Why did people vote for Obama the 2nd time?

[jts]

I can understand to some degree why people voted for Obama in the first election. He told a bunch of lies. That's why. But why the second time?

Are the voters that stupid? Nope, not possible. You might find the odd person here and there who is that stupid but this kind of mass stupidity is not possible.

Voting machines? Maybe the voters voted intelligently, for Ron Paul maybe, and the voting machines voted for Obama.

Some other kind of election fraud?

Mass hypnosis?

Masochism?

What?

[Selene]

I can understand to some degree why people voted for Obama in the first election. He told a bunch of lies. That's why. But why the second time?

Are the voters that stupid? Nope, not possible. You might find the odd person here and there who is that stupid but this kind of mass stupidity is not possible.

Voting machines? Maybe the voters voted intelligently, for Ron Paul maybe, and the voting machines voted for Obama.

Some other kind of election fraud?

Mass hypnosis?

Masochism?

What?

Good question jts.

It is rather clear, O'biwan got less votes than in 2008. I will get his numbers.

Over 4,000,000 less turned out for numbnuts [Romney].

Additionally, as we now have reason to believe, the operation to supress Tea Party groups actualizing their tax frees was a planned operation and it succeeded extremely well.

Moreover, the Romney campaign was one of the worst campaigns ever, with no effective field force.

They didn't even test run their electronics get out the votes technology. Guess what, it did not operate.

Finally, O'biwan's voter identification was five and a half years of brilliant refining and reinforcement.

Put that all together and it spells tyranny.

A...

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Why?

Local-level covert persuasion targeting based on behavioral science that was competently deployed.

Michael

[KacyRay]

It can't *possibly* be the he was better than the alternative, right? I mean, that just *can't* be the reason.

It must have been mind tricks. Must have been the advertising campaign. Americans must just be dumb! They're under the spell of the liberrral boogeyman! It's that damn George Soros misinformation campaign!!!

It couldn't be that he offered a more clear plan with a clearly defined course of action!! It couldn't be that he was hands-down a better candidate than Romney!! It JUST CAN'T BE THAT, AT THE END OF THE DAY, HE WAS THE BEST VIABLE OPTION!!! NOOOOOoooooo!!!!!

hehe...

It's fun watching you guys scratch your head and come up with this stuff. It's like watching rationalization take place in real-time.

[jts]

It can't *possibly* be the he was better than the alternative, right?

There was more than one alternative.

[Robert Baratheon]

It's like Romney said. A huge percentage of people in this country are now dependent upon government. They aren't going to vote for somebody they fear will take away their Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Unemployment, Public Pension, Food Stamps, Public Housing, Heating Assistance, WIC, Disability, etc.

It can't *possibly* be the he was better than the alternative, right? I mean, that just *can't* be the reason.

Kacy,

Do you ever feel like a fraud always finding yourself wandering into the politically "hip" party uninvited half past midnight? When Ron Paul was hip, you were all hot and heavy for Ron Paul. Now he's tired news, so for some convoluted reason, you're publicly declaring that you won't support him anymore. Your friendship with the party host ended right when the booze dried up and all the guests took off - well isn't that convenient.

Obama is now the hip commodity with young independent-types, standing up to those evil old rich white male lame and backwards Tea Party, so all of a sudden, you're this big Obama admirer, and instead of examining the hard issues, you focus exclusively on safe and trendy social issues like "marriage equality" guaranteed to get you thumbs up in <40 social media. We can only wonder what will be your next flavor of the month.

[KacyRay]

It can't *possibly* be the he was better than the alternative, right?

There was more than one alternative.

There was not more than one viable alternative. I put that qualifier in ALL CAPS.

[KacyRay]

RB: Yep, you nailed it. We live in a country of parasites. You might as well move to Canada.

"Do you ever feel like a fraud always finding yourself wandering into the politically "hip" party uninvited half past midnight? When Ron Paul was hip, you were all hot and heavy for Ron Paul. Now he's tired news, so for some convoluted reason, you're publicly declaring that you won't support him anymore."

I'm going to respond to this not for your sake, but on the off chance that there are still some people who might net yet understand why I do not have any desire to discuss anything with you at all.

In the fake-fainting thread, I was asked why I don't support Ron Paul any more. I articulated a clear reason - that being that once he hired unapologetic theocrat Gary North to be his director of Curriculum for "Ron Paul Curriculum", he showed his true colors and I can no longer support him.

Now you come along and propose, as an established point of fact, that I ditched him because he is no longer fashionable.

You are either dim or dishonest, and I don't think you're dim.

Either way, you're not anyone I'm interested in engaging in discourse with.

[Brant Gaede]

There is good reason to suspect a lot of voter fraud favoring the last Obama campaign. None of it seems to be being investigated. Historically voter fraud out of Chicago and Texas is hardly even controversial. The latter made LBJ a US Senator in [edit] 1948. Both made JFK President in 1961.

But any suggestion that serious fraud continues to this day with an electronic twist is met with out-of-hand derision by Kacy.

--Brant

[PDS]

But why the second time, you ask?

A couple of answers:

1. Because slightly more than 50% of the voters thought he sucked less than Romney.

2. Because the Republican "brand" as a whole forfeited massive credibility by bailing out Wall Street in 2008-9.

3. Because a fair portion of our population believes one can get something for nothing.

4. Because libertarian types saw no net advantage in voting for Romney.

5. Because socialist types saw some net advantage in voting for Obama.

Believe it or not, Obama's election had nothing to do with KacyRay.

[Selene]

There is good reason to suspect a lot of voter fraud favoring the last Obama campaign. None of it seems to be being investigated. Historically voter fraud out of Chicago and Texas is hardly even controversial. The latter made LBJ a US Senator in the early 1950s. Both made JFK President in 1961.

But any suggestion that serious fraud continues to this day with an electronic twist is met with out-of-hand derision by Kacy.

--Brant

Ah, 1948 Senate runoff and "the miracle of ballot box 13," was actually Precinctt 13, in "Jim Wells County that had curiously been cast in alphabetical order and just at the close of polling. Some of these voters swore that they had not voted that day.^[22]" Also, curiously all, the signatures appeared to be in the same handwriting.

In the 1960 Presidential election, there was a phone call made by either Mayor Daley to Papa Joe Kennedy, or vice versa wherein the conversation was how many votes do we need to win.

JFK won by approximately one (1) vote per Election District/Preccinct nationwide.

As a 14 year old working on the Nixon campaign I was furious about the theft of the Presidence. I read Atlas, coincidentally with the year after that election.

A...

[Selene]

PDS:

He apparently did not vote in either election for anyone, which I find extremely peculiar.

I am suspicious of a person who appears to be so "opinionated" about politics, supported particular causes and candidates and yet did not vote.

A...

[moralist]

I can understand to some degree why people voted for Obama in the first election. He told a bunch of lies. That's why. But why the second time?

Are the voters that stupid? Nope, not possible. You might find the odd person here and there who is that stupid but this kind of mass stupidity is not possible.

Voting machines? Maybe the voters voted intelligently, for Ron Paul maybe, and the voting machines voted for Obama.

Some other kind of election fraud?

Mass hypnosis?

Masochism?

What?

The answer is simple:

Obama is an accurate reflection of the moral values by which the political majority lives.

And as such, he represents the universal fulfillment of the meme that someone else will pay your bills.

[Brant Gaede]

There is good reason to suspect a lot of voter fraud favoring the last Obama campaign. None of it seems to be being investigated. Historically voter fraud out of Chicago and Texas is hardly even controversial. The latter made LBJ a US Senator in the early 1950s. Both made JFK President in 1961.

But any suggestion that serious fraud continues to this day with an electronic twist is met with out-of-hand derision by Kacy.

--Brant

Ah, 1948 Senate runoff and "the miracle of ballot box 13," was actually Precinctt 13, in "Jim Wells County that had curiously been cast in alphabetical order and just at the close of polling. Some of these voters swore that they had not voted that day.^[22]" Also, curiously all, the signatures appeared to be in the same handwriting.

In the 1960 Presidential election, there was a phone call made by either Mayor Daley to Papa Joe Kennedy, or vice versa wherein the conversation was how many votes do we need to win.

JFK won by approximately one (1) vote per Election District/Preccinct nationwide.

As a 14 year old working on the Nixon campaign I was furious about the theft of the Presidence. I read Atlas, coincidentally with the year after that election.

A...

Joseph Kennedy got what he deserved for sluicing his children into politics only to see one killed in WWII seeking heroism (or actually being a hero or both) and almost losing Jack too, only to live to see two or the three remaining sons gunned down. Joe was a first-class SOB who did some really productive things I've never heard (remembered?) one word about in a vain attempt to out-lodge the Lodges by doing the end-around of pigs-in-slop general public esteem in lieu of in-grown snobbery. And check out what happened to JFJ's sister, especially thanks to her mother Rose.

--Brant

but it was LBJ, not the Kennedys, I came to hate (except for leave-her-in-the-car Ted)

[Selene]

but it was LBJ, not the Kennedys, I came to hate (except for leave-her-in-the-car Ted)

Yep, Vietnam troop escalation, "War on Poverty" and the expansion of the central state.

[PDS]

PDS:

He apparently did not vote in either election for anyone, which I find extremely peculiar.

I am suspicious of a person who appears to be so "opinionated" about politics, supported particular causes and candidates and yet did not vote.

A...

So what? Seriously, what is there to be suspicious about?

Maybe this is a Semper Fi thing, but I really think there are more relevant and interesting things to be "suspicious" about than an active duty Marine officer's change of heart about politics, or whether he is drawing a pension some day. Why make it personal?

I probably agree with you more on the political side than I do Kacy, but I don't see how an adherence to the basics of Objectivist principles dictates that one be a liberal or a conservative, or anything in between, given the jacked up nature of today's political climate.

If I recally correctly, Pope Peikoff has been ridiculously wrong about poltics in the not so distant past. These things do happen.

[BaalChatzaf]

They had their heads up their asses and they believed Obama could get it right the second time around. Boy! Were they wrong.!

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

It can't *possibly* be the he was better than the alternative, right? I mean, that just *can't* be the reason.

It must have been mind tricks. Must have been the advertising campaign. Americans must just be dumb! They're under the spell of the liberrral boogeyman!...

Kacy,

It's funny how you react according to the Progressive personality--immediate sneering, scorn and sarcasm and attacking the motives of a critic.

This uses the normative before cognitive epistemology. You judge before you identify. And you do it in the mainstream Progressive style of MSNBC (say, Ed Schulz).

The core storyline you have adopted comes loaded with stereotypes and you react on OL to the world according to them. But you end up looking foolish when you come across something that is not a stereotype. There always ensues a lot of blah blah blah just to get the correct identification down.

I'm not saying this as a put-down. It's a nasty mental habit--one that I had to shake myself (my core storyline--the one I threw off--was Randian in a Randroidish manner).

But let's go in the correct epistemological direction for a moment: cognitive before normative. Let us identify correctly so we can judge correctly.

Actually, the Obama people brag about the behavioral science they deploy. (Apropos, look at Obama's reaction to the news he was reelected. He cried. He was surprised it worked.)

So let's dig in. Look up COBS some day (COBS = Consortium Of Behavioral Scientists). Since research does not seem to be your strong point, I'll give you a little help (and no videos, knowing you cannot watch them). Also, I'll tie one hand behind my back and avoid conservative publications, and I'll even keep the number of references short, but there are many. Pursue any of these leads I am providing and you will come across a treasure-trove of information I think you don't even imagine exists.

Let's start with an article in the New York Times:

Academic ‘Dream Team’ Helped Obama’s Effort

By BENEDICT CAREY

November 12, 2012

New York Times

From the article:

Late last year Matthew Barzun, an official with the Obama campaign, called Craig Fox, a psychologist in Los Angeles, and invited him to a political planning meeting in Chicago, according to two people who attended the session.

“He said, ‘Bring the whole group; let’s hear what you have to say,’ ” recalled Dr. Fox, a behavioral economist at the University of California, Los Angeles.

So began an effort by a team of social scientists to help their favored candidate in the 2012 presidential election.

. . .

Less well known is that the Obama campaign also had a panel of unpaid academic advisers. The group — which calls itself the “consortium of behavioral scientists,” or COBS — provided ideas on how to counter false rumors, like one that President Obama is a Muslim. It suggested how to characterize the Republican opponent, Mitt Romney, in advertisements. It also delivered research-based advice on how to mobilize voters.

“In the way it used research, this was a campaign like no other,” said Todd Rogers, a psychologist at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government and a former director of the Analyst Institute. “It’s a big change for a culture that historically has relied on consultants, experts and gurulike intuition.”

. . .

In addition to Dr. Fox, the consortium included Susan T. Fiske of Princeton University; Samuel L. Popkin of the University of California, San Diego; Robert Cialdini, a professor emeritus at Arizona State University; Richard H. Thaler, a professor of behavioral science and economics at the University of Chicago’s business school; and Michael Morris, a psychologist at Columbia.

“A kind of dream team, in my opinion,” Dr. Fox said.

Those are some of the names. I now own books by most of them.

If you want a book that goes into the process itself during campaigns, here is one by a journalist for The Boston Globe and the New York Times: The Victory Lab: The Secret Science of Winning Campaigns by Sasha Issenberg. I have only skimmed this one, but it names the same team.

One of the sources both politicians and scientists in the Obama efforts used, but did not talk about much in the press, is Daniel Kahneman, Nobel Prize winner and author of Thinking Fast and Slow. I own this book and I'm almost finished with it. Kahneman himself talks a lot about the different scientists on Obama's Dream Team as he is personal friends with them, and has conducted experiments with several.

There's a very interesting book by two of these scientists (one not named in the press article) you might be interested in: Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness by Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein. There is a concept they promote that I believe you would resonate with: libertarian paternalism (Wikipedia calls it soft paternalism--apparently the Progressive game of co-opting words that mean the contrary is too much for the Wikipedia editors).

This last book is especially important because Cass Sunstein was Obama's Czar for the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs for his first term. Sunstein was the one pumping out the massive volumes of government regulations on business (and individuals).

This is a start. As you see, you stepped into a rabbit hole that is a hobby of mine. These scientists are not stupid people. Most of them favor big government in one form or another and I can't help noticing that most receive the gross of their money indirectly from the government and Progressive think tanks (foundations and so forth).

I study these people because what they do works. The conservatives are totally inept at this stuff.

I believe you have a brain, which is why I am taking time with you. However, if you prefer the rough and tumble of the normative before cognitive approach, with a lot of name-calling of the people you discuss things with, I have a suggestion. Try this one out in O-Land: Thomas Sowell Agrees with Doug Bandler about the coming Race War over on SLOP. That level of reasoning is more akin to what you seem to prefer.

I make that statement based on what you keep presenting to the OL public.

You have a good brain. Disagreement is OK, I have no problem with that. But I do hope you make an effort to raise your intellectual bar a little for public discussion.

Michael

[Selene]

PDS:

He apparently did not vote in either election for anyone, which I find extremely peculiar.

I am suspicious of a person who appears to be so "opinionated" about politics, supported particular causes and candidates and yet did not vote.

A...

So what? Seriously, what is there to be suspicious about?

Maybe this is a Semper Fi thing, but I really think there are more relevant and interesting things to be "suspicious" about than an active duty Marine officer's change of heart about politics, or whether he is drawing a pension some day. Why make it personal?

I probably agree with you more on the political side than I do Kacy, but I don't see how an adherence to the basics of Objectivist principles dictates that one be a liberal or a conservative, or anything in between, given the jacked up nature of today's political climate.

If I recally correctly, Pope Peikoff has been ridiculously wrong about poltics in the not so distant past. These things do happen.

I understand your point.

However, I do not get the impression that he is an "Objectivist." However, I will inquire.

Since I have always been a political being, animal [leave that one open for your cutting wit] and citizen, the idea of not voting is dissonant to my mind.

I have written in Atlas characters, particularly in judicial races, where a slate of judicial candidates appears on all the ballot lines.

A...

[Peter]

Brant wrote:

Joe was a first-class SOB who did some really productive things I've never heard (remembered?)

end quote

Old Joe Kennedy was the model for Nooky Thompson on HBO’s “Boardwalk Empire.”

Peter

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

As a footnote to my last post, I want to make an observation.

When you rely too much on covert manipulation, it makes you lazy. It's a lot easier to tell a story than to do the work implied by the story.

This is happening with the Obamacare fiasco.

Obama's people were crack social media players. They were hailed as the wizards of the Internet. They believed it--because it was true.

Now they can't even get a program--the major computer program of Obama's administration--running correctly. They are the Internet laughingstock of the entire world.

What happened?

I believe they got lazy and lived off the high the stories provided. They started telling themselves bullshit mixed with the stories (instead of just telling it to others), peppered it with the perks of being in power, then started believing in their own bullshit as they stopped being concerned with doing the actual work.

Now they are confused.

Reality cannot be fooled.

But don't believe me. Look for yourself. Something to watch out for--more stories from the Obama camp that are disconnected from reality.

One way to detect them without even thinking is to watch the comedians that are on the Obama side slowly turn.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

One more small addition--press access.

When all these propaganda techniques stack on each other, the effect is intense. But the public they operate on has to remain unaware for the techniques to work. Once people see what's going on, they usually get pissed and the effort boomerangs.

Here is a story from the Obama-friendly Associated Press via the Obama-friendlier Huffington Post from last April that shows the boomerang is starting to turn:

Obama 'Limiting Press Access In Ways That Past Administrations Wouldn't Have Dared': AP
By NANCY BENAC
04/01/2013
Huffington Post (AP)

From the article:

Capitalizing on the possibilities of the digital age, the Obama White House is generating its own content like no president before, and refining its media strategies in the second term in hopes of telling a more compelling story than in the first.

At the same time, it is limiting press access in ways that past administrations wouldn't have dared, and the president is answering to the public in more controlled settings than his predecessors.

Don't think this is something new that popped up after Obama was reelected. There is a lot of behavioral science behind it. But the danger, as I said, is believing your own bullshit.

From the end of the article:

Kumar, the Towson professor, warns that the administration can even delude itself if it puts too much emphasis on self-reinforcing content.

"They start believing what they're creating," she says. "They need to hear a lot of voices and they need to hear them early."

I believe the Obama propaganda machine is in this phase right now and receiving a rude wake-up call. Whether they correct their course or go down in flames is yet to be seen.

My own bias leads me to believe (and hope) they go down in flames. But that's my bias, not the facts.

I could probably dig up more recent stuff on press manipulation by the Obama folks, especially in the wake of the Obamacare fiasco. But I doubt there will be anything in it saying his press policies have changed or that the press likes them.

Michael

[Robert Baratheon]

I'm going to respond to this not for your sake, but on the off chance that there are still some people who might net yet understand why I do not have any desire to discuss anything with you at all.

In the fake-fainting thread, I was asked why I don't support Ron Paul any more. I articulated a clear reason - that being that once he hired unapologetic theocrat Gary North to be his director of Curriculum for "Ron Paul Curriculum", he showed his true colors and I can no longer support him.

Now you come along and propose, as an established point of fact, that I ditched him because he is no longer fashionable.

You are either dim or dishonest, and I don't think you're dim.

Either way, you're not anyone I'm interested in engaging in discourse with.

Kacy,

People can reach their own conclusions without your obnoxious coaching. I've gotten along here just fine in your absence. You, on the other hand, in less than a day managed to aggressively insult, troll, and aggravate most of the active posters here, as well as spew out some truly ridiculous propaganda, for which you were rightfully smacked down in your most recent topic thread. Perhaps you haven't yet acclimated to having real-world dialogue with people who aren't giving you orders or taking them.

On the topic of your about-face on Ron Paul, you perfectly illustrate my point. The fact that you even know who Ron Paul's "Director of Curriculum" is, or know what a "Ron Paul Curriculum" is, or that you even *care* about any of these irrelevancies, means you are stuck so far in the weeds with your perfectionist standards that no real-living libertarian candidate can ever hope to meet them. You then immediately jump from here to acceptance of whatever liberal candidate is on the table without applying the same level of scrutiny to that candidate. Obama has made some truly outrageous appointments during his Presidency, and not for "curriculum" positions nobody has ever heard of - real positions of power. Do you even attempt to scrutinize these appointments? Do you care the slightest bit? No, you don't care, because this is all really just a pretext so you can always fall on the "right side of history" with your high-fiving social media buddies - another progressive term of art you've subconsciously adopted, by the way. I recall you using the term "social justice" without even realizing it's a progressive codeword. If that isn't evidence of the extent to which you've cherrypicked your audience, then I don't know what is.

[Selene]

Now if we can only get him to endorse Rand Paul, or, some other candidate for Pesident, based on his endorsement of O'biwan, we are in!!

A clever conspiracy is formed to convice KacyRay to endorse Rand Paul.

Ssh, keep it between us.

[PDS]

PDS:

He apparently did not vote in either election for anyone, which I find extremely peculiar.

I am suspicious of a person who appears to be so "opinionated" about politics, supported particular causes and candidates and yet did not vote.

A...

So what? Seriously, what is there to be suspicious about?

Maybe this is a Semper Fi thing, but I really think there are more relevant and interesting things to be "suspicious" about than an active duty Marine officer's change of heart about politics, or whether he is drawing a pension some day. Why make it personal?

I probably agree with you more on the political side than I do Kacy, but I don't see how an adherence to the basics of Objectivist principles dictates that one be a liberal or a conservative, or anything in between, given the jacked up nature of today's political climate.

If I recally correctly, Pope Peikoff has been ridiculously wrong about poltics in the not so distant past. These things do happen.

I understand your point.

However, I do not get the impression that he is an "Objectivist." However, I will inquire.

Since I have always been a political being, animal [leave that one open for your cutting wit] and citizen, the idea of not voting is dissonant to my mind.

I have written in Atlas characters, particularly in judicial races, where a slate of judicial candidates appears on all the ballot lines.

A...

I don't vote that often. Writing in John Galt on a ballot is not exactly voting either, at least not in any meaningful sense.

I figure paying a 50+% tax on every dollar I make and an honorable discharge has earned me the right to not have to vote for the lesser of two shitheads.