Counterpunch is talking about the process, while we are talking about the reality of the candidates themselves, i.e. actual accomplishments, issue positions, consistency, what have you.Right. I'm glad you at least get it.
All indications are that Hunter has the right combination of political experience, record, military, and consistency throughout the years to stick with what promises to be a grueling campaign and, with our help, to rise to visibility before the American people who then have opportunity to provide a judgment of their own in the final court of arbitration in the democratic process.The only problem with that is you're failing to see that the one chance a one-percenter had to “rise to visibility before the American people” was today in Iowa, and Hunter blew it about as bigtime as he could.
Hunter has a really nice personality, too. I liked the story he told about his 6-year old grandson asking the teacher if he could count on her to vote for his granddad, the future president. :)
Some Straw Poll highlights (read this post as my saying to you: “yah, sure, Iowa helps you ‘handicap’ the nomination race effectively /extreme sarc):
1987: Heading into the ‘88 nomination battle, Vice President George Bush was viewed as the front-runner. He had all the money and the key Iowa endorsements. Sen. Bob Dole, from neighboring Kansas, was hoping that his Midwest connections would help his cause. No one foresaw the victory of Pat Robertson, the televangelist. Robertson, who had already done surprisingly well in the early skirmishes in Michigan, won the straw poll with 1,293 votes, compared to 958 for Dole. Bush finished third, with 864 votes, followed by Rep. Jack Kemp of New York (520), ex-Delaware Gov. Pete du Pont (160), and former Secretary of State Alexander Haig (12). Iowa Republican officials were stunned, saying that the people who showed up for Robertson were completely new to the political process. The results clearly shook the Bush camp, though it’s not clear to what extent: At the February 1988 Iowa caucuses, Bush again finished third (Dole first, Robertson second). But Bush did go on to win the nomination and the presidency.
1979: Not much attention was paid to the straw poll that year. But George H.W. Bush outworked, out-hustled and outspent front-runner Ronald Reagan at the straw poll, winning with 35.7 percent over a field that also included former Texas Gov. John Connally, Sens. Howard Baker of Tennessee and Bob Dole of Kansas, and Illinois congressmen Phil Crane and John Anderson. Bush beat Reagan again the following year at the caucuses. Still, Reagan breezed to the nomination.
Odds and probabilities make zero difference when it comes to doing what is right. They do not register as factors in the decision-making process when it comes to right and wrong.
The fact you have been so vocal on this thread seems to suggest ulterior motives, as though you are taking pleasure in what you perceive as a failure. I'm not really certain what your motive is (covert support for another candidate? just need someone to talk to?) but the number of your posts seems to suggest more than the content of any given one. Of course, that is your prerogative.