Tuesday, October 16, 2012

Alpha Mail: Game and the election

GK asks why women are suddenly and "inexplicably" turning away from Obama:
We all know that women didn't turn away from Romney because of his position on abortion or contraception. That was liberal Democrats interpreting the poll data through their own prejudices and had nothing to do with what women were actually thinking. The poll data itself showed that, but now it's even more obvious, since women's support for Romney has increased and he has not changed his position on any of the so-called "war on women" topics.  So what's really going on? Why are women now supporting Romney? Is it simply because now he looks like a winner?
One of the keys to understanding female behavior is that it is often aversion-based.  Men find this difficult to understand because their behavior tends to be positive, in the sense of "I want X, therefore I will do Y."  The aversion-based female pattern tends to be more oriented towards "I don't want X, therefore I will do Y".  The increased female support for Romney has little to do with Romney himself, much with less his policies or Obama's policies, but rather the collective socio-sexual fury of a group of women duped. 

Remember, only four years ago, Obama was widely advertised throughout the media as the half-breed Alpha, the Fresh Prince of Punahou, the suave dark lover extraordinaire with the mellifluous voice who featured in the turgid, illicit sex fantasies of SWPL-women from coast to coast.  He was supposed to be the older, political version of the hip black man with the halfro who always has a white girlfriend in the TV commercials when he isn't occupied spending his days as the fifth wheel in every group of otherwise white male friends.

Instead, he turned out to be a cowardly Urkel with jug ears who can't talk without a teleprompter and is bossed around by a pair of African amazons.  The new SWPL socio-sexual distaste for him - note that conservative women, as well as the working class women who disdain those they consider "mudsharks", never saw any appeal in Obama in the first place - has finally reached the point that they don't even care that they're going to be criticized for their failure to adhere to the policy dictates of the Sisterhood, they simply can't stand the man now.

So, my conclusion is that now that the line has observably been crossed, the SWPL vote will stampede away from Obama almost as rapidly as it stampeded away from Hillary Clinton and towards Obama during the Democratic primaries in 2008.

69 comments:

Shimshon said...

Vox, even if they dislike Obama now more than the potential criticism that they believe they'll endure for doing so, won't most women who do switch still claim to vote for "their" man in public? In general, of course. There might be a few who don't mind coming out.

If women really are turning in large numbers (and I don't follow the polls enough to know) that's worth betting on (were I a betting man).

JartStar said...

"Stampede". AWCA indeed.

Anonymous said...

So you are saying Ron Paul has a chance again?

--Hale

Bob Wallace said...

Women shouldn't be allowed to vote. A women once told me she was for universal health care because "it works in Europe." I told her it didn't work in any country in the world and there was always rationing and shortage. When I asked her if she understood how supply and demand created these shortages she had no idea. And this is a very smart woman. And if she had no idea of basic economics, God help us when it comes to the average woman.

Stickwick said...

... God help us when it comes to the average woman.

Actually, Bob, my experience has been that more average (i.e. less brilliant and less-educated) women are more likely to respond to simple logic. I try to explain stuff like universal healthcare and the war on drugs to an older female relative, who is pretty average, and she almost always sees the logic and agrees with me, saying "I never looked at it that way before." Overly-intelligent and overly-educated women are typically the ones who struggle with cognitive dissonance the most. Still, I agree with your overall point.

. said...

Dude... I never saw the show Family Matters, but reading about it on Wiki, Obama IS Urkel. They're even both from Chicago - it's uncanny!

Trust said...

When talking about intelligence, keep in mind most of society's problems are caused by geniuses. The village idiot may cause isolated calamaties, but he rarely if ever is capable of wreaking widespread havoc.

Gamesmen said...

I believe your Romney-hate has obscured your usually insightful Game-related insights.

"The increased female support for Romney has little to do with Romney himself"

Disagree. It has EVERYTHING to do with Romney's performance at the debate, because Romney was the clear Alpha. Romney LOOKED like the Alpha during the debate. The posture. The tone of voice. The eye contact. The cocksure smile.

Even Obama was submitting to him for crying out loud -- looking down and refusing to make eye-contact.

Don't miss the lesson here about gamesmenshp just because you don't like Romney's policies (and for the record, I don't like Romney's politics either...)

SarahsDaughter said...

"The aversion-based female pattern tends to be more oriented towards 'I don't want X, therefore I will do Y'." - Vox

It would be fascinating to explore if this is another trait intrinsic to women and the extent of it (is it applicable in all decision making). Or if it's a personality trait that doesn't apply to everyone and is gender neutral.

. said...

@Trust,

Nah. Most calamities are the product of the most dangerous of the four types of people: stupid and energetic.

Daniel said...

Gamesman, your point is valid. I would say that the increased female support for Rom has less to do with Rom than it does with revulsion to Obama.

The dictator Romney has always struck me as an empty say-nothing dictator run by money, but his performance (whether it was an act or not) of alpha certainly provided contrast against the permanently cowtow-then-brag-about-it afterward approach of Obama. He looked like a complete putz, because of Romney.

Had Romney presented differently, it wouldn't have made Obama appear quite as revolting.

But the main point is dead on: girls everywhere are done with Obama. Mom jeans on the pitcher's mound, forcing it "beer summits", wilting demeanor, and an inability to pull off a speech have all contributed to his downfall.

Philip Seymour Hoffman will play him in the movie.

VD said...

Disagree. It has EVERYTHING to do with Romney's performance at the debate, because Romney was the clear Alpha. Romney LOOKED like the Alpha during the debate. The posture. The tone of voice. The eye contact. The cocksure smile.

Mitt Romney is exactly the same person he was before the debate who was not attracting women. Moreover, had Obama responded in like manner, had he been able to respond in like manner, Romney's Alpha display would have counted for nothing. As I pointed out, women's revulsion for Obama is the relevant point. Romney's one-time dominant display was not enough to account for the dramatic change that has been noted. It was the punctuation mark, not the entire paragraph.

VD said...

his performance (whether it was an act or not) of alpha certainly provided contrast against the permanently cowtow-then-brag-about-it afterward approach of Obama.

It did. And no doubt it was the last straw, given the timing. But don't confuse the trigger for the gun, ammunition, and gunman.

The Stranger said...

Re: women of average intelligence seeing logic more easily. My hypothesis: more intelligence = more horsepower for the Hamster.

Cryan Ryan said...

"When talking about intelligence, keep in mind most of society's problems are caused by geniuses. The village idiot may cause isolated calamaties, but he rarely if ever is capable of wreaking widespread havoc."

This may explain why few mass shootings have a black perp. The black perp is more likely to shoot the guy in the middle of the car, and wound his homeboy sitting on the other side of him.

Another common situation is when the black guy doesn't realize he has a bullet in the chamber (after all, he took the clip out) and so he then shoots his own pecker off or kills his grandma or whatever.

White guys usually understand how the gun works.

So yes, intelligence does lead to more victims when a smart guy goes bad.

Stickwick said...

Philip Seymour Hoffman will play him in the movie.

That puffy-faced watermelon-head? Not a chance. It'll still be Will Smith, no matter how loathed he is by the end of his time in the WH. "I misjudged myself. I'm a lot cooler than I thought."

Anonymous said...

In an attempt to re-assert himself Obama is going to come out swinging hard this time with racial invective and outright lies, and likely break every single one of the "rules of understanding" that the candidates set out. And Romney is going to stand there shell-shocked and unable to deal with it. And the moderator is even more blatantly pro-Obama than the last guy, and she saw the last debate so she is going to be trying her damndest to give Obama the edge.

What Romney SHOULD do but will never do is to call Obama out on the faux-alpha act. Something like "looks like your little training sessions on how to pretend to be an alpha male are going well, i guess you didn't use the same consultant as al gore"

. said...

"This may explain why few mass shootings have a black perp."

False premise. There are lots of black spree killers.

Daniel said...

That puffy-faced watermelon-head? Not a chance. It'll still be Will Smith, no matter how loathed he is by the end of his time in the WH. "I misjudged myself. I'm a lot cooler than I thought."

Oh, I know. I was actually casting for a good movie, not the whore-religion that passes for political films.

Gamesmen said...

"Mitt Romney is exactly the same person he was before the debate who was not attracting women. "

Again, DISAGREE. The Obama-controlled media had effectively hidden Romney from public view until the night of the debates. All women were getting was hearsay.

Women might hear all sorts of gossip about a dude who is an "asshole" or "player." They have all sorts of preconceived notions about him. "No way will I go home with him, once a cheater always a cheater" etc.

But then...the girl meets the Alpha in person, lets him work his charms, and falls hard....

It's like you Vox see the Alpha dominating the club, taking home three girls to bang...and you think the story is about all the loser Betas going home alone to whack it alone. It's just seems an inverted (Beta?) way of looking a Game.

Daniel said...

In an attempt to re-assert himself Obama is going to come out swinging hard this time with racial invective and outright lies, and likely break every single one of the "rules of understanding" that the candidates set out. And Romney is going to stand there shell-shocked and unable to deal with it. And the moderator is even more blatantly pro-Obama than the last guy, and she saw the last debate so she is going to be trying her damndest to give Obama the edge.

Obama has never asserted himself, so re-asserting is an improper term. The times he's tried to put on a good show of alpha, it has come off as exactly that. No one bought his disinterested triumphalism over Bin Laden, no one noticed his accidental hit-job on the Libyan embassy, no one cares about his basketball picks.

If Obama could pull of such hysteria (which he won't - he's a lazy coward), it would just be a confirmation that the guy's desperate to get "her" back.

The ladies will be openly laughing at him by that point.

It has been my experience that, for the women I know, a guy with the goods can a) stay a "maybe" b) stay a "yes" c) go from "maybe" to a "yes," d) go from "yes" to "no" but never, ever, go from e) "no" to "yes."

Obama went from "yes" to "no" for the critical mass a long time ago. It started on or near inauguration, was displayed with the inability to handle gifts (to or from) and the growing awareness that the gamma(lambda?) had landed.

The guy could "break the rules" but he'll still come off looking like a limp-wristed Kerry salute.

Daniel said...

Gamesman - Romney is not an alpha. He's a beta:

"When my mom ran for the Senate, my dad was there for her every step of the way. I can still hear her saying in her beautiful voice, “Why should women have any less say than men, about the great decisions facing our nation?”

“I wish she could have been here at the convention and heard leaders like Governor Mary Fallin, Governor Nikki Haley, Governor Susana Martinez, Senator Kelly Ayotte and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

“As Governor of Massachusetts, I chose a woman Lt. Governor, a woman chief of staff, half of my cabinet and senior officials were women, and in business, I mentored and supported great women leaders who went on to run great companies."

His dad was a beta, too. Mitt answers to, is not advised by, his inner council.

VD said...

Again, DISAGREE. The Obama-controlled media had effectively hidden Romney from public view until the night of the debates. All women were getting was hearsay.

That's absolutely ridiculous. Romney didn't dominate any of the Republican debates, nor was he a dominant figure as governor. He ran like a scared little bitch from Ron Paul at the RNC, hiding behind the rules changes, and was overshadowed by Paul Ryan there.

Romney isn't a national class ALPHA of any kind, he's a BETA:beta. (Socio-sexual hierarchy, not sexual.) That's why Bush the Younger cleaned his clock so easily.

Of course, even in comparison with a BETA:beta, Obama looks bad. But it is simply absurd to suggest that Alpha Mitt has been hiding over the course of two presidential campaigns and only now is being revealed.

VD said...

That's why Bush the Younger cleaned his clock so easily.

Or rather, John McCain. I should also mention that we'll have an easy falsification of your theory on Thursday. If he does anything but absolutely crush Obama and make him wet himself, the Alpha Mitt concept will be a complete non-starter.

Josh said...

McCain is probably an alpha. He married extremely well.

Josh said...

 If he does anything but absolutely crush Obama and make him wet himself, the Alpha Mitt concept will be a complete non-starter.

The only time Romney even attempted something like that was in the primary debate after Newt won Florida or South Carolina. It was effective, but out wasn't shock and awe by any means.

duckman said...

bossed around by a pair of African amazons

Okay, Michele is one. Who is the other?

King A (Matthew King) said...

Translated into Gamesperanto for those of you who get your politics (and entertainment and sports and weather) from PUA sites:

Obama was the good-looking newbie (state senator to president in 4 years) pick-up artist, who, like many customers of those pathetic Frank TJ Mackey seminars, do not seek internal transformation so much as external: real elevation into alpha is hard, so they satisfy themselves by mimicking the outward tells of alpha, i.e., aloofness, false confidence, braggadocio, an air of superiority based on no accomplishment. "I'm Lebron, baby."

"I think that I'm a better speechwriter than my speechwriters. I know more about policies on any particular issue than my policy directors. And I'll tell you right now that I'm gonna think I'm a better political director than my political director."

(An in-depth look at a poseur narcissist:)
http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/american-narcissus_516686.html

Style and appearance beat substance with an electorate (BHO pulled near 70% of single women) desperate for five minutes of alpha, who also were angling to stay away from creepy grandpa John McCain eyeballing her from the corner.

Next morning: having scored so decisively, Obama lets his fro down and feels secure enough to go back to his old, community-organizer, social democracy self (To GOP asking for voice in the legislation, BHO says, "We won."). That is, he relaxes the Axe Body Spray Alpha pose and lets the natural beta stink return.

A kept man, he hands the decision making over to his mom (the mother figures in the House and Senate, Pelosi and Reid), who uxoriously prevails upon him to get her way (crafting his "signature" legislation from top to bottom).

This is the morning-after problem PUA sites don't like to talk about. If your game is all prestidigitation, you can score drunk sluts all night long, but even medium-term game becomes problematic (the "shellacking" BHO received from Scott Brown, Christie, McDonnell, and the 2010 midterms).

The morning after, the women notice the Alfred E. Newman ears more, see the bad lines for what they are, ("we are the ones we've been waiting for"), revolt at the chicken neck, cringe at the equivalent of PUAs reading lines off index cards that is the TelePrompTer.

Worst of all, now he comes with flowers asking for a long term commitment (re-election).

The electorate can be gamed! Unfortunately for the left, Obama is not the natural they presumed he is, and he is a shitty student of technique.

Matt

Josh said...

Okay, Michele is one. Who is the other?

Valerie Jarrett, but I think she's Persian or something, not black.

Jack Amok said...

McCain is probably an alpha. He married extremely well.

Ever met a fighter pilot who wasn't an alpha?

Josh said...

Ever met a fighter pilot who wasn't an alpha?

Iceman (lambda)

Crowhill said...

Interesting thoughts, everyone, and thanks, VD, for addressing the question.

My simple-minded reaction is that Romney now looks like a winner, so women are starting to move towards him. But I don't thereby discount other influences.

King A (Matthew King) said...

Now Mitt Romney comes into her (the electorate's) view.

Romney's entire shtick is Mister Right over Mister Right-Now, and her anti-slut defense combined with the regret of wasting four years on a dweeb convinces her to take a look at other options. Not Mitt the Alpha Bad Boy but Mitt the Alpha Patriarch. The prodigal electorate wants to come home to the daddy party.

Romney has "now" "closed the gap" "with women" because polls are shit. They were shit yesterday, they're shit today, they will be shit tomorrow. They are tentpoles around which the 24-hour media gather to contrive "news stories" (emphasis on the "story" or the "narrative" -- women love fairy tales) in the absence of the concrete facts which should make up a journalist's "reporting."

The female voter's relationship with politics is, like everything in her life, primarily a sexual response. Not "sexual" as in literal pussy moistening, but sex-based in terms of la differénce. Women act like women; men act like men. The difference in process is almost unbridgeable between the sexes.

So girls will look at the last debate and get a warm, protective glow from daddy Romney and an icy, off-putting vibe from exposed-beta Obama. They will not be able to articulate the switch beyond a "feeling" (Romney "won" the debate, "he just seemed more, you know, um... like... winning"), which also goes with the territory of being a woman.

This observation of the electorate through a sexual lens will not show up on polls because pollsters, like every other public figure in our age, are too intimidated to speak plainly. They police themselves against "sexist" bias and presume the female voter is not an entirely different creature from the male voter. So they go off on tangents about how "the abortion issue" is important to "soccer moms," which explains the "gender gap." Women reinforce this canard when explaining their vote to reporters. "I like his stance of women's issues," blah blah blah. It becomes a self-reinforcing cycle.

The real dynamic, especially in the intimacy of a presidential race, is one of manliness -- just like in pick up. "I just don't know why I'm attracted to bad boys!" "He's so sweet, why can't I hook up smart with a niceguy like him!"

It is simple as this: Romney AMOG'ed Obama in the single opportunity they had to share a stage without the mediation of interpreters. He is the strong horse, the president is the weak horse. Women don't make political choices in a vacuum though, even if the alpha factor is a substantial one. That can explain some of this "shift" toward Romney, but Occam's Razor says that the 100% margin-of-error of media snap-polling is the bigger factor.

Put aside any frozen moment-in-time during the summer: Romney has been poised to win this election since May for reasons bigger than the campaigns.

http://www.colorado.edu/news/releases/2012/10/04/updated-election-forecasting-model-still-points-romney-win-university

And Romney will win it, comfortably, despite the predictable predator-drone strike/desperation move still to come in Libya.

Matt

SarahsDaughter said...

"That is, he relaxes the Axe Body Spray Alpha pose and lets the natural beta stink return."-Matt


The metaphorical prestidigitation using olfacoception, how dubitable. :)

I have no idea if that even works together but I love the new vocabulary I learn from some of you here.



King A (Matthew King) said...

VD writes:

That's absolutely ridiculous. Romney didn't dominate any of the Republican debates, nor was he a dominant figure as governor. He ran like a scared little bitch from Ron Paul at the RNC, hiding behind the rules changes, and was overshadowed by Paul Ryan there.

Take a break from the breathless politics-as-game pronunciamentos and face the reality of 21st century, late-decadent America. Our republic is not prepared to reward a Genghis Khan Alpha, no matter what your wet dreams tell you.

If a politician does not put on the affect of feminist sympathies, he doesn't get out of the first rounds of the electoral tournament, much less make it to the finals like Romney, who "smile[d], and murder[ed] whiles I smile" your grandpa-champion Paul without so much as noticing him. Ron Paul wouldn't even achieve a Ross Perotian fragment of the electorate because of his admirable, and completely self-destructive, ideological purity. His campaign was as quixotic as his eyebrow merkins. Your support for him is absurd.

Politics is the art of the possible. Women, and leftists, fantasize that politics is the ultimate expression of something: their sense of self-worth, their attempt to do good in this world, their effort to effect the way things ought to be. The rest of us men acknowledge that politics is a flawed system designed to do a limited job, and any assessment that does not begin and end with the "possible" is the vicariousness of weaklings. We find other, more effective ways to register our disagreement with the zeitgeist than our 1/100,000,000th of a vote.

You pick nits like a frustrated, crotchety woman.

Matt

Cail Corishev said...

That can explain some of this "shift" toward Romney, but Occam's Razor says that the 100% margin-of-error of media snap-polling is the bigger factor.

Yeah, I'd like to believe this, but I don't trust the pollsters, especially when they start reporting big swings. I can't help wondering if they're imagining a "comeback" strategy for Obama in the second debate, and you can't have a comeback unless you admit there's something to come back from. So they spread the idea that Obama lost some ground among women, and then he comes out swinging at Romney over abortion or shoe subsidies or whatever, and they report that he won the women back and then some, dragging a few extras onto the bandwagon in the process.

Which isn't a guarantee that it would work; Obama (and his moderator) still has to put on a decent show. But it only has to be decent for the press to play it as devastating. Romney can't afford to win on points; he really does have to make Obama wet himself to be declared the clear winner.

. said...

"Ever met a fighter pilot who wasn't an alpha?"

Believe it or not, plenty of them are great-big-watch-loving nerds.

I used to work with a retired F-16 pilot who was the most repulsive, supplicating, white-knighting beta you ever met in your life. Naturally, he gave all the chicks in the office the creeps.

Josh said...

You pick nits like a frustrated, crotchety woman.

Who's picking nits?

You use more words to say less than most of humanity.

Athor Pel said...

"King A (Matthew King) said...
...

Take a break from the breathless politics-as-game pronunciamentos and face the reality of 21st century, late-decadent America. Our republic is not prepared to reward a Genghis Khan Alpha, no matter what your wet dreams tell you.

If a politician does not put on the affect of feminist sympathies, he doesn't get out of the first rounds of the electoral tournament, much less make it to the finals like Romney, who "smile[d], and murder[ed] whiles I smile" your grandpa-champion Paul without so much as noticing him. Ron Paul wouldn't even achieve a Ross Perotian fragment of the electorate because of his admirable, and completely self-destructive, ideological purity. His campaign was as quixotic as his eyebrow merkins. Your support for him is absurd.

Politics is the art of the possible. Women, and leftists, fantasize that politics is the ultimate expression of something: their sense of self-worth, their attempt to do good in this world, their effort to effect the way things ought to be. The rest of us men acknowledge that politics is a flawed system designed to do a limited job, and any assessment that does not begin and end with the "possible" is the vicariousness of weaklings. We find other, more effective ways to register our disagreement with the zeitgeist than our 1/100,000,000th of a vote.

You pick nits like a frustrated, crotchety woman.
"



You need to cover up, your assumptions are showing

Much of what you say here makes it look like you're projecting.

You actually presumed to speak for other men. You said, " ...The rest of us men acknowledge ..." Is this supposed to engender shame?

I'm beginning to think you're really a woman.

Trust said...

You also have to keep in mind the distinction between what women are seeking. A sexual alpha may be a drunk unemployed criminal who gets her motors going. A social alpha may be someone famous. She may also fiegn sexual attraction to a man bc she is attracted to his money and lifestyle (a social sugar daddy).

Politically a woman may be drawn to a candidates looks or demeanor. But she may also woo over who she perceives a political sugar daddy who, like the social sugar daddy, isn't the object that draws her, simply the fool who provides her guvment gravy and legal advantages.

Josh said...

King A killed the thread, it seems.

Bob said...

Josh: That seems to be a talent of his.

Philalethes said...

"What Women Want In a President" by Matthew Dowd (any relation to Maureen, I wonder?).

There you have it.

VD said...

King A killed the thread, it seems.

Gammas do tend to kill a party....

King A (Matthew King) said...

Cail Corishev wrote...:

"I'd like to believe this, but I don't trust the pollsters, especially when they start reporting big swings. I can't help wondering if they're imagining a 'comeback' strategy for Obama in the second debate, and you can't have a comeback unless you admit there's something to come back from. So they spread the idea that Obama lost some ground among women, and then he comes out swinging at Romney over abortion or shoe subsidies or whatever, and they report that he won the women back and then some, dragging a few extras onto the bandwagon in the process."

I respect your commentary here and elsewhere, but in this instance you are being too clever by half. Put down Occam's Razor, and pick up Hanlon's/Napoleon's: "Never attribute to malice [or conspiracy] that which is adequately explained by stupidity [or incompetence]."

The polling has just been too transparently bad this time around; I'm convinced this cycle will be the pollster's Waterloo. Conservatives have abandoned any cooperation with this latest leftist instrument of manipulation, just as they have seen through the falsehoods of "fact checking" and beltway "conservatism."

The left is now all-in attempting to push their corpse of a candidate past the finish line. This is not conspiracy, mind you, it is a reflection of the self-reinforcing zeitgeist: "It's not possible for so many polls to be simultaneously and uniformly wrong!"

The overuse of polling began in the 2000 cycle, with exit surveys causing erroneous early calls, and continued through 2004, when they showed a substantial victory brewing for Kerry in the early hours. With 9% participation rates, large statistical margins of error, and unreliable samples in the mobile-phone era of small-margin victories, they have become useful only as propaganda weapons designed to demoralize.

Polls maintain the legitimacy of delphic oracles among the media class, even as the electorate has largely moved on. They are indicative of nothing. If they were useful, they would have seen Scott Brown, Chris Christie, and 2010 midterms coming from miles away.

I have ceased paying attention to any article based on a poll. The pants-pissing conservative media, who went into panic mode this September, will join my equanimity next time around as the pattern will have become clear. After that, surveys-as-instant-barometers will become like legacy media "truth-o-meters" and "four Pinocchio!!!!" fact checks; only the hardest hardcore leftist will turn to them for solace.

You are right that "they're imagining a 'comeback' strategy" based on many faulty concepts, from Joe Biden's huffy freshman-girl eye-rolling pantomime to Big Bird scare tactics. They will locate some thin reed to place their hopes upon after tonight's debate. But Romney is clearly inside their OODA loop, happy to stand aside while their self-defeating strategies continue to alienate independents.

Obama will have done "what he had to do" according to tomorrow's headlines, but just like with Biden's shitshow, it will gradually become clear that the air has leaked out of the "Yes, We Can!" balloon.

Matt

King A (Matthew King) said...

VD wrote...

King A killed the thread, it seems.

Gammas do tend to kill a party....


A party of circle jerking yes-men who endlessly praise someone who endlessly praises himself? Yes, I do tend to spoil those affairs with my presence.

If you attracted a more eclectic audience, dissent wouldn't stand out like a scary foreign element so much here.

And "gamma"? Vox, honey. Give up the nerd-boy mulishness about a failed conceit. Your taxonomy is not catching on. It has passed from useless into obscurantist. The hardest thing for middle managers like you to face is to let go of a failing project. Rather you recommit and double down on previous errors in the sad attempt to conceal them. We don't want to call attention to your arcane ALPHAbet's disuse, but your insistence on employing pet names that no one of any significance acknowledges ("Hey, everybody! My nickname is Snake! Everybody start calling me Snake!"), makes our polite disregard difficult. You are beyond tryhard.

Rather, let the whole set of pointless neologisms slide into the obscurity it deserves. Or haven't you noticed that even you ceased using half of that silly alphabet awhile ago -- probably around the same time this gang blog turned into a monument to your low-rent narcissism and a lasting reminder of your inability to attract supporters of quality.

Matt

VD said...

A party of circle jerking yes-men who endlessly praise someone who endlessly praises himself? Yes, I do tend to spoil those affairs with my presence.

As I said, G-G-G-Gamma! You're like the overweight guy who hasn't showered in a week who can't figure out why no one wants to stand close to him.

Your ability to analyze things is so dreadful that is downright amusing. This appears to be primarily due to your observable predilection for projection.

But that's enough about you. Or me, for that matter. Either stay on topic in the future or your comments will be deleted.

Bob Wallace said...

Not that I think about it, "education" doesn't particularly benefit women. The educated ones are often the troublemakers. High IQ doesn't necessarily mean smart. The uneducated ones often have more common sense and more open to reason. Not only should they not be allowed to vote, perhaps most of them shouldn't be allowed to go to college!

Josh said...

a lasting reminder of your inability to attract supporters of quality.

Exhibit A, for low quality supporters, Matthew King...

Cail Corishev said...

I respect your commentary here and elsewhere, but in this instance you are being too clever by half. Put down Occam's Razor, and pick up Hanlon's/Napoleon's: "Never attribute to malice [or conspiracy] that which is adequately explained by stupidity [or incompetence]."

Thanks for the compliment, but I tried to be careful not to suggest a conspiracy. I don't think the media got together and planned a comeback story for Obama, because no such planning is necessary. They've turned into such an echo chamber, and online social media has intensified and accelerated that process, so that it only takes a matter of hours for an idea to spread from a few influential thinkers out through the entire industry. They all end up pushing the same meme, with no coordination required.

I tend to agree that the polling is very bad, but why? I just learned today that almost none of the polls that make claims about how the electoral votes will break down actually do separate polling in the separate states. Most just do national polling and analysis, and then extrapolate that based on past results in the states. That's ridiculous. With today's technology, they could poll the states separately -- heck, they could poll counties separately, and break the trends down by everything from occupation to favorite hobbies. That's just basic data mining today; corporations do it every day to target their products to the best customers. That pollsters don't do the same thing tells me they don't really care about accuracy; they're about influencing public opinion.

Jack Amok said...

Josh said...
Ever met a fighter pilot who wasn't an alpha?

Iceman (lambda)


Er, I mean real life fighter pilots, not fictional characters.


. said...
"Ever met a fighter pilot who wasn't an alpha?"

Believe it or not, plenty of them are great-big-watch-loving nerds.

I used to work with a retired F-16 pilot...


Good grief, yes, I forgot about Air Force pilots. I was thinking about Navy pilots.

Californio_6th_ gen said...

The press does Obama no favors when they soft-pitch easy questions to him and cut off and answer for him. During the second debate the "moderator" answering for Obama was so embarassing - the partisans will argue it shows Obama was right! But he just looked like he needed HELP.(Weak, weak, weak) ....that is why Putin and everyone else figuratively bends Obama over the table when they meet. And Women, I believe, can smell the stink of a swaggering man who really cannot hold his own among other men.

LP 999/Eliza said...

King A? A king of what? Who are these people and where do they come from?

I recall a certain atreyu song, "you were the king, not really, now you are just unconscious."

Meaning his authority is really no authority at all.

One of the most offensive and embarrassing aspects of the American female vote is this horrific worship of politicians who rally the vote over abortion and birth control. Some women believe that X will take away their precious birth control and abortion.

Abortion and other population controls will only expand across the world.

As for the labels of who is who in this stupid race, I don't see any strength or purpose in the whole lot of them. It appears to be this silly game of a pealing to the masses as a county doesn't seem to succeed.

LP 999/Eliza said...

How AP could have ran with this headline is beyond me, it isn't true.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_PRESIDENTIAL_CAMPAIGN?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-10-16-22-37-47

"2 alphas battle it out."

What? Where?!

Meanwhile, "the debate was nauseating, both deserve to lose..."

http://www.forbes.com/sites/johntamny/2012/10/17/romney-v-obama-was-a-nauseating-draw-and-both-deserve-to-lose/

Carlotta said...

So how does it feel to be right this morning?

Carlotta said...

@Californio

You notice how Putin has all those photo ops of him walking around shirtless and fishing, hunting and riding horses. The American press laughs....but the American press wouldn't get it as they are not his deomographic.

VD said...

So how does it feel to be right this morning?

It's just another day like any other....

King A (Matthew King) said...

Cail Corishev wrote...

I don't think the media got together and planned a comeback story for Obama, because no such planning is necessary. They've turned into such an echo chamber, and online social media has intensified and accelerated that process, so that it only takes a matter of hours for an idea to spread from a few influential thinkers out through the entire industry. They all end up pushing the same meme, with no coordination required.

We agree. It is an unconscious conspiracy driven by insular cultural cues and the fear that seizes any cult when they see their idol stumble. "Behold a god who bleeds."

"Which isn't a guarantee that it would work; Obama (and his moderator) still has to put on a decent show. But it only has to be decent for the press to play it as devastating. Romney can't afford to win on points; he really does have to make Obama wet himself to be declared the clear winner."

That is as good a prediction of what would actually happen last night as I have seen. The question selection and the default leftist obsequiousness of Crowley turned the entire forum into a hostile arena for Romney, who performed well anyway.

(Now compare your correct call with the inanity of the prediction above: "The SWPL vote will stampede away from Obama almost as rapidly as it stampeded away from Hillary Clinton." Didn't our dear webhost leader also predict Obama would quit the race sometime this summer or fall? Does anyone among this readership hold such exceedingly poor analysis to account?)

The collaborators did indeed "put on a decent show" last night. The left is jubilant this morning because the president showed up this time. That is enough of a hook to get true believers back to the groove they know best: irrational optimism and seething hatred.

But, all polls notwithstanding, my sense is that this race hasn't changed at all since May, and only under mid-October crunch time do low-information voters check in to confirm their already firm predilections, which were always a majority in favor of the challenger so long as he didn't show himself a complete incompetent. This massive cataract of attention wipes out such fine demographic microanalyses about female alpha response under a deluge.

The just-so stories/Grimm fairy tales that the left tell themselves about "shifts" in "polls" are slight modifications in perception among the diehard subset. They are more an expression of nerves than anything. Especially since in this age of social media, as you note, politics has gone pomo.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/827onvta.asp

The political junkie -- and increasingly, the typical voter -- no longer analyzes the race based on the candidates so much as they make guesses about what other voters think about the candidates. We are all pundits now. In such a self-referential dynamic, polls become essential. They already know Obama is their guy, so they quell their nerves on a daily basis with false-comforting indicators that their guy will win. When Romney showed up at the precise moment the majority of voters started paying attention, he discomfited the diehards by drawing first blood from their god.

Matt

Cail Corishev said...

I may have called the debate, but I'm much more wary of predicting the election. Yes, Romney should win -- or more to the point, Obama should lose. He broke all his big promises to the left -- to pull back from foreign wars, to stop torturing enemy combatants (he just kills them instead), to stop coddling banksters and cut corporate welfare, even to repeal Bush's tax cuts "for the rich." His one big success was (further) socializing health care, which was written by others and only passed because Congress thought they could take credit for caring while punting it to the Supreme Court, which would strike the obviously unconstitutional stuff for them. (Oops.) His base would've already abandoned him in droves if he weren't black and not the Republican. But he did plenty to offend non-leftists too, with amnesty for illegals, apostate Catholic extreme leftists on the Court and other appointments, and kicking spending up to levels where default will be our only option. He shouldn't have a chance. He shouldn't even be running; his own party should have replaced him by now.

But I was wrong in 2008, when I thought surely white people were just afraid to speak their mind about him to the pollsters, but would surely go the other way in the privacy of the voting booth. Nope. Even in my own very white rural area, where people assume there's racism lurking behind every door, Obama actually did better than Kerry or Gore before him. And I was wrong in 1996, when I thought surely the American people would have more sense than to send Clinton back for four more years of scandals.

So I've learned not to overestimate the good sense of voters. I'm not getting my hopes up.

LP 999/Eliza said...

Putin has quite the commanding presence, regardless of his management in Russia or personal circle. The guy was born to lead something...

Americans simply don't understand or want alphas in great numbers, the feminists would protest.


Speaking of feminists and protests.

There is an ongoing issue of my residency from one state to another state. First I was told I cannot vote as a non resident of either state, now I rec'ed an absentee ballot for one state.

If I complete the ballot and drop it off at the BOE, board of elections they will ask my address which they already know changed b/c of the wonderful rumor mill.

I reviewed the ballot and thought it might be ironic to discard it in remembrance of all the women who were duped into fighting for women's suffrage or whatever those bitches were trying to do.

Anonymous said...

i don't think romney sitting obama down in the debate or clinton saying he thought obama was going to cry is going to help much on this front.

Mil-Tech Bard said...

Presidential debates are public demonstrations of leadership ability, not policy, and are THE place where the arguable majority of voters who rely on “non-verbal intelligence” decide who to vote for.

The more PRESIDENTIAL a candidate looks, the better he does with those “non-verbal intelligence” voters.

The fact that Romney spoke forcefully about jobs, energy prices and the economy are much less important that the fact he looked PRESIDENTIAL.

Looking PRESIDENTIAL means Romney gives people who don’t like the economy permission to vote Obama out.

What the 1st debate did was allow Romney to puncture the media image of Obama as the cool guy, the one who is so smart only racists oppose him on policy issues, and made him into just another politician.

A politician who happens to be President during a bad economy, who is facing another politician that just showed he is engaged & cares about the economy, for a swing voter electorate that in the time of kings would have put the king in a wicker basket to burn as an offering to the Gods when the crops failed.

Obama's campaign made their whole strategy hostage to Romney's Debate performance, because that was the only chance Romney had to get his campaign image of himself across past the mainstream media filters and ad filters Obama's campaign built.

I strongly suspect that the political pro's are going to make that point over and over again when Obama loses.

Anonymous said...

"the hip black man with the halfro who always has a white girlfriend in the TV commercials". Yeah, on what planet? Why would an advertiser risk alienating white men and black women when the dude will look just as cool next to a light-skinned black chick? Aside from this boner, a lot of truth in what you say.

Anonymous said...

Man, your identification of Obama with Steve Urkel is genius. I was a fan of the show and I will not able to see Obama the same way again. LOL!

hotstuff said...

In reference to what Bob Wallace said (Women shouldn't be allowed to vote. A women once told me she was for universal health care because "it works in Europe." I told her it didn't work in any country in the world and there was always rationing and shortage. When I asked her if she understood how supply and demand created these shortages she had no idea. And this is a very smart woman. And if she had no idea of basic economics, God help us when it comes to the average woman.
Bob, Bob, Bob,...really, you have to stop thinking that a woman's brains are located in her chest, or her ass.... Truly smart women know that socialized medicine does not work. And, Bob...if you'd stop putting your two heads together you might be able to think more clearly. Just a suggestion.

John Henry said...

One of the Amazons is probably Michelle. Who is the other ... Don't say Val Jarrett .. she is not a Negro ... she is Iranian.

Anonymous said...

thanks for sharing..

Anonymous said...

This post offers clear idea in support of the new users of blogging, that really how to do blogging.
Feel free to visit my blog :: http://bostaditurkiet.net

Pussy-ManiaGirls: http://goo.gl/w9Oepq said...

watching my collection, we have upload more video at here:

Collection Part 1:

Doggy Style and In Missionary Position

Hot Sex Anal With Amazing Girl Friend

Sex Under Hot Lights Bad Girls

Give Me The Cum

Cum In My Panties

Nude Amateur Teen Girls

Sexy Brunette Girls

Young Kinky Sluts

Busty Tattoo Chick On Car

Young Asian fucked anal

Latina Havana Ginger gets

Teen Threesome Porn

Hot Blowjob

Amateur Pulls Down Tanga

Sweet girl amazing hot

Sexy japanese babes getting their tight

TEEN BLONDE ANAL SEX ORGY




Collection Part 2:


Hot asian blowjob and pussy creampie

Sucking dick, Audrey put vegetables in all holes

Blonde love fuck

Naomi Russell And Her Royal Ass

Sexy blonde gives blowjob in the car

ASIAN XXX PORN VIDEO

JAPANESE XXX PORN VIDEO

ARABIC XXX PORN VIDEO

HARDCORE PORN VIDEO

GAY XXX PORN VIDEO

WATCH STREAMING PORN VIDEO

USA CELEBS XXX PORN

LATINA XXX PORN

LESBIAN XXX PORN

Hardcore Porn Celebrity

HOT TURKEY PORN MOVIE

INDIAN NUDES CELEBRITIES VIDEOS

UZBEKS Fuck PORN VIDEOS

HOT RASTA GIRL


100% MAKE you satisfy......








































Reply Delete

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS.