Is Cain's popularity because of his low name recognition?

[Chronos]

The esteemed Nate Silver has been arguing for taking Herman Cain seriously because, despite his low name recognition of only about 30%, he's still polling at around 10%. But I have an alternate hypothesis: What if his relative popularity is not despite his low name recognition, but because of it?

Everyone recognizes that the Republican field this cycle, while very broad, is rather flawed. Is it possible that Republican primary voters, when polled, are saying "Nope, don't like him... Don't like him... Don't like her..." to all the candidates they recognize, and then picking essentially at random from the candidates they don't recognize (and therefore don't know that they dislike)? If this is the case, then one would expect Cain's (and the other low-recognition candidates') support in the polls to drop, not rise, as voters become more familiar with them.

In particular, of course, we have to consider race. There are still a very large number of Republicans who would never support a black candidate. But since most of them haven't yet heard of Herman Cain, they don't yet know that he's black. And even of those who have heard of them, at least some of them will only know of him from print lists of candidates and their positions, or the like, and might still not realize that he's black. Once folks start realizing his race, any of the racist contingent that's now saying they favor him will drop out of his camp.

[Boyo Jim]

I don't know enough to comment about the popularity because he's not recognized, though I'm skeptical. Presumably Silver has made a point of his popularity because it's out of proportion to his name recognition, which suggests he might have comparative data about other unknown names.

After the first Republican debate (which I didn't watch), a focus group gave Cain the "win" by a clear majority. Whether that would translate into a vote later, I dunno -- and I also dunno whether they group was asked about actually voting. But the group watched the debate, and they know he's black, and they didn't dismiss what he said because of it.

So maybe an accompanying question to yours would be -- if conservative voters have to choose between a black candidate who is perceived as more reliably conservative than a white candidate (Romney, I'm looking at you), who will they choose?

[Least Original User Name Ever]

I think Cain is more "reliably conservative" than Cain. Cain doesn't have Romneycare or the Affordable Care Act hanging over him, or even the flip-flop on abortion, or even Mormonism. Cain is a successful businessman and seems to put his thoughts together pretty well. He's not well known, but I think he has some legs. Of course, he's a pretty unknown commodity, so we'll see if someone like Rick Perry, Sarah Palin, or Chris Christie come into the race and completely undercut his head of steam.

[Mosier]

Originally Posted by Least Original User Name Ever

I think Cain is more "reliably conservative" than Cain. Cain doesn't have Romneycare or the Affordable Care Act hanging over him, or even the flip-flop on abortion, or even Mormonism. Cain is a successful businessman and seems to put his thoughts together pretty well. He's not well known, but I think he has some legs. Of course, he's a pretty unknown commodity, so we'll see if someone like Rick Perry, Sarah Palin, or Chris Christie come into the race and completely undercut his head of steam.

Did you mean to say Cain is more reliably conservative than Romney?

[Least Original User Name Ever]

Originally Posted by Mosier

Did you mean to say Cain is more reliably conservative than Romney?

I did. Rowr.

[MEBuckner]

That could be the basis of a good Republican primary campaign, though.

"You want a conservative? A real conservative, not some RINO? Well, heck, I'm more conservative than myself!"

[Boyo Jim]

"No one can out-conservative Herman Cain! Not even Herman Cain!"

[Chen019]

I thought it was because of his race that he had such high support?

[Boyo Jim]

By "high support" do you mean junkies?

[Folacin]

It's likely the high esteem that the Tea Party has for outsiders and business successes. Whether either of those traits translates to successful governmental leadership is at best murky.

[Simplicio]

Originally Posted by Folacin

It's likely the high esteem that the Tea Party has for outsiders and business successes. Whether either of those traits translates to successful governmental leadership is at best murky.

Yea, I think he's just this years "outsider" candidate, especially now that Trump has made his inevitable exit. He'll attract a bunch of motivated disatisfied voters, but their numbers will be a lot smaller then their enthusiasm, and he'll end up fighting Bachmann for third place.

There are certainly some voters that won't vote for a black candidate, but even amongst GOP primary voters I don't think they're that large a fraction, and concentrated in a few states in Appalacia and the deep South. Cain won't come close to the GOP nomination, but it will be because outsider candidates never win, not because he's black.

I've never had Godfathers pizza, is it any good?

[Boyo Jim]

Have we seen this guy's birth certificate?

[Chronos]

Quoth Folacin:

It's likely the high esteem that the Tea Party has for outsiders and business successes.

Of course, being an "outsider" is also related to his low name recognition.

[ElvisL1ves]

Gotta be something like that. He sure can't be popular for the quality of his pizza.

[Least Original User Name Ever]

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves

Gotta be something like that. He sure can't be popular for the quality of his pizza.

So it sucks? Where are there locations?

[The wind of my soul]

Originally Posted by Chronos

The esteemed Nate Silver has been arguing for taking Herman Cain seriously because, despite his low name recognition of only about 30%, he's still polling at around 10%. But I have an alternate hypothesis: What if his relative popularity is not despite his low name recognition, but because of it?

Everyone recognizes that the Republican field this cycle, while very broad, is rather flawed. Is it possible that Republican primary voters, when polled, are saying "Nope, don't like him... Don't like him... Don't like her..." to all the candidates they recognize, and then picking essentially at random from the candidates they don't recognize (and therefore don't know that they dislike)? If this is the case, then one would expect Cain's (and the other low-recognition candidates') support in the polls to drop, not rise, as voters become more familiar with them.

In particular, of course, we have to consider race. There are still a very large number of Republicans who would never support a black candidate. But since most of them haven't yet heard of Herman Cain, they don't yet know that he's black. And even of those who have heard of them, at least some of them will only know of him from print lists of candidates and their positions, or the like, and might still not realize that he's black. Once folks start realizing his race, any of the racist contingent that's now saying they favor him will drop out of his camp.

So how do you account for him being 4 times as popular as Huntsman, who according to that very same article has nearly the same name recognition as Cain?

[Backcountry Medic]

I can only vouch for the relative quality of his pizza. Fairly 'Pizza Hut'esque. Nothing on a serious gourmet pie, but good for chain quality. Biggest complaint we have is that they skimp on cheese when you get a pizza loaded with toppings. Decent breadsticks.

I'm not sure where they are based, but there are several here in Portland, OR and I don't ever recall seeing one in AZ that I noticed.

I think the most disturbing thing about his running is the idea that some might consider an unknown outsider to be the best option the party can put forward. It's almost like they're saying "Yeah, pretty much all of the other people in our party are universally known to be two-faced, brain-dead douches. Maybe we can bring in someone who most people couldn't pick out of a lineup and who has no record to compare to; people are probably gullible enough for that." Is there really not one eligible, long term republican candidate who actually can stand on their record and argue for they're presumably long held beliefs?

[Chronos]

I don't know enough to say, since there are too many potential variables. Maybe people just liked his name better. Maybe the names were in alphabetical order and people picked the first one they didn't recognize. Maybe some folks got "Cain" mixed up with "McCain". Yeah, these are all stupid reasons to pick someone in a poll, but then again, look at the primary election that got Alvin Greene on the Senate ballot in South Carolina: A lot of folks who voted for him gave reasons that were just as stupid, if not more so.

Of course, the real answer is likely to be a combination of many factors, doubtless including some proportion who really are familiar with him, and think that his policies and ideas are the best available for the country, or that he represents the best chance of defeating Obama, or whatever. The question isn't whether such people exist; it's how significant they are, compared to the folks whose support is frivolous and will probably evaporate as the campaigns move forward.

[Clothahump]

Originally Posted by Simplicio

Yea, I think he's just this years "outsider" candidate, especially now that Trump has made his inevitable exit. He'll attract a bunch of motivated disatisfied voters, but their numbers will be a lot smaller then their enthusiasm, and he'll end up fighting Bachmann for third place.

There are certainly some voters that won't vote for a black candidate, but even amongst GOP primary voters I don't think they're that large a fraction, and concentrated in a few states in Appalacia and the deep South. Cain won't come close to the GOP nomination, but it will be because outsider candidates never win, not because he's black.

I've never had Godfathers pizza, is it any good?

I don't know. As of today, he's got my vote over anyone else except perhaps Fred Thompson. And during the days when I ate pizza, I would occasionally go to
Godfather's. It was okay.

[Jas09]

Originally Posted by Clothahump

I don't know. As of today, he's got my vote over anyone else except perhaps Fred Thompson. And during the days when I ate pizza, I would occasionally go to
Godfather's. It was okay.

Fred Thompson?? Has he announced any intention of even thinking about running? Dude's almost 70.

ETA: Although maybe Chronos is on to something - it's old folks thinking the poller is asking about "McCain".

[furt]

Originally Posted by Chronos

In particular, of course, we have to consider race. There are still a very large number of Republicans who would never support a black candidate. But since most of them haven't yet heard of Herman Cain, they don't yet know that he's black. And even of those who have heard of them, at least some of them will only know of him from print lists of candidates and their positions, or the like, and might still not realize that he's black. Once folks start realizing his race, any of the racist contingent that's now saying they favor him will drop out of his camp.

IOW, in the face of facts at odds with your prejudice (Republicans who know Cain like him very much, and he's especially popular with the grassroots, the conservative base, and southerners ) ... you doggedly hold on to the prejudice.

Keep fucking that chicken, I guess.



The GOP base has not been happy with the GOP leadership for a long time. Cain is not a politician, he is not beholden to the party establishment, and he carries the image of a guy who says what he thinks.

They want someone with economic credentials. Cain's a former CEO.

They're tired of asshats who like to cast Republicans as perforce racists. Cain gives them a chance to vote for a right-wing black guy.


And it's still early enough that the whole thing is hazily theoretical, and his ignorance of foreign policy issues and inability to articulate policy specifics are overlookable. That will change.

[Boyo Jim]

There's also his inability to distinguish between the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

[Voyager]

Originally Posted by Least Original User Name Ever

I did. Rowr.

Well, given that Romney is more conservative than Romney, I understand your confusion.

[Evil Captor]

And of course we must consider possible Republican strategy to siphon off some of the black vote. Every little bit helps, especially when Obama's loss is Cain's gain.

[Boyo Jim]

Originally Posted by Evil Captor

And of course we must consider possible Republican strategy to siphon off some of the black vote. Every little bit helps, especially when Obama's loss is Cain's gain.

I think if Cain somehow gets the Republican nomination (IMO the possibility of that is between zero and five percent), he will in fact get a lot of black votes.

Not because he is black, but because there are a lot of conservative blacks out there who vote for Democrats because they believe Republicans are racist. Cain being nominated might reduce their aversion to voting for a conservative who is probably also a racist.

[Icarus]

For anyone who has seen/heard him, he projects a very "strong" presence, very male and authoritarian. Frankly, many of the other male GOP candidates are kinda' milk-toasty. They don't have that "leader" vibe. Cain carries that off.

IMHO that resonates with a lot of the GOP base.

[gonzomax]

He orates like a preacher. That appeals to many.
The Repubs have a crowded field of midgets. They have no towering statesman who can rally the masses. They are picking among a field of small timey pols and Gingrich and Romney, who are has beens. They have an enormous amount of money and news power to throw in back of the pick, but will they do it if they recognize the pick is a loser? Will the Repubs put up a token defense this cycle while trying to groom a good candidate for the next one?

[Chronos]

Quoth furt:

IOW, in the face of facts at odds with your prejudice (Republicans who know Cain like him very much, and he's especially popular with the grassroots, the conservative base, and southerners ) ... you doggedly hold on to the prejudice.

Wait, you think that there's even a shadow of a doubt that many Republicans are racists? Do I also need to cite that the sky is blue or that water is wet?

[Starving Artist]

Many Democrats/liberals are bigots as well. Know a few of 'em myself. Sure, they talk a good game, but then let them get mad at a black person or have a family member start to date a black person, and the n-word starts to fly.

I thought this board was opposed to stereotypes. Oddly enough, this philosophy doesn't seem to apply when directed at the right.

[Chronos]

Many Democrats/liberals are bigots as well. Know a few of 'em myself. Sure, they talk a good game, but then let them get mad at a black person or have a family member start to date a black person, and the n-word starts to fly.

Yes, and I don't think anyone denies that this hurt Obama in the primaries. The relevant question, though, is the relative proportions.

[Jas09]

Bigots are bigots, no matter the party label. I don't think it was controversial to point out that this hurt Obama in some areas, nor to point out that it will hurt Cain in some places.

Either way, as far as I can tell he's just the latest empty vessel in which to pour Tea Party favor (for those that have written off Palin) - Trump, Gingrich, now Cain. Eventually they'll end up with Romney or Pawlenty.

[Starving Artist]

Originally Posted by Chronos

Yes, and I don't think anyone denies that this hurt Obama in the primaries. The relevant question, though, is the relative proportions.

Trouble is, relative proportions never seem to get mentioned. It's always Republicans=racist; Democrats=non-racist.

In my opinion, the true proportions aren't that far off. My own belief is that there are far fewer racist Republicans than people would have you believe, and far more Democrat racists than people would have you believe.

[Boyo Jim]

Perhaps, but there are so many more overt racists in positions of power within the Republican Party. If nothing else, the party has to do a whole lot more than it has to stop the public manifestations of it.

[Starving Artist]

Well, I think first of all you'd have to define those in positions of "power", and then you'd have to define "racist". For forty years or more I've heard people called racist for things that have nothing to do with their feelings or beliefs regarding race.

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

How about we simply define every word in the dictionary to suit you, and when we've done that (or when the sun burns out, whichever comes first) then we may be permitted to discuss the essential nature of the Republican Party?

Or just "never"? Would "Never" be too soon for you?

[Chimera]

When a significantly large percentage of southern Republicans are still against racially mixed marriages, I am not even slighly pre-disposed to believe that there are "fewer racist Republicans than you would believe".

[Starving Artist]

I wonder how many of your enlightened southern Democrats would be perfectly happy to have a family member date or marry someone who is black.

My experience has been that with regard to race, Democrats often talk one way and behave another.

[furt]

Originally Posted by Boyo Jim

Perhaps, but there are so many more overt racists in positions of power within the Republican Party. If nothing else, the party has to do a whole lot more than it has to stop the public manifestations of it.

Really? "Overt racists," as in "not concealed or secret" meaning they openly admit that they are racists? Or just as in "they say things that I dislike, and I choose to ascribe racism to them." Please, name some of these "many" people in "positions of power."

[Chronos]

OK, Starving, how many folks show up to Democratic rallies carrying signs with racial slurs on them? How many Democrats are so convinced that the President of the United States isn't a "real American" that they have to invent an insane conspiracy theory that he was born in Kenya? Feel free to give examples.

[Boyo Jim]

Originally Posted by Starving Artist

I wonder how many of your enlightened southern Democrats would be perfectly happy to have a family member date or marry someone who is black.

My experience has been that with regard to race, Democrats often talk one way and behave another.

So Republicans are better because they talk AND behave racist?

[Starving Artist]

No, they don't. The vast, vast majority of Republican in this country do not carry racist signs. For that matter the majority of Republicans at political rallies don't carry racist signs either.

Obama's birth wasn't questioned simply because he's black (any Dem/Rep with a similar history would have come under the same scrutiny - such is the nature of politics. THe allegation that racism was behind it is also an example of what I was talking about regarding false/phony accusations of racism).

And yes, generally I think it's better to be honest about one's views than it is to pretend to feel one way and then behave another. The second is deceptive, dishonest and cowardly. (And in this case just as racist as the first.)

[Chronos]

Obama's birth wasn't questioned simply because he's black (any Dem/Rep with a similar history would have come under the same scrutiny...)

The "similar history" you're referring to is a history of having a dark skin color. If it were anything other than that, there'd be just as much hubbub over the guy who really genuinely wasn't born in the US, and was not a citizen at the time of his birth.

[Vinyl Turnip]

Originally Posted by Starving Artist

And yes, generally I think it's better to be honest about one's views than it is to pretend to feel one way and then behave another.

Yes. Much better to "speak and remove all doubt," one might say.

[ElvisL1ves]

Originally Posted by Starving Artist

No, they don't. The vast, vast majority of Republican in this country do not carry racist signs. For that matter the majority of Republicans at political rallies don't carry racist signs either.

And they'll even tell you that some of their best friends are Negroes.

Obama's birth wasn't questioned simply because he's black (any Dem/Rep with a similar history would have come under the same scrutiny - such is the nature of politics.

Really? What other candidate has ever had his citizenship challenged?

[Starving Artist]

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves

And they'll even tell you that some of their best friends are Negroes.

They'd probably say their friends are "black", but apart from that, so what? If some of their best friends are blacks then to say so in response to false accusations of racism is both justified and a simple statement of fact. You have no objection to facts, do you?

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves

Really? What other candidate has ever had his citizenship challenged?

What other condidate has Obama's childhood history? A white candidate with a background history identical to Obama's would have come under the same scrutiny. As I said, it's politics. When you think you see an opening that might undo your opponent, you seek to exploit that to your advantage. I wish things weren't as they are in this way as well as in many others, but such is the state of politics these days and both sides do it.

[ElvisL1ves]

Originally Posted by Starving Artist

If some of their best friends are blacks then to say so in response to false accusations of racism is both justified and a simple statement of fact.

You really don't understand what the quote means or where it comes from, do you? That's odd for someone who claims to know and revere US culture of the 1950's.

What other condidate has Obama's childhood history?

Every one has born in the US or to a US-citizen parent. Every single one.

So, again, why the stupid lying "questions" about the first colored one?

[Starving Artist]

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves

You really don't understand what the quote means or where it comes from, do you? That's odd for someone who claims to know and revere US culture of the 1950's.

I understand perfectly well what it's alleged to mean in liberal circles. I simply reject the premise underlying that interpretation.

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves

Every one has born in the US or to a US-citizen parent. Every single one.

So, again, why the stupid lying "questions" about the first colored one?

The first "colored" one? I thought "colored" was as out of it and symbolic of rightie thinking as "Negroes". Must be yet another of those expressions that can only be used by lefties.

But I digress. Now, to get back to your question, first we should clear up what I would call a misapprehension. Questioning the circumstances of Obama's birth and/or having doubts about the proof thereof was neither stupid nor lies. In this day and age of political dirty tricks and easy digital alterations, it would be stupid not to question the legitimacy of the circumstances surrounding Obama's birth, given that there was such obstinate refusal to release the original document and the apparent mysteries surrounding its existence...mysteries exaggerated even by Hawaiian state officals, some of whom claimed to have seen it while others couldn't seem to find it.

As for lies, something is a lie only if a contradictory truth is known to begin with, and I'd wager that 99.9% of the people known as birthers did not know as a matter of fact the true circumstances of Obama's birth. Especially - like I said just above - given today's climate of political dirty tricks and ease of digital imaging.

As to why Obama's background was questioned where no one else's was, his childhood experiences were such as to give rise to questions that he may be of Muslim sympathies and/or beliefs, and in the wake of 9/11 this was a matter of considerable concern to much of the populace, and it was a concern unique to Obama as a candidate.

So the problems Obama faced over having to prove the legitimacy of his birth qualifications to be president were a combination of concerns over possible Muslim sympathies or attitudes and raw politics, where when you see a possible opening with which to do in your opponent, you exploit that opening to the best of your ability. Neither of these has anything to do with Obama's race. I would imagine that if someone like Herman Cain should prove to have the ability and political depth to run for and acheive the Republican presidential nomination, he would have the enthusiastic support of most of Republican voters. A few wouldn't vote for him because of his race of course, but I strongly suspect a similar percentage of Democrats supported Hillary Clinton and/or abstained from voting for Obama because of his race too. There are racists on both sides of the political scale and to assume that your side has a lock on all the good guys is erroneous at best.

[Frank]

Originally Posted by Starving Artist

As to why Obama's background was questioned where no one else's was, his childhood experiences were such as to give rise to questions that he may be of Muslim sympathies and/or beliefs, and in the wake of 9/11 this was a matter of considerable concern to much of the populace, and it was a concern unique to Obama as a candidate.

I'm fairly certain that this is not how you supported Trump's questioning of Obama's birth, but, since both supporting arguments are made out of thin air, I guess it doesn't matter.

[Starving Artist]

I don't know that I supported Trump's questioning of Obama's birth so much as I merely explained the reason for it. If you'll recall, the context of the thread was that stupidity was the only explanation why ayone could have genuine questions about Obama's birth. I merely pointed to the numerous reasons why this is not so. It seems to be very difficult on this board to explain unpopular actions without it being automatically assumed that I'm in support of them.

And as to whether the arguments (or more accurately, the concerns) were made out of thin air, I say that depends largely upon who's ox is being gored. The fact of the matter is that an important Constitutional issue lay at the root of the question of Obama's birth and in the end things played out as they should. The Constitutional issue was raised, debated, investigated, and found to be without merit. So far as I know we're not supposed to rely merely upon assumptions where Constitutional issues are concerned.

[Frank]

Originally Posted by Starving Artist

The Constitutional issue was raised, debated, investigated, and found to be without merit.

So now we're going to raise the question of whether he has Islamic leanings. As if that matters.