Saying Hunter is ‘not electable’ you could call an attack. Hey, I know it’s politics and I really am not bothered with the back and forth but it’s nice to turn it on you people who are so quick to go ballistic for anyone having the audacity to question Fred as the best candidate and a so-called ‘electable’ candidate, ‘sure thing’ as many of your fellow Fredheads have said in past threads. So, yes, let’s call that an attack. It implies that Hunter is ill-informed, comes across bad in interviews, debates, speeches and has a horrible record that he could not stand up for in an election. That’s really the crux of it. But then you’d have to admit you are really basing it on ‘name recognition’ which really is moot in a general election as the GOP candidate would have his time against the Demonrat. And you better make sure the GOP candidate has more than a ‘name’.
*******************
You'd do well to stop with the threatening approach. You're not winning any hearts here, and it reflects badly on your candidate.