Very recently, the Wordwrester site we were discussing here posted this definition:

blow-in an outsider who seeks political office; a carpetbagger. (English. Politics)

I don't think is correct, and I don't think it is supported by the citations given (none of which are from England, by the way).

As a verb, 'blow in' means to arrive unexpectedy. In both Australian and Irish slang, a 'blow in' is a stranger, a foreigner, a recent arrival not accepted. You can find all of those meanings through one-look, with confirmation in AHD and this site on Australian slang. None of them specifically refer to a recently arrived politician.

Wordwrester's citations are from Australia, Australia, Ireland and the US. All are speaking of politicians, but to my reading only the last uses 'blow-in' in a way that implies it specifically means an political outsider, rather than just an outsider. And that last, from the US, specifically says the term was local slang in a region of Massachusetts. If you read the entire article, you'll see that the author is saying it was local slang in 1972; he does not indicate any current usage.

Can we pin this down better, one way or the other?

blow-in

Partridge in his Dict. of Slang gives: "blow-in: To arrive; enter (v.i.); come. blow-in on (a person), to visit. Coll. C. 20. From USA." This is the 5th edition from 1961, so that's the terminus ante quem.

I've never heard 'blow-in" used as a noun.

A blow in card is one of those postcard-sized items you'll find loose in a magazine, ready to be completed and sent in to get you a subscription or some other product.

PS: Jheem, what's a 'terminus ante quem'?

I've heard the term used in publishing to mean those annoying cards stuck inside magazines soliciting your purchase of lingerie in Field and Stream, fishing tackle in Playboy, warped mirrors in Self, etc...

wordnerd, it's a term which means the latest point in time before which something happened, in this case blow-in was first used as a verb. It's from archeology, or at least that's where I learned it. It's partner in time is terminus post quem, the after which something happened. They sometimes have the forms terminus ad quo and terminus ad quem respectively.

Very interesting discussion. I have to say, I have only heard "blow-in" used as a verb, too. Now, I know that words can evolve, but wordwrester doesn't write about any other definition, which I find curious.

Yet, I don't know wordwrester. Perhaps they only post certain definitions of words. I could see the extension of the noun form of "blow in" to that political definition.

I had never known what those stupid card inserts of magazines are called. Good to know!

Kalleh has the right idea. I do not have the time nor interest in covering all senses of a word for Double-Tongued Word Wrester. I post those senses that strike me as new-ish, rare, obscure, under-documented, or otherwise on the fringes of English.

However, I agree with Hic et ubique's assessment of "blow-in" and have revised the entry to correctly reflect a truer sense of the term. My out--hedging is a good lexicographer's best skill--is in my FAQ where I say all definitions should be considered drafts. Some I've revised dozens of times already; some work as soon as they come off the keyboard. This one already took me hours of wading through a lot of databases. I intended to let it age a while and then come back to it fresh.

FYI, as a historical lexicographer, I have no problem in quoting contemporary sources referring to 32-year-old information. If a newspaper claims something was current then, I want to get that claim (and term) on the record and then seek to substantiate it. However, as you can see from the citations, there's no strong evidence to suggest the term originated in Mass., although, of course, it also could have been independently coined there. Journalists are notoriously bad sources for any kind of etymological information. I get about 200 Google News Alerts every day about words and language; I'd say that out of those which are sourced from news articles that make claims as to the etymology or coinage of a word, probably one in 100 is accurate. Many are lifted wholesale from web pages of dubious scholarship; the worst are those in which an etymology has become institutionalized. In those cases, the periodical gets it wrong the first time out the gate and then just keeps quoting itself. So, although I will include such etymological claims, I care far less about what the Washington Post says about the history of a word than I do about them just using it.

(none of which are from England, by the way)

There's no regional label on the word; it is merely tagged as belonging to the English language, not being of England. It would, in that case, have U.K. label and a little Union Jack.

I've never heard 'blow-in" used as a noun.

I hope not! I do not make nor have I ever made the claim that all the words on DTWW are the very latest in fashion and style. If they are any kind of new, they are usually new to me. But if in my digging on a word I uncover thousands of concrete citations, I usually don't bother creating an entry for the word: it's too common and probably already well-covered by mainstream dictionaries.

Thanks for keeping me on my toes, which is always welcome.

Thanks so much, Grant, and we hope you will stay with us. These are just the sorts of questions that we "word wrestle" with all the time. BTW, have you ever discussed 'epicaricacy?'

Welcome to our site, and thanks so much for the clarification!