increase of 4 percentage points for people between 18 and 29 compared to 2004 in the Democratic primaries and caucuses. At Holbrook’s blog, you can see this by state as well. I found it after reading the Monkey Cage.

As I have discussed earlier, one problem for pollsters is to predict who will turn out. They usually adjust the sample to reflect the population that they think will vote. The data from Holbrook indicates that this might be even more difficult this time. That is, if these groups continue to turn out in large numbers. The increased turnout among blacks, women and young people is relatively small, so it might not influence the results tremendously, but it could prove important if the race is close.

written by Jacob \\ tags: politics, polls, primaries

I got two automated emergency calls informing me about an “armed perpetrator” on campus. A police helicopter is circling over campus right now. After the shootings at Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois University I guess (and hope) that people are aware of potential dangers. At this point I do not know how bad it is. It might just be nothing. This is from the university’s emergency website:

Report of a possible gun on campus.

University Police received a report that a young male fled the Student Activity Center Cafeteria and later displayed what was reported as a handgun. The individual was reported to be an African American male, approximately 25 years of age, wearing a black coat and black wool hat. He fled in the direction of Harriman Hall. University Police are searching the area and investigating the report. Remain alert, proceed with caution and notify University Police if you see anyone fitting the description of the individual or anything unusual. You can reach University Police by callling 911 from any campus phone or 632-3333.

Update 4:00 pm: I just got another automated message. “The police has searched the area and there is no longer any immediate danger. All clear.” The helicopter is still circling, however. Thus far I am impressed by how rapidly Stony Brook University is spreading the information.

written by Jacob \\ tags: Stony Brook

I understand why people care about politics. To me, it is almost incomprehensible not to.

However, I still do not understand why people bother to vote. I am not going to talk too much about the paradox of voting, which political scientists have wrestled with for a long time. Anyone interested may want to look here for a popular version on this. It is more likely to win the lottery than to influence the general election.

In political science, economic models have been relatively influential (they are based on the underlying assumption that people are rational, can order their preferences, are utility maximizers and so on). Interestingly, the economic models fail when it comes to the voting calculus. The traditional cost-benefit models simply do not apply. Although the economic models are incorrect in describing the reality, I think Downs (1957) is right, it is irrational to vote. We should not vote.

But I vote. Why? I think it is morally correct. That is the easy answer. The hard question is why it is morally correct. Can my explanation be anything but a rationalization that try to make sense of a position? It partially might, but I doubt that people have full access to the reasons that formed their moral judgments. It is easy to say that something is morally right or wrong, but it is harder to explain why.

The paper that explains this idea the best is probably Haidt (2001) The Emotional Dog and Its Rational Tail: Social Intuitionist Approach to Moral Judgment. He gives the reader this scenario to illustrate the idea:

Julie and Mark are brother and sister. They are traveling together in France on summer vacation from college. One night they are staying alone in a cabin near the beach. They decide that it would be interesting and fun if they tried making love. At the very least it would be a new experience for each of them. Julie was already taking birth control pills, but Mark uses a condom too, just to be safe. They both enjoy making love, but they decide not to do it again. They keep that night as a special secret, which makes them feel even closer to each other. What do you think about that? Was it OK for them to make love?

Most people say no, although it is difficult to find reasons that justify this position. Still we say it is wrong - it is morally wrong. The same goes for voting. If we think that voting is the morally correct thing to do, then our justifications will most likely be rationalizations based on an already formed position.

written by Jacob \\ tags: politics, psychology, voting

No Country for Old Men is a good movie. It is a good movie in the way Terminator 3, Escape from L.A. and Legionnaire are great movies. These movies are awesome if you have not seen time-traveling with Arnold Schwarzenegger before, if you have not seen Snake Plissken in New York, and if you have missed watching Van Damme kick people in the face.

My point is that No Country for Old Men is just a best of the Coen Brothers. It is formulaic, and essentially a rip-off from Miller’s Crossing, Fargo and Blood Simple. Regardless of how many compressed air tanks you put in it, nothing is going to change that.

The only thing that is innovative compared to previous movies is their take on Hobbes. Life is clearly solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short in No Country for Old Men. In Fargo there was some order and structure imposed by the law; the Leviathan had some power. Not so in Joel Coen and Ethan Coen’s latest installment. Police officers play by the same rules as everyone else in what seems to be an essentially lawless country.

written by Jacob \\ tags: coen brothers, hobbes, movies

Previously I asked: what the heck is momentum? The use of the word is spreading like a Californian wildfire. And it is not only used in politics. For instance, yesterday I heard of some basketball player that had momentum.

Tonight I inched closer to some sort of understanding of the psychological mechanisms behind momentum. It read an article by Diana Mutz (1997) “Mechanisms of Momentum: Does Thinking Make It So?” (Gated, JSTOR) in the Journal of Politics. The beginning of her article is wonderful:

Pundits and political scientists make frequent reference to momentum as an explanation for surges and declines in mass public support for candidates (e.g., Bartels 1988; Brady and Johnston 1987). Nonetheless, researchers understand very little about the psychological origins of advantages that accrue to candidates who are perceived as leading or gaining ground. Moreover, studies of the dynamics of public opinion in U.S. presidential primaries have provided mixed support for the idea that candidacies in decline tend toward further decline while candidacies with increasing support tend toward even greater support (cf., Bartels 1988; Marshall 1983; Sigelman 1989). Furthermore, momentum’s effects appear important in some contexts while irrelevant in others and influential for some people yet not for others.

After using a field experiment in the 1992 presidential campaign, Mutz concludes that people who are in favor of one candidate (say Hillary) but hear that another candidate is winning (say Obama) tend to rehearse their own reasons for supporting the candidate and try to make sense of the fact that people are voting for the other candidate. They are processing information more extensively. And when they do this they might change candidate preferences.

The beginning of the process she is outlining is essentially the same as what happens when we hear a friend who thinks differently compared to us. By learning this we don’t immediately say yes, OK, you are right. (That is at least not how I usually react.) Instead, we think about it and then eventually we might change our view.

Although the article is well worth a read, I had some quibbles with it. First, she gives the impression that voters as pretty good at rational reasoning. I doubt that people have full access to the reasons why they support candidates. Second, the article does not discuss the emotional effect it might have to see your favorite candidate losing. It is possible that this makes people anxious and thus more prone to think carefully (see the theory of Affective Intelligence for more on this idea).

written by Jacob \\ tags: momentum, politics, psychology

Obama has just finished another victory speech. I might have missed some critical details because after about 10 minutes I pushed mute. It was relatively boring and I had to prepare for tomorrow’s lecture. The most dramatic event of the night actually happened before the speech.

In the middle of Hillary Clinton’s speech in Ohio, Obama jumped to the stage in Texas. Surely his campaign staff must have known that Hillary was talking at the same time. At the moment when he started to talk, all television networks switched from Hillary Clinton to Obama. I wonder if the Obama-campaign would have dared to pull off this move if Obama had not won so many states in a row. It would have been embarrassing for him if the television networks had stayed with Clinton.

Some suspect that Obama might not be prepared for a hard fought campaign with the Republicans because he is too courteous and mild-mannered. The way he brushed away Hillary Clinton tonight suggests something different. He seems ready.

written by Jacob \\ tags: Hillary Clinton, Obama, politics, television

New York Magazine has a special on spring fashion. One of their features is about New Yorkers who only wear one color, all the time. For brown they are interviewing Stephin Merritt, the versatile singer-songwriter. He explains himself well:

So why didn’t you start wearing black?
Unfortunately, black at this point tends to make you look like a French tourist in Soho. It also makes me look ill. I look ill enough; I really don’t need to call attention to that.

But brown is good?
I have brown hair and eyes, and I believe in matching.

I know what he means. Mr. Merritt, the man in brown.

written by Jacob \\ tags: fashion, music

People in some countries really dislike the U.S.

But that does not mean that people dislike Americans. For instance, the poll shows that while only 30 percent of the German population has a favorable view U.S., about 2/3 of the German people like Americans. There is a big difference there. My guess is that people think of George W. Bush when they hear the U.S. but that is not necessarily the first thing that comes to mind when asked about Americans.

And how can anyone dislike a people that create these Old Spice commercials?

With the hero from Evil Dead, Bruce Campbell

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Af1OxkFOK18[/youtube]

A new one

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPYWTkP9NDM[/youtube]

written by Jacob \\ tags: ads, polls, products, USA

I hear reports that Swedes cannot pronounce Barack Obama’s name properly. I would say that it is almost like a popular sport in Sweden to butcher foreign names, so I am not surprised. That said, Swedes are not particularly bad at pronouncing foreign names, any culture have problems with unfamiliar names. The problems seem to vary though. In Spain I smiled every time I heard someone say Spice Girls. Espice Grrls were still somewhat popular when I lived there.

Barack Obama knows it can be difficult to pronounce his name. In a speech from 2006 he said:

First, they’d ask, “Where’d you get that funny name, Barack Obama?” Because people just couldn’t pronounce it. They’d call me “Alabama,” or they’d call me “Yo Mama.” And I’d have to explain that I got the name from my father, who was from Kenya.

So what is it that Swedes do that is so bad?

They pronounce Barack Obama as Barackobama. It almost sounds as Bananarama, according to my sources. I would be happy to hear any other opinions on this topic. Is it true? And if so, why? Most Americans have learned to pronounce his name correctly and in the process they have not started calling him barackobama.

Barackobama?

written by Jacob \\ tags: language, Obama, Sweden