What the Right Doesn’t Get About Elections

I’ll be the first to admit it.  A couple weeks ago I predicted a Romney win.  I predicted this largely because he played up his alpha cred in the first debate.  But one photo-op on the Jersey Shore with Obama looking tough in a bomber jacket destroyed all that, which is yet another reason sane societies don’t let women get involved in government.

Instead, we are looking at four more years of skyrocketing debt, stifling regulation, and the only First Lady who could possibly be bitchy enough to make Hillary Clinton look feminine.

Ever since the primary debate when George Snuffleupagus seemingly out of nowhere asked Willard Mitt Romney about birth control (he’s Mormon, so I guess his position is “missionary”), we should have known how the leftists in the media and the Obama campaign (redundant, I know) intended to define the campaign. Because on radio ads, on TV, and on the web, the Democrats tried to make this election about a single issue:

The right to slut.

Or more precisely, the right to slut without the responsibility of consequences.  The famous “gender gap” isn’t really a gap based on gender.  The right overwhelmingly wins older and married women.  The “gender gap” should more accurately be called the slut vote.

Women make up about 54% of the electorate.  It is very hard to win without winning that segment, or at least losing it only narrowly while winning men big. While the right usually wins married women, the fact is that married women constitute an ever-decreasing share of the female population.  Women want to delay marriage as long as possible so they can “have it all,” and usually “have it all” means “have as much hot alpha sex as possible without any consequences.”  And thus, less married women and more sluts (not that these two groups are mutually exclusive, per se)

And that’s where the Democrats come in.  Contrary to common belief, the primary reason the Democrats own the black vote has nothing to do with civil rights.  The Democrats were only partially supportive of civil rights in the 60′s (with southern Democrats advocating “segregation forever”).  Lincoln was a Republican, and Republicans in the House and Senate voted for civil rights legislation in the 60s.

Rather, Democrats have won the black vote because the black community is dominated by illegitimacy, and the Democrats are willing to subsidize and support that illegitimacy (as well as provide access to cheap abortions) so as to take away from sluts the consequences of their actions.  Consequently, young black people grow up on the dole and not only never realize there might be something wrong with that, but eventually come to believe that’s the way it should be.  The Democrats have won the black vote by first “empowering” single black mothers.

This is now beginning to happen in white suburbia, except unlike women in the urban black community, white suburban sluts start from a place of relative wealth and privilege (daddy’s little princess).  Thus, food stamps–and increased rewards for having illegitimate kids while on food stamps–don’t (yet) appeal to them.

So instead Obama appealed to rich white sluts by forcing someone else (the Catholic church, in this case) to pay for their birth control, and by scaring them about alleged threats to their ability to take advantage of Planned Parenthood’s services (Planned Parenthood being conveniently located in the minority part of town, of course, so as to provide anonymity to visiting white girls whose white girl friends never go over there–except to visit Planned Parenthood themselves).  This created a wedge issue in the suburban community that allowed Obama to play more strongly there than he might have if the election ended up purely about the economy or the national debt.

One thing one has to remember about women, especially slutty ones:  They usually don’t make decisions based on reason.  So all the Obama administration had to do was scare them that Mitt Romney was going to take away their birth control and their access to abortion.  The fear for them is that, without birth control and abortion, they might actually get pregnant and have to give birth.  That is scary not simply because of the economic burden of having a child (since, hey, they can get all kinds of cash and prizes if that happens), but because if that happened then everyone would know they’re sluts, and their image as daddy’s pure little snowflake princess goes out the window.

The right loses the female vote primarily because so many of them still operate from a feminist world-view:  Women are pure, perfect, kind, and altruistic, and the only reason they “get into trouble” is that some evil, conniving, manipulative man tricked them into sleeping with the entire football team.

Twice.

And so, the Republicans believe they can win the female vote by focusing on education, or (as Romney did in the third debate) “peace,” or whatever feel-good idea the right can talk about without selling its soul too transparently.

Admittedly, the desire to slut it up isn’t the only factor in the gender gap.  America has a fiscal problem primarily because women want free stuff without ever having to work.  America is over-regulated because women don’t want to have to compete in the free market.  America has profound moral problems in part because the rationalization hamster makes it impossible for 54% of the American electorate to ever admit a moral shortcoming.

However, this election cycle shows that the Slut Vote is real, and Republicans lose because they discount the existence of original sin in women.  Abortion is often called the “third rail of American politics,” but in truth, the third rail is a woman’s right to slut (with cash and prizes).

This entry was posted in Evangelical American Princess, Politics, Sexual Economics, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

25 Responses to What the Right Doesn’t Get About Elections

  1. Cane Caldo says:

    However, this election cycle shows that the Slut Vote is real, and Republicans lose because they discount the existence of original sin in women.

    Republicans lose because they are the sluts’ sluts. They are emotionally incontinent, and they give their hearts to the undeserving, and they refuse to exclude the unworthy. Republicans are the beta-orbiters of American politics.

  2. bskillet81 says:

    Cane, well said. The GOP is the emotional tampon of American politics. The very act of trying to win over the female vote makes women less likely to vote for Republicans, since women despise men who supplicate.

  3. lgrobins says:

    Excellent. Did you see the story of the woman who voted for O during labor all because she was afraid R would take away big bird for her daughter.

  4. Mats says:

    “The very act of trying to win over the female vote makes women less likely to vote for Republicans, since women despise men who supplicate.”

    Interesting perspective. These elections show that cultural marxism is working perfectly well in the USA.

    Slut out the women, and they give back by voting you.

  5. Entropy Is My God says:

    Republican, Democrat, watch me care. Only Ron Paul had the man parts neccesary to say he wanted to end the Federal Reserve. As an FYI to those who don’t know, the Federal Reserve is unconstitutional, and therefore Illegal. Also, by bailing out morally bankrupt financial instituions it is also evil. Therefore, the federal reserve is both illegal, and evil. Any politician who does not publicy denouce the Federal Reserve, endorses it. Thus both canditdates endorse illegal and evil activities. You can keep them both.

  6. ukfred says:

    Create a dependency constituency and you have their votes for life.

    Gordon Brown did this in the UK by introducing benefits he called ‘tax credits’ with the amount depending on their other circumstances (how can you pay tax and get a tax credit at the same time?) which were available to people who paid income tax at basic rate. That is up to £42,375 or $60,000 income, or if both parents are earning, double those figures. You can reduce your earnings by paying pensions contributions or by giving to charity by gift-aid and then when there is a move to cut benefits to the better off, there is an outcry. Perhaps Einstein was right when he said that only two things were infinite, the Universe and man’s stupidity. We’re still not sure about the Universe.

    To describe the Democrat position on Obarmycare in the terms that Bskillet has done should have brought out the Christian vote, but what would it have done to the churchian vote? it would have hardened the slut vote for the Democrats, but if they knew how much was at stake, then they would have been going out to vote, before during and after their terminations, using that old Democrat slogan of “Vote Early and Vote Often”

  7. Brendan says:

    All of this is true, but it’s a bigger problem as well, and it has to do with the changing overall ethnic demographic in the US.

    It’s very true that a huge gap exists between single white women and the rest of white people, and that’s explained very well by what you’ve written. It’s also true, though, that the country is becoming inexorably less white, and these folks overwhelmingly vote democratic because they also want handouts, and want to vote against the white guys. The problem for the right is that this demographic shift is not capable of being reversed now. So the right can either try to appeal to this new demographic reality, or shrink to being a local/state party but one which can’t win national elections.

    it’s true that if single white women and white union workers were to vote with the right, that the demographic tide could be stemmed for a time. But for the reasons you write above with respect to single white women, and for other reasons with respect to the union voters, this isn’t easy to make happen — and even if it did, it would simply delay the inevitable date with demographic destiny.

    The US is morphing into a different kind of country from what it once was. Less white, more Latino, more Asian. Less dedicated to particularism based on the values of the English enlightenment, and more comfortable with falling into lockstep with “the rest of the world”, because that is the comfort zone of the rising demographic. It’s a different country coming, and already in the making, and one that is going to be very hostile, both passively and actively, towards white guys in particular in the years ahead. Best be prepared for that reality, because it’s already basically here.

  8. slwerner says:

    Ukfred – ”Perhaps Einstein was right when he said that only two things were infinite, the Universe and man’s stupidity.”

    I think what Einstein was mistaken in leaving off the list was the human capacity for (individual) greed. Obama and the Democrats simply promised more that people could believe would personally benefit them. The previously discussed “right” to have government spend the taxpayers money supporting a woman’s choice to slut it up and have HER contraception (up to and including abortion) be paid for by “someone else” is but one of many examples of implicit promises of “goodies” for individuals were bought by the greedy.

    I think that one of the starkest, yet simplest examples was the “Obama phone” woman – a woman who, to be brutally honest, was far too unattractive to be able to take advantage of her ability to slut it up, yet could find reason enough to vote for Obama because “he got me a phone”.

    I have a female relative who graduated from college last year. Some months back, she expressed to me that although she had always been more conservatively aligned, she planned to vote for Obama because she believed that he would be more willing to bailout those (like her) who had substantial educational debts. The idea that if the government acted to force banks to “eat” millions in unpaid student loans it would severely impact the ability of future college students to borrow any money (let alone the excessive amounts we’ve been learning that some fools took) for an education. She simply could not care about any potential consequence to anyone else, she could only manage to consider what potential benefit might (yeah, right! Fat chance of it actually happening) accrue to her personally.

    If any serious analysis of what swayed voters is to be done, my prediction is that it will come out that the anti-Romney adds which suggested that he and Republicans would be looking to “take things away” (really just meaning that he would be reducing government goodies) from them (oh, yeah, of course…and other people like them) had the biggest impact.

    I think it’s been well understood for many, many years that a democracy has a finite lifetime because once the net-takers learn that they can vote themselves more goodies at the expense of the net-makers/providers, they absolutely will – without regard for the societal harm, and only regard for what individuals believe that they can get.

    We are pretty much “there” now.

  9. bskillet81 says:

    I think it’s been well understood for many, many years that a democracy has a finite lifetime because once the net-takers learn that they can vote themselves more goodies at the expense of the net-makers/providers, they absolutely will – without regard for the societal harm, and only regard for what individuals believe that they can get.

    Indeed. I am a monarchist chiefly because of this. Monarchy is not perfect, but most people throughout history have had more freedom under monarchs than they do today under “liberal” democracies. In the Anglo-Saxon West, in particular, the history of monarchy included things like the right to jury trial, and the right to redress of grievances, representation by local elders (the Moot), and the supreme rule of law (read a book about the guy featured in my banner). This was 1,000 years before the Enlightment allegedly created an entirely new and utopian world.

    The major benefit of monarchy is the monarch knows he has to hand his country to his children, and this means his time horizon is much longer than what happens in the next four years.

  10. Pingback: Father Knows Best: Post-Election Edition « Patriactionary

  11. Bass says:

    Could you be more bitter? The country does not agree with you; get used to it.
    Is this really how you want to represent Christian men?

  12. Elspeth says:

    Brendan is right about the demographic reality. Most Latino voters (Cubans being the one group where you might run into an occasional exception) vote leftist because it’s what they are used to. Never mind that they left their own hellish country where tyrannical leftist regimes stifled all opportunity and freedom. Human beings are creatures of habit.

    The black vote, I get even though I vehemently disagree. I’m frankly tired of beating that dead horse.

    The single white women’s vote leaves me a bit more confused than it does the rest of you. I don’t understand the logic behind voting in a way that handicaps the men you want to marry in a few years. I guess it just proves that the 19th amendment was a terrible idea.

  13. Peabody says:

    @Bass – IMHO, being a Christian is absolutely consistent with being a monarchist.
    @Elspeth – I agree, the 19th amendment was a terrible idea. It would be easier to get the 16th amendment repealed, though…

  14. sloots gonna sloot.

    Romney lost because he wanted to de-fund P-Parenthood and overturn Roe v Wade. Ironically, his mormon faith prevented him from selling out these convictions, and doomed him. The slut vote did indeed directly defeat him. Its all over my FB feed.

    It’s so hard not to say anything.

  15. bskillet81 says:

    @ Elspeth,

    I personally have never read your take on the black vote and I’d be interested to hear it if you’d indulge me.

    As for white women, you incorrectly assume they want to marry men in the next few years. The fact is, as has been stated by others, most women do not understand cause and effect beyond very simple situations. Consequently, they literally believe they will always have looks and alpha studs will always be falling all over themselves to get these sluts in the sack. It never dawns on them that they will some day hit the wall, until they wake up one morning and suddenly realize no guys ask them for their number at the club last night.

  16. Elspeth says:

    For thew sake of brevity, here is my take on the black vote:

    Blacks vote democratic because the majority of the black community in America is either a result of or a part of creating illegitimacy that is subsidized by the Democrat party. LBJ’s war on poverty, which expanded the welfare state and rewarded ever increasing rates of illegitimacy, coupled with his signage of the Civil Rights Act in 1964, has earned the Dems a permanent voting block of at least 95% of blacks. Astonishingly GWB took 11% of the black vote in ’04, but that was just a fluke. Meant nothing, because the majority of black households are run by single women, who vote democratic.

    Full disclosure: My husband had a child out of wedlock before we married. He has also made enough money to provide quite well for his child (now an adult) and provide for his wife and 5 legitimate children. If that will be the case in 4 years remains to be seen, but I digress.

    My take is best summarized by the words my SIL said to me yesterday, so I’ll paraphrase: “Most of our community is so dumb that the devil himself can be leading them all to slaughter, and they’s follow, not caring so long as he’s black.”

    It’s a sad state of affairs, but that’s my take on it.

  17. bskillet81 says:

    @ Elspeth, I totally agree with your take. That’s actually what I was trying to say, but not as well as you said it. My belief is that now the Democrat party is looking to extend that model to the white suburban community, and last night proves they’re having great success.

  18. Jill says:

    This is hysterical. This is a satire blog right?

  19. bskillet81 says:

    @Jill

    I hope you enjoy your free birth control pills while America goes Greece around you.

  20. Doc says:

    Being the opportunist that I am, I started the night at a Romney party – because I hoped he would win. But when it became apparent he wouldn’t, I headed over to an Obama party that I knew of, met a sweet young thing who was happy to have turned 18 early enough to vote in this election. I took her home so that I could add to her night of firsts…

    I learned long ago – hope for the best, but always take advantage of the situation. So I’ll continue to take advantage of the situation which is this train-wreck.

    Over the last 4 years, I’ve moved more and more of my assets overseas – taking advantage of every tax loop-hole this administration created to be sure I paid zero in the US due to “losses” and “expenses” – of course all of my real profits were “elsewhere”… I’ve done quite well, although in the US I’ve been losing money left and right… I will continue this, but now I think I’ll leave the US at some point for good.

    It is no longer “my country” since I believe in hard-work, opportunity, and succeeding by your own effort – rather than looting others. But that doesn’t mean I’m not going to take advantage of the stupidity of this administration (Government) – so if I can get guarantees that I can go bank-rupt on to hurry the inevitable destruction along, I will – especially if it is beneficial to me. :) Just like the young lady last night, whom I’ll be seeing this coming weekend to continue enjoying what she can “give me”…

  21. Pingback: Understanding the Put-Out Vote, Part 1 | Christian Men's Defense Network

  22. Allison says:

    So, did you just happen to miss that whole ‘love your neighbor’ thing in the Bible? Because I’m pretty sure Jesus didn’t preach hatred and misogyny. Or maybe I just missed all those verses where he called women sluts. Oops. Guess I should have read more carefully.

  23. BSKillet says:

    @Allison

    Like most disciples of the false Personal Jesus, you seemingly believe that “love” means affirming women in whatever they want to do. Many churchians today do not have a Jesus who can be called Lord, but rather a boyfriend Jesus, or an LJBF Jesus who always tells them, “You GO girl,” but never convicts them of sin. Such a false Jesus plainly doesn’t love these churchians, because if he did he would try to save them from condemnation and self-destruction by bringing them to repentance.

    Or maybe I just missed all those verses where he called women sluts.

    Try Ezekiel 16 and 23, and Isaiah 3.

    Because I’m pretty sure Jesus didn’t preach hatred and misogyny.

    Jesus called people “an adulterous generation,” a “brood of vipers,” and chased people with whips. Apparently, God does not consider this sort of thing hatred. The weak permissive Personal Jesus is found no where in Scripture. Of course, to feminists, “misogyny” = “anything that doesn’t affirm me as a goddess,” so really I have no hope of pleasing you.

  24. Allison says:

    Yes because asking to be treated as a human being is EXACTLY the same as asking to be treated like a goddess. I forgot that women are supposed to sit quietly, look pretty (but not too pretty because then they would be a slut), and never express their own opinions.

  25. BSKillet says:

    @Allison

    I forgot that women are supposed to sit quietly, look pretty (but not too pretty because then they would be a slut), and never express their own opinions.

    That sounds like a great idea there, cupcake. How about you start? And could you make me a sammich while you’re at it? Thanks, sweetheart. :-)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s