Talk Elections

Women voters, African American voters, and younger voters almost always vote mostly Democratic. It doesn't matter if it was Reagan or Bush or Obama, those voting blocs tend to be Democratic. This is well documented and of no surprise.

However, recently, there has been an attempt by liberals to make it seem that if someone is a conservative or a member of the Republican Party, that the person should be considered either homophobic, racist, sexist or bigoted. This is due to the overwhelming facts about why certain voting blocs vote a certain way.

Now, before we do this, we must agree to a few rules:

1. You cannot say that I am "generalizing" or "stereotyping". I'll let you in on a secret...nearly all of America is one big generalization. Generalizing is by far a foundational element of logic and human reasoning.

2. Everything can be interpreted as racist, due in part (funny enough) because of generalizing. You can say, "I miss 50s music." Does that mean you wish Jim Crow Laws were still in existence? Of course not.

3. Those who often claim racism or bigotry, seem to want racism and bigotry to be the reason for something. See NBC's edited Trevon Martin call. They wanted it to seem like the way they edited it because they wanted controversy, they want to claim racism and bigotry. So beware, you can say your favorite color is red instead of brown or black, and be called a racist. Racism, Sexism and Bigotry are pursued claims.

Now, with those ideas in mind, let's look at men vs. women. YES, you do have exceptions where there are men who vote liberal, women who vote conservative. This is clear. See Rule #1 about generalizations.

I've watched interviews lately where reporters walk around college campuses or a neighborhood or wherever, and ask the men and women who they may consider voting for and why. Men, regardless of who they claimed they were voting for, seemed more issue oriented. "Ahh gas prices, ect". "Obama killed Bin Laden, he's got my vote!" ect. Women on the other hand, seemed more emotion oriented. "Yeah I don't think he's done a good job on the economy...but I feel as though he is trying his hardest". That's what nailed it for me.

To quote a film line from Sean Connery, the ultra tough-guy male, James Bond himself, "Your best? Losers always whine about their best. Winners go home and **** the prom queen!" It's true that for the most part men could care less about emotion when it comes to voting. That's why so many men (a majority) voted for John McCain the same day virtually the entire world was gasping over the election of the first black President of the United States. They weren't voting based on race. They're not racist. They weren't voting based on the eccentricity of the moment or emotion. They voted on the issues. Women tend to vote on emotion.

Think of the general way dating is perceived. If a woman tells another girl that a guy just got out of jail, and he's a perceived "Bad Boy", chances are she will look at that as a positive. It's a turn on. It's dangerous.

If a man tells another man, "That girl just got out of jail, she's a bad girl, ect" chances are the guys will say, "Keep me the hell away from that crazy girl".

While that's a generalization, it's quite obvious the "bad" image appeals to women while men typically will tell each other, "Stay away from her, dude...she's bad news".

Then you end up with having many women think they can change the way a man is. Or they try and ameliorate and rectify a negative situation. "He only hits me because he loves me". That real emotion driven, "We may have 8% unemployment, but he's trying". Men on the other hand are more likely to say, "I want results!"

That's why we have such a huge gender gap. Emotion. Democrats LOVE to drive voter emotion. I'll never forget my grandmother near tears because she read some pamphlet in the mail that said if George Bush is elected President in 2000, her social security would be gone on day 1 of his administration. Of course, George Bush defeated Al Gore in 2000, and my grandmother still has her social security. It's the politics of fear. Often Democrats say Republicans are the party of fear, but it's actually the other way around.

African American voters vote based on race. Period. The first statewide candidate I ever voted for was an African American man. Ken Blackwell, the Republican Secretary of State of Ohio. I voted Blackwell for Governor in 2006 because I'm not a racist. I vote based on the issues and politics. Had I been a racist, would I have voted for a black man? Of course not. However, I've been called a racist because I voted for John McCain instead of Barack Obama. Why? Because in some odd, twisted way, an African American who may be more conservative, is seen as somehow abandoning their own race. I've heard that back in the 1980s and early 1990s when "The Cosby Show" was far and away one of the most groundbreaking sitcoms in television history, there was criticism from African Americans that it was "unrealistic" as it showed an African American family that was very wealthy. An OB-GYN and a lawyer living in a brownstone home in Brooklyn, New York was seen as somehow pretending to be different than the "majority" of African Americans.

This is also seen with women. Republicans don't want women in positions of power...that's the claim. Who had a woman on the Presidential ticket four years ago? Republicans. But somehow it seems "wrong" because the woman may be conservative.

I think it has less to do about race and gender than it does about whether or not you're conservative or liberal.

As far as young people tending to vote Democratic, this again does also go back to the liberalism cause. Emotions, gut reactions, all play into the hands of Democrats.

To assume conservatives are racists, bigots or sexists is false. These voting blocs have stayed the same throughout many years, but the liberals are attempting to woo voters by trying to make it seem as though there is a "War on women" and that conservatives are racist. Conservatives big problem is that they're so blunt and honest, that it can often seem insensitive, an emotion that plays right into the hands of Democrats. Don't buy into it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4AUpn-vhYc&feature=plcp&context=C40ff84fVDvjVQa1PpcFNxOGpjnqbu5h250pXGYKGr6yxh1uR0Lkk=

Exactly - it's the cause of virtually every error humans make.

Well constructed argument , for the most part, IMO, but they'll tear you apart for this & you probably know it.

It will show who has the better logic. Someone who formulates an intelligent argument, versus someone who mocks it without any logic.

didn't read the long post, but your headline has it backwards.

Just to be clear, Mr. Naso does not speak on behalf of the Republican party.

So this post of yours is not bluntly honest, then? Does that mean he speaks on behalf of the Republican Party after all?

Republicans are considered to be bigots because of the laws they pass. Two quick examples would be the transvaginal ultrasounds and the Arizona and Alabama immigration laws.

Naso, has it occured to you that your constant attention whoring might be driven by *gasp* emotions?

Shut up.

Go on, my son...

It'd be nice if Naso spent his time writing about something other than the same basic point that 50s stereotypes are true.  That's really all he said here.  By the title, I was expecting for him to at least touch on economic issues on a dumb level, but that was an overestimate of his real conservatism. Naso's only real concern is seeing who he is as a person being labeled as the best kind of person in order to feel vindicated for his demoralizing social upbringing and he thinks voting Republican will make it happen.

And that's, of course, false.

tl;dr

Mike Naso talking about intelligent arguments and logic is pretty much like Ted Bundy talking about compassion and empathy.

what the christ

Applying the Moral Foundations model, I would say that on the whole most liberal Democrats are more focused on notions of fairness and minimizing harm compared to most socially conservative Republicans, who themselves embrace a relatively even-handed array of moral principles such as non-harm, fairness, respect for legitimate authority, in-group loyalty, and a concern for purity. It is perhaps easy for liberals to consider socons prejudicial because, from their perspective, the socon appears to oftentimes defend their leaders, traditions, and members of their in-groups even when they have hurt others or are perpetuating one sort of "social injustice" or another, when in reality they are often just trying to reconcile a more balanced set of sometimes conflicting considerations.



And yet, to carry on here with my alternative take on the matter, caring about whether or not Obama has "tried" seems to be a fairness-oriented statement - maybe speaking to a mindset of something along the lines of, "He didn't get all the results I wanted but that can in large part be attributed to others' actions. If the President is competent, overall, and making the best of a bad situation it really makes no sense for me to take out my frustration on him."



Really? I figured it was just a phase and that eventually the nice guy is desirable because he is less of a douche-bag and can actually be relied on for stability and a healthy home environment; I always thought of this as a question of emotional maturity. Maybe it's not? I actually don't know.



Eh... maybe I'm drifting off point with this but that seems to me like an emotional response as well. Wouldn't the strictly logical approach be to identify what one is looking for in a girl, get a hold of as much pertinent information as possible, and reach a carefully-considered conclusion based on weighing the advantages and disadvantages of associating with such a gal relative to all of the alternative options? A knee-jerk response would be overly superficial and intuitive.



While I would rather avoid getting bogged down in discussing the portrayal of the sexes here I would mention that liberals strike me as being more pragmatic and utilitarian (i.e. willing to ditch or compromise on their principles to obtain the greatest net good or modest, strategic gains) than social conservatives, who in general I consider relatively stubborn about getting what they want and less prone to betraying their duties to advance a higher cause or be true to their core ideas.



They both use it opportunistically. The Democrats oftentimes make use of fear in campaigns. My experiences suggest the GOP has been far more effective in wielding it with great efficacy. All of the parties make rational and emotional appeals as means to achieve self-interested electoral ends.



On the other hand, I would propose that the young are less enamored with tradition than the old and at least initially are willing to experiment with new and potentially better ways of doing things. Idealism often takes on an emotional tone but in fact has an underlying rationale of its own that merely doesn't coincide with the realist's acceptance of or stake in conventional ways and thinking.



I do not consider conservatism synonymous with bigotry just as I do not consider traditionalism synonymous with intolerance. The "war on women" rhetoric is embarrassingly ignorant of the right's actual intentions, which in fact tend not to be sinister. The trouble is, when many a liberal looks at some of these issues they struggle to comprehend why a bloke would think it is rational to embrace the socially conservative position. In lieu of understanding, maybe a great many of them perceive the socon "threat" to values of non-harm and fairness as evidence of an appalling lack of conservative interest in assisting traditionally subordinate social groups, at which point an illusion can develop that you guys only care about rich, white, Protestant males... which is a ridiculous but nonetheless widespread attitude in at least some circles. The Democratic Party helps start the fire.

You should write for RedState.

Awesome post Reaganfan :)

The most TL;DR thing I've ever come across in my entire life.

Also, didn't men vote narrowly for Obama?

Yep, 49-48.

My opinion?

Republican Party - The Party of Darwin's Winners.
Democratic Party - The Party of the Chronically Naive.

The words 'Republican' and 'Darwin' should never be affiliated with each other.

I take it you never heard of Social Darwinism?

Why isn't this a video? I want to see more segments my Naso: the Reporter

I was making a joke.

:P, right.

Perhaps the best part about these Naso rants is the fact that some people here get so riled up in response. I love it.

I used to feel the same way, but they've become so tedious that I prefer to rile myself up.

How's that universal healthcare working out for you?

My point was that what was supposed to be a public option turned into a watered down hand out to the insurance industry.
So yeah, if you want to believe that voting for the less corporatist party is going to get any real meaningful results be my guest.

Interesting. But Naso almost explained the Republican voter, he forgot the rich and the misguided.

Judging by demographic trends, I'd say you have it completely backward.

Iraqi WMD, 2000 election, Iran-Contra, Watergate, Teapot Dome. Do I have to list more examples of massive Republican lies?

Iraqi WMD isn't a lie, it was bad information. If you tell someone you think the restaurant looks like it doesn't have a long wait, only to walk inside and discover it does, does that mean you deliberately lied? No.

The 2000 election was where Texas Gov. George Bush defeated Vice President Al Gore. Bush lead Gore going as far back as polls in 1997. The fact that Gore even came as close as he did was a miracle on his part.

Brilliant analogy. And then, after realizing that there is a long wait, you figure, "Let's stick around and see what that salad bar is all about." Of course, half way through the wait, another guest might announce that there actually isn't the long wait that everyone thought there was. He would subsequently be voted out of the area by 17 points, of course, but he'll be back. Don't you worry.

If African Americans vote based on race, why did Ted Strickland win blacks?  lolz

He was making the point that Gore won the election, because he did. He was chosen by the people to be President of the United States. But because a vote in Texas or Florida counts more as long as it's a winning vote, Bush won.

You're a Paultard, correct? And you don't understand the Constitution? Shocking stuff.

Yeah, the President of Finland is decided by the popular vote, and Al Gore won the popular vote. Oh wait...this is America...not Finland...I guess that means you should zip it!

Not only that, but you'd be calling up all your friends and telling them that there is no wait at all. And as far as I can tell, the only motivation for staying in line (despite the fact that your kids are hungry and want to eat now) is that your father had dinner at this restaurant twelve years ago and didn't finish his meal.

And why is it at all acceptable that this should be the case?

It's adorable how little Naso's beliefs have matured over nearly a decade.

Not saying that one set of beliefs is more "mature" than another, just that there usually is some sort of evolution in one's thoughts. Naso flatlined (and I don't mean like the 1980's film FLATLINERS that Naso undoubtably loves).

So let me get this straight

Republican logic:

If 50.1% of people vote for somebody, they don't win unless those 50.1% of people lived in more populous states?

I understand the Constitution but the notion that a vote in California counts more than a vote in Montana doesn't disturb the sh*t out of you guys?

It's much, much less ridiculous than the U.S. Senate.

Also, a vote in Montana counts for slightly more than a vote in California. Divide population by electoral votes.

I'm talking in terms of the amount of electoral votes up for grabs. California has 55, Montana has 3.

Flatliners was the 1990s.

The old analogy of the upper classes as 'Darwinian Winners' is very misleading.  Human society is like an anti-hill, and the upper-classes are comparable to the Queen.  They are served by the others, and the society functions as a whole - there is no independent action.  The winners do nothing to win, and the losers do nothing to lose, its all built into the system.

Barely. 1990.

1990 is the 90s.

But those were the BUSH YEARS!

?

Only technically. It was culturally still the 1980's.

The 90's began in 1994 and ended on September 11th.

The most intelligent post Naso ever made.

No way, the 90's literally began in 91 and suffered a stroke when Kurt Cobain died in 1994. The 90's officially died on 9/11.

Obama won men 49-48.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#USP00p1

btw, Naso, you could easily be the next right-wing talk show host.  you have that perfect blend of being knowledgeable while simultaneously being impervious to the influence of the Real.

Two good dates to begin the 90s would be the dissolution of the Soviet Union or the release of Nevermind.

Realistically speaking, a vote in neither state matters because of national patterns meaning they're almost never going to be the deciding state.

I'm comfortable with the electoral college because, while it's not perfect, it recognizes that there's a margin of error in a two-person race and at the very least it focuses the scrutiny and attention on a limited number of states, which (again in theory) enables retail politicking and the control of fraud. You can theoretically win a narrow margin in the EC with a significant loss in the PV, but that would never happen. I think Gore winning the popular vote by 500,000 and losing the EC would have been ok if not for that fact that voting patterns and his totals indicates that by intended voters, he surely won Florida by a sizable margin (thousands or tens of thousands - look at discarded votes in Duval( and the electoral college by a decent margin as well. If he'd won by 300,000 votes but lost Florida by a non-contested margin, that would have been fine, because 300,000 is essentially a tie in a country of 140 million voters.

Actually, 1990 is the last year of the 199th decade. Just like 2000 was the last year of the Second Millennium.

1990 and 1991 are when I have my first memories.

Indeed, by 1992 I remember that year very well, as that was the year we moved to our new home, and I began pre-school and also got my first guitar for my 4th birthday.

It still amazes me that just a few short years after Ronald Reagan, Beverly Hills Cop II and Cutting Crew, you had Boyz 2 Men, Nirvana and Bill Clinton. In the same amount of time of 2006 to the present, we had that drastic of pop culture change. Still stuns me.

1990's started in 1991 with the Gulf War and Nirvana Nevermind album, ended on 9/11.

()
Naso: No, you're not.

Just wait few more years and you'll see Naso's thread about awesome 2000s.

And if you wait till 2030s, you'll see his thread about awesome 2010s.

I think the 90's ended in 2003 when social networking websites became popular.