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

[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.

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 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.

So that's what you've shown -- at least ¼ of Republicans are not racist.

If you losing 3 out of 4 voters, before you even get a listen on your platform, you won't get to frontrunner status.

Colin Powell, would not have gotten over 50 % of the votes in the exit poll, if he was losing, half the republcans.


Your fantasy of yourself as a Hero fighting Evul Wacism, is more something that belongs in some type of historical fantasy game, not a political discussion site.

Liar, that exit poll showed the most of the support for Powell came from Clinton's camp.

 

[Correll]

So that's what you've shown -- at least ¼ of Republicans are not racist.

Um, ¼ were perhaps capable of at least suspending their racism for a short period of time?

YOu are not a hero, fighting Evul Wacists.


You are just a partisan hack, trying to hold on to a reason to feel superior to your enemies.

 

[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.

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.

So that's what you've shown -- at least ¼ of Republicans are not racist.

If you losing 3 out of 4 voters, before you even get a listen on your platform, you won't get to frontrunner status.

Colin Powell, would not have gotten over 50 % of the votes in the exit poll, if he was losing, half the republcans.


Your fantasy of yourself as a Hero fighting Evul Wacism, is more something that belongs in some type of historical fantasy game, not a political discussion site.

Liar, that exit poll showed the most of the support for Powell came from Clinton's camp.

No, it did not.

YOur strong emotional commitment to your dream, is warping your thinking.


Please try to explain how you reach that conclusion.

 

[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.

"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.

There is nothing minimal about achieving front runner status. That is a major achievement and, in the context of this thread and it's point, ie claiming Evul Wacism,


it is strong evidence.


YOur denial of this, is not credible

Yes, it's strong evidence that at least ¼ of GOP voters would have likely voted for him.

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

Almost a month later......and the question is still unanswered....

I will break the news to Diamond & Silk

 

[Correll]

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.

There is nothing minimal about achieving front runner status. That is a major achievement and, in the context of this thread and it's point, ie claiming Evul Wacism,


it is strong evidence.


YOur denial of this, is not credible

Yes, it's strong evidence that at least ¼ of GOP voters would have likely voted for him.

It is strong evidence that Evul Wacism, is not a significant factor in the GOP voters.


As you well know.

 

[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.

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.

Liar.

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.

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.

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.

Leading the pack, is evidence that he was a serious contender.


IF the GOP was half as Evul Wacist as you dems like to pretend, that would never have ben the case.


You know it. But you are too dishonest to admit it.

No, it's not evidence of that. Again, that year alone, Romney, Gingrich, Cain, Paul and Perry all led at one point. Cain was the least supported among that group never enjoying more than 26% support from his party and Cain being the first of that group to bail.

 

[Correll]

Almost a month later......and the question is still unanswered....

I will break the news to Diamond & Silk

The point of this thread was not to discuss actual potential candidates,


but just to smear your partisan enemies as Evul Wacists.


That is the point I have addressed and refuted.

Your pretense otherwise, just shows how dishonest you are, and how your words, are not to be given any weight.


THis is something we need to keep in mind, as you insist that you have not had your ass kicked.


Evul Wacists? LOL!!!

 

[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.

Liar.

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.

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.

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.

Leading the pack, is evidence that he was a serious contender.


IF the GOP was half as Evul Wacist as you dems like to pretend, that would never have ben the case.


You know it. But you are too dishonest to admit it.

No, it's not evidence of that. Again, that year alone, Romney, Gingrich, Cain, Paul and Perry all led at one point. Cain was the least supported among that group never enjoying more than 26% support from his party and Cain being the first of that group to bail.

And they were all serious contenders. None of them had any quality that would have made them secretly unacceptable to the party's voters as a whole.


That is the point.


Your delusion of being a hero, fighting Evul Wacists, is debunked.


Give it up. YOu are looking pathetic.

 

[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.

"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.

There is nothing minimal about achieving front runner status. That is a major achievement and, in the context of this thread and it's point, ie claiming Evul Wacism,


it is strong evidence.


YOur denial of this, is not credible

Yes, it's strong evidence that at least ¼ of GOP voters would have likely voted for him.

It is strong evidence that Evul Wacism, is not a significant factor in the GOP voters.


As you well know.

LOLOL

 

[Faun]

Almost a month later......and the question is still unanswered....

I will break the news to Diamond & Silk

The point of this thread was not to discuss actual potential candidates,


but just to smear your partisan enemies as Evul Wacists.


That is the point I have addressed and refuted.

Your pretense otherwise, just shows how dishonest you are, and how your words, are not to be given any weight.


THis is something we need to keep in mind, as you insist that you have not had your ass kicked.


Evul Wacists? LOL!!!

"That is the point I have addressed and refuted."

 

[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.

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.

Liar.

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.

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.

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.

Leading the pack, is evidence that he was a serious contender.


IF the GOP was half as Evul Wacist as you dems like to pretend, that would never have ben the case.


You know it. But you are too dishonest to admit it.

No, it's not evidence of that. Again, that year alone, Romney, Gingrich, Cain, Paul and Perry all led at one point. Cain was the least supported among that group never enjoying more than 26% support from his party and Cain being the first of that group to bail.

And they were all serious contenders. None of them had any quality that would have made them secretly unacceptable to the party's voters as a whole.


That is the point.


Your delusion of being a hero, fighting Evul Wacists, is debunked.


Give it up. YOu are looking pathetic.

Bullshit. At one brief period during this election, Warren was the front runner. She was never a serious candidate; eventually pulling a whopping 81 delegates.

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

Almost a month later......and the question is still unanswered....

I will break the news to Diamond & Silk

The point of this thread was not to discuss actual potential candidates,


but just to smear your partisan enemies as Evul Wacists.


That is the point I have addressed and refuted.

Your pretense otherwise, just shows how dishonest you are, and how your words, are not to be given any weight.


THis is something we need to keep in mind, as you insist that you have not had your ass kicked.


Evul Wacists? LOL!!!

I discussed more potential black republican candidates than anyone else did -- especially you...

you still arguing about a guy in 1996 who you call a traitor now....

But you guys are used to cheerleading people and then calling them evil traitors later....

 

[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.

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 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.

So that's what you've shown -- at least ¼ of Republicans are not racist.

If you losing 3 out of 4 voters, before you even get a listen on your platform, you won't get to frontrunner status.

Colin Powell, would not have gotten over 50 % of the votes in the exit poll, if he was losing, half the republcans.


Your fantasy of yourself as a Hero fighting Evul Wacism, is more something that belongs in some type of historical fantasy game, not a political discussion site.

Liar, that exit poll showed the most of the support for Powell came from Clinton's camp.

No, it did not.

YOur strong emotional commitment to your dream, is warping your thinking.


Please try to explain how you reach that conclusion.

Clinton won the actual election with 49% of the vote. Dole, the Republican, pulled in 41%.

In a hypothetical race with Powell, the Republican got 48% support. 7 points more than Dole. Where did it come from? Most of it came from Clinton's support which dropped from 49% to 36%.

 

[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.

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.

Liar.

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.

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.

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.

Leading the pack, is evidence that he was a serious contender.


IF the GOP was half as Evul Wacist as you dems like to pretend, that would never have ben the case.


You know it. But you are too dishonest to admit it.

No, it's not evidence of that. Again, that year alone, Romney, Gingrich, Cain, Paul and Perry all led at one point. Cain was the least supported among that group never enjoying more than 26% support from his party and Cain being the first of that group to bail.

And they were all serious contenders. None of them had any quality that would have made them secretly unacceptable to the party's voters as a whole.


That is the point.


Your delusion of being a hero, fighting Evul Wacists, is debunked.


Give it up. YOu are looking pathetic.

LOLOL

Why on Earth would I want to give up making a fool of you and your ¼ GOP support for a black candidate??

 

[Faun]

Almost a month later......and the question is still unanswered....

I will break the news to Diamond & Silk

The point of this thread was not to discuss actual potential candidates,


but just to smear your partisan enemies as Evul Wacists.


That is the point I have addressed and refuted.

Your pretense otherwise, just shows how dishonest you are, and how your words, are not to be given any weight.


THis is something we need to keep in mind, as you insist that you have not had your ass kicked.


Evul Wacists? LOL!!!

I discussed more potential black republican candidates than anyone else did -- especially you...

you still arguing about a guy in 1996 who you call a traitor now....

But you guys are used to cheerleading people and then calling them evil traitors later....

He's literally pointing at two blacks who were never nominated by the GOP as evidence the GOP would nominate a black person.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Funny how the whites who talk about democratic plantations can't seem to tell us when they will nominate a black presidential candidate.

I can tell you exactly when we republicans will nominate a black presidential candidate.

The original crickets are long dead. The next generation as well. However, the current generation remains chirping away in anticipation..

 

[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.

Liar.

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.

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.

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.

Leading the pack, is evidence that he was a serious contender.


IF the GOP was half as Evul Wacist as you dems like to pretend, that would never have ben the case.


You know it. But you are too dishonest to admit it.

No, it's not evidence of that. Again, that year alone, Romney, Gingrich, Cain, Paul and Perry all led at one point. Cain was the least supported among that group never enjoying more than 26% support from his party and Cain being the first of that group to bail.

And they were all serious contenders. None of them had any quality that would have made them secretly unacceptable to the party's voters as a whole.


That is the point.


Your delusion of being a hero, fighting Evul Wacists, is debunked.


Give it up. YOu are looking pathetic.

Bullshit. At one brief period during this election, Warren was the front runner. She was never a serious candidate; eventually pulling a whopping 81 delegates.

Cain was.


Your delusion of being a hero, fighting Evul Wacists, is debunked.

 

[Correll]

Almost a month later......and the question is still unanswered....

I will break the news to Diamond & Silk

The point of this thread was not to discuss actual potential candidates,


but just to smear your partisan enemies as Evul Wacists.


That is the point I have addressed and refuted.

Your pretense otherwise, just shows how dishonest you are, and how your words, are not to be given any weight.


THis is something we need to keep in mind, as you insist that you have not had your ass kicked.


Evul Wacists? LOL!!!

I discussed more potential black republican candidates than anyone else did -- especially you...

you still arguing about a guy in 1996 who you call a traitor now....

But you guys are used to cheerleading people and then calling them evil traitors later....

His later betrayal, is irrelevant to the thread topic.


BUt, your dishonesty is pretending it was not, shows that your words cannot be trusted.


You are willing to be dishonest in holding on to your dream of a being a Hero, fighting Evul Wacists.

 

[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.

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.

So that's what you've shown -- at least ¼ of Republicans are not racist.

If you losing 3 out of 4 voters, before you even get a listen on your platform, you won't get to frontrunner status.

Colin Powell, would not have gotten over 50 % of the votes in the exit poll, if he was losing, half the republcans.


Your fantasy of yourself as a Hero fighting Evul Wacism, is more something that belongs in some type of historical fantasy game, not a political discussion site.

Liar, that exit poll showed the most of the support for Powell came from Clinton's camp.

No, it did not.

YOur strong emotional commitment to your dream, is warping your thinking.


Please try to explain how you reach that conclusion.

Clinton won the actual election with 49% of the vote. Dole, the Republican, pulled in 41%.

In a hypothetical race with Powell, the Republican got 48% support. 7 points more than Dole. Where did it come from? Most of it came from Clinton's support which dropped from 49% to 36%.

My God. Most of the ADDITIONAL SUPPORT would have come from people that voted for Clinton, yes.


But the vast majorty of his support would have overlapped with Dole, ie the Republican voters.

Your emotional investment in seeing yourself as a Hero, fighting against Evul Wacists, is warping your thinking.