The First Black Republican Presidential Nominee Will Be.....

[Grumblenuts]

on to another example.

Example of what exactly? For mercy's sake, just spit it out already..

 

[Faun]

Different poll. Just NH. That's all you've got? Sorry to burst your bubble but NH does not speak for all Republicans. Not even close. Admit it. You're done. You've got nothing.

Buchanan is what Powell is not: a leader of culturally extremist forces. He is a Beltway talk-show warrior who thrives on conflict, not on solving problems.

Buchanan was deemed too disgusting but Trump is now just dandy. When will Republicans support a Black candidate? No time soon. That's for sure.

On the other hand, when will the Democrats support a truly progressive candidate like a Bernie or a Tulsi? No time soon. That's for sure.

As I demonstrated repeatedly, republicans supported a black candidate in 96

There were other times that republicans supported black candidates. Here is another. This guy I personally liked MORE than Powell.

Herman Cain tops Mitt Romney in latest CBS/NYT poll

Former Godfather's Pizza CEO takes 25 percent to Mitt Romney's 21 percent as Rick Perry plunged to just 6 percent support

www.cbsnews.com

"Cain garnered 25 percent support of Republican primary voters in the poll released on Tuesday, compared to Romney's 21 percent. "

"Cain's support surged among voters who identified with the conservative Tea Party wing of the Republican party, rising to 32 percent in mid-October from 18 percent just a few weeks ago. That's more than four times the level of support he had from the group in mid-September. "

Funny how his support is from the conservative side of the party. It is almost as if the lefty stereotypes of the republicans is just completely wrong.

LOLOLOL

Dumbshit -- 25% of Republicans supported Cain according to that poll.

AND it was 4 months before the election, rendering it meaningless.

Front runner status. IF hte primary votes had been held on that day, he would have been the candidate.

Things unfortunately changed before the actual voting, but the thing that changed was not his race.


This poll disproves the claim that the reason for the lack of republican candidates is racism.

BY ITSELF it does that. COmbined with the rest, and it reveals your position to be absurd.

"Front runner status. IF hte primary votes had been held on that day, he would have been the candidate."

But the primaries were not held on that day, rendering your claims imaginary. And had he run, one by one those other candidates would have started dropping and you possess zero evidence Cain would have garnered a majority to win the Republican nomination.

I can't recall it ever working out that way. That is sort of what moderates in the GOP hoped would happen with Trump, as the field narrowed, that some "NOT TRUMP" candidate would get ALL the votes freed up as candiates dropped out, and end up winning. Did not happen.

It is sort of what we conservatives hoped would happen to stop McCain, back in 2008. DIdn't happen.

And I don't recall any strong anti-Cain movement at the time. Maybe a little from the Establishment who did not like how conservative he was.

You are the one ignoring the numbers and trying to explain away the information we do have, so that you can hold on to you negative assumptions about people you hate.

The members are still 32%. Not enough to win a nomination.

Err, you made that point last post. I addressed it. Your scenario that every other vote would go to some "stop Cain" candidate is you coming up with an unlikely scenario to explain away numbers that disprove your dearly held belief in Evul Wacist Republicans.

I never said every other vote would go to other candidates. I said you have no evidence Cain would have secured the Republican nomination.

His strong lead is evidence that he would have. You are the one with "no evidence" to support your unlikely scenario.

His lead was not as strong as you claim. You're looking at just one poll, and a subset at that. Looking at all the polls, Cain led Romney by just half of one percentage point on the same date of the CBS/NYT poll you posted.

 

[Faun]

The fact is that Cain did not get the nomination. There are no if's or and's to be had about it.

And then that idiot blames the media for reporting on the ever growing line of woman accusing Cain of sexual harassment.

NOt really the topic. The point is that it was not reports of his skin color that undermined his support.


Did you forget what your position was? About Evul Republican Wacism?


Or you just trying to deflect from the fact that I have proved you wrong?

LOLOL

You can't say shit unrelated to the topic and then hide behind it being off topic when called out on it.

 

[Faun]

The Republicans were obviously perfectly ready to elect a Perry President. After all, he was the Tea Party front runner earliest on..

And then as Herman Cain got his message to the voters, Perry lost supporters, and Cain gained them.


The primaries are a chaotic and messy process. The best man does not always win, obviously. THe best man is often ganged up on, by the pack and destroyed.

BUT, is obvious from the way Cain gained support and led until destroyed, that the republican voters were happy to support him.


Which smashes your fantasy of Evul Wascist supervillains.

LOLOL

Cain's Republican support lasted just 3 weeks and he was never more than 2½ points above Romney during that brief period. That's who you're claiming would have won if not for the media.

 

[Faun]

Perhaps looking at a single poll of only Tea Party members held way back in October of the prior year doesn't add up to a hill of beans.

Bingo!

 

[Faun]

Perry in turn lost the momentum following poor performances in the September debates, and the third major opponent to Romney's lead, Herman Cain, surged after the sixth debate on September 22. In November, Cain's viability as a candidate was seriously jeopardized after several allegations of sexual harassment surfaced in the media. Although Cain denied the allegations, the fallout from the controversy forced him to suspend his campaign on December 3, 2011.

And that was it for Cain.

And the reason Cain couldn't weather the storm is because he's black and Republicans hold blacks to a higher standard than whites. That's why Impeached Trump, who committed more and far worse offenses against women was given a pass by the same GOP just 4 years later.

 

[Faun]

Perhaps looking at a single poll of only Tea Party members held way back in October of the prior year doesn't add up to a hill of beans.

Which of course, is not what I am doing. It is just that you guys have to stone wall on every little factoid, to maintain your fantasy of Evul Wacists Supervillains.

IN a sane world, you would have said something like, "ok, that is interesting, I did not know that, but by itself it is not enough",

and then we would have moved on to another example.


But, at the end of that, you would have to admit that your fantasy of being a hero fighting Evul Wacist Supervillains,


was just a little game you liked to play, to make yourself feel good about yourself.


So, you stonewall.

"Which of course, is not what I am doing."

Liar.

That's exactly what you're doing. You posted a CBS/NYT poll of Republican TEA party supporters...

 

[katsteve2012]

The Republicans were obviously perfectly ready to elect a Perry President. After all, he was the Tea Party front runner earliest on..

And then as Herman Cain got his message to the voters, Perry lost supporters, and Cain gained them.


The primaries are a chaotic and messy process. The best man does not always win, obviously. THe best man is often ganged up on, by the pack and destroyed.

BUT, is obvious from the way Cain gained support and led until destroyed, that the republican voters were happy to support him.


Which smashes your fantasy of Evul Wascist supervillains.

LOLOL

Cain's Republican support lasted just 3 weeks and he was never more than 2½ points above Romney during that brief period. That's who you're claiming would have won if not for the media.

Just as a casual observer, all the media did was to report the news about Cains womanizing.
They could not have suppressed it.

His party could have chosen to stand behind him.


He was not a "victim" of the media. Their job is only to report.

 

[Grumblenuts]

View attachment 317901

Nice graph! Interesting. So Cain apparently did have a moment in the Sun after all. Mea culpa.

 

[Correll]

Perhaps looking at a single poll of only Tea Party members held way back in October of the prior year doesn't add up to a hill of beans.

It does if the question is, "is Evul Wacism, the reason for the lack of republican blacks presidents?".

 

[Correll]

Seems odd. He was the front runner for a while.

Oh? When was that?

Not sure exactly when it happened. But it did.

New Poll Shows Herman Cain as Frontrunner - The New American

Rick Perry has fallen from his position as leading contender for the GOP nomination, and former Godfather Pizza CEO Herman Cain has emerged as a new top tier candidate. by Raven Clabough

www.thenewamerican.com

"According to that poll, by the Wall Street Journal/NBC News, Cain now has 27 percent of Republican primary voters, while Romney is supported by 23 percent of Republican primary voters. Rep. Ron Paul was the only other candidate in that poll to receive double digit approval, with 11 percent. "


And again, in a world where you libs insist on the republicans, especially conservatives republicans being Evul Wacists, it is worth noting, that his base was among the right wing(s) of the party.

"The poll indicates that Cain is particularly popular among Tea Party supporters, with whom he has 69 percent favorability. Just 5 percent of Tea Partiers give Cain an unfavorable rating, according to that poll. Among those respondents who labeled themselves as “very conservative,” his score is even higher, 72 to 2. "

 

[Correll]

Perry in turn lost the momentum following poor performances in the September debates, and the third major opponent to Romney's lead, Herman Cain, surged after the sixth debate on September 22. In November, Cain's viability as a candidate was seriously jeopardized after several allegations of sexual harassment surfaced in the media. Although Cain denied the allegations, the fallout from the controversy forced him to suspend his campaign on December 3, 2011.

And that was it for Cain.

Yes. Very sad. But the point remains. The GOP voters were quite happy with him, until he was destroyed by the media.

Thus disproving your sides delusional claim of Evul Wacism.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Yes. Very sad.

For those sexually harassed women? Definitely.

 

[Correll]

This guy I personally liked MORE than Powell.

View attachment 316403

So 32% wanted supported the black candidate while 60% supported a white candidate.

What point are you trying to make here?

Don't recall. Perhaps something about how the more conservative republicans were happy to support the black guy.

And "more" still being about half of those who supported a white candidate.

YOur pretense that you don't know what it means to be a front runner, in a big field of candidates, is dismissed.


Cain was the guy with the most support. If the voting had been held on that day, he would have won and been the candidate.


So, the lie that republicans would not nominate a black candidate because of Evul Wacism, is refuted, right there.

Would you like to look at another example now?

Dumbfuck, "big field of candidates" dwindle down quickly once the primaries begin. You possess a grand total of zero evidence Cain would have prevailed. The best you could find was 60% were saying they would vote for a white candidate snc another 8% said they hadn't decided yet.

Your position is based on the false pretense that every other candidate is a single entity, ie "white candidate".


Cain was the one wining at that point in time. He was winning the gop primary, a fact that refutes your belief that the gop is soooo evully wacist.


What took him down, was not the shocking news to the gop voters, that he was suddenly found out to be blacks, but a ginned up media scandal.


Would you like to look at another example now?

I assumed nothing. Which of these other candidates wasn't white...?

There you lied, pretending to misunderstand my point about "white candidate" to mean "white candidates".


You have to be dishonest and evasive to hold on to your fantasy of being a brave warrior fighting against Evul Wacist Supervillains.



Herman Cain had nearly TWICE the level of support of the next strongest candidate, among one of the more conservative factions of the republican party.


That right there, is very strong evidence undermining your position.

There's no lie and you still possess as much evidence as before, which is none, that Cain would have sustained that lead.

And again, according to you, even though we're far out from the general election, Impeached Trump has no chance against Biden because most of the latest polls favor Biden. Just like Impeached Trump didn't stand a chance against Hillary 4 years ago .

YOur refusal to address my point is noted. The reason is obvious. Because you know that you cannot refute it.


The claim has been made that Evul Racism is the cause of the lack of republican black presidents.


The support shown to past black republican candidates, shows that the republican voters is not the Evul Wacists, that you hard core lefties like to pretend they are.


That is what this thread is really about, and I have refuted it. Your stonewalling is just showing everyone how dishonest you are.

 

[Correll]

If Cain would have sustained that lead he would have done so. He didn't. He did not get nominated. He has had the chance to run in 2016 and did not. Correll has no argument to give on this. Cain ran for president in the republican party and did not get nominated. There is no if, ands or buts. He did not get the nomination. What if doesn't apply here, because he ran and he lost.

The point of this thread, is to make the case that the reason for the lack of black republican presidents is Evul Wacism.


THe strong support shown to various black candidates in the past, refutes that silly belief.

 

[Grumblenuts]

He'll catch up eventually...

 

[Correll]

Alternatively, it could just be you doing the fantasizing.

I'm not the one trying to explain away polls and historical facts, to support my negative opinion of enemies.

 

[Correll]

Yes. Very sad.

For those sexually harassed women? Definitely.

Irrelevant to the point of the thread. Which is way you are trying so hard to change the subject.


Because I have shown that your delusions of Evul Wacism, is self serving nonsense.

 

[Correll]

on to another example.

Example of what exactly? For mercy's sake, just spit it out already..

Maybe if you did not cut nearly everything from my post, you would know the answer.

 

[Correll]

Different poll. Just NH. That's all you've got? Sorry to burst your bubble but NH does not speak for all Republicans. Not even close. Admit it. You're done. You've got nothing.

Buchanan is what Powell is not: a leader of culturally extremist forces. He is a Beltway talk-show warrior who thrives on conflict, not on solving problems.

Buchanan was deemed too disgusting but Trump is now just dandy. When will Republicans support a Black candidate? No time soon. That's for sure.

On the other hand, when will the Democrats support a truly progressive candidate like a Bernie or a Tulsi? No time soon. That's for sure.

As I demonstrated repeatedly, republicans supported a black candidate in 96

There were other times that republicans supported black candidates. Here is another. This guy I personally liked MORE than Powell.

Herman Cain tops Mitt Romney in latest CBS/NYT poll

Former Godfather's Pizza CEO takes 25 percent to Mitt Romney's 21 percent as Rick Perry plunged to just 6 percent support

www.cbsnews.com

"Cain garnered 25 percent support of Republican primary voters in the poll released on Tuesday, compared to Romney's 21 percent. "

"Cain's support surged among voters who identified with the conservative Tea Party wing of the Republican party, rising to 32 percent in mid-October from 18 percent just a few weeks ago. That's more than four times the level of support he had from the group in mid-September. "

Funny how his support is from the conservative side of the party. It is almost as if the lefty stereotypes of the republicans is just completely wrong.

LOLOLOL

Dumbshit -- 25% of Republicans supported Cain according to that poll.

AND it was 4 months before the election, rendering it meaningless.

Front runner status. IF hte primary votes had been held on that day, he would have been the candidate.

Things unfortunately changed before the actual voting, but the thing that changed was not his race.


This poll disproves the claim that the reason for the lack of republican candidates is racism.

BY ITSELF it does that. COmbined with the rest, and it reveals your position to be absurd.

"Front runner status. IF hte primary votes had been held on that day, he would have been the candidate."

But the primaries were not held on that day, rendering your claims imaginary. And had he run, one by one those other candidates would have started dropping and you possess zero evidence Cain would have garnered a majority to win the Republican nomination.

I can't recall it ever working out that way. That is sort of what moderates in the GOP hoped would happen with Trump, as the field narrowed, that some "NOT TRUMP" candidate would get ALL the votes freed up as candiates dropped out, and end up winning. Did not happen.

It is sort of what we conservatives hoped would happen to stop McCain, back in 2008. DIdn't happen.

And I don't recall any strong anti-Cain movement at the time. Maybe a little from the Establishment who did not like how conservative he was.

You are the one ignoring the numbers and trying to explain away the information we do have, so that you can hold on to you negative assumptions about people you hate.

The members are still 32%. Not enough to win a nomination.

Err, you made that point last post. I addressed it. Your scenario that every other vote would go to some "stop Cain" candidate is you coming up with an unlikely scenario to explain away numbers that disprove your dearly held belief in Evul Wacist Republicans.

I never said every other vote would go to other candidates. I said you have no evidence Cain would have secured the Republican nomination.

His strong lead is evidence that he would have. You are the one with "no evidence" to support your unlikely scenario.

His lead was not as strong as you claim. You're looking at just one poll, and a subset at that. Looking at all the polls, Cain led Romney by just half of one percentage point on the same date of the CBS/NYT poll you posted.

View attachment 317901

I am not just looking at the subset. I posted both the total numbers and the breakdown. (And it was more than half a point. )

BUT, it is relevant in a world where you liberals like to pretend that conservatives are all Evul Wacists,

that Cain's base was among conservatives.