A Brief Red Pill Election Analysis

I don't like to get political any more than I like to get religious on this blog, due to the fact that I'm in the minority in the Manosphere on both counts, but of course the more I try to stay away from those subjects, the more they seem to come up.  But as masculinity and men have both religious and political context in our culture, it becomes unavoidable.  Below is my as-objective-as-possible assessment of the election, minus any gloating, hand-wringing, or other overtly political crap.  I'll also note that I've written political blogs (progressive and libertarian) before under other names, so I'd like to think I know my ass from a hole in the ground, but that's not why I'm posting.

Considering the US Presidential election in purely Red Pill terms, the Ironwood Observation holds true: in an electorate in which women are the majority, the male candidate with the highest subjective and objective Sex Rank wins.  This has held true at least since the Nixon-Kennedy election.  In every single presidential election, the dude who came across more Alpha and caused more wet panties won.

In this case, you had exotic Barack Obama up against wholesome Mitt Romney.  Both candidates were handsome men on the surface, with slightly exaggerated features and strong charisma.  Objectively, both were strong Alphas in the 7-9 range.  Add preselection points for being happily married, positive beta assessments for being visibly active fathers who put family first, and its easy to see why the polls showed a virtual dead heat going into the race.

But the devil is in the details, and when it came down to it, Obama just had better Game than Romney when it came to courting the female voter.  Not only is he a proponent of what are traditionally seen as "women's issues", he presents more strongly than Romney.  That is, when a woman's subconscious "tries on" the idea of sleeping with a choice of Romney or Obama, there's a huge appeal to the latter and not much enthusiasm from the former.  Here's why.

First, let's handle the issue of race, because it's the most obvious and blatant factor.  While many women fantasize about affairs with rich, powerful, handsome men -- and Romney certainly fits the bill in all three departments -- Mitt is the kind of dude you'd hook up with at a golf course groundskeeping supplies sales convention, drunk-and-on-the-road, a decent screw but hardly anything to jill off to later.

Barack, on the other hand, has the exotic-sounding name ("Mitt" is just too country club) and the chocolate skin.  That has automatic appeal to black female voters, of course, and plenty of Latina, Asian, and white female voters.  There is of course what some have cynically called the "Mandingo Effect", which some Republican commenters blamed on Obama's first victory in swing-states North Carolina and Virginia, that is, the much-ballyhooed secret desire amongst white women to have affairs with (presumably) more-alpha, sexually superior black men.  Obama's poise, oratorical skills, and high social status permit the "Mandingo Effect" even in the subconscious of the most conservative women, it is argued.

Liberal women?  He had them at "hello".

Couple that with his deep, sonorous voice, and suddenly he's the tall, hot black dude with the doctorate you meet on vacation in Martinique and bravely bring home to your parents, ala "Guess Who's Coming To Dinner?".  Or he's the hawt black dude who helped you get your groove back.  Either way, I contend that Obama had the race sewn up the moment he sang a few bars onstage at the Apollo with that voice.  It was the gush heard round the world.  A fantasy experience with exotic Barack would come complete with illicit cigarette smoke (which is enough "bad boy" for a family man of his age to make him daring), intellectually stimulating conversations about the philosophical underpinnings of Western Civilization in light of modern industrialization and liberalization of social mores, slow, sensual dancing and soft, cool jazz in the background to augment the taste of your mojito.

But lets move on to the preselection issue: both candidates are happily married.  Mitt has a good Mormon wife who has bore him a huge litter of strong, handsome young boys doomed to follow in their father's footsteps.  Mrs. Romney is the picture of the great Mormon mom: wholesome, outspoken, deferent, devoted, and openly respectful to her husband.  She's an adept political wife, perhaps not on the par of Hilary Clinton, but certainly better than Laura Bush.  Preselection is based in part on the Sex Rank of the partner, but also on her position.  And when you put Anne Romney up against the First Lady, Michelle comes out ahead on the Female Social Matrix.

First, she's already First Lady, which gives her automatic, nearly unassailable AFOG status.  After all, she sleeps with the POTUS, who is already reigning AMOG.  But her personal charisma, unusual beauty, height, and undeniable intelligence make her a personally powerful woman.  While arguably less-feminine in presentation than Romney, thanks to her size and style of dress, Michelle's charisma and warmth soften the amazonian image significantly, and she does have quite an engaging smile.  In comparison, Ann Romney just doesn't have that same Alpha appeal to men, and therefore her devotion to Mitt, while laudable, just doesn't have the same level of passion that a union of strong Michelle and strong Barack has.

Both get points for motherhood, and in this Romney has an edge by sheer volume and wholesome maternal devotion.  Subjectively speaking, this raises her SR amongst the country folk and westerners who see her as embodying the American maternal ideal of devoted wife and loving mother.  Mitt gets points for his pure virility (that's a mess o' Romneys) and his fidelity, which are a reflection of Ann's devotion.  Further points for their mutual religious devotion -- it's easy to see why women in the Heartland were less seduced by Obama.  They were partially put-off by Michelle's more in-your-face relationship style, even if they were somewhat envious of her apparent passion for her man.

Michelle gets higher subjective SR from moms in suburban and urban zones, as well as massive points for her proto-feminist, be-all-you-can-be style.  Her devotion to Barack is nearly palpable on stage, and her utter lack of personal political ambitions makes her appear a genuinely supportive partner, not a scheming colleague (lookin' at you, Hill).  There is no doubt in anyone's mind that Barack and Michelle love each other and -- more importantly -- are in love with each other.  There's observable passion, there.  Indeed, some folks get pissed off at the regularity of their PDAs.  But that kind of observable devotion (and presumed willful submission) of a strong woman to a strong man gives Obama CRAZY preselection points.

(In the Gore/Bush race of 2000, I was genuinely fearful of a Bush victory . . . until Tipper and Al made out on stage at the convention.  That brief, passionate display humanized The Tin Man more than anything else, and gave me a little hope that he could overcome the willful machismo of C-student GWB.)

If Ann had been more Alpha in her presentation, and had treated Mitt more like a seething tiger of raw animal lust she could barely restrain herself from attacking at every public appearance, then it would have raised her profile and therefore his numbers.  Treating him like the perfect husband and father is great, politically speaking, but she failed to communicate the subtext that he's hung like a circus pony and does her at every available opportunity.  It's clear that they're devoted to each other . . . but you don't hear news stories about Mitt skipping majorly important events in order to quietly celebrate an anniversary with his wife.  When you think about them as a potential first couple, you think "Weekly, lights out, missionary position, was it good for you too, dear?", not "Give me that manhammer harder this time, Stud, I'm going to squirt!"  

As attractive as Ann is (and she gets extra MILF points with that lightly-padded, devoted PTA soccer mom style) she just doesn't have Michelle's charisma, despite her wholesome charm.  She's just not an alpha-enough psychological rival for a woman to contend with -- therefore her mate isn't as high value.  If Mitt was caught in an affair, there would be horrible scandal and prayers and Ann would be the dutiful but indignant wife, conducting herself as Caesar's wife as she very publicly and tearfully forgave her husband and then very publicly began marital counseling.  "The other woman" would not even be referred to in her speech.

On the other hand, if Barack was ever caught in an affair, there's no doubt in anyone's mind that Michelle Obama would be perfectly capable of cutting a bitch.  Unrepentantly.  She's a visible lioness in her physical presentation, her power and devotion and willingness to mate-guard a tangible symbol of her quality . . . and therefore Barack's worthiness.  She's a well-respected woman who lavishes respect and praise on her man.  She shows her passion for him and for their relationship with undisguised enthusiasm.  And it's not difficult to imagine that she's making sure he's getting laid like linoleum to keep the Lewinski's from hiding in the closet.  You know she's rocking his world not out of wifely duty, but because she's doing the POTUS and more importantly she's doing the POTUS that every other woman in the country wants, and so Barack has a titanic preselection bonus to her.  She's doing the dude that every other girl wants to do.  That puts Barack's preselection bonus in the highest tier.

In the final analysis, Mitt just wasn't as tasty jillfodder for the mass of femininity as Barack was.  He made a good run at it, but when it comes to selling a brand to women you have to know what they respond to, and the Romney brand was just too . . . bland.  Obama's was still exciting and exotic, and let's face it: that gray in his hair only makes him look hotter.  With Mitt . . . not so much.


But there's one last point I want to make about the Red Pill and politics, and this is to the Liberals and Progressives out there who might stumble over this blog.  One reason that Mitt did as well as he did is that the Democratic Party made huge strides in wooing the vote of women, but toward men they appealed only to them by ethnicity or sexual orientation.  If you were a dude and you voted for Obama you did so either as a Liberal, a Latino, an Asian-American, a Union man or as a gay man.

Male issues and masculine interests were ignored or disparaged by the Democrats in favor of seeking the all-important women's vote, and they continue to do so at their peril.  A lot of men voted for Romney who would have been happy to vote for Obama, had they been reached out to and persuaded.  When you focus a party platform so overwhelmingly on female interests and issues, you leave men little room to join you, and the opposition, no matter how fruit-cakey, is the only place for them to go.  I give Obama's people credit for not actively antagonizing the electorate on some prominent male issues such as gun control and the like, but there is little allure to the Democratic agenda in purely masculine terms.  A few pro-male initiatives, some genuine outreach and discussion with men as men, and some visible support for masculine endeavors and the Democrats could woo a decisive section of the all-important independent moderate swing voter. As it is, they are too enslaved to the ideologies of feminism to make the attempt without risking their coalition.  By virtue of ignoring the subject entirely, the Democratic party might not be actively anti-male, but there isn't much pro-male to suggest them.

Hell, if Obama had re-legalized internet gambling, it could have gotten him another 50,000 male votes nationwide.

Similarly, if the Republicans would tone down the religious rhetoric, stop the rampant homophobia that is alienating wealthy gay male Republicans, admit that science is a real thing now, and appeal to black and Latino male voters as men, and not by their ethnicities, then it's possible that the results in Virginia and Florida would have been much different, and possibly in Ohio, too.  There's a difference in being a place for rejected men to go when the other party disappoints and the place made enticing because men are valued and celebrated as men, pursuing male issues above issues of race or class.  But thanks to their anti-gay, anti-science, and anti-intellectual stance, the GOP tends to alienate that same moderate independent male voter.

While the GOP tends to pick up some male issues like gun control and national defense, their patented cowboy rhetoric stopped being an effective tool after Reagan -- you can blame GWB for that.  Because while Bill Clinton's bull alpha persona won him huge Bad Boy panty-dampening status for daring to get a hummer from a chubby intern in the Oval Office, W. suffered from being a wolf alpha who was not the AMOG, thanks to Cheney and Rove's overt manipulations during the Iraq and Afgan wars.  That emasculating kingmaking made W. appear as a macho tool, a useful idiot for shrewder minds to control, which undermined his AMOG status significantly.  There's a reason that GWB wasn't mentioned hardly at all during the race.  He's like a bad relationship everyone wants to forget about.

But that's my assessment.  What do y'all think?