So today on the radio I hear someone talking about how he thinks that Hillary Clinton timed her surge perfectly, and now she has the “momentum” to carry her to victory.

Does anyone else think this statement - not just the one I heard on the radio - but the general idea of “momentum” and “surges” in politics is so stupid?

I mean, seriously, are we talking about running?  When I think of “timing a surge,” I think of the tenth mile of a half marathon where my opponent is tiring out and I want to surge to drop him.

When people vote I sure hope they are not voting for someone because they won the previous primary.  I can see  voting for someone because they have exposed problems with the other candidate, or persuaded the public on issues, or whatnot, but for momentum?  Sadly, I really think “momentum” has an effect on the way people vote.

There is nothing different between the two candidates’ political platforms from when they started the campaign and now.  So if you vote for people purely based on the issues,  you’re probably not going to change your mind about either of them as the primaries come and go.

I see so many commercials from car insurance companies that say: “People who switched to this insurance saved $x on average.”  That is, for the most part, a pretty worthless statement.  Why would anyone switch to a different car insurance provider if it cost more money?  They all essentially provide the same product.  Thus, the statement that people who switched to this insurance saved $x on average says this: people with particular characteristics switch to insurance companies whose insurance algorithm favors those characteristics.  In other words, car insurance customers act rationally.

Additionally, if you are a good driver, you should be dissuaded by an insurance company who offers “accident forgiveness.”  An insurance company is going to have to cover their costs one way or another.  If they don’t increase premiums for someone’s first accident, that just means they are using everyone else’s premiums as a whole to subsidize that person.  So if you are a good driver who doesn’t get in any accidents, this is not a good thing.  It’s not like a company who offers accident forgiveness is less profit hungry.

If you’ve ever wanted to learn about economics by listening to rap, then you are in luck. You can now listen to “Demand, Supply” by Rhythm, Rhyme, Results: a very catch rap about a very interesting subject. On an awesomeness scale from one to ten, this is clearly an eleven.

From: Greg Mankiw’s Blog.

Just because something is considered conventional wisdom does not mean it is correct.  Blindly following conventional wisdom can lead to ugly consequences.  It is important to take the time to question conventional wisdom often.

Conventional wisdom exists everywhere.  Conventional wisdom says that children should finish everything on their plate so they can grow up big and strong.  My girlfriend, who is a couple years from becoming a registered dietitian, explained to me recently that forcing a child to finish the food on their plate is a really bad idea if they are not hungry.  The reason is that the brain and stomach train over time to recognize when the stomach is “full” to provide self-regulation to prevent overeating.  However, when someone constantly overeats, the brain loses the ability to self-regulate, because it interprets “full” as more and more with each session of overeating.

Conventional wisdom also says to avoid eating cholesterol, because it increases your body’s cholesterol levels.  However, according to all dietitians and the Harvard School of Public Health:

Please note: This is not an endorsement of Barack Obama.

I’m tired of hearing the argument from Clinton and now McCain that you should not vote for Barack Obama because he lacks “experience.”  The argument is simply not persuasive.

This argument assumes that the more time you spend being a politician, the more fit you are to act as President.  I don’t buy it.  In fact, because of the nature of politics in this country, often politicians become less fit to act as President the longer they are involved in politics.

To be successful in American politics, one must be willing to do what it takes to make and keep powerful friends.  These friends can be interest groups, individual businesses, fellow politicians, political parties, or many other entities.  These friends can provide a politician with a needed vote, verbal support, or, often most importantly, money.  But there is no such thing as a free lunch.  If a politician wants to make and keep these powerful friends, he or she needs to give something in return.  Often it is a vote or a series of votes in return.