Saturday, January 8, 2011

Obama's Coalition: The Patronage, Stupid!


A fascinating article by National Journal shows how politics in America reflect the patronage that the Democratic (and Republican) party distributes. Whites, except college educated White women, have turned away from Obama, his policies, and Democrats. Meanwhile both Obama and Dems depend on non-Whites, young voters, and college educated women. It's the patronage, stupid, as Clinton might have remarked. Obama's policies create winners and losers among these groups, and the way for Republican victory over Obama and the Dems is to split off the only group they can win: College Educated White Women, by offering them a bigger cut of the pie.


The article covers racial breakdowns of exit polling on Election Day, 2010, purchased by National Journal from Edison Research. The finding were not released previously by media outlets, obviously for fear of illustrating the vast racial divide (and the vast divide in racial spoils). Every political policy creates economic, social, and cultural winners and losers. As federal and state governments have grown, the winners and losers have won and lost ever more in earnings, social power, and cultural attitudes. Coming to a boiling point, likely irrevocably, in Election Day 2010.

First, the core findings. A full sixty percent of Whites nationwide backed Republican candidates for the House of Representatives, only 37% supported Democrats. This is better (for Republicans) than the 1994 landslide. White voters also posted deep unhappiness with Obama's performance, the Democratic agenda, and widespread skepticism about the expanded role of government Obama and Dems have pushed. Non-Whites expressed almost exactly the opposite attitudes than Whites.

In a non-Presidential election, the Hispanic vote for Dems slipped to 60%, compared to 66% in 2008 for Obama. About 73% of non-Whites voted for Dems. Meanwhile Republicans took 60% of White voters, something never before seen in three decades of tracking by race.

Meanwhile, Republicans, with their 60 percent showing, notched the party’s best congressional result among white voters in the history of modern polling. Media exit polls conducted by Edison Research and its predecessors have been tracking congressional elections for about three decades. In no previous exit poll had Republicans reached 60 percent of the white vote in House races. The University of Michigan’s National Election Studies, a biennial pre- and postelection poll, is another source of data on voting behavior dating to 1948. Republicans had never reached 60 percent of the congressional vote among whites in any NES survey. Only in the NES surveys had Democrats reached that 60 percent congressional support level among white voters: in their 1974 post-Watergate landslide and in Lyndon Johnson’s 1964 rout of Barry Goldwater.

First among those was Obama’s performance. Exactly 75 percent of minority voters said they approved; only 22 percent said they disapproved. Among white voters, just 35 percent approved of the president’s performance, while 65 percent disapproved; a head-turning 49 percent of whites said they strongly disapproved. (Those whites voted Republican last fall by a ratio of 18-to-1.)

The racial gulf was similar when voters were asked whether they believed that Obama’s policies would help the nation in the long run. By 70 percent to 22 percent, minorities said yes; by 61 percent to 34 percent, whites said no. On election night, much attention focused on the exit-poll result that showed voters divided almost exactly in half on whether Congress should repeal the comprehensive health care reform legislation that Obama signed last year or should preserve or even expand it. But that convergence obscured a profound racial contrast. The vast majority of minority voters said they wanted lawmakers to expand the health care law (54 percent) or maintain it in its current form (16 percent), while only 24 percent said they wanted Congress to repeal it. Among white voters, the sentiments were almost inverted: 56 percent said that lawmakers should repeal the law, while much smaller groups wanted them to expand it (23 percent) or leave it alone (just 16 percent).

The gap was also wide in attitudes about two fundamental tenets. Minorities were almost exactly twice as likely as whites to say that life would be better for the next generation than for their own; whites were considerably more likely to say that it would be more difficult. And on a question measuring bedrock beliefs about the role of government, the two racial groups again registered almost mirror-image preferences. Sixty percent of minorities said that government should be doing more to solve problems; 63 percent of whites said that government is doing too many things that would be better left to businesses and individuals.


Clearly, most Whites do not relish being, as Obama has pushed forward, the numerical minority in their own country, in their own lifetime, and being told, as Obama said recently, to "get to the back of the bus." Just as clearly, Whites can figure that a Government run health care plan will generally, screw them over in order to provide more or better care to non-Whites (principally, illegal aliens, who are uninsured at present and likely make up most of the uninsured in America). Whites (particularly White males) are not likely to be able to get jobs in Government, absent high-level political connections (such as Obama Car Czar Steve Rattner, just recently settling a record fine with the SEC and NY AG office for securities fraud). The transformation of America from a mostly private enterprise, small business oriented nation to one of giant corporations and government, makes life good for non-Whites (who gain massive preferences and privileges) but hurts Whites.

This is "baked in the cake" of Democratic politics, though Obama has pushed it farther than most, including Bill Clinton. You cannot construct a massive government run system controlling most of the economy and have Affirmative Action and other myriad preferences and not hurt Whites, particularly Blue Collar White men and women and White collar men. White women with college educations are another matter, as we'll see, but this is the essence of Democratic policies: helping non-Whites by hurting Whites.

Measured both geographically and demographically, these new exit-poll results show that Democrats maintained openings in only slivers of the white electorate. In House elections, the bottom fell out for Democrats in both the South (where they won just 24 percent of whites) and the Midwest (37 percent). The party remained relatively more competitive along the coasts, capturing 46 percent of white voters in the East and 43 percent in the West.

A separate National Journal analysis of the results from exit polls in Senate elections found similar trends. Edison Research conducted exit polls last year in 26 Senate races; in 19 of them, the Democratic Senate candidate won a smaller share of the white vote than President Obama captured in the state two years earlier. Democratic Senate candidates carried a majority of white voters in just seven races and reached 45 percent of the vote in only two more. Except for West Virginia, those states were all near an ocean (or, in Hawaii’s case, in one).

Democrats have been losing support among blue-collar white voters since the 1960s, but in this election, they hit one of their lowest points ever. In House campaigns, the exit poll found, noncollege whites preferred Republicans by nearly 2-to-1 with virtually no gender gap: White working-class women—the so-called waitress moms—gave Republicans almost exactly as many of their votes as blue-collar men did.

These blue-collar whites expressed profound resistance to Obama and his agenda. Just 30 percent of them said they approved of the president’s job performance (compared with 69 percent who disapproved). Two-thirds of them said that government is doing too many things. An approximately equal number said that Obama’s agenda will hurt the country over the long term. Only about one-fifth of these voters said that the stimulus had helped the economy, and 57 percent wanted to repeal the health care law—even though they are uninsured at much higher rates than whites with more advanced education. [Emphasis added]


Well, color this obvious. The transformation of the Democrats from the FDR/Pat Brown dam-builders, road builders, University of California (aimed squarely at White middle and working class people under Pat Brown) … to Jerry Brown and Barack Obama, pushing paper studies, endless race/gender/gay wars over preferences against what Ace of Spades termed "Straight White Married guys" and a government that only produces paper reports, not actual infrastructure built by and for the White middle and working class, was bound to create a backlash by the Blue collar White demographic.


The Senate races, as the National Journal article points out, were different in only a few places. Barbara Boxer of California, and Michael Bennet of Colorado, won despite carrying only 33% or so of Working Class White voters. Russ Feingold in Wisconsin did as well as Boxer and Bennet did among non-Whites, and better than they did among Working Class White voters, about 40%. What doomed him was that there were fewer college educated White women in Wisconsin. Which is why he is now ex-Senator Feingold, and Bennet and Boxer were returned to office.

Democratic support in the heartland, cratered even among college educated Whites. Along the coasts, and Upper Midwest, the Democrats retained about 50% to 45% (depending on region) of college educated White voters. Everywhere else, Democrats did far worse (under 45% support for college educated Whites).

Critical to this difference was the kind of college educated people in key states. In places where Democrats won Senate races, it seems they had far more college educated White women, who are traditionally far more liberal than their male peers.

White-collar men and women also parted ways much more significantly than their blue-collar counterparts did. College-educated white men backed Republican House candidates and registered negative views of Obama’s job performance as overwhelmingly as blue-collar whites did. College-educated white women, though not immune to these trends, displayed more resistance. Although traditionally the most liberal portion of the white electorate, even these women cooled toward Democrats last year. In contrast to the majority support they provided Obama in 2008, they voted 55 percent to 43 percent for Republicans in 2010 House races. In the exit poll, most of them agreed that government was trying to do too much, and a slim majority of them said they wanted Congress to repeal the health care law.




In key Senate races, however, especially in culturally more liberal states, these women backed Democrats in substantial numbers. Both Bennet and Boxer, for instance, carried about three-fifths of this bloc, which proved essential to their victories. Obama’s popularity among these college-educated women deteriorated, but in the exit polling, 45 percent of them still said they approved of his performance, far higher than the rate among most other whites. [Emphasis added, and note Obama's approval by all Whites was at 35%. meaning College Educated White Women approve of Obama by a full ten points higher than Whites in general.]


As the article notes:

Minorities, most important, more than doubled their share of the vote from 12 percent in 1992 to 26 percent in 2008. In his victory that year, Obama won only 43 percent of the white vote (and merely 40 percent among noncollege whites). Yet he captured a larger share of the overall popular vote than any Democratic nominee since Lyndon Johnson in 1964 by winning 80 percent of that growing pool of nonwhite voters, along with majorities among whites under 30 and college-educated white women.


America is now racially, class/gender, and geographically divided. Non-Whites are growing rapidly, but the growth still remains mostly in the coasts and upper Midwest. College educated White women generally flock to where there are lots of non-Whites, and massive urban centers with lots of wealth and "proper" or "respectable" jobs in fashion, media, finance, corporate HR, government, and entertainment. This is Obama's coalition. The people who vote for him, and Democrats, because they get rewarded. More government (to help pick winners and losers, ala Steve Rattner, or George Soros, or any other Hedge Fund or I-Bank bigshot) that also helps non-Whites, and college educated White women, by hurting White men (both Blue and White collar).

As pointed out in the article:

But Wadhams quickly adds that Obama might be able to persuade some of those voters to support him anyway in 2012 if Republicans select a nominee they find unacceptable, particularly on social issues. Wadhams has painful recent experience with that phenomenon: Despite widespread dissatisfaction with Washington, Bennet won reelection to the Senate last fall partly because so many white-collar Colorado suburbanites (especially women) found Ken Buck, his tea party-infused Republican opponent, too conservative on abortion and other issues. “If our presidential nominee in 2012 … appears too extreme on abortion or gay marriage or some other social issue, there’s a slice of the electorate that clearly could go back to Obama,” Wadhams worries.

More specifically—and perhaps more revealingly—Axelrod also has his eye on the Colorado example, where the exit poll found that Bennet lost blue-collar white women by double digits and blue-collar white men by more than 2-to-1. Yet he prevailed by amassing strong support from young people, Hispanics, and other minorities; holding his deficit among college-educated white men to single digits; and routing Buck among college-educated white women. A similar formula, Axelrod suggests, could be available to Obama in 2012, especially if the Republican presidential primary process, as he expects, tugs the eventual GOP nominee toward the right. “The Bennet thing was particularly instructive,” Axelrod said. “They made a big effort there not only among Hispanics but women. The contrast he drew with Buck was very meaningful. That’s why I say the gravitational pull of those Republican primaries is going to be very significant.”


From Axelrod's statements in the article, it would seem that Obama will go all out to cobble together again the anti-White Guy coalition that brought him victory in the first place. More Affirmative Action (to help non-Whites by hurting White guys), more government growth (to help non-Whites and college educated Women by hurting White guys), more importation of Mexico's desperately poor and uneducated, Amnesty, more regulations (more paperwork for the college Educated White women and selected non-Whites to oversee), and more insider picking and choosing of winners (for hedge fund and I-bank windfalls). There will be no move to the center, just re-assembling of what Obama has done all his life: play the anti-White guy card. That is who he is, and it is who the Democrats are.

The battleground will be College Educated White women. They, and they alone, will determine if America slides into a Yugoslavia style ethnic conflict, inevitably, as White voters become more and more tribal as the lose out … on pretty much everything, as numerical minorities in a system designed from the ground up to punish them (for bad things Whites did to Black people fifty or a hundred and fifty years ago).

While seriously difficult, appealing to these voters by conservative Republicans is not impossible. As I've previously discussed, Republicans must go Hunk and avoid female candidates. White women college educated voters have resoundingly rejected the Carly Fiorinas, the Meg Whitmans, the Sharon Angles, and the Christine O'Donnells. RINO, hard right, working class, Ivy League, attractive, unattractive, working stiff, or corporate bigshot, it did not matter. White college educated women don't like these candidates. Avoid them.

Instead, go hunk. College educated White women are still … women. A hunk, with a positive, sunny, Alpha Male attitude of bigshot-ism, is catnip for these voters. Even very conservative, pro-life positions can be swallowed whole (Marco Rubio) if the guy is a hunk, and even better a hunk and non-White (College educated White women voters detest Beta Males).

College educated White women are naturally sympathetic, and like non-Whites, seeing them as allies against their main enemy: Beta Male White guys. The latter acting as both competition for White collar jobs, and lacking any sex appeal while constantly bothering them for dates and such. This SNL skit with Tom Brady illustrates the double standard that exists. [Sorry, can't embed it.] Besides, the cultural clues all point to how lowly Beta Male White guys are: they are the one group that is mocked and disparaged mercilessly. The lowest on the totem pole of Multiculturalism and Diversity and PC.

But beyond mere sex and race appeal (nothing is more undesirable for College Educated White women than Beta White guys, while non-Whites get cultural/social boosts from the better way they are treated), College Educated White women have specific economic interests that are different from, and indeed in opposition to, those of the rest of Obama's coalition: non-Whites.

College Educated White women are at the bottom of the PC/Diversity preference list. They are vulnerable to being pushed out by non-Whites, who have more preference and legal standing our PC caste system. After all, the Supreme Court under Sandra Day O'Connor held under Grutter v Bollinger that is acceptable to discriminate AGAINST Whites (even White women) in the interests of promoting "diversity" and a "critical mass" of non-White students at the University of Michigan Law School, and other places besides. While absolute quotas are out, anything else is pretty much in. Thus, extreme anxiety among College Educated White women about their place and security, and the most rabid support for anti-White guy politics and culture (to affirm their place and beg not to be kicked out for a person of color).

Women are risk averse, generally, compared to men, so offering better opportunities under conservative politics is not going to be a winning hand. Relatively few women played the Dot-Com gamble, after all. Despite the big winnings for those who rolled the dice. Losing was too hard. Instead conservatives and Republicans need to play on the fears of College Educated White women, of losing their place to a person of color. But do so skillfully, so their targets (College Educated White Women) can deny their votes and political actions are taken out of fear (rational in any case) of losing their place to a person of color.

A great way to do this is to use the H1-B visa issue as a wedge between this voting group and Democrats. Conservatives and Republicans should proclaim that Dems and Obama plan to massively increase H1-B hiring in finance, accounting, media, fashion, entertainment, corporate HR, and government, all the places where College educated White women work. To "save money" and pay for ObamaCare with the savings, either direct government expenditure or corporate efficiency (more profits equaling more tax revenues). Republicans can offer then to "save" the patriotic, American worker from the threat of foreign workers "taking their job" and aim it squarely at College Educated White women.

They live in fear, anyway, that they will be found not PC enough, and replaced with someone who is non-White, and thus much more preferred in our complex PC caste system, that has both legal and cultural backing. Make the fear explicit, and cast in terms of patriotism (who can be FOR replacing US workers with foreign ones) that allows this voting group (College Educated White women) to vote their real fears without actually naming it.

Just make sure the Republican Candidate is non-White, and a hunk. Older guys, and women, need not apply. Because College Educated White women will not vote for them. Care also has to be taken not to create fear the other way (the government related employment of College educated White women must not be threatened). Downsizing the government should be carefully positioned as aimed at ObamaCare (which does not yet have massive employment patronage) and various corporate winners-losers picking. Not the "nice White lady" working in education, or some nothing policy department.

A certain loser is going after non-Whites. They'll never vote for Republicans, why would they? They win in a nation where the anti-White guy policies slice the pie to their advantage. No rhetoric will sway them from the reality of a much bigger slice of the pie under Democrats. Meanwhile College Educated White women have rational fears their slice of pie can be taken away at any time. This should be played up as much as possible, with a nice, hunky Alpha Male to sell it.

18 comments:

Elusive Wapiti said...

Great post.

"...to split off the only group they can win: College Educated White Women, by offering them a bigger cut of the pie."

This is where I think your analysis veers off target. This phrase ought to be re-written as single college-educated white women, as the marriage gap drives married white women to vote much more like their hubbies. From my recollection of the data, marriage status influences female voting behavior far more than college education.

I was trying to think of ways that the Republican party can win the vote of the single white woman without having to buy them off with the tax monies confiscated from (mostly) white men. I couldn't. I don't think there's any way for Repubs to out-security the Dems, who have done very well for themselves in enticing women to become dependent on government for their livelihood in one way or the other.

So how to reach more married white women? Seeing as how they get their security through traditional man-woman marriage, one way would be to push policies that boost the rate of this type of marriage. This will be difficult given that marriage is fading away like it is.

Another way would be to coninue to push social wedge issues that married white women care about, esp abortion. A major difference between the single woman and her married counterpart is how she views the issue of right to life. There may be an opportunity here.

Unfortunately, your analysis of the "hunk factor" strikes me as spot on. I say unfortunately because women everywhere should be embarrassed that it holds true. It also speaks volumes against the utility of universal suffrage...it is steeply negative to libery in the long run.

Elusive Wapiti said...

The other thing I noted reading the tables was how tenuous the Repub party's hold on power is...independents (e.g., TP types) have a strong showing among conservatives this year, reflecting the wrong course that the Repub party has been taking and their base is abandoning them for it.

bgc said...

Hmmm...

Clear and interesting analysis - but when it comes to policy you are at root saying something worryingly like:

'Do the wrong thing (pandering and vote-buying) in the short term in order to do the right thing (rewarding productivity and building prosperity) in the long term'.

Wicked tactics justified by good goals?

Help the enemy now in order to defeat the enemy later?

I've heard that idea before.

The fact seems to be that all short-term options are bad from the reactionary perspective:

http://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2011/01/building-reactionary-movement.html

ElectricAngel said...

"The battleground will be College Educated White women. They, and they alone, will determine if America slides into a Yugoslavia style ethnic conflict..."

We're screwed!

But seriously, it becomes clear that non-college white women's hypergamous desire is to oppose AA as it oppresses the white men above them that they would marry up to. College-educated white women can see AA as oppressing competitors; until that hypergamy is reined in, they will continue to support AA.

ray said...

solid analysis of p.c. amerika and obama's political strategy

"College Educated White women are at the bottom of the PC/Diversity preference list"

only in a purely ideological sense -- but not in practical terms, because they are so vastly and intricately organized, with literally thousands of govt and extra-govt organizations doing their collective will

Sudanese or Trobriand Islander females dont run N.O.W. or the A.A.U.W., know what i mean?

in practice, white womens' organizational dominance combined with economic clout and alpha social/family status mean white women dominate amerika

try opposing one in public and see what happens

even if the p.c. alliance somehow was overturned, republicans would still scapegoat, disenfranchise, and criminalize non-elite males, esp white males ... lots of money and power in caging other guys, especially those who are better than oneself

republicants are no more the friend of the u.s. male than demoncraps -- theyve had half-a-century to oppose p.c. evil, affirmative action and all the rest, and instead have colluded with p.c./feminism, or at best, remained silent (and rich) while the lives of others were destroyed

pox on both their houses, may they come to utter ruin and despair

ray

Untoward said...

Conservatives and Republicans should proclaim that Dems and Obama plan to massively increase H1-B hiring in finance, accounting, media, fashion, entertainment, corporate HR, and government, all the places where College educated White women work. To "save money" and pay for ObamaCare with the savings, either direct government expenditure or corporate efficiency (more profits equaling more tax revenues). Republicans can offer then to "save" the patriotic, American worker from the threat of foreign workers "taking their job" and aim it squarely at College Educated White women.

Nothing wrong with this at all.

Anonymous said...

Any info on how the Jewish vote broke down? Did it approach the 80% figure that voted for Obama in '08 (more than Latinos)?

sestamibi said...

@Anon 9:19 PM:

As a member of The Tribe myself, it pains me to acknowledge our increasing irrelevance, as we have failed to breed in sufficient numbers and will soon be reduced to a curiosity religion.

Whiskey, you know I agree with you on everything, but I'd like to play devil's advocate here for a moment. While it is true that ObamaCare certainly is a blatant transfer of wealth from whites to non-whites, but how do you respond to a younger non-white population which justifiably claims that Social Security is a transfer of wealth (and let's stipulate here its Ponzi scheme design) from them to an aging white retiree cohort?

Rock Granite said...

(College educated White women voters detest Beta Males).

College educated White women tend to prefer the Beta male type. As a group they tend to view the bad boy/so called alpha male as an embarrassment and an idol to their lower class less educated sisters.

College educated White women are just naturally more comfortable around the domesticated, beta male.

The problem for those males who refuse to understand this is that they are constantly elevating the omega male to beta male status.

Women love betas, not so much the omegas.

PA said...

(College educated White women voters detest Beta Males).

I also have to throw in a little corrective to Whiskey's conceptual model. His frequent assertion about about how women LOVE LOVE LOVE thuggishnes and social chaos (because it produces brutish males, whom they love and does away with reliable betas,m whom they hate) is essentially wrong. A woman's paradise is NOT a mad max world with dominant males fighting it out, except maybe from teh safety of a fantasy.

Instead, the female paraadise is something similar to what we have today: a consumerist utopia.

A place where their betaized husbands make more mney than their girlfriends' husbands, where they have a clique of somilar upper-end yuppie-bitch girlfriends, where they have an SUV, and lots of disposable income for shopping.

It's not sex with badboys they want. Why? sex is a hassle, especially wiht ah bad boy. Ever see a hen get jumped by a rooster? that's sex to a woman: it's a hassle.

If anything, their fantasy consists of safe, airbrushed and soft-focus ravishing by a sensitive brute with long hair and big chest, once-removed as a harliquen novel.

But, what about teenage girls? are they, at their hormonal and ovulatory peak, mthe one who LOVE LOVE LOVE the bad boy?

Nah. To a teen, a bad boy is too scary. They prefer Justin Beiber.

Just a little corrective to Whiskey's oft-stated assertion that women's love for anti-civilizational vectors drives them. Women don't hate civilization; it's their paradise.

Pete said...

"Sex is a hassle?" You don't know much about women. They want sex just as much as men do, but only with alphas.

Sex with a beta husband would certainly be a hassle - a distasteful chore that she only has to put up with for a few years until she "cashes him out" in divorce.

Then, comfortably supported by the beta's child support and alimony, she is free to pursue the alphas she really wanted in the first place.

Nine-of-Diamonds said...

"It's not sex with badboys they want. Why? sex is a hassle, especially wiht ah bad boy. Ever see a hen get jumped by a rooster? that's sex to a woman: it's a hassle."

That's a very important point. Paul, I think what (s)he's trying to say is this: many - perhaps most - women - simply do not attach that much importance to intercourse for its own sake, even if they enjoy it (they often don't). This conflicts with modern notions of gender malleability & sexual equality (it's a given that both genders - especially females - have a "right" to sexual fulfillment).

I looked at some stats a few months ago and found that a very large minority of women cannot orgasm during vaginal intercourse. The 60-65% who who CAN often require male partners with a lot of stamina (30+ minutes of stimulation). Approximately 1/4 almost never experience orgasm, even through masturbation. Sex is, indeed, a chore for the gender whose orgasm is not required for procreation.
Maybe this is why a lot of female sexuality seems to center on sex as a tool for social validation, instead of something enjoyable for its own sake. Even if it is pleasurable, it seems largely to be a way of proving self-worth (ability to capture an alpha whom other females will covet).

Of course mainstream therapists and commenters will not consider the implications of this data. To them, sexual differences (especially WRT orgasmic capabilities) atumoatically = deficiencies, and there is no way women can be inferior to men. Hence, unrestrained hypergamy supported by everyone from divorce courts to drug companies to advertising agencies. Hypergamy that probably still fails to produce sexual satisfaction for most women.

PA said...

comfortably supported by the beta's child support and alimony, she is free to pursue the alphas she really wanted in the first place

THis certainly is a cliche in this neck of the woods, but reality does not support this.

Divorced women (generally well over 30) have very little sex, and show little interest in havin git. Furthermore, when they do have it, it's generally with male partners who are well below what she could have had as a 20-something, both in terms of looks/social status, and alphatude.

Anonymous said...

People here are misunderstanding Whiskey's point about beta males and bad boys.

The key point to understand is that women essentially gamble away where peak years of attractiveness trying to snag a man for marriage that is typically out of there league. They do this because they fail to realize that the market for marriage and the market for sex are two distinct markets that do not cross pollinate. In the market for marriage, like always marries like. In the market for sex, women can sleep with men that are more attractive then they are. What women cannot do is marry any of these more attractive men. That is something women do not understand.

Because a woman's physical attractiveness has a limited shelf-life, she will eventually hit the point where the supply of more attractive men dries up. What she has left are now a pale shadow of what she enjoyed before.

This is why women end up marrying in their 30's and divorcing so readily. In the first instance, they overestimated the staying-power of their beauty; in the second instance, they could not live with the compromise of marrying someone who does not compare to their memories.

Anonymous said...

I agree with PA.

"game" This silly theory about how women are supposedly blindly attracted to alpha males / thugs and you can create this facade of high status very cheaply by reading an internet website receives more bandwidth then it deserves.

Like those cheesy infomercial exercise gadgets that promise to give you firm abs in only 3 minutes a day
get firm abs

the belief in "game" also has the same get something for nothing ideological feel to it. There will always be a certain segment of society that will be a sucker for wanting to get something for nothing, hence the exercise infomercials keep on rolling and the belief in "game" continues...

Anonymous said...

I don't necessarily agree with that idea. I do agree that game is overhyped, oversought garbage that is used to sucker ugly men, insecure good looking guys (who don't need game) and dumbasses, but I'd be the first to admit that I've read many posts which provided me new ways of approaching situations which I would have otherwise never thought of.

The best ways to get the women you want will always be: good looking, funny, social clout and money/wealth.

Note that social clout does not mean social savvy. The son of the owner of a popular nightclub will have social clout no matter how bad with women he is, and that will lead him to sex.

If you can make happen any of these four traits and learn how to be decisive, you will have everything you need to get sex. You will also learn that sex will quickly lose it's value after your successes roll in night after night.

Blogger said...

Did you know you can create short links with LinkShrink and earn cash for every visitor to your shortened links.

Blogger said...

Looking for the Ultimate Dating Site? Join and find your perfect match.