Faun
Diamond Member
- Nov 14, 2011
- 124,353
- 81,200
- 2,635
I wasn't the one finding fault with Cain. It's his supporters who found that. They abandoned him and he dropped out of the running.He was already campaigning for the Republican nomination for president. Who the fuck are you kidding?It says he was such a defective candidate, he couldn't maintain his campaign.Of course it says something bad about him. Your denial of that doesn't alter reality.LOLBullshit. At one brief period during this election, Warren was the front runner. She was never a serious candidate; eventually pulling a whopping 81 delegates.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.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.
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.
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.
Cain was.
Your delusion of being a hero, fighting Evul Wacists, is debunked.
Says you. Reality says he never had more than about a quarter of the party's support and he was the first Republican candidate that year to drop from the race.
Real serious.
He got ahead and was dogpiled and destroyed. Happens to the best of them.
That you pretend it says something bad about him, instead of just being something that happens,
is you being dishonest in the defense of your fantasy.
THe fantasy you have, of you being this cool Hero, fighting against Evul Wacist Supervillains.
What are you talking about? How in the world does that say anything "bad" about Cain?
No one "maintains" a campaign between elections. They choose whether or not to try again when the next election comes around.
Not trying again, is only "something bad" if you believe that his likely benefit to the country would have been worth the effort or cost to himself and his campaign workers.
You are grasping at straws, to justify dismissing this guy, who was the frontrunner at one point.
And that fact that he was the front runner, is strong evidence that your view of us as a bunch of "Evul Wacist" is just a self serving delusion.
You are not, a Hero fighting Evul Wacist supervillains.
You are just a partisan looking for excuses to be rude and dismissive to people who disagree with you on politics.
Your words are not making sense. I think you forgot what argument you were making and accidentally starting making a different one.
EIther way, your need to find fault with Cain, is silly and irrelevant. He was the frontrunner of the gop, which is strong evidence that your claim of Evul Wacism, is incorrect.