Could Tea Party Canidate Herman Cain Be Viable?

Well Herman Cain, no matter how much Michelle Bachman wants to believe otherwise, is the Tea Party canidate. This means that no matter what the main stream media, who has thouroughly lied about the tea party, says the teapartiers aren't going to believe it.

That is the very reason this scandal hasn't hurt Cain's support in the polls.....yet.

I'm not denying that Cain is "the" (or at least "a") Tea Party candidate. What I am saying is that this means he has no chance to win the general election. His approval numbers are much worse than Obama's (for the general electorate, not for Republicans). He advocates measures that have no chance at all of gaining majority approval, and will seriously hurt him in the general election. A year before the election, a challenger shows better in the polls than he will on election day, because the incumbent isn't campaigning yet and has to deal realistically with policy decisions. Any challenger that polls show losing to the incumbent this early will lose on election day. If the challenger shows as winning a close one with the incumbent this early, chances are he will still lose. All of this barring some unforeseen disaster befalling the incumbent, of course.

As I just noted in the post you quoted, in 2010 -- a uniquely favorable year for both the Tea Party and the GOP -- Tea Party candidates won ZERO statewide races and lost three, three races with weak Democratic candidates that a more mainstream Republican would have won easily. The presidential election is essentially 48 statewide elections, one mayoral race (DC), and five House races (from the two states that separate their electoral votes). If Tea Party candidates cannot win statewide races, neither can they win the White House.

Cain may still be able to win the Republican nomination, but if he does, that guarantees Obama's reelection.

Cain @ 56% approval

Obama @ 50% approval

Cain has higher approval than obama as of the latest polling for both.

Don't confuse dragon with real facts.
 
There seems to be more pretending in the realm of those who don't like Herman Cain and their responses to this latest scandal.

Oh and is he viable people? I think so ;)

I agree, Plymco, that many GOP don't want Cain because he is black. I don't doubt that for a second. We have seen the silliness for more than two years here on Obama and race.

However, I think Cain is finished. He has handled badly the accusations of sexual harassment. He has no experience in serious elected office, and that was an issue with a short-term senator, and it is a major one for Cain. And (my opinion only) I don't think he wants the job. He wants the bucks that Huckabee and Palin are getting for being a "wannabee" at one time.

What planet do you live on?

The planet reality while you reside on delusion moon.
 
Well Herman Cain, no matter how much Michelle Bachman wants to believe otherwise, is the Tea Party canidate. This means that no matter what the main stream media, who has thouroughly lied about the tea party, says the teapartiers aren't going to believe it.

That is the very reason this scandal hasn't hurt Cain's support in the polls.....yet.

I'm not denying that Cain is "the" (or at least "a") Tea Party candidate. What I am saying is that this means he has no chance to win the general election. His approval numbers are much worse than Obama's (for the general electorate, not for Republicans). He advocates measures that have no chance at all of gaining majority approval, and will seriously hurt him in the general election. A year before the election, a challenger shows better in the polls than he will on election day, because the incumbent isn't campaigning yet and has to deal realistically with policy decisions. Any challenger that polls show losing to the incumbent this early will lose on election day. If the challenger shows as winning a close one with the incumbent this early, chances are he will still lose. All of this barring some unforeseen disaster befalling the incumbent, of course.

As I just noted in the post you quoted, in 2010 -- a uniquely favorable year for both the Tea Party and the GOP -- Tea Party candidates won ZERO statewide races and lost three, three races with weak Democratic candidates that a more mainstream Republican would have won easily. The presidential election is essentially 48 statewide elections, one mayoral race (DC), and five House races (from the two states that separate their electoral votes). If Tea Party candidates cannot win statewide races, neither can they win the White House.

Cain may still be able to win the Republican nomination, but if he does, that guarantees Obama's reelection.

Cain @ 56% approval

Obama @ 50% approval

Cain has higher approval than obama as of the latest polling for both.

Look at em all, please.

RealClearPolitics - Latest Election Polls
 
I'm not denying that Cain is "the" (or at least "a") Tea Party candidate. What I am saying is that this means he has no chance to win the general election. His approval numbers are much worse than Obama's (for the general electorate, not for Republicans). He advocates measures that have no chance at all of gaining majority approval, and will seriously hurt him in the general election. A year before the election, a challenger shows better in the polls than he will on election day, because the incumbent isn't campaigning yet and has to deal realistically with policy decisions. Any challenger that polls show losing to the incumbent this early will lose on election day. If the challenger shows as winning a close one with the incumbent this early, chances are he will still lose. All of this barring some unforeseen disaster befalling the incumbent, of course.

As I just noted in the post you quoted, in 2010 -- a uniquely favorable year for both the Tea Party and the GOP -- Tea Party candidates won ZERO statewide races and lost three, three races with weak Democratic candidates that a more mainstream Republican would have won easily. The presidential election is essentially 48 statewide elections, one mayoral race (DC), and five House races (from the two states that separate their electoral votes). If Tea Party candidates cannot win statewide races, neither can they win the White House.

Cain may still be able to win the Republican nomination, but if he does, that guarantees Obama's reelection.

Cain @ 56% approval

Obama @ 50% approval

Cain has higher approval than obama as of the latest polling for both.

Look at em all, please.

RealClearPolitics - Latest Election Polls

I did and your link backs up what I just said that Cain has a 6% higher approval rating than obama.

Maybe next week it will be different but right now Dragon's claim of Obama having a higher approval rating than Cain, in polling, is not correct.
 
PP, your link shows Cain with a 32% approval rating. "Among all registered voters, Cain's favorability declined 5 percentage points, to 32 percent from 37 percent." The 57% figure is for Republican voters.
 
I agree, Plymco, that many GOP don't want Cain because he is black. I don't doubt that for a second. We have seen the silliness for more than two years here on Obama and race.

However, I think Cain is finished. He has handled badly the accusations of sexual harassment. He has no experience in serious elected office, and that was an issue with a short-term senator, and it is a major one for Cain. And (my opinion only) I don't think he wants the job. He wants the bucks that Huckabee and Palin are getting for being a "wannabee" at one time.

What planet do you live on?

The planet reality while you reside on delusion moon.

Jake, why do you keep this charade up about being a conservative? You remind me of a gay guy I worked with back in the early 90's. He had violet colored contacts, literally swished when he walked and wore leopard skin shirts and believed he was passing himself off as straight. When he finally came out to a girl in the office, he was shocked when she told him that everyone in the company knew. True story. You're only fooling yourself. Time to come out of the closet. You'll feel better.
 
Anyone involved in the Tea Party should (but probably won't) follow this rule about presidential candidates: the more you like him, the less chance he has to win.

That's because the Tea Party's agenda, while it has the fervent support of the 20-25% of the people who do support it, has the active and full-throated opposition of everyone else. Tea Party candidates can win local elections in some districts, but not statewide ones, let alone a national election. Note that even in 2010, with a large percentage of the leftist insurgency sitting the election out, Tea Party-backed candidates won NO statewide contests, and lost the GOP three Senate seats (Delaware, Colorado, and Nevada) that Republicans would otherwise have won.

If Herman Cain wins the Republican nomination, that guarantees Barack Obama's reelection.

2011-11-07-brief-cartoon.jpg
 
PP, your link shows Cain with a 32% approval rating. "Among all registered voters, Cain's favorability declined 5 percentage points, to 32 percent from 37 percent." The 57% figure is for Republican voters.

Correct.

Well, 32% is quite a bit below Obama's approval rating. As for the GOP figure, I don't think Obama is going to seek the Republican nomination, so that's not a valid basis for comparison. It does perhaps strengthen a claim that Cain can win the nomination, but I haven't denied that.
 
What planet do you live on?

The planet reality while you reside on delusion moon.

Jake, why do you keep this charade up about being a conservative? You remind me of a gay guy I worked with back in the early 90's. He had violet colored contacts, literally swished when he walked and wore leopard skin shirts and believed he was passing himself off as straight. When he finally came out to a girl in the office, he was shocked when she told him that everyone in the company knew. True story. You're only fooling yourself. Time to come out of the closet. You'll feel better.

I have been the same ever since the Gerald Ford days, and Ford was a great man and tried to be a good president. He was far closer to RR's principles than you ever could hope to be.

The far hard righties are not tradtional Republicans, and after this election the party will configure to exclude them, or go into a permanent exclipse.

Remember, you are not even a RR pub, just a far righty strangeoid.
 
The planet reality while you reside on delusion moon.

Jake, why do you keep this charade up about being a conservative? You remind me of a gay guy I worked with back in the early 90's. He had violet colored contacts, literally swished when he walked and wore leopard skin shirts and believed he was passing himself off as straight. When he finally came out to a girl in the office, he was shocked when she told him that everyone in the company knew. True story. You're only fooling yourself. Time to come out of the closet. You'll feel better.

I have been the same ever since the Gerald Ford days, and Ford was a great man and tried to be a good president. He was far closer to RR's principles than you ever could hope to be.

The far hard righties are not tradtional Republicans, and after this election the party will configure to exclude them, or go into a permanent exclipse.

Remember, you are not even a RR pub, just a far righty strangeoid.

I'm a libertarian.

You might be a centrist, but you aren't a conservative.
 
Last edited:
Jake, why do you keep this charade up about being a conservative? You remind me of a gay guy I worked with back in the early 90's. He had violet colored contacts, literally swished when he walked and wore leopard skin shirts and believed he was passing himself off as straight. When he finally came out to a girl in the office, he was shocked when she told him that everyone in the company knew. True story. You're only fooling yourself. Time to come out of the closet. You'll feel better.

I have been the same ever since the Gerald Ford days, and Ford was a great man and tried to be a good president. He was far closer to RR's principles than you ever could hope to be.

The far hard righties are not tradtional Republicans, and after this election the party will configure to exclude them, or go into a permanent exclipse.

Remember, you are not even a RR pub, just a far righty strangeoid.

I'm a libertarian.

You might be a centrist, but you aren't a conservative.

Most liberals confuse libertarians with being far right because of the staunch constitutional positions on things like taxes, govt spending, and entitlement programs.
 
Libertarians try to pretend they are not far right reactionaries, but that's a zebra painting himself brown: still a zebra, still a far right reactionary.

Neither kwc57 nor Plymco are conservatives at all, which is my point. They don't belong philosophically in the GOP, but we happily take their $$$ and their votes but don't give them a place at the policy making table.
 
Libertarians try to pretend they are not far right reactionaries, but that's a zebra painting himself brown: still a zebra, still a far right reactionary.

Neither kwc57 nor Plymco are conservatives at all, which is my point. They don't belong philosophically in the GOP, but we happily take their $$$ and their votes but don't give them a place at the policy making table.

Really? So a Ron Paul or a Gary Johnson are far right reactionaries? You might want to discuss that withthe far right reactionaries that reject Paul and Gary. It'll be news to them. Expecting the government to follow the constitution isn't far right reaction. So you just keep telling yourself whatever you want in your alternate reality, the rest of us will attempt not to point and laugh too much.
 
Libertarians try to pretend they are not far right reactionaries, but that's a zebra painting himself brown: still a zebra, still a far right reactionary.

I disagree with this. Libertarians aren't far-right reactionaries, they are confused liberals. That is: their core values are those of liberals, but they make the mistake of thinking that government is the only danger to liberty. Where government IS the primary danger to liberty (e.g., war on drugs, Patriot Act, Guantanamo, detention without due process) they tend to take liberal positions. Where it's NOT (e.g. regulations on corporate malfeasance) they take conservative positions, but not because they believe in conservative values. It's because, taking ideologically fixed statements over empirical observation and common sense, they think these conservative policies will achieve liberal ends.
 
You mistake the progressive impulse as being implicity leftist. It is not, rather classically liberal. Progressivism has both left and right leaning wings, using politics to reform society. You discuss well, and I appreciate that.
 
You mistake the progressive impulse as being implicity leftist. It is not, rather classically liberal. Progressivism has both left and right leaning wings, using politics to reform society. You discuss well, and I appreciate that.

Progressivism is implicitly leftist. You are, as a number of conservatives here have pointed out, redefining conservatism to include progressive ideas. What you are saying is true about the Republican Party in its history, but not about conservatism; the reason why you are right about the GOP is because the GOP has not always been conservative.

No one would reasonably call Theodore Roosevelt a conservative, for example.
 
Libertarians try to pretend they are not far right reactionaries, but that's a zebra painting himself brown: still a zebra, still a far right reactionary.

Neither kwc57 nor Plymco are conservatives at all, which is my point. They don't belong philosophically in the GOP, but we happily take their $$$ and their votes but don't give them a place at the policy making table.

Yeah because not wanting to impose conservative social on everyone through legislation is SOOOOOOOOO far right reactionary :lol:

Jake you're crazy sometimes but its :cool:
 

Forum List

Back
Top