Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
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.
Liar.And that was it for Cain.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.
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.
Everyday for the past couple of weeks, Cory L wakes up in the morning and tells himself in the mirror...
"Today, I won't get destroyed on this post..AGAIN....I promise!!!"
View attachment 317988
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.
^^ Self projection ^^Everyday for the past couple of weeks, Cory L wakes up in the morning and tells himself in the mirror...
"Today, I won't get destroyed on this post..AGAIN....I promise!!!"
View attachment 317988
Biff, your belief system of your enemies being Evul Wacist Supervillains, is what has been destroyed.
You are not a Hero fighting against Evul Wacists, just a partisan hack who hates people who disagree with him.
Liar.And that was it for Cain.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.
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.
You disproved no such thing. In an average of the polls, Cain never garnered greater than 26% of GOP support. That is nowhere near enough to win the party's nomination and in no way proves there aren't so many racists in the GOP, that's it's virtually impossible for a black candidate to win in that little tent party.
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.
LOL
Your point is DOA. You're literally pointing to a black man who never received more than about a quarter of the GOP's support and then idiotically proclaimed that proof the GOP isn't too racist to nominate a black person.
The total numbers gave Cain a 4 point lead and showed 25% support. But again, that was just one poll. In some others, Romney was on top. On average, Cain's lead was half of one percent.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.I never said every other vote would go to other candidates. I said you have no evidence Cain would have secured the Republican nomination.The members are still 32%. Not enough to win a nomination."Front runner status. IF hte primary votes had been held on that day, he would have been the candidate."LOLOLOLDifferent 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 was deemed too disgusting but Trump is now just dandy. When will Republicans support a Black candidate? No time soon. That's for sure.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.
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 supportwww.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.
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.
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.
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.
His strong lead is evidence that he would have. You are the one with "no evidence" to support your unlikely scenario.
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.
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.
"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. "
Your need to minimize Cain and his campaign is fairly sad.
He was the frontrunner, despite your desire to believe that people you hate, are all Evul Wacists.
The republican voters of the past, did not act as your belief system would expect.
Because your world view is delusional nonsense.
^^ Self projection ^^Everyday for the past couple of weeks, Cory L wakes up in the morning and tells himself in the mirror...
"Today, I won't get destroyed on this post..AGAIN....I promise!!!"
View attachment 317988
Biff, your belief system of your enemies being Evul Wacist Supervillains, is what has been destroyed.
You are not a Hero fighting against Evul Wacists, just a partisan hack who hates people who disagree with him.
Now back to a Buchanan supporter claiming he would have voted for Colin Powell in 96...
Why did you avoid the fact that Colin Powell's stated policies then and his political beliefs now were and are NOWHERE near Buchanan.....who was about as racist as you dic sucking republicans could get away with at that time....
I don't believe shit a closet racist tells me about what "he would have done" -- I just pay attention to the shit you freely say and do now
Correll proves what I said earlier about how there are people who say they would vote for a black candidate but when actually filling out a ballot, never would. That's another reason the exit poll he was referencing earlier is meaningless.^^ Self projection ^^Everyday for the past couple of weeks, Cory L wakes up in the morning and tells himself in the mirror...
"Today, I won't get destroyed on this post..AGAIN....I promise!!!"
View attachment 317988
Biff, your belief system of your enemies being Evul Wacist Supervillains, is what has been destroyed.
You are not a Hero fighting against Evul Wacists, just a partisan hack who hates people who disagree with him.
Now back to a Buchanan supporter claiming he would have voted for Colin Powell in 96...
Why did you avoid the fact that Colin Powell's stated policies then and his political beliefs now were and are NOWHERE near Buchanan.....who was about as racist as you dic sucking republicans could get away with at that time....
I don't believe shit a closet racist tells me about what "he would have done" -- I just pay attention to the shit you freely say and do now
It matters not that it was a big field. That he briefly led the pack is not evidence he would have won. On an average of the polls, he peaked at about 26%. At one point, Perry led the pack with about 32% support, the party didn't ultimately pick him. At one point, Paul led the pack with about 34% support, the party didn't ultimately pick him either. At one point, Gingrich led the pack with about 35% support, the party didn't ultimately pick him either.Liar.And that was it for Cain.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.
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.
You disproved no such thing. In an average of the polls, Cain never garnered greater than 26% of GOP support. That is nowhere near enough to win the party's nomination and in no way proves there aren't so many racists in the GOP, that's it's virtually impossible for a black candidate to win in that little tent party.
1. THe frontrunner in a big field, is the person that has garnered the most support, despite the support being split among many candidates. That a person might not have a majority, does not mean that he is not the frontrunner, not the strongest candidate, nor the choice of the biggest portion of voters.
2. YOur point about the possibility of secret racism among the voters, as a reason for them choosing to support other primary candidates, instead of all the other possible reasons is completely unsupported. You are assuming that, based on nothing but your hatred of people who oppose you.
The total numbers gave Cain a 4 point lead and showed 25% support. But again, that was just one poll. In some others, Romney was on top. On average, Cain's lead was half of one percent.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.I never said every other vote would go to other candidates. I said you have no evidence Cain would have secured the Republican nomination.The members are still 32%. Not enough to win a nomination."Front runner status. IF hte primary votes had been held on that day, he would have been the candidate."LOLOLOLDifferent 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 was deemed too disgusting but Trump is now just dandy. When will Republicans support a Black candidate? No time soon. That's for sure.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.
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
"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.
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.
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.
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.
His strong lead is evidence that he would have. You are the one with "no evidence" to support your unlikely scenario.
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.
So that's what you've shown -- at least ¼ of Republicans are not racist.
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.
"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. "
Your need to minimize Cain and his campaign is fairly sad.
He was the frontrunner, despite your desire to believe that people you hate, are all Evul Wacists.
The republican voters of the past, did not act as your belief system would expect.
Because your world view is delusional nonsense.
LOLOL
I don't have to minimize Cain -- you're doing that by showing he never garnered more than about ¼ of GOP support.
Correll proves what I said earlier about how there are people who say they would vote for a black candidate but when actually filling out a ballot, never would. That's another reason the exit poll he was referencing earlier is meaningless.^^ Self projection ^^Everyday for the past couple of weeks, Cory L wakes up in the morning and tells himself in the mirror...
"Today, I won't get destroyed on this post..AGAIN....I promise!!!"
View attachment 317988
Biff, your belief system of your enemies being Evul Wacist Supervillains, is what has been destroyed.
You are not a Hero fighting against Evul Wacists, just a partisan hack who hates people who disagree with him.
Now back to a Buchanan supporter claiming he would have voted for Colin Powell in 96...
Why did you avoid the fact that Colin Powell's stated policies then and his political beliefs now were and are NOWHERE near Buchanan.....who was about as racist as you dic sucking republicans could get away with at that time....
I don't believe shit a closet racist tells me about what "he would have done" -- I just pay attention to the shit you freely say and do now
It matters not that it was a big field. That he briefly led the pack is not evidence he would have won. On an average of the polls, he peaked at about 26%. At one point, Perry led the pack with about 32% support, the party didn't ultimately pick him. At one point, Paul led the pack with about 34% support, the party didn't ultimately pick him either. At one point, Gingrich led the pack with about 35% support, the party didn't ultimately pick him either.Liar.And that was it for Cain.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.
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.
You disproved no such thing. In an average of the polls, Cain never garnered greater than 26% of GOP support. That is nowhere near enough to win the party's nomination and in no way proves there aren't so many racists in the GOP, that's it's virtually impossible for a black candidate to win in that little tent party.
1. THe frontrunner in a big field, is the person that has garnered the most support, despite the support being split among many candidates. That a person might not have a majority, does not mean that he is not the frontrunner, not the strongest candidate, nor the choice of the biggest portion of voters.
2. YOur point about the possibility of secret racism among the voters, as a reason for them choosing to support other primary candidates, instead of all the other possible reasons is completely unsupported. You are assuming that, based on nothing but your hatred of people who oppose you.
At one point, Romney led the pack, then he didn't, then he did again, then he didn't again, then he did again, then he didn't again, then he did again, then he didn't again, and then finally he did and for good.
Leading the pack is not a ticket to the nomination until the end.
But you proved at least ¼ of Republicans are not racist.
Bully for you.
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.
LOL
Your point is DOA. You're literally pointing to a black man who never received more than about a quarter of the GOP's support and then idiotically proclaimed that proof the GOP isn't too racist to nominate a black person.
Said the man that is also dismissing the exit polls showing the Republican POwell winning a majority of the votes vs Bill Clinton.
NO matter what the evidence, you hold to your Blind Faith in the Evul Wacism of your ememies.
Um, ¼ were perhaps capable of at least suspending their racism for a short period of time?So that's what you've shown -- at least ¼ of Republicans are not racist.
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.
LOL
Your point is DOA. You're literally pointing to a black man who never received more than about a quarter of the GOP's support and then idiotically proclaimed that proof the GOP isn't too racist to nominate a black person.
Said the man that is also dismissing the exit polls showing the Republican POwell winning a majority of the votes vs Bill Clinton.
NO matter what the evidence, you hold to your Blind Faith in the Evul Wacism of your ememies.
I dismissed them because they didn't show what you claimed. You claimed it showed GOP support when it couldn't have since the question about Powell wasn't broken down by political party. It was broken down by candidate. On top of that, it showed he would have gotten less support (68%) than Dole got from Dole supporters. And most of the support for Powell in that poll came at Clinton's expense, dropping the incumbent president's support from the 49% he actually earned in the election to 36% he might have gotten in a hypothetical race against Powell.
