The ironic part is that no, it doesn't. Hunter has absolutely failed to "catch on" to the voting public -- much as I predicted, since despite the humongous historical hurdles in his way, he has chosen to run a "conventional" campaign, which means that he is subject to the "rules" that come with that. And "rule" #1 is that no non-incumbent President or VP gets the nomination without having been a Senator, Governor, or (the one modern exception to the rest) a popular general credited with winning WWII in Europe.
It’s a good analysis of Hunter’s campaign, that since his a congressman he needed to run an unconventional campaign to have a chance at the nomination. He has not shown any flair in campaigning and grabbing the spotlight. He’s a great looking guy, very articulate, probably the most versed on the issues, right from a conservative perspective on every issue, the main issues he focuses on (defense, the border and trade) are in the news constantly now . . . but he hasn’t been innovative in his campaign . . . and you are right he needs to be. It frustrated me when Huckabee “accepted” Thompson’s “offer” to do a Lincoln-Douglas debate, because even though it was a long shot, it was no lose and if Thompson had accepted it would have launched Huckabee potentially into the first tier. Hunter should have thought of it (I did when I heard Thompson blithering about Lincoln-Douglas debates on Leno.
I support Hunter in the hopes that lightning strikes, because he is young enough to run again, and because he is the best candidate.