Wednesday, November 3, 2010

The Election Results: Go Hunk, Avoid Women

In a fairly large pick-up, Republicans at the time of this writing are predicted to take 65 House seats. But as remarkable as voters switching to Republicans only two years after voting in Democrats, in many cases, has been the performance of Republican women. Much has been blamed on the Tea Party for pushing non-professional candidates. But one thing is certain from the poor performance of Christine O'Donnell, Linda McMahon, Sharon Angle, Meg Whitman, and Carly Fiorina. White women don't like Republican women much. To go beyond Congressional districts, and achieve state-wide and national victory, Republicans must understand how White women vote (Latino and Black women vote the way men of those ethnicities vote -- Democratic). For most White women, economic issues take (even now) backstage to status anxiety. And they have a large animus toward certain candidates. Handsome, family men like Marco Rubio or Scott Brown are the success models. Particularly Rubio, who has the advantage with White women of not being White. And yes, Joy Behar matters. Republicans to retake the White House, and Senate, and undo Obama's damage, and restart the economy, must at all costs, "go hunk." And avoid female candidates.


Behar matters, because millions of "Nice, White Ladies" (ala Sandra Bullock's character in "the Blind Side", phrase credited to Steve Sailer, follow her every utterance. In "Seize the Fire: Heroism, Duty, and the Battle of Trafalgar," author Adam Nicholson notes that anxiety over status, always uncertain, motivated almost every action that the middling, on-the-make class of captains that made up Nelson's navy took in conducting their lives and particularly, engaging the enemy. Even a hint of "wrongness" in how "honor" (which was basically status as a "correct sort of person") was perceived could and did destroy a career and life.

In the same way, millions of middle and working class White women feel the same anxiety. Though the bad economy is baneful, it has yet to hit most of them personally, and the feeling is that the "correct sort of person" would weather the storm. Men out of work, well that is merely (particularly if they are White) confirmation that the men were unworthy in the first place. Women are now the majority of the workforce, layoffs hitting 80% of men, and women working in "protected" occupations such as health care, education, government, and corporate office jobs, far more than men, do not feel the full impact of the sorrowful economy Obama has worsened.

For such women, Joy Behar and her fellow harpies on the View offer a guideline to who is in and who is out. It is like High School, that never ends. Filled with political correctness and a minefield of mis-steps. The NBC-TV show "the Office" depicts a clueless White guy for such women to laugh at, making un-PC comments, actions, and moves. Whenever I've been at the Doctor's office in the morning, and there is a TV on, the View is always on. Indeed if the TV is off, the nice White lady (usually fifty plus) working at the desk will turn it on. If the Office significantly never shows women making PC mistakes, the View offers a guideline of who to hate to be a "cool woman." Behar famously called Sharon Angle a "bitch" and said she would go to hell. Well, that mattered. Because most of the White working class women in Nevada take their cues from Behar and women like her (Katie Couric, visiting the "great unwashed in the middle of the country" and so on). Status anxiety indeed increases, once the power of sexual attraction fades with age and men no longer pay attention to a woman. Joy Behar and Katie Couric merely replace the grand ladies of Jane Austen's day, who dictated fashionable and unfashionable behavior. That's not a surprise. Much of old social functions have been replaced in one way or another by electronic media.

Clueless post of the day must go to Mark McKinnon who wrote "Stop Calling Them Sluts" (regarding conservative women in politics). Well, it worked didn't it? Only Nikki Haley came out a victor, and that one she had to eke out against weak competition that she should have walked all over. White women don't like, for the overwhelming most part, Conservative women. Meg Whitman was called a whore, because it worked. Christine O'Donnell, and Sarah Palin, were called sluts, because it worked. [Both are toxic to women, and O'Donnell's ill-advised ad saying she did not go to Yale was a disaster. White women are probably the most status-conscious group on the planet, and view Ivy League credentials as magic, as of course do highly feminized elite men like Tom Friedman. There are relatively few Tom Friedmans, thankfully, but most White women set everything on status, and they are many where Friedman type men votes are few. Like Nelson's captains and "honor" having the right status is all, between social ruin and prosperity.]

Anyone who ever saw an episode of "Gilmore Girls" would know what a huge mistake that was, by O'Donnell. The popular WB-CW series featured a "hip single mother" and hip young daughter, both obsessed with the latter getting into Harvard or Yale. A modern day princess story (the mother and daughter were estranged heiresses to a fortune, pursued by often drunk, but always rich and hunky guys, video of one below). When O'Donnell said she didn't go to Yale, she got a lot of White male voter approval (not all of course) but sunk herself with White women. She might as well have said she didn't like romance novels at Twilight convention.



Linda McMahon and Sharon Angle were called "crazy" and it worked. Carly Fiorina was called names as well, and it worked. Senator Ma'am was re-elected. Women detest other women, who are conservative, and are thus excluded from the female media clique of the View, Oprah, the New York Times (Maureen Dowd eviscerated the female conservative candidates) and of course, Saturday Night Live and Tina Fey. Tina Fey, more than anyone else, made Sarah Palin poison to women.

The big caveat: While Ayotte leads by 10 among women, other Palin-backed mama grizzlies — notably Angle and O’Donnell — are getting crushed by their male opponents among women voters. Whether that’s best explained by differences between the candidates or by the vagaries of each state, I’m not sure, but rest assured that GOP strategists (and Team Palin especially) will be studying Ayotte’s formula for success verrrrry carefully this winter.


The same seems to be true for Nikki Haley (who under-performed), for Linda McMahon, for Carly Fiorina, for Meg Whitman, as well as Angle and O'Donnell. White women will simply NOT accept conservative women, be they RINO-esque as in Whitman/Fiorina, or populist. Indeed, the more populist the worst because White women voters detest emotionally any younger, attractive female politician who is not "upper class" and liberal, approved by the taste-makers like Behar or Oprah or Couric.

Nice White ladies do not like conservative women. And conservative women can easily be defined as "White Trash" by almost anyone. Even burnt out Seventies reject Jerry Brown who the Dead Kennedy's nailed to a T. When Brown beats a Rino-esque candidate like Whitman, who poured money into the race, out of her own personal fortune, you can see how powerful that definition really is.

Nice White Ladies also don't like bashing illegal immigration or illegal immigrants. As that issue certainly hurt Meg Whitman (being "mean" to her illegal alien maid by firing her when she found out she was illegal, and paying her $23 an hour). So too, Hickenlooper's big win in Colorado over Tom Tancredo, mostly on the White women's vote, makes Illegal Immigration a loser. Most Nice White Ladies side with illegal immigrants, who don't threaten their jobs, and provide cheap nannies and carwash services. Besides, if White guys were "worthy" they'd be successful anyway (most White women really don't like most White men).

This is an important point. Just as the habit of Black male celebrities to mostly marry/date/entangle themselves with White women speaks to how Black men really view most Black women (as not very sexually desirable, obviously), how White women vote speaks to how most White women view most White men (not very highly, obviously). This should surprise no one, given how depictions of White guys as total idiots, and losers, except a few Alpha heroes, mostly broody hunks, in the media and critically commercials, form feedback loops. First, the depictions of White guy as loser, mostly (except a hunky hero) speaks to how most White women actually feel. Second, the constant repetition of dorky, loser icky beta White guy, reinforces those feelings, except for an Alpha few.

Nice White ladies don't like most White guys. Especially older, less hunky White guys who don't have the social approval of the taste-makers in the media. Joy Behar could not really tee off on Marco Rubio. He was both non-White, and too hot.

Republicans can get the votes of most White guys, without much effort. The Republican Party already is the party of White guys, pretty much, excluding the SWPL set and the Tom Friedman elite. But White women, are a problem. Republicans cannot win without them, and even with them, it is a squeaker. California is a harbinger of things to come, because though I doubt seriously that White women did not provide the critical margin for Brown and Boxer's victory, their base was Latinos. Who reliably vote Democratic. Sharon Angle's support of anti-illegal immigration measures no doubt cost her some Latino support, but Latinos (Mexicans really) would have voted for "super-Amnesty" Harry Reid anyway. The large presence (including likely illegal alien voters) means as a practical matter, Republicans must get every single possible vote. They have none to spare.

[Reid plans to introduce into the Lame Duck Congress a super-Amnesty, which Obama will sign. It is doubtful that Republicans will filibuster in the Senate, seeing the results in Colorado and Nevada, where anti-illegal immigration candidates Tancredo and Angle went down in flames. White women voters by and large, mostly support illegal immigration and oppose any effort to stop it.]

That being said, Republicans can win the votes of White women voters. They merely have to study popular culture, particularly the female/gay ghettoes of TV, to see what women viewers find attractive.

First, Republicans cannot under any circumstances nominate women. Because White Women voters, detest as "low class" any Conservative female candidate, and it is ridiculously easy for folks like Joy Behar and Tina Fey to define female conservatives as "whores," "bitches," and "sluts." The smears WORK with women, as any one observing High School girls will attest.

Second, any candidate must be youthful and vigorous as well as male. Youth and vigor go a long way, towards projecting an image of forcefulness and possibility. Yes, women voters do make judgments on age and perceived virility. I will never forget one focus group (conducted by Frank Luntz for Fox News) woman (a young Asian woman) mocking McCain's age and infirmities and awe-struck by Obama's "vigor." JFK versus Nixon, again. See again the Gilmore Girls Youtube clip. It got 130,000 views. Astonishing.

Or put it as Curtis Sittenfeld (who is a she, despite the name) did.

After an excruciating eight years of Bush, the thrill still hasn't worn off for me of once again having an intellectually nimble president, not to mention one who doesn't pride himself on going with his gut when it comes to foreign policy. Whenever I watched Bush speak extemporaneously, I'd feel alternately embarrassed by and for him. [Ed: because Bush was a beta White guy] I'd be tempted to cover my eyes, as if watching a clumsy figure skater botching double Lutz jumps. And whenever I interacted with someone from another country, I'd feel compelled to mention that I hadn't voted for Bush. [Ed: aka, this guy is not my boyfriend, just a friend.]

But when I see Obama on television, I'm unfailingly struck by his intelligence and charisma, by his easygoing humor, by the magnificence of his megawatt smile. He just makes me proud, and perhaps this is where I should admit that if there are two categories of Obama critics—conservatives who never liked the guy and have in some cases become unhinged since he was elected, and centrists or Democrats who voted for him but now feel let down—I suspect that, in the visceral nature of my response to our president, I have more in common with the unhinged nut jobs. By this I mean that my Obama admiration is a kind of emotional inverse of the right-wing Obama antipathy: I can pretend it's all about policy, but in truth, it's much more personal. Where his detractors dislike him because of, say, that Muslim vibe he gives off, I like him for similarly nebulous, albeit slightly more factual reasons.

I like that he's married to—and seemingly still quite taken with—a strong, opinionated, gorgeous woman, and that he has two ridiculously cute daughters. I like his mind-bendingly multicultural extended family. I like that in a campaign interview in Glamour magazine, he could fluently and unabashedly talk about Pap smears. I thought that the beer summit of 2009 was delightful. I was even excited when Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize, not realizing until pundits explained otherwise that I was supposed to be aghast at its prematurity. And I wasn't a bit offended by Obama's alleged 2008 debate gaffe—a line the otherwise irreproachable Frank Rich mentioned yet again in a column as recently as September—in remarking to Hillary Clinton, "You're likable enough, Hillary." Oh, and did I mention that I actually voted for Hillary in Missouri's Democratic primary? I was one of those Democrats who thought it'd be nice to have an entrĂ©e of eight years of Hillary, with Obama as a vice-presidential side, followed by eight years of a more seasoned Obama as the main course. I was always an Obama admirer, but maybe the fact that I was initially rooting for Hillary has prevented me from feeling the disappointment in his presidency expressed by certain Obamamaniacs. So swoony and ardent was their Obama love during the campaign that it couldn't be sustained; my more measured affection, by contrast, has grown over time.

At this point, I love Obama so much that I recently thought if it were 1961, I'd probably display a bust of him in my living room. Then I realized I'm already displaying the 2010 equivalent: On my living room wall, I have a framed version of that famous November 2008 New Yorker cover of the O moon over the Lincoln Memorial. Meanwhile, on my desk, I keep a printed-out photo I first saw on the Huffington Post in May 2009, of Obama in the Oval Office, bending over so a little African-American boy could rub his head. The boy, it turns out, was the child of a White House staffer, and the reason Obama was bending was, according to the caption in the White House's Flickr account, "The youngster wanted to see if the President's haircut felt like his own."

I don't care if it's good PR—the picture still practically brings tears to my eyes. It reminds me of the sense of excitement and possibility I felt in November 2008, as if in electing Obama, we Americans were acting as our best, smartest, least racist selves, as if there really was change we could believe in. And, OK, so it's been a long two years since then, and for a lot of people it's been an undeniably hard two years. But I'm just not convinced that's Obama's fault.


Now, the above quote is nauseating. But the whole story is worth reading in full. For better or worse, most White women feel this way to some degree. They idolize and idealize non-White men, and find White guys pretty pathetic excepting a fortunate Alpha few who project dominance.

Which brings us to the third thing Republicans must do. Whenever and where ever possible, nominate attractive young non-White guys. Black guys are preferable, then Latinos. But never, ever, nominate an older White guy. White women will simply detest him.

This is hard for men to understand. The depth of contempt and disgust older White guys generate in White women. [Women of color of course, vote Democratic in such high margins they are not worth reaching for by Republicans.] Women prize youthful vigor and potency among all other qualities. Look at the words above. Of course the woman is frankly pathetic. But like the middle aged hausfraus lusting over Justin Bieber or the hunks of Twilight, they are what they are. If Republicans want to win, they must gain enough of their votes. As much as White guys revere fatherly authority (the NFL in particular is built on this, along with College Football), White women find it a joke. Just look at any sitcom. The father is always a joke. Whom the wife barely tolerates, if that. Incompetent and useless.

Guys see an older man with authority, and they respect it, mostly, if it is wielded right. Mack Brown of Texas, the late Bill Walsh, Joe Paterno, Mike Shanahan, all come to mind. White women view them, mostly, as tedious guys they feel no sexual thrill for. This is reality, and Republicans have to adapt to it.

That means, ideally pushing candidates like Marco Rubio. Not White. Not older. Vigorous, handsome, and projecting energy. A Scott Brown, or a Rand Paul, can also win, but note Rubio's margin of victory, compared to the other two, in a far more difficult environment.

the picture still practically brings tears to my eyes. It reminds me of the sense of excitement and possibility I felt in November 2008, as if in electing Obama, we Americans were acting as our best, smartest, least racist selves, as if there really was change we could believe in.


For the Professional Class Nice White Lady, and the Working class as well, this is what is most important. Not Jobs, nor the economy, nor even avoiding becoming Mexico Norte in a merely nicer hell-hole as half of Mexico moves into the United States. Its not about "racism" either, since actual, real racism is the province of Blacks and Hispanics:





Nope, KKK riders are not lynching Black people and burning crosses. Nor are they flying planes into buildings, nor blowing people up, nor shooting up Fort Hood, or synagoges, or building victory mosques on the site of their greatest mass murder, or threatening innocuous SWPL Seattle Cartoonists with death (so that Molly Norris had to go into another identity in hiding), or any of that. All of these are done by non-White males.

What the writer Curtis Sittenfeld really cares about, is moral status and thus, status. It is status anxiety. Because her position is uncertain, like Nelson's captains. One wrong move, one failure, and like their "honor" her status can be whipped away. So Republicans must offer, much as it pains me, hunky non-White guys projecting youthful energy. Or be swept away in by Nice White lady votes providing the margin of victory to Obama and Dems.

Yes, this is a definite risk. The danger is ala Michael Steele, or Colin Powell, or Condi Rice, that non-White office-holders will put racial solidarity (against Whites) ahead of party ideology and the support of White voters. The record of Steele, Powell, and Rice suggests that they put "race man" or woman ahead of being both Patriotic and their own party. That is probably a huge risk with Colonel Allen West, who will come under unbelievable pressure to be "Black" and vote with the Congressional Black Caucus. Not the least of which is that "White" equals the lowest of the low, the untouchable, in today's racially driven caste and class system. [Rich liberal White guys are of course, honorary non-Whites, see this guy below:]


Republicans have to face facts. White guys alone voting will not cut it, not in close state-wide races, nor in the race for President. Women can be persuaded to vote for the "hunk," even if he is conservative, but he has to be youthful, vigorous, and the Alpha of Alpha males. Nominating women is a disaster (Conservative White guys love Sarah Palin, but even among Republicans, women dislike Palin compared to men's favorable opinion by 11 points). Folks like Tina Fey and Joy Behar can paint any Conservative woman, no matter how RINO, as "a bitch" and a "whore" and "slutty." And yes, this matters because White women follow them like they do People Magazine and Justin Bieber and Brad Pitt.

The ideal winning candidate is a youthful, vigorous guy who oozes male testosterone and Alpha dominance, and is non-White. The hunk and the moral posturing to allow Nice White Ladies to demonstrate status. [That ordinary White guys are so despised is a subject for another column, but is a fact of life all across the West and undeniable.] Alpha dominance and power, beat wonkery and effectiveness. Fatso Chris Christie, despite his pugnacious Jersey attitude and mastery of facts and policy, is a non-starter. So is wonkery, thin and unattractive Bobby Jindal, who has the attraction (to White women) of not being White (hence status demonstration) but lacks Alpha dominance and physical beauty.

Mitt Romney, is a non-starter for President as much as Sarah Palin. He's too "White" and is not a "cool" (as in TLC's Sister Wives or HBO's "Big Love") polygamist Mormon, rather a boring Donnie and Marie one. For White women, "White" equals boring and low-status. Too much intelligence, an actual understanding of how the modern economic, political, military, and social world all interact, is probably a minus. Women have always preferred simple dominance and assurance over accomplishment, and Obama is proof positive of that.

I'd like to be proven wrong. It would make selecting a competitive candidate against Obama easier. It would allow combative, take-no-prisoners pols like Christie, or Sarah Palin, to put the wood to Obama and make him sweat. But sadly I don't think the exit polls will show I'm wrong. In the end, a widely despised candidate, Harry Reid, who polled below 50% approval, won re-election. Mostly because his opponent, a solid, conservative, utterly conventional middle class woman, was easily portrayed to other woman as a "kook" and extreme. Christine O'Donnell, an inspirational, Horatio Alger figure, lost to a self described "Bearded Marxist" and was portrayed as a "stupid slut" to women voters. Linda McMahon, the brains behind the remarkable rise of the WWE, was poison to women voters and a man who lied about being in Vietnam won.

These are all facts Republicans must deal with. Go hunk. And go non-White.

40 comments:

Astute Commenters said...

Goddamn great article, Whiskey. Worth the wait.

Greg said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

Whiskey,

Your advice might appeal to some hipster women but at the price of losing the working class and middle class white men. The net effect would be negative.

r

Greg said...

(Sorry, had to repost..don't see an edit feature??) Thanks Whiskey. Your post backing up the unfortunate, yet obvious fact that nominating Sara Palin as the GOP rep for President in 2012 is the absolute quickest way to guarantee that the Luo will win re-election, and that the implementation of the lefts "Final Solution" will come that much closer to reality.

I've read and followed your postings since Belmont and hope that you do address the topic more deeply as to why white women are so determined to vote for anyone outside their own race. This certainly was not the case from 1945-95 and at no time before that. Que the racist trolling the comments section saying that white men repulse their women because they won't, for example, defend themselves. Etiquette and decency prevent me from using the appropriate terminology, but to borrow a phrase from Chris Rock: N**** Please. You really, really, don't want to open that can of worms, as sure as you may be that you do. Read your books, history that is, and see who truly owns the monopoly on violence that can make the Heavens shake: when needed and BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY.

njartist said...

Well then, when the Titanic sinks, make the White Bitches stay on the boat.

In what ever profession or trade you're in, don't mentor women.

Samson said...

Good article, Whiskey, though some minor quibbles. Bush was a "white Beta"? Really? Also, if you're right, whence the popularity of Sarah Palin? It can't be only white men supporting her.

This is hard for men to understand.

It sure is. It's worth remembering that men who don't view female suffrage as a negative are men who think women think the way men think. To turn that around: it's hard to oppose female suffrage until you understand how they think, feel and vote.

@Greg:

as to why white women are so determined to vote for anyone outside their own race. This certainly was not the case from 1945-95 and at no time before that.

Isn't it because doing so wasn't "cool" - i.e., didn't elevate one's status - prior to, say, 15 years ago?

Samson said...

I'm also comparing what you've said to this short entry at The Thinking Housewife. I'd be very interested in voting statistics (probably unavailable) for that race.

THE REPUBLICAN CONGRESSIONAL candidate Kristi Noem, who never went to college, has three children and is pro-life, won the lone House seat for South Dakota yesterday over the Democratic incumbent, Stephanie Herseth Sandlin.

Curious said...

Whiskey,

Do you think women of all ages would trade Democracy for a return of the Aristocracy? As you've pointed out, much of female-orientated literature features rigid hierarchies, complicated power structures, hidden aristocracies involving secret princes, kings, fiefdoms etc. Women from teens to nice old white ladies seem to revel in that world and want to believe that it exists in hidden form all around them.

I wonder why this is? Do they assume it would be easier to spot the alphas? Or do they just prefer the idea of being born to wealth and power as opposed to working hard for it?

I just have a feeling that women would want us to revert to Feudalism and Medieval style princedoms and earldoms with rule through brute force. I haven't seen many elegies to democracy written by females.

Vin said...

Great article and insight. I've been saying Marco Rubio will be president someday from the time I first saw him speak.

Handsome, young, non white all get him the female vote (as stupid as that is, it is the reality) and his politics will get the white male vote. Being hispanic gets just enough of the minority vote.

Romney is too fake, Gingrich is brilliant but nerdy/old/ugly and Ron Paul comes across as the ultimate squeeky Beta mouse/man.

Don't be surprised if they tap Marco for 2012. He's inexperienced but sharp, articulate and all the qualities I listed above.

Again...great insight and blog. Bookmarked

Default User said...

I am not sure I buy George W. Bush as beta (the elder Bush perhaps).

G.W. Bush was handsome (albeit in a bland telegenic way), fit, had a certain swagger, a bad-boy history, engaged in manly pursuits (ranch clearing etc.). That does not sound very beta.

Obama is closer to the beta caricature. He is cerebral, slightly built, hesitant when off script, and rarely seen engaging in manly pursuits.

The reason for the G. W. Bush hatred was that he had the wrong views. His more beta father is probably more popular (or at least acceptable) to nice white ladies. If the younger Bush has had correct views his verbal stumbles would have been seen as endearing.

Bill Clinton was the female ideal. Although not (in any traditional sense) handsome, he had charisma and swagger. Most importantly though, Clinton held the "correct" views. Mc Cain with the correct views would have been accepted by nice white ladies as a wise and fatherly figure.

The problem is not alpha/beta or virile/not virile, it is that some views carry higher status. If liberal views became impolite than those nice white ladies would change their allegiance.

Anonymous said...

I'm a fairly nice white woman and I pretty much disagree with everything here, sorry Whiskey.

As for a jet pilot being a beta male, no f'ing way.

ElectricAngel said...

Bush was a "white Beta"? Really?
The famous quote about his father was that George H. W. Bush reminds every woman of her first husband. I think that carried over to the son.

Anonymous said...

Bring on the Cataclysm. It's the only way out of this hell.

peterike said...

Overall, women voted 50/48 for Dems this cycle (w 2% going to "independents"). It was not overwhelmingly Democrat. However, some things to note.

Overall, women were 53% of the voters, so that 50% carries more weight. But where the influence Whiskey speaks of is far more prevelant is in urban settings. If you look race by race, you will see strong majorities of women voting against Republicans in urban areas, where forces of status are dramatically more significant.

Really, the problem isn't women, it's urban women, the SWPL or Sex and the City sorts of women.

I spent a good deal of time this cycle posting on the New York Magazine Daily Intel blog, mostly just to piss people off there. The Liberal men attempted at times to make arguments, however wrong-headed. But the women on that board could only resort to insults, because they knew nothing. Yet any post, political or not, that included a photo of a good looking male invariably was met by female comments such as "I'd hit that" or other suggestions of a willingness to offer themselves sexually. This even applied to Republicans, though then the tone would be "I really don't like his politics, but I'd hit that."

It's a small sampling, I grant you, but a perfect sampling of the type. And they followed Whiskey's prognosis to a T.

Really, running a fugly old grouch like Carl Paladino in New York was hopeless from the start. While Cuomo is also an ugly toad, he's got the swagger of a Mafia bag man and a hot girlfriend to boot (not a wife, significantly). Gillibrand was sharp enough to rapidily move Left once she hit the Senate, and was even able to establish herself as a fashion object. Brilliantly done, however unconsciously. Notice how nobody ever called her a slut.

Old white guys will never win any statewide race in a state that includes a major urban area with a majority of votes. Note that Mark Kirk, winning a squeaker in Illinois, is relatively young and quite handsome, albeit in a bland way. I never saw him in action so I don't know if he has an Alpha vibe.

sestamibi said...

Another home run, Whiskey, and your hypothesis is proven by the results here in Nevada, in which the very same "nice white ladies" who turned on Sharron Angle for Harry Reid also elected the prototype GOP candidate you describe, Brian Sandoval, for governor.

Nullpointer said...

As a non-white male I have to say the Republicans will never win as long as they continue to do the following:

1) Represent corporate interests
2) Be two-faced about small government.
3) Use immigration reform as a proxy for implementing racist polices.

I went to a high school that had around 5 black people and maybe another 5 latinos out of a 2000 person student body. It's make up was approximately 77% caucasian, 22% asian and 1% every other ethnicity. I took every single AP course the school offered, except AP Bio and received all 5s except Chemistry. I got degrees in industrial engineering, math, and comp sci in four years at a top 10 school. I'm currently working on my master's in comp sci at another top 10 school.

I'm extremely conservative, bordering on libertarian, but I keep being forced to vote democrat. The Tea Party has been hijacked by Sarah "mama grizzly" Palin and Glenn "cry baby" Beck. Sharron Angle lost, because she has no tact and is a kook. She was bragging about having Mexican descendants that don't look Mexican and making weird comments about Latino's looking more Asian. No shit, genetic testing indicates that the Pacific coast gene pool came from the Turkish steppes and has strong Mongolian influence. Back to the point though, the tea party candidates didn't lose, because they were women. They lost because they ran poor campaigns and wore their bigotry openly.

While I agree with a lot of the points you raise on your blog about what's wrong with America, urban ghettos, uncontrolled immigration, etc-- it's hard for me to support ideas and candidates that are out to get me, because I look "Latino".

Anonymous said...

I dunno Whiskey. Marco looks white to me, 7/8 white at worst, like most Cubans.

peterike said...

Nullpointer: Use immigration reform as a proxy for implementing racist polices.

Name one "racist policy."

Justin said...

The lesson is Arizona is pro-female. A female on the ticket is worth about 3-4% over a male on the ticket, according to my analysis.

http://religionnewsblog.blogspot.com/2010/11/anti-male-sexism-in-arizona-voting.html

Anonymous said...

For such women, Joy Behar and her fellow harpies on the View offer a guideline to who is in and who is out. It is like High School, that never ends. Filled with political correctness and a minefield of mis-steps. The NBC-TV show "the Office" depicts a clueless White guy for such women to laugh at, making un-PC comments, actions, and moves.


neverending high-school social-hierachical dominance games, you nailed it

women are just bigger children, enfranchising them politically ensured social chaos and "pretty" evil

your understanding of the popular culture/politics interface is sophisticated, unfortunately western intelligence agencies got there long before you

dunno why you keep offering (excellent) advice to the republicants tho, theyre soul-less zombies of the gynogulag, just a kuntry klub version of the demoncraps, who would (and did) sell out their own fathers for a dime


thoughtful piece tho

ray

Whiskey said...

Thanks for the kinds words. As for why White women (generally) and particularly those more well-off, in tight social settings (offices, etc.) have disdain for "White" guys, it is probably related to the extraordinary web of status anxiety. It is recent, as noted in the post, top-down driven (i.e. from High Status women downwards to lower status women, telling them the "correct" position) and very White guys like Eliot Spitzer, Jerry Brown, Harry Reid, etc. are not "White" and called that insult in the way that say, Tom Tancredo and John McCain are.

"White" is short-hand for both original sin (in a debased post-Calvinist post-Christianity, where some are the elect and others damned by birth), and very strikingly by the women making the comment, over and over again, for "boring, bland, impotent, polite, un-dynamic, un-sexy, un-dominant" and co-operative masculinity.

To this I attribute the distance, removal, and total lack of understanding of men, by women, due to their sexual segregation and re-inforcement of this in the media, which in a deeply atomized society, replaces direct information about the other sex. [Men in their own way suffer from this too.]

Women who are immersed in a male world know well the faults and virtues of each type of man. That all are capable of many things beyond just what strikes them as short-term sexy. And that to get qualities they may desire (faithfulness, cooperation, achievement) they may have to sacrifice (in choosing beyond just a sexy boyfriend) other qualities of glibness and approval of other women in leadership choices. That a fat, combative pol who knows what he is doing but lacks charisma as defined by "correct" taste-makers is a better choice than the "hot" guy with social standing. Because one's property or wages or taxes depend on it, and as a woman you've seen the good and bad up close and make your own choice.

A great deal of what women do in their choices is based on lack of direct, personal, and unmistakable information, in the same way that men flounder around not knowing how women are (and unable to tell good choices from bad as well).

Whiskey said...

Samson -- Yes Bush is beta. Read the words, I've seen this over, and over, and over again. Like a woman hideously embarrassed that some nerd accompanying her is her boyfriend. It is striking. Bush lacked social dominance over women, the ability to walk into a room and make Katie Couric swoon on camera. Is that a fair judge of political ability? [I have my own problems with Bush.] No? But for better or worse that ability shapes the votes of swing voters.

Sarah Palin's votes primarily come from men, and some women. There is a poll, off Hotair, showing an 11 point gap for REPUBLICAN WOMEN vs. men, in her approval. More Republican men approved of her than disapproved of her, the reverse was true for Republican women. It is counter-intuitive but true. Republican women generate more opposition among women ("traitors" is the cry) than Republican men. They certainly generate vitriol in a way that even Chris Christie does not. Christie is taking on the New Jersey unions, and yet most women find Sarah Palin "a menace." In California, Boxer won the election by linking Fiorina to Sarah Palin, who is loathed passionately by most White women in California.

South Dakota of course is rural, far less influenced by urban networks of status, experiencing a boom in Natural Gas, and thinly populated, more characterized by neighbor relationships than office/media ones.

Curious -- Yes, most women would probably prefer Aristocracy. Not one of the old forms, but new ones of potency and Alphaness and credentialism. Over and over again, I've seen women from Megan McCardle to Ann Applebaum to well Curtis Sittenfeld defend elites as "better" because they allow entry into them of Black and Hispanic and Gay and Muslim Alphas. This again is probably a function of the huge sex segregation in modern Western life. Go look in an office. Women are found in clusters, and few depend on boring male coworkers to help with the slack, give up sick-days so they can care for sick children, and the like. Interaction with men is done by distant (and repellent, non-sexy) betas supplicating, and a few Alphas commanding.

Women working in mostly male fields getting up-close and personal views of men, direct, tend to have lesser desires for hierarchy, status, and such.

Whiskey said...

Let me add that if you lurk about on TV forums (overwhelmingly female, and White working-middle class urban), you will find Peterike's observations verified.

Adam Baldwin is probably to the right of myself. Yet he is very charismatic, funny, masculine, dominant, and of course, famous.

So hard-core Liberal women LOVE LOVE LOVE the guy. Despite his politics he is their favorite. His co-star Zac Levi is a conservative evangelical, but is tall, good looking, famous, and funny. So women like him too. A whole lot.

Meanwhile fat, frumpy, and un-charismatic Zach Gallifankis has the appeal of a cold bowl of oatmeal, so he must appropriate PC. His fame and social approval only count for so much.

And yes, it is the Urban SWPL woman that counts. First because there are so many of them, and second because they make the difference between a Barbara Boxer, a Senator Ma'am, and Carly Fiorina. While I have my own issues with Fiorina, I would certainly prefer her to be Senator to Boxer. I want to win because I want certain policies repealed and others enacted.

I would prefer that women vote just like Men, but that is not the reality. Given that, and the need to appeal to SWPL women, I am in favor of hitting the buttons of dominance and attractiveness, as much as I like Sarah Palin.

Novaseeker said...

I think this is basically true, but much *more* true for large urban areas like DC/LA/NY/Boston/Chicago/Vegas/Seattle/Austin, etc. Basically the SWPL/SATC sub-demographic. And is much more true, as well, for single white women than married white women with children. Interestingly, most white women still have LTRs/marriages with white men, and perhaps this also builds some of the excitement about the unfamiliar.

I do think that white guys like Christie have a very hard time winning nationally. It's fine in NJ, because he's basically a walking NJ advertisement. But in the rest of the country, his unapologetic whiteness and his weight will combine to sink his appeal. Someone like Rubio is definitely the future of the GOP in terms of national candidates. And it doesn't matter that Rubio doesn't particularly "look Latino". In fact, that's probably better, because it will play better among the GOP base of white men.

The amazing thing about the U.S. is that, politically, it's basically (1) white guys (Republican party) against (2) everyone else (Democratic party) to a remarkable degree, in terms of the party "bases". What swings elections generally seems to be (other than the overall macroeconomy, which is the biggest factor and generally either supports or screws incumbents more than anything else) either (a) the degree to which the base of one of the parties is energized by the candidate and/or the moment (think Obama in 08 or Reagan in 80) or (b) whether the independents vote very much (and when they do, that tends to favor whomever the macroeconomic gods favor in that election).

The gender gap, as you point out, is only a phenomenon in whites. No other ethnic group has a substantial political gender gap. I think this is because white guys are the "hated other" of all of our precious -isms, including, importantly for this gap, feminism. Feminism is what creates the gender gap in white voting, just as the other -isms create the racial gap in voting in general between republicans and democrats.

White folks may with good reason dislike the republicans for taking them for granted and not doing much differently than the democrats often do, but at the end of the day to the extent that any political party has a chance to represent the interests of white americans, it's the GOP, simply because it is so dominated by white guys, while the democrats are defined by millions of policies and positions that are specifically designed to disempower white guys.

rickl said...

Excellent article, Whiskey. A couple of quibbles, though:

I still have a hard time seeing George W. Bush as a beta, given that he was former fighter pilot, President, and basically a jock who is in excellent physical condition. But it's entirely possible that I don't understand the whole alpha/beta thing as well as I thought I did.

The other thing is why are there so many good conservative women candidates? In addition, women have played a major role in the Tea Party movement at a grassroots level. They do a great deal of the day-to-day grunt work in putting events together. So what gives?

I find it exasperating that I, as a man, am perfectly willing to support women candidates with good values and principles, while the majority of women won't.

Zeta said...

Whiskey, this is one of your best posts yet. You should submit it over at The Spearhead, I think. It will give those guys something to think about, something that is actionable as opposed to merely an idea to argue over.

Dregs said...

I can't read about status anxiety among the white elites without thinking of Derb's column on Race and Conservatism where he quotes from the episode in Bonfire of the Vanities where the Yuppie couple gets over the status anxiety of having an English nanny when they find out she is "racist".

http://www.newenglishreview.org/custpage.cfm?frm=3891&sec_id=3891

Derb sums up the key point which is still true among most whites (see the two Tea Partiers sandwiching a black man with signs saying "do we look racist?"):

"Reveal yourself to be racially 'incorrect,' and watch your in-group status points go swirling down the toilet."

haleyshalo said...

whiskey, this was a terrific analysis. Thanks for posting.

I do, however, agree with Default User about the alpha/betaness of GWB, Obama, and Clinton. I'm not sure how GWB was a beta, other than that he was not a slick politician like Clinton AND he had the wrong views and the media worked overtime to bash him 24/7. I remember reading the blog of a Bush-hater who had met him on the campaign trail, and she admitted that she got all warm and squishy inside upon meeting him. Also, Laura Bush was not a sexy, young, modern wife whom other women would aspire to be like, so that didn't help his image, either. But everything else I've seen/read about Bush makes me believe he's an alpha.

Re: Obama - if he were white, and Michelle Obama were white, would he seem NEARLY as cool (to opinion-makers)? No, he would seem like every other dorky Ivy League-educated professional legislator, and cool people would make fun of him for having a mannish giantess who wears the pants for a wife. His coolness derives primarily from his being black.

rayra said...

author's premise is badly flawed. The reality is quite different. Should take a look around outside the media-contrived bubble.
GOP woman won a great many offices this cycle, including 3 new governorships, 50 high offices, and some 100 state offices.

The National Federation of Republican Women certainly seems pleased, calling this the 'Year of the Republican Woman'

http://www.nfrw.org/index.html

http://www.nfrw.org/programs/electionoverview.htm

Whiskey said...

Not really Rayra. White Women shifted from about 50-50 Rep/Dem to 57-41, compared to 62-36 for White Men.

With Whites only 65% of the electorate, that is not enough. Particularly since there are more White women than men, and they vote more often.

In this swing election, White men voted by 5% more Republican than White Women. In many races, that is the margin of victory.

But in key races (or, key electoral college vote states in 2012), the percentage of SWPL White women is much higher, and female conservative candidates faced wipeouts where conservative Male candidates who had the "Adam Baldwin factor" did not.

rickl said...

OK, I just linked this at the Team Christine blog. (I was a donor to her campaign.)

http://teamchristine2010.com/forum/topics/lousy-ads-lost-christines?commentId=5902632%3AComment%3A10428

rickl said...

Whiskey:
What exactly do you mean by SWPL? I gather that it stands for "Stuff White People Like", but I don't understand the reference.

Marc Malone said...

White women do not like white men, because the white men are not racist enough. Too accommodating. What kind of man will not stand up to these Others? What kind of man walks on eggshells around these Others?

The Liberals may seem unmanly to us Conservatives, but they are the ones bullying and attacking. They are, therefore, in H.S. rules, the dominant ones.

Women do not want smart. They want cunning. They do not want passive. They want aggressive. They want men to be men. They do not want their white men to be the Others' bitches.

The Others are strong. Lib males are strong. White conservative men need to put back on the wife-beater T's and be more racist again.

Yeah, yeah, racist is un-PC, so women will reject it. Bull. Women want strong from men. Period.

What do they want from women? Aggressive Queen Bee. Palin is strong, but not bitchy enough. Not aggressively fighting for Queen status. Men love Palin. Strong without the bitchy.

Doubt me? Watch the View. (Ugh!) Baba Wawa is the Queen Bee. Behar is her lieutenant. 2 others are her coterie. Hasselbeck is the uncool outsider, the truly pretty girl that the other girls hate, but they have to include her because she is so damned pretty. Without her, the guys would pay no attention to this bitchy little clique.

Bitchy is how the game is played. Women fight with sharp tongues, not fists. And it is all in competition for the best male. Women think with their little heads more than do men.

no mo uro said...

To those who doubt the truth of Whiskey's analysis, I would ask you to explain the popularity of the Movie "Bridges of Madison County".

Or to offer an alternative explanation of how to reach suburban and urban white women who put a bumper sticker on their car reading, "Annoy a Republican, think for yourself" while simultaneously watching "The View" or listening to NPR to be told how to architect their worldview.

Stephanie said...

That is true about Hassebeck being on the view because she is pretty. She actually beat out the other candidate for the job (the wife of that new representative who was on The Real World) because she was prettier.

But Whiskey, although I agree with what you say, I just wonder how you could explain the fact that the majority of gay men are white.

HR Lincoln said...

Another superb post, Whiskey.

You are wrong though about GW Bush being beta. His body language is not just alpha, but extraordinarily so, to the point where he could be used as a prime example of it.

xlbrl said...

You are not writing about white women, but unmarried white women. That is just one more huge problem to overcome. And growing.

Margaret Thatcher survived similar obstacles in a far more difficult environment, but she was better than everybody--for that reason. The women who could not hold the banner on Nov. 2 were, in most cases, not up to it. The conservative argument requires a great deal of knowledge and the skill to relate it; the liberal argument requires...Joy Behar.

Anonymous said...

te republican woman lost in California, Nevada, and Delaware, because those states are democratic strongholds. Nothing more nothing less. White republican woman won in places that weren't in the tank for democrats.

While I agree with much of the premise there are some glaring inacuracies. For one, a guy that links to Steve Sailer should know that the white vote SWAMPS the minority vote so it doesn't matter how they vote. Thus the "latino" or "black" vote is not critical in almost all places except democratic strongholds which are that because they have large numbers of those minorities.

Also, after only one election of a half-black guy we are to assume that white women NEVER want to vote for a white man again? Ridiculous! Hell Bill Clinton would win election again if he could run, he would trounce Obama, or Rubio, or anybody for that matter.

All white women are not the same as the bitches that refuse to sleep with you! Will you PUA/game guys ever get that straight?

deminohio said...

Interesting read, but I disagree with the analysis.

I was listening to the radio a few days before the election when it was announced that Rs were polling +30 among blue-collar white men, and +5 or 10 among white women. I knew that it was all over, and the results confirmed my suspicions. I don't think that you can point to a number of very flawed candidates who lost and expect to draw any solid conclusions about the election, which was a huge Republican win. Whitman and Fiorina were decent candidates, but in a heavily Democratic state.

It's a risk for either party to run a pre-menopausal woman for office; there's just too much going on subconsciously with both sexes. That's probably why women who win are usually post-menopausal, like Maggie Thatcher. They're not seen by men as potential sex partners, or by women as rivals.

This election is really a continuation of the trend dating all the way back to '68 of consolidating white voters in the Republican party. White women were slow to come along, but with the recession, they're ready to ditch their minority alpha f-buddy, and go with a beta provider. The challenge for the Republican party will be to keep the disparate elements of the white electorate, along with "honorary whites" (middle class NAMs), satisfied. Can they conjure up an economic policy that will satisfy blue collar workers and Wall Street bankers? Can the social conservatives co-exist with the corporate crowd, etc?

Jack said...

As usual, Whiskey has good and thoughtful analysis, but it's way overstated. Republicans often beat Democrats who were younger and/or more alpha this year. Dorky Pat Toomey over Navy Seal Joe Sestak in PA, Mark Kirk over early 30's tall ALexi Giannoulias in IL. Now these races were certainly close, too close, but no doubt tons of white women voted for the Republican. Rand Paul got a much higher % of the vote than did Marco Rubio, also.

Whiskey, what you are describing is a subset of white, single, young urban women who detest beta males and conservatives. The kinds of things they'll say about Rick Santorum or Mitt Romney are disgusting. (Though can Romney, who was always very attractive and has 5 sons, be beta?) But for these women, believing the right things (pro-abortion, pro-gays) is most important. That's why theyhated Bush. He's not a bad looking or unmanly man. IF he were liberal he's be wonderful.

Republican women mostly lost because they sucked as candidates. Women do not belong in politics, by and large. Sarah palin is an embarrassment and is really an anti-male feminist at heart. So is O'Donnell, who once filed a sex discrimination lawsuit. Good for anyone who calls it like they see it on these women. Women do not, in almost all cases, have the judgment or temperament to be leaders.