Wednesday, November 7, 2012

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?

30 comments:

  1. "But her personal charisma, unusual beauty, height, and undeniable intelligence make her a personally powerful woman. "

    I guess I don't see any of those characteristics in the first lady. Well, there's height. But charisma, beauty, intelligence? Not really.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Buy All New and Used Tablet PC and Mobiles Here


      visit the link below to buy

      http://mobilestech2000.blogspot.com/

      Delete
    2. That was my response, after taking note that Ian observes that the determining factor of the female vote is: "Do I want to do him"? Which is code for "Will he take care of me?" Which is the worst-possible calculation for choosing a political representative. What does THAT have to do with running a capitalistic country? And it's why Ann Coulter famously said, "Women shouldn't shouldn't be allowed to vote." Exactly.

      Delete
  2. Our beloved First Lady is the kind of woman who other women say is hot and impressive, but leaves men cold. Very mannish, definite scent of bitchiness coming off her (you can call it "strong woman" if you like, but petulance is not strength), entitlement princess (trips to the Costa Brava with entourage, designer dresses), and advanced degrees (no value in SMP).

    But you're writing about her effect on women, not men. I like the idea Steve Sailer had today about how the Obamas remind him of the Lockhorns or The Bickersons-- retro henpecked-husband-unpleasable-wife. Lots of time on the golf course.

    But your analysis is right-- Modern single unmarried women joined with minorities to elect the SATC/EPL president.

    Sometimes you don't want to look at democracy too closely-- you might not like what you learn.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He was speaking of the preselection effect Michelle has in women voters, so yes, how women view her is the point.

      Delete
    2. With the retro, henpecked husband/bitchy, unpleasable wife, how could BHO be seen as Alpha?! WTF? It's no secret that Mooshelle & Valerie Jarrett tell BHO what to do. How does that equate to being dominant? How does that make him Alpha in the eyes of any woman?

      Delete
  3. You've convinced me that this is an area worthy of further study, but that's about it. I'm skeptical that sex appeal is the dominant factor in garnering female votes. (Was Jimmy Carter really more alpha then Gerald Ford?)

    I would've been more impressed had you posted this as a prediction, instead of a post hoc analysis.

    In the counterfactual world of a Romney win, it's not hard to imagine a similar case being made for Romney's dominant sex appeal.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Spot on. It's hard for single mothers to resist the pull of the Alpha President, especially when he's providing all that good entitlement beta.

    "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."

    Indeed. This is exactly why I couldn't vote for either candidate. If the Republican Party would give up the extreme stance, I'd be willing to vote for them, but this election cycle has completely turned me off. To add to your list: the ridiculous argument about birth control by Catholic candidates (hello, I'm Catholic, but it's not for me to say that other people can't use it), and the several Republican candidates making boneheaded statements about rape. I realize that it was only 2 or 3 stupids saying completely illogical things, but the Party as a whole should have come down hard on them to prove that they don't represent those ideas, and instead, they quietly brushed it under the rug. Call out idiots for being idiots.

    And that's my one political rant in the blogosphere.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 'If the Republican Party would give up the extreme stance,'

      What extreme stance are you referring to?

      'To add to your list: the ridiculous argument about birth control by Catholic candidates'

      Which argument would that be?

      'but the Party as a whole should have come down hard on them'

      The NRSC withdrew funding and stopped all assistance, how much harder should they have come down?

      Delete
  5. Great post, Ian. Seeing your level-headed Red Pill perspective on the election is definitely a great change of pace from the standard TV news-channel talking heads' blabbering.

    Not sure if you've seen it yet, but the latest Rollo/Rational Male post has another Red Pill election take ("System Failure; a Mark Minter repost, specifically). It is more in the classic micro "Matrix vs. you as an individual" Red Pill perspective, as opposed to your more macro candidates' Sex Rank view. Between that post & yours it is definitely good food for thought.

    As for me personally, although I'm hapa (Euro-Asian mix) I fall into that "independent/moderate male voter" you mentioned. In general terms I'm more of a social liberal/economic conservative, but you are right on in describing how neither the Dems or GOP have made themselves particularly welcoming to voters like myself (or men in general).

    I do have one disagreement with your assessment at the end. GWB got mentioned a lot (especially from all of my liberal Dem friends) as the real reason Obama still couldn't be blamed for the economy & tepid recovery (whether or not that's true is probably better debated on another kind of blog, and moot at this point anyways).

    ReplyDelete
  6. I'm not sure I agree with the assessment that Obama is more alpha than Mitt, but I'll certainly accept that you're likely to be a better judge of that than I am.

    If it is true, though, it's unbelievably depressing. The most powerful man in the world, the person whose decisions affect the lives of 6 billion people all around the planet, was chosen because more women subconsciously wanted to have sex with him. I think the first half of your piece is the best argument against female suffrage I've ever read.

    ReplyDelete
  7. In line to vote yesterday, I tried to figure out who would be voting for The O. I saw two dudes in front of me, high thirties, both with round hoops through their stretched out ear lobe loops, standing in such a way that screamed GAY. I knew they'd vote for O. Saw a short dude with his girlfriend. His girlfriend was standing in front of him. He was leaning into her studious, eye-glasses-wearing liberal-looking presence, sending out subliminal signals like an eager dog seeking a pet of approval. I knew they'd be voting for O. The Republicans have long since given up on embracing the masculine. They try to out-Democrat the Democrats with outreach. I got sick of it and went rogue more than 8 years ago. I feel like my own man, my own savior as an unaffiliated voter. I voted for None Of The Above for president.

    ReplyDelete
  8. You forget maybe one of the most important things. During the aftermath of Sandy, Obama exuded just enough "Presidential Alpha" and Romney was trapped in his prop wash.

    ReplyDelete
  9. How does any of this explain Roseanne Barr?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Got one thing to say here: the marriage gap was far larger than the gender gap. This comes from Steve Sailer's blog and he in turn is getting his numbers from the NBC exit polls.

    gender gap was 8 points:
    men - Obama 45% Romney 52%
    women - Obama 55% Romney 44%

    Notice here that women were less likely to vote 3rd party than men. Moving along:

    marriage gap is more illuminating:
    Currently married:
    Yes - Obama 42% Romney 56% -> 60% of the total vote
    No - Obama 62% Romney 35% -> 40% of the total vote

    That's fascinating: Obama just killed it with the singles. Let's drill down a little further here:
    Gender by marital status
    ------------- Obama / Romney
    married men 38% / 60%
    married women 46% / 53%
    unmarried men 56% / 40%
    unmarried women 67% / 31%

    Hrm, married women still went for Romney more than Obama, how does Ian explain that one? And what the heck was it about Romney and his wife that made him such a disaster with respect to unmarried women?

    Anyway there's more at Steve Sailer's blog if you want it.

    Random Angeleno

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, it's not hard to see why Romney's wife would be such a turnoff for unmarried women. If you're working your tail off to support yourself, perhaps raising some kids on your own, you resent a woman who hasn't had to work a day in her life, or do much else other than pop out a brood of kids. Maybe if she had cultivated a life separate from being Mitt's wife, she might have had some appeal, but it's not much of a stretch to see how she would tick single women off.

      Delete
  11. Let's boil it down even further.

    Republicans = Sandbox
    Democrats = Swingset

    ReplyDelete
  12. O's team started their march as soon as he reached 270 electoral votes in 2008. They knew that his liberal policies would alienate some of those that elected him the first time so they micro-targeted replacements to make up for those he lost in between. Stands to reason that when women make up more than 50% of the population he executed Game to make them tingle. Nothing says tingle like spending all your time on The View, radio talk shows, etc to execute PUA(rtistry) in a big way. The swoon, "he just understands us" better than Romney is in full effect.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Buy All New and Used Tablet PC and Mobiles Here


    visit the link below to buy

    http://mobilestech2000.blogspot.com/

    ReplyDelete
  14. Buy All New and Used Tablet PC and Mobiles Here


    visit the link below to buy

    http://mobilestech2000.blogspot.com/

    ReplyDelete
  15. It's good to see a sane recap in the manosphere. Barry seems to have riled up the White Nationalist contingent around this part of the web. From reading some of these other blogs, you would think Mitt Romney was actually a serious conservative, willing to fight for liberty, small government, and men's rights.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I think the Democratic party in the future is going to extend this strategy. The demographics are on the side of this strategy. There are 77 women now serving in the House. Every woman that ran for the Senate won except for Maine. Both the number of Democratic women and Republican women increased. White males are a minority caucus in the Democratic membership of the House of Representatives.

    So it is my opinion that the Ruling Class, whatever that is now, will be negotiating with the women from here on out. When the ruling class wants some regulation changed, then they will have to give the women what they want to get the consideration. They want to keep a tax break, then agree to cut something other than what the women want. All major negotiation from now on will be between female legislators and the wealthy power interests.

    Assume from here on out, the Democratic party will not so much as ignore Men's issues, but it will favor women's above all other considerations. And the Republican women will be Republican except when they are women, then they will be women and not Republicans.

    As I said in a comment that has been re-posted on Rational Male. Men need to begin to view women as a bigger threat and enemy than the Arabs, Iranians, and Chinese. She despises you, she ridicules you, she is after your job, she is out to reduce your rights, she wishes to usurp your political power, and she wishes to exclude you from many aspects of life. She wishes to remake society with you having a far lessor piece of the pie and a much smaller role. No Arab, Iranian, nor Chinese has the potential to affect your day to day life as much as she can and she has the deliberate intent and the means to try to do so.

    And is doing so. Quite fucking successfully.

    Politically most men don't think they are in a fight even though women truly believe it. Most men still think in terms of Red And Blue. And that is "sooo Modern Era" and outdated. This is the PostModern Era and there is a new political fight today and it about gender. Men are so clueless they can't even see that the fight is actually going on. And in any political fight with women, men have always "brought a knife to a gunfight".

    This election was always about gender. Obama and women took it to the Republicans early. It was the prevailing theme. In specific battleground states like Ohio the message might have added regional emphasis where the auto bailout was viewed favorably. But the key was always women. The decision to force all insurers to provide birth control even religious hospitals was contrived to ram reproduction rights down the throat of its biggest opponent. The right wing screamed about "Religious Freedom". Well, Religious Freedom can go fuck itself if it dares get in the way of what women want.

    I have said this before. God had better learn to bow down before women if he wishes to continue to exist. Women are infinitely more powerful than God.

    I opinion is that men were irrevocably marginalized in the political process in 2012 and they will never regain the position of control ever again. It's possible but it would take a massive Red Pill awareness movement to roar through men like a tidal wave in the next year.

    I don't think that's ever going to happen. Men don't "get" the Red Pill until life forces them to open their eyes.

    So frankly, it's over for men. From here on out, it's a slow slide downward to second class citizenship, reduction of rights and freedoms, and further marginalization. And the stupid idiots won't even now that it is happening to them.

    Unless men wake the fuck up and realize that they are in a war. She is in it for her and her interests. Men still mistakenly feel that "she" is on your "side". She's not. She's on her side and you are not on her side. Not anymore.

    ReplyDelete
  17. "...the POTUS, who is already reigning AMOG..."

    The only problem with this is that Barack is a mangina.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Ian - You *must* write about the Petraeus affair - did you see the pictures of his wife (eye roll)? - and what brought him down was an email catfight in his harem.
    From another RedPillWifey

    ReplyDelete
  19. Ashley Fenn believes government controls over the lives of its citizens should be wound back and individuals should be encouraged to take more responsibility for their lives. Ashley Fenn also believes families should be at the centre of our Australian way of life, not politicians and government bureaucracies so being with Ashley Fenn please kindly bookmark this valuable site address http://www.vic-familyfirst.org.au/.

    ReplyDelete
  20. I cannot believe you said Michelle Obama is hot or alpha in any way. She's a rotter. Fiercely ugly, barely literate (judging from her thesis) and badly failing in femininity. She also owes her whole career to race hustling.

    Also, Obama is alpha in situation only. He's gamma in every other way and owes his political ascent to backroom dealing and affirmative action rather than genuine charisma.

    Apart from that, fantastic blog.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Amazingly accurate! Had I not chosen the red pill I wouldn't understand or agree with much of this but I see things in a much different light these days. More like for how the really are and you are right on the money with this. America has been transformed in to a huge stock yard of feminized, pussy whipped beta males & the Liberals know this because they are the ones who did it! The only way to win the election was to get them on board. Since the real men are few & far between these days their vote wasn't all that important. It's unfortunate that a man like me who, loves guns, freedom & self sufficiency but loathes having religion, collectivism and monogamy shoved down my throat felt there was no place in society to fit in. But I've found it here in the manosphere. Keep up the good work. www.nuancenews.com

    ReplyDelete
  22. Btw this article doesn't refer to the candidates in a historical, factual or intellectual sense but in the public image that the PR handlers and campaign managers created. It's their job to create a rock star and say what they think the majority wants to hear. ANY look into either of the candidates history or true personality would leave a bad taste in a rational persons mouth. But no one cares about the facts when it's election time as long as the bad guy loses (always the other guy).

    ReplyDelete
  23. Probably the most coherent analysis yet. The wet-panty factor is going to be hard to overcome. Just mentioning it will induce a hailstorm from the usual suspects. It's time to ignore the plaintive cries of whipped rabble and I am glad to see the younger generation catching on long before old boomer farts like myself did.

    ReplyDelete