0bama increasingly making middle-schoolers look poised and mature in comparison

It seems that either the campaign is desperate or they have lulled themselves into thinking that the only two demographics that matter are “grievance studies” and “hipster D-bags”. (That’s what echo chambers will do to you.)

In any case, at a campaign appearance in Springfield, OH (not the namesake in IL), 0bama urged voters to “take revenge” on election day. The Romney campaign wasted no time in pouncing on this, asking voters “”Are you voting for Revenge Or Love Of Country?”


Seriously, 0bama and his campaign are increasingly making middle-schoolers look poised and mature in comparison.

Or they are plain desperate. Just gleaning from my twitter feed:

As Insty put it memorably: “Don’t forget to change your clocks tonight, and your president on Tuesday”.

Has the preference cascade reached the media? Romney leading in newspaper endorsements

Ann Althouse notes that, most unlike McCain in 2008, Romney is currently leading 0bama in newspaper endorsements by a sizeable margin — and that no less than 28 papers switched from 0bama to Romney this election cycle. Via the comments, here is a detailed list of endorsements., from which we learn that only six papers made the reverse switch.

Does this mean that the “preference cascade” has now spread to a quintessential bulwark of the New Class, the legacy media? (To be sure, the Pravda-on-the-Hudson and the Izvestia-on-the=Potomac are still endorsing the Naked Emperor, the NYT orgasmically so, the WaPo less enthusiastically.)

The winner in the “don’t hold back, tell us how you really feel” category must surely be the Las Vegas Review-Journal: “Benghazi blunder: Obama unworthy commander-in-chief“. These lines deserve being shouted out to the world:

This administration is an embarrassment on foreign policy and incompetent at best on the economy – though a more careful analysis shows what can only be a perverse and willful attempt to destroy our prosperity. […]

[Mr. Obama’s] behaviors go far beyond “spin.” They amount to a pack of lies. To return to office a narcissistic amateur who seeks to ride this nation’s economy and international esteem to oblivion, like Slim Pickens riding the nuclear bomb to its target at the end of the movie “Dr. Strangelove,” would be disastrous.

Candidate Obama said if he couldn’t fix the economy in four years, his would be a one-term presidency.

Mitt Romney is [a] moral, capable and responsible man. Just this once, it’s time to hold Barack Obama to his word. Maybe we can all do something about that, come Tuesday.


WaPo reports on… the 0bama defectors

OK, there must be something to this preference cascade, because (via Elizabeth Price Foley @ instapundit) the WaPo, of all places, has an article on the 0bama “defectors”. This graph is probably the most interesting part of the piece:


The standout statistic is of course the very top entry: 13% of all 2008 0bama voters are planning to vote for Romney. 13% of 52% is 6.8%: if 0bama really only will poll about 45% this time then it will be at least a mini-landslide. Assuming that even half of those eventually stay home rather than vote for the other guy, 0bama will still be toast.

If the poll is to be believed, liberal democrats and blacks still stick to Zero like glue. Equally unsurprisingly, over half of the 2008 “Republicans for 0bama” are going for Romney this time. But gee, I really have no idea why 19% of white Catholic 0bama voters, or 21% of working class whites, have developed buyer’s remorse? 😉 Or why nearly one-third of his white evangelical voters have decided to turn their back on him? Governing like a Chicago ward heeler, and campaigning like only the “hipster douchebag” demographic decides elections, have consequences.

But perhaps even more important is that, among white college grads (a suppsedly reliably liberal demographic), 17% of men and 12% of women are crossing the aisle. This is not a phenomenon of just one or two special interest groups.

Let us hope that the top statistic line is correct, and that the 0bama regime will soon be just a bad memory. “Y’all can keep the change.”

Has a ‘preference cascade’ away from 0bama started in the MSM?

[While I primarily tweet nowdays due to acute time shortage, this phenomenon is interesting enough to, at least just once, awaken this blog from hibernation.]

Following 0bama’s disastrous performance at the 1st presidential debate with Mitt Romney, he has not just (expectedly and deservedly) been dogpiled on by conservatives, but all of a sudden one sees biting criticism from what until recently were basically unpaid 0bama campaign operatives in the MSM. Nothing illustrates this better than the New Yorker cover:

More examples:

It is blatantly obvious, at least to me, that the DeMSM have been running interference for President Empty Chair not just because of leftist conviction, but because they see him as one “of our own kind, dear”, namely a fellow member of the New Class. I have also predicted repeatedly on Twitter (and can’t believe I’m the only one) that the DeMSM would keep trumpeting this feckless amateur until he became plainly indefensible even to partisans — at which point they would drop him like a stone.

Insty and others, however, bring up two phenomena in mass psychology known as “preference falsification” and “preference cascades”. These terms were popularized by Turkish-born economist Timur Kuran in his book “Private truths, public lies“.

Basically , preference falsification occurs as follows (quoting from Wikipedia): “in articulating preferences, individuals frequently tailor their choices to what appears socially acceptable. In other words, they convey preferences that differ from what they genuinely want.” This is a very strong mechanism for ‘keeping people in line’ with an outright dictatorship or for creating an artificial consensus about an issue. For example, after the Vietnam war, people in certain neighborhoods of a liberal bent might still wish to display American flags, but would refrain from doing so (or hang out the death rune that somehow became a ‘peace’ symbol) since ‘everybody thinks the US flag now stands for patriotism or militarism or for support of  the Vietnam war’. Once such a choice has been made, people start trying to rationalize it by selective facts, half-truth, and believing convenient propaganda lies. In truth, only a small minority of very loudmouthed people may genuinely consider a flag display offensive, but they manage to, essentially, emotionally bully the whole community into going along with them.

The way many dictatorships and autocracies stay in power is precisely this: creating an illusion that ‘everybody is with the program [except, of course, for a few despicable Goldsteins/poltroons of capitalism/Volksfeinde/…]’. Media censorship (or coerced self-censorship), flooding the media landscape with pro-regime propaganda [perhaps with a few cartoonishly lunatic strawman opponents to create an illusion of freedom of expression], and brutal repression of any genuine opposition groups are essential to this tactic. A softer version of the same tactic is the demonization of any fundamental deviation from the liberal-left (manufactured) consensus as ‘racist’, ‘sexist’, ‘homophobic’, either by wild extrapolation, through guilt by association, or bare assertion.

Now what happens if Joe Q. Public goes along with the program ‘because everybody else does except for a couple of nutcases’ — and then discovers that people in his own circle have the guts to speak up against it? If Joe is one of the small minority of ‘true believers’, then nothing much (if anything, he may harden); otherwise, he may feel heartened to speak up too. And other people who know Joe suddenly realize ‘hey, it’s OK to have a different opinion’, who in turn,… and voila, you have a ‘preference cascade‘ . The fable of ‘The Emperor’s New Clothes‘ essentially describes a ‘preference cascade’ started by one boy who, defying social convention, dared say that the emperor was buck-naked.

‘Preference cascades’ explain, for example, why seemingly stable dictatorial regimes may collapse very suddenly, taking even seasoned observers by surprise. And often such cascades are started over what, compared to the other flaws of the regime, are comparatively trivial issues — but that, for whatever reason, get enough people to speak out that they start a firestorm of criticism.

A more mundane example of preference cascades may be the sudden decline of certain popular fads.

Now coming back to the 2012 election: In this case, there is no preference cascade among small-government conservatives, national security hawks, and the like, because they were never on board to begin with. (The few who voted 0bama more out of disgust with McCain’s candidacy than anything else, quickly developed buyer’s remorse.) Likewise, the True Believers are not going to be swayed. But many liberals or centrists must have seen that, well, their messiah figure just didn’t deliver — but were afraid to express such criticism for fear of being called ‘racists’ (specious accusations of which are the last refuge of the intellectually and morally bankrupt), for being accused of giving aid and comfort to the ‘enemy’ (defined in a partisan sense), or simply for failing to live up to what the media incessantly tell you ‘the smart people’ believe. 0bama’s critics from the LEFT, on the other hand, felt freer to lambast him for not closing Club Gitmo, for continuing and in fact stepping up the drone strikes program, etc. — and in the process acted as ‘beards’ for 0bama when the latter found himself accused of radicalism.

Now, it appears, for a fairly trivial reason — a shabby debate performance — the house of cards is finally buckling. (The fact that so much of the 0bama media myth rests on his supposed oratorical qualities of course doesn’t help him.) To me — compared to the fiscal black hole, the collapse of foreign policy, the Chicago-style crony-gangster government, the abuse of executive power by Holder, Sibelius, and 0bama himself, an economy that seems headed for Euro-style long-term recession, and the creeping encroachment on our lives by unelected healthcare and ‘environmental’ bureaucrats — 0bama’s dismal performance in one debate is a trivial event. But. perhaps, it is one that is finally  causing longtime stalwart defenders of an indefensible president to ask difficult questions — and in the process making it clear that people who have misgivings are not alone.