Quote:
Originally Posted by Orruar
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
6% is negligible? I realize it wouldn't have tipped the election, but it's certainly not insignificant. Now you could make an argument that there are probably a significant number of anti-black votes that went Romney's way, which might have stayed home or gone for the half'n'half Obama instead of Cain. This may have even balanced the difference in black vote.
|
6% of a group that comprises 12% of the population is negligible. It's mathematically impossible for that to have given Cain more electoral votes than Obama. I also think a lot of independent voters, and some smarter republicans would not have voted for Cain because of other problems I mentioned in previous posts (like the fact that he's blatantly prejudiced against muslims, to the point of saying he would never appoint one to his cabinet, and saying that it should be okay to outlaw building mosques). Also he was completely incoherent in the primary debates, so I can't imagine he would have done well in the debates against Obama.
(I realize this thread is more about Ron Paul now, I just wanted to get this out of the way since Cain was mentioned earlier)