Leap frog across the country

So this is about a week late, but that's life.
On my way back to Ithaca from Des Moines I stopped in Iowa City and Chicago.
Being in Iowa City was great as usual. I caught up with many friends and several professors. Lounged around coffee shops. The only downside was the New Hampshire primary...::shakes fist in the northernly direction::.
Thursday I arrived in Chicago and met up with Genna. That night we went to a Chicago Symphony Concert. On the program was an Overture and Piano Concerto No. 1 by Beethoven and Symphony No. 4 by Tchaikovsky. The piano soloist was very good. Expressive but also very clean and precise. The orchestra itself was also, of course, great. Especially the brass. Their reputation is well deserved. On parts of the Tchaikovsky they gave me goosebumps.
Friday I spent the afternoon walking around the Art Institute. It was really great. I was in the right mood to enjoy art, and the works there are first class. They have the original American Gothic! Not to mention at least a dozen paintings from Monet and many other great Impressionists.
Saturday was going to be Field Museum day, but by the time we managed to get up and miss the bus, we had little time and ended up going to the Science and Industry museum. This one's a mixed bag. Several displays were old and somewhat out of date, but the newer displays were well done. Afterwards we spent a couple hours wandering around Michigan Ave. Chicago at night is so beautiful.
In fact the whole trip reminded me how much I like Chicago. Personally I'm torn between an attachment to big cities and rural areas. There's something about the feel of cities that I enjoy. Walking by row houses and riding trains makes me feel like part of something larger. But it can also be expensive, loud and unsafe. On the other hand open land is quieter and lets me feel more connected with nature. But then I don't get to walk and bus places. Maybe that's why I like Ithaca so much. It's impossible to escape from nature and open spaces are just a couple miles away, but at the same time I can travel by bus and walk to the dairy or store. If only it were a little warmer.

Below the belt

I kept my mind open. I defended her against what I saw as irrational dislike (even though this polarizing attribute of her campaign is what kept me from considering her). I was told that I was just too young to understand.
But now I'm one of them:

The Caucus Blog

I don't like hypocrites and like even less pissy candidates taking pot shots at my state.

The silver lining is that all this frustration from the campaign stems from this:

CBS News called back New Hampshire voters first interviewed by The Times and CBS News in November to measure the impact of the results from Iowa.

Senator Barack Obama now leads Senator Hillary Clinton, with 35 percent. Mrs. Clinton is now supported by 28 percent and John Edwards has 19 percent. In November, among these same voters, Mr. Obama trailed Mrs. Clinton by 20 percentage points.

Here is the entire article from the New York Times.



While we're at it...let's compare shall we? (Numbers from US Census Bureau and Wikipedia and rounded to two significant figures in most cases.)

Iowa
Population: 2.9 million
Demographics (2006): 95% white
2008 Democratic caucus goers: 220,000

New Hampshire
Population: 1.2 - 1.3 million
Demographics (2006): 96% white
Number of people who voted in the 2004 Democratic primary: ~220,000
(That said there may be a surge in voters like we saw in Iowa.)

Any attempts to paint Iowa as small and unrepresentative applies to New Hampshire as well. How does she think this will help her? What's she going to say when she loses South Carolina?

Post caucus blog

So I guess I haven't written since the caucus.
In short, it was a good night. A record number of caucus-goers turned out. This point was brought home today as I was wandering through the "Caucus" exhibit at the Iowa Historical Museum today. For each year of the Iowa caucuses, which has played a major role in choosing the presidential candidates since 1972 according to Wikipedia, the number of participants and number of delegates/votes for each candidate was listed. In the early Democratic caucuses around 50,000 people participated. Also a large number of viable "uncommitted" delegates were sent to the national convention. In some years the number of uncommitted delegates was greater than the number for any particular candidate. I found this rather surprising, because until last Thursday, I didn't even know that uncommitted was a viable option.
But over the last three decades the number of participants in the Democratic caucuses has increased. I remember the media ranting about the record turn outs for the Democratic caucus in 2004 (my first caucus), and indeed they were the first to break 100,000 voters. The most common figure for turnout in 2004 is usually around 120,000. This year the estimated turnout was around 220,000.
This huge surge was quite evident at my precinct. Last year the number of caucus-goers was something like 360. This year it was 554. Everyone I talked to had similar stories about their caucus experience.
My precinct was one of the largest in the state. We were alloted 9 delegates to go to the county convention. And because there were 554 people crammed into a middle school gym, the process took a good hour and a half.
First we had to count ourselves so we knew how many people we were, and how many people a candidate had to have to reach viability (15%). Then we broke into preference groups. I took the easy road. I walked in, found the Obama group, and planted myself until it was over. It was clear from the beginning that the Obama section was strong. In fact after the first round of counting, he already had around 40% of the votes.
It was also clear that none of the top three candidates were close to the eighty-something required to be viable. Some groups gave up easily and moved to their second choice. Others, i.e. Biden, were more stubborn and planned on using the entirety of the thirty minutes alloted to try and recruit people, and the other groups were happy to do their best to sway them to come to their candidate.
The Obama group leaders were the first to start recruiting. Probably in part because they were the closest. Here's a photo of the two groups going head to head.



But it didn't take long for the Clinton and Edwards groups to start chiming in. Meanwhile most of people were getting tired of waiting and just wanted to get to the final vote.
Eventually the Biden supporters had to give up and go to their second choice. We counted ourselves for the third time. I guess I didn't mention that counting meant everyone in the room sounded off to be counted one-by-one. A process that takes a bit of time when there's over 500 people.
In the end both Edwards and Clinton received two delegates and Obama received five. It was a good night. I was happy.

Even years are better

So today's the start of a new year. My sister's wisdom is that even years are better than odd ones. She may be right. I was born in an even year.
Christmas was nice. Got to see the family and drink wine. I made German bread dumplings (Semmelknödeln), which inspired song and merriment. Last night I rang in the New Year's with friend I hadn't seen since the last New Year's eve.
Otherwise my break has been pretty quiet. Except for all the politics of course. As you may know, the Iowa Caucuses are in two days. The phones have been ringing off the hook, and brave Edwards supports have been knocking on the door, setting the crazy dog off on a fit of barking.
I've been taking advantage of all this free time to get out and see the candidates. So far I've seen Gov. Richardson twice and Senators Obama and Edwards once and shook all three of their hands. I don't usually get political in my blog, but here are my thoughts on the Democratic race.
For the last several months my favorites have been Gov. Richardson and Senator Obama. Richardson caught my attention because he has, by far, the most impressive resume and most experience of any of the democratic candidates. I also like his policies. But he looses points with me when I see him speak, and in particular answer questions. I feel a person's ability to answer questions well shows that they are intelligent and can think on their feet. Richardson seems to have his spiel, and if he gets a new question, he simply gives which ever spiel is most closely related.
So in the end Senator Obama is my first choice (though I have two days to change my mind). In short, because I feel he is the most rational and articulate candidate. When explaining his position on an issue, he does so using reason and facts. Often first enumerating what's wrong than then explaining what he intends to do to solve the problem. And no other candidate is as deft at public speaking as he is (although Edwards comes close). As someone who values intelligence and learning, he appeals to my often overly-rational mind.
So what about the other two? I have admittedly not given Senator Clinton due research, but I can see that she is a polarizing candidate. I think she's qualified, and if she does win the nomination I'll vote for her, but she will have a difficult time bringing Republicans to the table. Edwards is my third choice and probably the safest candidate. But he turned me off when I saw him speak because of his reliance on emotional appeal. Where Obama uses facts and reason supported by rhetoric of vision and change, Edwards pulls out the "my father worked in the mill" and "companies are evil" card. It's all very moving, but I am not going to vote based off which candidate brings me closest to tears.
Caucus and election years are also even years. I am really looking forward to caucusing. As ridiculous as the system may be, it is a lot of fun. Hopefully this political year will go well.
My resolution: pronounce "nuclear" properly... :-)
Happy New Year everyone.