2016 July 24 Sunday
Scott Adams On Irrational Voters Processing Images
Scott Adams on the Republican National Convention
A week ago you compared ugly Donald Trump with ugly Hillary Clinton and declared them a visual tie. That matters because our visual ďbrainĒ generally wins against whatever part of the brain is pretending to be logical that day. But once we got a look at the entire Trump family, acting as a group, our visual brains started seeing them as a package deal. And when you compare the entire Trump familyís visual appeal to the entire Clinton familyís visual imagery itís a massacre.
Would you prefer seeing Bill and Hillary Clinton decompose in front of your eyes for eight years, or watch the Trump family develop their dynasty? Entertainment-wise, thatís no contest. And people usually vote for entertainment over policy. They just donít realize it. Thatís the biggest news from the convention, and you wonít see it in any headline.
People are way less rational in their political thinking than they'll admit to. They are also way way less rational than open borders supporters assume. The wheels would definitely fall off given circumstances that our elites and libertarians would like to create.
The American Left has painted itself into a difficult position. It has spent decades looking down at lower class whites. Those who were condescended to certainly noticed - for decades. The American Right has done the same. It took those lower class whites for granted while it globalized the economy (with plenty of bipartisan help from Bill Clinton and even Barack Obama). The Republican calculation was that those lower classes were so demonized by the Democrats where else did they have to go for a political party? But now someone comes along and expresses real affection for them and this guy happens to be a master persuader. Oops.
It occasionally happens that the personalities and skills of individual political actors matter a lot. I think that happens less often than political junkies imagine. For example, Reagan's deregulation really got started under Carter with deregulation of aircraft, trains, and trucks. A Republican or Democrat in the White House was going to sign world trade deals in the 1990s. The Presidents aren't as different as they are made out to be. But Trump is a wild card. He's really moved the Overton Window on a few big issues, especially if he gets elected.
Adams thinks Clinton's pick of Tim Kaine reeks of beta boy husband who gets verbal tongue-lashings from his wife. So Kaine will make it even harder for Hillary to get men to vote for her.
But the persuasion filter says the real reason men donít like Clinton is that they canít stand listening to her. Her speaking style reminds men of every bad relationship they have ever had with a woman. Weíre all irrational sexists on some level, and Clinton sounds to many male ears like a disgruntled ex-wife, or perhaps your mom who had a really bad day. Thatís a problem if you need the male vote.
Now add Tim Kaine to the mix. In our irrational minds Ė where we compare everything to our personal experience Ė Kaine will play the part of the beta male husband whose wife canít stop complaining about her terrible co-worker, Donald Trump. No guy wants to hear eight years of that. They get enough of it at home.
Suppose Hillary chose a hot woman as her running mate. Probably would have hurt her with older women. But would have helped her with men. Problem is that the hot political chick with right background for Hillary to choose her and old enough for the VP slot probably doesn't exist. The Democrats don't seem to have an ideologically acceptable alpha male for the VP slot either.
I think Trump has gotten what he needs from the "bull in a china shop" phase. He is going to play a much calmer game until election day. But if he's elected then I think he may find the need to do more Overton Window shifting and massive persuasion just to prevent the MSM from reestablishing control of the narrative. So I think we'll see him do more rampaging thru china shops if he makes it into the Oval Office.
Read Scott Adams.
By Randall Parker at 2016 July 24 06:35 PM
"Problem is that the hot political chick with right background for Hillary to choose her and old enough for the VP slot probably doesn't exist. The Democrats don't seem to have an ideologically acceptable alpha male for the VP slot either."
This is a consequence of one of the under reported political stories of US politics. While the Democrats and Republicans have been fighting to a near standstill at the federal level, the Democrats have been slaughtered at the state level. As a consequence of this they no longer have any "farm team". That's why they had a battle between two geriatric patients, while the GOP had a fight between 17 people of varying ages.
"But if he's elected then I think he may find the need to do more Overton Window shifting and massive persuasion just to prevent the MSM from reestablishing control of the narrative. So I think we'll see him do more rampaging thru china shops if he makes it into the Oval Office."
He has said he will open up the libel laws so you can more easily sue the media for spreading falsehoods.
There are a fair number of Democratic governors and congresscritters that could plausibly run. Martin O'Malley looks like a plausibly strong candidate, for example.
The main problem with coming up with a hot political chick for VP is that it's hard to be a reasonable candidate for VP until you're in your mid 40s or so--you don't really have the requisite experience or knowledge to be able to take over the job of president. That doesn't exactly select for "hot chick." And women lose their attractiveness faster than men do, especially when there's power and prestige involved--for whatever reason, a 30-year-old woman is a lot more likely to find a powerful 60-year-old man attractive, than a 30-year-old man is to find a powerful 60-year-old woman attractive. I suspect that comes down to evolutionary biology, but even if it's 100% social construct, it still affects the way people actually behave.
The only attractive woman I recall in serious running for president / VP in the last several years was Sarah Palin. She was pretty light on relevant experience and knowledge, partly because of her youth, but since she'd been the governor of a state, she was at least in the right sort of ballpark. And she was also unusually attractive for her age.
There are enough of them that you would have trouble getting them all in the same phone booth. (There's a cultural reference that's past it's sell by date!) But considerably fewer than for the Republican party.
Agreed, Martin O'Malley looks like a plausible candidate, from an outside perspective. But look at the primary season just past: He barely did well enough to even be noticed. His votes were rounding errors compared to Hillary and Bernie. Apparently from the perspective of a Democratic party primary voter, O'Malley is not a viable Presidential candidate.
The big problem for the Democrats in trying to run Congresscritters for President, is that lack of a farm team. Who do they replace the Congresscritter with? And in many states, a Republican governor would select the temporary replacement.
No, they've got a very short list of people they can chose from at this point.
"Would you prefer seeing Bill and Hillary Clinton decompose in front of your eyes for eight years, or watch the Trump family develop their dynasty?"
Well, let's be fair for a minute here man. If Trump wins we're also going to see him decompose. In fact Donald Trump IS OLDER than Hilary Clinton. So you're BIASED. Now, about your "dynasty"? Fuck dynasties and leave them to the British who love to kiss up to the monarchy and other stinky dynasties. So you're biased and elitist.
The only rational way to go is NOT TO VOTE. Remember, if you don't vote, you will have all the right to complain at the mess all the stupid voters will have made. Twats keep chanting their dumbass "well if you don't vote you have no right to complain". My ass! That's ridiculous and only idiots go along with it.
Hilary and Trump they can both go fuck themselves along with whoever votes for either one. I really think we could do better. Ease down on the fucken bias Randall and stop licking so much Republican dick, I mean, just look at our fucken candidates.
I also see no candidates to vote for, just more of the same.
Donald Trump is really a troll. At least that's what I think.
They're both going to decompose. Hillary will do so while wearing $12K vacuum cleaner bags and Mao suits, so we mostly won't see it. However, Trump's first lady will be easier on the eyes than Hillary's 'first gentleman'. So that's something of a wash.
Either of them will generate plenty of interesting headlines in the event of winning. Hillary will also generate interesting offers on Ebay. But Trump will probably redecorate the White house in gold foil. How this balances out depends on whether you've got the money to bid on our foreign policy, and your opinion of gold foil.
My personal preference is for Trump, chiefly because he's sufficiently hated by the media that he will actually be subject to critical investigative journalism, while we can expect 8 years of the media being an unpaid PR firm for Hillary, going to absurd lengths to bury anything she does wrong, instead of reporting on it. You know, kind of like what's going on right now.
People, specially politicians should learn to show a little more restraint and moderation in their loud talk. Politicians can be judged by how loud they talk. The louder they talk the more emotional they are. I do not want an emotional prick or cunt running the country. I love the U.S. to much to want either one as president. I shall affirm my right to abstinence and recommend it to all who are actually planning to vote. There are really no viable choices.